« Toyota To Make, Sell Camry Hybrid In China In 2010 | Main | W2 Energy Forms Biodiesel Subsidiary »
Tesla to Build Electric Sedan in California; State Introduces New Incentive for ZEV Manufacturers
30 June 2008
Enticed partly by a new package of incentives, Tesla Motors has decided to build the assembly plant for its upcoming electric sedan in California at a still-to-be-determined site in the San Francisco Bay Area rather than in New Mexico as it had earlier announced. (Earlier post.)
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Treasurer Bill Lockyer and Tesla CEO Ze’ev Drori made the announcement at a press conference today at Tesla Motors headquarters in San Carlos, California.
Tesla’s upcoming Model S (earlier named “White Star”), will be a $60,000 car, said Tesla Chairman Elon Musk at the press conference. The Model S is being designed to seat five and have a single-charge range of 225 miles. Musk also said that the company had some projects in the works that could deliver a pure electric car for less than $30,000 “maybe a lot sooner than anyone thinks.”
In a statement posted on the Tesla blog, Drori said that after a thorough review of the operational and logistical elements for the sedan program, it was decided that the best strategy to ensure its success would be to locate manufacturing as close to headquarters as possible.
There are several key reasons why California is the right location for Tesla’s manufacturing facility: first, the operational advantages of locating our operation in the Bay Area close to our management and engineering teams. Second, the proximity to our most important markets. Last, but not least, Governor Schwarzenegger’s commitment to leading the nation and the world in addressing climate and energy concerns. Together, these reasons make the decision to move the sedan manufacturing program back to California clear.
Let me close by pointing out the decision that we announced today with the Governor represents a major milestone in the sedan program. Having set down a marker of where we will be establishing this critical operation, we can move forward on many fronts. This will allow us to bring the sedan program to fruition and to continue to drive toward Tesla Motors’ mission of making the electric vehicle the dominant mode of automotive transport for the 21st century and beyond.
—Ze’ev Drori
A key component of the incentives is a newly adopted waiver on state sales tax on manufacturing equipment for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) built in state.
Existing law exempts the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority’s (CAEATFA) from paying the sales tax on equipment used to manufacture advanced transportation products.
Under the new policy, CAEATFA will pass through that tax break to qualifying ZEV manufacturers under “sales-lease-back” agreements. Under such an agreement:
A ZEV or ZEV component manufacturer applies to CAEATFA to have a project approved pursuant to the policy. If approved, CAEATFA buys the equipment, and finances the purchase by taking out a loan or selling bonds. CAEATFA does not pay the sales tax on the transaction. The manufacturer makes lease payments to CAEATFA for use of the equipment, and CAEATFA uses these payments to repay the bonds or loan.
Under the lease arrangement with CAEATFA, the manufacturer has the option to purchase the equipment outright. If it purchases the equipment, the manufacturer obtains the benefit of the sales tax exemption, saving seven percent to nine percent on the purchase price.
Tesla will ask CAEATFA to approve such an arrangement to finance the purchase of equipment to build the Model S.
The tax incentive policy approved by CAEATFA covers several ZEV and near-ZEV technologies, including fuel cell electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, hydrogen internal combustion engines, advanced technology partial ZEVs and neighborhood electric vehicles. Any qualifying ZEV manufacturer can apply.
Today’s announcement is great news for California, our economy and our environment. We want these cutting-edge companies not to just start in California and do their research and development here—we want them to build in California. Tesla’s announcement today is just one of many we will celebrate as we implement AB 32 and reach our greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.
—Governor Schwarzenegger
ZEV makers can also apply for funding from the new alternative fuel and vehicle technology program outlined in AB118.
June 30, 2008 in Electric (Battery), Policy | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/30747828
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tesla to Build Electric Sedan in California; State Introduces New Incentive for ZEV Manufacturers:
Comments
It must have been a pretty juicy incentive pkg from Schwarzenegger because New Mexico had already given away the farm trying to woo them.
Who can blame the states. Everyone can see that's the future.
Posted by: danm | Jun 30, 2008 3:41:14 PM
So Cali gives home-based ZEV manufacturers apprx .08% discount on equipment purchases and loans for leased equipment. This might bring battery manufacturing into California where their primary consumer market is. Unfortunately the Sedan's $60k price tag is still too high for most families - even with State and Federal incentives.
Tesla is building a manufacturing base that should let them enter the far more competitive <$30k BEV market. Once they have manufacturing in place, sizing a lower cost drive train and power pack will be much easier.
Posted by: gr | Jun 30, 2008 3:45:52 PM
Here's to hoping that WA state can get in on that action.
Posted by: Gerald Shields, Seattle, WA | Jun 30, 2008 3:53:52 PM
gr-
tesla is aiming at the crowd that would buy BMW 7's or MB E-class. they are more than willing to shell out $60k for a sedan. based on what we've heard from them, the performance will be enough to entice those buyers (and it will give the "green chic" that is starting to wear off from the prius...)
additionally, as you noted production of ev drivetrains will allow them to acheive economies of scale so that their next vehicle can be more affordable to the average family.
incredible that a small startup can acheive this and GM/Ford/Toyota balk at even making a 30mile EV. no wonder gm stock traded at 54-year low today...
i would buy a pickup from them that got this kind of range, esp if they can perfect a quickcharge technology (~10 min). i am not EE but ME so i am not sure about the specs needed for this kind of charging. ee experts please chime in..
Posted by: marc | Jun 30, 2008 3:57:07 PM
Tesla has a good chance of getting free land from a county or city eager to snare the factory.
And why shouldn't the local government then issue tax-free bonds and actually build the factory for you?
Then with the basic agreement about taxes, equipment, an almost free factory, various funds for the advanced technology, and tax credits for buyers, the situation for Tesla looks great.
Not knocking Tesla, they actually produced their first product as they predicted. Looks like good management to me. And this announcement shows a genius for finding public money.
Posted by: K | Jun 30, 2008 4:58:45 PM
I second Gerald Shields' motion. The Pac. NW's electric generation is excellent. The gov't & public are solidly behind renewable generation & has large wind projects full steam ahead. Probably will place top efficiency solar panels under the power lines. We're wound up for an electric society.
Posted by: litesong | Jun 30, 2008 5:02:52 PM
I can only hope that Aptera gets such incentives.
Posted by: GreenPlease | Jun 30, 2008 5:27:39 PM
Right now the Pac Northwest has so much hydro power they're asking people to use it any way they can. They're sending as much energy south as the lines can hold, and it's still not enough.
Posted by: Cervus | Jun 30, 2008 5:32:34 PM
California has another inversion and another week of smog.
It's the perfect time for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Tesla CEO Ze’ev Drori to announce a Green Plan.
This is really a win For Tesla.
They get a fully financed state of the art factory, then get to buy it when it begins making money. Obviously it will make money, there is already a line up for the "White star sedan"
This is really a win for California,
They get a vibrant expanding business and very very secure manufacturing jobs. The taxes from this business and all the connected spin offs will boost the local economy and tax base.
Really, seeing Tesla making a successful car will change the way America looks at transportation, and will spearhead the American green revolution. Who knows, the USA may even catch up to those third world countries.
Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 30, 2008 5:57:53 PM
marc:
not an EE either but so far it looks like only AltairNano has proven quick charge Li-on auto batteries. Henrik believes the key to EV expansion is to install quick charge stations along major thoroughfares. I am not convinced.
It seems that first gen PHEV/EVs under normal use patterns will do fine with overnight / business / parking lot trickle charging (220V 40amp). Later on, with a few years of experience in high current public access charge technology - we will see quick charge stations pop up like internet access at malls and coffee shops.
Reasons? A single failure in a 300amp charge circuit would be a disaster for the EV industry. It is simply too soon and unnecessary to expose the acceptance of electrification to this downside - in the beginning. Three or four iterations into PHEVs, the standards, safety certification process and remaining technical issues will have been addressed.
We are conditioned to accept overnight charging for our cameras, MP-3 players, cell phones etc. First gen PHEVs will be no different.
Posted by: gr | Jun 30, 2008 6:46:30 PM
While I certainly hope we don't have any major battery flame outs, I'm not convinced that the damage to the EV industry would be as great as some are predicted. We grow up with electricity and are somewhat used to the hazards. I don't see any slump in the sale of laptops even after the battery fires.
Posted by: Neil | Jun 30, 2008 10:36:47 PM
So $60000 and 225 miles. The Tesla roadster uses a 53 kWh battery to get the same range. The Model S will be heavier and have more air drag so the battery will be about 60kWh. At $500 kWh it will be a $30000 battery. Assuming the tax bounty is about $5000 per car this leaves $35000 to produce the Model S without the battery. Launch year is missing but it will take two years to build the factory so sometime 2010 will be the earliest.
They talk about a $30.000 car. A small car could be made for that assuming again $5000 tax break plus $15000 to total $20000 for the car and $10000 for a 20 kWh battery that will give that car a 100 miles range.
To make such a $30.000 EV generally useful everywhere in California for any purpose California needs to build a fast charge network that is capable of charging this 20 kWh battery in about 10 minutes or less. How could that be done and how much will it cost?
A rough estimate is that there are about 40000 gas stations in California. Now let Tesla and perhaps Project Better Place and the relevant authorities of California make a fast charge standard that can do a 20kWh battery in 10 minutes. Once this is agreed pass legislation requiring all 40000 gas stations to get one fast charger up no later than ultimo 2012. Each fast charger could get a $10000 subsidy or so for the first charger and $5000 or so for the number 2 charger etc when set up at the same location. 40000 chargers, one at each gas station in California will cost only $400 million in subsidies. Spread it over 4 years and that is $100 million per year for the state of California from 2009-2012.
By 2012 any Californian that want to live a carbon neutral life and who has the money should be able to use exclusively EVs and to put up a solar roof or buy carbon neutral electricity from their utility. We need to at least make it possible for people to live carbon neutral if we what to and fast charge networks is more than a good start to make that possible. To live a carbon neutral life is comparable to giving charity or supporting education and research. It helps to ensure that fewer people die of air pollution and that there is a future for generations to come.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 1, 2008 1:22:35 AM
Tesla will be bought be another auto company the moment their production systems will start to get into gear.
Posted by: Joe | Jul 1, 2008 7:02:39 AM
Henrik, there is no need for a fast charge/exchange system. First off, the number of vehicles needing a range over 100 miles is tiny. Second, people needing greater range can purchase PHEVs, use their second car or rent. They wouldn't even have to rent a car. They could just rent a towable/mountable recharger. Fast charge or battery exchange programs aren't necessary and they certainly aren't limiting factors for EVs.
Heck, The trade off of limited range is more than made up for by much more convenient fueling. It is much less convenient to go to the gas station/"inconvenience" store once a week than to plug your car where you park it each evening. For this reason alone EVs are going to sell well even at a premium. When they reach price parity the market is going to swing very quickly. The plug is a selling point.
Posted by: Andy | Jul 1, 2008 7:48:40 AM
The plug is a selling point as the frequency of plugging in declines.
Posted by: Andy | Jul 1, 2008 7:52:13 AM
And, it would be gratifying to see some percentage of gas stations go away. Corner lots across CA should be reclaimed for retail/commercial or !! a pocket park!!
Posted by: gr | Jul 1, 2008 7:59:20 AM
Another Welfare Program for the Rich.
Posted by: HHN | Jul 1, 2008 8:46:53 AM
HHN is right-on brothers. All engineered of course by the axle of evil, GW Bush and Ahnold S.! Two old dweeb Republicans looking to feather their crew's nest. Next time please... Elect better actors.
Posted by: Sulleny | Jul 1, 2008 9:08:42 AM
Sulleny, I prefer 'Comrade' over 'brother.'
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Jul 1, 2008 10:00:55 AM
Class warfare and politicos aside, if there is a $30k EV with 200 miles range out on the market today, do you think the middle class Americans would WANT to buy one?
Looking at the typical $30K segment in US, an EV is nothing close to the standard offering at such a price point. The Volvo C30 is a $30k luxury car that can barely move off the lots here in US. Any EV today will still be a niche vehicle, even if gas goes to $X/gal. The only reason that a typical car buyer will seek out an EV is if we start having fuel shortage at the pump.
For now, EVs should either be more expensive for the halo effect or it should be very basic (low cost, no frills, low performance) for the early-adopters who wants to participate. A typical US family will more likely buy a used SUV before they will consider buying an EV. (BTW, I wish reports on poor new truck sales will include sales of used trucks and SUVs. I see far more dealer's tags on used SUVs than I see on new cars)
Posted by: Charles S | Jul 1, 2008 10:39:37 AM
@HHN
A fast charge network will reduce the total cost of car ownership per mile traveled so it is not a Welfare Program for the Rich. A rough estimate assuming $500 per kWh and $4 per gallon is that the different vehicle types can be ranked the following way when the >total cost of ownership< include the price of the vehicle, the cost of fuel and the cost of maintenance.
Most expensive transportation: Long-range EV Above 50kWh batteries.
Expensive transportation: Ordinary internal combustion engine vehicle.
Less expensive transportation: PHEV.
Cheapest transportation: Short range EVs using 10 to 20kWh batteries.
The problem is that the short range EVs need a dense fast charge network to be just as useful a vehicle like the long-range PHEVs or the ICEs. True enough the rich people that buy long-range EVs will also benefit from the fast charge grid but those who benefit the most are the more numerous who will buy affordable short-range EVs.
Thank you for bringing this issue up. It is kind of important.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 1, 2008 10:41:58 AM
Henrik, HHN was referring to the subsidies for the production plant.
I didn't want a phone with a music player. I never use it. I got a phone with a music player because it only came with that feature. Had I purchased one without a music player my utility would be the same. A feature that isn't used doesn't increase utility.
A vehicle range of 100 miles will cover the vast majority of trips in the U.S. Vehicles with a range over 100 miles wouldn't "need a dense fast charge network to be just as useful a vehicle like the long-range PHEVs or the ICEs." The utility of not taking weekly side trips to a filling station will easily outweigh the dis-utility of having to rent another vehicle for the once a year trip to Grandmas.
Posted by: Andy | Jul 1, 2008 11:48:07 AM
@Andy
I perfectly well understand that a 100 miles range can do perhaps as much as 90% of the average vehicle users’ miles done during the year but that does not really help you with the remaining 10% of the miles done during the year where you need to do travel more than 100 miles per trip. The least rich people (students, blue color workers etc) can’t afford more than one vehicle and they need the most affordable means of transportation that is not a compromise with anything an ICE vehicle can do, and that is a short range EV in a society with a fast charge network.
Of cause, the utility of short-range (<100 miles) to mid-range (<250 miles) EVs increases when fast charge networks are available. This is why you use a cell phone and not a walkie-talkie because the cell phone is a network capable walkie-talkie with a global network.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 1, 2008 12:52:16 PM
HHN: loved 'axle of evil'.
reminded me of the 'axes of evil', the lumber companies who dare to cut down redwoods.
Buying an SUV makes sense if it matches your needs and the price is low enough. Price can offset gasoline costs.
The weasel words are 'if it matches your needs'. During hard times some people quickly realize which 'needs' are merely wishes or whims. They adjust.
But maybe governments should decide what matches each person's needs. A personal carbon ration sounds dandy.
Posted by: K | Jul 1, 2008 1:13:16 PM
@ Henrik ~> "pass legislation requiring all 40000 gas stations to get one fast charger up no later than ultimo 2012"
Not!
I agree on the necessity of a recharge infrastructure.
I totally disagree on your preferred locations.
Recharge stations should be in the parking lots of Malls, Restaurants, Theaters, Tourist destinations, and workplaces. They need to be at normal destinations, not off in hidden spots away from any useful ways to spend our free time.
The Electric recharge infrastructure will be more grid limited than battery limited. It is just cheaper to charge a bit slower.
In any long trip rest stop I tend to spend at least 1/2 hour just to relax from driving stress, pee, and get a coffee. We can quite clearly recharge any sort of battery within a reasonable time frame. To make it work, these need to be seamlessly integrated with our lifestyle, not hidden away in a time wasting nightmare.
Japan has already began the transition to the new infrastructure with a new shopping plaza sporting plug in recharge stations for the cars that are not yet for sale.
Posted by: John Taylor | Jul 1, 2008 1:16:41 PM
@J. Tayler
Why not have both? We could have fast chargers at the typical places at gas stations but also at the malls, the restaurants, the workplaces, etc. The more the merrier. We need fast chargers at gas stations also because that will enable people to live 50 to 100 miles away from where they work and still be able to get back and forth fast in a low cost short range EV (<50 miles). Many people also have several houses. One apartment in the city and another home in the countryside and they need to go back and forth fast without spending time at a mall. Lots of different people with different lives and needs. I am convinced the chargers are more needed at the current gasoline stations because these stations have been carefully located to service as many people as possible in order to be profitable. However, they will also be needed at workplaces and malls most definitely, but I think they will come all by themselves because it is a smart way to attract customers and employees if you give them electricity for ‘free’ while they work, shop or eat.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 1, 2008 2:02:44 PM
For a very interesting report from Shai Agassi, Project Better Place and cost estimates for charging infrastructure and cost estimates for renewable energy infrastructure to support the EVs electricity needs see
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/01/shai-agassi-pitches-100-billion-plan/
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 1, 2008 2:25:07 PM
Henrick, 100 miles covers much more than 90 percent of the user trips. I believe it is in the high 90s and many of the long trips are by the same people. The numbers are skewed. Still, even if it was 90 percent, I just don't follow this line of reasoning. How is renting a car out of reach for the poor?
Even if renting was out of reach for the poor, how extensive would the recharging network need to be? People generally wouldn't need fast charge/exchange around town. It would only be truly needed in route. At best a few around town would be needed.
I personally don't think any amount of recharging stations is going to make the trip from NY to LA feasible on a vehicle with a 100 mile range. It is way too many stops. But, it doesn't have to. People can rent cars. As k notes:
"The weasel words are 'if it matches your needs'. During hard times some people quickly realize which 'needs' are merely wishes or whims. They adjust."
Posted by: Andy | Jul 1, 2008 2:35:17 PM
andy you are completely wrong. having taken dozens if not hundreds of long-haul trips (my wife and i used to drive 230-530 mi each way every week to see each other when we went to college or were on assignment in diff states..) i will tell you i'd keep my truck 100 years before buying a short-range ev...and i consider myself relatively "green". additionally, as i'm sure anyone who lives in the west knows 100 miles is not that much. (barely gets you from santa barbara to LAX, nevermind the traffic..)
telling people that they must rent a car or drive only x # of miles is eco-fascism. what it comes down to is that the vast majority are opposed to change and the only way to garner widespread acceptance of ev's is to make them comparable/competitive with regular vehicles.
here is where dual-fuel comes into play. a small gas/diesel/hydrogen/whatever you want to burn engine that can extend a 100-mi ev to a normal range is the optimal solution. i know, i used the h word...
Posted by: marc | Jul 1, 2008 8:43:49 PM
For heaven's sake - the entire argument is moot. Range extenders give you 1000 mile range if you put in a big enough fuel tank. Sure we want to go to BEV asap, but what's wrong with the 400+ mile range you get from a Volt or other series hybrid? No high density charge infrastructure, drive 400 miles, stop, charge over night drive 40 all-electric miles, fill up on E85, drive another 400 miles. If you use second gen biofuel you'll be green as a grasshopper all the way (tho, not EV green.)
Posted by: gr | Jul 1, 2008 10:32:55 PM
Our entire "100 mile range is not enough" argument applies only to first generation BEV's.
Obviously a 100 mile range will be a very serious compromise for anyone, which is why Tesla needed the 220 mile range it sports despite the very high battery cost. Within a few years the production and improvement of batteries will let longer range BEVs become available.
The thing to realize is that many people are willing and able to make the compromises necessary to drive a 100 mile range BEV. If there is an infrastructure to recharge, even more people will be willing to make those compromises, as the penalty will be less. My recommendation is to push for the most "user-friendly" infrastructure possible.
@ Henrik re gas stations as recharge infrastructure.
I can understand the rest stops on interstate & toll highways needing to be recharge stations, this is an obvious requirement for any first or second generation BEV to be able to travel longer distances. All other gas stations however are set up without long time (up to 1/2 hour) parking facilities, and without "rest stop" restaurant and activity facilities. It is far better to have inner city recharge at places that are "destination-oriented" such as shopping malls, so the recharge is a seamless pert of your life, not a time wasting nuisance.
Aptera was mentioned by GreenPlease. The approximate price for the all electric Aptera version is $27,000, a much more affordable cost. This is very much a "little sister car" to the Tesla, and deserves the same perks of production opportunities.
Posted by: John Taylor | Jul 2, 2008 3:36:05 AM
@J. Taylor
One of the very few things that we disagree about regarding EVs is the time it takes to charge the EV’s battery. As I get you, you think it will take 30 minutes or so and I think a typical EV recharge at a gas station will take 5 minutes or 2 minutes more than a gas fill up. I am convinced the most popular way to charge your electric car when away from the slow-charge-home-plug will be to charge it 60% in less than 5 minutes and then drive on at 75 mph for another 60 miles in order to make another quick charge and so forth until you get to your destination and is able to plug-in to the ordinary grid. In this way a 20kWh battery will never need to be depleted by more than 60% and it could last for 200,000 to 300,000 miles or much more than the typical 150,000 miles life of an ICE car.
Personally I will never use the plug at a restaurant, mall or theater simply because I don’t want to waste time, not even 2 minutes, to find a charger and connect a plug in order to save 50 cents for 5 kWh of electricity (because this is what you will get). People shop well within EV driving distance from their home and there is really no need to charge at the mall. It may work as a marketing gimmick and that should be tried for sure (coupons are popular (unbelievable waste of time) so why not free charging at malls). Ordinary grid charge at work and at home and 5 minutes fast charge at the gas station is how I see the coming EVs society.
I shall list some of the battery manufactures that have developed batteries that can fast charge.
A123: Can charge to 80% in 4 minutes.
http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/power/pchart5/
NEC/Nissan/Reneau: Can charge to 60% in 5 minutes.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/aesc-lithium-io.html
Toshiba: Can charge to 90% in 5 minutes
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/toshiba-launche.html
Toshibas battery is expensive, I think, so it may only be an option for high end cars.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 2, 2008 7:17:08 AM
"andy you are completely wrong. having taken dozens if not hundreds of long-haul trips (my wife and i used to drive 230-530 mi each way every week to see each other when we went to college or were on assignment in diff states..) i will tell you i'd keep my truck 100 years before buying a short-range ev."
marc, I never suggested the EV was the right vehicle for everybody. I said quite clearly that a limited number of people take most of the long haul trips thereby skewing numbers. For the people like yourself who take that many long haul trips a 100+ mile range EV wouldn't make sense as a primary vehicle. If you have two vehicles, it could still very well serve as your second vehicle. A PHEV could serve very effectively as your first vehicle. For other people who only take long trips once or twice a year, a 100+ mile range EV could easily serve as their primary vehicle with no problem and the only "compromise" being a once a year trip in a rental.
"Obviously a 100 mile range will be a very serious compromise for anyone, which is why Tesla needed the 220 mile range it sports despite the very high battery cost."
No, Tesla opted for a 220 mile range because people think they need much more range than they clearly do. The vast majority of the time when somebody drives 50 miles to get somewhere, they are going to be there a while. As long as the parking spots have charging, an EV will equate to fewer compromises than a traditional ICE vehicle. People will be able to fuel up where they are instead of having to make an additional trip to the gas station. Fast charge and battery exchange aren't needed. They would just make an EV even more convenient than a regular ICE vehicle. Parking spot charging is the only infrastructure needed and many parking spots already have this infrastructure in place. The additional infrastructure can be built as vehicle production ramps up.
Posted by: Andy | Jul 2, 2008 8:01:54 PM
"I am convinced the most popular way to charge your electric car when away from the slow-charge-home-plug will be to charge it 60% in less than 5 minutes and then drive on at 75 mph for another 60 miles in order to make another quick charge and so forth until you get to your destination and is able to plug-in to the ordinary grid."
Very few people are going to buy EVs and recharge them every 60 miles. I think people will buy PHEVs instead of EVs for longer trips and for remote locations. EVs will tend to be second vehicles and city vehicles until they can reach roughly the range and refueling times of ICEs. Should that never happen, that is still probably 50 percent of the total market.
Posted by: Andy | Jul 2, 2008 8:36:29 PM
@Andy
Even if charging every 60 miles in an EV whenever you drive long-distance trips during the year will cause the average driver to spend less time at the gas station than in a conventional car. Therefore people do not mind making a few stops for charging during the year. Below is a calculation of the trips needed to the gas/charge station during the year for an average driver.
1) Conventional ICE car:
12000 miles per year / 400 miles per fillup = 30 trips to the gas station in one year.
2) EV car:
(12000 miles per year *10% miles of long distance trips away from grid charging)/60 miles per charge = 20 trips to the charge station in one year.
I don’t think anybody would mind making fewer trips to the gas station. Build the fast charge stations and short range EVs are going to be the preferred vehicle choice for the majority of people.
Also remember electricity at 10 cents per kWh is only 20% to 25% of the price per mile run when gas is $4 gallon. With a battery price of $500 kWh the battery lease is about 30 cents per kWh so electric fuel is in total still cheaper than fueling conventional cars at today’s prices. And with increasing gas prices and decreasing battery prices time is working for EVs.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 2, 2008 11:41:21 PM
I don't understand all the fuss about the 1 time in 20 when you'd want to take your EV on trips longer than its capable range. In capitalism, "necessity is the mother of invention". Currently, gasoline generators cost less than $1000. Put a specially designed one on a small trailer. Then sell it to U-Haul. U-Haul then rents it out for $20 a day to EV owners who want to drive from Chicago to LA.
Then, once EV's are out, you can really start to design your charging stations to make EV ownership even easier. I don't see this as a hindrance to the emergence of EV's, providing these gen-trailers are marketed along with EV's and consumers are made aware how easy it would be to drive long distances.
Posted by: Mark_BC | Jul 3, 2008 4:13:49 AM
Range IS a big issue. Tell someone that their car will stop after 100 miles, but that should be no problem and see how far you get selling them.
Posted by: sjc | Jul 3, 2008 9:40:43 AM
I suggest an EV-Go-Kart lane for commuters. That would
take care of congestion. Heck, all I take to work is in
a backpack. It sounds stupid, but it's a great idea. I
might even put off retirement if going to work is fun
again. Take all big cars out of the Car Pool lane
including Prii.
Posted by: Clown Willie | Jul 3, 2008 3:01:33 PM
