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

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?

[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?

[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.

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: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.