Popular Science article on Elon Musk

[graham]

I agree for the most part, as is evidenced by the fact that I am buying a Roadster, but I did not buy a RAV4EV.

However, while my daily commute is only 100 miles round trip, on the weekends, I usually drive to see my wife in Sacramento, which is almost 200 miles one way. First, I am not sure I trust the Tesla to get me there at highway speeds, especially after the batteries are 2 and 3 years old. But once I am there, her condo has a big parking lot with no charging facilities, which means although I may make it there, I will have a dead car unless I can run a 1000' extension cord out the window, across the parking lot and let charge it for 30 hours. I drive to LA 5 or 6 times a year - but even if my car could make the 350 mile one-way drive... today I would not be able to easily charge it again until I came back home. So it isn't just the length of a trip segment... it is the amount of miles between when I leave my garage and I arrive back in my garage, possibly by the end of the weekend -- there are multiple times a year when (for me) that is more than 1000 miles.

Today, it means a requirement of multiple cars in the family. I need a gasoline powered car for some of my driving. I hope in the future I will either be able to a) have enough juice in my electric car not to have to charge it in between leaving and returning to my garage b) have a better, faster mobile charging solution everywhere I want to go or c) a way to quickly swap my battery for a fully charged one.

**I realize I drive way more than most people -- I look forward to being able to get at least my "bulk" commuting done electrically.

Edit to add: I think dpeilow and I said roughly the same thing in responding to WarpedOne - only dpeilow did it much more succinctly. :smile:

 

[JRP3]

This is crazy. How much extra cost will be added to the vehicle to cover designing and implementing a fast swap battery pack? How much will the infrastructure cost to create swapping stations? How much extra cost will there be in having extra batteries on hand ready to swap at all times? This is insane. EV's don't need fast swap and they don't need to have 300-500 mile range. I'm sorry but if you regularly need more than 200 mile range an EV is not for you and won't be for quite a while.
Keep a $3K-5K ICE around for occasional longer trips, or rent. I'm really sorry to hear Elon talking about fast swap. :frown:

 

[WarpedOne]

If dpeilow said roughly the same thing as graham only much more succinctly, then JRP3 said basically the same thing I wanted to say, only more succinctly. And graphically :biggrin:

They might be mentioning this swapping because it its an idea being thrown around on blogs but they wont pursue it much further. How much did Project Better Place raise? 200 million $? I doubt Elon would get much investor's money for basically doing the same thing all over again.

 

[vfx]

Martin and Elon both said at the birth of the company that the goal was a 500 mile car.

The thinking is that is a day of driving. And yes Martin copped to crazy days of youth and much further drives (like we all have done) but 500 would cover 99.9 percent of daily drives and even an eight hour charge to fill from empty would not be so bad then.

 

[shark2k]

I have to disagree with JRP3 that EVs don't need a 300-500 mile range. Reading back on his post though I'm not so sure if what I was gonna say is relevant, but I'll say it anyway with a caveat. If you only meant that for short term (i.e. while trying to get EVs out there) than my post doesn't really matter.

So, the reason I do not agree is that while most of the population will be good with a 240 mile range for daily driving, it would really be nice to have the higher range so that you can go on those longer trips (i.e. down the shore for the summer, to visit family that is far enough away that if you stayed overnight you wouldn't have enough time to charge and get back to enough mileage to get home). Now, while in the beginning I think it would be OK to have the ~240 mile range, I think in order for EVs to be seen as a feasible alternative to ICEs they need to get 300-500 miles (closer to 500 IMHO). Of course the other thing is that the charging infrastructure needs to be put in place and quick chargers need to be available. I wouldn't mind driving to California and stopping off at a motel and be able to completely charge my car over night than wake up and go on my way. Now when I get closer to California (where I wouldn't need to stay at a motel, but my car is getting low on charge, I can stop off at a restaurant and get something to eat (for this scenario let's just say this takes about 45 minutes to do) and by the time I am done, I have enough charge left to be able to finish off my day (arriving at California and driving around) then charge my car at the hotel.

Now, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but what I just described/talked about, to me would be nice only having one car and being able to do all that. I would like to, in the future, be able to only have an EV and have that be able to fill all my needs just like an ICE does now. That way I don't have to even have to be reliant on gas companies at all (when it comes to my car), I would pollute a lot less (again, when it comes to the car, and I would have solar panels on my house) and it would cost a whole lot less to "fill" my car with it's fuel.

So, again, sorry if I misunderstood you. If you were just saying that right now while EVs are stilling trying to become accepted they don't need the 300-500 mile range, but after they get accepted they would need it, I did not get that from your post.

-Shark2k

 

[dpeilow]

 

[JRP3]

Shark, I consider the Term "need" a bit differently. We are "used" to being able to basically drive as long as we want to with fast refueling, but it is far from a "need". We are used to it based on an abundance of cheap fuel. In all likely hood those days are gone but most of us haven't really grasped that concept. The fact is that most people drive less than 40 miles a day most of the time, therefore that is all they really need. Obviously a little more flexibility would be good so a 200 mile range is more than enough for most of us. For the once or twice a year that I drive more than 200 miles I can use my ICE, rent one, or, heaven forbid, not make that trip since I don't really "need" to see my relatives I'm sure with time it will improve, but the range issue is really a matter of perception.

 

[JRP3]

URECA, as long as there are unlimited numbers of battery change stations and unlimited numbers of electric batteries. Just think of how many vehicles travel an average highway, that exchange station would be depleted in less than 5 minutes

 

[vfx]

YouTube - Unlimited Range Electric Car

Can't help but wonder what charging would do to all your portable electronic bits. Cell phone, crackberry, laptop, I pod and not to mention every card in you wallet.

 

[TEG]

I think you misunderstood the concept, VFX.
You just stop in to swap your empty pack with a full one.
The charging isn't inductive. The ring is just a ring of batteries being charged and readied.

I wonder if Tesla or PBP battery swap stations are going to have to license patents like that.

 

[vfx]

I think you misunderstood the concept, VFX.
You just stop in to swap your empty pack with a full one.
The charging isn't inductive. The ring is just a ring of batteries being charged and readied.

I wonder if Tesla or PBP battery swap stations are going to have to license patents like that.

Yeah, I guess did. Just half paying attention filling in the blanks while I was reading the next post. Seems kinda stupid to go up and over if you already have hole in the ground. Just make a horizontal battery-loop.

You would climb down a ladder and have simple access to all the motion mechanisms and you don't need a bunch of powerful (everything) to lift heavy batteries. Put the drive-throughs all in a row, toll booth style and you just build a tunnel to get at everything.

 

[dpeilow]

If you've got batteries going up one side and down the other, they would form a counterbalance - so if the swapping of dead for charged ones happens at the side, there isn't a lot of power needed to lift them or rotated the loop, or have I missed something?

 

[shark2k]

Shark, I consider the Term "need" a bit differently. We are "used" to being able to basically drive as long as we want to with fast refueling, but it is far from a "need". We are used to it based on an abundance of cheap fuel. In all likely hood those days are gone but most of us haven't really grasped that concept. The fact is that most people drive less than 40 miles a day most of the time, therefore that is all they really need. Obviously a little more flexibility would be good so a 200 mile range is more than enough for most of us. For the once or twice a year that I drive more than 200 miles I can use my ICE, rent one, or, heaven forbid, not make that trip since I don't really "need" to see my relatives I'm sure with time it will improve, but the range issue is really a matter of perception.

And I think that is why it is important to have the higher range, because most people's perception is to be able to drive so far on one "tank." As was said in the TG episode with the Tesla, we built our lives around cars and being able to go as far as needed and fill up in a few minutes and be back on our way. But since it is perception, that obviously means it is opinion and it seems like we have different opinions (which is OK, I'm just saying ). But thanks for clarifying what you meant for me. I appreciate that.

-Shark2k

 

[JRP3]

I guess I feel we should engineer around reality, not perception. Just because we have built our lives on what may be an unsustainable model doesn't mean we need to continue on that path. I know many people won't buy an EV unless it equals an ICE in range. I also know that many people would be happy to buy a 200 mile EV right now if the price were right. So do we concentrate on increasing range, which will increase price, or ramp up production and improve on what exists to drive price down? I'm sure range will come in time for those who "need" it.

 

[graham]

You are not wrong, JRP3. Presently the amount of electric cars being produced, and their cost, and their range, and the people interested in buying them are not too far out of whack. There is a pent up demand for electric cars, but not at the price it takes to make them today. The cars that are cheap enough for the masses are too limited in range and power to be a mass market success.

Once people are more used to dealing with electric cars, many will realize that they really don't need a car that goes a million miles. And people will start seeing electric cars for their benefits not just their shortcomings.

Of course part of that will also be people becoming more comfortable with car makers claims too. I think there are few people who trust when GM says "you can go 40 miles" or when Tesla says "you can go 244 miles" trust that that number will reflect their reality -- and they are not wrong to do so. In 5-10 years this should be much less of an issue once people have gotten exposure to electric cars day to day.

 

[stopcrazypp]

There's something we haven't really seriously considered before it was scrapped, and that's external range extenders (this is where GM got their E-REV term) like the genset trailer they used on the Tzero and on a RAV4 EV. Sure, not as clean as an EV, but really as has been mentioned, long trips won't be relatively frequent. Sure there are issues to deal with, like emissions (though fuel efficiency is like a typical car), how it still uses fuel, a hassle compared to battery swapping, etc., but it might work as a temp solution.
Genset trailer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In general for EVs: a range of 150-250 (what we get normally in some of the better EVs today) is good enough for daily driving. Add off the street and parking chargers for those without garages and you are set for daily driving for most people. Then we make rapid charging infrastructure for those who travel long distances. I imagine that should really address most of the concerns about using EVs. I'm not really banking on the current batteries getting to 300-500 mile range anytime soon (even assuming same price and weight). I think the benefit of not having to go to the gas station for most of the year should outweigh the inconvience of having to wait 10-20 minutes to charge with rapid charging on longer trips (for 80-120 miles of range, might be even better depending on size of battery since partial charges tend to be faster, though I'll admit it's still not near what a gas car can fill up in).

Only thing I don't like about battery swapping is that it pretty much necessary for some kind of suscription model, b/c no way is anyone going to feel comfortable swapping something worth at least thousands of dollars for something that might not be better in quality (not to mention the needed standardization of battery packs). JRP3 also raises a good question on how many batteries such a model would need (though I think PBP intends this battery swapping to only be used infrequently while most users rely on rapid charging, but then that goes back to my original suggestion).

 

[shark2k]

I guess I feel we should engineer around reality, not perception. Just because we have built our lives on what may be an unsustainable model doesn't mean we need to continue on that path. I know many people won't buy an EV unless it equals an ICE in range. I also know that many people would be happy to buy a 200 mile EV right now if the price were right. So do we concentrate on increasing range, which will increase price, or ramp up production and improve on what exists to drive price down? I'm sure range will come in time for those who "need" it.

I gotta say. I really do agree with you on that. The way you put it here makes sense for me. Maybe you were saying this in your other two posts, but this one really hit home for me. I agree that we should concentrate on getting the prices down. I also agree that the range will come in time. And whether we "need" that range or not, I am fairly confident that battery technology will get better and that range will be a factor, whether we want it or not (almost like a side affect you can't stop type thing).

The problem I have is are there really enough people out there that would buy EVs with a 200 mile range at the right price point? I know you say you know many people, but do you think there are enough people out there that would make it beneficial for companies to come out with EVs like that. I mean, Tesla obviously believes it is, but (and as much as I want EVs to succeed) it seems that because of incorrect information (like what Top Gear did for instance) might make it easy to "scare" people away from EVs.

Unfortunately, I believe more people are going to want a longer range to compensate for not being able to "fill up" as quickly as they are use to. Then with Top Gear (for the petrol heads at least, even though they would be hard to convince possibly) saying the Roadster only gets 55 miles in "real" world conditions and that it takes 16 hours to charge. They didn't mention the fact that it could be charged in 3.5 on a 220v outlet and the fact that they pushed the car really hard (why it overheated also). But, I digress. This last paragraph probably wasn't needed and I just wanted to rant about Top Gear .

Anyway, I know I plan on trying to buy a Model S when it comes out. I'm hoping I'll be able to get the money together so I can afford it, because I would love having an electric car and would love to not have to wait until the Bluestar.

-Shark2k

 

[dpeilow]

In general for EVs: a range of 150-250 (what we get normally in some of the better EVs today) is good enough for daily driving. Add off the street and parking chargers for those without garages and you are set for daily driving for most people. Then we make rapid charging infrastructure for those who travel long distances. I imagine that should really address most of the concerns about using EVs. I'm not really banking on the current batteries getting to 300-500 mile range anytime soon (even assuming same price and weight).

We know that the current ESS uses 2.2Ah cells - something it has been doing since 2006 or thereabouts (actually, there is a claim that production cars use 2.0Ah here, but I will assume that is wrong.)

Panasonic manufacture 2.9Ah cells and announced 3.6Ah cells of the same size nearly two years ago. These would give EPA mileages of 316 and 393 miles respectively (my crude assumption).

I'm sure Tesla are testing samples of these cells, but it would be nice to see a VP fitted with them and driven over such distances. Even if the 2.9Ah cells double the cost of the pack (I've seen $5 per cell for these), an extra $20k might be acceptable to some people. I guess we will see all this when the Model S is fully revealed.

 

[malcolm]

Even if the 2.9Ah cells double the cost of the pack (I've seen $5 per cell for these), an extra $20k might be acceptable to some people.

And as part of a lease scheme a larger number of owners may get access to newer/more energy-dense packs sooner.

The battery pack design will have to include some form of identification system for the swap station and a very clear identification system for owners. Don't want to get leased a 2.2Ah-based pack at 2.9Ah or 3.6Ah prices.

And if, like Model S, the car also provides home charging then the recharge protocol will have to adjust automatically to safely recharge different cells which might be contained in the same physical pack.

It's such a shame that the big battery-lease scheme that is Th!nk may stop. They were quoting about £100 per month (there's a video on dannyscontentment)

 

[graham]

These would give EPA mileages of 316 and 393 miles respectively (my crude assumption).

I'm sure Tesla are testing samples of these cells, but it would be nice to see a VP fitted with them and driven over such distances. Even if the 2.9Ah cells double the cost of the pack (I've seen $5 per cell for these), an extra $20k might be acceptable to some people. I guess we will see all this when the Model S is fully revealed.

Yes! Or possibly a battery pack with roughly the same kWh, but 35-40% less weight could be very interesting too.