Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Zelaza's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Using Tesla Math, Is The Jeep Brand Worth $100 Billion? [View article]
    capt601 writes: " ... How does your ICE car so under comparable conditions? Think even AAA did a study hat showed ICE cars lose 20-40% of their range as well under similar conditions but hey you knew that. "

    An ICE has unlimited range since, in almost all cases, a gas station is very nearby and a refill to the full range, under even adverse conditions, is minutes away. And even if a gas station is far away, a couple of gallons of gas can be delivered to the ICE; but that energy can not be so easily delivered to an EV. That's the point: range is not an issue for the ICE, it is for the EV; " but hey you knew that", didn't you?
    Jan 23, 2015. 01:10 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • SolarCity: Cash That Check While You Can [View article]
    What happened to TheMtgbanker?
    Jan 21, 2015. 03:26 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The electric vs. hydrogen debate just got interesting [View news story]
    PVGO writes:
    “ … And then you burn this gasoline (as instructed in the car owner's manual) at 20-25% efficiency to move your wheels.
    That's *really* smart, isn't it? “

    This is yet another example of someone not knowing what they are talking about and spreading BS.
    PVGO, do you even know what that 20 – 25 % means?

    When a gallon of gasoline (as an example) is burned it is converted to a very hot gas that contains about 30 kWh of THERMAL energy. THERMAL ENERGY is in the form of rapid motions of the constituent hot gas molecules. Then a miraculous device (in my opinion), called a heat engine, converts some of that thermal energy of the hot gas into about 6 – 7 kWh of MECHANICAL energy. Mechanical energy that can move things and can do work. What you want to do.
    The 20 – 25 % efficiency, mocked at, refers to the ratio of the MECHANICAL-ENERGY to THERMAL-ENERGY. Talk about comparing apples to oranges. By the way, the reason that “only” 20-25% is converted is because the cooler, but still hot, gases that are exhausted by the engine still contains a lot of energy (that can be used to do things like heat the cars interior - also, cogeneration in power plants) and the only way to get it all out is if the working fluid (gas) would have its temperature reduced to absolute zero, which ain’t gonna’ happen.
    Comparing this to the efficiency of 85%, 90%, 95% efficiency of an electric motor, that converts electrical energy to mechanical energy, is a false measure because lots of energy is used to generate the electricity in the first place. The universe is unfair; converting electrical to mechanical seems more "efficient" than thermal to mechanical if you carefully select the location of your "scenic" overlook.

    If you have solar panels on the roof then, at best, only 40% of the solar energy that makes it through the atmosphere (another big loss not counted here) impinging on the panel is converted to electricity. If the panels don’t move to follow the sun, then that 40% is greatly reduced by the cosine effect and, I’m guessing, you only extract, at best, about 25% of the solar energy available at the panel locations. Not much better than an ICE.

    If the electrical energy is from a power plant using coal, NG, or other fuels, the efficiency of generating the electricity is, maybe, about 30% and after transmission costs, the energy of the electricity at the plug is also only about 20-25% of the thermal energy in the fuel.

    If the electrical energy comes from a hydro-plant, the efficiency is much less than believed if the same measure is applied to it as to the burning gas. Take the Grand Coulee dam on the Columbia river in the Northwest. A glance at Google Earth shows that the elevation of the water in the upper part is 1285 feet (image of 7/13/2013). Immediately below the dam the water elevation is at 970 feet. The head of water of 315 feet represents the potential energy of the water in the vicinity and from which the electricity is generated. But the base is still at 970 feet, so there is 3 times more potential energy (with respect to sea level) still available and that is “wasted” by this hydro plant. The efficiency in this case is 25%. Obviously this is a silly comparison, but no worse than comparing the mechanical energy extracted by an ICE from the thermal energy in the ICE fuel.

    “That's *really* smart, isn't it? “

    Yeah, it is.
    Jan 15, 2015. 08:45 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The electric vs. hydrogen debate just got interesting [View news story]
    capt601 writes: " ... You do realize gasoline refineries are one of the largest users of electricity? Of course you do, EVs can't even come close to using that same amount of electricity. "

    Same old, same old, BS.
    The electricity used by oil refineries is one of the processing components (steam, electricity, etc.) produced either by the refineries themselves using a portion (10% - 15%) of the petroleum crude and refinery "waste products", or from closely affiliated suppliers that do the same. Without processing the petroleum the electricity would not be generated in the first place. The refineries and suppliers are probably connected to the grid (for various reasons, including local politics), but probably do not take a net amount of electricity from the grid. From DOE information I determined that for every kWh of electricity used by a refinery, something like 20 - 50 kWh of product is produced (sorry, can't recall the value I got). Unfortunately, the incorrect assertion that electricity is wasted on refining petroleum persists, especially among EV advocates who wave any flimsy flag they can find.
    Jan 15, 2015. 04:33 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla China Problem - Elon Musk Admits Sales Are Down [View article]
    capt601 writes: " No mention of the $800 million bmw had to give its chinese dealers because of weak sales? Yeah, no bias here."

    $800 million?
    Chump change for BMW.
    Jan 14, 2015. 11:57 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • GM's 200-Mile Electric Car For $30,000: RIP Tesla [View article]
    Bryce_in_TX writes: " ... And a glass roof, are you joking me? How does that work in states like Texas with 100 plus degree days in the summer? A glass roof has got to lower your range, I would think, because your A/C is working harder. "

    Don't people pay a couple of $K extra for the panorama glass roof on the Model S?
    And when that $K panorama roof is opened, doesn't that lower the range even more?
    Jan 14, 2015. 11:47 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • GM's 200-Mile Electric Car For $30,000: RIP Tesla [View article]
    PeterJA writes: "...but you are clearly not representative of the intelligent and successful people buying Tesla cars."

    And, clearly, neither are you, PeterJA.
    Jan 14, 2015. 11:45 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla China Problem - Elon Musk Admits Sales Are Down [View article]
    I need a bailout:

    Groundhog day isn't until Feb 2. And you're not Bill Murray.
    Give it a rest already.
    Jan 14, 2015. 11:33 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Will Set A New Model S U.S. Sales Record In Q4 2014 [View article]
    watchingfromabove (WFA) writes: “Apparently you [Paulo] have little or no appreciation for the systems and software engineering that makes a few thousand parts act as an integrated whole in an automobile. And these millions of lines of code that make that happen don't just get written the first time. The mechanical engineering and tuning of the suspension, the component specification testing and analysis that occurs that makes the vehicle light, strong, and reliable are astoundingly complex. They are constantly modified from real world testing and conditions experienced. “

    Sshh! Here’s a secret. Every car maker does these things, does them successfully, and has been doing so for years. Many of the CAD/CAM programs used for these tasks originated from car companies and others and are used by Tesla as well. Nothing magical here.

    “ … Most of this work does not translate over from an ICE to a BEV so you have to start from scratch in many areas even if you already build ICE cars.”

    Why is that? That claim is, of course, complete nonsense.

    “ … You [Paulo] suffer from the classic problem of not knowing what you don't know. “
    WFA suffers from exactly this problem in reverse; thinking he knows, understands, and appreciates, everything.

    “ … Which is what makes me think you [Paulo] don't have a clue. Nissan could reasonably make that claim to some extent. Not many others can because they don't have the systems integration experience for an all BEV high performance long-range drive train. And even Nissan doesn't have it for the long range high performance part....You chronically under appreciate the effort and accumulated expertise in Tesla in this regard. “

    Again, complete egotistical nonsense.
    WFA’s comments are a perfect example of the hysterical, frenzied, sensationalization of anything done by Tesla (and Musk) and typical of true believing acolytes. It seems that according to WFA, anything Tesla does is orders of magnitude superior to anything done before and that others not affiliated with Tesla must be working at levels barely above imbecilic. WFA is beginning to sound as arrogant as a number of previous commenters (Julian Cox, Ford Prefect, …)
    Jan 13, 2015. 06:40 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • GM's 200-Mile Electric Car For $30,000: RIP Tesla [View article]
    jtb911 writes: " ... Do you have any idea how big a generator you would need to power an electric car? "

    Actually, a separate generator needs to be no larger than the drive motor and can probably be much smaller if you only intend to charge the battery at about 1C, the approximate rate of the supercharger. Don't forget that during regenerative braking the drive motor turns into generator capable of supplying 100s of kilowatts back into the battery.
    Jan 11, 2015. 06:17 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Posts Best U.S. Sales Month Ever, But The Overall EV Market Suggests Trouble Ahead [View article]
    Canadian Tesla writes: "There were many positive achievements in 2014. One example is the offer of the upgrade to the Roadster. In itself, this is not hugely important. However it is now, and may become vastly more so in the future, a powerful message to Model S owners. It says Tesla cares about its existing customer base."

    Upgrading the Roadster at what cost?
    This is not so much a demonstration of caring for the customer base as it is a top priority - must do - situation because otherwise the Roadsters (at least their $40K+ batteries) will be dead in a few years and an albatross around Tesla's neck. In that situation Tesla would face a similar dilemma GM had with the EV1; except Tesla can't crush 'em. Tesla has no choice but provide an upgrade and may have to take a financial hit to make the cost acceptable.
    Jan 7, 2015. 05:55 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: Tesla Admitting Reduced Model P85D And 85D Range Versus Promises [View article]
    I cannot believe the amount of self absorbed, self promotion, in these comments (jim15936, in particular) on how really, really, really hard it is to operate the dual motors of a Tesla vehicle under all those really really hard real world conditions. What a bunch of nonsense.
    Controlling dual motors in a Tesla is trivial compared to:
    (1) controlling the multiple motors in a building site crane that lifts and moves tons of cargo, 100s of feet in the air, under fluctuating wind conditions at the end of a flexible cable at the end of a rotating arm while moving a cradle back and forth along the arm. There are cranes on ships that do the same thing when transferring cargo at sea; except that both the receiving and target ends are rolling and heaving all over the place.
    (2) controlling thousands (and thousands) of individual actuators, in millisecond real time, on the backs of flexible mirrors that are part of the adaptive optics of modern 5-meter, 10-meter, and large telescopes.
    (3) controlling the multiple rollers in steel mills, paper mills, and glass factories that must critically control the thickness of the product, at very high temperature, as it moves at progressively higher and higher speeds.
    (4) controlling the motors at the multiple articulation joints in robotic arms in the mechanical robots that build cars like the Model S.
    In other words, controlling the two simple motors in the Model SD is trivial compared to multiple motor real world problems that have been addressed and solved years and decades ago.
    Why is it that some people insist on sensationalizing Tesla's approach to issues that have been solved long ago and are standard (ho hum) practices in industry?
    Dec 31, 2014. 01:49 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla Needs To Be More Like Apple [View article]
    Although they started out making and selling computers, I was under the impression that Apple makes a large part of its profits not from selling computers, but selling non-computer items like iphones, ipods, i_apps, and itunes. If Tesla is to follow Apple, maybe they need to find things to sell other than cars.
    Dec 31, 2014. 12:51 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: Tesla Admitting Reduced Model P85D And 85D Range Versus Promises [View article]
    watchingfromabove responding to jim15936:
    I was going to make pretty much the same comments you make about the incorrect conclusions that jim15936 comes to.
    A few numbers might help explain.
    In particular, the rotational energy stored in the rotor of the current Tesla motor is about 8 watt*hours at a vehicle speed of 60 mph (I estimate the rotor moment of inertia is about 0.1 kg*m^2 and at 60 mph the drive wheels are at about 750 rpm which becomes about 7500 rpm at the motor rotor (gear ratio 9.73) which, coincidentally, translates to about 750 radians/sec (30/pi=9.55)).
    As a comparison, the storage capacity of a cell in the big battery is about 12 watt*hours, so the energy stored in the motor rotor (@60 mph) is only 2/3 of one of the battery cells; not much and hardly worth building a clutch for. As a further comparison, the energy stored in the forward motion of the car at 60 mph is over 200 watt*hours or about a factor of 25 greater.
    Dec 31, 2014. 10:32 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Roadster Upgrade Is A Very Big Deal [View article]
    JRP3 writes:
    "That is a lie. "
    Zelaza writes: "Actually, it's not a lie."
    Actually, it is.
    Now read what bailout actually wrote, quoted above, and do it slowly, maybe read it a few times, and let's see if you can find the lie. Remember to read all words that were written, since words have meaning. "

    OK JRP3:
    How much time do you have to spend charging in order to drive 50 miles in the Fiero you electrified? Include any additional time spent charging if you run out of juice part of the way there.

    " ... Remember to read all words that were written, since words have meaning. "
    When reading people like JRP3 it is also important to realize that there is meaning (big meaning) in the words not there, words purposely left out.
    Dec 29, 2014. 12:43 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment