More on the Tesla electric car

[Chuckanut]

This article updates us on what is happening with the Tesla electric car - in particular the Model S. It also notes that Tesla took advantage of the recent problems in the auto industry to buy equipment for pennies on the dollar. However, the $7500 tax credit for people to buy electric cars does not sit well with me.

Tesla Takes Luxurious Route to the Electric Car - WSJ.com

Also interesting are the comments on the Volt and the Leaf.

 

[Zathras]

Nice article, one of the better ones I have seen in a while, thanks

Not a big fan of subsidies myself. But while the government is subsidizing other private businesses I am not going to get bent out of shape over any single subsidy more than others.

 

[ziggy29]

As far as the subsidies go, it's true, but if you think of all the subsidies the gas-powered car received in the last 75 years or so (gas taxes don't pay for it all)....

 

[ERD50]

Not a big fan of subsidies myself. But while the government is subsidizing other private businesses I am not going to get bent out of shape over any single subsidy more than others.

But since you are a fan of EVs, and want to see wider adoption, you should get bent out of shape over this subsidy.

1) It casts a negative light on EVS - others can (and do) use it as a target and an example of why EVS can't 'make it on their own merits', etc.

2) Subsidies can actually slow adoption.

3) It is a lost opportunity - I would think you would/should be upset about this. Let's focus on this one:

I can't imagine that a single Tesla Roadster owner made a go/no-go decision based on a $7,500 rebate for a $109,000 car. If a few did, I'm sure there were other buyers in line to replace them. So that is (roughly) 2,000 * $7,500 = $15 million dollars in lost opportunity to date. Money that didn't do squat to promote EVs, but just handed out to rich people buying rich people toys. If we were to subsidize the EV industry, wouldn't it make a LOT more sense to invest $15 million directly into battery research? Battery performance is the big RED X, not whether a manufacturer makes a few incremental sales because of a rebate.

The Model S is in a $57-$98,000 price range. Again, not exactly the area where the typical buyer is looking through his/her bank account to see if they can scrape up that last $7,500. More lost opportunuity.

If anything, Tesla should be able to offer the subsidy as needed, and reserve the 250,000 unit limit to use later. If/when they come out with a $30,000 model, well then a $7,500 subsidy could actually affect sales in a meaningful way. They might use up their subsidy before they reach that price point. But for people buying the car largely to make a statement, or just because they want one for the technology, I don't think $7,500 is a deal maker or breaker. It's a gift.

to ziggy's comments: two wrongs don't make a right. And let's not forget that EVs won't be paying those gas taxes to support the roads they drive on. Another gift.


-ERD50

 

[Bestwifeever]

As far as the subsidies go, it's true, but if you think of all the [-]subsidies the gas-powered car received in the last 75 years or so (gas taxes don't pay for it all)...[/-] deductions people happily and without question take for their mortgage interest every year it's a drop in the tax bucket

 

[ERD50]

deductions people happily and without question take for their mortgage interest every year it's a drop in the tax bucket

I can only speak for myself, but I don't take the mortgage deduction w/o question, and I'd be happy to see it eliminated if it was part of a sweeping simplification of tax code.

and

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

And let's not forget that EVs won't be paying those gas taxes to support the roads they drive on. Another gift.
-ERD50

Legislatures have already brought that up in my home state. They are considering adding an extra fee to the the license fees paid by an electric car. IMHO, this is only fair.

My other thought is that electric cars only make environmental sense if there is plenty of extra electricity production capacity from relatively non-polluting sources. If the local utility has to build another coal fired plant to charge all the electric cars, we may be defeating the purpose of them.

 

[ERD50]

Legislatures have already brought that up in my home state. They are considering adding an extra fee to the the license fees paid by an electric car. IMHO, this is only fair.

My other thought is that electric cars only make environmental sense if there is plenty of extra electricity production capacity from relatively non-polluting sources. If the local utility has to build another coal fired plant to charge all the electric cars, we may be defeating the purpose of them.

Well, we have hashed out the coal issues on other threads, so I don't think I want to re-hash it here. But a thought did cross my mind today, so I will share it here:

A) An EV, which uses electricity generated by a variety of sources ( ~ 49% coal on average in the US) is referred to as 'Zero Pollution'.

B) An incandescent light bulb, which uses electricity generated by a variety of sources ( ~ 49% coal on average) is referred to in derogatory terms.

How can that be? The electricity doesn't create any pollution when powering an EV, but is the devils work if it lights my closet one minute a week?

-ERD50

 

[TromboneAl]

But a thought did cross my mind today, so I will share it here:

A) An EV, which uses electricity generated by a variety of sources ( ~ 49% coal on average in the US) is referred to as 'Zero Pollution'.

B) An incandescent light bulb, which uses electricity generated by a variety of sources ( ~ 49% coal on average) is referred to in derogatory terms.

How can that be? The electricity doesn't create any pollution when powering an EV, but is the devil's work if it lights my closet one minute a week?

-ERD50

I'm puzzled here, because you are a smart, thoughtful guy, yet the answer is obvious. Incandescents are vilified only because they consume significantly more energy for the same amount of light compared with CFLs. This is unrelated to your arguments against CFLs (subsidies, light quality, etc.).

If there were two otherwise-identical EVs, and one used five times as much energy, it would be referred to in derogatory terms, just as Hummers are.

 

[ERD50]

I'm puzzled here, because you are a smart, thoughtful guy, yet the answer is obvious. Incandescents are vilified only because they consume significantly more energy for the same amount of light compared with CFLs. This is unrelated to your arguments against CFLs (subsidies, light quality, etc.).

If there were two otherwise-identical EVs, and one used five times as much energy, it would be referred to in derogatory terms, just as Hummers are.

Well, it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, to make a point. The point being, if an EV is touted as "Zero Pollution", than a light bulb using the same energy source should also be called "Zero Pollution", right?

Now, a CFL may use 1/4 the energy of an incandescent, but what is 1/4 of ZERO?

And just to be clear, I do use CFLs in some high use sockets, where the light is OK for me, and that are not dimable circuits. I don't drive a hummer or an EV.

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

I see that the Tesla Model S is the Motor Trend Car of the Year for 2012.

Tesla Model S wins Motor Trend's Car of the Year. Are electric cars here to stay? - CSMonitor.com

I am not a big fan of the MT car of the year award. I don't think I have ever purchased one in my life. I must admit, though, to being very interested in what Consumer Reports will say about the Tesla Model S when they get around to testing it. Here is an article on their initial impressions. As always, wait for the FULL test report.

http://news.consumerreports.org/car...he-electric-car-that-shatters-every-myth.html

 

[Zathras]

... As always, wait for the FULL test report.

Tesla Model S - The electric car that shatters every myth

You wait, I will be enjoying the best driving experience I have ever had

 

[Lazarus]

A 100 K car. No way I will ever have one. No matter how good they are. I bought a nice F 150 for 15 K. Leaving 85 K for gas, oil, maintenance and insurance. 50 K of gas would get me about 300 k miles. Longer than the truck would last.

I am sure its a great car but its not feasible for most people. Including me.

 

[Zathras]

A 100 K car. No way I will ever have one. No matter how good they are. I bought a nice F 150 for 15 K. Leaving 85 K for gas, oil, maintenance and insurance. 50 K of gas would get me about 300 k miles. Longer than the truck would last.

I am sure its a great car but its not feasible for most people. Including me.

Oh sure, you can spend that much if you pay for one of the first 1200 signature editions with all the possible options including the performance version.
I am guessing more people will be buying the 57k model.

It's kind of funny. I would never buy a luxury sedan like a BMW, Mercedes, etc. but the drive experience really won me over. If one of those guys would build an EV I would consider it now.

 

[Lazarus]

Oh sure, you can spend that much if you pay for one of the first 1200 signature editions with all the possible options including the performance version.
I am guessing more people will be buying the 57k model.

It's kind of funny. I would never buy a luxury sedan like a BMW, Mercedes, etc. but the drive experience really won me over. If one of those guys would build an EV I would consider it now.

The max I have ever paid for a car is 16 K. For a new 2000 Honda Accord.
Drove it till it died.

 

[ERD50]

The max I have ever paid for a car is 16 K. For a new 2000 Honda Accord.
Drove it till it died.

Tesla was very clever - they make luxury/performance class vehicles that sell for a high price, so they can 'bury' the high cost of the batteries at that price point.

I think it will be some time before we see a 200+ mile range EV at a Honda Accord price point. And who knows where competing technologies will be by then?

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

The max I have ever paid for a car is 16 K. For a new 2000 Honda Accord.
Drove it till it died.

Which is wonderful, glad that has worked for you. I just wanted to make sure no one got the incorrect impression that the Model S was a "$100,000 car".

 

[Zathras]

Tesla was very clever - they make luxury/performance class vehicles that sell for a high price, so they can 'bury' the high cost of the batteries at that price point.

I think it will be some time before we see a 200+ mile range EV at a Honda Accord price point. And who knows where competing technologies will be by then?

-ERD50

The other thing Tesla did was to build a car that not only matched the other luxury cars out their, but in the drive experience far surpassed them

I look forward to competing technologies surpassing EVs for my driving needs. I don't see it happening, but more competition is good, so bring it on!

 

[Lazarus]

Found an article on what happens if you let a Tesla battery go all the way dead. It must be replaced and it is not covered under warranty.


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

 

[ERD50]

The other thing Tesla did was to build a car that not only matched the other luxury cars out their, but in the drive experience far surpassed them

I don't have enough experience with cars in that price range to have an opinion on that. We will see whether buyers in that price range agree in large numbers - though certainly the quietness and torque are attractions that you just can't get with any ICE.

Bold mine:

I look forward to competing technologies surpassing EVs for my driving needs. I don't see it happening, but more competition is good, so bring it on!

That's cool, but to me the larger question is whether EVs meet the needs of large numbers of drivers. Until they do reach big numbers, any environmental benefits (which I believe may be very marginal to possibly non-existent to begin with) are not even a drop in the bucket. Much ado about very little, IMO (environmental impact-wise). Though I do find the technology interesting, and I like to follow the advances.

-ERD50

 

[Midpack]

Oh sure, you can spend that much if you pay for one of the first 1200 signature editions with all the possible options including the performance version.
I am guessing more people will be buying the 57k model.

It's kind of funny. I would never buy a luxury sedan like a BMW, Mercedes, etc. but the drive experience really won me over. If one of those guys would build an EV I would consider it now.

Even $57K is about twice the cost of the average new vehicle, and far more than the average price people pay for cars (new and used). For most people, it seems like a lot for an eco-chic (second car) commuter. Most people probably don't want to be restricted to a practical range of 100 miles (200 RT) without having to find and wait for recharging for a primary car. In that significant respect, the Model S is not a viable alternative to a 57K luxury ICE or hybrid...but we'll see where EV technology goes. Or if re-urbanization takes hold, who knows...

 

[Chuckanut]

Let's face it, the Tesla, along with the Volt and the Leaf are expensive toys. Even at $5 a gallon, the pay back is long, even longer if the Feds remove the the tax breaks. But.... what Tesla has done (IMHO) is advance the technology to the point where the Model S is a much more practical expensive toy than electric cars used to be. The shorter charging times is one example of that.

As I recall, the founder of the company said first they built a small number of extremely expensive vehicles, now they are building a larger number of higher cost vehicles, and next they want to be able to mass produce much cheaper vehicles. We will see.

We won't get innovation if somebody doesn't stick his neck out and risk getting his head chopped off.

The next great need: a competitive low-pollution source of electricity to power these vehicles.

 

[ERD50]

But.... what Tesla has done (IMHO) is advance the technology to the point where the Model S is a much more practical expensive toy than electric cars used to be. The shorter charging times is one example of that. ...

I somewhat disagree on the charging time comment (unless I am misinformed on this - then please set me straight). I don't think Tesla made any great advance in charging times, that would have been done by the battery technology. This is the same technology that goes in laptops, cell phones, portable military gear, etc.

A small number of EVs are a drop in the bucket towards providing incentive to improve battery technology. There is plenty of motivation for that already.

The next great need: a competitive low-pollution source of electricity to power these vehicles.

Maybe, maybe not. Any competitive low-pollution source of electricity should be used to offset whatever the highest source/use of pollution is. That might be replacing coal plants. If we add this new power source, and then use it for EVs, we didn't eliminate any coal burning. If we add this new power source, and don't have EVs, we can use it to reduce coal burning.

EVs may fit into that equation, but they need to be measured against all the options.

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

Found an article on what happens if you let a Tesla battery go all the way dead. It must be replaced and it is not covered under warranty.


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

Are you intentionally trying to mislead people?
Yes, you could drain the battery in a Tesla Roadster to the point of damaging it if you drained the battery 100% by letting it sit for months without charging.
The battery pack in the Tesla Model S is much more robust and will take much longer for that to happen, if ever.
And yes, I am sure if someone really tried hard they could damage the batteries. Likewise, I am sure if you really tried you could harm an ICE vehicle. Probably a lot easier actually.

 

[Zathras]

Even $57K is about twice the cost of the average new vehicle, and far more than the average price people pay for cars (new and used). For most people, it seems like a lot for an eco-chic (second car) commuter. Most people probably don't want to be restricted to a practical range of 100 miles (200 RT) without having to find and wait for recharging for a primary car. In that significant respect, the Model S is not a viable alternative to a 57K luxury ICE or hybrid...but we'll see where EV technology goes. Or if re-urbanization takes hold, who knows...

Yes, it is priced much higher than the average car.
However, it is priced competitively with other luxury cars which is what it is shooting for.
For our family, it is our primary car. In the last 6 weeks about 85% of both m wife and my driving miles has been in the Model S. the most we have put on it in a single day has been about 130 miles (this is not in the base model). It very well could be our only car if push came to shove

I do agree though that electric cars in general don't work for everyone. I just think the number of people it does work for is enough to support a business plan.