More on the Tesla electric car

[Zathras]

I'll never go back to the inconvenience of filling up at a gas station.
I far prefer having a full tank every morning.

What you described may be disappointment, bet there is no unknown. No question of can I or can't I.
I'm sorry you read more into Elon's statement than what he said.
Normally he actually is more grandiose.

When listening to anything like that, from anyone selling a product, I tend to take it with a grain of salt. In this case, as long as the software delivers, he was quite literal.

 

[ERD50]

...

What you described may be disappointment, bet there is no unknown. No question of can I or can't I.
I'm sorry you read more into Elon's statement than what he said. ...

OK, I'll stop now. You are insistent that 'anxiety' is only caused by the unknown, and my life experience tells me otherwise, and you won't see it that way. So that's that.

It's as if all anxiety ends when I recognize that an angry Grizzly Bear is chasing me. Whew, for a second, I couldn't tell what it was, now that was anxiety!

I didn't read more into Elon's statement than what he said - I quoted it verbatim, and there isn't any wiggle room in "ending" something. It's like the Dead Parrot.

Sure, my thoughts on depleting the battery deeper on occasion were just my ramblings (better than the reporter who talked about improving the inverter), but I'm not holding Elon to that. I'm holding him to what he said.

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

...

It's as if all anxiety ends when I recognize that an angry Grizzly Bear is chasing me. Whew, for a second, I couldn't tell what it was, now that was anxiety!
...

Poor analogy, as I would agree that would be a cause for anxiety, because I would be wondering if I could live through it.
So even your own example shows fear of the unknown.

That said, we appear to have different definitions of anxiety, so you are right, we won't agree on this.

 

[ls99]

I got curious about replaceing Tesla batteries, cost, longevity etc.. Another form of anxiety, range of time.

A 2012 article discusses the the cost of a bricked battery. $40,000. Which can be achieved by letting it go completeley dead, about 11 weeks of no charge just sitting doing nothing, or having ran it low and not recharging immediately.

Could a bricked Tesla battery cost you $40,000? | ExtremeTech

"Tesla’s owner’s manual says a fully charged Roadster battery will last 11 weeks. But there’s also a warning that a car left to sit for more than two weeks should be plugged into Tesla’s $2,000 special charger. A car low on power could also be done in by a power cord that comes unplugged, a circuit breaker or ground fault interrupter that trips, or a long extension cord that can’t handle the current flow. It’s one more thing to worry about if you leave for an extended trip
In the case of a Tesla, you apparently can’t just do a deep and loving recharge: no battery version of the dent wizard. When the battery bricks, or fully discharges, you replace the battery pack at a cost of around $40,000 ($32,000 plus labor and taxes). It’s not covered by the Tesla warranty or car insurance. You can buy a $12,000 replacement policy that would cover a worn out battery but not a dead-from-total-discharge battery while the car is under warranty. TheUnderstatement contends at least five of 2,200 Tesla Roadsters have suffered this condition and Tesla has ways to track battery condition remotely, via on-board telematics monitoring, and attempts to contact owners. The story can’t make up its mind whether this is a good thing (Tesla just saved you forty large) or bad thing (Big Brother and all).



Has the cost gotten cheaper since 2012?



A fellow in town just bought a 2012 model for $10K and is totally enamored with it. 30,000 miles and it needs new tires. Guess he has not figured out that tires worn out at 30K miles indicates some interesting past life. Has had it for three days. He thinks his 115 volt garage outlet will be sufficient to keep it going. The nearest Tesla charger station is about 25 miles away.


I figure in a year or so I'll offer him 100 bucks for it.

 

[Zathras]

The roadster battery pack did not have the idiot protections present in the Model S battery packs.
Not many Roadster owners shipped their Roadsters to Japan by boat (unplugged), then shipped it back to the U.S. (Still without plugging it in).
There were two confirmed cases of people that ignored the warnings that a plugged in Tesla is a happy Tesla and left the car unplugged for months on end.

The S goes into various deeper and deeper stages of sleep to protect the battery and does not allow the owner to drive it down as close to zero as the Roadster did.

As for costs, the batteries are covered by a 8 year unlimited (85kWh)/125,000 mile (60kWh) warranty which covers pretty much everything except intentional damage.

If your friend bought a Model S for $10,000 he bought a salvage and has more guts than I

I should add, the 110 outlet will be sufficient if he drives 40-50 miles a day. That is about what you will get from an overnight charge on a 110.

 

[aja8888]

A fellow in town just bought a 2012 model for $10K and is totally enamored with it. 30,000 miles and it needs new tires. Guess he has not figured out that tires worn out at 30K miles indicates some interesting past life. Has had it for three days. He thinks his 115 volt garage outlet will be sufficient to keep it going. The nearest Tesla charger station is about 25 miles away.


I figure in a year or so I'll offer him 100 bucks for it.

Yeah, but you may need a $40,000 battery then.

 

[ERD50]

The roadster battery pack did not have the idiot protections present in the Model S battery packs. ...

Interesting how you put that.

It can't possibly be a shortcoming of the Tesla, no, it is the 'idiot' who let the battery die.

Kind of like if the car doesn't have enough range for an unplanned side-trip, it must be the driver's fault!

A bit more seriously, I realize the battery brick problem is (was?) only under extreme circumstances. It's a part of the leaning curve with new technology - not everything is going to be the same as the old stuff. But considering the cost of a battery pack, not an small issue either.

On a related note - I don't think I ever heard much about the SW changes to reduce the phantom draw on the batteries/charger. What kind of power does it need that never makes it to the motor? I'm not sure how it was measured, seems usage specific?

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

Don't get me wrong, sure the Tesla has shortcomings.
Tell me, how would you describe someone that hasn't changed the oil in there car after 50,000 miles even after being told about the recommended 3000 mile oil change intervals? I'd call them both idiots.

The phantom draw depends upon user settings (how immediate you want the app to connect to the car). Each day the car looses between 2-5 miles, which equates to about .65-1.65 kWh.

 

[ls99]

Yeah, but you may need a $40,000 battery then.

For a hundred bucks, it could be a fun experimental project. Initially remove the Tesla badges then remove/disable the high tech crap. Replace with a golf cart motor and a Rolls deep cycle battery or two for going to the grocery store and diner each 4 miles away.

Then see about getting a volume discount on 3000 eneloop AA batteries.

All sorts of fun could be had.

 

[samclem]

The phantom draw depends upon user settings (how immediate you want the app to connect to the car). Each day the car looses between 2-5 miles, which equates to about .65-1.65 kWh.

So, sitting in the garage the Tesla "burns" about 1 pound of coal per day, or 8 cubic feet of natural gas per day (if that's how my electricity is generated). Add another 25% or so for transmission/conversion losses. Every day, mandatory, whether the car is driven or not. I wonder if the EPA's MPGe figures for electric cars include these phantom losses? They wouldn't be much in the grand scale of things, but they are there (over 3% of the average US household's electricity use of 909 kwh/month)

 

[ERD50]

Don't get me wrong, sure the Tesla has shortcomings.
Tell me, how would you describe someone that hasn't changed the oil in there car after 50,000 miles even after being told about the recommended 3000 mile oil change intervals? I'd call them both idiots. ...

I mostly agree. My response was a bit tongue-in-cheek, in the context of the 'range anxiety' posts.

The phantom draw depends upon user settings (how immediate you want the app to connect to the car). Each day the car looses between 2-5 miles, which equates to about .65-1.65 kWh.

So, sitting in the garage the Tesla "burns" about 1 pound of coal per day, or 8 cubic feet of natural gas per day (if that's how my electricity is generated). Add another 25% or so for transmission/conversion losses. Every day, mandatory, whether the car is driven or not. I wonder if the EPA's MPGe figures for electric cars include these phantom losses? They wouldn't be much in the grand scale of things, but they are there (over 3% of the average US household's electricity use of 909 kwh/month)

And when you consider that the average EV owner is likely to drive fewer miles than the overall average, because people who have to drive many miles a day won't be purchasing them, and often the EV is a 'second car', and probably won't be used on the occasional longer trips, this effect, though relatively small, will be amplified on a per mile basis.

If EVs had a clear environmental advantage over other choices w/o range issues ('regular' hybrids), it would be different. But these little things just take them from 'meh' to worse (environmentally).

I fully expect some form of hybrid, or other technology to continue to surpass the EV in environmental terms. Advances in batteries help hybrids as well. I don't think we are at the end of the road with hybrid performance. And maybe the next big thing (I posted in another thread) is the full series hybrid with a micro-turbine? Ceramics, nano-composites, and other advances in material science might make the micro-turbine feasible for passenger vehicles?

Or we might figure a way to harness the waste heat from the engines? Adding a 5th and 6th cycle to an ICE is being looked at - the extra power cycle draws on the normal waste heat, reducing/eliminating the need for water-cooling - you get a lighter engine (offset some by lower average power - the extra power stroke isn't that powerful, and adds time between the 'real' power strokes).

But batteries and motors and controllers are already very efficient - not much to improve on, other than weight, cost and 'fussiness'. I doubt they can keep up with innovation in other areas. Really.

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

Looks like that is about right.
That pound of coal is much less than non-hybrids burn (energy wise) while sitting in traffic, or far less than they simply burn off as wasted heat and noise.

Add to the GHG advantages for 60% of the population (using 2012 grid numbers, http://blog.ucsusa.org/how-do-electric-cars-compare-with-gas-cars-656) the local pollution advantages of not spewing out carcinogenic fumes into neighborhoods and city streets and the advantage is pretty clear.

Only for those whose range needs are met though.

 

[ERD50]

Looks like that is about right.
That pound of coal is much less than non-hybrids burn (energy wise) while sitting in traffic, or far less than they simply burn off as wasted heat and noise.

Add to the GHG advantages for 60% of the population (using 2012 grid numbers, How do EVs Compare with Gas-Powered Vehicles? Better Every Year…. - The Equation) the local pollution advantages of not spewing out carcinogenic fumes into neighborhoods and city streets and the advantage is pretty clear.

Only for those whose range needs are met though.

I've already pointed out how biased that report is. They compare to 'average' cars. But if you want to be environmentally friendly, you would look at the most environmental options. And do they include this phantom loss?

I'm not going to rehash the numbers, they are in this thread, .. here:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/more-on-the-tesla-electric-car-60733-3.html#post1329959

and a small excerpt of that exchange:

Quote from 'State of Charge': 45% of the population in 2009 lived in an area of the country where the GHG emissions of the typical EV is better than that of the Prius.

And ERD50 says: So for 55% of the population, the EV is worse than a Prius.

IIRC, the Prius isn't the best of the hybrids either...

If you like your Tesla, that's cool. I just don't think it deserves any 'green cred'. Unless you want to compare it to other performance cars, but that's not really a green area, is it?

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

I've already pointed out how biased that report is. They compare to 'average' cars.
...

If you like your Tesla, that's cool. I just don't think it deserves any 'green cred'. Unless you want to compare it to other performance cars, but that's not really a green area, is it?

-ERD50

This is true, they compare "average cars".
They also compare electrics to the most fuel efficient gas car out there, which yes, is the Prius (using EPA numbers).
They actually have boiled it down to a very easy to read map showing the greenhouse gas equivalent mpg rating in each region.

The info you quoted from their original study (45% of the population) has been updated to 60% as the EVs have gotten more fuel efficient.
And that is 60% of the population that lives in areas where an electric car is cleaner that a Prius.

I think electrics deserve more green cred than they get considering they local pollution gas cars emit.
The Tesla is a laggard when it comes to efficiencies of electric cars, but outstanding when compared to all the cars out there.

 

[Brat]

I have observed many solar paneled roofs over parking with EV power plugs in the Silicon Valley. I doubt that the vehicles are powered at those locations are using electricity generated by coal or oil. Those that are plugged in at night are consuming electricity when generating facilities are wheeling more than is being consumed.

The energy and materials used in the production of batteries is a different calculus.

 

[ERD50]

I have observed many solar paneled roofs over parking with EV power plugs in the Silicon Valley. I doubt that the vehicles are powered at those locations are using electricity generated by coal or oil. Those that are plugged in at night are consuming electricity when generating facilities are wheeling more than is being consumed.

The energy and materials used in the production of batteries is a different calculus.

We discussed this a while back - w/o the EV the solar panels would be reducing grid use and lowering pollution, adding the EV adds a draw from the grid, any way you slice it:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/more-on-the-tesla-electric-car-60733-3.html#post1331206

short excerpt:

So we can see, adding solar cuts their grid pollution, and adding an EV increases the grid pollution. It makes no difference if they are done together or separately, one before the other or vice-versa. As I said earlier, they each need to stand on their own, there is no multiplier effect.

So there is no justification for saying that having solar means they are charging their EV in a 'clean' way. The EV must be measured against other available vehicles. I can buy a pure hybrid and buy solar too. So compare apples-apples.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

This is true, they compare "average cars".
They also compare electrics to the most fuel efficient gas car out there, which yes, is the Prius (using EPA numbers).
They actually have boiled it down to a very easy to read map showing the greenhouse gas equivalent mpg rating in each region.

The info you quoted from their original study (45% of the population) has been updated to 60% as the EVs have gotten more fuel efficient.
And that is 60% of the population that lives in areas where an electric car is cleaner that a Prius.

I think electrics deserve more green cred than they get considering they local pollution gas cars emit.
The Tesla is a laggard when it comes to efficiencies of electric cars, but outstanding when compared to all the cars out there.

And did they include the phantom power? I'm not even sure that study includes the charging losses (was the watts/mile measured from the battery?), or the evironmental production 'costs' (batteries), which must be amortized over the life of the battery/vehicle.

I think you are giving too much weight to the 'local' pollution issue. It is still pollution, and being 100's of times higher in some cases (I'd have to go back to find the exact numbers, but I think it was ~ 100x for NOx and several hundred x for SOx). Last time I checked, acid rain was not a 'local' issue. There are a lot of coal plants in some fairly populated areas, some are right within Chicago (may have just recently been closed?).

The attached chart shows a much higher cost for the externalities for a grid-powered EV compared to a hybrid. It shows pretty clearly the overall health effects from coal. Chart from the National Academy of Sciences:

Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States

Our approach combines spatially, temporally, and chemically detailed life cycle emission inventories; comprehensive, fine-scale state-of-the-science chemical transport modeling; and exposure, concentration–response, and economic health impact modeling for ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). We find that powering vehicles with corn ethanol or with coal-based or “grid average” electricity increases monetized environmental health impacts by 80% or more relative to using conventional gasoline.

Again, looking at the big picture, none of this matters unless EVs make up some significant % of the miles driven. I have trouble picturing EVs making up say, 30% of miles driven. Since many would be used for shorter drives, and/or as a second car, that means more than 30% of the vehicles, so maybe 40%? IIRC, the average age of the fleet is > 10 years, so even if every car sold from today on was an EV, it would take years to hit 40% - and do 40% of the car buying public have access to charging ports that would support those kinds of miles (a 110 outlet probably won't hack it for regular use). Lots of people park in lots or the street. I just don't see it happening, and I don't see any reason why it should happen - the advantages are not that great (other than comparing high-performance sports cars - a limited market).

But, people can (and do!) buy hybrids today - and get all those environmental benefits today, w/o any added restrictions to their driving habits. And at a fairly low cost. It is much easier to picture a high % of the fleet as hybrids, than it is EVs, for all those reasons.

While EVs can utilize 'green' energy, when will the grid actually be green enough to really make a difference? And what other advances will be made by then, outside of EVs? Hybrids are not standing still either.

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

Great new feature on Tesla automobiles:

 

[calmloki]

NOT an EE. or an E.. That said, could this be the proverbial game changer?

Engineering three-dimensional hybrid supercapacitors and microsupercapacitors for high-performance integrated energy storage

"Batteries run just about everything portable in our lives such as smartphones, tablets, computers, etc. Although we have become accustomed to the rapid improvement of portable electronics, the slow development of batteries is holding back technological progress. Thus, it is imperative to develop new energy storage devices that are compact, reliable, and energy dense, charge quickly, and possess both long cycle life and calendar life. Here, we developed hybrid supercapacitors that can store as much charge as a lead acid battery, yet they can be recharged in seconds compared with hours for conventional batteries".

 

[ERD50]

NOT an EE. or an E.. That said, could this be the proverbial game changer? ....

Here, we developed hybrid supercapacitors that can store as much charge as a lead acid battery, yet they can be recharged in seconds compared with hours for conventional batteries".

I'll have to look later to see if 'as much charge as a lead acid battery' is good enough for an EV, but off-hand I doubt it, that's why they use lithium batteries. I need to see if that is based on energy per weight and/or energy per volume.

But I can address this one from knowledge in my memory:

'recharged in seconds compared with hours'

That is something that always impresses the less technical, but it really isn't that big a deal. You can't break the laws of physics, battery charge cycles are pretty efficient (~ 90%), so if you charge it in half the time, you need to supply twice the power (amps x volts).

Seconds versus hours is a 3600x ratio, but that might be journalistic shorthand, let's take some realistic example, like stopping to recharge for the next 100 miles.

Telsa says it takes ~ 3 hours to charge for 100 miles with a 240V/40A outlet. That's 240*40 watts = 9.6 kW.

So to charge in ten minutes (600 seconds), that is only 18x faster (not 3600x), but we would need to provide 18x the power. A 240V, 720 AMP connector would be huge, and require huge conductors in the leads to this capacitor.

The Tesla 'superchargers' provide about half that (on a quick look, I need to 2x check that), 170 miles on a 30 minute charge?. I'm sure those superchargers are not cheap.

Probably just another 'breakthrough' like millions of others, but we will see.

More importantly, IMO, this would do almost nothing to change the fact that EVs aren't environmental in the first place (see my previous post), a super-cap EV would still need grid power which is dirtier than a hybrid, so why do we even want to pursue EVs (other than as a performance sports car)?

-ERD50

 

[Totoro]

a super-cap EV would still need grid power which is dirtier than a hybrid, so why do we even want to pursue EVs (other than as a performance sports car)?

Because it's easier to clean up one power station vs. a million tailpipes.

It also improves local air quality where quality is usually poorest (in dense cities).

 

[ERD50]

Because it's easier to clean up one power station vs. a million tailpipes.

This makes sense at one level, but then why haven't we done it?

.. It also improves local air quality where quality is usually poorest (in dense cities). ...

See my post #442, here's the report:

Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States


it accounts for the 'local' affect - EVs on the present grid are far worse for the environment than a hybrid. And more people can drive hybrids today, w/o needing to install a charger, or worry about it if you don;t have access to a charger, and range issues no worse than present vehicles .

If sometime in the future, the grid is clean enough for EVs to be a better environmental choice than a hybrid (or other alternative - all of which will be improving on their own, and moving the goal-posts), then we might want to use them. But all those additional EVs will require more power from the grid, meaning even more renewable power will be needed to make the grid greener. But why EVs today? Makes no environmental sense to me.

Given what we know, I have no idea why self proclaimed 'environmentalists' are promoting EVs. Seems to me they have found their 'solution', and don't want to be confused by any pesky facts.

-ERD50

 

[Totoro]

We are cleaning up power, a bit slower in the US than most other places. Solar in California is now at 5% of total electricity use someone else posted somewhere here (yay for my vagueness). I think most current forecasts will put solar up near 30% within 20 years in most regions of the developed world?

Also EV is a tiny tiny market right now. These things need time - cars have a lifetime of up to 20 years. You won't have a sudden EV fleet and infrastructure market overnight if (when rather) all power is green.

At some point you have to start, why not now? Helps develop the infrastructure, learn the dynamics, build scale, drive down the costs .. there is no reason to wait. By the time EV starts making serious headway power will be clean(er) and we'll be ready.

Hybrids will get you there eventually too (bigger and bigger battery), but much slower. It makes sense to take the added environment and inefficiency hit right now to speed up adoption and conversion. In the end, full EVs are by definition less complex so should be cheaper, better and cleaner than hybrids (*).

Also, in other countries renewables are already much higher, so they already make sense there enviromentally speaking (maybe Germany, I believe Portugal too?).

(*) The biggest hurdle remains economical. Big battery doesn't have enough energy density (by weight and cost), needs to come down by a factor four to be viable in the marketplace. Luckily, there are hopeful VCs, irrational environmentalists and governments helping to create scale and push innovation.

But yes, you are right there is no real end of the world burning platform there. In fact, investment is probably better off in areas like better insulation and industrial energy efficiency. I guess that's no sexy as a topic, so there's that too ..

 

[samclem]

However, IMHO, the real issue is not one type of fuel versus another, but, the ongoing usefulness of private autos versus public transportation in the high density big cities. (Smaller cities, small towns and very rural areas are another matter entirely.)

I think the self-driving car will help with a lot of this, at least in the "not dense enough for true mass transit" areas. If the car can come when you call it, then it can be physically parked 20-30 minutes from where you are located (at work or home). In the city/near-city, highly-dense car parking mechanisms (automatically rack-n-stack cars with no need to be able to open the doors, etc) will enable cars to be stored with great space efficiency.
And self-driving cars make car-sharing services (Zipcar, etc) very practical, which can significantly reduce the total number of vehicles that need to be parked in the first place (most cars sit parked 90%+ of the time, there's clearly a lot of potential to get a higher use rate from each one, particularly if work schedules can be flexed a little).

The self-driving car brings so much more than "now I can just sit there and let the car do the driving". That part is really no big deal (except for handicapped folks who cannot drive). The bigger deal is that it gives greater flexibility in how cars can be used as part of a total transportation system.

Traffic congestion: "Dual Mode" technologies are highly promising--cars that can travel on regular roads that are also capable of traveling (via platforms or suspended tracks) on highly-dense, automatically switched/routed tracks. A single track can carry as many vehicles as a 6 lane highway, and can make use of the existing highway right-of-ways (saving a lot of money). 60 MPH to and from the city, and you are already in the car you'll need to go that last few miles (so no waiting for a connection). Self-driving EVs would be a natural for this.

 

[Fermion]

Imagine shorting out a 240V 7200 amp connector for a 60 second recharge. Got some coins you want to shrink?