Then again, it could be tulips.
Me? I drive a nice big SUV.
It has been a very good day for Tesla, after its CEO reports the firm took orders for over 196,000 new Model 3 electric cars. Thought it would slow way down today, but Model 3 order count is now at 198k. Recommend ordering soon, as the wait time is growing rapidly. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 1, 2016 The new car went on …
"it's like saying the ferrari F12 berlinetta is one hell of a car, so this fiat 500 must be great too."
Not sure what you are trying to imply there as the Fiat 500 is a great car for what it is designed to do. Whilst I wouldn't want to take one anywhere near a motorway, they probably have the Ferrari licked for a day-to-day town-center commute or shopping trip.
Whilst I agree that the quality of previous Tesla cars doesn't necessarily mean that the new one will be as amazing, they have done enough impressive stuff to deserve a little faith.
But surely the appeal of a Tesla
is that it is an electric car, so laughing at petrol prices
is that Musk has had a pretty good string of great ideas
is that it is affordable for an electric car, in a company that has built an electric from the ground up, instead of bolting on the electrics to a petrol-burner model
is that they have been reasonably customer-focused, fixing problems fairly quickly as they arose
The general idea is that you fit one if you get an electric car. If you have street parking, some councils are looking at fitting sockets to lamp posts and setting up dedicated EV spaces. The other option, that some people do currently with their Tesla, is using Superchargers exclusively.
"...fitting sockets to lamp posts..."
Do the cables lock in at both ends? Otherwise somebody (everybody) will just unplug all the e-cars because it's funny. Find your car has a range of "7" in the morning.
They'll take off with the cable if it's not tied down. If it's heavy copper, well - copper thieves.
Has anyone thought this through yet?
I know right. My new house is an older one with just 2 plug outlets in the bedroom.. One for bedside lamp and one for electric blanket.
But I want to run my clock, charger for my phone, and a TV. One day I'll get a house with those plugs. Till the it'll have to do without.
Actually, I'd wager that even stronger statement, such as "No country in the world has got the capacity...", is true.
However, Teslas, Nissan Leafs etc. are only a miniscule percentage of total car numbers, so grids will have a few decades to adapt. In infrastructure terms this isn't a lot though - Germans for example adopted abruptly their Energiewende in 2010 and in 2016 there is almost zero progress in critical north-south power network extension to accomodate massive influx of energy from northern wind parks. And from the "Go" it will take additional ten, fifteen years to actually build something useful. Also, I don't believe that actually anyone understands in full what it means to have really massive increase in electric power consumption. Smart grid demos are always nice, but in practice they don't work (yet).
Electric cars however, have to overcome additional ideological issue (at least for the time being) - they don't produce exhalations directly, but electricity they use is supplied largely by burning carbon fuels, such as coal and natural gas. In California for example, such sources comprise over 50% of power mix (according to the source of all wisom, Wikipedia). And California is quite a "green" state.
With sufficient electric car subsidies however, people won't be bothered by such irrelevant technicalities, though.
Possible over night capacity. If we are talking 100% takeup, the possibly no. But if we were talking 100% takeup by the customers, I'd assume lots of companies would spring up to provide a service for them. (Biodiesel generators in the gap it would take to build the cars, though 4 years seems more than enough to get some increase in grid capacity)
"...4 years seems more than enough to get some increase in grid capacity..."
Some maybe, in special cases or in countries where some mandarin comes and just makes land owner sign off the deal or else. Certainly not in Europe, with property transactions, EIA processes, pressure groups negotiations and so on and on taking years. I guess it's the same all over (democratic) world.
In the free world you have to take into account the fact that despite everyone agrees on some infrastructure being necessary, no one wants it in their backyard. And if they agree, they usually want something for it and on top some concessions that take time to negotiate. Sorry if it sounds patronising (that's not the intention), but I really want to show that things really do take time, often longer that people appreciate.
As a side note - I don't believe in biodiesel (unless from food production waste, which is only miniscule amount). It is more damaging to the environment than the normal one. It results in destroyed soil, erosion, requires massive amount of fertilisers. This is a brutal, dirty business violating nature. Actually, top soil would need many decades to naturally recover from such (ab)use.
Last estimate I saw was that the current US grid could support 70% of all transportation miles without needing a single extra power station.
As an example, I have a Chevrolet Volt. It charges at 3.3kW. I charge my Chevrolet Volt off peak, starting at midnight during the week and any time during the weekend. If my charging adds to the grid peak load it's only the standby Wattage of my EVSE. I'd charge off peak anyway, but it's cheaper for me to do so. Sensible pricing will naturally lead the market to charge away from peak demand.
The emissions from the required electricity are not a fundamental issue because it's substituting for petroleum-based fuels. Not only are there direct benefits from the substitution, but if plug-in vehicles are successful it will imply the existence of two things: cheap batteries and a massive, controllable demand sink. Both of those would provide substantial benefit to the electricity grid through raising generation efficiency and allowing easier integration of renewables.
What is the fuel-energy conversion efficiency of a modern all electric car compared to a modern petrol driven car? By that, I mean how much fuel do you need to burn in a power station compared to burning in an IC engine for the car to travel a certain distance.
I realise that the comparisons are complicated by the fact that power stations can burn 'low quality' fuel so they avoid the refining costs and there are, of course, the transport and infrastructure costs of car fuel distribution. Has anyone done a detailed analysis of this?
When I start my car on an average UK morning, the first thing I do is turn the heating full on for a good 15 minutes. In the winter, it's front and rear electric defrost for a good 10 minutes and 50% heating/demist all the time. In the summer, I have the aircon running. I have a feeling that these conditions would invalidate the mileage range claims for any electric vehicle.
"The average automobile engine is only about 35% efficient, and must also be kept idling at stoplights, wasting an additional 17% of the energy, resulting in an overall efficiency of 18%. Large stationary electric generating plants have fewer of these competing requirements as well as more efficient Rankine cycles, so they are significantly more efficient than vehicle engines, around 50% "
"Total losses: 1,423.5 MW (2.29% of peak demand)"
80-90% (theoretically 92%, but who gets that)
So even ignoring:
- Nuke plants
- Regenerative braking
You get 97%*80%*50% ~40% efficiency from an unrefined, centrally delivered fuel as opposed to ~20% for a highly refined and locally distributed fuel.
Sorry - missed this para:
"When I start my car on an average UK morning, the first thing I do is turn the heating full on for a good 15 minutes. In the winter, it's front and rear electric defrost for a good 10 minutes and 50% heating/demist all the time. In the summer, I have the aircon running. I have a feeling that these conditions would invalidate the mileage range claims for any electric vehicle."
Err - it's plugged in, so all you need to do is tell it you'll be driving in 15 minutes, and use the mains feed to preheat the car. Easy. No cold running engine either...
"What is the fuel-energy conversion efficiency of a modern all electric car compared to a modern petrol driven car?"
Well I look at it like this - just comparing the basic energy per mile for both.
Tesla S 85kWh for ~250 miles = 1.2MJ/mile (85e3 W *3600 s /250)
My slightly lower weight but less aerodynamic diesel ( 55mpg measured over the last 1400 miles) = 3MJ/mile. ( 36MJ/L * 4.5 / 55 )
So it all comes down to electric generation/distribution/charging/discharging losses vs refining/transport losses. The electrical losses are the big variable country-country and indeed station-station with older coal-fired stations being particularly bad and gas, nuclear/wind/solar/hydro increasingly better.
"So it all comes down to electric generation/distribution/charging/discharging losses vs refining/transport losses."
Not forgetting all the various processes for creating everything needed too, eg pollution caused by mining the materials to build deep sea drill rigs, or mining and processing the rare earths to make the batteries and motors (sometimes highly dirty and toxic processes).
"My country's National Grid hasn't got the capacity to generate or deliver enough electricity"
Of course it does. Absolute worst case we just burn all the petrol we would have used but in big, heavy, efficient static power stations. I think we can do much much better than that. Especially because often battery charging can happen at any time of the night so we can wait for a point when there is little demand but a big gust happens to be passing the wind farm.
"we can wait for a point when there is little demand but a big gust happens to be passing the wind farm."
Ok, let's have a look at the National Grid generation history and see how often we have low demand and an excess of wind power then.
So, we use 30GW worth of power overnight. We nominally have 8GW worth of installed wind capacity. This installed capacity has generated peaks of over 2GW but under 5.5GW for generously 20% of the year and has never, ever generated the nominally installed capacity. The remaining 80% of the year has been delivering under 2GW.
So, it looks roughly like the times that the times that your wind farms are going to be generating sufficant power to charge car batteries overnight from an excess of power generated from wind farms is going to be approximately "never".
Over the last week wind has produced less power than coal plants converted to burn trees (sorry, biomass) for the "green" renewable handouts this results in precisely twice. Burning biomass generates less than half what coal plants burning coal produce, which is turn is less than half what nuclear provides 24/7, which is less than half of what is produced by burning gas since gas and gas plants are cheap to build and everybody accepts them to "back up varying outputs from wind farms".
Usually backups are understood to be secondary fallbacks, rather than generating over fifteen times(!) the output of the supposedly primary wind plants.
"it's possible to build more capacity. Who'd have thought?"
Not in the UK. Well, it IS possible, but only if the process starts tomorrow morning at 9am so the first new plant can come online in April 2026 after all the planning kerfuffles and NIMBY protests have wended their way through the courts. Assuming everything goes smoothly of course. Maybe add a year or five to allow for other cock-ups or legal challenges.
"My country's National Grid hasn't got the capacity to generate or deliver enough electricity to run the nation's cars if they were all electric."
Are you in India?
I know that the US and GB both have the capacity to charge a large number of electric cars off-peak. In fact, the electric companies would love it if more people were buying power in the middle of the night.
Roof top solar systems start making a lot of sense if one has an electric car which also lowers the impact on the Grid.
Yeah, you know those times when you read an article about stuff you're interested in, and it's very obvious to you that it's written by a journalist who isn't interested in the subject?
This is one of those times.
There were about 200k* reservations**.
Tesla's intention is to be up to 500k per year by the end of 2020 as they built up production at Fremont and add sections to the Gigafactory..
They intended to be up to a run rate of about 50k per year by the end of Q2 for both Model S and Model X. But it seems that demand is down (Model 3 doing some Osbourning) and they're not going to be able to get the X up to full speed by end of Q2. Even with reduced S and X sales I think they'll be able to get funding, since there's obviously significant latent demand.
Musk has written that he expect the Average Selling Price for the Model 3 of $42k. Nobody's configured yet. It's very hard to configure something when the configurations aren't available.
* Last tweet said it's up to 230k. Note that it's reservations and each person can reserve two.
** Musk calls them orders. Fair dos, when someone using a standard dealership wants a specific config the dealer doesn't have it's called an order, even though there's not necessarily any commitment to buy.
BTW, it's 500,000/yr in the US factory alone. No mention of the EU factory's output when it's up and running. I have no idea where the 50,000 number came from, but it seems to be floating around in the media for some reason.
Screen dump from the presentation: http://i.imgur.com/9hd8TjY.png
The Fremont factory was a stupid purchase. There aren't many other more expensive places to live where an auto factory could be placed. Detroit may be unfashionable and very far from the Silicon Valley, but I would wager that if Tesla made noises about possibly relocating their manufacturing there, there would be no problem getting a free building and lots of tax credits.
Exercise: Search for Fremont, CA on Google maps and plot the distance to Cupertino in the heart of the Silicon Valley. Now search for apartments and homes, sample some supermarket ads for food prices. Extra credit: Analyze your tolerance for multiple roommates in a small apartment and estimate how long you could go without planning several murders.
@MachDiamond The point is that it was an existing car factory, so required minimal additional investment beyond the tooling specific for their production line. With a new production line, I would expect the line to be largely automated. Consequently, the workers you require might be more along the lines of computer engineers than the workers Henry Ford used to look for. Ford also used to pay his workers more than the standard going rate. Might not be as stupid as you think.
Promising the earth and delivering what?
I guess this is one way to get a load of cash into the coffers and be able to fend off the creditors. When did Tesla ever make a profit?
On the positive side, the price of this makes cars like the Chevvy Bolt stupidly expensive for what you get.
It remains to be seen if they can actually deliver them for this price.
Reserve my seat and popcorn for the end of 2017 please. This will get interesting.
Tesla is a longer term play and they are producing real cars not vaporware promises. For Tesla to make a profit they need to get the price/sales/production rate/model mix balance correct. They have a reasonable chance at doing it because they have enough money to last a few more years. The fact they are producing cars means they have a good handle on the production aspect and should have a good idea about producing at scale. Scaling up from a modest production run size, while not trivial, is not as difficult as set up production.
> Tesla is losing about $1B per year
Tesla have spent vast wodges of cash on building infrastructure recently, mostly the Fremont and Nevada factories. As all young companies with any sense do.
They are going into the approaching fight with a massive advantage, in that they can build their own battery packs, because of that expenditure. This will make the profits per car very different to that of their competitors.
Nor mine - but it does meet my commuting needs, which none of the current competition do, and I have other cars with IC engines for longer journeys.
With any luck this might encourage both competition and fast-charge infrastructure (not to mention generation/distribution infrastructure) and bring nearer the point where it's worth buying one. I'm just puzzled as to the wagon-wheel sized wheels...
The places I go (Southern Cascades, LA, Lake Tahoe, eastern slope of the Sierras, Central Oregon) are generally a lot farther than London-Cornwall. Not sure about the charging infrastructure to/from and certainly around some of those places. There is probably something in Tahoe, and certainly something in LA, but the other spots I highly doubt it. One of them is an area about the size of Cornwall with 3000-5000 permanent residents. I get to one of these spots and need to drive around at least another 100 miles locally every couple days.
And I dislike the logistics and bureaucracy around rental cars, especially with the occasional extra hassles if you want to take your rental out of state.
To be clear, you can have as many cars as you like. Even a Tesla ...or three.
I just hope that nobody ever pretends that they have a Tesla (as their Nth car) to be 'Green'. That would be hypocrisy; or worse yet, uninformed hypocrisy.
"A plane might be a better option..."
The crossover point, considering door-to-door, is actually about a 6-hour drive.
There have been quite a few tests, demonstrations, races, etc. to document this finding.
YMMV, and there's a distribution of variation on this rough figure. Smaller airports at each end might be faster than huge huge airports. Taxi cab saves time compared to rental. Many variables.
And of course, if you're using an electric car, forget it. Unless there are optimally-located fast chargers along the route. Charging time makes six into five.
Err. I regularly drive a Model S to our bolthole in Padstow, Cornwall. Very conveniently there are Supercharger stations placed at almost exactly the right points on both the outgoing and return journeys - M4/M5 near Bristol for if you want to hurtle down the motorway burning the battery and several in Exeter for if you want to take it slower. On the return journey there are chargers at M4 in Reading or there are also Supercharger points near Andover if you want to go via the A303 route. A 15 minute break (now down to 10 minutes I gather) gives one time for a coffee and charges the battery with around 150 miles ranges - all free of charge and a lot more pleasant atmosphere than the usual motorway services.
Oh, and just as an FYI, I have done London to Padstow without the need to use the top up. Made it with every alarm going and less than 10 miles power left.
I wonder if the Supercharger points will keep pace with the growing number of cars on the road.
That's actually my biggest worry. Have been in 'Tesla queues' at central London supercharger points before now. Westminster council, on the other hand, have embraced electric cars with a passion - there are loads of charging points around the borough and you can leave your car free of charge to charge overnight in some underground garages if you would rather have security as well.
"I wonder if the Supercharger points will keep pace with the growing number of cars on the road. Imagine getting to the Supercharger point near Andover only to find a queue of 30 cars backed up to use the pair of chargers there."
That would be a huge change from the SuperCharger station near my house. 8 positions and every once in a while there is one car there charging. The thing that gets me mad is that they installed these right in front of a favorite lunch spot of mine and now I have to park further away. There was plenty of room to put the chargers (and massive cabinets of electrical kit) further back from the shops in a part of the car park that doesn't see much use.
"A 15 minute break (now down to 10 minutes I gather) gives one time for a coffee and charges the battery with around 150 miles ranges - all free of charge"
Free of charge, even the coffee? Who pays for the electricity then? Is it magical Green hippie electricity?
"an electric car just doesn't meet my needs for the occasional several hundred mile getaway"
You're missing the point here. The whole reason Tesla has attracted such interest is they are producing cars that DO meet that need. People are driving these things all round Europe. For free, too.
"Personally, I usually don't buy a car that is in the first year of a new model."
As the adage goes, never buy version 1 of anything.
Every new vehicle goes out with known issues and many more are found as cars are lost in accidents or been in for repair or servicing - structural faults, safety issues etc.
So anyone who buys a car which has been out for a couple of years and fixed these problems gets a better, more reliable car. Aside from that the vehicle editions tend to improve in time offering e.g. the Model S got new battery options that early adopters won't ever see.
"As the adage goes, never buy version 1 of anything.
Every new vehicle goes out with known issues and many more are found as cars are lost in accidents or been in for repair or servicing - structural faults, safety issues etc."
Ahhhh, but Elon insists that Tesla is a "Technology Company" and not (just) an auto maker.
This makes the first models "Beta, v0.1" which generally translates into "a complete load of fertilizer".
If progress is being stymied it is probably because someone is not doing any of these things.
An electric motor lacks the complex interaction of hundreds of discrete mechanical components found in an internal combustion engine. Being mechanically simpler means improved reliability, less maintenance, and greater operational longevity. The first model year and/or "made on a Monday or Friday" problems, so prevalent in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's does not translate to an electric vehicle made mostly by machines.
Tesla is a low production manufacturer that can take time to make its products correctly, with fewer compromises. They have given the auto-industry a shake from it's complacent slumber. As Bob Lutz said "Suddenley there was the Tesla announcement. Two hundred mile range, zero to sixty in four point something seconds, a hundred and forty mile an hour top speed, six thousand eight hundred and thirty one laptop batteries, and I basically said 'Now wait a minute, I've accepted everybody's arguments as to why we can't do this, but here's this small startup company in California, and they think that they can get all of these figures'".
The "we can't do this" crowd really needs to get out of the way of the people who are doing it.
@BitDr - Electric cars have always had the ability to perform on par with IC powered cars throughout history. The major issues they have historically fixed have been range, recharging time, recharger accessibility, and battery life. Tesla appears to have solved the range and battery life problem. The recharging time may be solved, if the 15 min recharge times quoted are accurate. This leaves recharger accessibility as the last major hurdle.
Most traditional car people like Bob Lutz flunked automotive history. Electrics, hybrids, and even steam powered cars have been around since the early days of cars. None of the key technology is conceptually new.
@a_yank_lurker. Agreed, none of the key technology is conceptually new, however, today the materials that go into it and the understanding of the chemistry and physics at work is far ahead of where we were when the Stanley Steamer was in production.
BitDr "An electric motor lacks the complex interaction of hundreds of discrete mechanical components found in an internal combustion engine."
Having watched the Tesla episode of 'How It's Made', I can assure you that the Tesla drive assembly is actually quite complicated. The basic motor (already with a lengthy BoM) is literally buried deep within a larger assembly including power electronics, liquid cooling, a gear box (fixed), and plenty of other complications.
I'm sure it's quite reliable, just like any modern motor car. When it does go, there will be plenty of spares available due to the fiscal unfeasibility of battery replacement.
If you're thinking of repairs, please turn your attention to the battery pack. Never take your eyes off the battery pack. Battery pack. It's a 'Lifed' item. Clock is ticking.
"If you're thinking of repairs, please turn your attention to the battery pack. Never take your eyes off the battery pack. Battery pack. It's a 'Lifed' item. Clock is ticking."
Yes - it has a life - so do all the components in an internal combustion engine.
The battery was originally quoted as a 10 year predicted life. Since they have had a few being driven around that has now been revised Upwards as a result of the telemetry data. It's now 12 years.
Oh and that's when they have 80% charge capacity, so they are then useful in all sorts of other applications - probably static, and then they can be recycled into new batteries.
My car has just died, it was 11 years old - The engine is dodgy, the gearbox is a bit wonky, the brake lines are corroded - it's had various mechanical failures....
But a 10-12 year battery life doesn't seem so limited any more.
Musk operational philosophy is to do things "conventional wisdom" says can't be done, and reap disproportionate profits from delivering the impossible. He believes in his people so much, and respects them so much, that asking them to achieve only the mundane is too much to ask. Working for him must be the high achiever's dream job, an aspirational goal worth making the effort to lift your own potential for.
We could use more captains of industry like this. Too often the goal is just to deliver a marginal increase in revenue from the year ago quarter with the least possible effort. That is not a motive to drive innovation to the next level, nor one to draw the best of the best workers and get the most from their capabilities.
Tesla is a low production manufacturer that can take time to make its products correctly, with fewer compromises
I've seen low-volume car manufacturers in operation. I think your view above is misplaced; low-volume manufacturers typically make far more compromises, and although the cars can be absolutely wonderful, quality is frequently compromised.
I absolutely loved my Lotus. But I never took it out if I *had* to get to my destination. I have friends who say exactly the same about TVRs, Nobles, even - especially - Ferraris.
Yup. And look what he did for the computer industry.
How many crowd funding companies or 'unicons' fail to product anything worthwhile? At least Sinclair and Elon Musk have done (and did) something towards fulfilling their promises.
Ford - "we have this amazing car, plonk down $1000 and we might deliver something approximating our promises in two or three years. Oh and check out the headline price because chances are your car will cost a lot more than that when you throw in the extras. Oh and you might want to read our twitter feed since we have tendency of mentioning extra delays in offhand ways."
Fools with money they wish to part with - "this sounds like a fabulous idea, where do I preorder?"
Sounds absurd but this is Tesla's pitch. I'm sure the Model 3 will be a good car. It may even break electric vehicles into the mainstream. But it's not some limited edition Bugatti or something. They'll make as many of these cars as they can sell. I see no reason that I should give them cash for a car which doesn't exist, won't exist for several years, and may suffer early build or production issues like delays for that privilege.
This: ""we have this amazing car, plonk down $1000 and we might deliver something approximating our promises in two or three years."
Mr. Musk says two years, hopefully the cars they had on the stage were the "production ready" examples. If so then it will probably take that much time to design the assembly line, get the logistics figured out, and start ramping it up to speed. Those two years make a pretty tight time line and there is SO much that can go wrong.
Regarding the "Chances are your car will cost a lot more than that when you throw in the extras". That statement is true of every automobile ever sold. Replace "car" with "house" and it's still true.
I got an email from them telling me about the unveiling, if they don't use email to advise those in the queue of delays then they deserve their ire. I can't imagine NOT using email to keep them in the loop... but you never can tell.. stupidity knows no bounds.
I wish them the best of luck.
P.S. No I didn't put any $$ down. I don't own a Tesla, nor do I work for them.
"Regarding the "Chances are your car will cost a lot more than that when you throw in the extras"
Musk has already tweeted he expects average spend to be $42,000 so he expects on average to sell $7000 extras on top of every $35000 car. That's a lot of extras.
Anyway the queue is beyond 250,000. So perhaps some of these people might actually take delivery of a reliable well built car (in the 4 or 5 years it takes for Tesla to fulfill their reservation) since any safety / quality / reliability issues in early production should be resolved.
Actuaries could have a field day figuring out statistically how many people in this queue will die or suffer a change in circumstances before their car arrives. I wonder if you can buy insurance for that possibility.
There was a news item a year or two ago about some bloke that ruined his Model S battery pack. Something about racing to catch a flight, and leaving it parked for weeks with the battery state too low. Those details don't matter.The interesting tidbit was that the price of replacing the battery pack was US$46,000.
Considering that the battery pack is going to go bad at some point (a certainty, not just a risk); this seems to be a huge counterbalancing factor to the advantages. Even if the price of the pack drops, it's still going to be 'The Most Expensive Car Maintenance Line Item' in history.
Will there be a huge fleet of perfectly good used 9 year old Teslas, with failed batteries, worth, when fixed, slightly less than the cost of repair? All other used parts will available cheap.
Will this limited lifespan, terminated early by the cost of the battery, result in the final analysis revealing that the total lifecycle footprint per km being higher than expected?
At this point, some will jump in to point out that the battery pack is going to last far longer than a decade. Really? Perhaps Tesla should market this technology, because I've never seen a Li-ion cell that was much good after eight or nine years, tops. And I'm not leaving my laptops outside in the extreme climate.
Unless Musk figures out how to get the cost of replacing a 'lifed' item way down into the 4-figures range ($46k -> $9k), then this is all going to blow up in about a decade.
Maybe he's planning to go to Mars before then, because there's going to be a price on his head back here on Earth...
The battery pack on my PHEV has a 10-year 120,000 mile (200,000 km) warranty. But the web sites are full of tales of EVs being 'bricked' at super-chargers - they need to be towed to the nearest dealer for a quick CTRL-ALT-DEL - though this is covered by warranty, it's still a huge inconvenience.
The warranty on Tesla batteries doesn't cover "normal wear and tear", which is pretty much the major problem with an EV battery. And Tesla warranties carry an implicit assumption the company will be around when you collect on it. Which is quite the assumption given their are a prodigious destroyer of capital and can only continue to exist as long as there are gullible investors and politicians willing to subsidize EVs.
Either of those change and you've got scrap metal.
Normal wear and tear is not covered under ANY warranty. Show us anything that warrants against being used up and worn out.. really... anything at all. It also doesn't cover abuse, so no shooting the car and then trying to get them to replace it under warranty. Sheesh!
I can agree on batteries being the expensive weak point, geting those puppies down in price has got to be a high priority. On the upside an electric vehicle only needs a specific DC voltage and amperage input to get it to move. Didn't Tesla open-source it's tech? That would make creating an after market battery pack a viable business proposition, or perhaps creating a replacement unit but made out of super capacitors. You should even be able to use a fuel-cell, just so long as the power it provides meets the spec.
"At this point, some will jump in to point out that the battery pack is going to last far longer than a decade"
The more you use them the faster they wear out, the deeper and quicker you charge/discharge them the faster they wear out. The higher the temperature you keep them at the faster they wear out (without using them at all).
As they wear the capacity and so range drops which is already a weak point for EVs.
There will be a range of battery lives. I agree it is hard to see people thinking battery replacement is economical and resale value of cars with weak batteries will be dire. I guess most Teslas (and other pure EVs) will be scrapped before being 10 years old.
"As they wear the capacity and so range drops which is already a weak point for EVs."
You seem to have been downvoted by someone who doesn't want to know the facts about batteries.
I would really like to believe in EVs - but ever since mains electricity has existed, the lack of an effective and economical storage medium has been a major constraint.
>There will be a range of battery lives. I agree it is hard to see people thinking battery replacement is economical and resale value of cars with weak batteries will be dire. I guess most Teslas (and other pure EVs) will be scrapped before being 10 years old.
However, 10 years is a long time in the battery industry and we're already seeing developments which promise greater battery lifetime and capcity. It is plausible that, by the time the original pack expires, an affordable alternative is available which might even have higher capacity and a longer lifetime ...
"However, 10 years is a long time in the battery industry"
No it isn't. We have been trying to make better batteries for more than a century. Batteries have gone hardly anywhere in the last decade. It is enough time to come up with a battery breakthrough, spend all your investor's money trying to make it work and go bust - A123 and Envia for example..
There seems to be a general stupidity that says because we have seen huge technological advances in some areas we can have huge technological advances in any area by just throwing money at it and waiting. Look at how long and how much money the DOE has thrown at the 'hydrogen economy' for example.
I have an 8-year-old car (a Mercedes E-Class) and it's still in excellent condition. A lot could go wrong and still not cost $5,000 to set right.
If it were an 8-year-old Tesla with a $XX,000 battery pack nearing end-of-life, then I'd be getting pretty nervous right about now. Even eBay wants several dollars each for good 18650 cells, and the Model S has 7,000 of them. About $20,000 even DIY soldering in the cells yourself. And then your car and house would burn to the ground because you did it wrong.
Like I wrote - 'The elephant in the room...'
It's hard to be 'Green' when the expensive cars have a built-in self-destruct timer.
Like I said before, if Musk has figured how to make Li-ion cells last for 15 years, then that itself is worthy of a Nobel Prize in Science.
He should get away from the 18650 form factor and start winding up some much larger cells. Make a few easier and cheaper sub-modules. Not thousands in a big expensive lump.
The factory-replacement price of a 25kwh battery for a Nissan Leaf has dropped from $18000 to $5400 in the last 5 years. Projections are for another 2-3x reduction in cost per Kwh in the next five, partly due to increased production, which requires no improvements in current battery technology.
KO: "25kwh battery for a Nissan Leaf has dropped from $18000 to $5400 in the last 5 years..."
A recent news item was about GM accidentally leaking their "I give you special price" from LG Chem of $145/kwh. The usual list price is $100 more per kwh. This leak makes LG Chem's life very difficult.
25 x $145 is $3,625, so $5,400 is only a tight 33% markup from wholesale cells to retail battery pack. They're obviously more or less giving it away at near-zero profit. Which is very nice of them.
$5400 for a battery pack is quite reasonable. Good on Nissan.
Still leaves Tesla 90 kwh pack at $20,000 by comparison (ratio only).
Has the Leaf Battery Lease pricing been similarly adjusted? Last time I checked, six months ago, it was nearly $200 per month, just to lease the battery pack. The lease price should be $50 now.
I wonder how many of those $1000 refundable deposits were from people taking a punt on doing a Morgan, and being able to sell theirs for more than they paid for it once it was delivered? I know that's a bit cynical but a multiyear waiting list for what is intended to be a volume car does seem a little speculative.
... and have read a lot in the past about how Mr Musk can't what he's said (at that time) he's trying to do, or is going to do.
I don't want to open any 'let's make a list' thing of how many times he hasn't delivered, as opposed to how many times he has - I have no idea what the numbers would be on either side of that ledger. However, I do want to say to say I'm glad there are people in the world trying to do things others say can't be done, and trying, like, really, really hard. And accepting the risk of not succeeding. I have no issues with those who choose to try to do things 'everybody knows' can be done - but do them better. But I have to admire the wonderful insanity of those who try other things - 'impossible' things - whether they succeed or not.
Of course, I'm an Idiot... (blush).
When I think of this, I had a flash of the old JFK speech.
We choose to <do stuff> in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win.
With this many order would takes about 3 seconds to get new investors to build another 5 factory to produce these many cars... I don't get it why some people whining about this, this cannot be done.
By the way I just saw that in Saud Arabia the "boss" just made a 2 Billion dollar investment found, when no more oil will be available around the Earth to do some proper business ideas. So this is the time to get together and create more factories I guess.
So basically, Elon collected money from the market. Got a cool deposit (refundable though), will leverage and invest in business. Markets saw the stock go up 8% and corrected back to normal levels. Someone made money in that 8% fluctuations that day. Thats all that matters as of today.
$35,000 sounds not to bad in the UK except whilst $35,000 = £24,500 Tesla  want £48,500 + £10,500 VAT.
You're not comparing the same car in each currency...
See the "models" in the middle of that? You're looking at the price for a Model S, not a Model 3.
Seems that there is an opportunity for providing power outlets. Anyone interested in producing an all-in-one parking meter, power outlet, wifi point, etc., etc., for the market. Municipal services will love them. Make them smart too, they can broadcast that a parking space is free.
I would love to know how many of the deposits were placed by speculators looking to resell their place in line or the car itself when available. I'm sure a few people have run the numbers and decided that they could earn a fair bit of return on those $1,000 deposits. Since they are refundable, they also have a way to back out should the Bolt or another EV take off. With savings interest rates at historic lows and playing the stock market much like gambling in a casino, car-scalping might be a better way to save for retirement.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019