Tesla takes on the Volt
Back in July I wrote about the Tesla electric car, citing it as more evidence that plug-in hybrid vehicles are a real possibility. While, I love the Tesla, how excited can you really be? It's a two-seater. It costs $100,000, and while it achieves an astonishing 250 miles per charge, how much would that mileage be reduced if the vehicle was a four-passenger vehicle?I mean, let's be real. If I want to drive up to San Francisco, I'm supposed to stop every 250 miles, wait 3 hours then start up again? Oh, yeah, and I have to put the kids in the trunk? In the real world, most Americans can only afford one or two cars; they cannot afford $100,000 two-person, occasional-use automobiles.
Then today, I read an article on AutoblogGreen noting that Tesla CEO Martin Eberhard was ripping on the Volt electric concept, automakers in general, and claiming that "Who killed the electric car" forced GM back into electric vehicles.
Please, let's get real again. (Read the rest)
Labels: Chevy Volt electric vehicle concept, electric cars, GM, hybrid synergy drive, lithium battery, plug-in hybrid vehicles, tesla electric car
posted by Dahcredyns at
10:03 AM
18 Comments:
(Rest of Story)
First, Toyota forced GM back into the electric vehicle, as did fuel cell misconceptions. Second, the EV1 was never going anywhere - at least not in terms of profit. Third, the EV1 was little more than California legislation placation and a step towards the electric drives of eventual fuel cell vehicles. Fourth, could EV1 sales have ever topped 20,000 vehicles per year, especially if the vehicle were priced at its real cost?
Again, Toyota's hybrid success, plus the realization that the Hybrid Synergy Drive could take Toyota from hybrids, to plug-in hybrids, to hydrogen hybrids, to fuel cell hybrids, etc. - I'm quite confident - had far more of an effect on GM than a movie almost no one in America viewed. Ultimately, GM realized that fuel cell or bust wasn't going to compete against Toyota's new path to the fuel cell.
Similarly, Eberhard's summary of automakers and lithium-ion batteries was just as annoying. Eberhard seems to act as if millions and millions of Teslas prove that lithium batteries are fully baked. Unfortunately, there are only 100's and 100's of Teslas, not even tens of thousands of Teslas.
Just yesterday I saw on the news that a cell-phone blew up and severely burned a man - no doubt partially related to lithium batteries. Just a few months ago lithium-ion batteries in computers were exploding. Moreover, GM and Toyota aren't using lithium-ion batteries to develop only two-seat $100,000 sports cars; they have to develop 400 mile range, 4 seat cars, trucks and SUVs.
Ultimately, in no way did the EV1, nor does the Tesla, cost-effectively prove that electric car technology is feasible for the real world expectations of the far majority of American drivers. Eberhard should leave the spin and politics to bloggers and politicians and stay focused on making a Tesla that costs less than $50,000, or a 4-seat vehicle - at least any kind of vehicle that actually makes sense in the real world, not Hollywood.
Read the Tesla blog.
The fact that you see Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs) as viable belies your ignorance. Anyone remotely familiar with the physics involved in getting H2 for the FCV is aware that FCVs use 3-4 times as much energy, per mile driven, as Battery EVs. Energy will drive the market for transportation from here on our. We're seeing the final throes of the big internal combustion dinos. Efficiency will assert itself as the driver and BEVs are by far the most efficient vehicles made.
The future is clearly going to be a combination of BEVs and Plug In Hybrids (PHEVs). Well over half of American households have more than one vehicle. Those households will have at least one PHEV for the long drives and one or more BEVs for all the other daily driving.
BEVs can be cost effectively built today with ranges of 100-300 miles using LiIon batteries. Those who feel the need to have 200-300 mile range BEVs will pay extra for the bigger battery packs, but most will find that 150 miles is plenty. Why pay thousands more for something you never need?
Almost all of the charging will be at night if tiered rates and Time of Use metering is implemented across the country.
Battery costs have come way down, and the two top manufacturers of LiIon (A123 and Johnson Controls/SAFT) are saying they can drop significantly more once factories for the larger cells and packs are built and economies of scale kick in.
But forget all that, here's what really going to happen...
Yesterday, a little known company called EEStor from Austin, TX sent its first press release. It stated that they have successfully set up an automated production line and have gotten third party verification of all key production chemicals.
Why is this so important?
EEStor makes an ultra capacitor. This ultracap hold 15 kW of energy. It weighs 100 lbs, can be fast charged in minutes and can be cycled millions of times. It will cost a few thousand dollars. It ships later this year.
To give you perspective, my Toyota RAV4 EV has a NiMH battery pack that weighs 1,000 lbs, holds 27 kW of energy and costs $25,000 (this cost is what Toytoa says, but is in no way indicative of what it would cost if made in large numbers. This is for one-off packs. Long story involving Chevron buying the patent.).
So, Toyota could make a Camry with three of these ultracaps and an AC150 motor from AC Propulsion and have a 200 mile car that would accellerate like a Porche 911, be as quiet as a bicycle and run on electricity generated by your 2 kW solar PV system. You could drive this car across the U.S., stopping every 200 miles for coffee while you fill it up in 5 minutes. You'd pay the equivalent of about 75 cents a gallon and you'd buy it from anyone who had an electric service hefty enough to pump that much energy into your car. While gas stations would surely want some of this business, you wouldn't have to buy from them, because any restaurant, store or even a municipality could sell it to you.
This can happen soon. The vehicles could be on the road within one-two years. All you have to do is not buy any new car until it has a plug on it. No Plug - No Deal. Tell that to your dealer.
Most families own two cars. I would love to buy an electric car because it would get me back and forth to work every single day, pollution free cheap and easy. If I ever needed to go on a long trip, I can just take my wife's car.
It would be perfect for this family, however a 100,000 is little to much for vehicle.
Uhh, that's a quite nice car, I read some about them some time ago too...
Regards.
A.
I would wait a little bit longer until better and cheaper cars come out.
great discussion.
check out the enthusiasts site
http://www.gm-volt.com
Hey Paul-
What exactly are you talking about?
"The fact that you see Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs) as viable belies your ignorance."
What belies ignorance is your inability to read and comprehend what you are reading. If you had read the whole article then you would know that I wasn't using "viable" fuel cells as the focal point of my argument.
Even though I never argued that fuel cells were the answer any time soon, if ever, fuel cells will find their way into cars, eventually. They might not be fuel cell vehicles, in the sense that they are fully powered by fuel cells, but, minimally, smaller fuel cell stacks will make their way into vehicles.
Interesting commentary... however, if you took time to familiarize yourself with the Tesla Motors website you'd realize that many of your complaints here were addressed.
Your first issue is with the exorbitant cost of the vehicle, and the fact that it only seats two. While these are quite true, you neglect to mention that the Tesla Roadster has been designed as a performance sports car. It was never intended to be a family sedan. In fact, the next automobile they are designing (code name WhiteStar) is a sedan! The outrageous price of the Roadster is not only familiar territory to performance car enthusiasts, but is also meant to offset the costs of being an upstart business and bringing a whole new technology to mass production.
Also, the folks at Tesla Motors have been totally aware that lithium ion batteries are occasionally prone to "thermal runaway", a euphemism for overheating 'till they catch fire or explode. Read their own description of what they've done to guarantee the battery heat will not get out of hand: http://teslamotors.com/engineering/safety.php (bottom of the page)
And your last sentence is especially ironic since the goal of Tesla Motors *is* to make electric cars an everyday, affordable, and viable solution. But a startup just don't have the capital to fling at these projects like the majors manufacturers do. Steps, steps...
Great article. The Eestor would make the price of a mass produced electric car comparable or less than an ICE (Internal Combustion Engin). Think about it, no fuel system, no transmission, no starter and the current cars already have computer controllers. They would be different in that they would need to control high voltage and current for the motor. We really can't compare the Tesla to something made on a production line and with 20K shaved off the energy storage device the future looks bright. When my family travels we rarely travel more than 200 miles without a rest stop and a plug in meter could be at rest stops. I would love to be able to buy an EV.
For the record, I love Tesla Motors.
Still, facts are facts. Consumer study after consumer study demonstrates that the far majority of Americans are not interested in automobiles with less than about 380 miles per filling.
Does this makes sense?
No. Most American families have two cars. One could be an electric with limited ranges, one could be a more conventional vehicle. Unfortunately, however, most Americans just are not ready to think this way yet. Nonetheless, that is reality.
Additionally, as for the Whitestar passenger vehicle, early reports indicate that it will cost at least $50,000 - far more than the average American can afford.
In 2010, if Americans can buy a 100 mpg Prius for $30,000 or a Chevy Volt for $30,000, the Tesla Whitestar might have a hard time competing.
Ultimately, I wish Tesla all the success in the World. The Tesla company is showing more courage than any American automaker has shown in decades - maybe ever.
Consumer study after consumer study demonstrates that the far majority of Americans are not interested in automobiles with less than about 380 miles per filling.
I question that finding, seeing as how my ever so efficient Accord with a traditional combustion engin, getting 30 some odd mpg and an 11 gallon tank can barely manage 330 miles before a refill, and that's if I roll in on fumes. You can't me my bitty car falls into the high end of consumer preferences for distance between refills.
Andy-
How old is your Honda?
Do some research. That number is even the low end. I'm not trying to make it up to demonstrate a point. That's what today's consumers expect.
Are these expectations intelligent?
That's a whole different issue.
Most people driving huge vehicles don't need their vehicles that big. Many just think bigger is safer, yet there are some smaller cars that are far more safe than any large SUV available. Yet, that fact doesn't match consumer expectations regarding safety.
Still, expecatations are important. It's today's reality and it has to be acknowledged and dealt with.
Tesla Motors was created by people with a dream for a better future. Their goal is to "eventually" create a clean, affordable, everyday car that travels further on a single charge. Whether that takes 3 or more generations of cars to do it is up to the technology at hand.
First was their two seat Roadster and next is the fairly less expensive, family geared SUV, White Star. There is no doubt in my mind that the third will be a cheaper, further traveling, quicker charging dream car.
They're not interested in selling to larger car companies like GM or Toyota. Their goal is clean air and less oil dependency, in a car that looks cool and drives even cooler.
If you judge them on the roadster alone you're wrong. You're not looking far enough into the future. Battery technology is growing by the second (did you know there are batteries out there that surpass lithium ion already {lithium solid polymer cells}), super conductors are being studied as i type...
Hopefully we can all accept this new type of transportation before the dinosaurs we drive now kill us all.
(I wish everyone would think about what they're breathing in every time they sat behind someone in bumper to bumper traffic. I wish everyone would truly take notice every time toxic vapors spewed out of a tractor trailer's smoke stack and into our precious atmosphere)
Why wouldn't you want cleaner air to breath it's a no-brainer, Humans need to work in conjunction with nature for us to survive and prosper, WHY NOT START WITH THE MOST OBVIOUS PROBLEM!!!
This post has been removed by the author.
It's not about looking far enough into the future. The fact is, Tesla is not going to save the planet on its own. It will take at least a few major automakers to make it happen soon enough.
I simply questioned Tesla executives whom criticized GM's Volt, which I thought was out of line. America needs GM to develop vehicles, such as the Volt, and I found Tesla's criticism of the Volt to be completely unfounded based on Tesla's record so far - the same criterion that Volt critics from Tesla used.
I criticize GM constantly, but I've met plenty of people from GM whom are just as passionate about the environment as anyone at Tesla. Yes, this type of thought has not yet permeated GM's executive branch, but I still have hope for American automakers - many at Tesla do not, and I disagree with that sentiment.
Most cars are made so that their tank capacity will have the vehicle's range between 330 to 380 miles.
My 2001 Audi S4 has a 15.6 gal tank - If I drive it like a sports car I get 20.5 mpg - If I drive it like a normal car and stay off the turbos (most of the time) I avg 24.5 mpg. Thus 320 to 380. My 97 Geo Metro (commuter car) used to get 44 mpg but now gets 39 mpg. It had an 8 gal tank. Thus 350ish.
My fiancé’s Focus gets 29ish mpg and has a 13 gal tank = 377.
I think the fact that MOST American cars are already designed for a 350 mile or more range is pretty evident. If it wasn’t so then manufactures could make smaller tanks, reduce weight (and cost) thus improving MPG ratings (maybe).
I think instead of attacking this man for his comments you could constructively correct some of his factual errors or post opinions of your own.
Why do you people attack so quickly – you appear to have a similar drive for efficient vehicles.
First, i understand his comments about the volt. They are a competitor, and if you can't bad mouth them then who can you? Second, everyone talks about BEV's like they are pollution free. Battery manufacturing is also bad for the environment. Just because you can't see it pouring out of someones car doesnt mean we dont need to worry about it. Batteries capable of more cycles will help, as will automated manufacturing. I am a battery engineer but have never seen a good analysis of the pollution created by battery manufacturing vs pumping oil out of the ground, refining it, and burning.
Johnson development, x nasa engineer, still does contract work for nasa, thin film lithium, outdoes lithium polymers. Tesla gets the badge of courage, their second car, the SUV, will probably be like a Mercedes with lots of features. There will be a market for it. Their third car, will be in your driveway.
Post a Comment
<< Home