More on the Tesla electric car

[ls99]

From the above data provided by Tesla (1 hr charging for 3 miles), I compute an energy consumption of 120V x 12A x 1hr = 1440Wh for 3 miles, or 480 Wh/mi. However, for highway cruising, the power should be lower, and I have seen numbers like 300 Wh/mi.

So, to sustain a speed of 60 mph continuously, we will need a generator of 20kW. Here's one that will do the job. It sits on a nice trailer to tow behind your Tesla. Vehicles take a lot more power to move than what most people, myself included, would imagine.

By the way, 20kW is only 27hp.

Better yet, Perpetual motion

A wind generator on top of the car recharging the batteries. The faster you go the faster the charge. Well maybe not, damned physics.

 

[Totoro]

This graph is nice (produced in 2012):

Current point for the US 2.5 - 3 $ per gallon and Tesla battery replacement is around $150 - $200 per kWh 2013 Model S Price Increase | Tesla Motors. The Gigafactory supposedly will push this down to $100 per kWh, just rumours though.

If you look at the price differential of the 40kWh and 85 kWh models prices are more in the 450$ range though.

So good thing for the gas engine that fuel prices plummeted

 

[NW-Bound]

The above chart applies to new vehicles. With depreciation of used vehicles, some EV's like the Nissan Leaf become very attractive.

If we did not already spend $13K for a home improvement project this year, I would be very tempted to get a used Leaf to make grocery runs. Thanks to Samclem who pointed this out, I checked and indeed found some Leaf's that went for around that money, and with so low mileage too because the Leaf has such a short range.

PS. Just checked again. Yep, there's one 2012 going for $14K asking, with a mere 12K miles.

 

[mpeirce]

Especially energy density is an issue: gasoline is roughly 45 MJ/KG, Li-Ion sits around 0.7 MJ/KG, that's a big gulf. Even if you consider burning gas is only 20% efficient (vs. 90%+ electric).

It turns out gasoline is pretty close to an ideal source of energy as far as density goes.

I read an article (can't find it, sorry...) that mentioned some military research. DARPA was looking at producing jet fuel from CO2 and Water. It could work with a sufficiently cheap energy source (who might have an idle nuclear reactor located on a vessel that needs jet fuel). Anyway, the article notes that for transportation like cars and airplanes (trains are different obviously) you might want to manufacture liquid fuels for transportation. Ultimately it's a closed loop system.

If only we had power too cheap to meter...

 

[ERD50]

This graph is nice (produced in 2012):

Current point for the US 2.5 - 3 $ per gallon and Tesla battery replacement is around $150 - $200 per kWh 2013 Model S Price Increase | Tesla Motors. The Gigafactory supposedly will push this down to $100 per kWh, just rumours though.

If you look at the price differential of the 40kWh and 85 kWh models prices are more in the 450$ range though.

So good thing for the gas engine that fuel prices plummeted

Thank you.

I find it interesting how the conversation changes when the facts that have been presented can't seem to be addressed. So then it's time to change the conversation from the environment to 'cost'. So first, EVs are the answer to all the environmental issues; but ooops, no, well - when the grid is greener; no, oopps - they require less maintenance; no ooops - they will cost less...

So your chart from 2011 bases watt hours per mile on some future anticipated 240 value. Yet, here we are in 2015, and actual watts per mile reported by Nissan Leaf owners (certainly a more conservative power user than the super performance Tesla) is 305.

Real-World Nissan LEAF Fleet Data Reveals...

I can't tell from that article, but I think this is the typically reported watt-hours/mile consumed from the battery - this neglects the charge losses (5%-10%? takes the 305 watt-hours per mile to ~ 325... ), and idle losses (~ 1 kWh per day for a Tesla? ) - so an imaginary 35%+ advantage to EVs from the start?

As far as Tesla offering replacements in the range of $150-200/kWh - but only after the 8th year, so this is a future price. But that appears to be discounted for 'brand loyalty'? I think the $450/kWh purchase differential is more relevant. But that still makes the replacement cost $8K-$12K, not a typical repair cost for an ICE vehicle, yet probably inevitable for an EV.

Do you have a link for the graphic, rather hard to comment w/o a better understanding of the underlying assumptions (and the fine print ones are already questionable)?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

OK, a quick look at your other link on Tesla driving battery prices lower:

EV is driving battery development already, and will dwarf the current secondary (rechargeable) battery market (which is $5 billion or so).

Tesla itself is aiming in 2020 for 500.000 cars to be EV (worldwide fleet is 2 billion) and with its gigafactory will double the worldwide battery production:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/gigafactory.pdf

As a result they expect battery costs to drop with at least 30%. ....

So they are counting on 500,00 vehicles sold with an average of ~ 70 kWh of battery pack by 2020? Just five years from now, and 2014 sales were ~ 33,000?

Let's see how that matches some of Elon's other projections (from wiki):

Model X

The Tesla Model X was unveiled at the company's design studios in Hawthorne, California February 9, 2012.[167] More than a thousand people attended the unveiling, at which Musk said the car would enter production in 2013.[168] In February 2013 Tesla announced that production had been rescheduled to begin by late 2014 in order to focus "on a commitment to bring profitability to the company in 2013" and to achieve their production target of 20,000 Model S cars in 2013.[169][170] The company began taking reservations for the vehicle in 2013 and said that deliveries would begin in 2014.[171][172]

In November 2013, Tesla confirmed the company expected to deliver the Model X in small numbers by end of 2014, with high volume production planned for the second quarter of 2015.[173] However, Tesla announced in February 2014 that in order to focus on overseas roll outs of the Model S during 2014, the company expects to have production design Model X prototypes by the end of 2014, to begin high-volume deliveries for retail customers in the second quarter of 2015.[174] In November 2014 Tesla ... announced the company expects Model X deliveries to begin in the third quarter of 2015.[175]

And still no price information from Tesla, for a vehicle that was to ship in 2013 ( and now late 2015 is an almost 4x extension). So let's not count our chickens before they are hatched.

Hey, I don't want to come across as too negative about Tesla/Musk. I think it is super-super impressive that they have delivered this new technology, and actually delivered production quantities. That is a tough, tough, tough thing to do in an established automobile market, and I really admire many things surrounding the roll out. I just don't think the environmental argument holds water. And I don't think the claims hanging on future hopes are to be counted on. Again, a viable alternative for environmentalists already exists - conservation and hybrids for those who need to drive many miles annually ( we drive < 6000 miles per vehicle, so a hybrid just doesn't pencil out for us).

-ERD50

 

[petershk]

Erd: I think it's hard to argue with your rationale .

The key in my mind is the replacement psychology. A 120k model S owner is not likely to decide between a prius and a bmw 5 series. The bimmer will always win so the environmental improvement vs the 5 is what is driving the adoption.

And that's true across the board with consumption.

Probably the best thing people can do is: stop flying (air travel is really bad for per capita carbon), live in smaller houses/apartments, closer to work (or work remote), buy less packaged goods, preferably ones grown locally (again transport is really bad), etc.

But in reality people who can afford 5000 sqft houses and blast heat and ac, travel for work 40% of the month and sit in traffic 2 hours a day are helping by buying energy efficient awesome appliances and LEDs.

Its preferable imo that people change the general framework but if they don't; optimizing the insane one to be more environmental is better than not .

So if all the 5 series people drive model Ses and all the Camry drivers get priuses... Whatever they need to tell themselves is fine by me .

That said I loved your thorough investigation. I didn't know that stuff. I try to avoid driving as much as possible and family thankfully lives in walking distance of almost everything.



Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[ERD50]

...
The key in my mind is the replacement psychology. A 120k model S owner is not likely to decide between a prius and a bmw 5 series. The bimmer will always win so the environmental improvement vs the 5 is what is driving the adoption.

True, a Tesla buyer is probably not in the market for a Prius, and the Tesla is probably a better environmental choice than other cars in the Tesla class.

But that's not what I'm concerned about, $100K cars are a pretty small market segment. I'm concerned about the claims of what EVs can do on a larger scale - something that some Tesla owners use to justify their 'early adopter' status.

... Probably the best thing people can do is: stop flying (air travel is really bad for per capita carbon), live in smaller houses/apartments, closer to work (or work remote), buy less packaged goods, preferably ones grown locally (again transport is really bad), etc. ...

Off topic from this thread, but a search might turn up our earlier debunking of this 'eat local' myth. In a nutshell, it isn't the miles that matter (speaking from an environmental viewpoint), it is the energy/resources used to deliver that food to your plate. Surprisingly, the inefficiencies in shipping relatively small amounts of food short distances have a large effect - shipping food in bulk long distances is far more efficient. Add in that if most people go even a fraction of a mile out of their way to attend a farmer's market (and still need to go to the main store for other produce), for just a few pounds of produce, the fuel/# of produce goes through the roof for 'eat local'.

You might like the varieties of produce, and the freshness and quality, and meeting the farmer, but 'eat local' probably is a big environmental loser - sorry. (Even worse if you drive an EV to get there! Hey, I brought it back on topic! )​

That said I loved your thorough investigation. I didn't know that stuff. I try to avoid driving as much as possible and family thankfully lives in walking distance of almost everything.

Thanks. I find it fascinating on two levels (which is why I spend as much time on it as I do). One is the tech/numbers level - I just like to try to understand this stuff, and try to break it down into figures we can wrap our heads around. Two, it's fascinating to me on a 'human behaviors' level - people seem to just want to believe what they want to believe, and really don't seem to want to know something if it conflicts with their preconceived notions.

I've never seen the value of trying to fool myself, and I think it's one of the things that have helped me have some success with finances. Seems many people I meet just 'want to believe' they can beat the market, or know something that others do not. I accept that I don't have any special knowledge like that, and it has kept me safe, I think.

I'm not in a very 'walkable' area, but we do try to consolidate trips as much as we can, so our miles are lower than average, and keep our cars a long time ( my 2000 Volvo S40 has ~ 73K miles) - that helps. A lot of my 'cheapskate' actions are more geared to me desire to not waste resources. I fix things so they don't go to a landfill, etc. I've never calculated the effect, but I have kept my water softener, furnace, DW, and washer/dryer lives extended probably 2x to 4x the life over what they would have been if I called a repair person, that likely would have recommended replacement over repair (which would probably be justified for them considering labor, liability, avoiding call backs, etc)

-ERD50

 

[calmloki]

Another battery option, with high speed recharging, safety, and high number of charge cycles.
Ultra-fast charging aluminum battery offers safe alternative to conventional batteries

 

[clifp]

Off topic from this thread, but a search might turn up our earlier debunking of this 'eat local' myth. In a nutshell, it isn't the miles that matter (speaking from an environmental viewpoint), it is the energy/resources used to deliver that food to your plate. Surprisingly, the inefficiencies in shipping relatively small amounts of food short distances have a large effect - shipping food in bulk long distances is far more efficient. Add in that if most people go even a fraction of a mile out of their way to attend a farmer's market (and still need to go to the main store for other produce), for just a few pounds of produce, the fuel/# of produce goes through the roof for 'eat local'.

You might like the varieties of produce, and the freshness and quality, and meeting the farmer, but 'eat local' probably is a big environmental loser - sorry. (Even worse if you drive an EV to get there! Hey, I brought it back on topic! )​

Thanks. I find it fascinating on two levels (which is why I spend as much time on it as I do). One is the tech/numbers level - I just like to try to understand this stuff, and try to break it down into figures we can wrap our heads around. Two, it's fascinating to me on a 'human behaviors' level - people seem to just want to believe what they want to believe, and really don't seem to want to know something if it conflicts with their preconceived notions.


-ERD50

The Sustainable Energy without the hot air book was real eye opener for me. I'm sure that farmer bringing couple hundred pound of produce from his organic farm 25 miles away, in his pickup truck, (they generally take 2 vehicles), to the farmers markets in downtown Honolulu, thinks he is helping saving the planet. Given the roughly 100-1 efficiency of cargo shipping vs pickup truck shipping I'm not sure he is.

Lately my pet peeve is this focus on rooftop garden on top of high rise apartment building. Do they think that pumping water up 20 or 30 stories doesn't consume energy... If you want to be green, put solar panels on the top there.

 

[unclemick]

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".

That would indeed be a game changer. 1967 worked with a team using capacitor bank to drive large experimental rivets. 1977 they were still taking oil cans out of rocket tanks with the mag hammer using capacitor bank discharge. The big charging cables in the factory were hooked to the power company. Progress in charge time, holding capacity and and controlling the discharge rate to the point I could afford it and use at household or small business level would indeed be a big time game changer.

heh heh heh -

 

[NW-Bound]

... The Gigafactory supposedly will push this down to $100 per kWh, just rumours though...

I don't have any skin in the game, nor know enough about Li-Ion technology to bet for or against Musk's battery initiative. But if he can get to the price point of $100/kWh, you are talking a major shakeup of several industries.

For example, many RV'ers use golf-cart batteries as they are better and last longer than marine deep-cycle batteries. A common form factor is the T-105, which is rated at 225Ah at 6V. As you can only discharge to 50% in order to have perhaps 2000 cycles, that's only 225 Ah x 6V x 50% = 675Wh. The cost: $150 or $222/kWh. The weight: 62 lbs (28 kg).

For comparison, a currently available lithium iron phosphate battery has the capacity of 512Wh, which can be drained to near 100%, weighs only 14.6 lbs (6.6 kg), but costs $248 for $484/kWh.

If the above lithium battery can be produced at the price point of $222/kWh to match the lead acid, who would want to use the latter? The lithium battery has several advantages over the lead-acid battery, in addition to the lower weight and size. These include: higher discharge currents, acceptance of a much higher charging current, flatter voltage during discharge, and a much lower Peukert factor.

 

[Koolau]

For a 1200 watt generator, a Tesla only gets about 3 miles for an hour of charging (120V 12A supply):


So that little generator would be humming for a long, long time - 3 hours just to get 10 miles out from your 'stuck' zone.

-ERD50

Heh, heh. Thanks for the info. I guess I won't buy a generator for my Tesla. Wait! I don't have one. Selling both of my ICE cars right now wouldn't net me enough to buy a replacement Tesla battery pack. Still, I love the technology and I can see (probably in the distant future) when everyone will have an EV. Maybe not in my life time, though.

 

[Koolau]

I drive that major highway (King St) three time a week between the hours of 5-6PM on the whole length of the bike lane. I can say in the 4 or 5 months its been operating I have seen less than 10 bikes on the bike lane ever. I will say that I've always considered Honolulu to be potentially a very bikeable city, due to weather and a relatively flat areas. However, I've know so many folks training for triathlons that have had accident with cars, that I would have certainly advocate bike lanes. But it clearly has been a waste of money. On the other hand compared to the $10 billion that Honolulu will spend for the ugly, poorly conceived light rail system the bike lane is a bargain as token green gesture.

Yup. King St. Wasn't certain anyone would recognize the name. I still haven't figured out who has the right-of-way if, for instance, a car wants to turn left across the bike lane. I can foresee a bike T-boning me at 20 mph on King, just when I want to turn left into a parking lot. As it is, few if any bikes obey traffic signals/regulations. As bike numbers increase, there are increasing numbers of bike/pedestrian accidents as well. I'm not anti bike, but you can't just suddenly integrate bikes with autos and not expect issues.

Regarding the light rail. Don't get me started. The whole thing was a ploy to extract a billion Federal dollars to buy union votes. They got the votes, but now they may not get the billion dollars. Talked to many who know light rail is really stupid, but their brother or next-door-neighbor or dad or cousin or uncle or mother or aunt, or sister's best friend works a union job which will benefit from the work. So, (supposedly) when we all (supposedly) voted, (supposedly) rail was "approved" by the populace. When it looked like the light rail backers were losing, they said the vote was only advisory. When it came out their way, they said it was official public approval. In 10 years, if they ever actually complete the thing, it will be obvious to all what a ridiculous and outrageously expensive (and as clifp indicates "ugly") idea it was. But, by then, those who benefited from it will be retired and beyond any consequences. It's just one of those "price of Paradise" things you have to deal with. After all, there are probably some advantages to living in N. Korea - or even Massachusetts. End of rant (for now.) Opposing views welcome as YMMV.

 

[HFWR]

Of course, freight rail, highways, and airports received Federal dollars as well...

Not that I've done any exhaustive research, but it seems doubtful that high-speed, or even moderate-speed, rail makes economic sense, except in certain cases. But if a rail network were to suddenly appear, I'd probably use it, though mostly for recreational travel.

 

[Chuckanut]

Here's an interesting quote from Elon Musk on battery improvments:

Battery "breakthroughs" need to state power *and* energy density (not the same thing), plus how long they last. They usually fail on energy.

 

[ERD50]

Here's an interesting quote from Elon Musk on battery improvments:

For a little geeky fun, use the google 'site' feature to search the word 'breakthrough' on any of the 'green' web sites (I use a plug-in/extension to make this convenient).

site:www.treehugger.com breakthrough

Every problem in the world is on the edge of being solved by hundreds of 'breakthroughs'.

For even more geeky fun, limit the search to older than 5 years, and then see if you can find any follow-up on the 'breakthrough'.

-ERD50

 

[ls99]

......

Regarding the light rail. Don't get me started. The whole thing was a ploy to extract a billion Federal dollars to buy union votes. They got the votes, but now they may not get the billion dollars. .....

I spent nearly 15 years in the "light rail" bsiness. As the systems are currently and in recent past implemented, they are nothing but political self aggradisement, immensly expensive both to build and operate. The vehicles themselves are way overcomplicated. The routes often have no real purpose, such as to maximize suburban access to routes which would minimize car use.

They do give first preference by state laws to outfits like Reatarded Persons Associations with providing Night cleaning crew jobs, to clean cars. shops, offices and station platforms. Next preference is given to prisoners for the same jobs. At least that was true in Maryland.

Most of the systems I looked at are just godawful. The only way to make more expensive boondoggles is the elevated version.

 

[samclem]

I spent nearly 15 years in the "light rail" bsiness. As the systems are currently and in recent past implemented, they are nothing but political self aggradisement, immensly expensive both to build and operate.

There's an elevated "light rail" system at the Tampa Intl airport that always makes me laugh. From the main terminal to each concourse --a single elevated railbed with two parallel tracks, with one train each and terminals/doors on each end. Each is a distance of maybe 200 yards. You usually have to wait about a minute for the next train, then board and wait for the doors to close (oops--somebody blocking the door-wait some more), then get "whisked" at 20 MPH for the 30 second duration of the ride. The whole thing could obviously have been done better and cheaper with a covered moving walkway, but I'd bet that using "light rail" allowed the project to tap into some sort of government mass transit funding--and travelers through Tampa pay the price every day.

 

[Chuckanut]

Electric car battery problems solved. Well, maybe. Sometime in the future.

Stanford's aluminum battery fully charges in just one minute

 

[ERD50]

Electric car battery problems solved. Well, maybe. Sometime in the future.

Stanford's aluminum battery fully charges in just one minute

Gee, why didn't they use this for the headline:

Stanford's aluminum battery provides less than half the power of current lithium cells



It's always the potential good thing that gets the headline, all the issues are well, maybe some day we will improve that...

Regardless, as we discussed earlier, you can't have super-fast charge times without a super-capacity source. The Tesla Supercharger rates are probably near what is a practical max for charge energy per unit time.

One option though are the 'fluid' batteries - the charge is in the electrolyte, not the battery plates, so pumping out the electrolyte and replacing it with re-charged electrolyte could be as fast as pumping dino-fuel. The depleted electrolyte could be re-charged in bulk over a longer time period, even overnight when the grid is not stressed.

But those batteries have other issues.

And even if all those were solved, we are still back to the fact that the grid electricity to power those batteries is as dirty/dirtier than a good hybrid. So what's the point?

-ERD50

 

[cooch96]

I spent nearly 15 years in the "light rail" bsiness. As the systems are currently and in recent past implemented, they are nothing but political self aggradisement, immensly expensive both to build and operate. The vehicles themselves are way overcomplicated. The routes often have no real purpose, such as to maximize suburban access to routes which would minimize car use.

They do give first preference by state laws to outfits like Reatarded Persons Associations with providing Night cleaning crew jobs, to clean cars. shops, offices and station platforms. Next preference is given to prisoners for the same jobs. At least that was true in Maryland.

Most of the systems I looked at are just godawful. The only way to make more expensive boondoggles is the elevated version.

I'm currently in the boondoggle, er, light rail business. It blows my mind at the cost, and I feel shame for my involvement. The the real money is building tunnels under existing utilidors, that then run into aerial rail. But trains are romantic and buses are not, so the voters go for them. A city or region could have fully subsidized buses for decades, with superior service, for the cost of buying right of way and building whole new infrastructure for light rail. Plus, think of all the other infrastructure projects (roadway, water reclamation, etc etc.) that get tabled until new funding comes along.

Light rail hasn't been competitive with busses since around WW2; and passenger cars that share track with heavy freight haven't been competitive with flight since the 50's and the spread grows by the decade. I can fly from seatac to Vegas cheaper and faster than I can Amtrak from seatac to Portland.

 

[NW-Bound]

How do the trains work in Europe? Is it because their gasoline cost as much as US$9/gallon?

Would trains and light rails work here too, if we tax gas to be as expensive?

Darn! That would be the end of my RV treks! Or any travel for that matter.

 

[samclem]

How do the trains work in Europe? Is it because their gasoline cost as much as US$9/gallon?

Population density:
EU: 73 people per square km
US: 32 people per sq km

That's a simple answer. There are others. US got wealthy fast after WW-II, and people had enough money to buy cars, the infrastructure was built to accommodate that. We built a lot of new cities and other infrastructure around the automobile as we grew. In Europe, they incrementally added to their existing trains and the car, and its infrastructure, wasn't needed as much. Since cars were seen as being toys of the wealthy, it was easy to pass high gasoline taxes (the main reason for high gas prices in Europe), and the cycle continued. So today, even in US locations that match European population densities, car ownership and use is a lot higher than in Europe.

 

[ERD50]

How do the trains work in Europe? Is it because their gasoline cost as much as US$9/gallon? ...

Population density:
EU: 73 people per square km
US: 32 people per sq km

That's a simple answer. There are others. ...

And getting back on topic (not that I mind anyhow), if EVs are going to be successful, why not let Europe take the lead? They make a lot more sense in terms of gasoline versus electric rates there, and generally shorter commutes. Let them work out the 'early adopter' issues. And if they don't work out, we didn't throw a lot of resources at them.

-ERD50