• 08-22-2019
    upstateSC-rider
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hfc View Post
    I have a Model S, one of the early ones, ordered in fall 2012 and delivered in March 2013. It has been a great car and still drives like a new car. Not long after I got the car, we did our annual beach trip to NC. It was quite an adventure, through a charging desert. We got to the beach with 6 miles of range left and I charged at a beachfront RV park.

    Beach week this year, we stopped at a couple of Tesla Superchargers along the way. We were able to leave the dog in the car while we ate lunch thanks to the ďdog appĒ, which leaves the a/c on and puts a message on the screen so passers by donít freak out. I saw other Teslaís at the beach pretty much every day; first time I think Iíve seen one down there besides mine.

    When things get slow, I turn on the fart app, which gives you the option of replacing turn signal noises with fart sounds or ďfart on demandĒ from your choice of speakers in the car. Thatís next level luxury right there.

    I think Tesla is still a couple of steps ahead on EVís. I checked out Audiís E Tron recently and itís priced about the same as a standard Model S and it has smaller battery and no charging infrastructure like Teslaís (Iíve always maintained this is the key to their longevity and one reason theyíve struggled to profitability).

    That is such a great use for technology, kudos to tesla for thinking 'outside the box', but I just can't help wondering how many windows will be broken because of some 'do-gooder' helping the dog. :)
  • 08-23-2019
    nealric
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MR_GRUMPY View Post
    Yes, it is quiet.
    When you are spending $50,000 on a car, why should you care how much gas it uses. So why should you care if you start it 3 minutes before you drive away????
    I prefer a large set gauges, and a large navigation display.
    "Stoplight racing"???....I'm not 22 anymore.
    The idea of 75 minute "refueling" turns me off....and that's if you can find a Supercharger...Ö..
    More like 1 to 2 mm panel gaps.
    Tesla's are good for what they are, but don't call the Model 3 a luxury car.

    1) Base model 3 is $39k. I ran the math, and it was roughly equivalent to the ownership costs a $29k ICE vehicle over a 10 year ownership period. Fuel makes a decent difference in overall cost.
    2) In a cold climate, you can have the car warmed up and ready to go in your garage rather than pulling the car out first to pre-warm or getting into a cold car. Same for A/c in the heat.
    3) Everyone has their own preferences.
    4) Oh please. I don't mean literally racing. I mean it feels quick from stoplight to stoplight. Power is a luxury feature. That's why Rolls Royce uses massive v12s.
    5) Most people don't care about panel gaps. I've never noticed the panel gaps on a 3 from 5 feet away, and I don't go around with calipers measuring panel gaps on my cars.

    The point of my list was to point out features many people would find luxurious. The definition of "luxury car" is a silly semantic exercise.
  • 08-23-2019
    Eretz
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nealric View Post

    The point of my list was to point out features many people would find luxurious. The definition of "luxury car" is a silly semantic exercise.

    I'm very impressed with the dual motor version and acceleration as well everything you posted, especially warm up in garage and pet A/C. I never really looked into this very far and considering what you've pointed out, it's a great bang for the buck.

    -side note not a bad looking vehicle at all. I should have listened to my younger daughter.

    https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/492279142_1280x720.jpg
  • 08-23-2019
    DrSmile
    I'm a wrenchhead. I have autocrossed/track raced many sports cars I have owned up to about 2005, after which I decided to ditch the petrol and get back into more cycling.

    Fast forward almost 15 years, and I now see the end of ICE cars on the near, if not very near horizon (a little like road cycling ;( ). So a year ago I bought a model 3 performance (got the full federal tax credit)and ordered and installed a large solar system for my house (13.2KW, not from Tesla) and installed Powerwalls instead of a generator because the Powerwalls cost the same as a real deal installed whole house generator (after the tax rebates). The solar system with the car is a no-brainer if your state offers SRECs, which NJ does. Basically I will make all my money back and have free electricity in the house and recharge the car for free for as long as I have the house and car. I did none of this for environmental reasons, but I do consider it a great side benefit that my house and car don't pollute the air that I breathe while cycling.

    Which gets to the point of it. If you want to make it work, you need to cash in on the federal and state incentives before they go away. It's already too late to install a solar system and get the 30% federal tax credit because it will take at least 5-6 months to get a system installed, that's how much red tape there is. And yes it's a lot of money for the car, the solar, and the Powerwalls, but thanks to incentives you'll make it all back in about 7 years. And if you don't think the model 3 is a luxury car you really need to drive a model 3 performance. I will never go back to an ICE car, despite owning 6 manual transmission cars in a row before buying the model 3, which has no transmission at all. It's that good of a drivers car. And the other car companies won't catch up to the battery technology for a long time, the model 3 battery pack is incredibly light for it's size and performance compared to all other electric vehicles available out there, even the Taycan, and the Taycan will have far less range than the model 3 with only equivalent performance. There is a lot of rhetoric out there from other manufacturers, but really Tesla has the only real luxury products in the market.
  • 08-24-2019
    hfc
    Iíll add a comment regarding the reliability rating. My 6.5 year old Tesla probably qualifies as ďunreliableĒ by the rating standards. The only time mine ďbrickedĒ was when a Tesla service ranger came to replace my 12 volt battery and the car died. This was in the parking lot while I was at work. When he couldnít get it up and running, he called in another guy who brought a loaner Model X and I drove that home from work. My car returned to me at home a day or two later.

    Iíve had my center screen replaced (weird bubbles showed up in the edges), drive unit replaced, ac parts, and a few recall/free upgrades. Iíve never had to drive another car other than my own or a loaner Tesla and everything covered under warranty and service plan. Car has just had routine checkups the past couple of years. A lot of the stuff in mine I think was ďgrowing painĒ type items to be expected with an early adoption tech. And yes, Iíll be a repeat Tesla customer.
  • 08-25-2019
    PBL450
    A I understand the market, all of this is BS. Tesla is competing with companies charged with making money and they are have never done that... Nothing Musk has touched has turned a real profit. WE PAY for Tesla development. That are a pig at taxpayers tit. Maybe this changed recently? maybe they catch fire less often? We have tons of them here at the Jersey Shore. They are everywhere. From an eco perspective, yes they are a gain over gasoline, but not a big gain. Batteries are toxic as it gets. Electricity has to be made. Iím all for movement to make electricity more eco friendly, but we arenít doing that. Batteries need to be eternal (nearly) to make them attractive. A taxpayer subsidized product should dramatically outperform products that are being made and sold on the free market. I am not a bigot or nationalist so I donít care where the product originates from. Iíd like to see fair labor practices everywhere. To date, Tesla is a pig wearing lipstick. Iíd like to see them standing alone, and yes the history of subsidies count on that front.
  • 08-25-2019
    PBL450
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by blackfrancois View Post
    47,000 people can't be wrong.

    :smilewinkgrin:

    14,000,000 people can be wrong.
  • 08-25-2019
    SystemShock
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PBL450 View Post
    A I understand the market, all of this is BS. Tesla is competing with companies charged with making money and they are have never done that... Nothing Musk has touched has turned a real profit. WE PAY for Tesla development. That are a pig at taxpayers tit.

    Maybe this changed recently? maybe they catch fire less often? We have tons of them here at the Jersey Shore. They are everywhere. From an eco perspective, yes they are a gain over gasoline, but not a big gain. Batteries are toxic as it gets. Electricity has to be made. Iím all for movement to make electricity more eco friendly, but we arenít doing that. Batteries need to be eternal (nearly) to make them attractive. A taxpayer subsidized product should dramatically outperform products that are being made and sold on the free market.

    I am not a bigot or nationalist so I donít care where the product originates from. Iíd like to see fair labor practices everywhere. To date, Tesla is a pig wearing lipstick. Iíd like to see them standing alone, and yes the history of subsidies count on that front.

    A few things:

    Ė Tesla actually has made a quarterly profit several times, though not in the latest quarter

    Ė The fossil fuel industry, just like EVs, receives subsidies itself, the most obvious ones being that they do not have to pay for the adverse health effects of the pollution they cause, nor for the bad climate-change effects of all the carbon they release (droughts, more frequent and intensified hurricanes, rising sea levels swallowing up ocean-front and low-lying land, mass species extinction, etc). They also tend to get use of federal land for cheap, many various tax breaks, etc. etc.

    But it goes even further than that, and can get pretty absurd... for example, in the case of BP when it spilled oil all over the Gulf of Mexico (the Deepwater Horizon disaster). Yes, they got fined billions for it. But most of those fines were actually still tax-deductible, LOL. :skep: :out:

    Starting to see a pattern? Big companies wield big influence and get big breaks. All while pointing the finger elsewhere.

    FWIW, Elon Musk has said that he'd gladly have a world where all electric vehicle subsidies went away, so long as all fossil-fuel subsidies and breaks went away as well, i.e. a level playing-field. Have not heard from any fossil fuel execs that have been willing to take him up on it.

    Finally, Tesla's Federal EV tax credit is going away, as it starts to phase out once a company has sold 200,000 electric vehicles... which Tesla has.

    Ė Electricity generation actually IS getting more eco-friendly, as the percentage of the grid that is powered by coal continues to plummet. It used to be roughly half the grid, now it's down to 27 percent, and is projected to fall to 24 percent next year.

    Simultaneously and meanwhile, the slice of the grid that's powered by renewables, esp. wind and solar, continues to grow year by year.

    Ė Yes, the lithium in batteries is often obtained in non-enviro-friendly ways that sort of resemble fracking in nature, i.e. the use of bad chemicals, and too much water. But, to put it in perspective, a typical Tesla battery pack would have something like 150 lbs of lithium carbonate in it, of which about 25 lbs would be lithium.

    Compare that to a ICE vehicle, which uses 3300 lbs of gasoline per year on average (U.S. usage figures), and about 40,000 lbs (20 tons(!)) of it over a typical vehicle lifetime.

    So, which would you say is the bigger environmental hazard? Though I would agree that we do need better battery-recycling technology... currently, our ability to re-use lithium isn't very good at all.

    Ė In summation, if you think the fossil fuel industry and gasoline cars are an entirely 'free market proposition', you'd be very mistaken. A carbon tax would significantly change this for the better/fairer, but somehow it never happens, in large part due to industry political influence.

    Out.


    .
    .
  • 08-31-2019
    ziscwg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Retro Grouch View Post

    So you are saying Model3 owners are old german infantry? I know they act all entitled by the way they drive, but that is a stretch. It would make them like 90 now.
  • 09-01-2019
    Retro Grouch
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ziscwg View Post
    So you are saying Model3 owners are old german infantry? I know they act all entitled by the way they drive, but that is a stretch. It would make them like 90 now.

    Like folks tickling 90 years old, some Tesla drivers need their afternoon nap, no matter the situation :rolleyes:

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sXls4cdEv7c" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  • 09-01-2019
    PBL450
    YY
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SystemShock View Post
    A few things:

    Ė Tesla actually has made a quarterly profit several times, though not in the latest quarter

    Ė The fossil fuel industry, just like EVs, receives subsidies itself, the most obvious ones being that they do not have to pay for the adverse health effects of the pollution they cause, nor for the bad climate-change effects of all the carbon they release (droughts, more frequent and intensified hurricanes, rising sea levels swallowing up ocean-front and low-lying land, mass species extinction, etc). They also tend to get use of federal land for cheap, many various tax breaks, etc. etc.

    But it goes even further than that, and can get pretty absurd... for example, in the case of BP when it spilled oil all over the Gulf of Mexico (the Deepwater Horizon disaster). Yes, they got fined billions for it. But most of those fines were actually still tax-deductible, LOL. :skep: :out:

    Starting to see a pattern? Big companies wield big influence and get big breaks. All while pointing the finger elsewhere.

    FWIW, Elon Musk has said that he'd gladly have a world where all electric vehicle subsidies went away, so long as all fossil-fuel subsidies and breaks went away as well, i.e. a level playing-field. Have not heard from any fossil fuel execs that have been willing to take him up on it.

    Finally, Tesla's Federal EV tax credit is going away, as it starts to phase out once a company has sold 200,000 electric vehicles... which Tesla has.

    Ė Electricity generation actually IS getting more eco-friendly, as the percentage of the grid that is powered by coal continues to plummet. It used to be roughly half the grid, now it's down to 27 percent, and is projected to fall to 24 percent next year.

    Simultaneously and meanwhile, the slice of the grid that's powered by renewables, esp. wind and solar, continues to grow year by year.

    Ė Yes, the lithium in batteries is often obtained in non-enviro-friendly ways that sort of resemble fracking in nature, i.e. the use of bad chemicals, and too much water. But, to put it in perspective, a typical Tesla battery pack would have something like 150 lbs of lithium carbonate in it, of which about 25 lbs would be lithium.

    Compare that to a ICE vehicle, which uses 3300 lbs of gasoline per year on average (U.S. usage figures), and about 40,000 lbs (20 tons(!)) of it over a typical vehicle lifetime.

    So, which would you say is the bigger environmental hazard? Though I would agree that we do need better battery-recycling technology... currently, our ability to re-use lithium isn't very good at all.

    Ė In summation, if you think the fossil fuel industry and gasoline cars are an entirely 'free market proposition', you'd be very mistaken. A carbon tax would significantly change this for the better/fairer, but somehow it never happens, in large part due to industry political influence.

    Out.


    .
    .

    Thanks, thatís a great reply. Before I let others speak to this, I never equated fossil fuel and EV, you did. I said it is an improvement but not a panacea. I continue to be correct. Props, yes, we are getting incrementally, very, very, incrementally, more green in how we produce electricity. Much of which is at our expense as taxpayers. Yes, big oil has massive subsidies built in. But Ford didnít get paid to make cars. Neither did GM. Yes, itís a completely rigged system but Musk is the master of sucking at our wallets tits. He is the ultimate aficionado in modernity. He doesnít exist beyond selling PayPal and being born a spoiled rich brat without our money from which we see zero benefit. Oh wait, heís saving the world by stemming climate change!! I forgot he is a hero. Sorry. Space X is great for the environment. So is his battery plant in Nevada. I sure he goes to sleep every night worried about saving life on earth. I love your reply, and I agree with almost all of it. But Musk is the same con man we have in the White House at the end of the day.

    https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...531-story.html
  • 09-02-2019
    SystemShock
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PBL450 View Post
    Thanks, thatís a great reply.

    Thank you.


    Quote:

    ...I never equated fossil fuel and EV, you did. I said it is an improvement but not a panacea. I continue to be correct. Props, yes, we are getting incrementally, very, very, incrementally, more green in how we produce electricity. Much of which is at our expense as taxpayers.
    It's not 'very incremental', though.

    Look at what's happened to coal in recent years... coal use in the grid is dropping pretty rapidly, and coal emits the lion's share of pollution and greenhouse gases from the US grid:


    https://tinyurl.com/y5hhhlea



    Quote:

    Yes, big oil has massive subsidies built in. But Ford didnít get paid to make cars. Neither did GM.
    Yeah, GM just got bailed out the US taxpayer during the big financial crisis a decade ago, to the tune of $49.5 billion. So did Chrysler ($12 billion). And, of course, Chrysler got bailed out a couple of times before that. :(

    Oh, and that's just the Feds. States (and thus state taxpayers) give automakers big monetary incentives to build factories within their borders. Here's a list from Reuters (and yes, Tesla is on the list too):

    Over the past 40 years U.S. states have been vying for new auto plants, with 17 states granting $17 billion in tax breaks, job training funds, infrastructure development and other incentives to woo investment from domestic and foreign automakers.

    Here is a list of the subsidies, provided by Good Jobs First, a Washington-based research group.

    Pennsylvania gave German automaker Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) $100 million in incentives in 1976 to locate its first U.S. factory in Westmoreland County.

    Michigan, home to General Motors Co (GM.N), Ford Motor Co (F.N) and the U.S. unit of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCHA.MI), has granted $7.8 billion since 1984 to the so-called Detroit Three, as well as to Mazda Motor Corp (7261.T), when it was still allied with Ford.

    Far and away the largest subsidy was the $2.3 billion in state and local incentives given to GM in 2009 for its Orion Township plant north of Detroit, which builds the Chevrolet Bolt EV and the Sonic.

    Nevada has provided $1.6 billion in incentives since 2014 to two relatively young automakers: $1.3 billion to Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) for its battery factory outside Reno and $335 million to would-be manufacturer Faraday Future for a since-canceled plant north of Las Vegas.

    Mississippi and Tennessee have provided $1.6 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively, in subsidies to Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T), Nissan Motor Co (7201.T) and VW.

    Nissan has solicited $1.8 billion in subsidies from both Mississippi and Tennessee.

    Toyota has pulled $836 million from Mississippi, Texas and Kentucky, while Honda Motor Co (7267.T) won $389 million from Alabama and Indiana.

    Korean automaker Hyundai Motor Co (005380.KS), which controls Kia Motors Corp (000270.KS), has received $645 million in total from Alabama and Georgia.

    German automaker Mercedes-Benz, a unit of Daimler AG (000270.KS), received $457 million from Alabama and BMW (BMWG.DE) $254 million from South Carolina.

    Gettin' the picture? :(


    Quote:

    Yes, itís a completely rigged system but Musk is the master of sucking at our wallets' tits.
    And he's far from the only one.
    .
  • 09-03-2019
    zyzbot
    Uh...why wouldn't you carry your key fob?

    https://thenextweb.com/cars/2019/09/...-app-was-down/
  • 09-03-2019
    Eretz
    What everyone else said.
  • 09-03-2019
    Eretz
    What everyone else said.
  • 09-03-2019
    PBL450
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SystemShock View Post
    Thank you.



    It's not 'very incremental', though.

    Look at what's happened to coal in recent years... coal use in the grid is dropping pretty rapidly, and coal emits the lion's share of pollution and greenhouse gases from the US grid:


    https://tinyurl.com/y5hhhlea




    Yeah, GM just got bailed out the US taxpayer during the big financial crisis a decade ago, to the tune of $49.5 billion. So did Chrysler ($12 billion). And, of course, Chrysler got bailed out a couple of times before that. :(

    Oh, and that's just the Feds. States (and thus state taxpayers) give automakers big monetary incentives to build factories within their borders. Here's a list from Reuters (and yes, Tesla is on the list too):

    Over the past 40 years U.S. states have been vying for new auto plants, with 17 states granting $17 billion in tax breaks, job training funds, infrastructure development and other incentives to woo investment from domestic and foreign automakers.

    Here is a list of the subsidies, provided by Good Jobs First, a Washington-based research group.

    Pennsylvania gave German automaker Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) $100 million in incentives in 1976 to locate its first U.S. factory in Westmoreland County.

    Michigan, home to General Motors Co (GM.N), Ford Motor Co (F.N) and the U.S. unit of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCHA.MI), has granted $7.8 billion since 1984 to the so-called Detroit Three, as well as to Mazda Motor Corp (7261.T), when it was still allied with Ford.

    Far and away the largest subsidy was the $2.3 billion in state and local incentives given to GM in 2009 for its Orion Township plant north of Detroit, which builds the Chevrolet Bolt EV and the Sonic.

    Nevada has provided $1.6 billion in incentives since 2014 to two relatively young automakers: $1.3 billion to Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) for its battery factory outside Reno and $335 million to would-be manufacturer Faraday Future for a since-canceled plant north of Las Vegas.

    Mississippi and Tennessee have provided $1.6 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively, in subsidies to Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T), Nissan Motor Co (7201.T) and VW.

    Nissan has solicited $1.8 billion in subsidies from both Mississippi and Tennessee.

    Toyota has pulled $836 million from Mississippi, Texas and Kentucky, while Honda Motor Co (7267.T) won $389 million from Alabama and Indiana.

    Korean automaker Hyundai Motor Co (005380.KS), which controls Kia Motors Corp (000270.KS), has received $645 million in total from Alabama and Georgia.

    German automaker Mercedes-Benz, a unit of Daimler AG (000270.KS), received $457 million from Alabama and BMW (BMWG.DE) $254 million from South Carolina.

    Gettin' the picture? :(



    And he's far from the only one.
    .

    Thanks, again, for such a well constructed reply. Yes, coal is falling, and thatís great. But itís being replaced more by gas than anything else. An improvement, yes, but not a huge improvement when you consider fracking it out of the ground. In other developed economies clean energy is surging like gas is here in the US. We arenít there. Cali is getting there, the rest of us are crawling there. Thatís a great point about tax incentives at the state and local level. I hadnít really considered that end of the analysis. I suspect Tesla is getting the same tax breaks but I donít know that. We are being bilked from everywhere, my point is that Tesla, and Tesla alone, wouldnít even exist without our involuntary financial support. Again, I fully understand corporate welfare. I also understand carpet baggers. I think Musk got handed a checkbook by the Obama administration and he ran with it. BTW, the bailouts for GM and Fiat (excuse me Mopar) have been paid back according to our feds, and with interest. Im not trying any of this is fair the working tax payer, Iím simply saying Tesla is unique in that they are practically an ďAuthority.Ē Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and well considered replies.
  • 09-03-2019
    SystemShock
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zyzbot View Post
    Uh...why wouldn't you carry your key fob?

    https://thenextweb.com/cars/2019/09/...-app-was-down/

    Good point. Tesla gives you this little black key card for backup access and valets (or if youíre loaning your car to a friend).

    IOW, the app being down or not having your phone with you shouldnít keep you out of your car... if one has half a brain. :(
    .
  • 09-04-2019
    Bremerradkurier
    Kind of puzzling why the Germans don't have more market share in all electric cars-they have a huge amount of institutional knowledge of battery systems that absolutely, positively can't fail in their non-nuclear submarine industry.
  • 09-04-2019
    dir-t
    TLDR version:

    1) Coal isn't going away anytime soon as it's needed for lots more stuff than just electrical production. We still produce just as much as we did in the mid-70s although, for now, it is still declining. Ironically, increased production of EVs will require continued coal production to support their metallurgical needs.

    2) Transportation is just low hanging fruit with respect to air quality and climate change. There is FAR better progress to be made WRT residential heating/cooling and commercial/industrial processes.

    .................................................. ................................................

    I like the idea of EVs as a means to control pollution at a single large point source rather than leaving proper care and maintenance to individual car owners but focusing on transportation as a major influence of climate change might be missing the boat by a long ways.

    Most electrical use is for commercial/industrial use (about 50%) with residential cooling and heating at 28% while transport currently comes in at 0.2%. Granted, electricity comes from a number of sources but it's STILL primarily fossil fuel based. Using less electricity = using less fossil fuels so focusing on those non-transport uses could potentially make a WAY bigger dent in fossil fuel use versus driving an EV. Unfortunately that will probably only come from top-down mechanisms rather than the grass roots types of things that environmentally minded individuals are able to do.

    And if you read this far, here's where most of my opinion was formed;

    https://www.asmr.us/Portals/0/Docume..._and_ASMR.pptx

    This is the presentation by the key note speaker at a mine reclamation conference I attended this summer. Many of the slides are also from the EIC, like Systemshock's, but posting them to this site is kinda tedious .
  • 09-05-2019
    DrSmile
    Speaking of using less electricity, one of the interesting things about owning a home solar system is that it doesn't really foster decreased electricity usage. At the end of my contract year, whatever I don't use the electric company pays me out at pennies on the dollar, so when February and March come around (my contract year end), I'm busy turning off my gas furnace and cranking on every electric heater I have. Similarly I don't particularly drive my electric car for fuel efficiency because it doesn't cost me anything to fill it up beyond what I've paid for already.
  • 09-05-2019
    SystemShock
    Interesting post Dirt... my reply below.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dir-t View Post
    TLDR version:

    1) Coal isn't going away anytime soon as it's needed for lots more stuff than just electrical production. We still produce just as much as we did in the mid-70s although, for now, it is still declining. Ironically, increased production of EVs will require continued coal production to support their metallurgical needs.

    Coal will indeed still be needed in some fashion for things such as steel-making, but the vast majority of coal is used for electricity generation.

    From the US EIA (Energy Information Administration):

    Nearly all of the coal consumed in the United States is produced domestically, and most is consumed by the electric power sector to generate electricity, while some is exported. EIAís U.S. coal flow diagram helps to visualize the overall view of U.S. coal energy from supply (production, imports, and stock withdrawals) to disposition (consumption, exports, and losses).

    In 2018, of the more than 755 million short tons (MMst) of coal produced in the United States, the electric power sector consumed 636 MMst. The industrial sector consumed nearly 50 MMst, and the United States exported another 115 MMst.

    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39792


    And yes, while we do produce as much coal as we did a generation ago (again, overwhelmingly for electricity generation), that ignores that in the not very distant past we actually produced a LOT MORE coal than that, and that coal use and coal production have been dropping quite a lot:

    https://tinyurl.com/y6q4gcqb


    US coal production is down by about a third since the peak in 2008 or thereabouts... good trendline, and it should very likely continue.



    Quote:

    2) Transportation is just low hanging fruit with respect to air quality and climate change. There is FAR better progress to be made WRT residential heating/cooling and commercial/industrial processes.
    Not sure about that... the transportation sector emits quite a lot of CO2 and greenhouse gases, actually... it's in fact the #1 emitter in the US:


    https://tinyurl.com/yxcosltj

    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

    So, it's important to deal with transport along with all the other sources of greenhouse gas emissions.


    Quote:

    I like the idea of EVs as a means to control pollution at a single large point source rather than leaving proper care and maintenance to individual car owners but focusing on transportation as a major influence of climate change might be missing the boat by a long ways.
    Not at all... it's 29% of US greenhouse gas emissions, as per the graph above.

    And FWIW, I dislike the whole 'forget about this, focus instead on THIS!' dynamic. It's ALL important, really.


    Quote:

    Most electrical use is for commercial/industrial use (about 50%) with residential cooling and heating at 28% while transport currently comes in at 0.2%.
    0.2% of electricity use, yes, because EVs are still a very small portion of the US auto fleet. But, that is changing.

    And electricity use is not greenhouse gas emissions, though electricity generation is the #2 source of US emissions, behind only transport.


    Quote:

    Granted, electricity comes from a number of sources but it's STILL primarily fossil fuel based.
    Yes, but that too is changing. Coal is falling off so much in terms of electricity generation that even rising natural gas use in the sector isn't fully making up for it... renewables are slowly taking a larger and larger slice of the pie. And of course, nuclear remains stable at around 20% of the grid.


    Quote:

    Using less electricity = using less fossil fuels so focusing on those non-transport uses could potentially make a WAY bigger dent in fossil fuel use versus driving an EV.
    Not sure that's correct, given that transport is, again, the #1 emitter, and that the grid is getting cleaner all the time.

    Again, I'd say it's ALL important.


    Quote:

    Unfortunately that will probably only come from top-down mechanisms rather than the grass roots types of things that environmentally minded individuals are able to do.

    And if you read this far, here's where most of my opinion was formed;

    https://www.asmr.us/Portals/0/Docume..._and_ASMR.pptx

    This is the presentation by the key note speaker at a mine reclamation conference I attended this summer. Many of the slides are also from the EIC, like Systemshock's, but posting them to this site is kinda tedious .
    Did you mean the EIA? And yes, interesting slideshow, thanks for sharing.
    .