Anyone seen the Rivian vehicles?

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,993
Location
Wenatchee
One of my coworkers with a telsa said he hasn't had to use the actual brakes yet for anything, apparently there's a little display setting that lets you now when you're actually using the brakes. But he's also only had it for a few months and hasn't had any emergency stops.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
3,638
Location
Aurora, CO
Thanks for the article!

Fascinating stuff... I really hate maintaining my wife's car as she will drive for 6 months with a check engine light on without telling me... so the lack of regular maintenance on a tesla is a huge selling point.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
3,638
Location
Aurora, CO
I'm not knowledgable enough to fully understand the environmental negatives and positives with electric cars vs. gas cars. I remember reading that Tesla recycles their batteries, so is the only impact with extraction?

Based on my limited knowledge, I always thought that the impact of fossil fuels was much greater.
I'm sure it really depends on who you cut it, like anything it's very difficult an apples to apples comparison. I'm not trying to wiggle out of my statement, more just saying I lack the knowledge to accurately discuss the full environmental of building a Tesla. But in broad terms
1. American car, probably runs on gas or diesel produced domestically, transport from well head to refinery to vehicle is under 2000 miles... worst case.
2. Tesla, battery built out of material mined in Africa shipped to the US, electricity generated to run car is likely from either a coal or NG plant. In terms of power generated per BTU of OG product it's less efficient to: burn NG to create electricity then transport it through the grid to your house to your car, than to just burn that amount of petroleum in your car directly. A huge amount of electricity is lost in the grid. Obviously some areas have a higher % of power generated by renewable. But just because you are driving an electric vehicle doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't require petroleum to power it.

I'm not anti-electric, I just want the conversation to be honest.


Here is some info on Tesla batteries... pretty cool 60% is a decent amount of recovery in my mind.
https://medium.com/tradr/teslas-approach-to-recycling-is-the-way-of-the-future-for-sustainable-production-5af99b62aa0e
 

cgarner

Active member
Joined
Aug 23, 2016
Messages
583
Location
CA
I'm sure it really depends on who you cut it, like anything it's very difficult an apples to apples comparison. I'm not trying to wiggle out of my statement, more just saying I lack the knowledge to accurately discuss the full environmental of building a Tesla. But in broad terms
1. American car, probably runs on gas or diesel produced domestically, transport from well head to refinery to vehicle is under 2000 miles... worst case.
2. Tesla, battery built out of material mined in Africa shipped to the US, electricity generated to run car is likely from either a coal or NG plant. In terms of power generated per BTU of OG product it's less efficient to: burn NG to create electricity then transport it through the grid to your house to your car, than to just burn that amount of petroleum in your car directly. A huge amount of electricity is lost in the grid. Obviously some areas have a higher % of power generated by renewable. But just because you are driving an electric vehicle doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't require petroleum to power it.

I'm not anti-electric, I just want the conversation to be honest.


Here is some info on Tesla batteries... pretty cool 60% is a decent amount of recovery in my mind.
https://medium.com/tradr/teslas-approach-to-recycling-is-the-way-of-the-future-for-sustainable-production-5af99b62aa0e
agreed.

I would have solar panels if I could afford them.

It always seems like the two choices are between the lesser of two evils.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
3,638
Location
Aurora, CO
agreed.

I would have solar panels if I could afford them.

It always seems like the two choices are between the lesser of two evils.
Reading my mind.

That said, there are some pretty cool moves happening with energy companies, I have a feeling we will see more and more of this from the super majors.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-04/total-teams-with-china-battery-maker-in-latest-shift-for-big-oil

Also there needs to be a decent consumer base to drive companies to build the infrastructure and develop the tech, so you can argue that by buying an EV now you are helping drive our economy/companies to build-out the system that will actually reduce environmental impact.
 

MTGomer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
2,265
Location
MT —> AZ
WLLM touches some good points. We can’t call our nuclear energy renewable because it consumes mined uranium that results in spent uranium. We can call it clean because it emits zero carbon, but not renewable

Solar panels can be called renewable, although they consume raw mined metals like rare earths and also result in spent panels at the end of their lives.
It’s a weird thing.

For example, It’s pretty easy to make the case that electricity produced from natural gas, which otherwise would be flared off as an oil biproduct is the greenest energy around.

At the end of the day, you’re just plugging your Tesla into whatever your electric source is. For many of you, that’s coal.
Tesla’s appeal to me is more their speed, and how cheap they are to ‘fill up’ especially when you can charge at work or at home at night during peak rates.

I would never buy residential solar, especially if you can’t participate in net metering, until home battery prices get to a point that you can economically store the energy you produce. Otherwise you’re just overloading the grid mid day when you’re not home and drawing from it when you’re not producing anything. It’s called the ‘Duck Curve’ if anybody wants to look that term up and look at the graphs.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
3,638
Location
Aurora, CO
I would never buy residential solar, especially if you can’t participate in net metering, until home battery prices get to a point that you can economically store the energy you produce. Otherwise you’re just overloading the grid mid day when you’re not home and drawing from it when you’re not producing anything. It’s called the ‘Duck Curve’ if anybody wants to look that term up and look at the graphs.
I know a couple of people that have take-in-kind, clauses on their OG leases and essentially have a line from the well pad directly into their house. Hard to beat that, for low impact cheap.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,993
Location
Wenatchee
Well our power is hydro, and if we're taking about renewable it's pretty hard to beat potential energy from rain and snow. I mean gravity is a constant and all :)

In terms of residential solar, our County is definitely headed that way. https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2019/apr/02/inventor-wins-national-solar-prize/

And with the combo of wind and hydro we have a surplus of power in the spring that has to be grounded out as the grid is full and you can only spill so much water over the dams or you start harming salmon. A new all night power demand on the grid could actually be quite useful.
 

MTGomer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
2,265
Location
MT —> AZ
. A new all night power demand on the grid could actually be quite useful.
Very useful. As solar expands power companies will struggle more with the duck curve and are very supportive of electrification of cars, fork lifts, and encouraging consumers to shift use to to off peak hours.
For example in Phoenix, power is expensive from 3-8 and is very cheap at other times, especially from 8-3 in the winter when it’s almost free.
 
Top