|
Dr. Rob Wilder is CEO of WilderShares LLC and manager of the WilderHill Clean Energy Index, the first Index/Fund on Wall Street for renewable energy, better energy efficiency, and zero-carbon solutions. He is also a Lecturer at University of California, San Diego, and was previously on faculty at University of California, Santa Barbara, and University of Massachusetts. Dr. Wilder has been an AAAS/ EPA Fellow in Environmental Science & Technology, Fulbright Fellow, and National Academy of Sciences Young Investigator. He is widely published and has sat on various boards, such as the marine section of the Society for Conservation Biology. He resides in a solar-powered home in Encinitas, Calif., with his lovely wife, Diana, and their two children.
I’m a long-time car nut, and so it’s not surprising I’m already in love, sight unseen, with the Tesla Roadster. I reserved one myself after doing due diligence, and now eagerly await its arrival. My wife and I decided the Tesla Roadster makes sense for us in large part because it changes not only how EVs are regarded, but how the future of all cars is viewed as well.
We’re solar powered at our home and thus already make “green fuel” for the Tesla Roadster; we enjoy integrating neat zero-carbon solutions into our family’s home, and now into our cars too. We feel it is important to help to drive down costs so EVs grow more affordable. Plus, it’s simply great fun to apply solutions, all the while powering our home – and cars – without oil.
Wilder family solar panels: Thermal
panels in foreground heat pool
water while monocrystalline panels on
the house produce electricity.
Over the years my family and I have become passionate about solar power (photovoltaics, or PV) and clean technologies. We have a pretty large 6.5 kilowatt (kW) PV system with lots of luxuries and so live well. We also have two large solar thermal water heating systems, use energy efficient LED (light-emitting diode) and CFL (compact fluorescent lamps ) lights as well as passive shading, and generally think about energy use. We have untapped wind resources and so may add more clean power in the future.
We have two types of PV to make “green” electrons. One has 21 monocrystalline solar panels on our roof for 3.85 kW, linked to a 3.5 kW inverter. The other has 24 polycrystalline panels that are ground-mounted, rated 2.8 kW, and run to a 2.5 kW inverter.
Given this solar-home, I’ve long felt if I could just find an excellent two-seater EV to plug into these electrons, as I’ve now found in the Tesla Roadster, there’d be lots of advantages over ordinary, undesirable and slow “gasoline-powered cars.” With the Tesla Roadster, we will get a car with great performance and it is an “American-Fueled Vehicle,” which feels great as a matter of patriotic pride.
There are also neat aspects that follow from the Tesla Roadster being powered to some degree by solar as a “green fuel.” If I charge the Tesla Roadster at home in the daytime, then my house is strictly being a power producer pushing electrons out into the grid, and so I’ll know these are purely solar-made green electrons. I think this is the most elegant fuel of all.
Even if I happen to charge in early evenings or when it’s cloudy with a mixture of “green” and “brown” (from the grid) electrons – or if I regularly charge at night with only “brown” electrons generated by natural gas-fired plants or out-of-state coal plants – those big thermal plants are still the considerably more efficient way to power a car than gasoline.
Additional electricity is produced using
ground-mounted polycrystalline panels. The
Wilders maintain their own website that
tracks solar energy produced.
In the future, having an EV plugged in at home raises intriguing additional possibilities. Because we make our own power, we’ve switched our utility connection here to Time Of Use (TOU) metering. TOU is common in solar homes. It simply splits the day into two periods: one when electricity is cheap, from 6pm to noon, and the other when it’s more expensive, from noon to 6pm weekdays. This means we’re “paid” much more per watt for surplus power we generate in daytime, when in essence our meter spins backwards due to a shining sun, than we pay for the watts of power we have to consume at night. That peak coincides brilliantly with peak solar power, so our house is credited more richly for surplus daytime juice put into the grid.
An electric car is based around a large mobile battery and if that car is built with Vehicle to Grid (V2G) capability, it could also feed power back into the home. Potentially home-owners could arbitrage the difference between low cost for power of around 5 cents per kWh available at night when most plant capacity is just sitting idle – and the much more dear costs for electricity during the peak of day at maybe 15 cents or more per kWh. By charging up at night when juice is cheapest and being able to just regularly sell back into the grid by V2G, or if a signal sent from the Utility calls for it, an EV that’s simply sitting there plugged in to the garage can be a money spinner for the home owner.
While I imagine cars from Tesla Motors won’t have V2G capability for a few years, it might not be too far off. Today’s lithium ion batteries have rather limited cycle life, so it wouldn’t make sense to hasten a demise of those costly batteries for small nightly profit gains (a hardware issue). But batteries are improving quickly, and the software obstacles can be overcome. Plus Utilities will likely be very supportive, just as they are with notions of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles becoming new home power sources and new customers too.
With coming batteries and the utilities onboard, it’s conceivable that future EVs, including this fantastic Tesla Roadster, will typically have V2G. We innovative Americans just need to put our minds to it and treat energy as if it matters. It’s hard for me to overstate the significance of the Tesla Roadster as an agent of elegant change.
The Wilder family
Back here today in our own home, we have a simple but fun web-based live system that monitors our ongoing energy demand, and charts it against our solar output. This helps us to be smarter in the ways we use power. In the future, in a rather similar fashion, there might be an optional uplink allowing a Tesla Roadster owner to review the day’s energy use from driving, and chart that against battery performance and even solar green fuel output. On the other hand, it’s something that one could simply ignore and just have the delight of driving, but being in touch with your power source can sometimes be fun!
In my career I’ve tried to help bring academic theories about clean energy solutions to real world applications. For instance, I launched with a colleague a WilderHill Clean Energy Index based on concepts like solar power, wind, energy efficiency, better batteries, ultracapacitors, superconductors, fuel cells, etc. To me, the lovely Tesla Roadster reflects in undeniable ways how when fast-emerging technologies are put together well, the sum is far greater than the parts.
Part of the beauty of the Tesla Roadster is it puts to rest the tired argument that electric cars must be ugly, undesirable, or golf-cart like. The Tesla Roadster is simply a better car, and it proves EVs don’t have to be slow and inelegant like typical gasoline-powered cars.
I think this Tesla Roadster is about to change everything – not just how we think about EVs, but how the future of cars is viewed. Plus, plugging it into our solar powered house and just driving on “green” electrons is simply going to give me endless enjoyment, at least when I can wrestle the car away from my wife!
Posted in the categories: First Post, Energy Efficiency, Photovoltaic, Solar
Dr Wilder,
I hope to be able to do as you will soon and charge my new electric car with solar PV power . Both are in my plans for the next year or two and I thank you and commend you for leading the way. I am hoping that I have purchased my last ever new gas burner. Electric cars forever now.
I can imagine and look forward to the day when millions of Americans will use their electric cars with V2G capability not to shift power from nightime to days, but instead to shift excess cheap daytime solar generated electricicty to the night when the sun doesn’t shine. Granted I think this is likely at least 40 to 50 years out but hey, I can dream.
Thanks for the insights to your personal battle on carbon emmisions and for green power and technology.
Interesting blog entry. It may become much more practical to carry out V2G when using a technology such as super-capacitors that don’t loose their capacity as fast as lithium ion batteries do. I’d imagine when this becomes possible utility companies will set up their own banks of super-capacitors to absorb extra energy and then redistribute in times of high demand. This would also halve the energy lost due to transmission. Utility companies could locate super-capacitors or some other such technology at regular locations such as in cities or industrial estates so that they are closer to the demand.
Thanks for the blog entry, its got me thinking.
I know I love road trips….and when the battery capacity and range is high enough a few models from now….I plan on being one of the first to drive a Tesla EV across the country. Thanks for the insightful blog.
I see that Zap is using Lotus to design the body structure of their new crossover. I wonder if Tesla wiil use them or develop their own since they have an office in Detroit? I hope they will consider letting us see the progress of the prototype designs for the new sedan - as they go.
I just found out that there is an electric car (lithium powered Smart Car) on the market right now (Feb. 2007 delivery) that meets my basic requirements for an electric car. My requirements are that it goes faster than 70 MPH, can travel 120 miles on a charge, and costs less than $50,000. Not that I have the money to get it right now, but if I needed a car and I had garage space where I could park it at night I very likely might buy it. In two years I’ll probably be in a better position to buy a new car, but hopefully by then the White Star will be available. Their web site also shows a converted PT Cruiser, but there was no price for it yet.
www.hybridtechnologies.com/smartcar_order.php
Does anyone know whether this is a converted Smart Car or an original EV Smart Car such as the one in the link below?
Smart.com
The next phase in solar needs to be storage for it at night.Then, at least in sunny parts of the U.S. ( a huge area of the country obviously) you won’t need no stinking grid / V2G-except for very rare back-up. In the least sunny parts of the country, solar plants in the sun belt could power them. One day (particularly when EV’s can be “fueled” as fast as gas cars) gas, ethanol & fuel from coal will just be for large vehicles -big trucks, trains & planes. Trains could be replaced by mag-lev, but “that won’t happen”- unless all things solar/elect. become such a big part of the social agenda that it becomes the thing to do , finally. Wonder what year it will be when pure gas cars will be a very small percent of all sold, as opposed to pure EV’s or plug-in hybrids? One day it’s going to be a very highly solar powered world.
Thanks for another excellent blog, I absolutely loved it. You made so many interesting points. I long for the day I could finally fire up a polyphase motor of my own. I keep asking myself what it would be like riding in the Tesla for the first time. Just once! That would be a dream come true. I also would like to personally thank Rob Wilder. People like Rob are a vital component making possible affordable electric transportation everyone can cherish.
I recently added a 3.4 Kw PV array on my house. The local energy company was put under voter mandate to get 10% of their power by renewable sources within the next few years and their method in part was to offer substantial rebates on new PV equipment installed on customer’s facilities (residential or commercial). While others and I might consider such things, economics usually result in a pass. Truthfully for the cost ($23,700) of the array it only makes sense in the savings over a very long time - 20+ years - which likely does not make sense unless I plan to live there most of that time; and while it increases the value of the home, it does not do so on a $1:$1 basis. However, with the rebate my cost was far less plus there is currently a $2,000 tax credit for PV installations for the tax year. Rebates and incentives provide motivation because they make the purchase economically feasible or even profitable for the consumer whereas the technology is cost prohibitive otherwise.
There is currently a bill in congress, H.R. 550 - thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.550: - that would apparently greatly increase the tax credit for PV installations. To me that makes the most sense of many possible solutions - let the people that earned the money, keep their money when invested into renewable energy sources (I won’t go into the rest of why and they should be keeping it anyway, but at least this is a step in the right direction).
This is legislation that needs support. If I read this correctly (and I do have an inquiry into the sponsors office as to the accuracy of this) there is a $1,500 / .5 Kw tax credit under the bill retroactive to the 1st of this year. A roughly $10,000 tax credit on that 3.4 Kw system if I read it right… Couple that with the local rebates - everyone in the neighborhood will have one installed by the year’s end. I’d be putting another 6.6 Kw on my roof as well - the net cost would be less than what I would have paid under the current tax credit of $2,000. I would also have 50% more generation than my usage, allowing for the charging of an EV from homegrown power.
These things are possible, it’s creating the climate for them to happen that is the challenge.
They have a range of only 300km and a 0-100km of 4 sec and the car costs $350,000. Sounds like they have a long way to go before they would be competitve., but it is another LI based exotic sports car www.eliica.com/
Has Tesla considered using 4 front wheels for the 4 door sedan?
There are many advantages to 4 front wheels:
1. Lower rolling resistance( using narrower tires)
2. Improved traction
3. Improved water shedding
4. Improved safety in the rare incidence of a front tire blow out.
5. It would immediately make your car instantly recognizable.
Obviously it would increase costs by doubling the steering linkage and adding a third set of wheels, but the advantages are noticable.
So how many of you would think it would be cool to have a car with 4 front wheels?
Solar panel cost per kilowatt is dropping rapidly. Battery tech is improving rapidly. Cost of oil is going through the roof. Bush wants to lower our use of oil by 20% in ten years; I wonder how attractive oil will still be in ten years. Compared to electric cars like the Tesla, and where the market will be in ten years time, oil could seem positively archaic.
I have a question about total cost of ownership of the Tesla. This web site is quick to point out that it doesn’t require oil changes and can be driven for about a penny per mile of electricity fees (when charging at night in certain parts of the country). What other fluids need regular maintenance: brake fluid, transmission fluid? How often do you expect those to need checking? Is it similar to one of today’s gas-powered cars in that respect?
And how expensive will the battery replacement be after 100,000 miles to keep it operating at peak performance? If it’s $20,000, that adds an extra 20 cents per mile to this car’s total cost of ownership.
Thanks!
Solar energy info. from “Wikipedia”: the amount of solar energy intercepted by the earth every minute is greater than the amount of energy the world uses in fossil fuels in one year.The land area of the lower 48 states intercepts 50 trillion “gigajoules” of solar energy per year-equivalent to 500 times the nation’s annual energy use. Also, of world solar energy use, Europe’s percent (as of 2003) was 31%, the pacific area (mainly Japan) was 39%, North America was 11%. The projections are for North American percentage to actually decline by 2020, as the rest of the world goes bigger on solar. I think the projections are wrong- I see a bigger U.S. increase-especially if they finally wise up in D.C.
I to not normally subscribe to conspirator theories but this one seems to have overwhelming evidence. Most of you know the details, Cobasys successfully sued Panasonic and Toyota for infringing on patent rights that Cobasys inherited from EDC Ovonics (maker of NiMH batteries for GMs EV-1). Thus forcing Toyota to stop selling Rave EVs www.ev1.org/ . Chevron-Texaco and EDC Ovonics each own 50% of Cobasys. Cobasys has partnered with A123Systems who have a very promising Lithium battery suitable for powering cars. The big 3 car makers association, USCAR ($600M/Y budget, half paid by government) www.uscar.org granted A123 Systems $15M for ongoing research. GM, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler has petitioned the government to triple its spending on more research into Lithium batteries with USCAR “assisting” in deciding where this money goes. Bush, whose best buddies are in the oil business, has already agreed. Who is going to get this money? Someone who already has a track record of using patent rights to block manufacturing EVs?
Patents came about to protect inventors and entrepreneurs so they could be assured of a reward for their effort and risk. Now we see patents being used to stop technological progress. I believe that we should petition our governments to revise patent laws along these lines: The life of a patent should be tied to a formula including the length of time it took to bring the idea to market and the amount of money spent to achieve that. I.E. a no-brainer like using lithium batteries to power cars is actually patentable and probably held by someone, if the holder of this patent spent 2 years packaging lithium ion batteries for cars and spent $200K to do it, then the patent should run out when he has made 10 x $200k profit or 2 x 2yrs (from marketing date), whichever happened first. If the patent holder sat on the idea and did not bring it to market, they should be able to be challenged by a competitor allowing the competitor a free license. Other potential manufacturers would have to pay for their license at a court determined “fair market value” to the original patent holder. The life of this patent would be determined by the time and money spent by the challenger. Licensing should not be denied to anyone, or priced beyond reason, unless it is a national defense issue like nuclear bomb designs. The intent here is to allow high risk inventions a long patent and low risk a short one and disallow using patents to stop new processes and products from coming to the market.
If enough people petition their government representatives in many countries then the International Patent laws can be changed, and we will benefit instead of being held hostage.
Another fun blog! It sure looks like you have a lot of positives going on in your life, Mr. Wilder!
I coaxed the smalltime investment club my family joined into buying some PBW a while back, so I already knew of you and it is nice to hear that you will be a Tesla Roadster owner soon!
In one of the earlier blogs, I rambled about using an EV to feed the grid, but I didn’t realize that the concept had been so well considered already. Now that you mentioned V2G as the term (which I hadn’t seen before), Google pointed out lots of research being done in the area. That also pointed me to mention of vanadium redox batteries which seem intriguing. If anyone reading this hasn’t heard of them check this out:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery
www.vrbpower.com/technology/index.html
www.vanadiumbattery.com/technology/technology.asp
Vanadium redox seems like it would make most sense for a stationary power buffer at home (take from the grid cheaply at night and feed it back for more $ during the day)… Still, I have heard that small versions have been considered to power EVs directly.
By the way - have people been watching “Living with Ed” on HGTV?
www.livingwithed.net/
Another random recent news article I saw was a bit about Tesla plans to sell batteries to Th!nk:
news.com.com/2061-11128_3-6152975.html
I stumbled onto this:
www.ieahev.org/pdfs/annex_7/annex7_HEV_database.pdf
which lists all HEV ever made - who would have thought BMW made a hybrid?
I hope that Teslamotores make it posible for the charger to be programerble so it can use the time of day where we have cheap electricy.
In many cases it can be made realy simpel with intergrating a simpel start and stop clock as switch betwen clock controled charging and instent charging.
as in 90% of the time the charging will be done in ½ - 2 houres and when you car site idle from 6PM to 7AM , way not let the charging be while the price is low.
the cool thing of cause would be that it has a interface that either can be connectet to a PC or the internet, as here in Denmark we dont have fixd piroid where the power is cheap it is dynamic priceing, depending on ther curent energy produktion and use, so on a realy windy night the price can almost be 0.
—
Editor’s response: The Tesla Roadster will have a timer onboard so owners can program when charging should start.
Nice description. Our analysis suggests that initial markets for V2G will not be in the day-night shift, since as you say, it imposes too much wear on today’s batteries. Rather, initial V2G markets will be in “ancillary servies” which provide short bursts of precisely timed power to the grid. Ancillary services (in particular, regulation and spinning reserves) impose much less demand on batteries and have very high economic value. EVs will saturate the ancillary service markets with about 2% - 4% of the vehicle fleet (assuming Tesla-sized or AC Propulsion-sized electrical connections). By that time we’ll have batteries with much higher cycle life and will begin using EVs with V2G for large-scale renewable energy storage.
Detailed analysis of V2G markets, EVs, battery life and renewable energy is in two articles by Kempton and Tomic, “V2G Fundamentals” and “V2G Implementation”, in the Journal of Power Sources, also available at www.udel.edu/V2G.
The same principles described by Wilder for EVs and solar also work for wind. This is described for a large-scale example, the US Northeast, in an article just published in Geophysical Research Letters. By late today (Feb 1 ,2007), it will be available at www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower.
Dear Rob,
It is reassuring to see that not all Americans are completely oblivious to their exorbitant energy use and their disproportionally high CO2 emissions per capita worldwide. The rest of the World just sees that the USA is ignoring Kyoto, does nothing to tackle climate change and has brought the ridiculous automotive concept SUV into existance and into the World.
In this context it is very nice to see that there are also people like you, with a completely different view. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I will see what I can do in my new house (built in 1896) what I can do to make it energy neutral as much as possible, also with solar panels. Unfortunately, the sun shines a lot less here.
I just hope Tesla will start exporting to Europe asap. It would be a big stunt and very good for the image of the US here, making it somewhat ‘greener’.
Regards,
Peter.
Very interesting
In an earlier blog, Martin and JB Straubel explained the need to charge the Tesla’s battery system only to the capacity needed for the intended milage, in order to prolong the calendar life.
See www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=39
There’s an option to charge to 50%, 90% and 100%. Obviously, the high current charging unit which comes with the car will have to be powered from the grid, but are you also buying the portable charging unit? My understanding is that the portable charger matches standard domestic sockets (and current levels) and gives a reasonable charge time if you regularly charge to the 50% limit.
An electric car charged from a solar powerd house…….
NOW WE’RE TALKIN’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO TESLA GO!!!!!!!
Informative, especially the live system to analyse energy usage. Thank You!
It seems investment bankers are predicting tough times ahead for European car makers as EU consumers are set to demand greener vehicles more so than any other world market. So it seems Tesla should open shop in Europe in the next 2 to 3 years if they want to cash in the pent up demand for green cars.
More at news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6318099.stm
Solar Power is a truly fascinating subject, and many tout their solar houses as green, and cutting down on peak (inefficient) power plant production. However, as long as solar power is intermitent, and battery technology is insufficient, every house in the country could be solar powered and still not result in the destruction or decommisioning of a single peak power plant. The power plants will be used less often, which will cut down on CO2 production, but on the first cloudy day each and every peak (inefficient) power plant will be required to meet the demand. So although solar can lower the nation’s CO2 footprint, and lessen our consumption of fossil fuels, it won’t lessen our dependance on fossil fuels until battery technology improves in every direction by an order of magnitude.
The sad fact of the matter is that as technology improves, and prices fall, people consume more. As ICE technology has become more advanced and fuel efficient, people buy larger more powerful cars, thereby choosing to improve performance, rather than lessen their fuel bill.
Nice Post.
That was well said. Always appreciate your indepth views. Keep up the great work!
John
Regarding solar power options for those who don’t have the finances to handle the up-front cost, but still want to be green:
renu.citizenre.com/index.php?c=1170112321
This company supposedly installs the system for you on your home, and then they provide the power to you at a cost at or below your current electricity rate. They own the system of course, but it’s an interesting way to go green, put more solar on the grid, and incur no financial costs up front. Plus, you get to lock in at a lower electricity rate for the next 25 years.
Certainly an interesting idea…
Regarding my previous post, I should mention that the installation and equipment the company installs is all FREE… Hence the reason why they own the equipment and you pay them for the power.
TEG,
I’m also intrigued by vanadium batteries. If you are a New Scientist subscriber, they recently had an excellent article about them:
environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19325861.400-a-bank-for-wind-power.html
letter to the editor follow-up: www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325890.800-battery-of-possibilities.html
While their energy density is too low for vehicles, they could potentially be cheap, store incredibly large amounts of energy, and have a long cycle life. The interesting thing about them is that they are like fuel cells because the electrolyte is processed through the battery and stored in two forms. This means the electrodes won’t get clogged like a normal battery. Also, to store more energy you don’t need a bigger battery, just larger electrolyte tanks. My family lived off the grid in two locations for all my life, and these would have been very useful. Know of any small retailers?
Another possible use for vanadium batteries would be as a buffer for buildings without solar but powered by utilities that vary price. You could buy electricity when the price is low and use it from the battery when the price is high.
Hello. My name is Kyle Verge and I am a 16 year old teenager in High School. I have been obsessed with cars since the day I was born and the word ‘Car’ was my first. Since the age of 12 I have become very interested in Global Warming and what it’s doing to our planet, and I have become very interested in how changing our cars could make a great difference. I plan on devoting my career on environmental issues, and since I have such a passion for cars I’d love for that to my focus. Movies like “Who Killed the Electric Car”, and “An Inconvenient Truth” have even opened my eyes even further with this issue. I know a lot about the current issues involving this topic, and I even entered an “Eco-Fair” at the age of 12 titled “Cleaner Cars for Our Environment”. I would love if there was some way I could become involved with this organization somehow as I think it would be a great start. I’m also in the process of starting a glass bottle recycling program for apartment buildings in and around the area that I live in.
—
Editor’s comment: Keep up the great work, Kyle.
I’m really curious about something someone was telling me about power distribution losses. If the losses are really as bad as was suggested to me in rural areas, then solar power really is the only way for them not to use a much larger amount of power than they should need to. The same person said that Fuel Cell technology was very viable if hydrogen was generated right at the power plant which greatly increases the relative efficiency. I’d be curious to know what the range of transmission losses are across the country and what they are on average. I thought I read someone on this site about this.
Although I appreciate the viewpoint of a dedicated environmentalist, I have to say I’m a bit disappointed at how much Tesla Motors has focused on the “green” aspects of the Roadster rather than its appeal simply as a great sports car. This car is not going to save the planet, or save us from peak oil or OPEC. I know it’s supposed to be a step toward the more affordable cars that really will make a difference, and I’m all for that — but shouldn’t the Roadster be able to stand on its own merits? I want one because it promises to be a beautiful car, wicked fast with fine handling, smooth and quiet operation, easy to drive, and relatively inexpensive and convenient to own when compared with most other “supercars” in its performance class.
I’m still a skeptic when it comes to global warming. Getting off imported oil sounds to me like a good idea, but honestly it’s not at the top of my priorities when I shop for this kind of car. Your typical car nut is still skeptical about the whole idea of an electric car, and it’s unlikely you’re going to change his mind by telling him again how “green” yours is. If anything it’s more likely to turn him away.
Put another way. . . Your competition right now isn’t Toyota, it’s Ferrari. Can you talk about the Roadster in language a potential Ferrari buyer would understand?
—
Editor’s comment: Check out the blog, The Tesla Roadster Experience: Quick and Considerate.
Alex Eagar wrote on January 31st, 2007 at 7:25 pm:
I just found out that there is an electric car (lithium powered Smart Car) on the market right now (Feb. 2007 delivery) …..
Alex, hybrid technologies converted the Smart themselves. This is not an original Smart EV - these are only on “test” in the UK at moment - testing the market.
regarding Erics post on the home solar system: thanks for the post, I checked out their site and am impressed with their approach. I will pass the info on to family and friends
Alex Eagar wrote:-
#Does anyone know whether this is a converted Smart Car or an
#original EV Smart Car?
The Smart was originally conceived as an electric car, but was not launched as such. However over the years, a number of companies have produced electric Smarts either as one-offs - e.g Zytek - www.evfinder.com/zytek_smartev.htm or as conversions - hybridtechnologies are offering this in the US, as are AVT in the UK - www.avt.uk.com/page4.html
The new electric Smart, from Smart themselves is, at present, a lease-only deal for UK businesses
smart.com
Some of these conversions do include Li-ion batteries, but the battery SOC and thermal management systems are not as sophisticated as Tesla’s. Motor options seem to be mostly DC Brushless rather than AC induction.
Interesting to hear that Tesla may be providing battery systems to Th!nk
www.think.no/
Humans blamed for climate change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said temperatures were probably going to increase by 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) by the end of the century.
In 2001, it said that it was “likely” that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; “likely” in IPCC terminology means between 66% and 90% probability.
Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet’s surface.
Full news article available here news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm
Mark wrote: “I’d be curious to know what the range of transmission losses are across the country and what they are on average. I thought I read someone on this site about this.”
Mark, Argonne National Laboratory makes software called GREET, widely considered the gold standard in calculating well-to-outlet emissions under different conditions. They assume transmission losses of 8% for both the US average and California. If you go to the EPA’s website and use Power Profiler, it assumes 9% losses throughout the country.
Other sources ( climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf ) put it at 7.2%. In general, losses increase dramatically when transmission lines are underground (newer housing developments) and when you are further away from the power source.
Here’s an interesting factoid. The cost of transmitting electricity long distance is usually more expensive than transporting the fuels (natural gas or coal). So most power plants tend to be located near the population centers for financial reasons, unless other factors come into play (like, you can’t move Hoover Dam or geothermal sources).
Also, when you live in states like California, Oregon, or Washington, the emissions rates of the power plants are already pretty low compared to the rest of country, so the environmental return on investment of putting up solar panels is not as high as, say, putting them up in Texas.
home.comcast.net/~evstudy/CO2.htm
Hi Everyone,
Regarding CitizenRe or RENU solar power mentioned above. My husband Adrian and I are looking into putting solar on our house and I researched this company as an option.
Unfortunately, in researching this company we have run across a number of red flags that cause us concern and have made us decide to wait to see if they do actually install the products that they promise before we consider working with them. I’d like to share them with you.
I want it to be true and viable, but I have serious doubts.
1. The biggest problem. When you go to their website, and you want to request more information, they make you click accept a “Forward Lease Agreement”. There are a number of probelms with this agrement, but the first one is that by clicking on this agreement you promise to pay $500 as a deposit. YOU CANNOT GET THAT DEPOSIT BACK UNTIL YOU FINISH AN AGREEMENT, and then you get it back with interest. This means that they install a system and you have it operational for a set term during which you pay for the electricity, usually 25 years. They say in one part of the agreement that you can get the deposit back if you cancel the agreement, but when you read the terms of cancellation, you don’t get it back.
2. Every startup lists its investors as well as their board members and management team along with a summary of the board and management members’ credentials in order to establish the company’s credibility. Citizenre lists some management names with no summary of credentials and nothing else about them. They do not list investors or board
members.
3. I’ve looked up those names that were listed as management, and I can’t find a reference to them other than on the Citizenre site or the wiki site (which could have been put up by a person connected with Citizenre). I cannot find an independant mention of the management team members.
4. Also in the agreement that you click agree to before you even talk to anyone, you indemnify them for any damage caused by their system that their subcontracters put up and maintain. This means that we will all have to get our homeowner’s policy changed (and to pay more for that change) to cover us for any damage anyone incurs from this product. Additionally, you indemnify them for all damages, which could be interpreted to include your $500 if you decide not to even install the product. So, you can’t even sue to get it back.
5. An expert quoted in RedHerring, a business magazine, calls the particular silicon technology they are basing their reduced costs on fools gold. www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20157. Adrian was researching the technology and found that article. I did not find any other mention of them in the outside press other than their page, blogs or the wiki.
6. If you want to look into becoming an independent sales rep, you have to click on a different agreement, which requires you to pay for your training materials. This agreement notes that in some states the price for those training materials is around $475. I don’t know what Californians would have to pay.
7. There is no facility yet at all, even though they claim to have been working on this for 6 years. I have been on a couple of blogs that mention them and the people who speak for Citizenre so far are all independent sales people, who can sign up by clicking a button. I have yet to hear from anyone who actually works for the company.
8. If they are legit and install the system, you pay for all solar electricity generated. Not used, generated. This means during the day as it is generated, if you are a PG&E customer you pay them 12.8 cents per kw hr. Then when you come home and use electricity, you get it from PG&E at a credit they are allowed to charge under California law. Please note that the price you pay for all of the electricity generated is higher than the lowest marginal PG&E cost of 11 cents per kw hr but less than the higher usage rate marginal costs. So, you don’t want to generate more electricity than you need, but that agreement that you click accepted before you even talked to anyone stipulates that they can unilaterally add capacity to your system.
Take care,
Laurel
Recently I am wondering did anybody consider to build electric trains for cars as follows:
1. Good design freeways have disjointed opposite traffic bands of asphalt with significant land unoccupied in the middle.
2. It is at least technically possible I believe to build a railroad in this freeway middle land area. Trains on this railroad should be powered exclusively by electricity.
3. Trains for this railroad should be designed to accomodate today passenger cars by driving them in and out of train cars at stations located typically near major metropoliten areas like inside LA of San Jose for example to start with.
4. The idea is that travel betwee say LA and Bay Area consist of relatively short car driving to the station, boarding train and paying electronically may be from inside the train during a ride itself. Train would provide Internet access, cell phone access and plenty of electric power to use inside the car for in car TV, computers etc. So driver could realigh his attention from driving to a business or entertainment and in contrast with airplaine would be always connected to Internet and cell phones etc. At the destination station people just drive out of the train skipping car rent and always using personalised environment of their own car.
5. Train surely should have also other rail car types for just going out of automobile and spending time - may be usual mixture of shops, restaurants etc. Some friend told me that he used similar kind of a train in Switzerland.
6. For a full electric train even low tech ( like traditional rails and steel wheels ) rolling and aerodynamic resistance per unit of mass are about 10 times less. So even if extra weight of train cars makes total weight 2 - 3 times higher per car overall energy for travel drops 2 - 4 times per car per distance. This energy is also coming from electricity generation using all higher efficiensy advantages of stationary generation making Tesla Motors king of 2 times more efficient energy wise compared to regular cars. Total pollution and fossil fuel dependence could be reduced by about 10 times here I believe per a traveling car.
7. Convenience level of such a train would be better than in airplane because of:
- bigger space per person
- seemless travel transfer between train and personal car providing same flexibility as personal car but for smaller time and cost per distance
- always connected nature of travel and no issue with been distracted while traveling because you are not driving. This allows to spend time for a business or pleasure and escape the nesessity of driving long distances on freeway
- much less danger of terrorism because train could not be diverted from its course like plain. As a result less harrasing procedures of boarding would be possible compared to modern passenger airplaines.
- potentially more optimal throughput usage of available road because better density of cars per unit of distance is possible assuming robust electronic traffic control for such trains
- EV cars could fully recharge during train travel because inside train time would take few hours. As a result at the destination EV would have maximum fresh range. This might add attraction to EV for a public.
- Travel time for say LA to SF would be ~4 hours even for ~100 mph train speed. This speed is not too hard, risky or expensive to achieve for today trains using proven old tech instead of magnetic levitation. Taking into account seemless boarding and unboarding of cars logistics of extra travel should take less than 1 - 2 hours. So door-to-door time of LA to Bay Area travel would be very comparable with today airplane based traffic. And out-of business disconnect time would be even significantly lower compared to airplane travel.
- magnetic levitation train expansion would be evolutionary possible with such rail system. In this case 200 - 300 mph sustained travel speed would become possible eventually. As a result most of travel shorter than 1000 miles would have comparable or better door-to-door time against today airplaines based system.
8. Such a train infrastructure with sufficient stations frequency would reduce the pressure to have real long mileage per single refueling of gas or single charge for EV vehicles. In this case it would be no reduction of personal mobility even with car having 40 miles range on electricity. This opens the road for inexpensive EV below $30000 and say 40 miles per charge and may be 60 mph top speed but 4 - 6 sec acceleration/deseleration between 0 and 60 mph. For city traffic this EV is just fine and together with described trains it could be convenient and efficient mass scale transportation solution. It also allows gradual free choice migration from gasoline cars because they would also mix well into such an infrastructure reducing gasoline usage by reduction of average driving distance for cars.
I remember I have seen something in that spirit proposed by somebody for Seattle area - I just added some details of my vision to that idea.
Of course investment barriers exist and may be some other drawbacks or legal restrictions I do not know. It would be interesting for me if somebody could comment on this idea and may be prove it wrong or practically impossible if presenting enough arguments against it. But such a discussion could make up somewhat new vision how to cut fossil fuel dependence for travel on the mass scale - not just for fairly affluent and conserned ecologically upper middle class people like creator of this main blog entry article.
TEG: see earlier blog www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=28#more-28 search for “vanadium”.
Does the Zap/Lotus Crossover car use Altair Nano batteries? www.automotiveworld.com/aea/content.asp?contentid=57908 They are the only ones I know of that can lay claim to a 10 minute charge. They weigh about twice Tesla’s, and give longer range???
Dr. Wilder:
Loved hearing the fantastic part about powering the car with solar power. I am fixing, yeah I am from Texas, to start renting my own solar system, I don’t have the money it requires to buy the system. One of the things I have been dreaming about is powering an electric car with my solar system.
I like the train idea: double deck passenger cars up front, double deck car cars behind-like ferry boats, people get out of their cars. The ideal route would be L.A. to L.V.-particularly since traffic is really bad on major holidays on I-15. Do 200 mph maglev train -one has been proposed /studied for years between L.A. & L.V. The Germans would love to build it. But since this is America, it won’t happen.Need someone like Robert Moses to make that happen . Google search/Wikipedia required for those not old enough to remember him-actually he was before my time too, but I had heard of him since I grew up,partly, on Staten Island. Saw a PBS show on him a few years ago too. NO one like him around anymore.
Turn a guy like Moses loose on the levees & infrastructure of New Orelans too. He didn’t do too well on urban housing/neighborhhods-but he was a product of his time. If he came back now, bet he’d do a good job there too.
More information on the Chevy Volt a self-recharging electric vehicle. It will be about he size of a Chevy Cobalt weighing 3,200 lbs. It is described as an electric car with an onboard “range extender”. For example, if your trip is longer than 40 miles, the volt’s generator fires up. This 3-cylinder turbocharged 1.0 liter engine develops about 85 horsepower and is coupled to a 53-kW generator. It will run at 1800 rpm
and can can provide enough electricity to keep the car running while recharging the onboard batteries in about half an hour. The generator is powerful enough to provide enough electricity for the car to cruise at 100 mph until the 12 gallons of fuel run out. With a good charge in the battery it could hit 120mph and accelerate to 60 mph in 8 seconds so it will have no problem keeping up with traffic. In normal driving ,it would achieve 50 mpg for an overall range of 640 miles. The car is a series hybred therefore the wheels are powered soley by the elecric motor. The internal-combustion engine only drives a generator to produce electricty just like Diesel-electric locomotives have worked for decades. It uses a lithium-ion battery pack weighing about 400 lbs and it is the cost of this battery that is at issue because other wise it appears the Volt could retail for about $25,000 dollars if battery cost could be kept under $2,000. Article in “Car and Driver March 07 at your local bookstore. Here is an electric car that has the technolgy that will allows you to drive it across the county right now. Further, here is a
car that can be reprogramed to suit the needs of the driver. For example, the onboard charged can be replaced with fuel cells and no gas
need be used at all to recharge the batteries. Further, here is also a car that could be used with cheaper batteries and still get the job done.
For exaple, new developments in lead-acid batteries which use foam lead plates might work just fine as they weight 50% less and would
store a lots of amps for fast acceleration. I don’t think the average person will mind using high performance lead-acid batteries if the
Chevy Volt sells for $25,000 and can get them to work and back with no worry of running out electricty. What do you think?
I’m really glad to see that battery electric cars have come so far along.
But for many owning a fun BEV is still a pipe-dream. We have to find ways of bringing the cost down to gasoline powered car levels if we’re really going to do good on the environment.
Is it my opinion that if the tesla cost $35k instead of $100k, it would be a real contender in the performance market. If it was a real contender, we’d see enthusiasts adopt it. If enthusiats adopt it, we’d see the media start to present it. The result would be full pulic awareness, followed by massive demand. It could even save the world as we know it.
—
Editor’s comment: See our Secret Master Plan.
# TJ wrote on February 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 am
# Do 200 mph maglev train -one has been proposed /studied for years between
# L.A. & L.V. The Germans would love to build it. But since this is America,
# it won’t happen.
As it turns out, we have our own, home-grown and potentially less expensive maglev technology, developed at Lawrence Livermore Labs: inductrack. The idea is to mount a special arrangement of strong, permanent magnets on the train car itself, and then put the train in motion on a track that includes embedded (shorted) coils. Motion of the magnets over the coils develops a powerful magnetic field around them, which repels the permanent magnets on the car and levitates the train a few inches.
The great thing about this approach is its passive nature, and its ability to function under normal operating conditions. There is no need for massive quantities of electricity to power electromagnets, or the need for supercooling of any of the works. All you have to do is get the car moving at a sufficient speed (described as “walking speed” in the literature), and the levitation effect kicks in.
General Atomics is among several concerns that have been working to develop the idea into practicality for local and long-haul rail transport. They have a test track in Southern California. Last I read, they were aiming at a demonstration system at the California University of Pennsylvania, with funding from the Federal government.
www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-000453.pdf
www.llnl.gov/str/November03/Post.html
www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2004-11/ddoe-mlt111104.php
www.ga.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1161628608&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&
The first three links provide information up through late 2004. The final link is the most recent General Atomics release I can find (circa late 2006) which indicates that their urban maglev projects are still ongoing. I note that key patents related to the technology were still being granted as late as summer, 2006, so perhaps LLNL and GA are playing their cards close to the vest until all the necessary patent protection is assured. That would explain the relative paucity of news about the development of this technology since the GA test track was built, several years ago.
Re: The car carrying train idea. Several proposals for car trains and automated guideways for “dual-mode” cars have been proposed, A good list is here:
faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/dualmode.htm
Of particular interest are the AuTran, AVT-Train, MegaRail, Higherway, and Prism proposals. Some of these proposals could eliminate the EV “short range long trip problem”, and could also reduce gas consumption for other cars.
For an interesting site covering a variety of innovative transportation proposals, see:
faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/
science.howstuffworks.com/maglev-train.htm
People ! Please take the time to find The Obvious Truth, It is out there waiting for people who can share it and not monopolize it. Tesla Motors would rather sale 10 cars for a million dollars to a few self absorbed millionaires, than sale a million cars to the people for $25,000 ea. ( which would do more for our delicate ecosystem ) and EARN AN HONEST BUCK the way Henry Ford did. Batteries are a Big Lie, Maglevs recieve electricity from the electro-magnetic field which propels them, a form of wireless electric current. However Tesla Motors is proof that anyone can assemble a car, like say a kitcar, a real nice one , www.kitcars.com/ , and build or have it built into thier own marketable vehicle,,, Thanks again,,,
—
Editor’s surprise: Some great background on Tesla Motors can be found in the following blogs: Attitude, Lotus Position, and the Secret Master Plan.
Solar power is definitely a hard sell in my area. My cost per kW is only 6.7 cents. We have a hydro, a nuke and an 800 MW coal fired plant all within about 20 miles of me. There are no incentives or tax breaks in my state to help offset this cost either. Right now I wouldn’t break even for 35-40 years. The other thing making this a poor long term investment is that the price and efficiency of solar panels will most likely improve faster than I would get a return on my investment.
On the other hand power to charge up a Tesla is also cheap
Laurel:
I apologize that you did not find your answers on our site. There seems to be several things we left you confused about.
There is no deposit required until after the solar engineer comes out to the customers house, engineers the system, and the customer signs off on the design. Then the franchisee will collect a security deposit, usually $500. We require this because we are putting 10’s of thousands of dollars of equipment on their roof and if they don’t pay their bill, we have to remove that unit…and there is a hard cost to us for that labor.
As far as the “up to $475 for sales aids,” I have no idea where that could have come from. We charge zero for someone to join our company and provide all of the tools in the back office for free. If someone wants to print up brochures, they do that at their own cost, but we do not require anything.
We have purposely not put our complete management bios online to control growth. When people know who is behind our company it is going to spread quickly and we want to make sure that we have the training and infrastructure in place to handle that. Several of our senior staff will be listed this week.
Like you, we are passionate about what we do. One of the rewards we offer our Ecopreneurs is a hybrid car bonus. I would be very interested in speaking with you about including your car in that. I think it is gorgeous.
We have been tight-lipped about our investment partners and our manufacturing because the media splash that will happen. We are trying to manage our growth.
I would also be happy to answer any questions you might have. The solar calculator explains how the bill pay will work over time. Just go to www.jointhesolution.com/join and click on the calculator on the lower left. Our rates are based on the published utilities rates for the prior year. The only difference with us is that our rates don’t go up for up to 25 years. This saves most customers over $10,000.
Our goal is to make solar power affordable for everyone. No cost for installation, no cost for equipment and no cost for maintenance.
Laural, I usually don’t respond in blogs, but I am so intrigued by your car and the potential synergy with our hybrid car bonus, that I would love to talk If you have any questions. [Contact info deleted.]
Rob Styler
President
Powur of Citizenre
—
Editor’s comment: Just to clarify, Laurel is not an employee at Tesla Motors. She sent a comment in previously based on her experience researching solar options for her home.
FYI, San Diego county had $4.00 / Watt incentives for PV installs after some big fires they had a while back:
www.rebuildsandiego.org/solar_incentives.htm
That seems like a good idea - provide very strong incentives in situations where lots of people are rebuilding.
Some other CA cities with $4.00 / Watt PV incentives:
* Anaheim
* Colton
* Glendale
* Turlock
www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/map.cfm?State=CA&CurrentPageId=1
Without commenting on all of the other logistical issues and significant structural costs involved in your train idea,I believe you are way off base from the terrorism standpoint. Trains are sitting ducks for terrorism - especialy high-speed trains. There are thousands of miles of track that one can sabotage with no plausible way to be protected. I am in awe at the fact that existing trains are not attacked more often - unless they figure that with Amtrak’s safety track record why meddle - they’re killing enough people as it is…
Someone named Joshuah Stolaroff did a Phd. thesis (online) that says would cost a trillion or two dollars to operate “co2 removal plants” to remove all of U.S. yearly co2 emissions . A Reuters report estimates total final cost of Iraq war could be 2 trillion, msnbc report says 1 trillion. Somehow we pay for that fiasco (du jour) with no problem. So why don’t we shoot for cutting U.S. co2 emissions in half and building removal plants to take care of the rest-or, in the next 15-25 years by 1/4 & 1/4? ( I assume Stolaroff’s numbers would come down with huge-scale use)- Why?-because wars are always a great way to waste money- timelessly approved by many pillars of world society & certified (or is it “certifiable” ?) select war profiteers.
[New Zealand auto site] “Lucire likes not just the Roadster, but also the way Tesla Motors has been organized and how CEO Martin Eberhard is blogging about the company”
autobloggreen.com
Will the first 100 be out before summer ’07? I’ve read several articles indicating they will be on the roads in late summer. Sometimes timing is important….
I like the train for electric cars. Before that could happen; the automotive market would need to be saturated with EVs.
Bush-Hog is challenging us to cut oil dependency by 20% in ten years. Seriously; the only thing making this a “challenge” is BIG OIL. Like Roy expressed above; if we keep getting patent blocked on things that have the potential of fixing our energy problems; it will never get better. So; I “challenge” inventors, innovators, and renewable energy entrepreneurs to rise above the temptation of buyout offers that ultimately stem from BIG OIL. And if you just can’t resist; at least consider putting in your purchase agreement/contract that they have to bring the innovation to market as soon as humanly possible. And in doing so; you should get an independent firm (foreign crony) to estimate the possible timeline. Otherwise; pull up your sleeves and bring it to market yourself. Go public if you have to. There are plenty of us out there that want to invest in what’s best for our country and the world.
Ronald:-
Martin presented his thoughts on the Chevy Volt in the Auto Show Happenings blog a few weeks back. Here’s the relevant section:-
Is GM Right?
At first blush, one would think that a plug-in hybrid with a short driving range requires less battery technology than a pure electric car with a decent driving range – the hybrid is a stepping stone to the ultimate pure-electric car. But this is the opposite of the truth. Here is why.
Consider the perspective of just one cell (of arbitrary size) within a battery pack. Such a cell is rated for a certain number of charge/discharge cycles. (For better quality cells, 2 half-charge cycles or 4 quarter-charge cycles age the cell the same – or slightly less – than 1 full-charge cycle. See my battery blog for more on this subject.)
Let’s say the cell is rated for 500 cycles. Now let’s pack enough of these into a battery pack so that the car can go 250 miles on a charge. Simple math gives us the lifetime range of this battery pack: 500 X 250 = 125,000 miles.
Okay so far… Now, let’s make a smaller, 40-mile pack. The lifetime range of this pack is only 500 X 40 = 20,000 miles! To get the same lifetime range, a Chevy Volt with a 40-mile driving range would need batteries that are roughly six times as good (3,000 cycles) as those in the Tesla Roadster. Not coincidentally, the GM spokespeople say that they will launch the Volt when they can get 3,000 to 4,000 cycles out of their battery system.
So, strange as it may seem, battery technology that is good enough for the Tesla Roadster is, in fact, not good enough for the Chevy Volt. Not even close.
Further comments from me:-
The other problem with a small range battery pack is that you have to maintain them at higher charge since every trip is likely to need most, if not all of the capacity. The calendar life of Li-ion cells is reduced if you keep them fully charged, compared to keeping them at, say 50% charge. 50% charge in a large pack is still enough to go places (125 miles worth at 50 mph for the Tesla, compared with 20 miles for the Volt). So not only does the Volt need batteries which have six times the calendar life than those currently in the Tesla, it also needs batteries which can maintain this lifespan in spite of more aggressive charging and discharging.
Obviously since the Volt is slated to have a 161 hp (120kW) electric motor, but only a 53kW generator driven by a 71 hp three-cylinder ICE, then the battery pack (136kW peak and 16kWh capacity) is there to provide the acceleration of 0-60mph in 8.5 secs. Essentially Chevy are using smaller, cheaper battery packs as a sort of Turbo or Nitro function. Not really the TLC that Li-ions need.
Martin wrote: At first blush, one would think that a plug-in hybrid with a short driving range requires less battery technology than a pure electric car with a decent driving range – the hybrid is a stepping stone to the ultimate pure-electric car. But this is the opposite of the truth. Here is why.
Consider the perspective of just one cell (of arbitrary size) within a battery pack. Such a cell is rated for a certain number of charge/discharge cycles. (For better quality cells, 2 half-charge cycles or 4 quarter-charge cycles age the cell the same – or slightly less – than 1 full-charge cycle. See my battery blog for more on this subject.)
Let’s say the cell is rated for 500 cycles. Now let’s pack enough of these into a battery pack so that the car can go 250 miles on a charge. Simple math gives us the lifetime range of this battery pack: 500 X 250 = 125,000 miles.
Okay so far… Now, let’s make a smaller, 40-mile pack. The lifetime range of this pack is only 500 X 40 = 20,000 miles! To get the same lifetime range, a Chevy Volt with a 40-mile driving range would need batteries that are roughly six times as good (3,000 cycles) as those in the Tesla Roadster. Not coincidentally, the GM spokespeople say that they will launch the Volt when they can get 3,000 to 4,000 cycles out of their battery system.
So, strange as it may seem, battery technology that is good enough for the Tesla Roadster is, in fact, not good enough for the Chevy Volt. Not even close.
C’mon Martin, a little misleading?
Of course a smaller battery pack won’t take you as far! You’re forgeting (or omitting) that the volt, unlike the roadster, is a hybrid. So although it won’t travel as far under pure electric drive it has ICE support, which would significantly boost the overall mileage travelled on a single battery. Even if the owner drove exactly 40 miles (exhausting the battery) daily, and thus requiring a new pack every 20,000 miles, the new pack would be 40/250 = .16 times the size and cost of the tesla battery. It would of course be an inconveniece to change the battery every 20,000 miles, but this is an extreme case, and in real driving scenario’s the ICE would probably drive about 1/4 to 1/2 the total miles driven, bringing the battery life to 30k-40k miles. This means that the smaller volt battery would probably have to be changed about as often as the standard lead-acid car battery. The cost would be considerably more per battery change, but in the long run the battery cost would be very close to the same per mile as the telsa roadster battery pack (because the tesla battery pack is simply made up of many smaller Li-ion modules strapped together).
# Jay wrote on February 3rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
## I’m really glad to see that battery electric cars have come so far along.
## But for many owning a fun BEV is still a pipe-dream.
You _can_ do it on a budget if (like me) you can’t afford a Tesla.
Used EVs come on ebay or other sites from time to time.
Ranger EV pickup trucks go for $15K-$25K depending on the quality of the batteries (e.g.: Pb or NiMH)
I found one with only 6000 miles on the ODO and it is working fine as a pure electric commuter vehicle.
There are also various DC conversion kits you could do to put a gas vehicle out of its’ misery.
Ronald: if a PHEV battery is a quarter the size and has to be replaced 4 times as often you are still paying the same amount of money for battery wear and tear. (but less up front). If the battery is being replaced four times as often then calendar life becomes a mute point. I still prefer EVs because of their lack of any kind of tailpipe. The only other thing is that battery/utltracap developments in the next year or two will also end the argument in favour of EVs.
# TJ wrote on February 5th, 2007 at 12:12 am
## Someone named Joshuah Stolaroff did a Phd. thesis (online) that says would cost a trillion or two dollars to operate
## “co2 removal plants” to remove all of U.S. yearly co2 emissions .
## A Reuters report estimates total final cost of Iraq war could be 2 trillion,
Along with the sad fact that all those “war $” could have been very useful in a “war on pollution”, there is also the sad fact that the war itself is polluting. Massive amounts of oil is being used to transport vast amounts of heavy equipment around the globe. Effeciency and low emissions are not part of the military strategy. Do tanks have catalytic converters? All the bombs, fires, explosions and other pieces of war likely pollute the environment in a big way as well. There are much more grim aspects of war of course, but pollution is yet another negative impact.
Malcolm (and Martin if you’re listening) -
I remember Martin’s response to the Volt clearly, and I must disagree with a bit of the logic. Though it is true that historically it has been difficult to substantially increase the life-cycles of a Li-Ion battery, that no longer seems to be the case. Martin himself identified numerous battery technologies (see www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=24) and dismissed them (correctly) due to their lack of energy density. Altairnano and A123 systems both have existing batteries which - while NOT the proper battery for the Tesla Roadster due to their low energy density - are rated for many times the standard 500 cycles of the commodity 18650 cells that Tesla is using. Numerous other companies such as Sonata also claim breakthroughs in cycle-life even though they still cannot do much about energy density. For a decade now the really important thing to battery consumers has been energy density - because that is something that consumers can witness immediately (think about your laptop, and whether you would want the battery with twice the capacity, or twice the longevity) and that has been where researchers have been putting all their efforts (albeit rather slowly). Now, for the first time, there is a significant value to increased cycle life, and many innovators have stepped up to fill the void. So GM is not reaching for the unobtainable when it focuses on batteries with longer lifecycles any more than Tesla’s hope for future batteries with greater energy density is pie in the sky. Technology will evolve on both fronts, though for the moment there seems to be more practical-here-and-now breakthroughs on the cycle-life front than on the energy density front.
Who’s going to be the first mega-entreprenuer (on his block) to garner cash through building plants to remove CO2 from the atmosphere-per Stolaroff’s thesis, using the carbon “cap & trade” economic system? For a mere $1.8 trillion dollars all of the U.S. yearly CO2 emissions could be removed ( small price to pay for luxury. If our govt. would close all the waste/fraud loopholes and shut down the war in question, we’d have the cash and then some).Where to store CO2 is another matter. I’ve heard talk of pumping it back into the ground through old oil wells. I heard that some algae love to eat CO2 as well, maybe some bacteria too. Well, at least the cash is available. That’s nice to know-just try and get the govt. to spend it though. Private enterprise, anyone?
Thank you CM for very informative links about electric trains. As I have expected people advanced this concept even much further than my thinking goes. As I understand if properly implemented the idea seems attractive.
It would be nice to see some opinions is it going to happen or it will not happen in real life in forseeable future ?
Do people believe that today oil prices and other political agenda are encouraging this development or pressure from oil prices, CO2 global warming concern and other factors did not build up enough to make real changes in U.S. transporation start coming next 5 - 10 years ?
Facts from L.A. Times article on global warming today: last time the earth re-absorbed as much CO2 as was put into the atmosphere was 150 years ago. To stabilize levels of CO2 in atmosphere, emissions would have to drop 70-80%. If all worldwide fossil fuel power plants were shut down, global CO2 would be reduced by 39%. China puts out 15% of world CO2 & opens a new coal-fired power plant every 7 to 10 days.Between 1993 & 2004 China’s CO2 emissions grew by 45%, India’s by 39%. Maintaining current CO2 levels in atmosphere would require reducing worldwide emissions by 20 billion tons per year (U.S. puts out about 6 billion). If hybrid cars replaced all cars in U.S., carbon savings would be less than 3% of this amount .Replacing one standard light bulb in every U.S. home with an energy effiicient one would prevent yearly greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to about 800,000 cars (in light of this, imagine what home solar power could do-using it for EV car too). Percentages of fossil fuel global CO2 emissions: 40% oil, 40% coal, 20% natural gas. Even if the entire world stopped burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels wouldn’t approach pre-industrial revolution levels for several hundred years.
I recently watched the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car”. At the end, “telsa” was mentioned just for a moment. I searched the web and found this blog. Please keep up the good work. I may not be able to buy this car in my salary. That someone somewhere doing the “right” thing for everyone.
I wish the entire telsa team a great sucess in all of their efforts to make the palnet a cleaner place to live.
American Solar Energy Society published a report last week stating that by 2030 world energy efficiency and renewable energy could provide 40% to 80% of CO2 emssions reductions required to limit global temperature rise to 1.8 degrees F. One third of the U.S. (not including Alaska) is in the top range for producing solar energy, including: all of Ariz. & New Mex., 95% of Nev., 90% of Calif. , two thirds of Utah & Colorado, half of Texas and one third of Oklahoma & Kansas.
Another entry for the “read our press” section. The New Zealand fashion magazine “Lucire” nominated the Tesla Roadster as “The Car to Be Seen In” for 2007. The article is online here:
lucire.com/2007/0121ll0.shtml
The Nickel Metal Hydride (”NiMH”) batteries in the Toyota RAV4-EV, like those used in the GM 1999 EV1, the Honda EV+, and the Ranger-EV, DON’T NEED REPLACEMENT AT ALL, they last longer than the life of the car.
So why not use NiMH batteries? Toyota, in partnership with Panasonic, went into productiion with the NiMH EV-95 95 amp-hour battery, the later versions were 105 amp-hours. Making a battery pack of 770 lbs. deliver 30 kWh, or enough energy to take the Tesla over 150 miles.
Actually, we know the reason that Tesla had to go to Lithium, but why not ask about it? Not one reporter dares raise this issue in the paid media.
—
Editor’s response: See our blog, A Bit About Batteries.
Hi David
All of the numbers, for the Volt as well as the Roadster, assume idealised driving conditions. The 250 mile range of the Roadster assumes the EPA Highway criteria (about 50 mph). I’m sure the 40 mile range of the Volt has similar strings attached. Both companies need improvements in battery technology, so the issue is one of how much and how soon. Using the numbers quoted from autobloggreen: autobloggreen.com
it would seem sensible to assume that Volt’s battery will be used as a power booster, switching in when higher acceleration/ top speeds are required. Cruising at lower speeds, as pointed out above by Ronald Greene, could be handled by the generator alone. So, depending on the driving style adopted, the battery pack could last a lot longer than the 20k figure quoted. The problem is the additional stress on the batteries in fulfilling this function. In a small pack, each cell must hold a higher charge in order to be called upon to provide the necessary power output over and above that provided by the generator. In a larger battery pack, this power supply is spread across more cells, reducing the stress on individual cells. A hybrid car (which sacrifices battery space for generator/ ICE/fuel tank) is always going to be a much more stressful working environment for a cell than a BEV (which provides space for larger battery systems). No matter how battery technology changes and improves, this imbalance will always exist. Consequently, for a given driving style and charge/discharge regime, any chosen charge-holding-system (new and improved batteries, super-dooper-capacitors, A. N. Other technology) will always have a longer lifespan in a pure EV than in a hybrid. Whatever electrical technology you choose to place into a hybrid, a pure EV will use it more efficiently and therefore, cost effectively. (Capital outlay for the Roadster is similar to other ICE performance vehicles. Anyone seen a performance hybrid yet?)
Now I’m sure that the big car companies will try to patent better charge-holding systems (I understand that GM hold all patents on NiMH) in order to close this gap, but Tesla is always going to be able to wriggle around that by jumping on-board with whatever mass charge-holding technology is developed by companies like Sony for the handheld/portable electronics industry. The other problem for companies like GM is that although hybrids will help to extend oil reserves, they won’t preserve them. The electrical half of any hybrid will have to get better and better in order to keep the whole hybrid concept viable.
In an America with drive-in movies and drive-in churches, Anatoly’s drive-in train sounds great. Surely these exist already?
I found something new to teslafy, it’s a streamliner motorcycle contraption currently being produced by acabion. (www.acabion.com) It looks like a sailplane without wings with a motorcycle parked up it’s a.. rearend. They sell it ridiculously overpriced at 500.000 euro’s and they only intend to produce a handfull. Their version uses a modified hayabusa engine that puts out a ridiculous amount of horsepower, just imagine replacing it with a 25 kw continious 100 kw peak electric wheel motor. Add a 10 -20 kw battery pack build using laptop cells and there you go. For the electric version you could streamline the design even more, it now only gets a cd of 0.18 because of the huge air intakes, my guess is that a cd of 0.12 should be possible. I calculated the average use in wh per km and got to only 25 wh/km! (compared to tesla’s 128 wh/km, including battery charge/discharge inefficiency’s) that means that with a 10 kw pack you would have a range of 400 km! just like the tesla roadster. Such a vehicle woulld be very light to, weighing in at something like 400 kg. For a 10 kw pack you would only need about 1000 cells (3.6 v / 2.9 ah) at 4 dollars a pop that comes down to only 4000 dollars for the battery pack. and a weight of only 45 kg for the batteries alone. In the vehicle their’s room for 2 people and a nice size trunk. It could be a fast, fun and very efficient way to get around! So tesla ever thougt about making motocylces?
I again say: to those who want a hot, sexy car, Tesla appears to be getting ready to deliver a worlbeater.
But those who want efficiency should really look elsewhere at present. Look, if you just want to be efficient and reduce your carbon impact, buy a high-efficiency, cheap gasoline or diesel-powered car, and abate your carbon through a service like Terrapass. It apparently doesn’t cost more than $50-$100 per year, or less than $1000 over the life the car, to abate its carbon production. If a large number of people in the U.S. did that, U.S. oil consumption would drop by 20% or more, and U.S. net carbon emissions would fall, too.
And it makes sense economically. All this could be done for much, much less money than buying EVs, installing photovoltaics, or any of that other razmattaz.
Meanwhile, more power to Tesla for marketing an EV that can stand on its own merits, as simply a great car.
Seems to me we all would like an affordable EV. I’m sure there are many more people like us all over the world. It’s not only important to support this technology; the masses need to turn away from what I call the “oil technology monopoly”. Don’t get me wrong, I wont be giving up buying gas for my 1995 Mercury, but I’ve decided not to buy or lease a new gas powered car or hybrid. The big 4 can offer 0% financing and drop car prices all they want. I will not budge. My next new car will NOT burn gasoline. I’m positive that if people felt as strongly as I do, and followed my example, the big 4 would begin to sell the alternate technology they already have. Loss of revenue can make large companies, even industries; change their “business model”. I just hope Tesla Motors doesn’t get bought out by the Oil industry or Car industry like Ballard Power Systems Inc. (BLDP) was. Ford (F) and Daimler Chrysler (DCX) hold a large amount of Ballard (BLDP) stock and derailed it from rolling out their own fuel cell cars.
Watch the “Fuel Cell Cars” video I’ve posted on YouTube and Google.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgxaKWqUbXQ
” Anyone seen a performance hybrid yet? ”
How about the Lexus GS450h?
3.5L 292hp V6 combined with a 134kw motor to make a total system of 340hp. 0-60 in 5.5 and a measely 25mpg. But it keeps them from having to use an even bigger V8 to achieve the performance mark at an even lower mpg.
The Zap X (a horrible name, BTW) is being touted as the next big thing at NADA. A crossover with a 350-mile range, a 10-minute recharge, and Nano (a wonderful company) solar cells sounds too good to be true. Is it?
MM wrote on February 5th, 2007 at 11:38 am
C’mon Martin, a little misleading?
Of course a smaller battery pack won’t take you as far! You’re forgeting (or omitting) that the volt, unlike the roadster, is a hybrid. So although it won’t travel as far under pure electric drive it has ICE support, which would significantly boost the overall mileage travelled on a single battery. Even if the owner drove exactly 40 miles (exhausting the battery) daily, and thus requiring a new pack every 20,000 miles, the new pack would be 40/250 = .16 times the size and cost of the tesla battery. It would of course be an inconveniece to change the battery every 20,000 miles, but this is an extreme case, and in real driving scenario’s the ICE would probably drive about 1/4 to 1/2 the total miles driven, bringing the battery life to 30k-40k miles. This means that the smaller volt battery would probably have to be changed about as often as the standard lead-acid car battery. The cost would be considerably more per battery change, but in the long run the battery cost would be very close to the same per mile as the telsa roadster battery pack (because the tesla battery pack is simply made up of many smaller Li-ion modules strapped together).
The Chevy Volt could be powered by a NiMH battery pack right now,
I believe they are cheaper than Li-Ion and have a 4000 cycle life.
They would’nt to have the range of Li-Ion because of the generator.
I believe the Chevy Volt could be built right now today using Nickel Metal Hydride batteries,
I believe they have a 4000 cycle life, are cheaper than Lithium-Ion,
and they don’t need the range of Lithium-Ion because of the generator.
Why doesn’t GM build the Volt today or in the very near future ?
They could upgrade the battery pack as they go
Malcolm - a couple of comments:
1) The Volt does not use the battery as a “booster”, rather it uses it in serial with the engine. The car runs on the battery alone (regardless of speed) until it has used 50% of its capacity. It then kicks on the generator to replenish the battery while continuously using the battery alone so that every last mile that the car drives comes out of the battery. (Note: according to Bob Lutz, GM’s VP of global product development, the serial setup is less efficient from an energy standpoint, but it will not use any gasoline at all for trips up to 20 miles)
2) Although the mileage rating is usually aggressive, in electric vehicles it is much less so - the motor should not lose much efficiency when you “floor it” as apposed to driving normally. It is likely that the energy efficiency will be significantly better in city driving than in highway driving since there is little energy lost from “stop and go”, but at higher speeds there is wind resistance.
3) There is no reason to assume that in a serial hybrid the batteries will be kept in any more contorted a position than in a pure EV… I just don’t know why that would be?
4) The way that battery performance has improved is key to understanding the distinctly different challenges to Volt and Tesla. The new battery technologies that I mentioned in my previous post, like A123’s and Altairnano’s, have the benefits of a longer cycle-life (and they are more tolerant to abuse, if you are worried about those cramped spaces that the hybrid makers will put the batteries), but from a capacity standpoint they suck. These batteries generally can hold a little less than half the energy of a standard (old technology) battery. So these would make a miserable choice in battery for an EV since, for the equivalent size battery, your range would be cut in half, but these would make ideal batteries for a hybrid which does not need a high maximum range as much as it needs the ability to repeated fully charge and discharge.
Actually, I read “a bit about batteries” PRIOR to asking the question about why ignore NiMH.
This is all it says: “….Li-ion batteries are a whole lot better than Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) …”
This is not an answer to the very serious issue about why NiMH, which lasts longer than the life of the car, and is much cheaper than Lithium, is not being used.
Some suspect it is because Chevron-cobasys purchased, and now controls through a dizzing sequence of subsidiaries and “joint ventures”, the worldwide patent rights to NiMH which it aquired when it merged with Texaco, which had two weeks prior bought those rights from GM.
Sorry Charlie (excuse me, William Thomas) but your plan isn’t good enough for me. I’ve already negated the CO2 from my house twice over for this year (thru Bonneville Power Foundation, if anyone else wants to join the fray). But see, I’m halibuted off, William. I’m getting solar on my house thru my state program this year (apparently I’m getting one of their “slots” for this year-though the whole concept of only certain slots is absurd). Hopefully I can defer installation till later in the year and use Nanosolar panels-supposed to be coming out this year sometime. I’m getting extra capacity installed for Tesla Sports Sedan power in 2009. See, I want free house power and car power, like our buddy Rob Wilder above. I don’t like our wonderful fed. govt. (minus Al Gore), I don’t like our wonderful oil companies-or power companies. In Nev., the new governor is backing a new dirty coal power plant to be built near Ely (nice going,voters)-which now has really clean air, in an isolated part of the state. Hate to live in another state(s) downwind from that. TXU Co. in Texas is trying to push thru 11 dirty coal plants (trying to speed up the normal 2-year licensing process to months-how very clever of them: WEASELS!). We Americans have become too carefully “reasonable” and chicken-halibuted. Whatever happened to “doing the right thing”, and “think globally, act locally” and “what if they gave a war and nobody came” ?-huh? Buying green tags is absolutely , positively great (everyone could afford it, it could make a huge difference) but so is home solar & buying a Tesla-then we’re hitting it from all angles. With the new tech. coming out in 2007 to 2010, like Tesla & Nanosolar, there is going to be the potential to really go green fast. This country has the money (once the plug is pulled on the war in question, for sure)-and with Nanosolar & Tesla someone could solve his green power problem in the time it takes to buy & install both-what, less than a week?! Except for power at night (for now) it’s game over, case closed for fossil fuels for home and car-and small business even. The trouble is, the huge middle class is, obviously, this country. Rob Wilder is in the happening vanguard-but he can afford to be, with cash to spare. We’re going to need fed./state govt. to give the middle class their “cash to spare” via incentives.THAT, Hamlet fans, is the question!! Now who in Govt., besides our buddy Gov. Arnie perhaps, and definitely “Our Pal Al” Gore ( and even big Bill Richardson ,gov. of New Mex.)-who in govt. is going to really push this? No one, that’s who-they’re all too “carefully reasonable” -at least they haven’t come forward yet, so what’s their excuse?. With the new tech. coming out, and a Teddy Roosevelt style bully pulpit attack on the problem big things COULD be done quite fast -and that’s no halibut. We need to stop being a country of “in the future,someday,costs too much, wouldn’t be prudent-let’s talk some more” sloths (jeeezzzz!-to quote Billie Joe of Green Day). Do we want to wait another 25 years for “incremental results”!?- I don’t know about you, but last time I checked life is too (way, dude!) short for this halibut!
Ah no, I wasn’t worried about the physical space which would contain the batteries, just the fact that a given volume in a hybrid has to accommodate not just the battery system and electric motor, but also the generator, ICE and fuel tank. Whatever electrical power is needed has to come from a smaller battery. So the individual power loading on each cell in the battery will be higher than in a pure EV with similar performance which can accommodate a larger battery pack. It would probably be fairer to compare the Volt with White Star rather than the Roadster, but we don’t have much info on the WS.
The other snag is that a hybrid has to cycle its batteries between 100% and 50% charge. Pure EVs can “use the other half” - i.e from 50% to “zero” - again putting less stress on the charge-storing systems (whatever that is chosen to be). For the Roadster, “zero” is 3V per cell, when the car shuts down.
This is the curious difference between batteries and a gas tank. It makes no difference to the life span of your gas tank if you run your gas tank between “full” and “half full” or between “half full” and “empty”. Li-ions prefer to be run between “half full” and “empty”. Obviously, this creates more stress for the driver. While gas remains cheap and plentiful, a hybrid can always provide the peace of mind of the onboard generator, although you will be paying more for the maintenance on the ICE and generator and have to replace your charge-storing system more frequently.
A pure EV will require owners to prepare for jouneys more consciously. Along with the usual checks on tire pressure, they’ll need to check their intended milage against the state of charge. But all of this can be handled by the car’s computer working with the onboard sat nav.
Nickel Metal Hydride batteries, as demonstrated by daily driving of the 2001-2002 Toyota RAV4-EV, have proven to last longer than the life of the EV. NiMH don’t need a complicated cooling system, provide adequate power, and deliver deep cycling enough for 30 kWh per 700 lbs weight. The 680 lbs. of 18-650 batteries in the Tesla deliver more kWh, it’s true, but we need to recognize that a NiMH version of the Tesla would have much longer lasting batteries.
Instead of dismissing NiMH as “… Li-ion batteries are a whole lot better than Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) …”, look toward a time when NiMH can be offered as an option on the Tesla, perhaps as a lower-cost battery-replacement option, after Chevron’s patent rights to NiMH expire in 2014.
While NiMH does not deliver as long a range as Lithium, some folks might value the longer life of NiMH and be willing to accept the shorter range. With our 160-mile range EV1, we only charged it twice a week, because you just don’t drive 160 miles a day. With our current RAV4-EV “fleet”, we often have to refuse charging, because some days we just don’t drive 120 miles. Our family has over 470,000 miles in EV driving, and it’s my judgment that most people don’t have a range problem with an EV. After all, if you are going to SF from LA on business, most people take a plane. The option of driving might be nice, but it’s a long trip even in a fun EV. We charge the NiMH RAV4-EV every 100 miles at 50A RV spots, but even the Lithium Tesla would still need one charging spot halfway.
While the Tesla is a whole lot more fun to drive than the RAV4-EV, or even the EV1, most drivers will not find a need to use the 250 mile range every day, IMO; most days, filling to half capacity will be plenty.
So at least, offer the possibility of NiMH Tesla in the future, perhaps for those not needing such crackling acceleration. NiMH is cheaper and well-researched, the most tested and examined EV battery, with thousands of field-tested EVs from Honda EV-plus, Ford Ranger-EV, 1999 GM EV1, Toyota RAV4-EV, and SCE track-testing on the EV-95 battery which went into production in 1997.
I recently read about your roadster and that in incorporates regenerative breaking system. It’s interesting that energy capture can come about from stopping the vehicle. Has any work been done to capture energy from the moving vehicle? As it cruises at 60mph, seems to me if pinwheel type turbines existed, the airflow through these mini turbines could also generate electricity to assist or charge the batteries, thus extending the overall range of the vehicle.
Bit more on-topic:-
www.becosolar.com/absolyte.htm
An example of a company supplying In-house battery systems to be charged from PV, wind or water powered generators. Presumably there’s an optimum system capacity to provide sufficient power for the home and for the EV. Depending on mileage, the EV wouldn’t necessarily have to be charged every night so a number of days-worth of generation could be stored and transferred when needed.
Has Tesla chosen a location for it’s assembly facility? if not when will it be chosen?
Malcom,
don’t aim to insert another battery into the electric chain. Storage of electrical energy is very costly in terms of efficiency. A backup battery at home would only lower overall efficiency. More solar energy can be utilized by directly supporting the grid during daytime, and using idle grid capacity at night for EV recharging. You could even make money, selling high and buying low, not to mention additional financial benefits from V2G (using the car as spinning reserve/ancillary service). Apparently wind turbines tend to have higher output at night, too. This can conveniently be stored in your car’s battery for commuting. By the way, while you’re home, your EV could stay plugged-in and used as an emergency supply during a black-out (which would become very unlikely anyway as soon as even a small fraction of all EVs were V2G capable).
I found a company that would be the perfect contributor for airflow-generative “micro-turbines” for the Tesla EV’s. Although GE would be the obvious choice, I found Capstone Turbine Corp. has an interesting model that may lend itself for an airflow-generative design. www.microturbine.com/prodsol/techtour/index.asp
# Doug Korthof wrote on February 7th, 2007 at 7:32 am
## So at least, offer the possibility of NiMH Tesla in the future, perhaps for those not needing such crackling acceleration.
## NiMH is cheaper and well-researched, the most tested and examined EV battery, with thousands of field-tested EVs
## from Honda EV-plus, Ford Ranger-EV, 1999 GM EV1, Toyota RAV4-EV, and SCE track-testing on the EV-95 battery which went into production in 1997.
Being a NiMH RangerEV owner, I can certainly appreciate what NiMH technology has to offer, but personally I think it is yesterday’s technology, and Tesla is right to pursue Li-Ion (and hopefully any UltraCap breakthroughs).
As you stated, the big-oil-related patent holders had put the brakes on EVs powered by high capacity NiMH cells..
Further, I understand that the “best of breed” Panasonic EV-95 batteries are no longer in production, probably as a direct result.
And perhaps the final nail is that the price of nickel has skyrocketed since your RAV4-EVs were made so they would be even more expensive today.
kitconet.com/charts/metals/base/spot-nickel-5y.gif
The golden age of NiMH EVs should have been 1997-2007, but as “Who Killed the Electric Car” points out it was an aborted effort.
Hopefully the golden age of Li-Ion EVs will soon be here, and will run its course unhindered until the next energy storage breakthrough takes over.
# Nelson wrote on February 7th, 2007 at 8:15 am
## Has any work been done to capture energy from the moving vehicle?
## As it cruises at 60mph, seems to me if pinwheel type turbines existed,
## the airflow through these mini turbines could also generate electricity to assist or charge the batteries, thus extending the overall range of the vehicle.
Homework assignment for Nelson:
Read the “Balance” blog: www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=24
Pay particular attention to the section heading “Something for Nothing”…
Nelson: It’d be nice if we could turn the Tesla into a perpetual motion machine (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine), as you’re suggesting, wouldn’t it? It’s not happening. This has been discussed before on this blog, but the bottom line is that adding wind turbines can only ever decrease the vehicle’s efficiency, not increase it. Also, the link you posted uses liquid fossil fuels for its turbines, not wind.
I would also suggest reading up on regenerative breaking (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_breaking also follow some of the links, like the “kinetic energy” one, if you’re unfamiliar with the concepts) to see how it works. It’s a pretty neat idea.
THANK YOU FOR CONNECTING
TRANSPORTATION TO LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“After all, our cars connect everything in our lives:
from family to work to entertainment to the environment.
And trucks deliver almost everything we consume.”
- The Hybrid Phenomenon
Bravo to green electrons in holistic systems
over old world linear designs we’re so used to…
Thank you again for making this connection
BY WALKING THE WALK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To Rob Styler,
First, Tesla, thanks for clarifying that I’m not an employee of or speaking for Tesla. That misunderstanding certainly was not my intent, and I did try to make it clear that I am doing research on my own prior to installing solar power for my house.
Secondly, all of my information and statements came from CitizenRe’s click through contracts from the CitizenRe site. Not marketing materials or statements on the CitizenRe website or statements in blogs. These are the contracts that we are required to click agree to if we want to ask for more information through the website. And those points are what the consumer and CitizenRe are legally required to do.
As I said, I would like this to be a real and valid choice, so I would like my concerns to be all wrong. However, all of the answers I’ve received so far are similar to yours. I am happy to talk with you and to go over your contracts with you to show you where I found that information.
This is not an appropriate forum to continue this discussion, so I will send you an email if your contact information is on the CitenzenRe website.
TEG: Thank you for pointing out the “Balance” blog: www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=24
It was great reading.
I’m sorry I was misunderstood when I recommended using the airflow to generate additional energy for the batteries. I did not intend to describe a perpetual motion configuration. I thought since air typically enters through the front grill of a car, small lightweight air turbines could generate some small charge much like “regenerative braking” does. I did not imagine adding these turbines under the hood would add to the coefficient of drag causing the motors to work harder. I guess the aerodynamic design of a car takes that front grill incoming airflow and efficiently utilizes it to minimize drag. I guess there is no way to use that airflow otherwise.
Never the less the “Balance” blog raises interesting questions. As a point of reference it would be nice to know exactly how much energy is recovered when the car slows down during a one time braking process. As well as the cost to implement that “regenerative braking” technology. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for less wear on brake pads. This type of reference would be interesting to compare with the solar panel covered hood parked for one hour on a sunny day scenario.
Tesla is an agent of change, if only for the focal point it provides for the energy related issues. A fast, beautiful car? Brilliant! and one I can have zero guilt * about?! It’s like honeymoon night. This is the kind of approach that can open people’s minds, stimulate them, incite the subtle change in thinking that allows building critical mass. Certainly I think we see that on this blog.
Of course there will always be people in our world who need to feel guilty about sex, but if we change their world I am sure they can find something else to feel guilty about.
EP
* zero guilt? better yet - it’s like giving guilt back to the grid
P.S. does someone have a link to the official Tesla scwhag? I want a polo shirt, plus maybe a t-shirt with saying “it’s like giving guilt back to the grid”. Unfortunately bumper stickers would be out of the question…
Rob Wilder,
I browsed over to your website to check out your solar installation. Very impressive!
I’m intrigued by the statement on your website you may be getting a payback time of only 7-10 years for your PV solar system. If that’s true it should be interesting to a lot of people. Can you share calculations with us how you achieve your 7 year payback?
I’ve made a quick calculation:
Your 3.5 kW solar system cost you $15,511.-. To get a payback time of 7 years you need to ‘earn’ $2215 per year with your solar panel. I understand you generate about 15 kWh per day on average, or 5400 kWh per year. So that means you ‘earn’ $2215/5400 = $0.41 per kWh!
That seems a bit much to me. Can you elaborate?
Maybe any of the other readers of this site can help figure out this calculation?
What’s the return on investment on a solar system in California, taking into account subsidies, time of use metering, maintenance costs, potential carbon credits, etc?
This has probably already been mentioned somewhere but someone should invent some sort of miniature wind turbin and stick it on top of an eletric vehicle so that it can charge itself while while moving
—
Editor’s response: Check out our blog, Balance.
If the Tesla has a nominal 400V battery it is superb for V2G because existing photovoltaic to grid inverters are made for 300-450VDC input. However, and especially in light of recent cold weather utility outages, the 400V car is a means to power home appliances including gas furnaces and avoid frozen pipes, uncomfortable or life threatening home conditions and avoid spoiled food, etc. By making the car PHEV with a diesel ICE the long run time virtues of the diesel are incorporated into the home and car in lieu of a home generator set. Augmented by PV, the hybrid home-car-pv-utility connect has manifold benefits. Go to SMA-Amercia.com for more inverter info. Go to Landmarksolar.com for more info on existing hybrid homes.
I feel compelled to correct an error in the green electrons blog. Sunica has a LiION battery pack for cars with a stated cycle life at 80% Depth of Discharge of 3200 cycles. Do this once a day and you have an 8 year battery. The cycle life of state of the art LiION batteries is more than enough for superb EV and PHEV.
I think PHEV with slow overnight charging is best to take advantage of off peak utility power and avoid demand spikes or overloading of residential transformers. However, Ti Nano applied to LiMn electrodes makes for high cycle life LiION batteries that can be recharged in minutes. OK in my opinion for electric bicycles, scooters, etc. but not a good idea for cars when PHEV has more advantages.
To those who keep suggesting that Telsa use Altairnano’s NanoSafe battery pack, one reason that Tesla CAN’T use it is because Phoenix Motorcars has (limited) EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to the battery for three years!
From an artile on Green Car Congress:
“The company [Phoenix Motorcars] also confirmed that in consideration for a three-year exclusivity agreement within the US, Altair Nanotechnologies has received a 16.6% ownership in the company. The three-year exclusivity agreement provides Phoenix with limited, exclusive use of Altairnano’s NanoSafe battery packs in four-wheel, all-electric vehicles having a gross weight up to 6,000 pounds.
Phoenix must meet minimum battery pack purchases, annually, to maintain the limited exclusivity agreement. The minimum commitment to maintain exclusivity for 2007 would provide $16 Million in battery pack sales to Altairnano.”
—
Editor’s comment: Check out our blog, Balance.
Pardon me if this question has been asked before, but I couldn’t seem to find it in the blogs I have read. If everyone in the country suddenly had Tesla’s instead of gas powered vehicles, could the power grid handle the load for charging overnight? One of the arguments I have heard against bio-fuels is that if we all used bio-fuels we would starve because we would need to devote all our land to producing fuel instead of food. I’m not sure if you do the math on that it’s true or not, but the same question applies to electric vehicles. Can our power grid support the additional load?
I found a 2006 status report on the Inductrack project at General Atomics. It’s interesting reading for anyone who thinks maglev trains are a worthwhile idea: www.maglev2006.com/099_Gurol/99_Gurol_ok.pdf
How much wattage would be required to recharge or to keep charged much longer the TESLA Vehicle with from an on board GREEN ELECTRON source?
This would extend it’s range to a inter city vehicle.
I have one in mind.
Breaking news from down-under — specifically, the Massey University in New Zealand: news.massey.ac.nz/2007/Press_Releases/04-04-07.html
They have announced development of dye-based solar cells that the researchers say will cost 1/10th of comparable silicon-based cells. More importantly, the cells produce useful output in less than ideal light (e.g., using indirect, ambient light, rather than direct sunlight), making them more useful in cloudy conditions and less-than-sunny regions of the world.
Commercial production is still some years away, but not too many (to judge from the press release).
Maybe the idea of having a self-recharging, “solar” Roadster or Whitestar could be rendered practical by this new technology…? Even if the car couldn’t completely recharge itself via its solar cell “paint job,” it might be able to accumulate enough charge in a reasonable period of time, to eventually reach a proper recharging station. That kind of “insurance” would be a good selling point, I should think.
I am very interested in the Tesla project–great concept, good looking concept, and cool name concept. I would really like my own roadster but will probalby never be able to afford one. It is almost time to replace my 10 yr old Corolla and I’d love to go all electric. How soon before the model T’eslsa’ is available for the rest of us? Can I hold out another year or so? Also, I was wondering, how much solar energy is generated by a single panel? Is it feasible to include a panel(s) in the car to help charge the batteries during driving or more importatnly while it’s sitting in the parking lot while I’m in the office?
RE: Think Green - Residential / Commercial space
There are many nice Solar cells that look like an Architectural shingle, here is one example:
www.altersystems.com/catalog/unisolar-17-watt-solar-roof-shingle-p-287.html
Other good products include “Heat -N- Glo” fireplaces that hook into your home venting system, as well as many “geo thermal” systems that run water underground for cooling and heating. Also, look for an “Energy Star” label on all of your appliances. It does cost a bit more to go green, however you will get your money back in 2-3 years - after that you will be money ahead.
Such products can offer large, long run cost savings to a home or commercial space. Some states give rebates for installing green systems - such rebate programs are typically found on the Internet at your local utility company / power company.
Tom Knutson, Architectural design, Engineering desing, and Investment advice
Minnesota
if you have intentions to buy an electric car, it would only be stupid not to put up solar pannels. it’s like people not using CFLs or those really neat curly bulbs for the rest of you. they use 75% less energy and anymore they are not that expencive. if everyone just did that we would have a much better world. however as we all know the majority of the people living here have no common sense. for instance every resturant could be making extra revenue by having ev charging stations in their parking lots. since you can fast charge a car in a couple of hours with current tecnology you would think that during the couple of hours people spend to eat they would want to charge their car too!
also it gives people the idea, mmm i need to charge my car, but wait im hungry too.. huge untapped resource.
also since so many resturants leave on their lights all day and night, it would make sense to me if they changed out all those lights to CFLs. if they did they could give all their employees a raise and still save money. its almost disgusting that they dont!
now im a poor college student so i cant yet afford a roadster. i am interested in the rumors of the tesla sedan, the idea of 4 front wheels bothers me but we’ll see. i already have a very fast motorcycle that goes 0-60 faster than i can count and it still gets 50 in town and 80 on the highway. im looking for something with room not speed that can out do a 80 mpg hands down. i look forward to the day when petrol vehicles are veiwed the same as we do go carts, as a weekend hobby from time to time.
Yo, dudes! Why don’t mix the PV with the battery ON THE CAR?! In the sunny daytime can walk at least 20 - 30% more than battery only! I think… If so smart, do that! I challenge you, Tesla boys!
In your face, Yin!
The house is great and also the car. I am sure you aware that we could rengerate enough solar energy in the Californis desert to power the whole country. It is frustating to me to hear people talk about nuclear, coal and other alternatives when this source is truely clean and the technology exsists to make it happen.
Dear Tesla Motors,
I would like to thank you for making this car possible. I thought it was over when GM and others took away the electric car from the consumer, and now we have the roadster. It is inspiring to see what Dr. Wilder is doing. I hope that in the near future this car will be cheaper and more available to everyone. Electric cars and renewable energy isn’t history, it is now.
Hello
Wasjust serfing on net and found this site…want to say thanks. Great site and content!
Hello!
Your site is just amazing!
Good luck!
tramadolcheap.ning.com/
Dear Tesla,
I am so happy that you have brought attention to Nikola Tesla…
I read this somewhere and I hope one day it becomes a reality:
The potential of free energy is a lot bigger than just eliminating earth’s most destructive industry. With free, renewable, non-polluting energy, especially when combined with machines, robotics and computers (going back to the basics of the rise of humanity - energy, manipulative ability and intelligence) the reasons why humans exploit each other and the environment can evaporate, and humanity can finally begin to grow up. The kill-and-be-killed game that humanity has played for the entirety of history can end, and free energy is probably the most important first step. Without free energy, the rest may be close to impossible, unless the world human population declines to a tiny fraction of today’s…
“…Alternative energy has been systematically suppressed, on a global scale, for the past century, and free energy technology has probably existed for a long time…
…Tesla may have invented free energy, or came close. There is plenty of conjecture about what has been suppressed regarding his work. Tesla’s inventions are legion.
Karina
great blog! i hope this technology gets more attention and people ween off of oil addiction. i’m glad ecochange is in the air, i’ve always had an aversion to driving because of the smog cars produce, etc.
it’s good to know people care about this type of thing
Dr. Wilder,
How should we address the comment, that some people say an electric car doesn’t really reduce pollution, but only adds a long extension cord from the polluting source of the electric power. I really would be interested to know the pollution trade off of burning fossil fuel in an IC car vs the pollution of a coal fired power plant to produce the equivalent driving distances in electricity.
Would it be feasible to charge the battery will moving, referring to the same concept as a normal vehicle charging it’s battery. Possibly attach a large alternator to a straight axle, turning it, thus charging the battery.
It’s time to dominate the market. Put this vehicle out there at a reasonable price, and let your great great grandkids retire.
James
you’re an inspiration. i hope to make my future home solar powered as you do in order to help our earth survive!
Dr. Wilder,
Thank you for an excellent site and best to you and your wonderful family. I would like your take on a plan to convert Detroit into electric car production, using a world-wide project format, that would bring investigators, scientists, academics, and thinkers from around the world together with Detroit and other vehicle engineers, in order to identify effective ways to recharge electric vehicles while in motion. The Green Energy Project, as I call it, would then require the retooling of Detroit in order to get taxpayer dollars. The re-tooling would be completely without petroleum engines (see below for why), to manufacture autos using the very highest battery mileage-producing and recharging technologies. The ultimate goal is to create vehicles that get indefinite mileage. And since there are no restrictions prohibiting the number of recharging technologies that can be thought of and added to the closed system, the only limitations are the collective brain power of humans. We probably already have the technology anyway! The bottom line is that the GEP is a low cost, scaleable plan to create vehicles that travel 500 miles+ between charges.
The result of re-tooling Detroit as all electric, and dropping petroleum engines? If Detroit would only sell electric cars that got indefinite mileage- or at least 500+ miles per charge, a manufacturing revolution the size of which this nation has never experienced (even since WWII) would be unleashed. Just imagine UPS and Fedex fleets being retro-fitted. Everyone in the world would get retro-fitted. New industries would necessarily be created overnight, and the economy would get saved, lenders would start lending again once Detroit’s profits became lucrative (again.) Detroit will not be able to hire enough workers to keep up with demand. Read the Summary first. Here are the PDFs:
www.mediafire/greenandfree
Chris
This is in response to Charles’ comment about Compact Fluorescent bulbs. The conventional bulbs convert much energy into heat, and not light. This is only a problem in warmer climates, where heat is not beneficial. During winter, when a house is being heated, it’s not wasteful to be heating the house with light bulbs, because the furnace then does not turn on as often. In this case, compact fluorescents offer no advantage, and they cannot be dimmed like regular bulbs.
Eric
Dr. Wilder, Judging by your energy production and conservation experience to date, you could actually managed these resources and greatly reduce our carbon footprint at an individual level. The next is to scale it up! I subscribe to EV as the penultimate vehicle for the future.. Good luck. Cyril.
This is a great idea. This technology should be in the reach of anyone that can afford an automobile. But alas, as usual, it can only be attained by the well heeled. Is this supposed to be a tease to the peons saying “Look what I can have. It’s too bad you can’t have it.” Is this really important? or are you just part of the game?
Thank for sharing!
I think like JV. If not a large alternator, perhaps two smaller ones to keep the batteries charged while moving? Makes sense to me,with virtually no drag.