Detroit Auto Show: Tesla meets the Chevy Volt
Look who I found eyeballing a cutaway of the Chevy Volt?
Martin Eberhard (second from left) of Tesla Motors and Chris Paine (center) of "Who Killed the Electric Car" traded notes on the unique powertrain arrangement as the Detroit Auto Show press days started winding down. That's Chelsea Sexton there on the right. Pulling Eberhard aside, I asked him if Tesla engineers considered a self-generating concept. The answer was a quick "no." The long explanation was that the company could avoid crash testing for fuel-tank safety and EPA emissions requirements. The short explanation was that such a move would be a wasted effort.
"We're going for the finish line," Eberhard explained. "We think eventually cars will be electric, period."
I also asked Eberhard the possibility that electric cars could be penalized for pollution generated by electric plants that supply the grid.
"I've never heard of any such thing," he answered. "If you want to skirt that issue, when you buy an electric car you buy solar panels for your house at the same time."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
swright 3:08AM (2/12/2008)
One fact that shouldn't be overlooked is the versatility of the all-EV designs. Whether our grid is sustained by 50% cogen, as it currently is, or we move toward greener methods such as hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind, the EV is set to receive this power. Just plug in and drive.
It is an undeniable fact; our current fleets of ICE vehicles are dirty and inefficient and will at some point become obsolete, whether by the development of better alternatives or the eventual depletion of world reserves of oil. Down the road I envision clean fusion reactions producing abundant energy from either expensive hot fusion models or the more elusive yet promising cold fusion models.
Whatever may develop, I forsee electricity retaining its role as the only viable method for distributing this energy from generating plant to vehicle. The all-EV seems like a match made in heaven. And I can't help but comment that the Tesla is aptly named. After all, none of it, not even the power grid we all take for granted, would be possible without the work of that gifted Serbian immigrant.
Thanks Nikola.
P.S. (I may be biased, I am an electrician after all.. )
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 6:47PM (1/09/2007)
"If you want to skirt that issue, when you buy an electric car you buy solar panels for your house at the same time." -- Eberhard
One problem with that is that the solar cell is about the most expensive way that you can get electricity. With the possible exception of hydrogen fuel cell.
It is over an order of magnitude cheaper to just buy your electricity from your local electric utility. That may eventually change, but it will be a couple of years before solar cells are ready for Prime Time. Right now, it actually takes more energy to manufacture a solar cell than it will return over its useful life, using current commercial processes.
"The long explanation was that the company could avoid crash testing for fuel-tank safety and EPA emissions requirements."
That would obviously be more of an obstacle for Tesla than for GM, so pure EV would make sense for Tesla.
Eberhard obviously thinks pure EV is the (only) way to go, and GM disagrees. I don't see any problem here; let both of them compete and see which technology prevails. It's possible that both approaches will work well for different sets of customers. Or neither... Real-world economics should sort that out quite nicely. However, if I were to bet, my money would be on the diesel-electric series PHEV. I welcome both the Volt and the Tesla, and wish both great success.
Reply
Darell 7:06PM (1/09/2007)
"One problem with that is that the solar cell is about the most expensive way that you can get electricity. With the possible exception of hydrogen
It is over an order of magnitude cheaper to just buy your electricity from your local electric utility."
This could be true if it weren't for reality getting in the way. Speaking as somebody who used to buy 100% of his electricity from the grid, and who now generates his power with solar, I can tell you that my PV array paid for itself the moment I turned it on. My PV array replaces $70/month (average) worth of electricity for my home, and $100/month (average) worth of gasoline for my car. And the loan I took out to install the system is costing my $70/month. Each month I've had the system on, I save about $100.
"it will be a couple of years before solar cells are ready for Prime Time."
My system is 3.5 years old. How great will it be when these things actually achieve prime time status?
"Right now, it actually takes more energy to manufacture a solar cell than it will return over its useful life, using current commercial processes."
While I realize this has been said many times, please do a bit of research. You will soon find that the energy is paid back in 2-4 years. And then for the next 30 years, it is all gravy.
Reply
OhmExcited 11:43AM (1/10/2007)
Tesla does not have the infrastructure, expertise, or support systems necessary to integrate an internal combustion engine in their vehicles, whereas GM has been doing that for over 100 years. Thus, Tesla focuses on high performance, high price, electric only. GM focuses on high volume, lower price, and practical. There's room for both and won't be direct competetitors in the near future.
Reply
Al Benoit 9:36PM (1/09/2007)
As far as energy payback for solar, the figure I've seen is about 5 years, and I suppose this can vary depending on the manufacturer, nevertheless this is still very much viable, since the cells should generate energy for 30+ years.
Reply
A5-14 10:12AM (1/10/2007)
With all these assertions, will someone provide a link that substantiates their assertions?
If you've "done the research", it shouldn't take much effort.
Thanks.
Reply
Tim 10:08AM (1/10/2007)
GM just took their ball back and maybe they will actually run with it. If handled properly (and quickly), they can change the publics perception from "GM the Villain" to "GM the Hero." Maybe even GM the Savior? Heck, they can even make a lot of money along the way. We shall see…
Anyway, this would not be possible without (1) recent battery breakthroughs, (2) Tesla Fever, (3) "Chris Payne’s “Who Killed the Electric Car" and (4) Al Gore’s Chicken Little impression.
Reply
Phil L. 9:59AM (1/10/2007)
Darell -
You got a PV system for your home that completely replaces *all* grid-supplied electricy AND *all* of your (formerly) gasoline powered transportation? PLUS you were able to purchase this capability for a loan in the $70/month range?
Now you've got my attention. Can you supply some more details (size/actual cost/capability/what EV you're using, etc)? Your experience would appear to be far more encouraging than what I've discovered in my research.
Please, please: Share what you've learned!
Reply
Renegade 4:25PM (1/10/2007)
"Anyway, this would not be possible without (1) recent battery breakthroughs, (2) Tesla Fever, (3) "Chris Payne’s “Who Killed the Electric Car" and (4) Al Gore’s Chicken Little impression."
-- Even a company as big as GM cannot develop a program like this that quickly. To suggest that a movie or "Tesla Fever" drove the development of the Volt is idiocy. However, battery technology sounds like the key, and the world now just needs it to accelerate even more.
And, for true sustainability, shouldn't the question be the recyclability of the new batteries, the type of plant needed to produce them, AND the type of energy being used to charge them? It's all part of the equation, just like one should look at the environmental impact of production of IC vehicle facilities for comparison.
Reply
Phil L. 5:53PM (1/10/2007)
A5-14:
As you're discovering, there are lots of sources of information out there. Lots of manufacturers are willing to spout numbers that help them sell products - but I've had a harder time coming up with useful information based on real-life experiences (which is why I'm hoping Darell will see this thread and share some details).
In any case, some useful places to get started:
This link includes energy payback estimates for current technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics
I found the FAQs at a local alternative energy company to be useful:
http://www.cwsenergy.com/
And some FAQs put together by the Department of Energy:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/cfm/faqs/third_level.cfm/name=Photovoltaics/cat=Financial%20Considerations
After all of this, I'm still hoping for some good local alternative energy experiences (US Mid-Atlantic region).
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 2:41PM (1/10/2007)
Well, Mr. Darell, please give some details. The best I could find with today's technology was a fully-loaded cost of roughly 40 cents/KwH, or about 3 times the current rate that I pay to TU Electric Utility. 4 years ago, the cost of solar cells was in the 50-70 cents/KwH range.
You didn't really give enough information to do a thorough analysis, but given the money figures and the estimated cost of utility-provided electricity from 4 years ago, your solar panel must be about 50-60 square meters, assuming the 8-11% efficiency (overall, including inverter losses) that was state-of-the-art at that time. If you got amorphous silicon (cheaper, but less efficient), your array must be around 100 square meters (I don't have that much south-facing roof, so it would be interesting to know what sort of mansion you live in). I'd like to know how you managed to get an array that size that you could finance for $70/month 3.5 years ago.
Or were your claims grossly exaggerated? If not, I would like to know the actual size, generation capacity in KwH/day, total installed cost, and where to buy this miraculous solar panel.
Solar cell efficiency has nearly doubled in the last 5 years or so, and there is some new technology that hasn't hit the streets yet that promises to push conversion efficiency up into the 25% range; maybe even farther. When that happens (provided the process is not a lot more expensive), solar power may be ready for Prime Time.
Reply
D.E. Lane 4:03PM (1/10/2007)
"With all these assertions, will someone provide a link that substantiates their assertions?"
Yes, start here for a summary of more than 30 studies, analyses, and presentations on this topic:
1)http://www.sherryboschert.com/Emissions%5B9%5D.pdf
Visit pluginamerica.org and go to their links and references section.
The Tesla Motors site is replete with info, from well-to-wheels efficiency to solar options.
Calcars.org is a must.
And visit evnut.com
Reply
Tim 6:55PM (1/10/2007)
Renegade- Lutz said that it was the public interest in Tesla's cars that prompted GM to "adjust" their Volt "fuel cell" concept to a Volt “E-Flex” concept. Without Tesla and the new battery tech., GM would not have made this bold move... period!
Reply
Tim 7:51PM (1/10/2007)
In a series hybrid, all power flows through the battery constantly in both directions, full acceleration, charging, and full deceleration like sand in an hourglass. This is much more demanding than battery requirements in a BEV or a parallel hybrid. Only the new nano-tech l-ion or super-caps can handle the loads and maintain a usable working life. Both of these are very new technologies that have never been used in production cars. The US gov’t will require safety and reliability tests. GM and consumers require competitive pricing and a long working life. I want to stop feeding terrorists who can’t wait to die to kill me. It’s war and E-Flex should be a national security priority!
Reply
Phred 5:20AM (1/16/2007)
"never heard of" pollution generated by electric plants?
Please tell me I misunderstood that.
Reply
Paul G 8:40AM (1/16/2007)
Phred, you misunderstood that. He said that he never heard of electric cars being "penalized for pollution generated by electric plants". I've never heard of that either.
Reply
KLEI 6:51PM (1/17/2007)
Well, mobil DID pay newspaper companies to write editorials stating that "the environmental benefits of electric cars are dubious" because polution is generated at the power plant. This is known as the "long tailpipe theory" ( i'm sure alot of you knew about it already though ;) ). I find that this theory is often repeated by the skeptics (sorry if i spelled that wrong) and the lesser informed. However, numerous studies have been conducted to test this theory and it has been debunked time and time again. Even if your electricity is generated from coal or oil, there is a signifigant reduction of greenhouse gasses being emitted into the air per distance driven ( you put out less emissions for the distance that you go in an electric car. ). of course, alot of the electricity transmitted along the US power grid is from non poluting sources ( solar, wind, hydro ect.) so the resulting greenhouse gas emmisions from an electric car in the US are quite low.
I think that EVs are a great soulution for many things, and that a plug in is a *good* way to get to an "electrcon economy"
Just my 2 cents :)
- Klei
Reply