http://www.taxgirl.com/tesla-roadster-again-controversial-and-this-time-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-jeremy-clarkson/ Paying taxes is painful... but reading about them shouldn't be. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:55:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://www.taxgirl.com/tesla-roadster-again-controversial-and-this-time-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-jeremy-clarkson/comment-page-1/#comment-13445 Justin Gudgeon Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:21:05 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4216#comment-13445 Apart from a nuclear power station, a unit of fossil fuel burnt at a conventional power station will have losses. First there are the thermal losses in the steam turbines. This can actually be seen being wasted from the huge cooling towers at any power-station. This amounts to about 25% of the heat energy in the fuel. Then there are the mechanical losses of the turbines and alternators which exist during the process of generating the electricity. This amounts to about 15% of the fuel energy. Then there is the resistance losses caused by channelling the high-voltage electricity through miles and miles of cable before it gets to the domestic outlet. This amounts to about 15%. Then there are the charging losses which arise when using this electricity to 'fill' the car battery. This amounts to about 4%. Finally there are the heat and resistance losses caused when the electricity in the battery is converted into menchnical power via the electric motor driving the car. This amounts to about 4% as well. All these separate losses means that the consumer is only getting about 37% of the energy of the fuel used at the power station. Most gasoline cars get about 40% 0f the fuel energy in the gas-tank. Apart from a nuclear power station, a unit of fossil fuel burnt at a conventional power station will have losses. First there are the thermal losses in the steam turbines. This can actually be seen being wasted from the huge cooling towers at any power-station. This amounts to about 25% of the heat energy in the fuel. Then there are the mechanical losses of the turbines and alternators which exist during the process of generating the electricity. This amounts to about 15% of the fuel energy. Then there is the resistance losses caused by channelling the high-voltage electricity through miles and miles of cable before it gets to the domestic outlet. This amounts to about 15%. Then there are the charging losses which arise when using this electricity to ‘fill’ the car battery. This amounts to about 4%. Finally there are the heat and resistance losses caused when the electricity in the battery is converted into menchnical power via the electric motor driving the car. This amounts to about 4% as well. All these separate losses means that the consumer is only getting about 37% of the energy of the fuel used at the power station. Most gasoline cars get about 40% 0f the fuel energy in the gas-tank.

]]> http://www.taxgirl.com/tesla-roadster-again-controversial-and-this-time-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-jeremy-clarkson/comment-page-1/#comment-12653 ThomasT Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:18:01 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4216#comment-12653 Urbie, that is just not the case (the part about there being no difference between coal-fired power -> electric cars vs. gasoline-fueld cars; I'll give you the limitless legislative stupidity). Because of the greater efficiency of electric motors and electricity generation compared to gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines, the total greenhouse gas emissions are much lower for electric cars than for gasoline-fueled cars. Also, there are ways to generate electricity other than coal. Now, in CO they are 70% coal-fired, which does suggest that they could be allocating their tax credits more efficiently to achieve positive ecological outcomes. Urbie, that is just not the case (the part about there being no difference between coal-fired power -> electric cars vs. gasoline-fueld cars; I’ll give you the limitless legislative stupidity). Because of the greater efficiency of electric motors and electricity generation compared to gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines, the total greenhouse gas emissions are much lower for electric cars than for gasoline-fueled cars. Also, there are ways to generate electricity other than coal. Now, in CO they are 70% coal-fired, which does suggest that they could be allocating their tax credits more efficiently to achieve positive ecological outcomes.

]]> http://www.taxgirl.com/tesla-roadster-again-controversial-and-this-time-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-jeremy-clarkson/comment-page-1/#comment-12645 Urbie Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:47:12 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4216#comment-12645 Idiotic. Electric cars accomplish nothing, if you're plugging them into an outlet with a coal-fired power plant on the other end. Legislative stupidity, it goes without saying, knows no bounds. Idiotic. Electric cars accomplish nothing, if you’re plugging them into an outlet with a coal-fired power plant on the other end. Legislative stupidity, it goes without saying, knows no bounds.

]]> http://www.taxgirl.com/tesla-roadster-again-controversial-and-this-time-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-jeremy-clarkson/comment-page-1/#comment-12640 The Car Blog » Blog Archive » Tesla Roadster Again Controversial (and this time, it has nothing to do with Jeremy Clarkson) Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:05:42 +0000 http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4216#comment-12640 [...] Excerpt from:  Tesla Roadster Again Controversial (and this time, it has nothing to do with Jeremy Clarkson) [...] [...] Excerpt from:  Tesla Roadster Again Controversial (and this time, it has nothing to do with Jeremy Clarkson) [...]

]]>