Toyota Partners With Tesla To Make Electric Cars

An anonymous reader writes "Toyota just announced that it will invest $50 million in Tesla Motors and the two companies will partner to manufacture electric vehicles to meet California's growing demand for greener cars. Bay Area residents should be especially excited, as this venture is expected to create thousands of new jobs in the San Francisco Bay area, and is sure to be a boon to California's flagging economy. Tesla fans as well should rejoice as the new partnership will allow the EV startup to bring its highly coveted, iconic design to more affordable electric vehicles like the Model S sedan, which will sell for $49,900 and gets 300 miles on a 3- to 5-hour charge."

Comments

All bugs are now electric...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't blame that ICE now!

I can't wait.

[Cornwallis]

As one of the last eleven people in the country with a job I look forward to buying one!

Re:I can't wait.

[XnR'rn]

If they make a flying one, I'll even look into getting myself a driverspilots license!

Re:I can't wait.

[pinkj]

I'll wait. I have been waiting since I was in elementary. I've been hearing about electric cars all my life, but I've never seen one on the road except for a few hybrids. The closest thing I've seen is the Zenn, but it only clocks at 40km/h and it isn't street legal in Canada. I kept hearing and seeing ads for this Chevy Volt, but I never seen it in action. And even if a number electric car models do manifest into reality, am I going to be able to afford it? At this rate, I think I'd rather wait for a unicorn.

Re:I can't wait.

[m.ducharme]

I've been waiting for the Zenn too, but it looks like the high-speed, high capacity version is turning out to be vaporware. The current production version is no good to me because I do a lot of highway driving. I'd get a Toyota/Tesla though, in a minute.

Re:I can't wait.

[Cornwallis]

When I was a kid in Detroit the future looked like the Chrysler Turbine car. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

That sounded cool.

Re:I can't wait.

[networkBoy]

I used to sell the GM EV1 and EV2 in a past life as a car salesman (just recently my immortal soul finally came off lease from the Devil).

Those cars were awesome, some of the tech that went into them was mind blowing, yet all the leases were canceled and all the cars crushed. This, in spite of some owners offering up to $100,000 to keep them. At my work now we have two EVs, both homebrew. I have been thinking of building my own, based on a small truck chassis.

$50K for 300mi at a 4Hr nominal charge is something I would consider buying. My current design goal for a homebrew is 50mi unrestricted acceleration A/C or Heater and 100mi @ controlled acceleration topping at 55mph no AC or Heat.
-nB

Re:I can't wait.

[scottwilkins]

Buying one will send the profits of the sales to Japan and reduce even more jobs. There may be only 10 jobs left in the country after your purchase, which you will probably need to sell to one of those 10 to pay off other debts.

Re:I can't wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a Tesla in the parking lot of my building right now. Nice looking car.

Re:I can't wait.

[commodore64_love]

>>>I've never seen one on the road except for a few hybrids

How do you know? Many hobbyists convert gasoline cars to electrics, and you'd never know it just by looking at them.

As for me, electrics don't but it. I make frequent ~1000 mile trips, and I can't waste time while the battery takes 4 hours to recharge. Instead I have a hybrid which "recharges" with gasoline in just five minutes.

Re:I can't wait.

[drinkypoo]

I used to sell the GM EV1 and EV2 in a past life as a car salesman (just recently my immortal soul finally came off lease from the Devil).

With all due respect, you never sold a GM EV in your life. They were all leases, as you then go on to say in paragraph two.

$50K for 300mi at a 4Hr nominal charge is something I would consider buying.

Yeah, you and a lot of other people. It's not impossible that a reasonably affordable next-gen EV might hit 200mi. 300, I think, is still out of reach.

Re:I can't wait.

[commodore64_love]

>>>some owners offering up to $100,000 to keep them

It would cost GM more money than that to keep a stockpile of parts for the EV1 (as required by law). It was cheaper for them to crush the cars. That said if I owned an EV1 I'd probably "disappear" with the car to some other state. Maybe hide it in some farmers barn in Wyoming, and then put it in a museum ~20 years from now. The EV1 deserved to be preserved.

Re:I can't wait.

[xorsyst]

The other day I saw my first hydrogen-converted car (which looks more feasible than electric at the moment). I'm not sure if it was a hybrid or pure hydrogen though. The future is coming!

Re:I can't wait.

[networkBoy]

One unit was sold by the dealer accidentally.
It is in a museum (albeit with it's computer removed by GM).

Re:I can't wait.

[commodore64_love]

Yeah but where do we get they hydrogen from? Hmmm.

Re:I can't wait.

[xorsyst]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

Re:I can't wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

With very little respect, you can sell a lease. You can sell an idea. You can sell an opinion.

Re:I can't wait.

[timeOday]

As one of the last eleven people in the country with a job I look forward to buying one!

They'll be built in the bay area, employing thousands of people. This announcement is what jobs recovery is all about.

Re:I can't wait.

[commodore64_love]

Yeah but where do we get the [energy to crack the water] from? Hmmm.

Re:I can't wait.

[flyingfsck]

You are out of luck, they will only build ten.

Re:I can't wait.

[Loki_1929]

Tesla has had all-electric vehicles in production and on the road for years with a 244-mile estimated range. The first group were high-end sports cars selling for >$110,000. This next group will sell for half that and get even higher mileage. The Model-S is also supposed to have an option (or possibly standard option since it isn't finalized for production) 5-minute battery change. So you drive 300 miles, swap the battery in 5 mins at a service station, go another 300 miles. And how often are you going 300 miles in a day anyway? The Model-S is scheduled to be in production next year. For now, they've been showing off working, drivable prototypes for several months. There's even Youtube videos from the inside showing the functional 17" touchscreen dash that holds all user controls.

So yes, while most electric vehicles have either been vaporware or crap, Tesla actually seems to be the real deal. Their next generation is targetting a ~$30,000 price point for an all-electric with similar range to the Model-S, but you'll have to wait a couple years for that. At least there's hope that somebody is actually doing the all-electric thing right.

Re:I can't wait.

[cmiller173]

http://bit.ly/Sitsi

Re:I can't wait.

[ari_j]

I, on the other hand, can't justify that price. I live in a colder climate and cannot spend $50k on a vehicle I only drive four months of the year (that's what my motorcycle is for). It's a safety consideration. A traditional gas-powered car, when stuck in a snow bank, will idle with the heat running and keep you alive for a very long time. An electric car will let you freeze to death before morning (and hope of rescue) comes.

Re:I can't wait.

[welcher]

Or keep a warm sleeping bag in your car for such eventualities.

Re:I can't wait.

[lowrydr310]

I'm curious to know what it's like to drive an all-electric vehicle. I really like the concept and hope it becomes real in my lifetime. A former coworker is converting an Opel GT (69?) into an EV and I can't wait to see it when he's done!

I do like the idea of having a backup gasoline engine, like in the Volt (allowing you to own a car that is capable of going beyond 300 miles or whatever the all-electric range is). It would also be nice if Toyota/Ford/Honda offered plug-in capabilities with their hybrids and allowed them to go all-electric for short ranges.

Re:I can't wait.

[zx-15]

Well, in the case of being stuck in a snow bank, you shouldn't run idle -- although your car will keep you warm, it could also give you carbon monoxide positioning if you do keep it running. Also, electric car would probably have an electric heater, which would keep you warm without producing carbon monoxide, which even with cold batteries should last for a while.

Re:I can't wait.

[ari_j]

What's the survivability rate for 24 hours in -60F temperatures with just a warm sleeping bag? I keep the sleeping bag plus a full tank of gas in my vehicle during the winter. An electric car would drastically reduce survivability, and I am happy to burn a little gasoline in order to greatly increase my odds of survival.

As it is, I feel that an electric car that can even keep me warm on the 5-mile drive to work and back without needing a re-charge during the day, on those days when the temperature is below about -30F.

Re:I can't wait.

[ari_j]

A little bit of carbon monoxide (step one, by the way, of getting stuck in a snowbank for the long haul is to clear snow from the exhaust pipe of the car) is a small price to pay for not freezing to death.

Also, do you really think that they are producing batteries that won't discharge rapidly or utterly melt down in attempting to keep a car's interior 100 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the outside temperature (40F when it's -60F outside) for almost 18 hours (the length of time the sun is down in the winter here)? Current car batteries can't run the headlights that long, so even the massive storage arrays that are being played with in electric cars do not inspire a lot of faith in me when it comes to life-or-death situations.

Re:I can't wait.

[sdpuppy]

There is an amazing - yet untapped source of energy that could be used. Portable too!

http://aqualandpetsplus.com/Animal615.jpg

http://deguhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Chris_and_Aarron.jpg

Or for somewhat less portable and still untapped energy source:

http://www.healthstylesexercise.com/catalog/images/Landice_L7_Treadmill.jpg

Re:I can't wait.

[Enigma2175]

I, on the other hand, can't justify that price. I live in a colder climate and cannot spend $50k on a vehicle I only drive four months of the year (that's what my motorcycle is for). It's a safety consideration. A traditional gas-powered car, when stuck in a snow bank, will idle with the heat running and keep you alive for a very long time. An electric car will let you freeze to death before morning (and hope of rescue) comes.

Why would the electric car let you freeze to death? If your vehicle has a 300 mile range it should have plenty of power to be able to keep you warm. For example, here is a truck that has a 35 mile range (I just chose a random car on a google search to get some numbers). It has twenty 6 volt, 210 amp hour batteries or 25,200 watt hours of capacity. If you were near a full charge when you got stuck, you could run a 1000 watt heater for 24 hours. Our hypothetical vehicle with a 300 mile range would have 210,000 wh of capacity. If you weren't running anything else you could run a 1000 watt heater for nearly nine days. The only time where you wouldn't have enough power to run a heater for a night would be if your battery pack was near empty, and you would be in the same situation if you allowed yourself to get stuck in the middle of nowhere with a nearly empty gas tank.

Of course there is always the observation that if you are consistently getting stuck in snowbanks enough that your life is threatened, you should evaluate your equipment or your driving skills. I live in a fairly snowy place as well and I can't remember the last time I had to spend the night in my car. With tire chains and a bag of sand/salt most cars can go through some gnarly weather. Add a cell phone (or sat phone if you really are THAT remote) and the chances of you having to spend the night in your car are close to nil.

Re:I can't wait.

[Enigma2175]

Oops, I forgot the link to the truck I mentioned - here it is.

Re:I can't wait.

[zx-15]

I don't think that the batteries in an electric would melt down because of a small heater drawing current from them, after all they were designed to supply current to a much more powerful engine.

Also, current car batteries aren't designed to run car engine but to provide enough electricity to start the engine, light up dashboard run defroster and power windows at the same time before engine dynamo kicks in. Also there's a different technology at play, current car batteries are lead acid and the ones used in electric cars are lithium ion, hell, even NiMH batteries have greater power density than ones currently used.

By the way it's always a good idea to keep a thick blanket in the trunk, even in summertime, you never know when you're going to have a picnic.

Re:I can't wait.

[ari_j]

Thanks for running some of the numbers, although I don't know whether a 1000W heater is enough (I'm not saying it isn't - I'm saying that I don't know one way or the other). I do want to see it in action before I would consider buying it, though. I know the survivability with a gas engine and full tank and have developed the skills to maximize that survivability. I need to see actual tests of heating the car against the frigid outdoors for a few days straight on a 50% charge before I can really evaluate that.

But don't miss my real point. It is rare to get stuck in a snowbank beyond the point you can rock your car back out of it, but that's no excuse not to prepare for the possibility. It happens more often than serious collisions but you wouldn't want a car without airbags and seat belts, either. The cost-benefit on this works out in favor of gas engines so far.

Re:I can't wait.

[ari_j]

The real problem is that nobody's talking about these things, so we have no real data in front of us about how well an electric car can heat its interior for a long period of time in extreme cold. The same applies to hybrid cars, but even more so to all-electric models because a hybrid car could just run the gas engine to generate heat.

And don't worry. My summer survival kit includes two good blankets just for those random picnic moments. And because you can get hypothermia on a 90-degree day if you do it right.

Re:I can't wait.

[homer_ca]

You don't need to warm the whole interior for emergencies. An electric vest, the kind used by motorcyclists and snowmobile riders, sucks 50-100W and will run all day and night on 12V power.

Re:I can't wait.

[zx-15]

I think nobody is talking about this things because this isn't a real problem, electric car still has to store enough energy so it would be possible to go somewhere in it, and the electric heater would use a lot less energy than the electric motor, so a rough calculation would be (1/2 of full battery charge / small household heater power consumption per hour at max power), plus modern cars are well isolated from outside environment so all that heat wouldn't dissipate immediately, plus body heat from car occupants would be retain for a while, plus you don't need to clear snow from your car, so it would help retain some of the energy -- this should be enough.

Re:I can't wait.

[ari_j]

An electric vest won't prevent frostbite to your nose. Most of the time, it's not -60F here. That usually only happens once every couple of years for a day or two. But Murphy's Law governs the situation - if I am going to be stuck in a snowbank in an electric car, it will be on a night when it is sixty below.

Re:I can't wait.

[SBFCOblivion]

A traditional gas-powered car, when stuck in a snow bank, will idle with the heat running and keep you alive for a very long time.

Have fun with your carbon monoxide poisoning.

Re:I can't wait.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

I have a 1980's hydrogen car and I'm about to drive it class. It has tank full of liquid carbon hydrides that flow into an internal combustion engine. Want hydrogen? the best way to store it is with liquid carbon hydrides.

Re:I can't wait.

[Pharmboy]

Don't worry, they've dealt with this. Tesla just announced they'll be sourcing batteries from Sony.

And Toyota is supplying the software and braking system. 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds. 60 to 0? Thats a whole other story...

Re:I can't wait.

[welcher]

There are sleeping bags that are -60 rated so you'd be fine. My point was that there while are loads of reasons not to get an electric car, fear of dying of the cold is not a very good one.

Re:I can't wait.

[zeet]

Seat heaters can do quite a lot to increase core body temperature, and they're often less than 100W. A 1000W heater properly designed should have no trouble staving off hypothermia. The bigger problem with your hypothetical scenario is that the power of the batteries decreases as well at low temperatures. Thankfully the truly life,threatening temperatures are a corner case. Most of the population doesn't live there.

Re:I can't wait.

[ari_j]

I disagree that life-threatening temperatures are a corner case that most of the population won't experience. Being stranded without heat for too long even at 40F can result in a threat to your life. I will agree that -60F is a corner case, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored altogether.

Re:I can't wait.

[ari_j]

I've addressed that response elsewhere in this thread. Cars do not generally vent exhaust into the passenger compartment - that's a bad design.

Re:I can't wait.

[ari_j]

We thought speed was cyclical.

Re:I can't wait.

[commodore64_love]

So how many western States do we have to pave-over with solar panels to crack water to fuel ~220 million hydrogen cars? 5? 10?

Re:I can't wait.

[falconwolf]

So how many western States do we have to pave-over with solar panels to crack water to fuel ~220 million hydrogen cars? 5? 10?

One reference I saw, sorry I didn't find a link, said that 10% of the land of Nevada or Utah developed as a solar farm could electrify the US. Ah, here's one: Solar Energy Development on Public Lands [pdf] says "According to the DOE, the solar resources available in the southwest are more than sufficient to meet all U.S. electricity demand, even using currently available technologies and operating at 10 percent efficiency." And what about how much land coal takes? Nevada Solar one is a better and smaller neighbor than a coal mine.

Falcon

Re:I can't wait.

[Thing 1]

I really like how just about anything you say segues nicely into your signature.

Re:I can't wait.

[Thing 1]

http://www.healthstylesexercise.com/catalog/images/Landice_L7_Treadmill.jpg

Healthy Style Sexercise? Sounds appealing!

Re:I can't wait.

[siloko]

Electric and hybrid car batteries depend on rare earth elements, of which 97% are mined in China. Why are we replacing one foreign controlled energy source with another?

Re:I can't wait.

[Phoghat]

As one of the retired people out there, I can.

In the small print Price is FROM $49,000, depending on the battery pack chosen. Only the larger battery pack gets the 300 mile range and that's more like $57,000 WITH the tax credit. I'll keep my Jetta TDI with a combined mileage of 35 MPG, and still feel superior for far less money. If worst comes to worst, I'll convert it to run on Bio-Diesel and feel even better

Re:I can't wait.

[Enigma2175]

Thanks for running some of the numbers, although I don't know whether a 1000W heater is enough (I'm not saying it isn't - I'm saying that I don't know one way or the other). I do want to see it in action before I would consider buying it, though. I know the survivability with a gas engine and full tank and have developed the skills to maximize that survivability. I need to see actual tests of heating the car against the frigid outdoors for a few days straight on a 50% charge before I can really evaluate that.

But don't miss my real point. It is rare to get stuck in a snowbank beyond the point you can rock your car back out of it, but that's no excuse not to prepare for the possibility. It happens more often than serious collisions but you wouldn't want a car without airbags and seat belts, either. The cost-benefit on this works out in favor of gas engines so far.

Now you are moving the goalposts. In your original post you talked about "morning (and hope of rescue)" coming, now you are talking about spending a "few days straight" in the snowbank. This page says that idling your car uses about 1 gal/hour, to spend a few days in an idling gasoline car you are going to need a 40-60 gallon tank. My car carries about 10 gallons, even with a full tank I could only idle overnight. You are holding the electric car to a higher standard than the gasoline car. There are plenty of reasons not to use an electric car, you don't need to fabricate one.

Re:I can't wait.

[networkBoy]

It's awesome.
I had access to a modified EV2 (acceleration computer disabled). I could take a corvette on the 1/4 mile.
The downside of drag racing an EV is that the batteries go to shit *fast*, but it's fun like nothing else. pure acceleration, no gears to shift :)

Re:I can't wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there were only 11 folks buying leccies.

Fact: as approximately 80% of the world's energy is coal, oil and gas fired. EVs are anything but ZEVs.

Fact: Lithium as a battery material for EVs is less sustainable than dead dinosaur as a fuel.

Fact: PV solar as an alternative energy source is less sustainable than burning dead dinosaur and dead tree to make electricity.

The only sustainable energy source for personal transport is farm waste derived biofuel. (Note "farm waste derived" virgin crop bio is the worst of the lot.)

Did I miss something?

[Skarecrow77]

"flagging economy"
"more affordable"
"sell for $49,900"

one of these things is not like the others... ?

Re:Did I miss something?

[Darth Sdlavrot]

You left off labor costs in California in general and the Bay Area in particular.

Wait for the announcement that they're moving production somewhere else with lower labor costs.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

50,000 is still cheaper than 100k and would be more affordable compared to the tesla electric vehicles.

Re:Did I miss something?

[L4t3r4lu5]

A part of the Bay Area where people will work for less than those who are currently employed because they'd rather have a job that pays money than have no job and live in an underpass?

Seriously, the economy is tanked. Expect to take a pay cut, and a lifestyle cut. It's a crying shame, but hey; Nobody has any money at the moment, including Tesla.

Re:Did I miss something?

[asukasoryu]

Tesla has been working on this sedan concept for years. The $100,000 Roadster was their entry into the electric car market. The S sedan is the "more affordable" step toward their ultimate goal of a $35,000 car for the common person. Whether or not they achieve this goal, I support their vision. The state of the economy has shifted the perspective on the value of Tesla, but I'm still looking forward to owning one some day.

Re:Did I miss something?

[c0p0n]

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't bother?

You've got to start the conversion to 100% electric somewhere, plus the transition to renewables can happen in parallel.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you seriously think that an internal combustion engine in your car is just as efficient as a steam turbine in a coal-fired power plant?

Here's a hint: one of those engines just throws away all the heat it generates into a radiator, and it ain't the steam turbine.

Re:Did I miss something?

[jeff4747]

You missed the part where "more affordable" is a relative measure, and they're comparing it to their roadster with a 6-figure price tag.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Yvanhoe]

It means $5,000 second-hand electric cars in 5-10 years.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Ephemeriis]

Oooh, ooh, you also forgot "green cars". Attention, ecomentals: what do you think is generating the electricity to power the (energy intensive) construction and use of your "green" car? Fairy farts?

Electric cars will drive demand for electricity that may (and should, but who knows?) be generated from renewables or even (hold your nose) "clean" coal, but right now? You're just moving the emissions from your exhaust to the dirty old coal plant up the road, plus the even worse one in China where they dug up the Unobtanium to make your car.

Two problems with your complaint here.

One, you have to start the ball rolling somewhere. If we want to move to 100% electric cars powered by 100% clean/renewable/green electricity, then we need to start rolling out the electric cars sometime.

Two, centrally generated electricity is generally going to be cleaner than all these scattered combustion engines we've got now. Even if you're burning smelly ol' coal, you've got a single source of pollution to monitor/control.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Skarecrow77]

no no, I understand this point, but in 49 states of this country, people are still much more likely to say "screw it, i'll buy a comparable regular car for $20,00 - $30,000 less"

I suppose it's ironic that they're basing the plant in the one state that people WILL buy with idealism instead of sense.

Re:Did I miss something?

[RMH101]

what's the average monthly spend on petrol? what's it cost to charge a full electric car overnight? If you look at monthly payments then the price of the car looks a lot more attractive.

Re:Did I miss something?

[m.ducharme]

The other responders have pretty much deconstructed your post, but they left out a few other interesting benefits of getting off the oil nipple and exploring other energy sources. There's a geopolitical and strategic advantage to weaning ourselves off oil, in that if we can do so, we (the West) would no longer need a strong military and diplomatic presence in the middle East. That presence, more than any other expense, is bankrupting the US, and involves making deals with some of the most unsavoury governments in the world. Moving away from an oil economy would allow the US to tell the Arabs, Persians and Israelis to go away, and take their blood vendettas with them. That more than anything would bring about an American victory in the "war on terrorism," as all the terrorists really want is for the US and other Western powers to stop meddling in their affairs.

Also, some of us greenies are willing to take a second look at nuclear power tech, especially if re-use of the fissionables was on the table. Either as a transition to a fully renewable power supply, or as an on-demand supplement to wind and solar energy over the long term.

But hey, flame away, and keep paying the price for your oil dependency. Other countries in the world are starting to figure out just how high that price is, and they'll be more than happy to replace the US as the global hegemonic power.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Tyr_7BE]

"Attention, ecomentals: what do you think is generating the electricity to power the (energy intensive) construction and use of your "green" car? Fairy farts? "

Yes, in a sense. Specifically, 25% of my power is generated by wind. 50% is Nuclear. 75% of the electricity I use is exhaust-free.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Culture20]

You tend to lose something once you lose competition. Sometimes it's quality, sometimes it's low-prices.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Skarecrow77]

I suspect that this tradeoff will be a lot more attractive in areas of the world where gasoline/petrol is $7 ($us) a gallon, but here where the price is about 1/3 to 1/2 of that, I'm guessing that the loss of freedom and spontanity is not worth meager price savings.

a lot of people say that "once the US catches up with the rest of the world in gas prices, the demand for hybrid, synthetic (e85), and electric vehicles will shoot up". This is true, the demand will shoot up... but not the means to afford them. gas prices in the US doubling would tank the economy very badly, as this country is built upon cheap gas. Shipping by truck, commuting from suburbs, vacationing by car (we have several states that depend on tourism income), etc.

I'm not saying this is long-term sustainable, but the US trying to ween itself off gasoline nearly cold turkey would have catastrophic economical consequences.

Plus, who the hell wants to walk out to the garage in the morning and say "oh crap, I forgot to plug in the car / the charging outlet it blew a fuse / a rat chewed up the cable" etc.

Electric cars will become popular when:
1. the price is sane compared to similar traditionally powered vehicles
2. the inconvience downsides have been minimized.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

That 25% is water, not wind. It's referring to the various hydro-electric plants. 75% of Ontario power is indeed exhaust-free (and we sell a lot of that power to the US), but both hydro-electric and nuclear are quite destructive to the ecosystem (nuclear because of heat pollution). Still, they are *by far* the best option we have right now. It's very sad to see that environmentalists are just as much against nuclear as they are coal. It's even more sad to see people like GP who think nuclear plants powering electric cars are worse than internal combustion engines.

Re:Did I miss something?

[commodore64_love]

That won't reduce the cost. When Toyota sold Rav4 EVs, which were made in a foreign country with cheap labor, the thing still cost $45000 to purchase..... about double the cost of the gasoline version. The high cost comes from the battery which is 4x larger than the one in a hybrid, and of course 4x as much money.

The Rav4 EV was also costly to maintain. The battery required replacement every 100,000 miles - that's a cost equal to replacing an engine in a normal car, but about 3 times more frequently.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Israfels]

Two, centrally generated electricity is generally going to be cleaner than all these scattered combustion engines we've got now. Even if you're burning smelly ol' coal, you've got a single source of pollution to monitor/control.

Wait, so are you saying that the problem with burning carbon based fuels is simply location?

How exactly is burning fuel that was transferred to the plant by burning fuel in order to produce steam to produce kinetic energy to produce electricity that's transferred hundreds of miles that produces a charge in a battery that's used to produce kinetic energy again..... more efficient?

It's physics, in every step of the process there is loss of energy. It's more efficient to have the fuel directly produce kinetic energy in the engine.

Re:Did I miss something?

[2obvious4u]

Yes you missed something. Comparable cars to the Model S would be BMW's, Audi's, etc. Base model Audi's start at $32,000, base model BMW's start at $30,000. The original Roadster was $110,000 and the sport model is toping $140,000. So yeah the model S is more affordable, especially considering it will save you over $4,000 a year in oil and gas charges. And I'm basing that $4,000 a year off my 35 MPG Corolla, compared to maintenance on a comparable car I'm sure it would be more.

I've started saving for my model S. The Corolla is just to hold me over. I hope to have a Model S within 5 years.

Re:Did I miss something?

[commodore64_love]

Yes people don't seem to understand how BIG the U.S. is. If I order from amazon.com, it has to travel 2000 miles from California, and there's not much in-between. By car it's a 3 day journey. First the steam engine and now gasoline/diesel-fueled vehicles are what keeps this country connected.

If the cost doubles, it will have a major impact on our goods, our food, and our business travel. The EU has an advantage, as most of their goods can be shipped via water (for example from Poland to Spain) which is cheaper than land travel. The U.S. doesn't have that. Goods travel over the roads or rails.

Re:Did I miss something?

[sourcerror]

If you had a turbine in your car you'd right. Piston engines have much lower efficiency.

Re:Did I miss something?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Expect to take a pay cut, and a lifestyle cut.

I already cut cable TV during the last recession (2000) and my cellphone from $30 downto the $5 plan. There's not much left to cut, unless I convert my home from 2 stories to 1 story (to cut heating cost). Or demolish it completely and build a PassivHaus (virtually no heating needed).
.

>>>including Tesla.

Well, they now have Toyota's money. I hope this partnership is as profitable as the Toyota-Ford Hybrid partnership turned out to be, and not another case of a big company buying a small company in order to mothball the technology.

Re:Did I miss something?

[commodore64_love]

Not really. AC Propulsion's electric sedans still sell for a high pricepoint, even though they are about 10 years old.

Of course it's always possible the idea will flop, and Tesla dealers will sell new cars for dirt cheap. I was able to get my Honda Insight for only $12,000 since the dealer had 20 of them collecting dust in his garage. The demand simply wasn't there in 2001.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Bing Tsher E]

Never mind the $12,000 replacement battery they will require, or the $900 'disposal fee' charged to get rid of the old battery.

Re:Did I miss something?

[RobertM1968]

no no, I understand this point, but in 49 states of this country, people are still much more likely to say "screw it, i'll buy a comparable regular car for $20,00 - $30,000 less"

I suppose it's ironic that they're basing the plant in the one state that people WILL buy with idealism instead of sense.

Yes, those fall into two categories...

(1) The people who dont have the extra $20K-$30K

(2) The people who DO have the extra money, but cant do math (or dont care about saving money in the long run)

This is an excellent start. For a couple reasons:

One, other car companies will soon no longer be able to play the (erroneous) "electric cars cant get decent mileage - buy ours that only gets 50-120 miles on a charge and takes all night to recharge"

And two, as more get produced, (ie: getting towards mass production and sales volume), they will get cheaper (meaning we may see things like the proposed far cheaper Tesla Bluestar).

Like many others have said, "we've gotta start somewhere" - much like when cars first came out. It took a while before everyone switched from their cheaper horse and buggies to cars. Nowadays, it's not often I see a horse and buggy anymore (yes, I have seen a few though... maybe 4 total outside of "Amish-ville").

This is the "boon" Tesla has needed. While "Big Government" is willing to either give away (like for the EV1 projects) or loan (recent bailout) millions or billions of dollars to the big automakers, they seemed to have no real interest in helping Tesla (contrary to what goals their clean energy and reduced emissions agendas would lead you to think they'd do). So now, bereft of any real help or financing from the government, they've finally found a partner with the financial, manufacturing and marketing muscle to go into "real" production (ie: assembly lines and such) - and can benefit from the Toyota name, which far more people know than those who know the Tesla name. (sure, insert car brakes joke here - but that fiasco aside for whatever reasons, Toyota still has massive customer loyalty, great brand recognition and a brand name that most people equate with reliability and quality).

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, it's about $200. Or less, I was farily generous with my assumptions about how much we drive.

So, over the life of the car, I'd save $24000 in gas.

Except, of course, that I'd need a gas car anyway, since the electric one is only useful as a commuter car.

So, instead, let's compare the electric to the commuter car it would replace. $50 of gas per month on that one. Over the life of the car, I'd save $6000 in gas. Frankly, a $44000 commuter car doesn't impress me terribly.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Bing Tsher E]

You missed where they said 'monitor/control.'

It's all about centralizing control. "We have the means to improve lives for all people. We have assumed control, and will (eventually, maybe) act in your interest."

Re:Did I miss something?

[timeOday]

I suspect that this tradeoff will be a lot more attractive in areas of the world where gasoline/petrol is $7 ($us) a gallon, but here where the price is about 1/3 to 1/2 of that, I'm guessing that the loss of freedom and spontanity is not worth meager price savings.

I suspect that the average cost of a gallon of gas here in the US over the next 10 years (the lifetime of a car) will be more like $5/gallon. That would be $25,000 of gasoline for a car that gets 30 mpg and last 150,000 miles.

Re:Did I miss something?

[commodore64_love]

>>>If we want to move to 100% electric cars

I don't think pure electric cars have a future. People don't want to be limited to a 300 mile radius when they travel. When GREET performed a study several years ago, they found the most efficient car (least energy used) was actually an electric-diesel hybrid, where the electric was the primary motivator and the diesel engine provided a backup for the battery.

They ranked a pure diesel car as the second most efficient, as evidenced by the almost 90mpg Lupo in Germany (or the 250mpg prototype).

Re:Did I miss something?

[commodore64_love]

We don't have to stop using oil to remove our presence from the Mideast. We could do it *right now* by simply pulling out. "Protect the oil" is an excuse by power-loving politicians to justify their acts, but we also have a big military presence in Europe and Japan. Is there oil there? No.

So that means even if the Mideast had no oil whatsoever, or we stopped using oil completely, the Congress would still keep troops there - it's the desire to dominate that is the root cause. And I agree with Congressman Ron Paul - we need to stop acting like a modern day Roman Empire, and bring the soldiers home. There's no reason to have distant outposts in foreign, sovereign nations.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Skarecrow77]

I think you're the one missing something.

An $80,000 nissan GT-R is an absolute bargain of a steal -compared- to $300,000 lamborghinis and ferraris... but only when compared to those cars. Your average consumer, especially the ones who are looking for a "more affordable" car in a "flagging economy" are going to laugh at the $80,000 price tag and pick up something else.

It's the same deal with a $50,000 tesla toyota. Even if it's a bargain compared to a $100,000 tesla, it is NOT a bargain compared to even the $30,000 bmws and audis, let alone $20,000 non-luxary sedans.

Re:Did I miss something?

[IICV]

Moving away from an oil economy would allow the US to tell the Arabs, Persians and Israelis to go away, and take their blood vendettas with them.

Unfortunately, we're never going to tell the Israelis to go away - there's a surprisingly large contingent of Americans (and therefore American politicians) who think we should do everything we can to support Israel, in order to bring about the Rapture.

If you're sane, you're not really playing the same game as they are. To them, it's totally okay to burn as much oil as you need to assure Israel's dominance in the Middle East - the consequences don't matter, because most of them think the Rapture will come in their lifetime (or at worst, their children's). The future doesn't matter, because there won't be any.

Re:Did I miss something?

[RobertM1968]

I suspect that this tradeoff will be a lot more attractive in areas of the world where gasoline/petrol is $7 ($us) a gallon, but here where the price is about 1/3 to 1/2 of that, I'm guessing that the loss of freedom and spontanity is not worth meager price savings.

I disagree. It will also be attractive to those who have decent length commutes. First, the Teslas (fully outfitted) can go 300 miles a charge. That is a lack of spontaneity for very very few people (those who do cross country road trips or very long road trips - it's 5 hours of driving without stopping). Secondly (on the gas price bit), per Scientific American, it costs about 75 cents per gallon equivalent of gas. Even at $3 a gallon in the US, that's a massive savings. I used to drive 40,000 miles a year (or roughly 1600 gallons in gas; 120 miles a day round trip 5 days a week for work, plus driving "here and there" during non-work time) - meaning for me, it's either $4800 in gas, or $1200 in electricity. $3600 a year isn't bad in savings. In ten years (expected battery life with the newer battery series that Panasonic is supposedly going to be selling them), that's a $36,000 savings.

Now of course, many people replace cars sooner than that. But in today's economy, I think that situation is changing as well. I for one always drove my car into the ground before replacing it. Well maintained, I've had 5 cars (old and newer ones) that have well exceeded 300,000 miles (one of which well into the 500,000 or more range - a 1963 Chevy - coulda been more, but that was as many odometer rollovers as we counted).

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you refine your own gasoline? If not, then THAT GODDAMN GUBERMINT could take away your mobility at any time!

Re:Did I miss something?

[asukasoryu]

It's physics, in every step of the process there is loss of energy. It's more efficient to have the fuel directly produce kinetic energy in the engine.

So the fuel is magically transported into your engine at no energy cost? To say it's physics does not validate your point. You haven't done the math. You should research the efficiency of a modern internal combustion engine, various types of power plants, transmission lines, and electric motors. Regardless, there are renewable ways of generating electricity. Mass produced renewable gasoline is not yet an option (E85 can only take us so far).

To reflect your post, how is it more efficient to manufacture a drilling rig in the middle of the ocean, pump all that nonrenewable oil out of the Earth, transport that oil via tanker, refine that oil into gasoline, transport that gasoline via diesel truck, and burn that fuel in an internal combustion engine?

One more thing- you can recharge your electric car with a solar panel at home.

Re:Did I miss something?

[m.ducharme]

While I think you're partly right, I don't think the desire to dominate is sufficient to explain it. You Americans have military in these other countries, but I think that everyone knows that if you tried to actually use your military against the Germans, say or the Japanese, you wouldn't get very far. The American military presence in Europe and Japan is better explained as providing the US with easier access to the real trouble-spots, the Middle East and the rest of Asia.

American domination in the Western nations is achieved with dollars, not military bases. And a key component to the power of the US is America's control of the Middle East oilfields, through their oil corporations. George Bush didn't send the Marines into Iraq just because he thought it'd make a nice addition to his collection, he sent them in because Saddam was about to start accepting only Euros for his oil, and that made George's oil-baron buddies nervous.

  You'll notice that the US doesn't have a strong military presence in Africa (other than the Middle East): why? Because the hegemony doesn't think there's anything in Africa worth fighting for.

As for Ron Paul, I'm not a big fan of his (I'm too much a lefty) but I do agree that it's high time for the US to put aside it's Empire, before the cost of that empire destroys your country (and takes most of the rest of us down with it).

Re:Did I miss something?

[adwarf]

How do you get $4000 a year? Assuming that gas is $4/gallon (just to make the math easy) that means you drive 35,000 miles a year. Or am I missing something obvious?

Re:Did I miss something?

[Attila Dimedici]

That more than anything would bring about an American victory in the "war on terrorism," as all the terrorists really want is for the US and other Western powers to stop meddling in their affairs.

Well, that and convert to Islam. If you don't believe that the Muslim extremists who are behind most of the terrorism in the world today want to forcibly convert the rest of the world to their version of Islam, you need to study the history of Islam. The only times that Islam has not been using military force to conquer non-Muslims is when there has been a world power that was strong enough to forcibly prevent them from doing so.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Angua]

I suppose it's ironic that they're basing the plant in the one state that people WILL buy with idealism instead of sense.

I don't think it's irony so much as simple practicality.

Tesla has always stated that they wanted to start with sexy, expensive cars and work their way towards full size, affordable cars. The S sedan is a step along the way. And economic downturn or not, there are still plenty of people willing to plonk down $50k for a luxury sedan. I'm quite sure they'll find a few buyers in the SF Bay Area.

Re:Did I miss something?

[m.ducharme]

I believe that the muslim extremists would lose all of the tacit support they currently enjoy from more moderate muslims in the Middle East if the US butted out of Middle Eastern affairs. Without that tacit support, the extremists will be all bark and no bite. I don't share your Islamophobia, but that may be because my last conversation with a Muslim was over beer and curry, and was a comparison of notes about what it's like to raise a daughter. He didn't try to convert me, but we did talk about the US and their capacity to stick their depleted uranium in other people's business.

Besides, the religious Christian extremists in the US and Canada are probably more a threat to me than the religious Muslim extremists. Does it make sense that I become a "bible-believing Christian" to reduce that threat from them?

Re:Did I miss something?

[2obvious4u]

In 2008 between April and December I put 25,015 miles and spent $2,557.20 on Gas and $1,118.99 on Oil changes, tags, and insurance. Putting cost of ownership for 2008 on my Corolla at $3,676.19. In 2009 I drove 23,273.5 miles spending $2,260.98 and spent $922.17 on other maintenance. Bringing it to $3,183,15. I haven't logged my 2010 usage yet, but I still have the receipts filed.

For me a nissan leaf won't work because it doesn't have enough juice to get me to and from work. I need a car with at least a 200 mile range to feel safe. I would like to be closer to work, but my wife works 55 miles in the opposite direction and we bought our house to split the difference.

$3,000 would have been more accurate; but I also bought a Sequoia in 2009 and don't track fuel in it and sometime use it for the commute and all vacation traveling so that is why the numbers went down in 2009.

Re:Did I miss something?

[s122604]

How exactly is burning fuel that was transferred to the plant by burning fuel in order to produce steam to produce kinetic energy to produce electricity that's transferred hundreds of miles that produces a charge in a battery that's used to produce kinetic energy again..... more efficient?

does your car have a smokestack scrubber?
and a full-time staff of engineers to make sure your plant is in good working order (one poorly tuned combustion engine can throw out more pollution than the next hundred)?
and a massive thermally efficient turbine that is an order of magnitude more efficient than any piston engine?

Re:Did I miss something?

[2obvious4u]

You're missing a couple of additional points.
The cost of living in San Francisco is 70% above the national average. So flagging to them still makes that car affordable.

Second the model S is competing for the $40,000 - $60,000 Sedan market. Audi has a great filter where you can set the price and see all their cars in that price range. That is what the model S is competing against.

If you keep up with Tesla you know they also are working on a car that would be at or under $30,000 for their next model. They are going from luxury cars down to consumer cars for everyone. They are hoping that early adopters will finance the cars for everyone else. They are after all a tech company turned automaker, not the other way around.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Attention, ecomentals: what do you think is generating the electricity to power the (energy intensive) construction and use of your "green" car? Fairy farts? "

Yes, in a sense. Specifically, 25% of my power is generated by wind. 50% is Nuclear. 75% of the electricity I use is exhaust-free.

Wind being water, and the data being 6 years old and from the government not the power company.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Bemopolis]

"Drill baby drill"
"Deep-water oil wells -- NOW with guaranteed blow-out preventers"
"Shut up hippies"
"No one could have foreseen this"

One of these things is not like the others...?

Re:Did I miss something?

[RobertM1968]

>>>If we want to move to 100% electric cars

I don't think pure electric cars have a future. People don't want to be limited to a 300 mile radius when they travel. When GREET performed a study several years ago, they found the most efficient car (least energy used) was actually an electric-diesel hybrid, where the electric was the primary motivator and the diesel engine provided a backup for the battery.

They ranked a pure diesel car as the second most efficient, as evidenced by the almost 90mpg Lupo in Germany (or the 250mpg prototype).

The Tesla, based off Scientific American's price per mile calculations, and using those prices as comparison, gets 120mpg equivalent (75 cents per gallon equivalent of miles driven instead of $3).

Additionally, Tesla has already designed their new models with 5 minute battery replacement in mind. Yes, the infrastructure doesnt yet exist, but the more of these cars that sell, the more likely such an infrastructure will come into existence.

On top of that, when it comes to road trips, most people stop in 5 or less hours (within the vehicle's range) for 45 minutes to an hour. A quickcharge station (ie:45 minute charge) is something very easy to install at most rest stops and Interstate located gas stations. Again, no infrastructure yet, but this one is a very easy infrastructure to install.

Additionally, for those who do go on road trips, the gas savings each year should (generally) easily cover the cost of a rental car and leave money left over.

So, for the vast majority of drivers who do not go on long road trips, this vehicle makes a lot of sense. Eventually, this means an increase in demand, and increase in infrastructures (battery replacement and/or quickcharge stations).

Additionally, there is no reason why, through sales of these vehicles (or other methods of justifying it) that Toyota and Tesla cannot come up with a 300 mile on electric range car that supplements battery charging with a small motor for "enhanced range" mode.

On top of all of that, there are new technologies (either now going into mass production, or soon to go into mass production) that provide either (a) cheaper batteries with longer life (the silicon based ones) or (b) batteries with greater storage capacities in the same size (various new lithium ion technologies that use other elements in their design, as well as promised breakthroughs in supercap technologies). As with all technology, I expect these improvements, especially with a growing (albeit slowly) market emerging that needs them, will help push the technology (electric cars) into something more people are interested in. There's always gotta be the first effort to get things to that point. Just like the original IBM PC. As much of a success as it was, it pales in comparison to the situation today, where "everyone" owns a computer - or two or three, and prices have dropped to make them a commodity item.

Most people didnt think that the automobile would take off either. Or numerous other technological advances.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Skarecrow77]

I was never really trying to insult tesla. I wanted to drive a roadster as much as anybody.

I was more poking fun at the summary that contained "flagging economy" and $50,000 car in the same breath. I just can't see a $50k as "economical". The fact that it's competing against luxury sedans furthers my point. It's not supposed to be 'affordable" and whoever called it that is delusional. I grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood and I still think "affordable" is your $15k to $20k civic or focus.

All that said, I'm quite interested to see what Tesla can do with that $30,000 one.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Jeremi]

It's all about centralizing control. "We have the means to improve lives for all people. We have assumed control, and will (eventually, maybe) act in your interest."

Hahaha, as if you have some kind of "control" now. Dug any oil wells in your back yard lately? At least with an electric car you have the theoretical possibility of producing your own electricity to recharge it from your own solar panels / wind turbine / etc.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

So yeah the model S is more affordable, especially considering it will save you over $4,000 a year in oil and gas charges. And I'm basing that $4,000 a year off my 35 MPG Corolla, compared to maintenance on a comparable car I'm sure it would be more.

I've started saving for my model S. The Corolla is just to hold me over. I hope to have a Model S within 5 years.

You drive 350 miles a month and the Tesla costs zero dollars to power and maintain? Or do you drive 700 miles a month and the Tesla costs $320 a month to maintain?

Re:Did I miss something?

[SombreReptile]

> Also, some of us greenies are willing to take a second look at nuclear power tech, especially if re-use of the fissionables was on the table.

Could I interest you in a depleted-uranium coffee table?

Re:Did I miss something?

[WalksOnDirt]

While "Big Government" is willing to either give away (like for the EV1 projects) or loan (recent bailout) millions or billions of dollars to the big automakers, they seemed to have no real interest in helping Tesla...

What? You think the $465 million government loan Tesla got doesn't count as help?

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're usage isn't typical, which is usually considered 12000-15000 miles/year. Also, this:

...and $1,118.99 on Oil changes, tags, and insurance.

could be construed as disingenuous. Your tags and insurance costs would be similar with the electric sedan, and neither are related to miles driven, at least not in any state I know of.

- T

Re:Did I miss something?

[homer_ca]

That won't reduce the cost. When Toyota sold Rav4 EVs, which were made in a foreign country with cheap labor, the thing still cost $45000 to purchase.

Labor in Japan is not cheap. As you said, the extra component cost was in the battery. Toyota lost money at that price with all the one-off engineering going into a limited-production model, but $45k is probably a reasonable guesstimate of pricing with mass production.

The Rav4 EV was also costly to maintain. The battery required replacement every 100,000 miles - that's a cost equal to replacing an engine in a normal car, but about 3 times more frequently.

Do engines and transmissions typically go 300,000 mi without expensive major repairs? Might want to rethink that assumption. As durable as Toyota engines are, 300k is still pushing it. Since the NiMH battery packs were never sold as spare parts thanks to Chevron/Cobasys, we'll never know.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

good post.

the "simple" to add 45-minute "quick charge" spots at stations I think will also go up quickly as the equipment can't cost very much, if you were to compare to how much a gas pump costs to put up.

I'm sure gas stations would love to charge people $30-40 a pop for the ability to use the electricity they can "order on demand" for you

So, to put this on it's head: traditionally, they can install a gas pump for $X and regularly fill it with fuel they hope to sell for more than they bought it for. In the electric car model they can install an "electric pump" for $Y (where $Y $X) and sell you electricity at precise margins over cost every time.

The only reason you, as a gas station owner, would not install one of these is because electric cars don't exist. If you had like 5 people stop a month you'd probably pay for the equipment in 18-24mos, and then it's gravy.

The 5-minute changing stations should follow the same rules, they'll cost more to install, but can be retailed at a premium and will provide higher margins. You're back to ordering fuel again, but not really, you just have to make sure you keep enough full batteries on hand, by charging the empties that get dropped off and always having enough full batteries to keep you covered in the time it takes you to recharge them. It's a much more manageable cycle than relying on fuel deliveries however.

Oh yea, and they'll be plenty of opportunities for interested parties to want to subsidize these, I've gone on long enough, this one could go too, so i'll quit here

TL;DR, and the economics of it will easily incentive gas stations to offer charging services, once these types of cars hit a fairly low ownership rate for a given region.

Re:Did I miss something?

[homer_ca]

If you build an engine for stationary use at constant load, you can optimize for much higher efficiency than mobile use at variable load. Car engines need to be light weight. They're sized for peak power and acceleration, but spend most of their time at a tiny fraction of that load. They spend a lot of time idling in traffic. Non-hybrid cars waste lots of energy braking in city traffic.

Re:Did I miss something?

[RobertM1968]

While "Big Government" is willing to either give away (like for the EV1 projects) or loan (recent bailout) millions or billions of dollars to the big automakers, they seemed to have no real interest in helping Tesla...

What? You think the $465 million government loan Tesla got doesn't count as help?

(1) You have no idea how much a production facility costs apparently

(2) You forget that half a billion is a LOT LESS than GM's and other's recent MULTI-BILLION dollar bailout.

(3) You obviously have no idea how much was wasted on the EV1.

In comparison, that makes their efforts with Tesla seem like "no real interest"

Re:Did I miss something?

[2obvious4u]

All that said, I'm quite interested to see what Tesla can do with that $30,000 one.

And with the partnership with Toyota, I'd like to see what one of the major players could do with Tesla's battery technology.

When I bought my $18,000 Corolla, I was originally looking at a $40,000 Evo. I saw what other cars I could get for $40,000 and decided that I was better off paying cash for the Corolla and pocketing the left over $22,000 for other stuff. If gas prices keep rising it wouldn't take much to make the Model S affordable comparable to a Corolla. I tried justifying the Roadster and for a 100,000 mile lifetime on the vehicle gas prices would have to reach $13 a gallon to justify the Roadster over the Corolla, so just guestimating if gas prices reach $6 a gallon again the Model S becomes a comparable car again. Around my neck of the woods its already $2.90.

Re:Did I miss something?

[DragonWriter]

"flagging economy"
"more affordable"
"sell for $49,900"

one of these things is not like the others... ?

True, "flagging economy" is a description of the economic climate, while the other two "more affordable" (compared to Tesla's existing electric offerings) and "sell for $49,900" are descriptions of the price of the Model S. So the first is not like the other two.

Looked at a different way, "flagging economy" and "more affordable" are fuzzy and subjective, while "sell for $49,900" is concrete, so the last is not like the other two.

Most likely, the point you are trying to make has nothing to do with the one thing being not like the other two, and you are trying to be cute and suggest that $49,900 is inconsistent with "more affordable". But $49,900 is clearly "more affordable" -- more affordable, that is, than Tesla's existing products, the $101,000 base price Roadster and the $128,500 base price Roadster Sport.

Re:Did I miss something?

[DragonWriter]

You left off labor costs in California in general and the Bay Area in particular.

There are a lot of out of work auto workers from the NUMMI plant (the one that Tesla bought and is going to used) that GM closed earlier this year that still live in the immediate area -- much more than Tesla is going to initially employ when reopening the plant.

Re:Did I miss something?

[VanessaE]

His point is that you can add a thousand tons of emissions-cleaning equipment to each of the thousands of old coal- and oil-fired power plants (and for that matter, whatever other types you want to name that you consider to be "dirty") if that's what it takes to clean them up, because they don't have to move around.

You can't do the same thing for the hundreds of millions of cars out there - even if you could scale such equipment down to a car-sized option.

Adding more equipment to them (or replacing what's already there) would just mean more weight to carry around, with less available engine power to handle it, which just increases total fuel consumption, putting you back where you started, and raising the price of oil/gasoline in the process.

As for the efficiency of electric versus gasoline, you're leaving some stuff out:

The average loss in transmission from a power station to the end consumer (you and me) is only about 6.5% according to industry estimates, or 93.5% efficient.

Really good brushless electric motors can do 96% efficiency, but most common ones are closer to 90%, so let's go with that.

Lithium-Ion batteries have between 80 and 90% charge/discharge efficiency. Let's assume the middle of that range, or 85% efficient.

93.5% x 90% x 85% = ~71.5% efficient from the generating station to the axle of the motor. A quick check of Wikipedia seems to suggest that I'm perhaps underestimating the overall efficiency.

The best ICEs only give you about 38% efficiency for the same energy input, and that's when used in a constant-speed application like a diesel series-hybrid, under ideal conditions. That doesn't count the cost of transporting the fuel to the gas station.

Note that I leave out the efficiency of the actual car because that is entirely dependent on the design of the vehicle as a whole - any car manufacturer can design a nice, efficient frame and body, it's just a matter of what components they choose to power it with.

Sure, you could use the same oil to run your ICE as you might use to generate power to run a comparable electric motor, but most power plants don't use oil to begin with. Most use one of coal, natural gas, nuclear, or various renewable resources. As of 2009, petroleum only accounted for about one percent of the US's electricity usage - literally 99% of the electricity came from the above sources (I can only guess that most other countries are at least similar)

You could probably cover that 1% by converting those oil-based power stations over to use ethanol (switchgrass-based).

We do have the technology right now to supply both the continuous load and the peak loads that the cars would add to the grid, we just need to stop the NIMBY shit and scale up (starting with renewables and nuclear, of course). Since we would also be taking ICE-based vehicles off the road, the oil formerly being used for them can be put to other uses, or just be left in the ground since the power stations don't need it either.

As far as I'm concerned, electric vehicles can't take over fast enough - the internal combustion engine should be relegated to niche applications or museums as soon as possible.

Re:Did I miss something?

[MJMullinII]

Yes people don't seem to understand how BIG the U.S. is. If I order from amazon.com, it has to travel 2000 miles from California, and there's not much in-between. By car it's a 3 day journey. First the steam engine and now gasoline/diesel-fueled vehicles are what keeps this country connected.

If the cost doubles, it will have a major impact on our goods, our food, and our business travel. The EU has an advantage, as most of their goods can be shipped via water (for example from Poland to Spain) which is cheaper than land travel. The U.S. doesn't have that. Goods travel over the roads or rails.

Not to mention Europe is, on average, far more dense than the United States. I'm betting that if studies were actually done (they might already have been and I'm just to lazy to find them, etc. :) ), most packages and shipping in Europe is by neccessity on much smaller scale. Even if it is by truck (the least efficient mode of transportation), it is a small enough trip not to really add much to the price.

As you said, unlike in the United States where the population is spread to and fro and the sources of goods generally on the coasts.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're already bankrupt.

The military presence is keeping our money worth something. All oil is paid in dollars. Everybody needs dollars. Saudi Arabia holds lots of dollars.

When China stops taking our dollars, Saudi Arabia is the last major consumer of them. Because they take them, everybody else has to. When nobody takes them, they are worth nothing.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Skarecrow77]

it is also more affordable than a space shuttle.

the ironic thing is this is all a matter of how people feel about a given company. if it was Ballmer who said this about a new microsoft product, or Jobs about a new apple product, with a laughably inflated idea of "affordable", people would be all over it.

While the blurb is -technically- refering to the cost of tesla's previous product, by referencing the current state of the economy it is infering that this product is a good fit for people with reduced financial means, while I submit that's just silly. Anybody who has the means to purchase a $49,900 luxury commuter car either isn't hurting too badly, or is a complete financial whackjob. Either way, the "flagging economy" isn't impacting their purchasing too much.

Re:Did I miss something?

[sourcerror]

Wooosh.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Tubal-Cain]

I'm pretty sure one of the first limits creditors have on a loan's size is... how much the debtor asks for. If Tesla only applied for $465 million, I doubt they'd be given more.

Re:Did I miss something?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Do engines and transmissions typically go 300,000 mi without expensive major repairs?

Mine do. If you abuse your engines/transmissions then perhaps you get less mileage, but my Dodge Shadow went just over 340,000 miles before the engine died. Neither it nor the transmission had any major work except routine changes of oil. My Dodge Avenger is nearing 200,000 miles and it too has had ZERO major repairs. It's running even better than my Shadow did at that point, and I expect to reach 300,000 miles easily.

And then there's the guy in Maryland who ran a Honda Civic to 1.1 million miles before finally trading for a new model - again it was the original engine and transmission. So I'll stick with my previous post: "The battery required replacement every 100,000 miles - that's a cost equal to replacing an engine in a normal car, but about 3 times more frequently."

Re:Did I miss something?

[commodore64_love]

Well I've looked at the Tesla Roadsters specs, and they are very similar to the EV1. ACEEE.org ranked the EV1 as no cleaner than a Prius or Civic Hybrid and I suspect the same would be true for the Roadster.
.

>>>most people stop in 5 or less hours (within the vehicle's range) for 45 minutes to an hour.

I never stop. 5 minutes to recharge the gasoline and that's it..... there's no possible way to recharge an EV in 5 minutes. As for the rest of your comments you are clearly a fan of EVs, and that's fine, but I am also an electrical engineer who has been studying alternative cars for a decade. The EV doesn't live up to the hype. That's why I bought the Insight Hybrid and not the Rav4 EV several years ago. (Insight was ranked as the cleanest car by ACEEE.)

I think Hybrids are the only practical solution for Americans, who like to drive long distances, and don't want to be limited by an empty battery that takes an hour to recharge. The hybrids offer the best of both EV (efficient) and gasoline/diesel cars (5 minute recharge).
.

>>>there are new technologies (either now going into mass production, or soon to go into mass production) that provide either (a) cheaper batteries with longer life (the silicon based ones) or (b) batteries with greater storage capacities in the same size
>>>

No offense but I heard the same thing in 2000. And yet here we are, still using the same NiMH technology in cars.

Re:Did I miss something?

[DragonWriter]

it is also more affordable than a space shuttle.

The space shuttle isn't a current electric vehicle offering from Tesla.

A story about Tesla, an electric vehicle manufacturer, announcing plans to build a "more affordable" electric vehicle has a pretty clear comparison communicated in it.

the ironic thing is this is all a matter of how people feel about a given company. if it was Ballmer who said this about a new microsoft product, or Jobs about a new apple product, with a laughably inflated idea of "affordable", people would be all over it.

No, its really about people's ability to understand English, not their feelings about a company. I'm mostly neutral on Tesla -- even the Model S is out of the range that I am interested in, the Nissan LEAF is much more interesting, though the development partnership Tesla announced with Toyota might yield interesting fruit.

OTOH, I recognize that there is a difference between saying something is "more affordable" (which is always a comparison to something else) and saying that it is "affordable", and something need not be "affordable" by any reasonable absolute standard to be "more affordable" than the particular thing that it is being compared to.

While the blurb is -technically- refering to the cost of tesla's previous product, by referencing the current state of the economy it is infering that this product is a good fit for people with reduced financial means

Which it may well be, especially if those people with "reduced financial means" would have been in the market for a Tesla Roadster before those means were reduced.

"Reduced" doesn't say anything about what something was reduced from. Nothing in the blurb suggests that the Model S is priced in a way that makes it accessible to the average purchaser, only that it is within the range of far more people than the Roadster.

Re:Did I miss something?

[RobertM1968]

various stuff

How can you compare a very limited range EV to a Tesla 300 mile range car?

Now... on to batteries. You do realize that the Tesla does not use NiMH? It uses Lithium Ion batteries. And you do realize that there is currently two major manufacturers who are mass producing a "special" variant of the Lithium Ion battery (uses iron in it as well I think) that is a little cheaper, and lasts longer (12+ years)?

You also realize that supercaps are already in use in certain EVs? Only to a limited extent, but that extent has been increasing as the technology matures. And of course you realize that silicon based batteries, though not in mass production, are already being tested by two different groups?

I believe that you, sir, are behind the times in your knowledge of the situation.

As for me, I am actually interested in a hybrid (of my own design) that can manage 300 miles on a charge, yet go longer by switching to "hybrid" mode. Inotherwords, take something like a Tesla Model S, drop in a genset unit and small gas tank, and use it to extend range for the "ultra long" trips.

Re:Did I miss something?

[rdnetto]

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't bother?

You've got to start the conversion to 100% electric somewhere, plus the transition to renewables can happen in parallel.

You're never going to get 100% electric - even now we don't have 100% (unleaded) petrol. Electric might work in some places, but in others (e.g. Australia) where everything is further apart they just don't have a long enough range.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Attila Dimedici]

Besides, the religious Christian extremists in the US and Canada are probably more a threat to me than the religious Muslim extremists.

In what way? When was the last time "religious Christian extremists" killed someone for making a movie that was offensive to their faith? I hear people make that kind of statement all the time, but I would like to know what it is based upon.

Re:Did I miss something?

[RobertM1968]

Well I've looked at the Tesla Roadsters specs, and they are very similar to the EV1.

Let me help you on that one:

EV1
- NiMH batteries or Lead Acid batteries
- 50 mile to 150 range (depending on batteries installed)
- 8 hour charge to full
- Seats 2 people

Tesla Model S/Roadster
- Lithium Ion batteries
- 300 mile range on a charge
- 45 minute charge to full (Model S)/under 4 hour charge to full (Roadster)*
- Seats 2 people (Roadster)/seats 5 people (Model S)

* meaning worst case scenario: less than half the charge time (Roadster) for twice the mileage of the best range EV1 - and less than 1/10th the charge time (Model S) for twice the range.

I dont see any real similarities other than the fact that they are both EVs.

The only advantage the EV1 had was (when using NiMH batteries) longer battery life (up to 160,000 miles) - compared to the Roadster's expected 7 years/100,000 mi battery lifetime. That situation is changing with the advent of (as) cheap lithium iron phosphate batteries that have expected life cycles of over ten to twelve years, and an excess of over 2,000 charge cycles (meaning with recharges every day and a half, it's charge cycle lifetime will also be over 10 years). That translates into about 480,000 miles of driving (at 80% discharge before each full recharge). So, even in this area, the Tesla fleet currently performs similarly to (and will soon drastically outperform) the NiMH powered GM EV1 fleet by a lot - and the lead acid EV1s simply dont compare at all.

That leaves the remaining advantage being GM's Magne Charge unit for their NiMH powered cars, that promised a 10 minute recharge for 60-100 mile range (or range equivalent to 30-50 minutes for 300 miles), making it only marginally better than the Model S charging unit and charge times.

Re:Did I miss something?

[RobertM1968]

>>>If we want to move to 100% electric cars

I don't think pure electric cars have a future. People don't want to be limited to a 300 mile radius when they travel. When GREET performed a study several years ago, they found the most efficient car (least energy used) was actually an electric-diesel hybrid, where the electric was the primary motivator and the diesel engine provided a backup for the battery.

They ranked a pure diesel car as the second most efficient, as evidenced by the almost 90mpg Lupo in Germany (or the 250mpg prototype).

I messed something up earlier... supposedly, the Roadster/Model S cost about $4 per full charge... or 01.333 cents per mile in "fuel" (based on night charging using California's electricity rates of a couple years ago).

As an end user, I'd rather pay $4 for 300 miles than $30 (at $3/gallon) for 300 miles (30mpg range of my current car under optimal driving conditions)... and would still rather pay $4 than the $13 the production Lupo you mention would cost to drive 300 miles ($$ adjusted to $4 a gallon for diesel).

100,000 miles is $10,000 gas (at $3 a gallon and 30mpg), or $4,444 diesel (at $4 and 90mpg), or $1,333 for electricity (at California nighttime charge rate cost of 1.3333 cents a mile).

Now, even assuming that one wants to keep the car beyond 100,000 miles (up to 200,000 miles used in my calculations, ie: ONE battery unit swap), it becomes (if batteries dont get cheaper - which they will - as that's 5-10 years for silicon based batteries to hit the market or mass production of current batteries to increase enough to drop costs), based off Tesla's $36K cost for battery replacement, it ends up being 19.3 cents a mile instead of 1.3 cents (first battery unit comes with car - no extra cost. 2nd battery unit is $36K... total range is 200,000 miles).

So, YES, that is where uber efficient diesels are better... the Tesla, to exceed 100,000 miles (but be under 200,000 miles), would be $5.79 a gallon equivalent.

So... for people like me, you are correct. It is not cost effective. For people who buy mid range luxury type cars (ie: similar costs to the Model S) like my neighbors or one of my brothers, who rarely hits 80,000 miles before trading in or buying a new car, the Tesla is cheaper for mile. For me (who runs my cars into the ground, squeeking every last mile out of them... usually in excess of 200,000 miles) it doesnt work out - yet. If battery tech does advance (and get cheaper) during the next 5-10 years (lifetime of the first set of batteries), then things change.

But for people on Slashdot, the key thing is, I suspect all of us are more than capable of doing the rather simple math to determine whether it is feasible (and a cost savings) to get such a car (of course factoring in other things like "yeah, I always buy a $50K car like an Audi or whatever other luxury car meets my fancy" - compared to (people like me) "it's a car... it has 4 wheels, it moves, it gets decent mpg... I'll take it!")

When the accelerator gets stuck...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just unplug it.

Toyota + Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Toyota + Tesla? That's great.

But Tesla might want to throw a few more engineers to double the stopping capacity of their brakes. 'Cause, you know.

Re:Toyota + Tesla

[XnR'rn]

Do electromobiles use ICE style brakes? The trolleybuses (that use electric engines and have been using them since 1882) just reverses engine revolution to stop (or somesuch). Same principle could be used in electric cars as well.

Re:Toyota + Tesla

[Mindcontrolled]

Usually electric vehicles use a combination of both - conventional brakes and some flavor of regenerative braking. Just using the engines is not sufficient in most cases, conventional disk brakes have a braking power that is roughly double that of the engine.

Re:Toyota + Tesla

[XnR'rn]

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about regenerative braking. AFAIK the trolleybuses (at least ones that we have here in Moscow), use active electrical braking, which is NOT regenerative. On other hand they have different movement context. They are tethered to the power lines, and they were not designed to reach speeds, that cars can reach.

a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[tverbeek]

Answering the "is-a-new-tesla-greener-than-an-existing-hummer?" in the header:

Yes, collectively in the long term. Every new electric car put on the road will contribute via networking effects to the development of an infrastructure to support electrics, and every gas-burning car taken off the road will contribute to the dismantling of the infrastructure that drills (and spills) for oil underwater, ships (and slicks) it in tankers around the world, etc. A new car is only manufactured once; it will continue to interact as a part of our environment for years (possibly decades) to come.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[H0p313ss]

Answering the "is-a-new-tesla-greener-than-an-existing-hummer?" in the header: Yes...

Can anyone think of a vehicle that is NOT greener than an existing hummer?

Apparently even a 100 year old Model T has a better mpg rating and they seem to last forever.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Cornwallis]

Yes but...

Didn't I read somewhere that 75% of a car's lifetime energy consumption is during manufacture? So wouldn't it make more sense to rehabilitate existing autos? (And in a perverse way hasn't Cuba been doing that for decades?)

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[H0p313ss]

Arg... I should have found a better reference, that one is crap. Just forget I said anything.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[networkBoy]

yes.
And TopGear looked into a Prius Vs. a BMW M3 and found:
for a given speed (highway) the M3 had better milage.
The M3 cost less (energy) to manufacture.
The M3 batteries were greener to manufacture.
The Prius NiMh batteries were:
  * Mined in Canada at a dirty mine
  * ore was shipped to China to be smelted
  * raw metal was shipped to Europe to be "foamed"
  * Foamed nickel plates were shipped to Japan to be built into batteries
  * Batteries were shipped to the US for assembly into the Prius.

In other news: Recycling a plastic bottle is worse for the environment than burning it as fuel.

I don't know about the rest of /. but I do not expect people to care about that, nor do I expect them to believe me.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[jcupitt65]

It's the other way around, actually. 80 - 90% of a vehicle's lifetime energy use is in driving it around. You can google many versions of this calculation, but here's one from Slate.

You might be remembering the report from a few years ago that claimed a Hummer was more efficient than a Prius, but that's been pretty thoroughly debunked many times now.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Skarecrow77]

Penn and Teller taught me that the only material that actually makes economic and environmental sense to recycle is aluminum, and the rest (plastic, paper, et al) is all feel-good BS and attempts to create jobs. A good idea that is flawed in practice and doesn't work out as well as one might hope... Just like hybrids.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[drinkypoo]

You might be remembering the report from a few years ago that claimed a Hummer was more efficient than a Prius, but that's been pretty thoroughly debunked many times now.

Unfortunately, it's not actually well-debunked by your link, which claims that the report was well-debunked, but then goes on to quote only that report when giving any lifetime per-mile energy consumption figures. Do you have any useful links with which to debunk the report?

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[geekoid]

That was a horrible Top Gear. The tests where all favored the BMW.
You don't drive a Prius like you do a BMW.

Why don't the hook a trailer to the Prius and compare it to a big rig? The Prius would loose there as well.

They always make excuses for the big engine. I could easily come up with latest where the Prius beats the fell out of a BMW. say traveling S. on the 605 from City of industry into hunting beach at about 5PM.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[commodore64_love]

1000 mpg per (electric) gallon isn't even close to accurate.

Hobbyists who actually drive EVs average about 300 watt-hours per mile driven. That converts to around 40 miles per gallon-equivalent. In other words about the same as a Honda Civic HX or Prius Hybrid. (Put another way, a one hour 60 mile EV trip is 18 kwh - same amount as my window AC uses in 72 hours.)

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[commodore64_love]

Not even lose to accurate. Manufacture of a car is about 50,000 miles worth of gasoline for the average vehicle. So if a car lasts 300,000 miles (500,000 for diesels) then we're looking at just 14% of total energy expenditure, not 75%.

Of course this is why the Cash for Clunkers idea was ridiculous. If people had been required to upgrade to 40mpg or higher, then it would have been good, but going from 20 to 25mpg is nothing. The increased fuel efficiency does NOT make up for the ~50,000 miles worth of manufacturing energy wasted to destroy a perfectly working vehicle.

It's the equivalent of me going round smashing windows in order to try to boost the economy. (Or starting a war.) It's destruction not production

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[mbessey]

> I could easily come up with latest where the Prius beats the fell out of a BMW. say traveling S. on the 605 from City of industry into hunting beach at about 5PM.

That's one place where the Prius really shines - when you're crawling along in traffic at ~ 5 mph for an hour, the engine doesn't run for that whole hour.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[jcupitt65]

Ooops, sorry. The wiki page for the prius suggested this PDF report but I didn't want to link to a PDF :-(

The CNW study has also been covered here at /..

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[TheLink]

> when you're crawling along in traffic at ~ 5 mph for an hour, the engine doesn't run for that whole hour.

With current batteries, air conditioning reduces the range of an electric car proportionately more than a normal ICE car.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Bemopolis]

You're not American, are you. The land where fat asses and small dicks conspired to create the Hummer.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Cornwallis]

Hmm. That's an interesting small-brained response.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[SydShamino]

Sure the program was flawed. But stop spewing the biased implication that the program's result was just "going from 20 to 25mpg".

That may have been allowed under the law. But the actual results were that the average trade-in went from 15.8 to 24.9mpg.

I don't know where you got the "50,000 miles worth of gasoline" number, or how to convert that to energy when we're specifically talking about cars with a variety of gas-to-mileage ratios. But let's assume that you meant "the equivalent of 2,000 gallons of gas" required to manufacture a typical new car.

Over the 300,000 mile life you claim, a car with 15.8 mpg will use 18,987 gallons. A car with 24.9 mpg will use 12,048 gallons. So the average new car bought with the program, after adding the "2,000" gallon construction cost, still saves almost 5000 gallons of gas over the vehicle life. (Yes, assuming all the cars were gasoline. More savings for diesels.)

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[drinkypoo]

Looks like that report is as good as anything, although it still shows no actual figures for Prius or H1. I wish someone would show what it really ought to be so we can lay this to rest permanently. I'd really like to know what it was at the worst (when all the battery components got shipped way too much) and what it is now, too.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Poorcku]

Some would say, the tests favored the car.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[horza]

We all know Clarkson loves the M3 and hates the Prius, so it must have given him extra pleasure to stitch up the Prius like that. Top Gear is the equivalent of FHM magazine. They are there to gain viewing figures, and they do it by showing cool cars, cracking jokes, and deliberately trying to wind up those whom they consider "stuffy people". I love the show, but they are a joke when it comes to any science. A couple of episodes ago they were claiming to have solved the pollution problem by piping the exhaust through a greenhouse of tomato plants being towed behind the car.

Phillip.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Penn and Teller taught me..."

strong citation. Did Janine Garaffalo teach you quantum mechanics?

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[DragonWriter]

Of course this is why the Cash for Clunkers idea was ridiculous. If people had been required to upgrade to 40mpg or higher, then it would have been good, but going from 20 to 25mpg is nothing. The increased fuel efficiency does NOT make up for the ~50,000 miles worth of manufacturing energy wasted to destroy a perfectly working vehicle.

Um, Cash for Clunkers wasn't intended to improve the environment in the short run. It was principally an economic stimulus program designed to stimulate demand for manufacturing activity. It was secondarily a longer-run economic program designed to reduce the growth in demand specifically for oil (and particularly oil imports.) It was tertiarily an environmental program designed to prevent the immediate economic conditions at the time it was adopted from leading to the discontinuation of the more fuel-efficient of existing models and producing a gap in the availability of such vehicles that would persist even after the recovery that was (perhaps overly optimistically) expected to come fairly soon after the crisis that was occurring.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the other way around, actually. 80 - 90% of a vehicle's lifetime energy use is in driving it around.

Furthermore, the primary energy cost in manufacturing a car is smelting the steel. The batteries (even on a hybrid vehicle) are not significant by comparison. See, for example, Figure 7 (p73) of The Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model from Argonne National Lab.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a horrible Top Gear. The tests where all favored the BMW.
You don't drive a Prius like you do a BMW.

Why don't the hook a trailer to the Prius and compare it to a big rig? The Prius would loose there as well.

They always make excuses for the big engine. I could easily come up with latest where the Prius beats the fell out of a BMW. say traveling S. on the 605 from City of industry into hunting beach at about 5PM.

Whoosh!

Top Gear is a show for people who are interested in cars and enjoy driving. A BMW M3 is a car for people who enjoy driving, a Prius is a car for people who don't. The whole point of that episode was Clarkson sticking his fingers up at people who insist that the Prius is a "better" car and that we should all drive them.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Tubal-Cain]

I think that is geekoid's point.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course if somebody wanted to do something neat, why not recycle older cars in a way that retains their functionality. That is, design a direct bolt on kit for very common older cars that replaces the gas engine powertrain and gas tank. I'd target FWD cars first, since usually they have an engine and transaxle mounted to a cradle that can be removed in practically one go with the right equipment. Imagine if a full electric conversion was made no more difficult or costly than doing a regular engine or transmission replacement. (It would probably go faster, since there is no exhaust or cooling system. If designed cleverly, there would be an aux motor to power that provides vacuum for existing brake hydraulics and to drive the A/C compressor. And other inputs would use existing linkages and wiring, the idea is to be as close to "plug n' play" as you could make it.)

I figure a lot of people that don't commute further than 100mi and end up wasting more gas by idling than traveling wouldn't mind keeping a car they're familiar with if they can get the benefits of an all electric powertrain.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[toddestan]

Sure the program was flawed. But stop spewing the biased implication that the program's result was just "going from 20 to 25mpg".

That may have been allowed under the law. But the actual results were that the average trade-in went from 15.8 to 24.9mpg. [dot.gov]

Actually, it's a lot worse than the parent said. If you look at the average fuel economy for the vehicles sold the two months the program was in effect, it's only 0.6MPG and 0.7MPG higher than it would be if the program wasn't in effect. Source (warning: PDF). So in other words, people are already buying more fuel efficient vehicles, and thus all the program really did was give a bunch of people free taxpayer money to buy a car they probably would have bought anyway in the near future.

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon....

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming that the primary purpose of "Cash for Clunkers" was to make personal transportation more energy-efficient. That was just a convenient line to bring Green-leaning politicians and voters into the fold; its true purpose was to prop up demand for new vehicles. The Big Three all had massive unsold inventory, and were (are) majorly hurting for revenue. If only 40+ mpg cars were subsidized in the program, then nearly all of the American inventory would have been automatically disqualified.

Also, calculating energy-to-manufacture in terms of miles is mind-boggling to me. You get vastly different figures depending on which efficiency you use. Even still, for most of the vehicles sold under "Cash for Clunkers," the energy spent in manufacturing was already a sunk cost. We had the vehicles, and could get overall lower energy usage if the more efficient existing vehicles were used rather than the less efficient existing vehicles.

So, citing the Broken Window Fallacy is a bit erroneous. A slightly better analogy would be saying we had lots of plate-glass windows in homes on Main Street, and went around subsidizing all the residents to replace them with new insulated windows. And it just so happens that the Local Window Factory was having some financial troubles, and was going to have to fire several workers, but hey, there's all this inventory of insulated windows...

In other news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla in an effort to save time and improve efficiency has announced it's first recall before the plant has opened.

There will be no stopping this

[brokeninside]

It'll keep going forward even if they try to put the brakes on.

Re:There will be no stopping this

[Rogerborg]

My goodness, a Toyota joke? Are people still making those? Well, since you forgot to bring the funny, here's an actually amusing commentary to make up for it.

Re:There will be no stopping this

[geekoid]

It's still a relatively new event.

If it was a joke from the 70s, you would have a point.

Re:There will be no stopping this

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a joke from the 70s, you would have a point.

The good news: Tesla and Toyota have teamed up to make a new fuel efficient car.
The bad news: It runs on coffee.

- T

Re:There will be no stopping this

[tsotha]

My brother had an old Ford Galaxy like that.

Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[rolfwind]

Tesla, to me, seems to be the same old inefficient car bodies with a bunch of batteries squeezed into it. Batteries where the elements come from strip mining and other nasty things, so the environmental impact is just shifted and reduced a bit, but not a lot.

OTOH, Aptera, to me, represents a new way of thinking.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[ahixon]

Yes, but you also have to look at what the market wants. Especially for a large sales-driven company like Toyota. I can't imagine that many people willing to drive around in that thing, but I'm sure they'd love to drive around in a Tesla Roadster.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I wish that they had done either GM or Ford. Aptera has no real capabilities. They are running out of money. The problem is that both GM and Ford are runned by accountants that think SHORT TERM

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol and what part of a normal car isn't strip mined from somewhere?

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Anonymous Coward]

Batteries where the elements come from strip mining and other nasty things, so the environmental impact is just shifted and reduced a bit, but not a lot.

Speaking of shifting the impact, where do people think the power comes from to recharge these things? Rainbows and unicorns? According to wikipedia, just shy of 70% of our power in the US comes from coal, natural gas, and petroleum, and 20% comes from nuclear (not saying nuclear can't be clean or is bad, just that the people begging for these "clean" cars out in Cali are likely against nuclear power as well). So, rather than burning the fossil fuels directly, they're just shifting it off to giant, pollution-spewing plant miles and miles away and out of sight.

Now, I'm all for advances in clean technology, cars included. People just need to recognize that just because you're driving an electric car doesn't mean you're have no negative impact on the environment.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Rogerborg]

I'm pretty sure that the environmental impact of the current generation of electric cars is actually more than petroleum ones, just much better hidden. The electricity that's used to make and power them today is coming mostly from burning fossil fuels in 30 year old power plants. That might change in 10 years time, but it's not 10 years time, it's now.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Anonymous Coward]

The seat covers ;)

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[YttriumOxide]

I'm pretty sure that the environmental impact of the current generation of electric cars is actually more than petroleum ones, just much better hidden.

And I'm pretty sure that's wrong, because:

The electricity that's used to make and power them today is coming mostly from burning fossil fuels in 30 year old power plants. That might change in 10 years time, but it's not 10 years time, it's now.

While that is true, it's a sad fact that a 30 year old fossil fuel burning power station is STILL greener than the ICEs in most of the cars on the road on a power-generation to output-of-bad-stuff comparison...

Plus of course, a small amount of power generation DOES come from greener sources, and this will be used equally along with the non-green sources. As green sources increase, that automatically makes all these cars greener without being changed. Unlike ICE vehicles which remain equally as non-green no matter what you do to processes external to them.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[2obvious4u]

Aptera isn't a car. It is more like a motorcycle with a bubble around it. At least a Tesla is still a car.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[geekoid]

Changing to electric cars will speed up the transition.
CA has a huge solar initiative going on. Both for the home and large scale plants.

The govenator is absolutely correct in his view of where CA should go with power.

If we don't start now, in 10 years you will have the same argument.

Based on weight, Electric cars are better.

Make in economical for companies to start to build solar plants. A few 4th gen Nuclear plants would be nice.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[fnj]

Green power may be a small percentage in the US, but in a country which has its act together like France, nuclear is 78% of the total electrical production source.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Bing Tsher E]

on a power-generation to output-of-bad-stuff comparison...

That's also an irrelevant comparison.

What is needed is an end-to-end 'power delivery to the wheels' comparison. Because it doesn't matter how efficiently power is generated at a big plant somewhere. It has to be delivered to a location for the vehicle to be charged at. The vehicle has to be charged. Then and only then is the power delivered to the motor to propel the vehicle.

Also, the relative efficiency measure has to include the waste power consumed to produce the batteries, the power distribution grid, etc.

But I'm not afraid that you will have an answer regarding all of this. The new car is shiney stuff. The old car is dull and worse yet, those dummies in the garage know how to service them. Not cool at all.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Anonymous Coward]

Green power may be a small percentage in the US, but in a country which has its act together like France, nuclear is 78% of the total electrical production source.

Great for the French, but really that's besides the GP's point. A coal power plant that meets current EPA regulations (such as they are) puts out significantly less carbon emissions and even fewer of most traditional pollutants on a per Watt produced basis than any conceivable internal combustion engine that could fit in a consumer automobile. Even if the USA got 100% of it's electricity from coal, replacing all the petroleum derived fuels with electric cars would reduce ecologically damaging emissions by a considerable amount!

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[RobertM1968]

Tesla, to me, seems to be the same old inefficient car bodies with a bunch of batteries squeezed into it. Batteries where the elements come from strip mining and other nasty things, so the environmental impact is just shifted and reduced a bit, but not a lot.

OTOH, Aptera, to me, represents a new way of thinking.

Really? Is Panasonic that bad? I wonder if that applies to their laptop batteries as well... good to know.

I figured Tesla's new choice of battery manufacturers would have considered such horrendous environmental practices.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it doesn't matter how efficiently power is generated at a big plant somewhere. It has to be delivered to a location for the vehicle to be charged at. The vehicle has to be charged. Then and only then is the power delivered to the motor to propel the vehicle.

And according to this material from a college mechanical engineering course, only about 35% of the of the energy in the gasoline burned goes to moving the pistons and about 20% of the total power in the average modern automobile gets to the wheels. So I'd say you are setting a really low bar for electric cars; considering it's almost trivial to create electric motors on the scale needed for electric cars that have an efficiency of >=50%, there's no reason not have an electric motor independently powering each wheel (rather than the loss inducing transmission system that ICE's require), and the power loss rates for the entire modern bulk power transmission process are usually in the single digits.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Jeremi]

Aptera isn't a car. It is more like a motorcycle with a bubble around it. At least a Tesla is still a car

I believe that was the previous poster's point -- that Aptera is a 'new way of thinking', or as you would put it, 'not a car'.

Personally, I think even Aptera doesn't go far enough -- if you really want to solve car-related problems, even the "greenest" car isn't really all that green. Instead, work on making car ownership unnecessary in the first place.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Tesla, to me, seems to be the same old inefficient car bodies with a bunch of batteries squeezed into it
I don't know about the Sedan, but the roadster was based off the Lotus Elise, which is a pretty slippery car design. Also try getting into a fender bender with the Aptera series 2 and then drive away.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[horza]

The Scandinavians take it quite seriously too. For instance Norway generates over 99% of all its electricity needs by hydro. Sweden is heading for 100% renewable energy within the decade (was 26% in 2006, not sure what they are at now). Denmark gets 20% of its power just from wind.

Phillip.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[RobertM1968]

I'm pretty sure that the environmental impact of the current generation of electric cars is actually more than petroleum ones, just much better hidden.

And I'm pretty sure that's wrong, because:

The electricity that's used to make and power them today is coming mostly from burning fossil fuels in 30 year old power plants. That might change in 10 years time, but it's not 10 years time, it's now.

While that is true, it's a sad fact that a 30 year old fossil fuel burning power station is STILL greener than the ICEs in most of the cars on the road on a power-generation to output-of-bad-stuff comparison...

Plus of course, a small amount of power generation DOES come from greener sources, and this will be used equally along with the non-green sources. As green sources increase, that automatically makes all these cars greener without being changed. Unlike ICE vehicles which remain equally as non-green no matter what you do to processes external to them.

To add to this statement, (nicely done, btw), many of the most highly populated metro areas in the US (NYC, San Fran, LA) get very large amounts of their power from "greener" sources: hydro, nuclear, natural gas. That's (just including those metro areas) what... 40 million people(?) who will be recharging their cars from power generated largely via cleaner methods? NYC and Long Island, for instance, even though having some "dirty coal" plants, get a bunch of their power "shipped in" from hydro plants, and nuke plants - as well as from a variety of local natural gas fired plants.

Also, as more coal plants are converted to natural gas or another cleaner source; or have their pollutants collected and re-harvested for other purposes - or outright replaced; each EV will be thus "generating" even less pollution during recharge.

Why is that statement so important? Simple. Most people buy a car. Ooops... that's it. No "gee, this new engine produces less pollutants and gets better mileage, lets change my engine!" Power plants, on the other hand, do get replaced and/or upgraded to work more efficiently and cleaner.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[NicknamesAreStupid]

True, the classic automobile was designed for a monolithic engine, drive train and fuel tank. The balance of the vehicle handling and safety was all formed around the big blocks of metal. Today, Michelin has the entire drive train in the wheel - http://www.hybridcars.com/components/michelins-reinvents-wheel-with-motors-25308.html. This is just version 1.0. Now the elephant in the auto is the battery. Batteries can be distributed for weight and heat dissipation.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[G00F]

Need to factor in the loss of power from the plan to the house which is where most of it is.

While it is mostly distance driven, also above ground vs underground changes things a lot, and now days in city stuff is under ground.

Doing some quick searches, petroleum power plants are 33-50% efficient(vs your stated cars 35%), the average loss over wires to get to your home is about 7%. Now add the efficiency to charge the batteries(more power is used to charge the battier than actually goes into it), then the amount leaked, then the engine efficiency.

So your 50% efficient power plant loses 7% efficiency just to make it to the house leaving it 46.5%. Now just assuming the electric car is 50% efficient considering everything I stated above will put you at 23.25% efficiency.

Now we have a number really close just based on usage. We have to considered transportation of fuel to gas station and the power plant to be equal, so what is left is the manufacturing and maintenance. Which is what the other person was talking about.

It's easier to regulate and upgrade a few power planets than millions of cars.

The real goal is clean renewable energy that doesn't depend on playing politics with other countries, having it competitive and even cheaper will help us adapt those other power sources.

Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing some quick searches, petroleum power plants are 33-50% efficient(vs your stated cars 35%), the average loss over wires to get to your home is about 7%.

I used 35% because my link was focused on gasoline powered ICE. While I am aware that diesel automobile engines are capable of 45% to 50% energy efficiency, 35% is about the highest you can get for gasoline. At least in the US, the vast majority of personal and a significant portion of commercial vehicles (e.g. taxis, pick-up trucks, full-sized vans, etc...) are gasoline powered.

So your 50% efficient power plant loses 7% efficiency just to make it to the house leaving it 46.5%. Now just assuming the electric car is 50% efficient considering everything I stated above will put you at 23.25% efficiency.

50% is roughly the bottom of the efficiency range for the class of electrical motors in electric cars, thus my remark that's it's an almost trivial accomplishment! So what you calculated is approximately the worst case efficiency in an electric car and it's still somewhat better than the state-of-the-art gasoline fueled ICE. Appropriately scaled electric motors in the 60% to 70% efficiency range exist today, though I don't think they are being used in any car designs.

Now we have a number really close just based on usage. We have to considered transportation of fuel to gas station and the power plant to be equal, so what is left is the manufacturing and maintenance. Which is what the other person was talking about.

As far as the actual moving parts maintenance would be easier on a fully electric car because there would be less moving parts (no large radiator required, no complicated transmission system, no on-board lubrication system, etc...); with only the steering, wheels, brakes, and shocks remaining. Any gasoline powered car made in the last few decades would have about as much electronics as an electric would need, and most of those were put in to monitor and fine tune systems that an electric car doesn't have to begin with. Even replacement of a huge battery shouldn't be more difficult or time consuming than replacing a similarly sized ICE. I really fail to see the GP's point about this transition being untenable for most mechanic shops.*shrug*

It's easier to regulate and upgrade a few power planets than millions of cars.

The real goal is clean renewable energy that doesn't depend on playing politics with other countries, having it competitive and even cheaper will help us adapt those other power sources.

Oh I agree with this point. However, as you proved in terms of energy efficiency, electric cars at their worst are as good the average gasoline powered car. So despite what the GP stated, there's more going on than "new car shiny/old car dull".

Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[drinkypoo]

(...and running, and running, and running, without stopping...)

Nissan LEAF has been announced at a price point that makes it cost-competitive with the Prius, which nobody expected. Toyota is now terrified because they bet the farm on hybrids, which have shitty mileage! Yes, I said it, their mileage is shit. You get the same effective mileage or better with a small TDI. In the really real world, 1.8 TDI Golfs get better mileage than any Prius. And that doesn't even get into the Lupo with 1.6 BlueTec diesel... which we can't have here because it won't pass federal crash test requirements.

Parallel hybrids are a really dumb idea and nobody has brought us a plug-in series hybrid yet. Enter: Nissan LEAF, to actually change the game. Nobody will take people like Aptera seriously without EVs gaining more market traction. Thanks, Ghosn.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Skarecrow77]

Top Gear taught me that Hybrids were garbage years ago, and that even a v8(!) jag deisel can get "hybrid mileage" if driven carefully, while a small 4 cylinder turbo deisel will whallop the mileage of a hybrid

It's just that in THIS country, hollywood celebrities drive, and push the merits of, hybrids, so they MUST be right. I mean, celebrities certainly know way more than we peons do.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[justleavealonemmmkay]

What!?! You mean hybrid vehicles actually do NOT break the first law of thermodynamics ? That's unthinkable! I'm calling CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera to change their headlines!

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[jimicus]

And that doesn't even get into the Lupo with 1.6 BlueTec diesel... which we can't have here because it won't pass federal crash test requirements.

Cars with small diesel engines aren't exactly a rarity in Europe. You've used the Lupo as an example but every manufacturer has a couple of other cars of similar size which generally get similar mileage.

Though much of Europe probably pays twice or three times what you pay in the US for fuel...

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[networkBoy]

Also from the hybrid episode:
BMW M3 beats the Prius on mileage.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. Hybrids can get pretty damn good gas mileage actually (my dad's Prius gets 48MPG on the highway, which by all accounts is the WORST scenario for hybrid), and the comparison to diesel is not a 1:1 comparison. The energy density of diesel is higher than gasoline, therefore a gallon of diesel can do more work than a gallon of gasoline. So, of course you can go more miles on a gallon of diesel than gas, but you also get less diesel out of a barrel of oil than you do gas (research a little something called the crack spread to see what I mean).

And, I laugh when I see comments about how terrible for the environment the batteries are for hybrids. 0MG!!111 Nickel! Guess what else Nickel is used for? STEEL, which is in every single automobile produced. Guess what else? NiMH are highly recyclable.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez I get tired of saying this. THERE IS MORE ENERGY IN DIESEL THAN IN GASOLINE. Maybe yelling will help.

It's about 12% more. So parity between a diesel and a gas hybrid means the gas hybrid is more efficient.

And according to Edmunds, the Golf TDI gets 34 mpg combined. The prius gets 50 mpg combined. yeah, I know the EPA estimates aren't ideal, but ... 16 mpg different, combined with the 12% energy difference on the input ... I think you're way off base in saying the mileage is shit. Especially for a midsize car in it's weight class. Comparison to small cars like the Lupo ... apples and oranges my friend.

'course you're dead right about a series hybrid. Hell, make it a diesel series hybrid! And operate in the fixed rpms diesel sweet spot.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

posted MPG for the Golf TDI is 32/42 mpg... might want to review what the 2010 Prius offers... (psst, its 51/48 mpg)

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, need I point out that a Golf is smaller than a Prius?

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that doesn't even get into the Lupo with 1.6 BlueTec diesel... which we can't have here because it won't pass federal crash test requirements.

It's a damn shame we can't get our high-mileage, unnecessarily-dangerous imports.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[r_jensen11]

Didn't the Prius get something like 13mpg on the track, whilst the M3 got 20something under the same conditions (driving at same speed)?

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[networkBoy]

somewhere in that range.

Now, what TopGear didn't show is that in all stop and go driving the Prius would win, especially with jack rabbit starts.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[drinkypoo]

Jeez I get tired of saying this. THERE IS MORE ENERGY IN DIESEL THAN IN GASOLINE.

Yeah, I know that, but it's largely irrelevant to the conversation, especially if you want to consider lifetime energy efficiency. Whatever else you say about that bullshit CNW report, it's true that if you don't have two power systems, you don't have to build them.

Maybe yelling will help.

It'll help you look like a tool.

It's about 12% more. So parity between a diesel and a gas hybrid means the gas hybrid is more efficient.

And yet, it takes about 60% as much energy to make diesel as it does to make gasoline. So who cares? The real benefit of diesel is being able to run lean at all times (except, in practice, during acceleration.) That, and that it's easier to make the stuff in the first place, not least because you can make it from all kinds of stuff.

And according to Edmunds, the Golf TDI gets 34 mpg combined. The prius gets 50 mpg combined. yeah, I know the EPA estimates aren't ideal, but ...

...you're going to quote them anyway, even though they're all but meaningless.

I think you're way off base in saying the mileage is shit. Especially for a midsize car in it's weight class.

Oddly enough, the currently-available TDI Jetta gets similar (rather than superior) real-world mileage to the Prius, and has almost identical interior room (a little more here, a little less there...)

'course you're dead right about a series hybrid. Hell, make it a diesel series hybrid! And operate in the fixed rpms diesel sweet spot.

I maintain that a recirculating microturbine with an integrated generator is the long-term answer... but for now, yes, a small diesel would be fine. :)

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[DaFallus]

The Prius, in my opinion, is one of the ugliest cars in all of creation. Why is it that any sort of hybrid or electric car has to be hideous? Do they have to make it into some sort of hatchback to entice the hipsters? (I fear the day Suburu makes an electric car, the level of smug will be unprecedented) This, however, doesn't ring true for most of Tesla's cars. Hopefully this alliance between Tesla and Toyota will give us sexy electric cars that don't cost a fortune.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[geekoid]

" while a small 4 cylinder turbo deisel will whallop the mileage of a hybrid"

A) Top gear is horribly biased in the regard.

B) No one will drive a V8 carefully enough to make the example valid

C) There comparisons didn't take into account weight and comfort.

D) They don't take in practical driving situations.

E) deisel if more unhealthy(less healthy?) then electric.

F) I find it funny that the argument against them is not any practical or technical merits, but a Ad Hom against celebrities .

For the record, celebrities endorsing a life style get me to look real carefully at what they are doing. Usually it's crap.

The key here is not that celebrities are getting them to be trend setters, celebrities are getting them because the Hybrids are popular.

Celebrities are joiners.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to add the caveat:
The BMW M3 beats the Prius on mileage when the Prius is driven like a race car.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

My greatest question is why American's can't get over the "I don't want a diesel" mentality. Yes they may have been nasty in the past, but they are awesome anymore.

Nissan also has the Juke which is a cross-over SUV with a 1.6L Turbo'ed Direct Injected diesel they listed as a "concept". The thing is, if you check out Toyota, Honda, or Nissan's European pages, they have a bunch of Direct Injected diesels available. Why we don't have them over here is beyond me. Look at the MPG the VW turbos get.

For example, the Civic SE-T over there (www.honda.co.uk) has these specs

2.2 i-CTDi (Diesel) Manual £19,480 55.4 134 E £110

55.4 MPG and the CO2 (g/km) is 134, which is quite a bit less than all the gas versions except one, which it's only 2g/km more than.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

You get info on cars from TopGear? Let me guess, you also get investing advice from Jim Cramer. And you probably think the "Real World" is real.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Skarecrow77]

it is because "that's what hybrids look like".

I seem to remember a report from somewhere around 2006 or so (no, I cant' seem to find it to cite it) about how the waiting time for priuses (priuii?) and insights was 6 months or so, and hybrid civics and the like were just sitting around the lot.

People weren't buying the hybrid versions of regular cars because those cars didn't give the immediate visual recognition among their peers that they were driving a hybrid.

I.e. they couldn't act smug enough.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Skarecrow77]

a source that doesn't accept advertising from the products they review, so they can give us their true opinion? what a concept!

The fact that they're ammusing as well makes it one of the few shows on tv worth watching. It's scripted, and its main goal is entertainment, but it's worthwhile viewing for a car enthuiast as you're not going to get the same honesty these guys provide from too many other sources, either because they're afraid of offending their sponsers, or because "journalists don't say such things!"

Obviously this isn't consumer reports we're talking about here, you have to take their opinion into context, however I've got to say they sure care more about the things I care about when it comes to cars than consumer reports does.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[ultramk]

The Leaf has one basic flaw which makes it a non-starter: 100 mile range. I mean, sure it's great for running around town, but if you want to drive further than 100 miles in a day (and who would even want to cut it that close?), you're screwed.

I don't know about you, but I can't afford to own a $26k vehicle that I can't take on a road trip in a pinch. Hell, even just running errands it's pretty easy to hit 100 miles in a day.

Worst case with a Prius, you stop and fill it up again. It doesn't really matter how good your mileage is if you can't go anywhere because you need to stop and charge for 5 hours.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[__aagmrb7289]

That's interesting to me. I was shopping for a hybrid at the time. Guess what? You might not like how the Prius looks, but it's interior design is superior to the Civic and the Insight. There's ROOM in the car. A normal adult male can actually feel comfortable in the driver seat. Hell - they can feel comfortable in all four seats - at the same time! No scrunched knees! And if that's not enough, the interior console is easy to read and understand, and I can fit eight foot long pieces of lumber in the car.

Why'd I pick the Prius over the other alternatives? It drives better, looks fine, and has a superior design for the shit I actually care about. Looking like a "regular car" isn't on the list. I find that people who are upset that my car doesn't look like theirs have a lot of other personal "peculiarities" and opinions that I find equally as irrelevant - though often more dangerous.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Jeremi]

The Prius, in my opinion, is one of the ugliest cars in all of creation.

I think it looks pretty cool. But that's all a matter of personal taste anyway, so there's little point in arguing about it. If you don't like the way a model looks, don't buy one.

Why is it that any sort of hybrid or electric car has to be hideous?

Of course it doesn't have to be.... if you want a boring look, that's available too.

(I fear the day Suburu makes an electric car, the level of smug will be unprecedented)

I think the constant sniping about the alleged 'smugness' of hybrid vehicle owners says more about the critics than it does about the hybrid owners themselves. Insecure, much?

Hopefully this alliance between Tesla and Toyota will give us sexy electric cars that don't cost a fortune.

Amen to that!

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

California.

Seriously, that's why. It's not America in general that has a problem with diesel, it's California. Specifically, CARB, which sets the diesel emissions standards much more strictly than the gas standards. Since states following CARB rules comprise about half the US auto market, it just isn't worth it to bring an engine over here if it doesn't meet CARB standards.

Why they hate diesels so, I can't say.

It really frustrates me, too. I bought a new (used) car recently, and what I wanted was the Civic i-CDTi you mentioned. Unfortunately, Honda has scrapped all plans to bring out their diesel in the US in any vehicle.

Thanks to CARB, there are hardly any passenger car diesels in the US. BMW and Mercedes both have them, but they're performance focuses, so they get mediocre mileage. Which leaves the VW/Audi TDIs. Which sell like crazy despite being only available on a higher-than-high-end trim that jumps the entry cost dramatically. Going for a new car, I could get a Civic and 2,000 gallons of gas or a Golf TDI. And the TDIs sell like crazy anyway. Which should be a hint, but California bureaucrats are bad about noticing hints.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a general rule of thumb, diesel engines will get higher MPG than a gasoline engine of comparable power, because diesel fuel has more energy per gallon than gasoline.

There's no reason you couldn't make a hybrid turbo diesel engine and get better MPG than either technology alone would give.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[drinkypoo]

The Leaf has one basic flaw which makes it a non-starter: 100 mile range.

That would have worked for every commute I have ever had, even including diversions for things like shopping or other errands. Since most U.S. households have more than one car and at least one of them is seldom driven far, it will work for many more people than you think it will.

I don't know about you, but I can't afford to own a $26k vehicle that I can't take on a road trip in a pinch. Hell, even just running errands it's pretty easy to hit 100 miles in a day.

Me neither, but lots of people have $26k (or more) vehicles that they never take on a road trip, so they'll be fine.

They're solving this problem more or less completely in their European test market with battery swap stations, which probably will be unworkable in the US for the foreseeable future. They're mitigating it here by giving you navigation to high-power charging stations. For some people, of course, it won't be an issue at all. This is still an unprecedentedly low price for the capabilities. Which, by the way, are closer to 60 miles per charge if you have to deal with many hills or if you like to accelerate much — which the car is happy to do.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[drinkypoo]

Which should be a hint, but California bureaucrats are bad about noticing hints.

Actually, they're pretty good at it. When air quality went to shit in Los Angeles, we cracked down hard on air pollution. LA went from being one of the cities in the world with the worst air quality to being, well, not too bad. Kids stopped getting bleeding lesions on their lungs. The asthma incidence rate dropped. Today, as much as 25% of the air pollution in Los Angeles can be traced back to China. Remember this next time you bad-mouth the CARB. Are restrictions on equipment ridiculous? Sure. But I would go so far as to say that everything else they do is necessary, and frankly, in many cases it is not enough. Of course, the current emissions standards in California are actually easier than the citizenry wanted them to be, but U.S. automakers used the federal government to force California to abandon its plans because they were too incompetent to meet upcoming standards, standards that Japanese automakers were already ready for. In fact, many of the vehicles they offer already meet or exceed those proposed, formerly scheduled standards.

I live in California, and I would rather have a small selection of diesels than have a bunch of disgusting ones sold. We don't need more sooty diesels like my 1982 300SD or my 1992 F250. On one hand, they get the same kind of mileage as modern vehicles in their class, and by not replacing them I'm avoiding incurring the energy cost of new production. On the other hand, we don't need more.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[DragonWriter]

In the really real world, 1.8 TDI Golfs get better mileage than any Prius.

If you used the same kind of engine and drive system on a Golf-sized vehicle and a Prius-sized vehicle (whether both TDI or both hybrid), with similar performance, you'd expect the Golf sized vehicle to get better gas mileage, because the Golf is a smaller car with less passenger and payload capacity.

Its like claiming TDI's are crap because the original Honda Insight hybrid got much better gas mileage than the Golf, and wrong for exactly the same reason.

Well, actually its wrong for an additional reason, since in addition to the apples-to-oranges comparison, the 1.8 TDI Golf actually gets worse city, highway, and overall mileage than even the 2nd Gen Prius, much less the 3rd Gen.

And that doesn't even get into the Lupo with 1.6 BlueTec diesel... which we can't have here because it won't pass federal crash test requirements.

A hybrid that wasn't also engineered to meet federal crash test requirements would also get better gas mileage than one that was engineered to do so. Again, apples-to-oranges.

Parallel hybrids are a really dumb idea and nobody has brought us a plug-in series hybrid yet. Enter: Nissan LEAF, to actually change the game.

Leaf is interesting, and for some uses it is a great vehicle and will probably have some success. The infrastructure isn't there for all-electric vehicles to work for everyone (though Nissan is working hard to get better infrastructure in some key markets.)

Leaf may well be the wedge that drives wider acceptance of electric vehicles and spurs infrastructure.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[DaFallus]

I was aiming more at the Subaru owners than hybrid owners and even then it was only in jest. I have no problem with hybrid cars looking different than the regular models. I just think that the way the auto industry has decided to design hybrids could have been so much more futuristic and awesome, not just a boring look at the soccer-mom station wagon of the future.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh. The average commute in the US is, what, 15 miles? So that takes up 30 of the 100 mile charge? I'd feel safe doing twice that distance *today* in even a worst case scenario (poorer battery performance in winter and not allowed to plug in at work). And in terms of time and distance, 30 miles is fairly long (30-45 minutes assuming no traffic, depending on how much of it is on the highway). If I could be sure of charging at the other side of the trip (say if I had family/friends that far away), I'd be fine pushing it closer to 75 miles. But really, a 35 mile radius (70 mile round trip) covers pretty much everywhere I've driven myself in the last decade, with the exception of about three events. If I had to commute any longer than that I'd move closer to work anyway to reclaim the few hours per day lost to the road.

On top of that, these days most people have access to a secondary vehicle. (Outside of the inner city, isn't the adults to privately owned vehicles ratio something like 1.5:1 these days? Private as in not counting company vehicles, delivery trucks, taxis, public transportation, and so on. Actually, googling it, it dropped under 2:1 by the 1970s...) And if you rarely ever need the long range, then that secondary gas car (belonging to yourself/spouse/friend/neighbor/family/rental) can be a cheap no-frills one, as opposed to the more expensive one you spend the most time in.

There will of course be people who need to regularly drive a lot further, but they're really the exception compared to the median distance drivers.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[sznupi]

Though much of Europe probably pays twice or three times what you pay in the US for fuel...

So...maube that's the only way, people not taking full tank for pennies for granted? Especially if one can't be much worse when it comes to living beyond means (X axis only)

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[sznupi]

Small, decade-old 4 cylinder diesel (not TDI, SDI...they were a very related unit anyway; power is plenty enough on SDI, still slightly lower fuel consumption, ridiculously high reliability - I care more about those)

A touch below 60mpg. On a Fabia combi, true, but a) Skodas are typically the biggest cars on a given VW platform, so it's just slightly smaller than Golf or Bora b) with similar engines, larger (as long as not "oversized") VW group cars are very comparable anyway.

The really real world really can't help but wonder what's the big deal with hybrids, at least for now...

And E) is a myth, modern diesels are just as clean as petrol engines. Less than electrics, sure, but..why would you mention those in current hybrid vs. diesel?

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[sznupi]

To be fair, in "THIS" country the average car already had horrible fuel consumption, much worse than in the really real world; so hybrids look kinda good...

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[sznupi]

There is a reason actually, characteristics of diesel don't map very well to parallel hybrids...for some reason. Serial hybrids should change that.

And of course the difference in energy density of fuel doesn't explain why the really real world is accustomed also to gasoline cars which are much more fuel efficient than what you can find in the US...

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[sznupi]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", as they say. Plus as far as hatchbacks/etc. go - many people think OTOH that trying desperately to look "tough", quite typical for US styling, is quite hideous in itself...

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[sznupi]

So just compare to Bora/Jetta/Gold Plus whatever stretched version of Gold you have...and which has essentially the same fuel economy as "normal" one, with proper engine (too bad people want needless power - SDI engines had plenty enough of it, while being a bit more fuel efficient in practice; and ridiculously reliable, which also counts for something)

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[sznupi]

Li-ion batteries are used for new hybrids / electrics. Main problem being that we don't even have that much lithium...

Besides, the really real world also has gasoline cars which are much more efficient; Prius looks good to you mostly because the rest is horrible at your place.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[sznupi]

...and then there's Golf Plus and Jetta, with virtually the same mileage. Don't just look directly at the size of Prius, too - it wastes a bit more of its internal space.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[jimicus]

Very possibly, but it's not something that can change overnight. I believe you have a term for any politician who advocates taxing a commodity so high as to triple the price - the term is "former politician".

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you might be surprised to learn that Toyota have been developing EV tech for a long time in parallel with hybrid. They have chosen to emphasize hybrids for one obvious reason - the cars are already on the market. Large companies like Toyota or Nissan do not put all their eggs in a single basket. You will see an electric car from Toyota real soon.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[AK Marc]

it will work for many more people than you think it will.

You are correct, but you don't understand the American dream. Conspicuous consumption based on capabilities, rather than actual usefulness. They don't care if it will handle 100% of their driving, but they want the ability to haul 9 people and tow a boat. Never mind they are single without friends and don't own a boat.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[drinkypoo]

You are correct, but you don't understand the American dream. Conspicuous consumption based on capabilities, rather than actual usefulness. They don't care if it will handle 100% of their driving, but they want the ability to haul 9 people and tow a boat. Never mind they are single without friends and don't own a boat.

The real problem here is the influence of the government. The universally incompetent U.S. automakers lobbied the federal government to prevent California from instituting new emissions standards because the Japanese could make cars that would pass, and the Germans could manage it, but the Americans couldn't. At least, not while making a profit. We would have smaller, more efficient cars already, due to the immense purchasing power of the most populous and most car-obsessed state in the union, if not for that. Just one more reason to NEVER buy an American car. Doing so is simply voting for our corporate masters to use our government against us to fight the will of the people.

Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared...

[r_jensen11]

True, but that episode was trying to prove a different point:

People were doing some crazy things during the summer of 2008 to try to eek out an extra 1% fuel efficiency. Their point was that the largest factor of fuel efficiency is how you drive the car. Drive 65 instead of 75, drive smoothly rather than speeding up just to slam the breaks at the next light, etc. In other words, just use common sense.

Stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, a 'green' car that never wants to stop.

Kudo's Tesla and other observations

[Anonymous Coward]

I like it! First, I've been around Tesla; involved as a third-party with drivetrain development. They are a GREAT group of engineer's with entreuprenurial spirit... Everyone I worked with took ownership with the goal of designing/engineering top quality. Those of you who are not in the automotive world don't have any concept of what goes into building a passenger vehicle nor the cost associated with development of new technologies for this market. Yes with a decent bank-roll I'm guessing that 80% of the /. readers could come up with a functional electric vehicle (batteries, VFD, a couple of seats, 4 tires and a steering wheel), but it is much more than this when you consider safety (MVSS), reliability / durability, comfort (A/C, radio with bluetooth and mp3).... building vehicles and being competitive in that market is challenging. Breaking into that market with a totally new brand, product line, and technology is the most daunting concept I've ever contemplated. $50M is chump change in terms of vehicle development. Consider that Toyota paid $16.4M as a fine for the recall debacle... 33% of what they are investing with Tesla... What I see as important in this is the alignment of the planets; Toyota's manufacturing facility in San Jose (Matrix / Pontiac Vibe) is currently idled; pushing the Tesla sub-$50k will require sales volume... manufacturing volume can not be accomplished without a proper manufacturing facility...

Re:Kudo's Tesla and other observations

[m.ducharme]

Mr. Coward, could you please get yourself (or use your) handle? I am interested in your post and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

This again?

[asukasoryu]

How many times do we have to hear this argument? Central production of electricity at a power plant is more efficient than millions of cars producing it in internal combustion engines. Shifting the pollution away from where cars drive should be a benefit (i.e. breathing less smog in LA). Then there's the effect of burning fuel to transport fuel to all the gas stations when we already have an electrical infrastructure to deliver energy to electric cars. I agree that not all power plants are green, but compared to burning fuel in our cars, it's greener. And once demand for electricity goes up, maybe we'll finally get the push we need to expand renewable energy generation. There's no instant solution but there is progress.

Re:This again?

[networkBoy]

Yes. Also the west coast has lots of hydro power, which while not good for the fish, is good for the air.
-nB

Re:This again?

[rgviza]

It's called economy of scale. Of course a power outage means you don't go to work.

Re:This again?

[geekoid]

If you are concerned, but a solar panel array up just to charge your car.
The last power outages in CA had nothing to do with power availability and everything to do with Enron's attempt at controlling the market.

Re:This again?

[Skarecrow77]

The last power outages in CA had nothing to do with power availability and everything to do with Enron's attempt at controlling the market.

Now, I don't live in california, so I don't pay that much attention, but I was under the impression that CA's electricity woes had more to do with lack of building any new power plants in the last 30 years or so, fixed energy prices, and an economy based on buying "spare" power from other areas of the country.

Re:This again?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Central production of electricity at a power plant is more efficient than millions of cars producing it in internal combustion engines.

Not according to ACEEE.org which ranks electric cars like the EV1 as no "cleaner" than a Prius or Civic Hybrid (it's a tie), and less clean than a 70mpg Honda Insight (the cleanest car in the US). The reason electrics don't rank higher is because the primary source is coal energy, plus losses in the lines as the electric travels hundreds of miles, and losses inside the battery as electricity is converted to chemical energy, and then back.

Re:This again?

[commodore64_love]

Bzzz. The power outages were caused by the CA government creating a central electricity trading market, which only allowed trades once a day. That meant companies were not able to react to the constantly changing customer demand, and that led to rolling blackout. In other words - per usual - blame government and price controls for the shortages.

Would You Like To Read More?
http://reason.org/news/show/powering-up-california

Re:This again?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been shown time and time again that cars put out more CO2 for the same power and unit of travel than a coal plant. A couple of years ago, PBS had a segment about greener vehicles, and it was stated that an electric vehicle puts out 40% of the CO2 emission getting their energy from a *coal plant* versus what gasoline would output for similar weight, power, distance traveled, and vehicle class.

Even if that number is way off, that's a substantial reduction in CO2 usage, given how much CO2 is produced by transportation needs.

There is also a substantial advantage to having centralized power. Any upgrade is simplified. No stupid government incentive deals to trade in your car. No stupid government EPA/mileage crap; you buy a more efficient vehicle because it impacts your downtime. What more efficiency? Upgrade the power plant. Easier than trying to get 10 year old cars off the road.

Re:This again?

[dgatwood]

The problem with that overly narrow analysis is that gasoline-powered cars produce exhaust that clings to the ground in heavily populated areas that are often down in a valley, whereas coal-electric cars produce exhaust that clings to the ground and spreads out near a coal plant that is probably out in the middle of an unpopulated salt flat. Sure, if your only concern is the environment as a whole, that doesn't make any difference, but if you're looking at it from a human health perspective, the EVs are much, much, much cleaner.

Re:This again?

[camelcai]

Electricity also has transmission losses, unless we have superconductor lines carrying them.
Also can a home charger be used for the Tesla? I know Nissan LEAFs charger costs $2200.

Re:This again?

[asukasoryu]

Home charging stations are available for the Roadster that run off your home 240V service. It can also be plugged in to a typical 110V outlet. You could also get some solar panels+wind turbine for your home and skip the whole power station argument.

Re:This again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that for most people here on /., going to work when the power is out would be pointless anyway, since we're not picking lettuce, painting houses, or digging ditches. Do you want fries with that? Oh, sorry the fryer is electric.

Re:This again?

[commodore64_love]

Yeah because coal plant pollution doesn't drift anywhere. /end sarcasm. Actually studies have shown a lot of the air-quality problems in eastern states are caused by the drift of pollutants from the midwest and western states. (And similarly pollution is drifting from China towards North America.) Perfectly natural - the wind moves the pollution.

So relocating your pollution from the car to the coal plant doesn't really solve the problem. And that's why ACEEE ranked the EV1 as no cleaner than a Prius.

Re:This again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Electricty transmission losses are *nothing* compared to the less-than 40% efficiency of an internal combustion engine.

Re:Honda Clarity?

[jeff4747]

I believe that hydrogen power is the way to go.

That's 'cause you haven't thought about storage issues yet.

The recharging time they need every few hours makes them at least inconvenient for everyday use.

"everyday use" usually means commuting. So your car was charged overnight, and you drive to work. If your work is less than 150 miles away, you just plug it in when you get home (real world mileage is probably not so precise, but I really doubt there are many ~300 mile/day commuters out there). Long road trip? That's not everyday use, and presumably something like a "car share" program would cover you for the few times you're going on a long drive.

The thing that makes electrics un-economical

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric vehicles would be cost competitive for short run (ie. local) driving except for one thing. The batteries wear out and have to be replaced every few years.

Electric vehicles can be, as many amateur constructors have demonstrated, built for a lot less than $50,000. Electricity is cheaper than gas (around here at least). It's just that those darn batteries are real expensive and don't last long.

I was seriously thinking about building an electric but the battery thing made it too expensive for me. The other thing is that we currently have a 100 year supply of natural gas. If we go for unconventional natural gas, there's a lot more. If you don't believe that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, then there is no point for electric cars. Peak oil isn't a problem and we don't have to buy natural gas from people that hate our guts.

Re:The thing that makes electrics un-economical

[s122604]

The batteries wear out and have to be replaced every few years.... It's just that those darn batteries are real expensive and don't last long.

Citation needed...

Re:The thing that makes electrics un-economical

[acdc_rules]

i just don't get it either. my laptop battery was able to a hold charge for 4 hours when new. one year later, i'm happy to see it last for 2 hours. same tech as electric cars, same cells in some cases. cars have higher demands on them.

Re:The thing that makes electrics un-economical

[Areyoukiddingme]

There's one other good reason to use an electric car. Pure performance. Electric motors have more torque than any ICE of comparable weight. For people who drive cars for fun, not just utility, electric cars are the way to go.

Re:The thing that makes electrics un-economical

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at what's going on in the ebike community...performance junkies..

Re:The thing that makes electrics un-economical

[rabiddeity]

There's one other good reason to use an electric car. Pure performance. Electric motors have more torque than any ICE of comparable weight. For people who drive cars for fun, not just utility, electric cars are the way to go.

You say it's better torque for comparable weight-- does that count the batteries? Didn't think so. That better torque curve is offset by significantly higher weight from the battery packs (translating to poor handling in corners). Electric cars also typically fit narrow economy tires (trading grip for higher efficiency) because they're supposed to be "green" and efficient and all that. You wind up with a car that wallows and lurches through a corner like a Buick.

I like the idea of electric motors, but the reality is not all rainbows and butterflies. Otherwise they'd be switching to pure electric engines for Le Mans.

But it is already running....

[leuk_he]

The important part is that now the foucs is on fuel efficienty and not on maximum power.

And i am still suprised there are no diesel hybrids yet from anyone. Maybe the extra diesel noise would give a strange driving expierence?

There is one small detail:

One can buy a running toyta prius 5 years ago, but a nissan leaf is not yet for sale. You cannot compare a previous generation car with a future generations car. Well actually you can because parent poster did just that.

Re:But it is already running....

[JesseMcDonald]

There is at least one diesel-electric series hybrid in development: the Saturn Flextreme, due for production in "late 2010".

Re:But it is already running....

[Anonymous Coward]

And i am still suprised there are no diesel hybrids yet from anyone. Maybe the extra diesel noise would give a strange driving expierence?

This lack of diesel hybrids really perplexes me as well. I think that a diesel plug-in hybrid would be an almost perfect transitional vehicle between ICEs and fully electric. For commuting and day-to-day travel battery power would be sufficient a majority of time, but the diesel powered generator would still be there for a long period of time. Then there's also the fact that modern diesels run just as well on bio-diesel as they do on diesel produced from petroleum. Furthermore, diesel-electric systems were the engines of choice on submarines for decades, so it's not like automotive engineers have any excuse to think these energy sources are innately incompatible.

Re:But it is already running....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, Saturn has shit the bed.

- T

Re:But it is already running....

[JesseMcDonald]

The Saturn brand has been shut down. The Flextreme itself—a refinement of the Volt/Ampera design—will ultimately be manufactured by a European subsidiary of GM (Opel), and could easily be sold under another brand (GM, Chevy) in the US.

Re:But it is already running....

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK, GM hasn't announced any plan to rebadge the Opel Flextreme for sale in the US, certainly not for late 2010, and I'd bet not for 2011 either. Maybe they might do it later to comply with California's upcoming efficiency/emissions requirements. It would be interesting.

- T

Re:But it is already running....

[sznupi]

They're not really that much more noisy, you know... (mostly different, as far as characteristic of the sound goes)

I've heard from somewhere that there is actually some integration problem regarding characteristics of diesels and how existing hybrids work. Might be different for upcoming serial hybrids.

Re:But it is already running....

[sznupi]

Furthermore, diesel-electric systems were the engines of choice on submarines for decades, so it's not like automotive engineers have any excuse to think these energy sources are innately incompatible.

Still are, nuclear subs are just a...subset. Trains are probably more notable example. But they both present a bit different problems than passenger cars.

Re:But it is already running....

[AK Marc]

It's all electric. Nuclear subs run electric motors. Diesel engines run electric motors. What they need to do is go to 4 electric motors, one at each wheel (not central motors) and store or generate electric power on board. The power storage or generation should move with whatever is easiest/best (diesel generator, fuel cell, battery storage, turbine storage, whatever).

Well, and I think they should use batteries that are interchangeable. Get the car makers all together and make them have the batteries be the same sizes and voltages and quickly changed. Then have "gas stations" carry battery packs that are charged. If you want to drive cross country, you don't need the 5 minute charge like you get with a gasoline car (which would mean that gas stations would need to deliver more power than most power plants can). Instead, the trickle-charged batteries are mechanically swapped with another pack. The cost of the swap costs the electricity to charge them and a portion of the replacement costs. No person ever has to replace their own battery packs. They just go to a gas station and swap, and if they test bad, the batteries are retired. Not that I think that would ever happen, but it would fix so many of the complaints of electric cars.

Re:But it is already running....

[sznupi]

That might not be best for "bottom lines" of any company involved, though...at least not short-term, and that's all what the "investors" care about. Oh well, or East Asian and European car manufacturers will get even more competitive.

And sure, it's all electric; but still a bit different, especially when looking at circumstances, acceptable costs and maintanance involved. Subs got huge advantage fairly quickly, trains were soon to follow (plus some surface ships, when high manouverability has value)...and only recently it became viable / cheap enough for cars. Though I'm surprised the trucks didn't get there sooner; hybrids showed up only recently (basically concurrently with cars), and while that doesn't offer much of an advantage for long-haul vehicles, small delivery ones can see huge gains (ok, there are very small ones for some time now; not sure why it's presented at this Wiki page as, at first, a vehicle for golf players - in its place of origin, where it's probably most popular, golf is virtually nonexistant)

BTW, I wouldn't rush with wheelmotors. It has its advantages, sure - more space, lower center of gravity and insane possibilities with traction control being the most notable ones. But requires greatly improved suspension and protection from the elements; too many things to rethink at once, to change; at considerable expense and without very big gains. Affordable cars (those which should be targeted primarily) might be good with one electric motor & FWD for two or three decades.

Re:But it is already running....

[AK Marc]

(plus some surface ships, when high manouverability has value)

Cruise ships do Diesel electric some (increasingly now). I've had a cruise on the Elation, De/Az (Diesel-Electric Azipod), the first Carnival cruise ship so equipped.

BTW, I wouldn't rush with wheelmotors. It has its advantages, sure - more space, lower center of gravity and insane possibilities with traction control being the most notable ones. But requires greatly improved suspension and protection from the elements; too many things to rethink at once, to change; at considerable expense and without very big gains. Affordable cars (those which should be targeted primarily) might be good with one electric motor & FWD for two or three decades.

I wasn't thinking of them being in the wheels, but inboard and sealed, so the elements wouldn't be an issue and the suspension would be the same as any similar regular car. I wouldn't want them in the wheels, that would be "bad" (for a number of reasons it sounds like you understand). But connected to the wheel via a shaft, as we do now. Perhaps you were indicating that now we need a shaft of a longer than strictly necessary reasons and we could save weight and power loss with it mounted essentially in the wheel well, but not enough to justify the problems currently.

But mounting the motors as close to the center line as possible and running via a drive shaft wouldn't be hard. Two smaller electric motors don't lose efficiency greatly compared to one of twice the size, but would allow for more flexibility in traction control and mileage (imagine where in cruise control, the power was delivered with just one smaller motor, rather than two or four or the one larger central motor for the extra few percentage points of economy, with that one wheel changing based on tire wear and any pull to the side adjusted by the steer-by-wire seamlessly so the driver never notices). The number of options is so high that we can't conceive of them all here. But the start is to get an electric motor at every wheel and get the engineers thinking about the rest of the other options and improvements it could be used for.

Given what I've seen on electric motors, two of one size vs one twice the power and gears to split it to two wheels, the two motor solution would be cheaper and lighter. Though that does assume no gearing. Having a CVT at each wheel will affect that assessment.

Re:But it is already running....

[drinkypoo]

I suspect the biggest impediment is actually mass. Diesel engines need a substantially stronger cylinder, specifically a cylinder wall which resists vibration, because of the way they function. My 1992 Ford has a 7.3 liter International engine (designed in 1978) with a problem in this regard. Originally the motor was 6.9 liters and IT has the problem too, but much less so. The cylinder walls flex enough to where the piston develops tiny cracks on the water passage side, which then are enlarged by cavitation. The fix is to add an additive to the coolant which prevents air bubbles from forming, thus preventing cavitation; it also has additional corrosion-resisting properties, again, to prevent corrosion in that area from making the problem worse. Plenty of these engines (which have been used liberally in school buses, box trucks, and other areas; this is a "light heavy-duty engine" according to International) have been run well over one million miles. But this is by far the biggest and heaviest engine ever installed in a light pickup truck, except for the Powerstroke engine which comes right after it, and which uses more or less the same block (derived from the same block anyway, bolt locations change) but with more and heavier (and drastically more expensive) parts on top.

Subaru has a diesel-electric hybrid prototype and is rumored to be bringing out a car for 2012, which could even come to the USA. But might not. FTFL, "Currently Subaru sells its 2.0-liter 4-cylinder boxer diesel in Europe where it makes 145-hp and 258 ft-lbs of torque and gets around 34/41 mpg (city/highway) in vehicles like he Forrester 2.0D." The hybrid uses the SAME engine, and it's a performance car; it's designed to compete with the WRX, not a base model. They replace the TC (torque converter) with an electric motor; down side they have to use the full powertrain which involves some loss since it's AWD, up side the electric motor drives all wheels and can be used at all times either as a power adder or battery charger. Also zero gearbox changes (except for software) make for probably the cheapest hybrid conversion on the market. We could see this car on the market in a couple years, though I wouldn't hold my breath.

Personally, I'd like Subaru to bring out a 1.6 or 1.8 liter diesel and put it into the old Impreza GC5 body, though of course they won't because you don't go backwards in style until retro hits, and 90s retro is only just beginning now. (Too soon, but I guess the urge to move past 80s retro is overwhelming. Having grown up in the 80s, I can't imagine why anyone would want to go back there, unless they're a big fucking cokehead. Everything in the 80s was about cocaine; food, music, style, you name it.) That was the smallest and lightest Impreza body and they only bloated them from there, to the tune of some 500 pounds per massive step up. A WRX weighs about 500lb more and the latest STi is almost 1000lb more than a 1993 with AWD.

Re:But it is already running....

[sznupi]

The most major difference is lack of sparkplugs, the way the ignition happens generally. That doesn't lend itself well to constant stop-start cycles which parallel hybrid implies. There were some prototypes around half a decade ago, supposedly that was the main reason why they didn't get too far.

Small diesel engines are not much bigger than gasoline ones.

And damn, now I have to dig up again first Colin McRae Rally... (with NegCon!)

Re:But it is already running....

[sznupi]

Oh well, in that case it's still probably better to start with one engine; FWD is plenty good enough, you avoid many control issues, still more of a drop-in change, actually I expect it to keep the initial price and maintainance costs down...and the one engine can have "two ends", no gearing required above what individual engines might need.

Scalability???

[GNUPublicLicense]

Have those people ever thought about the scalability of their technologies and the issues that will reveal themselves at mass market scale??????????

Re:Honda Clarity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Swapping batteries is an option when you're doing more than 300 miles, but how many days a year do you do more than 300 miles ? for many people, the answer is 0.

Re:Honda Clarity?

[rhsanborn]

I think they are less inconvenient than it sounds. Most people commute a fairly limited distance, a 300 mile range will handle almost all of the average person's everyday driving. The inconvenience is for people who drive a lot (for business probably) and recreational/vacation driving. I couldn't take a car like this on the 800 mile trip we take every summer to visit family.

That said, people who live in big cities have realized this for years. You own transportation that supports your regular commute habits. In many cases, people who live in NYC don't own cars. They can rent a car for extreme cases. Likewise, our family makes ~2-3 trips a year that would push this car over it's limit. It would be worth it for us to own a car like this for commutes, charging it over-night, and rent a car for those trips.

That said, the cost is still way to high to make it economically feasible for us.

Re:Honda Clarity?

[networkBoy]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
you're joking right?
H2 is made by steam cracking CH4 (natural gas), thus is a carbon fuel.
Also, do me a favor:
  Set your odometer trip meter to 0. Drive your normal drive for a day, what does it read? 10mi? 25? 50? most people have commutes that are under 50 miles, which means this car wouldn't have to "fill up" but once a week overnight. If you are not "most people" then don't buy this car. Bonus points, many employers will let you charge the car for free at work.
-nB

price tag

[viridari]

Anyone who would describe a US$50K car as "affordable" has more dollars than sense.

Re:price tag

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, 50 grand for a car I cant take on vacation?

50 grand for a car that if my "tank" is low I cant turn on the radio?

50 grand for a car if I run out of "fuel" im screwed for 12 hours?

Tell ya what, make one that cost less than my 16 grand Kia and wont screw me for an entire day if I forget to plug it in and maybe we will talk

Re:price tag

[SleazyRidr]

What a shame that you don't have everything you could ever want right now.

50 grand is down around the range where a lot of people can afford them, and will buy them to show off their 'green' credentials.

Once we've got some manufacturing experience with these under our collective belt, then you might see that 16K Kia electric car.

Re:price tag

[MozeeToby]

A) It's a luxury sports sedan. Not a compact, not an econocar, not a even just a luxury car. It's equivalent to an Audi A6 or a BMW 3 series. Both of which run into the $40,000s similarly equipped.

B) Fuel savings for the average driver are estimated to be at around $4000 per year. That means if you keep this puppy for as little as 3 years you've come out ahead compared to similarly equipped vehicles.

C) "Affordable" in this case is a relative term, relative to the cost of the original Tesla roadster $110,000+ and relative to the cars it is competing against $40,000+.

Rolling Blackouts

[Anonymous Coward]

All right! More rolling blackouts for California!

Oh, no one thought of that?
 

Re:Rolling Blackouts

[Areyoukiddingme]

That's already taken care of. The rolling blackouts in California were frauds, perpetrated by Enron, which was gaming the California electricity tariff system for money. A fair number of those responsible are in prison now.

Re:Rolling Blackouts

[GodfatherofSoul]

I wouldn't say a "fair" number. I'd like to have seen a lot more of them doing the perp walk, including the traders who were in on it.

I agree, but...

[inkyblue2]

Even if generation 1 electric cars are a mess, SOMEONE has to make them viable enough and sexy enough to get the market moving in that direction. As soon as electric cars start becoming a significant chunk of the automobile market we'll see battery, motor, and material research go through the roof. This has already started, and I think it would be hard to argue that Tesla hasn't played a big role in swaying the general perception of electric cars from "slow ugly thing that hippies drive" to Serious Business.

Aptera is awesome in their own right, and you're right that their design pushes the envelope a lot further. Hopefully gen-2 mass market EVs will go more in that direction. I just don't think anyone should downplay the importance of Tesla (etc.) making the generation of cars that bridges the gap between what we drive now and what we'll drive once electric cars are pervasive.

The Plugin Plug Challenge, Street Parkers

[FathomIT]

The challenge is bringing the ability to self-charge vehicles to more people.

Apartment people are not going to be able to charge their own electric car anytime soon, so they are out of the self-charge market (they’ll have to go to a station). At least until there is some portable battery pack...

Few people in America have Garages to charge their electric cars.

More have Street parking in front of their townhouse or single family house.

Target market=In front of your home street parkers.

There are two hurdles in this market
1. Biggest=Legislation. Allowing homeowners to install a plug near the curb (like a parking meter, but less obvious: could even be delivered via the route in the existing gutter drain from the house).

2. Technical Challenge=Developing a fully waterproof (top to bottom) electrical cord, that requires a key or combo to unlock it, and installed on a retractable coil. This is where potential $millions await.

Of course we cannot forget the unmentioned challenge = fighting for that exact public space to do the charge.

Re:The Plugin Plug Challenge, Street Parkers

[Areyoukiddingme]

Few people in America have Garages to charge their electric cars.

More have Street parking in front of their townhouse or single family house.

Typical myopia of a city-dweller. Try looking at numbers before talking. Cities in the US haven't changed appreciably in population since the '50s. Nearly all the population migration in the past half century was into suburbs. Where a whopping 52% of the country now lives. One of the major distinguishing factors of suburbs vs. urban areas is the high availability of both garages and private driveways. Add to that the entire rural population, another 25% of the country as of 2000. They can do practically anything they like on their property, with no homeowner's associations to worry about. So slightly more than 75% of the country is trivially able to charge an electric vehicle right now, and that ignores numerous garages in cities.

There is a potential market for a street-side charging station, but it's much smaller than you imagine.

Re:The Plugin Plug Challenge, Street Parkers

[21mhz]

2. Technical Challenge=Developing a fully waterproof (top to bottom) electrical cord, that requires a key or combo to unlock it, and installed on a retractable coil. This is where potential $millions await.

Of course we cannot forget the unmentioned challenge = fighting for that exact public space to do the charge.

Hmm, dunno about charging, but here in Finland pretty much every residential parking lot has cables for engine block heaters, and yes, they have keys to unlock them. Space... may indeed be a problem where people live like sardines, but this is hardly the single issue in such cities. Also, public transport tends to be better developed there.

Re:Honda Clarity?

[selven]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracapacitor

Is there a FUD mod?

[guidryp]

Because that post deserves it. What a load of BS.

First off Top Gear isn't a source of factual information, they are an entertainment program. They have a massive anti-EV, anti-Hybrid bias. Do you remember Tesla story where they had to push the Tesla off because it ran out of power? Well it didn't actually run out of power, they just did that for dramatic effect. I love watching Top Gear as entertainment, but they are not credible source of anything.

So who knows what the actual facts of the M3 run where, but still you are just making the information up, because even top gear didn't make those claims.

They raced a Prius around a track at it's absolute limit, pedal to the metal 100% of the time, and followed it in a M3 which could match the Prius easily at part throttle and under those circumstances and claimed the M3 got better gas mileage. That is possible but given it is Top gear, in no way guaranteed.

But even Top gear didn't claim that an M3 got better highway MPG.

The rest of the post is just a reiteration of the debunked Hummer is better than a Prius FUD.

Pure FUD, no facts. If there isn't a mod for that, there should be.

Re:Is there a FUD mod?

[Anonymous Coward]

So who knows what the actual facts of the M3 run where, but still you are just making the information up, because even top gear didn't make those claims.

Likely at the rear of the pack. Consumer reports, several years ago, did its own comparison. Of all hybrids then available, only two hybrids actually made efficiency/economic sense to purchase. ALL of the vehicles made by high end European manufacturers were considered worst, dumbest buys possible by humanity. The reason being, all but two used drastically more energy to manufacture/maintain and the real world MPG provided was horrible. Accordingly, the return on investment (hybrid vs non-hybrid) was 100 years or more for these vehicles. That alone tells you they use far, far more energy than they can ever hope to save in a reasonable vehicles life. And certainly not within the typical one to four years for first owners for this category of vehicle.

In other words, these vehicles were specifically designed for morons to own a flag ship name such that they could also say, "me too", in the hybrid column of bragging rights. Yet outside of bragging rights, they actually were an environmental and energy disaster.

Granted, that was several years ago but I somehow doubt things have so drastically that much in such a short period of time.

And besides, on the rare occasion I'm bored enough to watch that show, on every show I've seen, I find huge factually incorrect statements. So its pretty obvious not only are they regularly full of shit, but to believe they are a valid source of any information pretty well establishes someone as a nieve schmuck; lacking in all credibility because they'll believe anything.

Re:Is there a FUD mod?

[Anonymous Coward]

some "facts" the Prius Vs M3 episode of top gear was the prius running flat out (and we know this from the recent news is around 90mph) with the M3 following it. The M3 returned low 20's in gas mileage while the prius returned the teens. why? because the prius was running at red line the entire run, while the M3 was loafing along in "top" gear. This is true of any vehicle, run it around at redline all the time and it will return poor mileage.

Re:Is there a FUD mod?

[Poorcku]

isn't this what you want from a car? If my car would be running at the red line at 90 mph, i would set it on fire. Yes, Imagine that, i want my car to go fast, not hitting the limiter at 150km/h.

Re:Is there a FUD mod?

[Anonymous Coward]

Measuring highway mileage of hybrids doesn't tell the whole story. Most comparably-sized non-hybrid cars will get better highway gas mileage than the hybrid will because the hybrid is carrying a lot of extra battery weight. If you look at what the "hyper-milers" drive, it's always non-hybrid's like Civics and Corollas since those get better mileage if you can avoid breaking using the brakes.

Where hybrids shine is in city driving where the slower speeds allow more use of the electric motor and regenerative braking captures much of the energy that would otherwise be lost as heat. If Top Gear had taken their cars to central London and driven them around all day, the Prius would've gotten significantly better mileage than the M3.

Sudden Acceleration

[Walter White]

What could possibly go wrong?

I think the Volt is a Better Design

[Ozric]

The Volt is more akin to a diesel electric locomotive. It costs more but in the long run I think it's the way to go. Time will tell.

Re:I think the Volt is a Better Design

[GodfatherofSoul]

I was really excited about the Volt coming out. Then, I saw how they watered down the design of the prototype. It's as boring as a cardboard box now.

Meeting California ZEV requirements cheaply.

[guidryp]

I was trying to figure out what Toyota gets out of this. They have everything they need to build their own EVs. The Prius has electrical components for everything, it is nearly an EV already and they have had the Rav4 EV, and the FCHV test bed platforms. There is nothing in technology that they really need Tesla for.

But I think I know what they get out of this: ZEV credits in California. 50 Million is pocket change compared to the cost of bringing their own new EV to market. This lets them cover their ZEV requirements in California on the cheap if they don't really believe a full EV is practical (money making) for them at this time.

The actual California State pages on ZEV program seem to be down for me right now, but this is what I am talking about:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/28/business/fi-zev28

"Under the new standards, passed unanimously, the board will require the largest companies selling cars in the state to produce 7,500 electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles for sale, lease or loan in California from 2012 to 2014 -- down from the 25,000 required in the period under the previous rules.

In addition, carmakers will be called upon to make about 58,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the same period. The previous regulation, passed in 2003, made no provisions for plug-in hybrids because they were not considered viable at the time."

Electric Cars = Nuclear Power Generation

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't have one without the other ;-)

Match made in Heven!

[DarthVain]

Combining Toyota's "Can't Stop!" technology, to solve Tesla's limited range problems is pure genius!

Re:Match made in Heven!

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to spell, faggot!

Re:Honda Clarity?

[flyingfsck]

It is easy to store hydrogen. You just have to combine it with carbon so that you get a room temperature liquid, which can be distributed and utilized by existing infrastructure...

Re:Honda Clarity?

[Bing Tsher E]

Let me rearrange some of what you posted:

Bonus points, many employers will let you charge the car for free at work.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
you're joking right?

I really don't think this is much of a problem

[mbessey]

You may have overestimated the problem, here. While it's true that not everybody has a garage in America, there are simple solutions for most people. For the apartment dwellers, they probably park in a parking lot of some sort. The apartment complex can provide (metered) charging stations there. Some employers already provide electric vehicle charging stations. If EVs become more popular, they'll likely add more.

Coulomb Technologies is installing charging stations in the streetlights in San Jose, CA:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/05/13/20100513arizona-companies-charge-charging-electric-cars.html

Not everyone will be able to switch over to electric cars all at once, but that's okay. We don't have the capacity to make them or charge them set up, anyway. One great thing about EVs is that the charging stations are incredibly cheap compared to what it costs to build and operate a gas station. You could put an EV charging station on every street corner of a small city for less than the cost of a single gas station.

Generating capacity?

[Anonymous Coward]

my question is: with all these electric cars, where will we dock the fuel tankers to run the generators to provide the electricity for these vehicles? what about the current level of brownouts? where is all this generating capacity coming from? it is apparently already in place, else why would they sell vehicles which will put us all into a perpetual blackout and overload the grid?

Unionized?

[sunderland56]

The NUMMI plant (which was originally a GM plant) was unionized (UAW local 2244). In most cases, when a new manufacturer takes over an existing auto plant, the unionization continues - meaning that Tesla would be a union shop, pay union wages, and probably rehire those old GM/Toyota workers.

Re:Unionized?

[SonnyDog09]

"Our union's hope is that this venture will give first hiring preference to former NUMMI employees who are already trained and highly skilled," Ron Gettlefinger, UAW. NUMMI was the only Toyota plant in the US that was unionized.

1991 Mercedes E300 diesel here.

[GuyFawkes]

A ride so smooth it feels like it is parked, a 130 mph top speed, and 45 miles per imperial gallon at 65 mph, and 35 miles per imperial gallon around town. Cost me the equivalent of about 1200 bucks US.

Tell me why I need to buy an electric car, or indeed any new car, to be "green".

Re:1991 Mercedes E300 diesel here.

[Rising Ape]

Those fuel consumption figures are OK but not amazing, especially for a diesel. A diesel of that age is also likely to produce lots of nasty particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions. So no, it's not green.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Honda Clarity?

[myrdos2]

Best guess is that each FCX Clarity costs 500,000 US to produce. An exec was quoted as saying it costs half as much as the previous version, which was a million. I have yet to see a remotely affordable fuel-cell hydrogen vehicle. The cheapo ones use a hydrogen combustion engine, and have awful range.

Re:Honda Clarity?

[horza]

presumably something like a "car share" program would cover you for the few times you're going on a long drive

Where I'm from, we call him "the train driver". I would quite happily swap for an EV. I'm quite happy to drive to Paris or Milan but having my car there is a "nice to have" and not a "need to have". I would quite happily swap to having to take plane/train for long distance journeys followed by taxi/bus/tram the other end to get to my destination, in return for a silent but wickedly quick EV that costs pennies to refill.

I don't see why there has to be one way to go for two very different needs. EVs are perfect for non-professional drivers, moms doing the school run or somebody commuting to work. They are simple to refill from home, have few moving parts to break down, and reduce noise pollution in the city centres. For professional drivers, such as delivery vans, traveling salesmen, taxis, etc, they will be happy to use hydrogen and trade the extra cost for the extra range. I can see both being successfully developed in parallel.

Phillip.

What EV Companies Don't Tell You About Charging

[Anonymous Coward]

All the EV car makers are/will say that you can recharge your car in 3 to 4 hours. What they don't tell you is that to do that you will need to have a 220 volt, 2 phase, 50 amps outlet. Don't have one of those in your house? Nobody does. Your dryer outlet is only 15 amps at 220, if you have one. And your entire house may not even be wired at its inlet for that amount of current.

Try asking an electrician what it will cost to install such an outlet. You will be very surprised at the cost, especially if you need to upgrade your house inlet circuits, main breaker box, etc.

Do you live in an apartment house or condo? What do you think it will take to get the landlord to install the needed circuits and outlets in every parking space (or just yours? - Do you even have an assigned parking space?)

Santa Cruz, California and a few other cities do have public charging stations, but these are for low power EVs and most are only 120 volt, 15 amp. For the new long distance EVs, this would take up to 72 hours to fully charge a battery pack!

The real solution isn't home (or work) charging, but exchangable battery packs like the electric forklifts have at dedicated stations.

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

It was never about the car, old cars can be refitted with the required parts for way under 5,000$. The problem HAS and will ALWAYS be the battery. Stop trying to reinvent the car, just design a good powerplant and a good battery and you're done. Let of companies design the frame work and everything else that goes into the car.

I could keep going on, but why?

it is UP TO 300mi range

[Anonymous Coward]

The base model for US$50K has only 160mi range ( http://www.teslamotors.com/models/# and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S ).
Should be still enough for the vast majority of commuters and for daily use.

Re:Honda Clarity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh... Combining it with oxygen would make things (storage, transportation...) much simpler.

Slow Down Cowboy!

[fm6]

Before you write such an extremely long rant, expend a little effort to get your facts straight. EV1 was a GM project, not a government one. Of course, it was designed to fail (in order to "prove" that there was no market for electric cars) but that's not on the government either.

Re:Slow Down Cowboy!

[RobertM1968]

Before you write such an extremely long rant, expend a little effort to get your facts straight. EV1 was a GM project, not a government one. Of course, it was designed to fail (in order to "prove" that there was no market for electric cars) but that's not on the government either.

I did. You didnt. While GM designed and built the EV1, it was due to government pressure and more importantly, funded largely by the government:

GM stated the cost of the EV1 program at slightly less than $500 million before marketing and sales costs, and over $1 billion in total; a portion of this cost was defrayed by the Clinton Administration's $1.25 billion Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. In addition, all manufacturers seeking to produce electric cars for market consumption also benefited from matching government funds committed to the United States Advanced Battery Consortium.

There ya go! $1.25 BILLION guaranteed to the program, PLUS matching funds on other monies spent by GM and others. Should I go into tax incentives as well? Or additional funding from other initiatives and on the local level (California)?

Re:Slow Down Cowboy!

[fm6]

That summary of funding rates a 9.8 on the 10-point Weasel Scale. It makes it sound like President Clinton just wrote GM a check for $1.5 billion. The reality is that PNGV disbursed funding to various universities and research institutions in addition to all three major car companies. And far from being aimed at developing electric cars, it was mostly about creating more fuel-efficient gas engines.

You could argue that the whole PNGV program was just a big boondoggle, as Ralph Nader did. But that's beside the point. It wasn't PNGV's small contribution to the EV1's $500 million development cost that made the program fail. (Let's leave the money GM wasted on "sales and marketing" out of the equation.) What made it fail is that GM decided in advance that it would fail.

When GM started advertising the EV1, I looked at getting one. There was no option to buy the car. You could lease it for 2 years with no option to renew. Then you had to give it back -- all offers from lessors who wanted to keep their cars were refused. And as soon as it did get the cars back, GM junked them, every single one. There's no sign that they even considered selling them. Patently, GM was only interested in demonstrating that there was no market for the car.

And yes, GM was responding to pressure to produce a zero-emission car. But what do you think Tesla's responding to? The difference is that Tesla sees zero-emission cars as an opportunity, whereas GM just went through the motions so they could go back to making SUVs.

This "government is the problem" mantra is getting old. Sure, government is too big and too bureaucratic. Funny thing, so is the private sector.

Re:Slow Down Cowboy!

[RobertM1968]

I agree with all your points. Including this: "The difference is that Tesla sees zero-emission cars as an opportunity, whereas GM just went through the motions so they could go back to making SUVs"

Though, as for the money (the part I was trying to point out), with the matching federal funds in the battery area, and with money from California as well, GM did get a massive chunk of money - which they intentionally wasted. The government was not the problem then - GM largely was. Including their interference with Stan Ovshinsky's newer battery tech, various other EV hybrid models that disappeared (yet were far more ready for prime time than virtually anything else of the time) and so on.

So... in agreement... the government is not always the problem. I do though, think that in recent years, with a company that has proven they have (a) interest and (b) the ability to produce the types of cars that the government has been decrying they want manufactured, that Tesla would warrant further help. It just seems their priorities are a bit different than they should be.

That aside, it makes economic sense in the short term. If the government were to ensure their automobile goals were met ASAP (instead of eventually) by simply assisting with funding of Tesla at a level where they could push ahead on the Model S and the "Bluestar" project, and on an infrastructure (of quick charge stations and/or battery swap stations), then it would be very damaging to the (largely oil revenue based) state and federal economies.

So... as I am in agreement with virtually all you have written, I guess I'm just frustrated that, whatever they say they really want to happen, the truth is this country is not in an economic situation to allow it to happen in the short term; and such advancements need to be metered out over time to prevent economic damage or collapse at the state - for instance, $3.1 billion in lost revenue for Texas, and who knows what economic consequences at the federal level. Of course, those numbers of "lost revenue" increase substantially for certain states (Texas again being one) when tax revenue for manufacturing, processing, transport and wholesale sale of gasoline, and retail sales of diesel, and automobile repair taxes, etc, get taken into account.

Sorry, just grumpy I guess. I'm not really trying to blame the government about this current situation... I'm just frustrated that due to technological trends of earlier years, we've got an infrastructure and economy that cannot allow cheap, high range EVs to become commonplace "overnight" - it's just annoying knowing that an ever improving solution (that would work for 90% of the population) is there; but cant be used to any large extent for fear of the damage it will create in other areas.

I've never seen the Chevy Volt,

[falconwolf]

That's because the Chevy Volt isn't expected to be launched until November 2010.

And even if a number electric car models do manifest into reality, am I going to be able to afford it? At this rate, I think I'd rather wait for a unicorn.

Unlike unicorns the first EVs, like the Teslas, are for early adapters. Later models will have lower prices.

Falcon

EV1

[falconwolf]

The problem with the EV1 was that it wasn't sold, it was only leased. When GM ended the lease early as you say it crushed them all. Also GM only offered them in some areas not everywhere.

Falcon

cold weather and sleeping bag

[falconwolf]

What's the survivability rate for 24 hours in -60F temperatures with just a warm sleeping bag?

I haven't been in -60F except for the wind chill, but I have been in -30F. In the US Army I spent 3 weeks at Ft Greely, Alaska, for winter warfare training during the last week of November and first 2 weeks of December. This was more than 20 years ago and the sleeping bags we had kept us warm relatively. Sleeping bags has changed and gotten better since then.

Falcon

Re:Honda Clarity?

[networkBoy]

my employer does.
every library in my county does.
every state parking garage in CA does.
the two biggest malls in my area do.
the office park up the street from me does.
my old employer installed a power drop, just because someone bought a sparrow.
Every high tech office I've visited in Santa Clara for my work does.
in addition, all these parking/charging spaces are 'preferred' spaces, thus why I want an EV.