If he knows it's going to fail, he should consider putting a death ray on a militarized Model S with bullet proof windows. Maybe with optional retractable VTOL (Tesla's last patent) side lifters. He could probably sell it to the US government and save Tesla.
What's stopping Elon Musk from working with Shai Agassi at Better Place? Doesn't Shai have an open offer for a $3-4 billion contract for a US automaker to produce an electric car that works in their battery-swapping station network?
I realize the offer is to a major US automaker which is much different but it just seems like a brilliant billionaire like Elon Musk and an amazing entrepreneur like Shai Agassi (who has raised $900MM+) could pull it off.
Here's a creative idea to partially solve the charging problem. Have people buy the fast chargers for their homes, and then get listed in a database where people could stop by and pay for a charge on their travels. It would be like AirBnB but for charging electric cars.
That's exactly what we're doing at http://www.plugshare.com. Check it out. The blue icons are residential charging stations and the green icons are public charging stations. Over 2,000 people have signed up to share their home electricity with EV drivers in need of a charge.
I like your site but I would love to also use your site as a reference point for setting up my own station. I imagine you can monetize this lead generation process in some way as well.
Why would I buy a fast-charger for my home? It will never pay for itself in fees, and you don't need one at home – overnight charging meets essentially everyone's needs in that case.
Edit: just to be clear, I support people sharing their chargers. But fast charging is overkill.
IMO, the whole idea of electric vehicles is a waste of time unless the government (or at least a dominant market player) steps in and standardizes battery sizes for fast replacement at existing service stations. It should take less time to recharge an EV than it does to refill a gasoline tank, not more.
Anyone who has ever exchanged a propane cylinder for their backyard barbecue should understand why this is the only conceivable way to make electric vehicles work. I can't begin to imagine why I'm the only person who actually thinks that way.
> IMO, the whole idea of electric vehicles is a waste of time unless the government (or at least a dominant market player) steps in and standardizes battery sizes for fast replacement at existing service stations. It should take less time to recharge an EV than it does to refill a gasoline tank, not more.
Oh, come on. First World Problem: "My new pollution free cars fills at home, but on the few occasions that I have to go out of my way for energy it takes 10 minutes to refuel instead of 2."
You're ignoring the substantial problems that battery swapping introduces – it introduces issues of standardization, compatibility between cars, more moving parts, more weight, additional vehicle design constraints, and creates enormous inertia in battery technology. It constrains innovation. No company can come out with "The 2021 Leaf, now with 15% denser batteries!" without fragmenting the shared supply of battery packs.
I admire Shai Agassi's business model, everyone seems to be fixating on the battery swapping aspect. It's incidental. The real innovation there is using the cell-phone business model on electric cars.
Imho, an alternative solution with fewer drawbacks would be offering "on-shore" cooling by exchanging a fluid coolant through the charge connector. The charge-rate constraint isn't really the batteries, it's how fast you can cool the batteries. With offboard cooling you could charge a ~300 mile range EV in about 3 minutes without over-sized onboard cooling. You're also more likely to find a use for the waste heat offboard, e.g. melting ice or preheating water.
The down-sides of this system are small – any sufficiently high-current "cable" would already be mounted on a "weightless" articulation rig, or a robotic solution that plugs in automatically when you park (Shai Agassi has been working on this technology).
Most people don't drive their cars 24/7. Even on road trips it's more like 12 or 18 hours.
Once battery capacities reach the point where you only have to charge it at night for a full day's drive, you've solved the problem and you don't need to swap.
And, while the price tag is high, the 300 mile claimed range of the highest trim Model S gets a substantial part of the way to that standard.
Once battery capacities reach the point where you only have to charge it at night for a full day's drive, you've solved the problem and you don't need to swap.
Perhaps that's true... once batteries get about 2x as good as they are now, owners of cars like the Tesla won't have to worry so much about whether there will be power available at their destination.
My impression is that the next 2x improvement in battery tech is pretty far over the horizon, though. Plus, we simply do not have the grid capacity to replace most Americans' automobiles with rechargeable EVs. Not even by charging them at night. Once 80% of the houses in your neighborhood plug in an 8-kw load at night, this inconvenient truth will become obvious enough.
Exchangeable batteries could be charged anywhere, anytime, not just where and when they are needed. That's a big win regardless of what happens with the core technology of power storage.
>Once battery capacities reach the point where you only have to charge it at night for a full day's drive, you've solved the problem and you don't need to swap.
Modern batteries (LiFePO4) can be charged in 10-15 minutes. I know I'm going to want to walk around for 10-15 minutes after driving for 120 miles. Heck, that's even the recommendation to avoid DVT!
High range is one way to solve the problem. Fast-charge is another.
If I exchange a propane cylinder, I am capable of judging if it is what it's supposed to be. No rust, clean valve, correct weight. I cannot judge whether I'm getting swapped in a battery that is going to die. A propane cylinder costs about the same as its contents. A $10k battery holds less than $1 worth of energy.
I cannot judge whether I'm getting swapped in a battery that is going to die.
Sure, you can. When's the last time the battery display on your laptop or cell phone lied to you? Battery monitoring tech has been reliable since the lead-acid days, and it's only gotten better over the past few years.
There'd be some redundancy in most cases anyway. A sports car might require two or three standard battery units, each of which would consist of numerous individually-monitored cells. An 18-wheeler might require thirty or forty of the same standard battery packages, or perhaps ten of a larger form factor (think 'AA' versus 'C' or 'D'). In both cases the vehicles would be able to limp on half-power or less, in the event of battery failures.
This objection is a complete non-starter, no pun intended.
Edit: By the way, those swappable battery modules are going to last a lot longer since they won't need to be fast-charged.
(Shrug) They're not slow at mandating things like 55 MPG CAFE regulations, or at declaring CO2 a toxic pollutant. They would have a perfectly legitimate role to play in standardizing battery packages, IMO.
This is probably the kind of thing that would need to be done by international agreement, if it can be done at all.
... because it allows for an 80% charge in a very short amount of time... you're extending the infrastructure of places you can charge Teslas; and if you monetize it ($15-20 for full, fast charge) then you're making money.
> ... because it allows for an 80% charge in a very short amount of time...
I know what a fast-charger does, but you still don't need one at home. You need to sleep, remember?
Do you need a gas station in your garage?
> you're extending the infrastructure of places you can charge Teslas
At $25k/station you're going to need more than "the cause".
> if you monetize it ($15-20 for full, fast charge) then you're making money.
I assumed so. You'll still never make back what you put in.
Current prices are around $7 for a 30 minute charge. Of that, $2 is electricity. You'll also need to pay the electric company extra to have a bigger connection to the grid (>100A at 480V), which usually costs hundreds of $ per month.
I appreciate Musk's honesty. I've seen many critical situations where leaders fudge to make things seem more stable than they are. I'm rooting for Tesla's success.
I think he may have just tanked his chances. People buying cars in that price range 1) expect to have mechanical service available for the foreseeable future, and 2) don't like to be associated with losers. You don't want to drop $90k on a cool new car and then six months later have your friends roll their eyes or pity you when you roll up at the party.
"Wired.com: At the end of the day you're still zero for three; you have so far failed to put a rocket into orbit.
Musk: We haven't gotten into orbit, true, but we've made considerable progress. If it's an all-or-nothing proposition then we've failed. But it's not all or nothing. We must get to orbit eventually, and we will. It might take us one, two or three more tries, but we will. We will make it work.
Wired.com: How do you maintain your optimism?
Musk: Do I sound optimistic?
Wired.com: Yeah, you always do.
Musk: Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work."
Considering the next 2 launches where successful I think he had reasonable expectations at the time. As CEO your in a strange place of needing to be advertise and create a positive image without creating unrealistic expectations so people trust what you say in six months.
It seems like an odd interview to give; almost more like a rallying call to staff than a marketing pitch to the public. But whenever I've seen an interview with Elon Musk, he's always been extremely honest. Maybe he's not thinking this through as a marketing pitch and just being honest about the challenges ahead?
Until you need a replacement part, and they're out of production...
For a discontinued car (or, a car made by a defunct company) to still be drivable, there needs to be a sufficiently large community of enthusiasts around it that have figured out how to fabricate the parts that are no longer available.
Now, this has certainly happened. Lots of cars from the 1920s and on are still on the road, and a cottage industry has sprung up around keeping them running. However, the defining feature of these cars is that a substantial amount were sold.
Getting parts made in the future for a very unusual and technologically advanced car like a Tesla if the company is no longer around is going to be very expensive indeed. It will cross from being a daily driver to being a project car, and the owner will need to be very dedicated to the project.
3D printers sure look like they could help with this problem in the future. Heck I'd love for mandatory escrow of every component's 3D models with an agency which has the power to release them into public domain upon certain conditions (car company fails, component no longer available from any manufacturer, class action successful, X years have passed, etc)
If 3d printers today could do suspension parts, do you really think that the lack of 3d models would mean that they'd be useless for restoring old cars?
As I pointed out, 3D models help with a minor problem, a problem that has other solutions. They can't make much difference.
I think this is Elon Musk defining a "problem" which he knows he can solve successfully. By defining the problem as "can we sell 20k cars/year", he'll be able to point in 6 months that "yes, we did sell 20k cars, and in only 6 months".
The big open question (which Tesla doesn't want to set as the benchmark for success) is selling a mass-market car (the next one). I'm confident Tesla can do a 50-100k unit/yr high end product ($40-100k) on its own, eventually, but building a $20k car and shipping hundreds of thousands is a different matter.
To sell units beyond their first adopters they need to address key issues with electric cars (and I am all for EVs). What they need to do is license their technology to Ford and GM to get mass market appeal and to help build/develop EVs in the $20k range. As the article states, "It projects selling 20,000 cars next year, which is a relatively high number among luxury brands."
This is really what is going to happen: the will be acquired by a larger brand.
I live on the east coast and I am staring to see a fair number of charging stations in garages. So far it's mostly for corporate cars but I have been thinking Car sharing services could be well served by going electric. They generally own the parking space, the car is moving short distances, but while plugging them in is easy refilling the tank is something of a pain. It's probably not a huge market but selling say 5k cars per year to that market seems vary doable with the added bonus that initial costs are less important.
Car2go, which is part of Daimler, is doing this in some cities with their Smart-car car sharing program (some cities use both electric and gas Smart cars). Tesla technology is in the Smart EV's.
> Actually this is quite low. BMW sells around 110K units a year in the US alone...
I could be wrong about this, but I suspect the median selling price of a BMW in the U.S. is about $10,000 less than the cheapest Model S. Selling 20,000 cars that start at $50K would be a feat.
> The base price is just under $50,000 after factoring in a $7,500 tax credit. But models with a large enough battery to allow for a 300 mile range will be priced at $87,900 after the tax credit.
Great. So American taxpayers are essentially subsidizing luxury automobiles.
It's more like we're subsidizing the electrification of luxury automobiles. Thinking about it in marginal terms makes it clearer. If the tax credit weren't in place, would model S buyers be getting a VW Golf instead? Probably not; they'd be getting some gas-guzzling jaguar or something.
The tax credit isn't paying for people to get nice cars, it's paying for people to get electric cars.
American taxpayers are essentially subsidizing luxury homes, as well. At least this has the benefit of helping to advance alternative transportation technologies.
What we're actually subsidizing is R&D on electric vehicles. The problems that Tesla is struggling with (battery longevity, battery cost, charging cycle times) are fundamental problems of all electric vehicles. If a government subsidy for their luxury vehicles helps them improve the state of the art even incrementally then it will be a huge win for the public.
Or rather we should subsidize things that need to be affordable. Luxury cars are explicitly not meant to be affordable, so his point stands. What both of you have missed is the actual reason for subsidy, which is the fuel efficiency.
I can't speak for others, but I didn't miss the fuel efficiency aspect. If electric automobiles are ever going to make a significant environmental impact, they will need to priced for the masses.
It seems to me that the critical period for persuading people to buy them, is down the metaphorical road a bit. At the moment it appears from their web site that they are still selling "reservations". There is a nice video on their web site celebrating delivery of some cars - which I think implies they aren't just handing them over to willing buyers yet.
The hard part starts when all that is past: when they build enough cars to have them sitting at dealerships, either being bought or not.
(For that matter, if they really want revenue, why not keep churning out the Roadster? Surely there would be a few thousand more people willing and able to buy one.)
Demand is not an issue. There were 12,200 reservations as of July. That's enough to keep busy for the rest this year and into Q2 of next year. If demand were truly an issue, we would see some sort of advertising spend. When was the last time you saw a Tesla TV commercial?
The next six months are critical because it determines whether or not Tesla can be a profitable venture. Can they make a profit with full production? If they have any unforeseen expenditures they are screwed. If there are any recalls, they are screwed. However, I am pretty confident Tesla will be able to pull through given their track record.
The big challenge no one speaks about is the auto workers' unions which will change the cost structure to produce these cars. This cost increase is coming in the next few years.
I disagree, although it may be potentially a problem in the future. It seems like Tesla however isn't using manufacturing techniques/processes that the rest of the industry follows.
Most of the assembly is done using advanced robots, the cost increase seems to be the support and the development of these robots.
The reason I appreciate tesla, is because it doesnt have all the legacy and baggage a traditional car manufacturer has, and thus they have the ability to try bold things. On top of it, they are doing it all in america.
Most car manufacturers have production plants in the US. I live in Alabama there are Mercedes, Honda and Hyundai plants. BMW is in South Carolina. Toyota Prius is built in Mississippi.
The land and power are cheap, the wages are reasonable and there is not a lot of union activity.
I wouldn't buy a car if I expected the company might be dead in six months. Who'll service my car then? This isn't a well-known and old brand with independent service centers. Did Elon Musk just told me not to buy their cars? Thanks for the tip.
A fair concern but probably unwarranted since a larger company would snap it up at some price. And then you might actually have better (more, at least) service options.
Heard on NPR that batteries on EV's can only be charged around 500 times. This came from that Berkley professor that was a global warming skeptic until the recent conclusion of a research study -that he participated in- indicating that most of global warming was caused by fuel burning. Of-coarse the study was funded by the Koch brothers and proposed that the world move to natural gas. It wouldn't surprise me if the Koch brothers have large investments in natural gas. Does anyone know if the battery charge comment has any validity?
All lithium batteries are not created equal. LiCoO2 batteries indeed have charge-cycle lives in the hundreds, but LiFePO4 batteries (as seen in the Volt, Leaf, etc) can reach 10,000 cycles or more.
All this depends on charge/discharge rate, temperature, etc. The Roadster's complicated battery system is required because they used LiCoO2 batteries. :\
The electric cost of a charge is ~2$, and you get ~250 miles a charge x 500 = 125,000 miles for 1,000$. Assuming 3.5$/G gas + 30MPG + 125,000 miles costs 14,500$. That leaves ~13,500$ to pay for the next battery pack and the overhead charging.
PS: The real issue is it's not a smooth transition, but if you assume the 2nd battery pack is not worth it you get 250,000 miles including 1 replacement pack.
The battery pack costs more than that, alas. The price may come down as the scale of recycling (and hence, the amount recyclers can pay for used batteries) goes up. The price per Wh for Li-ion has also been falling at a fairly steady rate. And of course, gas prices may go up.
We should also consider the depreciation of components in a conventional car that the electric drivetrain replaces. They should depreciate faster because they are less efficient and must deal with the additional heat they dissipate. They require an intake and exhaust system, complicated transmission, pumps, valves, lubricants...
Yes, that's approximately correct. The shortest-range S gets 160mi per charge. 500 * 160 = 80,000 miles, which isn't bad for the first scheduled maintenance. In fact, Tesla guarantees their batteries to 100,000 miles. If the battery costs $20K to replace, well, a gas engine + transmission + exhaust system in a $60,000 car depreciates as much in that time, too.
They should launch in Europe earlier, we spend a lot more money on cars here, have shorter daily routes (guessing!) and care a little more about fuel costs (more expensive here).
Not necessarily. What Tesla is proposing is a better car. The Model S is safer, more comfortable, and more practical. The demand is clearly there, at this point it is a question of if Tesla can deliver.
