Hacker News Reader

Comment by bugsy | Hacker News Reader

$58,0000 for 160 mile range, $80,000 for extra batteries to bring it up to 300 mile range, which is $22,000 more. The extra weight of the batteries reduces mileage slightly so the extra pack doubles the battery capacity. Now battery cost is the big problem, so the $22,000 pack is being sold at near cost. So a 300 mile range battery pack from 0 mile range is $44,000, this is the cost of the two packs. Batteries need to be replaced every 3-6 years depending on use, so figure $9000/yr battery cost for this machine, not including the $1000 or so fees for disposing of the toxic waste (lithium batteries are not accepted at the dump).

So yes, you save on gas driving this machine and save the environment by not emitting as many fumes. But it costs $9000 a year to maintain the batteries, which are a serious toxic waste disposal problem.

Not harping on Tesla here though, this is the basic problem with electric cars.

View on HN

I've had my roadster (#16) for almost three years now.

It's the most exciting car driving experience I've ever had.

http://green.autoblog.com/photos/jason-calacanis-tesla-roads...

I've done over 10,000 miles and it is my daily driver (i'm four miles from my office). I drive about 20 miles a day.

The batter charge is the same as when I got it.

I'm serial #1 and #85 of the sedan. I sent two full deposits the day they announced the price.

The top Tesla engineer and the top designer walked me through the design, drawings and I've driven in the prototypes. Model S is AWESOME. It's got something like a 24" computer monitor flipped to it's side as the center console. It's got not engine so there is storage in the front and the back. It's UBER fast.... similar to the roadster in the prototype i drove in.

The model S will be the best car on the road--hands down--next summer.

Was the Roadster ready for prime time? No. It is a very raw proof point along the way to non-carbon based transportation.

The price is going to keep getting cut in half, and thanks to home solar plummeting in price, I'm predicting we're going to see many homes have one plug-in hybrid for long-range, one EV for daily driving and solar panels.

When gas hits $6-8 a gallon, and that will happen over the next five years, folks will really start embracing solar and EVs. Just like they embraced hybrids when gas hit $4-5 a gallon.

To think that 10 years from now the concept of smog clouds over Los Angeles and other cities will start to go away... is... just.... mind blowing.

(Not being snarky, serious question) - I do your three year milage every 20 weeks. Any idea how well the battery would hold up to that?

Also, what's the range if you hold it at a steady 110-120kph?

The legacy of the Roadster won't be its practicality, it'll be that it divorced the terms "electric car" and "golf cart" in a way that something like the ZENN (or the old EVO) never could. If all it ever did was to keep people from thinking about zero-to-sixty times in weeks (downhill and with a following gale force wind), then the car has done its job. It's proven the concept well enough to generate some excitement around storage technologies -- and now we wait for the next generation. (Well, I do -- electrochemical research is not my forte.)

There's two ways to disrupt a market - starting at the top, and starting at the bottom. Electric cars can't disrupt from the bottom, because the regulatory burden is likely to be too high. Cut too many costs, and the car will be banned.

Starting at the top means that rich idiots who want to pretend to save the earth can buy it, and you can then look at moving down.

OK, there's electric motorbikes at the bottom, and three wheeled cars classed as motorbikes, but they will struggle to bridge the legislative gap between cars and motorbikes.

Why do they have to be idiots to buy it?

Anyone who buys a BMW or Porsche or any other car in that price range is looking at more than just the ability to get from point A to point B. The Tesla Roadster is plain fun to drive, and it is a conversation piece in the way $120,000 Porsche is not. I was at a racetrack recently where the Tesla Roadster was parked between a bunch cars worth far more money, but everyone was interested in the Tesla because it was unique.

Most of them are under no illusions that they are saving the planet, and most people realize it is not cheaper than buying another car. But it's a toy, I'm sure you have some hobby where you spend money on things for fun. That doesn't make you an idiot.

Fair enough. I think spending ~$100k on a car is stupid, but that may be biased by the fact that I can't afford to. And it's a lot less stupid than similar cars - lots of acceleration (I'm guessing), and it's a real eye catcher.

  not including the $1000 or so fees for disposing 
  of the toxic waste (lithium batteries are not 
  accepted at the dump)

Not in the US, at least according to the info I can find:

  "Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the 
  federal government as non-hazardous waste and 
  are safe for disposal in the normal municipal 
  waste stream," says Kate Krebs at the National 
  Recycling Coalition.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/3285

Tesla also has a battery recycling program, but I'm not familiar with the specifics.

"Batteries need to be replaced every 3-6 years depending on use"

Please cite your source on this. AFAIK, the batteries in most electric cars are good for the life of the vehicle. They're designed to use only part of their capacity to extend life and then compensate as much as possible for loss of charge over time..

And they pay you to recycle lithium-ion batteries, and they aren't very toxic at all.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling...

Ok, no problem. Please state the "life of the vehicle" that you mention in miles driven and years of ownership. Also state whether this figure is backed in a legally binding warranty on said batteries. Then we'll figure the cost of maintaining the batteries.

Also, to be fair, we should note that the tesla.com link you give is to a program they are hoping to implement in the future and which does not actually exist in real life. Also note that they themselves in the link which you yourself provided state "Aside from the cells, most components in our ESS are designed to last the life of the car." Note the "aside from the cells". The lithium cells are the main cost of the battery. Without them the car does not work. Tesla specifically states there that the cells are not designed to last the life of the vehicle, which you had claimed.

  the tesla.com link you give is to a program 
  they are hoping to implement in the future

That link is from 2008. At least in Europe, the program has been implemented:

http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-launch...

Thanks very much for that. So according to tesla's latest information at that link, the program doesn't actually pay money back as was claimed, but it also doesn't cost anything to dispose. It also states that 7 years or 160,000km (99,400 miles) is the expected typical life of the battery. 99,400/7 = 14,200 miles per year, expected usage, about 60 miles a day for 250 work days.

Haven't found the warranty information though which will tell us the real expected life for the Sedan. For the Roadsters, they come with a 3 year/36,000 mile warranty, but that does not include a battery replacement warranty, which is an additional purchase.

Musk stated in 2009 that a single battery pack replacement for the Roadster would cost $36,000 in 2009 dollars, but it seems to be something that wasn't actually available yet. (http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/02/tesla-battery-pack-repla...) There he also explains that the battery pseudo-warranty costs $12,000 extra. The inverse pro-rated pseudo-warranty is structured so that customers have to pay an additional fee if the battery fails before 7 years, and get a partial refund if they last more than 7 years.

What would an owner do at his car's end of life if Tesla has previously gone out of business?

Nobody should be under any illusions that Teslas save money; they're trying to use the luxury "conspicuous conservation" market to fund enough R&D to get to the point where electric will be cheaper.

bugsy was talking about the Model S sedan, not the Roadster, which is a step in the direction you're talking about. His point, I believe, is that the economics of generation two still don't work if your intention is to save money.

I was also talking about the Model S. I think Tesla is thinking pretty long term; it may take them four or five generations to reach cost parity with gasoline (if ever).

If those lithium-ion batteries are about as good as the batteries in laptops they should be good for about 300 to 500 cycles. After those 300 to 500 cycles laptop batteries are typically expected to retain between 80 and 70 percent of their charge.

That would be about 130,000km to 210,000km (assuming a linear decline in battery capacity – which might very well be wrong) with the 483km range battery.

That’s about 60km to 96km per day (and between 83km and 134km per day if the car is only used on weekdays, e.g. for commuting) if you want to get by with the battery for six years.

If you have 2 battery packs you would still have a longer range at 70% charge than a single battery pack roadster. Still let's call it ~100k miles. Assuming 30mpg and premium gas (this is a sports car) your saving ~4$ every 30 miles by using electricity or ~13.3k. Drop that to 15MPG and your saving ~28k which is about what one pack cost.

Lithium ion batteries, such as those in laptops, don't degrade based on charge/discharge cycles the way that older generations (NiCd, NiMH etc) did, but rather lose permanent capacity mostly as a function of time and temperature (although discharging below 20% or so exacerbates this).

I'm pretty sure you save nothing by driving this car. Think about this:

1. Energy and materials for manufacturing the batteries

2. Energy for recycling the batteries

3. Energy to charge the batteries

4. Energy to mine the coal (most common fuel in the U.S.) to produce the electricity

5. Energy losses on the power lines, transformers, etc.

If you are after saving the environment, buy a used Geo instead. However, Tesla makes damn cool cars.

This is a really good point: if you are going to buy a car anyway, it might be better to buy an electric car (though I, personally, doubt it, and would love to see the actual environmental impact), but if you want to help the environment, buy a used car. Almost any used car will be better for the environment than the best new car.

That's true as far as it goes, but this gets very tricky to analyze, because if you don't buy the used car, someone else will. If you do buy it, what would the other buyer have done instead? (Bought a new car? Kept running their old car?)

Assuming it's not a gross polluter, keeping a car on the road longer than it would have been otherwise is probably a win, since that extends the average lifetime of the fleet and reduces demand for new cars. But that has more to do with good maintenance over the life of the car, rather than what transactions happened along the way.

I'm missing some point here. Isn't a new car more environment friendly?

I would think it depends on the new car and the old car and usage, but the idea is that a large amount of resources goes in to making a car so saving that initial outlay of resources by reusing an older car would more than cover the difference in fuel consumption.

..but the idea is that a large amount of resources goes in to making a car so saving that initial outlay of resources..

If so, then why work? Isn't that a waste of Energy, time and resources? We could simply live on like humans did thousands of years ago...

> If so, then why work?

Most people need to pay the bills. Room, board, that sort of thing.

> Isn't that a waste of Energy, time and resources?

Work for work's sake -- perhaps. If you rather receive something desirable in proportional exchange for your labor, then no.

> We could simply live on like humans did thousands of years ago...

Whaddya mean we? All 7 billion of us? Not a chance. 7 million, maybe. I, for one, am getting up at 8am tomorrow.

Not at all. It takes a lot of energy and materials to mine and process the raw materials to create a new car. You have to take into account the whole process, from building new mines, to creating sheet aluminum, to building the factories to put new cars together. The list goes on.

Electronic cars are about large scale infrastructure change.

There is the advantage that the pollution coming from this car is from fairly centralized sources. The power pollution is at the plant, not the tailpipe, and you're not building a car that inherently depends upon coal. It could run off any power source you can attach to the grid.

The battery pack stays with the car until you're in EOL mode for it, which can then likely be recycled reasonably.

Sure. However, in the US, no new nuclear power plants have been built since the 70s and no new ones are planned. Here, the relatively clean sources of electricity (nuclear and hydro) make up less than 20% of the total production [1]. And once again, the amount of energy that goes into the production of the batteries I bet far outweighs the energy used to drive the car for a few years (have not done the actual numbers). Yes, if we start adding cogeneration capabilities [2] to our coal-fired power plants, we may come out somewhat ahead. However, almost nobody does it currently, except small universities.

As for attaching solar panels to the roof of your house, you might break even assuming you get a full subsidy from your state and the panels outlast their expected lifetime. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source for more fun facts.

Fun fact: I once calculated that adding cogeneration to one average sized coal power plant would more than make up for all the energy spent making and recycling plastic grocery bags. There are thousands of these plants in the US.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration

Don't forget the environmentally destructive mining of rare earth metals in China.

Do you positively know that the Model S will use rare earth metals in its manufacturing process?

I'm asking this because the Tesla Roadster uses a three-phase electric motor (called an induction motor) that does not rely on permanent magnets. This leaves the decision to use rare earth metals as a purely optional one (like in, maybe use them for the chassis). I was under the impression that the Model S would be using the same type of electric motor, but I may be wrong.

Of course, we still must not forget the environmentally destructive mining of lithium, needed for the Li-Ion battery pack.

This sparked a thought experiment in my mind.

Let's assume that we are in an age where the grand majority has an electric car which is charged from home. Let's also assume that the electrical consumption of all other electrical devices (appliances, electronics, lights etc) stays constant.

What extra load will electric cars add to the power grid?

Would the extra power plants required to meet this extra load add up to a relatively equal waste output as today's cars?

e: grammar, clarity

From what I gather, currently you need to check with your utility company to see if they can deliver enough power to your home before installing a charging station. They are concerned about it, so I imagine they are not ready to charge any significant proportion of cars.

Yeah, the Roadster requires a 220V/70A charging system. I've owned a lot of homes and don't recall ever having seen beyond 220v/30A lines for electric dryers and stoves. A 70A line is definitely requiring a new service box for just about any residential set up. The Model S requires 440V service. No idea how that is going to work, I've never seen a house anywhere in the world with 440V AC service. For this you're going to need the electric company to set up a separate transformer on the pole just for your house.

But charging is mostly at night when there is an excess of capacity, so that is a good thing.

I hear people talking about using solar panels to charge these things. There is no solar service on any residential house that is going to be providing 220V 70A service for recharging these cars.

Assume:

  $4/gallon gasoline.
  45 miles per gallon for commuter car.
  The average driver in the US drives 15,000 miles/year.

Therefore:

  $9000 / $4 = 2250 gallons.
  2250 gallons * 45 mpg = 101250 miles
  101250 mi / 15000 mi = 6.75

You must drive the electric car 6.75 times further each year than the gasoline powered car for your battery costs to break even with gas costs.

If you are driving that much, you will wear out the batteries even faster than the norm causing the battery cost to be even higher.

Alternately, it's cheaper to drive a fuel-efficient gasoline car like a Volkswagon Jetta until gasoline gets up to $27/gallon.

You should compare it to something that's near its performance class, since people are obviously not going to buy the Model S just to save money. That's going to be a future model.

At under 5 seconds 0-60, the Model S sport is supposedly going to have performance in the 500 horsepower BMW M5 range, which gets a combined MPG of 13 (11 city, 17 highway).

Besides that, the M5 is more like $90k.

"Batteries need to be replaced every 3-6 years depending on use, so figure $9000/yr battery cost for this machine, not including the $1000 or so fees for disposing of the toxic waste (lithium batteries are not accepted at the dump)."

Batteries are going to be way more cheaper when you give the old battery, in fact as technology improves, they even can give you money if you replace the battery( when nano materials improve, you need way less lithium and other raw materials that will be more expensive as demand grows up).

"which are a serious toxic waste disposal problem."

You will be stupid if you throw them away "at the dump": (Those people extract lithium, watch the tendency)

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:SQM

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:FMC

Recycling batteries is very easy to do, compared to extracting it from the earth.

I agree with you that you are not exactly saving the environment by rollin on Lithium. Heck, you didn't even take into account the environmental damage of mining it in China, talk about an environmental disaster.

I think the point of Tesla is more to push the technology of electric cars forward, to a point where someday it reaches a critical mass, or proper economy of scale, to the point where it is efficient.

Also, I was strolling around Montreal the other weekend, and saw a Roadster at a red light. Me being the drunken asshole that I am yelled "yo tesla dude, gun it". And let me tell you what, that car takes off like a friggin rocket, but quiet as hell, all you hear is the tires begging for grip. I want one.

9K/yr during first 3-6 years is in the range of typical depreciation for an 80K car

Reply on news.ycombinator.com