Tesla model S Options and Pricing

haz said:
I don't require sources for every single conversation and topics I have with people. I could Ask for one in this issue, but only to satisfy my own curiosity.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I did, ask for a source to satisfy my own curiosity.


Besides, asking for a source is much nicer than straight out calling bullshit on your claims :)
 
dontblogaboutus said:
Answers can probably be found somewhere inside this document, but someone else do the reading please.

A Review of Energy Consumption in Canadian Oil Refineries 1990, 1994 to 2009
Click to expand...

Taking 2009 as an example, they state about 6.3TWh of electricity used for a production of 106 million m? of liquid product.

Equating any liquid product with petrol, that's 6.3MWh per 106m? or 6.3kWh per 106l. 106l makes my estate go about 1500km, and 6.3kWh makes a Twizy go maybe 50-75km.


Sounds to me like electricity consumption of refineries is almost negligible :dunno:
 
haz said:
Are you done?
Click to expand...
No, but you are. Go enjoy your test drive and report back on how you like it. We're all going to want to hear about that.

What we don't want to hear about is any more unsubstantiated claims.
 
Who says they are and yes, Ill do what I want thanks :) Maybe Ill Even take a proof pic of the Model S with a piece of paper that says "Narf hearts the Model S" :)
 
Your sarcasm is weak. Narf actually does like electric vehicles (the Twizy and Fluence have been positively noted by him). You pissed him off by throwing out alleged "facts" that you couldn't back up, and then arrogantly refused to back up when he asked you nicely to do so, because this would be a boost to his arguments in other threads. I told you this would happen. You've just alienated the one guy on this board who'd fight alongside you to the death when it comes to the glorified golf carts. Good work, Nor.
 
It was meant in good humor, and I think he reads it that way. He's not narrowminded and I have a good impression on him even though we don't agree 100% :)

I'm dissapointed to see that you started throwing again The Spie, you said you were done, but you clearly couldn't stay away when you saw the opportunity to set someone straight. Too bad you missed this one, because you misunderstood

(I could negrep your comment, I mean you really deserve it since you hva been negrepping me silently in this thread after you said you were "done", and asking me "who's the a-hole now", but I'm not sinking to your level)

And, hey Narf: I'm, quite sure I made it clear above that it was meant in good huimor, but if it wasn't, I'm letting you know now :)

Only ONE more day to the Model S testdrive :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 
haz said:
Who says they are and yes, Ill do what I want thanks :) Maybe Ill Even take a proof pic of the Model S with a piece of paper that says "Narf hearts the Model S" :)
Click to expand...
I say your claims are unsubstantiated, as do narf and others. You prove us correctly my making statements then refusing to back them up. There's only one way to dispel that: back up your claims. And be prepared to have the claims vetted and inspected by third-parties, because there are a lot of people like you who think they know something, and write about it, but in fact actually know squat.
 
Congrats on 600 posts and I sure will consider sourcing up. I know one thing though, and that is that when some Are more interested in picking arguments on the interwebs -others are excited about a certain car. I'm quite certain that even with the source, it doesn't end there, it Will just continue fueling the discussion.
 
After a quick skim through that and his sources, I believe he has confused energy with electric energy.

Here's one of his sources, the GREET model of the DOE: http://greet.es.anl.gov/results
I'm confident they don't confuse their basics, so I'll assume their summary graphs as fact.

They say the total energy involved in a conventional petrol ICE car is split about 5/6 pump-to-wheel and 1/6 well-to-pump.
Now, a litre of petrol is 9ish kWh - hence any energy expended to get it from dinosaur grave to pump is a bit under 2kWh. Converting l to gal you roughly get his 6kWh.
However, that's mostly nit electric energy. The tankers and trucks run on diesel. Heating stuff in the refinery won't be purely electric. Without accurately putting numbers on that, 6 cannot be the electricity consumption of the refinery if the total well-to-pump energy is 6. As Bender would say, does not compute.
 
narf said:
After a quick skim through that and his sources, I believe he has confused energy with electric energy.
Click to expand...

And to clarify why this is an important difference, a liter of gasoline contains approximately 9 kWh of heat energy, but if you were to burn it to generate electricity, you wouldn't get all 9 kWh.
 
Testdrive http://forums.finalgear.com/general-automotive/model-s-testdrive-54861/#post2012836

- - - Updated - - -

narf said:
After a quick skim through that and his sources, I believe he has confused energy with electric energy.

Here's one of his sources, the GREET model of the DOE: http://greet.es.anl.gov/results
I'm confident they don't confuse their basics, so I'll assume their summary graphs as fact.

They say the total energy involved in a conventional petrol ICE car is split about 5/6 pump-to-wheel and 1/6 well-to-pump.
Now, a litre of petrol is 9ish kWh - hence any energy expended to get it from dinosaur grave to pump is a bit under 2kWh. Converting l to gal you roughly get his 6kWh.
However, that's mostly nit electric energy. The tankers and trucks run on diesel. Heating stuff in the refinery won't be purely electric. Without accurately putting numbers on that, 6 cannot be the electricity consumption of the refinery if the total well-to-pump energy is 6. As Bender would say, does not compute.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top