Coddled indeed. Congratulations on the approvals. I’m sure this was a huge expense for Tesla Motors. Will all of these tests have to be revisited if the White Star uses a different battery arrangement? Can analysis tools be used to validate the design or do the regulatory agencies require real world testing?

Toyota recently back-pedaled on previously announced plans to do Li-ion based Prius batteries including possible Li-Ion PHEV models.

www.autoblog.com/2007/05/31/toyota-delays-introduction-of-li-ion-batteries-for-prius/
digg.com/gadgets/Toyota_saying_no_to_Li_ion_batteries_that_get_Prius_to_125_MPG

They stated that safety concerns have them retreating back to NiMH for the time being.
(Which puts them in the unfortunate situation of needing to stay in line with agreements related to Cobasys ownership of NiMH technology)

It seems little Telsa is showing big Toyota how they could have solved the Li-ion in an auto puzzle.
Good show on that.

Now we also have companies like A123systems and Altairnnano shipping Li-ion batteries that they claim are more inherently safe so they don’t need all these extreme safety systems to keep them happy. It will be interesting to see if the A123/Altair based PHEVs and BEVs are able to meet all the regulatory hurdles and stay competitive with the system that Tesla has built.

Wondered why I hadn’t read much new on your blog lately; you guys were waiting to release this information properly timed to the U.N. announcement and that’s fine and I congratulate you for the achievement.

Now, please know there are a lot of us just straining to hear how the whitestar project is proceeding. Your company is at the forefront of the hopes we have of extending the life of our planet so every Tesla achievement is a giant step in that direction.

Please seriously consider providing updates of your whitestar project on the blog.

Reports of “Blue Star” (Model 3) having a possible ICE are disconcerting.

Tesla seems to be growing and heading in different directions now.

I think the possible ICE in the Model 3 car is a misunderstanding. Could Tesla reply to this blog and clarify for the record please????

Congratulations!

The battery pack has been approved!!! So for anyone who is concerned about the battery pack I can just tell them that it is UN approved!

And yes, of course this battery pack is coddled. What kind of battery pack has its own cooling/heating/monitoring systems/sensors???

A question that maybe somebody can answer for me: When you divide the max. power among all 6,831 battery cell in the roadster, you get each cell producing about 30 watts. Is this alot of power to produce for one individual cell?

Congratulations! Now maybe you can begin work on a next generation pack with larger format cells which will require fewer interconects. Or do you plan to continue with the small cells until larger cells are redily available by suppliers to other EV makers?

P.S. Erik, I bet you’ve got a real love-hate relationship with your lawyers right about now!

You know, it seems to me that one of the biggest concerns about electric cars is the safety of the battery in case of an accident. I was having a conversation with a very right-wing friend of mine the other day about electric cars. Se said “If you get into an accident, and that puppy shorts to ground: you’re a dead man”. But it seems to me that Tesla has made it’s battery pack so safe that the Roadster’s fuel system probably exceeds the safety of an ICE vehicle’s gas tank; which is, after all, filled with explosive fluid.

I’m quite impressed with the number of safety precautions taken to make the Roadster’s Energy Storage System safe. According to the White Papers: each of the 6831 cells has a robust steel casing, two fuses and devices that react to short circuits and excessive internal pressure, there are eleven main fuses for each bunch of 621 cells, a liquid cooled temperature-regulating system, and computer systems that monitor the pack’s temperature, voltage, current, tilt (in case of rollover), and impulse (essentially “sensing” a car crash). Quite a mouthful One can’t exactly put this many precautions to a gas tank.

But to answer the last question: no, I don’t think the battery pack is “coddled”. Instead, I think it’s more prepared than a boy scout!

Congratulations on passing this critical milestone!

Link to an overview of the UL 1642 test criteria:-

ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=1642.html

Good to know that the ESS passed with flying colours, as expected!

Sorry about the typo….criticism!

Musk Interview:-

www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/08/04/sm_elonmusk04.xml&page=1

Article refers to old numbers: e.g $92,000 base price, 250 mile range etc.

VOLT BATTERIES

FYI, GM announced today that they are contracting with A123 for the batteries for their Volt vehicle.

I think it is wise to consider an ICE generator for the BlueStar. However, I think that it should be removable. 10kw ICE generators are available for under 300lbs, which is conceivably light enough to put in the trunk when you need the range. This allows for greater battery range and maneuverability when you don’t have the generator in there. I personally think it would be great to have the ability to attach a generator to the WhiteStar trunk for long trips. Then again, how many trips would you have to make to exceed a rental car for road trips? Let’s see, 3 trips a year at one week each, $100/day rental car = $2000, add 10 misc long-distance days = $3000. So a generator would pay for itself in less than two years. Not sure it’s worth it, especially for such a weak generator. We’ll see how things change by 2011 after the WhiteStar is released and Tesla starts designing the BlueStar. Does every battery configuration has to go through this rigorous testing, or is it less severe once the design has been demonstrated to fulfill all the requirements?

# Tim Johnson wrote on August 8th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
## I noticed that the battery was de-rated by 5%.
## I thought I’d read it differently in the whitepaper, but I checked and that said the same 53 KWh.
## At least you guys are consistent, but it seems slipping that into the whitepaper without annotating the change
## to a paper stated as written in 2006 is a bit duplicitous. Not that big of a deal, but to me that sort of behavior is rather irksome.

Yes, I too had noticed that the whitepaper document had been morphing over time without the date being updated.

# Malcolm Wilson wrote on August 9th, 2007 at 7:08 am
## However, it is MUCH more important that Tesla continues to maintain it’s reputation for honesty in the EV marketplace.

Yes, selective release of accurate information during the development process is very exciting to those watching the progress of this company. We all know that things change, and appreciate the honesty when someone like Martin steps forward to admit that specific targets couldn’t be met. Trying to quietly change information without saying that the old information was inaccurate breeds mistrust. Many people are very suspicious of Zap’s claims about the Zap-X, but we want to hold onto the idea that Tesla is different and only says what they know to be true. Please fight hype with truth, and avoid the urge to get pulled into a “hype war”. As Tesla grows and more projects are in flux with more people talking to the press it will be harder and harder to be so careful about what is said. At some point it will be tempting to throw hands in the air and say “we can’t respond to all the little inaccuracies that leaked out”, but those watching the company from the outside do appreciate it when Tesla takes the time to set the record straight.

For those that missed it, this is the article that started the “Tesla may use a gasoline engine” chatter:
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_31/b4044419.htm
“…If necessary, the company would be willing to use a small gas engine to boost Blue Star’s range and broaden its appeal….”
The quote isn’t attributed to anyone although it is in a paragaph where they talk about Martin’s (and later Elon’s) thoughts on the market for Prius competition.

I keep seeing people complaining that the blogs are not updated often enough. Give these folks a break!

* They are launching the first production, high performance electric sports car. That’s an enormous amount of work.
* They are also opening up service centers around the country. Even more work.
* They are also designing the next car, the Whitestar project.
* Also working on building an assembly plant for the Whitestar.
* They are busy hiring people to help get all this work done. This involves weeding out lots of very good candidates to find the truly exceptional, and it’s very time consuming

On top of all that, it’s summertime. I’ve worked at startups before, and It’s tough. If they are smart, they are squeezing in a few precious days off to maintain sanity.

The blogs are nice, but they have so many higher priority tasks, Overall, I think they are doing a great job with the blogs.

Thanks TEG2 for linking us to the “evidence” that the Blue Star’s may have an ICE.

I too will be more than a little disappointed if Tesla goes this route as they have been so adamant in their statements that their vehicles will be ICE free. i.e. 100% EV’s.

But Blue Star is still a long way off and improvements in battery technology/costs are happening all the time. My bet (hope) is that the other two models will so successful that the ICE idea just won’t happen.

However, it would be reassuring to hear from the “Horse’s mouth” just what the intention is at this stage.

Peter J Hedge (Victoria, BC)

TEG2 urges Tesla to refrain from a “hype war” with the likes of ZAP. But what about GM?

www.siliconvalley.com/ci_6583374?IADID=Search-www.siliconvalley.com-www.siliconvalley.com&nclick_check=1

“TRAVERSE CITY, Mich.—General Motors Corp. has signed an agreement with a battery maker that could propel it ahead of Toyota Motor Corp. in the race to bring plug-in hybrid and electric cars to market, a top company official said Thursday.

“A123 Systems Inc., based in Watertown, Mass., already produces millions of nanophosphate lithium-ion batteries for use in cordless power tools, and it plans to apply the technology to automobiles.

“GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said the deal, coupled with a published report that Toyota Motor Corp. would delay launches of lithium-ion battery powered hybrids for up to two years, could give GM the lead in bringing the new clean technology to market. ”

Wow, does this ever sound like the old Silicon Valley vaporware claims of yore, or even the ZAP-X claims of today! But when GM talks, people listen, and the pressure is now on folks like Tesla to either match the big guy, hype for hype, OR actually demonstrate and soon ship a product that is so compelling as to overcome GM’s formidable “FUD factor.” I note that the Pebble Beach Councours D’Elegance is coming around again. So which is it going to be for Tesla, I wonder?

# TEG2 wrote
# Reports of “Blue Star” (Model 3) having a possible ICE are disconcerting.

I realize that most believe that an all-electric EV is the best option given that it completely removes dependence on gasoline. However, I’ve previously suggested and still standby the fact that a car like the Blue Star will have a greater net benefit to the environment and the consumer if a such a serial hybrid configuration is at least made available.

Looking at one’s carbon footprint as a result of consumption, it is certainly more beneficial to own one vehicle that can do everything rather than own two. Furthermore, if such an ICE generator could run on E-85, the equivalent MPGG would be a small fraction of what it is today. Finally, pairing a smaller battery with an ICE generator would not only make the car more practical to a larger consumer base, it would make it more affordable.

I love the idea of an all-electric vehicle that could meet all my needs, but balance is the key. I think having such an extender as an available option for the car would be the best of both worlds: All electric for those who don’t need anything more, and the range extending capabilities for those who do.

If the ultimate goal here is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the more people that find the car practical and affordable, the better.

# Brent wrote on August 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
## I seem to remember Martin telling Nightline in May that his “goal is ultimately to get people to stop burning gasoline in their cars.”

Yeah, and in an old blog entry ( www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=27 ) he said:
“…Tesla Motors will remain focused on building the best electric cars for the foreseeable future. With each passing year, our driving range will get longer and the argument for plug-in hybrids will get weaker. To hell with gasoline…”

Hmmm. Maybe Ford should enter for the X-Prize?

www.forbes.com/markets/economy/feeds/ap/2007/08/08/ap4000910.html

Eric wrote:
“I realize that most believe that an all-electric EV is the best option given that it completely removes dependence on gasoline. However, I’ve previously suggested and still standby the fact that a car like the Blue Star will have a greater net benefit to the environment and the consumer if a such a serial hybrid configuration is at least made available.”

Agreed. The way I see it, in the $30,000 market, people are more interested in a car than a statement. If it takes a small ICE to make the vehicle attractive to a greater audience, then the net environmental gain is greater than selling a few pure EVs. It may be a necessary stepping stone to acceptance of pure EVs.

So the Blue Star might come with powerplant options.

Option 1- A 100 mile battery range with an Stirling (or other) generator motor that runs on various fuels to extend range.
Option 2 -A 350 mile (all battery) range. This one might be cheaper as well since the R & D is already done, there is only one motor and the safety certification issues are 1/2.

# Joseph wrote on August 10th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
## what’s the big deal that Tesla Motors has put slight changes in their White Papers?
Typically you change the date on a document when you make changes. Or archive the old version and make a new version.
Was it an honest oversight or “lets pretend we never said that”… I dunno.

## With GM and Toyota as possible competitors they will have to offer their Blue Star with an ICE range extender to stay ahead of the game.
I hope Tesla leads the industry showing that they can win without major compromise.
Following GM & Toyota doesn’t seem like the way to go. Those big guys have way more economy of scale. Tesla needs to be different and more innovative to win.

—-

Editor’s Answer : Take a look at the bottom of the page of the Battery White Paper - the date is updated every time the paper is updated. The last update is 07-07-07.

Update GM now using LIQUID cooling for Volt’s A123 battery pack:

www.gm-volt.com/2007/08/09/exclusive-interviewpodcast-with-chevy-volt-chief-engineer-on-current-state-of-volt-development/

BBC News24’s >Click programme featuring the Tesla and the Wright X1 is a great 15 minute plug for Tesla. What a shame that most of the viewers will have no opportunity to buy the car.

news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_4970000/newsid_4977500/4977542.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&nol_storyid=4977542&news=1

In the UK we’re paying around $9 per gallon of gas aside from congestion charges in London recently raised to $50 per day for larger engined cars. The Roadster actually makes economic sense for rich Brits that live and work around London and like performance cars. Thanks to the success of the city’s financial district there are plenty of them.

Short (I minute) clip of the BBC reporter Dan Simmons just after his ride in the Tesla. Very enthusiastic!

news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6930000/newsid_6936700/6936738.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1

In the BBC programe above there is a screen shot of the onboard computer that gives estimated range left on remaining battery power. The shot shows 27% charge and an estimated range of 29 miles. I assume this is a true reflection of range achievable when driving enthusiastically. I’m sure Tesla were using all the performance to show off the car to the BBC. If this is accurate and if the car is the same as the customer cars, it implies a total range of 107 miles with enthusiastic driving. Pretty good in my opinion.

I’ll wade in on the range extender.
1. Tesla provides recharging recepticle at the rear of the vehicle and hardpoints for a tow hitch, then washes their hands of all responsibilities.
2. Aftermarket provides a stylish trailer with 2 compartments, one for extra luggage [because you’re now on a longer trip] and the second for a gas powered electrical generator, with suitable tie downs, venting, and a locking lid for security.
3. The owner provides a gas powered electrical generator and assumes all responsibilities.

You have now made a serial hybrid that can be returned to pure EV by unhitching a trailer and relieved Tesla of a lot of BS. Starting with a fully charged battery that would move the car for lets say 4hrs, how much farther would a Honda generator push the car?,if it ran continuously at the begining of the journey. BTW if you get stuck on the side of the road with no juice, this system will eventually free you.

# Editor’s wrote:
## Take a look at the bottom of the page of the Battery White Paper - the date is updated every time the paper is updated. The last update is 07-07-07.

Thanks, editor. Yes, I can now see that most recent version of the document has a “last update” date at the bottom which shows that are tracking revisions.
It still says “August 16, 2006″ front and center on the first page which is slightly misleading if you don’t know about the smaller, revision note down on the bottom of the last page. I still think the update footnote should appear next to the original publish date, not buried down at the end.

I recall the first version said 50kWh, then it jumped up to 56kWh, then settled back down to 53kWh. So this isn’t a major change, but rather just minor corrections as the product was being finalized.

Thanks again for putting so much technical information on the web for us to peruse.

# Bill wrote on August 11th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
## It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Tesla is looking at a serial hybrid (onboard ICE)
## Remember, the ICE doesn’t have to burn gasoline.

Yes, I converted my old Rx7 to run on LPG (propane gas) which you can find all over to refill barbecues, RVs and trailers.
Certainly better than gasoline.

# DGP wrote on August 11th, 2007 at 8:33 am
## 1. Tesla provides recharging receptacle at the rear of the vehicle and hardpoints for a tow hitch, then washes their hands of all responsibilities.

I like that approach. Then you can add the trailer for the long road trip, but run on batteries only for the short commute.
Also, the trailer could just be more batteries if you refused to burn anything.

I don’t see how people can even compare Tesla or even say Tesla is a threat to the Big Three. In 2005 roughly 17 million cars were sold (passenger, light truck, lease). www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_17.html
Over 50% were from the Big Three.
The projected number of hybrid sales for 2007 is 335,000. The projected hybrid sales for 2010 is 755,000.
money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/LATH01802082007-1.htm
Tesla Motors plans to make 10,000 White Stars a year. Thats .06% of all new car sales, 2.8% of all 2007 hybrid sales, and 1.3% of the projected 2010 hybrid sales.
Teslas’ volume would be comparable to or less than that of Jaguar or Isuzu.
roadtrip.enjoying.net/a/2007/08/02/the_july_2007_us_car_sales_as_released_b

Word in Taiwan is that LiFePO4 18650 cells are 1/3 the price of LiCoO2 cells (18650 format) in volume. Due to the safety issue, LiCoO2 cells do not come larger than 18650 (4/3 A-size) which are 7.5 Wh.

However, lifepo has been manufactured single cell cylinders as large as 800 Wh. Tesla would only need 66 of these monsters to get 53 KWh.

And then there is the cycle life. lifepo cycle life is 8000 vs. 500 - 1000 for LiCoO2.

Ms Moderator or Editor, whoever deals with this stuff.

This is off-topic but what happened to the facility to view “most recent post first” / “most recent post last”. That button seems to have disappeared. It was a really useful button given the length of some threads. Can we have it back?

—-

Editor’s Answer: I’ll take a look … 

Andrew Kelsey - When you submit a post to this blog, it will appear immediately in *your* browser where you submitted the post so you can see what you’ve written, but anyone viewing the blog from somewhere else, including you on the same computer with a new instance of the browser, will not see it until the moderator approves it. That is why you thought your post disappeared.

Ahmadi - No, the battery was not smaller. As Andrew said, if you drive “enthusiastically”, with lots of fast accelerations, your range will be significantly reduced because it takes more energy to drive that way. The same is true in a gas car.

I was wondering if there are any plans by Tesla to sell this battery pack directly to enthusiasts/tinkerers converting their old cars to electric. The battery pack does seem to be the biggest problem home EV-converters face.

Joseph,

Please note that Apple kicked Steve Jobs out once too! However, I agree with you and hope this is not the end of Tesla! I hope the board knows what they are doing. I am worried now. Maybe, like Apple, Tesla will one day bring Martin back.

B.

# Ahmadi wrote
# A123 says it is has shipped 10 million safe 26650 nLiFePO4 batteries (mostly to Black and Decker).
# It is a pity that Tesla is wasting its time trying to liquid cool and heat the outmoded
# and unsafe and materially expensive LiCoO2 18650 battery.

Even more of a pity then that GM have announced that they need to liquid cool the more modern A123’s as well. AND for a smaller 40 mile range battery pack as well:-

www.gm-volt.com/2007/08/09/exclusive-interviewpodcast-with-chevy-volt-chief-engineer-on-current-state-of-volt-development/

Quote: “He agreed that working battery pack prototypes will be coming from both battery teams this fall. Interestingly, it is expected that different test versions of the Volt will be built, each with different battery packs from the two manufacturing teams. He also told me that a decision has been made to use liquid cooling (and not air) systems for the packs.”

Speculating from the press release, specifically that Martin is remaining at Tesla as the president of Technology and still in charge of the Roadster and “core technologies”, it sounds like Martin is allowing someone else to manage the “boring” bits of manufacturing, logistics and regulations, while he focuses on creating exciting new technologies. Sometimes it is better to be the prince than the king.

Besides congradulating you on your great invention I have to acknowledge your wonderful site. But where do I find the cost of the replacement battery that will be needed approximately every 100,000 miles?

Jeanette Weix wrote on August 13th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Besides congradulating you on your great invention I have to acknowledge your wonderful site. But where do I find the cost of the replacement battery that will be needed approximately every 100,000 miles?

Last I heard it’s around $20,000 at the moment but everybody expects that to fall a long way over the life of the battery pack. Got a crystal ball?

Joseph: Press release: www.teslamotors.com/media/press_room.php?id=614

It doesn’t actually sound like a bad thing. Martin is staying on, as head of technology, which is probably a better place for him to be anyway. And they’re replacing him with a seasoned CEO who sounds like he knows what he’s doing. That’s just the nature of business, people move around, change job title/responsibilities. Remember too that Bill Gates hasn’t been CEO at MS for a while but he’s still been working there.

Just a side note: The only ZENN dealer (as far as I know) in Santa Cruz CA is closing down:

www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/13/breaking/stories/03breaking.htm

The article doesn’t mention the ZENN, but this was where I first saw it for sale a few weeks back.

I guess if I want a test drive, I had better get in there before Labor Day.

Wow. My browser didn’t update this page from its August 9th content until I posted the above item about ZENN. Immediately, I saw the news about Martin! I read the Jalopnik item (thanks, Andrew K), and it sounds like a pretty good explanation of the move, but it makes me think that the delay in the Roadster might be longer than it is being painted. Otherwise, why formally replace the head guy without giving him a chance to gracefully step out of the way once “his baby” was born and he had at least a few moments to enjoy the winner’s circle? There is plenty of time for a new sheriff to get things in line in time for White Star and Blue Star — or maybe there isn’t, if the delay in the Roadster were to be TOO long.

Bruce reminds us that Jobs was once 86′d by Apple. However, it is worth noting that this didn’t happen until Apple had put out the Apple I, several Apple II models, the Apple III, the Lisa, and the first Macintoshes. To be fair, there was already considerable pressure to marginalize both Jobs and Wozniak circa the time of Apple III and Lisa. Putting Jobs in charge of the Macintosh “special project” was basically seen as a maneuver to keep him busy and out of the way, while the “big boys” courted the lucrative business market with first the Apple III and the Lisa. Also, the early Macintosh almost died. The Apple II continued to pay the rent for quite a while even after the 1986 introduction of the Mac Plus. That climate of uncertainty about a product line on which so much had been gambled made Jobs’ ouster possible, perhaps even inevitable. But given that Tesla has yet to ship a product, the current news seems similar to hearing that Jobs had been booted from Apple before the first Apple I hit the streets. Or maybe the Apple II. Well, actually, perhaps Martin’s situation isn’t so different from Jobs’ in the Apple II case. The Apple II went on sale in June of 1977, having been demonstrated a few months earlier as Apple’s first “real” consumer-quality personal computer. “Outsider” Michael Scott had been named President/CEO the previous February. If Tesla follows Apple, we should then expect the first Roadsters to roll around December, for Martin to be squeezed out sometime around 2015 after the BlueStar is perceived as tanking, and for his messianic return in 2027, well after the wisdom of BlueStar has been redeemed in the marketplace. Of course, shortly after his return, Martin will introduce a very efficient internal combustion engine in the Tesla line (Tesla ICEs are simply better than the other guys’ ICEs), and focus his energies on the introduction of a world-beating, much-ballyhooed redesign of something like the Segway.

On second thought, perhaps we ought to keep the Apple analogies to ourselves.

Regarding “private equity firms” they are mislabeled-they are really firms tied into the international bankers. There is a book on Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts called: “Merchants of debt: the mortgaging of American business” (1992) . KKR have been the kings of leveraged buyouts-meaning they put up a low percentage of their own money (as little as single digits percentage wise). That they can do this is no wonder-in effect KKR acts as a front for “other interests / friends in high places”. Private “people” (the likes of Brin, Page, Branson, Buffet, Musk, Tesla Bloggers, etc.) are not behind “private equity” groups, private bankers/banking families are what’s behind them. So even more of the economy goes into the control of a small , interconnected group of “interests”-and most people don’t know it.

Jeanette Weix: That $20k price tag for the battery pack is the projected replacement cost in a few years. Tesla has not stated what it costs now. This projection is based on the asumption that the costs will go down each year. This is probably true, but the battery technology is evolving rapidly and in a few years you will be confronted with a choise of replace with the same style for 20k or newer higher power version that could give 300 mile plus range. In fact if Tesla is only using newer higher performance batteries at that time, the cheaper option may not even be available.

Martin’s gone… What’s left? Would help if a Blog from Martin gets posted with details on his current and future plans

# Withan Lemmon wrote on August 13th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
## What is the dealer network so far?

Direct from Tesla only right now. Use their web site or give them a call.

## Weight distribution?

Approx 40% on the front, 60% on the rear.

## Towing capacity?

Almost certainly 0 because the chassis isn’t designed for it.
That eMotor makes plenty of torque, but this is a pure sports car.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6945732.stm

Paper battery offers future power?

Flexible paper batteries could meet the energy demands of the next generation of gadgets, says a team of researchers. They have produced a sample slightly larger than a postage stamp that can release about 2.3 volts, enough to illuminate a small light. But the ambition is to produce reams of paper that could one day power a car.

Professor Robert Linhardt, of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said the paper battery was a glimpse into the future of power storage. The team behind the versatile paper, which stores energy like a conventional battery, says it can also double as a capacitor capable of releasing sudden energy bursts for high-power applications.

While a conventional battery contains a number of separate components, the paper battery integrates all of the battery components in a single structure, making it more energy efficient.

The research appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“Think of all the disadvantages of an old TV set with tubes,” said Professor Linhardt, from the New York-based institute, who co-authored a report into the technology.

“The warm up time, power loss, component malfunction; you don’t get those problems with integrated devices. When you transfer power from one component to another you lose energy. But you lose less energy in an integrated device.”

The battery contains carbon nanotubes, each about one millionth of a centimetre thick, which act as an electrode. The nanotubes are embedded in a sheet of paper soaked in ionic liquid electrolytes, which conduct the electricity.

The flexible battery can function even if it is rolled up, folded or cut.

Although the power output is currently modest, Professor Linhardt said that increasing the output should be easy.

“If we stack 500 sheets together in a ream, that’s 500 times the voltage. If we rip the paper in half we cut power by 50%. So we can control the power and voltage issue.”

Because the battery consists mainly of paper and carbon, it could be used to power pacemakers within the body where conventional batteries pose a toxic threat.

“I wouldn’t want the ionic liquid electrolytes in my body, but it works without them,” said Professor Linhardt. “You can implant a piece of paper in the body and blood would serve as an electrolyte.”

But Professor Daniel Sperling at University of California, Davis, an expert on alternative power sources for transport, is unconvinced.

“Batteries and capacitors are being steadily improved, but electricity storage is much more difficult and expensive than liquid fuels and probably will be so forever,” he said.

“The world is not going to change as a result of this new invention any time soon.”

Professor Linhardt admitted that the new battery is still some way from the commercial market.

“The devices we’re making are only a few inches across. We would have to scale up to sheets of newspaper size to make it commercially viable,” he said. But at that scale, the voltage could be large enough to power a car, he said.

However, carbon nanotubes are very expensive, and batteries large enough to power a car are unlikely to be cost effective.

“I’m a strong enthusiast of electric vehicles, but it is going to take time to bring the costs down,” said Professor Sperling.

But Professor Linhardt said integrated devices, like the paper battery, were the direction the world was moving.

“They are ultimately easier to manufacture, more environmentally friendly and usable in a wide range of devices,” he said.

The ambition is to produce the paper battery using a newspaper-type roller printer.

# Mark Tomlinson wrote on August 13th, 2007 at 8:39 pm

# The CEO gets to golf with lawyers.

Who the hell would ever sign up for that job? You’d have to like golf an AWFUL lot.

ICE in BlueStar/Whatever … if you can do fast charge for few hundred miles, that would make ICE and refuelling redundant altogether. You simply have a 10-minute coffee/charge break every 200 miles, which would probably be totally acceptable for 99.9% of ( human ) drivers.
As A123 guys (the non-vaporware, mass-produced nanophosphate battery builders ) were saying in a recent interview, the cells for this are already there. It takes infrastructure installation ( charge stations with enough buffered storage capacity ) for this solution to get widely accepted.

The story concerning the exit of Santa Cruz’s Chrysler/Volvo (also ZENN) dealer from the car business is expanded here: www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/14/local/stories/04local.htm

It says that they hve sold 10 ZENNs so far. Clearly not enough to keep the rent paid and the lights on. In a way, this validates Tesla’s decision to shoot for the high-end. Ten Roadsters sold would indicate a significant level of business.

The actual scientific paper describing the battery discussed in the Economist article cited above, is here: www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/96/25/14199.pdf

# Mark Tomlinson wrote on August 13th, 2007 at 8:39 pm

# The CEO gets to golf with lawyers.

I have never seen Martin golf, but I can imagine him souping up the golf cart.

Re. Mark comment-geeks can also be good CEOs . Gates being an example, until relatively recently. Another good example is Henry Ford, a geek in his day. Wikipedia says following on Ford: started working on steam engines for Westinghouse, became chief engineer for Edison Illuminating Co. Was an innovator who held 161 patents over his career. He started experimenting with gas engines in his spare time, and was a race car driver. His first car (1903) set a land speed record. At age 40 he got 11 investors to join him in starting Ford Motor Co. with $28,000. Later he also built the Ford Trimotor airplane. He became the “father of the assembly line and mass production”. He reduced the standard workday from 9 hours to 8, and the work week from 6 days (or 7 even) to 5. He raised the minimum standard pay from $2.34 per hr. to $5.00 per hr. -wanting every worker to be able to buy a Model T. He was criticized by Wall St. for starting the 40 hr. work week and min. wage. Wikipedia says: “Ford shunned green and did not believe in accountants… he was a pacifist who opposed war, which he thought was a waste of time…” ( what a concept there-particualry for an industrialst, who stood to make major “green” off of some nice little / humongous wars)…” Ford became highly critical of those he felt financed war and seemed to do whatever he could to stop them”. He started his own paper “The Dearborn Independent” for this end. So, in summary: nerdy, geeky Henry thrived even though he didn’t believe in “money/ accounting / /financers & “the system” , had principles to give his workers a fair deal for the day, had principles re. the world scene - sham “wars for profit” and anyone associated with “this system”. Yep-Henry would make a great Tesla geek CEO. He’s proof that “being a weasel is strictly optional”. Imagine what he’d be saying about the state of U.S. business / “finance” today. Tesla could find such a CEO, if they really want to look outside the box.

The announcement about Martin has come as a complete suprise to me. He was such a leader. I really hope this decision was Martins and whether “HE” thought it would be in the companys best interest to switch roles like this. Martin Eberhards honesty and strong desire to succeed has made Tesla Motors what it is today. I’m sure ALOT of people are really watching this company now that Martin has stepped down. The “customers” will decide on whether or not leaving Martin go was apporpriate. Martin YOUR still the man!

Could it be that Martin was just so busy resolving that final 5% on the Roadster that he wasn’t doing justice to the CEO role in other areas? I could imagine he would find it hard to give the priority required to Whitestar while he is still ‘fire-fighting’ details on the existing car. In those circumstances investors, and Martin himself, might feel it would be better to hand over the creation of a new car company to somebody who can give that their full attention.

The problem for what we might call “Coddle-Tech” is that it depends crucially on thermal conductivities, expansivities and relative surface areas. Bigger cells do improve your overall pack energy density but for the same power delivery will experience larger internal temperature gradients and internal forces. Bigger cells will need more efficient (and therefore more expensive in cost / kg) thermal control.

T.J. wrote
“geeks can also be good CEOs ”

I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it should be done.

Look at what the definition of CEO vs. a COO and CTO means today. I would argue that many “Geeks” have had the title CEO or president, but the title and actual responsibilities are often very different.

Bill Gates has always been about the technology. Steve Balmer was hired on as a business manager back in 1980 and for the most part acted the part of a CEO, while Bill handled what new technologies the company needed to pursue. When Bill officially took a role similar to CTO, it was because running the company wasn’t what he liked to do.

Howard Hughs was about as far out there as you can get without being commited and he still managed to build a very successful company. Does that make him a good CEO? He delegated almost all of what a CEO would be in charge very early on while he pursued his obsessions. He made some big decisions and maintained ownership, but he didn’t act like a CEO. He had very good people working for him.

Henry Ford also maintained ownership of Ford MO CO, but really had no business being a CEO. He fought hard against a number of very important developments that eventually proved critical to Ford’s success. He was a great engineer and innovator, but he was not a businessman. He finally was forced by his son to change how business was run after Ford’s sales were evaporating quickly.

As I said earlier I worked for a company run by engineers and we had the best product by a margin for a while so we prospered, but we were not remotely efficient, and didn’t know how to grow out of a small company mentality and we didn’t learn how to be more competitive when our technological lead started to diminish. We had dead weight, but people in management didn’t want to make the tough decisions, so they didn’t. We lost business we didn’t need to turn away, and we didn’t have a plan to take us into the future. There were competing technologies internally , lots of reinventing the wheel, and bad politics because of a lack of leadership and bad management. After the company was purchased twice, a hatchetman was installed as president and the company which at one point had a main campus with three buildings bought and paid for as well as offsite locations, now only takes up part of one building. They are hemoraging badly these days. There are very few talented people left over there.

Flabby, Martin posted in the other blog but still it seems strange. I don’t doubt Martin initiated the search, the only surprise is that the board would take on some temp CEO over Martin with 5 years of experience and knowlege of all facets of the business. What is the time to get up to speed, to get even a fraction of the knowledge of Martin and then he is gone and they need to start over?!

As I said if it was not a temp assignment then nothing would smell fishy (pun intended) but as it stands it seems like the board pushed him out. So my new question is if it was only up to Martin what would he do?

@Malcolm Wilson - the mention by GM that they are looking into liquid cooling may be related only to the Korean CPI contract composed of the LiMn2O4 chemistry cells. These cells are pretty similar to LiCoO2. So it is entirely possible that GM’s A123 contract does not contain a liquid cooling component.

An 18650 LiCo cell has an internal impedance of 90 mOhm. Compare that to a 26650 LiFePo cell (which is roughly the same energy capacity) of only 10 mOhm. Therefore, the A123 cell will produce 9 times less heat than the Tesla battery cell. Furthermore, lower specific density would mean that the A123 cells have a larger surface area to dissipate the heat. I would therefore guess that liquid cooling is not necessary for the A123 26650 or the A123 32157 cell.

Furethermore, A123 offers a “high power” 32113 cell that probably has 1/3 the internal impedance of the 26650 (per unit capacity). These cells can be placed in parallel with the 32157, and utilized during sudden bursts of acceleration or hill climbing further reducing the heat dissipationby the battery pack.

More Volt and A123 stuff:-

AutoblogGreen Q&A: Ric Fulop and David Vieau of A123 systems

www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/13/autobloggreen-qanda-ric-fulop-and-david-vieau-of-a123-systems/

Basically:-

Li-nanophosphate can get over 7000 recharge/discharge cycles in it’s life
They’ve ditched the idea of ultra-fast charging (ie fill the cars battery in 10 minutes). Although their cells can, the electric grid infrastructure couldn’t handle it.
Swapping out batteries is not realistic due to the complicated electronics, packaging, and safety issues.
Thermal behaviour is better than ordinary Li-ion, but thermal management still a must, especially since GM wants bigger volume cells than the ones they make for power tools.

No evidence one way or the other as to whether their good cycle numbers are maintained irrespective of cell volume. I hope so, it’s the only thing they’ve got left. Maybe this is why GM are still running a two-horse prototyping race between A123 and CPI?

Comments about V2G are a very long way off. Particularly considering the small energy capacity (16kWh???) of the Volt’s power pack.

Also Denise Gray, GM’s Battery Director discusses - amongst other thing - the concept of leasing batteries to EV owners.

www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/10/autobloggreen-qanda-gm-battery-director-denise-grey/

Hang on, you rent the battery AND pay for gas?

# Ahmadi wrote
# So it is entirely possible that GM’s A123 contract does not contain a liquid cooling component.

Which brings us back to the question of why, if A123 is apparently such a clear winner for engineering the Volt’s automotive battery pack, are GM bothering with the CPI prototype?

Why isn’t it “Game Over”? Aren’t White Zombie and Killa-Cycle all the proof we need for A123s anyway?
www.seattleeva.org/wiki/EVents_2007_07_14
www.megawattmotorworks.com/display.asp?dismode=article&artid=261

Personally, I think that A123s look like a great choice for conventional hybrids, and that GM are hoping that they can be adapted for the E-Flex architecture without too much engineering grief, (and so that they can avoid looking like they are simply lagging along behind, copying what Tesla do.)

If you reduce the density of your coolant by roughly 1000 times, you have to reduce the coolant inlet temperature and / or increase the coolant flow rate to compensate. or you let the Volt’s electric generator cut in early to boost power for top accelerations and top speeds, thereby reducing your demand on the battery, but increasing fuel consumption.

But then the Volt only has to achieve 35 mpg by 2020. Not exactly a challenge.

Controlling the movement of, and heat transfer to high velocity air through ducting is a much tougher challenge than controlling the same for lower velocity liquid flowing through tubing. Liquid cooling offers a more compact pack design for the same heat energy extraction rate.

If they can get air cooling to work with A123s on time and on budget, without incurring significant life-time stresses on the cells, that would be a great step forward. But equally, even if they get that working, successful air cooling of the Volt’s 16 kWh (40 mile range) pack doesn’t imply that this air-con solution will scale up for Tesla’s (or anyone else’s) larger pack designs - even if they also used A123s.

Hi everybody!

My name is Tim Marx and I will soon go to college.
I am very interested in electric vehicles and consider it a very promising
technology for the future.
However, there is one question to which I could not find an answer on
the internet
and so I thought that someone here might be able
to explain this to me:

Even though, I understand torque and power curves of internal
combustion engines as well as electric motors the difference between
the peak and continuous power of electric motors remains unclear to
me.
If peak power output, for example, was only availabe for a short
period of time would that mean that one cannot really go top speed (full throttle) or
fully accelerate for longer than a few seconds.
If that is the case it would mean a major drawback of electric
vehicles as I currently live in Germany where there is no speed limit
on most Interstates (Autobahn)

I would really appreciate if anyone could solve this problem for me and
reply to this post.

Thank you very much in advance.

I think the characteristic of batteries that is critical when we talk about top speed and/or max HP is “internal resistance”.
It is what turns the batteries into little heaters if you try to draw current from them too fast. Also the electrodes can oxidize from internally heating them too much which results in increased resistance, so old abused batteries may still be able to hold a charge, but they aren’t able to deliver the same current that they could when they were fresh.

I think Tesla is always searching the battery industry for batteries with lower internal resistance as they are the best for high current applications like powering a performance car.

Welcome, Tim Marks
How long an electric motor or internal combustion engine can run at peak power before overheating depends on two factors:

1) Efficiency. Motors and engines lose some energy in the form of heat, The more efficient they are, the less energy is lost as heat. Electric motors have a huge advantage here, as efficiency is typically over 90%, while IC engines run about 15% to 30% (diesels at the higher end). That means for the same power, electric motors have much less heat to get rid of.

2) How good the cooling system is. Improved cooling can increase the time an engine can run at peak power. That’s why most IC engines use a circulating liquid cooling system - it works better at moving heat.

The Tesla motor is high efficiency and can use a simple air cooling system, yet still can maintain peak power for extended lengths of time. The Tesla battery pack uses a liquid cooling system, as the batteries are much more sensitive to heat.

Top speed of the Tesla Roadster is 130 mph (217 kph), limited by the speed of the high RPM motor and two speed transmission. Someone once did some rough calculations that, due to increased wind resistance at that speed, the range would be reduced to about 90 miles (145 Km) The roadster could go that distance at full speed, the motor cooling (and battery cooling!) is sufficient. They went on to figure that, with an additional high speed gear, the Roadster could theoretically reach 160 mph (257 kph), but the range would be extremely short!

# Ahmadi wrote
# Its called - competition - so to keep them honest and in order to disribute the risk.

i’m not complaining. If GM have the money to take two different technologies all the way to the prototype stage, that’s fine by me. I was simply pointing out that in order to justify this to shareholders, either there is no clear winner on paper, or GM are hoping to use the CPI prototype to “prove” that Tesla’s way of doing things is bad. But this will only work if the A123s can offer some clear benefit.

# If you reduce the density of your coolant by roughly 1000 times, you have to reduce the coolant inlet temperature and / or increase the coolant flow rate to compensate.
# Read the post again - A123 nLiFePO4 generates 1/9 to 1/30 amount of heat compared to standard issue LiCoO2 batteries.

Okay, so even at best, 1/30 x 1000 still means that a possible air cooling system in the A123 Volt needs at least a factor of 30 to equal the performance of a possible liquid cooling system in the CPI Volt. That’s still a significant shortfall. IF the batteries are likely to be situated in a channel down the middle of the car’s passenger compartment, I don’t think it’s sensible to allow them to just dissipate their heat. With the pack in this position, battery thermal control is as much to do with passenger comfort as it is with prolonging battery life.

Any heat which isn’t extracted by the cooling system will have to go somewhere. The A123 cells may work fine at elevated temperatures, but without efficient directed cooling they’ll simply add to the cabin temperature, thereby increasing the Air Con load. Then again, maybe passengers won’t mind sitting next to a “hot box”.

One solution to this would be to add layers of thermal insulation, preventing the greater allowed heat output from the A123s from entering the cabin. But this will leave even less room for any air cooling system which would have to deal with higher heat energy levels in a more confined space. Maybe heat can be conducted away through metal structures, to some sort of heat sink or radiator in the trunk or under the bonnet.

However, designing efficient solid, thermal conduction pathways is tricky. All to easy to introduce thermal bridges which allow the heat to go somewhere unintended.

Or why not just bite the bullet and use liquid cooling in the first place?

Just because it is possible to cook the A123s, doesn’t necessarily make it practical to do so - much like ultra-fast charging.

On Andrew Kelseys taxicab idea: Something similar was already attempted by Hybrid Technologies, they converted several Chrysler PT Cruisers into LiIon electric taxicabs and persuaded the NYC Taxi and Limo commission to test them in NYC. They failed the test, didn’t hold up to hard driving taxi hacks, and didn’t get the milage they were supposed to get. At least, that’s what the NYC Taxi commissioners said.

New York is a poor choice for such a test, the NYC Taxi and Limo commission is tradition bound, has been reluctant to embrace change, and puts strict limits on which models will be allowed as taxis. Less than two years ago, they finally allowed the use of hybrids for taxis, long after they had already proven their worth in several other city taxi fleets. They still won’t allow the Toyota Prius to be used, even though the Prius has been used successfuly as taxis elsewhere for many years. Vancouver British Columbia has had Prius hybrid taxis since 2001!

Rather than try and convert an existing car, which isn’t well designed for electrical power, it would be much better to offer some of the “Whitestar” sedans for taxi use, once they are in production. Good test sites include San Francisco, Sacramento and San Jose in California; Honolulu, Hawaii; and maybe even Vancouver, British Columbia.

Is Tesla Motors keeping an eye on carbon nanotube technology that can open the door to creating capacitance batteries?

The potential for a non-chemical reaction battery that can be charged over 100,000 times (perhaps having an ESS that can outlast the car itself), and that can be recharged in seconds versus hours, and that would weigh 75% less than the current 900 pound battery system, and that can have a range exceeding 1,000 miles versus 200 miles, is very tantalizing for electric cars.

I hope Tesla is looking at carbon nanotube technology as intently as I and perhaps many others are looking at electric cars - Tesla being the most stellar of them all.

Joe, the problem with Carbon Nanotube Capacitors is that currently they are theoretical - there isn’t even a working lab model to test! Claims that they would be much ligher or have much greater storage capacity than LiIon are premature until actual working models are tested. Even if they are developed, it will be years or even decades before they are produced in sufficient quantities for automotive use. Also they may prove to be too expensive, unless the cost of carbon nanotubes drops dramatically.

Be assured that the engineers at Tesla Motors keep informed on all the latest developments in batteries and electronics that might be of use in future models.

Guys, you probably already know about the design changes to Lithium Ion design proposed by Masataka Wakihara, but just in case it’s useful here’s a link.
business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2295743.ece

Keep up the good work and please please export to the UK asap.
Jon

Roy,
Here’s a few websites you can look at that discuss carbon nanotubes being looked at to create a capacitor (among other applications), a capacitor simply being two metal plates seperated by a dielectric. Carbon nantubes could be applied to the plates to create a sponge, so to speak, that will give the capacitor signficantly greater storage potential. CM is right - carbon nanotube technology is still theoretical, but still really exciting and closer to reality than assumed. It’s expensive to manufacture even a gram of suitable nanotubes, but consider what can be done if this country would embark on a Manhattan-lik Project to discover a way to mass-produce capacitance batteries that could power electric cars!

web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/batteries-0208.html

www.greencarcongress.com/2006/02/mit_carbon_nano.html

www.terradaily.com/reports/MIT_Researchers_Fired_Up_About_Battery_Alternative.html

searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid80_gci1119403,00.html

Dear Erik et al.

More a question than a comment. What is the operating system for the ESS and for the whole car? Is it Wind River or
something more accessible and Unix-y?

Having re-read the Tesla Blog entry - “A Bit About Batteries” over in the “think” channel - the following article makes more sense:-

www.gm-volt.com/2007/08/17/fact-chevy-volts-generator-to-start-when-battery-power-drops-to-50/

Presumably they’re designing the pack to recharge and discharge between say, 90% and 40%?

Ah, I get it.

The Volt’s 12.8 kWh (80%) to 16 kWh (100%) top-up can only be achieved when you plug the car into a wall socket. So the 40 mile battery-only range is only available for the first 40 miles driven after disconnecting the recharge cable. The generator is only allowed to recharge the batteries enough to give 24 mile battery-only sections in a longer journey.

if the battery has it’s own climate control system; might not the car?
it sucks to get into an ice cold seat and breathe frozen air in winter and is worse to climb into an oven during a hot summer day and scald your hands on a broiled steering wheel.

I work across from U of Florida and am continually telling everyone about your car. Tesla = Hope.

thank you & congrats!

About nanotubes. There is at least one company that is developing space elevator and several that are considering it. Space elevator needs to be build using carbon nanotubes. A LOT of carbon nanotubes. No, more than that. A lot. That forces them to develop means to build them in vast amounts, which basically means mass production factories. When they learn how to do suitable nanotubes at that scale they will learn to do all kinds of things with it as a byproduct, including better batteries for sure. Consider that a Yet Another Space Technology used in everyday life.

Space elevator might be reality in next 25 years. Much better batteries much sooner. In next five to ten years will show us extremely quick development in energy storaging and transportation. Bluestar might easily outrun Roadster for range and still have that very low price tag.

Combustion engines are living their last days now. Even without Tesla. But we do need pioneers to do things and Tesla is greatest I have seen.

Leankha wrote: hot car and or cold seats. One feature I read about that Reva had developed for their electric car was a remote conrol to prestart your air conditioner or heater prior to entering your vehicle. Another nice thing about EV’s is that on shorter drives where you do not have to be concerned about running your batteries down you can leave your air conditioner or heater running with the car unattended unlike your ICE.

As to the comparisons with the Volt and their (likely) A123 batteries. The 40 mile all grid derived power range is advertised to be between 80% (”full charge” out of the socket) and 30%. That gives an efficiency of 2.24km/MJ while driving off of grid derived power which compares favorably to Tesla’s 2.18km/MJ. Most daily drives will be within that range. Keeping the range to a reasonable level that still covers the vast majority of daily commutes allows them to get by with that 16kWh battery. If Andrew’s post is accurate and Tesla’s more than 3x larger battery pack will cost Tesla less than $20K, then GM is likely to get these batteries, mass produced by A123’s sub in China, CBAK, for substantially less than $6K.

Tesla has to realize that this is the competition to beat and that GM is chomping at the bit to be the first out of the box. The bulk of America (and I count myself here) won’t spend more than $30K and for that they want one car with the full functionality that they are used to. Room for five and the ability to drive cross country on occassion if the situation demands, even if the situation rarely does. Pure BEV isn’t there yet despite Tesla’s amazing progress. Even if rapid recharge stations were widely available, they’d be left either with consumers having to stop every few hours to recharge for ten minutes or with many more batteries than needed most of the time adding much extra weight and cost. A small ICE generator adds that functionality to an otherwise medium range BEV economically.

I applaud Tesla’s consideration of joining the PHEV race. PHEV is a necessary step to full BEV acceptance and will significantly displace petroleum use and significantly decrease carbon emissions. My Honda Civic hybrid (sort of room for five) is five years old. In three years my High Schooler will get it for college (sophmore year) and I’ll be in the market. I hope to be able to choose between one of these vehicles!

Tech Guys

A little sleepy math for a serial hybrid mode with the numbers the best from memory

Your home charger is about 70A at 220V or about 15 Kw for 3.5 hrs to fully charge
A 25 Kw could charge 54 KWh pack at a bit over 2 hrs and probably still not stress the max charging current

The ESS seems to be able to provide about 185 KWatts for acceleration and if you removed 200 lbs to make room for the 25 KWatt RotoPac and 10 gallons of fuel (less than 3 cu ft and 200 lbs using the same cooling as the ESS w/not emission controls needed) that would drop the max ESS energy from 185 KWatts to 185*7/9 or about 145 Kwatts and range would drop as well from 220 miles to 220*7/9 to 155 miles or so. But wait if the power module was programmed to allow it to be on when desired for acceleration and regen braking actually also spun the module to speed when slowing, then you actually have access to an additional 25 Kwatts or 145+25 = 170 Kwatts for acceleration, within 90% of the original. You also have 25 Kwatts for charging while driving which is actually excessive since 54 Kwatts hr ESS at 220 miles range is about 15-16 Kwatts of continuous energy needed. In addition the RotoPac can act as emergency generator for the home and would really NEVER be needed if one wanted to live with a range of 155 miles and the acceleration power of about 250 HP*7/9 or about 195 HP.

These guys actually make motors/generators for this and seem to be desperate for cash to finance a different nutty idea.
www.moller.com/files/Rotapac_Power_Module.pdf

Have you heard about the Nano lithium-ion battery? They say they have stripped the graphite and replace it with nano technology so that they are able to charge the battery within 10 min, without overheating it. I wonder if you guys could incorporate that into your battery. Then there truly would be no need to buy a gasoline powered vehicle.

—

Editor’s comment: Check out the blog, Balance. 

We certainly need alternative to gasoline. Tesla motors is baby step in automotive industry in right direction. Only I can think of what can kill this conceived baby:

1) Battery charging time is ~3 hours. Nobody wants to wait for three hours on the road when he/she needs to move on. Charging time should come down in the range of 10-15min. There is an article on this topic: www.news8austin.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=191311

2) If above goal can’t be achieved we need to put more batteries or do something such that in one full charge vehicle can go almost 600miles. That’s an average a person would drive in a day while on go.

3) Price of the car needs to come down in the range where people can afford, maybe ~$30K or lower.

i live in ireland will their be an outlet in the uk as 2 uk companies are producing commercial vehicles with similar range at lower speeds of course. some prominent companies in the uk have ordered fleets of them.one of them has up to 7.5 ton capacity and anothr one is higher i think. if electric vehicles are mass produced the day of the oil based motor company is over it will become 21st century steam engines

teg2

I was really only concerned with not giving up acceleration (less batteries means less instantaneous current) and size/weight so I used moller as an example.
They seem to be funding their other projects with the concerns you mention with rotary motor work. (funding a nutty idea with a good technology)
I couldn’t care less if moller did it or williams or anyone.

What could be easy is for Tesla to spec the needs and have moller or others design it. (low cost way to cover a bet in my opinion since pure EV acceptance is still unknown)
If nothing else perform a due diligence on mollers rotary engine technology and see if anything pans out since I doubt you are going to get much help from GM.

If the vehicle could be charged while driving or put out power when home, they could spec a 20-25 Kw system in a small size at a small weight with a life of 10 years or 500 hrs or so. The motor/generator could also work with the regen braking and share the ESS cooling. The moller needs no catalytic converter so it could probably be self contained. This is not the same as a car motor since its ON time is so much less over the life of the vehicle and only needs to operate at one RPM setting. Before the series hybrid approach is abandoned, there is always the what if scenario? What if Tesla could get a self contained 25 kw generator in the size needed, cost needed, weight needed, reliability needed, simplicity needed?

I think if my choice were pure EV with 220 mile range for 30K or serial hybrid with 150 mile pure EV range and unlimited using gas/ethanol for 32K, I would pick option 2. I actually do forget to charge my cell phone sometimes and the power does go out, and lots of people do not have garages but do have jobs (may be able to charge at work but not home, and my apologies to those w/o garages or jobs, you might have to wait for a new car) and even if fast charging is solved, there is still no infrastructure. If it were modular with the ESS I would even pay to have Tesla to put it in/out for me for the few times a year I need it since I never have to go to the dealer for service anyway.

Blue Star competition?

Miles Automotive Group is planning release of a $30K EV family sedan: robots.cnnfn.com/2007/08/13/autos/electric_car/index.htm
“If all goes according to plan, by 2009 you could be sticking it to Big Oil by driving an all electric, Chinese-made sedan for little more than the cost of a Camry…. the XS 500 has a top speed of 80 miles per hour and a range of 120 miles at 60 miles per hour. …. Both the low cost and the high range can be attributed to China, where low labor costs keep the price down and state-sponsored research into battery technology yielded what Rubin said was an advanced lithium ion power pack produced by Lishen Battery.” The car is actually built by Tianjin-Qingyuan Electric Vehicle in China, and, I suspect, is probably based on a car that will also be sold broadly to the Chinese market with a different chassis and brand identification.

Obviously details are sketchy. What kind of tax credit will it revieve? How big is its battery pack and how deep of a discharge do they plan on to get that range? How many cycles will it get and for how many years? Acceleration? Devil’s in dem details.

Still. They will initially be releasing in the same American markets as Tesla and benefiting from Tesla’s having made EVs sexy and cool, even though they have gone from NEV upstream. If they bring a car to market in 2009 it will have an effect on Tesla … either way. A rousing success with a great car beats Tesla to the mass market punch and steals the thunder. A dismal failure poisons the well for EV for the masses (that means folks like me). Meanwhile better diesel is coming out that give mpg and carbon emission reductions comparable to hybrids and PHEVs are not very far away.

These next few years are going to get interesting. The game may be well afoot before Tesla gets its “downstream” ball even close to being in play.

I was wondering why they just used lithium ion batteries instead of lithium ion polymer batteries. From what I have read they can store more power, are more efficient and since they use a polymer instead of a liquid they do not run the risk of exploding: which is one of the dangers of having so many lithium ion batteries packed so closely together and why they have such a sophisticated monitoring system for the batteries. Anyway I love what they are doing and I think that the Lotus body is perfect for a starting point. Great work.

—

Editor’s note: The Tesla Roadster is not exactly based on a Lotus body. See our Lotus Position blog for more information.

Here’s a news item about a car that’s just been invented, looks remarkably like your fine piece of engineering?

www.nzherald.co.nz/section/9/story.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10463288

Malcolm,

You still seem to be confused about what the plan is with the Volt. Bottom line is that you get 40 miles on grid derived power after unplugging, and that after that the ICE keeps the batteries maintained at about a 30% charged state. Unless you live way far from an interstate that’ll get you there, a good distance along there, and home again, just fine on grid-derived power alone. That’ll handle most Americans daily commutes and the ICE recharging the battery will allow for distance traveling as well.

Timo,

Where do you get the impression that Miles is “planning to sell mainly in China”? They are planning to sell a Chinese manufactured highway capable electric family sedan mainly in the same markets that Tesla has targeted and has prepped. It is entirely possible that the Chinese manufacturer will also sell the same (or almost the same) car to the Chinese market.

As to what battery technology will win … it’s an open question. Tesla argues that its “coddled” approach allows the best possible balance between energy density and power density. They have created a 53kWh system weighing 900 pounds. That does have more energy density that A123’s system - a 16kWh system allegedly weighing in at 350 pounds. Tesla’s approach would save almost 80 pounds (if all of the electronic controls were scalable down as well) for a 16kWh system. The advertised Altair version for the same 16 kWh would be about 650 pounds! And weight matters. OTOH that weight comes at the cost of complexity, and some additional safety risk despite all their system redundancies. And the same A123 battery would provide a significantly greater power density … to get the same power the Tesla style system would have to weigh more. Meanwhile ABAT (Advanced Battery Technology) has a Lithium polymer (PLI) unit that they claim “weighs approximately 500 pounds, and is designed for commuter vehicles. It permits a top speed of 120 mph, and a traveling distance of 240 miles per charge. The battery discharges 5% of its energy per hour, when not in use, so daily recharging is necessary. The battery can be recharged in 3 to 4 hours. ” according to their most recent 10KSB/A and is exploring using Altair’s materials in novel ways. I do not know it’s exact kWh. They’ve sold that PLI in volume for $3333 per, according to that same document.

Very likely it will come down to cost and capacity. Altair cannot possibly rev up to volume production (unless they sub out to ABAT which one suspects is in the cards); ABAT doesn’t have the American alliances although they may get a significant Chinese market share (again unless they manufacture for Altair … Zap will not be a player). It does seem like the ABAT PLI made with Altair nanomaterials is the best bet for pure BEV though. I have a hard time believing that Tesla will get their approach to be cost effective for a more downstream market. Lishen supplies the batteries to the Chinese car company that makes the vehicles for the Miles Group but I have no details on them. Lishen makes both Li-ion (and subs for Valance) and Lithium polymer batteries. A123 has the alliances and the in-place Chinese sub (publicly traded CBAK) along with a product that delivers great power density and good enough energy density for PHEV use. And PHEVs will very likely sell better at first. JCI-Saft is trying to become a major US market player and it is their battery in the to be released Saturn two-mode PHEV VUE.

Probably several approaches will co-exist but Tesla’s approach seems restricted to high-end cars only. Their historic role will be to have displaced the EV = golf cart meme with the EV = hot and sexy one, and we will all owe them for that. But getting their battery approach cheaper isn’t likely to happen. (meanwhile I’m long CBAK -mostly, and less so ALTI, and ABAT, as well as JCI … I think that they will all do well!)

I have another two thoughts regarding the Volt:

www.gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/

If the generator keeps cutting in and out to maintain battery charge around the 30% mark (rather than actually recharge it), presumably regen does the same? I.e. regen works with the generator to maintain charge as well.

Since higher Power Density is a key benefit of A123s, I’m assuming that once the 40 mile range is exhausted, the battery is still used to deliver higher accelerations than can be achieved by the 53 kW generator? Or maybe that will generate too much heat?

I have read that GM and other car makers are working on plug-in hybrids or EV’s. Most of these car copanies claim that these developement of these cars is dependent on battery technology that does not yet exist.

It seems to me that Tesla has shown that the battery technology DOES exist.

Question: Is Tesla negotiating with any of these car makers to license the ESS techology that they have designed?

www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/20/chevy-volt-in-2011-bob-lutz-releases-more-critical-volt-details/

More Chevy Volt numbers:

Delivery may slip to 2011.
Max sustainable speed is 100 mph, but 120 mph can be achieved “for a limited time”. Intriguing. This suggests that you can sacrifice your 40 mile battery-only range in favour of blasting along briefly at 120. Sustaining 100 mph must presumably be when the on board gas-powered generator just supplies the electric motor alone.

This implies that for the highest accelerations, you need the batteries, but a decent charge from these is only available for the first 40 miles max (at 50 mph?). Accelerate hard and this available range will drop. Once the batteries are exhausted, any spare ICE generator output and/or any regen only maintains the battery charge at 30%. Neither is allowed to recharge the battery. Recharging is only possible from a wall socket.

So the Volt is an EV for the first 40 miles (approx) and then becomes just another gas car (with extra electric trimmings) until you plug it in again.

Presumably GM will trumpet mileage figures which rely on a good percentage of battery-only motoring. And once people get hold of this car and discover that the more you rely on batteries alone - then the better the mileage, they will press for more public electric recharge facilities to keep down the Volt’s gas consumption.

More people will do the math and make the connection between non-fuel motoring and more efficient energy use (lower running costs). Plus less maintenance.

Its all in the batteries. If you can put this engine and battery pack in my M35 and increase the range to 350 miles, I will put my money down right now.
My question is, it looks like you have solved the battery issues regarding size and weight, why not just sell it to the Big 6 and be done with it?

Dave Baragona, see martin Eberhard’s blog about the Tesla Energy Group, www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=50

Just wondering if you’ve looked at the graphite foam batteries by fireflyenergy, I realize they are saying they are a few years out from producing batteries for EV, but wonder what your take on this would be for future cars (whitestar and blue star)

I’ve been reading a lot about Lithium Ion batteries lately and saw this article today.
www.glgroup.com/News/Fiscal-lithium-has-now-overwhelmed-electrochemical-lithium-as-a-driver-for-the-electrification-of-private-passenger-car-34872.html
www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1019127_carnegie-mellon-study-finds-that-lithium-ion-battery-technology-may-not-provide-the-best-value

Cost isn’t that much of a concern for the roadster but as Tesla moves down market and endeavors to repurpose the ESS in other applications cost will be a large factor. What are Tesla’s plans to drive down the ESS cost? Do you think battery costs will follow a typical marginal cost curve (i.e. costs will fall as volume increases) or will underlying technology advances drive battery cost down?

Will the Tesla battery have sustained battery life? My laptop and my mobile phone both use lithium ion batteries and over the course of its life the battery gradually decreases in its ability to hold a charge until I am no longer able to use the batteries. Would it be any different with the car? In other words if the first charge can give me a range of over 200 miles what would the range be after the 1000th charge?
Lastly

siprasoeut

motorcycle transport