I can attest to this. I've done this on several occasions on my model S. If both pedals are hit it beeps and displays a message and does not accelerate.
It took me a while to get used to driving my Tesla model S. Sometimes I accidentally hit the edge of the brake pedal when I mean to hit the accelerator since the pedals are a bit close together. The car immediately beeps at me and flashes a warning message on the dash and does the right thing by not accelerating. I think I'd be less likely to accidentally hit the accelerator than the brake, though. I think a lot of people mess up because they use their left foot for the brake and the right for the accelerator. I learned to drive a manual, so the left foot was for the clutch only.
One thing to note is that the Tesla responds instantly. My previous cars there was a noticeable lag between hitting the accelerator and the car actually moving. On my old Prius it sometimes felt like it took a second or more.
Every car is different and with some cars it takes a while to develop the proper muscle memory.
One problem I now have if I have a rental is I always forget to lock the car. I've gotten so used to my car always locking itself when I walk away from it.
In the case of Toyota while many cases could probably be attributed to a problem between the steering wheel and the seat, it was also found that the ECM code was horribly written spaghetti code that had numerous flaws in it that didn't follow most of the guidelines for automotive design.
In this case since they had only had the car for 5 days I say it was a problem between the steering wheel and seat.
Usually it's more than 2:1. On my Tesla model S P85 it's 9.73:1 since electric motors typically have no problem spinning at a much higher speed than an internal combustion engine.
The nice thing with electrics is they have an insane amount of torque that puts diesels to shame.
As it is, I'm taking my model S camping next week out in the middle of nowhere. While I'm not towing anything, I have no problem getting there and back. Hell, I decided to go up early and stay at a nearby tiny hotel for a night until the rest of the group arrives. I asked about a 220v outlet and they said they have a tesla charger there, and it is literally in the middle of nowhere. The closest town has a population of 500 and most of the roads in the county aren't paved. It won't even add a significant amount of time charging to reach there, and no, I don't even need to charge at the hotel.
I have no problem traveling hundreds of miles a day in my electric car (a Tesla). While it adds time, it's not a huge amount since that time can often be spent doing something useful while the car charges. The Tesla superchargers tend to be located at places where there are plenty of amenities available. In my trip from the Bay Area to Seattle charging added maybe 4 hours to my trip. During the stops I often would grab a bite to eat or shop. Often the car was ready to continue before I was. In their cross-country trip they spent roughly 20% of the time charging and the other 80% of the time driving.
Long trips are getting easier and easier as more and more superchargers are installed. The newer cars also charge faster than mine does and have a longer range.
You don't get that sort of efficiency for multiple reasons. First of all, the solar panel is not pointed towards the sun. In fact, given how the roofs of most cars are curved, at least half of the cells will be angled away from the sun at any one time. You don't want a perfectly flat roof for aerodynamic reasons, plus on most cars it would look quite ugly. In the northern hemisphere the panels would be pointed south but on a vehicle this would not be the case. Second of all, due to the coatings required to have a smooth curved surface you are going to lose a lot more light. You want a smooth surface as well which will reflect a lot more light. A fair amount will also likely be lost to reflections. Also, most solar panels are not 25% efficient.
Flat panels like one might normally see are pointed towards the sun. They have a thin flat layer above the solar cells and a lot of ventilation under the cells to help keep them cool since the cells lose efficiency when hot.
This is not the case on a car. Take the Fisker Karma, for example. On the roof it has a smooth curved clear cover with the cells underneath. That top layer needs to be a lot thicker than the layer on a flat panel for a number of reasons. Next, the roof needs to be kept quite rigid to prevent cracking which means that a more substantial structure is needed to support the cells. This adds a lot of weight. Then you either need to build a cooling system or some other method to keep the cells from getting too hot since not only does it reduce efficiency, but it also reduces the lifetime of the cells. All of this also adds weight to the vehicle where you don't want it (for handling purposes you want the weight to be as low as possible) and makes the roof thicker, so other compromises are required to prevent the reduction of headroom (which the Fisker Karma lacks).
Solar panels on the roof don't need to be designed to handle all the vibration and whatnot that cells on a car would have to handle. They don't need to be as rigid either. They need to be able to stand up to wind and hail, but that's not as bad as what the panels on a car would have to handle. Cars tend to flex and bend as they drive, going over bumps in the road, etc. The panels don't need to be nearly as strong as those in a car. Besides, if they break, they're not that expensive to replace.
I'm familiar with both since I have solar on my roof and I have a close relative with a Fisker Karma which has the entire roof of the car covered with solar.
Curved thin-film cells could be used instead. The drawback is that they are a lot less efficient but it would also be cheaper.
They're mostly trying to squeeze their mortal enemy Iran after the lifting of sanctions. They see little downside in the long term since it hurts the other oil producers as well. SA doesn't particularly like Russia especially after they invaded Afghanistan (SA encouraged people to wage jihad against the Soviet invaders and helped create the Taliban).
I'm hoping that with less income will help curtail SA's influence on Islam from their puritanical Wahhabism which has encouraged a lot of violence. Their madrases funded by oil money have pushed their puritanical views far and wide throughout the islamic world.
Actually it usually takes a lot less time and is far more convenient since it only takes me 5 seconds to plug in at home at night and 5 seconds to unplug in the morning in the comfort of my garage. I don't have to periodically pull into a gas station, get out my credit card and wait for my car to fill up. The only time I need to wait to charge is if I'm traveling a long distance. Also, there are usually things to do within easy walking distance while the car is charging. Even on long trips I can often charge at the hotel. At my recent stay in Reno the hotel had a couple Tesla charging spaces where I could charge and the hotel I happened to pick out in the middle of nowhere happens to have a Tesla charger (I didn't realize this when I selected the hotel). I asked if they had a 220v outlet I could use and they said they just installed a Tesla charger there... the person on the phone thought the owner was crazy at first. The nearby town has a population of only around 500 people. Tesla is being quite smart about charging, offering establishments deep discounts or even free installation of destination chargers as well as listings on their maps.
I've argued with a number of people on the Tesla forums on how stupid this is.
Covering every horizontal surface other than the windows on a car would be frightfully expensive and it would add more weight. The body under the cells would need to be more rigid to prevent the cells from cracking, plus since cars are rarely perfectly flat there would have to be an expensive cover over the cells. It would have to stand up to rocks and other things as well as the flexing a car normally has while driving. If you think denting a normal hood is expensive, imagine how expensive it would be if it were covered with solar?
It's far better to instead install solar on your roof rather than the very limited return one would get with solar added to a car.
I know someone with a Fisker Karma which does have solar on the roof. From what I have read it costs around $5000 to add the solar to the roof of the Karma for a very limited rate of return. It's not going to be as efficient as a normal solar panel since it will not be aimed towards the sun, plus it needs a much thicker coating over the panels in order to protect them. Additionally, it adds weight to the car as well as the extra support for those panels to prevent cracking or damage from various things encountered while driving. Someone ran the numbers and figured out the rate of return is around 500 years until the panel pays for itself. It barely adds anything to the range of the car and is mostly used to keep the 12v battery topped off and to help cool the interior. It's also going to be expensive since you want to try and keep the solar panels from getting too hot. The solar panels on my house are quite light with plenty of air circulation under them. They're also perfectly flat and aimed at the sun so they're a lot more efficient and a lot cheaper.
For my Tesla I much prefer having the panoramic roof where I can just open it a bit to help keep the car cool. On top of that, the panoramic roof adds additional head room and it's nice to open when the weather is nice. The glass used is amazing in that it does not let much heat into or out of the car.
Solar on the roof of a car might generate 100 watts. It would take around 3 hours of sun to add one mile of range since my car (with my driving and sticky tires) typically takes almost 300Wh/mile.
It has nothing to do with being rich. The problem is that the Superchargers are not really designed to handle everybody's daily charging. They're designed to facilitate long distance travel. There's a limited number of charging spaces and they're not cheap to build. As it is, there's already a problem at some charging locations with people doing their charging at the supercharger rather than at home. There's one supercharger I read about where one of the locals parks his car there every night and leaves it plugged in overnight rather than charge at home.
As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have a convenient way to charge at home or at work then this isn't really the car for you at this time. Hell, even public charging is often a limited resource where I live since they're always clogged up with Leafs and Volts. Fortunately I rarely need to use public charging since I have plenty of range. In many places the demand exceeds the supply, so until there's an adequate supply it makes sense to charge money for charging. As the supply grows then the price can drop.
I also think it depends on where the chargers are.
I could also see Tesla charging money to use superchargers with a certain range of your house, say 50 miles to encourage people to charge elsewhere. I think they should also do what Blink does and charge a premium for people who keep their cars hooked up after they've finished charging, say 30 minutes after charging is complete start charging $0.05/minute then increase it to $0.10/minute after an hour, etc. After all, the car tells you how long it will take you to charge and your cell phone notifies you when it's done.
Most superchargers are next to restaurants and other amenities. Out of all of the superchargers I've visited I think I only went to a McDonalds once. One was next to a nice brew pub, several at shopping malls, a couple at Black Bear diners. Where possible they seem to try to locate them where there is a variety of places to eat and/or shop. I find it's often nice to stop at places other than McDonalds. For example, I went across the street from the one in Folsom, CA to City Burger where they have awesome burgers, much better than anything you'd get at McDonalds/Burger King, etc. The one in Rockland, CA is right near a combination bar/restaraunt/theater where you can eat your dinner while watching a movie. There's also a mall nearby as well. The one in Truckee, CA is near some restaurants and a 24/hour Safeway. I've stopped there a couple of times to make a pit stop and pick up a couple six packs on my way to Reno and pick up over 50 miles of range even though I don't need the charge.
I think it makes sense to charge for their use with the model 3. The Superchargers are designed for long distance travel, not so much for people wanting to get a free charge. It's been a problem at some chargers where the locals charge there rather than charging at home or work and they clog them up. I read about one where there's a person who frequently parks their car at a supercharger and leaves it hooked up overnight (which is considered extremely rude).
I think the best thing Tesla could do would be to require an account to use them and charge a bit more than it would cost to charge at home to encourage people to do most charging at home or work. Even though it's free for me since I have a P85 (over 41K miles on it), I wouldn't mind all that much if it wasn't free since that would help encourage people not to clog it up instead of charging at home.
There's a Supercharger just off the freeway along the route between my house and where I work but I only use it rarely, only if I'm low and need to travel a long distance. It's just not worth my time to stop there (and that's one of the few where there's not much around it since it's at the Tesla factory). It's just more convenient and cost effective to charge at home since it takes me 5 seconds to plug in at night and 5 seconds to unplug in the morning with no waiting. If I need a full charge at home it takes roughly 5 1/2 hours at 80 amps, something that's easily done overnight. Since my typical charge is a fraction of that I usually lower the current to 40A so there's less loss and let it charge a couple hours overnight when the rates are the lowest.
Charging at home is pretty cheap, even though the area I live in has some of the most expensive electricity in the nation. I have a separate meter for my car and I pay around $50/month and drive around 1000 miles/month. $50/1000 miles is quite cheap considering the size of the car.
Actually most of the drivers were 16-bit. The network and disk drivers were all 16-bit. I know because I worked on them. There was no easy way to write 32-bit drivers in OS/2 (at least through OS/2 4.0 and whatever the next release was called.
It was a real PITA since I worked on a very large driver (around 100,000 lines of C++) and had to make sure classes could fit in a 64K segment. The driver was around 1MB in size. C++ on the other hand was even more tricky. While it worked out well I was limited to only being able to use Watcom C++ 10.0B, not revision C or later. The originator of the codebase did a lot of work so the C++ code could be used.
My experience with C++ in a driver was actually a very positive experience. It made doing a number of things much easier and I wish it were more mainstream.
This would require that the utility companies partner with companies like Tesla and the makers of various chargers to control the charging rate. I agree that this is a great idea but I wouldn't get my hopes up yet. With my car, a Tesla model S, the local utility (PG&E) could partner with Tesla and by knowing where all of the cars are they could control the time and rate each car charges at to balance the load. It would require a new setting in the car which is basically charge my car by a certain time. They could incentivize this with lower rates. Right now I charge from 11pm - 7am when the EV rate hits its lowest point, though at full power (20KW) my car is typically charged in an hour. I usually charge at half the rate (10KW) so there's a lot less loss in the wiring.
For utilities, the base load power stations are typically far more efficient than the peaker plants but they typically can't vary their output much. By doing things like staggering when cars charge and/or controlling the rate they charge it can shift more power to baseload generation by having a steady load. This requires either connected cars (like Tesla) or connected chargers.
They usually do try and place the superchargers at places where there are things to do nearby. Many of them are located within easy walking distance of malls and restaurants. Tesla has also said that they plan to double the number of charging places in the next year. My guess is that they'll have multiple battery options, just like they do for the Model S. It really would not surprise me if they come out with a version with an EPA rated range of 300 miles.
My Tesla uses a heat pump unless it is really cold out. Heat pumps are far more efficient than normal electric heaters. They're basically air conditioners run in reverse.
The nice thing with my Tesla is I can charge virtually anywhere there's electricity. Granted, the superchargers take some time, but it's not a huge amount of time. Now, take the amount of time saved by charging every night. It takes only a few seconds to plug in and unplug vs the amount of time spent driving to one of a limited number of hydrogen refueling stations, waiting in line (if they're popular) and filling up. On top of that, the electricity is far cheaper than the hydrogen. Currently virtually all hydrogen is heavily subsidized since the actual price would not be cheap. Currently EVs are over twice as efficient compared to a hydrogen fuel cell car when once considers well to wheel. HFC vehicles aren't much better than hybrid vehicles when it comes to efficiency but they're still a lot more expensive to build. They have a very long way to go. Durability of the fuel cell stacks is currently about half that of a gasoline engine. A fuel cell stack as of the end of 2015 will need to be replaced at 75K miles. I did the math and the batteries in my Tesla will be good for at least double this. See this.
The 2016 Toyota Mirai, a subcompact, is only rated at 66MPG. A Prius is 58 city, 53 highway and costs less than half the price of the Mirai. BEVs are typically over 100 for a similarly sized car. For example, a 2013 Leaf is the equivalent of 115MPG, almost twice as efficient. My 3-year old Tesla, a much larger vehicle with a lot more passenger and storage room, is 89MPGe. The newer ones are even higher. The Model 3 should be considerably higher than that. Long term, I don't see HFC vehicles competing much against pure electric cars. The complexity alone means that they will always be more expensive, especially as the cost of batteries drops. The cost today of a Toyota Mirai is $58,335. This is for a car with 0-60 of 9.4 seconds and a top speed of 108MPH, not much better than a Prius. The Mirai will suffer the same problems as a Prius as well. The Mirai depends on a battery pack for acceleration and regenerative braking, just like a Prius. My last car was a Prius. It does poorly going up mountain grades and the Mirai will suffer the same problem. Unlike a Prius, the power output of the PEM stack will be considerably lower by 75K miles. A BEV car can put out considerably more power for a longer time since it isn't restricted to the limited output of the PEM stack. I've taken my Tesla up a number of steep mountain grades where my Prius would struggle without breaking a sweat. The Tesla Model 3 and other long range BEVs will cost considerably less than the Mirai. The Model 3 will also have considerably more room inside and storage space. The ONLY advantage the Mirai has is that it can be filled relatively quickly. In just about every other metric it falls short. Today I can take my Tesla most places in the country with the number of places I can't drive to without superchargers rapidly diminishing. By the time the model 3 rolls out the entire country will be pretty much covered. As it is, in California where most of them are sold, even out of the way places are getting covered. There's a charging station going in right near the entrance to Yosemite, for example and even highway 395 along the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains is covered.
The closest hydrogen fueling station to my house is 15 miles away from my house. My EV charging station is in my garage. This covers over 90% of my driving needs. I pay $50/month for the electricity and drive around 1000 miles/month. According to this article, the Mirai
The cars are highly profitable with margins of over 25%. One needs to look at where all that money is going. Tesla could be profitable any time they want to, but if they did so they would remain a niche market and could never produce a car like the model 3. All of that money is being spent on capital needed to grow their business like the gigafactory. It also takes a lot of capital to put together a factory to build a high volume of cars. Tesla's problem is that they are supply constrained and it takes a lot of money to address this.
I have over 40,000 miles on my model S. To date I have not had a single major problem with it and I tend to have a lead foot. I don't think the issues of the model X will affect the model 3 since the model 3 doesn't have the falcon wing doors nor will it have the complex seats that the X has.
Most owners install a 240V 50A outlet in their garages. The outlet is around $14 at Home Depot. Of course that doesn't count the wiring and breaker, but generally it isn't all that expensive.
Those issues are rapidly diminishing in many areas. Charging stations are popping up all over. I've been driving my Model S since 2013, and the number of places I can't take it is rapidly shrinking. I go on an annual camping trip in the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains and this will be the first year I won't need to borrow a gasoline car for the trip since the main highway is now covered (highway 395). As for service centers, those also are popping up in many places, though some states are actively trying to prevent them.
My experience with Tesla service is night and day compared to my experience with Toyota. Toyota always tried to push a bunch of crap on me. They'd try and push blinker fluid if they thought they could get away with it. I'd have to fight with them when my car had common well-known problems. With Tesla there's never any question and they address the problem. My car has had more issues than the newer ones since it is a low VIN number but most of those issues were squeaks and rattles, which is difficult for any manufacturer to get right, especially with a brand new model from a new company out of a new factory. Hell, with Tesla I don't need AAA for towing since Tesla's service is better since there is no limit on distance or the number of times you can use it. I have had to use it once, and it was due to a tire that I bought through Tirerack and had installed by a third party developing a bubble in the sidewall. There were no questions nor was I billed for a tow home where I could go to my local dealer for a replacement tire since they discount the tires.
For those who don't live near a service center, they will come to you for an extra $100 fee.
All one has to do is look at Tesla's upcoming 2016 map of chargers to see how quickly they're planning on expanding it. Tesla has already said that they plan to double the number of charging spots by the end of the year and I expect similar growth in 2017. The superchargers are the big game changer for Tesla. Nobody else can boast having an EV which can be driven across the country without spending huge amounts of time charging. Last September I had no problems or significant delays driving from the Bay Area to Seattle. It took me 2 days and charging only added 3-4 hours to the entire trip. The time often wasn't wasted either. I used it to stretch my legs and grab a bite to eat. If I were driving a gas car I'd also take 2 days for this drive since I'm not about to drive 14-16 hours straight.
I think it depends on who those taxes target. For example, sales tax tends to hit the low income and middle class people far more than those at the top since people at the low end tend to spend a much bigger percentage of their income on items that are taxed. People at the top tend to invest much of their income which is only subject to taxes on any gains.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact in many cases automatics do beat manuals in mileage.
I can attest to this. I've done this on several occasions on my model S. If both pedals are hit it beeps and displays a message and does not accelerate.
It took me a while to get used to driving my Tesla model S. Sometimes I accidentally hit the edge of the brake pedal when I mean to hit the accelerator since the pedals are a bit close together. The car immediately beeps at me and flashes a warning message on the dash and does the right thing by not accelerating. I think I'd be less likely to accidentally hit the accelerator than the brake, though. I think a lot of people mess up because they use their left foot for the brake and the right for the accelerator. I learned to drive a manual, so the left foot was for the clutch only.
One thing to note is that the Tesla responds instantly. My previous cars there was a noticeable lag between hitting the accelerator and the car actually moving. On my old Prius it sometimes felt like it took a second or more.
Every car is different and with some cars it takes a while to develop the proper muscle memory.
One problem I now have if I have a rental is I always forget to lock the car. I've gotten so used to my car always locking itself when I walk away from it.
In the case of Toyota while many cases could probably be attributed to a problem between the steering wheel and the seat, it was also found that the ECM code was horribly written spaghetti code that had numerous flaws in it that didn't follow most of the guidelines for automotive design.
In this case since they had only had the car for 5 days I say it was a problem between the steering wheel and seat.
I had a car where it stuck (1991 Ford Probe) and no, you could not feel it through the pedal before or even when it happened.
Out of all the cars I've driven I've had two that have had stuck accelerators. Both had mechanical linkage. Give me drive by wire any day.
Usually it's more than 2:1. On my Tesla model S P85 it's 9.73:1 since electric motors typically have no problem spinning at a much higher speed than an internal combustion engine.
In most if not all cars there are redundant sensors for the throttle position and the ECU is designed to detect a failure.
Airstream did a test with being towed by the Model X. While the range was reduced, it wasn't a huge amount, something like 30% reduction in range. By the time they phase out ICE vehicles, EVs should have plenty of towing capacity and even greater range.
The nice thing with electrics is they have an insane amount of torque that puts diesels to shame.
As it is, I'm taking my model S camping next week out in the middle of nowhere. While I'm not towing anything, I have no problem getting there and back. Hell, I decided to go up early and stay at a nearby tiny hotel for a night until the rest of the group arrives. I asked about a 220v outlet and they said they have a tesla charger there, and it is literally in the middle of nowhere. The closest town has a population of 500 and most of the roads in the county aren't paved. It won't even add a significant amount of time charging to reach there, and no, I don't even need to charge at the hotel.
I have no problem traveling hundreds of miles a day in my electric car (a Tesla). While it adds time, it's not a huge amount since that time can often be spent doing something useful while the car charges. The Tesla superchargers tend to be located at places where there are plenty of amenities available. In my trip from the Bay Area to Seattle charging added maybe 4 hours to my trip. During the stops I often would grab a bite to eat or shop. Often the car was ready to continue before I was. In their cross-country trip they spent roughly 20% of the time charging and the other 80% of the time driving.
Long trips are getting easier and easier as more and more superchargers are installed. The newer cars also charge faster than mine does and have a longer range.
You don't get that sort of efficiency for multiple reasons. First of all, the solar panel is not pointed towards the sun. In fact, given how the roofs of most cars are curved, at least half of the cells will be angled away from the sun at any one time. You don't want a perfectly flat roof for aerodynamic reasons, plus on most cars it would look quite ugly. In the northern hemisphere the panels would be pointed south but on a vehicle this would not be the case. Second of all, due to the coatings required to have a smooth curved surface you are going to lose a lot more light. You want a smooth surface as well which will reflect a lot more light. A fair amount will also likely be lost to reflections. Also, most solar panels are not 25% efficient.
Flat panels like one might normally see are pointed towards the sun. They have a thin flat layer above the solar cells and a lot of ventilation under the cells to help keep them cool since the cells lose efficiency when hot.
This is not the case on a car. Take the Fisker Karma, for example. On the roof it has a smooth curved clear cover with the cells underneath. That top layer needs to be a lot thicker than the layer on a flat panel for a number of reasons. Next, the roof needs to be kept quite rigid to prevent cracking which means that a more substantial structure is needed to support the cells. This adds a lot of weight. Then you either need to build a cooling system or some other method to keep the cells from getting too hot since not only does it reduce efficiency, but it also reduces the lifetime of the cells. All of this also adds weight to the vehicle where you don't want it (for handling purposes you want the weight to be as low as possible) and makes the roof thicker, so other compromises are required to prevent the reduction of headroom (which the Fisker Karma lacks).
Solar panels on the roof don't need to be designed to handle all the vibration and whatnot that cells on a car would have to handle. They don't need to be as rigid either. They need to be able to stand up to wind and hail, but that's not as bad as what the panels on a car would have to handle. Cars tend to flex and bend as they drive, going over bumps in the road, etc. The panels don't need to be nearly as strong as those in a car. Besides, if they break, they're not that expensive to replace.
I'm familiar with both since I have solar on my roof and I have a close relative with a Fisker Karma which has the entire roof of the car covered with solar.
Curved thin-film cells could be used instead. The drawback is that they are a lot less efficient but it would also be cheaper.
They're mostly trying to squeeze their mortal enemy Iran after the lifting of sanctions. They see little downside in the long term since it hurts the other oil producers as well. SA doesn't particularly like Russia especially after they invaded Afghanistan (SA encouraged people to wage jihad against the Soviet invaders and helped create the Taliban).
I'm hoping that with less income will help curtail SA's influence on Islam from their puritanical Wahhabism which has encouraged a lot of violence. Their madrases funded by oil money have pushed their puritanical views far and wide throughout the islamic world.
Actually it usually takes a lot less time and is far more convenient since it only takes me 5 seconds to plug in at home at night and 5 seconds to unplug in the morning in the comfort of my garage. I don't have to periodically pull into a gas station, get out my credit card and wait for my car to fill up. The only time I need to wait to charge is if I'm traveling a long distance. Also, there are usually things to do within easy walking distance while the car is charging. Even on long trips I can often charge at the hotel. At my recent stay in Reno the hotel had a couple Tesla charging spaces where I could charge and the hotel I happened to pick out in the middle of nowhere happens to have a Tesla charger (I didn't realize this when I selected the hotel). I asked if they had a 220v outlet I could use and they said they just installed a Tesla charger there... the person on the phone thought the owner was crazy at first. The nearby town has a population of only around 500 people. Tesla is being quite smart about charging, offering establishments deep discounts or even free installation of destination chargers as well as listings on their maps.
I've argued with a number of people on the Tesla forums on how stupid this is.
Covering every horizontal surface other than the windows on a car would be frightfully expensive and it would add more weight. The body under the cells would need to be more rigid to prevent the cells from cracking, plus since cars are rarely perfectly flat there would have to be an expensive cover over the cells. It would have to stand up to rocks and other things as well as the flexing a car normally has while driving. If you think denting a normal hood is expensive, imagine how expensive it would be if it were covered with solar?
It's far better to instead install solar on your roof rather than the very limited return one would get with solar added to a car.
I know someone with a Fisker Karma which does have solar on the roof. From what I have read it costs around $5000 to add the solar to the roof of the Karma for a very limited rate of return. It's not going to be as efficient as a normal solar panel since it will not be aimed towards the sun, plus it needs a much thicker coating over the panels in order to protect them. Additionally, it adds weight to the car as well as the extra support for those panels to prevent cracking or damage from various things encountered while driving. Someone ran the numbers and figured out the rate of return is around 500 years until the panel pays for itself. It barely adds anything to the range of the car and is mostly used to keep the 12v battery topped off and to help cool the interior. It's also going to be expensive since you want to try and keep the solar panels from getting too hot. The solar panels on my house are quite light with plenty of air circulation under them. They're also perfectly flat and aimed at the sun so they're a lot more efficient and a lot cheaper.
For my Tesla I much prefer having the panoramic roof where I can just open it a bit to help keep the car cool. On top of that, the panoramic roof adds additional head room and it's nice to open when the weather is nice. The glass used is amazing in that it does not let much heat into or out of the car.
Solar on the roof of a car might generate 100 watts. It would take around 3 hours of sun to add one mile of range since my car (with my driving and sticky tires) typically takes almost 300Wh/mile.
It has nothing to do with being rich. The problem is that the Superchargers are not really designed to handle everybody's daily charging. They're designed to facilitate long distance travel. There's a limited number of charging spaces and they're not cheap to build. As it is, there's already a problem at some charging locations with people doing their charging at the supercharger rather than at home. There's one supercharger I read about where one of the locals parks his car there every night and leaves it plugged in overnight rather than charge at home.
As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have a convenient way to charge at home or at work then this isn't really the car for you at this time. Hell, even public charging is often a limited resource where I live since they're always clogged up with Leafs and Volts. Fortunately I rarely need to use public charging since I have plenty of range. In many places the demand exceeds the supply, so until there's an adequate supply it makes sense to charge money for charging. As the supply grows then the price can drop.
I also think it depends on where the chargers are.
I could also see Tesla charging money to use superchargers with a certain range of your house, say 50 miles to encourage people to charge elsewhere. I think they should also do what Blink does and charge a premium for people who keep their cars hooked up after they've finished charging, say 30 minutes after charging is complete start charging $0.05/minute then increase it to $0.10/minute after an hour, etc. After all, the car tells you how long it will take you to charge and your cell phone notifies you when it's done.
Most superchargers are next to restaurants and other amenities. Out of all of the superchargers I've visited I think I only went to a McDonalds once. One was next to a nice brew pub, several at shopping malls, a couple at Black Bear diners. Where possible they seem to try to locate them where there is a variety of places to eat and/or shop. I find it's often nice to stop at places other than McDonalds. For example, I went across the street from the one in Folsom, CA to City Burger where they have awesome burgers, much better than anything you'd get at McDonalds/Burger King, etc. The one in Rockland, CA is right near a combination bar/restaraunt/theater where you can eat your dinner while watching a movie. There's also a mall nearby as well. The one in Truckee, CA is near some restaurants and a 24/hour Safeway. I've stopped there a couple of times to make a pit stop and pick up a couple six packs on my way to Reno and pick up over 50 miles of range even though I don't need the charge.
I think it makes sense to charge for their use with the model 3. The Superchargers are designed for long distance travel, not so much for people wanting to get a free charge. It's been a problem at some chargers where the locals charge there rather than charging at home or work and they clog them up. I read about one where there's a person who frequently parks their car at a supercharger and leaves it hooked up overnight (which is considered extremely rude).
I think the best thing Tesla could do would be to require an account to use them and charge a bit more than it would cost to charge at home to encourage people to do most charging at home or work. Even though it's free for me since I have a P85 (over 41K miles on it), I wouldn't mind all that much if it wasn't free since that would help encourage people not to clog it up instead of charging at home.
There's a Supercharger just off the freeway along the route between my house and where I work but I only use it rarely, only if I'm low and need to travel a long distance. It's just not worth my time to stop there (and that's one of the few where there's not much around it since it's at the Tesla factory). It's just more convenient and cost effective to charge at home since it takes me 5 seconds to plug in at night and 5 seconds to unplug in the morning with no waiting. If I need a full charge at home it takes roughly 5 1/2 hours at 80 amps, something that's easily done overnight. Since my typical charge is a fraction of that I usually lower the current to 40A so there's less loss and let it charge a couple hours overnight when the rates are the lowest.
Charging at home is pretty cheap, even though the area I live in has some of the most expensive electricity in the nation. I have a separate meter for my car and I pay around $50/month and drive around 1000 miles/month. $50/1000 miles is quite cheap considering the size of the car.
Actually most of the drivers were 16-bit. The network and disk drivers were all 16-bit. I know because I worked on them. There was no easy way to write 32-bit drivers in OS/2 (at least through OS/2 4.0 and whatever the next release was called.
It was a real PITA since I worked on a very large driver (around 100,000 lines of C++) and had to make sure classes could fit in a 64K segment. The driver was around 1MB in size. C++ on the other hand was even more tricky. While it worked out well I was limited to only being able to use Watcom C++ 10.0B, not revision C or later. The originator of the codebase did a lot of work so the C++ code could be used.
My experience with C++ in a driver was actually a very positive experience. It made doing a number of things much easier and I wish it were more mainstream.
This would require that the utility companies partner with companies like Tesla and the makers of various chargers to control the charging rate. I agree that this is a great idea but I wouldn't get my hopes up yet. With my car, a Tesla model S, the local utility (PG&E) could partner with Tesla and by knowing where all of the cars are they could control the time and rate each car charges at to balance the load. It would require a new setting in the car which is basically charge my car by a certain time. They could incentivize this with lower rates. Right now I charge from 11pm - 7am when the EV rate hits its lowest point, though at full power (20KW) my car is typically charged in an hour. I usually charge at half the rate (10KW) so there's a lot less loss in the wiring.
For utilities, the base load power stations are typically far more efficient than the peaker plants but they typically can't vary their output much. By doing things like staggering when cars charge and/or controlling the rate they charge it can shift more power to baseload generation by having a steady load. This requires either connected cars (like Tesla) or connected chargers.
They usually do try and place the superchargers at places where there are things to do nearby. Many of them are located within easy walking distance of malls and restaurants. Tesla has also said that they plan to double the number of charging places in the next year. My guess is that they'll have multiple battery options, just like they do for the Model S. It really would not surprise me if they come out with a version with an EPA rated range of 300 miles.
My Tesla uses a heat pump unless it is really cold out. Heat pumps are far more efficient than normal electric heaters. They're basically air conditioners run in reverse.
The nice thing with my Tesla is I can charge virtually anywhere there's electricity. Granted, the superchargers take some time, but it's not a huge amount of time. Now, take the amount of time saved by charging every night. It takes only a few seconds to plug in and unplug vs the amount of time spent driving to one of a limited number of hydrogen refueling stations, waiting in line (if they're popular) and filling up. On top of that, the electricity is far cheaper than the hydrogen. Currently virtually all hydrogen is heavily subsidized since the actual price would not be cheap. Currently EVs are over twice as efficient compared to a hydrogen fuel cell car when once considers well to wheel. HFC vehicles aren't much better than hybrid vehicles when it comes to efficiency but they're still a lot more expensive to build. They have a very long way to go. Durability of the fuel cell stacks is currently about half that of a gasoline engine. A fuel cell stack as of the end of 2015 will need to be replaced at 75K miles. I did the math and the batteries in my Tesla will be good for at least double this. See this.
The 2016 Toyota Mirai, a subcompact, is only rated at 66MPG. A Prius is 58 city, 53 highway and costs less than half the price of the Mirai. BEVs are typically over 100 for a similarly sized car. For example, a 2013 Leaf is the equivalent of 115MPG, almost twice as efficient. My 3-year old Tesla, a much larger vehicle with a lot more passenger and storage room, is 89MPGe. The newer ones are even higher. The Model 3 should be considerably higher than that. Long term, I don't see HFC vehicles competing much against pure electric cars. The complexity alone means that they will always be more expensive, especially as the cost of batteries drops. The cost today of a Toyota Mirai is $58,335. This is for a car with 0-60 of 9.4 seconds and a top speed of 108MPH, not much better than a Prius. The Mirai will suffer the same problems as a Prius as well. The Mirai depends on a battery pack for acceleration and regenerative braking, just like a Prius. My last car was a Prius. It does poorly going up mountain grades and the Mirai will suffer the same problem. Unlike a Prius, the power output of the PEM stack will be considerably lower by 75K miles. A BEV car can put out considerably more power for a longer time since it isn't restricted to the limited output of the PEM stack. I've taken my Tesla up a number of steep mountain grades where my Prius would struggle without breaking a sweat. The Tesla Model 3 and other long range BEVs will cost considerably less than the Mirai. The Model 3 will also have considerably more room inside and storage space. The ONLY advantage the Mirai has is that it can be filled relatively quickly. In just about every other metric it falls short. Today I can take my Tesla most places in the country with the number of places I can't drive to without superchargers rapidly diminishing. By the time the model 3 rolls out the entire country will be pretty much covered. As it is, in California where most of them are sold, even out of the way places are getting covered. There's a charging station going in right near the entrance to Yosemite, for example and even highway 395 along the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains is covered.
Let's compare:
Hydrogen filling stations
vs
Plugshare chargers
Tesla Superchargers
Tesla Superchargers by the end of 2016 (click on 2016). This number should double by 2017.
The closest hydrogen fueling station to my house is 15 miles away from my house. My EV charging station is in my garage. This covers over 90% of my driving needs. I pay $50/month for the electricity and drive around 1000 miles/month. According to this article, the Mirai
The cars are highly profitable with margins of over 25%. One needs to look at where all that money is going. Tesla could be profitable any time they want to, but if they did so they would remain a niche market and could never produce a car like the model 3. All of that money is being spent on capital needed to grow their business like the gigafactory. It also takes a lot of capital to put together a factory to build a high volume of cars. Tesla's problem is that they are supply constrained and it takes a lot of money to address this.
I have over 40,000 miles on my model S. To date I have not had a single major problem with it and I tend to have a lead foot. I don't think the issues of the model X will affect the model 3 since the model 3 doesn't have the falcon wing doors nor will it have the complex seats that the X has.
Most owners install a 240V 50A outlet in their garages. The outlet is around $14 at Home Depot. Of course that doesn't count the wiring and breaker, but generally it isn't all that expensive.
Those issues are rapidly diminishing in many areas. Charging stations are popping up all over. I've been driving my Model S since 2013, and the number of places I can't take it is rapidly shrinking. I go on an annual camping trip in the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains and this will be the first year I won't need to borrow a gasoline car for the trip since the main highway is now covered (highway 395). As for service centers, those also are popping up in many places, though some states are actively trying to prevent them.
My experience with Tesla service is night and day compared to my experience with Toyota. Toyota always tried to push a bunch of crap on me. They'd try and push blinker fluid if they thought they could get away with it. I'd have to fight with them when my car had common well-known problems. With Tesla there's never any question and they address the problem. My car has had more issues than the newer ones since it is a low VIN number but most of those issues were squeaks and rattles, which is difficult for any manufacturer to get right, especially with a brand new model from a new company out of a new factory. Hell, with Tesla I don't need AAA for towing since Tesla's service is better since there is no limit on distance or the number of times you can use it. I have had to use it once, and it was due to a tire that I bought through Tirerack and had installed by a third party developing a bubble in the sidewall. There were no questions nor was I billed for a tow home where I could go to my local dealer for a replacement tire since they discount the tires.
For those who don't live near a service center, they will come to you for an extra $100 fee.
All one has to do is look at Tesla's upcoming 2016 map of chargers to see how quickly they're planning on expanding it. Tesla has already said that they plan to double the number of charging spots by the end of the year and I expect similar growth in 2017. The superchargers are the big game changer for Tesla. Nobody else can boast having an EV which can be driven across the country without spending huge amounts of time charging. Last September I had no problems or significant delays driving from the Bay Area to Seattle. It took me 2 days and charging only added 3-4 hours to the entire trip. The time often wasn't wasted either. I used it to stretch my legs and grab a bite to eat. If I were driving a gas car I'd also take 2 days for this drive since I'm not about to drive 14-16 hours straight.
I think it depends on who those taxes target. For example, sales tax tends to hit the low income and middle class people far more than those at the top since people at the low end tend to spend a much bigger percentage of their income on items that are taxed. People at the top tend to invest much of their income which is only subject to taxes on any gains.