backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by Philippine Man.. on Apr 1 at 6:52 PM

The company is also adding new Tesla Stores and Superchargers around the U.S.

Tesla Motors is greeting the new spring season with plenty of Model S-related news, including its achievement of more than 500 deliveries per week

"Over the past few months it’s been fun to watch the company achieve new milestones," said George Blankenship, VP of Worldwide Sales and Ownership Experience at Tesla. "First it was the factory ramping up to full production in December. During the past three weeks we have averaged more than 500 Model S deliveries per week, and it looks like we’ll be setting another record this week.

"With all these new cars on the road, it’s fun to watch as Model S racks up the miles. Model S drivers have traveled more than 12 million miles since deliveries first began. That’s a lot of CO2 emissions saved! And how are things going in California? Well, today we registered our 3,000th Model S in the Golden State. That pretty much says it all!"


 
Blankenship's post on Tesla's blog also mentioned a few other tidbits, such as the opening of new Tesla Stores in the Los Angeles area and Miami (as well as more service centers across North America and Europe throughout 2013); the addition of more Superchargers around the U.S. in places like the Pacific Northwest, Illinois, Texas, Florida, the Northeast and California, and the fact that the Model S is now officially a World Car.

Tesla has had some rough patches lately, such as issues with a journalist from The New York Times, who took a test drive this winter and reported a horrific venture. More specifically, he said that the Model S didn't have the range Tesla said it did, and ended up on a flatbed truck at the end of the trip. Musk and the NYT journalist (John Broder) ended up feuding over the matter.

But Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk is turning that luck around with predictions of being profitable in the first quarter and by vowing to pay off its $465 million government loan within five years. 

However, one recent hiccup is a delay to production of the Model X
Tesla had hoped to begin production of the vehicle this year, but those plans have been put off until late 2014 (meaning deliveries will likely be pushed to 2015). 

Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


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

Ignorant statement
By Ammohunt on 3/22/2013 12:32:08 PM , Rating: 0
quote:
That’s a lot of CO2 emissions saved! And how are things going in California? Well, today we registered our 3,000th Model S in the Golden State. That pretty much says it all!"


last time i checked power plants emit CO2! The fact is there is no free lunch even with electric cars. Just proves this is more about generating a warm fuzzy feeling for the gaia than providing practical alternatives to petroleum powered vehicles.




RE: Ignorant statement
By othercents on 3/22/2013 12:52:36 PM , Rating: 1
However, California doesn't produce much electricity from Coal or other high CO2 emitting plants. Most of their plants are either natural gas, thermal, solar, wind, etc. The big issue will be if you can keep the car charged when there are rolling blackouts due to not having enough electricity.


RE: Ignorant statement
By Spuke on 3/22/2013 1:37:48 PM , Rating: 1
The big generators in CA are Natural Gas (45%), Nuclear, and Hydro. Next up on a MUCH lesser scale is Geothermal, Wind and Biomass. Generation from Coal is actually less than Wind here.


RE: Ignorant statement
By DockScience on 3/22/2013 2:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
California IMPORTS a great deal of coal fired electricity, making it the 4th largest source after nuclear.


RE: Ignorant statement
By Spuke on 3/22/2013 2:26:58 PM , Rating: 1
Total for Coal is just over 8% while nuclear is over 15%. Hydro, Nat Gas and Nuclear are still the top dogs.


RE: Ignorant statement
By lagomorpha on 3/23/2013 9:56:06 AM , Rating: 2
With all that nuclear it's a good thing California isn't known for earthquakes.

Too soon?


RE: Ignorant statement
By daboom06 on 3/22/2013 2:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
there's a reason power plants dont run on ICE engines. by simply having their power produced in centralized and optimized facilities means less CO_{2} produced per mile driven.


RE: Ignorant statement
By Rukkian on 3/22/2013 2:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
You can't facts get in the way of an old minded argument.


RE: Ignorant statement
By lagomorpha on 3/23/2013 9:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
Just to be pedantic, there ARE power plants that use reciprocating ICE engines (some with poppet valves the diameter of the pistons in a train engine :O) but they aren't responsible for a huge portion of power generation.


RE: Ignorant statement
By bsd228 on 3/22/2013 3:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
> last time i checked power plants emit CO2!

Sure, but that sort of simplistic argument has two failings:

1) the power plant is a far more efficient at producing energy from the same fossil fuel. A car engine is only 25-30% efficient, though the diesel motor could get as high as 50%. But a power plant can get as high as 80%.

2) the electric car doesn't need to idle, and unlike gas engines, is fully effective at 0 rpm, whereas the gas engine becomes most efficient at normal load. Particularly in urban driving, this is a considerable waste factor that isn't present for the power plant.

The charging of power at night also is beneficial in allowing utilities to continue running their plants at full power where they are most efficient. The classic peak in day and lull at night every day requires spin up/downs. Smart charging systems that can talk to the utilities and charge the car when most efficient will be a good win.


RE: Ignorant statement
By Philippine Mango on 4/1/2013 6:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
What powerplant has an efficiency of 80%???? The highest I've seen is for CCGT is like 58%... I think you're exaggerating quite a bit.


RE: Ignorant statement
By toyotabedzrock on 3/22/13, Rating: -1
RE: Ignorant statement
By Dorkyman on 3/23/2013 2:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
...and then factor in losses in transmission.

And on top of that factor in environmental costs in making the battery.

There are studies that show a rough parity in environmental costs overall (for the life of the car). So buy the car for other reasons but not for environmental ones.


RE: Ignorant statement
By flyingpants1 on 3/26/2013 1:18:09 AM , Rating: 2
Did you factor in the environmental costs of building an internal combustion engine and drivetrain?


RE: Ignorant statement
By Mint on 3/28/2013 7:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are studies that show a rough parity in environmental costs overall (for the life of the car). So buy the car for other reasons but not for environmental ones.
Here are some studies on the production of Li-ion batteries:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/B/855.PDF
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/B/626.PDF

Even when ignoring recycling, according to the paper, the production energy of a 76kg battery amortizes to under 90 BTU per mile in a car that lasts 160,000 miles. For the biggest Model S battery pack (7000 Li-NCA cells weighing 45 grams), that'll be ~60 million BTU in battery production energy. That's the energy equivalent of only 500 gallons of gasoline. Even if you considered a 50 MPG car is an alternative to the luxury Model S, it only takes ~50k miles to make up that difference.

Here's some more life cycle results:
https://www2.unece.org/wiki/download/attachments/4...
EVs and PHEVs are far better in total environmental impact.

The idea that the battery needs so much energy to make that it negates the savings is not even close to true.


RE: Ignorant statement
By web2dot0 on 3/23/13, Rating: 0
"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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