Fisker Buzz Forums banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,975 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Some of the math is wrong and I also don't think he can just dismiss certain things as a "wash" - there is a lot of data available for life cycle analysis of products that he could have baked in. Also, I think I've seen most people say that 20.1kwh is usable, not the 17.7kwh he uses.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8htlT1PxJlo[/video]
 

·
EX:Shadow/Canyon #324
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
SoCalGuy said:
Some of the math is wrong and I also don't think he can just dismiss certain things as a "wash" - there is a lot of data available for life cycle analysis of products that he could have baked in. Also, I think I've seen most people say that 20.1kwh is usable, not the 17.7kwh he uses.
Nice to see that Brian is still an owner. I thought he was "Done with Fisker".
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
All-in-all, I think it's pretty well done. I agree that some things he simplifies as a wash aren't; for example the direct and indirect energy consumption and CO2 output for refining, storing and transporting petroleum is significantly (orders of magnitude?) greater than the cost of fueling powerplants. For one thing, coal power plants are primiarly supplied by rail, whereas your neighborhood Shell station is supplied by a semitruck. Rail is vastly more efficient. Plus, the volume of material to transport isn't comparable.

He also ignores some non-trivial costs to ICE cars, such as the ~0.01 per mile in oil changes and other consumables, and the depreciation of the ICE engine. Counting the full replacement cost of the battery ignores the residual value of the old battery as well, which may be significant.

Overall though, it's the most cogent attempt I've seen to dispassionately explain a compliacted subject. There are simply way too many variables and implicit assumptions to make a perfect comparison, but I think this does an admirable job.

Although I think he should have arbitrarily limited it to ownership for 10 years/100,000 miles, which I expect is about than the average meaningful useful life of an automobile these days.

Brent
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,662 Posts
LonePalmBJ said:
All-in-all, I think it's pretty well done. I agree that some things he simplifies as a wash aren't; for example the direct and indirect energy consumption and CO2 output for refining, storing and transporting petroleum is significantly (orders of magnitude?) greater than the cost of fueling powerplants. For one thing, coal power plants are primiarly supplied by rail, whereas your neighborhood Shell station is supplied by a semitruck. Rail is vastly more efficient. Plus, the volume of material to transport isn't comparable.

He also ignores some non-trivial costs to ICE cars, such as the ~0.01 per mile in oil changes and other consumables, and the depreciation of the ICE engine. Counting the full replacement cost of the battery ignores the residual value of the old battery as well, which may be significant.

Overall though, it's the most cogent attempt I've seen to dispassionately explain a compliacted subject. There are simply way too many variables and implicit assumptions to make a perfect comparison, but I think this does an admirable job.

Although I think he should have arbitrarily limited it to ownership for 10 years/100,000 miles, which I expect is about than the average meaningful useful life of an automobile these days.

Brent
I had a hard time taking him very seriously because he kept saying KiloWatt (KW) when he meant KiloWatt Hour (KWH). Even ignoring that problem, the math was too simplified to be of signifacnt value. Also, if this is a strict dollars abd cebts type analysis, what difference does it make that the Karma is a sexy sport car?
 

·
Early Adopter
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
SoCalGuy said:
Some of the math is wrong and I also don't think he can just dismiss certain things as a "wash" - there is a lot of data available for life cycle analysis of products that he could have baked in. Also, I think I've seen most people say that 20.1kwh is usable, not the 17.7kwh he uses.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8htlT1PxJlo[/video]
Good for Brian, he still does great videos and for the average person ,informative.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top