"this little demon doesn't really want to be driven in that manner"
"It begs to be flung from curve to curve."
"It wants to be thrashed."
Did I miss the part of the promotional materials where they talk about incorporating HAL-9001 into the damn thing?
The car doesn't 'want' anything, expect maybe a driver who isn't a lead footed chucklehead with no concept of conservation of energy (the law, not the hippies) or apparently, self-determination.
Batteries store energy, not miles. If you release the energy quickly and inefficiently, you will get less miles per charge. This happens in petrol cars as well, it just happens that the Tesla is both highly efficient under normal driving and highly efficient at releasing copious amounts of energy when pushed. This huge range of available power consumption levels, as compared to the rather limited range for an internal combustion engine, aggravates the difference.
If you want to go 250 miles, drive it like you want to go 250 miles. If you want to drive it like a race car, expect frequent pit stops.
I really want one of those cars.
Well it would work for me, as even driving it hard I'd get close to a week out of a charge.
The downside is that all marginal electricity use comes from one of the dirtiest coal plants on the continent, so this actually would probably produce more pollution than a dirty old 1950's diesel engined truck
Then again it is based on the Lotus Elise so, yes it does want to be thrashed and flung from curve to curve. I too really want one except for the fact Julian Fantino would show up at my door asking for my drivers license within a week.
Regarding Tesla's future, I wonder if they have proprietary battery technology that might be licensed out to major manufacturers. Then again, they may remain a niche marque like Morgan ( [External Link])
A sports car is sold and meant to be driven as a sports car, so, yes, its entire raison d'etre is to be thrashed.
Tesla's product strategy is straightforward and very public.
[External Link]
Their actual progress towards the next step, on the other hand, is at present pretty murky, especially with the recent layoffs resulting in decimation of the company's staff.
"The downside is that all marginal electricity use comes from one of the dirtiest coal plants on the continent"
The cars would presumably be recharged at night, when there is excess base-load plant capacity and electricity is cheap.
Dara may drool over one, but I suspect the overall lifetime carbon footprint of a Tesla far exceeds those of the SUVs he so dispises when you factor in the the manufacture, replacement, and disposal of such items as batteries and exotic materials used in building the car.
I assume "exotic" refers to the carbon fibre used to reduce the weight of the vehicle?
It's less carbon intensive than aluminum to produce. It's also not that exotic as production prices keep dropping, which as I've pointed out before usually means reduced carbon output, especially recently. Composite materials are going to become mainstream soon enough. The only caveat is that you can't recycle a smashed CF fender nearly as usefully as a metal one.
In terms of replacement components, keep in mind that the Tesla requires no oil, no belts, no filters, no muffler, no fuel lines, no ignition system, no catalytic converter, etc. The entire engine weighs 70 lbs and has one moving part. If you count up the energy, not to mention cost.. again, saved by not having to manufacture, ship, and dispose of the expendables present in the standard car design, you can offset some more of the unusual components of the car.
In addition, the batteries don't need to be disposed of. Tesla will take them back, as well as the tires, and has already incorporated the recycling cost into the list price. I assume that for them to internalize that process, they have a component reclamation program in place that will reduce their costs and, again, energy consumption in manufacturing future batteries.
Actually, Dara, I was thinking of the study that tabulated the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from drawing board to junkyard, including such items as plant-to-dealer fuel costs, distances driven, electricity usage per pound of material in each vehicle, etc. The study determined that a Prius has an energy-cost average of $3.25 per mile driven. By comparison, the evil Hummer managed only a paltry $1.95.
Many of the factors that drive up the energy-cost of a Prius are present in spades for the Tesla.
The Tesla is a neat, rich man's plaything, but their's nothing particularly green about it other than the money it takes to buy it.
Bruce: I believe your data was taken from the 'Dust to Dust' Automotive Energy Report by CNW. I've reviewed the 458 page report ( [External Link] ) and have the feeling that it supports the adage that you can prove anything if throw enough confusing statistics around. Much of the report's conclusions are based on the assumption that certain vehicles (e.g hybrids) will incur much lower use for various reasons (not necessarily related to reliability) and hence the "energy cost" will be amortized over a lower distance.
"Based on the average mileage and life expectancy, there is a wide range of years that certain
models will be on the road before being scrapped. This ranges from a low of 10 years to as much
as 20-plus years. As segments, the lowest number of years are Hybrid models as a group (12.1
years) while the highest segment is Premium SUVs such as the Range Rover and Hummer H2
(22.2 years)."
This is hard to prove one way or another as Hybrids have only been around for perhaps 10 years and can be regarded as works in progress being purchased by early adopters. I think most people concede that many, if not most, hybrids don't make sense as they aren't driven sufficiently to recoup the extra cost in gas savings.
"First, and foremost, many of the hybrid models . such as the Insight and Prius . are early
renditions of the technology that are being or soon will be replaced by more efficient and less
complicated versions effectively making the current versions obsolete within a few short years."
Mind you I do like the author's conclusion to the study:
"To be quite up front, there is no actual conclusion to this study."
BTW - I'm on the record as not being very enthusiastic about hybrids, preferring new, clean diesels instead.
Another point needs discussionas it was completely overlooked by the author of the above report. Much of the impetus for fuel efficiency (i.e. hybrids) has to do with energy security and withholding funds from middle east or other autocratic regimes causing trouble around the world. Looking at the total energy cost of a vehicle, remember that much of the ancillary energy inputs need not be petroleum based. Electricity can be generated through hydro, coal or nuclear.
Finally, I will leave with this concrete example of a Honda Insight driver:
"Over the course of time, the car had a very low cost to operate, despite very high cost parts. There were only 5000 Insight’s brought into North America, so the parts, while always available, were expensive, and there were no aftermarket parts. Of course, if you don’t need parts, it doesn’t matter how much they cost. I replaced tires, brake pads, had a problem with the latch on the hatch, a corroded coil, and oil changes. I believe hybrid vehicles may well be more reliable than regular ones. Because of regenerative braking, and very light weight, there is less wear on the brakes, as the electric motor acts to break the car. Because of the electric motor, the gas motor doesn’t have to work as hard, and further, it will tend to operate at its optimal speed."
"Overall its life, the Insight achieved an average fuel efficiency of 4 litres per hundred km (about 65 miles/imperial gallon). So fuel, even at a dollar per litre, cost only about 4 cents/ km - less than half of most vehicles. The Insight cost me an average of 20 cents/km, including depreciation, insurance, maintenance, and gas. That’s way lower than the CAA estimates for the cost of running a car, but of course, fairly high annual mileage helps to drive down the average cost/km, as the fixed costs are spread over more km."
[External Link]
Bruce,
"Many of the factors that drive up the energy-cost of a Prius are present in spades for the Tesla. "
No they aren't. You're missing one of the great features of the Tesla even if the numbers in that study do add up:
Hybrid cars are forced to have two relatively complete drivetrains and a lot of interfacing hardware between them. In that way, they are an inefficient design and the Tesla destroys them in terms of simplicity with one moving part in its motor and a two speed transmission(which may not even be there according to some one-gear rumours I've read).
But yes, it certainly is a rich man's toy. If you live in a place where electricity generation has already bounded forward into the mid-20th century, however, there might be some green to it.
John,
At first I thought the study was wrong about the estimated total miles of use expected per vehicle, but after some thought I believe they are right. High-end SUVs remain on the road a long time. Hybrids likely won't, primarily because of the increase in maintenance costs for their complex drive trains and because of the high cost of replacing batteries.
Electricity is available from many sources, but marginal electricity is obtained primarily from carbon fuels. There's no reason to believe the development, transportation, sale, and maintenance of a Prius is less likely to use electricity generated using carbon fuels.
Dara,
They plan to produce one Tesla per week, which means that the carbon used in planning, building, and sales is spread over only a small number of vehicles. Also, few owners will exclusively drive Tesla's. It may be fun to tool around in, and even for commuting, but for long trips, or carrying cargo and passengers, it is impractical, which means they will need a second vehicle.
Nevertheless, I expect the Tesla will be popular with the same crowd that flies in private jets, but smugly drives hybrids to prove their moral superiority over the planet-destroying rabble.
I've seriously considered buying an old two-seater and converting it to run on electricity, but the cost involved in making it a viable commuting alternative (i.e. sufficient battery capacity without a significant weight penalty) is cost prohibitive. The batteries are also far from environmentally friendly when you consider the mining and production processes involved to produce them.
Bruce: Since electric vehicles will usually be charged during off peak evening hours, it's more likely base load generation will be used. Even if carbon based fuels are used, in terms of energy security, coal is preferable to oil. I'm assuming that natural gas is used mainly for peak loads.
There are several discussions on the web (by qualified people) regarding the relative efficiencies of electric vehicles compared with internal combustion engines. By efficiency, I'm referring to the total energy used to mine/pump, refine, transport and burn. The facts I've seen indicate it's more efficient to generate electricity at a modern facility and transmit the energy by wire and store in a battery. Elon Musk of Tesla motors gave a decent discussion of this on Tesla's web site which may still be available.
Regarding hybrid's reliability, Consumers Reports rates the Civic Hybrid as reliable as the regular Civic (i.e. much better than average) over the five years it's been around. Similarly, over the past seven years, CR has given the Prius a "much better than average" reliability rating in addition to a much lower than average depreciation rate.
With respect to high-end SUVs, don't even look at the various Land Rovers or Cadillac Escalade - solid black circles all the way down (i.e. much worse than average). They'll last 22 years alright - in the shop awaiting repairs.
BTW - the Insight driver I referred to above put 280,000 km. on the car before trading it in. I'll take that in any car, hybrid, diesel or gas