Tesla Founders Blog

Hi,

I enjoyed your blog entry a lot, esp. as a fan of small cars. I’m very much looking forward to hearing about the Smart ownership experience, from both automotive industry and personal acquisition perspectives.

Hopefully looking at YouTube videos of Smarts with hot Suzuki GSXR bike motors won’t get you in trouble. Just kidding, although your MR-2 reveals you as a seriously uninhibited car guy. My current fantasy is an AC propulsion conversion of a Smart; 150 kW sounds about right.

Smart will hopefully sell an electric version here, although probably not before a lot of other stuff is available.

The “land of the dirt people” line got a good laugh out of me. You may be aware that there’s another, albeit less humorous, meaning to that: the area is, or at least used to be, the closest good off road motorcycle riding area to the LA area. The most vehicular fun I’ve ever had is trail riding motocross bikes, there and in nearby Lockwood Valley, so being called a dirt guy would be an honor. If I still lived in the state I might be at Artesian Springs in Bouquet Canyon right now.

Looking forward to reading more,

Steve S.

As always, I related very closely to what you (and Martin) write on your blogs.

I also had a street car (Rx7 turbo) that I slowly morphed into a race car (autocross basically). When I ran into the need for more octane to support the 300hp+ 12psi+ boost habit, I ended up converting it to run on LPG/propane which is effectively about 112 octane. Back when I did that, propane was less than $1/gallon, and it was easy to find places to fill up (getting in line between all the barbecue grille people). So, another reason why the performance tuners end up crossing paths with the alternative fuel crowd.

Is there a particular EV you have in mind for the garage hook-up? Do you have a Tesla on order by any chance?

In case anyone hasn’t noticed, some big news out of Tesla today on the Roadster plans.

I would love to hear which EV’s Martin and David (and, for that matter everyone else on the blog)are most excited about. What do you guys think?

##Jason said: I wouldn’t say that this conforms with Martin’s original suggestion, because he was ready to toss away the cars original performance specs, which are necessary to compete with ICE roadsters in that price range.

A bit harsh Jason, don’t you think. At the point where martin was originally proposing a single speed transmission I doubt that any promises had been made to anybody. If his argument on transmission had won the day who knows whether they would have decided to uprate the PEM, install the extra cooling etc and offer what they are now offering.
Good news that it’s finally sorted anyway. A pity Martin won’t be able to say very much

Oh, and BTW, they are VERY tuneable I got 20% increase in power with just a remap.

Jason, I don’t know how you know what Martin was or wasn’t pushing for at the time when these decisions were made. Surely it would have been a private conversation with Elon and the other backers. It may be that he felt that a single-gear car with 0-60 in 5.7 seconds, which would be the result without these latest mods, would have been acceptable, if no promises had been made of 0-60 in 4 seconds. A lot of people might agree with that. Or Martin might have pushed for a slightly lower top speed with better acceleration. Or in the end he may have decided that water-cooling and the changes to the PEM were necessary. Just because it is a disruptive technology that doesn’t mean it has to better every possible competitor in every possible area. No attempt was even made to better a Ferarri or a Porsche on top speed or luxury for example and I haven’t heard too many complaints about that because the end result is reasonable. An electric car is a different beast and can compete in other areas such as economy and ease of obtaining the performance as well as low maintenance, quite apart from its green credentials which would be important to some customers. There’s far too much concentration on 0-60 in my opinion. It is important not to be a slow accelerating car, of course, but an easily obtained 5.7 seconds is hardly slow. Even now at 4 seconds there are cars that can do better. Are they going to be obliged to match every possible competitor? There are Caterhams and Radicals that will easily beat this time but of course, you’ll say, a Caterham is a different kind of car….just as a Ferrari or a Porsche is a different kind of car.

David,
having driven a Smart diesel in 2005, I know that you and Roberta are going to have a lot of fun in your new one! Of course, I’m going to have to borrow it and see if it does donuts around my cul de sac as well as the ‘05 did…

You should get some other owners together in a little while for a “friendly” game of
car football (soccer)!

I’ll gladly agree that the Smart seems to be a wellengineered small car, but I’ve never really seen the love it’s getting as a green car.
Looking at its specs the smallest diesel is more frugal than the Polo Bluemotion from VW, but not by a wide margin and as it’s a 45hp diesel I doubt it would sell very well in the US. Except for that, every other engine variant has a bigger CO2 footprint than the Polo Bluemotion. And the Polo has a huge advantage, tight seating for 5 adults…
Checking the US VW site I see they are only selling a Golf (as a Rabbit) with an insane engine, and not the smaller Polo model. Check out the UK VW site to see what you are missing.
So in regards to what is actually available in the US now the Smart seems like a good choice.

Cobos

Jason, you are swapping definitions of “performance” when you talk about the Roadster in terms of the Innovator’s Dilemma/Solution. In these theoretical discussions the term is much more inclusive than what we typically think of as “performance” in automotive terms. For example, being six times as efficient as a competing product is a performance advantage from the Innovator’s Dilemma point of view. Not emitting pollution is another. As previously stated, the Solution does not require performance enhancement in *all* categories. Nor does it require them in any specific, limited scope, such as acceleration or top speed. If your argument were actually correct, the project would be dead long ago due to inability to best ICE cars in range. Luckily, your argument isn’t correct.

But back to the main point, which is your claim that Martin wanted to change the specs. Andrew made very reasonable points that a)there were no specs to change at the time, b)you have no way of knowing what Martin said or thought, and c)You have absolutely no evidence to support this position. Your response seems to have been to repeat yourself without providing any evidence. That is not only poor debating, but it’s also no fun for anybody.

Hunter,

In Innovator’s Dilemma / Solution, you must meet typical requirements (acceleration, top speed, styling, etc.), and then beat others with the disruptive technology (efficiency / emissions / noise). A 5.7 sec 0-60 does NOT come close to small roadsters in this price range, but sub-4.0 sec 0-60 does fall below the threshold. No, it’s not the fastest, but fast enough. I am well versed / experienced in this, don’t waste your time debating me.

As for Martin, I am just repeating what he and his surrogates have said themselves, so go gripe to them if you don’t like the arguements / points that I present.

All is well that ends well, and it sounds like everyone gets what they want, so let it go. Just don’t tell me that Martin “got his way” with the transmission. He did get his way with the other 95%, so quit while you are ahead.

Martin sez:

You are actually not repeating what I said at all. You are attempting to paraphrase what I said, and misunderstanding me in the process.

Here is the official announcement in the SJ Merc:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8066838?nclick_check=1

Timo,

It would be interesting to know what happened with the two 2-speed transmissions they were testing. They may have been passing the durability tests, but this new solution may prove faster, cheaper and more reliable then either 2-speed, regardless of durability.

Hunter,

It is clear that you don’t understand Christensen’s books, as I elaborated EXACTLY what typical performance metrics needed to be MET, while the disruptive technology is used to BEAT other aspects of the product. Martin’s approach was to offer the disruptive tech without MEETING the standard performance requirements for a vehicle of that price range – end of story. You can go on and on about debate techniques, but that is the jist of the situation. Fortunately, the new approach solves everything – end of argument.

I have personally utilized Christensen’s techniques in my own product developments, and you can view the patents for yourself, which I converted into seven figures worth of sales and license deals. I saw for myself the bifurcation of the market pertaining to a disruptive tech, as it appeared in the market data I distilled from customer sample requests – did you get that? I directly experienced what Christensen discussed and can back it up with marketing data.

Call me what you want, but I do know what I am talking about, and Tesla Motors held firm to those performance requirements as I am sure their own market data (customers) demanded.

Hunter I think the Smart started out as an idea by Nicholas Hayek who was the Swatch watch guy but then got taken up by Mercedes Benz. You describe it as a low-cost glider but it really isn’t seen as a low cost vehicle over here. For its category it’s really quite an expensive car. The Citroen C1, Aygo, Peugeot (one car with three versions) is much cheaper and has four seats. The Smart is very fashionable and classless….a bit like the original mini back in the sixties.

Martin sez:

To my American eye, all the other European miniature cars were ugly and uncool. Obviously useful on the narrow roads of old cities, but not the sort of car I would brag about. The Smart was totally different. It looked very good, it was marketed in a cool way. If I lived in Europe, I would definitely have bought one, despite the fact that it was more expensive than, say, a Twingo. I just loved seeing them parked nose-in to the curb/kerb where all the other cars were parallel parked. Smart owners seemed to delight in parking them where no other car would fit.

Jason, thanks for sharpening my points. Please note that you have now managed to shrilly repeat your misinformation about “Martin’s approach” even after Martin himself said you were misinterpreting him. Do you really think you know what his approach was better than he does? Should he not waste his time debating you?

Also, since you now are repeating (once more) your misunderstanding of disruptive technology IN CAPS, let me at least point out where you have it wrong: the disruptive technology must meet customers’ needs in some (typically initially very small) market segment. This does not at all mean it must have parity with its competitors’ features or performance. In fact one of Christensen’s central points is that disruptive technologies almost always fall far short of competitor performance in the early days. This was the case with PC vs. Mainframe, NT vs. Unix, Linux vs. Everything, etc. Now then, let’s try something new: before you repeat your conclusion (Again!) try addressing any one of those examples and tell us how it had performance parity with the sustaining technology. Alternatively, give us an example he uses of a disruptive technology that did. Otherwise, please spare us another rehash of exactly the same material.

I had been blogging in the early days “why not one speed” and “why not liquid cooled”. My main point was not prediction of the future problems, but rather “that is what it seemed like all the big players did last time around” and it seemed like Tesla was trying to otherwise play it safe with some proven technology (like many Lotus engineered subsystems) so why risk so many new things?

I was just asking “why” questions, but (in hindsight) I may have been probing in problem areas by mistake. Someone asked me if I had “inside info” and the answer is definitely “no”. I knew of some people who worked there but they didn’t tell me anything about what was going on. I was just asking a bunch of curious questions.

Regarding the latest Tesla news – I think we should hold off on speculating “specs” for the new powertrain design. The only thing I read is “0 to 60 is still under 4s”, and “it is more efficient”. Redline and top speed weren’t reported as far as I can tell. Also, it sounds like the news is still preliminary, so lets not make the same mistake of holding them to any particular specs just yet.

Hunter,

Christensen says a disruptive technology overtakes a market in any / all of three ways:

1) A disruptive tech is implemented into the high end of a market, in which a product meets / beats the performance of existing high end products in all areas. (Tesla’s approach)

2) A disruptive tech is implemented into the low end of a market, in which a product matches the performance of existing low end products, but sells at a lower cost (or same cost / higher profit margin). (Air car, Zap, Zenn)

3) A disruptive tech is implemented into a product in a parallel market, where it gains exceptance and proof of design (A123 batteries used in power tools prior to adoption by auto industry, displacing NiMH and Lead Acid batteries, which were completely blindsided).

PC vs. Mainframe, NT vs. Unix, Linux vs. Everything – I don’t believe these are examples of a disruptive technologies, just competing offerings within markets to serve different market needs. I suppose that PC’s can be seen, in some cases, as coming into the low end of the mainframe market (path #2), eventually displacing them, but really, PC’s are used in ways mainframes were never intended – email, web browsing, document creation, personal spreadsheets, etc., so its a whole new market that was created.

Yanq,

For $100K, damn right I want that kind of performance from a roadster. If you don’t want it, then you can go buy a ZAP, Zenn or Aptera for $15 – $30K. Better still, wait until 2010, and buy a Chevy Volt.

Well, it looks like Tesla has told owners to be that the top speed of the revised “one speed that can do 0-60 in 4s” is about 120mph. That seems plenty fine with me, and being able to do the 1/4 mile quicker without any shifting seems to be a worthy trade-off.

Hunter, I never think average prices for the whole market mean very much. The important thing to me is how a car is positioned against its direct competitors. The Smart occupies a very special position in the market and that enables it to command a premium price for what at first glance might look like an economy car. It has a ‘chic’ image so it really competes with the new Mini and the latest Fiat 500 (also very chic right now) rather than the truly cheap cars like the Citroen C1, Aygo, Peugeot trio or any of the Korean offerings which are bought mainly on price and should be its main competitors. I think the Tesla is cleverly positioning itself in much the same way. Because it has a radical green and hi-tech profile and comes out of silicon valley it has a cachet that belies its humble origins as a Lotus (pax Martin). It is going to compete for buyers who might otherwise choose an expensive imported car like a BMW a Porsche or a Ferrari. Underneath it really has far more in common with a Lotus but its image, combined with its genuine EV benefits, should carry it into higher market segments. That’s why rock stars and governators want one.

It’s surprising that so many people instantly assume the Tesla performance problems are now in the past. The fix sounds more like an executive pronouncement than the result of endurance trials and track testing. A huge increase in output from the same motor and electronics, to achieve the same performance as before, with no decrease in reliability or invalidation of previous testing? I hope it works, and another chapter or two isn’t added to the story. But that’s not why I’m writing this.

Now that the old transmissions are being dumped over the transom, maybe the secrecy can be relaxed a little. I’m an old transmission guy, and I’m curious about what the general layout is like. Are they coaxial twin clutch DSG? Are any photos or cutaway drawings available?

If any information is forthcoming, or if anyone expresses any interest, I could write a modest paragraph on how the transmission might have been designed were it done in southern CA. The DSG wouldn’t have been the best design, in my opinion, and far from the most cost-effective, even if it had turned out to be robust. Now that it’s a theoretical matter, it can be just for what passes for fun with transmission guys.

Steve S.

##Martin said: That’s right. Did you know it was also originally conceived as an electric car?

Yeah, I did hear that and it looks as though it’s finally going to fulfil its original destiny. I don’t know much about the electric version but if they can launch it quickly and it’s an efficient design I think it’ll sell gangbusters in Europe.

Motor Trend video and review, including updates on Martin’s blog and yesterday’s announcements from Tesla:

http://www.motortrend.com/

Yes, Smart EV is good; Smart E is even better. (As in Smartie) But Smart ed is…. what? An abbreviation of Smart Head? Getting too close to Smart A**e

and it really is the “ed”

http://www.smart.com/-snm-0135035552-1185091095-0000009705-0000018600-1188708264-enm-is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/mpc-uk-content-Site/en_UK/-/GBP/Smart_NG_ViewStatic-PageComponent?NavigationID=urn%3Auuid%3A45095851-b073-55a5-b8de-5b7ae3f1058b

(This link may not work)

Comment by Steve S. January 25, 2008:
It’s surprising that so many people instantly assume the Tesla performance problems are now in the past. The fix sounds more like an executive pronouncement than the result of endurance trials and track testing. A huge increase in output from the same motor and electronics, to achieve the same performance as before, with no decrease in reliability or invalidation of previous testing? I hope it works, and another chapter or two isn’t added to the story. But that’s not why I’m writing this.
Sometimes it is hard to know if the news we hear is old or new. Is it “late breaking” or (on the other end of the spectrum) possibly “stale”?
It wouldn’t seem right for Tesla to just press release their latest thoughts without having had a chance to discuss and evaluate things. So for all we know, the revised PEM and liquid cooled eMotor could have been underway for a while now, and they only waited until they were sure of the plan before letting the rest of us know. Now, I don’t know for sure… You could be right… It could just be an unproven idea being offered as a “save face” fallback, but it could also be much further along than you suggest. I will just be crossing my fingers hoping that this is the final hurdle before things move more towards “routine production”.

Hunter,

I laughed out loud at your post. I made up the 3rd one? Go to Innovators Solution, which Christensen wrote, because of the horrific misuse of Innovator’s Dilemma, and look for Table 2-1, on page 51 (of my hardback). Yes, I called it parallel market, he called it new market, but I haven’t picked up this book for 2 – 3 years, so I forgot his term.

Tesla Motors was attempting a “sustaining innovation” by maintaining all performance parameters in the premium price class, while giving customers improved efficiency / emissions / noise. It was natural for Tesla to do so, because they don’t have the infrastructure to achieve a “low-end disruption”, what I listed as #2. GM is positioned for, and moving on that one.

If Tesla wanted to do #3, they sure wouldn’t have started with a Lotus Elise. They would have created a government / corporate fleet vehicle (where gov / corp policy may mandate zero emissions vehicles), perhaps one version for personnel transport, and the other for shipping / deliveries, maybe even a third as a forklift or towing dolley.

I know you want to say lowered expectations for the Tesla Roadster were acceptable, and for a handful of customers, perhaps, but to compete against ICE roadsters, Tesla had to hold the performance line. The Tesla Roadster isn’t in a new market, as it directly competes with all ICE vehicles.

Hey Diana,

How about a consulting contract with the author of this blog? If you or any of the other readers have interesting projects to discuss, or ideas to explore off line, feel free to contact me at my personal account: vespremi (at) earthlink (dot) net.

– DavidV

Roger,

I’ve been waiting for someone to step into my trap, and you were the first fool to do so.

Do you really think that someone spends $100K on a sports car for efficiency / emissions / noise? Wake up. People spend $100K on a sports car for prestige / cache. As long as the sports car meets the minimum reqs to include it among “super cars”, then the next ultimate cache is “green”. Performance, styling and now environmental correctness make the $100K Tesla Roadster the ultimate prestige car – so it competes directly with Maserati, Lamborghini, Aston Martin and all other prestige cars.

All electric doesn’t create a new market, just another component of prestige in an existing market. That prestige was almost lost when it nearly became a grandma car with a 5.7 sec 0-60. I attended the U of Detroit, an automotive school if ever there was one, and a student there thought he would be cool buying a Porsche 914, but we all new it had a VW Beetle engine with a Prosche nameplate. Tesla almost killed the single most important reason anyone would buy their $100K Roadster – prestige.

Martin sez:

Now that this discussion has descended into name-calling, I would appreciate you dropping it. If not, I will simply delete your posts.

Your right Jason.I am a retired 65 year old fool who was looking for an enviromentally smart car to be my last purchase before someone takes my keys away permanently. I could wait for the perfect car to come along, say when I’m 95 but instead I ran across this car in a web search and loved it’s looks and especially it’s range and the fact it is totally EV, so I put in a deposit and am looking forward to hearing about my delivery someday soon I hope. It’s a pretty expensive reeplacement for my Gem e2 golf cart, which I use for about 75% of my driving now, but it should be a lot more fun driving around Phoenix trying to see if 65 year old chicks still dig cars. By the way, my Gem gets 0 – 25 mph in something like 4 seconds but unfortunately tops out there too. Pacifiers might calm you down you know.

Jason, FYI, the word is “cachet” (two syllables). A “cache” (one syllable, rhymes with “stash”) is a hiding place, the things hidden there, or to hide something in such a place (as in, “the common opinion was that the fool had apparently cached his head where the sun doesn’t shine”).

##Hunter said: I laughed when you said “humble origins as a Lotus.

I meant in the context of Feraris and Porsches, which are seen as real prestige cars while Lotus has its origins in kit cars and the like. Don’t get me wrong I’m a very big fan of Lotus. I had a Lotus V1 that I raced and used on the road years ago and my father worked with them in the 50s when they were just starting out. He welded up all the chassis for the early cars and together with a guy called John Teychene he started the Progress Chassis company specifically to supply Lotus. He later had an early Elite and much later still a Lotus Elan Plus Two. So, no insult to Lotus at all but they are ‘humble’ alongside Ferraris and all the better for it.

Martin-BrightSource is good, one of the original (if not the original) solar thermal systems, right? But Stirling System is urban -friendly perhaps, like this: get a big empty plant in Michigan, like auto plant. Hire some aeronautical engineers to make airplane-like, stressed skin structure: light, less materials, but still easy to factory build. The plant would have a huge parking lot. When you build each 40′ diam. Stirling unit, put it in the parking lot on its pole and park under it. Soon you have an urban power plant that’s also a parking lot-Michigan (or Detroit, or Flint ?) buys your power. Then you export units across the rest of the state & U.S. Stirling units could be put on existing buildings-like if you put it on a supermarket, for example-just punch a hole thru the roof, drop the pole down at a convenient place in the floor plan and dig a conc. footing. Of course with Nanosolar you just carpet the roof, but if Stirling system really is the most efficient, and you could “airplane engineer it” to get cost way down (like to the $50,000 each U.S.A. Today article said needed) then you could drop these units in urban envrionments (new buildings and old, low and high rise)-where power is needed, with little transmission loss. Michigan ain’t the best climate for it-but it sure is the “best business climate” what with their unemployment rate & industrial history. Also, if Germany is rapidly headed for 30% solar power with their climate, Michigan should be next in line. Wonder how much power each Stirling engine makes-and what this amounts to in building power? For shipping you could put four 10′ wide sections together like segments of airplane wings, ship whole thing on one regular semi-truck. In terms of new green ventures, I definitely say: no corporations, no banking system-connected venture capital, no board of directors: partners only-individual people who have no ulterior motives or agendas or whatever. Of course the ideal would be a George Lucas situation: his own thing, with his own office campus-actually 2, one at the Presidio and one in Marin Co. Rutan used to be a good example too, but he sold out. Next time maybe start small-with one or two partners only-or big, if the partner happens to be Branson or similar.

Martin sez:

On your second subject – the venture capital system is not perfect, but it is the engine that has fueled the incredible growth of high technology, especially in Silicon Valley. People like Larry Ellison have demonstrated that for a low-capital product such as software, you can do it alone, bootstrapping the company on revenues earned. but any highly capital-intensive business like semiconductor manufacture or (germane to this blog) cars requires access to lots of money. The choices are basically these: 1) inherit a pile of dough, 2) angel money (you become beholden to a rich individual, who will have his own agenda) 3) venture capital (you generally know exactly where you stand with VCs), and 4) corporate money (again, you generally know where you stand – though corporate motives are quite different than VC money.)

Here’s a wacky idea, though not out of the question in a “real world”: there are run down homes all over Detroit, I hear (in fact some homes are for sale for like $700). Just like Holland has its windmills here and there, Detroit could have its Stirling Solar Dishes District. On the model of Brad Pitt’s New Orleans “Make it Right” housing program, the Stirling operation could be non-profit. In exchange for dropping a dish in some’s backyard, you pay their small mortgage payments for their run-down house. So now they can maybe fix up their house as well. You sell the power to the city/state for below the cost of fossil fuel power. In the process factory workers are hired to build the dishes. In New Orleans govt. funding is only available to pay $70,000 for house replacement. The Make it Right Foundation provides the extra money it takes to really build a house-a nice, architecturally designed one no less. Pitt says at the end he will match up to $10 million with his own money (guess he doesn’t do that upfront since he wants to build a grassroots setup for further future New Orleans work). Now a solar dish costs $225,000, maybe that could be cut in half (or less)- so funding situation similar to Pitt model. Pitt now has 69 of 150 proposed houses funded. With the wealth in this country he should have funded all 150 in like a week. Sad commentary on “individual action” of those who really have “some real cash” -and boy howdy, are there plenty of those people in the country- not even counting corp. funding. What-they don’t want a big tax writeoff? Some really big names on the Pitt donor list: like Oprah Winfrey, and Warren Buffet family members (and Mr. Parrothead Jimmy Buffet as well). I can see maybe they don’t want to come across as “THE funders” of the whole thing, but with the scope of what New Orleans needs I say fund’em all now, and figure out what you want to fix up next ’cause there’s plenty more urban renewal work to do where that came from. I would contribute, at the small level where I’m at, to a Detroit Dish program-for the fun of it, and to see something get done, for a change-outside of the clutches of the powers that be (who, by the way, diverted the money that the Army Corps. of Engineers had applied for to fix and raise the height of the New Orelans levees to: The Iraq war- du jour).

T.J. I like your idea, but Stirling is quite expensive. Or at least I think it is. How about using a cheaper photovoltaics, like the one Nanosolar is doing. (www.nanosolar.com).

You don’t get as much power /m^2, but you get more /$. That is if I understand their promises correctly. And if my perception about stirling cost is right. I tried to find out how much does it cost to build one of those with no avail.

TEG, I enjoy your thoughtful and insightful posts. A couple of my failures to clearly communicate, while of minor importance, are maybe worth a few words. In my “executive pronouncement” post I seem to have given the impression that I was faulting Tesla management, but that wasn’t my intention at all. In my experience, the front office of a high tech company makes claims and promises based on the achievements of the technical staff, and also some based on the estimation of what will probably be able to be accomplished. There’s nothing wrong with that; it’s a valid part of the business, although it often causes a lot of swearing by us tech guys before we buckle down and try to make the claims and promises come true. We usually succeed.

However, there is a slight reduction in certainty. What was on my mind was the mood of “problem solved: done deal” when my radar screen was lit up like a Christmas tree with warning signals. In retrospect, I wish I hadn’t mentioned anything about it. I’m rooting as much as anyone for Tesla to succeed. Nothing would make me happier than to see a lot of roadsters on the road.

There’s a saying, “Engineering is largely composed of worrying and shopping: losing sleep at night trying to imagine everything that could possibly go wrong, and being constantly on the lookout for useful products, services and ideas to avoid reinventing the wheel every step of the way.”

Excess worrying is an occupational hazard, but it’s often valuable on the job. A notable example is Martin’s strategy of trying to avoid as many sources of trouble as possible for initial production, which I thought was exactly the right approach. The Chairman’s strategy was to try to make the very best car possible right off the bat, which is a very valid and praiseworthy attitude, but it bit him in the cabbage.

Anyhow, my guess is that there’s a very high likelihood that the Tesla performance problem is indeed solved. I’m just oversensitive about being bitten in the cabbage, because it hurts! A lot of people are counting on Tesla to show what EVs can do.

The posts on the greenhouse gas issue were timely, but it goes without saying that there are several other important reasons for reducing gasoline consumption, including the dependence on foreign oil, major particulate and photochemical smog health problems, peak oil, that pesky war for those of us who think oil might have something to do with it, skyrocketing fuel prices, and the economic disaster that goes along with all of those.

In my overview post I mentioned global warming mostly so I could expose people to the video link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2966006455296788742&q=%22joseph+romm%22+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=1&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Dr. Romm is extremely bright and entertaining, and he made some of my points much better than I could, notably about the strong need to get moving and actually do something. If your watched the video, you know everything I do about the greenhouse gas problem, with a couple of minor exceptions.

One is the difficulty in conversation to get the idea across that in the absence of any practical mass energy storage method, electricity on the grid has to be generated at the same time it’s used. That relegates solar and wind to a supporting role.

Incidentally, did you notice my brief post about PG & E, a major player, having plans to save partially depleted EV and plug in hybrid batteries to use as energy storage? About a decade after the start of mass production, millions of batteries will start to become available for essentially zero cost. That could be a game changer for renewable energy sources, but it got nary a peep of response on this blog. I did read quite a bit about compressed air and supercapacitors and the like.

I like the Rosenfeld three step approach, which is deploy efficiency, deploy efficiency, and deploy efficiency. After you do that, get around to renewables if you still need to. You may know that Dr. Rosenfeld was a brilliant and accomplished physicist before he started devoting his talent to environmental problems. He’s saved us billions of dollars and a huge amount of energy with simple programs like tags on refrigerators and replacements for incandescent light bulbs.

Here’s one of my favorite Romm quotes:

“Physicists don’t believe in karma or fate. Much like they don’t believe in intelligent design, creationism, or, say, economics.

The other idea about global warming involves the question of why France has the cleanest air, smallest greenhouse gas profile and cheapest electricity of any developed nation. I’ve been told that any public discussion of that issue will produce even more annoying and pointless pronouncements than one involving fundamentalist economics (shudder).

Good times.

Another electrified smart. This time from 2004:-

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=715

Shame about the hub motors.

Hunter,

PG&E has a large pumped storage facility. It is called the “Helms” pumped storage project and the first reference I found when I Googled this was http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/regulation/pump.asp (though there probably are better references).

By the way, this project pointed out one of the difficulties with pumped storage projects. The pipe burst shortly before completion (far enough along that there was a lot of water in the upper lake). With a 1600 foot head behind it, the water that came out made a very big mess.

TEG said:
“I call it PRNDx”

How about for Teenager mode for those crazy enough to let one take it

Hunter- I mentioned Michigan ’cause the state needs help. I read where up to 2/3’s of power generated is lost in transmission from plant to user. Stirling system would allow putting power really close to where needed- whether sites in Michigan, southwest, wherever.It’s kind of halfway between rooftop PV and a power plant: a mini-power plant, perhaps (?). I love Nanosolar, but if Stirling system really IS most efficent solar system, as claimed, what would happen if current cost of one of them could be dropped from $225,000 to the $50,000 said to be required for mass popularity ? Stirling engine is simple, right ? -most cost is in the 40′ dish & pole & arm to hold the engine (?). Like I said, bet the Chinese could pull this off. Question is -how does this stack up to Nanosolar-how much area of Nanosolar needed, and at what cost, to equal a Stirling dish? I could see these dishes in urban areas-they’re neat looking gizmos actually. Question for Martin: have you ordered an Aptera also ?-230 miles per gallon they say: need to help small companies too, don’t we ? Build a 6 car garage addition for Tesla, Volt, Aptera, Smart Car and whatever you drive now (classic Trabant?). Scott-who said you have to reply to a guest blog if you got nothin’ to say on the subject-Bush- Cheney, et al ? -that’s the way those cabbageheads would like it for cabbage sure – and Elon Musk as well (?)-not Martin, he doesn’t care (”free country and all of that”, on paper at least)-and this, for lack of a better word , is good.

Martin sez:

Of course, my wife says that the real waste of energy is when all this fine electricity is used to play Britney Spears music and the like

Yanquetino,

This excerpt from an interview a couple of months ago includes a very amusing comment on the appearance of the Volt, by Bob Lutz himself:

My question was “In April you were quoted as saying you were 90% confident the Volt would be produced. Considering interval developments, has that number increased?”
Mr. Lutz’ answer was a resounding “Yes”. He said GM is now “fully committed” to producing the car. He no longer considers the lithium-ion battery packs as the sticking point, the only issue now is systems integration.
Mr. Lutz pointed out that the first of four battery packs has been delivered. One more from CPI and two from A123 will arrive by year end.
He noted that initial bench tests of the first battery pack were very encouraging and that they performed exactly to the Volt specifications GM had demanded.
He also went on to say that the production Volt would not look entirely like the concept. One reason being that the concept performed very poorly when it was placed in the wind tunnel. In a memorable and humorous statement, he said “it would have done better if they put it in backwards”. Nonetheless, he said the car will be unmistakable in appearance as a Volt.
He told us that at this very moment, late model Malibus were having their bottoms removed and replaced with Volt drivetrains including a T-shaped opening for the battery packs.

David Kosowsky said:
How about for Teenager mode for those crazy enough to let one take it
Valet mode should do nicely in that regard.

##“it would have done better if they put it in backwards”. Ya gotta love that Bob Lutz! For my money the Volt is an ugly beast but, as somebody said, it won’t reach production looking like that so it doesn’t really matter.

Martin sez:

Like I said before: Bob Lutz is a class act.

Dang. I can’t believe I screwed up a their/they’re usage at the bottom of that last post…I swear on all my English and Journalism credits that I really do know better

Just wanted to pop in and note that the editor over at the Tesla blog addressed the PRNDL “L” question in a manner strikingly similar to what TEG said above: “FMVSS requirements are not so strict as to require the ‘L’. There is flexibility as to how you execute this requirement as you can see in the Prius. I used the word PRNDL in a different forum because that is the common parlance in the auto industry based on the historical standard.”

Also, to whomever mentioned the weird brake-light activity under acceleration, they deal with that over there as well…turns out it was just an adjustment issue. I found that really gratifying, as I had a similar issue when I first installed power brakes on my EV. Now if I can just work on that 0-60 time…

Martin sez:

Wow! I didn’t know you could sign up for one. I will do so now.

OK, is the Volt sign up for real? If so, where is the sign up site- did I miss it?

I find the Smart absurd. I paid $18,600 for a brand new off-the-lot Honda Civic Hybrid, which gets BETTER gas mileage than a Smart, and holds three more people (and has a regular bike rack on the roof).

Furthermore, the $99 buy-in price on the Smart was too low to gauge serious interest.

I recently plopped down $1,000 for a Fisker Hybrid pre-order. I think that amount of money is too low as well, but I’m not complaining that loudly. I seriously considered the Tesla for a long, long time, but prior to the $5k buy-in, letting Tesla hold $50k interest-free wasn’t an attractive option for me. $5k was more like it, but by that time the Fisker was on the horizon, and I waited to see what would happen with it.

Now I can sit back knowing that I’ve got an early spot on the Fisker, and wait to see if the Fisker can arrive before the Teslas actually get the final transmission situation all worked out. I’m guessing not, but we’ll see.

Anyway, 42,000 @$99 for a car with two seats and mpg in the 40s is LOL material. I would be surprised if they come close to actually moving 42,000 of those things all year.

In the meantime, I’ll be waiting to see if my vaporware ever appears.

Martin sez:

I believe the Smart was optimised for small size more than efficiency. Its very small size is well suited for urban environments.

I would love to hear which EV’s are most exciting! What do you guys think?

Johan wrote:
I would love to hear which EV’s are most exciting!

For starters:
* Tesla Roadster
* Venturi Fetish
* Wrightspeed X1
* Commutercars Tango
* ACP eBox (with a nod to tZero)
* T-Rex/EBW Silence (3 wheeled)
* Electrum Spyder

None of these have been produced in any large volumes (yet).

“Martin sez:

Dang. Where was she when I was studying physics?”

You are SO not funny! She is not your type at all.

Carolyn

Martin sez:

I thought your answer would be something like “in diapers.”

Wikipedia search on power transmission loss sez: 7.2% lost power in U.S., same as Martin figure- what I obviously was remembering (from somewhere) was the bad efficiency of elect. generation. Watching Bush state of the union address, he’s now talking about green energy, better batteries for EV’s, lowering c02. Incredible-after this turkey did about as much as possible in the last 7 years to deceive, deny, delay, manipulate the science, etc. on all of this. Incredible. At least he’s got less than a year left before he’s a footnote. Champagne will be in order. On favorite EV lists above, where’s the Aptera? I hope Martin has additional street cred, based on Tesla start up, to raise money from certifiably good & unweaselike VC or individual type money sources when he figures out what next would be good to do. What is the next wave of the future? Wonder if anything “buzzworthy” on the silicon valley grapevine (or other grapevine) ?

But Aptera cd is .11. I don’t think it looks weird- I think it’s a cute car-particularly from side. Gullwing doors too, and carbon fiber-and hatchback good for stuff like skis and surfboards.

Aptera does not have gullwing doors, more like scarab style doors.
Very different.

Indeed the Smart was conceived as a EV, as well as having a small urban footprint. Not bad for something designed in California.

S

David Kosowsky said:
Valet mode… Is top speed limited too?
All I know is what Tesla says here
“Valet mode to restrict speed, acceleration, and distance”

TJ: Aptera is too big. It has nearly dimensions of Hummer (H3) and it is two-seater. It sure looks pretty and it would be cool if it would be an aeroplane. For two-seater car its size makes it impractical.

For comparision H3 is 190cm high and nearly 2m wide. Aptera, based on picture, is about 160 cm high and _over_ 2m wide. It is shorter though, H3 is 4.7m and Aptera is only about 4m (again based on picture assuming that this guy next to it is about 180cm tall).

Peder, I’m very enthusiastic about solar and EVs too but sadly I live in England where the sun doesn’t shine quite as much as it does in your part of the world. I’m hoping that continual improvements in efficiency will eventually mean we can be included in the solar revolution but I hope EVs develop in a way that makes them very economical to drive even without the benefits of solar power. Otherwise a lot of the Northern hemisphere isn’t going to be included.

Does anybody else feel that places like Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, that have a lot of desert and not too many people, should be seriously looking into exporting solar power to Europe? Italy and Spain are not that far away and the undersea cable technology already exists. I guess Spain has a lot of land itself that could be developed for this but Italy is pretty crowded.

Nether give up. I am sad to discover the passage you have to go through. However your project is magic and realistic. I am supporting the same idea in our region the Franche-Comté which is the born place of the Peugeot car. We keep a big factory tool for gas cars (600 000 each year on two sites Sochaux and Mulhouse in Alsace close). But we have also the luck to have the biggest factory of Alstom power and all its electrical engineers and labs. We have also the unique factory of the TGV train motors based there and they focus on leading motor engine with permanent magnets. We created a group of scientists and industrials to promote one idea. I have the feeling that to introduce the solution of full electric car we have to enter gently in the classical car without perturbation in its front transmission design. That’s to say that we focus on the rear wheels equiped with two electric motors of 8 kwatt at 520 V plus lithium ion cells and supercapacity for quick phases like braking and reacceleration. The module would be able to be an ooption on actual cars to avoid loss of energy while braking, no pollution in centertowns and in trafficjams. We can also put the system on the lorries of classical trucks. The principe is approved by Franco Sbarro, and also leading managers of Alstom, and the of the french resarch. We encounter also many difficulties to promote the system and to explain to pure mechanical specialists that an erea has finished now. I suppose that you must feel alone while in fact you gave a worlwide answer with this marvelous car. I hope that my message will give you some ideas in your future, you built our future so much. Thanks very much. Sylvain

I see Miles tried to prevent Tesla from getting the airbag exemption. I guess competition is more important than solidarity in the end!

Andrew said:
Timo, I’m not too keen on your idea of giving the police authority to control the speed of your car.

It would be easy enough to set up roads that beam the speed limits to cars and never let them exceed the speed limits. We could also set up radar camera machines everywhere and catch anyone speeding. Our society is funny that way… You can bend the rules a bit if you can get away with it.

Right now you can put a Data logger on the OBD port and capture vehicle speed history. That would be another way they could track someone’s driving habits.

That’s exactly what I’m saying TEG. I know they could do it now, but I don’t want to let them, do you? In theory the govt. works for the people, not the other way around. I’m sure the people wouldn’t vote for ‘big brother’ in a referendum but they keep introducing more and more control by stealth. Before we know it we’ll have big brother in operation in the car with us. In England they want to introduce ‘road pricing’, where you pay according to the road you use and the time of day but to do that they have to know exactly where you are all the time. It’s on the back burner for the moment but I bet they’ll try to bring it back.

Andrew, I’m with you on the speed-limiting; our police work should be focused on investigation and apprehension, not prior restraint. And like you said, the current system of losing your license over repeated traffic violations seems to cover the problem adequately. I also agree that the time is approaching when desert nations are likely to find it profitable to export solar power. It doesn’t seem to be here yet, but the cost keeps falling, and at some point it’s inevitable.

On the biofuels front, I have mixed feelings that can be summarized as “biofuels have potential for some applications, but it’s a shame we seem so politically focused on ethanol, which is a terrible biofuel.” First off, your suggestion of growing sugar cane in Africa on land that’s not being currently farmed doesn’t sound viable. The main reason is that growing sugar cane (and most of the other high-sugar crops suitable for ethanol production) requires an awful lot of water. The reason that most of the land in Africa “isn’t doing anything at all” is that it isn’t suitable for growing crops. Their big staple grain is millet, mostly because it can be grown on drier land than corn (which can be grown on drier land than wheat or rice). Which brings us back to the problem of displacing food production. I don’t know that ethanol actually starves people…but it’s worth noting that the formerly incredibly steady tortilla prices in Mexico have started to creep up since we started subsidizing corn for fuel. So there’s definitely an impact, and it falls on the poor and unindustrialized. Of course, then there’s the fact that the system of ethanol production barely gets more energy out than it puts in. So overall I think it’s a poor solution.

On the other hand, ethanol is not the only biofuel on the block; I feel strongly that biodiesel has more potential, mostly because of its better handling of the issues I just mentioned. The biggest deal is that it can be made in just the sort of desert climate you are talking about, from algae in brine lagoons. The DOE did a study on this some years ago, but I can’t find the PDF right now. They speculated (without investigating) at the time that sewage and coal powerplant emissions could actually be treated by algae which would then be converted to biofuel. Of course this means they are getting their carbon from the coal, not the atmosphere at large, so it’s not carbon-neutral as a system anymore…but that carbon was headed out anyway from the powerplant, so the biofuel is a freeloader. Anyway, looks like someone is currently working on it in sewage so this may
get serious sooner rather than later. Biodiesel can also be made from meat processing waste and used cooking oils, as the recent deal with McDonald’s UK and a biodiesel producer shows. But even with normal crop-based production biodiesel is much cheaper and more efficient to produce than ethanol. The only big problem is its low-temperature characteristics (it gels) but I think this will be a much smaller problem as our needs evolve and biofuels are limited to the applications where we really need them.

Which brings me to the applications. I don’t think biofuels are the answer for personal transportation…EVs are so much more efficient, reliable, practical, and inexpensive that it’s no contest. So what do we need biofuels for? Trucking, aviation, shipping, remote power generation, and military applications. The common thread is a requirement of continuous operation for long periods away from the grid. These things could to varying degrees (trucking is easiest) be handled by batteries, but the requirements are way beyond what we look likely to have in the near future. But the good news for biodiesel is that it looks practical to add heated fuel tanks in all of these applications. They have relatively continuous runtimes, so heating rarely uses power (and small batteries could keep tank heat on in the rare instances when they are off, even perhaps running the engine briefly when voltage runs low), and since they are all high-unit-cost machines it won’t be a huge cost impact to implement.

Anyway, I’ve gone on a long time here. But basically I’m saying that there are limited applications for biofuels in the “new energy mix” and that we should use the efficient, available biofuel (biodiesel) to meet them.

Timo, civil rights violations in one area (due process violation, say) by a government should not be used as justification for violations in another.

Hunter, thanks for the mini-course in bio-fuels. I was aware that I knew very little about it and now I realise even more how little I really know. Superficially I was quite impressed with Brazil’s programme….it really does seem to work for them….but there’s obviously much more to it and I’m inclined to agree with you that EVs are a much better answer.

To continue with the Imagine the Impact video, click on “This is a video response to Imagine the Impact (EV1)II” under the video screen.

Andrew-and send geothermal power to rest of Europe from Iceland-said by U.N. to be best country to live in in 2007 (if you ignore the small problem of no sun to speak of all winter, perhaps !?). Top 10 countries: Iceland, Norway, Australia,Canada,Ireland,Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Netherlands, France.

Solar thermal parabolic trough systems are more efficient than PV solar-but you never see a home system version of this : ? Guess they need to face directly south, but they could be in yard also -serving as a shade trellis as well.

Comment by Hunter January 29, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

> Timo, civil rights violations in one area (due
> process violation, say) by a government should
> not be used as justification for violations in
> another.

Of course, but I don’t see how it is civil right violation to prevent person from making a crime in a way that does not limit his freedom in any way? Especially if it is highly probable that this person in question has high probability to do such thing.

Police will never limit your speed, how could they give you tickets then? Tickets are a real good source of revenue for police departments, why would they limit your speed and give up that revenue stream? Now if every car had that OBD car chip (I use one willingly) cop could just say let me see that chip and read it right there and give a ticket based on peak speed-speed limit.

I just read on Volt site that an electrical generator can only have a theoretical maximum of 33% efficiency MAX, so 36kw*.333%=12Kw max you can get from a gallon of fuel, diesel has slightly more energy density than refined gas. A aeordynamic car will get 320w/mile or 12000/320=37.5 MPG.

Cobalt seems to be related to bad LiIon problems, just from what I have read, but I admit I am no expert on understanding all the variations of Lithium batteries or what makes them burn. If you spec’d them there was no way of knowing this would happen, it’s such a new technology still evolving. What turns me off on them is they start aging from their date of manufacture and are slated for 2 to 3 years life. I hope the Tesla packs are either not manufacured yet or are sitting in a refridgerator at 40% charge level. If that thin polymer layer has metal impurities that poke thru its a short. There are all kinds of failsafes in the pack whose ultimate goal is to open up the pack.

Here’s some auto industry pay breakdown from USA Today online story: GM CEO Rick Wagoner earned $9.3 million in 2006, almost double his 2005 pay. The new Ford CEO got $27.8 in salary & bonuses in his first few months on the job (while former CEO Bill Ford, in the tradition of Henry no doubt, paid himself $1 each year and “donated much of his stock based pay to charity”). Says auto industry analyst Han Kim of the Univ. of Michigan: “rarely in Asia, especially Japan and Korea, do CEO’s get paid more than $1 million per year”. Hiroshi Okuda, the CEO of Toyota, made $903,000 in 2006. The top 37 executives at Toyota made $21.6 million (avg. of $583,784 each). The top 21 executives at Honda made $11.1 million (avg. of $528,571). These Japanese & Korean guys make really nice cars, no?-look how far Hyundai has come in past 10 years-they clean Detroit’s clock in terms of progress.The mentality of corp. America at the top often ain’t too great.

Martin sez:

Read my next blog entry.

Further indication of U.S. corp. mentality: Bob Nardelli, former CEO of “Home Depot”, recently hired as new Chrysler CEO-has no auto experience-received $210 million severence package “after being kicked out of Home Depot by disgruntled shareholders”. He wrecked company morale there by not be so great to the rank and file employees. Dan Neil, L.A. Times auto analyst says “in a company awash with bean counters they just hired Mr. Bean” – he thinks the ploy of the new Chrysler owner, Cerebus private equity co., is to have Nardelli squeeze the rank & file of Chrysler to get every dollar down & out-and then look to sell the company to the Chinese, perhaps. “$210 million dollars for nothing-and your new job for free(ride) -look at that, that’s the way to do it !”-reminds me of Dire Straits’ MTV song.

TJ, I was a bit surprised when Edwards dropped out but I read it the way you did. Billary and Obama are just better ‘box-office’. “Yeah, we can sell that fight. Tough black kid takes on the ex-wife from hell. The viewers are gonna love that.” Sorry to be so cynical but it really looks that way from the outside. I don’t know how to explain it but I don’t think it’s much better here in Europe. It certainly wouldn’t do for a Brit like me to draw any conclusions. I really admire a lot of things about the States. There’s a certain ‘can do’ attitude that is very appealing. I do worry about all the creationists but luckily I don’t think they’ll ever achieve any real political power….I certainly hope not anyway. Unlike you I’m not a great fan of Gore. I think he should have been President but I still find the guy hard to like and I think of him as an opportunist and a bit of a hypocrite. I think maybe American voters in general are a little more naïve than British ones. A lot of people were easily persuaded by Bush to go to war and then the same people discovered that people die in wars and turned against him. But then we had the same thing here. I believed all that WMD cabbage myself and it makes me mad to think how we were all fooled.

Steve S. That Rob Newman thing is hilarious and he makes some good points. I don’t know enough history to know if he’s right or wrong.

Andrew,

I thought that Newman was over the top with his assertion that people who fly short haul or eat fruit out of season are criminals.

Andrew,

I’m with you 100% on your assessments of the Newman video.

Great quote! Here’s another one that’s relevant in the Tesla context:

“Success has many fathers, while Failure is an orphan.”

I don’t know who said it.

WSJ: Tiny Cars Make It Big

Hunter wrote:
I’m with you on the speed-limiting; our police work should be focused on investigation and apprehension, not prior restraint.

Check out this story

Yes, 1984… big brother… our freedoms slowly erode. But when you look back you wonder if some regulations are a good thing. Requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets and forcing drivers to wear seatbelts were both controversial when they went into law. Speed limiting teen drivers might be a good thing considering how many new drivers get themselves into trouble before developing enough sense to be safe.

I know what you mean TEG but some things are just plain not a good idea. Crash helmets – good idea. Seat belts – good idea. Air bags – good idea. Externally limiting the engine of a car when it reaches a certain speed – bad idea. Not so much about the freedom issues but a lot to do with safety. I just don’t see how it could be done safely and even if it could I still don’t think it’s the direction we should be going. We need more driver education and proper policing by proper policemen and women not automatic systems controlling everything with radar and computers. My two kids both started driving in the last couple of years and both have had minor accidents already. One of them in my car! So I’m just as concerned as the next parent about safety believe me. I just don’t believe this would help.

Solar + EV = Win

Martin

Regarding your comment above, your logic is well presented, thus making it easy to see that our premises are not the same. I think we are addressing different requirements. There are also some issues with the offset effects that deserve comment.

First, the different requirements need to be clarified. I was slow to realize the severity of the fossil fuel problem, but Fig 92, p101 of the document at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/pdf/0383(2007).pdf was a reality shock. (I get the impression that some analyst at the EPA was trying to tell us something. The chart says so much that it can be excused for some confusing aspects of the presentation, where the co2 emitted due to usage of electricity in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors is redundantly charged as co2 emitted in electricity generation. Consequently, the bars add up to more than the total co2.) At one time I had been optimistically thinking that the amount of vegetation on the earth would increase and somehow balance the added co2. It now looks like we passed the time that could happen many years ago. Since that time it has been accumulating as an integral of a positive function. In other words, the mechanism for subtracting co2 has been exhausted, so the excess is added each year to the atmosphere, where that excess will stay forever. And as the developing world follows our historical example, the problem becomes yet more staggering.

The above mentioned chart makes it possible to see what needs to be done. Looking also at Fig 2-3, p8 of
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420r06003.pdf , the breakdown of transportation sector can be seen. From this we can judge that passenger cars and light trucks cause about 58% of the co2 from the transportation sector shown in the previously referenced Fig.92. If we cut the fuel consumption per vehicle by a half, in 2030 that will only make up for the increased number of cars. And we must not let any change in vehicle fuel consumption be a cause of more co2 due to more coal consumption. To make real progress, we need something more like 90% reduction in per vehicle consumption. We also need to do it a lot sooner than 2030.

Of course, there are many situations where people need vehicles that are larger, so even the best acceptance we can hope for must allow for something less than 100%.

Looking for large scale adaptation, an improved vehicle has to be available at the lowest possible cost. It really needs to be closer to $10K than $20K to give people an incentive to change. Big fuel savings would be a part of the incentive.

As to use of solar panels to charge an electric version of such a car, that would be great. However, I see the cost of the appropriate solar panel as part of the cost of such a car. At the present cost of solar, that becomes a major problem. The Volt will probably just be a load on the electric system, without much chance of solar panel systems being added to compensate. Of course this would change if solar technology got cheap, but this seems not imminent.

Now the issue of offsets: I spoke in a previous post of solar as being a type of electric source where the output was already spoken for, before the addition of an electric car. One thought is that solar installations that are supported by rebates and tax credits are expected to reduce the overall load on the electric system. In that circumstance, perhaps the offset belongs to the public. My electric bill this month includes an $8 charge for “public programs”, such rebates being included in that category. It does not seem that this could be carried on like this if everyone put in solar panels.

I am not sure about the coal question. It is certainly not simple. But in addition to the references at the Miastrada website, the Calpine website, http://www.calpine.com discusses peaking generators as using single cycle gas fired equipment.

To TEG: Eventually ‘win win’ could come about. I am sure not against it. But it should not hinge on funds from public programs.

Jim Prewitt : Thanks for your response.

Best regards, Jim Bullis

Martin,

Remembering the survey you “commisioned” among the Tesla Motors blog readership several months ago about home power capabilities–did that ever result in a summary report, or did Tesla Motors “halibut”-can it?

Martin sez:

I was working on making ACE a public standard, and making Tesla’s charging station (EVSE) into an open-source project right before I left. Lisa was also working on this project. I assume that it has been abandoned.

Zap/Smart suit

The grass is green and I need some super green to start mass-producing my electric lawn tractor. Many vc’s claim green/clean funds but I haven’t found one to step up to the plate yet. How did you land venture capital Martin?

Martin sez:

Carolyn (sitting across the room from me right now) has her own theory. She says that when you are good looking as I am, people just throw money at you.

Roberta promises that she has an update coming soon all about her experience with her new Smart car, but for now, here is what I have been up to (don’t tell Roberta!)

http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/forums/showthread.php?p=60648#post60648

– David

Martin

I read this on MSNBC today.

“Gas meter starts spinning before the gas flows due to faulty check valve

ALBANY, N.Y. – Angry about the price of gas? Just imagine paying for gas you don’t get.
Some alert consumers have noticed it over the years: A pump that seems to hesitate a second when the lever is squeezed. Anywhere from 2 to 6 cents tick off before the rush of gasoline starts. That’s what happens with a common, hard to diagnose and mostly ignored problem with the “check valve,” which is supposed to make sure gas flows at the same time the price meter starts.
…Federal standards require all gas pumps to start pumping gas as soon as the price meter starts, said Ken Butcher of the National Institute of Standards of Technology, part of the U.S. Commerce Department.”

If this is the same guy, he’s very dependent on fossil fuel, in cozy too close to the industry that he regulates, sort of way.

I can’t imagine a more idiotic reason for buying a solar panel (there are many – they are too unreliable and grossly inefficient, requiring massive subsidies of govt welfare). A person’s car generally statys at rest for long periods in two places – the workplace, and at night near the home. Notice that neither of these places allow a solar panel to be nearby (or working). End of
stupid idea number 3425.

Martin sez:

I wondered when you would bring your unique world view to this blog…
Comment by kent beuchert January 29, 2008 @ 8:29 am

I didn’t realize you were contending with a fire. Hope all is well.

Martin sez:

Yep. Looks like we nearly left a carbon footprint of a different kind. But I think the danger is past now. Maybe we can go home tomorrow…

Is there a gazillionaire hotline I could call for my project? SEND HELP!