Android accounts for one-quarter of mobile web traffic
Android is mopping up Apple and RIM's declining mobile mindshare in the US, you'll find nothing but corroboration from Quantcast. The analytics firm reckons a full one-quarter of mobile web traffic stateside comes from devices running Google's OS
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Unfortunately, the laws of physics pay no attention to coolness. The current generation of batteries, heck, even the next generation or two of batteries can't turn this into a viable mode of transportation. It is a VERY, VERY heavy, expensive car that takes too long to charge.
1. Most of our power still comes from coal, and although a power plant can use hydrocarbons more efficiently than a bunch of individual internal combustion engines, it still has lots of problems that go along with it.
2. Battery manufacturing and the mining of the materials that go into it is much more harmful to the environment than "big-electric" car companies would admit.
3. Even if ll of our power plants were were solar powered, storing excess daytime electricity in hydrogen by using electrolysis, the costs of these batteries will still be tremendous and cause this to fail. Batteries just suck as a power source. Fuel cells are so much better, but also still too expensive and not perfected for consumer use.
4. Even if you get a 220 volt, 80 amp plug at home you are limited to relatively short trips in it. For people who say they only have a couple of miles to drive each way to work, why not take a bike then or walk? $100,000 for 20-30 miles per week? Are you kidding me? When I lived where there was public transit, I took the bus. What is wrong with that?
5. The best current batteries have shown a great potential for dangerous fires. If you don't believe me, ask the people on the forefront of solar-powered cars. It is one of the biggest dangers they face.
Granted, if you have more money than sense and don't mind spending it on a car that will need a new set of batteries costing in the tens of thousands of dollars in less than 100,000 miles, and you only need to carry two people, and you don't care what strip mining the materials for the batteries did to the environment and if you don't mind having a very limited range with nothing to do but get a room somewhere for a couple of days once you exhaust the batteries and need to charge them for 30 hours at a regular outlet, and if driving around in a heavy fire trap, then by all means, buy one now.
This car company will never make it unless they drastically change what they are offering. If there was no more oil or if there was a true shortage they might have a chance, but no, probably not even then. Companies like Aptera and Volkswagen are on the right track with relatively low cost, aerodynamic three wheeled vehicles.
If there was a futures market to bet against companies like Tesla, I would mortgage my house and my parent's house to place that "bet". Anyone who has even a smidgen of understanding of basic physics can see that this is almost 100% hype. I ma not alone in this belief either. Just ask eminent scientist Richard Muller of UC-Berkeley.
Your points 1,3,4, and 5 are all false and also the statement about it taking too long too charge. I don't feel like elaborating on it more, because someone else will; but if not, then I will.
I do agree that Aptera is more promising, but they don't have any vehicles in production yet. And the sad part is, I don't think enough people will buy a lightweight 3 wheel car.
Thanks for the reply DDUB, but I wish you would not leave it to someone else to elaborate. After all, if you say that my statements (1, 3, 4, and 5) are false, you would be the best person to know what you meant.
In the absence of specifics in your rebuttal, I will do my best to show you that my statements are not false:
Point 1. According to the Department of Energy, as of January 2008, 50.3 percent of power generated in the United States was generated in coal-powered plants. Google it or look it up on the doe.gov website if you do not believe me
Point 3. This point covered a broad spectrum. I will need you to tell me which part you think is false before I can intelligently reply.
Point 4. This one was partially opinion so I don't see how it can be categorically called false. However, what is wrong with walking or taking a bike for a short distance. I think my reasoning was sound. I am not forcing the person to walk or bike, just suggesting it. Perhaps you think that a 220 mile range is sufficient, and it might be for you. Perhaps you think that a minimum 3.5 hour charge time from a full discharge using a specially installed home charging station is okay. If so, more power to you, but that would not work for me.
Point 5. Maybe they have made lithium-ion batteries much safer than they were in the past, but I don't think that has been proven. Look into the players in the solar powered car challenges. They have lost ore than a few cars to lithium-ion battery fires.
As to my point about charge time that you also mentioned, keep in mind that only the specially installed home charging station can "quickly" charge the batteries in "as little as 3.5 hours" (quote from the Tesla Motors website). The mobile charger will take around 30 hours to fully recharge the batteries.
Also, Tesla's own FAQ says the batteries will last approximately 100,000 miles or 5 years, whichever comes FIRST. How much will the new set of replacement batteries cost? Tesla has been very quiet about this, but estimates are that the current battery costs are as much as 25% of the car's cost and that Tesla is hopeful they can get that cost down to around $12,000 in another five years when they expect the first batch to start failing in quantity. Do the math. Examine the physics closely. This isn't a deal no matter how you slice it. If somebody still wants it because they want it and can afford it, then fine, but don't try to convince me that it makes any kind of economic or even environmental sense at the moment.
Okie dokie here goes nothing.
1. You said that power plants are more efficient than ice, but there are problems that go along with it. That's pretty vague, I don't see any argument against BEV's there. Most of the tesla roadsters will be sold in california which is mostly powered by natural gas.
3. I don't know why extra power from solar plants would be stored as hydrogen. Power plants use pumped water or flywheels to store surplus power generated during off peak hours. I think thats much more efficient. Anyways, I don't think solar panels will be generating any extra power anytime soon. Furthermore, batteries are not a power source and I don't give any reason why fuel cells are better.
4. The 200 mi range of a Tesla shouldn't be a problem for anybody's commute. If you plug it in every night, I don't think you'll get stranded anywhere. Long trips is more of a problem; too bad our rail system in this country is so poor. But if electric cars were to become popular, there's no reason why we wouldn't see electric charging stations like gas stations. Newer battery systems can charge with 15-20 min. Or a solution like Project Better Place could work as well. But yes if someone lives 2 miles from work, I don't know why they would drive anyways. And more people should use mass transit if they have that as an option. Right now for me it would take me more than 2 hours to get to work taking the bus instead of a 20 minute drive.
5. New LiPo batteries that have been developed are not flammable like ordinary li-ion found in electronics. And I don't think li-ion is more dangerous than gasoline.
If you read the FAQ's more carefully, it doesn't say you will have to buy new batteries every 5 years, it says the performance will be reduced to 70 percent. Also the maintenance cost on these cars will be much lower than a standard vehicle. I think by the time they come out with the model s you will see improved battery performance and reliability.
1. (my own numbers)
I commute a lot... and on a bad week, I'll drive around 400 miles. That's two charge cycles on the Tesla. If I had the charger installed, that's about 7 hours of charging per week over 7 days. Assuming I sleep, that's perfectly fine. Without the charger that's 60ish hours of charging, which is definitely less fine. On an average week of about 300 miles... 45 hours of charging.. 6.42 hours a night. It's a stretch, but possible. Solution? Get the charger.
2. The Tesla Roadster has a wheel-to-well efficiency ratio of 1.14 km/MJ(megajoule). The Toyota Prius (~55 MPG) has a wheel-to-well efficiency ratio of 0.556 km/MJ and a VW Diesel Jetta (~50 MPG) has a w-to-w efficiency ratio of 0.53 km/MJ. Even assuming that the Tesla is obtaining energy from a source equally as dirty as burning gasoline, the Tesla Roaster is more than twice as energy efficient than either of those other cars, thus causing lower pollution.
3. The Tesla Roadster was designed in California and very obviously around California standards and the West Coast power grid. California only obtains 20% of its energy from coal and 37.7% from natural gas. Another 18.9% is hydroelectric, 14% is nuclear and the rest is solar, wind and geothermal. Similarly, up here in washington, hydroelectric makes up around 3/4 of our power source. Unlike gasoline cars, the environmental footprint of electric cars varies with its power source, meaning that its footprint can lower as an area implements more clean energy. Here in Washington, and probably in Cali, you can specify a desire for green energy, making the relative carbon emissions of a full electric car close to zero.
Second to lastly...
Where in your whole conversation do you say anything about basic physics except at the end? How does a lack of knowledge of basic physics have anything to do with knowledge of energy production statistics (especially when you yourself say that power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines), the chemistry of batteries and their mining process, the cost of batteries, the logic of using manual power and public transport rather than driving, and the susceptibility of li-ion batteries to chemical-based fires? Maybe you meant to say chemistry, economics, logic and mining techniques? I sure didn't learn about any of that in basic or intermediate physics.
Lastly...
It's a 100,000$ Roaster that goes 0-60 in 3.8 seconds. It's in the league of Porsches, Ferraris, Audis and top-price Corvettes, not 3 wheeled Volkswagens and 90 horsepower hybrid cars. This is a toy car, not a daily driver. A toy car meant to rake in lots of money from rich people who can afford toy cars in order to put R&D into making pure electric cars affordable. Its a gimmick... and even Tesla will admit that to an extent with their supposed business plan (backed up by the Whitestar/Type-S) of gradually releasing cheaper and cheaper cars using money from their high-priced sales. It's brilliant and were you to attempt your futures market idea, you and your parents would be in a homeless shelter before 2011.
FYI this reply system sucks.
Will, I think you are confused. There is nothing wrong with electric cars per sea, but with current tech it is not feasible to be practical.
The problem is the best tech right now is LI-ION. Disregarding the whole strip mining problem(tree huggers can't see it so it must not be happening) you need over $30k in batteries to make a Prius sized car get the same distance/charging performance as the Tesla. It would be a slower car but get the minimum 200 mile distance with the $10,000/3.5 hour charge time.
Then in the end you have this tiny car that cost $40,000(see chevy volt) is far less practical then the majority of cars people need today. You can argue people don't need minivans or trucks but a bunch of people do.
Why not start with semi's? They drive many miles between fixed point and could schedule charges. If there was a business reason and a payback they could easily amortized the added cost. The reason is current tech is no good. We should be investing money in better storage devices and stop expecting this crap to save the world. New batteries will have all different charging problems so the Tesla will not really help this. That said the batteries on the drawing board are still not good enough.
Personally a hybred with a small li-ion battery, say enough to go 20 miles that can be home charged is a better first step. I think this vehicle would not put as good MPG numbers on the window sticker so that is probably why Toyota hasn't gone that way with the Prius.
I believe the diesel Jetta(or the old 4 door gulf) is probably the least environmentally damaging car in America and you would be driving that if you really care. If you drive a Prius you are most likely a ill informer tree hugger driving around smelling your own farts.
@John Christian
@chris fredette
1) This point is fair enough, there's still problems, but overall you feel that it is better than ICE cars. That's a postive for EVs, b/c problems with our grid energy will NEED to be solved sooner or later even if we DON'T drive any EVs.
2) The driving cycle uses about 70-80% of the energy life cycle of a typical car according to research by Argonne Labs. If you measure the materials by weight with the Tesla being ~2700lbs you will find the amount of materials isn't that much more, the car actually isn't that heavy. If you look up li-ions you will find they are landfill safe, so the environmental impact is greatly decreased compared to the lead acids we still use today. Sure the battery manufacturing has more impact than manufacturing a typical car but balance it over the lifecycle of the car and it's not going to be any worst than an equivalent gasoline car. Even the hybrid battery impact on the environment has been greatly exaggerated by hybrid-haters. Look at the Sudbury example, they use a situation from the thirty years ago (the lunar landscape example). Don't forget all these batteries are recyclable.
3)http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/11/altairnano-2mw-battery-passes-tests-could-help-green-the-grid/
4)$100k is for a sports car that goes 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, other models will be cheaper, the next one is $60k, next-next is likely $30k. Again I draw attention to lead acid batteries charging for 100 miles in 10 minutes: http://www.greencar.com/features/features39/
So quick charging is definitely possible. There are batteries today that charge even faster given you have a powerful enough source.
5) As opposed to a gasoline tank? I've seen plenty of those catch on fire (and explode too) on police chase videos. Just b/c they are solar racers don't mean they use the best batteries. Look up the a123 and altairnano cells, they are virtually impossible to destroy. And Tesla's various safety measures can prevent those kind of fires, you can look it up at their site. There still isn't a automotive li-ion battery fire today (don't point to the aftermarket Prius PHEV fire, the fire wasn't caused by the battery if people bothered to read into it).
Your point about public transportation, I like; it is cleaner than EVs or any of the alternative technologies today, but that's only if it works well and currently it's not working well outside of a few select places. Most of the US will still be using automobiles. The ideal would be if America can change it's whole system and really embrace public transportation and decrease urban sprawl, but again that has very little chance of happening.
John, it seems you are more against Tesla's business model of starting from the top and driving down market than against EVs. But you have to admit that it did bring the company a lot more hype (and most of it was caused by the media being attracted to the company, the company didn't even have to do that much PR until recently w/ the transmission problems) compared to other companies, thus helping them find lots of capital and preorders quickly. Even with all the delays they are moving at a rapid pace for such a small company, already readying for their next model (and I mean not just doing CG drawings of the next model as a lot of companies do, they are actually raising money and finalizing factory construction plans). Look at the other EV companies and they are moving a lot slower. It's apparent even with the inevitable problems that cropped up for this startup, starting from the top really helped them, both in terms of getting people to know their company and it raising money.
@chris fredette
Maybe it's just your definition of "practical" is different than others. EVs will make a practical shorter range vehicle at least until rapid chargers become more prevalent. The typical range now is ~100miles on EVs, most people's roundtrips won't exceed that in a day and all it takes is overnight charging even without rapid chargers (in case you bring it up it's not that hard to implement off the street charging for those without garages). On semis, they are using them already for shorter ranges: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1774/
If you look at the jetta fuel economy you can already see that it loses to the prius. Everyone expected the Jetta to "murder" the Prius but the fuel economy wasn't any better even with VW's own tests. Add the higher energy content of diesel and the results become worst. Balance this out with real world highway mileage with the jetta getting only 1mpg better, and at most the Jetta will only be on par with the Prius in terms of environmental impact. That's not to say that proves diesels lose to hybrids, but that here in the US we just haven't seen hybrid-killing diesels yet.
Perhaps you guys won't agree on this, but I view the Roadster as a "spark". Tesla itself might not be the company that will introduce the affordable EVs in the end, but there is no doubt to me the Roadster was a big driving force for the revival of EVs today, even if on "hype" alone as some people claim. Even the Venturi Fetish didn't really do anything, but the Roadster really brought back some interest in EVs. If you look at cars like the iMIEV, R1e, Th!nk, and with even Nissan, along with MBenz & BMW, announcing they want to go into the market for EVs; the EVs are coming, with no forced government mandate. All we have to do is sit back and wait a few years and we'll see if it really pans out. Again, 2010 is really the year, there are lots of promised vehicles from all kinds of alternative technologies coming that year. We'll then see which ones actually come out and if they really work.
Everyone is talking down electric cars due to battery cost and recycling issues. The point is that we need to advance the electric car in baby steps - the perfect gas car was invented right off the bat either (if it ever was). The future of the electric car is either in fuel cells, new battery tech, or (my personal favorite) Ultra capacitors -- check out EEStor, they're putting out capacitors this year for Zenn.