|
Elon and Martin both recognize the synergy between solar panels and electric cars. As Martin pointed out to Gov. Schwarzenegger, a million solar rooftops in California will not reduce California’s oil dependency by one drop unless we have electric cars also.
You have asked us quite a few questions about photovoltaic cells. Elon and Martin will answer a few of them here:
Question: Doesn’t it take more energy to produce a solar panel than that panel will ever produce in its serviceable life?
Elon: The idea that a photovoltaic (PV) solar panel cannot pay back its energy investment is flat out wrong by a huge margin, but I’ve heard it repeated by many otherwise intelligent people.
Martin: This reminds me of otherwise intelligent people who think of hydrogen as a fuel – who don’t realize that it takes lots more energy to create hydrogen gas and pressurize it than you could ever get out of it with a fuel cell (or any other way).
Elon: Right. The analysis for photovoltaics is straightforward and has been done by disparate researchers around the world, with the payback results in recent studies varying only by a year or two.
The most common type of solar panel uses single- or multi-crystalline silicon wafers, and is offered by a wide variety of manufacturers, from Sanyo in Japan to Renewable Energy Corporation in Norway to Sunpower in California. Creating the silicon crystal is by far the most energy intensive part of the process, followed by various and sundry manufacturing steps, such as cutting the silicon into wafers, turning the wafers into cells and assembling the cells into modules.
The cumulative energy used can be summed up and accounted for both theoretically (eg. paper by Alsema, Frankl & Kato ) and empirically (eg. paper by Knapp & Jester).
In a modern manufacturing plant, the energy needed to create a frameless PV module from semiconductor scrap material is estimated to be around 600 kWh/m2 for monocrystalline cells and 420 kWh/m2 for multicrystalline cells (source: www.nrel.gov). A big variable is how thin the silicon wafer can be sliced. For ultra-thin cells, like those from Sunpower, the energy to produce a module may be considerably lower.
Taking the monocrystalline example:
| Solar incidence (US): | 1825 kWh/m2/year |
| Module efficiency: | 18% (Sunpower) |
| Energy lost in system: | 20% (Due to inverter, wires, cell temperature, etc.) |
| Energy to create module: | 600 kWh/m2 (National Renewable Energy Lab.) |
| … to build aluminum frame: | 80 kWh/m2 (from Alsema et al) |
The above results in a payback period of roughly 2 and a half years. The NREL study similarly calculates the payback period for polycrystalline panels to be 3-5 years, and amorphous silicon panels to be 0.5-2 years. Given that most modules have a 25 year warranty and an expected useful life in excess of 30 years, this indicates about a ten to one advantage for energy generated versus consumed.
Not accounted for is the energy cost of installing the modules, which is quite nebulous and varies depending on the efficiency of the installer. However, also not accounted for is the potential to use reflectors to concentrate solar energy, which can improve the payback period by a factor of two or more, and the ongoing improvements in conversion efficiency and silicon usage efficiency. Additionally, the aluminum frame is completely recyclable, and this recoverable energy is not accounted for.
Some References:J. Mason, “Life Cycle Analysis of a Field, Grid-Connected, Multi-Crystalline PV Plant: A Case Study of Tucson Electric Power’s Springerville PV Plant.” Final report prepared for Tucson Electric Power, November 2004.
K. Knapp; T.L. Jester, “An Empirical Perspective on the Energy Payback Time for PV Modules.” Solar 2000 Conference, Madison, WI, June 16-21, 2000.
E. Alsema, “Energy Requirements and CO2Mitigation Potential of PV Systems,” Photovoltaics and the Environment, Keystone, CO. Workshop Proceedings, July 1998.
Question: How many solar panels do I need to power my Tesla Roadster?
Martin: The Tesla Roadster consumes about 200 watt-hours per mile. Suppose you drove 35 miles per day on average (12,775 miles per year). You would need to generate 2.6 MWh/year.
By Elon’s math, monocrystalline solar panels generate about 263 kWh/m2/year in the USA. So you would need about 9.7 square meters of solar panels (a square about 10 feet on a side) to completely offset the energy consumed by your Tesla Roadster.
Elon: Obviously, you can’t fit these on the roof of your car. But you can hire a company like Solar City to install them on your house – where the panels are mounted at the right angle, and are in the shade as little as possible.
Martin: And if you get a time-of-use meter from your power company, you sell solar energy to the power company during the day at a high rate, and buy energy back at night to charge your Tesla Roadster at a lower rate. This gives you about 2:1 leverage, meaning that you need an array only 5’ X 10’ to completely offset the *cost* of energy for your Roadster.
Question: Why don’t you put solar panels on the car to at least partially offset the energy consumed by the car?
Martin: The only practical place to put panels on the Roadster is the roof (about 1 square meter). Ideally, this would then generate 263 kWh/year. However, the Roadster won’t always be in the sun, and it won’t be at its ideal angle. A 60% de-rating would be generous to account for shade and suboptimal angles, so the panel would generate about 150 kWh/year – driving the car an additional 2 miles per day. This is not even a 1% increase in driving range!
Elon: Although the amount of energy that could be recaptured from the top of the Roadster is small, I originally pushed very hard to have this option available. Martin argued that such panels would only be decoration.
Martin: Fins on a ’59 Caddy…
Elon: … Thank you Martin …But his real reason was that he needed to keep his engineering resources focused on completing the Tesla Roadster itself.
Martin: We may one day offer a solar-roof option for the Roadster. Perhaps an aftermarket company will beat us to it. In the mean time, we will partner with solar providers like Solar City to offer rooftop-based solar options for Tesla owners. We’d like to see a modular solar carport as well.
Question: Why don’t you put solar panels in front of the headlights to charge the batteries while the lights are on?
Editor: Conservation of Energy.
Posted in the categories: Energy Efficiency, Solar Power
Excellent post Elon, Martin. I love how down-to-Earth you all are, yet are perfectly comfortable whipping out a little bit of math and a whole lot of research papers to prove your points.
My favorite work of AC Propulsion is their constant push to remind us that we already have an good (and far-reaching) energy distribution system already in place.
I have to agree that unless you plan on parking in the middle of a field for weeks on end (good sun coverage, plenty of time to charge, but nowhere near an outlet), there’s really no reason to have the solar panels on the vehicle. However, having them on your home means that you’re generating energy for most, if not all, of your driving and balancing the power availability in your area at the same time (we could easily say goodbye to brownouts).
Ha. That last question made me smile. However, it does remind me of a question about headlights and driving time. I would guess that driving with the headlights on would shorten the range. Have you determined how much of an impact driving at night would have on your range? Purely curious.
—-
Editor’s Answer: From a previous blog answer:
“We will also publish actual electrical loads for lights, A/C, the heater, the stereo, etc. once they have mean accurately measured. I am certain that many Tesla drivers will learn to tweak their driving to maximize range - though with 250 miles range (or even 200 miles range!) this won’t be necessary for most daily driving, including when stuck in traffic.”
Full text can be found by searching here.
I completely understand the limited output of solar panels mounted on the roadster. I think part of the allure is not mere range extension, but theoretical grid independence. Hypothetically, even if the Roadster was stranded off-grid, in the middle of nowhere, with a depleted battery, it would retain mobility, even if one had to wait for quite some time in order to recharge the battery pack.
Another informative and insightful blog. People don’t seem to realize that energy independence for America and the environment is possible, even cost effective, right now. There is not a place in America where either solar, wind, or nuclear power will not work. The payback time on the cost of solar panels ranges up to 9 years. They last upwards of 30. 21 years of “free” electricity was cost effective last time I checked. They can even be cheaper up front if people build them into mortgages when they purchase their house. If every home in America had either solar panels or roof mounted wind turbines…power plants would cease to be power plants at all. They’d just be giant batteries, redistribution centers, that took in energy from those producing excess energy and redistributing it to those using more than they produced. Add to that everyone driving an electric car, and viola. You have 100% cost effective, environmentally friendly, energy independence. No coal, no oil, no pollution, No Limits!! Keep up the good work guys. A lot of people are rooting for you.
I’m somewhat disappointed that nobody has responded to my October 1 post about the PML Mini. In the spirit of keeping this a forum for ideas rather than a fan club, let’s take a look at what appears to be a technological alternative to the path chosen by Tesla.
www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/country/ecf/newsID/2060724.006/mini/pml-builds-640
hp-electric-mini
If the published specifications and performance of this car are accurate, it contradicts much of the information Martin has been presenting in this forum.
According to the builders:
- The Mini has 640 hp and acceleration performance on the same level as the Tesla.
- It has a four hour range before the axuillary generator must be started.
- It achieves this performance using an ultracapacacitor and a Lithium Polymer battery.
This combination allows very rapid charge and discharge rates.
(Tesla says these devices have inadequate power density to power an EV in their current form)
- The Mini has a much more sophisticated drive system than the Tesla, employing four wheel motors which perform all drive and braking functions, and provide active full time ABS and traction control.
- These wheel motors weigh less than 30 pounds each and replace the outboard brake disc, caliper and wheel hub. Thus the unsprung weight of each wheel should be as light or perhaps even lighter than a conventionl drive system like the Tesla uses.
(Tesla says that wheel motors have too much unsprung weight for a performance automobile.)
- The auxilariry gas generater on the PML Mini weighs only 15kg, and is the size of a small suitcase, and should be quite inexpensive. It provides enough energy imput for the car to maintain 60-70 mph, and gives the car essentially unlimited range. It can remain running during lunch breaks and at night on cross country trips to keep charge at high-performance levels. Charging can also be plug-in.
(Tesla says that auxiliary generators are impractical and add to much complexity to EV’s.)
So how about it Martin, —- is this design vaporware, or has the leading edge of technology already passed you by?
RDE
Now you’re making me feel guilty for distracting you. I didn’t expect you to drop everything and address my post about the sustainability of PV.
I guess now that this issue is settled, you can get back to making progress on the Roadster.
Keep up the great work!
Has Telsa Motors considered producing an electric motorcycle? Interesting possibilities for consumer and police market especially if you can similar perofrmance as your roadster. Maybe you all can be like BMW and amke great cars and motorcycles with a heavy green edge.
I was looking forward to this post. I’ve been refreshing the page multiple times everyday and its funny that the post was about solar cells. I *just* sent an email to RoseStreet Labs about their up-and-coming ultra-high efficiency photovoltaics looking to get some more information about them. I’m unsure whether or not they use multiple band gap semiconductors but I was wondering if anyone knew how far off this technology is from becoming mainstream in photovoltaics or if this will even take off.
Ryan
www.teslamotorsclub.com -feel free to visit for more discussion.
RDE, we are talking about this on www.teslamotorsclub.com and www.electricperformance.com if you want to check it out.
Very interesting post. You guys are very good at making your point
and I have not heard an arguement that can compete with yours.
Thanks
RDE, thank you for posting the information on the PML Mini again. I would have responded but never saw your post. You clearly stay well-informed about new technologies. I would like to email you personally but don’t want to make my email public knowledge.
I enjoyed reading the PML Mini article. Wheel motors are the way to go with a mass market electric vehicle. I’ve always believed this. Handling issues from unsprung weight can be resolved by paying more attention to wheel design and suspension. PML is simply proving what I’ve always believed. The design benefits of electric wheel motors are huge. Eliminating the chassis and mechanical drive train is as cool as it gets.
Design/Engineering Benefits
- Wheel motors eliminate 400+ pounds of mechanical junk that wears out and breaks. Throw the mechanical drive train into the museum. How cool is that? The reduction in vehicle weight alone makes wheel motors worth every cent!
- Since wheel motors apply energy directly to the wheels, you significantly lower the loss of mechanical energy (mechanical drive trains eat so much energy it’s ridiculous). Consequently, not only are you improving efficiency by reducing weight, you’re also improving efficiency by eliminating energy-cosuming, mechanical junk!
- First of all, electric motors reduce power train complexity immensely by themselves. With wheel motors, companies would reduce power train complexity by another 50%. SIMPLIFY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE (the best engineering advise I’ve ever received).
- Since the motors are in the wheels, designers have virtually free reign to design comfortable cabins, etc. This benefit alone would revolutionize vehicle design and appearance.
- Eliminating the stupid mechanical drive train lets companies focus more resources on designing a better battery — the difference maker with EVs!
Performance/Safety Benefits
- Wheel motors are small, compact, uber-efficient power plants that 100% rock! You want responsive power? Nothing is more responsive than electric motors on all 4 wheels!
- By their very nature, wheel motors deliver all wheel drive. All wheel drive vehicles are always more stable and responsive. If you don’t believe me, test drive a WRX and take a corner at 30 MPH. The best way to stay safe is to avoid accidents altogether.
- Wheel motors greatly simplify safety design. Engineers don’t have to worry about how an 500+ pound engine/transmission affects crumple zones. I can’t emphasize enough how huge this would be (especially with frontal crash tests)! With wheel motors, engineers could could easily improve vehicle safety by over 25%.
Manufacturing Benefits
- Simplify the vehicle and you’ll simplify the manfucaturing even more. Furthermore, less parts = greater manufacturing flexibility = reduced cost per vehicle = more profit per vehicle.
- You want to reduce manufacturing costs across different vehicles? Use wheel motors! Wheel motors mazimize shared components.
- You don’t want to pay inflated autoworkers union wages. Use wheel motors! Less parts to assemble = less assembly workers.
Maintenance Benefits
- Less moving parts = more dependable vehicle 100% of the time!
- Need to replace a motor? No problem. It only weighs 30-50 pounds and all you have to do is take off a wheel. One person could do it. Less labor and less component weight = less repair expense.
Wheel motors are the future. Hopefully, Tesla will reexamine the viability of using wheel motors in future EV models.
If reverse reverses the direction of the motor , does it do 0-60 in under 4 seconds in reverse?
Solar has always been the answer in my book-an answer only waiting for technology to improve. It’s small, thin, easy to install, out of the way: up on the roof-and the world has plenty of roofs already (alright), sitting there unused. Yep-solar is Perfect .Next phase is to make good, cheap storage systems to use the power at night (fuel cells ?)-then the whole issue is solved-as in ” hasta la vista fossil fuels”(in terms of cars & home/building power). I’m really way-stoked about companies like Nanosolar-the impact could/should be spectacular, if their systerm costs 1/10 of current ones, like they say. What’s going to happen one day is you’re going to be able to go to Lowe’s or Home Depot and order solar like you do floor tile & carpet, and next day it’s installed-including the fuel cells for night use-that’s what’s going to happen. Companies like “Solar City” should try to JV with companies like Lowe’s-or else find a way to have a local outlet in every city-like stores that sell cell phones. If it’s all made as easy as getting flooring installed, and if the price is what Nanosolar projects, and to top it all off you can power your Tesla Sports Sedan- this is going to be HUGE. I read where at least 75% of people in the country are in favor of environmental protection-cutting across all political/religious divides. Yep: HUGE- and 2007 will be a watershed year, and 2009 another-when the sports sedan comes out, and “Jackass George” goes out.
Given that the energy payoff for solar panels is positive, there’s a secondary benefit to adoption of the technology that is probably obvious, but I’d like to mention it anyway:
As solar and other clean energy sources proliferate we are moving closer to the point at which renewable sources power the manufacturing of renewable sources (solar panels power the solar panel plant).
P.S. to above- talking about “stores that sell cell phones”, there’s such a store in a mall where I live that is basically a walk-in, high-tech looking kiosk in the middle of the mall circulation space. Design such a small kiosk for Tesla & Solar City-you can see the whole package in one place, and order it all there.The kiosk(s) could travel to malls around the country, like a special exhibit-not a permanent rented space. Make it high design, like “Apple” stores (but a little less white, perhaps). If I were “Solar City” I’d use Nanosolar-type sheet “cells” . I heard some Chinese company is making cheaper, super-thin silicon cells-but I don’t think they can be as cheap as the Nanosolar type .
Another interesting Electric-Solar hybrid vehicle (Venturi - Astrolab):
www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/astrolab_concept_car.html
www.gizmag.com/go/6256/
www.venturi.fr/index.php?article88
# Joe Roth wrote on October 11th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
# … an electric motorcycle?
www.gizmag.com/go/4105/
www.rmoto.com/home.html
electricmotorcycles.net/modules/wordpress/
www.electricmotorsport.com/
www.electricmoto.com/
www.electricross.com/
www.reish.net/ebike/
www.tlb.org/scooter.html
Just checked out RDE’s PML Mini site-looks good to me. The very first car Ferdinand Porsche built (in 1898) was a “hydrid” -that had elect. motors on all 4 wheels, powered by a gas engine (!)-broke some speed records-he demonstrated it by winning hill climb races. It’s mentioned on Wikipedia under “hybrid vehicules”.
The most efficient multijunction concentrator solar cells now achieve 40% efficiency (see upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Nrel_best_research_pv_cell_efficiencies.png). Large, professionally managed, optimally sited PV installations probably make more economic sense. Such installations can also buy in enough volume to get significant discounts from vendors.
The City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU) “Palo Alto Green” allows customers to purchase their power from a 100% renewable mix. It’s a much easier and faster way for people to reach their goal of 100% green driving. See “Why an electric car?” on JB Straubel’s web page www.jstraubel.com/944EV/EVproject.htm and more details on the Utilities’ web page www.cpau.com/programs/green/gindex.html .
Lobbying dollars can provide a fantastic return on investment . Perhaps Tesla Motors could start lobbying for more large power companies to follow CPAU’s example?
I am so impressed with the Tesla car, I certainly want one are there any plans for exporting to Australia. I really honour the creators for there forseeing ingenuity.
thanks
I wont one for sure.
All the best
dennis
Samuel and RDE - ever read about Mitsubishi’s In Wheel Elecric Vehicle (MIEV)? They have proto-ed two - including a quick Lancer. They plan to launch a Li-Ion City EV around 2008/9. See the following links:
tinyurl.com/cuq22
tinyurl.com/fgghv
tinyurl.com/f96r6
tinyurl.com/zcatq
How about a solar car cover? This might help all those folks who complain about not being able to fit their EVs in the garage.
I went to the www.pmlflightlink.com/motors/EW_details.html and read that their most powerful motor is rated at 20 Hp and weighs 39 lbs. Even their 30 second stall torque is 4 times (can I apply the factor to Hp and get 80Hp for 30 sec?). I guess the 640 Hp is peak for less time. Also they say brakes are not required! So if you are stopped on a slope at a red light then you have a choise of using power to maintain position or pulling on the hand brake. Neither is optimum. I suspect that even their dual redundancy system would not allow them to build a car without conventional brakes. I also wonder how much energy is used up in the water cooling system. I do agree that a 4 wheel drive system is highly desirable. I have not seen anybody give performane ratings on regenerative braking like what is the minimum speed it is effective and how far does the car go from 60mph to this minimum speed without mechanical brakes?
On another note I too am wondering when RoseStreetLabs will be able to market their 50% to 75% efficient solar cells and for how much.
Samuel Maxey, thanks for that summary. The benefits seem many but I have one concern seeing how the motors will be absorbing every shock from the road. What if you sometimes drive over rougher roads? I don’t mean mountain trails, but normal everyday asphalt roads in not so good condition? If each motor is directly subjected to each shock directly at the wheel, wouldn’t it substantially affect the lifespan of the motors?
PML Mini again???????? Ok—anybody can crank out a self promotion….but where’s the beef???
Can someone give a link to a video of the car OFF the set of wood blocks that are holding it and actually going down the road? And what the halibut are wood blocks doing around a “high performance car”…keeping it from flying off into space????
Can someone link to a SALES site where we can BUY the PML Mini for 2007-08-09 delivery????
Its great to offer up information about ideas….but other than TESLA, everybody else is off in vaporware land or the land of super ugly/highpriced weirdo cars.
Now as to wheel motors—great—just prove the technology—get 50000 road miles on them and actually have a car to sell to the public.
I’m still a little confused on the Tesla stats. The presentation in another blog claimed battery efficiency of 85%. I was under the impression that it was not chemically possible with any material to make a batteries over 40% efficiency. For long time I strongly wanted to see flywheel batteries more seriously considered. Flywheel batteries have evergy densities as high as raw gasoline, but their cost are also a little high for the current market.
I’ll be the first to admit President Bush has not been a friend to the environment, or energy independence,….but name a modern American President who has. We had eight years of Clinton/Gore and they did nothing. Under their watch, we became ever more dependent on fossil fuels. Don’t blame one guy for the missteps of a generation of politicians.
1 square meter on the top would only power 1/9 of the car’s electric needs. Not a significant amount… it would extend the driving range from 250 to about 275 in a best case scenario. Put the panels where they are going to be most efficient, on the roof of a house.
about how much does 1 square meter of photovoltaics cost?
For fans of the Tesla, you can vote for it in the peoples choice awards www.cardomain.com/features/peopleschoice.
I hope they win!
Bob.
I’ve looked into adding solar panels to my home, and turnkey quotes are on the order of $20,000 - $40,000. My electric bill is on the order of $150/month. I calculate it would take quite a long time to recover costs, unless the PV system turned into a money making machine.
Capital investment is an obvious problem for individuals. Corporations have to make them as well in order to produce power, but as they do that for a living, they have investment discipline, greater leverage, and diminishing costs with greater scale.
However, there are some ways solar systems could be placed in closer reach for individuals. New home construction is one example. When I bought a new home recently I wasn’t given the option of having the builders add solar. If it was, the cost would be lower. Since they had to build a roof anyway, it would only be the incremental cost. With new home construction you also have the option of adding a system that is aesthetically pleasing. e.g. PV shingles look similar to and blend in with standard asphalt shingles. www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/components/envelope/roofing/solar.html
Certainly the government could require of real estate developers that if they want a permit to build on undeveloped land, they must at least offer solar as an *option* to new homes. Buyers would be much more likely to choose it if it looked good, and if the cost could be thrown into the home loan at the same lower interest rate.
Another idea is for homeowner associations (and electric car companies!) to negotiate group discounts and financing options the same way large companies negotiate health insurance for their workers.
Of interest:
www.epsa.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=23930
I imagine when Tesla comes out with a minivan in 10 years or so, and quantum-dot (or other >40% efficient) cells are becoming the norm, we will see their vehicles sporting some sort of ’solar skin’. Until then, keeping it inexpensive and simple, like they’ve done with the batteries, seems to be working for them.
I really like the idea of a solar car cover, although it would seem more easily stolen than “solar panel paint” on car or panels built into the body. To mitigate the prospect of theft or damage, this cover would have to be relatively inexpensive, as well. Are we at or nearing the point where the flexible, durable, inexpensive solar film necessary to make such a product actually exists? It would seem to be a spectacular opportunity for an aftermarket accessory manufacturer, especially as it wouldn’t just be useful with electrics or plug-in hybrids, but also with regular cars, in order to trickle charge a conventional battery.
Let’s also keep in mind, however, that the best charging rates so far discussed for a Roadster plugged into home wiring would “pour” only between 11 and 22 “miles of range” into the Roadster’s battery per hour — a current of up to 21-41 amps at 110V and 10-21 amps at 220V, sustained over the full hour. Even a full solar car cover wouldn’t begin to approach that kind of energy delivery on a very sunny day: only a part of the cover would ever be at the optimum angle for conversion, for instance. As much as I like the idea of a solar car cover, then, I can’t see much practical utility for it in the context of a fully electric car, except, perhaps, as the emergency charger of last resort.
Just wanted to pass along a thanks, great info about solar.
Regarding development challenges. I would strongly encourage to query any of the commitee members on ASME, SAE, IEEE, NEC, NEMA etc.. to get some leads on either contract consulting and/or head count support to find “good fit” candidates to help your endevour. If there is any particular need in this area, these people are an excellent resource for getting solutions to very difficult challenges.
As a technical professional I can sympathize with the extraordinary venture you all are undertaking. Those 100hr weeks can be taxing, but remember you all are doing something that most of us can only dream of. The prize will be sweeter then anything you have ever imagined.
I also heard today on MPR our govenor stated we all will most likley be driving alternative vehicles within 5-10 years. He mentioned specifically Electric cars that go 500 Miles per charge, in combination with hybrids, and flex fuel systems. So all this is having an effect, keep up the great work and all of you participating in your civics duties keep it up, it does works.
saving in MN
# Joshua Mize wrote on October 12th, 2006 at 8:42 am
# I’ll be the first to admit President Bush has not been a friend to the environment,
# or energy independence,….but name a modern American President who has.
What about Carter? Of course, look how well that turned out for him.
Martin
I know that you get a lot of, less than intelligent, proposals on how to make your vehicle more efficient (like solar panels in the headlights and generators on the rear tires). However, I think my idea may have some merit. The premise of your vehicle has gotten me to seriously consider energy efficiency and methods for capitalizing on energy loss (the largest portion of which coming from heat generation). What if there was a technology that could make use of that heat?
Stirling engines, as most people know run off of temperature differentials. At first I dismissed the idea of incorporating a stearling engine into an electric vehicle because of cost/space/weight issues, and also because I assumed that the technology wasn’t sufficient to provide much of a payoff. However, I was recently reading up on stirling engines and found out that their process was reversible (meaning that you could turn them with electrical power and cause one side to get hot and the other to get very very cold. The implication of this is that you could use a stirling engine instead of a liquid refrigerant based A/C. This alone would probably help you overcome all of the mechanical likage and belt drive problems that you would encounter with a traditional A/C unit. Further, once it was installed and performing a vital role anyway, it would no longer matter how efficient it was at generating energy when the A/C wasn’t running, because even if its generation was comparable to a roof mounted solar panel, that’s still better than nothing, and you’d have a state of the art air conditioner that would never need to be recharged with refrigerant.
www.stirlingengine.com/faq/one?scope=public&faq_id=1
just saw the tesla on the news and was very excited. i wanted to ask if you had considered laminating an amorphous PV cell to the top of the car? Basically there would be no weird looking panel sticking up as it would mold with the skin of the car. supposed to be more efficient as well. just thought of all the hours a car could be sitting in the sun while a person was at work or at home for that matter. May make a difference.
Triple-juction solar cells, that are not laboratory hardlyware?
Stanford Ovshinsky (the Tesla of the 21st Century)
United Solar Ovonic’s existing football-field long proprietary continuous web triple-junction solar cell manufacturing machine — designed and built by ECD Ovonics’ Production Technology and Machine Building Division — is operating at its full-rated capacity [25MW of panels per year] and is considered the world’s largest and most advanced machine for manufacture of thin-film amorphous silicon alloy solar cells and related products used in a variety of applications.
www.ovonic.com/eb_so_solar_overview.cfm
The bit about PV not being a break-even product was true back in the early 1960’s when the only customers were governments and the only use was for powering satellites. Still not cost-effect in most areas, but getting close.
Also:
How many people will want to leave their $100,000 sportscar baking in the sun all day?
That’s why we have garages and slip covers for them!
Sean, you did read the blog post at the top of this page, right? If not, you should read it. Also, amorphous (aka thin-film) solar panels are actually less efficient than crystalline or polycrystalline panels. Amorphous is closer to 8% efficient while most polycrystalline are around 15-18% efficient.
Has anyone thought about insurance yet on the Tesla? What company will want to pick up that bill if one of these gets into a fender bender? Will the insurance be to expensive and cost more to drive then a convential gas car?
# nae wrote on October 12th, 2006 at 9:13 am
# about how much does 1 square meter of photovoltaics cost?
Very ballpark: $500 for a polysilicon panel.
A typical panel might be 1.5m * .8m (=1.3 m^2) for $800
That price is expected to drop…
It doesn’t matter if thin-film solar panels are half as efficient as silicon-if they’re 1/10 the cost. Thin-film will change the whole equation .As for other presidents not doing much on the envrion., Clinton/Gore set aside 4.6 million acres as public lands-more than any other president. This puts him one rung below Teddy Roosevelt. Bush/Cheney not only haven’t done anything worth 2 cents, they’ve tried to dismantle & weaken environ. laws/ programs-including Clinton’s. Instead of following the Google Guys credo of “do no evil” theirs has been “do-and be- evil”. I say this because they know Exactly what they’re doing-an early example being the secret Cheney meetings to set our energy policy-meetings with oil industry execs. that Cheney/Bush fought like halibut not to be made public-and they never were.Since Gore actually won in Florida, he’s our honorary co-president, and he’s done a great job working on environ. issues-ever since college, in fact. What other politician can say that? In the latest issue of “Business Week” is an article on what makes BMW such a great company. Their Mini-Cooper is a great car, but their other models don’t do much for me-particularly for the price. They did do the right thing in making an architecturally significant auto plant (the one Zahia Hadid designed). Though the plant too leaves me cold: as in a cold block of concrete (albeit with light wells). Better than typical plants, but not “Tesla Grade”. Tesla could do better, for less money-and carve out it’s own “design cachet corp. niche” as did Apple. That’s the ticket: ” it’s not just a car (computer/music player/whatever)” -it’s a cultural icon.
P.S.- I love this company/website!
# busybee64 wrote on October 12th, 2006 at 9:46 am
# I’ve looked into adding solar panels to my home, and turnkey quotes are on the order of $20,000 - $40,000. My electric bill is on the order of $150/month.
It sounds like maybe you were looking at something close to a 4kW system?
You could always install a smaller system and reduce your monthly bill rather than bringing it all the way to 0. Every little bit helps.
Some power companies and cities are offering incentives. And there is a $2000 federal tax credit right now. So your costs could be less.
# Certainly the government could require of real estate developers that if they want a permit to build on undeveloped land, they must at least offer solar as an *option* to new homes.
California seems to be intending to do just that as part of the “million solar roofs” program:
www.environmentcalifornia.org/energy/million-solar-roofs
“…Environment California is getting behind policies that combine incentives for … builders to invest in solar power with new standards for the building industry to begin incorporating solar power into new construction…
…Building with solar power makes a lot of sense. To begin with, it saves money. It is a lot cheaper—some estimate 25-33 percent cheaper—to install a solar system before rather than after a building or home has been wired and constructed. In addition, some solar systems actually look and act just like roofing material, saving money there as well….
…Secondly, building with solar allows the architect to design the building appropriately. By taking such simple steps as orienting the home or building in the right direction and landscaping to shade the home but not the solar system, designers, if they know ahead of time, can help maximize the solar PV system’s energy output….
…Finally, given all the problems associated with the building of new fossil fuel power plants and the transmission and distribution lines needed to transport the energy great distances to electrify our homes and communities, it makes a lot more economic and environmental sense to begin to build a small-scale distributed energy system with clean, renewable technologies such as solar PV….”
# James Anderson Merritt wrote on October 12th, 2006 at 11:23 am
#
## Joshua Mize wrote on October 12th, 2006 at 8:42 am
## I’ll be the first to admit President Bush has not been a friend to the environment,
## or energy independence,….but name a modern American President who has.
#
# What about Carter? Of course, look how well that turned out for him.
Great line from “Who Killed the Electric Car”:
…Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed on the White House.
…”Ronald Reagan came in and took down the solar panels off the White House roof that Jimmy had put up and essentially DECLARED WAR ON THE SUN.” —S. David Freeman, a Carter-administration energy advisor
www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Esquire/2006/07/01/1619305?ba=a&bi=8&bp=5
Do I understand this correctly?
You are using a 3 phase AC Induction Motor requiring an Inverter to step up the DC voltage to AC. The efficiency of the Inverter has to be taken into account on the total power requirement andf presumably again when reclaiming and storing kinetic energy from braking.
My question is as follows. Does this approach (considering the efficiency losses due to the Inverter) offer significant advantages over a straight DC motor Traction System?
Thank you for your help Pat Egan
Clinton/Gore created PNGV
www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw128.html
and Bush killed it.
The replacement program FreedomCAR is focussing on pie-in-the-sky hydrogen.
Hi, I think that the work being done by this company is noble. I can not wait to see what’s around the corner! “Only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.”
Acceleration of 0 to 60 in about 4 seconds is impressive.
Can you wow us with projected braking distance and time?
I imagine with 4 wheel disc AND regen braking, the stopping numbers should be equally impressive.
e
I’m frustrated with solar to say the least. I keep hearing that it’s getting better but I don’t see any big improvements that reach the consumer.
While I was in college 22 years ago I helped my dad and grandfather set up solar for cottages that were out of grid range. They had always run with propane for gas lights and a portable gas pump to pump water up on the roof for a gravity feed water pressure.
The solar panels cost less than $200 and did everything they needed. Today to get the same exact performance the system would cost more for no better performance or durability. They were surplus solar panels, so maybe that was a good deal, but the cost just seems to hover. We keep looking to upgrade so my dad can put more gadgets in, but there’s never a break in the cost.
Companies like Nanosolar give me new hope for solar. I just hope it’s not another mirage.
The good side is they’ve never had a problem in 22 years and the systems are still working. Battery maintenance is minimal and that’s the only maintenance there is.
I also enjoy looking at this blog. It gives me a sense of community among like minded folks so I don’t feel like I am the only one lusting for this car. I may never be able to afford this car and the solar panels, but everybody is got to have a dream.
Greg,
PV Solar is still getting better and cheaper, at least cheaper to make. Reduction of prices (not costs!) has stalled a bit over the last two years because there is more demand than the industry can satisfy, so they can take higher prices. With dropping costs this gives the PV industry quite nice margins at the moment. The reason for the shortage is the slow build-up of Silicon purification capacity. Crystalline Silicon is still the basis for 85+% of PV modules, and the Silicon manufacturers had been burned a few times in the IT boom and bust cycles. So it took them a while to trust the fast PV market growth. This is now being addressed, and additionally a number of competing technologies are ramping up production: 1) thin film devices made from amorphous Silicon, Cadmium Telluride or Copper Indium Di-Selenide, 2) to a lesser extent concentrator modules using small xSi cells or higher efficient GaAs based cells).
PV costs have been moving down a Learning Curve or Experience Curve for many years now. Experience Curves are an aggregate expression of many factors, amongst them technological progress (new R&D results), operational learning and scale effects.
To get the principles of Experience curves check out :
www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/curve2000.pdf
To see specifics of PV technologies and PV Experience Curves see this presentation by Thomas Surek. Slightly dated but IMHO still largely valid. Skip the detailed stuff in the beginning if you don’t have the patience for it and look at slide 35:
eng.fsu.edu
If you want to dive deeper into the validity and limitations of the learning curve concept read:
www.feem-web.it/ess06/files/nemet-fp.pdf
As I said above, at the moment prices for PV Systems are stagnating. This could persist until the supply capacity has caught up with policy supported demand (in the multi-Gigawatt range!), with an industry shake-out possible by 2010 / 2011.
Happy to post some simple PV economics if there is appetite for it, but got to run now.
Jay
if Teslamotors did nothing more than force the hand of the big boys to get back into EV’s, it would still be mission accomplished…
busybee64 wrote: “I’ve looked into adding solar panels to my home, and turnkey quotes are on the order of $20,000 - $40,000. My electric bill is on the order of $150/month. I calculate it would take quite a long time to recover costs, unless the PV system turned into a money making machine.”
My 2.2 kwh system cost me $11,300. It was a $21,000 system, but the California Energy Commission paid $8k to the installers and I received $1800 credit on my next California tax return.
I do not get a bill from SCE. I get a statement. The last one read “- $101″– they owe me that much. I have not paid any money for electricity in the last 3 years, which is how long I’ve had the panels on my roof.
When do they pay for themselves? The day you put them on your roof. It is the only “home improvement” that returns 100% of the value invested into the value of the home.
Check with Real Goods Solar in Venice, California. They did a good job for me.
Vern Padgett
“Elon: Although the amount of energy that could be recaptured from the top of the Roadster is small, I originally pushed very hard to have this option available. Martin argued that such panels would only be decoration.”
I agree with Elon. It would provide a great selling point for the 99% of the public who don’t think in terms of conservation of energy. Martin, look at the idea from a marketing perspective, not an engineering perspective!
# PAT EGAN wrote on October 13th, 2006 at 1:05 am
# Do I understand this correctly?
# …a 3 phase AC Induction Motor requiring an Inverter to step up the DC voltage to AC.
# My question is as follows. Does this approach offer significant advantages over a straight DC motor Traction System?
I think the biggest benefit to an AC motor is reduced maintenance and enhanced reliability.
Also, controlling a DC motor is a bit harder. You put energy in but you need some kind of feedback circuit to figure out how fast the motor is spinning. With and AC controller, you are telling the motor exactly how fast you want it to spin.
I think regen might be easier with AC as well.
All the best production EVs use AC motors.
DC motors can work well in electric drag race cars because you can dump lots of current on them for short periods and get lots of extra horsepower, but it tends to overhead and burn them out.
The AC question is one of the biggest to me, and I have been hoping (and requesting) a article profiling these systems. When I think of a DC to AC transformer, my only experience is with off grid solar, where a 4 kW converter weighs over 100 lbs. So how do you make a 200 kW converter that fits in a car? And reliability was, until recently, a problem, even at the 4 kW / 100 lb level. Also, does anyone know what kind of motor the Tesla uses? Obviously it is AC, but is it a permanent magnet or simply a wound motor? How much does it weigh? Outside the batteries, these seem like the important issues, at least as far as my knowledge base, with a high powered electric car. And what was wrong with the car during the Today Show appearance? Directly addressing the reliability/cost of the non-ICE components (outside the tricky subject of batteries) would, I think, be a interesting topic.
# T.J. wrote on October 12th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
# It doesn’t matter if thin-film solar panels are half as efficient as silicon-if they’re 1/10 the cost.
Well it does matter if you are space limited.
If you want to get 4kW+ from a roof system but you don’t have a very large house with good sun exposure you may have to seek out and pay more for something that produces more energy per square meter.
Mono-silicon cells tend to produce more power per area than poly-silicon. They cost more but they are very much in demand. Real estate costs (even on your roof) are high enough that people will pay a big premium for a technology that is more effective.
It is just like with the battery technolgies. When people mention Lithium-Polymer, and Ultracaps one of the first rebuttals is “but does it have the energy density of Li-Ion”? Size and weight are so important in a small vehicle, you want to maximize how much energy you can store. The same hold somewhat true for solar panels - most people want to maximize how much power they can generate given a fixed area.
# JayM wrote on October 13th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
# PV Solar is still getting better and cheaper, at least cheaper to make.
# Reduction of prices (not costs!) has stalled a bit over the last two years because there is more demand than the industry can satisfy,
Yes, I have seen stories that the semiconducter manufacturers are seriously thinking about diversifying their production in to chips and solar cells since they have silicon mfg technology already in place and the solar cell market is getting big enough to attract their attention.
Your point about costs going down but prices not is significant. If demand grows faster than new production capacity prices could still remain high.
Another thing I was thinking about is FUD from upcoming players. If you are a new company with no product on the market yet, but you have this great thin-film solar technology or advanced ultra-cap why not press release that it will be 1/10th the price? It makes customers stop and say “hey I better wait until next year”. Then when your product comes out at 2/3 the price of the old technology you still have a chance at that customer. So don’t always believe the hype about massive price drops.
does tesla plan on making a profit on each tesla that is sold. At a price of 36000 dollars for the batteries alone (6*6000) leaving just 64000 for the engineering, safety, manufacture of a high performance sports car. With the first 100 cars tesla will bring in ten million dollars, but i would be surprised if they break even with that number.
Greg,
I don’t know where you got your solar panels, but in 1980 solar electric was $100/watt, so the panels you bought in 1984 were probably at least this old. Today, it’s less than $6/watt. Maybe, people who needed them for some special use didn’t know how long they would last, so they sold them at a dramatic discounts. No one would be that stupid today. The Sharp CEO said recently that in 4 years solar will drop to 1/2 the current price, at which point it will be close to grid electricity prices (not the power plant’s cost, but your personal grid cost amoritized over 25 years) without subsidies. It’s never going to be dirt cheap, but it has to be considered an investment, not a toy.
FYI. The news is a little old, but I thought it was applicable to this blog.
world.honda.com/news/2005/c051219.html
Oh Tesla team, also AGMA, ABMA, ASM, ASTM, SME, JIS, DIN, ISO, ptcuser.org are tons of great contacts for any issue, usually these persons are fairly responsive to any inquiries and/or can send you in the right direction to persons who can help.
Yeh, Nano Solar and the likes are the end game, if it pans out as they say. 3Kw solar system for less then you would probably spend on large high def lcd tv.
Wheel motors look interesting but what happens when you get a dead short across line in the rotor and/or stator, after you hit a monstor pot hole?
saving in MN
McLaren has a slick new technology centre-photos on Google image search- looks good from above. But otherwise too ordinary & slick for me-all the glass couldn’t have been cheap. Nice “landform” type of bldg. from above. Tesla could do a landform/bermed plant combined with fabric structure-which Frei Otto pioneered with the German Pavillion at Montreal in ‘67 (photos-Google image). With the height could even make some areas of 2 or 3 floors, as interior pavillions within the main structure-so could limit the land area required (”land being expensive”). The interior pavillions would be cheap structure to build-not having to be weatherized or take wind loads. The fabric structure could spill into the parking lot here & there, being irregular as it is, to cover some of the parking spaces. Wouldn’t need carport structures. Would have great light quality & spaciousness inside, nice space to build cars under. Put some solid, massive forms at the base: low concrete walls (or rammed earth), extra thick, with berming, swales, landscaping-all to “anchor” the lightweight structure above-and you have an auto plant like no other. Don’t know cost of fabric structures, but shouldn’t be too bad -there have been a lot done around the world since ‘67.
Featured News News Releases Automotive New Battery Technology Achieves 100 Miles with Hybrid Electric Vehicles New Battery Technology Achieves 100 Miles with Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Friday, 13 October 2006
Technology Research Laboratories introduces Battery Technology that Achieves 100 Miles with Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Research Triangle Park, NC and Port Orange, Florida — Technology Research Laboratories (TRL) is announcing a new long-life battery technology that can make hybrid electric vehicle traveling a reality. The battery’s unique properties of low cost, long life and safety are all characteristics that are a necessity of a power source for electric vehicles, or any consumer and industrial product.
TRL’s battery operates on physical chemistry principles different from those of conventional batteries. It resembles nothing on the market. The battery utilizes materials that are plentiful, inexpensive and far less polluting than other battery devices. Fabricated almost entirely of carbon and plastic, the battery has the ability to withstand severe electrical abuse, including total discharge or disuse for prolonged time periods.
A very immediate and attractive application is the “plug-in” hybrid-electric car. These cars have been around for years but until now, the power sources have been very unreliable. The TRL battery provides a means to achieve hybrid electric vehicles with a range of 75 or more miles per charge. Tests from TRL confirm that a typical 4-passenger electric car powered by less than 1000 pounds of TRL batteries would have a range of between 75 and 100 mile depending upon speed and road conditions.
History
From the early 19th century to the present the attempts have continued toward developing a practical electrically powered road vehicle. The obstacles have been the same for the past 150 years – a practical source of motive power, i.e., economical source of electrical energy. An electrically rechargeable battery is the most desirable solution. Despite its simplicity, the electric car never became a commercial success because of its limited range and uncertainty of returning home on a charge.
In order for the hybrid design approach to have a significant impact upon “fuel consumption”, the range of the hybrid operating solely on battery charge must be in the region of typical driving for a large portion of motorists. That range is probably in the 100 to 150 miles per day, including some margin for unusual amounts of travel. With such performance the hybrid car could be driven on battery power most of the time, and the internal combustion engine used only for extended trips.
Predominant problems preventing or seriously inhibiting the practical commercialization of the electric car are:
• Battery life
• Battery cost
• Battery weight
TRL now has a solution that has been long coming.
TRL is seeking to place the technology with organizations that have the necessary manufacturing and marketing capabilities to bring it to fruition as useful energy products. The battery also has potential applications for stand-alone wind or solar power systems and power station load leveling.
For more detailed information and specifications on the technology, please visit www.AlternativeEnergyStorage.com and www.hybridnrg.com .
About Technology Research Laboratories
TRL is an independent R&D company with over 35 years of developing unique energy systems. Their purpose is to properly place new technology so that it may be taken to commercialization as products. Prototypes for test and evaluation are available.
[contact details deleted]
If Tesla did a tensile/fabric structure plant, could save on power by bonding ‘Nanosolar” PV fabric to the southerly sides-lot of surface area there,
This debate about solar many states give rebates of some type and sort at installation and ongoing. Here in NJ I just put in a 5.25KWHr system cost $43000 rebate of $26000 from the state plus $250 per 1000KWHr generated this does not count savings on my bill $150 a month. Payback is in less than 5 years down from 7 year calculation six months ago. I pay about 10 cents a KWHr When I get my Tesla I will put about 15 more pnels in my backyard to offset my electric usage increase. PS in NJ electric is not cheap!
Also the possibility with the above plant design of wind turbines atop the roof “tent poles”.
A cheaper (?), simpler -yet still striking- Tesla plant: high poles (or fin walls) at 60 degree angle on the north side (wind turbines on each), cables to the ground going to the south-fabric covered, with Nanosolar PV fabric bonded to it (=massive solar collector south roof). Design similar to Eero Saarinen’s Dulles Airport terminal bldg. ,but with cables to ground, not wall-come back in with the wall-as in “cables cutting thru south wall” on way to the ground. Potential for dramatic big glass on part of north side (like Dulles Terminal) at bldg. public entry-but mostly cheaper translucent fabric on sides.
In response to “nae”, you can easily find lithium 18650 batteries at $4 each in qty. 1000 on the net. Not sure where you got $6 from. Tesla will be buying perhaps a million 18650 cells. I bet they’re getting them for $3-3.50 or so each, maybe less. That wouid match earlier numbers of $20k for the price of the battery pack.
i think after i finish nursing school i’m moving back to california and baking cookies for you guys. i don’t know how else i might contribute.
i hope you consider some of the 50’s design elements (tail fins are cool–bring ‘em back) & suicide doors on a four/five seater would be lovely.
best wishes–best of luck– and thanks for igniting a revolution; i think what you’ve done should be eligible for the Nobel prize. Negating our dependence on fossil fuels will solve lots of conflict–not to mention the environmental impact.
so–thank you.
About the in-wheel motors: Okay, I understand how that creates a lot of unsprung *and* rotating weight, and for a performance car, adding weight to the wheels is just about the worst possible place you can add it. But would it be practical to have four motors mounted in the chassis, and then each one has a driveshaft leading to each wheel? It wouldn’t be quite as simple as in-wheel motors, but compared to a conventional AWD car it would still be simpler. No transmission, transfer case, differentials, or driveshafts in the middle of the car. You could even mount the brakes inboard next to the motors for further reduction of unsprung weight. You would also be able to run pretty small wheels while keeping large brakes (not that you’d really need them, what with regenerative braking providing extra stopping power.)
Oh yeah, and wouldn’t in-wheel motors create a potential theft problem? Remove 5 bolts, and a thief can now steal not only your wheels and tires, but your motors too.
What’s going to happen, as elect. car power hits the mainstream , is the that the fat cat automakers are going to go more to plug-in hybrid, at least. So Tesla should, in their sports sedan, totally redefine the whole concept. Turn the designers loose- not just to do a great car design,because a lot of car design is clunky,but a great industrial design-that happens to be a car. Tesla could establish themselves as a “design icon cachet” company-the better to beat back the fat cats with when they join the fray.Tesla would have an advantage here-to go with the advantage of only having 2 cars to develop. Down the line a Tesla motorcycle would be interesting-fast as halibut. Put a carbon fiber fin rollbar on it, with shoulder harness, airbag, carbon fiber leg guards to the sides-and a small side wheel that drops down as you stop at a light, so you don’t have to put your feet on the ground. Motorcycles are fun-but halibutin’ dangerous. Tesla could do a high-design safe one-hasn’t been done yet, though I heard Honda is going to offer an airbag-and BMW had a concept with a roll bar.
Dear Tesla –
I have been following electric car developments professionally sine 1975, and I absolutely love the Tesla (at least based on what I read). It’s the car I’ve been hoping someone would build, and I congratulate you.
I’m largely retired and living in Carmel now, but I was generally given credit for being the first person to be successful in the alternative energy business, building two of the most profitable, safe and clean cogeneration plants in the history of power production. If you want to look up more about us try keywords: Sunlaw, SCONOx, Nueva Azalea, Goal Line Environmental Technology and Emerachem.
I would be one of your cars in a minute but I’m too big and have a severely injured back. In fact, although I worked on early versions while with the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Program at Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the late 70’s, lobbied hard for them through the 80’s and 90’s, I’ve never been able to sit in one. So, although I know it has to be a very low priority for you, if you ever want to convert a mini-van like a Chrysler Pacifica, Mercedes R350 (which is what I drive now) or something similar where I can re-do the interior to accommodate me and my walker, I’d love to buy one or otherwise work with you to make one.
I do have a perspective on power generation that, if you don’t already know this, might be useful. When folks criticize the electric car they often make the argument that the powerplants that produced the electricity may be very dirty, perhaps or even probably coming from coal. This is a terribly unfair criticism for a number of reasons including:
o At least 6% of our electricity comes from pollution-free sources like wind, hydro, solar, etc. Another 30% or so comes from very clean sources like modern gas-fired powerplants. Shouldn’t the cleanest sources be allocated first to the cleanest uses like the electric car?
o Even coal plants are helped by the electric car because it’ll principally be charged at night when coal plants are slowly lowering their output. Coal plants have to slowly lower their output because otherwise the giant equipment might warp or crack, so even thought these coal plants have no customer for the electricity they are generating, they’re still producing it. Some coal utilities are now producing hydrogen through electrolysis during these “no-load” periods, and there is no reason the electric car should be criticized for using this electricity.
o The extraordinary charging system and battery capacity of electric cars has an enormous conservation value to electric utility systems if the systems are developed to have electricity flow in both directions. For example:
• Electric cars plugged in at the office or home during the day could be used to power homes and offices during peak periods, alleviating the need to build new powerplants, allowing powerplants that are operating to operate at peak energy and environmental efficiency, smoothing system dispatch issues and line congestion problems.
• Renewables like wind and solar that produce power at both predictable and random times become just as important to a utility as traditional baseload generation because off-peak power now can be dispatched to charge electric cars, making renewables much more valuable than they are now.
Obviously several technologies still have to be developed and commercialized before all this can happen, but little actual invention is required because all the parts exist, and models exist for the software and controls. One thing I’d like to see, for example, would be where a Tesla owner could pull up to their home or office interactive charging, and type-in how long they are going to be at that location, and then the utility could rely on a high percentage of those systems being there, creating a very high capacity value.
Anyway, I wish you all the best and will be happy to help if I can be of any assistance.
Bob Danziger
[contact details deleted]
Thank you Ruan Jurgens for the Mitsubishi links. I would have never known that Mitsubishi is researching wheel motors and EVs. I’m encouraged to see that wheel motors are catching on with a larger manufacturer. If another larger manufacturer gets involved, others will probably follow.
Regarding, Mihai’s question about shock to the wheel motors from driving: All wheel motor designs have structural components to minimize shock to the motor. As with current vehicles, shock is primarily absorbed by (1) the forgiveness granted by air pressure in the tire and (2) the suspension system. All in-wheel components are stable and protected from significant road shock (just as disk brakes are today).
What we really need is a method of concealing a wind turbine on a car to generate some charging while in motion. I inquired about a turbine for my home electric but we do not have enough wind to make it worthwhile. Just think what can be done on a cer at 20 MPH let alone 65 MPH
Way for Tesla to build a Sports Sedan plant that pays for itself: build an up-scale industrial park with for lease spaces below and with Tesla plant on second floor: curving ramp up ( and/or lifts) for parts at one end, ramp down for finished cars at other. Roof is “sawtooth”: repeating roof segments at 45 degrees (”cannery roof” style”), roof & side panels of sawtooth of lightweight translucent fabric-solar fabric on tilted roof segment.Put these segments on circular I-beam track so they each can rotate & track the sun from east to west. Any surplus PV power is distributed to leasing tenants below-free, as a lease” selling point”. World’s first & only mixed use/ second floor/ paying -for- itself auto plant-take that BMW! I second Leankha comment above re. some ’50’s elements & suicide doors. Went to see a Porsche Cayman at a dealer.Outside that car is close to industrial design as opposed to “car design as usual”-beautiful from the back & side in particular, great hatchback shape and roof shape from the side at the back area: curving, semi-retro ’50’s feel to it. Do a design like this, stretching the car out for 5 seats, with suicide back doors (making for no door pillar between front & back doors) and you’ve got the world’s first REAL ” SPORTS Sedan”.
leankha wrote: “i hope you consider some of the 50’s design elements (tail fins are cool–bring ‘em back) & suicide doors on a four/five seater would be lovely.”
Suicide doors! Yes!
The first Volkswagen (1935 prototype) had such doors. But Ferdinand Porsche visited Henry Ford in Detroit, came back to Stuttgart, and changed to the American standard.
Martin and Elon, reject Detroit.
Yes to front-latched doors!
Since no one is posting on blog I’ll further elaborate on the Tesla plant above: rectangular plant with sawtooth roof elements may seem mundane (except for sawtooths moving with sun, and being colorful fabric)-but at the entry Tesla could go big on design: with industrial lease spaces below on ground floor, take out some of them and make Tesla entry atrium - with huge spiraling stair up to second floor. Do a curvy Frank Gehry trip here (Frankie wasn’t the first- he’s via Eero Sarrinen ’s TWA terminal and Le Corbusier’s Ronchamp chapel, to name two forerunners-and he admits it). Make the high entry atrium space, part glass . As a canopy out front ,cantilver a wide area of the second (plant) floor WAY out- the top of the canopy serving as employee lunch outdoor dining area.All the industrial lease spaces below match the plant architecture-finely detailed, looking like part of the plant and vice-versa:upscale-the whole thing becomes an industrial urban village- workers in lease spaces can use the Tesla cafe/ coffee shop-even have some meeting rooms nearby up there that lease tenants might use now & then, along with Tesla. Another idea (which has been done in Australia) is to condo-out lease spaces- if someone wants to buy- and have an option of building small apts. as loft space within the high-bay lease space- so an owner might actually live above his shop-or stay there sometimes if working late or weekends. Industrial space has a light parking requirement, so it’s not like it’s taking a lot of extra land to put it under the Tesla plant-and putting the plant off the ground frees up all that large area for parking &new car yard. With the right detailing, while being a simple floor plan (for the most part) the whole thing could be spectacular-all the better to lease to upscale tenants.
P.S.- If Tesla has other ammenities within plant ( in addition to cafe)- like sports bar, gym, whatever- companies leasing industrial space can also use them- as paying customers, of course. What company looking for upscale industrial space WOULDN’T want to be part of the superior Team Tesla Experience?
About your Solar Option:-
How much energy is wasted in electricity generation and grid transmission systems getting each kWh into our homes? (Worst case?) I only ask, because as I understand it, the Solar Option just “replaces” each domestic k Wh used to charge the car. Is there anything that can be done about the kWhs wasted on the journey from the power plant, other than an off-grid system of PVs and reconditioned submarine batteries?
Another possible manufacturing partner for WhiteStar:
www.saleen.com/about_saleen.htm
(Although they are Ford centric…)
They build the S7 “supercar” among other things:
www.saleen.com/saleen_s7_main.htm
# Bob Danziger wrote on October 14th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
# The extraordinary charging system and battery capacity of electric cars has an enormous conservation value to electric utility systems if the systems are developed to have electricity flow in both directions.
# • Electric cars plugged in at the office or home during the day could be used to power homes and offices during peak periods, alleviating the need to build new powerplants, allowing powerplants that are operating to operate at peak energy and environmental efficiency, smoothing system dispatch issues and line congestion problems.
Yes, I have been posting that idea on this blog earlier.
I found this related whitepaper:
www.acpropulsion.com/Veh_Grid_Power/V2G%20Final%20Report%20R5.pdf
This car is sleek and amazing. Reserve one for me!!!!
www.topgear.com/content/tgonbbc2/laptimes/thestig/
I could see the roadster in the top 20! Any bets on what the Roadster will place.
Where would Tesla think it will end up on Top Gears list? Once the final configuration of the Roadster is ready for market. Running the gaunlet of auto media will we see a strategic media blitz and awards for various performance and quality accolades.
“Who Killed the Electric Car” IN FULL on the WEB ! ! !
Thanks to …. Truth911.com (and Google Video) The whole movie can now
be seen in good quality) It seems to have been uploaded.
wagons.autoblog.com/2006/10/15/now-showing-on-autoblog-who-killed-the-electric-car/
T.J. wrote on October 14th, … Motorcycles are fun-but halibutin’ dangerous.
Yeah, well– I’ve only dropped my bike 3 times, and it was only moving one of those times!
SunPower announces today a 5×3.5 foot crystalline-silicon panel that generates 315 watts — or 1.5 Tesla Roadster miles per hour.
investors.sunpowercorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=214653
The Sunpower panels put the metal contacts on the reverse side, so that the side facing the sun is uniformly jet-black. Perhaps this has implications for a hard-top shell for the Roadster?
Malcolm Wilson wrote on October 15th, 2006 at 12:30 am
About your Solar Option:-
How much energy is wasted in electricity generation and grid transmission systems getting each kWh into our homes? (Worst case?) I only ask, because as I understand it, the Solar Option just “replaces” each domestic k Wh used to charge the car. Is there anything that can be done about the kWhs wasted on the journey from the power plant, other than an off-grid system of PVs and reconditioned submarine batteries?
Not sure of the total amount of energy wasted through wire resistance/transmission, but there is a way to minimize or eliminate it via High temperature semicondutor wires (HTS). www.amsuper.com These guys also build giant electric motors for ships, very cool.
Dr. H. Van Den Houten -
I hope your doctorate isn’t in physics. A wind turbine on top of your house is a good idea. I want one too. A wind turbine on top of your car…well, that’s a bad idea.
The recent Popular Mechanics has an interesting article about the viability of Hydrogen as an alternative to fossil fuels. According to the article 95 percent of the hydrogen produced in the US is produced from natural gas, creating green house gasses. The other 5 percent is created using electrolysis.
This same issue had a couple short blurbs about Tesla. It would have been nice to have a discussion of the efficiency of the Tesla vs Fuel Cell vehicles included as a sidebar in this article, it really would have opened people’s eyes to the fact that electric vehicles are much more viable at this point than fuel cells.
I SENT YOU SOME INFO ABOUT SOME IDEAS. SILLY OLD GUY ! ! PLEASE, DON’T SELL OUT TO EXXON ! ! ! YOU ARE THE FUTURE.
DOES THE CAR HAVE A/C ?? REMEMBER, THE AFFLUENT WON’T GIVE THAT UP… THINKING BACK TO MY USAF DAYS. THE F86, AND ALL OTHER TURBOJETS, USED A LINE OFF THE COMPRESSOR SECTION OF THE ENGINE, AND STORED IT UNDER PRESSURE, IN AN ACCUMULATOR. AT THE PILOT CONTROLS, HE RELEASED THE AIR INTO A SMALL PLENUM, WHERE THE AIR RAPIDLY EXPANDED, AND OBVIOUSLY COOLED DOWN, I REMEMBER TAXIING WITH THE CANOPY UP, IN HUMID CONDITIONS, THE OUTLETS WOULD PRODUCE A LOT OF ‘SNOW’. A SMALL DUCTED TURBINE, CONNECTED TO AN AXIAL COMPRESSOR, OR, AT HOME THE SYSTEM COULD BE CONNECTED TO A COMPRESSOR AND FILLED. OR, A TURBINE DRIVEN GENERATOR TO SUPPLIMENT THE BATTERIES ?
ALSO REMEMBER, (SOMETIMES HARD) THE F-102 HAD 2 EMERGENCY TURBINES, THAT WOULD POP OUT WHEN NEEDED, TO DRIVE A HYDRALIC PUMP AND GENERATOR..
DON’T YOU STILL WONDER WHY GM TOOK BACK THE EV1 AND SHREDDED THEM. COULD IT BE, BIG BROTHER OIL ????? YOU PROBABLY KNOW THERE IS AN EV1 IN EXSISTANCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN. GM AGREED TO GIVE THEM ONE, IN EXCHANGE FOR NAMING ONE OF THE BUILDINGS, THE G M BUILDING. WHAT A WORLD.
I HOPE I LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE YOUR CARS IN EVERY DRIVEWAY !!!!! DON’T GIVE IN DAVE CROSBY.
Ian:
Don’t get me wrong a wind turbine would be great but it would not produce enough electric to make it cost efficient as example wind run was .11 for today top wind was 6 mph now on a car if a tunnel of sorts could bring air to a turbine mounted under the hood something could be accomplished. At my house wind is minimal. The Doctorate is in engineering though I spent most of time in electrical. Funny enough I work in Quality Control with no desire to pursue engineering at all.
ian wrote on October 16th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Dr. H. Van Den Houten -
I hope your doctorate isn’t in physics. A wind turbine on top of your house is a good idea. I want one too. A wind turbine on top of your car…well, that’s a bad idea.
You have calculated 10m2 of PV module to “feed” a 35 mille per day journey. The car batteries are going to be charged at the end of the day. Where are you planning to store the energy collected during the day?
Greetings from across the Atlantic. Keep the good work!
-Dr. H. Van Den Houten wrote on October 16th, 2006 at 1:53 pm:
-”now on a car if a tunnel of sorts could bring air to a turbine mounted under the hood something could be accomplished ”
This has been discussed many times. The car would have to produce extra force to overcome the air drag to turn the wind turbine. The extra force produced by the car would require more energy than the wind turbine would produce (because of inefficiencies in the system, including friction in the wind turbine itself). So adding a wind turbine to a car, even under the hood, would cause a net loss in energy, and thus a net loss in efficiency, NOT A GAIN. This is basic physics.
Yo-Vern, RE. motorcycles-I said they’re dangerous because it just takes one (as in 1) bad car driver to make your day on a motorcycle.A relative of mine used to work in a hospital- said the doctors referred to them as “murdercycles”- if you get hit by a car from the side your leg could easily be crushed bad enough to need amputation. You could be the best cycle rider in the world and still run into (as in: “get run into”) by a lousy driver. That’s why I never bought a motorcycle-and that’s why we need the Tesla Supercycle-with roll bar, belt, airbag and legguards.We also need such a cycle so that hot-shot kid riders don’t kill themselves before they’ve had a chance to either wiseup or learn to rider better. On another subject: I hope Tesla grows into a mainstream car company. Look at Germany: they have Audi, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Porsche, BMW- all of them fine car lines where they at least take pride in their product, and have for years. Detroit, on the other hand, has a history of being run by a pack of conservative bean counters. I think in corp. America “lawyer /accountant types” often filter to the top-isn’t that wondeful!?. In Japan it’s engineers that do- don’t know about Germany. All I know is that we need a car co. like Tesla that does the halibutin’ right thing(s) for a change, like any ordinary American car enthusist would do. Eventually it would be nice to have a Tesla Technology Center/Centre like McLaren has, to see what else electric they could develop. The idea of an elect. commuter plane is fascinating (captain)-talk about “saving on fuel costs !”. They’d have to have a totally separate battery/ elect. system for each engine-and look into what lightning might do. They’d also have to have a system that, instead of “recharging”, pulls out the battery packs and plugs in fresh ones-like that big truck with the “scissors” hoist system that they pull up to the back of planes now to unload fresh food.An elect. plane may have to await further battery advances, But ,with a super- light , Burt Rutan type design, I could see the possibility of a great elect. commuter plane-about the size of the DeHavilland Dash-8, which is a very nice plane.
“Where are you planning to store the energy collected during the day?”
That’s not important. Likely the house will be sucking up more electricity than the solar panels generate anyway. On the odd chance they produced more electricity than the house was consuming, it would be fed back into the grid. Watt hours are fungible. The watt hours produced by the solar panels don’t need to be the same solar panels feeding the Tesla. All that matters is that those solar panels are generating at least as much electricity as the Tesla is using.
The Tesla-Rutan EV commuter plane-talk about a quiet ride!
I just got through reading Joshua Davis’ article featuring Elon Musk, “Mr. Clean,” in the November issue of Outside magazine… which prompted me to check out Martin Eberhard and the Tesla Motors’ Team. Very impressive, exciting, encouraging and promising stuff!
Definitely, the technology is way cool… Sure, I like the Tesla Roadster (as an avid F1 fan) and would love to get behind the wheel, guilt free… Absolutely, we should expect many more consumers to enjoy these advances as a result of the mass-customization of this bleeding-edge technology… And, thank God someone is being brave enough to take on “big oil.”
But what I admire and appreciate most, is that a team of very bright, passionate, environmentally conscious people are dedicated to ensuring that our children and future generations enjoy life as a result of technological discoveries and advances made in the practical application and production of fossil fuel alternatives.
Go Team Tesla!
# Francisco Marques wrote on October 16th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
# You have calculated 10m2 of PV module to “feed” a 35 mille per day journey.
# The car batteries are going to be charged at the end of the day. Where are you planning to store the energy collected during the day?
Grid tied systems are suggested. You “loan” the power you create to the power company. They “pay it back with interest” at night when rates are cheaper.
Technically it isn’t stored, but rather you are making power for someone else during the day, and then at night the power company gives you extra power that the other guy didn’t need.
“-James Anderson Merritt wrote on October 16th, 2006 at 8:19 am
-SunPower announces today a 5×3.5 foot crystalline-silicon panel that generates 315 watts — or 1.5 Tesla Roadster miles per hour.
-investors.sunpowercorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=214653″
I wonder how much they’ll cost compared to their current solar cells.
Google goes Solar:
www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/15775022.htm
Kyocera achieved a record 18.5% efficiency for multicrystalline silicon solar cells
www.kyocerasolar.com/news/news_detail.cfm?key=280
# James Anderson Merritt wrote on October 16th, 2006 at 8:19 am
# SunPower announces today a 5×3.5 foot crystalline-silicon panel that generates 315 watts — or 1.5 Tesla Roadster miles per hour.
# investors.sunpowercorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=214653
“” The new SPR-315 solar panel utilizes the company’s newly developed 22-percent-efficient Gen 2 solar cells “”
22% efficiency seems impressive. When I was looking at other brands recently they all seemed to hover around 15%, with 16% costing more than 14%. This is really good news, as a typical house may want a 4kW system to generate more power than they use, but available roof space may limit them to closer to 3kW with 15% efficient panels. With 22% efficient panels, many more people will have a south facing roof surface that can provide all the power they need. (And if you are recharging an EV at home you may want even more than 4kW to power the house as well as the car). Note - with a grid tied system you should always have enough power to run the house and even recharge the car, but there is a desire to have a solar system that generates all the power you use so that your utility bill is 0, and you can tell your friends that you are generating all your own power.
# Technically it isn’t stored, but rather you are making power for someone else during the day, and then at night the power company gives you extra power that the other guy didn’t need.
Ok understood.
But shouldn’t this study www.ceage.vt.edu/2DOC/IEEE_dev1994_v8_no2_1.pdf be done again with data from the actual batteries? Or is it still valid?
# Robert Goudreau wrote on October 13th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
# Friday, 13 October 2006
# Technology Research Laboratories introduces Battery Technology that Achieves
# 100 Miles with Hybrid Electric Vehicles
I went to the website to learn more about the specs. I don’t know how real this technology is (or how soon it could be deployed in a practical sense), but from the power/energy density information they provided, I estimate that a pack that could hold as much energy as the Roadster’s would weigh in around 1400-1500 pounds. Half that weight (i.e., a couple of hundred pounds lighter than the Roadster’s pack) could theoretically power the Roadster for 125 miles or so.
I didn’t see any indication of maximum speed of charge, although I have said before that infrastructure and not battery construction appears to be the limiting factor for at least the near future.
They did indicate that the battery would last “indefinitely long at any state of charge.” I’m not sure whether that meant it would hold a charge indefinitely, or that the battery could be charged and discharged indefinitely, or both. If real, and the battery can last the life of the car, then it may be worth thinking about using it even if one would have to add a few hundred more pounds to the vehicle to get a Roadster-like range. The info at the website implied that the TRL technology would be cost competitive or even more attractive than Li Ion or other alternative chemistries.
I’ll keep watching this one, at least until it proves real or not.
Another on Google’s Solar plans:
googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/corporate-solar-is-coming.html
===============================================================
“Soon we plan to begin installation of 1.6 megawatts of solar photovoltaic panels at our Mountain View campus. This project will be the largest solar installation on any corporate campus in the U.S., and we think it’s one of the largest on any corporate site in the world. The panels will cover the roofs of the four main buildings of the Googleplex, and also those of two additional buildings across the street. There will also be a portion of this installation on new solar panel support structures in a few parking lots. The amount of electricity that will be generated is equivalent to powering about 1,000 average California homes. We’ll use that electricity to power several of our Mountain View office facilities, offsetting approximately 30% of our peak electricity consumption at those buildings.
To tackle this ambitious project, we’re partnering with EI Solutions. The installation of clean and renewable power represents a first step in reducing our environmental impact as a company. We believe that improving our environmental practices is not only our responsibility as a corporate citizen, but good business planning — a new report from the North American Electric Reliability Council suggests that demand continues to outstrip power supply by a considerable margin. And of course by saving electricity (not to mention producing clean renewable energy), we also save money. In fact, we believe this project demonstrates that a large investment in renewable energy can be profitable.
”
===============================================================
www.gadgetell.com/images/092006/googlesolar.jpg
You state the car has a range of up to 250 miles. What is the battery loss per hour if you are in stand still traffic with air conditioning on and lights on?
# Steve S wrote on October 17th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
# You state the car has a range of up to 250 miles. What is the battery loss per hour if you are in stand still traffic with air conditioning on and lights on?
That was asked before on a previous blog page with Martin responding with a partial answer:
# Me: how many miles per hour (of range) is lost if you leave the lights and the AC on without moving.
—-
Editor’s Answer: Direct from Martin:
The range number that we quote is (at this point computer simulations of) the range over the EPA’s highway driving schedule. This schedule is a precise driving pattern of acceleration and decelleration over time that is designed to simulate real-world highway driving (though lots of people dispute how real it is!).
The EPA schedule also assumes the A/C is running, though the way A/C is accounted for is not realistic in a very annoying way. Here’s the deal: these tests are run (as mandated by the EPA regulations) on a stationary dynomometer, in a room-temperature environment. Aerodynamic load is (reasonably) simulated by a load on the dyno that is proportional to the measured drag of the car and to the dyno speed, in a way that fairly approximates real driving. A/C, on the other hand is simulated by a constant dyno load. This means that the actual A/C load is at its maximum when the car is going its fastest, and there is no load when the car is stopped - just the opposite of real A/C load.
I have simulated this way of accounting for A/C load, as well as realistic A/C load - where the A/C draws the most when the car is stopped and less while moving. Oddly, the range in both simulations is about the same. I am sure this is just coincidence.
We also have simulated the EPA’s urban driving cyle - which is a different pattern of slow, fast, and stopped motion - and which has the same mechanism to account for aerodynamic and A/C load. This driving cycle was (I am told) created by an actual drive through Manhattan in typical traffic. By our simulations, our EPA urban range should come in around 270 miles.
Early tests give us confidence that we should meet our simulated range. We will know “real” EPA dyno numbers early next year.
We will publish our actual dyno numbers once we have them. We will also publish actual electrical loads for lights, A/C, the heater, the stereo, etc. once they have mean accurately measured. I am certain that many Tesla drivers will learn to tweak their driving to maximize range - though with 250 miles range (or even 200 miles range!) this won’t be necessary for most daily driving, including when stuck in traffic.
But just to keep you thinking… the only loads that really impact range are A/C (on hot days), cabin heating (on cold days), and headlights. The rest of the loads (marker lights, stereo, etc.) are in the noise.
One interesting tidbit: we included heated seats mainly because it is so much more efficient to heat the passenger than to heat the cabin air. Numbers: the cabin heater pulls 3,000 watts, while the seats pull only 60 watts each. Any of you who drives a convertible with heated seats (such as my ‘96 BMW Z3) knows that the seat heaters work a lot better than the cabin heat when the top’s down
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQ4cEr5Wao
good video to to compliment this weeks blog conversation….
saving in MN
I’d like to start out by saying (like many others) I really like what you guys are doing. The Tesla is amazing. I just can’t wait until you make something I can afford.
My question is: If the lithium-ion cells put off enough heat; would it be practical to heat-sink and channel that heat into the cabin instead of using an electric heater?
Clint
Question: You talk about 100,000 mile battery life and 250 miles/charge. By simple math that works out to 4000 charge cycles. I’ve not seen any battery chemistry that lasts over 1000 cycles. What have you done differently ? 2: Looking through your web site, I gather that the battery pack has to be around 30 kWh capacity. To charge that in 3.5 hours, you’d need to put in around 9 kW. 50 amps from a 240 volt outlet ? What have I missed ?
I really like the solar panel comments, although I think you are a bit optimistic on output. The U.S. receives around 700 watts/m2 of sunlight, and at 20% efficiency, 140 watts of electricity. At noon, with the panel aimed at the sun. Unless the panel tracks, less before and after that. Maybe 1 kWh per day per m2. So I think it will take a bigger panel. Still a very good idea.
The Solar Power 2006 Conference is undeway… www.solarpowerconference.com/ The Keynotes (videos) are pretty interesting.
#Tim Conrad wrote on October 18th, 2006 at 8:59 am
#Question: You talk about 100,000 mile battery life and 250 miles/charge. By simple math #that works out to 4000 charge cycles. I’ve not seen any battery chemistry that lasts over #1000 cycles. What have you done differently ? 2: Looking through your web site, I gather #that the battery pack has to be around 30 kWh capacity. To charge that in 3.5 hours, you’d #need to put in around 9 kW. 50 amps from a 240 volt outlet ? What have I missed ?
Your math is off in the first question. That works out to 400 charge cycles, 250 x 4 = 1000, I think you can do the rest. For the second, They have professional installers put in a 240V 70A custom outlet in your garage as part of the sale.
This is off-topic for the current blog entry, but could you provide more information about what type of sound and navigation system you are planning to put in the car? Will the navigation be touch and voice activated? Will the stereo support iPod’s? What about bluetooth and hands free cell phone support?
Considering that Silicon Valley is geek central, you really have an opportunity to get it right, and especially for the next generation sports sedan, set it apart from the stock BMW.
—-
Editor’s Answer: All the details we have are on the tech spec page.
Tim Conrad-
100000 / 250 = 400, not 4000. I think Tesla is being conservative about the number of charge cycles. At the 400 mark, the pack should still be within the “peak capacity” range.
Also, I think the battery pack capacity is closer to 43-44 kWh, but I don’t remember if and where that capacity is explicitly stated, maybe in one of the whitepapers or PowerPoint presentations. To get around charging and discharging inefficiencies, you have to deliver slightly more than 50 kWh to the battery to get a full charge (approx. 200w/mile of range), or around 14.3 kW. That’s about 60A at 240 volts, continuously, over the 3.5 hour period — or the equivalent of 1.2 miles of additional range every minute. The “quick charge” stations that you may see discussed in this blog or elsewhere, which would “fill up” a battery in the same time as an ICE car can get a fill-up at a gas station, would have to provide 50x as much power. Inother words, they would be significant electrical substations.
Your point about solar panels needing to track for best output is well taken. I wonder what non-tracking solar rooftop installations put out on average in the field — using SunPower’s new high efficiency panels, for instance? Does anyone know?
I think your math is off Tim Conrad.
250 x 400 = 100,000. It’s all good though, everyone makes a math mistake now and then.
What they’ve said before is that they expect at least 500 cycles. They say at least, because that’s the rating of the Lith batteries, but Tesla has a control system that will lengthen that cycle life by at least some.
There are some batteries out there with multi 1,000 cycle life, but as yet I haven’t seen any with the energy and power density to replace standard lith-ion.
>>Tim Conrad wrote on October 18th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Question: You talk about 100,000 mile battery life and 250 miles/charge. By simple math that works out to 4000 charge cycles. I’ve not seen any battery chemistry that lasts over 1000 cycles.
Tim recheck your math! 100 000 miles / 250 miles = 400 charges.
400 cycles for a Li-Ion battery is pretty accurate! Although I’d say up to 500 is quite possible with standard cells, especially if they are looked after and not deep cycled and charged right up to a max cell voltage of 4.2 V. It is claimed (a few scientific papers) that if you charge a Li-Ion up to 4.0 V it can last nearly double the cycles (up to 1000 cycles) - but you only get 90 % capacity.
Finally there are a Li-Ion type battery that is in the process of being launched that can do up to 10 000 cycles - Altair Nano
www.altairnano.com
# Ruan wrote on October 18th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
# It is claimed (a few scientific papers) that if you charge a Li-Ion up to 4.0 V it can
# last nearly double the cycles (up to 1000 cycles) - but you only get 90 % capacity.
If this is true, then a Tesla pack could offer between 200 and 225 miles of range for an expected total life of 180,000 miles ( or over 8 years of driving for me, a 66 mile-per-weekday round-trip commuter, as opposed to 4.75 years with the higher voltage charge and only 100,000 miles range). Sounds like an excellent tradeoff to me.
Could JB or Martin comment on the realism or feasibility of this?
—-
Editor’s Answer: Direct from JB:
Indeed this is a real effect and a very good idea, so good in fact that we are already doing it
Our EPA highway range of 250 miles is based on charging the cells to less than 4.2V. We are doing this primarily to extend the cycle life and calendar life of the cells as you have seen in various papers. We will give the driver the option of charging the car to 4.15V/cell, 4.1V/cell, or 3.8V/cell. These lower charge termination options are selectable or un-selectable at any time and they will further extend the cycle and storage life of the battery pack.
For example, if you are planning a long trip in the next day(s) you would select a “maximum range” charge (4.15V/cell). If you are planning to store the Roadster for several months because you don’t want to drive it in the rain/snow, whatever, you could select a “storage charge” (3.8V/cell). And if you are just busy and don’t care to deal with this at all the Roadster will always charge to a default “normal charge” (4.1V/cell) that is a balance between range and lifetime.
I need to make another correction. On October 12th I suggested that the Mini-Cooper with 640 Hp was unrealistic. I have now found out that PML www.pmlflightlink.com has a HI-Pa drive series that is truely amazing this drive is not on their web page last I looked. The HPD30 has 350Nm torque, 40kW power and weighs 18kg. The HPD40 has 750Nm torque, 120kW power and weighs 25kg. The PD40 has 4 Hp/lb. These are water cooled and have built in controllers. They claim that the regenerative system works down to very slow speeds. See RDE’s comment about www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/country/ecf/newsID/2060724.006/mini/pml-builds-640 RDE did say the motors were less than 30lbs instead of 25×2.2= 55lbs. Tesla’s motor is truely a major advance, but it is still only 200Hp/75lbs = 2.7Hp/lb. Tesla’s argument about unsprung weight is still valid but there might be other answers for that. See also Samuel Maxey’s comment.
Google Images
Imagine if you will a fairly stiff but still flexible rim that has carbon fiber spiral leaf springs to the hub similar in appearance to These leaf springs could incorporate shock absorbers and the hub could be unsprung. This would greatly reduce unsprung weight while haveing the advantages of wheel motors.
hey why not put the solar panells in front of the headlights sounds like a great idea.
I understand that the idea incorporating PV cells on the Tesla doesn’t really merit any real benefits against the effort necessary to implement them. However one thing that I still think would be a viable option, and is one that was mentioned already on this blog, is the use of Quantum dots in the form of a photovoltaic paint. The thing I like about quantum dots is that theses little guys use infrared light waves as opposed to visible light spectrum which traditional PV’s use. University of Toronto has been working on these little halibuts
www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/050110-832.asp
Now someone mentioned that who would put a 100K car baking out in the sun, rather than in a garage which obvisiously the owner could afford if he could afford a 100K car. A well illustrated point, but for the long run, when we see more affordable vehicles for the mass market, this type of technology makes sense. Plus the article mentions these halibuts being applied to fabrics, so a car cover “covered” in quantum dots is highly pheasable. For me, even if it only gives me enough power to travel 2 extra miles a day from just sitting in the sun while I’m at work, hey, thats two extra miles, and I think every little bit counts.
I think my only major concern would be the cost. Considering that this is a nanotechnology, I am sure that it won’t come cheap.
It will be intersting to have a look at the energy efficiency using the TASC solar panels made by Spedtrolab which is atri junction design using materials other than Silicon dioxide wafers or multi crystaline silicon dioxide.
This type offers efficiency ranging from 34 %+. I wonder whether use of vanadium redox batteries in addition to plug in for recharging the batteries will be a workable solution.
Fro my reckonning TASC panels + vanadium redox batteries will be ideal as stationaery power source. The question is whther this system can be configured for Automobiles
This blog appears to have run it’s course, but this entry is most relevant here. One major potential synergy between solar & EV’s is the potential use of the batteries for emergency home power in the event of prolonged power outages. This application is particularly poignant for may area of the country after the last couple hurricane seasons. Many homeowners in the affected areas (about 30 million in these) areas have put in or thought about putting in expensive home generation systems. I would much rather put in solar panels that have payback, but that would require an expensive battery system that would not be used much. I believe Florida just changed the solar incentives to require power companies to allow grid connection, although I don’t think off-peak power is cheaper yet. This makes solar all that more attractive it I had 50 KWh of batteries on hand. Add a small efficient generator and I’m good to go!
This brings up a couple of solar only questions. Does Solar City have operations in Florida? My understanding is that layered triple-junction amorphous solar panels are better in partial sun and shaded conditions. This question is a bit oversimplified, but would they be better than mono or poly-crystal panels for Florida’s conditions? Any insights, references, or referrals would be greatly appreciated.
> Question: Why don’t you put solar panels in front of the headlights to charge the batteries while the lights are on?
> Editor: Conservation of Energy.
That’s a poor answer
One could say the same of a technology like regenerative breaking. You’re not going to recover all of the energy, but you will recover some of it.
Solar panels near the headlights would be infeasible because they’d generate very little electricity and would be costly, probably not even worth the extra weight they would add. Better to use lighting that has highly efficient reflector and bulb design.
Halibut!
I understand that Li-ion batteries, like all types, will just age with time, whether it is used or not. Under moderate usage, that aging could be 80% per year, reducing your battery to ~50% capacity in three years. Assuming half the batteries are replace at that time, with an additional 1/3 replaced every year for the next year (and on going) up to 8 years (the average lifespan for a typical car) gives the overall fuel cost of just over 20K (I’ve included the cost of electricity at 1 cent per mile). At 20 mpg and a fuel cost of 2.75, the present value of fuel is about half that, approximately 10K. If the feds were to subsidize the difference, the cost of getting us off oil is 170 billion per year.
This is a really simple analysis - it doesn’t take into account a lot of factors (and I did it in a few minutes, so forgive any mistakes). The bottom line is that if a tesla like vehicle was as cheap as a normal one, we could do this. A huge advantage would be that some of that money would staty domestic - but since most battery manufacturers are in china or other 3rd worl, we would be giving our dependence up to other groups. Unless we made the decision to produce and recylce domestically.
So the Tesla may not make sense economically now, but it may in a few years.
—
Editor’s comment: You might find our whitepaper, The 21st Century Electric Car, interesting.
I would think that using Ultra Brigh L.E.Ds for headlight is more practical since L.E.Ds generally use much less electricity compare to the Halogen/HID bulbs. I supposed that will make a big difference in energy consumed while driving with headlights on during the day or at night. Let me know what you think, my email address is kevinwltan@gmail.com .
I have a 4 kilowatt solar array installed at my home. I designed the array and the support structure. My average monthly average electric bill is $10.00 (SDG & E). Silicon cells are used, however Gallium Arsinide put out more power for the same given size, but are very expensive. Congratulations for producing the first desireable electric car.
TEG wrote on October 15th, 2006 at 2:40 pmTEG wrote on October 15th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
# Bob Danziger wrote on October 14th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
# The extraordinary charging system and battery capacity of electric cars has an enormous conservation value to electric utility systems if the systems are developed to have electricity flow in both directions.
# • Electric cars plugged in at the office or home during the day could be used to power homes and offices during peak periods, alleviating the need to build new powerplants, allowing powerplants that are operating to operate at peak energy and environmental efficiency, smoothing system dispatch issues and line congestion problems.
Yes, I have been posting that idea on this blog earlier.
I found this related whitepaper:
www.acpropulsion.com/Veh_Grid_Power/V2G%20Final%20Report%20R5.pdf
I recently read the whitepaper and thought it was excellent. Thanks for the referral.
Bob D
I realize you guys partially own SolarCity. But have you considered partnering with Citizenre?
www.citizenre.com/ They offer a service to rent solar systems charging you for electrical output only. You pay only your current rate for actual output, and they even do the paperwork for you! I’m not sure if they’re doing this profitably… but it’ s a great concept none the less.
—
Editor’s comment: Tesla Motors is not an investor in SolarCity. But our Chairman, Elon Musk, also serves as Chairman of SolarCity.
Well you have totally missed the point of ERoEI. And have failed to account for significant other energy expenditures along the way, included but not limited to:
• Material gathering, processing an transportation to the PV factory
• Finished good transportation and storage
• Ancillary components and goods needed for operation system
• Site work and installation.
• Etc…
At the end of the day I agree with many others that the most accurate, but far from perfect, method to estimate total energy content of an end product is to use its market price. When you compare price of installed PV system to energy produced over estimated life of 30 years you are lucky to yield a fraction of the predicted ERoEI.
Georgia Tech has announced the development of a “3D” solar-cell that they admit isn’t ready for prime-time yet, but holds promise for panels of much higher-efficiency/output than we have today. Here’s their web-presentation of the basic idea:
www-stage.gatech.edu/news-room/flash/CNTpv.html
The news story I read about the announcement spoke of solar cells that produced “60 times” more energy than present-day cells. (I’m not sure yet how they figure this, given that it seems as if a cell needs to produce only 10x more output than a 10%-efficient cell to deliver all of the energy provided by the sun for the given receptor area. Perhaps this has something to do with a multiplier that accounts for the third dimension, or maybe the story just misstated the efficiency, as solar tech stories often do…) Raw current they can produce now, but internal resistance is apparently too high to allow for sufficiently high output voltage (even in the normal solar cell range, which is fairly low to begin with). Anyway, if these “3D” cells can overcome the hurdles, they may someday at least allow a Roadster-class vehicle to be “emergency charged” to a useful point in an hour or less.
The combining of technologies and methods of generating and storing energy is lateral thinking at its best. For example, coupling regenerative braking to charge batteries when slowing or stopping the vehicle. Using solar arrays to charge batteries when the vehicle is stationery at home. Or better still, having the solar cells on the vehicle to charge the batteries when it is parked - taking advantage of idle non-usage time. But the cells interfere with aesthetics and need a largish surface area to improve charging capability. Or there is the Australian invention - the Silver Cell. This cell is approximately 800 times more efficient than anything on the market today. It means that a smaller surface area is required to produce equivalent power output, especially where the surface area is at a premium like on the Tesla sports car. Here are some links to sites that will go into further detail:
solar.anu.edu.au/level_1/projects/sliver_proj.php
solar.anu.edu.au/docs/65micronthinmonosi.pdf
www.sv.sustainability.vic.gov.au/ftp/renewable_energy/solar_cities/SolarCities_Seminar.pdf
www.solarpanelxpress.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32
I wrote a book titled “Metaphysician’s Dilemma: An Environmental and Ecological Treatice.” (Still needs a publisher.) In it there is a fantasy section and the Metaphysician wonders about short range electric vehicles as a “Third Car in the Family” vehicle for high svhool kids and people who work close to home. Of course they don;t have to be short range.
In it I suggested that schools have a solor array and parking spots where electric car owners can plug in. i also said that perhaps there could be acrylic sheets with imbedded solar collectors that could be heat press lamenated to the roof, or wherever there is room, and that for the short drive of 5-10 miles to scool or work that this might be enough to compensate and recharge the vehicle. Is this a wrong thing to say .
I just noticed n your article that you felt this wouldn’t be so worth it, adding an area of solar or perhaps this is beciause you are making sports cars. I have a Mercury Sable Station Wagon and it seems that there is plenty of room to recharge for -how many miles a day?
Is photovoltaic ever laminated as I mentioned?
Also I have an intriguing invention that some of you Silicon Valley geniuses might be able to help with.
Could I make a suggestion. It seems that lots of people either don’t understand how V2G works or can’t be bothered to read up on it. How about a really simple guide for the layman, on this site, that explains (with diagrams) how you can put your excess solar energy back into the grid during the day while there is peak demand and buy it back at night at discounted rates to charge up your Tesla. I get it and obviously lots of your bloggers get it but we keep seeing people asking how you can store the energy you collect with your solar panels during the day and other similar questions. The more you can make this really easily understood the more people will get the whole idea and realise how this can free them from dependence on oil companies and potentially reduce the nation’s need for more power stations. The whole “nanosolar” reduced cost solar panels thing could be similarly explained to give the big picture.
“Question: How many solar panels do I need to power my Tesla Roadster?
Martin: The Tesla Roadster consumes about 200 watt-hours per mile. Suppose you drove 35 miles per day on average (12,775 miles per year). You would need to generate 2.6 MWh/year. By Elon’s math, monocrystalline solar panels generate about 263 kWh/m2/year in the USA. So you would need about 9.7 square meters of solar panels (a square about 10 feet on a side) to completely offset the energy consumed by your Tesla Roadster.”
Suggestion:
“Effective Friday, June 15, Tesla Motors is increasing the base price of the Tesla Roadster from $92,000 to $98,000. We encourage you to submit your reservation on or before Friday, June 15, to secure your Tesla Roadster at the $92,000 price.” + Balance of Systems [BOS] ground mounted [GM] or roof mounted [RM] customer sited photovoltaics at installed [CSPV] at about ~$15,000 ?
The calculations appear to be correct actual installed physical ~ 15 x 15 foot array add setback. Parts, for example, would be modules, one source string, one inverter at ~2500 watts, one residential 2 pole 15A breaker on the load side, grounding electrode conductor, equipment grounding conductor, one DC disconnect, …
Picture of actual installed ~ 15 x 15 foot multicrystalline photovoltaic array.
www.herzfeld.org/images/435_Copy_of_100_0546.jpg
I haven’t read all of the posts above- don’t know if this has been discussed- I’m sure it has but humor me, please! I wondered if there was a way to create a pepetual motion?? sort of device that would be a wind turbine taking the air in as you drive and charging the battery that way. ( Just to prolong the time between stops) Maybe combined with solar roof panels? Thanks. PS please let me know how to be on a list when the price becomes more affordable to the middle classes!
#Teresa B wrote on May 28th, 2007 at 8:09 am
#I haven’t read all of the post….
You are right, it was answered above. The short answer is that conservation of energy will not allow for such a situation, especially in this example. The drag created by the turbine would exceed that of the energy created and stored in the batteries.
With all the talk about being green and solar I find it worthwhile to bring to the attention of future readers the importance of other alternative options. Such as hydro, micro hydro, wind, geothermal…. Many of these options actually offer a better $ / Watt ratio. Meaning you get more watts / kilowatts per $ spent. Which translates to your pay back period or break even point comes much sooner. Keep in mind that solar only works a few hours of the day but wind and stream water are often times nearly continuous. I have done much research into green energy and the potential profitability of self sufficient energy creation / storage. I pass along the following links which I found to be very helpful in getting solid information.
Grants, Rebates and Incentives:
-http://www.dsireusa.org/
-http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/incen_laws.html
Free search for cheapest panels (just panels not full system)
-http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
Site with multiple energy creation options:
-http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/generate_your_own_energy/
Great financial site offering advice on saving money by being green:
-http://www.fool.co.uk/news/money-saving-tips/household-bills/2007/03/20/save-more-money-by-being-green.aspx
Tesla team, I love the car and likewise can’t wait for a slightly more affordable option once the price of and quality of batteries increase. If you have ANY need for an IT guy with a very broad skill set send me a line.
-Matt S
SolarCity/Space X/Tesla Motors,
As the costs of producing power decrease purchasing power increases. This is simple no? How about this:
When power reaches oversupply costs reach zero.
Please think about that and consider a marketing strategy involving taxi cabs. A rural location is aquired where a power farm (solar and wind) begins generating power for a batter charging station/taxi cab/lease/ car sales lot exists.
Excess power can also be sold to close neighbors and excess power (windy days in summer) pumps water/generates and presurizes hydrogen (to run generators during down time).
The taxi drivers advertize elctric car sales and each taxi has 3 sets of batteries (quick change) to run around the clock.
Why not use photovoltaic paint as a coating on the car to gain back some of the used energy?
“Many of these options actually offer a better $ / Watt ratio. Meaning you get more watts / kilowatts per $ spent.”
I don’t know the boundaries here; however – the subject sure could use some hashing about since there are many popular notions that cloud the principle and discourage interest.
Thinking only in terms of cost/benefit without stepping back to see dependence/independence and perhaps even more important an ignoring of scale can, again, cloud, hide, disguise, and even falsify the reality and stifle the demand.
A look into scale, if I can communicate this accurately, blows the top off the bottle.
How about this angle:
Why do producers scale back electric production from peak production? Why produce less of a cost reducing power? One obvious yet myopic answer is demand. If, say, a peak rate could be produced year round, then, electric power could be stored and earn a long period of no production given a scale of demand or usage.
I am trying to point toward a particularly false dependence upon price. Either something pays out more than the cost or something does not pay out more than the cost. If something pays out more than the cost, then, why stop paying out more than the cost?
The myopic answer again could obviously be – no further demand. This brings me to ask anyone and I have yet found only one other person seeing this point.
As power is produced into a state of oversupply the cost reaches zero.
What happens when power is cost-less?
Purchasing power goes up.
Then – people can afford to move to mars.
The power to control the rate of currency production into a state of overabundance where costs are reaching zero is something worth looking into – unless the individual happens to survive on profits earned in the process of making power scarce.
One more angle –
A person purchasing independent power producing products may well invest big rather than ‘just enough to get by’ since the future may reward those who can generate more than they need – currently.
Have you started selling you car overseas??? might be interested in buying one car for shipment to the Middle East, Are you ready for export sales and what is the price of the car???
I’m doing my junior research paper on this subject, how can technology improve the United States economically, and this website will be one of my main sources!!!!! Keep up the good work please - plus I’m thinking on buying a Tesla Roadster now.
Can anyone give me a general idea of the heat , given off as a waste product, during the operation of a typical electric motor in a car such as the Tesla model.. Thank You Rod
cars driven by solar cell. umm, i think it’s so difficult.
Thanks for the informative post. It is amazing how far we have come in solar power. Once this technology has been available for awhile, then it will become more affordable to the average consumer.