Slashdot Mirror


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!"

110 of 665 comments (clear)

  1. Global "Dependencies" by hotsauce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency.

    Now all we have to do is get rid of our electronics, consumer products and innovations dependencies, and we can tell the rest of the world to take a hike!

    If only all countries could have such a lack of inter-relatedness with their neighbors, imagine what a beautiful world it would be...

    1. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Donniedarkness · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I consider our reliance on oil much more "evil" than our reliance on electronics. PDA's aren't killing the earth quite as fast as cars are ^_^

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    2. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I consider our reliance on oil much more "evil" than our reliance on electronics. PDA's aren't killing the earth quite as fast as cars are ^_^

      Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity, you're just replacing one evil for the other.

      Yes, I'm aware of Nucular, Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Natrual Gas. Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:Global "Dependencies" by bman08 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yes, but it's a centralized problem.

    4. Re:Global "Dependencies" by kypper · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nucular

      George? Is that you?

    5. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree, Powerplants have already been showen to be a solvable problem. So if we get rid of the oil dependencies then you technically have a complete end to end solution already, you just need to actually implement the required technology.

    6. Re:Global "Dependencies" by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cleaning up the emmissions from a hundred plants is easier the cleaning up the emissions from a hundred million cars. Cheaper too.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    7. Re:Global "Dependencies" by superdude72 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, I'm aware of Nucular, Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Natrual Gas. Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today.

      The US has vast reserves of coal. We wouldn't have to rely on the Middle East. And it is easier to cut pollution from relatively few centralized sources than it is from hundreds of millions of cars. And if something better than coal comes along, it's easier to switch relatively few power plants than hundreds of millions of cars. Etc, etc.

      I'm going to give you a pass on "nucular" because a dictionary guy I heard on the radio said it's a regionalism, not barbarism that is like nails on a chalkboard to educated people.

    8. Re:Global "Dependencies" by mandos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As far as I'm concerned supporting "domestic evil" would be better then "foreign evil". We don't import coal like oil, so using coal actually helps our economy. And for any problems that arise with coal, they will all be with bounds of US law and law enforcement. Also it's easier to clean up 100s of large coal power plants then it is to clean up millions of cars.

      Yes there are better solutions then coal, but we have over 50% of our power coming from coal, so improving coal will happen quicker then scrapping the system and replacing it with other systems (solar concentrators, tidal, wind, or other low eviroment impact systems). The is no reason we can't do both and enjoy both short term and long term gains. They're not mutually exclusive.

      --
      Mike Scanlon
    9. Re:Global "Dependencies" by this+great+guy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity

      Has already happened in my home country, which generates 79% of its energy in nuclear power plants. Now can I get my electric car ? ;-)

    10. Re:Global "Dependencies" by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today.

      Today.
      Today.
      Today.
      FUCKING Today.
      You can see past today, can't you?
      I'm so sick of people who can't see past today.
      It does matter, if you can see past today.
    11. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Alien+Being · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So simple, yet so wrong.

      Cleaning up the emissions from a hundred million cars means telling a hundred million peons that they are responsible for maintaining one vehicle. That's simple compared to telling a hundred lobbyist-paying energy companies to maintain one power plant.

      Just look at the White House's Clear Skies program. It allows antique coal plants, which were supposed to be phased out in favor of cleaner ones, to increase their capacity without being subject to the regulations on new plants.

      Gasoline cars in the U.S. are cleaner than electric power plants.

    12. Re:Global "Dependencies" by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity, you're just replacing one evil for the other.
      With better battery storage it doesn't matter much where the electricity comes from and when - the car could be charging up with solar power in the carpark in the day or with wind when it is blowing, or offpeak when the base load stations are running as low as they can but no-one wants to use the electricity.

      Battery power isn't about saving energy anyway, it's often about shifting the pollution to a big facility that can handle it instead of having heavy pollution control equipment to move about. The first hybrid car I saw, back in 1987, embodied this principle and was designed to work at an underground mine. Above ground it ran on fuel, but below ground you wanted to minimise the air pollution as much as possible so it ran on batteries.

      Personally I think the compelling area for electric vehicles as technology improves is as farming equipment or transport in remote areas - charge things up on wind, solar or whatever is handy instead of trucking in a lot of fuel.

    13. Re:Global "Dependencies" by LS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *sigh*, you really are a "rainman", just staring at your own nose and spouting back facts. You know, when I saw the mention in this article that this could help reduce dependency on oil, I specifically skimmed the posts to find someone who would bring up your tired point, and then berate them. But alas I have not the energy, and a couple others have already shot you down. Ok, i can't resist. We are talking HYPOTHETICALS... i.e. replacing internal combustion with battery power. This has not happened yet on a wide scale. It's a "WHAT IF" and a WISH for the future. While we are in the realm of "WHAT IF" we might as well also hypothesize that the coal plants are replaced with other forms of clean centralized energy. Here's an analogy of your thought process: "We should put parents who abuse their children into prison". Your response: "But the children will be alone at home, who will take care of them?" You're not looking at the big picture. What is your solution? That we just sit and wait, and not try to innovate? Every industry should just wait in lock-step for everyone else to come up to speed at the same exact moment in time?

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    14. Re:Global "Dependencies" by UngodAus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I revoke that pass. It's not a nucules, it's a nucleus. Regionalism or not, it's still wrong.

    15. Re:Global "Dependencies" by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because this administration is unable to pass a law mandating cleaner emissions from power plants that does not mean others won't. Yes the republicans are very beholden to energy companies and this administration is doubly so. Furthermore this administration is openly hostile to any environmental legislation no matter how minor. Future administration will in all likelhood be more responsible then this one, not just for the environment but all around. I can't imagine any administration that could be more inept or stupid then this one.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    16. Re:Global "Dependencies" by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      While we are in the realm of "WHAT IF" we might as well also hypothesize that the coal plants are replaced with other forms of clean centralized energy. Here's an analogy of your thought process: "We should put parents who abuse their children into prison". Your response: "But the children will be alone at home, who will take care of them?" You're not looking at the big picture. What is your solution? That we just sit and wait, and not try to innovate? Every industry should just wait in lock-step for everyone else to come up to speed at the same exact moment in time?

      Yeah, you tell 'em! Forget about pragmatism and we'll create our own reality. Feasability? Screw it. Net environmental effect of the technology? Who needs to analyze anything when we've got dreamers! There's no point in looking at our world for how it is when we can see it like we want it to be.

      The analogy that you provided about abusive parents is exactly the kind of absolutism that I disagree with -- and there's plenty of it to go around. What about when the definition of child abuse gets murky? What about when you've got a kid in an otherwise 'good' home, where the parents (for example) are pot smokers? Does it make sense to subject the kid to 'the system' by sticking them in a foster home (at best)? In the United States, it's not uncommon for child services to consider parents like that unfit. Absolutes don't work so well in a dynamic world.

      In any case, we've already got an idealistic executive administration in the US who tends to think in black-and-white. Frankly, I think that we would do well with a bit of measured analysis.

      To get back to the discussion, there's nothing wrong with trying to innovate, and I'm not seeing that argument anywhere. You're using a straw-man argument. However, there are plenty of hurdles which must be overcome when talking about electric cars...and it's important to recgonize that the electric car is no panacea for our environmental/political/economic ills. It just moves the problem elsewhere, and would continue to for the forseeable future. If it were really economically feasible, every major auto manufacturer would be selling an electric car right now.

      Personally, I'm more interested in diesel power (utilizing vegetable-based fuel). The technology is already 100% available, very well developed, mass produced, and it can utilize the existing distribution infrastructure without serious modifications (I think that oil pipelines would need some help, however). Burning vegetable-based fuel also releases zero net greenhouse gas, since all carbon released into the atmosphere was originally metabolized from the atmosphere. Are there drawbacks? Certainly -- among other things, there is a poor public perception of diesel engines power and torque charasteristic, of being smelly, and having hard-to-find fuel. The former two have been resolved though development: Diesel emissions (as well as the sulphur odor) have been greatly reduced, and an Audi diesel race car won Le Mans last year, partly by churning out massive amounts of torque while maintaining better fuel economy than every other car in its class.

      Again, getting back to the point, there is nothing wrong with pragmatism. In fact, the best way to deal with idealogues is to share a bit of reality. If you really believe in this, and this is truly an engineering problem, why not embrace the naysayers? Why not help find a solution to the real problems with the technology in question rather than smugly berate them in public? Your attempts to berate aren't convincing anyone of anything (except for the people who already share your ideals).

      --

      -Turkey

    17. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Cobralisk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does the US know about this arsenal you're developing? Everybody knows nuclear power plants are just a front for WMDs.

      --
      Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
    18. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm going to give you a pass on "nucular"

      It was planted there deliberately. I know how to spell nuclear -> I just giggle every time Dubya says nucular. No it isn't a regional thing, any more than ebonics is. It's an excuse to justify presidential stupidity.

      It isn't a nuculus. Ergo it isn't nucular.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    19. Re:Global "Dependencies" by amorsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wind? No. Not enough land to do it effeciently.

      Of course there is. It's not like the land between windmills suddenly becomes useless for farming. Winds largest problem is that it's unreliable, so there will be times of low production, but that would not be a big issue for cars. Cars are standing still most of the time, so they can basically charge when there is wind.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    20. Re:Global "Dependencies" by this+great+guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Nuclear? Too much radioactive waste. Yes I realize we've made some vast improvements in nuclear tech.

      Do you have any idea of the volume of radioactive waste produced by the whole world over a 1-year period ? It is much smaller than what you think. Search for it and I'll promise you will change your mind after knowing it. No I won't give you the response here, I want to make you change your mind by yourself ;-)

    21. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity, you're just replacing one evil for the other.


      Sure, but your situation is nonetheless much improved. Why? Because if your infrastructure now runs on electricity instead of oil, you have many different options to choose from for generating that electricity. There aren't very many ways to generate oil.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    22. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Gasoline cars in the U.S. are cleaner than electric power plants.

      I subscribe to my power company's optional wind power program. This means that the electricity I use at home was sourced from a windfarm.

      How is that not cleaner than burning gasoline? I'd love to be able to plug my next car in overnight and never have to visit a gas station again - and knowing that my day-to-day energy use was 100% sustainable.

      Although admittedly the power company wouldn't have the capacity for this if everyone had an electic car, their windpower allotment is already currently full. But stuff like this is a start.

    23. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Quadraginta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well...it's kind of like the fact that I don't mind that my local cop carries a loaded .38, but I wouldn't be at all happy if the local 14-year-old gangbanger with a crystal meth problem carried one.

    24. Re:Global "Dependencies" by HaydnH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I subscribe to my power company's optional wind power program. This means that the electricity I use at home was sourced from a windfarm."

      I doubt that very much, I think what they mean is that the sum of elecricity you and the others on the program use at home is equal to that the company produces by their windfarms - the actual energy you personally use will probably be a mixture of all of their power plants outputs... unless you have a seperate cable running straight to the wind turbines of course!

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
    25. Re:Global "Dependencies" by cnettel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one raises an eyebrow right now, since it's 50 years too late to stop the French nuclear arsenal.

    26. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Has already happened in my home country, which generates 79% of its energy in nuclear power plants.

      Yeah, and over 99% of ours is by hydroelectric power (Norway), but you need some more global scale to get it going. That is, if you could increase your nuclear power plants enough to actually meet demand. Around here we have too little power, but gas power plants are polluting so we export gas and import electricity *rolls eyes*. Apparently pollution doesn't exist if it's not domestic.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    27. Re:Global "Dependencies" by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We don't import coal like oil, so using coal actually helps our economy.

      American coal is not clean-burning enough (low in sulfur) to use in industrial power generation, as far as I'm aware.

      solar concentrators, tidal, wind, or other low eviroment impact systems

      Wind isn't really low impact. We just think it is because we do it on such a small scale. If we got significant quanities of power from wind we'd actually slow down the wind sufficiently to fuck up the climate even more than we currently do. Every time you use windmills to harness the wind you are effectively sucking energy directly out of the climate.

    28. Re:Global "Dependencies" by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, you tell 'em! Forget about pragmatism and we'll create our own reality. Feasability? Screw it. Net environmental effect of the technology? Who needs to analyze anything when we've got dreamers! There's no point in looking at our world for how it is when we can see it like we want it to be.

      Well, I don't see a necessary conflict between looking forward and pragatism. It's helpful sometimes to "assume" the existence of a thing, in a tentative way, because it allows you to think about the potential value of searching for that thing. Where it becomes unpragmatic is when you assume that thing is going to spring into existence because you wish it to be. Yet is equally dangerous to dismiss all change becuase we don't know the details in advance.

      I think we are approaching a shift in the world's energy use. It's like waiting for an earthquake to generate a tsunami; inevitably it's going to come, but nobody can say precisely when. Uncertainties, such as whether a technology will be developed to extract heavy crude deposits, introduce decades of uncertainty into when the shift will occur. Thinking about, and planning for this shift takes resources away from current needs, and so it is easy to think of it as unpragmatic. However, I suspect that when a shift comes, it won't be a surprise that it came, but it will be a surprise when it came and how quickly.

      WRT electric power, the key is that electricty isn't an energy source. It's a medium for transmitting energy. The great benefit of this is that it can come from many sources and put to many uses. It's helpful to "assume" a replacement for coal fired plants, because while we know no such replacement exists yet, there is no reason in physics why such a thing could not be. In fact, there may be no single satisfactory replacment for coal. As there may be no single satisfactory replacement for petroleum either. If that is the case, electricity is going to be a key part of the strategy for dealing with that. Even if we were to put in hydrogen pipelines to everybody's house, it doesn't fundamentally change things. Hydrogen is a method of storing and transmitting energy.

      However, there are plenty of hurdles which must be overcome when talking about electric cars...and it's important to recgonize that the electric car is no panacea for our environmental/political/economic ills

      Yes, but I'm deeply suspicious of the phrase "no panacea", because it's often trotted out in a way that suggests that if some form of progress doesn't solve all our problems, it is worthless.

      This bears on your point of net environmental effects. What we need is a rational framework to think about them. But it's harder than it sounds. I once worked for an organization trying to help universities teach this. "Systems" thinking really isn't anything special. It's just broadening the scope of your reasoning to include effects you hadn't considered or intended. When you do this you tend to find that nothing is as good as you might hope, but on the other side few things are as bad as you might fear.

      People point out the fact that electric cars just shift emissions from tailpipes to distant smokestacks. This is true. But it's not a conclusive argument. You have to crunch the numbers. And even after you've done that, you don't have the entire story. the importance of the electric car is that it creates options. It has been remarked that the definition of a bad policy is that it leaves you with no good options. It seems to me a good policy is one that leaves open many options. That is why electricity is so important; it is the most versatile and adaptable medium we have.

      I agree that biodiesel is an intriguing option. It is, in effect, a method of storing and transmitting solar energy. The carbon molecules are recycled. But I'm not prepared to pin all our hopes on it.

      A key point to remember is that scale is a big part of assessiong enviornmental impact. The second gigawatt of tidal power

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    29. Re:Global "Dependencies" by archen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      American coal is not clean-burning enough (low in sulfur) to use in industrial power generation, as far as I'm aware.

      You're right and wrong. It's not clean burning, and we DO use it for industrial power generation. I lived right next to two power plants that burned lignite. When the parent says it's easier to clean a couple powerplants than a bunch of cars, I'm not sure he's completenly aware of the issues with burning dirty coal on a large scale. Now if we could get our energy out of coal in a few other ways I've heard of, it seams plausible, but just burning it I would think would be a wash.

      I don't think sucking power from the climat is a big issue right now since we're already dumping tons of energy into it. In fact right now that might be the best thing to reduce some of that energy. You also have to consider that trees also absorbe a large ammount of energy from wind, but with global deforistation windmills will probably not even offset a fraction of the energy trees traditionally absorbed.

    30. Re:Global "Dependencies" by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

      We're not helping the situation by pointing the finger at one particular party. After all, Jimmy Carter was beholden to the cardigan sweater industry!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  2. Exploding Batteries? by glowworm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am left wondering if this car is involved in an accident if the batteries will vent like the recent /. articles suggest.

    Exploding Dells, fires on planes, and soon at an intersection near you... cars venting more flame than the batmobile.

    --
    Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
    1. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Much safer to use something like 15 gallons of liquid petrolium distillate that is highly inflammable at room temperature.

      --
      All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
    2. Re:Exploding Batteries? by topham · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Last time I checked cars don't explode while driving down the street; while it seems laptops might...

      (And with over 6 thousand batteries one might expect a failure rate of 1 in 10000 to be a little high...

    3. Re:Exploding Batteries? by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny

      Notice the fast acceleration. Maybe this car uses a lithium-ion Orion drive, where the force of exploding batteries drives the car forward forcefully.

    4. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Sinistrad_D · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Looks like the company that is manufacturing the batteries has replaced graphite with a "Lithium Titanium Oxide" that they've tested and claim doesn't have the smoking, venting, or explosive problems of normal lithium ion batteries. Here is a link to a rather informative article about the battery technology that will be used in the Tesla:

      http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/07/ altair_batterie.html

      I mean based on the stuff I've read about the founders of the company and a lot of the people who have invested in it (i.e. Elon Musk, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, etc.) I feel I'll wait and see before passing any judgement.
    5. Re:Exploding Batteries? by TheShadowzero · · Score: 3, Funny

      Since when do laptops drive down the street? Damn, better keep a better eye on mine...

      --
      If history repeats itself, why can't we study the future?
    6. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Emnar · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:Exploding Batteries? by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Funny
      Last time I checked cars don't explode while driving down the street; while it seems laptops might...

      Don't you watch movies ? Cars explode as soon as all of their wheels are off the ground.

    8. Re:Exploding Batteries? by agingell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can I strongly suggest that NOBODY tries this at home. Gasoline in its liquid state will always have fumes above it at room temperature, and throwing a match into it will definitely result in a very severe fire!

      The match going out comment in more usually attributed to Diesel fuels, Kerosene and paraffin, which have a much higher flash point, and a higher boiling point. This means there is little vapor above the liquid and they are not likely to be ignited by a lighted match. It usually requires a wick to make fuel Oils burn e.g. a rag etc. or alternatively high temp and pressure such as in a diesel engine or gas turbine.

      So please be careful!

    9. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Liquid gasoline only explodes in Hollywood. You can drop a match into it and the match will go out.
      Is anyone else here familiar with the expression 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'? I would urge anyone here to avoid following the above smug-and-soon-to-be-badly-burned idiot's advice.

      At normal temperatures, gasoline has a vapour pressure sufficient that there will be a flammable vapour above any standing liquid gasoline. The flashpoint of gasoline is -40 (that's minus forty) degrees; at any temperature above that there can be sufficient vapour present to ignite and explode.

      Under some conditions (for example, a confined container with a narrow neck and little air circulation) you might get the gasoline vapour to displace enough oxygen that it won't be able to burn. The upper explosive limit for gasoline is about 8%; above that level combustion will cease rapidly because the available oxygen will be depleted.

      If you really insist on doing a drop-a-match-in-the-fuel experiment, use diesel fuel. The flashpoint of diesel is a little bit more than 60 degrees Celsius (about 140 F) and so won't form a flammable vapour mixture in air unless you're storing it really warm.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  3. Lithium-Ion? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would hate to see the devestation after a head on collision.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Lithium-Ion? by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the batteries are damaged, how does one shut them down? Once you short a lithium battery there is no stopping the reaction - no practical way, anyhow. Almost 7,000 of them in a confined space will lead to an interesting chain reaction if just one in that cluster gets damaged. It'd be a fun fire to watch at night though, especially if firefighters douse the burning vehicle with water.

      As much as I dislike NiMH due to their rapid self-discharge rate, they look like a safer bet for automobiles.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Lithium-Ion? by Locutus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As much as I dislike NiMH due to their rapid self-discharge rate, they look like a safer bet for automobiles.

      Unfortunately the oil industry owns the patent on NiMH and has already attempted to shut down Toyotas use of the battery tech. Lucky for Toyota that the Prius currently is 49% electric and 51% ICE powered. This is because the license for NiMH only allows upto "D"-cell sized batteries when used in vehicles predominantly powered by electric power.

      So, if you want to make an electric vehicle with NiMH batteries, you're going to lose alot of space between all those D-cell batteries you'll need. IMO.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  4. where are the flying pieces of cars? by artifex2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here in Texas, where I suspect temperatures exceed battery design, I think this idea will bomb spectacularly.

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

    1. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I shudder to think of how those will get disposed of, eventually.

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

    2. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by RiffRafff · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    3. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    4. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by RiffRafff · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
  5. Pricy, but.... by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A 250 mile range gets an electric car into the "very practical" range IMO. Now the challenge is to get the price down to something acceptable. Range has always been the biggest downside of electrics and the reason I would never consider one. However if I can have something with the sized between a Mini and a Civic and be able to easily commute to work AND not pay through the nose for it, I'm in.

    --
    There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
    1. Re:Pricy, but.... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can get used to a lower range, easily. My Honda motorcycle has a range of about 150 miles. It doesn't bother me one bit. Every one of those miles is 1000x more fun than any car-driven mile, even if I do have to fuel up once per week instead of once every other week.

      Fuel economy could be better though. 35 MPG isn't much better than many cars.

    2. Re:Pricy, but.... by mad.frog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on your use case. Two-car households may differ.

      My wife and I have two cars, but one of 'em is used 90% of the time just for commuting over the Bay Bridge and back... let's say 25 miles roundtrip. I could easily make do with a 100 mile range for that car. 250 would be even better. 3 hours to recharge? That's what "overnight" is for.

      A car like this sounds appealing. If this guy can keep production quality high (unlike, say, the Corbin Sparrow), he can probably sell as many as he can make.

    3. Re:Pricy, but.... by drsquare · · Score: 2, Funny
      3 hours to recharge? That's what "overnight" is for.
      I think a common prank would develop whereby you'd pull out the charging cord of people's cars during the night so they run out of charge on the way to work the next morning.
  6. Sigh by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency.

    Oil isn't the problem, ENERGY is. So instead of burning oil everwhere, we'll be burning more coal in a few places. Maybe this is the kind of thing we need to turn public sentiment away from the greenies and get some more nuclear power plants built.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Sigh by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Sigh by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe. And, I believe one of the founders of Greenpeace or Sierra Club has come out in favor of nuclear power, as you suggest.

      Yes, he has. And for his trouble, the remaining members of Greenpeace shrilly scream that he's a traitor and shill for the oil industry, etc, blah blah.

      The real problem is that the people who oppose nukes are bound together more by their general political loopiness than they are by actual, real, rational environmental/energy issues. So when they see one of their own taking up a different messages, they excommunicate them idealogically - never mind the practical issues at hand.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Sigh by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

  7. The time is right? by grapeape · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There have been some great inovations in vehicles over the years which have been supressed and even shut down by the big auto companies in the past, but with current technology its hard to keep information and good innovation down. Perhaps with the help of the internet this company has a chance of not going the way of the Tucker.

    1. Re:The time is right? by Will_Malverson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would car companies supress innovations in vehicles? They'll gladly sell you anything that you're willing to pay them for, so long as what you're willing to pay is higher than their cost of producing it.

    2. Re:The time is right? by Will_Malverson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do the math on it. Imagine that GM had access to some magical technology that would double (triple?) gas mileage, or allow them to create an electric car with a 300 mile range and a 2-minute recharge time. Figure out how much that technology would be worth to GM -- and therefore how much you'd have to pay them to not use it. Figure out how much profit an oil company (or parent company with an interest in oil) would lose if such technology were introduced, and therefore the maximum that they'd be willing to spend to supress the technology. Under any reasonable set of starting conditions, the former is always greater than the latter.

      Maybe they wouldn't need to be bribed. Maybe threats or captitalist solidarity would cause them to choose not to put the new technology in their car. In that case, though, Ford might. Or Kia. Or BMW. Or Ferrari. Or Honda. Or some car company in India that you've never heard of. Or John Deere might find out about it and get into the car business. There are easily a hundred companies in the world that could exploit such a technology if they knew of its existence.

  8. Now that's a car by kimvette · · Score: 3, Funny
    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.


    Now THAT's a car that'll hit the market with a bang! Not only do you have the instant response of electric motors and full torque from a dead stop, but you will also get rocket assist when you put a heavy load on the Li-ion batteries!
    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  9. Over 6,831 batteries? by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Funny
    Part of what is different about this is that they are using over 6,831 laptop type lithium-ion batteries
    Over 6831? You mean 6832 batteries?
    1. Re:Over 6,831 batteries? by solafide · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  10. Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by loose+electron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever comes up with a significant advance in battery technology will die a very rich person.

    Li-Ion batteries have excellent amp-hour ratings for their size, but like all other batteries are still pretty limited.

    Acceleration/Torque for electric cars is not a problem. High performance capabilities are there if you want them. However, you are playing battery energy against performance against distance, and all electrics, or fuel-electric hybrids have been designed to be "green" in their approach. (Any Hummer oweners want an environmentally aware vehicle?)

    Right now the weakest link in many electronic systems is the energy source. A good solution there and you can be a very wealty person.

    --
    www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
    1. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by hotspotbloc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How about a different type of hybrid:

      - enough batteries for ~50 miles.
      - a small (100cc) biodiesel engine running at a fixed and preset RPM connected to a small generator. The engine would be set to run at the peak of it's power curve.
      - a small ~10L fuel tank.
      - an AC charging circuit

      This would allow the driver to run on electric most of the day and charge on the road when needed. One could also use a gasoline engine instead of biodiesel and still see big fuel operating savings since some wall recharging would take place. It would also greatly decrease the number of batteries needed.

      This is a really old idea. I saw something like this (on a much larger scale) on an USCG cutter (WLB-389) that was built in 1943. Two diesels -> two generators -> one electric motor. Worked great and it could double as a light ship.

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  11. Forget batteries, go with Ethanol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If we here in the United States are serious about removing dependence on foreign oil, shouldn't we follow the Brazillian model and switch 100% to ethanol rather than wasting time with batteries?

    More info:

    -NPR
    -Carnegie-Mellon
    -ABC News (why corn ethanol is not so great), and which points out:

    For consumers, switching to ethanol would cost only about $100 per car. Kammen said all it takes are some new hoses and a new gas cap. "This is actually a switch we could make very easily and very quickly," he said.

    Kammen is working to get an initiative on California's November ballot requiring that all new cars sold in the state be flex-fuel ready within five years. According to UC Berkeley, in 2004, ethanol-blended gasoline accounted for just 2 percent of all fuel sold in the United States, though nearly 5 million vehicles are already equipped.

    "Converting to fuel ethanol will not require a big change in the economy," Kammen said. "We are already ethanol ready. If ethanol were available on the supply side, the demand is there."


    An interesting report on "locking down CO2 emissions" can be found at
    The News Hour with Jim Lehrer

    1. Re:Forget batteries, go with Ethanol by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only problem is, is that farmers are greedy by necesity of desparation. Except for small family farms who exploit their children rather than tech for yield increases, most farmers grow their crops on petrol products because they cannot afford not to. They dump them in the fields, they run it through outragously inefficient equipment. More petrol is spent growing bio-mass used in ethenol production than is produced. The whole industry is propped up by government transfer payments.

      The solution is undoubtedly in electric cars. The only point of debate is where the power comes from to drive the motors. Some claim petrol-electric hybrids, others hydrogen--be it combustion or via fuel cells, and there are those who think we can hold the power in batteries and just plugin when we get home. The most promising tech for the present is likely the plugable petrol-electric hybrid. It's not the most glamorous but it is far closer to the budget of the average person than any of the others and it's readily available today.

      --Neth

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:Forget batteries, go with Ethanol by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some claim petrol-electric hybrids, others hydrogen--be it combustion or via fuel cells...

      ...The most promising tech for the present is likely the plugable petrol-electric hybrid. It's not the most glamorous but it is far closer to the budget of the average person than any of the others and it's readily available today.


      But: you get hydrogen very inefficiently through the use of enormous amounts of electricity, which is currently being produced mostly through burning coal. Start using hydrogen in your car, you'll start burning that much more coal and natural gas at the electric plants. Your plug-in hybrids introduce the same problem.

      They only viable solution is more nuclear power plants. A LOT more.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  12. 80K?+batteries once a year by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I would wager that this vehicle is more like a Lotus Elise, or a Corvette, or even a S2000, all of which can be had for under 50K. Any performance benefits over those sports cars can be attributed to the natural advantage of this car, namely that you can go from 0-60 without switching gears, and it is easier to get it perfectly balanced without an engine. Anyway, The true test of a sports cars, as opposed to just a fast car, is the handling, which was not mentioned in review. Without proper handling, it becomes a Mustang at 30K.

    Which is to say we are still in the same world, in which low volumes and other issues cause electric cars to be 50%-100$ higher than traditional cars. All that seems to have happened here is that an electric car has been targeted to the high end market and priced accordingly. It is kind of like taking the hummer, putting a cheap truck base on it, calling it an H2, and pretending that it still has the dubious value of the original.

    Oh well, I suppose if they can build a sedan for 35K I would be impressed. We would also have to look at maintenance cost of the vehicle, which would be dominated by the battery replacement. A sports car car easily run 20 cents/mile in maintenance. Knowing that laptop batteries can only handle a couple hundred charge cycles, one can image where the long term maintenance cost could approach three or four time that amount.

    I wish we had electric cars. I think the technology is there, and the pricing could be reasonable. But even companies that could be using the electric car to revive themselves, for instance Mazda and Ford, still seem to be married to the antiquated internal combustion engine.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 2, Funny
      Which is to say we are still in the same world, in which low volumes and other issues cause electric cars to be 50%-100$ higher than traditional cars.
      Since you usually write "a-b" in such a way, that a is smaller than b, you have some cheap ass cars ... from 50 percent to 100$ more expensive. That means the car, at most, costs 200$. Damn.
      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    2. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by palndrumm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anyway, The true test of a sports cars, as opposed to just a fast car, is the handling

      The good news there is that he was hiring lots of engineers from Lotus - they've been the guys you call when trying to develop a good handling car for a long time now...

    3. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by himurabattousai · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      --
      "osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
    4. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by ChronosWS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are some excellent points here. People get all excited because some electric car is now faster that some car the author thinks is defined purely by its acceleration from 0-60. And most slashdotters, I would bargain, are persuaded by such arguments because they are similarly uneducated. Sports cars like the Porsche Carerra and the Bugatti Veyron (mentioned in a related article) are consummate sports cars - they exemplify not only speed but styling, handling and quality expected of a car with their price tag. Cars such as the Corvette, especially the most recent incarnation, do so relatively inexpensively. But regardless, 0-60 acceleration is not the most important statistic, and often isn't an important statistic at all EXCEPT to people who don't know better (I refer the undereducated to the more useful 0-100-0 or 0-150-0 tests, as well as relevant agility tests such as emergency lane change, slalom and skid pad.) Electric cars will be desirable when they meet the following conditions met by existing cars - price (under 30k), features (styling, interior, gizmos), convenience (fueling in under 5 minutes.) This car does not appear to meet any of those.

    5. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by planetmn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wasn't the hybrid escape the first hybrid SUV?

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    6. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by goatan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's a sports car probably the single must important aspect is Fun not necessarily how fast or quick it is but how much fun it is to drive, as it is based on an Elise's VVA it should be both quick and fun to drive as well as doing well on the tests you talk about.

      Electric cars will be desirable when they meet the following conditions met by existing cars - price (under 30k), features (styling, interior, gizmos), convenience (fuelling in under 5 minutes.) This car does not appear to meet any of those.

      of those only one is important for a sports car styling and it looks nice enough. Convenience (not just fuelling) Price, interior, gizmos are not usually considerations of sports car buyers in the first place otherwise current models wouldn't sell well.

      I actually think starting of with a small low production volume sports car might be an astute choice as this means they will not be trying to compete with major manufacturers, this car could do for Electric cars what the Elise did for Lotus i.e. provide a profitable product from which other more mainstream advances can be made.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

  13. battery life degradation? by knBIS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After a year or two of serious use my laptop batteries last about 1/2 as long as they originally did... And those things are pretty damn expensive to replace.. i would guess that a large percentage of the price is going to pay for all the batteries. What happens when they don't hold their charge anymore?

  14. Re:Umm... by gnu-sucks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know what's odd about this -- that's roughly $10/battery.

    I saw we buy one and part it out on ebay...

  15. Re:roadsters by lionheart1327 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's a good reason that this is a roadster.
    That most electric cars are billed as roadsters.

    1. It's going to cost around $80,000 no matter what you do.
    The parts are just that expensive.
    So they need to classify it as something that is already that expensive to be competivite.

    2. Electric engines have an intrinsically very high accelleration rate.
    This isn't even really something you can turn off.
    The sedan version of this is still going to accelerate faster than a porsche.

    So if it has to be expensive, and high accelleration is built it, you might as well call it a roadster.
    Its the only chance you have of making it appealing for somebody.

  16. Re:Umm... by Voice+of+Meson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Put it another way... It only cost $80K and it has similar acceleration to the Ferrari Enzo!

    Plus it's only a prototype. How can you be negative about that? Are the batteries made from harp seal eyes or something?

    --
    Dammit! I had a good one.
  17. Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by sanman2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just imagine how much you'd save. Firstly, cost per mile is cheaper, based on what you pay for electricity out of your socket compared to buying gas. Nextly, electric motors are a simpler setup that don't need all that maintenance. You could drive that thing for a much longer time without even needing any repairs. No lube jobs needed, and with

    All you have to do is replace the batteries, probably once a year. And if the newer-technology ultra-capacitors get used, then you wouldn't have to replace them ever. You could have a vehicle that might require no maintenance at all for the life of the car.

    But gee, I'd hate to get hit from behind because I didn't hear the damn thing coming. You'd have to build some kind of noise-maker into it. Also, what about accidental electrocutions? Could you get electrocuted in an accident? Could people maliciously misuse that kind of mobile power source to zap people they don't like?

    1. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could people maliciously misuse that kind of mobile power source to zap people they don't like?

      Uh ... you think that this possibility is somehow more dangerous than the current situation, where everyone is driving around with a tank of explosives under them? Where anybody who doesn't like you could get a jerry can, a gallon of petrol, and a barbecue lighter, and melt your flesh off? Or burn your house down? Blow your car up?

      Don't be ridiculous. Electric cars have enough problems without inventing inane ones for them.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Brett+Johnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > All you have to do is replace the batteries, probably once a year...

      There is the rub. Replacing the battery on my laptop costs USD 100. The Tesla roadster uses 6831 laptop batteries. I would estimate that half the $80,000 cost of the roadster is batteries.

    3. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by shawb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "All you have to do is replace the batteries, probably once a year." From the summary, the car runs on 6,831 laptop style lithium ion batteries. A quick froogle search reveals that a replacement lithium ion laptop battery runs around $90 - $150. Let's assume $100/battery. Since you'd be buying in bulk and using batteries designed for this purpose, I'll give you a 90% reduction in cost (overly generous) which puts you at $10/battery. That means your annual battery replacement is almost $70,000 (I.E. most of the price of the car.) And we haven't even charged the batteries yet. Most people I know with anything approaching a reasonable car fill up maybe once a week for under $50.00/tank. That puts you at $2,500 annual fuel cost, add in a quite generous $1,000 for maintenance and repairs, and $1,000 a month for insurance and loan payment brings you to a little over $15,000 annual cost of driving a relatively decent newish car. So, assuming a lithium ion battery pack lasts four years, it would still be cheaper to own and operate, and insure a gasoline powered internal combustion vehicle than to simply change the batteries on this car. And I'd be willing to place a decent size wager that trying to outfit any significant portion of U.S. vehicles (Let's say... 10%) with lithium ion batteries will cause a tremendous surge in demand for lithium, driving prices sky high. In fact, I'll do the math. Lithium has a specific energy density of up to about 200 Wh/Kg. Many major electric vehicles use around 300 Wh/mile, so I'll be generous and say 1 Kg of lithium storage will get a driver 1 mile before recharging. American passenger vehicles drive around 2.5 trillion miles per year, which works out to around 6 billion miles a day driven by americans (An average day's driving being the absolute minimum charge you would want in a car) which means we would need 600 million Kg lithium to make enough batteries to replace 10% of passenger cars. That works out to a bit over half a million tons of lithium. In the year 2005, only 18,000 tons of lithium were mined WORLDWIDE. That means we would need over 25 times the current annual worldwide lithium production just to make enough lithium batteries to give ten percent of U.S. passenger vehicles (cars, light trucks, SUVs) enough charge to drive for one average day, with pretty generous rounding in favor of lithium storage at almost every step I took. That's not even touching the semis, construction equipment, mass transit, airlines and ocean liners that actually keep our society running. And then there's the issue REPLACING the batteries, although I assume there would be large scale lithium recycling implemented.

      So I don't foresee lithium being a long-term cost effective material for energy storage in our transportaion system.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    4. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Quadraginta · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i think it's obvious, that they can't be talking about 6341 laptop batterypacks, but about 6341 laptop battery cells. at which point you can get these bulk for about 50 eurocents each.

      howie

    6. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    7. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by amliebsch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the electricity to charge them would require a huge investment in nuclear power plants and a corresponding huge increase in nuclear waste.

      But the amount of waste that comes out of an efficient reactor is tiny that even a "huge increase" would be easily manageable. (Note practically all of the old reactors currently operating are not terrible efficient.) It is simply incorrect to suggest that relying on nuclear energy as a primary energy source would be impractical.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    8. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by kabocox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...we would need 600 million Kg lithium to make enough batteries to replace 10% of passenger cars. That works out to a bit over half a million tons of lithium. In the year 2005, only 18,000 tons of lithium were mined WORLDWIDE. That means we would need over 25 times the current annual worldwide lithium production just to make enough lithium batteries to give ten percent of U.S. passenger vehicles (cars, light trucks, SUVs) enough charge to drive for one average day, with pretty generous rounding in favor of lithium storage at almost every step I took. That's not even touching the semis, construction equipment, mass transit, airlines and ocean liners that actually keep our society running. And then there's the issue REPLACING the batteries, although I assume there would be large scale lithium recycling implemented.

      So I don't foresee lithium being a long-term cost effective material for energy storage in our transportaion system.


      You had me at the first part with your dollar value cost benefit analysis, but then lost me at the mining part. I maintain a fleet with about 30 laptops mounted all lithium batteries. Now, I'll tell you the really dirty secret of them. Nearly all laptop batteries have only a 1 year warranty on the battereies. We generally get 3-4 years out of one in a mobile environment, but they are out of warranty after the first year. How much do they cost to replace? It varies from $150-$250. (I believe the $150 is the reman price from an off brand vendor. The $250 is what the laptop man. is charging for battery replacements.) I don't think your mining part really holds water though. I'd really have to look up the "difficulty" of mining lithium, but I'd say that if there was a sudden demand for millions of tons of lithium rather than only a few thousand pounds then we'd see more companies start mining if only for a cash crop. You don't think the long term looks good mainly from a minerals/price point. I want to know what cost reducations all lithium batteries would have if there were suddenly millions of tons of lithium ready for industrial use. Would those $150-$250 batteries drop to $15-$25?

    9. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by MidKnight · · Score: 2, Funny

      A great post, but as others have mentioned you seem to have made some assumptions that greatly affected the overall calculations. I almost spewed tea out my nose when I got to the point that said...

      ...trying to outfit any significant portion of U.S. vehicles (Let's say... 10%) with lithium ion batteries will cause a tremendous surge in demand for lithium, driving prices sky high.

      If we can assume that we're operating in a free market of sorts (meaning OPEC hasn't already set up a lithium cartel), then it's reasonable to assume that a surge in demand for lithium would trigger a surge in supply as well. Plus, as a previous reply mentioned, lithium makes up a very small part of a Li-On battery.

      But the real thing to remember is that this car isn't claiming to be cheaper to operate than your typical gas guzzler. Cheaper to drive day-to-day? Yes. Cheaper over the life of the car? Probably not. But horseless carriages weren't the cheapest mode of transportation 100 years ago either.


       

      (PS. How's this for ironic: the thought of a lithium cartel makes me slightly depressed!! Thank you, thank you... I"ll be here all week.)

    10. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by rsclient · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
  18. Re:Recharging time? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

    But if i had a car with a range of 250 miles, then i would have to stop on my trip, and it had better not make a 5 hour trip 12 hrs longer, due to recharging time.

    Easy... just plug the car's charger into the cigarette lighter and charge as you go! :)

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  19. Problem: recharging by momerath2003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Li-ion batteries have a limited number of charge cycles on them, somewhere around 300, before their capacity starts to decrease. You would have to replace all of the batteries at some point after this when your car's range is decreased to the point where you can't stand it. This means, what, most of the value of the car after 100000 miles? Is it worth it?

    --
    I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
  20. but are coal plants worse than millions of cars? by User+956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity, you're just replacing one evil for the other.

    Yes, because a few coal plants are way less efficient than millions and millions of internal combustion engines.

    (not to mention it's a lot more efficient, as technology progresses, to upgrade emissions controls on a few power plants, than every car on the road)

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  21. The batteries have to be in series/parallel banks by wbean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The motor is going to need a lot higher voltage than a laptop. This means that the batteries have to be organized in series/parallel banks. 6831 is a plausible number since it is 23 x 11 x 3 x 3 x 3. This gives you a lot of flexibility in arranging the banks. You could have 99 banks of 69 batteries in series, presumably giving you something like 345 volts. That sounds about right for a DC motor.

  22. Batteries suck. by Moofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what do you do when you've done 100 or 200 discharge cycles, and you're left with a couple hundred pounds of useless lithium ions? Oh well. Time to buy a new car, right?

    Maybe you could design a clever little nozzle to get a boost from your on-fire battery packs. That'd be AWESOME.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  23. Burning oil. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do know, I hope, that by burning that much oil, you're probably doing far more damage to the environment and to the health of other people around you than you would if you just drove a Hummer H1 that actually ran properly and cleanly...

    2/3rds of a quart of oil per tank is way over the 1 qt per 1,000 miles that's considered acceptable by most standards; I'd be surprised if your car was even passing emissions standards, if it's been doing that for a while. (And the emissions standards in most places in the U.S. are so lax as to basically be a joke anyway -- you car has to be grossly polluting to fail, generally.)

    There are lots of tricks you could probably do with an engine to boost its efficiency and power at the expense of cleanliness, if that was desired; however, there are good reasons why that tradeoff isn't often made, or allowed. And, it's older cars that are the most polluting; practically any new car, regardless of its gas milege, would probably be more environmentally friendly than one that's 20 years old, even when you factor in the 'pollution overhead' incurred by its manufacture.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  24. Re:Recharging time? by spirit+of+reason · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Sadly, with the current infrastructure, that's the way things are. The first problem is that you simply have no outlet that can charge your batteries quickly. Probably the highest power outlet one has easy access to is a 30 amp, 220 V. That's 6.6 kW of power. It sounds like Tesla's battery pack uses 18650s (the cells frequently used in laptops--it's a standardized size). These are 3.7 V, ~2.1 Ah cells. So, 7.77 Wh per cell * 6800 cells = 52 kWh pack. So even if you could dump all of that power into the pack (which you can't because chargers aren't 100% efficient), it would still take you 8 hours. Then, there's also very few charging stations on the road (and these only exist in some states).

    The other problem is battery chemistry. The common, older lithium ion cells can't take much current when they charge up. This creates very lossy regenerative braking in addition to longer charging. So even if you did have more power, you couldn't charge them that fast anyway. Now, there are newer cells that can charge quite rapidly. The cells from A123 Systems have a standard charge of 45 minutes and a standard fast charge of 15 minutes. Altair Nanotechnologies and Toshiba also seem to have something along these lines. However, you're still limited by your outlet with them... For 15 minute charge, you'd need more than 200 kW of power.

    Now to recharge. To the nearest substation!

  25. Range by rs79 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The 250 mile range is almost a non-starter though. It'll get relegated to "commuter car" or "city car". I have to drive 300 miles one way next week. I'm supposed to stop in the middle for 4 hours while this thing charges at a non-existant 220V 70A charger?

    How bout a little (bio)diesel generator so you could have the option of charging while you drive. I doubt one small enough not to be stupid would not make electricity as fast as it's used but it should extend the range enough to be useful.

    I also worry, frankly, about the lack of noise. How many times, as a kid, did you hear a car coming and get out of the way? Sure you can see it too, but anything else that helps you aviod a human-vehicular collision is a good thing. And this is a car that can get to 60 in 3 seconds? I have a bad feeling this fuckker is gonna kill people with its silence.

    Damn cool car though. Me want.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
    1. Re:Range by AGMW · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I also worry, frankly, about the lack of noise.

      That's gotta be the simplest thing to resolve. Bung a subwoofer in the vehicle somewhere and a bunch of little speakers and before you set off decide what you want your car to sound like. I think I'll drive a Cobra today. Lovely.

      Even more fun than downloading ringtones to your 'phone, downloading car sounds. It could be made to sound like anything!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    2. Re:Range by schon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Man, just like a techie to overengineer something. That seems like a real lot of work.

      My solution?

      Baseball cards in the spokes. :)

  26. Re:but are coal plants worse than millions of cars by rainman_bc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    (not to mention it's a lot more efficient, as technology progresses, to upgrade emissions controls on a few power plants, than every car on the road)

    Have you a clue how many power plants will have to be built in order to satisfy demand for electricity needed if the entire US converted to electric cars? I don't, but I've heard it's lots.

    Ever driven from Salt Lake City to Reno? There's an entire valley with a permanent cloud over it in the desert. Absolutely disgusting. Consider the environmental damage that one plant is causing.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  27. Wrong Name for Car by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  28. Re:20% of US oil imports from mideast by Alioth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the US more or less uses 100% of the total oil it gets, if the Middle East oil went away, you'd immediately have a huge shortfall. This would make fuel prices in the US rocket - until the price causes a reduction in demand by 20%.

    I suspect that a loss of 20% of the oil and the consequent increase in fuel prices would cause a very severe economic impact - so yes, the US *is* reliant on that oil. Unless the US can do without 20% of its oil tomorrow with no consequences, then it's reliant on it.

  29. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by AGMW · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Facts are facts, mister. If it can't yet be done, you're out of luck

    I'm not sure that's right. Let's look at the Wright Brothers first flight shall we. Well, that's obviously such a useless machine. Range measured in hundreds of yards? Only carry one person. Likely to die.

    The 250 mile range is perhaps too short for many people, but I bet the majority of car journeys are well within this range. If people started purchasing such vehicles as second/third cars then the technology would improve. As the number of units sold increased, the unit price would come down. Competition would be encouraged, inovation would be rewarded and some of the bigger players would start looking into it. It's already happening because Toyota/Honda have decided it will happen and want to be first with the hybrids. They are expensive, but some people are buying them. It happens in all new technology. Mobile phones, digital cameras, everything new - they start off really pricey and the early adopters buy 'em. Soon though, economies of scale bring the prices down, and the technology improves as the market expands.

    I don't think anyone expects everyone to immediatly chop in their beloved gas-guzzlers for some electric golf cart and start hugging trees, but this vehicle probably does have a market. If the Gov could give tax breaks - such as allowing tax free re-charging whilst at work, it could further encourage the take-up of the technology by reducing the cost of ownership.

    ... and finally, in TFA itself, they talk about a "sedan" in a few years, and they are saying they reckon that battery tech will have progressed sufficently by then to make it feasible. They realise the batteries are the (only!) weak link, and that's why they are riding the wave of laptop battery style technology because there's already a lot of people with a vested interest in making them smaller, lighter, quicker to charge, and able to hold a bigger charge for longer.

    This might even mean that in a few years when you have to get new batteries for your Tesla, the new ones will be cheaper, lighter, and provide a greater range because the tech has moved on.

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
  30. Short Term Solution by MrRee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work at one of the "Big 3" automakers and I have to comment. The electric car is a short term solution. While it does reduce the consumers dependence on oil it does little to reduce polution. Why? Because most of the power produced in this country is done with coal or oil. So in essence you are merely displacing who is poluting. Additionally, the batteries themselves are hazardous waste and most be replaced and disposed of. For these reasons the electric car is a short term solution.

    I'm intrigued with the fuel cell ideas but am worried that they will be too complicated and expensive to maintain. Hydrogen looks good until you consider it takes more energy to produce hydrogen then what you get out of hydrogen. I believe steam is the proper way to go but haven't seen any development in this arena. Anyone who thinks a steam car is impracticle or unworkable should look up the Doble steam cars.

  31. tesla coil nascar by mindserfer · · Score: 2, Funny

    I had this image of a giant Tesla coil tower in the middle of
    a fuel-less nascar race....

    little electric screammers....

  32. Coal is NOT a centralized problem by Frankenbuffer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nat Geo magazine had a great feature article on this about a year ago.

    Go look at how coal is obtained some time. Coal formation are often like a thick blanket draped over large areas, covered with pesky overburden like hills, forests, towns, and rivers. To get to the coal, first you need to strip away the overburden.

    My understanding is that most coal formations in the U.S. require extensive removal over overburden to access. In the southeast, whole mountains have been leveled and valleys filled in with waste material in the quest to reveal coal. The moved material is often unstable and prone to slides, it changes natural watershed patterns, it releases silts and toxic minerals into the watershed (a common mining-related problem), and it just plain disrupts entire ecosystems.

    So I'd hardly call coal a centralized problem. We need to look at the whole picture, including the inconvient bits.

  33. Winds biggest problem... by daniel422 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, winds biggest problem isn't that it isn't reliable -- I've seen many windmill farms set up in permanently windy mountain pass areas that work great -- its the environmentalits who scream about the number of bird kills on windmill blades and the homeowners who feels windmill farms are unsightly (a la Cape Cod hippocrites). Never mind that bird kills occur in the same amount for any tall structures....

  34. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When connected to a special 220-volt, 70-amp outlet, recharging takes about three and a half hours.

    15 minutes on the charger might get you another 15-20 miles. And 220 volts at 70 amps is a pretty hefty 15 kilowatts, so to have a dozen cars sitting at the local McDonalds charging is going to be draining about 180 kW from their coinpurse. That is a serious amount of juice. Also, I'm skeptical that you'll be getting 250 miles at 70 mph. If I remember right, electric motor efficiency and power typically increase with load, but fall off with speed, which makes them awesome for say, a 0-60 run in 3 seconds, but marginal at best for high speed cruising. That 250 mile range estimate is probably at significantly lower speeds.

    Big rigs generally run around 5 mpg, but it varies quite a bit around that number depending on the truck, the load, and the speed. Few truckers drive at the most efficient speed because it increases the labor costs significantly.

    If you're suggesting running commercial trucks on electricity, forget it for the foreseeable future. It's definitely been considered. Not only is there the conflicting speed issues I mentioned above, but you run up against the energy density limitations of batteries fast. Assuming the numbers from the article are correct (I doubt it...something isn't quite adding up according to my gut) and unrealistically taking the charge/discharge at 100% efficiency, it's storing up 194 MJ. Gasoline holds about 120 MJ/gallon, so the 1000 pounds of batteries (according to the Tesla website) are equivalent to about 1.5 gallons of gas (6.3 pounds/gal). Divide that by an efficiency of around 30% and you've got a 32:1 energy density ratio in favor of gasoline. For a truck to haul the equivalent of 150 gallons of fuel (actually diesel, not gas, but close enough), it would need about 30,000 pounds of batteries. But then you have to go farther and take into account that 2/3's of its cargo capacity has been replaced by fuel, so you need to make 3 times the number of trips. And you've got a lot of trucks either sitting idle recharging or having their 30,000 pounds of batteries swapped out every few hundred miles.

    Obviously these are really rough numbers, but other engineers have already looked at the idea in more detail and rejected it.

    I'm not trash-talking the Tesla. It looks like a lot of fun, but like all sports cars, it's a toy and not a good comparison for commercial trucking. Most of a car's weight is itself, be it gas or electric. Most of a truck's weight is it's cargo.

    For the record, I think electric can work extremely well for short range commuting (5-10 miles on city streets), but if you travel far, you'll realistically be looking at gas.