|
Have you ever wondered how much the electrons that power our car weigh?
As I was musing over the properties of our Tesla Roadster electric car the other day I was drawn to the single most massive component of our car which is the battery. This nearly 1000 pound system is composed of various chemicals, enclosures, and electronics to safely deliver high voltage electrons which we then direct to power our car. So the electrifying question is – how much do all those electrons weigh? In other words, if we could weigh each and every electron as it left the battery on its journey out to do useful work, what would be the total weight of all of the electrons combined? Of course the battery does not change weight because for every electron leaving the battery, one returns, having expended its useful energy in a most exciting and entertaining way.
Fortunately, all the conversion factors have already been calculated and we need merely to set up the parameters and run the numbers. We will start with a full charge and drain the battery of its theoretical capacity. In this case we will use 2.2 Ampere hour cells. Each brick in our battery is composed of 69 cells in parallel; this defines the Ampere hour capacity of our battery. The 99 bricks in series in our battery give us our voltage, but we will focus on the number of electrons flowing and disregard their Voltage potential.
69 cells times 2.2 Ampere hours per cell equals 151.8 Ampere hours.
By definition, a Coulomb of Electrons is equal to 6.24 times ten to the 18 electrons. This is the number of electrons that flow past in one second at a defined rate of one Ampere. This means that in one hour (3600 Seconds) 3600 Coulombs flow by at 1 Ampere. Since our battery is 151.8 Ampere hours we multiply 3600 Coulombs times 151.8 which is equal to 546,480 Coulombs. This is a lot of Coulombs, but it represents an even larger number of electrons. Each Coulomb is to 6.24 times ten to the 18 electrons. Thus 546,480 Coulombs times 6.24 x 1018 electrons per Coulomb equals 34.1328 times 10 to the 23rd electrons. Wasn’t that fun? Remember that number, 34×1023 Electrons are available for our use in the battery.
This is a huge number of electrons and now we can finish by multiplying by the weight of an electron. When I started this problem I knew that electrons are much lighter than the Protons or Neutrons that make up the rest of the atoms so I roughly figured that of our 1000 lbs of battery we would wind up with a few ounces or at least a few grams of Electron weight. Any guesses?
The actual weight of an Electron is 9.05 x 10-28 grams, that’s right, 9.05 times ten to the minus twenty eighth Grams, an incredibly small mass. Multiply 34.1328 x 1023 times 9.05 x 10-28 and we get 308.9 Grams times ten to minus 5 or in other words, 3.089 Milligrams of electrons. This is about as much weight as a single, small grain of sand. I was amazed at how light and yet powerful these electrons we work so hard to control are, and to imagine that by pushing this tiny amount of mass through our motor over a period of hours, the magnetic fields generated propel our Tesla Roadster 244 miles is simply - shocking.
Marty Taft is an Electrical Technician here at Tesla Motors, and is an avid baker in his spare time.
Posted in the categories: First Post, Energy Efficiency, Power Electronics, Battery
Take a piece of 8.5 x 11 paper, cut it into 1300 pieces and pick one piece up. That one piece = to the weight of electrons in a full charge. Shocking
Neat.
I would calculate it differently, though. You really should factor in the 99 series connected bricks. Here’s how I do it.
Each cell’s capacity is 2.2 Ah, or 2.2 * 3600 = 7920 A.sec in other words 7920 C. The capacity of the whole battery assembly is simply 69*99 that number. Multiply by electrons per coulomb and mass of the electron gives me 305 mg total. (That fits, 99 times the number you gave).
Still pretty light! Clearly we don’t have to worry about the extra load carried by the suspension when charging.
Cool! Since I’m currently studying about protons, electrons, and molecules in Chemistry, I thought Avogadro’s Number would show up, but I guess that’s way too big for electrons.
By the way, congrats on finally getting Powertrain 1.5 locked down! Go Tesla Go!
8.5 x 11 paper, cut it into 1300 pieces = 1/4″ square pieces.
Amusing and enjoyable write-up. First time I have seen the 2.2Ah cell size confirmed.
Marty,
Since energy storage seems to be your area of expertise. Do you have an opinion as to the credibility of Eestor’s claim of having developed a 300lb ultracapacitor pack able to store 52 kwh of energy?
now that’s what I call energy density, not that old fashion gasoline….
You rock, Dad!
very nice and cool calculations
Paul, where is this claim? I cannot find Eestor’s claims of ANY specs other than 5 minute recharge times on single ceramic ultracapacitors and a new powder purity milestone.
Found it at www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/
I see some confusion here. You’re not losing the weight of those electrons during discharge because the electrons don’t escape. Thinking about the mass of the electrons that pass through the engine is interesting but perhaps misleading. The pack will lose a bit of weight during the discharge, true, but not due to loss of electrons. The discharged pack will weigh less, but I think the difference will be far less than the milligrams we’re talking about. Think E=MC^2. Please see the last sentence of the first paragraph - Ed
Now try to imagine a bolt of lightening!
This is great! Its good to see a bit of applicable fun still at Tesla. I was beginning to fear that all the management difficulties earlier this year might have stifled the playful spirit of imagination that is so valuable for a cutting edge technology company.
Bravo!
Go Tesla!
It’s nice to know the moving electrons weigh so little - but they can’t do it alone, they need lots of protons and neutrons and other electrons to make the atoms in the wires and insulation and batteries and other parts to do the job. Its all those other subatomic particles that make most of the weight of the car.
As for EEStor, not much has been heard from them since the article in Technology Review dated January 22, 2007, just an announcement that they’d made some purified barium titanate insulating powder. I’ve heard rumors that they’ve revised their predicted energy density from 280 watt hours down to 60 watt hours, but have been unable to confirm that. Since they haven’t demonstrated even a single small working prototype, and others have pointed out some basic physical properties of barium titanate that EEStor apparently ignored, I suspect they’ve run into a rather serious snag and will never be able to achieve their original claimed capacity. They are at least 2 years behind schedule, they were supposed to have delivered the first “EEStorage” prototypes to Zenn in August 2006, and nothing yet.
Thanks Ed… I did read that paragraph but some of the responses seemed to show that the disclaimer wasn’t registering. And also claimed that the pack would not lose weight. Personally I find it more interesting to think about the actual weight loss that will occur, but it’s all good.
CM;
given the propensity of capacitors to discharge catastrophically given any little fault or failure, maybe “vaporware” has taken on literal meaning here …
Despite Eestor’s failings, I would like to think that the future might Ultracapacitors rather than batteries. Right now, batteries win hands down for automobile applications due to the energy density.
But there are so many disadvantages that batteries have that ultracaps do not. Cycle life, Charge/discharge rate, chemical disposal, temperature sensitivity.
But fundamentally, I think fewer conversions of energy and less steps along the way is the key to the highest possible efficiency. For example:
1) Fossil Fuels - Solar energy being converted by photosynthesis into simple organic compounds containing energy, digestion of other flora and/or fauna to process compounds, millions of years of fossilization, extraction, refinement, combustion, motion.
2) Hydrogen Fuel Cell - Electric power generation, electrolysis, hydrogen gas, compression, PEM (fuel cell), electricity, motion.
3) Battery electric - Electric power generation, battery (chemical energy storage), electricity, motion.
4) Ultracapacitor electric - Electric power generation, capacitor (still electricity), electricity, motion.
Since charging a battery is converting electricity into a separate form, chemical energy. There are fundamental losses. But if you store electricity in an electrostatic medium like a capacitor, you aren’t converting anything and it can be virtually lossless.
Paul, the 99 bricks are in series, which multiplies the output voltage by 99, but this doesn’t affect the actual ampere-hours flowing through the motor, which is the direct measurement of the number of electrons. (One ampere-hour == 2.247 x 10^22 electrons.) If the 6831 cells were all in parallel, you’d have 99x the electrons flowing through the motor at 1/99th the voltage, but still yielding the same power output. Conversely, if they were all in series, you’d have 1/69th the number of electrons, but at an unbelievably huge voltage! (And still the same theoretical power output.)
On the other hand, if you’re talking about the number of electrons inside the _battery pack_ that are moving around, then I believe you’re correct that it’s 99x more than actually flow through the motor. Marty, can you clarify?
2.2Ah cells, but BMS limits it to4.15v to extend cycle life. Which is about 95% DoD. Would actually like to see the number for charge efficiency of the pack as a whole.
Alright, the facts are right here, on this site. I was just on the wrong page. No more doing online research in public places. Your electric motor weighs in at 115 lbs. A cursory look at the numbers in the last post must mean that the source (Domenick Yoney at Autobloggreen) from which I obtained them was probably way off the mark with respect to the ostensible weight of the Tesla motor based on .25 kw/kg. I am guessing that the ratio fpr the Tesla is probably closer to 1 kw/kg based on its weight. Not bad, though. Frits van Breemen-Schneider still has to prove his claims. You’re already there!
The weight of energy stored in the full charged battery pack:
E = m.c^2
E = 53 kWh = 190 800 000 Ws
m = E / c^2
c = 299 792 458 ms^-1
m = 2,123 * 10^-9 kg
m = 2,123 ug
… so this is the difference in weight of charged and discharged pack.
Clearly we don’t have to worry about the extra load carried by the suspension when the battery pack is charged.
I wonder why the EEstor thingy is so popular, yet equivalent & more credible technologies are mostly ignored.
Sion power has 300 wh/kg batteries, and has built and tested prototypes. The use of sulfur makes their batteries potentially cheaper than current Li-Ion ones.
And Revolt technology has a Zinc/Air battery (a secondary battery, you recharge it like a Li-Ion one) with an energy density of 400 wh/kg. This one looks like a winner, with Zinc being the main component, which is cheap and abundant.
Please don’t confuse this technology with the most known Zinc/Air primary battery. Revolt battery is recharged just using electricity, no chemicals involved.
I wonder if Tesla has started to work with the latest silver zinc battery manufacturers of the world. Nowdays they are touting that these batteries provide anywhere from 20-40% longer charge for the same energy storage density as compared to Lithium Ion batteries. Maybe if the claims made by Zpower aren’t as bodacious as EEstor, the tesla roadster might be able to increase its range from 220 miles to 300 miles with similar sized battery pack. One of the advantages is that 95% of the silver zinc battery components can be recylcled back into newer batteries thereby reducing the lifecycle costs of the battery. Another upside for the newer battery would be it wont use any toxic chemicals.
:-)
VoiToi: Your reasoning is flawed. You are assuming that just because it is possible to convert mass into energy that mass is converted into energy. The battery is not a nuclear device. As explained correctly by Marty Taft in his blog, there is no change in the mass, the electrons have simply moved from one part of the battery to another (from cathode to anode).
Luis Pons: EEStor hype may be beyond reason, but Sion Power has spent many years and effort to bring their solution to market and have not succeeded because the number of charge, discharge cycles before the performance of the battery is seriously degraded is too small. This has nothing to do with popularity. Thank you for pointing out Revolt, www.revolttechnology.com/ They look very promising and appear to be transitioning from research to market.
ssd: I’m pretty sure that Silver is toxic. But since it can be re-cycled, it should not end up in landfills. ZPower, lots of hype, practically no actual specifications, and no products. In this case even when compared with existing premium Li-ion www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/images/pdf/Panasonic_LiIon_CGR18650E.pdf available now they show significantly better 675 wh/l vs Panasonic’s 550 wh/l.
@Paul K - Marty pointed out that electrons “leave” the lowest potential brick (aka 69 cells in parallel) and then are boosted in voltage as they pass through each of the other 98 bricks in the pack. The factor of 99 shouldn’t be included when counting electrons.
Suppose that the polywell fusion approach ends up being practical. How much boron and hydrogen would be necessary under that process to power a Roadster for 36000 miles (3000 miles/month for a year, which is a LOT of driving and recharging)?
www.emc2fusion.org/
I’m wondering if we’re talking about the cost of a box of 20-mule-team borax — OR LESS?
Roy.
I just calculated Tesla Battery pack using Panasonic battery specs you posted. They say that their standard battery is 3.7V 2550mAh. That translates to 9.435Wh. Multiplied by 6800 we get 64158Wh or 64kWh. Tesla is using something with only 53kWh. Those Panasonic batteries alone get us 20% more range. 240 -> 288. If those ReVolt batteries get realized fast then we have possibility to roughly twice that, IE 560mil. That is the goal range. We don’t need bigger range than that. For 560miles with average speed of 60mph you need to drive over nine hours (very few 560mile roads actually give you that average speed of 60mph). Then battery pack just gets smaller. That range would be enough even for me
What we need is a “Henry Ford” low cost vehicle. Suggest a rear axle drive add on for front weel drive pickkup trucks. The motor and batteries would be in the rear.
So has anyone thought of using this powertrain in an aircraft? Is that feasible?
Roy: Sorry, but VoiToi is right. *Any* increase or decrease in energy comes with a corresponding increase or decrease in mass. True, in nuclear devices the change is greater (even measurable), but it’s still there in, for instance, combustion. Even accelerating objects (increasing their kinetic energy) alters their mass, hence why a massive object cannot travel past c. As it approaches c its mass increases exponentially, making it increasingly difficult to accelerate.
@Michael: No, batteries are currently far too heavy for aircraft. Aircraft are actually one area where hydrogen technology makes sense. The fuel itself has incredibly specific energy, and it doesn’t require long-term onboard storage like a car. Just fuel it up right before take-off! Electric pusher props powered by fuel cells or even burning the hydrogen in a turboprop engine would be feasible in the medium to long-term.
the latest is materials technology research is called (buckypaper) after Mr. Buckminster Fuller, and his Buckyballs.
snicker……..
Buckypaper is much lighter and potentially 250 times stronger than steel. it also has excellent thermal conducting properties.
It also conducts electricity. it is made from pure carbon. in the future we will see airplanes and cars made of Buckypaper) instead of Carbon Fiber. also, the batteries will have extensive Buckypaper materials in the housings and in the electrodes.
pure carbon electrodes work very well. the first products coming to market next year will be for a conducting film on aircraft used as a lightning shield.
www.buckypaper.com/
or
thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/21/apworld/20081021082757&sec=apworld
CORRECTION:
Buckypaper is made of 50% carbon nanotubes, not 100%
I am sure Tesla is keeping close tabs on the latest batteries coming to market.
As batteries increase in power storage; there are 3 options available for TESLA to improve on the Roadster.
Remeber that the object of the game is
A: Performance
and
B: Range.
so.., if you find a new technology battery with 20 percent increase in power storage; you can
1) keep the batterypack the same.
This will give 20% more range.
2) use fewer cells to get the same range.
This will bring down the cost and have a lighter batterypack. a 900 pound batterypack with 20% fewer cells would have
some weight saving, say, 180 pounds lighter, so the handling ,performance and range would also be better for the same car /battery.
3) have a mix of options 1 and 2.
this would take into consideration the design changes of the car and batterypack together
I just wish I had the money to get one though. Keep up the good work ,
I would like your expert analytical opinion on how successful this option can be for America and other nations to consider to solve their fuel expense problems associated with foreign oil importing. My Project Plan is The Electric Vehicle Free Conversion Foundation (EVFCF). I believe in a fair opportunity if theres a need being served, but the weight of that Li-Ion battery is to much, it might be those steel cans with each cell and thats 6,831 weighty steel cans. Just how much does that weigh not the battery total of 992 lbs.. I see the vehicle total weight as Curb weight (lbs/kgs): 2723/1238 but how much could be saved by not using the 6,831 steel cans? What I am getting at… Have you seen the article, [Future Planes, Cars May Be Made of Buckypaper; Friday, October 17, 2008 12:29 PM; www.newsmax.com/science/tec_buckypaper/2008/10/17/141478.html]? Why only one - 375 volt AC induction air-cooled electric motor with variable frequency drive, at the rear-end SEE >>> BluWav Systems LLC has two in their unit and they have electric motors in the wheel hubs so anyone could make a four wheel drive vehicle or a Hybrid leaving the ICE installed and adding battery power? Help me in Solving Problems For Transportation. Your at the petal don’t use the metal. Make a new battery and don’t use that heavy battery your planning to use, honestly. After you read the article in the news did you consider how this could be made possible for all types of vehicles in transforming them as necessary to become electric vehicles? I mean the Buckypaper use of coarse I believe would have a major influence on this success instead of perhaps other materials, esp. for electric motor conversion transmission plates that are normally made of aluminum cut plates, and batteries if this can be simplified to automotive battery makers of Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Polymer batteries etc..
Michael, Nate: Battery powered model airplanes have been around for years, and earlier this year battery powered planes big enough to carry a pilot have also been flown. Range is still limited. However, there are plans to replace heavy lead acid airplane emergency power batteries with much lighter LiIon batteries.
Lithium-Ion batteries are OK but think about LiFePO4 batteries (alternative to Pb-A (NiMH) or Nickel Cadmium (NiCd) as a power pack of 38 at 3.2v each will be 120v density for the bundle while a 6v per cell bundle of 40 cells would be 240v and that could handle a dual battery service yet if we Hybrid the power source to also include a Hydrogen PEM Fuel-Cell our advantage would then be to charge half the 240v pack while the other half is being used and continue driving at least as long as we had Hydrogen Gas and thats twice the distance. For models and toys I would suggest a Zinc-Silver battery instead of Lithium-Ion not because the Navy uses them in torpedoes but because they are more recyclable and have the advantage at recycle time, since most of the spent Zinc can be reclaimed and converted back to Zinc, Lithium cannot. A disadvantage was that Zinc Electrodes could degrade causing failure to accept a charge but changes in some manufacturing processes has changed that. Zpower has just the Zinc-Silver battery solution that is a water based product and is not flammable and does not have problems with thermal runaway that are associated with Li-ion chemistry. Low flash point electrolytes and exothermically degrading materials contained in Li-Ion batteries occasionally cause fires or explosions. Silver-zinc cells are much more stable. Large shipments of Li-Ion batteries are restricted from passenger aircraft cargo and loose Li-Ion batteries are not allowed in checked baggage (Check with the The National Transportation Safety Board for updates). According to Zpower, 95 percent of the materials in the batteries are recyclable. There are no heavy metals or toxic chemicals contained in the batteries. The raw materials extracted from the used cells retain their quality, making recycling more effective. Zpower is one of the first companies to offer financial incentives to customers that choose to recycle their batteries. The main concern is that Zinc-Silver batteries have more capable energy density than a typical Lithium-Ion battery plus Zinc-Silver batteries are smaller having the same density of charge while the same size of one compared to that of Lithium-Ion is actually more than Lithium-Ion density of charge.
Great data… And, she is beauty!
It would be cool to ultimately incorporate a Tesla-switch into cars pile configuration.
Thus, it would truly live up to it’s name.
Frequency of switching is regulated by load or drain on batteries.
No need to ever plug-in for a charge.
free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf
But maybe that ’s just crazy talk.
The Electric car Industry is missing the point, needed is for emergency purposes a recharger, not a hand crank device but thats good to. As a accessory I would suggest developing Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells which use dirty Hydrogen gas or Filtered High Grade Hydrogen Gas that can be bought in a refueling station and compressed. But for a Home unit to have a Hydrogen Gas Generator is where you need a bubbler only in the automobile. A multi-bubbler is ok when you are using the auto to generate the gas as it is needed as for pressure it is needed about 55psi and then you are running purely off of Hydrogen and no gasoline is needed so that why I suggest a home unit. Toyota is one company which is experimenting with portable Fuel-Cells and has one commercial unit right now available, is for a bicycle made by Angstrom Power. I think Toyota is getting the idea this portability is needed. Think about hurricanes and tornadoes when power needs to be restored and you have nothing at all and a portable device sure would help. A portable unit could even power exterior Christmas lights without having to run power lines to a tree or the fixtures outside and it works on Halloween too. Portability is not for running power demand electric motors but mainly when used in a multi configuration would power up enough to a charge capability, I am almost sure Paramedics have a emergency Fuel-Cell power unit for doing EKG work which sends the data. So can Tesla make it a objective to develop some portability?
Marty Taft, you look so familiar, have you been to Alabama?
A new Pancake Motor 11 inches in diameter and only 5 inches long drives Electric Vehicles, see this info in this PDF File Download www.infolytica.com/en/news/m&daug2008.pdf
Entitled: Unique Axial Flux Motor Design Delivers Superior Torque Density
Publication By www.e-driveonline.com/
By: Apex Drive Labs
For more information visit: www.apexdrivelabs.com/
Designers of electric vehicles are focusing on direct-drive motors because they are small and eliminate gear reducing differentials and transmissions. It is now widely recognized that permanent magnet motors best fit the requirements of high torque at low speed needed for the vehicles. This design house has produced the first proof-of-concept of a proposed axial flux permanent magnet (AFPM) machine that has an unusual pancake geometry. The article presents the results of finite element analysis of the motor’s performance and some bench test results of the first prototype.
First Paragraph continues
It is widely recognized that axial flux permanent magnet (AFPM) machines usually have higher torque densities and efficiencies than their radial flux (RFPM) counterparts. Its pancake shape geometry and high torque capability make AFPM motors a preferred choice for direct-drive systems. In recent years, many different topologies of AFPM machines have been developed and reported [1]. Apex Drive Laboratories has developed a new type of AFPM machine with segmented U-shaped cores that has higher torque density than conventional motor topology. One application of this motor is for the direct drive of a neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV). In this article, the Apex AFPM motor topology is described and the analyses of motor performance through the use of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) techniques are presented. Test results from a proof of concept prototype are also presented.
References
[1] Aydin, M., S. Huang, T.A. Lipo, Axial Flux Permanent Magnet Disc Machines: A Review, Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives
Summary
The Apex AFPM motor presented in this article has a higher torque density than other AFPM machines. Significant aspects of the machine design have been discussed and experimental results have been reported. FEA techniques have been used to accurately calculate the machine parameters. The novel arrangement of Apex AFPM machines results in very compact, lightweight and efficient products, aspects which are required for the direct-drive applications. The Apex motor is protected by the patents.
[3] US 6,552,460B2 April 22, 2003 Brushless Electro-Mechanical Machine.
[4] US 6,930,433B2 August 16, 2005 Brushless Electro-Mechanical Machine.
[5] CIP 3.3 (Published February 2007) patent pending on the U-Core Design.
Well just an idea, why not make the batteries easy exchangeable?
(standardised form factor)
Stop at a “gas”station, exchange your battery with a fully loaded new one and drive away in a few minutes.
The “gas”station can recharge the battery later and sell it’s added value to the next EV.
You solve the hours of charging, no need to transport anything else then electricity and the
gas stations stil have a function after the oil is gone or has become too expensive. ?
Hope to be able to buy the 4th generation, I’m saving already.
> 3.089 Milligrams of electrons. This is about as much weight as a single, small grain of sand.
No wonder Jesus said “if you had faith equal to a grain of sand, you could move a mountain.”
He said faith, but he meant isolated “negative charge” carriers.
:)
I recently read about nanowire batteries. Wekipedia- “A nanowire battery is a lithium-ion battery invented by a team led by Dr. Yi Cui at Stanford University in 2007. The team’s invention consists of a stainless steel anode covered in silicon nanowires to replace the traditional graphite anode. Silicon, which stores ten times more lithium than graphite, allows a far greater energy density on the anode, thus reducing the mass of the battery. The high surface area further allows for fast charging and discharging.” Is this just a lab experiment or is this technology a real break through for electric vehicles? I realize you can only build vehicles with parts you can buy today. What’s your take on this technology?
The Conservation of Electrons Law says that no electrons are added or taken away. So the weight change is zero.
John Stone: Dr. Cui’s silicon nano wire batteries have been discussed in previous blogs by readers, not by Tesla. It will be 5 to 10 years before you will be able to buy this kind of battery, but it is very promising. Tesla is aware of all new battery technologies, but is really concerned only with what they can buy now and for the Model S.
Hello all, I am just and average guy with a strong interest in eclectic vehicles. I have found most of the info in these comments far beyond my knowledge but I am trying to keep up. My question for all electric cars is why cant the efficiency be increased by adding solar panels to all body panels? New high efficiency solar panels are moldable with a thickness of 5 microns and generate more energy in low light than there older cousins.
See article www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=143&art_id=vn20060211110132138C184427
Interesting kicking around the weight of electricity vs batteries. In the end, Ultracapacitors will win. As to the future of Eestor, well now that their future is tied up in the “skunk works”, i.e. Lockheed Airospace, we probably won’t get the ‘good stuff’ on the streets for a while yet. (Lockheed has signed “signed an exclusive international rights agreement to integrate and market Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) from EEStor, Inc., for military and homeland security applications.”) Still there are plenty of other players in the battery market place and if GM wants to save it’s sorry self, it needs to consider Electric Vehicles. The future used to be summed up under the single word “plastic”. Well the paradigm for today is “electric”. If I had a bank of solar cells out back or a windmill, and charged my car each night, my carbon footprint would not only be ZERO but the good folk in the middle east could just eat sand.
Wow! Very insightful! Something I never even thought about. Great post!
i would appreciate to get an information rg. the total weight of the battery.
and whether there is an influence on the acceleration of the car?
tnx
Could I get some information on charging requirements? I think I saw one comment about 240V, 40A for the roadster. Will this be similar for the S?
Who was it that said “if you had faith equal to the weight of a mustard seed, you could move mountains.”
Maybe he meant if you had “3mg of electrons, you could drive over a mountain range, and back down again.”
All said, the battery still weighs 1000 pounds. As an alternative to cars carrying their energy around, any thoughts out there around electrified road lanes (think trams) to power electric vehicles? Would take care of range issues, of charging stations, etc. The car itself could carry maybe 100 miles of charge in a battery.
Want to know what I’ll be using for my car?
A motor that has been tested for 500HP at 20,000rpms, 300Nm and only weighs 150 pounds. A race tested 2 speed sequential transmission. A lithium battery capable of over 1000A of continuous discharge at 3.2 volts. On top of that, a better and more powerful motor can be built since the inverter is capable of delivering 1500HP. I’ll also use some other technology that will just make the electric vehicles look better then any I.C. vehicle on the market.
Use better batteries Tesla and you will see better performance.