Toyota Partners With Tesla To Make Electric Cars

I can't wait. by Cornwallis · 2010-05-21 00:20 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:I can't wait. by networkBoy · 2010-05-21 01:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:I can't wait. by Enigma2175 · 2010-05-21 04:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Enigma

Did I miss something? by Skarecrow77 · 2010-05-21 00:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

Re:Did I miss something? by c0p0n · 2010-05-21 00:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--

Your head a splode
Re:Did I miss something? by Ephemeriis · 2010-05-21 01:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Re:Did I miss something? by m.ducharme · 2010-05-21 01:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Re:Did I miss something? by Tyr_7BE · 2010-05-21 01:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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? by m.ducharme · 2010-05-21 03:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

--
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Re:Did I miss something? by 2obvious4u · 2010-05-21 03:53 · Score: 3, Informative

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? by Bemopolis · 2010-05-21 04:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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...?

--
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Re:Did I miss something? by RobertM1968 · 2010-05-21 04:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

>>>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.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!

a journey of a thousand miles per gallon.... by tverbeek · 2010-05-21 00:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/

Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon.... by H0p313ss · 2010-05-21 00:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon.... by Cornwallis · 2010-05-21 00:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.... by networkBoy · 2010-05-21 01:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon.... by jcupitt65 · 2010-05-21 01:29 · Score: 5, Informative

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.... by geekoid · 2010-05-21 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon.... by commodore64_love · 2010-05-21 03:00 · Score: 4, Informative

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

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

There will be no stopping this by brokeninside · 2010-05-21 00:25 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera by rolfwind · 2010-05-21 00:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by YttriumOxide · 2010-05-21 01:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera by geekoid · 2010-05-21 02:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared... by drinkypoo · 2010-05-21 00:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

(...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.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Kudo's Tesla and other observations by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-21 00:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

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...

This again? by asukasoryu · 2010-05-21 01:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Re:Honda Clarity? by jeff4747 · 2010-05-21 01:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

But it is already running.... by leuk_he · 2010-05-21 01:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Honda Clarity? by networkBoy · 2010-05-21 01:30 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

price tag by viridari · 2010-05-21 01:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Is there a FUD mod? by guidryp · 2010-05-21 02:10 · Score: 5, Informative

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:The thing that makes electrics un-economical by Areyoukiddingme · 2010-05-21 03:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

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:Rolling Blackouts by Areyoukiddingme · 2010-05-21 03:02 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Toyota Partners With Tesla To Make Electric Cars

33 of 327 comments (clear)