Yawn. Harvey sounding like a broken record again. Same unfounded remarks as last time. Anytime Tesla gets mentioned he trolls out this rubbish.

Just to correct the statements about land-use for nuclear power, please factor in the land-use for nuclear exclusion zones necessary when a major accident occurs, and they do occur. Chernobyl exclusion zone is 2000 square miles (including the exclusion area of Belarus), Fukushima is about half that as far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusion_zone#Nuclear_disaster_exclusion_zones Oh, and nobody got Leukemia from a solar panel.

Oh, Harvey. That's the same sad tune you sung last time.

Despite the downbeat attitude of other commenters, I am impressed. They faltered in 2017, but which manufacturers haven't, and Tesla are recovering as expected. Don't forget either that these are the high-end 300 mile version they are making first. 5000 a week in 2Q18 means >150,000 on the road by year end. I'm hopeful I'll see mine in 2018, which is earlier than I expected when I put my money down.

Being the most popular PHEV in the world, it was strange that we've been disappointed many times by Mitsubishi postponing the launch of the PHEV Outlander in North America, so it's good to see it's finally going to make it to the US. If they had started selling them two or three years ago, it would have stolen a good share of other manufacturers hybrid/PHEV/BEV market. But I think a 12kWh battery PHEV is less than the what is achievable now, even for that price point. It's definitely well-spec'd with all those features. I didn't see mention of different models so hopefully you get all of the above for one easy payment of $35,000.00.

Did you notice the important part here? They got a new logo!

A distinct lack of specifics in this announcement. What will be the battery capacity and expected vehicle range is just basic info that is need in such a statement.

A lie? How would he know? He's an expert of nothing, making stuff up because he doesn't like the look of the figures put before him by professionals in the field like this article. Where have we seen that before? Oh, yes: the "friends" he says will fix everything. Trolling doesn't change the facts you don't like.

How does the magnitude of this compare to the impact from 'dieselgate'?

Brings new meaning to the British phrase "complete bosh".

I guess they mean that alternator failure is a "non-event" in that the vehicle can keep running on batteries until the next scheduled stop. Obviously they can't prevent alternator failures happening without some redundancy.

Hmm. Anon writes "Reducing CO2 can only be accomplished by not burning carbon in the air." I think you need to check your math. Not doing something doesn't get rid of something that's already there. And FYI, burning fuels created using CO2 from the air is a carbon-neutral operation, just as biofuels do today, or are you a downer on those too? Sequestering the carbon captured this way would improve the climate situation, but this method allows portable fuels to be created without making things worse. As for the cost to commercialize, if oil and gas were priced to include the cost of their impact to the planet, these methods would look commercially priced to everyone. Just as I pay monthly for a sewerage treatment plant rather than dump it in the street as used to be the case ~150 years ago.

I know this was an aerobatic aircraft, but the electric power train being used is designed for more conventional General Aviation applications too (260kw = 350hp, which is high, but not unheard of for GA). The rate of climb that's available is really good, about 2,260 feet per minute. That's ear-poppingly fast! 1000kg (2200lbs) is a typical weight for GA aircraft, so even if it used "gobs of energy" (DSL's comment is unsubstantiated) for this test, it shows that electric aircraft can perform and provide an extra safety factor. You can never have too much power to get you out of trouble, even if you only need it for a minute.

Hmm, someone in the comments section is making stuff up, and hopes no one will spot it. 'Arthur' stopped production in 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_(TV_series)). The first public mention of the Tesla Gigafactory was in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1). Did car manufacturer's meet these standards because of CARB or in spite of it? If the former, then logically CARB should continue its work and its services are still very much needed.

Maybe, but CARB standards also apply to many other states that have opted to follow CARB rather than federal standards, including many of the biggest markets. I don't think Trump is going to be able to overrule/dismantle CARB. And states have other options too.

@gor Ah, yes! Gasoline, the fuel of the future! The one our children's children will wonder why we didn't burn more of it!

"Even 50 kW is slow." - Well, aren't you special.

I'd be more than happy to buy a 250-mile (Tesla range) for the same price as a LEAF (mine has 38% of the battery capacity of this Daimler). I suspect either safety-standards and/or production volume constraints (battery production) are keeping this vehicle as a China-only vehicle for now, but I'm sure that'll change in a few years.

Interesting. Although the tests show emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and carbon monoxide (CO) were significantly reduced (reducing the size/cost of any catalytic converter), it doesn't mention other ways to get rid of the "new" emissions, like a change to the catalytic converter materials. I suspect those emissions are unregulated only because they aren't present when burning ethanol-gasoline blends in use today. Methanol emissions are not good, but at least it isn't hydroscopic like ethanol, so water contamination would be less of a problem in practice.

Way to get so negative, there gor! I have no idea where you are coming from with that attitude. No one promised you a miracle, this is just another baby step in research, but a good one that should be applauded. It's still many years away from commercialization but it points the way for further work. As for your unsubstantiated dismissiveness of the BEV market, I can tell you that anyone who has access to off-street parking whether at home or at work can get access to the charging apparatus installed. Just this week while waiting at a traffic light I noticed FOUR electric vehicles at the front of the line, 2 Teslas and 2 LEAFs. That was a sight I would not have seen a year ago. Apparently myself and others around here have not been "repulsed", nor did we pay 3 times the cost of a comparable car, I don't think I even paid twice the cost and I am saving $100 a month on gasoline, and much more on maintenance for a $200 lease.

Other than having the word "Tesla" in the product name, I don't see why this article is relevant to the green car congress web site. Interesting though it is.

How does "a capacity retention of 88% after 200 charge–discharge cycles" compare to Li-ion? That doesn't seem to be a great performance. To be viable for commercial applications I'd expect you'd need the capacity drop to be better than 12% after 2,000 cycles.

It's just a catalyst, so you may not need much at all, and it doesn't get consumed in the conversion, so it remains to convert more raw ingredients to isobutanol. And of course this research may lead to investigation of other materials which are cheaper and more plentiful. The more you know...

It may not be news to you, but this is a big deal for general aviation right now. Yes, creating an alternative to 100LL has been possible, but not at commercial scales needed for this modest market and certainly not at an economical price. Avgas is typically twice the price of regular gasoline, I have paid $6+ a US gallon before now and it is currently around $5.50 at KPAE while nearby gas stations are $2.20. The industry has been needing an alternative to 100LL because of both the environmental issue, plus there is only one supplier in the world of the additive needed to boost it to 100 octane needed for the low-compression piston engines used by most prop planes. The other issue is being a specialty product means it has to be trucked in from the refinery (and have special handling to prevent contamination). Being modular and small-scale, I wonder if it would be possible to produce this fuel on-site at major airports. I have no idea whether 5 million scf of feed gas is a lot, or something you could get from a regional gas main. Nor does it say how much gasoline that makes.

I don't understand why someone doesn't develop an extended battery concept for EVs in the form of a trailer you would hook-up and tow behind you. In that case all range-anxiety for long range trips would be gone. Something that would extend the range to 250 miles of 60mph travel would be more than adequate. No need to haul that big a battery for everyday around-town driving, just for the few times a year I'd need a long-distance road trip. I could rent such a trailer from a dealership or other independent operator for the few times a year that I'd need to go inter-state distances. Need to go further than one trailer allows? Drive to a place where they'd swap the discharged trailer for a fully charged one, or plug it in at a hotel overnight or elsewhere and be good for another 250 miles. I know people travel further in a single day, but it would be good to stop every 3-4 hours and stretch your legs. Even if you aren't on a trip, if you run down the EV internal battery by mistake, there's a market for a roadside assistance service that would deliver an EV battery trailer that could be hooked up in two minutes to get you home. No towing needed.