Nice post ... I think the Roadster is a joke ... It solve no problems and offers noting but an amusement for those with low thresholds and large pocket books

You buy the car to proclaim your moral superiority, your greater status. The Prius is not economically sensible, relative to the alternatives - it never was about high gas prices. This car improves upon the Prius in that regard because (a) it's more expensive and thus more exclusive and (b) it runs only on electricity, so the greater-than-thou quotient rises. To be fair, if the car does contribute to battery research, it has redeemed itself somewhat.

And you believed them.

Bah, why does a 4sec 0-60 vehicle need to redeem itself? It's an all-electric vehicle fergodsake! No energy alternative will get off the ground unless we have something to run the cars off of, and Tesla needs something to reel in the dough so they can get cracking on a car for the rest of us.

It seems that the people who commented above, are working for the oil companies.
There are already new breakthroughs in lithium batteries, that use nanotecnology, and this will not only double the charge capacity, but also endurance of the battery will increase several times, and it will take much less time to recharge the battery. By by time these pure electric cars are ready for mass production by 2010, the batteries will also be ready.

This is not a joke... this is great! Moves like this will bring the electric car into the mainstream eventually.

Randall: The 240 volt circuit isn't as big a deal as the fact that that curcuit needs to be 70A. I doubt many people have that much capacity free on their circuit breaker panels. But it changes up in 3-4 hours, which is very reasonable. Even if they designed it at 35A, we'd be looking at a reasonable charge time (6-8 hours) for commuters.

Of course, if you're plunking down $80k+, paying a couple grand for some electrical work probably isn't going to make you flinch.

"In practice you might get less since most people aren't going to want to run their batteries all the way down and therefore will charge up less than every 250 miles"

# of cycles is inversely proportional to depth of discharge: you'll get 1,000 cycles with half the depth of discharge. In fact, you'll probably get more lifetime miles with lower depth of discharge.

At the moment they're using conventional li-ion, which don't last that long. One imagines they're hoping to switch to nanotech li-ion asap.

When did "nanotech" cease meaning "molecular machines" and start replacing "materials"?

It stopped meaning "molecular machines" and started meaning "synthetic organic chemistry" and "materials science" when the government made hundreds of millions in nanotech funding available and put the decisions on where to spend it in the hands of synthetic organic chemists and materials scientists.

Sad isn't it? We need a new word for what "nanotechnology" used to mean.

Students at MIT are building five to ten 300 mile per gallon cars at the Vehicel Design Summit this summer. They are souping up a hybrid and building biofuel, electric, fuel cell, and human power assist vehicles in an open source design exercise.

In 2004, students at Central High School in Phoenix, AZ built what is believed to be the first self-sustaining hydrogen vehicle that uses a conventional internal-combusion engine. "Nobody has ever made a car that runs on sunlight and water," physics teacher Cory Waxman said. "there are other cars that run on hydrogen, but they don't make their own fuel."

Built for less than $10,00 they did something most experts said it's going to take 20 years to do.

I'd look to motivated high school and college kids rather than to Sandhill Road vulture capitalists given the respective track records.

I expect that plug in hybrids will actually show a real first for photovoltaic power generation not long after they become widely availiable. There is plenty of surface area on a car avaliable for basking in the sun, and there are no losses to an inverter, so photovoltaics might show their first sign of being truely competitive on a large scale in the automotive sector. You park in the sun and it charges your battery for you.

Tom,

Good point about the 70 amps. I've lived at places which have 15 and 20 amp fuses in the fuse box. But overnight charging is good enough for most people. Plug it in before bed. Unplug it before driving off.

I see the bigger obstacle for apartment dwellers and others who have housing that is not conducive to running a cable out to a car. But someone who uses their own attached garage could put in a plug near where the car parks and charge it up. Electric cars for apartment dwellers will need very rapid recharging.

Dezakin,

Yes, photovoltaic surfaces on vehicles will someday make a big difference. I wonder how much energy strikes a car that isn't parked in the shade.

gmoke,

High school kids are not going to solve the battery problem. We need highly trained scientists and engineers for that.

James Bowery and Perry Metzger,

Nanotechnology makes sense as a general term to describe the scale of the things being manipulated. Granted, nanomachines can be built. But they have a more precise name: nanomachines. We can call materials that are extremely small when assembled by the name nanomaterials.

Randall: The 240 volt circuit isn't as big a deal as the fact that that curcuit needs to be 70A. I doubt many people have that much capacity free on their circuit breaker panels.

If (big if) you're going to spend $100K for an electric car, you can (and probably will) spend a few thousand dollars to upgrade your electrical system so you can more effectively use it. For that matter, you'd probably want to upgrade your meter to enable time-variable rates, if your utility offers that option.

The standard terms for what Drexler called 'nanotechnology' are now 'molecular nanotechnology' or (more limited) 'molecular manufacturing'.

I think there are fundamental reasons to doubt that batteries are a good choice for powering cars.

Fundamentally, a battery represents a large amount of potential chemical energy, finely structured in close proximity. The higher the energy density of a battery, the more closely it resembles a bomb. And cars get in accidents.

Fuel cells are the way to go, IMO. The reactants are kept safely separate until they're used, and oxygen from the air is usually one of them, saving on weight that has to be carried. And refueling with a hose is much faster than refueling with an extension cord.

The only real objection here is that fuel cells use fuel at the end use point, which makes it harder to pretend that something isn't being burned to power your car. While battery car owners can pretend that their vehicles aren't fueled by coal that's just burned elsewhere.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

"Hybrids are technologically of doubtful benefit, and expensive, but necessary from a political and public relations point of view", according to General Motors vice president, global product development [aka ‘GM product czar’] Bob Lutz.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/07/20/015349.html

Hybrids are technologically of doubtful benefit, and expensive, but necessary from a political and public relations point of view

While all the other things GM sells in vehicles are technologically beneficial, right?

bigelow,

Toyota's director of engineering told the Times (or maybe the Financial Times) of London that hybrids wouldn't be cost effective in the United States until 2010. Toyota is currently selling hybrids in order to generate good will toward the company.

I've linked to the Toyota guy's quote. It showed up on Green Car Congress which is where I found it.

Thanks Randall,

"Good will" or P.R value, what else would vested interests say? Sounds like stalling at best. Jeffrey Brown has an “Iron Triangle” thesis. http://www.energybulletin.net/15126.html

Here is his summary:

“I think that we are seeing an "Iron Triangle" of sorts defending the status quo: (1) most housing/auto/financing companies and related companies; (2) Most MSM companies that are selling advertising to Group #1 and (3) some major oil companies, major oil exporters and energy analysts that are working for the major oil companies and exporters.

In my opinion, Group #3 is afraid of punitive taxation (major oil companies) and military takeovers (exporters).
Group #1 wants to keep selling and financing large homes and SUV's.
Group #2 wants to keep selling advertising to Group #1.
Group #3 provides the arguments for Groups #1 and #2, i.e., we have trillions and trillions of barrels of remaining reserves.” http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/4/18/01646/8064/2#2

I think stalling and poo-pooing fits right in.

Toyota is currently selling hybrids in order to generate good will toward the company.

Surely this cannot be the only, or even primary, reason for their program. A more plausible reason, in my opinion, is to push the relevant technologies down the experience curve. So much advancement in technology just comes from doing something a lot.

bigelow,

You say:

"Good will" or P.R value, what else would vested interests say?

I'm the one saying this. Am I a vested interest? I'm not aware that I compete with Toyota.

GM and Ford make most of their money from big vehicles. If hybrid technologies would allow them to greatly improve fuel efficiency of SUVs in a cost effective way then GM or Ford wouldn't oppose the use of extra batteries and other parts needed for hybrids. Cheaper hybrid tech would make them money by reviving demand for big SUVs and big cars.

The big problem here is not the defenders of the status quo. The problem is the cost hybrid components.

Paul,

Yes, Toyota also are trying to move down an experience curve. But the most important advances they need (e.g. in battery design and manufacturing) will not be made by them.

Certainly, Toyota's demand for hybrid batteries is accelerating battery technology development. But I'm not convinced that making the needed technologies advance is their biggest motive. It might be. But the Prius also brings a lot of people into showrooms, some of whom end up buying other Toyota products. Also, the Prius has enabled them to look morally superior to other car companies.

Pay no attention to Lutz. He is well respected as an able executive but his vision is the "Detroit Iron" universe, where only 1973 Cadillac convertibles live. Just increase the displacement a little, more chrome, have Marilyn ride on one in the Rose Parade. Of course Marilyn was long dead by 1973 - but a leader must set goals.

Lutz has been at GM about four years. Brought in at a high level to get winning cars to the showroom floor, leap ahead to catch the Japanese, etc. Daily I am astounded at the leaps GM makes.

There is no conspiracy. Car makers will use rubber bands if they work.

It is clear that EVs are returning. Batteries are now good enough and the costs are declining. It is obvious that hybrids work - just not for every driver and every load. Millions will be sold. Nanotechnology is going to goose batteries and capacitors tremendously. Internal combustion constantly gets better. Five years ago the Prius was thought to be useful as a large golf cart, most people had not heard the word "ethanol" in years, biofuels probably meant charcoal lighter got on the meat, and maybe one engineer in a hundred ever expected to own an electric car.

Just where does all this crap about hybrids are no good, EVs no good, Toyota buys public relations, conspiracies, etc. come from? What really won't come soon is H2. It has true problems in generation, distribution, and costs (both for the H2 and the fuel cells).

I picked on Lutz. But being tough is why he gets the big bucks. One person can only do so much and he is doing what he believes in.

I found this comment at Washington Monthly to be quite informative:

It is an interesting concept. There's only one thing that bothers me. You've heard about those laptops that catch fire?

This uses those batteries. Lithium Ion battery are awesome for energy density, which is why they became popular in notebooks, but there's some real problems with them.

1) High internal resistance -- you can't pull a great deal of current out of them at a given momemnt. Judging by the fact that this car is using over 1000 cells, they're getting around that by parelling the battery packs.

2) Lousy life. A LiIon battery starts losing capacity the moment it is made. Keeping it cold slows the process. Getting it warm accelerates it, as does storing it at full charge.

A LiIon cell at 140F with 100% charge will lose 40% of the original capacity in three months. Don't buy this car if you live in a desert.

3) They really hate being driven to zero charge. The way you make a LiIon battery last is run it to 40% capacity, charge it, and run it again. As long as you do that, you're fine. Pushing it farther will permanently reduce the capacity of the battery, if not destroy it.

4) They really hate being frozen. So, if you live where it gets hot *or* cold, don't buy this car.

5) They have a bad failure mode -- often, the battery's response to abuse is to catch fire. If you crash the car and crush or puncture the battery pack, you will almost certainly lose the whole car. If you're knocked out by the collision, you're toast -- the LiIon batteries will react very quickly.

Indeed, every LiIon cell I've ever seen -- and I've seen a bunch, has this big warning about "Do not store in a car" They really hate getting hot.

This is why the hybrids, to a car, use NiMH, not LiIon batteries. More current per cell, much longer lasting, more tolerant of heat and cold, much more likely to survive abuse, much less loss of capacity over time, and much less chance of catching fire and/or exploding. The few hybrids that announced they'd use LiIon packs gave up and shipped with NiMH.

So. If you live in a very temperate climate, never crash, and don't mind losing about 10-15% of your range every year, this is an ideal car for you. Otherwise, your range loss per year will be much greater, and you'll never know when the battery might be really pissed off.

Here is a follow-up from the same commenter.

On the goodwill point.. If you look at the auto companies massive marketing budgets.. it would seem to be smarter to spend some of that money on serious research, and prototype cars then on buying yet another add on tv that few pay attention to. Something GM and Ford never mention when it comes to saving themselves is cutting the marketing budgets!

The prius is a rolling advertisment for Toyota that it is trying to help deal with some of the big picture problems of our time. So I would include a lot of its costs in the marketing budget if I was making the decisions.

On the issue of battery capabilities. People are correctly pointing out that batteries of today still have limitations compared to the ICE. I would add that they also have some advantages, especially in a performance car like this.

But batteries are increasing in an exponential rate.. not huge like computers but 9% a year is the average increase in storage capacity per year. That means doubling every 8 years at today's pace. Then there is the efforts to massively decrease the charging time which will mean another hindrance has fallen. Making it so the batteries can be charged for many more cycles. Bringing down the cost of production which will be a constant battle.. as each new advancement will be expensive at first.. We aren't going to see it all come into place at once, just chipping away year by year, thousands of scientists around the world.

As the batteries increase across all areas, they will become commercially viable for more people, for more uses. If oil becomes more expensive they become viable faster, if oil cheapens the process is delayed but the consumer can move around cheaper.

So now we are seeing a few trickles of water leaking out of the dam. The dam is the combustion engine's reign of land transport. In time those holes will grow larger, and more will appear.

Randall,

Vested interests referred to corporations.

“The problem is the cost hybrid components.”
But not if they yield to the economies of large scale production, but instead we have mechanics retrofitting cars by putting together ‘artesian’ battery packs.

If the idea is to get us out of this mess, car dealers could do in shop retrofits, selling hybrid conversions for their entire product line back 10-15 model years. And push their new pluggable hybrid or EV models too.

The "conspiracies" label is troublesome. Better would be business as usual --self serving inertia of shared corporate interests; after the innovation is gone, continue the gravy train and eliminate competition. An Iron Triangle of mutually reinforcing back scratching. Thus guaranteeing as aa2 put it, “the combustion engine's reign of land transport”. If some of our corporate rulers wanted paradigm change, their advertising, P.R. and news/entertainment organs would be all over it. The public would want too. The age of oil burning is wasting a tremendously valuable and versatile chemical feedstock our children’s children might just want some of.

Yeah we have to cheer for the Tesla, buy a hot sports car put together by a smallish company… a David, showing the Goliaths a thing or two about possibilities, but what about the other 99 percent of us?

“In 1947, the federal government issued indictments that General Motors, through its National City Lines subsidiary, had conspired to buy up and convert electric railways in 44 U.S. cities into bus lines. National City Lines' backers, which included Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum and Firestone Tire, also were named in the suit, which charged that the companies had coerced urban railways bought by National City Lines into purchasing their products. Though the defendants were convicted in U.S. District Court, the Supreme Court reversed most of the lower court's ruling. Only one charge stuck against General Motors: Forcing NCL subsidiaries to buy General Motors buses. The company was fined $5,000.” http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=9040

aa2,

You are right. If Toyota sells Prius for a lower profit margin or a loss that money should be thought of as mostly a marketing expenditure. Some of it is a long term research and development project. It can be debated as to the how much should be assigned to each category.

Do you have any source for the rate of increase in energy density of batteries?

bigelow,

A few makers have hybrids on the market. So some higher scale production volume exists.

Few people would spend thousands to retrofit their old cars. The payback would be even worse than it is for new hybrids. The older cars have shorter remaining operating lifes. Also, dealer repair bays are far less efficient than factory assembly lines.

For cars that have both hybrid and regular models the regular models far outsell the hybrids because the hybrid versions cost more. They do not cost more because car companies want hybrids to fail. They cost more because their parts cost more. Hybrids are not more widespread because the public does not see them as economically justifiable.

If the price of oil keeps rising at some point people will shift more toward hybrids. But they will also change their residences and jobs to reduce commute distances and they will buy smaller cars and take fewer road trips. A mile not driven saves more energy than a mile driven in a hybrid.

Hybrid advocates could demonstrate the importance they attach to reduce energy consumption and move closer to work or change jobs to shorten commute distances.

My commute distance is 1.2 miles btw.

Some guess it would take the energy equivalent of half a year's worth of U.S. oil usage to replace all U.S. cars and trucks with new. Enough electric vehicles or mostly battery powered hybrids can supplant oil in the transportation mix, great, if not well … oil prices will trend up. Hopefully we avoid a world war. China, India and Arab nations will feel just as entitled to more of the depleting oil supplies as the U.S. does. We will wait till the auto companies collapse and the economy tanks.

One way to avoid dislocation is to get off of oil. The corporations could make this happen. But it is more profitable to keep selling the same ol’ thing and wait for better days. Similarly as Matt Savinar notes:
“At the Paris Peak Oil Conference, Dutch economist Maarten Van Mourik of the Netherlands Economic Institute explained that because of the financial shortcomings of all currently available forms of alternative energy, a sudden crash is the profitable solution for the oil companies.” http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/civilization3.html

For the corporations that are left it will be tremendously profitable yes? For us, dislocation is such a value free word isn't it?

"For cars that have both hybrid and regular models the regular models far outsell the hybrids because the hybrid versions cost more. They do not cost more because car companies want hybrids to fail. They cost more because their parts cost more. Hybrids are not more widespread because the public does not see them as economically justifiable."

You have to remember that most of these are "power hybrids", where most of the efficiency improvement has been used to increase power. That makes an economic analysis very difficult, and not really appropriate.

It's a very difficult thing for car companies to predict: do buyers want more power, or better MPG? At the moment, they seem to be leaning towards MPG, and so going to smaller cars instead of the power hybrids. Of course, Detroit's wishful thinking about gas price trends doesn't help...

Nick says,

You have to remember that most of these are "power hybrids", where most of the efficiency improvement has been used to increase power. That makes an economic analysis very difficult, and not really appropriate.

No, it makes the economic analysis highly appropriate. As I reported in my post Comments: Car Fuel Efficiency Gains Used For Speed And Size, increases in fuel usage efficiency are mostly going to flow to purposes other than decreasing the amount of fuel used per distance travelled. People want speed and larger size.

The hybrid car market demonstrates this strong customer preference just like the regular car market does. The hybrid car market proves the point I've been arguing here for years: We can not reduce fossil fuels usage much by using fossil fuels more efficiently. People will use more energy as long as they can afford to do so.

I'm still strongly in favor of accelerating the development of fuel efficiency increasing technologies. Such technologies will raise living standards. But we can only reduce the use of fossil fuels by developing technologies that lower the costs of non-fossil fuel energy sources.

Ever notice when we became customers instead of citizens or how “the market” now frames more thoughts?

One reason car companies would be against pure electric cars, is the fact that A) The pure electric cars would require far less components and their manufacture would be a lot simpler than the internal combustion engine based cars,w hich require so many high maintenance pieces like the radiator, exhaust, carbirator, transmission, complicated gears, belts, etc (with the exception of the luxury models like the sports car of Tesla), and B) such cars would have a lot more longevity due to the absence of these complex components, meaning that a pure electric car would probably last 40 years, since only the batteries and tires need to be changed, and even the small electric motor would be easily swapped. This would also be a disaster for the automobile dealers who are benefiting from all phases of maintenance and repairs.

"No, it makes the economic analysis highly appropriate. "

Randall, I'm not sure what your analyzing. Is the question: "does hybrid technology pay for itself in gas savings?"? If so, then you have to compare a Camry hybrid to a comparable non-hybrid, and the non-hybrid Camry isn't that car, because it has less power and fewer amenities. Maybe you compare a Camry hybrid to a more expensive sports model. Do you see my point?

The problem is that LATELY people DON'T want to use the additional efficiency for higher performance. Dealers are saying that people are looking for fuel efficiency, and are disappointed that the hybrid versions aren't more fuel efficient. For instance, instead of the Camry they're off looking at Corollas and Yaris's, instead. Heavy SUV and pickup sales are off, and sedan sales have risen, but there aren't enough high efficiency cars on the lots to satisfy demand, so overall sales have fallen.

If gas prices fall back down, sure, people will go back to wanting more power and performance. But as long as gas prices stay high and rising, people will look for efficiency (Jevon's paradox doesn't apply in times of rising prices).

Let me clarify: I agree that marginal improvements in efficiency aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things, and that the main importance of hybrids is the pathway to electric transportation: PHEV's (plug-ins) and EV's.

T-Zero have had a small, high performance sports car available in the USA since about 1999. Not a big seller. The only major improvement this new car has is looks.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm

Patrick, are you sure the T-Zero is in production and for sale? This FAQ http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_FAQs/FAQ_cars.htm seems to say that in 2004 there were only 3 in existence (and those with lead-acid), and 1 li-ion version under construction and for sale for $265,000, with no plans to build further.

Not clear why they didn't build more - kind've looks like they ran out of $ before getting to production. Perhaps they were a little too early to market.

"This would also be a disaster for the automobile dealers who are benefiting from all phases of maintenance and repairs."

I'm having trouble restraining myself reading this abysmally ignorant statement. Auto companies aren't monolithic. They will try to undercut the other guy by building a better product that the market demands more, and the market just wont demand a car that you can only drive 50 miles in before needing to spend several hours charging up.

This is like the myth that light bulbs could be made to last forever but arent because they couldn't sell more light bulbs. If you could do that, some company would just sell them anyways and undercut all the other guys.

"Auto companies aren't monolithic."

Well, the auto MARKET isn't exactly, but the big companies are. One of the major arguments lately is that 1 division of GM was in favor of the EV-1, while the rest of GM (in effect) conspired to kill it. What do I mean by "in effect"? Passive resistance, backbiting, general culture of hostility to EV's. A very similar thing appears to be happening with Ford and their hybrid program: Mary Ann Wright, the director of the program, left recently citing lack of management support and a generally hostile atmosphere...

“They will try to undercut the other guy by building a better product that the market demands more, and the market just wont demand a car that you can only drive 50 miles in before needing to spend several hours charging up.”

The title for this piece is “Tesla Roadster 100% Electric Goes 250 Miles Per Charge”

Any consumer car wont have 250 miles on one charge when batteries cost what they do. Tesla Roadster is a stunt.

Batteries are dropping in cost very quickly, perhaps 20% per year for li-ion's. That's what the Tesla's makers are planning on.

"Batteries are dropping in cost very quickly, perhaps 20% per year for li-ion's. That's what the Tesla's makers are planning on."

Excellent point. And please note that in the web site of Tesla Motors, you have a link to various articles written about this company, where it is reported that Tesla Motors is getting ready to reveal a 4-door sedan car in 2008, in anticipation of much better and more durable batteries. In the near future, not only the price of the lithium batteries will decline a lot, but also both the charge capacity and longevity will also increase.

BOTTOM LINE: Within a few years, there will be a variety of electric cars, but in addition to these electric vehicles, we must start (NOW) to build the electric power generation capability: we need to accelerate research on more advanced nuclear power plants that burn all the long term waste, more research on photovoltaics, cellulose based alcohol conversion, more research for absorbing the CO_2 of coal fired plants into mineral forms, etc.

One side-effect of this war, is that the $trillion that will be spent in this war during the next decade, will obviously divert funds from energy research. THIS is the real reason the oil companies have every reason to be very happy about the war.

Nick,

I'd appreciate any info on the rate of decline in price of Lithium batteries. I'm aware that the NiMH batteries in the Prius have declined in price by some double digit percentage amount since the Prius was introduced.

Currently Toyota prices Prius replacement batteries at $3000.

And Toyota claims that not one has required a battery replacement due to malfunction or "wearing out." The only replacement batteries sold--at the retail price of $3000--have been for cars that were involved in accidents. Toyota further claims that the nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery packs used in all Prius models are expected to last the life of the car with very little to no degradation in power capability.

But I wonder whether Toyota is selling the rarely needed replacement batteries at a loss:

Just as many electronic devices have recently switched from NiMH batteries to lithium-ion, so too might the Prius. Two reasons: First, Toyota says the cost of nickel has increased threefold in the past few years, largely because China is buying lots of it to make stainless steel. Also, lithium-ion batteries offer a higher power density that would allow a similarly powerful battery to be smaller and lighter.

But Toyota notes there are still some problems to be overcome before lithium-ion batteries are ready for prime time--at least in cars like the Prius. One is that the batteries have a dangerous tendency to catch fire. The second is that the life span of a lithium-ion battery in an application like the Prius can't yet match that of a NiMH battery. But neither of these problems seems insurmountable, as Toyota estimates lithium-ion batteries might be used in the Prius in as little as two or three years.

There's a lot of nickel out there. If the price is high right now, that reflects a temporary imbalance of demand and production capacity. Metal producers will expand the capacity of their mines and smelters (because their costs haven't increased much, so this should be highly profitable) and the price will come back down.

Longer term, if carbon sequestration by mineral carbonation occurs on a large scale, then the nickel extracted from olivine/serpentinite (where it is about .1% of the rock) could completely swamp the market (and similarly for iron and chromium).

Randall, I haven't been able to get as much info as I'd like. I've seen price estimates for Li-ion between $300 and $1,200 per Kwhr. Nimh is lower than Li-ion, and dropping quickly - I'm sure Toyota's costs are far below $3k for a 1.3 kwhr pack.

One thing to keep in mind is that nanotech Li-ion should have an effective cost per kwhr discharged that is much lower than conventional li-ion. One reason lead-acid isn't especially cheap, despite low upfront costs, is the low # of cycles and low discharge depth for optimal life. Conventional li-ion has the same problem. The combination of many more cycles (Dewalt is promising 2,000 cycles for their new powertool batteries from A123systems, and others are talking about 10,000 cycles) and much greater depth of discharge (perhaps 90%, vs 30% in the Prius, or 3x) suggests something 10x or 20x more cost effective per discharged kwhr.

"THIS is the real reason the oil companies have every reason to be very happy about the war."

Okay, you're hopeless. Do a back of the envelope calculation on the energy density of batteries vs gasoline. There is no conspiracy to keep electric cars down. They have just been lousy for the past 50 years and will continue to be lousy for the next 50. The future of the electric car is in hybrids.

"They have just been lousy for the past 50 years and will continue to be lousy for the next 50."

No question they used to be lousy, and are stil kind of marginal right now. But there's no law of physics that says it has to be that way. Battery tech is improving dramatically right now. Take a look at my post just before. Have you looked at the Dewalt 36-volt batteries? They're the first practical application of nanotech li-ion's, and there's a huge wave following them...

Nick,

Valence has a Lithium ion battery for cars that is 132 Wh/kg. At that same page you'll see a bipolar NiMH battery from EEI that is going to be $500 to $600 per KWh and which has a density of 48 Wh/kg. The article claims it is half the cost of the Li ion based system as a total integrated system.

Note that plug-in hybrids will wear out their batteries more rapidly because they'll do deeper discharges. Which can handle more deep discharges at this point, lithium or NiMH?

Dezakin,

Batteries do not have to achieve gasoline's energy density in order to replace gasoline. Batteries and battery motors compete with gasoline and gasoline power trains. Those power trains are a lot heavier than pure electric power trains. Donald Sadoway at MIT says that Lithium polymer batteries can achieve a specific energy of 400 Wh/kg and at that point would displace gasoline engines for a large portion of all automotive uses. He sees a big future for solid state lithium batteries.

I tend to be more optimistic about pure electric cars because of Sadoway's claims.

Regrettably, it is NOT enough to build electric cars, we need energy sources, to charge these batteries. We desperately need new types of nuclear plants that can burn the long term waste, and this requires big spending on research. And we need to develop the photovoltaics, the new ways of converting wood and all other vegetables, the cellulose, into alcohol. We need to spend at least $100 billion per year on an energy Manhattan project.

"Batteries do not have to achieve gasoline's energy density in order to replace gasoline. Batteries and battery motors compete with gasoline and gasoline power trains. Those power trains are a lot heavier than pure electric power trains."

Depends. If you're running a turbine instead of a reciprocating engine, your power to weight ratio is going to be vastly higher, even if you're efficiency is going to be lower. I think turbines have a future in plug in hybrids because of their excellent power to weight ratio for travelling beyond the range of the battery pack.

We should also remember that ultracapacitors play a very important role here because batteries will allways be inferior for rapid charge and discharge for things like regenerative braking and hard acceleration, and ultracaps can be well married to automotive applications with batteries.

But my point is that liquid fuel based engines will rule automotive applications for the next several decades, even though better battery technologies and electric powertrains can make them more efficient.

"Donald Sadoway at MIT says that Lithium polymer batteries can achieve a specific energy of 400 Wh/kg and at that point would displace gasoline engines for a large portion of all automotive uses. He sees a big future for solid state lithium batteries."

I'm more interested in what Sadoway had to say about his project for molten oxide electrolysis; iron smelting without the coal, similar to aluminum refining. You might want to write an article about that if you're interested

"This is like the myth that light bulbs could be made to last forever but arent because they couldn't sell more light bulbs. If you could do that, some company would just sell them anyways and undercut all the other guys."

The longest burning lightbulb is Livermore's Centennial Light, which has been burning pretty much continuously since 1901. :)

http://www.centennialbulb.org/

Wolf-dog, don't forget about wind. The US has more than enough wind potential: I've seen estimates of 2.9 terawatts of potential name-plate capacity, which at 30% capacity factor gives about 900 GW, or twice what the US consumes these days.

Wind is cost effective. It's only real drawback is intermittency, and EV charging would take care of that problem beautifully, as EV charging would smooth out that intermittency.

EV's and wind power are a match made in heaven.

Interestingly, Tesla provides wind and solar options: you can contract to buy windpower to power your Tesla, or use their referral service to a solar contractor who'll install a PV system matched to the power needs of your shiny new car.

Dezakin, I agree that plug-in hybrids will be more popular than EV's for quite a while. On the other hand, as battery capacity increases the electric portion will likely become dominant, leaving a very small generator as part of a serial hybrid, as backup on long trips.

Randall, I'm not sure which takes deep discharge better. I would imagine that Tesla's li-ion's would be protected from deep discharge by the battery management system, just as the Prius does with it's nimh's. In effect, battery capacity would appear smaller than it is, and to achieve a desired capacity will take more cells than otherwise. It does sound like Tesla plans to discharge it's conventional Li-ion cells a little more deeply than I would expect. Perhaps they expect to sell conventional batteries for the 1st year or two before going tonanotech li-ions, and are gambling that most buyers won't go to maximum range very often.

Nick: "It's only real drawback is intermittency"

And the fact that nobody wants them spoiling their views.

"And the fact that nobody wants them spoiling their views."

Only a small percentage of projects are affected by this. Cape Wind gets a lot of press, but offshore wind projects in Texas are roaring ahead.

Farmers are dying to get more wind farms: it can easily make the difference between a miserable life, holding off foreclosure on a year by year basis, and comfortable success.

The delay caused by the Air Force studying interference with radar for some installations new AF bases is a somewhat larger problem, but it still only affect a relatively small % of projects, and is likely to go away reasonably soon - it's just a sneaky tactic spawned by Cape Wind opponents, and has been easily dealt with in the UK and Europe.

Birds, of course, are really only a problem at Altamonte, CA. There it's a big problem, complicated by the fact that Altamonte is smack in the middle of a especially important migration path for protected raptors, and has more bird dangerous turbines because they're older, and therefore lower and faster. They have a bit of a catch-22: newer turbines would be safer for birds, but environmentalists are afraid they wouldn't be enough of an improvement, and meanwhile the older turbines remain.

In summary, intermittency is the only real problem, and that's not a problem yet, and may never be. The only thing really holding wind back is that manufacturers can't expand as fast as demand is rising. GE is backordered through 2007.

“After dozens of studies spanning nearly two decades, we now know that the Altamont Pass situation is unusual in the U.S. The high raptor mortality there was the result of a convergence of factors, some of which were due to the bad siting in the local ecosystem while others were due to the wind turbine and tower technology used at the time. In fact, a very different situation exists not far away at the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farms near Palm Springs. A 1986 study found that 69 million birds flew though the San Gorgonio Pass during the Spring and Fall migrations. During both migrating seasons, only 38 dead birds were found during that typical year, representing only 0.00006% of the migrating population. “
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

I'm concerned about the battery lifespan... I've heard that the batteries can lose 20% of their capacity a year regardless of how much you use it.

"I've heard that the batteries can lose 20% of their capacity a year regardless of how much you use it."

I'm surprised by this too - I wouldn’t have thought they’d use off-the-shelf li-ion’s. I don’t think they plan to for long, but they’ll need their first generation cars to hold up, to get good PR.

You have to remember that most li-ion applications have very primitive battery management. The Prius’ battery management is very sophisticated, and it gets much more life out of NIMH’s than one would expect normally. Perhaps li-ion’s have more potential than one would think from using laptop batteries.

I’ll be very curious to see how it works out. Anybody know more about this?

"I wonder how much energy strikes a car that isn't parked in the shade."

If the vehicle is 15' long, and 6' wide, that's about 1.8 x 4.5 meters, or about 8 square meters, more if the cross section isn't perfectly horizontal, less if you subtract windows.

8 sq meters x 1kw per sq meter: 8 kw.

At the current theoretical maximum of 65% efficiency, and an average of 5 full hours of sunlight = 26 kwhrs per day (use 4 in northern US).

26 kwhrs/.25 kw/mile= 104 miles/day, or 37,960 miles per year, about 3x the average.

or,

8 kw / .25 kw/mile = 32 MPH with only incoming solar power (no storage). Of course, you could lower the .25 kwhrs/mile, and raise that.

A PV coated car could run just on light, pretty easily.

Oops, correction:

8 kw / .25 kw/mile x 65% efficiency = 21 MPH with only incoming solar power (no storage).

Still pretty good for city driving. Of course, as a practical matter you'd need some storage.

i dont think any one wants to wait for it to charge. Other than that it seems to be ight.

This car is going to fail miserably.

First. It uses laptop batteries. I bought a new Dell Laptop last January and 15 months later, it will only run for 10 minutes before it has to be plugged back in. Same will happen with Tesla.

Second, Tesla calculates the operational cost of the vehicle with a rate of 10 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. Look at your electric bill to see how much you pay! You add this car onto your monthly bill and you're going to be paying 37 to 44 cents per kilwatt hour. Combine that with the overly optimistic calculation of 240 miles per charge vs. real world driving (driven hard, Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear got 60 miles out of a full charge) and the cost will be nearly 10 times higher than Tesla is calculating.