digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at engadget.com

Tesla to produce sub $30k electric car!

engadget.com — Tesla is becoming affordable to the "average" consumer.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Zandarrr, on 06/30/2008, -3/+161If I save $20 per day for every day before the release, I will have enough dough to buy one.

    ::panhandles furiously::
    • binorgog, on 08/07/2008, -4/+69Will Work For Electric Car
    • SolituSneiku, on 07/01/2008, -19/+3hmm.....29k with a cassette player/roll up windows...before taxes, title, plates, documentation fees...not to mention the 10k markup...sounds like a deal!
    • monospaced, on 07/01/2008, -3/+11DO IT!
      • DearSergio, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Totally, DO IT! Put it in a jar and take a picture weekly as it fills up. Then document the purchase, help raise awareness about moving towards alternative ways to power autos!
    • LightSpeed4, on 07/01/2008, -28/+2only a tree hugger would buy a car from this no-name company.
      • ajimmykid, on 07/01/2008, -3/+9are you kidding me?
      • isntreal, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4He's just fun.
      • trademaak, on 07/01/2008, -5/+1Right, this ***** is for tree-huggers and hippies. Real men drive hummers and bmw's.
      • elementop, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Must...not..feed...the troll......
  • EdmontonEh, on 06/30/2008, -13/+5Plug me in Jack!

    {lights bong}
    • pw378, on 07/01/2008, -5/+16Of course when everyone has an electric car, the price of electricity will skyrocket and probably exceed the price of gas... Bio-diesel was $.10 a gallon in 2000, now its around $2.50-3.00/gallon and rising. Lets not even mention the great idea of using corn to produce ethanol for fuel and how its spiraling the price of food up.

      Fact 1 - for every increase in demand there will be a corresponding increase in price. Economics are a bitch.
      Fact 2 - To produce more electricity, we will require more gas and coal powerplants
      Fact 3 - Solar and wind power are nice and friendly, but will never come close to meeting demand
      Fact 4 - Nuclear power solves many of the issues of fact 1 & 2, but the hippies will cry and make people feel bad.
      • urbandistrict, on 07/01/2008, -2/+8Dugg because I agree with your facts.... however

        Fact 5 - Electric energy has a far less imprint on the Earth than fossil fuels.
        Fact 6 - There are many strides still to be made with alternative and less detrimental energy sources such as solar, hydro, and wind energies that do not produce toxic waste.

        Option 1 - People should be less bleak about the pursuit for more efficient means of energy that do not leave an impact on our Earth.
      • senatorpjt, on 07/01/2008, -2/+124 solves 1, 2, and 3. ***** the hippies.
      • apeweek, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2If electricity gets too expensive, buy solar panels for your garage. The price of solar is falling, and will continue to do so, as the price drop is being fueled by technology changes.
      • Ganpachi, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Doesn't fact #1 conflict with your 3rd "fact"? If there is a demand, more will be made.

        *****.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2"Electric energy has a far less imprint on the Earth than fossil fuels."

        What? His point was that most electricity in the US is produced by fossil fuels.
      • elementop, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1But the cool thing about solar and wind power is that -- at least in many cases -- a moderately skilled DIYer can create solar and wind power that they use to recharge their Tesla, and can use commercially available power when/if wind and solar aren't available.

        You don't exactly have the option of refining your own gasoline for a conventional car.
  • numbone, on 06/30/2008, -13/+6Let's go, let's go, LET'S GO!

    :: power up ::
  • binorgog, on 08/07/2008, -19/+44It's powered by a Flux Capacitor
    • jman583, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4No, hamsters.
    • thegreatgazoo, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Tesla Coil

      Keeps the bugs off of your windshield too, or at least pre-kills them :-)
    • f3l1x, on 07/01/2008, -1/+21.21 GIGAWATTS!?!?!?!?!?!?!1/1
    • DarknessGP, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3It can't possibly be powered by a flux capacitor... considering the flux capacitor isn't a power source and is what makes time travel possible. The DeLorean still runs on good old gasoline.
      • seanof, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1As a car it runs on gas. The time machine used plutonium and later Mister Fusion.
  • enderwigin, on 06/30/2008, -23/+73It is the 21st century were is my flying car?
    • julianwan, on 07/01/2008, -4/+83in a holding container along with your grammar.
      • vipersporthp, on 07/01/2008, -7/+1Is your spelling in there too?
      • MasterGrief, on 07/01/2008, -6/+2"Grammar", vipersporthp, is not spelled "grammer".
    • fredmv, on 07/01/2008, -25/+11Were? Come on dude.

      Edit: oh wait, checked your profile. You're from Texas. How's that creation science degree working out for you?
    • Disease, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1On display with the jetpacks and the house of tomorrow.
    • jull1234, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1You simply haven't diddled the right scientist yet.
    • agenthamsta, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I've been asking the same question for 8 years.. WTF!!
    • hartley, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3You still have a few more years. Doc and Marty went to the year 2015.
    • 808ethan, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Right next to women driver's skills. If you find one, you'll find the other.

      PLANECRASH!
  • JHaze, on 06/30/2008, -5/+70$30,000 and I've got to assume that in for years a battery will have a 300-350 range.
    Sounds like a great car, no doubt I'll consider it.
    • YesImAChick, on 07/01/2008, -4/+47*four
    • fryguy1013, on 07/01/2008, -4/+8Just assume that in four years, $30k will buy 200 mile range. If you're lucky that is. And that's just the batteries. Batteries do not have anywhere near the Moore's "law" going for it. For comparison, the Tesla Roadster has ~$50k worth of batteries in it right now, assuming ~$1.00 per watt-hour worth of lithium ion (there's 53 kWh). (for reference, you can get retail batteries at $1.11 per watt-hour here: http://www.onlybatteries.com/showitem.asp?ItemID=1 ... ). On sale.

      You also have to take into account that the roadster only weighs 1000 pounds, whereas a sedan is probably going to be a bit heaver.
      • joatmon07734, on 07/01/2008, -16/+4And that's why McCain's $300 million for new battery technology is just one reason to vote for him (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_el_pr/mc ...
      • ElTomacco, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11No car weighs 1000 lbs. The Tesla Roadster weighs 2,700 lbs, 200 more than the Lotus Elise on which it's based. Batteries are heavy.
      • IUAndar, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Ariel Atom weighs 1005 lbs. You clearly haven't seen Jeremy Clarkson have his face reshaped by one.
      • ElTomacco, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Actually I have. Too bad in most states you'll need to register it as a kit-car to drive it legally on the road. Same with the Caterham 7 and various other track-day specials.
      • fryguy1013, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Whoops, it weights 1200 kg, not pounds. But the point still stands that a coupe is likely going to be heavier than a 2-seat sports car
    • greenvortex, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2That's the one great thing about electric cars: as technology evolves, you can swap out your original batteries for lighter, more efficient ones. It's a lot simpler to do than replacing an engine.
  • DaDiggydiggyDOC, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4630k is more in my price range! The one thing that I do have to say about this car company is that they know how to make a cool looking car, and add in that I don't have to fill up...goodbye gas I won't miss you.
    • directrix13, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6Yeah, goodbye gas. Hello waiting 12 hours to recharge.
      • DaDiggydiggyDOC, on 07/01/2008, -0/+10They surprisingly said that it will be a 4 hours recharge...just don't forget to recharge at night or need to be anywhere in a hurry..if you forget.
      • kkDonut, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1yes, a full charge can take some 8-10 hours, but the telsa roadster comes with a one hour quick/travel charger, to take it to around 70%. (I'm not 100% sure about my numbers, but I think its around there.)

        And one can think that battery technology is only going to get better.
      • directrix13, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Thats still an extra wasted hour. They should just standardize the size and interface with the car. And have stations where a machine swaps your out with a charged one. Deducting the difference of the costs of the battery and charging you for the power. Makes sense to me. That is once they get batteries small enough.
    • catch-22, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6You mean they know how to take the body styling of a cool looking car. They're using the body from a Lotus Elise to build the roadster.
  • ScottOrwig, on 07/01/2008, -5/+55Four years. Hear that Detroit? Please offer me a Ford that competes with this.
    • tehbored, on 07/01/2008, -2/+15Chevy Volt in two years. Probably gonna be around 40-50k though.
      • diggingaround, on 07/01/2008, -5/+14With GASOLINE powered on board generator.
      • natenovs, on 07/01/2008, -2/+27@diggingaround - yes, for when you are out on the road, far away from a power outlet.
      • Murdats, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4yes to add that extra weight that drains your battery faster so you will need that engine, that engine that is much more complex and needs to be checked in for maintenance at an expensive and periodic rate.
      • ricerfuel, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Heard theyre bringing out a new thing called a combustion engine, slower accelerating and costly to run, probably wont kick off. Batteries FTW!
      • swordedge, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Why so many don't understand how small gas motors can be efficient. They are
        - Just big enough to generate electricity to make the car go 70 mph all day. BIG engines are inefficient
        - Run at a steady speed
        - are very efficient since they don't change speeds or need to
        I expect the gas version of the Volt to do very well gas mileage wise, probably better then the Prius.
        If they switch to diesel, something they could easily do, this thing should top 60 MPG. A 20KW diesel generator burns about 1 gallon per hour or so and that is equivalent to about 26 HP, more than enough to make the car go 70 all day long.
        Chevy is designing this thing so that they can swap that gas motor for nearly any tech that comes along. They hope it will be fuel cells but are not planning on it since those are still expensive.
        And this is from a guy that is NOT a Chevy fan.
      • greenvortex, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2When they announced the Volt, it was only going to cost $30K. The latest estimate is $48K. That's a huge friggin' difference, Chevy.
      • domomike, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3swordedge,

        Don't be so hopeful. Look at it from an investor standpoint: GM is doing awful. In the 70's the domestics didn't look toward the future and they failed because of it. An event similar to the 70's is coming up again. Recently GM's CEO publicly called global warming "crock ****." GM is having problems and they're making an overly hopeful product. As already mentioned, they've already raised the price by 50%. The domestics are never progressively and effectively looking toward the future.
      • elementop, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2@swordedge:

        Everything you said above is true, but consider this: converting energy from one form to another is inherently inefficient. Only *if* converting gasoline to electricity (i.e., burning the gasoline in an ICE to turn an alternator) is more efficient than powering the drivetrain directly (for the reasons you mention) will the Chevy Volt be a good alternative to a conventional automobile. I don't know what the efficiency of the typical alternator is, so I'm can't say if this design makes sense.
    • romistrub, on 07/01/2008, -1/+35Why do you want a Ford? Tesla is an American company, too! Plus, "Tesla" is such an awesome name.
      • senatorpjt, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3010 years ago I'd have said that Tesla isn't an established business, but right now it seems like Ford/GM/Chrysler are closer to going out of business than Tesla.
      • Symbolism, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7not to mention it shares the name with one of the most influential scientists of electricities youth.
      • redwallhp, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Plus, why would you want a cheap car made by the Auto Triumvirate that's directly responsible for suppressing the introduction of the electric car to the U.S.

        Which is a better name for Ford/GM/Chrysler? The Auto Triumvirate or the Auto Industry Association of America (AIAA)?
    • domomike, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Tesla is an American company and a much more forward-thinking one at that.
    • slowmo, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7And please, Ford, name the model something that sounds funny when you put the word "anal" in front of it (i.e. Anal Ranger, Anal Probe, Anal Explorer, Anal Expedition, Anal Escort, Anal Fiesta, etc.
  • xenoc1de, on 07/01/2008, -5/+50Let's here all of those "not affordable" complaints now.

    Tesla is for sure moving us in a great direction.
    • xenoc1de, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11damnit, proofreading comes after my 5 minutes are up.
    • bsonline, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2130k is still over 4 times more than I've ever paid for a car. I'm currently driving a 2003 Doge Stratus... I'd love to go all electric, but I'm going to need more people like you to drive 'em first.
      • pw378, on 07/01/2008, -27/+1Seriously dude, time to stop smoking the weed and go back for your high school diploma and maybe some college - then get a real job...
      • NOFXY, on 07/01/2008, -0/+24Whats wrong with getting a used car? unless you're filthy rich and don't care about spending the extra cash, a decent used car looks and performs just as good (if not exactly the same) as a new one. You spend a lot less money on something that nobody will know and nobody will care about. common sense FTW.
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3I agree with NOFXY, however great deals can be had on new cars to make them worth putting up the extra money. Due to being a recent college grad and owning a competing product in addition to the dealer selling me the car at just above invoice, I got a brand new Ford Focus for just over 12k. A car like that will last quite some time and is probably slightly cheaper in the long haul compared to buying used (I'll be keeping it long term).
      • bluezombie, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Yeah, but if batteries generally have a finite life span, won't that introduce a sweet spot? A time when the car is no longer new, but the battery pack still has some life in it.
    • mike17032, on 07/01/2008, -1/+10Its 4 years away. And yes 30k is still damn expensive. It had better be decked out and damn fast for that price.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8@mike: It will be damn fast. Electric motors have much better acceleration than their gasoline counterparts.

      @bsonline: Electric cars cost ~1/4 as much as gasoline cars to operate per mile. Even at 30k, the payback period might be pretty quick compared to your small, fuel efficient cars. Plus, you'd be driving a brand new car instead of the Stratus.
  • Betogonza, on 07/01/2008, -5/+22Just as I finish paying for my Huge V8 Pick up.
    • diggingaround, on 07/01/2008, -2/+10Now sell it fast!
      • bradleyland, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Too late, there are litteraly hundreds sitting on used car lots around here. Several dealers have stopped taking them on trade.
      • Dauntless1, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2PWNED
    • swordedge, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2no, charge money to all your friends that now NEED your truck to hull their ***** and no longer have anything to do it with.
      • bradleyland, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Home Depot and Lowe's both rent trucks at very reasonable rates. Seems like he'd be in a pretty tight spot to subsidize the expense of a pick-up truck by renting it out to friends.
    • AppleJacks364, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Exactly what I was thinking... To bad I still plan on pouring that 30k into a restoration project rather than an electric car.
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 07/01/2008, -6/+30i am willing to sell my body for sex. $1000 a day. any takers?
    • Carl306, on 07/01/2008, -2/+32No...
    • antiorblkflag9, on 07/01/2008, -1/+38With a name like "AtHomeBoy2000" I'm not so sure people are going to be interested. Also, nearly everyone else here is male.
      • emt1451, on 07/01/2008, -3/+40Just because they are male doesn't mean they aren't interested...
      • infinitus64, on 07/01/2008, -1/+28Yes correct there are no girls on the internet.
      • KingGorilla, on 07/01/2008, -1/+27I wonder if he likes popsicles
    • Cornloaf, on 07/01/2008, -3/+20pics or it won't happen.
    • fredmv, on 07/01/2008, -1/+23Dude, you post on Digg. A damned Real Doll probably wouldn't ***** you.
    • n3demonic, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13"You can whore yourself out to 1000 fat chicks for $50 each... or 50 REALLY fat chicks for $1000 each... What? Fat chicks need love too, they just gotta pay for it."
    • Definition, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Would you last that long?
    • megamod, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Why do diggers have such low self-esteem? just because he diggs it by default means he can't get any poon?
      I'll write a book "I can get poon and so can you!"
    • OffPiste, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2How do you feel about anal fisting?
    • SanQuentinSam, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Me and the boys here at San Quentin can oblige you in just one day. A couple of questions. 1. Do you have teeth? 2. How do you feel about the name "Bubba"?
  • gmoney1, on 07/01/2008, -2/+38so its going to cost 29,999.
    • feliks2, on 07/01/2008, -3/+23Nah, 29,995
    • zman8479, on 07/01/2008, -0/+19Probably $29,999.99 + title + tax + license + destination
      • geoboy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Well, I bet you could get states to make it so there's no sales tax on fully electric vehicles, or at least provide tax incentives for owning one. Some states probably already do.
      • MxM111, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3And that just factory invoice. Plus windows and wheels optional, and you have to pay 5K for each.
    • swordedge, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3no, $40,000 or more. It will be so popular that the dealers get to charge a BIG premium on it. I have seen this before
  • i70CuDa, on 07/01/2008, -0/+23Too bad I live in an apartment. No outlet
    • Ravatar, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11Depending on your city, I imagine some of the automated parking meter systems will include additions that let you plug your vehicle into them and automatically charge you for usage. Like Muni-Meters here in NYC for example.
      • natenovs, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8it better be less than an equivalent tank of gasoline.
    • hurdboy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Yeah, I was looking at the Gemcar, which is relatively affordable, and here now. Problem is that w/out either a bunch of outlets in the parking lot, my chances of being able to recharge it every day are slim. :-/
    • apeweek, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Charge your car at work.
      • ElTomacco, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Good idea, assuming you don't need to go anywhere on the weekend.
      • greenvortex, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3I park in a big open lot with no electrical outlets anywhere near. Even if I got a spot next to the building, what am I going to do? Run an extension cord out my office window down to the lot and hope nobody's car catches on it? Even at home, it is going to be a pain plugging it in, especially in the winter. I think a partial solution is to put solar panels on the car.
      • IllBeBack, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2How? Where are there businesses where you can plug in?
      • apeweek, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Well, two of my last three jobs had parking garages, with outlets. The third job had a spot near the building with an outdoor outlet. If it works for you, go for it. If not, you're stuck in gasoline for another decade.
    • MxM111, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3You have no outlet in apartment? How do you run you computer then? On hamsters?
      • IllBeBack, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Yeah, so all he needs to do is run 1,500 feet of extension cord out to his plug-in car.

        /sarcasm
  • markymark1000, on 07/01/2008, -16/+330k means 130k! Hello price gouging!
  • digitallysick, on 07/01/2008, -14/+8Well, 30k is still high but getting there, Maybe in time they will fall into the 25k and below and really compete with other cars on the market.
    • Ravatar, on 07/01/2008, -7/+12$30,000 is high for eliminating your dependence on gasoline, and ushering in the first major change for personal transportation in decades?

      That's some nice economic and environmental apathy you have there.
      • dagnome1984, on 07/01/2008, -5/+3Well if you really cared about limiting dependence on oil you would ride a bike to work. It takes over 40 barrels to produce a car.
      • mike17032, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3For what will be a stripped down subcompact? Yep.
      • senatorpjt, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12If I've said it once I've said it a million times - biking to work makes you sweat and sweat makes you stink. Maybe you don't smell it on yourself but some people I work with ride bikes to work and they smell like *****.
      • geoboy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Not only does biking to work make you smell, depending on where you live it's often impractical. Very few U.S. towns and cities accommodate for bikers. Not to mention how dangerous competing for pavement with motorists is, especially when they're speeding and not looking out for bikers.

        Paying for a safe car, $4/gal for gas, and car insurance is actually more like paying for my health/life insurance.
    • desertDenizen, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9Factor in the price of gas and you're there.
  • mcbridea88, on 07/01/2008, -0/+19Teslas cars are some of the few electric cars I would buy in a heart beat.
    • palmer, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5If they were actually for sale, right?
    • iofthestorm, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Teslas cars are some of the few electric cars- sentence might as well be complete right there...
    • faceless323, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1You can buy one, you just can't drive it.
  • Shabow, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6In the words of Mort Goldman, "Take that you bastards!"
  • invictus13, on 07/01/2008, -14/+12Who gives a ***** until the grid is no longer dirtier than running a regular gasoline car. When 80% of this country is run on nuclear energy then i'd say we have something here.
    • diggingaround, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7I do.. I don't want to give ONE single penny to greedbags from Exxon/Mobile. And don't you worry... other noble people like guys from Tesla Motors will take care of producing enough energy from something other than coal.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/01/2008, -4/+0T-Minus 4 years until diggingaround is complaining about the greedbag electric companies.
      • 11oops, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6When he starts complaining about the electric companies he'll put a solar panel on his garage to power his car. I'm guessing he can't currently put an oil derrick and gas refinery in his backyard.
    • stoanhart, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Yes, but electric cars are a necessary step to spurring the heavy use of nuclear power. The demand for electricity needs to be high to make the benefits of nuclear stand out.
    • palmer, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Yes, and once a large portion of the vehicle fleet is electrified, ANY advances in power generation instantly translate to the whole fleet.
    • Tenoq, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9You seem to be forgetting that ICEs are no more than 50% efficient, and typically a helluva lot less than that. Even coal-fired power stations are around 90% efficient or higher - I'm not sure how that's dirtier than wasting over 50% of your fuel in your current car? :p

      Whack a solar panel on your roof if you're so worried about it. You get huge subsidies for that already. :p
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/01/2008, -8/+3The problem is ecofreaks don't allow new cleaner power plants just because they are new power plants. When talking about efficiency you need to take the country Average (it doesn't matter if one super efficient power station has 90% efficiency when the majority of the U.S power plants are over 30 years old.

        The average efficiency of U.S. power plants is 36%.
        Average transmission power loss (transmission line / step-up/down transformers) is 9.5%.
        Energy loss of charging / dis-charging batteries (that warmth you feel during charging) is around 15% each way.
        The engine efficiency for electric motors is around 90%.
        So .36*.905*.85*.85*.9 = less than 22% efficiency.
        Which is why studies show electric cars cause more pollution, CO2, SO2 and increase soot and mercury pollution.
        If you really want to do something good for the enviroment, drive a hybrid, or you could buy the solar panels as you mention, but that is probably not an option for those looking for an affordable electric car.

        The idea that we are burning so much coal for electricity is ridiculous. The amount of CO2 that is prevented from entering the atmosphere from building a single nuclear plant is huge, and much more of a solution than building 100,000 acre solar plants. At some point the eco-freaks need to recognize they are one of the biggest causes of the current problem and allow new technology to replace the ancient crap we have now. Even building new, more efficient coal plants would be an improvement.

        http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html
        http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/20 ...
      • apeweek, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11Twomey is using some very disingenuous numbers and incorrect assumptions to say that electric cars are inefficient, and therefore make more pollution, not less. In fact, EVs are far more efficient than gas vehicles.

        The fastest way to disprove the 'inefficient' argument is to approach the argument from the other direction, and ask why efficiency matters. It matters because a more efficient car costs less to operate, and would pollute less.

        We already know they cost less to operate. An EV uses 1 to 2 cents/mile worth of electricity. It costs 10 times as much, per mile, for gasoline.

        Now, proof EVs pollute far less than gas vehicles.

        http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electri ...
        actual study: http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/CEC-999-1996-015.P ...

        "...in a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles."


      • twomeyw23334, on 07/01/2008, -5/+1"The fastest way to disprove the 'inefficient' argument is to approach the argument from the other direction, and ask why efficiency matters. It matters because a more efficient car costs less to operate, and would pollute less."

        apeweek is trying to equate cost to efficiency which is a logical fallacy. Electric cars cost less to operate because the commodity price of coal is much less then that of oil. The only way the efficiency==cost comparison could be valid is if the two commodities where replaceable (e.g. if gas got too expensive you could dump coal into your tank) which they obviously are not. To give an idea of how much cheaper coal is than oil, the conversion of coal to oil (CTL) is profitable when oil is at $40 a barrel.

        Clearly, the cheapest method is not always the most efficient, and not always the best for the environment, and any such statement otherwise is absurd.

        My link cites two studies that show EVs cause greater pollution. Which of my numbers are disingenuous and which of my assumptions incorrect?
      • apeweek, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4I'm not equating cost with efficiency, I'm just doing an end run around your flawed data. We care about efficiency because it leads to lower costs, and less pollution. Well, electric cars already cost 10 times less to drive, and result in lower pollution, so who cares about your bogus efficiency argument.

        As for pollution, studies do show a variety of things. Your link is flawed for not reporting the full picture. Most studies show dramatic pollution decreases. Some studies show that some pollutants stay the same or increase slightly (though overall pollution decreases in all studies.) Here are some more studies:

        http://sherryboschert.com/Downloads/Emissions%5B9% ...

        I tend to believe the studies that show the more dramatic decreases in pollution, and here's why:

        Off-peak electricity (ask your utility for pricing) can be had for about half what peak electricity costs, so I believe the vast majority of charging will happen overnight. Coal plants are baseload - they are impossible to shut down, so they run all the time, electric cars or no.

        This means that during off-peak times, coal plants are forced to run in a very inefficient mode, wasting fuel. So by charging off-peak, EVs make use of this wasted capacity - which means making use of a portion of coal-generated electricity that will not increase pollution beyond current levels.

        How about daytime charging? Well, since coal plants are baseload, they run all the time, remember? So when new load comes on line (our electric cars), peakload plants are started up. These are not coal plants!

        And if new coal plants are built someday to handle the load, we will still be better off because new designs for coal plants are up to 80% efficient.

      • redwallhp, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Nuclear? I think not. I've been spending a lot of time reading on this topic, for a research paper, and I've come to the conclusion that a combination of wind and geothermal energy is better. Though I don't mind nuclear fusion either...
      • magus_melchior, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3"Even coal-fired power stations are around 90% efficient or higher - I'm not sure how that's dirtier than wasting over 50% of your fuel in your current car? :p"

        ICEs (those that run on fuels derived from crude oil) don't produce mercury in their exhaust. ICEs don't (generally) leave behind radioactive isotopes like uranium and thorium after combustion. Even if they're 99% efficient, you'll pollute in far more dangerous ways than any gas engine can hope to.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/01/2008, -3/+0"We care about efficiency because it leads to lower costs.."
        Not necessarily true. An efficient engine running on cheap fuel can be much cheaper to operate than an extremely efficient engine running on expensive fuel. You keep ignoring my point that coal is much cheaper than oil.

        "your bogus efficiency argument.."
        How is it bogus? Can you provide any evidence or just say things like I'm "bogus," "disingenuous" or "incorrect" without providing any contradictory evidence.

        The best way to look at the efficiency of something is to look at the efficiency, so if I'm bogus tell me why. And don't try to use the fact that coal is cheaper than oil as a base for efficiency, it makes no sense.

        "As for pollution, studies do show a variety of things."
        "I tend to believe the studies that show the more dramatic decreases in pollution" big surprise.
        Studies go both ways (odd since EVs are SO much more efficient) when comparing to ICEs, hybrids blow them both away, as I have already told you many times.

        Using your provided summary and a quick calculation shows hyrbids produce 109% less total pollution than electric vehicles.

        "And if new coal plants are built someday to handle the load, we will still be better off because new designs for coal plants are up to 80% efficient."
        Yes, that was my whole point. I'm not trying to say your precious electric cars suck, I'm saying our grid does, and should be improved. Maybe then your electric cars will be better for the environment. If your just trying to save a buck, I could care less, but don't pretend to be an eco-freak in the process. Unless you have some solar panels.

        Let me ask you, if solar panels came down in price to like a dime a Watt but still operated at 20% efficiency, would you then claim they were actually more efficient because they were so cheap, and that anyone who quoted the manufacturers 20% efficiency rating was bogus?

      • apeweek, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Dude, here's my point - bottom line is what is costs to drive, and how clean it is. Efficiency should track with these two things. When it doesn't, there's a clue that there's someting wrong with your math. I was trying to avoid a'numbers war' with you.But if that's what you want...

        Here's what's wrong with your calculations:

        You say: The average efficiency of U.S. power plants is 36%.

        No, it's not. That's about the average efficiency of a coal plant. Coal only provides 50% of the power in the US. The rest comes from cleaner and more efficient sources. For the purposes of calculating air pollution, some sources (hydro, wind, solar) can be considered 100% efficient since they emit no air polllution at all. Averaging all the power sources used in the US gives an efficiency number higher than 36%.

        You say: "Average transmission power loss (transmission line / step-up/down transformers) is 9.5%."

        That's more like a worst case, not an average. The power industry standard is 95%.

        You say: "Energy loss of charging / dis-charging batteries...is around 15% each way."

        Battery system efficiencies range from About 85% to 95%, depending on chemistries. And it's not 'each way'.

        If you are comparing the above to a gas vehicle (about 15% efficient in real world driving), don't forget to also factor in the various inefficiencies in gasoline refining and transport.

        You say: "...if solar panels came down in price to like a dime a Watt but still operated at 20% efficiency, would you then claim they were actually more efficient..."

        Efficiency of conversion from solar energy is mostly irrelevant for solar cells, since they are burning no fuel. What exactly are we talking about here, anyway? If you want to mix solar with coal, and come up with a combined efficiency number, you have to give solar a figure of 100% efficient, since they are making no air pollution.

        You know, this is probably what our disconnect is. All I care about from solar (or any other clean electricity source) is cost per watt, efficiency doesn't matter beyond this.

        If the cost of driving is not important, what about efficiency matters to you?

        If you want to blather on about efficiency for efficiency's sake, go right ahead. What matters to me is that EV's are much cheaper to drive, and much cleaner than anything else on the road. You know, anything can be done with numbers. You want to mess with your own head, I can't stop you.

        Example: "...a quick calculation shows hyrbids produce 109% less total pollution than electric vehicles."

        This is so goofy, I don't even know what to type.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0"You know, this is probably what our disconnect is. All I care about from solar (or any other clean electricity source) is cost per watt, efficiency doesn't matter beyond this."
        That's what I figured but, being the case, you can't make up new definitions of efficiency. Efficiency is power out over power in, it has nothing to do with pollution or commodity prices, so you can't say that solar panels are 100% efficient (how would you compare them) or that you electric car gets more efficient compared to a gas car as the price of oil goes up or the price of coal goes down.

        "Averaging all the power sources used in the US gives an efficiency number higher than 36%." Then my source is wrong? Do you have a better one? Really, the average doesn't matter to a great degree anyways, most people either have coal supplied power or not. Obviously power is 'mixed' in the grid but the cars still wouldn't be more "efficient" for 50% of the population.

        "That's more like a worst case, not an average. The power industry standard is 95%."
        My source (U.S. department of energy) gives the year loss due to transmission in 2001 at 9.5%. What is your source?

        "Battery system efficiencies range from About 85% to 95%, depending on chemistries. And it's not 'each way'."
        It certainly is each way, and you seem to be only talking about chemical efficiency of the batteries. Batteries are charged with DC voltage which means there is added loss in the AC/DC converter. Likewise, most electric cars use AC motors and there again, is loss in the inverter.

        "a gas vehicle (about 15% efficient in real world driving)"
        I'm exaggerating?

        If the cost of driving is not important, what about efficiency matters to you?
        It matters to me that people don't make bogus claims. Lets say something happened that caused the price of coal to skyrocket and that of oil to drop to nothing. Would you suddenly be a huge ICE fan? I don't buy you ONLY care about costs. From your argument it is clear that pollution is in part why you have such support for EVs.

        "If you want to blather on about efficiency for efficiency's sake, go right ahead. What matters to me is that EV's are much cheaper to drive, and much cleaner than anything else on the road."
        Cheap is great, but they are not "much cleaner than anything else on the road." There is debatable to no difference between ICEs (there are more pollutants than CO2) and hybrids absolutely crush EVs in terms of overall pollution with our current grid. Look at your own source and look at the damn numbers, how could you possibly come to the conclusion that EVs are cleaner than hybrids!? Do you also have your own definition of pollution? Something like, "cheaper means less pollution."

        "This is so goofy, I don't even know what to type."
        That is from YOUR provided data. Look at the pdf. How about typing, "yes, I was wrong, but I still love my EV and I'm saving money."
      • apeweek, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2You: "...you can't make up new definitions of efficiency"

        I'm looking for relevancy. I thought the argument was about pollution, or at least about saving money over gasoline. If you want to go off in the weeds like this, why not talk about how efficient the sun itself is? Or the efficiency of the fossilization process that created petroleum? Calculating the efficiency of solar cells tells you nothing about pollution coming out of the power grid. Sorry, I have no interest in an irrelevant argument.

        Here's what I have on the efficiency of power sources on the grid:

        http://www.ieej.or.jp/aperc/pdf/GRID_COMBINED_DRAF ...
        Page 36, footnote 50, coal plants 37% efficient, natural gas plants 48% efficient.

        Your figure, 36%, would apply if the grid were coal only. Since it is not, the combined efficiency is higher, especially considering there are clean (non-fuel burning) sources on the grid as well.

        This source (also a government source) says the standard for grid electricity is 5% transmission loss: http://public.lanl.gov/u106527/ELISIMS/Econ_paper. ...
        I read your source, too. The truth lies somewhere between.

        You: "It certainly is each way (battery loss)"
        It certainly is not. And good battery charger designs have efficiencies in the high nineties.

        Source for gas vehicle efficiencies (a government source, again): http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

        Quote: "Only about 15% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets used to move your car down the road or run useful accessories, such as air conditioning. The rest of the energy is lost to engine and driveline inefficiencies and idling."

        And this doesn't take into account fuel refining inefficiencies (lots of electricity is used to refine gas) or fuel transportation inefficiencies: the last delivery leg, trucking gas to thousands of service stations, is completely missing for EVs, replaced with delivery by wire at 90-95% efficiency.

        So even if we accept your skewed 22% efficiency number for EVs, gas vehicles still lose.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/02/2008, -1/+0"I'm looking for relevancy....."
        I'm looking for people to use correct English words. If you don't care about efficiency don't talk about it.

        The rest of your garbage we have already gone over in different threads. I'm not going to repeat the fact that EVs also have drive lines and accessories every time we have this discussions. Your electric efficiency source just mentions two types of plants, mine talks about total average.

        "So even if we accept your skewed 22% efficiency number for EVs, gas vehicles still lose."
        No way in hell. Why did you not acknowledge hybrids cause less pollution, or even mention hybrids? Your own data states it. Hybrids are greater than EVs and traditional ICEs, plain and simple.
      • apeweek, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1You: "...EVs also have drive lines and accessories..."

        Accessories are irrelevant. EV's don't need transmissions, or even drivelines. Electric motors are sometimes mounted right to the wheels. The wide powerband of electric motors means nearly all the power gets right to the road.

        You: "...Why did you not acknowledge hybrids cause less pollution"

        You have yet to acknowledge that 22 is greater than 15.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Becaus your sources suck. Petro engines get 30% efficiency.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency

        Does your EV have the engine mounted right to the wheels?
        I drive my gas car almost strictly highway, and I don't have A/C, which makes me about just as common as the EVs with engines mounted right to their wheels and driven by people who don't use accessories.

        Now how about showing me a reliable source that says EVs cause less pollution than hybrids?
      • apeweek, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Petro engines get 30% efficiency on a lab bench. Real world gas engine performance averages about 15%, and can fall below 10% efficiency in city driving. EVs don't lose efficiency during city driving, since they don't need to idle, don't need to shift, and can even recapture braking energy.

        You have already seen my sources, that's not the problem. We both know I can't show you anything that will affect your mind one tiny iota.

      • twomeyw23334, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Apeweek, why the hell do I have to consider real world driving effects when you don't with your EV? Or why do I have to consider oil refinery energy loss while in your case coal just appears magically at the power plants?

        I would say the percentage of EVs that have engines connected directly to the wheels is probably less than the percentage of cars that have CVTs, which have way less transmission loss. In addition, many hybrids use CTVs, again, you completely ignore my request about hybrids, which is my main point here.

        I see your point that even, with a drive line, many EVs may have no transmission, or something like a 2 speed transmission, in which case they would be more efficient than a non-diesel typical ICE. Are you happy? But not by much. We are down to low single digit differences here. Someone driving a diesel Jetta has more right to brag about efficiency.

        Now, on to my main point, which is currently, Hybrids are the best for the enviroment.
        "We both know I can't show you anything that will affect your mind one tiny iota."
        That's because you have nothing to show me that says hybrids are worse than EVs, your stuff actually shows the opposite. What is so hard about acknowledging this? You had no problem calling me "bogus" among other things because you didn't know what efficiency meant, (and then made fun of me for not assuming your made up definition) now the least you could do is acknowledge hybrids are cleaner the EVs.

        This, along with the fact that our grid needs to be updated, was the entire point of my original post, before you came barging in to inform everyone how bogus I was. So as you obviously agree with me on the grid, I think the least you can do is acknowledge the hybrid comment.
      • apeweek, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1You: "...why the hell do I have to consider real world driving effects when you don't with your EV?"

        Real-world, in the case of a gas engine, means considering losses from idling, transmission, and operating the engine outside of its optimum powerband. None of these types of losses apply to the EV. While motor-to-the-wheel EVs aren't everywhere, the majority of EVs made today do not have transmissions - that is, the motor mounts to the driveline, or there may be one non-shiftable gear. Transmission losses typically relate to shifting, clutching, or automatics.

        You: "...why do I have to consider oil refinery energy loss while in your case coal just appears magically at the power plants?"

        -Because the refining process for petroleum takes a lot of energy. Coal is just washed and crushed.

        -Because gasoline has more energy-wasting processing and transportation steps than coal does:

        Coal-->>washing,crushing-->>powerplant-->> by wire to electric cars
        Oil-->>refining-->>fuel depot via truck or pipeline-->>by trucks to thousands of service stations

        The last step in particular, delivery to cars, is far more efficient for the electric vehicle. You have included this step in your efficiency calculation for EVs, but you have not reduced the efficiency of gas-powered cars in consideration of the wasted energy and added pollution of transporting gasoline to service stations. At the very least, you need to remove the fuel delivery step from your efficiency calculation for EVs.

        You: "...you have nothing to show me that says hybrids are worse than EVs..."

        I am avoiding this question only because it doesn't make a lick of sense to me. You will have to detail exactly how you come to this conclusion for me to respond.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Again, coal is delivered to power plants by truck and train as well. They are spread out all over America, much like gas stations. I would say the delivery to the power plants by train is much more effecient than that of truck, but otherwise would be no different than gas to power stations. Both cases have established transportation systems in place where the overall efficiency is basically dependent on distance from the source.

        As far as merely washing and crushing, you are correct that this requires less energy than refining. Mining coal, on the hand, takes a lot more energy than pumping oil out of the ground. But again, as usual, you ignore the actual retrieving of the commodity and start your comparison where it is convenient for your arguement.

        I thought this was irrelevant anyways? Isn't pollution what matters. How do you not understand my statement. Hybrids cause less overall pollution than EVs on average given our current electrical system.
      • apeweek, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1You: "...coal is delivered to power plants by truck and train as well."

        Look again at my transportation diagram. Count the steps. Transporting coal to powerplants is equivalent to transporting oil to the fuel depots. Now look at the last step, which gets the gas to cars, versus the one that gets electricity to the EVs. That's thousands of truck deliveries versus energy by wire. The trucks are not anywhere near as efficient as the wires.

        You: "...start your comparison where it is convenient for your arguement."
        Pot, meet kettle.

        You: "...Mining coal, on the hand, takes a lot more energy than pumping oil out of the ground."
        Wrong. If the process of mining coal were more difficult or energy intensive, coal would be more expensive than oil. Not by a long shot.

        You: "...I thought this was irrelevant anyways?"
        It's relevant ecause you include a fuel transportation step in your EV efficiency number. The gasoline efficiency numbers don't include transportation steps. Either remove the transportation step from EV efficiency, or add one to the gasoline efficiency number.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0"Transporting coal to power plants is equivalent to transporting oil to the fuel depots."
        No it's not. Transporting oil to to the fuel depots is much more efficient. A large chunk of it is by boat, and there are only 149 refineries in the states, making for a much easier distribution system than the
        thousands of coal power plants. I'm giving coal the overall efficiency leader in terms of transportation anyways, but say that oil is more efficiently extracted.

        "Wrong. If the process of mining coal were more difficult or energy intensive, coal would be more expensive than oil. Not by a long shot."
        Wow, with statements like that.... I just don't know how to respond. Should I start with supply and demand... repeat my coal to oil example....
        We're talking about energy returned over energy invested. High output oil fields have over 100 to 1 ratios that have come down over time to be currently around 30. Coal EROEI depends greatly on acessability, but highly ecessable coal has a value around 25.
        Remember my coal to oil example? Converting coal to oil has EROEI ratio of under 1, meaning it can actually require more energy to create than will be taken out of it. This is STILL PROFITABLE at $40 a barrel for the coal companies. How is this possible? Because the price of the commodities aren't equivalent. They're not replaceable so YOU CAN'T make claims on efficiency based on price. Read this about 100 times, Price != Efficiency.
        It's unbelievable, you equate price to efficiency, and then later deny it, and then do it again! There is original energy invested in oil by drilling, after that pumping oil out of the ground uses extremely little energy. Meanwhile huge monster trucks are constantly ripping up the ground and trucking coal up and down the massive craters they make or blasting deeper and deeper into the earth and lifting coal more and more...

        "It's relevant ecause you include a fuel transportation step in your EV efficiency number..."
        No, you already said it's irrelevant because pollution is what matters. So why no mention of hybrids and pollution???????
        The argument is over, I'm not going to keep replying to your remarks when you won't acknowledge my statement, which is one of the two original points I made before you called me "bogus." If you can't admit hybrids are currently cleaner than EVs with our current electrical system, whatever, I'll take your silence as acknowledgment.
        Later
      • apeweek, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1You: "...Transporting oil to to the fuel depots is much more efficient"

        Of course, we both know the processes of obtaining coal and oil are not directly comparable. If coal takes more energy to get from the ground, oil takes more energy to refine. As much as you dislike it when I bring up costs - and you can deny this until the cows come home - it does have relevancy as there is a strong connection to energy efficiency. This does not mean that costs = efficiency... just that there is, and must be a strong connection.

        You are still entirely missing my point, which is about the last transportation step - trucking fuel to thousands of service stations. This is wasted energy and additional pollution - and it is a step which is missing for electric vehicles. If you insist on including powerline losses in your EV efficiency calculations, you must also reduce the efficiency of gasoline from this last transportation step.

        You: "...No, you already said it's irrelevant because pollution is what matters"
        EXACTLY - pollution is what matters. You don't think thousands of trucks delivering gasoline to service stations pollute???

        You: "...If you can't admit hybrids are currently cleaner than EVs with our current electrical system, whatever, I'll take your silence as acknowledgment."
        I will repeat what I have said about this for the third time - this makes too little sense for me to answer. I have never encountered this particular opinion anywhere else on the internet. You will have to tell me exactly how you reached this goofy opinion before I can answer.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0"tell me exactly how you reached this goofy opinion before I can answer.."
        How about starting by looking at both my and your sources of pollution studies. Mine clearly points out that driving a normal hybrid creates less pollution than EVs or plug-in hybrids as does yours. Look at page 4 of your summary report.
        EVs create 17% less CO2 pollution than hybrids, but EVs create 295% more SOx. All together EVs create almost 100% more pollution. Or just read my source which I've already posted twice for you.
        If you can't understand I don't know what could possibly help you.
      • apeweek, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Sigh. That's not how percentages add. You would first need to add together the raw amounts of pollutants from all the categories, for all the vehicle types, then recalculate percentages from there. EV's may potentially make 3x the SOx, but it's overall a very small percentage of the total pollution emitted.

        Example; if you eat two strawberries and ten big macs - and I eat 6 strawberries and nine big macs, I have eaten 300% of the strawberries you have, and 90% of the big macs you have.

        If I add those percentage numbers, I get a much bigger number than you do. But you have eaten more food than I have. To do the example right, you would first have to add together the calories each of us ate, and then calculate percentages.

        This is why I hate arguing numbers with people.

        "If you can't understand I don't know what could possibly help you."
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0I figured you would make a goofy comment like that.

        "The NRDC calculus shows that a plug-in charged from a power plant burning the dirtiest type of coal still has an overall pollution level less than a conventional gasoline car. But it would produce 11% more greenhouse gas emissions than a regular, non-plug-in hybrid, according to Luke Tonachel, vehicles analyst at the NRDC and co-author of the group's report on plug-ins. The report was produced jointly with the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute."
        And this was just considering plug-in hybrids, not EVs, which would be worse. So EVs cause increased greenhouse gas emissions, as well as obviously causing increased acid rain causing gases.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Another way to look it, all your efficiency issues for the ICE go out the window with hybrids.
        Their engines essentially run like 'in the lab.'
        The stay in their most efficient power band to charge the battery or run the electric motor except for highway or hard driving (and this is being changed in the newer hybrids).
        They don't idle at a stop light (unless charging the battery).
        Many use CVTs.
        And they don't use single overhead cam V-6s in your Pop's old car, they use extremely efficient engines.
        So their efficiency blows away your EV.
      • apeweek, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Hey, I agree that plug-in (serial) hybrids blow away parallel hybrids, and under some sets of circumstances can even beat grid-fueled EVs. You didn't previoisly make a distinction between the two types.

        I am not about to agree that this is always the case, however. This would depend on the grid mix. And the difference is not going to be dramatic.

        As your other quote points out, some types of emissions from EV use can be higher than hybrids. This is different than talking about total pollution. The overall pollutant totals will still be lower from an EV.

        I have previously seen a single study that predicts somewhat elevated greenhouse gases from EV use. However, I have also seen many other studies that predict lower greenhouse emissions. Studies can disagree because they start out with different assumptions.

        Obviously, we will have to disagree on which studies are accurate.

      • twomeyw23334, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0What? The study says plug in hybrids are worse (pollution wise) then traditional hybrids.
        In addition to the 'amount of pollution' the type of pollution must be considered. It's debatable whether carbon dioxide can even be considered pollution, unless you think every time you exhale you are polluting. I find it odd that you admit studies goes "both ways" when comparing traditional ICEs to EVs, but still believe it's close when comparing to hybrids. Hybrid efficiencies blow away traditional ICE and EVs running off coal plants.
      • apeweek, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas. That's the one to worry about.

        4th of July coming up. I'm done. Next time our paths cross, I am not doing any math with you. I hope you feel the same way.
    • loneBoat, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I'm all for protecting the environment and whatnot, but in all honesty, if I ever wind up buying an electric car it'll be to protect my pocketbook more than anything else. And I feel confident most other people will be doing the same thing.
  • Jareth86, on 07/01/2008, -2/+12About god damn time.
  • hapax, on 07/01/2008, -4/+76Batteries not included.
  • littlemarcho, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11So the CEO of the company says...... They do tend to talk things up you know?
    • GomerOfDoom, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Musk has promised things (ahem... rockets) in miracle periods of time before, and it hasn't happened. Let's not get carried away, here.
  • antiorblkflag9, on 07/01/2008, -0/+13I've been waiting for them to do this for so long. They can make performance cars for crazy amounts of money, but why can't they make just a plain old decent electric car for a decent price. What took so long?
    • desertDenizen, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7The same reason high-end technology trickles down to cheaper, mass-produced models in virtually every tech sector: learning curve effects (aka experience curve: unit costs decrease as a function of cumulative production). You must first prove technologies before you tool up for scale. Also, on the PR front, the Roadster was a sexier and novel story and made early adopters/evangelists out of high-performance gear heads.
    • secrity, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2They haven't done it yet.
    • itspuddingtime, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4the Tesla business plan has always been to start producing the high-end roadster on a small-scale, then to funnel the profits into a less expensive production car. If they had started out trying to produce this cheaper model on a large scale the company would have gone under and then you would have NO sub 30k car.
    • keyo, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2The idea of creating the roadster was to stomp out all the "omg it's slow" kind of opinions people have about electric cars. Hell the roadster is 0-60 in 4 seconds, that's definitely sports car like.
      • Kbriggs, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Or....the idea of creating the Roadster was to sell it to rich people to make some money so that could produce something a little more for the masses.
  • pensel, on 07/01/2008, -3/+36That would be so lame if Tesla won electric vehicle preeminence because the existing behemoths pussyfooted the risks like fricken newborn kittens.

    Our auto companies are ***** terrible.
    • pw378, on 07/01/2008, -9/+3Really? Where is your prototype for a 100mpg commercially viable consumer vehicle?
    • desertDenizen, on 07/01/2008, -1/+10This problem is endemic to almost any massively large organization, not just American auto mfrs. See Clayton M. Christensen's "The Innovator's Dilemma" for explanation and examples. Suffice it to say, about the only thing a big company can usually do in a case like this is fund culturally isolated skunkworks projects (like HP did with the laser printer, or McDonald's did with Chipotle), or less riskily -- wait a bit and then buy a startup that has made progress. Wait-n-buy is nothing new. They used to say that Microsoft spells R&D "M&A." The idea is to let the entrepreneurs take all the risks. And then hope the startup doesn't get too big too fast (like Google did).
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Dugg for referencing a great book.
    • romistrub, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2"Our auto companies are ***** terrible."

      Are you American? Tesla Motors is an American company...
      • MacEnvy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4I'm pretty sure he was implying Tesla was the exception to the rule.
      • romistrub, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Perhaps, but I don't see why it would be lame for an American company to best other American companies. Isn't competition good?

        Maybe I'm just stupid...
    • gwgrayson, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5GM has already released a wildly successful electric car. However, when the pressure from Big Oil came they yanked it.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-720274006 ...
    • wvaughan, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1One word - Unions. Until they are gone or significantly diminished, American car companies will continue to suffer.
  • diggingaround, on 07/01/2008, -11/+6God bless you guys and girls from Tesla Motors Company!
  • dunktim, on 07/01/2008, -2/+8This is great! I just wish I wouldn't have to wait 4 years to buy one. I'm sure by then gas will be around $10/gallon.
    • dOOBiEx213, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6In one year gas will be around 10$/gallon.
      • RizzoFrank, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4In one week gas will be around $10/gallon.
      • sagegoku666, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1in one week gas will be around $1/gallon
  • EntreLangdon, on 07/01/2008, -3/+53Elon Musk is my freaking hero. Shall we look at his track record?

    Founded a Newspaper CMS - sold for 300 million
    Founded Paypal - sold for 1.5 billion
    Founded a ROCKET SHIP company
    Founded the first ELECTRIC CAR COMPANY to go mainstream in the US

    Is there anything he can't do??

    Help us Elon! We need a cure for cancer! We need a time machine!
    • palmer, on 07/01/2008, -6/+19How does a company "go mainstream" without selling anything but empty hype?
    • JointVenture, on 07/01/2008, -4/+5He also wants to build private countries on rigs in the Ocean.

      When asked about laws like child sex he basically said to each his own.

      • 11oops, on 07/01/2008, -3/+3Source?
      • loneBoat, on 07/01/2008, -3/+9Child sex is a law?
      • MajorOutage, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Would there really be anything he could realistically do to prevent it anyway?
      • JointVenture, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Maybe I wasnt clear, ADULT sex with children.

        SOURCE? his interview. Go look it up, it was all over the front page for days in various articles.
    • coustoe, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Why don't you marry him already
    • GomerOfDoom, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Seriously, could you be any more whipped by this guy? Musk is a good businessman, to be sure, but let's not go overboard. As palmer pointed out, Tesla is hardly "mainstream." In addition, Musk has promised things in miracle time-frames before (ahem... rockets) and not made it. I strongly suspect it will be more than four years.

      I'm not trying to detract from this, but let's get a dose of realism, here.
  • Somedude2137, on 07/01/2008, -13/+6Bleh, Big Oil will find a way to screw this over.... sorry for the reality check
    • SolidForce, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5Who killed the electric car?

    • diggingaround, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5No they will not.. if you scream loud enough... I DON'T WANT a GASOLINE POWERED CAR!
      • mvchuck137, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6i don't want A gasoline powered car!
      • redwallhp, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I don't want a gasoline powered car! And screw you AIAA! (Auto Industry Association of America :D )
    • desertDenizen, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Thank you, Somedude. Static thinking of this sort is the root of every big hit I've ever had in the stock market... it's amazingly easy to read the signals and get ahead of the pack if you accept one fundamental principle: change happens. (This truism seems to elude a lot of people.) Take oil for instance. It's running out. Big Oil knows this. Yes, they'll resist anything that reduces demand for oil, but they know that eventually they need to make their money someplace else. And they're hedging their bets all over the place. Watch where they bet, and put your money there. Funny thing is, they're buying battery technology companies. But not all of them. Meaning they can't quash the technology, they just want a seat at the table. Anybody with a little bit of brains can also be at that table. While everyone just pisses and moans about how unfair the world is.
  • gradivus, on 07/01/2008, -2/+22So when will they actually sell ONE electric car instead of issue 50 press releases a day claiming they will someday actually maybe hopefully sell one.
  • evanbooth, on 07/01/2008, -12/+8*Powered by Microsoft Vista
    • redxii, on 07/01/2008, -0/+19You could install Linux, just don't forget to compile steering wheel support, support for turning left & right, button/dash backlight support, etc. The windshield wiper driver is closed source and must be obtained from the manufacturer.
      • redwallhp, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Or you could buy the Tesla Mac Edition, which works out of the box.
      • ivantalboys, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Yes but when you need new tires you have to send the whole car back and wait 2 weeks.
  • PullingTeeth, on 07/01/2008, -2/+32I think I'll hold out for the Tesla Tank.
    • MasterGrief, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4I want something even more portable: Tesla Troopers!

      Rubber shoes in motion!
    • PabloIV, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5THe tesla tank better shoot Lightning Bolts.
  • kjd84, on 07/01/2008, -8/+3*sigh* if only these were available in Australia! I'd give my left nut for one. . . (not really but i'd really like one, I have a good relationship with my left one. My right one however . . . . . )
  • amdahlj, on 07/01/2008, -21/+8"Hello,I'm an electric car. I don't drive very fast or go very far. And if you drive me, people will think you're GAAAY."
    • pingveno, on 07/01/2008, -4/+10The Tesla Roadster, Tesla's flagship product, is like solidified testosterone, shaped into a car. It's got incredible acceleration at 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. The range is over 200 miles per charge. Just search on YouTube for Tesla Roadster.
    • RobotLeAwesome, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Way to not catch the reference people
    • mikesbaker, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1ONE OF US ONE OF US
  • Saint3k, on 07/01/2008, -11/+6Yes, because everyone can afford a 30k dollar car.
    • desertDenizen, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Am I the only one on digg who isn't a teenager or college-age kid? Seriously, most college-educated people who've been in the work force for a few years can afford a $30K car. Whether they choose to spend that much, of course, is a different story. But jeez, try driving down the street some time and look around.
    • eengineer, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6I believe the average American spends on average about $21,000 for their car. So lets assume the average car gets 40 mpg (high balling) and gas costs $4.00 /gallon (probably more over the next 4 years) and retains the car for 4 years. This car costs $0.10/mile to operate plus the cost of oil changes. Assuming the Tesla costs $0.02 / mile to operate, you save $0.08/ mile saving you $960 a year in gas. Add in 4 oil changes at $30 each and you save $1080 per year or $4320 of additional expense a car has over this Tesla in just 4 years. You now spent over 25k for the car and saved 5k less than the Tesla. And I am heavily favoring the gas powered car in this example.

      On a side note, how many SUV's do you see driving around? How many of them cost over $30k MSRP?
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Yeah, realistically it's more like 30MPG (35 tops) for a 21,000 car. I say we at least re manufacture the 1989 civic/crx – somehow in the 1980's we were getting way better gas mileage for the money than we are now.
      • achoi, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I remember back in the day those tiny cars (Geo Metro) would have like 50 mpg.

        But didn't those cars have something like 50 hp? And terrible crash test results?
    • redwallhp, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1The average united states citizen is an idiot (glad I'm not average) in that they only see the sticker price and buy cheaply, instead of putting research into their investment. For example, they buy a $599 laptop from Best Buy instead of the $1500 one that will server them well for more years than the cheapy one that they will need to replace in 1.5 years.
      • desertDenizen, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I agree with the premise but found fault with the particular example, only because I bought a piece of ***** eMachine from Best Buy (or was it Fry's?) in 2002 -- strictly as a "temporary" solution -- and -- musta hit the timing with the price-point sweet spot thing just right -- because the noisy dust-clumped little bitch is still kicking butt like a squatty runt R2D2 on a mission. I've upgraded RAM, HD, and graphics card along the way (driving sweet dual 24" Dell displays, which, BTW, is the most life-changing thing I've done since losing my virginity 25 years ago)... and I keep looking for excuses to upgrade, but frankly, haven't found any, at least until I upgrade to Adobe CS one of these days. Seriously, I want to upgrade my runty little idiot-brick of a PC, but then I spec out a sweet machine, and suddently I'm over $2K and I get all "***** it, I'm going to Guatemala for four months instead." Or Vegas for 4 days. Ya know?
    • deMonkey, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Sucks for those that can't, but come on... $30k is totally feasible for anyone that makes more than minimum wage. Considering the price of gas, this is actually very affordable.
  • Dr3w, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5But how often does the "affordable" model that comes out translate to vastly underpowered and not nearly as desirable?
    • RobotLeAwesome, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2but how often do you pay $.02 a mile to travel?
      • Dauntless1, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Yes, but douchebags don't want to travel, they want something thats going to race well. Retards.
  • digicard, on 07/01/2008, -1/+10I just wanted to add here link to wiki profile of nikola tesla - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
  • Sarcasmooo, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5The thing I love about these prototypes that isn't mentioned often enough, is that they can charge to full capacity in a little less than an hour. Can you imagine? I had thought there would be a limited market until I heard that (I drive long distances to see family). But hey, maybe it'll even be a boon for all those small, shoddy towns we always see right beside the highways. Maybe they'll even return to the good old days before the highway even existed? After all when people stop to charge, they'll probably go shopping for an hour.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3...but the current model has a range of 220 miles, so unless you're going on a long interstate trip I'm sure it'll have no effect on these small towns (and people will still stop wherever is closest to the interestate).
  • palmer, on 07/01/2008, -5/+8More vaporware.
  • ripple123, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1It would be really ironic if your mobile phone ran out of charge while driving a tesla
  • Kikkoman, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4And i thought their only products were coils
  • LightSpeed4, on 07/01/2008, -18/+1only a tree hugger would buy a car from this no-name company.
  • huertanix, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6Needs pix!
  • julesc42, on 07/01/2008, -15/+0Hi Renato,

    It's time for you to pay my invoices now. At least now that I see you’re posting here, I know you’re not avoiding me because you’re in the hospital. My collections agency is trying hard to contact you. I don’t want to have to take you to court. Please just finish this.

    Your Business Freelance Writer

    (PS, sorry to other readers for posting this comment here. Renato owes me a lot of money)
  • pw378, on 07/01/2008, -9/+2Of course when everyone has an electric car, the price of electricity will skyrocket and probably exceed the price of gas... Bio-diesel was $.10 a gallon in 2000, now its around $2.50-3.00/gallon and rising. Lets not even mention the great idea of using corn to produce ethanol for fuel and how its spiraling the price of food up.

    Fact 1 - for every increase in demand there will be a corresponding increase in price. Economics are a bitch.
    Fact 2 - To produce more electricity, we will require more gas and coal powerplants
    Fact 3 - Solar and wind power are nice and friendly, but will never come close to meeting demand
    Fact 4 - Nuclear power solves many of the issues of fact 1 & 2, but the hippies will cry and make people feel bad.
    • mike17032, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3The difference is we can easily make more of that.
    • apeweek, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3If electricity gets expensive, put a solar panel on your garage, and drive for free.

      An EV-sized panel can be had, today, for as little as $1000. And prices for solar are dropping.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2True... but we're already using electricity. You know, stuff that isn't subsidized by the government. If every single person switched to an electric car, it might increase electricity consumption by... 1/3? If everyone switched to bio-diesel vehicles, it would increase bio-diesel consumption by 10,000 times. There is a huge difference in the comparisons you're trying to make.
  • koft, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1I hope they make a model with a simulated standard. If they don't my left foot is going to go nuts and I'd rather not drive around with my right hand on my dick.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 07/01/2008, -10/+2Did I forget to mention that a $30,000 Tesla will have only two wheels?
  • dudefaceguyman, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Finally us Americans have a car company we can really be proud of. These guys are pushing the car industry forward and definitely know how to make good looking and well performing cars. While the no gas worries thing is great. What really gets me excited is 100% torque 100% of the time. I'm sure this will still be a quick little car in contrast with those slow ass hybrid *****. Silicon Valley engineering at its best!
  • urbandistrict, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4Shortest article ever...
  • IdanH14, on 07/01/2008, -7/+1I was surprised to find that Tesla's CEO has an Israeli name. Ze'ev Drori, you make me proud! (I'm Israeli).
    • mcbunn, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0You can't dig him down! I'm calling the ADL!
  • MMilitia, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Will they be able to produce these in volume though? Last I heard only a handful of people had received their Tesla sports car (was it called the Atom or something?).
  • boejangles, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2QUICK Where can i finds me some Tesla stock ?!?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.