If tesla can

General Discussion
21

@cigroller,

  1. are way more efficient in turning energy into propulsion, and 2) open up plenty more options for lots of different energy sources that are very clean

  2. When you calculate “wells to wheels” electric cars are not very efficient at all. From coal fired plants, the overall efficiency is the same as IC and I can show the numbers. There are a number of losses at each step from power generation to the wheels of the car. Far more than IC engines on petroleum fuels. I could argue that a natural gas car IC car is more efficient than a windmill powered electric car from that perspective.

  3. I agree that we need renewables in greater numbers but they can’t replace petroleum completely at this time. There is no alternative for petroleum for many things. If it wasn’t for the elevated price of oil, we wouldn’t have shale oil or fracked natural gas production to the scale we do. It is too expensive if oil is $40 a barrel. Now $90 a barrel is a different story.

The electric vehicle story is a simple case of marketing, not science. Unless governed by a totalitarian regime, you cannot force people to buy electric cars. If the product does not fit a buyers value equation, they will not buy it.

22
WTHeck are you talking about?

I was quoting you…as in

a bunch of rational economics + physics (to oversimplify) is the other pole.

I was hoping for a clarification, because on its face, you seem to be implying that rational thought is but on pole of a bipolar view of e-cars, and that the “rational” viewpoint is the anti-electric car one.

Somehow I doubt that you meant to make that statement explicitly–which is why I asked. (Of course, I HAVE had HHO supporters tell me, “Dude, that’s just what The Man wants you to think” when quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so maybe this is a real worldview…)

23

I think the simple answer to your original question is that Tesla was developed by pure engineers and established companies are run by professional managers, accountants, and committees. The mission established by the Tesla guys was to build a car that everyone would want, and have it be purely electric. The mission of every other car company is to develop an electric car attractive to the lowest common denominator… the working folk.

Having said that, IMHO there is absolutely no reason EVs and hybrids can’t be gorgeous even at affordable price points. But Chevy management demands that a Chevy look like a Chevy. Ford management demands that every Ford look like a Ford. Toyota management demands that every Toyota look like a Toyota. And on and on. Each company has a long list of “design cues” that their engineers are mandated to comply with. Tesla started with a “clean slate”.

In short, the reason everyone else’s EVs aren’t attractive and the Tesla is gorgeous can be found in the boardrooms, not in the engineering departments.

24

tex, I ll check to see if I can find some info on the bird strike studies. its been a few years, but I believe some of my info came from The Economist, but I no longer have a subscription so I don t know if I can access that info
i tend to be skeptical of studies and polls. i like to know who did the research , and if there are any conflicts of interest. slanted studies and polls are all too common. gov t, business interests, PACs, and political parties all try to get their own way, and are sometimes less than honest.

25

meanjoe75fan, to say that rational economics + physics is an imperfect explanation for
technological change is not to reject “rationality” or “progress” or “science” or anything else. It’s just to say that when one looks at change and just chalks it up to those it provides oversimplified rational reconstructions of history. Interpreting what I said as you did is what it means to polarize. So participate if you like. (And Mustangman will apparently stick with it as well and that’s fine, but what was said by him wasn’t about “marketing.” It was about one of the demand stories that get told.)

And the statement was not about “electric cars” - it was about how the EV1 “case” has most commonly been discussed / interpreted.

26

well, it seems that the threat to birds was greater than I believed. but according to Scietific American, us fish and wildlife has come up with a set of guidelines , that the Audabon Society is on board with, that will greatly reduce mortality. the guidelines are voluntary at this time.

I think we can use wind power and avoid large scale bird deaths if we try.

27

So far Tesla hasn’t built a car we all want. Otherwise they’d be selling more cars. Price is the primary problem I expect. We might well want one, but we can’t afford one. Or can’t justify the extra expense.

If I were the CEO of GM or Ford, I’d be inclined to let Tesla iron out the problems; once they had a car that met the price and performance requirements, then I’d propose to the board of directors to make an offer to simply buy Tesla Corporation outright. They’d get all the Tesla patents and the staff’s technical know-how along with it.

28

It’s about commitment and relying on market forces that may do you in down the road. For example, Toyota will only build stuff they feel has a guaranteed long term market value they can enjoy everywhere. Used cars, parts and service with their dealers whom they support very well, don’t figure into enough profitability to commit themselves.

But they have hedges, just like they carefully step in to the sports car market with co owner Subaru, they carefully step into EV market by letting tesla share in their development costs of their RAV4 EV. EVs cost so much in part because of this lack of commitment by the big makers who enjoy assembly lines and long term dependable relationships with their subcontractors. When you jump into EVs you now have to develop an new set of alliances with contractors who haven’t dealt with before and profits that are highly in predictable.

The RAV4 EV built years ago with NiMH batteries is a prefect example. Toyota built a few, sold them for a reasonable, at the time price, and never saw the owners again for service. Even the batteries on some are still going strong and waiting for the battery producers, not the car companies, to be able to replace them. It’s a brave new world for car companies weaned on petro with guaranteed profit connections to jump in to maintenance free EVs with a fill up station potentially on every telephone pole and from the sun above.

29
If I were the CEO of GM or Ford, I'd be inclined to let Tesla iron out the problems; once they had a car that met the price and performance requirements

According to Tesla the main reason the electric vehicle isn’t built for the masses is because the cost of the battery. That’s the reason they just invested a couple billion dollars to build a battery plant in Arizona. They said that by building the batteries here in the US and improving production they can build and then sell a mid-size Tesla for under $35k. That’s much more affordable.

30

I was interested to find out why technically, birds of prey are so vulnerable to wind mills, power lines and even cars when they have excellent eyesight. Even though they have excellent sight vision, they have a limited depth of field and their highly developed ability to focus in on their prey at the exclusion of every thing else. They are literally flying through these blades in search of food. Now, if we could just farm mice around the the perimeter of these wind farms, maybe we could lure them away…or not.

Btw, it may have been mentioned, but the GM Spark EV according to CR, is one of the most desirable EVs made. It does all that was intended, well. GM won’t sell it but in a couple of states. Can’t make cars too good for the masses I guess is the reason. So revolutionary that drivers call it the modern day VW Bug. All lessees/owners literally love the car !!! Oops GM…you made it too good. Let’s gather them all up and crush them !

31

Tesla will not save a lot making batteries in the US. If Tesla makes them, some cost is lower since there is no profit going to the battery maker. Since 80% of the cost of the battery is in the materials I can’t see a big cost reduction there. In fact, commodity prices are increasing for the chemicals used in the batteries. Shipping costs will decrease for the finished product but increase for the raw materials coming from China or South America. Labor costs will increase. The cost of US business taxes, the highest in the world, will be a negative. Manufacturing could be simplified with higher volumes but that is a small part of the overall cost. Its unlikely Tesla will hit their $35,000 price point WITH a 200 mile range. Figure a 75 mile range like the Leaf or Spark.

32
Tesla will not save a lot making batteries in the US.

You must know a lot more about this then the few hundred Finance people and engineers at Tesla and it’s investors (including Panasonic). I’m quite sure the Investors have studied this far more then anyone here.

33

A 30% cost reduction is OK, but that isn’t the breakthrough needed to make EVs go mainstream. A breakthrough in battery chemistry is needed, not production efficiency. Li-ion batteries won’t get us to a $30,000 car with 300 mile range.

34

A couple of things here. Bird strikes are greatly reduced with the new generation of turbines because of the lower blade speed. It still happens but not as much as it does with the older smaller turbines with the high speed blades. Some wind farms are a composite of technology. The older turbines on the lower levels with newer generations of turbines built on top of them.

The older technology turbines have a host of problems, but many of the wind farms using them were just small scale test beds. I really don’t know why they just don’t take the old turbines out of production and dismantle them.

The real problem with wind technology is phase shift. Actually that is a big problem with our whole grid system, not just wind farms. Early on, AC proved to be far more efficient for the transfer of energy on electrical grids, but that was when electrical grids were independent small area grids. As the grids became interconnected and began to cover much larger areas, the problem of phase shift becomes a big issue.

For example, electricity at 60 Hz has a wavelength of about 3100 miles (186,000 miles per second / 60). Electricity generated at a power plant in Portland, ME would be a full cycle behind the generator by the time it reached San Diego, CA. That would be OK if all electricity in the US was generated in Portland, ME. but its not.

If a generator in Portland, ME was generating all the electricity and Chicago, IL decided to generate its own electricity to supplement to power coming from ME, it would sync its generator to the incoming phase, but as that electricity begins to work its way back to ME, it would begin to go out of phase with the incoming power. At some point along the way, it would be so far out of phase that it would block any power being generated in ME from going to Chicago.

The practical solution to the long haul grid is to go back to DC, but there is a lot of resistance within the industry to do that for some reason. It would cost a lot to begin with.

As for Tesla and the new battery plant, I heard that the new plant doesn’t just make more batteries, it will make a new generation of batteries that gets about twice the energy density from the same amount of materials. Its more of an evolution in the technology than a revolution, just a better design. That should cut the amount of batteries needed in the newer model, therefore cut the cost and materials.

You also have to take into account the exotic materials used in building the rest of the car, like the carbon fiber bodies. He will need some new advances in that area in order to really reduce those costs. If you put a small 4 cylinder ICE with a CVT transmission in the Model S, you would still have a high power to weight ration, great performance and great fuel economy, but it would still be an expensive car.

35
A 30% cost reduction is OK, but that isn't the breakthrough needed to make EVs go mainstream.

Maybe not right away…but it’s getting there. $35k is a lot closer to reality then $70k. And when you consider the added savings of much lower maintenance that $35k is closer to $30k (or less). The biggest obstacle for people like me is the 200 mile limitation.

36

@MikeInNH I will admit to knowing quite a bit about this subject. In my previous job I talked with a number of Li-Ion battery suppliers and learned quite a bit about the technology. That’s why I call “shenanigans” on Tesla’s PR machine.

Tesla wants control of their products and they want the savings from the supplier profit. It all helps and I wish them well but this move won’t reduce the cost of the batteries by 30%, let alone 50%. There isn’t 50% to be had from the 20% of the cost that is not material. Besides, a 50 % reduction in battery cost drops the high range S to about $77,000. That is still way expensive.

Tesla has a long history of exaggerated claims without mentioning the caveats. THE NEW $65,000 Type S with 250 mile range! (…if driven in 70 degree weather without the AC or heat, driven like a hypermiler and with the extra-cost battery making the car $120,000…shhh) The Type S WAS to be the mass market low cost car until it wasn’t.

I predict the next model will either hit closer to $40,000 and have a claimed (with all the fine print) range of 125 miles or will be a $35,000 car with a 100 mile range. Better than a Leaf or Spark but not radically so.

37
I will admit to knowing quite a bit about this subject. In my previous job I talked with a number of Li-Ion battery suppliers and learned quite a bit about the technology. That's why I call "shenanigans" on Tesla's PR machine.

Well as a Director of Software Development and being a VP and CTO of other companies - I do know a lot about business and how they are run. I’ve been in on many dealings with Venture Capitalists to get funding for different companies I’ve worked for.

While you may know something about the Li-Ion Battery…you need to learn something about how businesses work. Before ANY money will be given for investment the business plan and model is thoroughly reviewed. And something that’s technical…they’ll bring in many experts to evaluate the validity of the technology. There’s no way they’re just going to invest billions of dollars based on some PR by Tesla. And since Tesla already has the money lined up - I can only assume that the due diligence has already been done. This took months to accomplish. Even for some of the small companies I worked for and just trying to raise $50 million…it took 2-3 months and had 3-4 technical reviews from third party technical consultants. Not only will they look at the feasibility of the project/company, but also the profitability. When BILLIONS of dollars are at stake they’ll bring in at least 2-3 finance companies to review the business plan…and at least 2-5 technical consulting teams (for a total of up to 100 people) reviewing the specs and technical feasibility. If there’s any doubt from any ONE person things could get delayed even longer.

So it’s not just Tesla that’s making this claim…but MANY outside companies that have reviewed the business plan and technical specs many times over. Way too much to risk.

38

@MikeInNH I have been a Director of R&D for a large industrial electric machine manufacturer and a Staff Engineer for a major automaker. I know very well how venture capital and business in general works. I also know how the media reports the over-inflated claims of companies like Tesla. Tesla was most likely honest in its business dealings leading up to the funding of the battery plants in the US. My claim is that the honesty is not reflected in the media reports. As I said in the previous post, the media does not add the caveats. Whether or not Tesla is the source or if the media is exaggerating the claims independently, my prediction stands.

39

A big reason for Tesla to build the plant is to eliminate the battery shortage (and associated high prices) created by Tesla’s HUGE demand for batteries.

As to their claims of increasing battery production efficiency through either scale or technical breakthroughs, we’ll see…

40
I also know how the media reports the over-inflated claims of companies like Tesla.

Oh that could easily be happening. And it’s impossible for anyone here to address that. All I can address is how these finance things work…and what type of due diligence would have to have taken place.

My claim is that the honesty is not reflected in the media reports.

That’s very possible. But since I know nothing about that…I won’t comment one way or the other. All I know is what they claim and based on the financing that is backing them…it seems like their claims may be true - albeit exaggerated. What I think is they Tesla is the first company to actually look at this battery cost problem and do something about it. I also think that if Tesla can start selling/manufacturing vehicles in larger numbers the costs will drop DRASTICALLY. So the $30k Tesla is NOT out of reach.