backtop


Print 142 comment(s) - last by FITCamaro.. on Jul 1 at 9:51 AM

Tesla plans to deploy stations later this year

Tesla Motors demonstrated its battery swap technology this week in an effort to draw in electric vehicle (EV) skeptics. 

Tesla swapped its battery out in a Model S while a screen showed a car filling its tank with gas. The battery swap took only 90 seconds while the gas fill-up took about four minutes. In fact, Tesla, completed two battery swaps in the time it took to fill a gas tank. 

The idea behind battery swapping is to ease customer's minds about EV range. When traveling distances longer than the vehicle's electric range, the driver may not want to sit and wait at a charging station for 30 minutes to get a full charge. Battery swap serves as a faster alternative.

"There are some people, they take a lot of convincing," said Elon Musk, Tesla CEO. "Hopefully this is what convinces people finally that electric cars are the future."


Battery swap stations for Tesla's Model S will be placed alongside its Supercharger stations starting at the end of this year. Tesla first plans to deploy them on the route between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and also between Washington and Boston. Each station will cost about a half a million dollars to build. 

However, those who swap their battery must switch it back on their return trip, or pay the difference for the new battery. 

A battery swap will cost between $60 and $80, which is about the same cost as filling a 15-gallon gas tank. 

Tesla unveiled its swappable batteries at its design studio in Hawthorne, California yesterday evening at 8 p.m. PST. Catch the video of the battery swap here.

Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Savings
By mgilbert on 6/21/2013 9:39:36 AM , Rating: 2
I hope this technology catches on, and all the bugs are worked out. An electric car that can be fully charged in 10 minutes, and that can then go 350 miles or more on that charge would be nice, but...

The Tesla can go about 250 miles on a charge, and swapping the battery out costs $60??? My Avalon can go 400 miles on $60 worth of gas. Figuring gas at $3.50 a gallon, going 250 miles on a $60 battery swap is like getting less than 15 MPG. This is not encouraging.




RE: Savings
By Shadowmaster625 on 6/21/13, Rating: -1
RE: Savings
By karimtemple on 6/21/2013 9:50:29 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Electric vehicles are in no way a solution to diminishing EROI of oil production.
This would be true if electricity was only produced using oil. It isn't.

And in the future, we'll have nanomesh photovoltaics sucking up all kinds of sunlight making kickass free energy, and the only thing we'll have to worry about is fixing the Battery Problem.


RE: Savings
By techxx on 6/21/2013 9:53:05 AM , Rating: 3
Better yet, integrate solar power on the cars themselves!


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 10:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
they did, there's not enough surface area. The prius has it as an option.


RE: Savings
By Souka on 6/22/2013 3:47:37 PM , Rating: 3
If I recall, the Prius option only operate a fan to keep the interior cooler.. just not enough juice for much else.

And wasn't it like $1000 more? crazy.

BTW, I have a 2004 Prius...get almost 55mpg. Fill-up takes me just a couple minutes, and I can get gas at ANY gas station...and drive 550 miles on a tank of gas that cost me $40.


RE: Savings
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/21/2013 10:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking that years ago, invent some kind of paint which also contains solar capabilities. Not sure that could be done though. Would be pretty slick if they could :)


RE: Savings
By talikarni on 6/23/2013 1:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
They have "solar shingles" for houses, wouldn't take much to adapt it to vehicles. Although hundreds of thousands or millions of small solar panels to help.


RE: Savings
By DanNeely on 6/21/2013 10:39:36 AM , Rating: 3
The car's surface area is at least an order of magnitude too small to power it via photovoltaic cells. If you look at pure solar racing cars you'll notice they've got just enough structure to hold a seat for a small person to steer and support all the solar panels, while only operating at residential street speeds. Scale up to a vehicle that weighs 10-20x as much and goes several times faster while remembering that at highway speeds air drag (proportional to v^3) is the main consumer of fuel and you'll see why it'll never be more than a fashion statement on a real car.


RE: Savings
By DT_Reader on 6/21/2013 12:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
Naturally I can't find the link off the top of my head, but a few years ago there was a story about some guy in Idaho who did a gas to electric conversion on some small car - a Ford Fiesta or a Yugo or something - and he covered the hood, roof, and trunk with photovoltaics. True, he didn't go far each day, but he claimed that sitting in the sun all day provided enough charge for his commute. Considering how many people only drive 25 miles/day it could work for a significant market, with supplemental charging for the occasional longer trips and rainy days.

OTOH, having lived in Florida where people pay extra for a shady parking spot, and in Seattle where the sun is a rare visitor, this market may be geographically limited.


RE: Savings
By Solandri on 6/21/2013 4:42:39 PM , Rating: 4
The Tesla S goes 285 miles on a 85 kWh battery pack, or 3.35 miles per kWh.

Figure if you covered the entire car with PVs, it'd be 1.5x4 meters, or 6 m^2 (it's actually 5m long, but some of it is windows).

If you covered all that area with PVs which generate 135 W/m^2 (17% efficiency) and multiply by the average solar capacity factor for the U.S. of 0.145, you get an average of 19.6 W/m^2 over 24 hours. In other words, if you drove your car to work before sunrise, parked it out in the sun all day, and drive it home after sunset, the PVs would generate 19.6 W/m^2 * 6 m^2 * 24 hours = 2.8 kWh.

So if you covered the Tesla S in PVs and left it parked in the sun all day, and assume 100% battery charging efficiency, that night the solar energy it collected all day would only be enough to drive it 9.4 miles. So your round-trip commute would be limited to 4.7 miles.

That 2.8 kWh/day represents 33.6 cents worth of electricity at the national average of 12 cents/kWh. If you figure the solar panels + regulation circuitry + installation cost $1.50/W, then it'll cost you $1.5/W * 135 W/m^2 * 6 m^2 = $1215 to do this. Recouping that cost at 33.6 cents/day, it'll take you 3616 days, or 9.9 years to pay for the PVs, ignoring interest.

That's what DanNeely meant when he said the surface area is an order of magnitude too small to power the car with solar. Either that or you need to reduce the car's weight (and cargo capacity) by an order of magnitude, which is what those solar race cars do. Unless your commute is short enough to jog/ride a bike, it is simply not realistic to power a conventional car with solar using current technology.


RE: Savings
By Souka on 6/22/2013 3:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
you're also assuming the solor cells will:

1. maintain their effectiveness over 9 years, which they won't.
2. I live in Washington, we pay less than $.09/KWh and get less sun than most parts...so without calculating, I'll guesstimate 15 years ROI
3. added weight of system will reduce range of car, and hence cost to operate goes up... how much? I dunno , but weight is money


RE: Savings
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 12:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
Two points here. First, it doesn't need to fully power the car, only provide a sufficient amount to make trickle charging possible, possibly even offsetting use to give a bit more range. Second, the efficiency of pv is still increasing, and just because something isn't viable today doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow.

The Model S goes 265 miles on an 85 kWh charge. Assuming you drive that distance in 5 hour, that's 17 kilowatts.

The solar constant under ideal circumstances is 1000 watts per square meter, but let's assume sub-optimal and halve that. Now let's say you've got 3 square metres on the car (front hood, roof, back hood?) to place photovoltaics, and it looks like you can buy 20% efficient panels, so that gives us 300 watts produced by solar panels on a car.

Not a lot, to be sure. 300 watts is only going to get you about 2% more range, so that's not much. But then, what if your car is sitting in the parking lot at work for 8 hours, soaking up some sun? That'll charge back up about 8 miles worth of range, so that's still small, but a bit more tangible.

It's not worth it today, to be sure. But what about when efficiency hits higher rates? You'll never get anywhere near running the car on solar, but you might be able to cover 10% of the power budget some day, and you might hit the point that you'll charge back more than it took to commute to the office, meaning you might be able to leave work with a full charge.


RE: Savings
By Solandri on 6/21/2013 5:01:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The solar constant under ideal circumstances is 1000 watts per square meter, but let's assume sub-optimal and halve that. Now let's say you've got 3 square metres on the car (front hood, roof, back hood?) to place photovoltaics, and it looks like you can buy 20% efficient panels, so that gives us 300 watts produced by solar panels on a car.

Whoa whoa whoa. You must be reading some rabidly pro-solar sites to get numbers like that.

The solar constant in space 1361 W/m^2. The atmosphere absorbs a bit less than half of that. On the earth's surface you get around 750-800 W/m^2. Maybe if you were up on Mt Everest or something on a clear day you might get 1000 W/m^2.

As for real power production, you can do all the complex math with the hours the sun is shining, angle of the sun, typical weather conditions, etc. Or you can just use the average capacity factor. That's the fraction of nameplate capacity that the system actually delivers in real use, based on decades of real-world experience. Nuclear is around 0.9, coal is around 0.6-0.7, hydro around 0.4, offshore wind around 0.3-0.4, land-based wind around 0.2-0.25.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Typic...

PV solar's capacity factor for the continental U.S. overall is about 0.145. It ranges from about 0.11 in Maine, to about 0.185 in the desert Southwest. But for the country overall it's around 0.145.

So of the 800 Watts (taking the high end of the range) shining on a 1 m^2 panel, with a 16% efficient panel (typical unless you want to pay 2-3x more), you'll be generating 130 W peak. Multiply by the capacity factor and it's 19 W (over a 24-hour period, so if you consider just daytime it's 38 W over 12 hours of daylight).


RE: Savings
By Nexing on 6/22/2013 1:17:13 AM , Rating: 3
This month some company hit 44% already;
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-solar-cell-world-high...

Which combined with several battery tech developments already tested, it could very well -and rather soon- be a desired complement to many electronics' coating, including EVs.


RE: Savings
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2013 9:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because of their high conversion efficiency, compound solar cells have thus far been used primarily on space satellites. Looking to the future, Sharp aims to harness this latest development success and make the use of compound solar cells more feasible in terrestrial applications. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-solar-cell-world-high...


To bad they'd be incredibly expensive and aren't available on the market.


RE: Savings
By martin5000 on 6/21/2013 12:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Do you never park your car in the sun?


RE: Savings
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 12:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Today's photovoltaic efficiency is such that parking your car in the sun won't produce enough electricity to matter. A few years down the road, if efficiency gets to the point where the panels produce several times more power, it might be worth it...


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 12:40:35 PM , Rating: 1
It's more about cost. There's no way to make it cheap enough at this time.


RE: Savings
By toffty on 6/21/2013 11:44:16 AM , Rating: 5
Turning the argument around, it'd be nice if oil could be refined without electricity.

quote:
To extract one gallon of gasoline (or equivalent distillate): 9.66 kWh (maybe not all in the form of electricity*)
To refine that gallon: 2.73 kWh additional energy (maybe not all in the form of electricity*)
Total: 12.39 kWh per gallon.

*Roughly one-third of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline produced from California wells is input from natural gas. Less than 2/3's is net energy (probably a lot less!).

So I can get 24 miles in my ICE on a gallon of gasoline, or I can get 41 miles (at 300wh/mile) in my RAV4EV just using the energy to refine that gallon. Alternatively - energy use (electricity and natural gas) state wide goes DOWN if a mile in a RAV4EV is substituted for a mile in an ICE!


http://evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm

P.S. Ignoring the cost to extract the oil, I can get 12 miles in my Leaf from the 2.73 kWh used to unrefine the oil


RE: Savings
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2013 11:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And in the future, we'll have nanomesh photovoltaics sucking up all kinds of sunlight making kickass free energy


Riiiight...

I've been hearing this for 20+ years now lol.


RE: Savings
By karimtemple on 6/24/2013 8:11:19 AM , Rating: 2
You've been hearing about nanomesh for 20 years? lol, Somehow I don't think so.


RE: Savings
By techxx on 6/21/2013 9:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
Why would the swapping infrastructure consume petroleum? Can you provide any links to further prove your claims?


RE: Savings
By Spuke on 6/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: Savings
By questionmotives on 6/21/2013 10:53:46 AM , Rating: 4
He isn't offering a counter claim. He's asking you to validate the claim you've made. Answering a question with a question and then demanding proof for an arguement that wasn't made doesn't hold up much for your credibility here.


RE: Savings
By Spuke on 6/21/2013 12:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He isn't offering a counter claim. He's asking you to validate the claim you've made.
I wasn't the one making the claim. Try reading next time.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 12:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What structures don't? Can YOU provide proof for your claims?


Swapping infrastructure consume petroleum once. The benefits of the new infrastructure will probably be at least 100 years.


RE: Savings
By Spuke on 6/21/2013 12:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The benefits of the new infrastructure will probably be at least 100 years.
Where do you get that from?


RE: Savings
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/21/2013 1:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
Out his ass...like most of the stuff he comments on.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 1:36:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Where do you get that from?

From the fact that EV will be mainstream and the infrastructure is being put in place. Unless you want to tell me that EVs will go away in less than a generation.

A question does not answer a question. It only show your inability to come up with a compelling counter argument.


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 1:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From the fact

Can you point us to that fact?


RE: Savings
By Spuke on 6/21/2013 2:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm coming up with an argument, I'm asking a question? And you still haven't answered it. Your opinion doesn't matter. I have one of those already.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 3:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where do you get that from?

that is not a question?

My opinion? billions of government aids in R&D. Entire industry shifting focus on EV. New laws and regulations pertaining to EVs. Supercharing stations multiplying. Every single automaker is either already selling or developing EVs. None of that points to anything?

Why don't you google it yourself instead of asking dumb questions as a way of answering a question.


RE: Savings
By Spuke on 6/21/2013 5:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why don't you google it yourself instead of asking dumb questions as a way of answering a question.
Dumb, is assuming that you are the be all, end all of knowledge and others are just supposed to bow to this just because you say it's so. Opinion is about all we can give on here. Any absolute statements such as yours need to be backed up. Maybe I missed the thread where your credentials were given (and verified).


RE: Savings
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/21/2013 7:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dumb, is assuming that you are the be all, end all of knowledge and others are just supposed to bow to this just because you say it's so.
Bingo! And he does this on ALL articles no matter what the topic. I think he is just a troll.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/22/2013 11:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dumb, is assuming that you are the be all, end all of knowledge and others are just supposed to bow to this just because you say it's so. Opinion is about all we can give on here. Any absolute statements such as yours need to be backed up. Maybe I missed the thread where your credentials were given (and verified).


Dumb, is assuming anyone is the be all end all of all knowledge. You seem to not grasp the idea of "search" and case study analysis. I'm not an expert in this field. I've claimed that I've read analysis from people with credibility and credentials in this field.

Good luck for the rest of your trolling.


RE: Savings
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/22/2013 4:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good luck for the rest of your trolling.
SMFH, from YOU none the less. You are the biggest non-Apple troll on here.


RE: Savings
By Spuke on 6/21/2013 5:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm coming up with an argument, I'm asking a question?
Meant to say, I'm NOT coming up with an argument.


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 10:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
So, are you saying that each swap station has a bunch of guys with pallet jacks that remove/replace the batteries without electricity?


RE: Savings
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 10:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
Electricity and petroleum are two different things. All my power (well, 93% anyhow) comes from hydro, for example, and nuclear is rather popular in other places.


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 11:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
That isn't the case in the USA. Most of our electricity is generated by coal. But it does take gas/diesel to transport that coal out of the mines and to the power plants. Sadly, after the 3 Mile Island incident in 1979, nuclear power expansion stopped. We haven't broken new ground for a nuclear power plant since at least 1974. The possibility of starting new production on nuclear power plants in light of the most recent incidents seems unlikely. Natural gas might be a good source as we seem to have an abundance of that.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 11:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal.

Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were:
Coal 37%
Natural Gas 30%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Other Renewable 5%
Other Gases < 1%

In other words, most of our electricity is not from coal.

In late 2011 and early 2012, construction of four new nuclear reactor units at two existing plants were approved, the first such in 34 years


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 11:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
Semantics. It is the single highest producer of electricity.


RE: Savings
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 12:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
In the US. I'm not in the US, and Tesla has a few stations planned for my area, so that's something.

Besides that, Tesla installs a ton of photovoltaics at the supercharger stations, and have claimed that they expect the stations to be net producers of energy (produce more than they consume, because when they aren't recharging cars they can be putting it back in the grid). So what does it matter if the US produces power with coal if Tesla is charging the batteries with solar?


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 12:20:37 PM , Rating: 1
It doesn't change the fact that most of our electricity does not come from coal and there has been nuclear plants built since 1974.


RE: Savings
By ebakke on 6/21/2013 12:34:26 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, c'mon. He was saying we produce more electricity from coal and natural gas than from anywhere else. Fossil fuels produce electricity in this country, not wind/solr/hydro. Sure, he chose the wrong wording but the larger point he's making is spot on.

Furthermore, we have generated 0 power from any of those 4 nuclear plants you're referencing. From the same Wiki article where you copy/pasted the line about new reactors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_... )
quote:
In late 2011 and early 2012, construction of four new nuclear reactor units at two exiting plants were approved, the first such in 34 years.[4] As of December 2011, construction by Southern Company on two new nuclear units has begun, Units 3 and 4 at the existing Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, and they are expected to be delivering commercial power by 2016 and 2017, respectively.[92][93] Shortly thereafter, Units 2 and 3 at the SCANA Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina were approved, and are scheduled to come online in 2017 and 2018, respectively.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 12:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
37% is far from most. I wouldn't pick on him if he wasn't so biased towards clean energy.

You must have missed the Watts Bar Nuclear Power Station in that link that is producing energy for 750k households.

The Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant is a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nuclear reactor used for electric power generation. It is located on a 1,770-acre (7.2 km²) site in Rhea County, Tennessee, near Spring City, between the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville. Watts Bar Unit 1 is the most recent civilian reactor to come on-line in the United States. Watts Bar supplies enough electricity for about 750,000 households in the Tennessee Valley.
This plant has one Westinghouse pressurized water reactor, one of two reactor units whose construction commenced in 1973. Unit 1 was completed in 1996, and has a winter net dependable generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts.


RE: Savings
By ebakke on 6/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 1:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
You mean they broke ground in 73, stopped the project for decades and then decided to finish it. I'm pretty sure they are not using old designs. There are many tweaks we've learned over the years and that is applied to the revised design. The NRC and their scientists doesn't exist for giggles.

Regardless of how you want to nitpick actual facts, 37% is not most and there are Nuclear Plants built since 74.


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
there are Nuclear Plants built since 74.

Where?


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 1:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if he wasn't so biased towards clean energy.

I am not biased towards clean energy. I'm biased towards the cost of it.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 1:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not biased towards clean energy. I'm biased towards the cost of it.

We're leaning towards nuclear energy which is the cheapest and safest.

I agree solar and wind is not practical or financially sensible. We can only use solar if we can at least double its efficiency and cut the cost by 2/3. Else, solar is not a good solution for the masses.


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 1:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
Where? Where have they broke ground for a new nuclear power plant site?


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 2:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
Currently, Southern Company is building the first new nuclear units in the U.S. in 30 years at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, Georgia; building one of the largest photovoltaic plants in the U.S. at Cimarron, New Mexico; building one of the largest biomass plants at Nacogdoches, Texas; and installing over four million smart meters by 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Company

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Go-ahead-for_...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/united-states-re-...


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 2:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
But you said there have been nuclear power plants BUILT since 1974. You're links say they are breaking ground now for new plants. You still haven't shown me where there have been nuclear plants built since 1974.

From your second link:
quote:
"We are poised to break ground on one of the first new US nuclear construction projects in more than 30 years. - J.M. Bernhard, Chairman, president and CEO of Shaw


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 2:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
OMG. The Tennessee plant broke ground in 73 and built in 1996. This new plant by Southern Company is being built right now which means they probably already broke ground.

What are you arguing about?


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 2:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
That is an existing site that was licensed for a nuclear power plant. Just because it took them 23 years to complete doesn't mean it was a new plant that had broken ground since 1974. That plant was licensed before it broke ground. There have been no new licenses to break ground for a new plant or plants up until very recently.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 2:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That plant was licensed before it broke ground. There have been no new licenses to break ground for a new plant or plants up until very recently.


You are proving that your statement was wrong. Thank you.

You are so dense, it's uncanny.

quote:
That is an existing site that was licensed for a nuclear power plant. Just because it took them 23 years to complete doesn't mean it was a new plant that had broken ground since 1974.

Yes, and I've clearly stated that it broke ground in 73 and BUILT in 96.

I'll just let you debate with yourself from now on because even when someone agrees with you, they're still wrong lol.


RE: Savings
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/21/13, Rating: -1
RE: Savings
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2013 11:27:18 PM , Rating: 1
Dude you think just sitting there Googling up a bunch of unsourced crap makes you an expert in things?

This is embarrassing. Seriously stop trolling.

quote:
Yes, and I've clearly stated that it broke ground in 73 and BUILT in 96.


Yeah so it "only" took 23 freaking years to build ONE nuclear plant. And good luck Googling the total cost of the project from start to finish, and I mean TOTAL. Any wonder why most of our power is generated from burning things?


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/23/2013 6:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose you are a better source?
It didn't take 23 years to build it. You should really try reading.


RE: Savings
By SilentRunning on 6/21/2013 5:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Wolf Creek Nuclear plant in Kansas came online in 1985.


RE: Savings
By Mint on 6/21/2013 12:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
Semantics? He gave you a bunch of facts, unlike your handwaving nonsense.

Coal only 37% of production, and going down. Natural gas has way less pollution per kWh than coal or oil, despite also being a fossil fuel.

Most importantly, the MARGINAL electricity consumption from EVs is going to come from natural gas or wind. We could get rid of almost every EV in the country, and coal consumption will not go down.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 11:51:37 AM , Rating: 2
The Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant is a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nuclear reactor used for electric power generation. It is located on a 1,770-acre (7.2 km²) site in Rhea County, Tennessee, near Spring City, between the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville. Watts Bar Unit 1 is the most recent civilian reactor to come on-line in the United States. Watts Bar supplies enough electricity for about 750,000 households in the Tennessee Valley.
This plant has one Westinghouse pressurized water reactor, one of two reactor units whose construction commenced in 1973. Unit 1 was completed in 1996, and has a winter net dependable generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Gen...


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 1:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
And in my previous post, I said there hasn't been new ground broken for a nuclear power plant since 1974. This plant started construction in 1973. What was your point?


RE: Savings
By karimtemple on 6/21/2013 9:46:33 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed! Batteries are doing some nice stuff in the lab these days, and supercapacitors are coming along too. These problems shouldn't last too long.


RE: Savings
By techxx on 6/21/2013 9:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget you have the option of simply waiting the 30 minutes or whatever. Battery swaps sound more like a luxury for the wealthy crowd anyhow. Also remember batteries are going to keep reaching higher capacities and charge faster. I think it will be cool when electric starts becoming more mainstream.


RE: Savings
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 10:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's a luxury; they're setting the prices vaguely in line with gasoline prices (they should be using 10 gallons, though, not 15). It's a matter of price versus convenience. If you have the time, save the money. If you're in a rush, or really don't wan to stop, save the time.


RE: Savings
By km9v on 6/21/2013 9:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, those who swap their battery must switch it back on their return trip, or pay the difference for the new battery.


That's some fine print for ya.


RE: Savings
By kattanna on 6/21/2013 9:56:57 AM , Rating: 2
yeah.. i saw that too.. wonder what that price is


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 10:17:22 AM , Rating: 2
probably the price difference between a used batter and a new battery. This is a freaking amazing idea. I wouldn't do it because i couldn't wait 30 mins to charge(lunch break). I would do it because I replace the battery without going to the dealer to get your wallet axed.


RE: Savings
By toffty on 6/21/2013 11:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
No dealerships in Tesla's model. Tesla will make the money off the car, not the service.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 12:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, no dealers. Mechanic shop is what I should've said.


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 10:37:59 AM , Rating: 2
Unless something has changed, I seem to recall that a battery in the 60-85kW range had a $50,000 replacement cost. I can't imagine you wouldn't get charged something similar if you don't manage to swap your battery back.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 11:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
That's a bit exaggerated, replacement cost is about $30,000. That being said, you can buy the pre-paid replacement option for $12,000.

It sounds like Tesla will actually pay you for your old battery. That is why they are saying the "difference"


RE: Savings
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 11:50:08 AM , Rating: 2
Tesla's official replacement price is $10,000 for the 60 kWh battery, and $12,000 for the 85 kWh one. If you don't swap it back, they don't charge you the full price, they charge you the difference in value (based on age).


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 11:54:45 AM , Rating: 2
Which REQUIRES you to go back. Sorry, I like the freedom of driving and fueling when and where I want. Electric cars are barely a niche market and only cater to those that can afford them. The Model S at this time, is not an everyman car.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 11:57:50 AM , Rating: 2
Umm...you think Tesla should give people a new battery for free every time they're too lazy to plug their car in?


RE: Savings
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 12:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
It does not require you to go back. They charge the difference if you don't. It's not quite clear how they'll calculate the difference in value, but it will probably be set at a value to give a strong incentive to swap back without being punitively high.


RE: Savings
By othercents on 6/21/2013 10:04:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Tesla can go about 250 miles on a charge, and swapping the battery out costs $60??? My Avalon can go 400 miles on $60 worth of gas. Figuring gas at $3.50 a gallon, going 250 miles on a $60 battery swap is like getting less than 15 MPG. This is not encouraging.


Except can you wait longer and get the fuel for free? The battery swap option was supposed to be painful to the wallet, but faster on your time. If you are in a rush then the battery swap might be the better option. Otherwise, the Supercharger is free.

http://vimeo.com/68832891


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 10:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
I can go 540 miles on a fill of regular gas in my Malibu @ $65. I can then go to any gas station anywhere else 500+ miles away and not have a bill at home for a $50K battery swap waiting for me. Electric cars are nothing more than a plaything for rich hippies. Until they start matching ICE vehicles in price, I could never consider one.


RE: Savings
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 11:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
Huh? Why would you pay $50,000 to swap a battery, when Tesla is saying it will cost $60-80? I agree that Tesla set the price of the swap wrong (15 gallons isn't a valid comparison to the Tesla's range, 10 is closer), but your $50k figure has no basis in reality.

I think you're trying to say, what you'd pay if you didn't get your own battery back on the way home. Well, they bill based on age. Tesla charges $12k for a new 85 kWh battery, and they're billing you based on the loss of capacity from age, so it wouldn't be cheap, but it wouldn't be even remotely near where you're saying. The fact that you'd also be getting a newer battery out of it would be relevant too.


RE: Savings
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 11:48:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but your $50k figure has no basis in reality.

Actually it does have basis in reality. When the Model S was announced a few years ago, it was estimated that the battery replacement was to be about $50,000 when the old one needed replacing. In an above post I mentioned something similar with a "unless something has changed". While, perhaps $12K is better than $50K, that is still a huge chunk of change. That is half the price of a decent mid-sized sedan.

And what I was trying to say, which of course was IMPLIED, that I DON'T have to replace my battery on a return trip. That I can go 500+ miles on a fill up to ANY gas station in that range instead of dealing with a multi thousand dollar bill had I not returned to get my swapped out battery.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 11:55:51 AM , Rating: 2
Except in reality, the replacement cost is nowhere near 50k.

A Battery Replacement Option will be available for purchase soon. The option allows you to pre-purchase a new battery to be installed after eight years for a fixed price: $10,000 for 60 kWh batteries and $12,000 for 85 kWh batteries.

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/facts

straight from the horse's mouth


RE: Savings
By M'n'M on 6/21/2013 4:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair that's a replacement battery AFTER 8 years of use. Tesla is betting that btw now and then the cost to them will go down, making that option cost effective.

A better comparison in this case would be the replacement cost of a battery today, like what you'd pay after an accident. The difference from that amount and some other amount, dependant upon how much the traded in battery retains in lifetime, plus a fee would be what I'd expect to pay.


RE: Savings
By BRB29 on 6/24/2013 8:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
So what's your point?

If you check other automakers, they don't even try to lower the cost in the future. Whatever the MSRP is today is it. As a matter of fact, the price of replacement parts actually goes up, not down for every car I've owned.

Tesla is doing you a favor for the first time history, anticipating the future cost reduction and guarantee a low price at 8 years. Other manufacturers only anticipate increase in cost and bump the MSRP.


RE: Savings
By toffty on 6/21/2013 11:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
Match price? I can get a new Nissan Leaf for $22k after fed credit and colorado rebate. Very affordable. Sure the Leaf can't go 500 miles, let alone 100 (80 is what I set my max to) but that's 99% of my driving. If I really need to drive furhter I just rent a car for a few days. Overall I still save large amounts of money on fuel cost.

-Costs me about 2.7 cents per mile to drive my leaf (12 cents / kWh electric cost and 4.5 miles/kWh average). Electricity for me is free actually, so no cost to drive my leaf, because I have solar panels on my house - enough for all my electricity needs

-Use to cost me 8 cents per mile to drive my Prius @ 46 miles/gal average


RE: Savings
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 10:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
The Toyota Avalon gets about 25 MPG. My local gas prices are currently $5.002 USD per gallon. 250 miles worth of gasoline in a Toyota Avalon would cost me $50, so a $60 battery swap seems reasonable, albeit on the high side.

The problem is that Tesla is saying they're going to set the price of battery swaps at whatever the local price for 15 gallons of fuel is, but 15 gallons of fuel in most gasoline cars will get you about 50% farther than the range of a Tesla Model S. So in fact, if Tesla was offering a battery swap in Montreal based on the local gas prices, they'd charge $75 to swap what $50 in gasoline can do.

Tesla should have based their swap pricing on 10 gallons, that would have been a more accurate


RE: Savings
By Schrag4 on 6/21/2013 1:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
$5 USD/gal? Ouch! I paid less than $3.50 USD/gal when I filled up yesterday.


RE: Savings
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2013 9:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
Regular in the Charleston area is $2.98-$3.17 right now.


RE: Savings
By AMDftw on 6/21/2013 12:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
also note the price of the 2 cars...


RE: Savings
By f148vr on 6/21/2013 2:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
Battery swap is a practical solution. It can reduce the bulk that needs to be carried in the car. The challenge is make these stations as common as gas stations.

Keep in mind that the $60 charge is discretionary, one can choose to swap but doesn't have to. It costs about $9 to go 250 miles in a Model S. I've not driven an Avalon, but I suspect it doesn't drive anything like a Model S.


RE: Savings
By Spuke on 6/21/2013 2:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
. It can reduce the bulk that needs to be carried in the car.
How does it do that?


RE: Savings
By phatboye on 6/23/2013 5:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
Since we are comparing an electric vehicle to a petroleum combustion vehicle I will put this in terms of Miles per Dollar.

Telsa: 250mi/$60 = 4.17mi/$
Your Avalon: 400mi/$60 = 6.66mi/$

Hopefully with more R&D Tesla can get their EV vehicles to be even more efficient, to the point where it would actually be cheaper to buy an EV over a traditional combustion engine vehicle as you see they don't have far to go.


RE: Savings
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2013 6:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Wtf kind of math is that? The Avalon get's almost twice the range on a fill-up. Hello?

quote:
Hopefully with more R&D Tesla can get their EV vehicles to be even more efficient


The Model S could be more efficient right now, today. There's at least 500+ pounds of excess weight wasted on luxury equipment and styling.


RE: Savings
By phatboye on 6/23/2013 5:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
Since we are comparing an electric vehicle to a petroleum combustion vehicle I will put this in terms of Miles per Dollar.

Telsa: 250mi/$60 = 4.17mi/$
Your Avalon: 400mi/$60 = 6.66mi/$

Hopefully with more R&D Tesla can get their EV vehicles to be even more efficient, to the point where it would actually be cheaper to buy an EV over a traditional combustion engine vehicle as you see they don't have far to go.


BS
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 10:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
I call bunk on the fuel filling time. There is no way that it takes that long to put less than 10 gallons of gas into a car.




RE: BS
By Spuke on 6/21/2013 10:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't on my car. I'm in and out in less than 5 minutes typically. 13 gallon tank and I fill 12 typically.


RE: BS
By othercents on 6/21/2013 10:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
It wasn't 10 gallons. I think it was 28 gallons. Keep in mind they were trying to compare similar type vehicles including price wise, so the vehicle they choose had a larger fuel tank.


RE: BS
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 12:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
What Audi model has a 28gl tank?


RE: BS
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 12:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO even my old Escalade only had a 25 gal tank. People are just making crap up just to hate.


RE: BS
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 2:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
That Audi is clearly not "Escalade" size.


RE: BS
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 2:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding, I was agreeing with you that the Audi does not have a 28GL tank


RE: BS
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 11:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
The gasoline car in Tesla's demo was in and out in under 5 minutes, so what's the big surprise here?

Tesla stated the gas station pumps 10 gallons per minute. I'm not sure what brand of car they used, but a Toyota Camera has a 17 gallon fuel capacity, and that means 1.7 minutes. Add to that the time to pull up to the pump, pop the cap, get out of your car, select the options on the pump, put your credit card in and enter your PIN number (if you have chip and pin like we do), put the nozzle into your car, start pumping, then the 1.7 minute fill, then you take the nozzle out, put it back on the pump, effect the payment on the pump, put your gas cap back on, close it up, get back in your car, start it up, drive away.

For all that, "less than 5 minutes" sounds reasonable. The Tesla swap in 90 seconds is shorter than that. But when dealing with such amounts of time, it doesn't really matter if it's 90 seconds or 5 minutes. The point is that you can refuel your Tesla in a fast enough time to be convenient, rather than having to wait for a charge.


RE: BS
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/21/2013 11:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
Looked like an Audi in the video...


RE: BS
By Motoman on 6/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: BS
By HoosierEngineer5 on 6/21/2013 10:42:09 AM , Rating: 2
Great point. How much does rent on the battery pack cost per use? The energy is probably practically free.


RE: BS
By Motoman on 6/21/2013 11:17:32 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter. The clueless sheep eat it up. They willfully don't want to see the man behind the curtain.


RE: BS
By HoosierEngineer5 on 6/21/2013 11:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
Also, do they plan to have two (or more) guys sitting around waiting for a Tesla to show up? My guess is that a "fill-up" would cost more like $600 than $60.


RE: BS
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 12:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's an automated system. There are no "guys".


RE: BS
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 11:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
It's an automated system. The real-world deployments will probably only have one swapping bay per Tesla station. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't have two "forklifts" per bay in the real-world deployments. They also have no reason to go all the way to the charging bay to get a fresh battery; the can keep a fully charged one near the swapping bay ready to be deployed.

I don't really doubt their 90 second figure. Oh, perhaps it might be slightly longer in poor weather, but 90 seconds, double that, it's all fast enough to take you from "get lunch while charging" territory into "top off the tank" territory.


RE: BS
By Motoman on 6/21/2013 12:24:46 PM , Rating: 1
Uh-huh. And if you get to the battery station and have to wait for the car in front of you? Yeah...they have to go drop off his battery, pick up another one, and bring it back.

No matter how you slice it, they cherry-picked an unreasonable situation to create their "90 second" battery swap.

And I still say "show me the money" on the $50-60 swap fee. I don't believe those economics.


RE: BS
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 12:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
You must have never seen those tire shops that change all 4 tires in under 15 mins.


RE: BS
By StormyKnight on 6/21/2013 1:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
Those guys are robots?


RE: BS
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 12:32:59 PM , Rating: 4
Who said they use the same sled? If it's a 90 second process, you're spending 45 seconds getting the battery removed, and 45 seconds getting a new one stuck on.

That means that when the process starts, there are 45 seconds to fetch a fresh battery before it's actually needed. They demonstrated two cars in a row both hitting similar times, and if there is enough time spent doing the swap itself to fetch/deposit the battery, there is no reason they couldn't sustain that rate indefinitely. A bigger issue might be running out of fully charged batteries; if they actually maintained a 90 second per car rate, and you could supercharge a full battery in 45 minutes, you'd need at last 30 batteries per bay to sustain that rate indefinitely. That's less reasonable. But then, the batteries probably won't be delivered completely empty, and you're not going to have cars going every 90 seconds for that long uninterrupted.

As for the pricing, it's arbitrary, so I don't understand why you don't believe the economics. They're building the supercharge stations at substantial cost and then letting people use them for free, where's the economics in that? They're making their money from selling the cars, and the battery swap fee is likely to either defray (not cover) costs or to act as a deterrent to encourage people to supercharge instead if they're not in a rush.


RE: BS
By freedom4556 on 6/21/2013 2:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uh-huh. And if you get to the battery station and have to wait for the car in front of you?
This is the problem as I forsee it. Imagine the long lines at one of these stations in LA. So if the first guy in line gets the fresh battery, what do the rest of us get? Are they keeping stacks of charged batteries around? This is just a buffering system to disguise the slow recharge time. The higher the use (throughput) the bigger a buffer you need given the same processing time.


RE: BS
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 3:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
It is not a problem. You can charge your EV at home, work, mall, etc...wherever there is an EV charger. The supercharger station is where you can charge much faster. It's not like an ICE car where you have to go to the gas station.

I would guess that you don't need to go to the supercharger station all that much. Someone with a garage definitely don't even need to on a daily basis.


RE: BS
By Mint on 6/23/2013 6:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are they keeping stacks of charged batteries around?
Of course. Why wouldn't they?
quote:
The higher the use (throughput) the bigger a buffer you need given the same processing time.
And the higher the revenue, funding more packs to be held there.


RE: BS
By acer905 on 6/21/2013 12:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
A) Have you never heard of automated systems?

B) Did you even watch the video?

Everything is automated, and if done correctly could be an easy self contained underground system. No "guys" and no "forklifts" to worry about. I understand that technology is scary and strange to you.

The beauty of only having to worry about your vehicles is that you know where everything is, and can easily eliminate human involvement. And if anyone wants to use your system with their cars, they have to play by your rules.


What about trips?
By rountad on 6/21/2013 9:57:54 AM , Rating: 2
What are people (especially single people) doing about trips that aren't in these specific areas?




RE: What about trips?
By kattanna on 6/21/2013 10:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
renting a car that can take them there...


RE: What about trips?
By Spuke on 6/21/2013 10:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
renting a car that can take them there...
Owners of these cars don't rent. They're $60k cars remember. Most of these people have two or more cars they own.


RE: What about trips?
By Spuke on 6/21/2013 10:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
I know a couple of Tesla S owners from work. They're both married and have a second car. Both cars have the 60kWh battery and they both drive slow as hell to work (85 mile round trip commutes for both, mostly freeway).


RE: What about trips?
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 11:11:47 AM , Rating: 2
The supercharger network is supposed to cover 98% of the population of the US and Canada by 2015, I think it was. So within short order, there won't really be any areas that you could road trip through that won't be covered.

Unless you want to take a road trip to Iqaluit? I bet they'll never have a Tesla station in Iqaluit.


No, sorry.
By dgingerich on 6/21/2013 11:19:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A battery swap will cost between $60 and $80, which is about the same cost as filling a 15-gallon gas tank.


Sorry, but this is wrong. My car has a 14.7 gallon tank. At times, with the pipe that leads to the tank, I have filled up my car with up to 15.1 gallons of gas, including doing this last week. (yes, I call it close sometimes, but not that close. The pipe holds about an extra gallon because of its length.) I have never paid more than $52 for a 15 gallon fill up. With a wash, sometimes it gets up to $60, but that is with a wash. A $60-80 fill up is closer to a 20 gallon tank, even at today's prices.

Although, I do like the idea of quick swap batteries. If they're small enough, I'd even carry around an extra battery to swap out on the road during long trips. Having an extra sitting in my apartment charging while I head to work would be the perfect incentive for me to get an electric vehicle. It would actually be mandatory considering I can't get a charger from my apartment's electric grid to my parking space. I don't mind the thought behind electric vehicles. I'd like to quit using gas. (I don't, and won't ever, believe that CO2 will destroy the planet like many econuts seem to think. It might make things slightly warmer, but that so minor it's not even something to consider major. Only those who actually believe the lib news corp believe that.) It's just not in the cards for me with current technology. Easy swap batteries and a lower battery cost would do it, though.




RE: No, sorry.
By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 12:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
yes because where you live, gas is cheaper. I pay about $4 per gallon. 15 gallons is $60.


RE: No, sorry.
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 12:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
I pay $5 USD per gallon ($1.37 CAD per litre), and it's often higher.


RE: No, sorry.
By freedom4556 on 6/21/2013 2:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
He must live near me, because I've been paying $3.09-3.29/us gal for months (rural Ark).


RE: No, sorry.
By dgingerich on 6/21/2013 4:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in Colorado, Denver area. Today it's 3.71 in Denver proper (near my apartment) and 3.64 in the southern suburbs (near my office) which is close to average for the last few months. We're not that far off the national average.


Any discount for the remaining charge?
By MWink on 6/21/2013 11:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
Many of the flaws have already been pointed out but I'm wondering if there should be some sort of discount for any remaining charge in the battery. Most people aren't going to be driving in with a 100% depleted battery. Why should someone who's battery is at 75% be charged the same price as someone who comes in with a battery at 5%? Just cause my car has a 15 gallon gas tank doesn't mean I should pay for 15 gallons every time I put any gas in it.




RE: Any discount for the remaining charge?
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 11:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
Because the electricity is costing you $0, and the battery swap is where the cost is.

If the power is free (and supercharger stations are supposed to produce more power than they consume via solar), then it costs Tesla just as much to service you regardless of if you're at 5% or 75%.


By BRB29 on 6/21/2013 11:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
i don't even think they're charging you for the swap. It looks like they're just charging you for the wear and tear on their battery(depreciation)


What about the battery?
By bug77 on 6/21/2013 12:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
Who owns the battery then? Do I still have to pay for one when I buy an EV? Do I get a used battery the first time I go for a "refill"?
And $60-80 every time I need a charge? That's about what the Audi guy paid for his refill.
Now don't get me wrong, this is needed if EVs are to catch on. You just can't stare at your car for an hour or two during longer trips. But there are many things that have to be ironed out still.




RE: What about the battery?
By Guspaz on 6/21/2013 12:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
The basic gist seems to be that normally you're paying the $60-80 to borrow the battery. You return it on the way back, getting the one that you own back. If you don't return it, they automatically process it as a sale, so you automatically sell them your old one and buy the new one.

The key point is that supercharging and battery swapping are not for everyday use. They're only for long-distance drives. People are normally going to be putting the car to charge at night (and the fastest home charging is probably about five hours to go from empty to full), starting each day with a full charge. 250+ miles is enough for the daily driving of most people.

That's why the Tesla stations are placed between cities rather than in cities; normal use won't empty the battery in a day.


RE: What about the battery?
By bug77 on 6/21/2013 2:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
Makes sense, but around here if I leave my new battery somewhere, I don't expect I'll ever see it back. Even if I did, there's the inconvenience of having to go back to the same station (some trips being circuits for example). Everything considered, things seem to be moving in the right direction.


This is comical
By TacticalTrading on 6/21/2013 5:13:32 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't one of the main selling points for an electric car, that charging it up is much cheaper than Gasoline?
So now, for the convince of "filling up" about as fast as a regular car, it is going to cost the same. Yes, 1 min is faster than 4 min, but by the time you finish, take a potty break, get a coke...., a stop is a stop)
AND, You have to go Back to that specific location to give them their battery back? Seriously?

If they made it work like swapping out a propane tank for your grill, it may have a chance of working. That is until a lot of people start taking advantage of it.

Umm, Sorry, we are all out of 85Kw packs, but this old 60Kw pack will get you where you need to go... I promise...

BTW, how many ICE vehicles need a $10,000 - $12,000 service every 8 years?

Rich People, Playthings, Fantastic Salesmanship, And of course the end result, Financial Ruin

Best of luck to them, And stop giving them my US Tax dollars




RE: This is comical
By pandemonium on 6/22/2013 6:06:39 AM , Rating: 3
This is a phase of the evolution of EV infrastructure development, acceptance, and distribution. Elon is taking steps to set the groundwork for a system that's renewable resource dependent and self-sustaining as a result. You have to start somewhere.

The man has made giant risks and succeeded on all accounts. I'd be willing to bet on him succeeding here; your support notwithstanding.


*like*
By alpha754293 on 6/21/2013 9:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
SUPER *like*.

Elon Musk is working hard to dispel the myths and the things that people DON'T like or are concerned about or complain about when it comes to EVs.

And screw North Carolina and New York and any other state that has a problem with their direct sales model.




Not new technology
By valkator on 6/21/2013 11:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
We have automated guided vehicles in my facility that have automatic battery changing stations. I remember posting this whole idea a while back for EVs. Now they have to figure out a method to standardize these packs among all the manufacturers, like have a few different size batteries based on the vehicle, that way anyone can just swap and go.

There would have to be a lot of thought put into this system to ensure quality assurance, but it sounds like a good idea to me. Standardization is what made building our computers nowadays much easier.




Miles per battery swap
By Tmoen on 6/22/2013 3:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
I was very impressed by this but now see that this is not really practical. Most EVs have a range, per charge of 100 miles, or about ten stops/swaps between Minneapolis and Denver for $600! For $600 my Prius will make that trip 10 times! I stop only twice, use only 17 gal of gas, which costs me only $58. If you live in CA, and all your driving is within a city, kinda makes sense. Rural MN, in the dead of Winter, getting maybe 36 miles per full charge, not so much.




NASCAR?
By vailr on 6/23/2013 12:59:03 AM , Rating: 2
The gasoline purchase from the video was $99.83 for 23.22 gallons @ $4.29/gallon. The car was an Audi 4-door sedan very similar in size (if not weight?) to the 2 Tesla sedans in the same video.
Tesla: why not sponsor a NASCAR entry that uses batteries instead of gasoline for fuel? A standard fuel fill under NASCAR/IndyCar racing conditions usually takes less than 15 seconds.




Invalid Comparison
By rs1 on 6/24/2013 4:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
This part is going to cause all sorts of issues:

quote:
However, those who swap their battery must switch it back on their return trip, or pay the difference for the new battery.


Granted, under ideal circumstances you can swap out a battery pack faster than you can fill a gas tank...if you're just grabbing the first random battery pack you see and throwing that into the car.

But then on the way back you can't just grab any random battery pack. You have to go into the storeroom, or wherever the battery packs are kept for the hundreds/thousands of cars that exchange them, locate a specific one, and carry it back over to the car. I bet that will take more than just a tiny bit longer than the ideal case.

And then what happens if the car can't/doesn't return along the exact same route?

This idea might work as long as there are only a few EV's on the road, but it will need a heavy overhaul if it's going to scale up to support widespread adoption. Not to say that people shouldn't try to innovate, but this particular idea is still only half baked.




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki