This is Henrik's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Henrik's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Henrik
Recent Activity
Tesla's 20kW home charger cost 1200 USD. But BMW sell their 24kW charger for 6548 USD. I am not impressed by BMW's price. Tesla's newest public fast charger does 120kW but Tesla will not improve that rate for many years forward Musk has said. I guess the problem with going much above 120kW is that the power electronics starts to get too costly and heavy using current technology.
Very nice price for the Cayenne S E-Hybrid when compared to the Cayenne S. It shows that plug-in technology makes more sense for high end vehicles >400 hp than for low end vehicles <200hp. The Cayenne S is comparatively expensive because of that 420hp motor. Use a smaller gasser and make up for the lost power by adding an electric motor and this new power-train is not much more expensive as the savings from using a smaller (mass produced) gasser can largely pay for the extra cost of adding batteries and an electric motor. However, Porsche's Cayenne will get serious competition from Tesla's Model X when it arrives a few months later in the US market. The Model X will start at about 80,000 USD for the long range 85kWh version. The model X will be faster than the Cayenne hybrid and might even beat the Cayenne Turbo so it is a much better barging in my opinion. Also Model X will have less noise and vibration and better handling because of its extremely low gravity point and 4WD. Can't wait to see the EPA ratings for both the Cayenne S E-Hybrid and the Model X.
Harvey it is wh/l not wh/kg. Panasonic already sell 18650 cells at 730 wh/l so Toyota's prototype might be battery is no big news at all. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/panasonic-20091225.html
@EP Note the words "in good faith". Tesla can still sue companies using their patents that do not act in good faith. For example, I would say that a company that sues Tesla for violating their patents, if that company also use Tesla's technology in their own cars, is not acting in good faith and can therefore be sued back by Tesla for using Tesla's technology.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2014 on Tesla opens up all its patents at Green Car Congress
What is not to like about Tesla as a company and Musk as their leader? I certainly like them. They offer the best hope yet for some real change for the better in the automotive industry. I am still surprised about this decision to open up for all of their patents so early. Nevertheless, I guess Tesla feels confident enough that they now are in a position where they cannot be overwhelmed by the still much larger players simply because these other players are so far behind Tesla in their plans to make long-range BEVs and compelling PHEVs. Tesla is well on their way to take 10 to 20% of the global market for private cars costing over 70,000 USD. They need to sell over 100k units per year to get to that point but it seems that they are sure they will get there. They will get to 4k unit per month (48k annualized) by December this year and they should be able to double that number by the end of 2016. When they get to 100k units per year for their 70,000+ USD cars they are too large to be overwhelmed by others in that segment of the market. At that point patents might not matter so much at deterring competition and the benefits of attracting worker talent and appraise car customers from their open patent strategy is probably much more important than the extra competition that open patents will bring.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2014 on Tesla opens up all its patents at Green Car Congress
This is another reason we need Google's autonomous vehicles to take care of door to door transportation of humans, pets and packages. Can't wait to see Google launch this service. It will really be disruptive for not just the automotive industry but also taxi's and public transportation in general. The autonomous vehicle could transport people and stuff 24/7 all year round so the vehicle cost can be very low per mile driven and made as BEVs the fuel cost will also be very low. Also a 100 miles electric range will be plenty for most autonomous vehicles as you can always pick up another vehicle with a fresh battery if you need to go longer. 40 million autonomous vehicles operated as fleet services by Google, Tesla, Amazon and others would probably be enough to do all person transportation in the US and much goods delivery. And it would guarantee you could pick one vehicle up within 2 minutes using your smart phone wherever you are in an environment where people live or work. Frankly I do not think the next generation will spend time and money getting a driver license. In 2040 a driver license could be a curiosity of the past and maybe even sooner. Amazon is working on quadrocopter goods delivery within the hour. However, as batteries gets better we may also see autonomous ground vehicle transportation systems for people supplemented with larger short-range quadrocopters picking up cabins with one or two people and flying them to wherever they want. Again range is not so much an issue as another quadrocopters with a fresh battery takes over when the first one is depleted. In any case I am seriously convinced that the transportation sector is going through some transformative changes in the coming decades.
Actually banning some diesel and gasoline vehicles is not a bad idea. Start today by banning every light-duty diesel and gasoline vehicle costing over 150,000 USD. As time progresses the USD limit should be lowered. Say to 100,000 USD in 2020, 60,000 USD in 2030 and 40,000 USD in 2040 and 26,000 USD in 2050 and a complete ban by 2060. During the same time span the grid could go completely renewable with hydro, solar and wind power. Renewable hydrogen could be used for back-up power in combined cycle plants or small stationary fuel cells at people's homes. I would vote for that. I believe it should be doable by 2060 without affecting the economic welfare. However, with no air pollution our quality of life would improve and our life expectancy would grow by a couple of years.
@Sault the EPA rating of the 60kWh Model S is 208 miles, not 244. If the weather is cold or you drive the car speedily you get significantly less (up to 40% less). An older battery will also not have 60kWh available any more. This is why you need 72 kWh to do 200 miles in the real world also in the winter or during a hot summer day with the AC on. Several Tesla 60kWh buyers have subsequently upgraded to 85kwh because the 60kwh is not quite enough to quit range anxiety. The subsidies you talk about are keeping much of the still niche EV, PHEV alive. The subsidies will end when the EV market grow into something significant because the authorities cannot afford it when the market become significant. I think Norway will be the exception here. Their government has enough money to keep subsidizing EVs until they are the only cars that are sold. Also for BEVs to go mainstream you need a much larger range of vehicle types including SUVs and pickups. They are large, heavy and less aerodynamic and need even larger batteries to do 200 miles real world range. I would think that 105 kWh are needed here. Do a quick survey among the EV and PHEV buyers today around the globe and you will find they are upper middle class, wealthy or an insignificant niche of people with extremely strong feelings about the environment or the technical marvels of EVs. Start by making EVs and PHEVs for these people and they will drive up production volumes that subsequently will lower production cost so that more affordable EVs and PHEVs can be made to reach more people and so on until 2044 where a 200 miles 72kwh BEV will cost you about 24,000 USD and be comparable to a 18,000 USD gasser.
Roger the 5000 deep cycles for the Panasonic battery in Model S is BS and you should know that for a fact as we have already previously had this discussion here at GCC. I pointed you to Panasonic's official documentation that clearly says 300 deep cycles to about 80% of original capacity at 25 Celsius. That documentation also fits with Tesla's warranty on the battery. http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/includes/pdf/ACA4000CE254-NCR18650A.pdf Nothing that you say or any academic might say can triumph the quality of the manufactures own documentation. You are also wrong about Tesla's Wh/kg at the pack level. It is about 140 Wh/kg or about 60% better that the state-of-the-art 90Wh/kg at the pack level for short-range BEVs. It also sounds as you think there is a limit on how many kWh we can produce on this planet. However, there are no supply restrictions with lithium batteries as they contain materials that are massively abundant on this planet. The limit is on the demand side. How many people are willing to pay x USD for x number of vehicles. Tesla has found a recipe for making a BEV that so far shows no demand limitations. Very unlike Nissan that can produce 250k units per year of their Leaf but sell between 50k and 80k instead. Apart from Tesla the only other successful pluggable car is Mitsubishi's Outlander PHEV that also is in much higher demand than its current production. I also think the BMW i3 will be a success. It will also be interested to follow how the e-golf and e-Benz will sell.
Tried to get a better estimate of Tesla's Wh/kg at the pack level. Some old sources say it weights 544 kg others that it is 600 kg. The weight has probably gone up with 30 kg after the titanium shield was attached for better fire protection. So between 574 and 630 kg for the 85kWh Tesla model S battery that is respectively 148 Wh/kg and 135 Wh/kg. This is not nearly 200 Wh/kg as I wrongly said above. But it is still some 60% better than the 90 Wh/kg that are state-of-the-art for short-range BEVs. http://www.roperld.com/science/TeslaModelS.htm
Harvey do the Wh/kg calculation for any of the short-range BEVs on the market today and they have less than 100 Wh/kg at the pack level. This is the industry state-of-the-art regardless of what you think. Tesla is the only long-range BEV so they can use another battery chemistry (with less cycle life but better energy density) that can do nearly 200 Wh/kg at the pack level. And regardless of what you think these numbers are not going to improve fast. Expect 6% improvement every 5 years or so (a typical development cycle for a battery). And forget about disruptive battery technology. It happens so seldom that it is not worth pinning any hopes on. Nor will there be any large price reductions for EVs or PHEVs. For the next 10 years at least BEVs and PHEVs will be limited to the upper middle class and the wealthy. Gassers will be for poor people and ordinary middle class. I think it will take 30 years of continuous BEV development before the price of a 200 miles BEV drop to 24,000 USD and therefore can compete with that of an equally large 18,000 USD gasser. Today's Leaf is a 29,000 USD BEV with a 24kWh battery. You need one with 72 kWh priced at 24,000 USD and that might first be possible in 2044.
There are no real specifications just vague superlatives from an unknown company without any track-record or reputation to guard. As a good rule of thumb treat all such announcements as hoaxes. This is another JSTORE. Just forget it.
@Herman I believe the 2B USD issue of Convertible Bond was made to finance the expected 2 billion USD that is Tesla's share of the 5 billion USD giga factory. A power point with the project is available here http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/gigafactory So the finance part is a done deal at least with regard to Tesla but the other partners also need to find 3 billion USD. Moreover Tesla will need additional billions to fund the factory for their gen 3 Tesla. Their current factory is not big enough for producing both Model S, X and 500k units per year of the 3rd gen Tesla. I think Tesla can raise that money as well without any problem. After all they are past the most critical startup milestones having launched the Model S and already doing 3k units per month without any serious glitches. Moreover, their only true problem is their ability to ramp up production. There are no signs yet of demand restrictions for Tesla. Very unlike what the Nissan Leaf and the Volt has experienced. However, I share your skepticism about Tesla being able to execute their plans at the scheduled time. It is nearly mission impossible to launch the 3rd gen Tesla by 2018 and be in full production with 500k units annually by 2020. They may be able to do it but what I seriously do not believe is that they can make a 200 miles EPA rated luxury BEV with hilarious acceleration and sell it for 35,000 USD. BMW or Benz can't even do that with a gasser so I think the price of that 3rd generation Tesla will end at 43,000 USD instead and it may not include free charging for life at Tesla's supercharger network that will span all of North America, Europe and Japan China by 2018. That will cost extra.
Henrik is now following Engineer-Poet
May 9, 2014
Henrik is now following Bernard
May 9, 2014
Henrik is now following Herman
May 9, 2014
AC propulsion has played an important role in Tesla's birth as a company. This quote from Wiki boils it down well. "Before Tesla had developed the Roadster's proprietary powertrain, the company licensed AC Propulsion's EV Power System design and Reductive Charging patent which covers integration of the charging electronics with the inverter, thus reducing mass, complexity, and cost. Tesla then designed and built its own power electronics, motor, and other drivetrain components that incorporated this licensed technology from AC Propulsion. Given the extensive redevelopment of the vehicle, Tesla Motors no longer licenses any proprietary technology from AC Propulsion. The Roadster's powertrain is unique." I may add that the more or less hand build Roadster engine has been further developed into the mass producible induction motor that now powers the Model S. Tesla call than engine their 2. generation engine whereas the Roadster's engine was their 1. generation engine. Tesla will make a new engine called the 3. generation engine to be used in the Model E (which it will not be called for sure as it give the wrong impression that this car will be an economy class vehicle when it in fact is a luxury class vehicle competing with other 40,000 to 50,000 USD combustion vehicles). I do not know it for a fact but the power controller that Tesla now sell to Benz could be a precursor for the 3. generation power controller that will also be used for the "Model E". Benz has probably ordered Tesla to be able to supply up to 50,000 units per year of that controller because it is unprofitable to launch a 40,000 USD car that can't sell in these quantities.
That 50Gwh factory compares to 625,000, 80kWh battery packs. I think Tesla will be the only car maker in the world with over 500,000 BEV sales per year in 2020. I do not see a large market for the short-range BEVs that everybody else are making although each short range model may probably be able to sell between 50k to 100k units per year. In 2020 we may have a situation where Tesla have 33% of the global EV market by units sold and 66% of the global BEV market when calculated by kWh used for the battery packs. I think (but could be wrong) that the one thing that makes Tesla so difficult to copy from its competitors point of view is Tesla's patents regarding their inductive motor controller. Benz are buying that motor controller from Tesla because they can't yet make one themselves that is just as good and does not violate Tesla's patents. I think that motor controller allows Tesla to produce powerful induction motors (over 170hp) that are cheaper to make, more efficient and less heavy than anything of similar power using a combustion engine or other electric motor designs. Another advantage that Tesla have is that they are already the volume leader in the production of powerful induction motors and as a buyer of automotive grade batteries. That means Tesla already have less cost for these components than their potential competition.
@Herman I think the starting price of RMB 369,000 is just a short-term price for this Benz/BYD car. It is one of the first BEVs to go on sale in China and (apart from Tesla) it is the only one with significantly more range than the competition all using 24 kwh battery packs or less. I think they will be able to lower the price significantly as others enter the Chinese BEV market. China also currently has a generous subsidy program of up to RMB 120,000 paid out when the car is sold. It is not a tax rebate see http://media.daimler.com/deeplink?cci=2464278 Moreover, Tesla's Model S has started selling for RMB 700,000 or 120,000 USD. It is a much more attractive car than this Benz/BYD but also twice the price. The Nissan Leaf will also hit the Chinese market in September 2014. I am looking forward to see how Tesla does. A huge market response is necessary for Tesla to go ahead and build a factory in China.
@Harvey I trust that you know that all biomass grow by breathing CO2 from the air and that this CO2 is released back into the air when producing bio-fuels from biomass and when burning these fuels. If you do not use any fossil fuels producing the biomass and the bio-fuels they will be completely CO2 neutral. That means making fertilizer using renewable electricity, harvesting and transporting biomass to refineries using renewable electricity and converting the biomass to bio fuels and plastics using renewable electricity. We are not they yet but we will get there.
@EP You have convinced me that biomass based fuels and hydro are not enough to deal with the intermittency in a 100% renewable energy system based on wind, solar, hydro and bio-fuels. We need other technologies as well to make it happen. Harvey mentions hydrogen. You can make that from renewable electricity for example form surplus electricity from solar power during the spring and summer months. It can be stored as liquid hydrogen in cryogenic tanks and used as backup power during spring and summer and as part base load during autumn and winter. The 1.3 billion ton of biomass should be used for making aviation fuel and plastics for the manufacturing sector. With regard to land based and perhaps also sea based transportation we need to go completely battery electric for this 100% renewable energy scenario to happen. Wishful thinking would be me believing we could do all this within 30 years. I think we need 50 years at best and at worst 100 years. Of cause we need much lower costs for producing both batteries, PV solar cells and wind turbines. They are the three core technologies for a sustainable renewable energy future as I see it. There are also a host of other solutions that can be used to deal with the intermittency of renewable energy. I will just mention 3 other solutions. 1) The smart grid. The internet of things that connect pretty much everything that is electric to the internet will happen in the next 10 to 20 years. Consumption of electricity can be increased or decreased in real time using price signals that correspond with renewable production of electricity. 2) The super grid. Superconducting long-range cables would be able not only to connect the sub-grids of large countries like the US. I think it will not stop until the entire planet is one large grid. With cables connecting all the continents. A company like American superconductor has the technology but it is small and not up for the task of doing massive infrastructure projects. Hopefully they will be bought by a larger player like Siemens or ABB. 3) Power capacity over-sizing. You can lessen the intermittency burden by over-sizing the needed capacity of the renewable power system as that may be less costly than building other solutions that deals with the intermittency.
@Roger The seasonal intermittency from a 100% renewable energy system can be managed by using bio-fuels. A country like the US has at least 1.3 billion ton of biomass to make bio fuels from. A company like Poet Energy are confident they will be able in a few years to convert one ton of dry biomass to about 80 gallons of ethanol for as little as 2 USD per gallon. So the US should be able to produce about 7 million barrels of ethanol per day (6.78 million bpd = ((1300*80)/42))/365). In a future where all vehicles are either BEVs or PHEVs with vehicle to grid capability the 7 million bpd plus hydropower should be enough to take care of the seasonal intermittency of a 100% RE system in a country like the USA. The only power plants we need are the vehicle to grid enables PHEVs. 40 million of those each with 25kW of generating capacity (1000GW) is more than adequate to power the entire US grid. Further into the future biomass made from growing crops and trees in mother nature will be replaced by bioengineered microorganisms converting water, ambient air and dirt into fuels using bioreactors powered by surplus electricity from renewable power. How many decades it will take to make it happen I do not know but I am certain it will happen at some point in time.
@EP A 100% renewable energy future is possible with hydro, wind and solar. Low capital cost back-up power for the grid can be provided by BEVs and more importantly PHEVs operating on bio-gas or bio-ethanol. Centralized power plants are not needed and frankly I do not think they are economical either when large scale solar, wind and vehicle to grid technology is employed in the coming years. My only worry is whether it will be in time to prevent the catastrophic GW scenarios.
Global warming should be solved without creating another and perhaps equally large problem, such as, nuclear waste that stays extremely dangerous for tens of thousands of years. Future generations should not be burdened with that either. We could have safe nuclear power if all plants were build miles below ground but that would be prohibitively costly. Moreover, nuclear power plants are indeed dangerous as they blow up terribly on this planet every 15 years it seems. If we get 15 times as many of them we may end up with a new Fukushima happening every year on this planet. Nuclear power plants also take too long to build. We need to act now on global warming and a lot more wind power and solar power can go online with short notice in time to prevent the most catastrophic scenarios for global warming. Of cause if China and India does not do anything but keep increasing their CO2 emissions year after year then the most catastrophic GW scenarios will be certain regardless of whether USA, EU and Japan go completely CO2 neutral within 40 years. GW is a real test for mankind. Will greed or common sense prevail?