Re:Tesla Gigafactory [pdf]
by jasonlmk on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:47PM
(#7309166)
Particularly excited about the cost reduction of batteries. They remain a barrier to having more affordable electric cars, and 30% goes a long way in putting more EVs on the road.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
By the time batteries become mainstream, the subsidies for EVs will probably disappear as well.
Re:Tesla Gigafactory [pdf]
by scott_karana on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:29PM
(#7309377)
I suspect they'll still have some sort of "not a gas guzzler or CO2 producer" subsidy, though it'd likely be very mild.
Re:Tesla Gigafactory [pdf]
by wlesieutre on Thursday February 27, 2014 @09:33AM
(#7312347)
If you don't have solar panels on your roof, chances are it's still coming from fossil fuels. Generation/transmission efficiency for taking energy from fossil fuels and getting it to your house is around 30%. Electric cars are part of a solution to CO2 emissions, but they aren't one on their own.
Re:Tesla Gigafactory [pdf]
by scott_karana on Thursday February 27, 2014 @01:41PM
(#7314030)
I was under the impression that coal plants, et cetera, were quite a bit higher efficiency than ICEs?
And I'm sure we'll continue to bulk up non-CO2 methods of power generation. Hydro power is commonplace, solar panels are a growth area, and likewise wind turbines...
(Lastly, since I live in BC, my power is 86% hydroelectric already, but I'm speaking generally. :) http://www.energybc.ca/map/bcenergymap.html)
Re:Tesla Gigafactory [pdf]
by wlesieutre on Thursday February 27, 2014 @08:21PM
(#7316627)
Hmm, wikipedia says ICEs in cars are up to 25-30% efficient. Then there's additional losses from the rest of the car. But the electric car has its own losses from the battery charge/discharge and the motors and whatnot, so it seems like they're at least roughly in the same ballpark. Electric cars certainly have more room for improvement though, since fossil fuels aren't the only way to run the electric grid.