Test Driving the Tesla Roadster

stacybro writes "Wired has an article about the Tesla Roadster. It is similar to other electric cars that we have seen in that the electric engine's serious torque will allow it to do 0-60mph in about 3 seconds. Part of what is different about this is that they are using over 6,831 laptop-type lithium-ion batteries. They are claiming the range is about 250 miles. As the battery tech for laptops improves, so will the range of these cars. The car will run about $80,000, which is about par for an exotic two-seater. So who is doing the poll on which tech CEO will be seen driving one first? My guess is one of the Google or E-Bay guys, since they are investors. It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency. It is odd that the big car companies aren't more on this track!"

Comments

Re:Over 6,831 batteries?

[solafide]

Eh, seems to me from reading the article that Mr. Submitter was just a little over-enthusiastic about using the word over; the article claims -exactly- 6,831 batteries.

Re:Sigh

[Jeff DeMaagd]

You do realize that a power plant is much more efficient than a car's combustion engine, right?

Exactly. Even with transmission losses, and losses due to charging and discharging, I bet this thing is considerably more efficient than a gasoline engine. What gasolene has as an advantage is that it's not so heavy with respect to the amount of power it has. And that batteries are expensive, have a very limited life span and possibly an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. There was a guy on Science Friday that suggested that we could convert to methanol use, it's easy to make from oil, it's easy to make from biomass, easy to haul and so on.

Re:where are the flying pieces of cars?

[RiffRafff]

Seriously, though, Li-ion? I shudder to think of how those will get disposed of, eventually."

Um, probably the same way you dispose of alkaline batteries. You throw them in the trash. Lithium-Ion batteries are classified as "non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream."

Or punture and flood with saltwater if you're paranoid.

"Discharge: with the cell or battery pack in a safe area, connect a moderate resistance across the terminals until the cell or battery pack is discharged. CAUTION: the cell or battery pack may be hot! Discard: puncture plastic envelope, immerse in salt water for several hours and place in regular trash."

Li-Ion and Li-Poly batteries are a non-problem if they're discharged, and they are environmentally friendly, to boot.

Ethanol from Switchgrass

[Anonymous Coward]

sr180 wrote:

The US does not have the environmental conditions to make sugar, and hence would have to make ethanol from corn, which is not energy productive.

sr180 , I agree 100%, that is why my original post linked to articles that show ethanol could be made in the United States from switchgrass .

For example, the article I linked from ABC News is entitled "Switch Grass: Alternative Energy Source?", and states:

By ADRIENNE MAND LEWIN

Feb. 1, 2006 -- It grows throughout the Great Plains and parts of the South, can be used to make ethanol -- an efficient and environmentally friendly fuel for cars -- and it has the potential to reduce the nation's dependence on oil.

Switchgrass is the perennial wonder plant touted by President Bush in Tuesday's State of the Union address and in his remarks made today in Nashville, Tenn., where he joked that he could have a new career in farming. "All of a sudden, you know, you may be in the energy business," Bush said. "You know, by being able to grow grass on the ranch and have it harvested and converted into energy. And that's what's close to happening." ...
David Bransby, a professor at Auburn University in Auburn, Ala., supervises research into ways to optimize switchgrass production. He told ABC News that researchers know how to grow, plant, harvest and deliver switchgrass, but now they need a market for it. And the biggest barrier to that is government policy.

Bransby said the Department of Energy will only fund a pilot project to produce energy using switchgrass, about 10 to 15 tons a day. There are no plans for commercial plants that could develop technology to convert switchgrass into ethanol on a large scale.

Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the Department of Energy, told ABC News that the government wants to make sure the projects are viable on a small scale before expanding. "We need to walk before we can run," Stevens said, "and we need to make sure these technologies work."
Ethanol as a fuel is nothing new. Dan Sperling, a professor at the University of California at Davis and director of its Institute of Transportation Studies, noted that even early Model T Fords used ethanol, and it's an ingredient in beer and wine.

Most ethanol produced in America is made from corn -- a less-efficient material than switchgrass -- but corn producers are supported by a large lobby and huge government subsidies. There is no similar lobby or investment for grass or wood.

"When you make ethanol from corn, for every gallon of fuel you get, you put in about seven-tenths of a gallon of fossil energy, oil or natural gas," he said. "That's only a small improvement in terms of greenhouse gases."

On the other hand, he said, "ethanol from cellulose [like switchgrass] is a great energy strategy because for every gallon of ethanol, a tiny amount of fossil material [is used.] There's a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gases, so from an energy perspective it's far superior."

"We've known this for a long time," Sperling said. "Why has nothing happened? Part of it is we do need more R and D [research and development], but I think what we really need is a commitment on the industry and business side to invest."

For the government's part, Bush's 2007 budget will include $150 million -- a $59 million increase over the fiscal year 2006 -- to help develop bio-based transportation fuels from agricultural waste products, such as wood chips, stalks or switchgrass.

"Corn is an OK source for ethanol," said Daniel Kammen, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley and director of its Institute of the Environment. "But if you really want to hit a home run, you need to go to cellulose."

Double sigh.... a Slashdot full of know-nothings.

[Anonymous Coward]

The full energy cycle of an electric vehicle is FAR more efficient than the full energy cycle of a gasoline powered car. But don't take my word for it, here's the research, rather than the usual "common sense" that passes for ill-informed criticism on slashnot these days.

I am constantly amazed by the anti-EV mindset that pervades Slashdot. Every time the subject comes up, INVARIABLY, someone claims that because EV's are powered by coal plants that there is something somehow wrong with that, like they would not still be a huge jump in both efficiency AND technology (power distribution issues like AWD, ABS, traction control, etc... with EV's they become *SOFTWARE* problems... perhaps I am just too old school for Slashdot, but I happen to think that is pretty cool).

Re:where are the flying pieces of cars?

[Zeinfeld]

They will be recycled. Almost all lead-acid batteries get recycled today, and lithium is far more valuable than lead.

Actually in recycling terms its not. Lithium batteries are not expensive because the raw materials are more expensive, its the cost of manufacture.

It makes much more sense to use Lithium Ion batteries in an electric car than lead and it is quite possible that this will be the way that some of the more exotic technologies are finaly made cheap enough to become mainstream.

Despite the number of Li batteries that go into laptops they are still a small fraction of the battery market because each battery lasts for many hundred cycles. The other problem is that every battery is custom and the production runs are tiny.

What may well make more sense than the all electric car is the Li battery based hybrid or even a battery/fuel cell all electric car.

One point I did not understand in the article is how or why they would be using a Tesla AC induction motor in a vehicle with a DC power source. This is surely a mistake, not least because the principle disadvantage of the Tesla design is that the motor only works at a single speed.

Re:80K?+batteries once a year

[himurabattousai]

Since you mentioned Mazda and Ford, type "hydrogen RX-8" into Google's search engine. The RX-8 uses a Wankel rotary engine, an engine that has the unique property of being flex-fuel, in this case the alternative fuel is hydrogen, without any modifications. Since Ford owns roughly one third of Mazda, they could use that engine in Ford-branded cars and have a nearly instant alternate-fuel vehicle. I imagine it could even be turned into a Prius-like hybrid, since the Wankel engine looks not much different than a generator--and since all the parts rotate in the same direction, the generator could be built right into the engine components itself.

Yes, you are correct in saying that auto companies are married to the internal combustion engine. Right now, they have to be. Americans expect their cars to be capable of certain things, and those expectations influence what they buy. Right now, electric cars (and hydrogen vehicles like the hydrogen RX-8) do not have the combination of capability and price to be mass-market vehicles. Until they reach that sweet spot, they will be nothing more than niche products. The research and investment shouldn't be stopped because of this, though. The best niche products have ways of becoming mainstream, and even if the Tesla roadster never makes it big, the accomplishment and lessons learned will have an impact on automobile technology before too long.

Re:Sigh

[dbIII]

I have no idea what the figures are, but nuclear has to be infinitely better for the environement than natuarl gas and coal.

That is the entire problem - we don't yet know what the figures are because a decent nuclear power plant design has not yet been developed. Pebble bed has the major safety issues sorted but does not scale up by design so is not a method of producing cheap energy yet, accelerated Thorium looks very good but is still many years away from a full sized prototype, and CANDU is popular in those parts of the world where they like the fact you can produce plutonium with it. Uranium enrichment is not easy and is very energy intensive but works out OK with very high grade ore - of which there is not a lot available, hence moves to Thorium.

Nuclear energy has the problem that it appears more money has been spent on advertising and misinformation than development and solving waste problems - the now successful synrock waste management project has probably had less spent on it over two decades than a year of advertising by the AEC. Ricidulous advocacy hype (clean Plutionium and Uranium hexaflouride that is too cheap to meter!) has been opposed by equally ridiculous opposition - so all you can do is ignore both and listen to people who believe in the laws of physics and the poor results from existing plants. Sadly it looks like we have a long way to go before nuclear power is viable outside situations like submarines, nations worried about naval blockades cutting their energy supplies and as a way to get weapons materials. Hands up all those that think Iran wants to reduce their dependance on oil or really think they can get cheaper energy with their nuclear program? Take it a step furthur and look at those promoting nuclear power in your country, then think about what they have to gain - in many cases it will be a creative way to get your tax money into their pocket while they build a 1950's white elephant to expensively boil water.

Re:Exploding Batteries?

[Emnar]

Liquid gasoline only explodes in Hollywood. You can drop a match into it and the match will go out.

Gasoline fumes, on the other hand, can definitely explode. While it's a fine distinction, it's an important one.

In fact, the technological advance which finally permitted combustion engines was figuring out how to vaporize gasoline so that it would burn.

Re:80K?+batteries once a year

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better, the prototype car *was* a Lotus Elise. A friend works for Tesla and told me about the Lotus. They used it as a demonstator to raise funding to do their Tesla full design.

Wrong Name for Car

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This car is not a true Tesla Car.

If it were, it would have no batteries at all. Instead it would gets it energy from some kind of wireless source like microwave power transmission or even the Earth's magnetic field.

Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper

[Quadraginta]

You make a good point, but there are maybe a few qualifications to the calculations. The lithium metal in a lithium-ion battery is only a small part of the mass of the battery. A typical electrolyte component might be LiPF_6. Only about 4% of the mass of this compound is lithium metal. Then there's the mass of the solvent, the electrodes, casing, et cetera -- all of which contribute to that 200 W-h/kg figure. Probably your final figure of lithium required for a 10% fleet replacement is 60-100 times too high.

Of course, that doesn't change your point that batteries generally are an expensive and inefficient way to store energy. Storing energy in chemical fuels is far cheaper and more efficient, and that's why it became the preferred energy-storage method for automobiles. It's not that way because our engineer ancestors were idiots, didn't understand batteries and electric motors, or because gasoline at the turn of the 20th century was as cheap and widely-available as it is now.

Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper

[Aladrin]

I was going to mod you insightful, but then I realized that some may not realize why.

The trick? The Tesla Roadster is powered by 6,831 rechargeable lithium-ion batteries -- the same cells that run a laptop computer.

They are not using laptop batteries, as you said, but instead using batteries that use lithium cells. They say they are the same cells, but they probably actually mean that they are the same kind of cells used in laptop batteries.

Anyhow, good call. I'm hoping others will read my post and rate yours insightful.

Re:where are the flying pieces of cars?

[RiffRafff]

In the states, only California requires non-hazardous batteries to be recycled for their materials.

It is just a modified Ariel Atom

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just an Ariel Atom with the motor removed and an electric and batteries put in.
http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/04/frames.htm

That being the case, I have seen this car put up against a sport bike on a closed course... and out did the bike in the TURNS. First turn the car went under the bike and never looked back.

Re:80K?+batteries once a year

[planetmn]

Wasn't the hybrid escape the first hybrid SUV?

-dave

Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper

[rsclient]

OK -- here's some basic terminology:

a "cell" is the fundimental unit of a battery. A "D" battery contains one cell -- and indeed, in old books was just called a "D cell" and never a "D battery". The "cell" is the fundimental battery unit because of chemistry.

A "battery" contains a bunch of cells. The actual word "battery" means "a bunch of identical things" -- so that a bunch of cannon all grouped together (for example) is a "battery" -- hence the existance of "Battery Park" in New York.

Thanks to the average person's inability to keep these concepts seperate (and the lack of a reason why they should be seperate), "battery" is now used to mean either a battery in the old-fashioned sense OR a cell in the old fashioned sense (but only if the cell is, as it were, individually wrapped). Once again crystal clear tech language is subverted. (Note to self: don't go on a wild tangent about dumb terminals)

The "battery" in your laptop contains a bunch of cells -- I see from Google that at least some laptops use batteries of 12 cells. The "batteries" in the Tesla contains exactly one cell and would be better termed "cells", except that (per above) language is changing.

A big chunk of the cost of buying batteries for your laptop are:
1. You aren't buying in bulk. Bulk is lots cheaper.
2. You are also buying specialized circuitry that inside of the
3. Expensive plastic

I would expect that your 90%-off-in-bulk isn't high enough. Add in another by-twelve factor, and the price-per-year drops even more.