Tesla Motors Is Delivering Cars 520
jamie found the news that Tesla Motors is delivering roadsters in California. (We've been following developments on the Tesla front for a couple of years now.) According to a letter from the CEO, "9 production Roadsters have arrived in California, another 3 arrive this weekend, and they will keep arriving at the rate of 4 per week... In fact, currently there are 27 Roadsters in various stages of assembly." The early owners must be proud, but there could be complications.
toys for billionaires (Score:3, Insightful)
now sergey and larry and elon have some toys to play with
Re:toys for billionaires (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect motor/generator combinations in replacement hubs for oilburners in less than 10 years,
Batteries is the main problem now.
Complications only if you can't plan ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
About those alleged "Complications" ... well yes sure, if you run out of stored power then you're in trouble. However, this isn't exclusive to electric cars, but applies similarly to liquid-fueled vehicles. If you set out on a voyage of 500 miles with only 200 miles of gasoline and you can't find anywhere to refuel, then you're in trouble too. Fortunately, most people understand power and refueling constraints and know how to plan ahead.
Admittedly, electrical recharging infrastructure is almost non-existent at the moment. However, this isn't a total disaster nor an unforseen "Complication". It's thoroughly forseen, so any early adopter who can add and subtract won't be travelling further than the stored energy allows, minus a safety margin since nobody likes getting stuck. In many cases, it'll be a second car anyway, mainly for short hops around the local area and short office commutes.
But let's look at the worst case scenario as well. When the power runs out in between recharge points, will it be a total disaster? Well, it certainly will be a big annoyance, but that's where the recovery services come in. All it takes is a phone call and some waiting in the comfort of your car while you sulk at your arithmetic incompetence, but soon your vehicle will be sitting snugly on the back of the recovery truck, and remedial transport sorted out. This is normal today in the event of breakdowns, and it will be just as normal when cars go electric, both for breakdowns and for recharging mishaps. (The vehicle recovery industry will certainly boom for a few decades, until vehicle recharging infrastructure is widespread.)
So while "Complications" will exist in the short term, they're not exceptional ones. We already have similar issues today, and solutions to them as well. It's just a matter of degree. For the next few years, trips in EVs will have to be a fair bit shorter on average. We can cope with that.
Re:Complications only if you can't plan ahead (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAIK, breakdown services (in the UK at least) bill you the full cost of delivering fuel to your vehicle / recovering it, since it was your own dumb fault for running out. I imagine that they'll pretty quickly start applying the same principle to electric vehicles, if it's not in their contracts already.
I'd venture that the big drawback is the slow charging, 3.5 hours on the Roadster. Forgetting to plug in at night means that you're either going nowhere in the morning, or you're going to have to cross your fingers and hope for a following wind.
Re:Complications only if you can't plan ahead (Score:2, Insightful)
A person can walk to a gas station and buy 2 or 3 gallons of gasoline and carry it to their car. That isn't ever going to happen with batteries.
(that doesn't make batteries useless or anything, but there is a fundamental difference in the convenience and portability of the energy storage)
Re:Now only if... (Score:5, Insightful)
They did occasionally but as long as petrol was cheap, there was not very much demand. Also, the car industry is a very conservative one which rarely tries something dramatically new. Most of them would rather wait for the competition to take the risk, and then copy the idea if it worked.
The last such attempt was Toyota releasing the Prius, which was a success. Now, various car makes have released hybrids or are working on them (which confirms the wait and copy attitude).
On the positive side, I think introducing hybrid technology is a breakthrough because it allows the industry to make progress in its traditional way of little steps. The "plug-in hybrid" is one of those: ;-)
Make the batteries larger and add a charger - nothing spectacular and risky here
Greenies don't like nuclear (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact they don't like any form of power generation.
nuclear = [insert glowing green fluffy sheep horror stories]
fossil = [insert global meltdown story]
wind power = [insert migrating insert birds killed by blades sob fest] or [blot on lovely landscape rant]
tidal power = [insert moan about marsh habitat of less spotted wading snot gobler flooded]
Solar power = [insert some fucking rare tortoise issue]
hydro = [insert whinge about flooded valleys/woodlands/displace peasents etc etc]
You just can't win with this brainless hippies.
Re:Greenies don't like nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow.
Humans are a parasitic species and like a virus infestation on the Earth.
That's +5 Insightful (regarding the thinking of greenie wackos, that is).
And you thought "religious people" were dangerous.
Re:Greenies don't like nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether you agree with them of not, hippies' (sometimes overzealous) efforts to bring to everyone's attention the effect humans have on the world is not ignorable.
So what's their solution? Kill off the whole human race?
Sure, no power generation method is perfect, but we should be selecting the best options rather than rejecting all of them.
Re:Why not sooner? (Score:2, Insightful)
But a $30000 commuter vehicle may well make economic sense.
again only to the rich. Call me when you have a $15,000 Commuter vehicle. as 90% of the population in the United states can barely afford that price. $30,000? Hell most people cant even think of paying that much for a new car. It's why Hybrids are only in the hands of the rich people and not the poor. I dont see the bulk of the population driving the priuses and other hybrids. Maybe it's because Most people make less than $45,000 a year. and the payment on a $30,000 car is more than they pay for their rent.
Re:Now only if... (Score:2, Insightful)
Big Oil has been buying and burying patents for 50 years. So the "why haven't we seen cheap, ultra-efficient cars?" question is answered by, "BIG OIL wants it that way."
Re:Just imagine this thing run over by an SUV (Score:3, Insightful)
You could say the same for any roadster.
Re:Greenies don't like nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
Also as unbelievable as it seems people are not going to go back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle living in teepies in the woods. They want electricity so the greens can either keep on rejecting every form of power generation and eventually they just end up ignored as a bunch of tedious ranting reactionaries who dish up endless problems but no solutions, or they start using what common sense they have and realise that the best option is sometimes a compromise.
Re:How much more efficient is an electric Car? (Score:3, Insightful)
So now that we all want to switch to an electric car, I have to ask, how much more efficient is an electric car and also, roughly how much would one reduce my CO2 output?
According to the company website, if you extract a megajoule of natural gas (a major source of electricity) out of the ground, convert it to electricity, transmit it over the grid to your Tesla, you can travel well over 1 km. A VW Diesel rabbit ( a very small, efficient car) can get you a bit less than half a km on a Mj. So, this car is much more efficient if you are talking about moving a single person a km. You can probably squeeze four people into the VW, which would be approximately as efficient per passenger mile as this car with two persons in it. If you're driving anything that gets less than 30mpg, you'll probably need to have five or more people in the car before you can effectively counter the Tesla motor driver's smugness.
With respect to CO2, according to the company web site, California gets over 40% of its electricity from sources with no net CO2 emission. If you are traveling on long trips on uncongested highways, you'll probably get some net CO2 reductions, but not as much as if you take trips that are inefficient for ICE, such as city travel or travel on congested roads. Short of bicycling or taking public transportation (heaven forbid), you'd be hard pressed to cut down your personal CO2 per mile more.
The "sweeping emissions under the carpet" argument is correct in stating that electric car emissions aren't zero, but it's wishful (???) thinking that electric vehicles emit more net pollution than ICE cars -- even extremely efficient ICE cars. Unfortunately (???) the $100,000 grapes are not sour in this case.
Re:toys for billionaires (Score:1, Insightful)
When will this ignorant meme die?
Re:Now only if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents are public informsation...
Find 5 patents that would have led to ultra efficient cars and aren't being used.
If "Big Oil" has been buying up patents for 50 years than we have at least 30 years of inventions no longer under patent protection...where are those inventions?
The reality is that while Oil companies probably have tried to squash some tech, the basic laws of thermodynamics suggest that internal combustion engines are about as efficient as they are going to get.
Battery tech is also progressing very quickly (Microsoft, IBM etc are pushing for better batteries and can compete with oil companies) however most of the really efficient and high power batteries are due to nano-type materials, ultra pure processing and extremely fine manufacturing controls. Until very recently these techniques were impossible to test and those that were testable were prohibitively expensive to produce.
If you want to claim a conspiracy, you must offer some proof.
Re:Now only if... (Score:2, Insightful)
"If "everybody knows" such-and-such, then it ain't so, by at least ten thousand to one."
Robert Heinlein.
Now, care to exercise your brain and provide a few facts, or will you continue being a conspiracy theory slacker? Does Big Oil control China and India? Do you really feel (notice I didn't write "think") that those nations would hold off deploying superior technologies if it gave them a competitive edge?
Re:Greenies don't like nuclear (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you're a very reasonable man (or woman) but you have to admit that it at times seems like some of your fellow "greenies" are impossible to please. Maybe it's not all the same ones but no matter what form of power generation is suggested there's always a small and usually loud group ready to throw up signs and studies as to why that suggestion will lead to something terrible and unacceptable.
Re:Why not sooner? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look around on the highway at all the $30k+ cars that pass you - if there are that many rich people out there, you might want to adjust your definitions a little.
Ah, I guess that explains your perceptions. No middle.
Re:I can't wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the batteries in these cars last as long as my laptop batteries have, the owners are in for some serious disappointment.
The problem with your laptop batteries is due to the fact that they haven't been looked after properly. In order to get serious lifetime out of li-ions, you need to keep them cool. The battery pack in a Tesla is air-conditioned. The battery pack in your laptop is slung right next to a ridiculously hot CPU and hard drive, and has almost zero airflow.
Re:Now only if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what? I knew someone that bought an electric car back in I think 72!
Don't blame the car makers blame physics and customers.
The reason that liquid hydrocarbon fuels have been so popular for cars is because they are a great solution for powering cars.
Build an electric car that can take four people and luggage 300 miles on charge. Oh and the recharge time has to be five minutes, battery life has to be 150,000 miles and the cost? Under $20,000. That is what it would take to be a better car then a Mazda 3.
The real problem has nothing to do with the auto companies. It has everything to do with us.
People bought giant SUVs and Pickups just for style and the fact they felt safer. Everybody thought I was nuts because I actually like smaller cars. I don't have kids yet and I think smaller cars are more fun to drive.
Companies work on the premise that you should give the customer what they want. We wanted big SUVs and trucks and not small cars and minivans.
Now customers want more fuel efficient vehicles. It takes a while to make the change.
Now what I find funny is that back in 84 a car that went 0-60 under 10 seconds was quick.
Now that is considered slow.
Re:Now only if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Greenies don't like nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
Inherently safer designs like pebble bed [wikipedia.org] reactors and molten salt [wikipedia.org] reactors are not being used, rather the same old Three Mile Island design is proposed for new plants.
Now of course, there are people who are against any sort of nuclear power, regardless. But I think that's largely because the past "Nuclear Power is perfectly safe" propaganda has made them untrusting of any statements about nuclear safety and/or dangers.
I grew up 13 miles downriver from Three Mile Island. So I know a lot of people with an axe to grind about nuclear safety; and most of them are not really "Greenies". Many of them still believe they haven't been told the whole truth about the accident there, much the way folks in the wider US population of a given age don't neccesarily believe they've been told the whole truth about the Kennedy assassination... So I think to win those folks over, you need a demonstrably safer design, and you need to really explain the details.
Good Supercar (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised folks are missing one important point about this car. Let's say you're rich and you want to buy a supercar. Most gas powered supercars use huge amounts of gas. After all they're not designed to save fuel. They're designed to go fast. This thing is an electric and generally very efficient so right away you've helped the environment there by not burning huge amounts of gas. At $100,000 the price is cheaper than most high end sports cars and being rare that will look good too. Sure it doesn't have much range but how often do you take your car on cross-country trips. Hell if you're rich, how often would you seriously want to spend hours driving across country versus taking a plane? It's range is great for most normal commutes in the city. It's also very likely highly reliable too being that it has very few parts. So yes, this isn't your common man's car but for the rich or enthusiast this seems like a good idea.
My horse gets me home even when I'm asleep (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the comments here resemble the same kind of skeptical remarks that were made when the first automobiles came out. They were outrageously expensive. They got flat tires constantly. You almost needed to keep a team of horses on retainer to drag the thing home after one of the innumerable breakdowns. Et cetera. Et cetera.
No new technology leaps full-blown into existence without glitches, screw-ups and mistakes (yes, I know about the 100-year-old electrics, but a lot has changed). They're part of the territory, especially where a complete changeover in something as basic as personal transportation is concerned. What's needed is the vision and will to change, and the guts to persevere through inevitable problems to something that works. That's what seems to be missing these days.
I wonder what the smog situation would look like in a city where most two-car families included an electric for local jaunts and basic running around, and a regular car for longer trips? I recall seeing many parking lots with electrical outlets available at each space for block heaters, back when cold weather presented a starting problem for regular cars. Perhaps they might appear again to serve next-generation electrics. I have no idea what shape the actual solutions will take, but I'm quite confident that solutions would be found, once a decision is made to move away from gasoline-powered vehicles.
I'm certain of one thing: as long as those with a vested interest in the status quo are allowed to present every mistake as a disaster, every bump in the road as an insurmountable mountain, nothing will be accomplished.
Re:Greenies don't like nuclear (Score:3, Insightful)
For some of the more radical ones, it is. Really.
Doesn't seem to be a whole lot of point in saving the planet if there's no one around to experience it...
Re:Now only if... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now only if... (Score:3, Insightful)
People bought giant SUVs and Pickups just for style and the fact they felt safer.
Actually, I have a pickup truck to haul things that won't fit in the trunk or on top of a car, or if they do would damage the paint job. (Try putting a load of 2X4s or a cubic yard of topsoil in your car). Also, my wife drives it when we get standing water in the streets during bad rain storms (her minivan has a tendency to stall in wet conditions).
I take the bus to work - but I won't give up my truck because it has come in handy over the years for various projects. (it is 6 years old)
It mostly sits in the driveway - but what I save riding the bus more than pays to keep the tank full for when we do need it.
If they made a cost effective electric or hydrogen powered pickup truck that could do all that - then I would buy it. Right now the exotic fuel vehicles are pointed toward a) commuters, b) high end sports car collectors. When they make a truck that I can afford - give me a call.
Most generalizations are not a complete representation of reality.
You do realize (Score:3, Insightful)
that your reply was perfect in demonstrating the OPs case don't you.
That point is, you can't make all people happy but we are nearly stuck simply because with the current court system we might actually have to.
Re:Now only if... (Score:4, Insightful)
Honda Civic Hybrid, 4.8 years, $2,803 premium over Civic LX;
Mercury Mariner Hybrid, 6.4 years, $4,904 premium over standard Mariner;
Lexus' V-6 powered RX 400h hybrid SUV, 6.4 years, $4,407 premium over conventional V-6
powered RX350;
Saturn Vue Greenline, 7.1 years, $4,770 over Vue XE;
Ford Escape Hybrid, 7.3 years, $4,161 over Escape XLT;
V-6 Lexus GS450h, 7.7 years, $2,722 over V-8 powered GS460
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/05/soaring-gas-prices-shrink-hybrid-payback-period-boost-small-car-sales-and-sink-big-trucks.html [edmunds.com]
,br> Maybe you could do me a favor and point to a source that says 2 to 3 months?
Granted, I did not take into account the Tax Credits,
Re:Coal powered cars. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true and/or true but irrelevant. Power plants and car engines are totally different, and, not surprisingly, power plants are much more efficient than your car engine. Power plants use efficient multi-stage steam turbines or which operate at near ideal conditions most of the time. Your car engine on the other hand needs to warm up to operating temperature when you first start it, accelerate, decelerate, idle at stop lights etc. An automobile engine has a theoretical maximum efficiency of 37%, and in the real world average about 20%. A thermal power plant can be as high as 60% efficient, and average is usually near maximum. Electric cars don't consume energy when stopped at a light, and with regen braking, can gain back some of the energy use to accelerate when they have to decelerate.
Bottom line, when you take into account all factors, including distribution losses and battery/charger losses, the electric car still produces about 1/2 the pollution of a gasoline powered car.