BMW Created the Most Efficient Electric Car In the US

cartechboy (2660665) writes "You think of efficient electric car and you probably think of the Tesla Model S, right? Well, you'd be wrong as the Model S is only rated at 89 MPGe. As of today, BMW now has the most efficient electric car sold in the U.S., the 2014 i3. The ratings were just posted to the Internet via a window sticker, and at 124 MPGe combined (138 MPGe city, 111 MPGe highway), the i3 is currently king of the efficiency race. The nearest competitor? The 2013 Scion iQ-EV with a 38 mile range and 121 MPGe rating, but it's not even available to the general public. Other competitors are mostly compliance cars such as the Chevrolet Spark EV and Fiat 500e. So where does that leave us? Well, BMW just won the race, for now. But how long until a competitor takes away that top spot?"

Comments

Thank you summary guy

[avandesande]

for mentioning the range of the scion and none of the other vehicles

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Ixtl]

Hopefully the other ones can go further than 38 miles. You'd have to fill up 3 times to use up a whole gallon, apparently. I think we can thank summary guy for that too, though.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

MPGe is an estimate based on a usage protocol developed by the Gov't. It is good for comparison purposes but it does not really work well in the real world. For example the Tesla S when purchased includes lifetime free charging on Tesla's own superchargers which are using solar power for the most part. That sort of support is beyond the pale of the typical auto manufacturer. But some Tesla's don't use the superchargers so their MPGe may be closer to what the EPA says. As the saying goes, YMMV!

When you get an EV or plugin hybrid you find the calculations to measure your vehicle performance are complicated.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you just buy the one that looks the coolest and use the numbers to rationalize your choice.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[mlts]

MPGe is like MPG... It is cool for advertising, but in the real world... doesn't mean that much. What really counts is both gpm (or l/km) or even more generally, cost per unit distance. For example, new diesel vehicles are touted as great for mileage. However, if one factors in the repair costs, and the need to use DEF as a second fuel, the gap can close between a TDI vehicle versus a hybrid or even a plain old gasser.

This can vary for a person. For example, one cow-orker I work with lives fairly close. So, the relatively small range of a Leaf is good enough, since he never really taxes it. However, if the EV was an only vehicle, it might be that the greater CPM of a gasser might be a better fit.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since we are complaining - summary guy also didn't mention if the BMW comes standard with an asshole driver or if you need to supply your own asshole driver. It is well known around here that conventional models of BMW are only driven by assholes. Not sure if you need to be a special kind of asshole to drive these though (a tree-hugging asshole???)?

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

That is something that they screen for at the BMW dealership. It's like the credit check for financing. Yes. Tree huggers are assholes by definition. Maybe a little different than the typical BMW driving asshole, but they are still assholes. The company sees this as a way to expand their asshole market share.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[mattack2]

Though even 38 miles would fulfill most people's needs per day.

My smart electric has 107 MPGe, and the estimated range usually shows 62 or 63 miles when it's fully charged, but based upon my actual driving, it underestimates things (e.g. I go 20 miles, it really only takes around 15 miles off of the estimated range.. and that's freeway driving).

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since we are complaining - summary guy also didn't mention if the BMW comes standard with an asshole driver or if you need to supply your own asshole driver. It is well known around here that conventional models of BMW are only driven by assholes. Not sure if you need to be a special kind of asshole to drive these though (a tree-hugging asshole???)?

much like your post was done by a self-rightuous complaining asshole.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[cheater512]

So buying a product based on a single statistic where the bigger number wins isn't right for every single person on the planet?

Wow!

Re:Thank you summary guy

[mrchaotica]

For example, new diesel vehicles are touted as great for mileage. However, if one factors in the repair costs, and the need to use DEF as a second fuel, the gap can close between a TDI vehicle versus a hybrid or even a plain old gasser.

Quit spreading lies and FUD. First of all, most diesels, including many new "clean diesels" (e.g. the VW Golf/Jetta/Beetle) do not use diesel exhaust fluid (DEF)*. Second, there's nothing inherent to diesels that make them have higher repair costs than "plain old gassers" other than the turbo (and lots of new gassers these days -- like the Ford Ecoboost -- have turbos too).

The real reason why diesels have an undeserved reputation for being expensive to repair is that most of them in the US have been made by VW or Mercedes, but they're expensive to repair because they're German, not because they're diesel!

(*Even some of the "bluetec" engines do not, in fact, use DEF even though they're named after it.)

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Random AC here:

I'd would ask you to do the same about lies. Some "clean diesels" a couple model years old didn't use a pee can, but new Jettas have the blue fuel cap just as the Fords, just as the Mercedes, just as the Dodges... just as every single diesel in the US made in the past couple years.

The Jetta DOES have DEF as of 2015. Otherwise that five gallon container where you pour AdBlue must be there for show.

I will say you are right, in the sense it wasn't in earlier models, but there is NO diesel car sold today in the US that is DEF free.

Re: Thank you summary guy

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Uh, that liquid is not a fuel.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[aztracker1]

That's why I drive a V8 Challenger R/T ... If I didn't do it, how could the Prius drivers feel good about saving the world?

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

That extra $12 (for 2.5 gallons at Walmart) you'll spend on AdBlue for your TDI every 4 months (5,000 miles) isn't a significant operating cost for a TDI.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Neil Boekend]

Repair cost for VW at least varies great per country. Here in the Netherlands a VW Golf has one of the lowest maintenance costs. Many young kids buy a Golf and relatively many of them total it before the tires have worn. This makes the second hand spare parts quite affordable.
'Round here US cars are expensive to drive. They use far to much fuel (stuff is expensive here: E1.819 per liter (or $9.52/gallon) for simple 95 octane fuel) and the spare parts are expensive.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[ericloewe]

As much as I am a fan of Tesla, there is no way in hell that the superchargers get most of their power from their solar panels (unless they only charge a car per day).

Re:Thank you summary guy

[ericloewe]

In fact, Diesels require less maintenance than comparable Otto cycle engines simply because they don't have sparkplugs. Everything else is similar between either type of engine.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Rising Ape]

No, but they do have turbochargers, very high pressure (3000 bar) injectors, finicky flywheels and exhaust filters that can get clogged.

That's quite a lot extra that can go wrong.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[jellomizer]

Range right now is the big limiting factor towards electric car deployment.
Gasoline and Hybrid cars get about 400 miles straight, that is about 8 hours of driving.
Electric cars can barely get 100 miles, that is about 3 hours of drive time.

The Electric car is still good for most commutes, even mine which is rather long may still work, however it will be close to the limit. But that means people will need to buy 2 cars, one for distance, and 1 for commute. Environmentally it seems like a good plan however not to many people can afford 2 cars per person, or 2.5 cars for 2 people.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[ericloewe]

As I said, nothing that a decent Otto-cycle engine doesn't have.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, we feel good filling up once every three weeks for $27 and laughing at the guy next to us bitching about gas prices.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[tlhIngan]

Range right now is the big limiting factor towards electric car deployment.
Gasoline and Hybrid cars get about 400 miles straight, that is about 8 hours of driving.
Electric cars can barely get 100 miles, that is about 3 hours of drive time.

The Electric car is still good for most commutes, even mine which is rather long may still work, however it will be close to the limit. But that means people will need to buy 2 cars, one for distance, and 1 for commute. Environmentally it seems like a good plan however not to many people can afford 2 cars per person, or 2.5 cars for 2 people.

I hate to be in your car when you're driving 8 hours straight without a break. That's why the Tesla Supercharger network is so useful - it's broken a long trip up into reasonable lengths (3 hours is really the maximum for a family - between the need for bathroom breaks, leg stretching, etc).

Sure, the driver can do 8 hours with discipline, but the rest of the family gets fidgety, the legs start to cramp, etc and soon they'll be demanding that you stop. And if you do it at a supercharger, well, you stop for meals, snacks, a walk, and half an hour later, you have plenty of juice to make it to the next supercharger. (And no, a half hour really is the minimum length for a break when you include all the hassles of getting everyone out, to the bathroom, and then a nice little walk to get the legs going again).

Then again, Teslas get 280+ miles, the supercharger easily adds 200 miles during a half hour, etc, so you're good for 4-5 hours of driving.

And most families that can't afford two cars can't afford to go on long trips very often. In which case, you basically... rent a car. If your electric gets you through your day-to-day activities, then the occasional long distance family car trip means instead of paying two insurances and maintenance on the gas car you barely use, you just rent it for the time you need.

Which isn't a bad idea - a longer trip you may want to rent a larger vehicle to hold more stuff, and so everyone travels in comfort.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

don't worry they're all uselessly low making them entirely impractical, and those ranges are under nice ideal conditions which oddly enough would primarily apply only to CA year round... (well, OK, a few other SW states as well and parts of the south...)

Still impractical though even with that considering recharge times...

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sure, the driver can do 8 hours with discipline, but the rest of the family gets fidgety, the legs start to cramp, etc and soon they'll be demanding that you stop

Teach them to flex their thigh and core muscles and release in sets of 10-20 every half hour or so, like pilots and knowledgeable frequent flyers do.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[BasilBrush]

"Each solar power system is designed to generate more energy from the sun over the course of a year than is consumed by Tesla vehicles using the Supercharger. This results in a slight net positive transfer of sunlight generated power back to the electricity grid."
http://www.teslamotors.com/abo...

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Rising Ape]

I've yet to hear of a petrol engine with a particulate filter. And even in the latest direct injection engines, the pressures are nowhere near as extreme as for a diesel.

I mentioned those things because they're notorious for failing in modern diesel engines, and make buying a second hand one a bit of a minefield.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[ericloewe]

Marketing vs. Reality

Do the math on the solar panels and you'll quickly realize why that paragraph is firmly rooted in marketing, and not reality.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[ericloewe]

[Citation Needed]

What kind of diesel engines are you even considering buying? The two highest profile mass failures in diesels in recent years are VW's 1.9TDI turbos all going to hell shortly after the warranty expires and BMW's N47 timing chain issues.

Particulate filters failing? That's news to me.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

I've owned a 2005 Jetta TDI from new and I'd never even heard of DEF before now.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[BasilBrush]

So you claim. Prove them wrong. Otherwise I'll believe the people who actually know, The people who built them.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[mrchaotica]

You should keep it; 2005 is very nearly the best year for TDIs. (If somebody gave me a brand-new TDI, I'd sell it and buy something similar to a 2005.)

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Rising Ape]

I was looking at older Ford Mondeos, which mostly come as diesels. I decided against it due to seemingly endless reports of dual mass flywheel failure & injector failure.

Particulate filters becoming clogged is a well known problem, particularly for cars used for town driving so the exhaust doesn't get hot enough to burn off carbon deposits in the filter. Probably the worst problem I heard of in this respect was the Mazda 6, where the engine's attempts to burn excess fuel to try to clear it could result in diesel contaminating & overfilling the engine oil, potentially causing severe damage.

Maybe it's all just the inevitable trouble you get with a new technology and the new ones are better, I don't know. But I prefer to buy second hand and let someone else take the big depreciation hit in any case.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[ericloewe]

According to wikipedia, typical photovoltaic power density is 170W/m^2.
Let's say your average Tesla S charge requires 30kWh (less than half a charge).
That means more than 170 hours of sunlight per square meter for a typical charge.
Let's say for every charging spot there are 15m^2 of solar panels.
That means more than 11 (almost 12) hours of sunlight for less than half a charge.

I believe you'll find my estimates were conservative and thus prove my point.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[ericloewe]

Pretty much half the cars around here are Diesels. All new ones have particulate filters and I've never heard of anybody with a clogged particulate filter. The ECU is supposed to make the engine idle at higher RPMs when necessary to help clear the filter.

Engine oil contamination by fuel? Sounds like a badly-built engine to me, typically it's the other way around.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

The BMW i3 is also $20K USD cheaper than the Tesla Model S.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, one cow-orker I work with lives fairly close.

Exactly how many Cow-Orkers to you work with, and what the heck kind of business are you running there?!

Re:Thank you summary guy

[BasilBrush]

According to wikipedia, typical photovoltaic power density is 170W/m^2.

Three mistakes here:

1) Who said Tesla is using "typical" photovoltaics?

2) Who said Tesla's solar superchargers were located in average sunlight areas? (They are not the press release covers stations in California, parts of Nevada and Arizona - VERY sunny areas.)

3) Follow the reference in Wiki and you find it comes from 2006. That's a long time ago in PV technology.

I believe you'll find my estimates were conservative

If by conservative, you mean vastly underestimating the power these things produce from the sun.

Really, Tesla does know this stuff better than you.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[ericloewe]

Even if you can cut down the exposure required to 5-6 hours, the point is still valid.

The fact that they're sunny only means that there will be fewer occasions on which they won't be producing as much power. They won't magically produce more power in ideal conditions because "it's sunny".

Do you take all claims made by companies at face value? I hope not.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[BasilBrush]

Even if you can cut down the exposure required to 5-6 hours, the point is still valid.

You're pulling figures out of your ass.

The fact that they're sunny only means that there will be fewer occasions on which they won't be producing as much power. They won't magically produce more power in ideal conditions because "it's sunny".

Of course PVs produce more power when it's sunny. And that's not just about hours of cloud cover. Go back to your Wiki page and you'll find that it matter's very much where in the world the PV cel is as to how much power it produces.

Do you take all claims made by companies at face value? I hope not.

I take them as more likely to be right than some random internet guy who's pulling figures out of his ass.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[ericloewe]

I'm not pulling stuff out of my ass. It's called Fermi Estimation, look it up. I don't need exact values to arrive at a meaningful number.

Yes, closer to the equator you get more exposure. You're missing the point. Even if you cut my original figures in half, due to better solar panels, more sunlight, and so on, you still arrive at a number that proves my point.

Seriously, I don't understand why you're so convinced Tesla had the ultimate answer to everything - they don't. They have the answer to the lack of good electric cars, but they don't have the answer to the source of the electricity.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[BasilBrush]

Seriously, I don't understand why you're so convinced Tesla had the ultimate answer to everything - they don't.

Strawman. I'm just calling you out on contradiction of a tech claim based on guesses.

Tesla might have pulled the claim out of their ass, but I know for certain you pulled your contradiction from yours.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[ericloewe]

Strawman? Be serious. The best you can do is accuse me of a logical fallacy for using imprecise wording to express my disbelief at the amount of PR bullshit you swallow, seemingly mindlessly?

There is a very big difference between making numbers up and looking up some figures and building a coherent picture from them.

Is it reasonable to expect that most charges will top up at least a little less than half a battery? Yes, this is a conservative estimate.
Is it resonable for a roughly 10m^2 car to be covered by 15m^2 of solar panels? Sure, given the pictures one sees of the superchargers.
Is it reasonable to take an old power/area figure? Yes, but you can also consider this a variable and manipulate it to obtain data for several possibilities, most of which prove my point.

You really argue a lot for someone who wanted proof that a bunch of solar panels aren't enough to charge cars under realistic conditions...

Re:Thank you summary guy

[BasilBrush]

my disbelief at the amount of PR bullshit you swallow

It's become "an amount of" now has it? You're making more stuff up.

The fact is that I have more reason to believe them than you. Both because they have a reputation for delivering, and you don't, and because they know the figures and you don't.

You really argue a lot for someone who wanted proof that a bunch of solar panels aren't enough to charge cars under realistic conditions...

But I already know that they are. There are many people who get virtually all of their EV electricity from the panels on their own roofs. And we're not talking a vast area of panels.

Re:Thank you summary guy

[bentcd]

A supercharger isn't necessarily powered by its solar panels, the current idea seems more along the lines of it being powered by some solar farm somewhere. And then there are plans to roll out more solar panels to each actual station at some time in the future.

Re: Thank you summary guy

[Anonymous Coward]

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Range is the issue

[stewsters]

Most of the power is going to hauling a battery around.

Tesla s has 265 mile range
i3 has 81 mile range
Scion iQ-EV has 38 mile range

I would be curious to see how the numbers hold up if they all were designed for the same range.

Re:Range is the issue

[viperidaenz]

But the i3 has twice the range as the Scion and is more efficient.

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me, I'd really like it if there was an EV with a modular battery design. Why carry extra weight when you don't need it?

Then again, I'd love a modular car design. Most days I could probably get by with a single vehicle compartment.

Wouldn't it be nice, if totally impractical, if I could choose how many passenger modules I had?

Re:Range is the issue

[macpacheco]

You can start by comparing the i3 with a more equivalent Tesla:
85 kWh = 265 mile range (3.11 miles / kWh)
60 kWh = 208 mile range (3.47 miles / kWh)
40 kWh = 160 mile range (4 miles / kWh) should be around 114 mpge
the 40 kWh Tesla was never produced, too little demand, people want a real electric car, not an expensive toy.

Re:Range is the issue

[timeOday]

The Tesla is a much larger car all around, not just the battery.

A better comparison to the BMW i3 might be the Fiat 500e (sold only in California). It's even a bit smaller than the BMW, and gets "only" 122/108 MPGe vs the 138/111 for the BMW. So, I do find the BMW impressive. However the Fiat starts at $32K which almost $10K less than the BMW. Making a car light without other sacrifices does require more expensive materials, so I would expect more from the BMW than the Fiat, and evidently it delivers.

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

But the 81 miles isn't enough for my daily drive. (Well, it is close - with very little margin for error or side trips). I have a pretty normal commute for around here - 38 miles each way, minimum of 76 miles per weekday. No chance to charge at work. I doubt it would actually be feasible to use this as I would imagine the 81 mile range is with new batteries and after say 2 years I would probably get most of the way home and then have it die.

Re:Range is the issue

[by (1706743)]

Likewise, it matters how many adults can be comfortably seated. I suspect that I, as a pretty tall guy, could very comfortably sit in the back seat of a Model S, even with tall front-seat occupants with the seats back. (That said, the specs aren't that different, with the BMW having more headroom: http://www.teslamotors.com/mod... vs. http://buyersguide.caranddrive... ).

As usual, though, apples and oranges!

Re:Range is the issue

[tompaulco]

Not me, I'd really like it if there was an EV with a modular battery design. Why carry extra weight when you don't need it?

Or, how about one that weighed less as the available energy ran down? Perhaps it could even be in liquid form. That way you could just pour as much as you wanted into a tank, and it would disappear as you used it.

Re:Range is the issue

[timeOday]

The Scion shouldn't even be mentioned, because it's not a real product:

Even dedicated Scion iQ fans are unlikely to see the little electric iQ version; that's because it will only be offered to fleets that can use a very short-distance electric car. Its EPA-rated range of just 38 miles isn't likely to appeal to many buyers, so Toyota's zero-emission "compliance car" will instead be the Toyota RAV4 EV with a range of 103 miles from its Tesla-engineered electric powertrain.

Re:Range is the issue

[Jeremi]

Perhaps it could even be in liquid form. That way you could just pour as much as you wanted into a tank, and it would disappear as you used it.

You're no doubt referring to gasoline, in which case the Chevy Volt (or any other plug-in hybrid) is probably the EV you have in mind.

OTOH, what would be really useful is for someone to come up with an efficient, economical method for creating gasoline (or something reasonably gasoline-compatible) from electricity and airborne CO2. Scale that up and now every old gas-powered car becomes a renewable-fuel vehicle; no need to replace them all.

Re:Range is the issue

[Macman408]

Most of the power is going to hauling a battery around.

That's a bit of an exaggeration/misinterpretation. Yes, the battery can be heavy; on a car with a reasonably long range like the Tesla, about a quarter of the weight (1,000-1,300 pounds) is the battery. On the other hand, some of that weight gain is offset by removing things that aren't needed - like the gas tank, fuel pump and hoses, gasoline itself (about 120 pounds for a full 20-gallon tank), as well as other components that aren't needed on an EV. As another example, a V8 engine weighs around 600 pounds; the Tesla Model S motor apparently weighs about 150 pounds - or 300 pounds if you include the reduction gear and inverter.

Anyway, the reason why range is difficult is that the energy density of gasoline is far higher than that of a battery. An 85 kWh battery, at ~1,300 pounds, has an energy density of 0.24 MJ per pound. Gasoline, on the other hand, contains about 19.2 MJ per pound. Even at the abysmal efficiency of an internal combustion engine (on average, about 20%), they still need 16 times less weight in fuel than an EV does in batteries.

The car companies are solving for a complex set of variables - the volume of the car dedicated to batteries, the weight (and thus power-to-weight ratio), the cost, the range requirements of their target market, etc. Tesla is trying to make the EV people's primary car, by using a huge battery capable of brief ultra-high-power recharging; most other companies have chosen to simplify, by marketing the EV as a family's second car - good for going to work, school, and errands (and 99% of most peoples' driving); but they still have a second car for road trips.

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The BMW i3 was always meant to be a city car; the Tesla to be a performance vehicle with superior range.
If you're going to compare the two, you should also compare the fuel consumption of a Porsche 911 vs a Honda Fit.

Re:Range is the issue

[amxcoder]

Yeah, I'm even further. I'm a freelancer, so I have to go all over for jobsites, not the same commute everyday, but I would say about 90% of my jobsites I go to are 60+ miles each way. Meaning a round trip is at least 120mi. Sometimes I have to make it to more than one jobsite on the same day and can really put some miles on. (At least I don't have to do it everyday, most of my work is done at my home office ahead of time).

There is no way most of these electric vehicles would work for my purposes. Maybe a Tesla with it's range, but if I ever have $80K to buy a car (which I don't), I would be getting something better than a Tesla.

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

A 1959 Opel (2500+lbs), achieved 373 mpg on gas only, in 1973. BMW gets 124 using electricity generated from coal - big deal..

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

the fuck are you even talking about?
higher range is achieved by having more battery, which lowers efficiency.
range is good. efficiency is good. but they are inversely proportional to each other.
this isn't hard.

Re:Range is the issue

[mattack2]

My smart electric is an expensive toy? About $26500 out the door, but I got $10K back in federal tax rebate (not deduction) and state rebate (not actually a tax rebate, a separate project that simply sent me a check).

Even without those, it's great not having to go to gas stations, or do oil changes, etc. Plus, I happen to get free charging at work, but I'd buy it even without that.

Re:Range is the issue

[macpacheco]

Ok, so I'm biased. I love Tesla, since they are kicking Mercedes, BMW, Audi, ... in the butt big time. It's market share is way higher than LEAF vs similar sized cars.
Tesla offered the 40kWh model S, there were so little orders they gave customers a software limited 60 kWh pack and withdrawn 40kWh model from the lineup.
I'm waiting for a LEAF to the manufactured in Brazil.
Right now a LEAF costs R$ 200k, a Prius costs R$ 120k, a Corolla costs R$ 80k, cause both the LEAF and Prius are imported, with about 50% extra from import duties.
I hear LEAF's are selling a lot for cabs in large cities, due to special rebates offered only to cab owners.
We need to get more pure EVs to be purchased for heavy duty applications, users that drive cars 100k miles / yr.
The most important goal is to reduce oil burning. People that drive 10k miles / yr should buy the highest mpg non hybrid car, it's actually better for the environment (save coal burning to make steel, coal electricity in Michigan, Tennessee, China).
This whole math will change a lot by 2020, as large li-ion plants using mainly solar + wind electricity come online. Like the Tesla giga fact.
In less than 10 years, li-ion batteries will cost half as today, and EV prices should cost very little over a hybrid. At that point EV cost x benefit will drive mass adoption, plus we should also have newer battery chemistries in the high end that enable 500 mile range.

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymice]

You mean, like this?

Re:Range is the issue

[hey!]

Sure, but why does every vehicle have to work for *everybody*?

I've always liked small cars, but when I had kid tiny cars didn't work for me any more. It doesn't mean that small cars are *stupid*, they're not right for me at this particular phase of my life.

Re:Range is the issue

[amxcoder]

Sure, but why does every vehicle have to work for *everybody*?

I hear you, I'm not against different cars for different peoples needs. People's needs are different, and they have every right to get what works best for them at the time, and what works best for them may change as different phases of their life come and go. That's why we have everything from motorcycles to heavy duty pick-up trucks to choose from.

The only caveat and complaint I have, is this holds true as long as the government isn't trying to force these things on the rest of us...either indirectly by offset incentives, discounts for power, free charging stations -or directly- by setting un-realistic mandated CAFE requirements on the manufactures (which forces the auto makers to make more of the tiny tonka toy cars (like the Yaris) and less of the other kinds) thus limiting the supply (and driving the costs up) for other alternatives like sports cars and SUV's.

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

You follow the logic of an argument just as poorly as my wife.

  stewsters says "less range implies more efficient"
  viperidaenz says "but with the i3 vs scion, the i3 has more range AND is more efficient"
you say "but 81 miles isn't enough range for me"

Re:Range is the issue

[aztracker1]

The problem is that going all electric for many places isn't going to help anything... Many places burn fossil fuels for electricity. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more electric cars.. just don't think it's necessarily going to improve the environment.. let alone the cost to dispose of the batteries properly. Our electronics waste is poisoning China, and Japan is leaking nuclear waste into the larger environment. There are plenty of issues to work towards improving.

How do you figure that with increased demand li-ion batteries will cost half as much? That's simply not how economics works.

Re:Range is the issue

[macpacheco]

Depends on where you start from.
We just don't know how much Tesla is already paying for Li-Ion cells.
I'll assume that a US$ 100k Tesla Model S 85kWh has 25% margin, 25% Li-ion cell cost, 50% rest.
That would mean the cells cost US$ 25k. That suggests US$ 300 / kWh for the cells alone.
If that could half to US$ 150 / kWh, then a good size 40kWh (for a smaller/lighter car) would cost US$ 6000 worth of li-ion cells, perhaps US$ 12k for the whole drive train + complete battery pack. At those prices an EV could compete with a Prius in price (extra li-ion cost vs internal combustion engine).
The more die hard greenies are already using only a Tesla. There is already 87 supercharger stations in the USA, with plans for at least 40 more over the next 6 months, and but end of 2015 there will be a fairly complete nationwide network, including around 10 super chargers in Canada, and any high amp 220V outlet is usable for overnight charging.
Even with 85kWh model having a range of 260 miles, by end of 2015 having a Tesla Model S should be way more convenient to an average family that does most of its driving less than 100 miles from home (saving time spent at the gas station), towards spending 40 minutes per recharge while travelling.

Re:Range is the issue

[non0score]

You do understand that the GP/TFA is comparing between electric vehicles, right? That Tesla has to haul around more battery than the BMW i3 electric, and is exactly why the Tesla has more range. I'm not sure what ANY of your reply has to do with the GP/topic. Why did you even mention gasoline?

Re: Range is the issue

[aztracker1]

Yes.. I understand that... My meaning is that the li batteries are from scarce resources, and sold in a limited market... More demand means increased prices... Barring improved methods of production or increased competition.. Which for the base materials is unlikely... Prices are likely to go up.

Re: Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I am 5'10" and the tesla s backseat has too little headroom for me.

Re:Range is the issue

[dave420]

Consolidating pollution in the power stations makes it far easier to implement pollution-mitigating upgrades, and batteries can be recycled rather easily. Japan's nuclear accident has nothing to do with this discussion.

Re: Range is the issue

[willy_me]

Lithium is not that scarce and only make up a small part of the cost of a battery. You are correct about increased demand driving up prices, but once industry increases the supply the prices will be even lower then they were previously.

Re:Range is the issue

[bmcage]

However the Fiat starts at $32K which almost $10K less than the BMW. Making a car light without other sacrifices does require more expensive materials, so I would expect more from the BMW than the Fiat, and evidently it delivers.

The Fiat boss also said they loose some 5000 on every car sold, which is the reason they are only sold in California as a 'compliance car'. BMW on the other hand sees this as a real product

Re:Range is the issue

[Macman408]

This is Slashdot. Since when is it a requirement to *read* any of previous postings, much less comprehend them or post something that makes any sense whatsoever given the context? ;-)

Oh well, at least I had the fun of figuring out the gasoline/battery ratio. I had previously calculated that my Prius's battery is basically the equivalent energy storage of two tablespoons of gasoline.

Re:Range is the issue

[AmiMoJo]

Even so, the GP is wrong. For "most" to be accurate >50% of the energy in each battery would be required to move the battery itself, but that isn't the case.

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

98-99% of car batteries are recycled. There's a market for used Prius batteries. This is pretty much a solved problem.

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say about 90% of my jobsites I go to are 60+ miles each way. Meaning a round trip is at least 120mi. Sometimes I have to make it to more than one jobsite on the same day and can really put some miles on. (At least I don't have to do it everyday, most of my work is done at my home office ahead of time).

Thank god for that last sentence... how do you people live like that? I know I'm from a small country, but around here most of my daily commutes are less than 10 miles (to use the same units as you, we use metric around here). In fact, over the course of a year, I'd count with one hand the number of times I'd do a 120 mile trip in a day. It just sounds insane.

There is no way most of these electric vehicles would work for my purposes. Maybe a Tesla with it's range, but if I ever have $80K to buy a car (which I don't), I would be getting something better than a Tesla.

Something better in which sense? The $80K model accelerates from 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. How many other cars with that price do the same? And how many cars with that price do the same without significant modifications (which you may not want to do or be able/knowledgeable to do)? For comparison, a 2014 Porsche 911 Carrera has a base price of $84K and with that you get to the same speed in 4.6 seconds. To reduce that to 4.2 seconds you'd need an extra $5K. Granted, the Porsche is 50-60 MPH faster, but the Tesla already gets to 125 MPH in the base model. I doubt you'll be needing much more than that...

Re:Range is the issue

[deadweight]

And then it rains-snows-floods-truck turn over - suicide jumper on bridge - tunnel closed - or whatever and you sit with the heat or AC draining your battery down down down and there is no stopping for a quick refill of elecrtons on the way home. Unless you have fuel cell car - that you COULD top back off :)

Re:Range is the issue

[Dancindan84]

Why did you even mention gasoline?

Wait... so you're saying there's times when using a car analogy on slashdot ISN'T appropriate?

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

In all fairness, if you're ok with a range of 38 miles (19 miles max rt)... you should just get a bicycle. Not only will it be cheaper, it will mitigate every one of the top 10 causes of death. Actually, the only causes of death it doesn't mitigate are skin cancer, aids and death by bicycle. Interestingly, the latter claims 600 pedal cyclists per year. 300 of those were drunk. The remaining 300 were mostly riding in cities at night. Given the number of miles ridden by bike, that's pretty freaking amazing.

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

"minimum of 76 miles per weekday"
Sucks to be you, buddy. Hope living in the boondocks is worth it.

Re:Range is the issue

[amxcoder]

Thank god for that last sentence... how do you people live like that? I know I'm from a small country, but around here most of my daily commutes are less than 10 miles (to use the same units as you, we use metric around here). In fact, over the course of a year, I'd count with one hand the number of times I'd do a 120 mile trip in a day. It just sounds insane.

As I mentioned, I'm a freelance developer, so about 60-80% of my work is from home. But my projects are spread out all over the place, so the last portion of each project usually requires me to make a trip or two to the physical job-site to deploy, test, and commission a system. I'm glad I don't have to do it everyday either, drives me crazy. Makes it even worse, that with traffic being what it is in the Bay Area, it takes about 2 hrs to make each 60mi. trip. Meaning a good 4 hrs is spent on a round trip commute.

Something better in which sense? The $80K model accelerates from 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. How many other cars with that price do the same? And how many cars with that price do the same without significant modifications (which you may not want to do or be able/knowledgeable to do)?

A corvette has better performance for less money, but is only 2 seater... Yes, and I'm one who does know how to modify cars. Heck, my 2002 Subaru WRX already has a better (or as good) 0-60 time as that and I only paid $23K for the car (new), and a few thousand in modifications (engine swap, turbo upgrade, fuel system upgrade, exhause/intake, and ECU reprogramming). Overall, I think I'm less than $30K into it.

If I had $80K to spend on a car, I would look at something in the $40K range, and sink another $10K in mods into it, and pocket the difference. It would net you a car that was probably faster than 99% of what's on the road, including the Tesla. You could do this with a newer WRX STi or a EVO no problem. There are others out there now days that would be good choices as well. You just have to pick something that has a good starting point, and has potential.

Re:Range is the issue

[Spoke]

You should just use the EPA numbers which measure energy from the wall. Many people suspect that the major difference in efficiency between the 60 and 85 kWh Model S were the tires/wheels used for testing - the 60 kWh Model S is lighter, but no-one except Tesla seems to know by how much.

Model S 85 kWh: 38 kWh / 100 mi or 2.60 mi / kWh
Model S 60 kWh: 35 kWh / 100 mi or 2.85 mi / kWh
BMW i3: 27 kWh / 100 mi or 3.7 mi / kWh
Nissan LEAF: 30 kWh / 100 mi or 3.3 mi / kWh
Spark EV: 28 kWh / 100 mi or 3.57 mi / kWh

The i3 is about 30% more efficient than the Model S - very impressive! On the city cycle, it's 50% more efficient! I imagine if the i3 were a lower and longer car (and thus more aerodynamic) it'd do even better on the highway cycle.

Re:Range is the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a valid point. Also the size and comfort of the S compared to the 3 is like comparing the 3 to the 7. Not even in the same ballpark. I do like how the technology is improving. A car like the Tesla has real world range. Now if we can just get 80% or so quick charge in say 5 minutes then you will be talking real world cross country reliability.

Re: Range is the issue

[macpacheco]

Like willy_me correctly explained, there is no raw material scarsity to make Li Ion batteries.
It's mostly an issue of battery production installed base, how amortized those plants are, and how efficient those plants are. Hence the Tesla Giga Factory effort.
Once we have a huge installed base of li-ion cell production, we will be able to mass recycle old li-ion batteries, it's cheaper avoiding having to purify raw ore. Just another cost improvement.
I'm pretty certain we'll eventually get bellow US$ 150 / kWh, perhaps even to US$ 100 / kWh, the question is how long until we get there, and if a better battery chemistry comes along that make li-ion obsolete.

Re:Range is the issue

[macpacheco]

Oh, C'mon. The BMW i3 is a almost a compact car. You insist on comparing it to a no compromise EV Luxury Sedan ?????
Both cars are on totally separate categories, don't waste your time comparing the two. The only think they have in common is the electric drive train.
When BMW, Audi or Mercedes launch an EV that is at least a mid size, then we can compare notes.

Re:Range is the issue

[Spoke]

Uh, you were the one who was comparing the i3 to the Model S.

Regardless of the cars being in different classes, you still see people comparing all types electrified vehicles against each other.

I know a LOT of Nissan LEAF owners who sold their LEAFs for a Model S, for example. The LEAF is a class down for the i3 (so even further away from the Model S), yet there you go.

I have a LEAF and have considered the same thing, but just can't justify the luxury car price tag and just don't need the extra range all that often.

Re:Range is the issue

[q4Fry]

Interesting, but multiple citations needed.

Range for Tesla S is 265 miles

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody else comes close.

Tesla still wins

[blueturffan]

This BMW is ugly as sin and only has half the range.

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame

Re:Tesla still wins

[synthesizerpatel]

At $43k, it's a bit cheaper than the Tesla @ $79k.

I'd have to charge it at my office, but as a commuter car the BMW seems a lot better fit for my budget / needs than a Tesla.

Re:Tesla still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

BMWs are decent vehicles, but it is assumed that you go to the dealer quite often to keep it in tune. Dead battery, gotta go back to the dealer to have a new battery "registered" to the computer system.

I'd rather have a vehicle engineered to not be as economical, but with a lower CPM and easily repaired without needing the BMW-specific stuff only a dealer has. A new key can cost $600 (key and cost for dealer programming.) My friend's Chevy can have $10 keys from eBay added to the vehicle's computer with little issue.

So, nothing wrong with a BMW. However, giving up some finely tuned MPG for something more easily maintained is what is more in demand these days.

Re:Tesla still wins

[viperidaenz]

Your friends Chevy can have $10 keys used by a car thief with a $100 pocket sized ebay programmer to bypass the immobiliser in under a minute.

Re:Tesla still wins

[PRMan]

Wow! You aren't kidding. That's Volkswagen Thing ugly.

Re:Tesla still wins

[rogoshen1]

well that's why you buy two bmi i3's tow the spare, and siphon its battery -- duh?

OR you upgrade to the bmw i5 (or i7 if you're really loaded).

You'd think on a site for nerds people would realize that the i3 is underpowered, and the performance / price sweet spot is really the i5. (i7 being for the enthusiast market)

Re: Tesla still wins

[Badblackdog]

Yeah, but you will get way more "hot chicks" with the Tesla.

Re:Tesla still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame

So much money and they can't even include a radio?!?!?

Re:Tesla still wins

[sexconker]

Your friends Chevy can have $10 keys used by a car thief with a $100 pocket sized ebay programmer to bypass the immobiliser in under a minute.

Wrong. Key recognition systems depend on several factors. The car's computer must accept certain non-programmable aspects of the key (the physical keying, resistance, etc.) that varies key-to-key, and then (in fancier systems) ALSO read / negotiate with a programmable chip in the key.
You need physical access to the car with a pre-registered master key to tell the car to accept new keys. On my car you have to insert the key, turn it, hit the odometer reset button for a while, sing "I'm a little teapot", then remove the key, then insert and remove the new key 3 times.

Regardless, your BMW with $retarded keys can just be towed away and sold for parts, which are worth more than the BMW whole.

Re:Tesla still wins

[tompaulco]

This BMW is ugly as sin and only has half the range.

Electric cars have to be ugly. If they looked like regular cars, then how would everyone else know how you are sacrificing yourself for the environment?

Re:Tesla still wins

[bzipitidoo]

If it works better, it's beautiful.

What's with people trotting out the "looks ugly" criticism? That means you can't think of anything else, anything just a little more substantive, to criticize?

Re:Tesla still wins

[drinkypoo]

Regardless, your BMW with $retarded keys can just be towed away and sold for parts, which are worth more than the BMW whole.

That's what happened to my last Chevy.

Re:Tesla still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

You joke, but there's only the i3 and the i8. And the i8 (@ $135K base price) makes a fully loaded Tesla Model S look cheap. And even then, they have the same 0-60mph time -- 4.2 seconds.

I'm not sure what the range of the i8 is, but willing to bet any amount it's not even half the range of a fully loaded Tesla Model S.

Re:Tesla still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the i8 is a gas/electric hybrid (like the Chevy Volt) and not a pure electric vehicle, with 22 miles on electric and 310 miles overall.

Re:Tesla still wins

[viperidaenz]

resistance has nothing to do with any ignition system. Variation in the metals would be insignificant compared to oil, dirt, water and corrosion on the surface of the key.
All immobiliser systems communicate with a chip on the key. They can all be re-coded without a "master key". Unless you want to replace the entire ECU/Immobiliser system when a customer loses the key.

I also don't own a BMW but I do own a car with a keyless ignition.

Re:Tesla still wins

[aardvarkjoe]

What's with people trotting out the "looks ugly" criticism?

Because if the goal is to get people driving electric cars, then aesthetics are important.

Re: Tesla still wins

[mjwx]

Yeah, but you will get way more "hot chicks" with the Tesla.

Its no Lambo.

A Tesla looks like a Hyundai i45 (which I admit, is pretty stylish for a Hyundai). A Tesla looks average by todays standards.

The problem Tesla owners have with chicks is they'll never pass the Kristin Scott Thomas test. You pull up to Kristin Scott Thomas' house for your date with your Tesla and she doesn't notice anything about your car. So a Tesla owner immediately starts talking about the technology, how quite it is, range, MPG calculations and before he's even finished explaining how advanced the engine is, Kristin has popped back inside the house and locked the doors.

Re:Tesla still wins

[amxcoder]

Because one of the main factors when a lot of people buy cars, is looks. The other being performance. If not, then sports cars would not be a viable market. I would never buy a fugly car, no matter how many MPG's it got, and I'm not the only one.

Re:Tesla still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

With Mercedes, if you lose eight keys, you have to replace a good chunk of the ECM for $3000 or so.

Chevy, you can reprogram it manually, though you have to wait 30 minutes. Ford similar, but you need a special programmer, and Ford redesigned their PATS system for larger bit length (SA style, 80 bits), and redesigned the PATS keys again in 2014 for 256 bits, so a scanner isn't going to work before the ECU starts throwing in a delay between key attempts.

Yes, having a key that costs $500 at a dealership is cool and all... but I prefer something just as secure... but requires far less effort to add keys.

Re: Tesla still wins

[Ash Vince]

Yeah, but you will get way more "hot chicks" with the Tesla.

Its no Lambo.

A Tesla looks like a Hyundai i45 (which I admit, is pretty stylish for a Hyundai). A Tesla looks average by todays standards.

The problem Tesla owners have with chicks is they'll never pass the Kristin Scott Thomas test. You pull up to Kristin Scott Thomas' house for your date with your Tesla and she doesn't notice anything about your car. So a Tesla owner immediately starts talking about the technology, how quite it is, range, MPG calculations and before he's even finished explaining how advanced the engine is, Kristin has popped back inside the house and locked the doors.

Its not about looks about how dirty they are.

The chicks you do pull with your Tesla will definitely do things Kristin Scott Thomas won't as they are more likely to be hippy types and hippie women are great.

Re:Tesla still wins

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Parent should be modded insightful, not funny.

Re:Tesla still wins

[sexconker]

The keys are manufactured to intentionally have different electrical properties.
Oil, dirt, etc. ? Go look at the edge of your car keys. Clean, smooth, and shiny. Welcome to wiping contacts.
Not all immobilizer systems communicate with a chip in the key. They can not all be reprogrammed without a master key.

Go look at 90s and 00s Ford and GM cars.

Re: Tesla still wins

[BasilBrush]

Kristin Scott Thomas?

Just because you're posting about EVs doesn't mean you have to channel Jeremy Clarkson's fantasy analogies. That is way beyond the sadness of the usual TopGear fan.

Re:Tesla still wins

[viperidaenz]

So, GM Pass Key.

Bypassing GM Passkey I/II and Passlock I/II: Most of these systems can be bypassed using resistors and relays,

So you need one of 15 different valued resistors embedded in the key.
Here's how to permanently disable it
http://vats.likeabigdog.com/
All you'd need is 15 resistors, a rotary switch and a couple of probes.

Re:Tesla still wins

[sexconker]

So, GM Pass Key.

Bypassing GM Passkey I/II and Passlock I/II: Most of these systems can be bypassed using resistors and relays,

So you need one of 15 different valued resistors embedded in the key.
Here's how to permanently disable it
http://vats.likeabigdog.com/
All you'd need is 15 resistors, a rotary switch and a couple of probes.

So what you're saying is I'm right - they use electrical properties of the key, and you need physical access to the car for an extended period to make a workable key.

Re:Tesla still wins

[viperidaenz]

You you need a key with a contact connected to a switch that switches in 15 different resistor values, and try turning the key 15 times, probably 4 assuming the car has two keys programmed in.

Skinny tyres

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not surprised. I was driving behind one yesterday and the tyres were skinnier than a mountain bike.

Re:Skinny tyres

[nosferatu1001]

Then you drive one, and realise it has more grip, and corners flatter, than you would ever believe.

A small cross section on a large diameter tyre still yields a large contact patch

MPGe

[m2shariy]

Miles Per Gallon of electricity

Re:MPGe

[Noah Haders]

what an empty distinction, "most fuel efficient electric car". it's electricity, silly, we have plenty of it. The big differentiators between models is and always will be range. although there seems to be an EV niche developing aournd $40k and 80mi range.

Re:MPGe

[Ralph Wiggam]

For the last year, I have driven a Nissan Leaf with an 80-90 mile range. On only two occasions I was not able to make a trip I wanted to make because of my car's range. Manufacturers are clustering around that range number because it's good enough for most people a vast majority of the time.

Re:MPGe

[Anonymous Coward]

They are clustering around that number because below that number they can't sell even the very few cars they are trying to sell and above that number and the vehicle gets too expensive. The number isn't magic, every manufacturer (except Tesla) would dearly love to double or triple it, but they can't and still sell cars. Tesla can because Telsa buyers are willing to pay more for an electric vehicle without the compromises.

Re:MPGe

[Neil Boekend]

Well, how many electrons can you herd into a volume of a gallon?

Efficiency doesn't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Efficiency doesn't matter for an electric car that can be powered for FREE by the sun... Range is king.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter...

[fnj]

Efficiency doesn't matter for an electric car that can be powered for FREE by the sun

Completely naive fail. Apparatus to convert that sunlight to electric power costs money and has to be depreciated. Not only is photovoltaic power not free; its cost ($130 / MWh) is higher than natural gas ($64 to $128 / MWh), coal ($96 / MWh) or advanced nuclear ($96 / MWh). Those estimates for systems coming on line in 2019, so they are not based on obsolete data. Solar thermal is even worse ($243 / nMWh).

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter...

[Ralph Wiggam]

Do you have any idea how much money it costs to get FREE energy from the sun?

Re: Efficiency doesn't matter...

[oblivionboy]

That article is highly suspect as it lacks citiations for many important sections, and the talk page discussing it is a mile long. Try again!

Re: Efficiency doesn't matter...

[fnj]

Get real. That chart comes directly from the Report of the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). But you know more than they do, right? How about the OpenEI Transparent Cost Database? They reach the same qualitative conclusion. How about the UK 2010 estimates? The French 2011 estimates? The Analysis from different sources? They are all right there on my referenced page, complete with citations of the original sources.

Give up the starry-eyed stuff.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Efficiency doesn't matter for an electric car that can be powered for FREE by the sun

Completely naive fail. Apparatus to convert that sunlight to electric power costs money and has to be depreciated. Not only is photovoltaic power not free; its cost ($130 / MWh) is higher than natural gas ($64 to $128 / MWh), coal ($96 / MWh) or advanced nuclear ($96 / MWh). Those estimates for systems coming on line in 2019, so they are not based on obsolete data. Solar thermal is even worse ($243 / nMWh).

About $70/MWh in Texas. Just under $50/MWh aka 5 cents/kWh after the federal subsidy.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Cheapest-Solar-Ever-Austin-Energy-Buys-PV-From-SunEdison-at-5-Cents-Per-Ki

Prices have dropped rapidly so you really need to check quarterly and not use any source even slightly outdated. That EIA report uses 3 year old data, and further monkeys with the cost of money in weird ways costing "green" ones at 3.5% and fossil 6.5% - for no reason at all other than a hit job on fossil prices. It also uses $8/mmBTU price for natural gas without saying it, so overcosts natural gas. Kind of a load of crap.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

Re: Efficiency doesn't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Solar PV has dropped multi-fold in the last 3 years in install price, so 2010 and 2011 estimates would be completely wrong.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter...

[AmiMoJo]

Even in the US where electricity is extremely cheap a solar PV system will pay for itself in its lifetime, after which it is all free. Yes, there is up front cost, just like there is up front cost building a coal or nuclear power station.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do your fossil fuel costs include the costs of externalities like CO2 emissions and their impact?

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter...

[dj245]

About $70/MWh in Texas. Just under $50/MWh aka 5 cents/kWh after the federal subsidy.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Cheapest-Solar-Ever-Austin-Energy-Buys-PV-From-SunEdison-at-5-Cents-Per-Ki

Prices have dropped rapidly so you really need to check quarterly and not use any source even slightly outdated. That EIA report uses 3 year old data, and further monkeys with the cost of money in weird ways costing "green" ones at 3.5% and fossil 6.5% - for no reason at all other than a hit job on fossil prices. It also uses $8/mmBTU price for natural gas without saying it, so overcosts natural gas. Kind of a load of crap.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

I'm not going to stand behind a report that I can't be bothered to read, but perhaps the difference in discount rates of 3.5% "green" and 6.5% for fossil power is due to government loan guarantee availability or other loan programs for green projects? Fossil power companies need to finance either through the open market, or if the company is large, sometimes they self-finance using balance sheet financing. Green projects may have better/cheaper financing options.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter...

[Ralph Wiggam]

After you spend $20,000 on a Rolex, it's then free. That doesn't make it free.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter...

[AmiMoJo]

It does if the Rolex prints another $20,000 over the next five years, then carries on making you money.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter...

[Ralph Wiggam]

That's a positive return on investment, which is massively different than free.

How long until saint Elon sues them too?

[Anonymous Coward]

He can do no wrong!

Re:How long until saint Elon sues them too?

[Hognoxious]

Well said. He already pwned SAP. Let's declare war on all three-letter kraut bastards! Lead us to victory, Elon! Make us number one again!

Full-size, heavy car

[Scowler]

We shouldn't really expect a full-size luxury car, with a huge range (ie heavy batteries) to hold this title in the first place.

Re:Full-size, heavy car

[Type44Q]

We shouldn't really expect a full-size luxury car, with a huge range (ie heavy batteries) to hold this title in the first place.

Actually, that's incorrect. Sure, it requires more energy to accelerate a heavier mass up to speed but you get that back when you hit the brakes (regenerative braking). What you don't (This, by the way, is why the Model S can get away with weighing ~600lbs more than my extended-wheelbase 7-series BMW...)

Re:Full-size, heavy car

[Type44Q]

That should have read "what you don't get back are losses due to air (among other things) friction

Damn keyboard...

Re:Full-size, heavy car

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fool yourself, the Tesla is expensive but it's not a luxury car.

Re:Full-size, heavy car

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think you know what Luxury is. The Model S is a full on luxury car.
Tesla does make a non luxury Roadster version, but even that is well appointed. you may want to sit in one first before spouting off this bull shit.

Re:Full-size, heavy car

[Scowler]

Regenerative braking is great, but it does not have 100% efficiency. (Do most implementations even get 50%?) So added weight still hurts overall mileage.

Re: Full-size, heavy car

[Scowler]

How is it not a luxury car? It has the performance and features to compete with higher end Mercedes and BMW full size cars. What do you call those?

Re:Full-size, heavy car

[Type44Q]

Do most implementations even get 50%

My guess is far greater than that, what with today's brushless technology... but that's just a guess. Nonetheless, it's great enough that that weight-adding batterypack is what's going to add range, losses-due-to mass notwithstanding.

Re:Full-size, heavy car

[Anonymous Coward]

A fully loaded Tesla Model S is a luxury car, but not high end on the luxury scale.

It's got leather seats, seat warmers, e-glass, electric seats, GPS, and a host of other features you generally see in a luxury car.

What you dont have: Rear seat warmers, rear seat massage, many cup holders (I think it comes with only two standard, with two more if you get the center console add-on), fridge, extended legroom for rear seats.

Anything else it's missing from the luxury end?

Re: Full-size, heavy car

[Scowler]

Well, luxury is a moving target, but I think it includes some kind of fancy sounding audio system, programmable settings for mirror and seat positions, at least a few electronic vehicle assist features ( like lane violation detection, self parking, etc), and that's all that comes to mind right now. You are right that a Model S with no options might look a little diminutive compared to other cars in the same class and price range, but I think it still earns the luxury label.

Re:Full-size, heavy car

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla's website says this:
"We must also remember that, even though the battery-to-wheel conversion efficiency is pretty good (up to 80% or so), the energy makes a full circle back into the battery and it gets converted twice for a net efficiency of at most 80% * 80% = 64%."
That's at most, so I'd say a real world 50% sounds pretty likely.

Re:Full-size, heavy car

[bentcd]

Rules of thumb that seem to be used in connection with Tesla is 90% efficiency battery to engine, and 90% efficiency engine to road, for ~80% efficiency battery to road. Then regenerative braking goes through that twice: once from road into battery and once back from the battery down into the road, and so gets 80% x 80% = ~60% efficiency overall for regenerative braking.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blo...

What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[angel'o'sphere]

As the subject says ...

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[amicusNYCL]

I believe that is miles per gallon equivalent. The vehicle carries 0 gallons of gas, so that's the best comparison they have.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[istartedi]

Miles per Gallon equivalent is my guess, since there is no direct application of "gallons" when running as a pure EV.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[netsavior]

the EPA defines a gallon of gasoline as equivalent to 33.7 kWh.

This is based not really on chemistry or scientific properties of either, but on the cost of gasoline at the pump vs the cost of electricity at your house. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...

Basically it is done this way to make it easy to do the math in your head "hey, this costs 1/3 as much to fuel than my current car"

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

MPGe = MPG Equivalent

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

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to use Google or Bing, you dumb fuck.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[Noah Haders]

The exact opposite of true. It's just a measure of energy. 33.7 kWh is about 120mj, which is the same as a gallon if gas.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[wonkey_monkey]

What's that in jigawatts?

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[Noah Haders]

0.12 jigawatt-seconds.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[sribe]

It's just a measure of energy. 33.7 kWh is about 120mj, which is the same as a gallon if gas.

Hmm, wow. I knew what it was in principle. I just didn't know that it was that low. 124MPGe, for a guy who can get off-peak power at barely over $0.05/kWh. Wow. Take into account the 10% -15% loss from the charge/discharge of the batteries, and that's roughly equivalent to getting 124MPG and a discount card for $2.00/gallon gasoline.

Too bad I live in the middle of fucking nowhere, and need all-wheel-drive Oct through Apr, and need good ground clearance. Otherwise it would be tempting as the 2nd car in a 2-car household.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[Noah Haders]

a better way to think of it is that EVs are usually around 2 kwh/mile. so for you that would be a dime per mile in electricity. but consider that EVs are currently putt-putt cars for in-the-city driving. no way there's an outback or similar for the country side, and the mileage would tank with high speed / freeway use.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[Andy_R]

Miles per gallon of electricity of course, tell you how far you'll get on a one gallon leyden jar. America is *really* committed to not going metric.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[Centurix]

Lightweights, I use FPHe: Furlongs per Hogshead equivalent...

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally OT, but 5c/kWh is amazing. I can't get off-peak power, and I'm slugged at AU$0.2673/kWh - more than 5 times your off-peak price :(

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean?

[Neil Boekend]

I am full metric. I use mm squared (damn /. not accepting either  or 2).

Won what race?

[FF-Loucks]

The leaf is $6k less and 115 MPGe. 124 MPGe isn't going to save you $6k over the life of the car.

Re:Won what race?

[Ralph Wiggam]

I love my Leaf. Many people's biggest complaint about the car is it's odd exterior looks. Those people will not be impressed by this goofy looking BMW.

Re:Won what race?

[PRMan]

The Leaf is starting to look PRETTY good.

Re:Won what race?

[Ralph Wiggam]

It's not just a great electric car, it's a great car. But I'm a function over form kind of guy. The bug eye headlights push air out of the way so that at highway speeds the side view mirrors sit in a bubble of low pressure, greatly decreasing air resistance and improving range. The squared off shape allow the interior to seat 4 adults comfortably while leaving a good amount of cargo space.

You seriously don't know how obnoxious engine noise and gear changes are until you drive without them. It's like floating on a cloud.

Re:Won what race?

[dknight]

unless you *love* engine noise and gear changes, that is

but I am just into that. there are few sounds that I enjoy more than that of a big V8 or V12 engine

That said, if you arent into that, I can totally see the appeal of the quiet of the leaf (though I cant get past the looks.. sorry, but that is one ugly ugly car)

Re:Won what race?

[Neil Boekend]

It would probably be more energy efficient to have a speaker and a computational model to make the sound a petrol car would make given the actions the driver takes. You could have the sound of a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in your car. Or a jet engine. Or a steam engine.
That would also allow the obnoxious sound to be loudest inside the car instead of damaging my ears while you drive past my bike.
It would also allow you to turn it off when you have company in your car and you want to chat while driving.

Re:Won what race?

[Ralph Wiggam]

That's already in the works. The idea is for "EVtones" to have a marketplace like phone "ringtones". I would pay a decent amount of money if my car could sound like a flying car from the Jetsons. Lawmakers around the world have required EVs to make some kind of external noise at low speeds to alert pedestrians, particularly blind people.

Chevy Spark EV

[afidel]

The Spark EV isn't a compliance car, it's available for sale, today, even in non-California emissions states (though they have only sold 369 as of end of April so I guess it misses one of their metrics on a technicality). That article is 2 years old.

Re:Chevy Spark EV

[damnbunni]

The Spark is only sold in California and Oregon, according to GM's official page on it.

Oregon's ZEV/LEV legislation is based on California's.

Looks like a compliance car to me!

Re:Chevy Spark EV

[Anonymous Coward]

And that makes it get less mileage how?

Whatevs, yo

[garote]

I've been getting five or six times this efficiency for years!

"A person riding a bicycle at 15 miles per hour (24 km per hour) burns 0.049 calories per pound per minute. So a 175-pound (77-kg) person burns 515 calories in an hour, or about 34 calories per mile (about 21 calories per km). A gallon of gasoline (about 4 liters) contains about 31,000 calories. If a person could drink gasoline, then a person could ride about 912 miles on a gallon of gas (about 360 km per liter).
( Source: HowStuffWorks website )

Re:Whatevs, yo

[bananaquackmoo]

And this is relevant to people who drive cars how? Don't get me wrong, I love bikes, they're just not a realistic option for everyone and all situations.

Re:Whatevs, yo

[rubycodez]

bullshit, what's your electric and gas and food bill? you take more energy than a fucking SUV

Re:Whatevs, yo

[unrtst]

And this is relevant to people who drive cars how? Don't get me wrong, I love bikes, they're just not a realistic option for everyone and all situations.

Seems pretty relevant since so many comments are about what MPGe means, and we're (mostly) all geeks.
It's also relevant since the range of these things (38 miles for the Scion; 81 for the BMW) are less than my overweight ass can do on a bike in a day... especially on that low end, it's very relevant. If you can go no further than 38 miles without a recharge, then you're probably not trying to push that envelope and, in many cases, you'd be doing a round trip (go somewhere, do something, get home, probably shooting for less than 30 miles). That's well within the biking sweet spot.

You can't carry as much luggage (though the scion really doesn't hold much either), and you can't easily have a passenger, and rain and other inclement situations suck a lot more, and it can be slightly more scary to ride one on the highway than the scion, but bikes have a much better MPG*, similar range, and significantly lower sticker price and TCO.

I'm glad garote posted that... I've always been a bit curious about that figure. My hunch, when I was riding a LOT, was that I wasn't really saving any money because my calories cost way more than a gallon of gas, and my intake went up significantly. This approaches an answer to that question... not exactly the same question, but interesting.

Re:Whatevs, yo

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the end result is the same all your values are kilocalories, not calories! A calorie is the tiny amount of energy needed to rise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree celcius.

Re:Whatevs, yo

[amicusNYCL]

Electric, gas, and food bills do not go away when you own a car.

Re:Whatevs, yo

[Bryan Ischo]

How many Calories would you expend on a bicycle to peddle it fast enough to go 60 MPH?

I found a chart that showed that a 180 lb person at 16 - 19 MPH cycling uses 981 Calories. Your efficiency figure is cut by almost half just going up to ~20 MPH. I suspect that a person pedalling at 60 MPH would actually be less energy efficient than "912 MPG", if it were even possible.

Re:Whatevs, yo

[gnasher719]

"A person riding a bicycle at 15 miles per hour (24 km per hour) burns 0.049 calories per pound per minute. So a 175-pound (77-kg) person burns 515 calories in an hour, or about 34 calories per mile (about 21 calories per km). A gallon of gasoline (about 4 liters) contains about 31,000 calories. If a person could drink gasoline, then a person could ride about 912 miles on a gallon of gas (about 360 km per liter).

A moped with a 50cc engine can do over 140 miles per gallon at much higher speed. Since fuel consumption is strongly related to the speed, I'm sure you could get more mileage at 15mph, especially if you design a moped for that speed. And most people will have a hard time riding a bicycle at 15mph for any length of time.

Re:Whatevs, yo

[Neil Boekend]

I am an avid biker and although I cant counter your points completely I must argue against them.

You can't carry as much luggage

Velobobiles have a surprising amount of cargo space. That is only the Orca, as it seems to have about the most of the production models I know but Quest has sufficient for my daily needs. If I need more I borrow a car (I would rent if borrowing wasn't possible).

and you can't easily have a passenger,

2 person velomobile prototype is under development.

rain and other inclement situations suck a lot more

While still true, I have a hood on my bike. This keeps rain out and makes the bike a bit more aerodynamic.
Cold isn't a problem, as cycling produces a lot of heat. One guy bikes the year round in Canada and even -14C(6.8F) doesn't need much extra isolation. I'd link to his blogspot but I don't know how Blogspot handles sudden heavy traffic. I wouldn't want to bankrupt the guy.

and it can be slightly more scary to ride one on the highway than the scion

That depends strongly on country. Here in the Netherlands most 80 km/h (50 mph) roads have separate bike paths and the car drivers expect bicyclists.
It is a typical bootstrapping issue: There isn't much use for bike paths if nobody rides bikes once they can legally drive a car. Most people don't ride bikes once they can legally drive a car if there is no infrastructure for it.
In the Netherlands biking has been default since horses stopped being common. When the cars became common they already needed to share the road with hundreds of thousands of bikes. When there became too many cars to be safe the bikes got their own paths. Currently intercity fast bike "highways" are under heavy construction across the country.

but bikes have a much better MPG*

And eating much food is a unhealthy hobby if you don't sport much. I like eating, the biking keeps my weight within sane limits.

significantly lower sticker price

Not as much if you lower the other disadvantages. My bike cost me E8500 ($12000) in total (quest + some upgrades like better suspension, hood and turn signals).
There are bikes in the E10K-15K range.

range

I have tried to bike 100 km(62 miles) daily as my commute. I am currently trying to get a place closer to my work as it is just to far. I need 3 hours a day just to get to my work and back and that takes too long.

when I was riding a LOT, was that I wasn't really saving any money because my calories cost way more than a gallon of gas, and my intake went up significantly.

While true there are a few points I'd like to make on that.
1. It levels after a while. In the beginning you eat for fuel + to build muscle. After two years or so the building muscle part is mostly over.
2. Many people like to eat too much. It is difficult for many to eat as little as needed.
3. ...
4. Profit!

According to some calculator I found I needed about 2000 Kcal as fuel to bike 100 km. (number depends on a lot) That is the same amount as my base calorie intake.
However, most of that doesn't need to be in the form of expensive meat (or meat replacement) or even vegetables. It needs to supply calories, not protein, vitamins or minerals. Potatoes or pasta is good enough.
2000 Calories is 4.1 large portions of French fries at Mc Donalds according to Nutritiondata.com. I can't find a price but that is only a couple of euro's here in the Netherlands. If you make the food yourself you save on that.

Re:Whatevs, yo

[garote]

Now if only mopeds weren't so noisy...

Re:Whatevs, yo

[ausekilis]

@TheReal_AndyMac: The average human walks 900 miles per year and drinks
22 gallons of beer per year. That's 41 miles per gallon...which is not bad.

Need I say more?

Re:Whatevs, yo

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot travel time and the time and space required to shower at work after biking in. Let's compare ALL of the costs that are unique to each mode of transportation before proclaiming one better than the other.

Re:Whatevs, yo

[tepples]

Nor do car maintenance, registration, insurance, and parking go away when you add a bike.

Re:Whatevs, yo

[amorsen]

Just be aware that some of the efficiency of pedal bikes is due to their low speed. If you limit the Scion to 20MPH, it is going to gain a lot of efficiency.

Re:Whatevs, yo

[rubycodez]

just trolling about how we first world people with our energ-driven luxurious life have no right making any claim to be energy efficient, even if we walked everywhere

Re:Whatevs, yo

[garote]

Actually, parking does. And maintenance goes way down. And insurance too, if you file your paperwork properly. And registration is what - ten bucks? :P

America #1 fuck yeah!!

[Anonymous Coward]

except you ain't except in criminals jailed or military spending.

Re:America #1 fuck yeah!!

[sexconker]

except you ain't except in criminals jailed or military spending.

and enemies nuked
and porn created
and internets invented
and celestial bodies landed on
etc

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ...

[jamesl]

German auto brand Volkswagen's XL1, which it claims is the most fuel-efficient production car ever made, has been named the winner of the Transport category at Designs of the Year 2014.
http://www.dezeen.com/2014/05/...

You may have seen this advert in the Goodwood Festival of Speed programme and are wondering how we determined that the XL1 was the worldâ(TM)s most fuel-efficient hybrid production vehicle.
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/ab...

And it's a looker.

Re:Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ...

[Anonymous Coward]

uh... its a hybrid. Also why are we comparing 2 seaters to 4 seaters like the tesla s? Might as well compare it to a bus and point out the obvious in efficiency.

Re:Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's a looker.

I agree it's just as ugly as the BMW i3.

Re:Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ...

[iluvcapra]

And it's a looker.

No car with rear wheel fairings is a looker.

Re:Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ...

[mjwx]

And it's a looker.

And it's a VW.

That means range is irrelevant because something will have broken before the batteries are empty.

Re:Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ...

[Archimonde]

How many XL1 cars have been sold so far? None? What is going to be the price? How many have been built?

Exactly, it's not really a production car.

Re:Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ...

[AmiMoJo]

And it's a looker.

Really? It looks like some kind of 1960s sci-fi car. Reminds me of the ones in UFO (1970's idea of what 1980 would be like).

One of the most attractive (no pun intended) things about the Tesla is that it looks like a normal car. Even the Leaf looks fairly normal by European standards (have you seen some of those French designs?)

Who the fuck wrote the summary?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You think of efficient electric car"

YOU RACKA DISAPRIN!

wtf?

Zero S

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'd take a Zero S 2014 model over any of these any day of the week and twice on Sunday:

The sport one is 462mpge city and 236mpge highway. The range is 137 miles city, 85 miles highway @ 55mph, 70 miles @ 70mph. 0-60mph is 3.3 seconds.

Won the race ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll consider an electric when:

They're comparable in price to their gas counterparts.
I can drive to and from work in it. ( Round trip = ~100 miles )
When they fire the designers who make them the ugliest damn things ever to roll upon the roadway.

( The Tesla roadster gets the win for looks, but loses the race due to price )

apples to apples

[illestov]

Lets wait until a 3rd party company measures its efficiency in similar conditions as Tesla S instead of taking the number off of a BMW dealership sticker. also the i3 comes with a internal combustion engine range extender, wonder what the efficiency drops to when that kicks in..

Re:apples to apples

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets wait until a 3rd party company measures its efficiency in similar conditions as Tesla S instead of taking the number off of a BMW dealership sticker.
 
  Those numbers ARE from a third party
 
  the i3 comes with a internal combustion engine range extender, wonder what the efficiency drops to when that kicks in..
 
Care to show me the stats on the ICE range extender you speak of?
 
What the fuck are you Tesla fanboys so afraid of? That another company out there can do better? I thought that was the idea of the EVs to begin with! Jesus fuck, get over yourselves.

Re:apples to apples

[Golden_Rider]

the i3 comes with a internal combustion engine range extender, wonder what the efficiency drops to when that kicks in..

Care to show me the stats on the ICE range extender you speak of?

The range extender is an option. Maybe it is not offered in the US (although it is mentioned in reviews), but it is available in Germany: http://www.bmw.de/de/neufahrze...

It is a 2 cylinder engine which according to the BMW website increases the range to 300-340km total (about 200 miles).

Re:apples to apples

[David_Hart]

the i3 comes with a internal combustion engine range extender, wonder what the efficiency drops to when that kicks in..

Care to show me the stats on the ICE range extender you speak of?

The range extender is an option. Maybe it is not offered in the US (although it is mentioned in reviews), but it is available in Germany: http://www.bmw.de/de/neufahrze...

It is a 2 cylinder engine which according to the BMW website increases the range to 300-340km total (about 200 miles).

2 cylinder engines were popular for motorboat outboards and jetskis. The industry switched to 3 cyl and 4 cyl because 2 cyl engines are less efficient and produce a greater amount of pollution. Granted, the electric engine reduces the total pollution amount, but still...

That being said, it does look like some research is being done to produce more efficient 2 cyl engines: http://www.technologyreview.co...

Re:apples to apples

[Neil Boekend]

That is not 2 cylinders. That is 2 stroke. Quite a different beast.
One of the reasons for the pollution is that 2 stroke engines need lubricant in their fuel. Lubricant doesn't burn properly so it exits the engine as soot. Soot is a terrible fine particulate pollution.
Another is that they are less fuel efficient.

Re:apples to apples

[nosferatu1001]

CAN come with, not COMES WITH. Learn the difference

Re:apples to apples

[nosferatu1001]

2 stroke != 2 cylinder. Its a 4 stroke 2 cylinder engine, used as a generator only so it always sits at peak efficiency

Re:apples to apples

[Anonymous Coward]

That OPOC engine http://www.technologyreview.com/news/420818/the-two-stroke-engine-reconsidered/page/2/ does look spectacular although I have a hard time imagining what things look like when actually moving... doing some googling I found this: http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Opposed-Piston-Opposed-Cylinder

The only things I find 'strange' about this thing is that they seem very focused on hundreds of horse power; might be because they seem to a (initially) aim for military goals (and money, DARPA). Hopefully it also scales down as IMHO anything above 150 hp is just wasteful in a normal car.

Whatever happened to "The mighty engine" btw, didn't the Russians 'steal' it a couple of years back and put it in a production car? Haven't heard of either ever since...

Check the sticker

[Anonymous Coward]

$0 engine oil services included.

Well that's a relief!

Re:Check the sticker

[Golden_Rider]

$0 engine oil services included.

Well that's a relief!

Well, there IS the option of a 2 cylinder range extender engine. Guess that needs an oil change every now and then.

Modular batteries are the future

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the modular battery concept holds huge potential. I already mow my lawn using the same 100lb 4kwh lithium battery pack that runs my vintage truck. There is no reason you couldn't drop the same pack into a car or anything else in varying quantities depending on vehicle size and range needs. And it really opens up affordable possibilities for limited use vehicles too like snow blowers. Why buy a dedicated pack for something you use 5 times a year?

Not so naive fail

[garote]

That cost chart happens to include capital cost (manufacturing a solar panel) but only barely factors in the environmental degradation cost (crap spewed into the atmosphere by a coal plant). The adjustment chosen - $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions - is very optimistic, and acknowledged to be arbitrary. That's why the only number that comes close in your short list is nuclear, which factors in disposal cost.

Personally, I'd be happy to increase up-front cost to save on the back end. And given the popularity of electric and hybrid cars, I'm not alone in that feeling.

Re:Not so naive fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Those numbers represent the efficiency of power generation, not efficiency of automobiles.
Thus MPGe, where intent is that you can directly compare MPG and MPGe to understand what vehicle gives you better miles per dollar.

Re:Not so naive fail

[AmiMoJo]

It isn't clear what lifetime they are using for solar PV either. Quality panels are guaranteed for ~25 years on average, but that just means at least ~80% capacity remaining at that stage. It's not like they fall off your roof or stop working entirely.

Re:Not so naive fail

[Anonymous Coward]

If you assume a linear failure mode with 80% at 25 years you'd still have 70% capacity at 50 years. Without any subsidy at all that's under $70/MWh. When you account for the fact that solar is an up-front capital investment with zero inputs, and that coal, gas, and nuclear require inputs that will increase in price over the amortization period, solar is win-win. If you also include the externalities associated with burning fossil fuels it's a no-brainer for anyone.

Cost?

[jamesl]

It would be nice to know how many of these super electric cars have to be sold for the manufacturer to break even. With and without the tax credits.

Tesla lost $74 million on sales just short of $2 billion in 2013. Cumulative losses from 2009 through 2013 were about $935 million.
http://quote.morningstar.com/s...

Well

[garote]

I'm sure a cyclist's efficiency drops dramatically with 60mph of wind! You could mitigate that with a fairing and a fancy recumbent bicycle. (Cyclists have actually achieved that speed, with such equipment.) But they kept that up for a matter of minutes, not hours.

That said, you can always put your chosen system on top by messing with the parameters.

For example: BMW's 2014 i3 has a 38 mile range, but I've been known to go over a hundred miles on a bicycle in one day. So, factor in two charge cycles, and not only use less fuel, I might actually outrun the vehicle as well.

Fun aside:

Cheetahs are significantly faster than humans, but over a long range, humans on foot can actually catch up with a cheetah and overtake it. Somali tribesmen recently did this to catch a cheetah who was attacking their livestock. (Reference: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... ) Walking on two legs is a hell of a lot more efficient than walking on four.

Re:Well

[Bryan Ischo]

Thanks for the fun and interesting post.

Something else I heard once was that the fastest land animal over 3 miles is actually the dog. I found it fascinating to think that a dog could beat a horse over that distance.

Heh

[garote]

Well, neither are cars. I can't fit one through a door for example. :D

Aside from just being playful (sorry if you don't enjoy that sort of thing) , the point I was making was that there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement even still, and people might benefit from a wider perspective in that the answer _may_ not be to buy a shiny new car, but to buy a shiny new bicycle instead.

More importantly...

[timeOday]

The BMW didn't win by chance, but because it is based on a totally different construction method to makes it lighter:

What makes the i3 different from every other car on the market is under the skin - it's almost entirely made out of plastic. This is no ordinary plastic, mind you - it's carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic. It's basically the same stuff used to make Formula One cars and stealth bombers. What's remarkable about the i3 is that it's the first mass-market car made out of carbon fiber. There's no metal in the car's body - all the bumpers, doors and skins are plastic as well. The only major metal parts are the drive unit and suspension components. The result is a four-seat, four-door city car that weighs only about 2,700 pounds - or nearly 500 pounds less than a BMW 1 Series.

This actually quite a bold and innovative new product. It's a shame they made it so ugly. I'm really curious to see crash test results.

Re:More importantly...

[dj245]

The BMW didn't win by chance, but because it is based on a totally different construction method to makes it lighter:

What makes the i3 different from every other car on the market is under the skin - it's almost entirely made out of plastic. This is no ordinary plastic, mind you - it's carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic. It's basically the same stuff used to make Formula One cars and stealth bombers. What's remarkable about the i3 is that it's the first mass-market car made out of carbon fiber. There's no metal in the car's body - all the bumpers, doors and skins are plastic as well. The only major metal parts are the drive unit and suspension components. The result is a four-seat, four-door city car that weighs only about 2,700 pounds - or nearly 500 pounds less than a BMW 1 Series.

This actually quite a bold and innovative new product. It's a shame they made it so ugly. I'm really curious to see crash test results.

I'd love to see average body damage repair costs.

Re:More importantly...

[Toshito]

No steel? Good luck waiting for the light to change...

They won another reward as well

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great, but at the same time it still has less than 200 miles, and it wins ugliest electric car in the US award as well.

Come one, who doesn't think that vehicle looks ugly and is likely to have an ugly, stuck up driver behind the wheel as well.

Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

The good news is that you can carry these cars in your back pocket.

not all "immobilisers" need a chip on the key

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir need to try again... read up on GM's passlock system. There is no chip involved, resistance is read from the passlock sensor by the BCM and this determines if the fuel injectors will be activated or not.

Volt is still better than all of them

[MillerHighLife21]

On sheer ability to refuel quickly for long trips. It's the ultimate solution. Eliminate daily gas usage, but keep it available for long trips. Perfect.

BMW & Tesla Patents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do correct me if I am wrong but doesn't BMW license some odd 38+ patents directly owned by Tesla. Aren't these same patents used in the production of BMW electric vehicles?

Sooo... in essence they are using Tesla patents to directly compete with Tesla who designed a lot of the electrical systems for their vehicles?

Whole thing seems silly.

Re: BMW & Tesla Patents.

[EnglishDude]

Why is that strange? Ford competes with Peugeot yet my Ford has an Peugeot engine. GM competes with Fiat and Isuzu yet I used to have a GM car with a Fiat engine and I used to have a different GM car with an Isuzu engine. They all share a lot behind the scenes.

Re: BMW & Tesla Patents.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just another fanboy who needs to scream "TESLA!!!!" as loud as anyone will hear it.
 
Someday he may even have enough money to own a used one. It kind of reminds me of the Lamborghini crowd back when I was in high school. Today none of those guys own one and the vast majority don't even want one.
 
The sad part is that we can't have an intelligent discussion about EVs that aren't Teslas without one of these fanboys coming in and making wild allegations about the Tesla that any 8 year old using Google for 30 seconds can't disprove. I'm so sick of hearing about the mighty Model S... "It's the fastest stock car out there" "It beats any ICE in the 0-60 hands down" "It's a luxury car"
 
All a bunch of bilk.

nice but...

[Foske]

It's not efficiency that counts most. Is't usability. The tesla is bigger and can drive 5x further. Statistics... you can always present the numbers such that they look good.

Re:nice but...

[Neil Boekend]

Different statistics are important for different people.
Imagine a couple. Both of them work. One drives a Tesla to work and has 60% capacity left at the end of the day. The other works closer to their home so the i3 is sufficient for daily use.
When they go on a holiday they can take the Tesla. There are superchargers across the country so they can actually get there with the Tesla versus the i3.
However, they saved a lot of money on initial investment versus if they bought 2 Tesla's.

Or imagine someone who uses the i3 for their daily use while renting a car for their occasional needs.

Both cars have their places. They are about as similar as a phone and a laptop.

Re:nice but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Being bigger means what exactly?
 
And I didn't know the Tesla did 400-500 miles... That's interesting. Or maybe you don't know how to do math. Or maybe you're just another racing fanboy who hates the fact that Tesla isn't the only EV on the road and will always be a niche brand.

BMW won nothing

[horza]

BMW won nothing. Tesla won the electric car race by creating a car that has the range of a normal car, is faster than a normal car, and looks as good as any normal car. This is why it is scoring so high in consumer reports that cover ALL cars, not just electric vehicles.

The BMW i3 has 1/3 of the range, does 0-60 in twice the time (7 seconds), and looks fugly. In my city we have dozens of public cars like this all over the city that anybody can jump into and use for €8/hour. I am sure lots of companies will buy it for staff than need to do local runs. Probably got a good market in local governments, councils and utility companies. Being one of the slowest production cars ever to hit the road will probably mean low insurance cost.

It's apples and oranges. A bicycle is more efficient than either. It doesn't do the same job though.

Phillip.

Re:BMW won nothing

[dj245]

BMW won nothing. Tesla won the electric car race by creating a car that has the range of a normal car, is faster than a normal car, and looks as good as any normal car. This is why it is scoring so high in consumer reports that cover ALL cars, not just electric vehicles.

The BMW i3 has 1/3 of the range, does 0-60 in twice the time (7 seconds), and looks fugly. In my city we have dozens of public cars like this all over the city that anybody can jump into and use for €8/hour. I am sure lots of companies will buy it for staff than need to do local runs. Probably got a good market in local governments, councils and utility companies. Being one of the slowest production cars ever to hit the road will probably mean low insurance cost.

It's apples and oranges. A bicycle is more efficient than either. It doesn't do the same job though.

Phillip.

Wow, fanboy much? The Tesla is roughly double the cost- It might be a good car but it isn't anywhere near the same market. 0-60 in 7 seconds is not "the slowest production car to hit the road", it is actually pretty average and comparable with BMW 3-series and 5-series vehicles as well as typical with the rest of the industry.

The meaningful question

[duke_cheetah2003]

I'm not much interested in MPGe, or range, or any of that silliness, while fascinating.

The real question that should be asked is CO2 emissions per mile, and then compare to vehicles like the hybrids.

Efficiency and range of electric cars is utterly meaningless unless there's a carbon footprint size attached to these vehicles. We need to be striving for less pollution above all else.

Remember, all your plugins are coal powered for the most part!

Second car

[tepples]

On only two occasions I was not able to make a trip I wanted to make because of my car's range.

So for people who do occasionally make trips like those two, should they have to buy, register, insure, maintain, and park a second car? All five of those are substantial expenses in some places. Or what am I missing?

Re:Second car

[Ralph Wiggam]

A large number of households already have a second car driven by a second person, that you can trade with if needed. If I was single, I'm not sure if I would own an electric car.

Re:Second car

[toddestan]

Or what am I missing?

That many households already have more than one vehicle? That you can easily rent a gasoline-powered car when you need the range?

Re:Second car

[tepples]

It's a lot harder to rent when you're under 25 or crossing state lines.

Metering differs

[tepples]

what an empty distinction, "most fuel efficient electric car". it's electricity, silly, we have plenty of it.

I think the idea is that a more "fuel-efficient" electric car would require power plants to burn less coal or natural gas than another electric car. The difference that leads to a misconception of "plenty of it" is as follows: Unlike pumps at a petrol station, which show the selling price of the fuel added to the tank, most people don't own electric meters that show how much energy has passed into a single appliance over a use session and how much that will add to the electric bill. If they do have a meter such as a Kill-A-Watt, the meter will probably show only the power over the past second. Most households in fact have only an outdoor electric meter that shows the energy over the past month summed over all appliances. And this energy is billed on a post-paid basis, unlike petrol which is overwhelmingly prepaid.

Can't usually /. a site from a comment

[tepples]

I'd link to his blogspot but I don't know how Blogspot handles sudden heavy traffic. I wouldn't want to bankrupt the guy.

Comments don't cause nearly as much of a traffic spike as the featured article.

That depends strongly on country.

Unfortunately, I can't easily choose my country.

Efficient? The Tesla????

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? "when thinking about efficient, you might tthink about the Tesla Model S" Er.. this is definitely one person that doesn't own one. When you "think about the Tesla" you think scary fast for an electric car, not efficient!

MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

MPGe is kind of a useless metric given that the cost to "fill up" is near zero. Range is much more important. It's much like gas prices in the 50's and 60's. Nobody cared what the MPG was. Gas was 20-30 cents a gallon.

BMW Tech may hold an edge for a while

[wolfguru]

BMW has long been a company with superior engineering, and their efforts in the electric car market may set a standard that will require significant effort to match. While they have become more "market driven" in recent years, they still have a solid record of uncompromising engineering and design that is willing to ignore convention for a focus on effectiveness and reliability. Their motorcycle sector in particular is still in many ways years ahead of its competitors and they make some of the very few cars that can go from showroom to track/course and be competitive in their class. Looking at the design in the I series vehicles, I believe they will establish a solid place in the top of the electric vehicle market, though their pricing will undoubtedly reflect it. They are one of the few "you get what you pay for" high quality vehicles on the market.

efficiency is also distance over time / energy exp

[wolfguru]

Please show me the average bicycle rider doing an 80 mile trip in under 90 minutes. Bike have their place. But comparing them to to vehicles meant for multipassenger transport over a reasonable distance in an equally reasonable period of time is not reasonable.

meah; just BS.

[WindBourne]

i3, like nearly all other overpriced electrics, only seats 4, while Tesla MS (Model S) seats 7.
In addition, the MS does 0-60 in 4.2 sec, while I3 is 6.8 sec.
The range of I3 is 122 MPC, but EPA gives it 81 MPC, while EPA gives MS 208/265 MPC depending on battery pack.
So, quite the difference. And considering that the MS outperforms, out drives most of the BMW below $100K, while this I3 is just a BWM drive, well, that says it all.