Toyota Partners With Tesla To Make Electric Cars 327
An anonymous reader writes "Toyota just announced that it will invest $50 million in Tesla Motors and the two companies will partner to manufacture electric vehicles to meet California's growing demand for greener cars. Bay Area residents should be especially excited, as this venture is expected to create thousands of new jobs in the San Francisco Bay area, and is sure to be a boon to California's flagging economy. Tesla fans as well should rejoice as the new partnership will allow the EV startup to bring its highly coveted, iconic design to more affordable electric vehicles like the Model S sedan, which will sell for $49,900 and gets 300 miles on a 3- to 5-hour charge."
Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
"flagging economy"
"more affordable"
"sell for $49,900"
one of these things is not like the others... ?
a journey of a thousand miles per gallon.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Answering the "is-a-new-tesla-greener-than-an-existing-hummer?" in the header:
Yes, collectively in the long term. Every new electric car put on the road will contribute via networking effects to the development of an infrastructure to support electrics, and every gas-burning car taken off the road will contribute to the dismantling of the infrastructure that drills (and spills) for oil underwater, ships (and slicks) it in tankers around the world, etc. A new car is only manufactured once; it will continue to interact as a part of our environment for years (possibly decades) to come.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that they shouldn't bother?
You've got to start the conversion to 100% electric somewhere, plus the transition to renewables can happen in parallel.
This again? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times do we have to hear this argument? Central production of electricity at a power plant is more efficient than millions of cars producing it in internal combustion engines. Shifting the pollution away from where cars drive should be a benefit (i.e. breathing less smog in LA). Then there's the effect of burning fuel to transport fuel to all the gas stations when we already have an electrical infrastructure to deliver energy to electric cars. I agree that not all power plants are green, but compared to burning fuel in our cars, it's greener. And once demand for electricity goes up, maybe we'll finally get the push we need to expand renewable energy generation. There's no instant solution but there is progress.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oooh, ooh, you also forgot "green cars". Attention, ecomentals: what do you think is generating the electricity to power the (energy intensive) construction and use of your "green" car? Fairy farts?
Electric cars will drive demand for electricity that may (and should, but who knows?) be generated from renewables or even (hold your nose) "clean" coal, but right now? You're just moving the emissions from your exhaust to the dirty old coal plant up the road, plus the even worse one in China where they dug up the Unobtanium to make your car.
Two problems with your complaint here.
One, you have to start the ball rolling somewhere. If we want to move to 100% electric cars powered by 100% clean/renewable/green electricity, then we need to start rolling out the electric cars sometime.
Two, centrally generated electricity is generally going to be cleaner than all these scattered combustion engines we've got now. Even if you're burning smelly ol' coal, you've got a single source of pollution to monitor/control.
Re:Honda Clarity? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's 'cause you haven't thought about storage issues yet.
"everyday use" usually means commuting. So your car was charged overnight, and you drive to work. If your work is less than 150 miles away, you just plug it in when you get home (real world mileage is probably not so precise, but I really doubt there are many ~300 mile/day commuters out there). Long road trip? That's not everyday use, and presumably something like a "car share" program would cover you for the few times you're going on a long drive.
The thing that makes electrics un-economical (Score:1, Insightful)
Electric vehicles would be cost competitive for short run (ie. local) driving except for one thing. The batteries wear out and have to be replaced every few years.
Electric vehicles can be, as many amateur constructors have demonstrated, built for a lot less than $50,000. Electricity is cheaper than gas (around here at least). It's just that those darn batteries are real expensive and don't last long.
I was seriously thinking about building an electric but the battery thing made it too expensive for me. The other thing is that we currently have a 100 year supply of natural gas. If we go for unconventional natural gas, there's a lot more. If you don't believe that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, then there is no point for electric cars. Peak oil isn't a problem and we don't have to buy natural gas from people that hate our guts.
But it is already running.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The important part is that now the foucs is on fuel efficienty and not on maximum power.
And i am still suprised there are no diesel hybrids yet from anyone. Maybe the extra diesel noise would give a strange driving expierence?
There is one small detail:
One can buy a running toyta prius 5 years ago, but a nissan leaf is not yet for sale. You cannot compare a previous generation car with a future generations car. Well actually you can because parent poster did just that.
Re:Honda Clarity? (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, people who live in big cities have realized this for years. You own transportation that supports your regular commute habits. In many cases, people who live in NYC don't own cars. They can rent a car for extreme cases. Likewise, our family makes ~2-3 trips a year that would push this car over it's limit. It would be worth it for us to own a car like this for commutes, charging it over-night, and rent a car for those trips.
That said, the cost is still way to high to make it economically feasible for us.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
The other responders have pretty much deconstructed your post, but they left out a few other interesting benefits of getting off the oil nipple and exploring other energy sources. There's a geopolitical and strategic advantage to weaning ourselves off oil, in that if we can do so, we (the West) would no longer need a strong military and diplomatic presence in the middle East. That presence, more than any other expense, is bankrupting the US, and involves making deals with some of the most unsavoury governments in the world. Moving away from an oil economy would allow the US to tell the Arabs, Persians and Israelis to go away, and take their blood vendettas with them. That more than anything would bring about an American victory in the "war on terrorism," as all the terrorists really want is for the US and other Western powers to stop meddling in their affairs.
Also, some of us greenies are willing to take a second look at nuclear power tech, especially if re-use of the fissionables was on the table. Either as a transition to a fully renewable power supply, or as an on-demand supplement to wind and solar energy over the long term.
But hey, flame away, and keep paying the price for your oil dependency. Other countries in the world are starting to figure out just how high that price is, and they'll be more than happy to replace the US as the global hegemonic power.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Attention, ecomentals: what do you think is generating the electricity to power the (energy intensive) construction and use of your "green" car? Fairy farts? "
Yes, in a sense. [wnhydro.com] Specifically, 25% of my power is generated by wind. 50% is Nuclear. 75% of the electricity I use is exhaust-free.
Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that the environmental impact of the current generation of electric cars is actually more than petroleum ones, just much better hidden.
And I'm pretty sure that's wrong, because:
The electricity that's used to make and power them today is coming mostly from burning fossil fuels in 30 year old power plants. That might change in 10 years time, but it's not 10 years time, it's now.
While that is true, it's a sad fact that a 30 year old fossil fuel burning power station is STILL greener than the ICEs in most of the cars on the road on a power-generation to output-of-bad-stuff comparison...
Plus of course, a small amount of power generation DOES come from greener sources, and this will be used equally along with the non-green sources. As green sources increase, that automatically makes all these cars greener without being changed. Unlike ICE vehicles which remain equally as non-green no matter what you do to processes external to them.
price tag (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if generation 1 electric cars are a mess, SOMEONE has to make them viable enough and sexy enough to get the market moving in that direction. As soon as electric cars start becoming a significant chunk of the automobile market we'll see battery, motor, and material research go through the roof. This has already started, and I think it would be hard to argue that Tesla hasn't played a big role in swaying the general perception of electric cars from "slow ugly thing that hippies drive" to Serious Business.
Aptera is awesome in their own right, and you're right that their design pushes the envelope a lot further. Hopefully gen-2 mass market EVs will go more in that direction. I just don't think anyone should downplay the importance of Tesla (etc.) making the generation of cars that bridges the gap between what we drive now and what we'll drive once electric cars are pervasive.
Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared... (Score:1, Insightful)
And that doesn't even get into the Lupo with 1.6 BlueTec diesel... which we can't have here because it won't pass federal crash test requirements.
It's a damn shame we can't get our high-mileage, unnecessarily-dangerous imports.
The Plugin Plug Challenge, Street Parkers (Score:2, Insightful)
The challenge is bringing the ability to self-charge vehicles to more people.
Apartment people are not going to be able to charge their own electric car anytime soon, so they are out of the self-charge market (they’ll have to go to a station). At least until there is some portable battery pack...
Few people in America have Garages to charge their electric cars.
More have Street parking in front of their townhouse or single family house.
Target market=In front of your home street parkers.
There are two hurdles in this market
1. Biggest=Legislation. Allowing homeowners to install a plug near the curb (like a parking meter, but less obvious: could even be delivered via the route in the existing gutter drain from the house).
2. Technical Challenge=Developing a fully waterproof (top to bottom) electrical cord, that requires a key or combo to unlock it, and installed on a retractable coil. This is where potential $millions await.
Of course we cannot forget the unmentioned challenge = fighting for that exact public space to do the charge.
Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That was a horrible Top Gear. The tests where all favored the BMW.
You don't drive a Prius like you do a BMW.
Why don't the hook a trailer to the Prius and compare it to a big rig? The Prius would loose there as well.
They always make excuses for the big engine. I could easily come up with latest where the Prius beats the fell out of a BMW. say traveling S. on the 605 from City of industry into hunting beach at about 5PM.
Re:Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera (Score:4, Insightful)
Changing to electric cars will speed up the transition.
CA has a huge solar initiative going on. Both for the home and large scale plants.
The govenator is absolutely correct in his view of where CA should go with power.
If we don't start now, in 10 years you will have the same argument.
Based on weight, Electric cars are better.
Make in economical for companies to start to build solar plants. A few 4th gen Nuclear plants would be nice.
Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared... (Score:3, Insightful)
" while a small 4 cylinder turbo deisel will whallop the mileage of a hybrid"
A) Top gear is horribly biased in the regard.
B) No one will drive a V8 carefully enough to make the example valid
C) There comparisons didn't take into account weight and comfort.
D) They don't take in practical driving situations.
E) deisel if more unhealthy(less healthy?) then electric.
F) I find it funny that the argument against them is not any practical or technical merits, but a Ad Hom against celebrities .
For the record, celebrities endorsing a life style get me to look real carefully at what they are doing. Usually it's crap.
The key here is not that celebrities are getting them to be trend setters, celebrities are getting them because the Hybrids are popular.
Celebrities are joiners.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you refine your own gasoline? If not, then THAT GODDAMN GUBERMINT could take away your mobility at any time!
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe that the muslim extremists would lose all of the tacit support they currently enjoy from more moderate muslims in the Middle East if the US butted out of Middle Eastern affairs. Without that tacit support, the extremists will be all bark and no bite. I don't share your Islamophobia, but that may be because my last conversation with a Muslim was over beer and curry, and was a comparison of notes about what it's like to raise a daughter. He didn't try to convert me, but we did talk about the US and their capacity to stick their depleted uranium in other people's business.
Besides, the religious Christian extremists in the US and Canada are probably more a threat to me than the religious Muslim extremists. Does it make sense that I become a "bible-believing Christian" to reduce that threat from them?
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Deep-water oil wells -- NOW with guaranteed blow-out preventers"
"Shut up hippies"
"No one could have foreseen this"
One of these things is not like the others...?
Re:I can't wait. (Score:5, Insightful)
I, on the other hand, can't justify that price. I live in a colder climate and cannot spend $50k on a vehicle I only drive four months of the year (that's what my motorcycle is for). It's a safety consideration. A traditional gas-powered car, when stuck in a snow bank, will idle with the heat running and keep you alive for a very long time. An electric car will let you freeze to death before morning (and hope of rescue) comes.
Why would the electric car let you freeze to death? If your vehicle has a 300 mile range it should have plenty of power to be able to keep you warm. For example, here is a truck that has a 35 mile range (I just chose a random car on a google search to get some numbers). It has twenty 6 volt, 210 amp hour batteries or 25,200 watt hours of capacity. If you were near a full charge when you got stuck, you could run a 1000 watt heater for 24 hours. Our hypothetical vehicle with a 300 mile range would have 210,000 wh of capacity. If you weren't running anything else you could run a 1000 watt heater for nearly nine days. The only time where you wouldn't have enough power to run a heater for a night would be if your battery pack was near empty, and you would be in the same situation if you allowed yourself to get stuck in the middle of nowhere with a nearly empty gas tank.
Of course there is always the observation that if you are consistently getting stuck in snowbanks enough that your life is threatened, you should evaluate your equipment or your driving skills. I live in a fairly snowy place as well and I can't remember the last time I had to spend the night in my car. With tire chains and a bag of sand/salt most cars can go through some gnarly weather. Add a cell phone (or sat phone if you really are THAT remote) and the chances of you having to spend the night in your car are close to nil.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about centralizing control. "We have the means to improve lives for all people. We have assumed control, and will (eventually, maybe) act in your interest."
Hahaha, as if you have some kind of "control" now. Dug any oil wells in your back yard lately? At least with an electric car you have the theoretical possibility of producing your own electricity to recharge it from your own solar panels / wind turbine / etc.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:3, Insightful)
What? You think the $465 million [wired.com] government loan Tesla got doesn't count as help?
Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which should be a hint, but California bureaucrats are bad about noticing hints.
Actually, they're pretty good at it. When air quality went to shit in Los Angeles, we cracked down hard on air pollution. LA went from being one of the cities in the world with the worst air quality to being, well, not too bad. Kids stopped getting bleeding lesions on their lungs. The asthma incidence rate dropped. Today, as much as 25% of the air pollution in Los Angeles can be traced back to China. Remember this next time you bad-mouth the CARB. Are restrictions on equipment ridiculous? Sure. But I would go so far as to say that everything else they do is necessary, and frankly, in many cases it is not enough. Of course, the current emissions standards in California are actually easier than the citizenry wanted them to be, but U.S. automakers used the federal government to force California to abandon its plans because they were too incompetent to meet upcoming standards, standards that Japanese automakers were already ready for. In fact, many of the vehicles they offer already meet or exceed those proposed, formerly scheduled standards.
I live in California, and I would rather have a small selection of diesels than have a bunch of disgusting ones sold. We don't need more sooty diesels like my 1982 300SD or my 1992 F250. On one hand, they get the same kind of mileage as modern vehicles in their class, and by not replacing them I'm avoiding incurring the energy cost of new production. On the other hand, we don't need more.
Re:price tag (Score:3, Insightful)
A) It's a luxury sports sedan. Not a compact, not an econocar, not a even just a luxury car. It's equivalent to an Audi A6 or a BMW 3 series. Both of which run into the $40,000s similarly equipped.
B) Fuel savings for the average driver are estimated to be at around $4000 per year. That means if you keep this puppy for as little as 3 years you've come out ahead compared to similarly equipped vehicles.
C) "Affordable" in this case is a relative term, relative to the cost of the original Tesla roadster $110,000+ and relative to the cars it is competing against $40,000+.
Re:Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you used the same kind of engine and drive system on a Golf-sized vehicle and a Prius-sized vehicle (whether both TDI or both hybrid), with similar performance, you'd expect the Golf sized vehicle to get better gas mileage, because the Golf is a smaller car with less passenger and payload capacity.
Its like claiming TDI's are crap because the original Honda Insight hybrid got much better gas mileage than the Golf, and wrong for exactly the same reason.
Well, actually its wrong for an additional reason, since in addition to the apples-to-oranges comparison, the 1.8 TDI Golf actually gets worse city, highway, and overall mileage than even the 2nd Gen Prius, much less the 3rd Gen.
A hybrid that wasn't also engineered to meet federal crash test requirements would also get better gas mileage than one that was engineered to do so. Again, apples-to-oranges.
Leaf is interesting, and for some uses it is a great vehicle and will probably have some success. The infrastructure isn't there for all-electric vehicles to work for everyone (though Nissan is working hard to get better infrastructure in some key markets.)
Leaf may well be the wedge that drives wider acceptance of electric vehicles and spurs infrastructure.