Tesla Delivers First Batch of Model S Electric Sedans

Well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-23 02:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

I suppose a $50,000 ANYTHING would be worth about $50,000 to me. Give it a year and I'm sure that will change drastically.

To streamline future posts by Grayhand · 2012-06-23 02:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

"What's a 160-miles-per-charge, $50k car worth to you?"

Just to save some time and energy for posts to come. Yes it's over 20K so you aren't interested.

Why can't they make one for under 20K? Batteries are too expensive.

160 miles isn't enough? It wasn't made with you in mind.

Gasoline suits me fine! Then be prepared for $5 and eventually $10 a gallon. Oil is running out and it will happen eventually. If you get solar panels to recharge from the cost of sunlight never goes up and the trend is for solar panels to get cheaper.

Re:To streamline future posts by TooMuchToDo · 2012-06-23 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let me get these out of the way as well.
I put $5K down 2 years ago. Yes, its expensive, but no more than a mid-level Audi or BMW (I love the S4 as well as the M5, respectively). I make over six figures, and have for the last several years, so I've already put a large downpayment aside and can easily afford the $400-500/month payment.
I wanted a luxury car that was all electric and could hold my myself, my wife, and my on-the-way kids. It also needed to be usable by my wife for errands, driving the kids around, etc.
I would buy this car even if gas was $2/gal. Someone has to eat the R&D costs for the price to drop for everyone else.
Re:To streamline future posts by WindBourne · 2012-06-23 03:02 · Score: 5, Informative

You missed so many points.
Tesla is starting high-end and going towards low. In 2014, they are expected to introduce their sub 30K electric car. Unlike the garbage that is out there, it will likely be a 4 seater, and have decent performance and torque (i.e. 0-60 under 6 if not 5) and a range of around 120 miles.

If 160 miles is not far enough, then for 10K each bump, you can change to 220 or even 300. With the 300 mile range, you also get the improved motor that will drop your 0-60 in the 4's. However, if you can not afford, then you are right. Stay with a gas car or wait another year for a Natural Gas car. For now.

Sigh. Most ppl drive in the day times. So, installing panel do little for you, unless you have one that works based on night time charging. Regardless, electricity is less than $1.00 per gallon of gas equivalence (for most of USA, it is .80-.90).

Very little maintenance costs.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:To streamline future posts by joe_frisch · 2012-06-23 03:29 · Score: 2

The range limit is a big problem because it means you need 2 cars. Even if only a small percentage of your trips are over the 160 or 300 mile limit, you still need to take those trips. You could rent a car for long trips, but one of the points of LUXURY items is reducing the amount of time you waste. Even ignoring the cost, many people don't have space to park 2 cars per person. (or even one per person, and a spare).
It is a bit cheaper (maybe X2) to operate than a gas car, but the difference doesn't cover the difference in purchase costs over the lifetime of the car.
The total life cycle emissions relative to a hybrid would be an interesting study. The answer would probably depend on where you were operating the Tesla and how the marginal additional energy is generated.
A plug-in hybrid might be more interesting, electric for the commute, but with unlimited range if needed for the occasional long trip.
All that said, anyone who wants one is welcome, it makes as much sense as a bunch of other high tech toys.
Re:To streamline future posts by ArcherB · 2012-06-23 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Within my lifetime, gas has gone from .23/gal to 4.00/gal. If we are going to repair roads, etc. I suspect that we will need to double taxes. That will mean that we will within a couple of years pay around 6/gal, and I would not be surprised to see us approaching Europe levels of oil prices.
First, the roads were built with the current gas taxes. Why would we need to double them to maintain the roads?
OK, let's assume gas is $6.00/gallon.
$30000/6=5000 gallons of gas.
At 20 miles per gallon, that's 100,000 miles, or the typical life of an American made car.
How many miles do these batteries last, anyway?
Doesn't matter, if you are buying one of these to save money, you are making a mistake. If you are buying on of these to save the environment, you'd be better off buying a Honda Civic and spending the $30,000 planting trees or something.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Re:To streamline future posts by Immerman · 2012-06-23 03:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

Or we could, you know, move toward public transportation in big way - it absolutely excels in high-density urban areas. Want a fast conversion without a lot of expensive infrastructure? Simply set aside one lane on every multi-lane street as a dedicated bus lane and then make sure the drivers stay on schedule (via carrot and/or stick). The resultant increase in both bus speed and automotive congestion would instantly make buses considerably faster, cheaper, and more convenient than cars, strongly incentivizing their use. They technique has proven quite popular pretty much everywhere it's been done, after the initial adjustment period has past.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:To streamline future posts by WindBourne · 2012-06-23 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Add in maintenance costs on ICE engines. Add in oil changes. And in the fact that society subsidizes the pollution from these (and will likely be changed by 2020) and it becomes obvious that batteries are at about break-even.

Now, a tesla model S has higher performance than most cars in the same costs brackets. And have you seen the vehicle. Beautiful. Basically comparable or better quality than German or Japanese cars.

By 2015, the model S is expected to drop to around 45K without subsidies. Likewise, they will have their sub-30K car out there. I was told that it would get around 120-150 miles/charge and have 0-60 of around 6 secs or less.

Point is, I will take that. This is no different than what happened with Ships, Trains, ICE Cars, Aviation, and now space.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:To streamline future posts by presidenteloco · 2012-06-23 03:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Umm. High density urban living has a much lower ecological footprint than low-density sprawled living.
With high-density urban living with good rapid transit, most people could get by without a car and rent one for the occasional weekend holiday or renovation project.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Re:To streamline future posts by jo_ham · 2012-06-23 04:00 · Score: 2

Why do you need two cars?
Surely you can just rent one if you need to take a long trip. If you need to make long trips more frequently than renting would be feasible then an electric car is not currently for you.
Re:To streamline future posts by timeOday · 2012-06-23 04:01 · Score: 2

If you covered the entire property of a typical single-family home with solar panels (*all* of it, not just the roof of the house/garage), you still wouldn't be able to take in enough energy to charge a typical eCar in under a week.
What are you talking about? The Chevy Volt charges from empty in 13 hours on a 120V circuit pulling a bit under 1KW. Its range on that charge is about 40 miles. Generating 1KW is easy - here is what it looks like - those plug straight into your existing outlets using built-in circuitry. Of course, people drive very different miles per day and live in different places, so I'm not saying it's currently feasible for most people. (I happen to live in New Mexico and have an 18 mile round-trip commute). But what you said is a big exaggeration.
Re:To streamline future posts by MadShark · 2012-06-23 04:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think you should go back and do some actual calculations. About 30 seconds of googling tells me that standard, commercially available solar panels for making roughly 700 kWh a month would cover about 400 square feet. The combined area of my garage and relatively small house is over 2000 square feet.
The battery back on the base Tesla S is a 40 kWh battery pack. With a 400 square foot system, it should produce enough energy to charge a Tesla battery pack about 17 times in a month. That should get you about 2500 miles in a month.
Seems like plenty of room on my roof to charge an electric car, if I wanted to. I would just need to solve the problem of my car not being there during the day when the panels produce most of their energy.
Re:To streamline future posts by Teancum · 2012-06-23 04:16 · Score: 2

There are also maintenance costs for electric vehicles as well, not the least of which is maintaining the lubrication of the chassis (that doesn't change regardless of its being electric of gasoline), tires, and some consumables including stuff like the AC system and other components with movable parts. By far and away the largest expense with maintenance of electric vehicles is the replacement cost of the battery pack though, which Tesla earlier said had about a five year lifetime.
Perhaps you are the type of person who doesn't mind dumping cars every five years for a new model, so that may or may not be a big deal, but it is a part of the cost. I don't know the exact cost for the battery pack on the Model S (or the Roadster for that matter), but I'm pretty sure it is in the 5-digit range (aka about $10k-$30k roughly). When computing costs it is something you definitely need to consider in the equation. The cost of the battery pack may have gone down somewhat, but considering that the standard Li-ion battery that Tesla is using for its battery pack is already at commodity prices (very dependent upon the raw material costs and not so much on manufacturing costs), I don't expect to see a huge cost saving there any time soon.
For myself, I think electric automobiles are cool by themselves and have a number of advantages over gasoline vehicles that more than make up for the difference in price even if everything else stays the same. That electric vehicle manufacturing makes reducing highway noise levels a matter of civil engineers rather than mechanical is a huge bonus.
Re:To streamline future posts by Whatsmynickname · 2012-06-23 04:23 · Score: 2

To continue the streamlining:
Why does it take so long to charge the batteries when you are only a third of the way to your long journey's destination? Because as pointed out in another post, the energy density of hydrocarbons coupled with the delivery mechanism WILL ALWAYS beat electricity and batteries, always.
Why are we wasting our time with batteries where (a) from an electrochemical perspective never reach the energy density of hydrocarbons and (b) never be able to transfer the energy electrically nearly at the same rate as we currently do with hydrocarbons? Because we should be looking at either synthetic fuels or bio-fuels such as bio-butanol.
Re:To streamline future posts by Teancum · 2012-06-23 04:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have mixed feelings about mass public transportation. My largest complaint is that it is a whole bunch of hurry up and wait, where personal vehicle which do point to point travel is legitimately seen as desirable, where you don't need to worry about making connections or fighting transportation system schedules just to make appointments.
I've seen some public transportation systems that act very much like a Taxi service providing point to point travel at prices approaching bus transit or cheaper, so it is possible. The largest problem with such a system is that it requires a significant build-out of infrastructure before it becomes something useful.
Regardless, while some people like living in ant farms like Manhattan (how it is sort of viewed from outside), there are many who don't as well. It is one thing to say it should become more economical for people to move into a situation of high density urban living, but from a standpoint of basic liberties it shouldn't be something forced on people either. I'm also not convinced that the economics of moving most of the world's population into such high density urban lifestyles is even possible to make work without a larger infrastructure in place elsewhere that also needs a fairly large population of people in medium or low density housing.
Re:To streamline future posts by Teancum · 2012-06-23 04:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm glad you are financially stable but you know you're selfish, right?
Why is it such a bad thing being "selfish" in this situation? I highly doubt that the person you were responding to here robbed somebody else at gunpoint or engaged in any sort of unethical or nefarious method of obtaining that wealth other than simply applying their talents in some useful fashion that was seen as desirable by others and compensated for hard work and skill.
I do think there is a way to be ecologically stable and still enjoy the fruits of your labor. The "trend" of various nations and political philosophies isn't necessarily predestined and inevitable either, but then again neither is mass genocide of 99.9% of humanity either.
Re:To streamline future posts by lgw · 2012-06-23 04:51 · Score: 2

If you're serious about "reducing the surplus population", well: you first!
Humans have moral value, other things don't. We have a duty to ensure we find ways to live without soiling our nest, but beyond that the more the merrier.
The world's population was far lower when pea soup fogs were killing people in London. Now air quality is great just about everywhere in developed nations, and even in those few cities where local geography really conspires against air quality, it's merely annoying not life threatening. In general we've managed to reduce pollution as population has grown in developed nations, because technology has grow faster.
Anyone who longs for the days when Earth's population was lower has quite the romanticized understanding of history!

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:To streamline future posts by Teancum · 2012-06-23 05:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just wondering here, is there any reason why Tesla isn't going for other high-end electric vehicle markets?
Specific markets would include things like Delivery vans (like the local delivery trucks used by UPS, DHL, and FedEx), short haul semi-tractors, and other kinds of larger vehicles that would seem like perfect markets for electric vehicles that have a need for real performance. I realize that other companies are getting into those areas as well and that is just a pure business decision on entering such markets, but it would seem like those are some markets where a company making relatively few editions of a high-priced vehicle could work out better than trying to break into the mass consumer market. Other automobile manufacturers have gone into those markets (for gasoline or even diesel powered vehicles), so it isn't that big of a stretch.
Re:To streamline future posts by Luckyo · 2012-06-23 07:19 · Score: 5, Informative

I'd like to pitch in on this one. I live in Finland, city of Tamepere. we have ~200k living in the city. This is the site of our public transportation: http://aikataulut.tampere.fi/?lang=en (fully functional english version, we have a lot of exchange students and foreign workers due to being an industrial town). There is also a mobile version of the site and most stops have a printed upcode barcode that you can scan with your phone into an app to help with seeing timetables on the fly.
Full site has the following:
1. Per bus line and per stop timetable (which tends to be accurate within ~2 minutes).
2. Journey planner, where you simply input your start point and end point and set your desired departure or arrival time, and software will provide you with several routes that fit your criteria. You can also set details, like to ignore certain bus lines when doing route calculation or how much margin of error you want to switching lanes.
3. Traffic monitor of GPS-fitted busses (actually most if not all busses have trackers, but it seems only a few are enabled to broadcast to public at any given time).
Public transit itself here is excellent. The only times I ever need to use a car is when I leave the city or am in a big hurry. This in spite of the city being so big that it was classified as a "village" by early EU rules due to having extremely low population density, often considered a bane of public transportation. Night traffic also exists, timed with shift changes in bigger working places (for example shift changes for central hospitals or major factories).
Every bus has been equipped with GPS for a while now. Bus essentially has a notification board inside set to be visible from everywhere in the bus that displays the next stop's name and projected time of arrival as well as current time. Busses are modern Volvo and Scania models, fully air conditioned and equipped with heaters so they're comfortable through hot summers and cold winters. There are many other little allowances for comfort of people, like NFC tickets (you just wave your card through a NFC reader and it shows you the balance on the ticket in front of the driver where you enter, while people exiting the bus do so through middle and rear doors).
Pricing is reasonable by local standard: you can enter any bus for an hour after purchasing the ticket which costs 2.50EUR. By using preloaded tickets, you shave almost a euro off the price. You can also get a monthly card for something around 50EUR, and there are significant discounts for students children and elderly. They also have "workplace" tickets specially tailored for workplaces to buy for their workers.
We have bus lanes throughout city centre, which means that you will avoid most of the congestion especially during rush hour by taking a bus.
In general, if you want to make it work, it can be made to work and work well to the point where even a low density 200k city can have public transit good enough to allow to not even have a car if you don't want to own one. It's one of the major infrastructural advantages here, of you move with your spouse, one car for the family is more then enough, and a single person can go without a car alltogether in many cases. There have actually been calculations done that it's cheaper for an average single student/worker to have a bus card and grab a (very expensive high quality service legally mandated local monopoly) taxi for those few times that bus tables do not suit him/her.
Re:To streamline future posts by Patch86 · 2012-06-23 07:27 · Score: 2

On top of that, many (many) households have multiple cars anyway. Lets say you're a two adult, two car household and both of your normal commutes are under 150 miles a day. It's fairly unlikely that you're both going to have an unusually long, range-breaking trip (to different places, and with no possible alternative travel arrangement) on the same day. So make one of your cars a range-limited electric, the other can be a conventional petrol/diesel. Trade cars as necessary.
Re:To streamline future posts by lgw · 2012-06-23 09:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

How's the air quality in the countries where all your stuff is made?
Well, a lot of my stuff is made in America, and my car was made in Japan, so fine (contrary to legend, Americas manufacturing capacity hasn't shrunk, it's just that American manufacturing is mostly automated now, so manufacturing employment is vanishing). From what I've seen, air quality in any city in India (which makes very few goods for export) is worse than in China. The world is not so simple as you make it out.
Air quality is low in places working through their industrial revolution becuase other things are more important to the people living there. The same was true in Western nations during our industrial revolution.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:To streamline future posts by TooMuchToDo · 2012-06-23 10:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Electric motors are cheap and known. Energy storage systems? Not so much.
The Tesla battery packs are works of art. Thousands of cells being babied by control systems that monitor charge states, temperature, etc. Once the manufacture of these packs scales up, and more is known about how the react out in the field for extended periods of time (10+ years), the prices should come down considerably. Until then, those with the cash are going to be subsidizing the R&D that needs to be done (by buying cars that are too expensive for most people).
I admit though, its not all altruistic. The Model S is a hot looking car.
Re:To streamline future posts by thegarbz · 2012-06-23 10:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm jealous. I really am.
We have public transport in my city too. There's a website which allows you to plan your trip. It comes up with such useful things as "Get on train at 5:30, get to Central Station at 6:00" OR option B: "Get on train at 5:00, go two stops forward, get off train, wait for next train, get to Central Station at 6:00"
Not that this matters. The published timetables are complete works of fiction anyway, for trains as well as buses. Buses also have another feature where they frequently fill up and start skipping stops unless someone was willing to get off which makes it impossible to catch a bus into the city during peak hour if you live close to the city.
Then there was the classic pricing problems. $4.50 one person one way for a train ticket. My mate and I don't even bother. I don't have a NFC card. It's too expensive. On a weekend some of the parking garages in the city charge a flat rate of $15. It's cheaper, faster and more certain to simply drive if more that one person is going.
The stupid thing is this is the best the public transport has ever been. 10 years ago we used to joke about not needed to go to theme parks as a bus ride would outdo the thrill and fear of even the highest roller-coaster. I tried to cycle everywhere, except my city isn't built for it and the road rage here is incredible.
At least the car I bought has a tiny 1.4L engine so it's cheap to run.
Re:To streamline future posts by WindBourne · 2012-06-23 11:28 · Score: 2

And yet, Tesla said that they would have the model S out in June of 2012. Here we are. Recall that bet that Musk did with that pompous reporter from 2 years ago? Somehow I doubt that the bastard will pay, but Musk had called it. Now, we both know that SpaceX is 2 years behind schedule, but that had more to do with F1-1. But overall, I think that Musk has been pretty good with scheduling. So, I expect that X will be next year, and Tesla is saying that they will have White Star (or gen 3) out for 2015 model (i.e. out in june 2014).

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:If you`re buying one of these . . . by drinkypoo · 2012-06-23 02:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

$50,000 is chump change given the market they're targeting; it's well in line with the purchase costs of similarly-outfitted gassers and it costs a hell of a lot less than the German models. If their build quality is somewhere in between typical American shit (Even the Ford GT famously has flimsy interior, and it's the most expensive American production car ever AFAICT) and a decent kraut kan then the price is eminently reasonable.

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

miles per charge? by NortySpock · 2012-06-23 02:33 · Score: 2

Summary says 160, Wired says 265. What gives?

Re:miles per charge? by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-06-23 02:40 · Score: 4, Informative

There is a battery upgrade option. Wired is talking about the larger battery

Why can't they extend the range? by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-23 02:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

It doesn't need to do 0-60 in 5.6 seconds. It does need to go further on a fully-charged set of batteries.

Why the hell do people obsess about 0-60 time? How often do you ever accelerate flat out from 0 to 60?

Re:Why can't they extend the range? by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-06-23 02:40 · Score: 4, Informative

The cars with the larger battery options can go 300(reviews say 265) miles on a charge, and can be charged at up to 62 miles per hour of charge. That's pretty decent
Re:Why can't they extend the range? by 0100010001010011 · 2012-06-23 02:48 · Score: 2

0-60 times are a by product of it being an electric car with high torque. How would increasing 0-60 times extend the range? It's just like a gasoline car. If you floor it 0-60 every single time your MPG drops. If you gently accelerate your MPG increases.
Re:Why can't they extend the range? by Zeussy · 2012-06-23 02:58 · Score: 2

The 0-60 time is more to do with electric motors producing peak torque at 0 rpm. In top trim according to wiki the Signature performance version produces 310kW (416hp) and 600 Nm! (443 fb-lb) of torque. To put that back into petrol engines, a naturally aspirated engine getting 100 Nm per litre is quite a feat. So this motor is producing the same sort of torque as a well tuned 6 litre V8.
Electric motors compared to a normal engine has very little friction and other overheads. I can't really see how fitting it within an motor with half the power/torque would actually save much in battery, a powerful motor does not necessarily mean its inefficient at low power settings. Being lead footed in the Tesla S is going to do the same to your economy as being lead footed in a BMW 3 series or Cadillac CTS. At least the Tesla S can recover some of its spent energy with regenerative braking techniques. Bare in mind, this is an expensive luxury car, and it needs to compete with those other sports/luxury sedans in it's market.

--
Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
Re:Why can't they extend the range? by Zeussy · 2012-06-23 03:17 · Score: 2

I don't think you understand how electric motors work/forces accelerating a car work

Acceleration is a product of power, not torque. (At this point someone will shout F=MA, or A = F / M). I am talking in terms from the engine/motors perspective.

With the right gearing I could produce with a hand crank the same sort of torque at the wheels that any car engines does, but I would not be able to accelerate a car from 0-60 in 5.6 seconds. I simply don't have the power (torque * rotational speed). Using a less powerful electric motor, with different gearing won't make up for the loss of power. Electric motors are power constant devices, rather than torque constant like a traditional dinosaur burner, that is why electric cars don't have a gearbox, and just have a torque converter.

--
Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
Re:Why can't they extend the range? by Thumper_SVX · 2012-06-23 03:19 · Score: 2

And no car will get me to my mum's because I live in a different country. It's all a matter of perspective... and they have these wonderful things called phones and now "Skype" which means you don't need to visit as often...
Re:Why can't they extend the range? by Immerman · 2012-06-23 03:57 · Score: 2

Actually being lead-footed in a Tesla will do far less to your efficiency than in a gas-powered vehicle. Combustion engines typically have very poor efficiency at low rpms, so you'll spend far more Watt-hours worth of gasoline to generate a Watt-hour of kinetic energy until you get into the relatively narrow "optimal efficiency" power band. An electric motor on the other hand will generally have a fairly constant conversion factor regardless of speed, typically around 90% or so.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Why can't they extend the range? by DerekLyons · 2012-06-23 04:43 · Score: 2

Why the hell do people obsess about 0-60 time? How often do you ever accelerate flat out from 0 to 60?
For two reasons: First, it's a (more-or-less) objective measurement of the cars performance. Second, because many of us do accelerate from near zero to near sixty on a daily basis - on highway on ramps. There, reasonable zero to sixty times equates to greater safety because it's easier to match speed with and merge into existing traffic.
Re:Why can't they extend the range? by Teancum · 2012-06-23 05:53 · Score: 3, Informative

The Tesla Roadster has a "traditional" automobile transmission, and indeed it even had a variable speed gearbox (two speed plus reverse). The torque ranges of an electric motor played hell on the transmission and nearly killed Tesla Motors as a company because the company who was developing the transmission failed to deliver a product lasting more than a couple thousand miles. That it was an unusual engineering domain because it involved an AC variable frequency induction motor instead of an internal combustion engine is where the problem came up. In retrospect Tesla should have concentrated on that transmission as a critical development path item and perhaps even moved its development in-house (which eventually did happen anyway). The failure of this transmission is what cost Martin Eberhard his job as CEO, and pushed Elon Musk into a much more active role in the company.
One of the reasons for having multiple speeds is that at extremely high RPM rates you start to get some additional performance issues, where the motor starts to act as a powerful gyroscope, making it difficult to turn the vehicle and impacting the handling of the vehicle as well as pushing limits on the equipment when you get to very high speeds that can result in a mechanical breakdown. There are legitimate reasons to be looking for a multi-speed transmission even for electric vehicle, even though you don't need to have nearly so many gear ratios. As for how many electric vehicle manufacturers are building multi-speed transmissions is another story entirely.

Environmental Impact? by Angrywhiteshoes · 2012-06-23 02:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've always been curious, if the TOTAL long-term impact of electric cars during their entire lifecycle is actually better than fuel burning cars. I mean,

1. what happens with the batteries when it's done?
2. what is the cost of building these things?
3. is the manufacturing process cleaner or worse than fuel burning cars?
4. what about the impact on the electric grid? Is there any?
5. Isn't COAL a huge part of our electric grid?
6. Does this increase the dependance on coal?
7. Is there any repercussions from increasing our dependance on coal?

To be honest, I don't know much about these things, but I always wonder about, "Are these GREEN alternatives actually GREEN? Or is it just GREEN on the surface? And what does GREEN really mean?" I really hate political buzz-words, because they never seem to mean what they imply.

Re:Environmental Impact? by Zeussy · 2012-06-23 03:24 · Score: 2

With battery tech improving (in term of cars), I don't think a lot of people grasp just how energy dense petrol/diesel/fossil fuels truly are, and how poor batteries really are. This chart on wiki really hits it home:
Energy Density chart
I find it quite amusing that fat metabolism is at the same density per litre as petrol, I guess that also shows how amazing evolution is at solving problems, and also why losing weight is so hard. Also the chart shows how energy poor hydrogen is per litre. The alternatives to fossil fuels, really are not that great.

--
Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
Re:Environmental Impact? by Dan+East · 2012-06-23 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

The idea is to make the consumer portion "green" and non-emissive, because then over time the underlying power generation can be made less polluting or swapped out for entirely new methods of generating power without requiring any "upgrades" or action by the consumer. It is definitely easier to regulate, and probably less expensive and more efficient to implement, emissions control at a handful of large power stations than millions of individual car engines.

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:Environmental Impact? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-06-23 03:33 · Score: 2

it seems our mistake was that we stopped dinosaur production too early.
doh!

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Environmental Impact? by Immerman · 2012-06-23 05:48 · Score: 2

1) Assuming it's based on lithium or any other rare earth you can bet the batteries will be recycled
2) You have far fewer moving parts, so manufacturing costs are likely lower than ICE vehicles (assuming comparable production runs). Maintenance costs can also be lower since there's less to go wrong.
3) Probably cleaner: fewer parts = faster, simpler assembly and smaller necessary assembly line. Battery manufacture might be an issue, but I haven't heard of any particular issues there.
4) The grid will likely have to expand somewhat if EVs take over, but assuming most charging is done overnight when most generating capacity would otherwise be sitting idle it won't be a big deal (caveat - if we move toward a renewable energy grid this will cease to be the case)
5) Yes. But considering we're getting a rapidly-increasing amount of our oil from tar sands which are even more environmentally destructive than strip-mining coal I don't see this as a major issue. Pollution-wise a coal plant can operate much more efficiently than an ICE so the biggest issue is that coal-burning creates toxic ash whose disposal is currently carelessly regulated, and releases a great deal of radioactive radon into the atmosphere.
6) Yes, but coal reserves contain FAR more energy that oil reserves, by a couple orders of magnitude if I remember correctly.
7) Of course, but the point is that ICE vehicles create a vast, inefficient, and diffuse individually-owned power-generating infrastructure tightly bound to oil, whereas the electric grid is not tightly bound to anything and can readily be upgraded piecemeal to new energy sources without end users having to do anything. It also (potentially) increases efficiency considerably (transmission and storage efficiency being the caveat) - nothing says we couldn't increase capacity by adding oil-burning power plants, which can operate far more efficiently than a car since a generator can be operated at it's optimal speed and load.
More to the point, once we create a disconnect between energy generation and consumption we can start moving to other power source whenever and wherever it makes sense as the technology evolves without impacting the end-users. And since such upgrades are done in a concentrated and often government-subsidized manner it makes long-term investing more feasible. Few people would buy a car with near-zero fuel costs but who's up-front cost will require twenty years to pay for itself, but that makes great sense for a power plant planned to operate for 50-80 years. Wind and solar can be added even by individuals to chip away at the overall generating capacity. And fission reactors already generate far less radioactive waste than coal with zero emissions - the biggest problem there is public fear-mongering and that the currently-popular designs are all uranium-based, while global uranium reserves are only estimated at enough to satisfy 50 years of global energy demand. Thorium reactors though could power us for a few thousand years, with the added benefit that they could be far smaller, safer, and less waste-producing than equivalent-capacity light-water uranium reactors. Plus thorium is about as common as lead and present virtually everywhere on the planet so there's no strategic "hot spots" to encourage military meddling. Then there's fusion which could cleanly answer our energy needs in perpetuity, but is perpetually 20 years away because we keep cutting research funding. Some of the low-budget "fringe" research in the field is looking extremely promising though, so there's still a chance that could hit the market in a timely fashion.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Re:If you`re buying one of these . . . by WindBourne · 2012-06-23 02:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Same price as a BWM, Mercedes, Nice SUV, etc. The only difference is that the Tesla costs a fraction of the price to own and can outperform most of those cars.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Solar panels will get more expensive by Barsteward · 2012-06-23 03:01 · Score: 2

yes, but IF all the energy used is renewable, its not an argument for not doing it. If its all gas, coal etc energy to produce them then it can be an argument. High cost materials are irrelevant if they are produced with renewable energy

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)

Re:Amazing electric car, but by WindBourne · 2012-06-23 03:08 · Score: 2

This is now cheaper and easier. And I prefer the Linux console that it has. Go to your local dealer and try it. Very nice.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:If you`re buying one of these . . . by DJRumpy · 2012-06-23 03:08 · Score: 4, Informative

Note this is for the base model. The top end gets closer to a conventional combustion vehicle for not much more than a higher end sedan, and the car performs like a high end sorts sedan. This price is actually one of the better ones out there considering its capabilities, and it's capable of traveleling farther than most electrics on the market at the high end (300 miles per charge).

0 to 60 times in 5.7 seconds.

Not bad at all...

re:tesla delivers first batch by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-23 03:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Even with tax supported subsidies, gas isn't cheap.

Gas shill Luddites would have us using a hundred year old technology instead of solving the technological problems that new technology always presents, all the while denying that there can be any negative consequences from any technology filling the coffers of right wing bloviating ignoramuses.

What's it worth to you to keep gas filled blow-hards redistributing money into the hands of cronies preparing the ground with lies and deceit for the next phony yellow cake war of liberation.

Donate your money to Al-Quaeda why don't you; Exxon Mobil, Shell, etc do with their royalty - and I do mean royalty - payments to Wahabi Arabia.

Or not.

If you can't afford the current tesla, wait a little longer; toyota will be using tesla battery technology to introduce an electric suv based on the toyota Rav model.

http://pressroom.toyota.com/releases/toyota+tesla+build+rav4+ev+woodstock+ontario.htm

tesla has comitted to introducing a 30k+ model X suv by 2015.

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

This comment has not been approved by the Ameican Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation, their employees or contractors.

Re:Good luck, but.... by Eponymous+Coward · 2012-06-23 03:17 · Score: 2

Back in March GM suspended production of the Volt and blamed poor sales.

I don't think I would ever buy one a Volt or Leaf. I would consider leasing one though.

Re:Cost per charge by WalksOnDirt · 2012-06-23 03:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Right now with gas prices dropping to below $3 a gallon in my area, a Prius operating at 50 MPG costs 6 cents a mile in fuel. How does the Tesla compare?

I make it as about four cents, assuming you pay the national average for power. But, a Prius is not the proper comparison. A BMW 5 series is about right. Really, the question is whether the quiet ride and performance is worth the lack of range - fuel costs don't matter to these people.

--
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)

Re:Amazing electric car, but by TheGratefulNet · 2012-06-23 03:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

large flickr thread just about that:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/7408464122

by the guy who got VIN # 1

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Willingness to pay may be higher ... by perpenso · 2012-06-23 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

I suppose a $50,000 ANYTHING would be worth about $50,000 to me.

Actually its more complicated than that. The car may be worth significantly more or less than the amount paid to an individual person. The car itself may only be worth $40,000 to a person but something else, say greening their image, may be worth $10,000+. One the other hand the car may be worth significantly more than $50,000 to an extremely environmentally conscious person, so this person essentially thinks its a deal. Yet another person may also think it is worth significantly more because they added up the price of the components and found a higher number, appreciate the taxpayer subsidy, and want to purchase now before that subsidy goes away - say due to a change of political administration.

In short, prices do not always match a person's willingness to pay, a more technical phrase for what its worth to person. A price generally needs to be at or below that willingness to pay. Apple sold a bunch of iPhones at $600 when it was introduced. Those people who thought an iPhone was worth $600 paid less than that when newer more capable models were introduced at $500 and then $400.

Give it a year and I'm sure that will change drastically.

Again, that depends. Back to that government subsidy. If the subsidy is removed and the price for a new car goes up then the used car may retain its value to some degree.

Re:Amazing electric car, but by TheGratefulNet · 2012-06-23 03:28 · Score: 2

no one uses power pots anymore. pots don't 'get warm' anymore.

especially at high resistance! lol

pots are control items and they might send low current levels of voltage to an a/d pin on a controller, at best. usually, UI elements are rotary encoders and not even real pots, anymore.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Why the hell do people obsess about 0-60 time? by perpenso · 2012-06-23 03:45 · Score: 2

Why the hell do people obsess about 0-60 time?

Because one of the things that contribute to bigger less efficient combustion engines remaining popular is performance. The electric car vendors are merely pointing out that high performance cars do not need to make loud vroom vroom noises. Its an important part of marketing to educate the public that electric vehicles can be "race cars", that going green does not necessarily mean sacrificing performance and fun.

Re:Solar panels will get more expensive by presidenteloco · 2012-06-23 03:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why not use solar energy to produce the solar panels:

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

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?

Re:If you`re buying one of these . . . by WindBourne · 2012-06-23 03:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Then you should read the reviews, esp. the second link on the original posting.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Tesla compared to other electric cars and hybrids by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-23 04:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

I was recently in the market for a new car and I had the chance to research several of the electric and plugin hybrids on the market and test drive them. I'll brain dump some of my research here in case someone else finds it useful.

Tesla Model S - The car looks really awesome, and I loved the styling of it. It is quite expensive with the base model starting at just under $50k after a $7,500 federal tax credit. The big reason I didn't but this was that the base model isn't even out yet. They are manufacturing the signature series first which is the fancier model with the giant 85 kwH battery pack. Also, I live in Arizona which doesn't yet have a Tesla showroom to see/drive the car or a service center to service it. You would have to pay a mechanic per mile to come out and service it. Scottsdale, AZ is getting a showroom and a service station later this year though.

Nissan Leaf - I test drove the leaf, and as with most electric cars this thing was pretty zippy. If you haven't had a chance to test drive an electric car yet I highly recommend trying it. Having 100% of your torque at 0 RPM is very nice. The main disadvantage to the Leaf is the only 100 mile range. I drive between Tucson and Phoenix often enough that this is impractical for me. I would imagine that for many people in large cities or on the east coast where things are closer together this would be more practical.

Chevy Volt - I really like the design of the engine of the Chevy Volt. An electric drive train with a range extending ICE is a good design that I think other plugin hybrids should pick up and run with. You could design the ICE to be optimized to run at a constant RPM and be way more efficient. The electric range on the Volt was between 25-50 miles with an average of 35 miles. This was actually an excellent range for my daily commute of 26 miles. I could in theory have driven the Volt almost entirely on electricity and only used gasoline very rarely. It has a few mechanisms to support using almost no gasoline. First if the gas engine hasn't come on at all in 6 weeks then it will briefly engage the gas engine to make sure everything stays lubricated and in good condition. Also the gas becoming stale in the tank can be an issue. In general you would want to go through a tank of gas at least once a year. Ultimately I didn't like the cargo space on the Volt and the fact that it only seats 4 people as the center rear position is taken up by the battery running down the center of the car.

Great comparison of the Volt vs. the Plugin Prius:
http://gm-volt.com/2012/04/13/cost-per-mile-comparison-2012-volt-vs-2013-prius-plug-in/

Plugin Prius - This was the car I was leaning towards getting for a while. It's probably the most practical of the other cars that I looked into. I was already a fan of the amazing gas mileage the regular Prius gets and it is a tried and tested technology. Even if you never plugged in the vehicle then you could drive it like a regular Prius and get great gas mileage. The cargo space on the Prius is pretty amazing (you can fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood in there). One drawback is that to fit the new batteries in the plugin model they got rid of the spare tire. They give you basically a fancy fix-a-flat and then tell you not to use it because it will damage the tire pressure monitoring system which costs $600 to fix. However the biggest drawback is the price. While it's only about $3,000 more than a comparably equipped regular Prius, you have to get a bunch of options that I didn't care about. The base model plugin Prius starts at $32k with a $2,500 Federal tax credit putting the final cost at $29,500. The base model (Package 2) Prius costs only $24,000. You do get some features like the navigation system, voice activated dialing, and Entune but all of that are worthless options if you have a smart phone. If I could have bought the plugin prius with the package 2 options for only $3k more then I would have done that, but as it stands it would've been $5,500 more for the plugi

Let me sketch it out for you by presidenteloco · 2012-06-23 04:22 · Score: 2

The fact that USA is producing much of its electricity from coal is an essentially separate problem from whether EVs are a step in the right direction or not.

With the electricity thing, I would just say: "Stop doing that, morons. It's really bad for the climate and there are practical alternatives, and/or alternatives that you could make practical with 10 years of focused, adequately funded R&D to optimize them."

The thing with an electricity grid and batteries is you can supply them with energy made in many different ways, many of which are not fossil fuel based. The fact that you aren't doing that yet is just an almost criminal level of complacency and laziness.

As soon as you get your electricity generation (and smartgrid and electrical energy conservation) act together, the EVs will be much less environmentally damaging than the ICE vehicles. So they are a step in the right direction.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?

Re:$zero by presidenteloco · 2012-06-23 04:39 · Score: 2

Suggestion. Rent a car for longer trips. EV for around the city.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?

Re:If you`re buying one of these . . . by lgw · 2012-06-23 04:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've owned a German luxury sedan and wasn't so impressed - the build quality is fine, but there's a lot of hype too. Ultimately, most cars sold in America are built in America, and you can't judge a car by where the stockholders live. I seriously considered the S before I bought my current (Japanese) car, and the only reason I didn't get the Tesla was fears about reliability: at this price range, I can't afford a back-up car.

The Tesla looks great - it and the much more expensive Jaguars are the best looking sedans out there IMO. The performance is great, and it has the tech toys to match Inifinit and BMW (which Jaguar doesn't have yet). If the 160 mile range is real, that reaches the sweet spot where I can make my long commute and still run errands if I need to.

If I were the early-adopter sort, I'd have ordered an S, and if Tesla makes it I'll likely be choosing them next time around.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Re:Cost per charge by Immerman · 2012-06-23 04:54 · Score: 2

Yes, they do, it's pretty complicated though so try not to get lost:

cost to charge battery = cost per kWh * kWh capactiy * charging efficiency

Where efficiency is likely at least 0.9 so it won't make that much difference, though there may be a range, trickle-charging is typically more efficient and less damaging to your battery than speed-charging. If I had built the thing I'd certainly give it two charging ports, one that uses a specialized high-power "charging station" cable for quick charges, and a overnight trickle-charge port using a standard 120V/15-amp extension cord. The latter allowing both a gentle trickle-charge when that's sufficient, and a way to at least slowly recharge when a specialized charger isn't available.

Hmm, and it looks like that is basically the case, the car comes with a charging adapter that will let it plug into a standard wall outlet:
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/charging#
And here's your calculator, giving charging time and cost for a given range and power cost, looks like 3.4 cents/mile at 12cents/kWh
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/charging#/calculator

Looks like they're also establishing "Supercharge stations" that can half-charge your battery in 1/2 hour for road trips, though no doubt they're less efficient and put considerable wear and tear on your battery.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Re:I have researched it. by firewrought · 2012-06-23 05:00 · Score: 2

California University Launches Book Opposing Use of Electric Cars

Maybe your submission was rejected because the linked article is pretty anemic and doesn't really support your proposed headline. Maybe you can find a better link (heck, the Amazon page and the promo site are both more informative). And a better headline would be "Berkeley Academic Argues that the Market Nullifies Green Technology" or perhaps "Berkeley Academic: Social Causes Do More Good for Environment than Green Tech".

--
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction

odd that most people ignore the point of battery by fikx · 2012-06-23 05:28 · Score: 2

I'm always surprised at the reactions that keep coming up with electric cars. The point that they are worse to produce for the environment. That they are not as efficient as ICE. That the power for them is worse on the environment. Yeah, and?
As far as I see it, the point is not that and electric car is just better, it's that it makes the infrastructure flexible enough, eventually, to be better for the environment. If you get electric or hydrogen cars or any fuel we can produce ourselves (instead of finding a supply) then you're on your way. The infrastructure is now primed to be able to be adjusted by efficiency, marketing, environmental impact, whatever forces will come up to improve things over time. So, step one gets us to where we can do something, and step one has to happen competitively along side existing established and efficient cars already in place. AND IT CAN BE DONE based on the Tesla. Hence the excitement for many.
For example, I would be perfectly happy if each filling station switched from pumps to generators. Run the generator from the EXACT SAME FUEL they used to sell and charge electric cars. No net benefit to environment you say? yup, for now. but once most of the cars are electric fun stuff can happen. The gas station can supplement with Solar on the roof and save a few pennies or even switch to pulling electricity from the grid and become middle men. The current coal, gas or other environmentally bad grid sources may one day be phased out to something cleaner and, hey, what do you know, all the cars on the road benefit without a single hardware change at all.
the funny part is most people know this, but still everyone challenges the immediate benefit....what's the term for that in debate? scarecrow?

--
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM

Re:tesla delivers first batch by Solandri · 2012-06-23 05:30 · Score: 2

Even with tax supported subsidies, gas isn't cheap.

On average, a gallon of gas receives about 2 cents in subsidies. And on average, federal, state, and local fuel taxes on gasoline are about 50 cents per gallon in the U.S. The subsidies are negligible, and the taxes significantly increase the cost of gas. (Not that they're unwarranted.)

Gas shill Luddites would have us using a hundred year old technology instead of solving the technological problems that new technology always presents, all the while denying that there can be any negative consequences from any technology filling the coffers of right wing bloviating ignoramuses.

Just because something is new doesn't automatically mean it's better. I've been following EVs pretty closely. (Back when hybrids were first introduced, I was one of the few voices supporting them due to their increased efficiency. The environmental groups opposed them because they were still 100% gasoline vehicles, instead of electric like they wanted.) I'd suggest checking your political slant at the door before delving into what is fundamentally a technical problem.

EVs are still nowhere near solving the problem of energy density. If you look at the amount of usable energy in gasoline (i.e. factor in the ICE's ~30% efficiency), and try to match that with batteries, you're still looking at batteries needing about 25x the weight to match gasoline. And even if you solve the weight problem, charging is still a huge issue. Imagine the energy of two cars traveling at 60 mph colliding head-on. That's the amount of energy which passes through the hose every second when you refuel at a gas station. If you try to pump that much energy that quickly through an electric cable the size of a gas pump hose, it will melt. Something radical will have to be developed to enable recharging to be as quick and convenient as filling up at a gas station.

As an engineer, it seems far more likely to me that biofuels are going to win out in the end. For transportation, energy density is king. And unless there's some huge breakthrough in battery tech, it will be decades if not a century before battery energy density and recharging rates approach that of simply sloshing around a few gallons of liquid chemical fuel. The corn ethanol scam notwithstanding, alcohol-based fuels are easily derived from the sugars in plant matter, as our ancestors have done for millenia making alcoholic beverages. Right now plants high in sugar are the focus (which is why corn sucks), but if we can do something like cultivate the bacteria in termite guts which break down cellulose, that opens up all plant matter (cellulose is basically a really long sugar molecule). And except for the problem of alcohol dissolving current seals, modern ICE designs can easily be adapted to run off of alcohol.

Re:Electric car: not environmental or economical by bentcd · 2012-06-23 06:04 · Score: 2

Where do you think the electricity comes from? Most likely: diesel generators.

I know where my electricity comes from: Norwegian waterfalls. :-)

--
sigs are hazardous to your health

Re:Service does not operate on Sundays by Immerman · 2012-06-23 06:24 · Score: 2

Easy, have more buses. If 80%, or even 50% of all transportation was by bus that would easily be economically feasible. Sure the Sunday night schedule might only be once or twice per hour - but if that was the normal means of transport employers would have strong incentive to work within the schedule. Granted it would be less convenient to go shopping for a week or two for the family all at once, but hey, bring the older kids along to help carry groceries and it's much less of an issue. The problem is we've created a society where everything is geared towards private vehicles, there's no reason we couldn't change that.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Re:Service does not operate on Sundays by tepples · 2012-06-23 07:55 · Score: 2

Sure the Sunday night schedule might only be once or twice per hour

Where I live (Fort Wayne, Indiana, pop. 200,000), the weekday schedule for most routes is once per hour. What should I do to help increase ridership (and hence employers' expectations of ridership)?

Re:Chevy Volt by blackraven14250 · 2012-06-23 08:20 · Score: 2

Except he's talking about something removable, as I understand it, which makes it more efficient at travelling than the Volt - there's no need to carry around that few hundred pounds of engine when it's not needed.

Re:If you`re buying one of these . . . by lgw · 2012-06-23 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I drive cross-country about once every 5 years. Renting a car when I do that can make sense even if I don't own an electric car.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Re:If you`re buying one of these . . . by Belial6 · 2012-06-23 09:53 · Score: 2

If your buying it to use in California, it better be chump change because the cost to fuel is it going to be outrageous. At greater than $0.45/kwh, the price to buy it isn't your biggest worry.

Re:Electric Fuel more expensive by WindBourne · 2012-06-23 10:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Obviously there is the environmental question too but to be able to answer that you would have to now the environmental impact of manufacturing the battery pack as well as the electricity to charge it. My guess would be that the Tesla would come out on top overall but probably not by a lot (but that is a pure guess).

My wife wants to order either the X or S. We crunched the numbers just for the S @ $50, using the day rate of Xcel (.11/kwh). What it comes out to, is that compared to any other care that costs $35K on up, the S kills it. It is when you compare the S to cars under $30K. Of course, that is like comparing a Mercedes to a Cruiz or an apple to a boat. IOW, these are all different groups. There really is NO comparison. So, you want to compare the S against $40-65K cars. And the tesla comes WAY out on top. Simple as that.

Now, the costs of the battery is a none issue. Tesla's are warrentied for 8 years. So, the question becomes, what did batteries look like 8 years ago, and what will they look like 8 years out? Well, 12 years ago the EV-1 had just died, which used Lead Acid and then NiMH. The Gas powered Hybrids came about 6 years ago, and they STILL use NiMH batteries.
IBM is saying that they are working on Li-air batteries and expect to have them in production by 2020, which is 8 years out. These are expected to have about 5-10K charges, and in terms of charge density, will hold 5-15x what today's batteries hold. Heck, even now, there is a new Li battery out that has double the energy denisty, takes fast charges without a hitch and has some 2K+ charges for the same price.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:you might want to refresh your 3rd grade math by WindBourne · 2012-06-23 11:48 · Score: 2

I would suggest that you learn about engineering.

So many of you ppl scream and compare POSs like the Volt to tesla and say that it can not be done. Yet, they ARE doing it. Hell, by your bizarre math, then the roadster with 56KWH could not POSSIBLY get 220 miles/charge. So, how is it done? Well, the issue becomes what costs you energy? It turns out that it is not rolling drag, but the aerodynamics drag. So, if a company like tesla spends a lot of effort at making their car aerodynamically superior to the junk that you seem to like, then it is TRIVIAL to get the distance that they ARE getting.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:If you`re buying one of these . . . by loshwomp · 2012-06-23 17:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

At greater than $0.45/kwh, the price to buy it isn't your biggest worry.

Please don't spew false information. PG&E nighttime rates for EV charging are about $0.05/kWh, which is about like buying gasoline for $0.50/gal.

Even at the made-up price you pulled out of your bunghole, it's still comparable to the per-mile fuel cost of a gasoline car, never mind the practically-zero maintenance cost of the electric.

Re:Service does not operate on Sundays by danbert8 · 2012-06-24 00:56 · Score: 2

Yes, that worked so well for AMTRAK...

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?

Slashdot Mirror

Tesla Delivers First Batch of Model S Electric Sedans

72 of 311 comments (clear)