Slashdot Mirror
EPA Confirms Tesla's Model 3 Has a Range of 310 Miles (theverge.com)
Tesla's Model 3 has a confirmed range of 310 miles, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. "That figure applies to the long-range version of the Model 3, and echoes the vehicle specs released by Tesla back in July," reports The Verge. "It also makes the Model 3 one of the most efficient passenger electric vehicles on the market." From the report: The EPA's range is used as the advertised figure for electric vehicles that are sold in the US. The 310-mile range is an estimate of the number of miles the vehicle should be able to travel in combined city and highway driving from a full charge. That's 131 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (MPGe) for city driving, 120 MPGe on the highway, and 126 MPGe combined. You'll have to pay more to get that extended range, though. Tesla said it would be selling a standard version of the Model 3, with just 220 miles of range, for $35,000. The long-range version will start at $44,000, the automaker says. Production on the standard version isn't expected to begin until 2018.
The newer range is really great, about as much as most cars.
But the thing you'd want to larger range for is really road trips, which per day would usually be composed of at least two 300 mile segments. So you have to figure out at least two charging points per day of trip, as well as overnight.
Now they have done a great job of bringing superchargers online where a lot of trips I could probably plot a path that included enough superchargers. Evening is still an issue though, lots of places it is hard to find somewhere to plug in. But with that kind of range, maybe it would be enough just to find one in the city I was staying in and charge up before I went to the hotel.
I think it's close enough it would work for most road trips, except for some remote areas.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They are (and rapidly expanding). And that's just superchargers - including slower ones (but still including high power DC), look here.
In your everyday life (aka, the vast majority of your time), instead of 5 minutes to detour to a gas station, a full charge takes 10 seconds: 5 to plug in, 5 to unplug. In the comfort of your garage.
On long trips, it charges during meal and bathroom / stretch breaks, about 75 miles range per 10 minutes charging at below 50% SoC. Take, for example, a 700 mile trip. At 70mph that's 10 hours (not counting breaks), so two meal breaks - say, a 20 minute lunch and a 30 minute dinner. 45 minutes charging. That adds about 375 miles, meaning 685 miles. Just one or two 10 minute stretch breaks (on your 10 hour trip) and that's your entire charging.
The only thing it doesn't work for is "sprint" trips, where you're basically trying to avoid all stops, eating in the car, minimizing all bathroom and rest breaks. And if you're the sort of person who does that... don't. Seriously, stop it; that's dangerous, not just to you, but to other drivers.
A belief only held by people who've never owned an EV. Because 1) supercharging rates aren't slow; 2) you can extend range significantly just by slowing down, at any point in time (unlike ICE vehicles, EVs increase in range down to around 20-25mph), and 3) in the absolute worst case (which almost never happens), you can ask to charge virtually anywhere. Farmhouse in the middle of nowhere? Ranger station deep in a national park? You name it. And the answer in practice is almost always yes.
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
Things weird about your reply.
1) You act like we're talking about normal driving, not emergencies.
2) You act like it's a bad thing to have an ability to greatly (2-3x) increase your range, something you don't have with ICE vehicles.
3) You act like you only have two options ("highway speeds" and "20mph"), rather than a continuous range curve between those points.
4) You ignore the entire rest of what you're replying to.
I gave you a bloody map, what more do you want? And why are you putting "charging stations" in quotes? Superchargers are real. There are 7619 supercharger stalls operational today (aka, not counting those under construction). The average spacing along US interstates is about 70 miles (a bit more in more densely populated areas, a bit less in less densely populated ones), evenly spaced. Doubling by the end of next year. And that's just Tesla's network.
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
I'll wait a few more years. I know a few folks who love love love their Teslas, but they keep having to bring them in for service once a month for various problems (albeit minor in the grand scheme of things). You'd think for a car this expensive, the kinks would be all worked out.
Reminds me of Delorean's issues when they started out.
So how much actual coal is that per mile?
Probably takes 2000 pounds of coal to make the electricity to charge it up once?
Especially the coal electricity California imports from Utah.
The math's pretty easy: according to http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm, it takes about one pound of coal to generate one kilowatt hour of electricity. The long range battery has a capacity of 75kWh, so that'd be about 75 pounds of coal. Assuming a gas vehicle gets 50mpg, the gasoline needed to travel 310 miles weighs 39 pounds, a far cry from your 2000 pounds claim. Either way, a centrally-located power plant would be able to more readily control its emissions than a smaller, mobile gasoline engine.
Depending on your power mix, that's a worst-case scenario. In California, which you mention, PG&E generates ~70% of its power from renewable and greenhouse gas-free sources, like nuclear, hydro, and unspecified "renewable" sources. 17% is from natural gas, which is very much cleaner than gasoline or coal, and "unspecified" other sources. Sounds much less polluting than gasoline.
EVs have the advantage that the source of the power feeding the grid can be changed without requiring all users to switch to something else: switching all gasoline cars to something that's compatible with their engines and fuel systems but is less polluting and damaging to the environment would be quite difficult. Replacing aging coal power plants with cleaner-burning natural gas plants dramatically reduces emissions while still pushing the same electrons through wires. Adding nuclear, wind, solar, etc. can further improve the cleanliness of electricity supply without any change from consumers.
This is not true. Tesla has been trying for ages to get other manufacturers to use their network; they *want* higher utilization (for paying customers, of course); their goal is 30% utilization at Superchargers. It's Nissan that you have to complain to, not Tesla.
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
There is always "that guy" who needs to drive 300 miles in a day regularly. 305 miles is at least a five hour drive. Do you do that 20% of the time? If so, you need to find a new job because you are wasting your life away in a car.
And for some reason, "that guy" *always* shows up in comment threads on articles like this one. He also often needs the cargo capacity of a pickup truck, and sometimes is driving to some shack in the deep woods with no electricity. Oh, and also assumes his use case is typical, or at least a complete blocker to anyone adopting EVs.
Not exactly true, they have been trying to get others to "License" their charging standard. Tesla built a standard and the rest of the industry built a standard (and Tesla refused to participate).
Now to top that Tesla sells an adapter so that Their cars can use the Industry standard for quick charge, but refuse to sell the licence for their standard to be used in an adapter that allows others to use their chargers.
So in simple terms, their "trying" has been wanting to get a kick back for every car built, Not actually removing barriers for within the industry.
Again as a consumer and end user, i'd buy an adapter and pay to use their chargers if i could, but i can't because the option doesn't exist. Also i'd love to buy their car, but i can't because they do not have anything within my affordability range.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Do not forget that an electric drivetrain is more efficient than an ICE drivetrain:
ICE drivetrain is 30% efficient per unit of energy source
Electric drivetrain is 90% efficient per unit of energy source
This means batteries need to have 30/90 = 1/3rd the energy density of gasoline for the electric vehicle to have the same energy usage at the wheels as the ICE vehicle.
Also:
1. An electric vehicle can be more aerodynamic than an ICE vehicle so an electric vehicle suffers less drag and therefore there is an efficiency gain over the ICE vehicle.
2. Electric vehicle can have regenerative braking systems which converts the kinetic energy back into stored electrical energy which makes an electric vehicle more efficient than an ICE vehicle on roads with varying gradients.
Therefore, the battery energy density is a major factor in the range of the vehicle but it is not the only factor.