Fantastic blog article this week. I reminds me that I need to step up and make a difference now.

I read where scientists are studying artificial photosynthesis (as at Lawrence Lab)- & could get solar power from this. But since photosynthesis also takes C02 out of atmosphere, I wonder if articial photosynthesis would kill two birds with one stone: create solar power & remove some c02 from atmosphere at same time? Then solar panels would act like a real solar “farm”.

He’s got a hat!

R.H. comment: also river power (riverbed turbines)-as in Columbia River, Mississippi, St. Lawrence Seaway.I like solar-always have-it’s everywhere and can be put right on buildings that use it- and would be out of sight , or close to it, depending.Just need to store it at night. Thin-sheet solar will have the potential to change things all over the world very fast-the potential, IF it is put at the front of the “cultural/political agendas” .

Starting at steep inclines.
There is a way around this “problem”. The Th!nk City that was exported to the US has the motor controller programmed for creep function. As soon as the brake pedal is released, some power is applied to the motor so the car creeps just like a regular car with automatic transmission.

My Th!nk City which was originally sold here in Norway does not have this feature, so I apply the parking brake at inclines just like one would do with a regular car with manual transmission. This action simultaneoulsy activates the self adjusting feature on the rear drum brakes.

Early EVs did not have the safety feature that disables the motor controller when the brakes are applied. On a few occations where the driver practiced left foot braking this could lead to early failure of the motor brushes and damadged commutator in DC motors. EVs with brush DC motors should under no circumstance be held stationary at an incline with motor power.

Latest news on the Altair nano battery, and some included specs:
www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/altair_nanotech.html#more

Jealous of that hat as well… me wants

Teach your kids about electric cars.

www.traxxas.com/products/electric/4tec/trx_4tec.htm

www.traxxas.com/products/electric/4tec/gallery/4-tec-chassis-xl1.jpg

To T.J.

1. Tunneling effect comes right from fundamental laws of quantum mechanics. Also whatever material you have it would consist of atoms. These two features of any material together ensure no escape from low dielectric breakdown field for capacitors of ANY design regardless of technology. Nanotechnology will not help here at all.

2. Few months ago I investigated photosynthesis because I thought to find or create a job related to liquid fuel production by photosynthesis. I discovered fundamental restriction of efficiensy with it. In photosynthesis one or two photons get absorbed into photosensitive molecule changing it into high energy state. After that some processes involving transport of ions have to be involved to transfer captured energy into chemical energy of carbohydrates. Ion transport is fairly slow process. As a result it takes certain time to extract energy from excited photosensitive molecule. The molecule have to occupy a cross section of about square of visible light wavelength to be efficient absorber. So photosynthesis could absorb just single photon per such a cross section per given time needed for energy extraction. If any other photon comes earlier than that it would be passed by or absorbed to heat instead of been properly absorbed for photosysthesis.

As a result of described restriction even after billions of years of evolution best photosynthesis organisms could not use more than ~10 W / m^2. Peak solar power is ~1000 W / m^2. Apparently photosysnthesis has severe power density per area limitations. This so far made it not possible even to improve food production much higher than today crop yield. And food is much more expensive than fuel per unit of energy contained.
So all the etanol, biodisel etc production could be useful ONLY as a side effect aside food production just to use trashed plant matter. This limits upper level of fuel produced that way with available U.S. farmland by about 1 % or less of overall gasoline demand of U.S. IT IS NOT A SOLUTION ON LARGE SCALE.

3. Direct solar electric with semiconductor films is not limited by similar effect as photosynthesis because ion transport is not involved. Electron-hole generation is extremely fast process keeping up with light power much higher than available 1000 W / m^2. It is also possible to use thermal approach by concentrating sunlight by mirrors. Thermal approach would collect more than 50% of energy. Solar electric is typically ~10% efficient. But both could produce energy much more intense than equivalent area of photosynthesis.

So I believe most practical approach would be just to use thermal and/or electrical energy of thermal solar and solar electric energy generation to make gasoline or alcogol synthesis by chemical processes from CO2 and water with releasing all the oxygen from CO2 and water transformed into fuel. CO2 could be captured by electrically driven large turbines similar to wind electric turbines of today. In this case large scale centralized synthetic fuel production plants could be built. They would filter the air and pump the water and convert it into fuel. In such a case later burn of this fuel would generate no more CO2 and water than it was used by such plants.

I believe that as a strategy it will be cost effective after major solar power would become cost effective. It would use much less area covered by solar energy absorbers than any other renewable power. It also nicely fits with huge inertia of existing transportation, heating etc current fuel use systems. I am personally convinced that this finally would be a mainstream approach after people play with all other alternatives. Other approaches (nuclear, direct electric energy use etc) would also take some percentage of overall energy streams but because of infrastructure inertia syntetic fuel approach would actually win.

Appreciating that you are just getting off the ground but, for the (near) future!
Do you envisage developing a 4 seat model, using the current power plant?
Does the purchase price include the recharging media and/or it’s installation?
Is recharging possible via a household standard power outlet, apart from the coupling?
i.e when on vacation etc.
Is producing a Right Hand Drive version a major or (relatively) minor exercise.
Is the vehicle, as it stands, likely to comply with all the necessary safety impact, braking, steering, lighting requirements, worldwide, or more specifically Australia & New Zealand.
Assuming that the bulk of the preceeding questions are positively resolved at this time, Is Tesla moving toward looking for expressions of interest to import, distribute and service from outside of the Continental U.S during the next (say) 5 years?

—

Editor’s response: Some of your questions are answered in various spots on our site. I’ll point you to a couple of them:

- A bit of info about plans for future cars can be found in the blog, The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan.
- The 2007½ and 2008 model Tesla Roadsters will include the Home Charging Station as part of the purchase price. You can find out more about the Home Charging Station on our FAQ page.
- Telsa Motors also offers a mobile charging station for on-the-road charging. It is works with standard electrical outlets. See the FAQ page and the Charging and Batteries page.

Just read where 970 trillion kw/hrs. of solar energy fall on the planet every day. Looks like that would do it alright-gotta harvest that one way or another, right Anatoly? Just need to pay the real cost of living on overpopulated/techno-developed planet earth and get it over with/get on with it.

Like Anatoly, I looked into photosynthesis (though more for curiosity than career reasons), and was both surprised and disappointed at the limitations of that process. I also concluded that ethanol was a dead end: use it to the extent that you have excess from other processes and industries, but it’s probably unwise to devote any significant portion of arable land to its production.

On the other hand, using otherwise barren southwestern land for solar power production makes a lot of sense in the US, from both economic and engineering perspectives. At the moment, thermal generation from solar concentration appears to me to be most promising for commercial production, but photovoltaic is also improving, and could soon allow householders to be a noteworthy source of auxilliary, “buffer” power for the grid, especially on hot, sunny days when people would be making huge use of air conditioning.

Man I want that hat. Please let us know when the store is going to open.

This post was on The Energy Blog regarding the $750,000 paid by Phoenix Motorcars to Altair for 10 of the Altair nano batteries:

“NO, the battery packs do NOT cost $75,000
apiece. They cost approximately $14,000 each.
Most of the $750,000 was for engineering service fees performed by Altair in engineering the batteries and packs for the vehicles Phoenix is using. So far, every single forum has committed this confusion. Isn’t the internet just grand? It can spread more ignorance in less time than a boatload of gossipy old maids ever could. Just like TV. It was going to make every citizen well informed. Over 80% of these folks think we’ve been visited by aliens. And you want these bozos sitting on a jury and deciding your fate?”

Most everyone speaks hybrid and thinks gas-electric, bio-diesel, ethynol-electric, etc. How about a hydrogen-electric hybrid? You plug the vehicle up to charge, the hydrogen is used only to extend range between charges. Most commuters would not exceed the 250 mile Tesla range, but for a long distance traveler, a boost of hydrogen would be enough to get to the next rest stop or auto-rental to swap for a recharge.

Anatoly & others interested in photosysthesis :
Are you aware of the research underway with dye-sensitized solar collection, a process that in many way mimics photosynthesis? see pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/inocaj/2005/44/i20/html/ic0508371.html

Decentralized solar collection will have a major contribution to our power supply systems in the relatively near future, be it through thin film mass production (ie Nonosolar) and incorporation into building structures, highly efficient collector designs available at the consumer level (Spectrolab just announced that it has a collector that captures 40% of the total energy that strikes it), or perhaps windows made from dye sentisized materials/
Richard

Wonder what’s up with Toshiba nano/li-ion battery that was supposed to come out in 2006-”able to be charged 80% in 1 min. -and long life” ?

If you watch “Who Killed The Electric Car,” you’ll understand why hydrogen is a non-starter.

“How about a hydrogen-electric hybrid?”

Oddly enough that is what GM says it will be pursuing. I guess the big question is whether GM will ever be profitable again.

I too decided after hearing Al Gore speak on the Oprah Winfrey show, that I need to step up and do what I can to help save the earth. I work 2 miles from my home, and decided to never drive my car to work again, I will share a car with my daughter, and use a Vespa for local travel. I am trading my Honda in for a biodiesel VW Jetta, but ultimately want to own a Tesla when they are in the 50K range. Can we speed up that process at all?
I think so many people would be willing to step up as we have, but it is still cheaper not to. What’s wrong with this picture??? Alternative fuel vehicles need to be more affordable, so they will become the right choice for everyone! I am a single mother paying for 2 kids in college, I want to do my part, and hope anyone who reads this will join me. We need to do it now so our grandchildren will have a world left to live in.

Gas hybrids are great, but there is really no point for taking an all electric car and making it a hydrogen electric.
First, how much would a fuel cell cost? Even 20 years down the road it will still not be cheap.
Second, How much will it (and the hydrogen) weigh? This is important because it will use more energy to transport it, decreasing range.
Third, Hydrogen is NEVER going to be as cheap as electricity- unless it is made of dirty fossil fuels, which defeats the purpose.
Finally, for all this cost and extra weight- wouldn’t it be easier (and cheaper, and more efficient) to just buy a bigger battery pack?
The same applies for any extra engine/ generator added to an EV. For the 5,000 dollar cost (that is my guess for an ice engine) and the price of gas for those big trips, you could probably add an extra 100 miles onto your Tesla. That still might not be enough, but it is a significant increase and most of my trips are under 350 miles, unless i am really doing a huge road trip. I’d say that, given the massive R&D in the battery industry, in 5-10 years evs will go for up to 5-600 miles per charge.

OK I’ll bite, R.T.
Where did you pull the $14000 battery cost from?
That would make each NanoSafe 13.8V X 88 Ah package worth $466. (assuming 30 “packages” per 35KWh Battery)
Would take my Electric bike a long way on a single charge. Id buy one tomorrow. I’d even invest in the company, ignoring the depreciating US dollar.

RE a Tesla, I WANT ONE..
Please bring it downunder for the Targa Tasmania, that will turn a few heads..

> We need to do it now so our grandchildren will have a world left to live in.

I absolutely agree, but it is also important to have realistic expectations. Certain changes have momentum, like the additional ocean volume that is now absorbing heat where the ice used to reflect that heat. We can’t undo that an any short period of time. Overpopulation is the largest issue we face. The most important thing we can do is bring less grandchildren into this world. Our climate may well be on its way to another ice age that we can not stop. On the other hand we have successfully cleaned up lakes and rivers and the ozone layer is supposed to be within a decade of starting to repair itself.

What is amazing and is a true irony is that the only reason we have developed the technology we have now is a very unusual period of environmental stability that has lasted long enough for us to get to the point where we can ruin this stability. Our only hope is to develop enough additional technology to actually undo the damage we have caused getting to this point.

I’m all for doing my part, but we will probably not see anything go “back to normal” for hundreds of years or much longer.

T.J and Jeanne, you can also sign a petition to “draft” gore in the 2008 elections here: www.ipetitions.com/petition/algore2008/

I don’t consider myself a democrat (I would have voted for bush in 2000 if I was old enough, but realized my would-have-been mistake and voted Nader in 2004) or a republican (thanks to the corruption of… well, pretty much all of them), but Al Gore has really grown on me. People have criticized him for wasting a lot of fuel traveling the country/globe to give his presentation, but he’s getting the message out about something he strongly believes in, and I applaud him for that. As soon a cleaner mode of transportation than jets comes out, I’m sure he’d jump on the opportunity.

The point of that previous rant was to say that in the spirit of keeping this forum nonpartisan, I’d like to invite anyone to promote the name of a republican and/or independant (little “i”) candidate who believes in doing something serious about serious environmental issues. I will gladly vote for whoever I think can best get the right things done for this country and this planet, regardless of party. And even if they lose, I can still send petitions to the other guy.

will anyone give me that car as a present?

I asked this on the last blog page but no one responded… Does anyone know anything about the ZEV credit that Phoenix Motors is using to subsidize $200,000 per car?

BTW - I’m also curious about that $14,000 nanosafe battery price - who came up with that number?

I would be very sad, if the only reason people bought Tesla cars, or invested in the company, would be to respond to tough environmental regulations or get tax breaks. I think the whole point of the Tesla Roadster is to show that being envrionmentally responsible does not preclude having fun and being stylish. The need to be environmentally responsible should not be a justification for abridging our freedom of choice, any more than the act of being responsible need abridge our freedom to enjoy driving along the open road.

I can’t support the kind of environmental restrictions or state-sponsored “incentives” that we have seen from Mr. Schwarzenegger, or that Al Gore would bring us. These guys and their honorable colleagues are all about telling you what to do with your time, effort, and money, however attractively they may paint their approaches. I like the Tesla approach of building vehicles that can command a high purchase price because they are exciting and excellent, and then transferring as much of that excitement and value as possible into more practical vehicles that they can sell at ever more affordable price points, as it becomes easier and lest costly to do so. This is the free market working, and I think we need to vote for people who understand and respect that process. While you may find people who have some measure of that understanding among the ranks of Democrats, Republicans, and independents, you might want to give the Libertarians some consideration, as well. Just remember, much of the reason that we are wedded to the ICE automobile today is because of all of the government regulations, subsidies, and bailouts that “Big Oil” and “Detroit” have persuaded government to establish on their behalf over the past several decades. These government actions have kept competitors and alternative approaches out of the market. Libertarians are dedicated to making sure that government would grant no special favors to such industries, and to making it easier for smaller-fry companies to enter and remain in markets where they can fill a niche, perhaps someday to grow large enough to challenge the larger players. Keep that in mind when considering how to cast your vote, next time. The same government that can give you tax rebates for EVs and solar power can (and does!) allow Chevron and Exxon to rake in the profits without effective competition or restraint. I’m all for them making whatever profit they can. But if they had more competitors, the wealth might be spread around more equitably and the overall results might be more pleasant. Trying to forcibly redistribute wealth via a maze-like tax code and other confiscatory measures doesn’t seem to be working very well; enabling everyone to get in the game and trade value for value with minimum skimmng off the top seems to yield the best results. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have been very good champions of that approach, recently. Just my 2-cents. (Or should I say, my 2 miles in a Roadster???

>>BTW - I’m also curious about that $14,000 nanosafe battery price - who came up with that number?

This was first posted on GreenCarCongress news piece comments. The commenter didnt cite the sources but his reasoning sounds plausible.

BTW, in 2007, keep an eye out on thin film solar cells hitting the market at unbelievable prices. There are like tens of companies working to get the products out in a hurry, and it is bound to be the tech success story of 2007. Like:
siliconbeat.com
The few companies that i know of are Q-Cells, Daystar, “Global Solar”, HelioVolt, Konarka, Miasole, Nanosolar
Also check this story on RD magazine: tinyurl.com/wnbb7

I like the concept of “free market” envirornmentalism combined with govt. action. There was no free market payoff in going to the moon, but JFK said we’re going-to beat the russians and, like Everest, because it’s there.It was a great way to spend govt. money, advance science & employ people-beating the halibut out of “wars as usual” (pre-fab wars, no less-what else is new?) and/or newer and better weapons. There is an editorial in today’s ” USA Today” about the need for JFK-like action now. Anyone who contributes to environ. groups or buys
“green tags” , or a Tesla Whitestar sports sedan when it’s beyond what they’d usually pay for a car (that being me) isn’t doing it for economic reasons.This country is too conservative. Every generation thinks about “the cost” of doing this or that. But when that generation dies, what does it care about money anyone-then the next generation comes along and thinks about “the cost” and then when they’re gone….. meanwhile the earth is here, being clobbered because it always “costs to much” to do all the right things. The good thing about green & renewable energy is once you’ve paid the upfront cost, you’ll be saving money for decades on end. Whatever the govt. can do to speed this up should be done. We need more JFK-like policy, as in: this is what the situation is, these are the right things to do, here are the long-term payoffs as well-so to halibut with the cost (or whatever other objections there are)–we’re doing it!

I am all for saving the planet and doing my part. In March of 2005 I bought a Lincoln Navigator. I love the vehicle but not the gas or it’s rising price. I would like to get an SUV that is more enviromentaly friendly but I have not found anything eyecatching or large enough to haul my family of 5 (9 including grandparents and pets). I heard Tesla motors is creating such an SUV but I have not seen it. The roadster is smoking so I hope to see the same work put into a vehicle for the soccer mom. A purse friendly, stylishly sexy, and roomy SUV is a great look for the future of Americans. Thanks a bunch.

Hey everyone, there is a GREAT interview of Elon Musk here:

www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/conversations.html

Enjoy.

I saw the interview on PBS of Mr. Musk, and the mention of this new competative transportation technology and mention of aerospace project as well. So I went to Google and typed in Tesla Motors, here I am. Just the other day as I was driving the 1995 Saturn SW, thinking that what is going on in our society, we have accomplished so much in such a short span of time, and yet we are strapped with this anacronistic mecanical means of getting around. How can the large capital holders in the world just sit around and let global warming happen, inadvertantly by allowing the fossil fuel internal combustion engine dominate the motor vehicle market. Saying it is too late is not an excuse. The effects and potential turmoil of global warming would touch or wrench everyone, rich, middle and poor. I am glad to see this new product offered as an alternative to the established dominant potentially specie eliminating form of transport. Now, if the World Bank can write off 40 billion in African debt, restructure the books, and offer more money for growth and development so as to not “upset the apple cart”, why is this philosophy not applied to global warming. We took preemptive action based on inaccurate intelligence in Iraq, will we not take preemptive action on global warming given collaborated scientific analysis, National Science Foundation affirmation, high level scintific consensus and raw data that indicates the physical state of the atmaosphere. The effects of global warming will not be politically selective, it will affect everyone one way or another, at sometime or another. By the way, I would like to suggest that although white on black may be cool, black on white is easier to read.

I priced a wind turbine here in Texas. 15,000.00 installed,plus the local Coop. said i had to get more liability insurance incase my turbine is generating and the line men get electric-cuted.

I am from scotland and evangalise daily to eveyone about EVs, PHEVs and Tesla Motors in particular. The knowledge of global warming and its effects on everything from flooding to hedgehog hibernation are apparent here and now in Scotland. Features about it appear readily on the news. What disappoints me here is the the level of ignorance about solutions. After featuring on the BBC news the Tesla my teenage son informed me that the Tesla was being hotly discussed on the Honda forums as being the coolest thing out there.

However, I am sure that our politicians continually only speak in terms of solutions to global warming in terms of using public transport, increased taxes on motoring. I have never once heard one suggesting that the put pressure on motor manufacturers to move to zero emission vehicles or that green solutions do not need people to radically change thier lifestyles. Oil companies make amssive profits effectively make massive profits by dumping fossil carbon into the atmosphere. They should be facing lawsuits from flood victims, by insurance companies that have to meet good the cost of such damage and by governments that perversuly instead tax the consumer not the produce of carbon and use thier tax money to build the flood protection barriers.

I think the time has come for citizens to express thier concern directly about the quality of our respective goverments that themselves seems to be drawn from self serving cliques that are in thrall to Big Oil and its enormous financial power. The best way to do this is to buy products such as those Tesla are making and make our friends aware of these alternatives and encourage to do the same. I for one will desist from buying another ICE vehicle and hopefully will be driving a Tesla as soon as they available in Europe. This is now as much a political as an economic act. Silcon valley has shown the way in so much of the way we currently now live. It is great to see that they are finally now realising that they must use their wealth and expertise on a mission that goes far beyond lifestyle choices to life imperatives such as clean air, water and a viable planet.

# Chuck wrote on January 4th, 2007 at 8:57 am

# Somebody mentioned wind turbines for the barren southwest of America.
# While driving east on Interstate 10, thru Texas of all places, we saw hundreds
# of wind turbines so it’s already a fact. I expect to see more.

Wind turbines are a good idea, but I think more people have spoken here of solar power installations in the sunshine-rich deserts of the southwest.

Nevertheless, on a holiday trip to visit family living near Las Vegas, my family and I were pleased to see the windmill power farms in the high desert near Tehachapi CA. And, had we had more time to spare, we would have detoured away from our Interstate 15/5 route to see a solar power installation that sat just a few miles off the highway. I will definitely make a point of visiting this facility on my next trip.

T.J., I disagree that government money will solve any technological hurdles in EV transport, at least directly. Look at the billions of corporate welfare poured into hydrogen fuel cells and “clean coal” by successive administrations and congresses. And what have we gotten in the real world for our tax dollars? Absolutely nothing.

In large part the technology behind EV’s already exists. A government Apollo program would turn out something like the Venturi Fetish. The hurdle is not so much technological as economical. Getting prices down is something only private companies like Tesla can do with old fashioned business plans, pressure from investors, innovation, dedication and willpower.

Of course there is a role for government:
- They can provide zero emissions and CAFE regulations. Are oil imports a national security issue or not? James Baker III said absolutely yes, when we mobilized an army to defend 2 countries against Saddam that we had absolutely nothing in common with.
- They can help build infrastructure compatible with clean technologies. Tax benefits and rebates for EV vehicles, charging stations, grid optimization and carbon free electrical production.
- And of course the government can provide leadership and a vision to the people about what is the right thing to do and in what direction we should steer our civilization. One of our leaders is a former cheerleader. Maybe it’s time for him to pick up the megaphone again.

“Tesla: Car out of Time” > In Nikola’s day the horse 500 miles or so away jumped. Will the ‘3′ 2000 miles away (more or less) jump? Something about status quo comes to mind. That comment would only read “Halibut stodgy halibut narrow minded halibuts whose primary halibut aim is to halibut well insure halibut obscene…. Salmon anyone?

Has Tesla Motors evaluated the A123 nanosphosphate Li Ion battery? I saw that the GM/F/DCX consortium has gievn A123 $15 million to work with them on a Li Ion battery for their plug-in hybrids.

www.a123systems.com/html/news/articles/010407_GM.html

I also noticed that Black & Decker is selling A123 battery packs for their DeWalt 36V cordless power tools.

www.dewalt.com/us/articles/press_release.asp?Site=service&ID=1411

Any comments are welcome.

—

Editor’s response: Tesla Motors CEO Martin Eberhard addresses alternate technologies in the recent blog, Balance. Check it out.

Saw your nice car!

Are you planing to put a fuelcellstack in it in the future when the fuelcellstacks gets a lower price? The main different will be that you take out the batteries and put in a hydrogen storagetank and a fuelcellstack with a charger. I have heard that hydrogen fuelingstations is popping up all over America. ou can se all at www.h2stations.org/

The advantage with a fuelcellstack insteed of batteries is that when the batteries are energiless and you are on a longer tripp you need to charge it insteed of fueling it with hydrogen…

I hope to see a hydrogen version on the car in the future and then a maybe buy one from yaa becouse I am a Lotus fan and an enviromental friend!

Best Regards,
Peter Nygren

—

Editor’s comment: You might find our blog, The Future Of Cars Is Electric, interesting.

Here is a link you guys might find interesting, it is finally an affordable solar solution, guaranteed at or below grid costs, with no upfront purchase. It is an absolutely fascinating business plan created by this company called Citizenre. I was dubious at first, but soon it all made sense, so check it out.
renu.citizenre.com/index.php
It looks like a great, affordable way to power your car with renewable energy.

Where is the new blog already?

—

Editor’s comment: The next blog will be out on January 10. 

I just started looking at EV cars and a friend told me about “Who Killed The EV Car” when I started pulling stuff up on “You Tube” it really opened my eyes. One of the main reasons I’m voicing my statement is I am a field engineer for Northrop Grumman that’s involved in building nuke ships and weapons and such. But I am a simple little PC tech and I travel using my own car and drive about 50000 to 75000 miles a year. They just (last year) lowered our mileage reimbursement from GOV standard of .44 mile to .15 a mile. I cant live the way I use too but I need a job. Enough of me crying, when I saw this Tesla I feel in love and wanted one right away. I though about all the ways I could gather the money to buy one but still came about $80000. short. I know I can get a hybrid and save some but a truly EV car for me seems to be the ticket. I have heard that the technology for batteries are growing to some 300-450 miles per charge but I think the big and small oil companies will make sure that never happens for us little guys. If there was a way to get rid of the oil then I bet we can see our nice, new EV around a lot quicker.
From: little guy, Thanks Tesla for developing a great looking and moving car. I hope to buy one as soon as I win the lottery. Hope to talk to you soon.

Just read where Exxon made $339 billion in 2005. They spent $16 million of it funding 43 advocacy groups working to cast doubt on global warming (according to “Union of Concerned Scientists”).Guess they figure that ’s all they need to spend (since the job is so easy) to fool Lincoln’s “some of the people all of the time”. That’s what makes this country great (not).Only, as they say, in America.

The Chevy Vibe is coming. Well done Tesla and makers of the movie WKTEC for putting pressure on Detroit. Looks like the world of transport is set for real change.

autobloggreen.com

According to Wikipedia, 1% of world farmland, if used for solar power, could supply the world’s energy needs. There is prorbably that 1% available just in rooftops. An example of what govt. can do is the big German solar power govt. initiative- which has Germany generating something like 57% of all world solar power, with a population of only 83 million.The U.S., on the other hand, generates something like 7%.We are seriously lacking in governmental initiative, in D.C.

Many posts on this and previous blogs have suggested alternative batteries for Tesla. I am sure that Tesla engineers are keeping a close watch on battery technology. They have to buy batteries that are available now (actually before now, when the battery part of the car was committed to, probably about 2 years ago). Their primary concern is power to weight and price. I attempted to post a simple chart on an earlier blog comparing batteries and discovered that the formatting got all messed up, so I decided to create a web page with this info www.plasticlabels.ca/index_files/compareEVbatteries.htm I have taken a guess at Tesla’s battery specs and request the moderator to confirm. In this chart you can see that Altairnano’s batteries, for all their exellent qualities, are low on power to weight compared to standard Lithium Ion batteries, as are 123 batteries that many have suggested. I hope this helps clarify Tesla’s choice.

It always looked ridiculous to me that modern civilization continues to rely on 19-th century technologies to produce electricity which is not energy source. On the other hand so called solar panels cannot be our future, for few reasons. Firstly they are dependant on oil which is going to run out and second it is too ineficcient.
artificial photosynthesis seems to be the right thing to do, meanwhile it would be wise to go nuclear while artificial photosynthesis is under way to help us in transitional period to artificial photosynthesis derived energy.
I personally believe that a car is a wrong and wastefull kind of transportation fueled by gas or electricity. It consumes vast amonunts of other precious and non renuable materials. But of course if to choose between two evils and having in mind that majority disagrees with my opinion I believe that Tesla Motors should move forward with making electric cars more affordable. It is also right thing to produce first electric car of this efficiency as a sport car. I personally do not have any preconceptions about electric car, I believe it is far superior but of course it takes time to perfect any good idea. I believe it would also good idea for Tesla to start participating in Formula 1, Nascar or any other racing events with her electric cars. It would give huge boost and reveal what is new electric car is all about. It doe snot even have to get to the first place, just being able to hang on there would be a huge boost to electric car sales.

What about big corporations and their leadership… Well, I think there is not much worthy leadership there and true men of vision. These folks are not risking anything, they are actually try to avoid any real risk which always comes with new roads.
This form of company ownership is actually what makes a lot of ecological and other problems. The onlt good I see from them is ability to raise huge amounts of money but when it comes to taking care of our home earth or moving forward with new revolutionary ideas, sorry, they are the brake on human progress. I would say, smaller is beatiful and more efficient.

Just an observation:

An inventor friend of mine made an important observation that, “there is only one source of practically unlimited power that does not contribute to the heat gain of this planet”. Unlike all other forms of energy be it fossil fuel based, nuclear based, etc., solar power does not add to the heat gain. It is a relatively constant in our solar system. Even hydro and wind ultimately come from solar power and as such do not add heat gain on a planetary bassis. Therefore, for all those who profess to be concerened about the health of this planet, they should turn to a solar based solution and Tesla Motors is leading this effort.

I applaud Tesla Motors for its vision and dedication.

GM goes electric with new concept car at auto show. Called the “Volt” will go 40 miles a day to get people to work and back without
having to use gasoline. Source: news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070107/bs_nm/autoshow_volt_dc General Motors is not yet
brain dead and has the resources to come back and should not be underestimated. Volt’s internal combustion engine is designed only as a supplement to keep it battery charged. Tesla may need to rethink its postition. Also it needs to patent all breakthroughs that it has
made so far. The battle has only begun for the electric car.

Wikipedia site on PV solar sez: in Germany customers get paid 8 times what power co. charges them for any surplus solar power they return to grid. Also, of world’s top 14 PV solar power plants, Germany has 9 (we have 1) .This is an example of what our mangy govt. could do here: but noooo!

New GM Electric Car

The Chevy Volt can deliver 45 city miles of pure electric driving, allowing commuters who live within 20 miles of work to never burn any gasoline, instead relying on a daily plug-in recharge from a home or office 110-volt outlet.

When driving beyond the electric-only range, the car’s turbocharged 1.0-liter three-cylinder engine will automatically start, spin a generator and recharge the battery, effectively providing 50 mpg and a city range of some 640 miles from a 12-gallon tank of unleaded fuel.

[Article shortened to protect copyright]

www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070107/FREE/70107001/1056/autoshows

dirk: Solar can in fact add to the heat gain of the planet if it’s not well thought out. For example, despite the heat typically found in deserts, they help to reflect large amounts of heat back into space. If we blanket them with solar panels, this can no longer occur. Granted, the entire desert will never end up with solar panels covering it, but these concerns must be considered.

For this reason and others, it seems that a portfolio approach to renewable energy is needed, to avoid putting all of our eggs in one basket. A portfolio approach also helps balance out the grid: solar generates no electricity at night, wind in the west is said to be more prevalent at night according to studies, and hydro is a good power averaging function, pumping water up river during lower demands and generating the electricity during peak demand if needed.

Regarding the Volt (Chevy) at the auto show,

I formulate that this vehicle is more in response to the current hybrid cars on the market. A lot of Prius owners are adding additional batteries to their cars, so that their owners can aviod having to use gasoline, since the car switches to the gasoline motor when the battery is low. This concept is also a possible small step toward a fuel cell vehicle that places a gasoline motor in the place of where the fuel cell would normally be placed. (Fuel Cell to Battery to Motor)

GM’s problem is the cost of their Lithium-Ion Ballery to power the Volt. (Sound Familiar?)

Jon

So GM releases the so called “volt” (truly imaginative name isn’t it) to rave reviews. It gets 40 miles on one charge. What is so rave about that! Granted, anything is better than combustibles, but this less than mediocre stat speaks volumes as to the ineptitude of the Big 3 U.S. automakers.

I read a story a few months ago about a nanotube material that was essentially the real counterpart to the sci-fi substances of “transparent aluminum” or “transparasteel.” It is now a reality. It is thinner than paper, stronger than steel, transparent, cheap to produce, and acts as a flexible solar panel. I have heard nothing of this breakthrough since! It should be being used to make cars, houses, airplanes, body armor, etc. I would think it would certainly be used as a skin for an electric car so as to provide a means of always charging it (except obviously in the dark)- even while driving.

Finally. Roughly 30 years after a professor at the University of Illinois put together an early hybrid vehicle with AC propulsion we can now purchase it ihe form of a Tesla vehicle - minus the Wankel engine! That early test vehicle was built up from a GM donated Chevy Vega, a Wankel engine, a three-phase AC motor, a whole mess of NiCad batteries, and a custom designed AC inverter-controller that used humongous SCRs. The Wankel engine served to only deliver constant power (and therefore be tuned up for optimal efficiency) either for charging or as supplemental power when needed while the vehicle was operating at highway speeds. I was not involved in the initial design team but was fortunate enough to attend a course on the design of the vehicle that was offered in the early 80’s.

AC drive technology is certainly nothing new as it has been utilized in diesel-electric locomotives for decades but seems to have floundered in automobile applications, with PM DC motors being very popular (probably because of less complexity in the controller circuits). That early attempt at a hybrid vehicle may not have been the first attempt at utlizing AC drive in a passenger vehicle but it may have been one of the first to burn up due to some of the bad internal shorting properties of those pesky NiCad batteries. And it certainly didn’t help that the fire department decided to spray water into the vehicle!

I haven’t seen any specs on that new Chevy Volt other than to hear that battery problems may preclude the car from being sold to the public for another 8 years or so, and I would assume that’s mostly because of battery prices and availability for large volume manufacture. If I were Tesla I’d be darned sure that I get some good contracts written that would guarantee delivery of battery components in the future. The one thing that a large company like GM could do would be to buy up battery manufacturers to prevent annoying little start-up electric car companies like Tesla from being successful in the long run. I heard a rumour that GM even killed off the Fiero (after they finally got it right) because it was creating internal competition for the Corvette and hurting overall profits. If you ever saw the movie about the Tucker car company you have a good idea about what can happen to a company that rocks the boat, or in this case, knocks the internal combustion engine!

—

Editor’s surprise: Tesla Motors licensed AC Propulsion’s Reductive Charging patent, but we designed and build our own power electronics, motor, and other drivetrain components that incorporate this licensed technology. For more information, see our Motor City blog.

The battery that GM is using for their Volt is being made by Chevron (who bought the patents to the NIMH battery gthat originally powered the EV1) and which sued Toyota for patent infringement over their batteries for their RAV4-EV.

Re: The “Volt”

GM’s “electric” car seems to be a bit of a “cop-out”. It will still have a i/c engine, spark plugs, normal transmission, exhaust and all the other good stuff that the “regular” cars have and need to be serviced and/or replaced from time to time.

Maintenance is not cheap and while the Volt owners will save on gas . . . they will still have to put it in for periodic servicing.

But I guess that will bring a sigh of relief from all the “Brake and Muffler” outlets.

Serge: How do conventional solar cells consume oil??? Solar cells are getting more efficient, www.rosestreetlabs.com has licenced its 50% efficient solar cell technology to Sumitomo Chemical who is building a factory scheduled to come on line in 2010.

Chris Greenstein: Are you sure the story you read wasn’t science fiction? Any efficient solar cell must be black, a clear transparent one would not absorb any energy. Give us a link to this story, it should be entertaining reading.

I’m glad to see GM’s Chevy Volt comming to market. The statement about working with battery companies to design batteries to give a 40 mile range seemed at first to be ridiculously easy, then I realized that they probably have a budget of about $1000 per car for this, the challenge is to produce cheap batteries as this is targeted for a mid priced car.

More on the Cobasys / A123 connection here:

greennuclearbutterfly.blogspot.com/2007/01/will-real-a123-genius-please-stand-up.html

Looked at pictures of GM Volt car-looks like a baby Camaro. I don’t like the Camaro that much. Volt has the obligatory “crease down the hood & bumper center”-which GM loves-and I don’t (dates from what-the ’70’s?). On another subject: total cost of Apollo moon program was $135 billion , cost of Vietnam war was $600 billion (both in today’s dollars). Total approved Iraq expenditures so far supposed to be $204 billion.That kind of cash in the right places could kick off a lot . I would say this country has the capacity to go at least 50% green powered pretty fast if we really wanted to-as in 8 yrs., say? (about same time span as Apollo & Vietnam war)-if the govt. just threw the above kinds of cash at the problem (thru incentives, tax breaks & actual govt. projects as well-hydro dams were govt. power projects after all, solar/wind/tide/whatever could be also).Yeah, we could do it alright-and when it was done, we’d all be paying a good deal less for power/fuel for decades -if a lot of solar were used ( using the new cheap thin-film types coming out now). The less people pay for power/fuel, the more money goes into the consumer economy, then the govt. makes some of its money back thru a better “tax base” . State govts. could go in with fed. govt. to make all state bldgs. and car fleets green. Over the years. the state govts. would then save money.The fed. govt. could help them get over the inital cost hump.The German govt. solar program is quite something. We could do similar across the board with various green energy types. One problem : ever hear of a German multi-national oil company? The German govt. doesn’t have that albatross around its neck, as opposed to our “lobbyist infested” (and worse) govt. It’s not that we couldn’t change things fast , it’s that we’re not really free to do it. Our man Al in the White House could help, but methinks “we have a ( voter ) problem ,Houston” . Only the private sector is free-so I hope people like the google guys live long and prosper, at a geometric rate, the curve climbing rapidly on the graph (of money vertical, time horizontal) towards straight up.Green private ventures-that would do it. Anyone got a chicken feed $135 billion or so? (P.S.-later we’ll do the moon tourism thing-but those rockets put out so much C02 first we have to lower it big globally!)

Actually, there are several suppliers for inductive energy transmission in industrial applications, for both rotary and linear movement:
www.kontenda.de/englisch/technologie.htm
www.wampfler.com/index.asp?id=10&plid=43&e1=2&e2=12&lang=E
This technology is nowadays routinely implemented with good success for industrial automation and logistics. Up to several kW can be transferred like this. I also found an article on power transmission to German’s MagLev train on the order of 500 kW.
However, to recharge a battery electric vehicle traveling at 50 mph within 10 min (this requiring an Altairnano or A123 nanotech battery), an 8 mile stretch of highway would have to fitted with suitable underground cabling. In my view this must be quite expensive and any driver would probably prefer to stop anyway for a fast recharge and some coffee after 250 miles.

Why are we not able to have one large battery.
Is there no company out there willing are able to produce this kind of Battery.
It is my understanding we are able to make battery’s in various shapes and sizes.
Why not insert the battery in the frame work of the car. This is only one place a battery could be place.

#
Alfred wrote on January 9th, 2007 at 3:09 am
I’m even willing to bet that they are going to start leasing this car like they did with the EV1 and then pull it back once they have control of the market again.

“Fool me once, shame on — shame on you… Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

My addiction to the weekly Tesla Blog has nearly surpassed my addiction to oil… Definitely feeling the withdrawals after nearly 2 weeks. Must… read… new… blog… Two…more… days…

# Wolfgang wrote on January 9th, 2007 at 9:45 am

# However, to recharge a battery electric vehicle traveling at 50 mph within 10 min (this requiring an
# Altairnano or A123 nanotech battery), an 8 mile stretch of highway would have to fitted with suitable
# underground cabling. In my view this must be quite expensive and any driver would probably prefer
# to stop anyway for a fast recharge and some coffee after 250 miles.

I’m going to follow up on those links that Wolfgang provided, as I would dearly like to see the inductive arrangement that could possibly push 50kWh into a moving vehicle in 10 minutes. With that kind of field-strength, you could probably carry fluorescent tubes in your car and see them light up as you drove down the highway. I don’t know how safe people would be or feel in such a circumstance.

On the other hand, the recharging system would, in the most demanding case, only have to deliver replacement power a little more quickly than the car could deplete the battery. Thus, it would never be necessary to have a fast-charge battery, or the capability to fast-charge the vehicle, while it was moving down the road. At a maximum speed of 135 MPH and a maximum autonomy of 250 Miles, you’d deplete the ESS in no less than 110 minutes. So, the roadway recharging system would have to deliver (50000 Wh/110 minutes), or a little less than 1/2 kWh of energy to your vehicle every minute.

Wolfgang makes a good point about the expense of the infrastructure, even one that isn’t capable of very rapid charge. Maybe having recharge inductors along the entire length of a road would be prohibitively expensive. Perhaps it would make more sense for EV-friendly highways to have discrete “recharge zones,” 10 or 20 miles long at a stretch, along which faster recharge infrastructure is available. By driving through a “recharge zone,” you might be able to add 40-60 miles of autonomy to your ESS without having to make a “pit stop.” Driving through only a few of those zones would extend the non-stop range of your vehicle on a long trip, without requiring the entire road to be wired.

So much for the claims that the Altairnano battery packs cost $14,000 - latest news release from Altair claims sales of “between $16 and $42 Million for up to five hundred battery pack systems” that translates to $84,000 per battery… for only 35 KWH. If Tesla used the Altairnano battery (for a 53 KWH battery) it would cost $127,200 for the battery alone!

b2i.us/profiles

# Wolfgang wrote on January 9th, 2007 at 9:45 am
# Actually, there are several suppliers for inductive energy transmission in industrial applications,
# for both rotary and linear movement:
# www.kontenda.de/englisch/technologie.htm
# www.wampfler.com/index.asp?id=10&plid=43&e1=2&e2=12&lang=E

I went to these sites. From the information I could find there, I concluded that inductive power transfer to a freely moving unit (such as might be mounted on a car) could occur at a maximum rate of “several kW” (in Kontenda’s case) and 2.2 kW (in Wampfler’s case). Wampfler claimed to process (deliver?) 35 kW for a track-mounted system. Is this the same picture seen by others here who visited those sites?

Sustained delivery of 35 kW could theoretically recharge an ESS, as it would yield 70 kWh over a two-hour drive. It would yield almost 6 kWh over a ten minute drive, which would represent about 30 miles of additional ESS battery charge. I’m not clear on whether multiple cars, running along the same track, would each have access to their “own” 35kW, or whether they’d all have to “share” a total maximum system capacity of 35kW.

Talking about power transfer to autonomous vehicles, however, the cited technologies currently seem to be able to deliver single-digit kilowatts of power. Let’s just that a car could take in 5kW with a suitable coupling. It would take 10 hours of driving over suitably equipped roads, to replace the energy stored by 1 ESS. A ten-minute drive would replenish about 4 miles of range.

I’m not seeing how the Wampfler or Kontenda technologies, even if cost-free, could be practical for Roadster-class vehicles. Am I missing something? I like the idea of inductive transfer, and think that an inductive power delivery network, distributed along a roadway, could be an excellent substitute for fast-charging or, in the absence of fast-charging altogether, could reduce or eliminate the need for extended recharging pit-stops. But the capacity of the systems would seem to need improvement by an order of magnitude, before being practical. What do the power engineers on this board think?

Tod G. Collins wrote on January 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
“Will Tesla be making any formal statement regarding the presumed EV extended range concept, ie. GM’s Volt, as a possible design concept competitor to the pure EV battery approach?”

Martin said a little about this here:
www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/09/detroit-auto-show-tesla-meets-the-chevy-volt/
“Pulling Eberhard aside, I asked him if Tesla engineers considered a self-generating concept. The answer was a quick “no.” The long explanation was that the company could avoid crash testing for fuel-tank safety and EPA emissions requirements. The short explanation was that such a move would be a wasted effort.”

From the EE Times article:
“The electric car startup [Tesla] is also looking to manufacturer the sedan in the United States and is seeking a new round of venture capital funding. ”

I want in.

I don’t have words to describe my excitement.TESLA, NIKOLA TESLA.Thanks guys for making his name
and his legacy live, cause he is one of most neglected geniuses ever.
Everything that we electrically move and use as modern humans is thanks to Tesla’s great mind.
Your car is awesome, in every way.
Thank you guys!!!
Miki

In my opinion, Tesla and GM will not be competing with the introduction of the Volt. In fact, this might help Tesla by bringing down battery prices and spurring advancements in technology. But they will be fundamenally different products for the forseeable future. Tesla is optimized for performance with a price premium. The Volt is designed to be practical and affordable in the Chevy tradition. Over 10 years the available battery technology may iterate to a common solution, at which point they would compete. Nobody can rest on their laurels. Who wins? America (and the world!)

Ronald Greene wrote :
… and the ordel of having to recharge the batteries every night is over .

Every night?!

I would call your ordeal, “The driving of over 200 miles every day.”

e

> Why does GM still seem so far behind in the technology

Actually what they have is something that is mass producable and distributable to the masses easily.

Here are the solutions that the Volt solves.

1. Drive off the lot salability with no installation of additional equipment at home.
2. Capability to manufacture 100,000+ vehicles a year.
3. Ability to own a single vehicle for commuting and trips.
4. Ability to create a vehicle that is actually cost effective.

While 40 miles may not seem like much, the fact is that a vehicle like this would probably allow many people to burn less gas than they would with a Tesla.

Keep in mind that if you drive to go visit family past the range of the Tesla for a week, that you would either need a rental car or a second gas powered car to make that trip, but with something like the Volt you may be able to drive around using no gas after you reach your destination.

I drive about 40 miles a day commuting and about 210 miles on average 4 times a month. A 250 mile range would make me concerned about being stranded with my family especially if we wanted to make a detour. In a way it would make me feel trapped. I’m quite certain that many women like my wife would feel paranoid about the possiblity of being stranded.

So there is going to be a fear factor involved with pure electric cars in the beginning until the ranges improve. There is also going to be a high cost of entry for pure electric cars that will keep them from becoming widely accepted.

Tesla is going after the afluent buyer right now who would consider not only spending 100K on a car but also installing solar panels on their house etc… and who can afford to keep a second car for taking trips. The same will be true of the WhiteStar. This is the right direction for those that can afford it.

GM’s solution is a good way to dramatically reduce gasoline consumption for more average people who can not afford a spare car. It would also make more of a difference by putting this technology into the hands of many more people quickly through their massive distribution network.

All things considered, the Volt is more of a real world solution that I would be seriously consider purchasing if it was priced reasonably. I can’t afford to have lots of depreciating, insured vehicles hanging around.

Many thanks to James Anderson Merritt and Robert for serious thinking and comments on my charge-while-drive lanes suggestion–which I see as the key to making electric cars cheap and practical for Mr. & Mrs. Joe Mainstreet as well as Mr. Bigbucks.

Both of you are right that a gouge in a highway would be expensive and unworkable. Likewise for any electrical contact arm that would extend from the car to an electrified surface–whether above, below, or beside. But what if you had conductive tires on your Tesla and parallel surfaces of aluminum or steel mesh about two feet wide embedded in the surface of the concrete or asphalt along each side of the charging lane?

See any major problems with that solution?

Second, Bob, you spoke of “high voltage channel”: Bearing in mind that DC is much safer than AC (that’s why electric chairs have always used AC) what DC voltage do you see as adequate to both drive and charge a Tesla?

Also, do you see any problems with having the mesh in the above proposed solution interrupted for a few inches periodically so that all that would happen with a “down section” is temporary loss of charging?

Richard Johns (Not Johnns as in my previous)

Dragging a trailer is very inefficient. My gas mileage drops 50% when I have to haul a trailer at highway speeds. I’d just love to have a car that would provide all-electric propulsion for my everyday commuting and travel needs, with the ability to travel on extended trips in those rare cases. A 100-200 mile range EV with a series generator for charging the battery built in would do just that.

flabby… I was hoping you weren’t being serious with the generator suggestion

I’ve been reading the Tesla blogs for quite some time as well, and am familiar with Tesla’s stance and desire to remain 100% gasoiline free. However, the quote “The Perfect Car, Enemy of the Good Car” also comes to mind. The range/cost issues with batteries will be solved (The perfect) but if we can get the good today (100% electric for 95% of driving needs with a gasoline generator for the remaining 5%) why not do so? While I’m very anxious to make gasoline a fuel of the past for automobiles, I still can’t help but think the “good” car route as I’ve defined it here would have a tremendously greater net benefit environmentally, simply by making the car feasible to a larger group of people, as well as preventing people from having to own two cars (one for longer trips) if they want to go electric.

HERE IS A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER. RIGHT NOW THE BIGGEST DEMAND FOR PETRO FUEL IS IN THE FRIEGHT INDUSTRY. BIG RIGS MOVE AMERICA FORWARD, IT DOMINATES AS WHAT THE BACKBONE OF AMERICA IS. IF AN ELECTRIC MOTOR CAN HUAL 80,000 LBS OR EVEN 110,000 HEAVY PERMIT LOAD FROM LOS ANGELES TO PHILADELPHIA IN 4 DAYS , AMERICA WILL BREAK ITS DEPENDANCY ON OIL AND THE ELECTRIC CAR WILL BE THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION. THIS IS THE TRUE BENCHMARK TEST FOR ALL YOU GENIUSES OUT THERE.

halibut pefecting car technology IS BEING IT’S enemy. Cars exist because techonology is not used to make very uncar like means of transport be understood as infinitely preferable for everybody who doesn’t have to lose just because ‘cars’ do.

You guys just want to have fun apparently and don’t give a halibut or you would be making more money competing with cars instead of trying to keep them alive brainless -LIFELESS- as ever.

—-
Editor’s Answer: Check out our comment guidelines - try to avoid the halibut filter

Great looking car but why mimic a nose that seems to be designed with a radiator in mind
and a rear that looks like it might contain a mid mounted combustion engine ?

Pity that you didn’t break new ground and design a car without such linkages to these now
outdated components (engine & radiator). Guess you were concerned with designing
something that was not too different to what the buying public is used to seeing in a car

It’s also a pity you didn’t centralize the steering and place one (or two) passengers behind
(or behind & beside) the driver as i would have had more of a chance at seeing it down under
(not everyone drives on the same side of the road as you do i the USA).

Finally, while Ericsson went for the posh business mobile phone space, Nokia took the cheaper
kiddie market and has never looked back. So i was hoping that the 1st decent all electric sports
car (from the tech side of the fence) would be a little more mass market in it’s pricing appeal.

I just hope you can better meet the market and make the car much more affordable to that
masses. But then again that comes down to your view on what is best; mass market or
limited market appeal.

Do a Henry Ford and make an affordable version of this for the common man!! Save the world.