Seeking Alpha

froggey77

froggey77
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View froggey77's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Tesla's Insane Mode Of Pricing [View article]
    Beginner investor
    "Care to do a similar analysis on inefficiencies in oil/gas exploration, production, distribution etc. to get the fuel into your ICE in the first place?"

    Most of what I've seen is a bit below this at 18% - 20% an this is a bit old at 2007 but it should be close.

    Pumping a gallon of oil out of the ground, getting it to a refinery, refining it to gas and getting it to a gas station all in is "about 21%."

    http://tinyurl.com/o49...

    I Googled this (Without the quote marks) and it came up at the bottom of the search page on Google books. on pg 188
    " oil energy efficiency percent well to tank "
    Jul 29, 2015. 09:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Insane Mode Of Pricing [View article]
    Daryll Gomas
    "So when a man comes along and says " i want to address the issues that threaten the existence of mankind" and proves he is more then words and out to just make a buck, i say back that man up. I say look at the tech, see its impact on life on this planet and out future and then judge the morality or immorality."

    So when you find out the proposed "solution" will kill twice the people an ICE would ....


    http://tinyurl.com/oz4...

    "Environmental Benefits from Driving Electric Vehicles?
    Stephen P. Holland, Erin T. Mansur, Nicholas Z. Muller, Andrew J. Yates

    NBER Working Paper No. 21291
    Issued in June 2015
    NBER Program(s): EEE

    the current federal purchase subsidy of $7500 has greater deadweight loss than a no-subsidy policy. "


    Here's another from the National Academies of Sciences.

    http://bit.ly/1I3d4wG
    "EVs powered by grid-average electricity also have greater negative impacts than do vehicles powered by gasoline."

    scenarios with substantially higher damages than gasoline include corn ethanol (80% increase) and EVs powered by grid average or coal electricity (200% and 350% increase, respectively). "

    A grid powered EV using the average us grid causes twice the damages of an ICE. An EV on coal causes 3.5 times the damages of an ICE.
    Yes powered by solar wind etc an EV can be much cleaner.
    Unfortunately most people don't have those electricity sources.


    BTW an EV powered by the grid uses 3 X the water of an ICE per mile.

    The Water Intensity of the Plugged-In Automotive Economy
    http://bit.ly/1LNqNci
    "Converting light-duty vehicles from full gasoline power to electric power, by using either hybrid electric vehicles or fully electric power vehicles, is likely to increase demand for water resources." ...
    " In displacing gasoline miles with electric miles, approximately 3 times more water is consumed (0.32 versus 0.07–0.14 gallons/mile) and over 17 times more water is withdrawn (10.6 versus 0.6 gallons/mile) primarily due to increased water cooling of thermoelectric power plants to accommodate increased electricity generation."

    As you said:
    "I urge you to think outside your own personal life and take a macro view of the issue and reassess your position."
    Jul 29, 2015. 08:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Free And Unlimited Supercharger Access Can Devastate Tesla [View instapost]
    Every vehicle Tesla has ever sold has the promise of unlimited superchargers free, for life. I expect nearly every MS ever sold up to now, will end up a taxi near a supercharger station. 22kW chargers may be only a grand but the electricity in Europe is $2,500 a year, wholesale.
    Multiples of that for Uber drivers and other small fry.

    "Which is very different to individual users hogging Tesla SC stations to avoid local charging."

    So it's OK for businesses to hog SC but not regular customers?

    Excuse me?
    When Elon sold the MS to regular buyers. Part of the purchase agreement was free SC for life. An incredibly stupid offer but Tesla/Elon made it. The Tesla stockholders embraced this claim as completely acceptable and doable. After all, the electricity was going to come from solar panels on the roof of the SC. Batteries would be installed for night time charging. Tesla would get no bills for electricity from the SC stations at all.
    All other opinions on this stupid offer were ignored as naysayers.

    Elon has, just realized/announced what Tesla is on the hook for. Elon made a promise of, free SC for life, to these people and on that basis, sold them cars.
    The best defense being a good offense... Elon attacks the buyers. He is using social pressure to try and block them from making him live up to his own (idiotic) promise!
    (If this was an ICE manufacturer, Imagine selling a car with a guarantee of free gas for life, then months/years later coming back to the buyers saying "But but you are only aloud free gas when you go on long trips! Not around where you live and work! Oh the screams we would hear.)
    Hogging the SC indeed. But back to Tesla.
    You too are attacking MS owners. (Part of that social pressure Musk wants. Good job, you are following the leaders orders, well.)

    These MS owner's sin? Buying a car based on the agreement Tesla/Elon made with them.

    I wonder how far this will go?
    There are always extremists.
    Jul 23, 2015. 08:56 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • If This Happens, The Floor Could Fall From Under Tesla [View article]
    Rampant
    "The pollution created by the manufacturing and disposal of > Batteries, inefficient solar farms, and tech intensive/expensive wind generators will someday exceed that now caused by coal."

    While you may be technically correct there may be more pollution at some point in the future it is unlikely to cause the damage of the air pollution wafting around the planet from coal plants.
    While these things need proper disposal or potentially recycling the reach and breadth of their pollution is in general more local than coal.
    Jul 20, 2015. 08:39 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Free And Unlimited Supercharger Access Can Devastate Tesla [View instapost]
    Value

    Interesting information: Free for life was unsustainable from the beginning. Despite people claiming otherwise.

    Renim
    I do agree with your first point.

    1stly; to understand free supercharging, you need to understand commercial electricity rates, not residential rates.

    If you look at the chart, (By my eye) on average wholesale prices are about 10 cents per kWh in Europe.
    http://bit.ly/1CLX2Ga

    Which puts it in with the US at $20K to $30K per car. Still wildly unsustainable.

    2ndly; there is large difference between domestic users using supercharging for local use vs commercial taxis with 22kW nighttime charging. Unless a Taxi is 2x12hr shift, the taxi has the opportunity to fully recharge a battery using a mere 22kW AC charger during off shift time. So taxi's using free supercharging is not a burden either, - as long as they also do pre dawn base charging.
    So if the Taxi is 1x12 hour or 2 x 8 hour shifts, its still is all good for Tesla. For Taxi use a Tesla gets around 500km on a single daily nighttime charge. and that's before any use of supercharging for long distance driving.

    As to the second point; Obviously this is not what is happening.
    Did you read the article Value linked to?
    "AMSTERDAM—Matthijs van Seventer won’t take his Model S electric sedan to the Tesla charging station in the southeast part of the city if he is in a hurry. The chargers are typically loaded with taxicabs serving Schiphol airport."
    http://on.wsj.com/1CLX4Og

    Tesla now has enough of a problem that :
    1. The CEO is spending time talking about it at the annual shareholders meeting.
    2. They are changing the wording on Tesla's site in an attempt to stop it.
    3. the problem in Germany is bad enough to be showing up in an American paper WSJ.
    4. Finally it appears the airport bought the MS for taxis. if there is a free for life supercharger station at the airport, why do you think the airport (or any other fleet buyer) would or has installed any other method to charge them?
    Jul 20, 2015. 04:25 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Meet the new U.S. automobile startup [View news story]
    Speaking of which, some news.
    http://read.bi/1Og88ne

    This 3-wheeled electric car is the 'Volkswagen Beetle of the 21st century'
    Jul 19, 2015. 04:22 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • If This Happens, The Floor Could Fall From Under Tesla [View article]
    Marshgre
    "You also may want to revisit your 60% fossil fuelled grid numbers, I don't think your little country is that far behind Canada - we use less than 30% fossil fuels and somewhere near 60% hydro power (as of 2012). "

    "Sorry. I must of forgotten that your country represents the ENTIRE world without variation. "

    Pretty funny, you ask fiwiki for the US numbers. When you don't like the answer, you change the question and pretend it was his error.

    So what are the global grid numbers?
    They are worse than the US for fossil fuels.

    Coal 40%
    NG . 23%
    Oil .. 4%

    67% fossil fuels in 2012 that latest word figures available. Same as the US in 2014.

    BTW your #3
    "The fuel used does not change throughout the cars life."

    More e-Fuel Development From Audi
    http://bit.ly/1TI2Kgp
    "CO2-neutral synthetic fuels is one direction Audi is aiming its fuel researches."

    While this is only a small pilot project more is going on.

    "Audi affirmed it is also conducting joint research into the synthetic manufacture of Audi e-gasoline with Global Bioenergies of France; and a joint project with U.S. company Joule is striving to produce the synthetic fuels Audi e-diesel and Audi e ethanol with the help of microorganisms."

    http://bit.ly/1TI2Kgr
    "Audi engineer’s conclusion: unlike fossil fuels, the composition of which varies depending on their place of origin, synthetic Audi e-fuels are absolutely pure fuels. Thanks to their chemical properties, fewer emissions are generated when they are burned.
    Audi added these e-fuels do not contain any olefines or aromatic hydrocarbons; as a result, the synthetic fuels assure a more effective mixture preparation process, cleaner combustion and lower emissions."

    CO2 neutral and fewer emissions.

    "It has been pointed out to you more than once but here it goes again (maybe it'll sink in a bit if you hear it enough times)."...
    "But fuel used does not change throughout the cars life."

    How many times have you claimed that?
    Jul 17, 2015. 09:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Meet the new U.S. automobile startup [View news story]
    The Corbin Sparrow was an EV. They were about to bring out an ICE version. To that end they had bought a business with a factory in Canada. Unfortunately (As I understand it) the company they were buying had accountants better at hiding their problems than Corbin had accountants trying to find out what they were getting. The day the company was to begin production of the ICE version Corbin instead shut down.

    There is a newer version of the EV version resurrected from the bankruptcy called Myers Motors.
    http://bit.ly/1SqmIcT
    Jul 16, 2015. 08:43 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Meet the new U.S. automobile startup [View news story]
    Jim

    "it may take 20 years for Tesla, Elio, etc. to replace most ICE cars. "

    Elo is (Planned to be) an ICE.
    Jul 15, 2015. 05:27 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Meet the new U.S. automobile startup [View news story]

    " In the worst US places that burn fossil fuel to deliver electricity, the energy delivered to a Tesla uses half the emissions of a car. I have done the math. Have you?"

    While Java has probably no backing on what he is saying. Clearly you have not done the math or anything else.

    Here's another from the National Academies of Sciences.

    http://bit.ly/1I3d4wG
    "EVs powered by grid-average electricity also have greater negative impacts than do vehicles powered by gasoline."

    "Scenarios with substantially decreased air quality-related health impacts compared with gasoline include gasoline hybrid vehicles (30% decrease) and EVs powered by natural gas or by WWS (50% and 70% decrease, respectively); scenarios with substantially higher damages than gasoline include corn ethanol (80% increase) and EVs powered by grid average or coal electricity (200% and 350% increase, respectively). "

    A grid powered EV using the average us grid causes twice the damages of an ICE. An EV on coal causes 3.5 times the damages of an ICE.
    Yes powered by solar wind etc an EV can be cleaner but for most people they won't be.
    Probably you have only looked at evidence based on CO2.

    "If you did, you would find that ICE street cars are about 20% efficient, due to the laws of physics, so they can't compete. Only other BEVs compete with Tesla."

    However the grid is only about 30% efficient 65% loss at the powerplant and 6% more lost in the distribution to your EV. Charging an EV is about 80% efficient. (Tesla MS, as close as I can tell, is 75% and a Leaf at 84%.) There is the loss in actually using the vehicle. About 90% efficient.
    Then you get into smaller things such as the mining and transportation of coal, uranium etc.
    Supplying an ICE with gasoline has an all in efficiency of 82%.
    Basically efficiency is a wash. A good ICE/hybrid is higher in total efficiency a bad one worse.
    Jul 14, 2015. 02:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Meet the new U.S. automobile startup [View news story]
    Javaman
    1."Reduce gas consumption 4 times more than a Tesla "
    Evidence?

    2 "Produce 4 or more times fewer emissions."
    Evidence?
    Jul 12, 2015. 08:51 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Has A Graphite Problem [View article]
    Yup. You always did ignore the environment as meaningless.
    Jul 9, 2015. 08:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • If This Happens, The Floor Could Fall From Under Tesla [View article]
    @Marshgre

    <@fiwiki
    and the Model S isn't " green" !">

    Marshgre
    "How so?
    But before you answer here are the rules. You aren't allowed to say that electricity comes from coal.

    It has been pointed out to you more than once but here it goes again (maybe it'll sink in a bit if you hear it enough times)."

    Lets reorganize a bit

    1 Pollution is produced when either car is built.

    However an EV battery is far more energy intensive than an engine. Building an EV requires creating far more pollution.
    Valuation of plug-in vehicle life-cycle air emissions and oil displacement benefits http://bit.ly/1ToV0Qd

    2 An ICE "then goes on to produce pollution each time it it used at an increasing rate (due to engine wear) for the rest of its service life."

    Engines can be brought back to specs or replaced.

    http://bit.ly/1ToV0Qe
    "According to ICL, tests suggest that the new prototype could reduce fuel consumption in a standard vehicle by up to three percent. It could also deliver environmental benefits by reducing the amount of CO2 that each vehicle emits."

    Catalytic converters can be upgraded.

    2 Each time an EV "is charged there is a percentage chance that the electricity is from a polluting source."

    Using the average US grid, the pollution caused for powering an EV will kill twice as many people as driving an ICE
    http://bit.ly/1I3d4wG
    Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States
    Also on the average grid, an EV requires 3 times the consumption of water per mile driven.

    "3 The fuel used does not change throughout the cars life."

    You still think we use leaded gasoline?
    What about ethanol?
    You think that wasn't a fuel change?
    Maybe not a good change, but clearly changes have occurred within the lifetime of the cars.
    Fuel changes with the times.
    A little historical data.
    The Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) rules reduce hazardous air pollutants, also known as air toxics, emitted by cars and trucks. Air toxics include benzene and other hydrocarbons such as 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and naphthalene.

    Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) was mandated for metropolitan areas with the worst smog beginning in 1995. RFG is blended to burn more cleanly than conventional gasoline, reducing emissions of smog-forming and toxic pollutants.

    The Tier 2 standards
    The Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur program reduced the sulfur content of gasoline by up to 90 percent from uncontrolled levels. Phased in from 2004-2007, and now in effect, the program allows refiners to produce gasoline with a range of sulfur levels as long as their annual corporate average does not exceed 30 parts per million (ppm). In addition, no individual batch can exceed 80 ppm.

    The upcoming Tier 3 standards

    http://1.usa.gov/1ToV0Qi
    The final fuel standards will reduce gasoline sulfur levels by more than 60 percent – down from 30 to 10 parts per million (ppm) in 2017. Reducing sulfur in gasoline enables vehicle emission control technologies to perform more efficiently. New low-sulfur gas will provide significant and immediate health benefits because every gas-powered vehicle on the road built prior to these standards will run cleaner – cutting smog-forming NOx emissions by 260,000 tons in 2018.

    "Do try to keep up. "

    "3 The aforementioned electricity can be produced by less polluting methods, these renewable energy sources are slowly gaining in their share of the percentage of generation.
    This means that with the passage of time an EV will become cleaner to operate while an ICE will remain dirty."

    As gas is getting cleaner and EVs are presently twice as polluting on the average grid and renewable energy is (As you said) slowly gaining in their share of the percentage of generation.
    How many years before an EV will be as clean as a used ICE?

    BTW
    The Water Intensity of the Plugged-In Automotive Economy
    http://bit.ly/1LNqNci
    "Converting light-duty vehicles from full gasoline power to electric power, by using either hybrid electric vehicles or fully electric power vehicles, is likely to increase demand for water resources. In the United States in 2005, drivers of 234 million cars, light trucks, and SUVs drove approximately 2.7 trillion miles and consumed over 380 million gallons of gasoline per day. We compare figures from literature and government surveys to calculate the water usage, consumption, and withdrawal, in the United States during petroleum refining and electricity generation. In displacing gasoline miles with electric miles, approximately 3 times more water is consumed (0.32 versus 0.07–0.14 gallons/mile) and over 17 times more water is withdrawn (10.6 versus 0.6 gallons/mile) primarily due to increased water cooling of thermoelectric power plants to accommodate increased electricity generation. Overall, we conclude that the impact on water resources from a widespread shift to grid-based transportation would be substantial enough to warrant consideration for relevant public policy decision-making. That is not to say that the negative impacts on water resources make such a shift undesirable, but rather this increase in water usage presents a significant potential impact on regional water resources and should be considered when planning for a plugged-in automotive economy." 

    EVs Green? No.
    Jul 9, 2015. 08:29 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Has A Graphite Problem [View article]
    To the information that EVs consume 3 times the water

    "Luckily water is never "consumed", it's just redistributed around the planet."

    I considered your first response a " meaningless obfuscation you come up with to distract and mislead. " and I responded somewhat in kind.
    But I also included this:

    "Equally foolish, is the idea that people, who have no water to drink, can celebrate; as their water was not consumed by a powerplant. Rather "Redistributed" through evaporation to somewhere else on the planet.
    Such as the mid Atlantic?
    I'm sure California farmers are happy to know their local water is only going to be "Redistributed" somewhere else, as it's used to power water thirsty EVs while their crops, wither and die."

    I notice you didn't respond to this. you came up with another attempt at "meaningless obfuscation you come up with to distract and mislead. "

    Basically you just said all water conservation is silly. The water will be "redistributed" elsewhere and in your mind, is no problem?
    Clearly it doesn't mater to you, if California (EV Central) turns into a desert.
    Which is why I also said:
    "You're as concerned about the environment as ever."
    Jul 8, 2015. 03:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Has A Graphite Problem [View article]
    Jfsacal

    "16,000 tons divided by 365 days gives about 44 tons per day.
    That small added amount is in addition to gas and oil stocks plus grid electricity used to refine and deliver gasoline. During non peak hours, refineries are even able to deliver small amounts of electricity to the grid. This doesn't negate the billions of kWh of grid electricity used by oil refineries."

    "During non peak hours, refineries are even able to deliver small amounts of electricity to the grid."
    No. Refineries run at constant speed at constant temperatures 24/7 and would deliver power at all times.
    That is not their main goal however. Just producing enough power for the plant and a bit of cushion to be sure they don't need to buy any.

    "billions of kWh of grid electricity used by oil refineries."
    As it's been mentioned refineries sometimes form a second or third company so they can share resources and expenses in building their own power plant as the get crude as a fuel source.
    But lets pretend that all of that wasn't the case and lets see how wrong you are shall we?
    Using the link that Jrp3 thoughtfully provided

    http://1.usa.gov/1KImCyb used at refineries. 2014
    Purchased Electricity 47,224 (Million Kilowatthours)

    I'll be using the EIA numbers that can all be found in this PDF
    http://1.usa.gov/GUeKcq
    Note the (Million Kilowatthours) in the above chart = (Thousand Megawatthours) in the following chart.
    Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 2005-April 2015

    Petroleum Liquids are used to generate 18,708 (Thousand Megawatthours) Thousand mWh
    I'll ignore petroleum liquids as this will be too long as it is and I don't need them.
    I will only consider:
    Petroleum coke is used to generate 11,781 (Thousand mWh) (On the US grid)
    For a total of 30,489 (Thousand mWh) or (M kWh) if you prefer.

    So 47,224 (Million Kilowatthours) - 11,781 (M kWh) produced on the US grid with petcoke leaves refineries importing 35,433B kWw.

    It looks bad for the Refiners !

    Table 2.3.C. Petroleum Coke: Consumption for Electricity Generation and Useful Thermal Output,
    by Sector, 2005-April 2015 (Thousand Tons)
    (Note I use the part used by the electrical sector not the thermal output.)
    in 2014 the Electric Power Sector used petcoke
    Electric Utilities 3,356 (Thousand Tons)
    Independent Power Producers 688 (Thousand Tons)
    For a total of 4,044 thousand tons of petcoke to produce those 11,781 (M kWh)

    http://bit.ly/1KImEpK
    Looking at the graph it shows the US production of petcoke in 2007 was 42mil DMT (Dry Metric Tons)with an expected increase of 15mil DMT in 2015 or a total of 57mil DMT expected this year.

    http://bit.ly/1KImEpM
    "From 1992 to 2008, approximately 55 percent of U.S. petcoke was exported. That number jumped to 80 percent in 2012, " (A 25% increase of the total production of petcoke) " driven by a global market for petcoke as a source of electricity generation in large part because of its high caloric value, low ash, and lower price relative to coal."

    While I don't know how much originally was used for making electricity the 25% increase in exports is 14.25 mil DMT
    To straighten out the stats into comparable amounts:
    A ton used in the EIA stats is 2,000 Lbs
    A metric ton is 2204.62 Lbs
    14.25 mil DMT = 15.675 mil tons or 15,675 thousand tons as they are used in the EIA data sheets.

    We know that a total of 4,044 thousand tons of petcoke was used to produce 11,781 (Million Kilowatthours)
    15,675 thousand ton is 3.876 times 4,044
    3.876 X 11,781 (M kWh) = 45,664 (M kWh)
    45,664 (M kWh) + the 11,781 (M kWh) produced in the US totals 57,445 (M kWh)VS the original
    Purchased Electricity 47,224 (M kWh)

    More than10 billion KWH was produced with petcoke, than was purchased by refineries. OK?

    Remember:
    1. We considered only the fraction of petcoke we know was used for electricity. US exports are multiples of that and could be used here as a cleaner alternative to coal in existing coal plants. (Coal is cheaper in the US) Also its used in other processes where electricity would be used s a substitute.

    2. Also we ignored petroleum liquids which as of 2012 produced 4% of the worlds electricity (879 TWH)
    Oil we export for use for Electrical grids elsewhere would be added to this.

    3. We pretended that refiners don't produce the power they sell on the grid to themselves.
    The facilities where two companies form a third company and buy the power produced by it. Such as this one.

    heatispower.org/wp-con...
    Waste Heat to Power From Petroleum Coke Calcining

    Use of Electrical Energy: On-site consumption, excess sold back to grid via Qualified Facility (QF) agreement
    Assuming two companies built it together it wouldn't be onsite consumption but you get the idea.

    "This doesn't negate the billions of kWh of grid electricity used by oil refineries."

    This is false.
    Jul 6, 2015. 08:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,859 Comments
1,229 Likes