This is electric-car-insider.com's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following electric-car-insider.com's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
electric-car-insider.com
San Diego
Electric Car Insider Magazine
Interests: electric cars, electric motorcycles, electric bikes, electric vehicles
Recent Activity
Jim Robo, CEO of NextEra Energy: new renewables will be cheaper than existing coal plants by the early 2020s. NextEra subsidiaries include Florida Power & Light (America’s third-largest utility, with 4.8 million customers). https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/29/16944178/utility-ceo-renewables-cheaper
Once current power contracts expire in 2027, it will be illegal for California utilities to get coal power from out-of-state plants. As a result, the plants will need to be shuttered or converted to natural gas. In order to keep selling electricity to California, Utah’s Intermountain Power Project is expected to convert to natural gas by 2025. The Utah power company sells about 90 percent of its power to six California municipalities. About 45 percent of the company’s capacity is owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, who has indicated that it will curtail coal use by 2025. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will also sell its 21 percent ownership in Arizona’s Navajo Generating Station to the plant’s operator, the Salt River Project, by summer of 2016. It gets 477 megawatts of electricity from the plant’s coal-fired generators. As part of the sale, the Salt River Project must close one of the plant’s three coal generators by 2016. New Mexico’s San Juan plant is planning to shutter two coal-fired generators by the end of 2017 due to federal EPA regulations. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/californias-hidden-coal-use/
A California bill would make the state 100 percent renewable by 2045: https://thinkprogress.org/california-100-percent-renewable-4b7530084941/
I’m going to do my part moving toward the Governor’s 5m ZEV target by picking up a Tesla Model 3 on Monday. Will spend the next year driving it all over the US and letting other people drive it too, as part of the Electric Car Guest Drive. Send me an email if you’d like an invitation to drive my Model 3. There is no cost. chris@...
Harv, the article doesn’t say reduce total costs by 75%, it says Toyota is targeting a cost reduction of key components. Right there on the first paragraph (“core technologies” in the headline). It FCVs ever reach cost parity with BEVs and PHEVs, it will be an impressive achievement. But to be competitive, the fueling infrastructure will also need dramatic improvements in cost reduction.
“The TCO analysis did not include the time cost of refueling; vehicle performance; the capital cost of fuel infrastructure; or social costs.” Eliminate the capital cost of infrastructure and you may have a contender. Not a solved problem, though. Thank you for posting the study’s battery costs, Davemart.
Arnold, I could not agree more. The hype will lead real-world capabilities by decades. Will earn lots of clicks and comments, though. Fully autonomous driving will happen, but it will not happen nearly as quickly as these optimistic announcements would indicate. The vehicles will be limited to low speeds, special areas that have reduced traffic complexity. Raise your hand if you have ever had to reboot your Tesla nav while driving. This is not a swipe at Tesla, it's the simple reality that computers encounter far too many abnormal situations to operate without a human monitoring the situation and being available to sort out unanticipated situations, abnormal operation, and external attacks. Adaptive cruise control and assisted braking are great safety features. But if you've ever driven a Tesla in lane keeping mode, you know how often you have to take over steering on a seconds notice because the system lost track of the lanes or couldn't handle some object in the path. The technology is a long way from handling every situation that will be encountered on the public roadway.
Congratulations to everyone involved on this project at Pipistrel. Hope they will consider giving the option of an extra 100kg of batteries (~15-20 kW?) to provide another hour to 1.5 hr of flight for single pilot operation. An hour flight is fine for local training and high speed is not a consideration, so this is perfect for the original mission. Looking forward to flying one.
This is silly. You both know damn well Tesla is going to put a robotic arm on that semi to allow documents to be passed from weigh station and border personnel to the driver. Happy Thanksgiving!
Fair point, ai_vin. Tesla certainly could reconfigure the cab for the pickup/medium/heavy duty truck applications. The sketch that Musk showed off has one bucket seat visible, another very well could be obscured. I’m not convinced that the pickup shown is real though. It would be wildly impractical except for monster truck rallies, coach applications and class 3+ trucks.
Tesla said that the price of electricity at the megachargers would be $0.07. Considering that they own a solar and panel cell factory, utility scale battery manufacturing plant and nationwide installation crew, it seems reasonable to imagine that they could provide electricity for $0.07 within a few years. They have already proven adept at selling pre-paid fuel.
Whatever the non-compliance issues with the concept/prototype, it's likely that Tesla's offering will be much closer to the production than most of the wild flights of fancy we see when just about every other manufacturer shows off a concept/prototype. Agree that focus would be reassuring in the face of delays.
It was hard to figure out if that was just a sight gag or a serious peek at some future vehicle that would dominate in the mud-bog crowd. I agree, ai_vin, a motorhome based on this would be interesting. Hard to know how the solo driver position would go over, though. Also, megacharging along with the Semis would be less than optimal. Otoh, 240 overnight at an RV park would be easy, if not cheap. This is not just speculation, I've done both with my Model S.
You're right, CE, I should have said quickest. Musk did say the new Roadster would top out at 250 mph. I share your concern. People are already getting into trouble with the S and X. A doctor in Orange County California is facing manslaughter charges after killing a couple of commuters returning home from work.
Good to know that you’re looking out for the best interests of the poor fools who can afford to plunk down a $50,000 deposit on a $250,000 car, Davemart. It’s not like folks with that kind of scratch could figure out the risk profile of that kind of bet, right? Porsche sold the 918 for $800,000 - $1,000,000. Tesla will have buyers lined up for at least a similar volume production run of a $200-$250k car with better performance. I saw the Roadster do performance runs on the tarmac Thursday night. If you think Tesla, which already produces the worlds fastest production car, will have any trouble producing the Roadster 2.0, please short them heavily. The market will be happy to take your money.
Davemart, it’s comical to see you repeatedly try to conflate InsideEVs and Electric Car Insider, as if the people who read your posts also cannot make the distinction because the two businesses share a six character string. You’ve been told no less than four times here on GCC that there’s no relationship, yet you persist. Whatever you think you gain by the falsehood, carry on, it just makes you look more daft each time your repeat it.
You’d like to quibble over my rough approximations, Davemart? Have at it. I’d be surprised if anyone else missed the larger point. We’re entering an era where 200-300 mile all electric range will be routine. With continued innovation as Enevate presents here, longer distances reaching past 400 miles will be possible, but generally not very useful. Smaller and cheaper packs will be the goal.
Tesla batteries have increased in energy density over the course of the product life cycle. Other improvements have also increased range. The Model S 85 had an EPA rated range of 265 miles, and the current Model S 100 has a range of 335 miles. Whichever of these batteries you choose to compare, 300Wh/kg is an impressive increase and probably puts the same vehicle at or above 400 miles of range. Whether it’s 400, 500 or close to 600 is less relevant than the fact that over a given threshold, you simply stop worrying about range. Driving in town, you’ll never exceed 300 miles before you have to sleep again. For most people, the number of times that they take a trip out of town exceeding double that number (requiring a full charge) is so seldom that is not a great concern. Which is why Elon Musk is on record as saying you probably won’t see a Tesla with a battery bigger than 100kWh. He may be wrong, and he may not have been thinking about light duty trucks with tow bar when he made that statement, but in my experience over the course of 70,000 all-electric miles, over 300 miles capacity you just stop worrying about range. That includes dozens of trips over 1,000 miles and several over 2,000 miles round-trip.
Cylindrical cells have thermal management advantages. Larger prismatic cells develop hot spots. No doubt we will see a trend toward optimal form factor. Too many smart people and massive computing being applied for this problem to stand. 400Wh/kg does seem within reach. When it does, cars may be the least interesting transportation technology enabled by the breakthrough.
300 Wh/Kg at the cell level would not quite be double the gravimetric energy density of the Tesla battery, but in round numbers, not too far off. A 1,300 lb Tesla battery (current spec) could be nearly 180kW, which would yield a range of 588 EPA miles. I'm pretty sure we don't have to wait for 400+ Wh/Kg batteries for BEVs to compete effectively with FCEVs. Alternately, we could see a smaller, lighter, cheaper battery as Musk has indicated is more likely. 300+ miles of EV range means you stop worrying about range entirely, in my experience. Even in cold weather, batteries and cabins can be pre-heated and range loss kept to less than 20%
300 Wh/kg and 10C charging is an exciting breakthrough. Bravo, Enevate!
I get your exasperation, DaveD. Harvey loves to spec out cars just over the horizon, available someday, just not today. He needs 500 mile range with 5 minute recharge because after driving for 7 hours, he wants to get on the road and drive another 7 hours. That's his requirement, and he's stickin' to it. Until some automaker hits that spec for $30k and then by gum, he's gonna need 10 hours of driving and a two minute recharge time. I'll grant that Harvey does have some special requirements to meet, like not freezing to death if you get stuck on the side of the road for 30 minutes. Or the charge coupler not freezing in the socket if you leave your car plugged in for longer than it takes a cup of steaming hot coffee to turn into iced coffee while you're still drinking it. I once almost froze to death just crossing the street in Toronto in December. Those are hardy people up there I'll tell ya. My hosts laughed at my flimsy Southern California ski jacket and lent me a proper coat so I didn't take a place among the marble statuary. I hear you Harvey. It gets cold up there in the great white north. You need some headroom on your batteries. Somebody will deliver it someday, and maybe the "About" page will come with credits (and royalties no doubt) to Rice University.
Seems like a very well appointed, capable SUV for an excellent price. This will be a a must-have vehicle for the Electric Car Guest Drive. 120v aux power is an especially interesting capability as a factory option. Bravo Mitsubishi!
California limits rebate to single people who earn under $150k/yr. California increases the rebate to $4,500 for low income people who would not qualify for Fed Tax credit. When you say "We can and should do much better," what state are you writing from, SJC?
SJC, as the article says, these are rebates, not tax credits.