Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Roadster Breaks Distance Record For Electric Car
An anonymous reader writes "The CEO of an Australian ISP has driven his Tesla Roadster into the record books, completing 501km on a single electric charge in the 2009 Global Green Challenge — beating the Roadster's official specifications, which rate the all-electric sports car as being capable of a maximum of 390km per charge. The previous record was held by another Roadster in the 387km Rallye Monte Carlo d'Energies Alternatives in April this year. In a race specifically designed for alternative energy vehicles (such as hydrogen and electricity), the Roadster was the only vehicle to complete the entire course. Though to be fair, that race course was a mixture of twists, turns and hills."
They need high performance super capacitors to be practical. Sure you may be able to go 313 miles on a charge, but it's a 12 hour layover while your car batteries recharge.
Caps recharge in a matter of minutes... almost like a traditional gas n' go.
And they last a lot longer with less environmental headaches for disposal.
This is why I think Tesla should market to Europe more - smaller countries, smaller distances driven, and far more green-friendly governments and policies.
Also you would hope that the GPS would be linked to capacity and tell you if you can make it, and where recharge stations are en-route.
However I'm a fan of having an on-board small-capacity traditional engine that is used solely as a generator rather than being tied into the complexities of the car propulsion system. If that would generate enough charge to let me limp those ten miles it might be okay.
And in ten years, when the technology is affordable, hopefully the technology will have matured to a point where none of this is an issue. Even to the point of solar roofing options for trickle charging during the day (and simultaneously keeping the car cool inside). Not that this option would help me in Britain...
one option would be to put induction cables into the road, so that the car can be charged while driving.
hell, add a data channel so that the car knows what road its on, and what direction, and it could practically drive itself with the right navigation system installed.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
one option would be to put induction cables into the road, so that the car can be charged while driving.
I think you'd find the effect on steel car chassis to be very "exciting" (sorry for electric motor field winding pun this early in the morning). That would apply to any "mostly iron" chassis, no matter if IC or electric powered, or even semi and RV trailers...
Seriously though, although turning the road into a giant linear induction motor sounds very amusing under normal circumstances, it would be a bit wasteful in stop and go conditions and very dangerous in low traction situations.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
A normal car has tens of liters of gasoline in it, each with the energy of about a dozen hand grenades. What if something goes wrong?
To elaborate the point, TNT has 6.92 MJ/liter, or 4.6 MJ/kg energy density. Lithium-ion batteries have 0.46-0.72 MJ/kg, or 0.83-0.9 MJ/liter. Gasoline has 46.4 MJ/kg, or 34.2 MJ/liter; this doesn't include the amount of oxidizer needed, though. A quick estimate would suggest that adding oxygen to the calculation (as a stoichiometric mixture of gasoline and oxygen) would about quarter that. Water has a specific heat capacity of 4186 J/(kg*K), which means a thermos containing almost boiling water contains (relative to 20 degrees Celsius) 0.33 MJ/kg, a bit lower than a lithium battery by mass.
A more simple point is this: to move a certain car body (with occupants and luggage) a certain distance, you need a certain amount of energy, no matter how you store it. Therefore, two identically-sized cars that have the same range need to carry the same amount energy on them, irrespective of how that energy is stored. However, electrical cars are lighter, more efficient (storage-to-kinetic) and have lower range, therefore the energy-per-car density is much lower than a gasoline car.
Third point: grenades are useful (for their purpose) because they release their energy _really_ quickly. They are expensive because it's quite hard to make things release their energy _really_ quickly.
"Yes, there are zero emissions from the tailpipe, but the electricity has to come from somewhere."
True.
But even if the volts are coming from coal, it's coal burning happening in one place where it would/should be easier to capture. Instead of burning gas all over the place where it might be hard to capture.
i wish we weren't so afraid of the n word. Not *that* n word, the other.
i've been saying for a long time that there won't be a silver bullet for energy. i'd like to see more efficient cars, more hybrids, some fuel cell cars, some pneumatic, more nuclear power, more geo, more this more that. Use as many sources as possible as efficiently as possible. And build worthwhile public transport.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
I have just passed the 15,000 mile mark in my 5 month old Tesla Roadster. My commute in it is almost 100 miles a day. People who claim that the Roadster is not a viable car due to range concerns have never tried to use one. I drive more than anyone else I know, and will likely put 35,000 miles on it this year. The Roadster is a blast to drive, and is definitely up to the task. The convenience of always having a full tank when I get in it in the morning is far better than doing the same commute in my previous car where each day I had to check to see if I had to stop by a gas station. It is true that I cannot easily take it for cross country roadtrips - but any 2 seater roadster doesn't lend itself for long family vacations. I have a second car for that. Just like I plan to take an alternate vehicle to Hawaii, I am content to take another vehicle on the occasional long trip. "Oh noes! Why would anyone buy that Toyota - you can't drive it across the Pacific!"
No, heat engines are limited by the Carnot efficiency, which depends on the temperatures of the hot source and the cold sink. This is because entropy changes are associated with heat transfers, and entropy of a closed system can't decrease.
Hmm, if you could get the energy out of the fuel without burning it, you may even be able to get over 100% efficiency. The entropy of the products is higher than the entropy of the reactants at the same temperature. So it would be thermodynamically valid to extract a certain amount of heat from the surroundings at the same time and convert it to work.
Here in New England it can get pretty cold in the winter, (granted not Alaska or Alberta style cold but still a few degrees below zero (Fahrenheit). How does the car provide heat for the passenger on an electric engine? If it used heaters wouldn't that draw more power from the battery and therefore lower the miles you can drive on a charge? What about the battery itself? Does it behave normal in sub zero temperatures?
Depends where you live. Philly car share and Zipcars will rent you a pickup truck at a very reasonable hourly rate. So will Home Depot and Lowes, for that matter.
I suggest then, that if you need to take such a trip 4 times per year, that you rent a vehicle for those 4 times. That way you have your most efficient vehicle for the majority of your driving, and then can rent just the right size vehicle for the occasional trips. I recommend this to all my friends who "had" to have an SUV or huge pickup truck - for the money they saved in gas over the year, they were able to pay for the vehicle they needed to rent and they saved a whole bunch of uselessly burned fuel the remainder of the time.
Alternativey, those of us who have two car families have one large one and one smaller. We have a Mini and a Volvo station wagon, where the wagon is used for the family trips and I drive the Mini to the local commuter lot where I catch the bus.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Or buy a lotus elise and have the same car with more performance
Except not. The Roadster beats the Elise 0-60 by over a second. Hell it beats sports cars that are twice the cost. It's top speed is lower, but it has a limiter.
and can be refueled at any gas station
Definitely a big disadvantage for the Roadster, in those situations where it matters. As in not a lot of people are driving their sports cars cross country. If you do, the Roadster won't work. If that's not a problem, then the Roadster has the advantage that you never have to visit the gas station.
for 1/2 the money.
True on initial cost, but one of the big things that keeps me from wanting a sports car (aside from lack of pretension, ask me again when mid-life crisis kicks in) is the ongoing maintenance costs. Especially for a foreign sports car. Electric cars are win for maintenance costs.
The enemies of Democracy are
I seem to recall an electric conversion done about a decade ago did exactly this. The article said the car got a relatively short range (30-50 miles) but the owner planned to use it on long range trips by towing a small trailer with a gasoline powered generator. The generator was just big enough to run the car at cruise speed and slowly charge the battery.
Just don't enjoy it too much. Way too many Roadsters have been totaled already. Often from people having too much fun with that accelerator pedal. ;)
Survivability appears very good, however. You see the photos of the Roadster rear-ended by a Prius at 50mph (Most Fuel Efficient Accident Ever(TM))? Completely crushed the rear end and pushed it *under a Touareg*. The passenger compartment remained completely intact with the Touareg sitting on top of it.
Look at me, still talking while there's science to do.