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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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)

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.

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.