Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Promises 100,000 Electric Cars Per Year
Dave Knott sends this news from the CBC:
Tesla stock was up five per cent on Friday morning after CEO Elon Musk said the electric-car company would deliver 100,000 vehicles next year. Its earnings report released Thursday shows Tesla continues to operate at a loss as it spends on engineering and setting up an assembly line for its Model X SUV, which is scheduled to go into production early next year. But investors were cheered by the news that the company would deliver 100,000 vehicles next year, up from 22,000 in 2013 and a projected 35,000 this year. Tesla reported a loss of $61.9 million in its second quarter, compared with a loss of $30.5 million in the same quarter a year ago. Revenue nearly doubled to $769.3 million, missing Wall Street's forecast of $801.9 million, but expenses were also up as Tesla prepares some ambitious projects, spending $93 million in the quarter on research and development alone. While the Model X is in development, the longer-term plan is for a cheaper, mass-market car, the Model 3, to be launched in 2017. The biggest investment Tesla will make is in its large lithium-ion production plant, to be built at an as-yet-unnamed U.S. location in a $5-billion partnership with Panasonic.
I thought the Gigafactory was going to be built outside Reno....
Seeing this kind of capital investment seems to indicate that there may be some barriers to enter the market. The free market may not be so free nor easy to enter as some would have us believe.
He said that by the end of 2015 they would be producing cars at a rate > 100,000 cars/yr (2000 cars/wk). They will enter 2015 producing cars at slightly more than 50,000 cars/yr (1000 cars/wk). The actual number of cars (Model S & Model X) made in 2015 will be between 50,000 and 100,000. Elon went on to say it would be greater than 60,000. Elon speaks very precisely. It is not confusing.
Somebody mod this guy up. He's right. It's a critical distinction.
Hey just wanted to say a great article, and I cannot wait 'til I can buy a cheap quality electric car I'm thinking one of the new BMW's
www.prime-ticket.com
Once the bubb...err..correction takes place, then I will look forward to investing.
But don't worry. We'll make it up in volume.
Thank goodness, I was worried I wouldn't get my daily Elon Musk story from Memedot.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
So... not to stir up a hornets nest... but everyones aware that electric cars produce more pollution than gas right?
If you live near a nuclear plant, ok, maybe not... but the vast majority of electricity is produced from coal. Gasoline engines are terrible... only 30% efficient or so... but coals only 40% efficient. Add to that 6% losses in AC transmission lines... then the Tesla charger is only 80% efficient in practical applications (The instructions say its 90% but that's under optimum circumstances) These things consume a lot more fossil fuels than Gasoline cars ever would.
Sadly, unless we start building a lot more nuclear power plants, this will be terrible for the environment, especially CO2 levels.
Granted they will solve the problem of the soccer mom that's been driving around that mini van from 1998 and has no idea what a spark plug is much less a tuneup. People like that are almost solely responsible for smog in this country.
...and none of the affordability. Go Elon go!
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
I thought we'd all be 3D printing our car at home? Why is Elon Musk of all people building a Luddite factory?
A factory on an asteroid, sure, but on this rock???
An often heard dubious claim...
"All in all, an electric car creates slightly less pollution than a Prius."
Ignoring the fact that electricity can come from any source.
Musk is a brilliant engineer and if he really wanted more people to experience this technology. He would have sold it to a auto maker or licensed its technology to several. Not only to reduce price to consumers and in turn offer more affordable cars. But also he would have reached people in lower income brackets who could benefit more from a all electric vehicle. Instead he builds cars that are outstanding but not affordable for the majority. Your barely staying alive by selling carbon credits
and you snub your nose and every means of being accepted by dealer networks and state regulators. When in fact if you did a little more smooth talking and much less paving your own path. You might actually make a few bucks on Tesla and in turn really help people. Instead you sell cars to eccentric tree hugger's who have plenty of money to buy gas but insist on creating a image of being "Green". As my subject line says. Musk is a great engineer but a lousy marketing guru.
So... not to stir up a hornets nest... but everyones aware that electric cars produce more pollution than gas right?
Let's look at some facts here. First off, the efficiency of a thermal power plant is somewhere around 33% to 48%, at least according to wikipedia. Let's split the difference and say 41% for a thermal plant. The typical thermal efficiency of a a gasoline engine is about 18% to 20%. Let's split the difference and say 19%. Thus, a thermal power plant is more than twice as efficient as a gasoline engine in terms of changing chemical potential energy to useful output.
But there are some caveats. Firstly, the electricity needs to be transmitted. High voltage power lines are extremely efficient, about 94% according to this article. That means that the chemical energy (lets assume from coal) reaching the charging station is 41% x 94% = 38.5%. And then there is the charging process. According to this article, the charge efficiency of a Li-Ion battery is about 97%, which makes sense to me, as batteries usually don't run too hot. The charging devices however probably are responsible for some loss. Let's assume they are 80% efficient. That gives us 38.5% x 80.0% x 97% = 30%. Thus, according to this, 30% of the coal chemical potential energy makes it to the engine.
But what about engine efficiency? Well electric motors run very cool, and have very high efficiencies, typically around 90%. I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla's motor is better. This means that if a coal power plant powered a Tesla, 30% x 90% = 27% of the energy would reach the wheels of the car, compared with a gasoline powered car, where 19% of the gasoline's potential energy comes out of the engine, never mind the losses in the transmission lines. Thus, a coal powered Tesla is 40% more energy efficient than a gasoline powered car.
However, there is one problem. Generating energy by coal produces more CO2 than generating it by gasoline. According to this article, coal generates about 215 pounds CO2 per btu of energy, while gasoline generates 157 pounds CO2 per btu. However, even with this, by my calculations, an equivalent gas powered car still emits 3.8% more CO2 than our coal powered Tesla.
Elon Musk made this claim in an interview, that even if a coal power plant generates the electricity, a Tesla still emits less CO2. My referenced back of a napkin calculations above support this assertion.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The incremental cost of the F-35 is higher than the F-16. Period. A new F-16 costs less than $50 million, maybe about $25 million 20 years ago, if you ignore inflation. The F-16 is less capable, and made mostly out of aluminum, so a lower price is to be expected. I am not certain about the F-18's price.
That is basically breaking even especially given the backers and what they're investing in. I'm surprised the losses weren't larger.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Electric is SOooooo 2012!
I was looking at a Tesla or another electric and the Toyota said they'll ship Hydrogen Fuel Cell next year. So, I will drive my car another year.
I have a Prius now and am driving into the ground. Tesla was the next intelligent step... While waiting for fuel cell. But now fuel cell seems to be here, so why would I buy that?