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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll be built in the bay area [dailyfinance.com], employing thousands of people. This announcement is what jobs recovery is all about.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been waiting for the Zenn too, but it looks like the high-speed, high capacity version is turning out to be vaporware. The current production version is no good to me because I do a lot of highway driving. I'd get a Toyota/Tesla though, in a minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I can't wait. (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to sell the GM EV1 and EV2 in a past life as a car salesman (just recently my immortal soul finally came off lease from the Devil).
Those cars were awesome, some of the tech that went into them was mind blowing, yet all the leases were canceled and all the cars crushed. This, in spite of some owners offering up to $100,000 to keep them. At my work now we have two EVs, both homebrew. I have been thinking of building my own, based on a small truck chassis.
$50K for 300mi at a 4Hr nominal charge is something I would consider buying. My current design goal for a homebrew is 50mi unrestricted acceleration A/C or Heater and 100mi @ controlled acceleration topping at 55mph no AC or Heat.
-nB
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to sell the GM EV1 and EV2 in a past life as a car salesman (just recently my immortal soul finally came off lease from the Devil).
With all due respect, you never sold a GM EV in your life. They were all leases, as you then go on to say in paragraph two.
$50K for 300mi at a 4Hr nominal charge is something I would consider buying.
Yeah, you and a lot of other people. It's not impossible that a reasonably affordable next-gen EV might hit 200mi. 300, I think, is still out of reach.
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: (Score:2)
>>>some owners offering up to $100,000 to keep them
It would cost GM more money than that to keep a stockpile of parts for the EV1 (as required by law). It was cheaper for them to crush the cars. That said if I owned an EV1 I'd probably "disappear" with the car to some other state. Maybe hide it in some farmers barn in Wyoming, and then put it in a museum ~20 years from now. The EV1 deserved to be preserved.
Re: (Score:2)
One unit was sold by the dealer accidentally.
It is in a museum (albeit with it's computer removed by GM).
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I've never seen one on the road except for a few hybrids
How do you know? Many hobbyists convert gasoline cars to electrics, and you'd never know it just by looking at them.
As for me, electrics don't but it. I make frequent ~1000 mile trips, and I can't waste time while the battery takes 4 hours to recharge. Instead I have a hybrid which "recharges" with gasoline in just five minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
The other day I saw my first hydrogen-converted car (which looks more feasible than electric at the moment). I'm not sure if it was a hybrid or pure hydrogen though. The future is coming!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but where do we get they hydrogen from? Hmmm.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
http://aqualandpetsplus.com/Animal615.jpg [aqualandpetsplus.com]
http://deguhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Chris_and_Aarron.jpg [deguhouse.com]
Or for somewhat less portable and still untapped energy source:
http://www.healthstylesexercise.com/catalog/images/Landice_L7_Treadmill.jpg [healthstylesexercise.com]
Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
"flagging economy"
"more affordable"
"sell for $49,900"
one of these things is not like the others... ?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You left off labor costs in California in general and the Bay Area in particular.
Wait for the announcement that they're moving production somewhere else with lower labor costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, the economy is tanked. Expect to take a pay cut, and a lifestyle cut. It's a crying shame, but hey; Nobody has any money at the moment, including Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Expect to take a pay cut, and a lifestyle cut.
I already cut cable TV during the last recession (2000) and my cellphone from $30 downto the $5 plan. There's not much left to cut, unless I convert my home from 2 stories to 1 story (to cut heating cost). Or demolish it completely and build a PassivHaus (virtually no heating needed).
.
>>>including Tesla.
Well, they now have Toyota's money. I hope this partnership is as profitable as the Toyota-Ford Hybrid partnership turned out to be, an
Re: (Score:2)
That won't reduce the cost. When Toyota sold Rav4 EVs, which were made in a foreign country with cheap labor, the thing still cost $45000 to purchase..... about double the cost of the gasoline version. The high cost comes from the battery which is 4x larger than the one in a hybrid, and of course 4x as much money.
The Rav4 EV was also costly to maintain. The battery required replacement every 100,000 miles - that's a cost equal to replacing an engine in a normal car, but about 3 times more frequently.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You missed the part where "more affordable" is a relative measure, and they're comparing it to their roadster with a 6-figure price tag.
Re: (Score:2)
no no, I understand this point, but in 49 states of this country, people are still much more likely to say "screw it, i'll buy a comparable regular car for $20,00 - $30,000 less"
I suppose it's ironic that they're basing the plant in the one state that people WILL buy with idealism instead of sense.
Re: (Score:2)
no no, I understand this point, but in 49 states of this country, people are still much more likely to say "screw it, i'll buy a comparable regular car for $20,00 - $30,000 less"
I suppose it's ironic that they're basing the plant in the one state that people WILL buy with idealism instead of sense.
Yes, those fall into two categories...
(1) The people who dont have the extra $20K-$30K
(2) The people who DO have the extra money, but cant do math (or dont care about saving money in the long run)
This is an excellent start. For a couple reasons:
One, other car companies will soon no longer be able to play the (erroneous) "electric cars cant get decent mileage - buy ours that only gets 50-120 miles on a charge and takes all night to recharge"
And two, as more get produced, (ie: getting towards mass pro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What? You think the $465 million [wired.com] government loan Tesla got doesn't count as help?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. AC Propulsion's electric sedans still sell for a high pricepoint, even though they are about 10 years old.
Of course it's always possible the idea will flop, and Tesla dealers will sell new cars for dirt cheap. I was able to get my Honda Insight for only $12,000 since the dealer had 20 of them collecting dust in his garage. The demand simply wasn't there in 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect that this tradeoff will be a lot more attractive in areas of the world where gasoline/petrol is $7 ($us) a gallon, but here where the price is about 1/3 to 1/2 of that, I'm guessing that the loss of freedom and spontanity is not worth meager price savings.
a lot of people say that "once the US catches up with the rest of the world in gas prices, the demand for hybrid, synthetic (e85), and electric vehicles will shoot up". This is true, the demand will shoot up... but not the means to afford them. g
Re: (Score:2)
Yes people don't seem to understand how BIG the U.S. is. If I order from amazon.com, it has to travel 2000 miles from California, and there's not much in-between. By car it's a 3 day journey. First the steam engine and now gasoline/diesel-fueled vehicles are what keeps this country connected.
If the cost doubles, it will have a major impact on our goods, our food, and our business travel. The EU has an advantage, as most of their goods can be shipped via water (for example from Poland to Spain) which i
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that the average cost of a gallon of gas here in the US over the next 10 years (the lifetime of a car) will be more like $5/gallon. That would be $25,000 of gasoline for a car that gets 30 mpg and last 150,000 miles.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that this tradeoff will be a lot more attractive in areas of the world where gasoline/petrol is $7 ($us) a gallon, but here where the price is about 1/3 to 1/2 of that, I'm guessing that the loss of freedom and spontanity is not worth meager price savings.
I disagree. It will also be attractive to those who have decent length commutes. First, the Teslas (fully outfitted) can go 300 miles a charge. That is a lack of spontaneity for very very few people (those who do cross country road trips or very long road trips - it's 5 hours of driving without stopping). Secondly (on the gas price bit), per Scientific American, it costs about 75 cents per gallon equivalent of gas. Even at $3 a gallon in the US, that's a massive savings. I used to drive 40,000 miles a year
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've started saving for
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're the one missing something.
An $80,000 nissan GT-R is an absolute bargain of a steal -compared- to $300,000 lamborghinis and ferraris... but only when compared to those cars. Your average consumer, especially the ones who are looking for a "more affordable" car in a "flagging economy" are going to laugh at the $80,000 price tag and pick up something else.
It's the same deal with a $50,000 tesla toyota. Even if it's a bargain compared to a $100,000 tesla, it is NOT a bargain compared to even the
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Informative)
The cost of living in San Francisco is 70% above the national average [payscale.com]. So flagging to them still makes that car affordable.
Second the model S is competing for the $40,000 - $60,000 Sedan market. Audi has a great filter [audiusa.com] where you can set the price and see all their cars in that price range. That is what the model S is competing against.
If you keep up with Tesla you know they also are working on a car that would be at or under $30,000 for their next model. They are going from luxury cars down to consumer cars for everyone. They are hoping that early adopters will finance the cars for everyone else. They are after all a tech company turned automaker, not the other way around.
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: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: (Score:2)
Yes. Also the west coast has lots of hydro power, which while not good for the fish, is good for the air.
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
It's called economy of scale. Of course a power outage means you don't go to work.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are concerned, but a solar panel array up just to charge your car.
The last power outages in CA had nothing to do with power availability and everything to do with Enron's attempt at controlling the market.
Re: (Score:2)
The last power outages in CA had nothing to do with power availability and everything to do with Enron's attempt at controlling the market.
Now, I don't live in california, so I don't pay that much attention, but I was under the impression that CA's electricity woes had more to do with lack of building any new power plants in the last 30 years or so, fixed energy prices, and an economy based on buying "spare" power from other areas of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Central production of electricity at a power plant is more efficient than millions of cars producing it in internal combustion engines.
Not according to ACEEE.org which ranks electric cars like the EV1 as no "cleaner" than a Prius or Civic Hybrid (it's a tie), and less clean than a 70mpg Honda Insight (the cleanest car in the US). The reason electrics don't rank higher is because the primary source is coal energy, plus losses in the lines as the electric travels hundreds of miles, and losses ins
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: (Score:2)
>>>If we want to move to 100% electric cars
I don't think pure electric cars have a future. People don't want to be limited to a 300 mile radius when they travel. When GREET performed a study several years ago, they found the most efficient car (least energy used) was actually an electric-diesel hybrid, where the electric was the primary motivator and the diesel engine provided a backup for the battery.
They ranked a pure diesel car as the second most efficient, as evidenced by the almost 90mpg Lup
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>If we want to move to 100% electric cars
I don't think pure electric cars have a future. People don't want to be limited to a 300 mile radius when they travel. When GREET performed a study several years ago, they found the most efficient car (least energy used) was actually an electric-diesel hybrid, where the electric was the primary motivator and the diesel engine provided a backup for the battery.
They ranked a pure diesel car as the second most efficient, as evidenced by the almost 90mpg Lupo in Germany (or the 250mpg prototype).
The Tesla, based off Scientific American's price per mile calculations, and using those prices as comparison, gets 120mpg equivalent (75 cents per gallon equivalent of miles driven instead of $3).
Additionally, Tesla has already designed their new models with 5 minute battery replacement in mind. Yes, the infrastructure doesnt yet exist, but the more of these cars that sell, the more likely such an infrastructure will come into existence.
On top of that, when it comes to road trips, most people stop in 5 or less hours (within the vehicle's range) for 45 minutes to an hour. A quickcharge station (ie:45 minute charge) is something very easy to install at most rest stops and Interstate located gas stations. Again, no infrastructure yet, but this one is a very easy infrastructure to install.
Additionally, for those who do go on road trips, the gas savings each year should (generally) easily cover the cost of a rental car and leave money left over.
So, for the vast majority of drivers who do not go on long road trips, this vehicle makes a lot of sense. Eventually, this means an increase in demand, and increase in infrastructures (battery replacement and/or quickcharge stations).
Additionally, there is no reason why, through sales of these vehicles (or other methods of justifying it) that Toyota and Tesla cannot come up with a 300 mile on electric range car that supplements battery charging with a small motor for "enhanced range" mode.
On top of all of that, there are new technologies (either now going into mass production, or soon to go into mass production) that provide either (a) cheaper batteries with longer life (the silicon based ones) or (b) batteries with greater storage capacities in the same size (various new lithium ion technologies that use other elements in their design, as well as promised breakthroughs in supercap technologies). As with all technology, I expect these improvements, especially with a growing (albeit slowly) market emerging that needs them, will help push the technology (electric cars) into something more people are interested in. There's always gotta be the first effort to get things to that point. Just like the original IBM PC. As much of a success as it was, it pales in comparison to the situation today, where "everyone" owns a computer - or two or three, and prices have dropped to make them a commodity item.
Most people didnt think that the automobile would take off either. Or numerous other technological advances.
Re: (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: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: (Score:2)
We don't have to stop using oil to remove our presence from the Mideast. We could do it *right now* by simply pulling out. "Protect the oil" is an excuse by power-loving politicians to justify their acts, but we also have a big military presence in Europe and Japan. Is there oil there? No.
So that means even if the Mideast had no oil whatsoever, or we stopped using oil completely, the Congress would still keep troops there - it's the desire to dominate that is the root cause. And I agree with Congressm
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, we're never going to tell the Israelis to go away - there's a surprisingly large contingent of Americans (and therefore American politicians) who think we should do everything we can to support Israel, in order to bring about the Rapture.
If you're sane, you're not really playing the same game as they are. To them, it's totally okay to burn as much oi
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)
"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.
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:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Answering the "is-a-new-tesla-greener-than-an-existing-hummer?" in the header: Yes...
Can anyone think of a vehicle that is NOT greener than an existing hummer?
Apparently even a 100 year old Model T has a better mpg rating [wanttoknow.info] and they seem to last forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
yes.
And TopGear looked into a Prius Vs. a BMW M3 and found:
for a given speed (highway) the M3 had better milage.
The M3 cost less (energy) to manufacture.
The M3 batteries were greener to manufacture.
The Prius NiMh batteries were:
* Mined in Canada at a dirty mine
* ore was shipped to China to be smelted
* raw metal was shipped to Europe to be "foamed"
* Foamed nickel plates were shipped to Japan to be built into batteries
* Batteries were shipped to the US for assembly into
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Penn and Teller taught me that the only material that actually makes economic and environmental sense to recycle is aluminum, and the rest (plastic, paper, et al) is all feel-good BS and attempts to create jobs. A good idea that is flawed in practice and doesn't work out as well as one might hope... Just like hybrids.
Is there a FUD mod? (Score:5, Informative)
Because that post deserves it. What a load of BS.
First off Top Gear isn't a source of factual information, they are an entertainment program. They have a massive anti-EV, anti-Hybrid bias. Do you remember Tesla story where they had to push the Tesla off because it ran out of power? Well it didn't actually run out of power, they just did that for dramatic effect. I love watching Top Gear as entertainment, but they are not credible source of anything.
So who knows what the actual facts of the M3 run where, but still you are just making the information up, because even top gear didn't make those claims.
They raced a Prius around a track at it's absolute limit, pedal to the metal 100% of the time, and followed it in a M3 which could match the Prius easily at part throttle and under those circumstances and claimed the M3 got better gas mileage. That is possible but given it is Top gear, in no way guaranteed.
But even Top gear didn't claim that an M3 got better highway MPG.
The rest of the post is just a reiteration of the debunked Hummer is better than a Prius FUD.
Pure FUD, no facts. If there isn't a mod for that, there should be.
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:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon.... (Score:5, Informative)
Not even lose to accurate. Manufacture of a car is about 50,000 miles worth of gasoline for the average vehicle. So if a car lasts 300,000 miles (500,000 for diesels) then we're looking at just 14% of total energy expenditure, not 75%.
Of course this is why the Cash for Clunkers idea was ridiculous. If people had been required to upgrade to 40mpg or higher, then it would have been good, but going from 20 to 25mpg is nothing. The increased fuel efficiency does NOT make up for the ~50,000 miles worth of manufacturing energy wasted to destroy a perfectly working vehicle.
It's the equivalent of me going round smashing windows in order to try to boost the economy. (Or starting a war.) It's destruction not production
Re:a journey of a thousand miles per gallon.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's the other way around, actually. 80 - 90% of a vehicle's lifetime energy use is in driving it around. You can google many versions of this calculation, but here's one from Slate [slate.com].
You might be remembering the report from a few years ago that claimed a Hummer was more efficient than a Prius, but that's been pretty thoroughly debunked [thecarconnection.com] many times now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You might be remembering the report from a few years ago that claimed a Hummer was more efficient than a Prius, but that's been pretty thoroughly debunked many times now.
Unfortunately, it's not actually well-debunked by your link, which claims that the report was well-debunked, but then goes on to quote only that report when giving any lifetime per-mile energy consumption figures. Do you have any useful links with which to debunk the report?
There will be no stopping this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a relatively new event.
If it was a joke from the 70s, you would have a point.
Damn, I wish they partnered with Aptera (Score:5, Interesting)
Tesla, to me, seems to be the same old inefficient car bodies with a bunch of batteries squeezed into it. Batteries where the elements come from strip mining and other nasty things, so the environmental impact is just shifted and reduced a bit, but not a lot.
OTOH, Aptera, to me, represents a new way of thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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
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.
Nissan LEAF has Toyota running scared... (Score:5, Interesting)
(...and running, and running, and running, without stopping...)
Nissan LEAF has been announced at a price point that makes it cost-competitive with the Prius, which nobody expected. Toyota is now terrified because they bet the farm on hybrids, which have shitty mileage! Yes, I said it, their mileage is shit. You get the same effective mileage or better with a small TDI. In the really real world, 1.8 TDI Golfs get better mileage than any Prius. 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.
Parallel hybrids are a really dumb idea and nobody has brought us a plug-in series hybrid yet. Enter: Nissan LEAF, to actually change the game. Nobody will take people like Aptera seriously without EVs gaining more market traction. Thanks, Ghosn.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Cars with small diesel engines aren't exactly a rarity in Europe. You've used the Lupo as an example but every manufacturer has a couple of other cars of similar size which generally get similar mileage.
Though much of Europe probably pays twice or three times what you pay in the US for fuel...
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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 exa
Re: (Score:2)
Also from the hybrid episode:
BMW M3 beats the Prius on mileage.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the Prius get something like 13mpg on the track, whilst the M3 got 20something under the same conditions (driving at same speed)?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
somewhere in that range.
Now, what TopGear didn't show is that in all stop and go driving the Prius would win, especially with jack rabbit starts.
Re: (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, celebr
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez I get tired of saying this. THERE IS MORE ENERGY IN DIESEL THAN IN GASOLINE.
Yeah, I know that, but it's largely irrelevant to the conversation, especially if you want to consider lifetime energy efficiency. Whatever else you say about that bullshit CNW report, it's true that if you don't have two power systems, you don't have to build them.
Maybe yelling will help.
It'll help you look like a tool.
It's about 12% more. So parity between a diesel and a gas hybrid means the gas hybrid is more efficient.
And yet, it takes about 60% as much energy to make diesel as it does to make gasoline. So who cares? The real benefit of diesel is being able to run lean at all times (except, in practice, during acceleration.) Tha
Re: (Score:3)
The Leaf has one basic flaw which makes it a non-starter: 100 mile range.
That would have worked for every commute I have ever had, even including diversions for things like shopping or other errands. Since most U.S. households have more than one car and at least one of them is seldom driven far, it will work for many more people than you think it will.
I don't know about you, but I can't afford to own a $26k vehicle that I can't take on a road trip in a pinch. Hell, even just running errands it's pretty easy to hit 100 miles in a day.
Me neither, but lots of people have $26k (or more) vehicles that they never take on a road trip, so they'll be fine.
They're solving this problem more or less completely in their European test market with battery swap stations, whic
Re: (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
Kudo's Tesla and other observations (Score:4, Interesting)
I like it! First, I've been around Tesla; involved as a third-party with drivetrain development. They are a GREAT group of engineer's with entreuprenurial spirit... Everyone I worked with took ownership with the goal of designing/engineering top quality. Those of you who are not in the automotive world don't have any concept of what goes into building a passenger vehicle nor the cost associated with development of new technologies for this market. Yes with a decent bank-roll I'm guessing that 80% of the /. readers could come up with a functional electric vehicle (batteries, VFD, a couple of seats, 4 tires and a steering wheel), but it is much more than this when you consider safety (MVSS), reliability / durability, comfort (A/C, radio with bluetooth and mp3).... building vehicles and being competitive in that market is challenging. Breaking into that market with a totally new brand, product line, and technology is the most daunting concept I've ever contemplated. $50M is chump change in terms of vehicle development. Consider that Toyota paid $16.4M as a fine for the recall debacle... 33% of what they are investing with Tesla... What I see as important in this is the alignment of the planets; Toyota's manufacturing facility in San Jose (Matrix / Pontiac Vibe) is currently idled; pushing the Tesla sub-$50k will require sales volume... manufacturing volume can not be accomplished without a proper manufacturing facility...
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Coward, could you please get yourself (or use your) handle? I am interested in your post and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
price tag (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 $
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 hur
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Typical myopia of a city-dweller. Try looking at numbers before talking. Cities in the US haven't changed appreciably in population since the '50s. Nearly all the population migration in the past half century was into suburbs. Where a whopping 52% [pbs.org] of the country now lives. One of the major distinguishing factors of suburbs vs. urban areas is the high availabil
I think the Volt is a Better Design (Score:2)
Meeting California ZEV requirements cheaply. (Score:3, Informative)
I was trying to figure out what Toyota gets out of this. They have everything they need to build their own EVs. The Prius has electrical components for everything, it is nearly an EV already and they have had the Rav4 EV, and the FCHV test bed platforms. There is nothing in technology that they really need Tesla for.
But I think I know what they get out of this: ZEV credits in California. 50 Million is pocket change compared to the cost of bringing their own new EV to market. This lets them cover their ZEV requirements in California on the cheap if they don't really believe a full EV is practical (money making) for them at this time.
The actual California State pages on ZEV program seem to be down for me right now, but this is what I am talking about:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/28/business/fi-zev28 [latimes.com]
"Under the new standards, passed unanimously, the board will require the largest companies selling cars in the state to produce 7,500 electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles for sale, lease or loan in California from 2012 to 2014 -- down from the 25,000 required in the period under the previous rules.
In addition, carmakers will be called upon to make about 58,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the same period. The previous regulation, passed in 2003, made no provisions for plug-in hybrids because they were not considered viable at the time."
Match made in Heven! (Score:3, Funny)
Combining Toyota's "Can't Stop!" technology, to solve Tesla's limited range problems is pure genius!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, people who live in big cities have realized this for years. You own transportation that supports your regular commute habit
Re:Honda Clarity? (Score:4, Informative)
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
you're joking right?
H2 is made by steam cracking CH4 (natural gas), thus is a carbon fuel.
Also, do me a favor:
Set your odometer trip meter to 0. Drive your normal drive for a day, what does it read? 10mi? 25? 50? most people have commutes that are under 50 miles, which means this car wouldn't have to "fill up" but once a week overnight. If you are not "most people" then don't buy this car. Bonus points, many employers will let you charge the car for free at work.
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracapacitor [wikipedia.org]
Re:The thing that makes electrics un-economical (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Rolling Blackouts (Score:5, Informative)