Results matching “Price”

Lies, Damned Lies, and Plug-in Hybrids

Gas/Electric Hybrid Vehicles

About ten years ago, the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight entered the US car market and have grown to change the way we think about automobiles, the environment, and energy efficiency. Starting slowly at first, sales of the Prius took off and now they are one of the most popular models sold in the US.

These hybrids are simple to understand: they run on gasoline just like every other car on the road, but they have a battery pack and electric motor that makes them more efficient: they get very good gas mileage.

But it's an odd design to meld two drivetrains into a single vehicle. Why is it more efficient to make a gasoline engine push around an electric motor and battery pack, and also make an electric drive push around the gas engine and fuel tank? It's not clear to me that it is that efficient. If you look at the top fuel efficient 2009 vehicles according to the EPA, you'll see that the top vehicles are hybrids, but their advantage is mostly in city driving. The diesel Jetta is just 10% less efficient than the Prius on the highway. In Europe, there are even more efficient diesel vehicles.

Hybrids work well for city driving because they use regenerative braking to capture some of the energy that is normally just dumped into wearing out your brakes when you slow down for a stop light. Even though only a portion of that wasted energy gets stored in the battery pack, it's enough of an improvement to make the double-drivetrain vehicle more efficient.

Hybrids are able to offset some of the weight of the electric drive by using a smaller gas engine. The electric drive can help push the vehicle up a hill, and get some of that charge back on the down slope.

Gasoline engines are only about 25% to 30% efficient. That is, only about 25% of the energy contained in a gallon of gas makes it to the wheels to propel the car. The rest of that energy is wasted as heat and mechanical inefficiency. A good part of that gets wasted in the transmission because a gas engine only produces high power/torque in a narrow band of RPMs, so multiple gears are required for good acceleration at a wide range of speeds.

An electric drivetrain can be over 80% efficient. There's no heat wasted in exhaust and no reciprocating pistons. Also, an electric motor can deliver high torque and power over a very broad RPM range, so there's no need for a transmission and thus no mechanical losses there. That's how adding the weight of a second drivetrain that is just fed with a fraction of the kinetic energy normally wasted by braking can improve the efficiency of a gas engine in city driving.

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

If that little bit of saved energy can be used to create a more efficient vehicle, wouldn't it be even better to use some grid electricity to further increase vehicle efficiency? Power plants generate electricity more efficiently and cheaply than using a gas engine to generate electricity indirectly through regenerative braking. So, maybe we should further augment a hybrid's power with grid electricity.

That's a promising idea, and is the basis of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs. There are actually two PHEVs that are generating a lot of buzz now: the Hymotion Prius upgrade and the Chevy Volt.

Hymotion created an after-market upgrade that turns a standard Toyota Prius into a PHEV by giving it an additional battery pack that can be charged from an ordinary outlet.

The Chevy Volt has an even more innovative design: it has a pure electric drive, only the electric motor is connected directly to the drivetrain. It also has a small, gasoline-powered generator that is only used to recharge the battery pack. Because the gas engine is only used as a generator, it can run at its most efficient power level and avoid the gross inefficiencies associated with a car's engine that has to run a wide variety of RPMs and load levels outside its most efficient power range.

Lying about Efficiency

The PHEV is a surprisingly more complicated solution in part because we have no way to talk about the efficiency of this type of vehicle. We're used to evaluating vehicle efficiency by looking at miles per gallon. That works great with a hybrid, because the only energy input is gasoline, but what about a PHEV? The easy thing is to just quote an MPG number and move on, but that doesn't tell you anything.

Consider a different case. Suppose I invent a new kind of hybrid vehicle: gas and propane. It has two engines, a conventional gasoline engine and a propane engine. Together, they power the vehicle's drivetrain. When I take my new model into the EPA to get its fuel efficiency rating, I fill up both tanks. The EPA drives the vehicle on their standard course and find that the car traveled 200 miles and used two gallons of gas, so it gets an EPA rating of 100 mpg.

But what about the propane? How much propane did the car use up? How much does that propane cost? How does the use of propane and gas change with different driving conditions? We already have city and highway numbers, but maybe this new hybrid is even more complicated. How does the hybrid bit work, does it burn propane until it runs out, then switches to gasoline, or does it burn both equally over the entire range? How are consumers going to evaluate what it will cost them to drive this vehicle on their daily commute. How will environmentally-minded consumers evaluate its overall energy efficiency and carbon footprint?

Obviously, was can't just quote an MPG number for a hybrid vehicle that takes in two different fuel/energy sources. That would be misleading. In fact, unless the MPG number works in all driving scenarios, it would be fraudulent.

The same issue applies with PHEVs. If we just get an MPG number, that tells us nothing useful unless we understand how the trade-off between gas and electricity works under our individual typical driving conditions.

The Volt and the EPA

Consumers will want some sort of fuel efficiency number and consumers understand MPG, so GM talked to the EPA and argued that the EPA should use a testing regimen that will give the Chevy Volt a rating of over 100 MPG. The problem is that if the EPA allows the Volt to use the battery pack without accounting for the extra energy input, it gets over 100 MPG, but only about 48 MPG if they don't allow it to deplete the battery pack. The truth perhaps lies between these two numbers and depends on an individual's driving profile.

It's really important that the conversation doesn't stop with this one deceptive measure of fuel economy. The Chevy Volt can go 40 miles on just electricity. That's great if my daily commute is under 40 miles (and that's true for 78% of personal travel in the US according to a 2003 Department of Transportation study), but if I go over that, is it the same as driving a Prius? Unlike the Prius, the onboard engine isn't powerful enough to power the car, it can only add charge to the battery pack. If you just keep driving, eventually the battery pack will run out, and simply filling up the gas tank doesn't refill the source of power that drives the wheels. So, how far can you go? The answer is going to be complex since the gap between what the car pulls from the battery pack and what the generator puts in depends on the speed you're driving. That's not an issue with the Prius, but it's something potential Volt buyers need to understand.

The same issues apply to any PHEV that uses a small gas engine only as a battery-charging generator.

The Hidden Cost

Not only does MPG not tell us enough about how much gas the car uses, while also skipping over the cost of electricity,* it completely hides the cost of the huge compromise built into a PHEV.

The very best battery technology available today is called lithium-ion. This battery chemistry has the best balance of cost and energy density. For a given weight in batteries, lithium will allow you to store the most charge at a reasonable cost. And the cost isn't cheap, either. Lithium ion batteries are more expensive than lead-acid (like your regular car or boat battery) or the nickel metal hybrid batteries used in hybrids like the Prius.

None of these battery chemistries used in vehicles like to be overcharged or fully discharged. If you've ever left your lights on overnight and not only drained your battery, but also ruined it, you know what I'm talking about. With an electric vehicle, there's a computer that monitors battery charge state and keeps you from damaging the batteries, so you don't have to worry about it, but it does have performance implications that prospective buyers need to know about.

Consider a pure electric vehicle like the Tesla Roadster. It has a large pack of lithium ion batteries, big enough to support an EPA verified range of 244 miles (mixed city and highway). Since most commutes are far less than this, 78% under 40 miles and 92% under 70 miles, this means most driving in the Roadster will only need to use the middle of the charge range: it doesn't need to be fully charged nor fully discharged to handle daily driving. This is the best way to ensure maximum battery life. If a Tesla driver frequently uses the entire maximum range of the battery pack, the lifetime of the battery pack will be shortened. The Roadster is not your best choice as a road trip car. Fortunately, road trips represent a small fraction of travel in the US, so this isn't a problem, just something to think about when you're choosing between the Prius and the Roadster for that big road trip.

But what about a plug-in hybrid, like the Chevy Volt with a 40-mile electric range? Obviously, GM has to keep the battery weight down since the car is already packing two power plants. The Volt is designed and marketed as being pure electric for a 40-mile daily commute. If GM were to put in a battery pack that could just barely manage the forty miles, then drivers would put a full charge cycle on it every day. That would kill a lithium ion battery pack in about two years. Let's assume they want their product to last longer than that.

Since the car is designed to be gas-free for a 40-mile commute, that battery pack has to be capable of much more than just 40 miles while also bearing the burden of pushing around a gas engine, generator, fuel tank and exhaust system. So, GM decides what an appropriate charge capacity margin is, and puts in a battery pack that large.

Let's suppose they only want to use the middle 50% of the charge range, so the battery pack is only charged to 75% and only discharged down to 25% (which is about what Toyota uses in the Prius). Based on that assumption, if you drive a Volt on your 40-mile commute, you're going to use half a discharge cycle every day. You bought a battery pack that is capable of an 80-mile trip if you are willing to compromise battery life for an occasional long trip. In fact, if you could pull out all the extra weight of the gas generator, your battery pack could maybe handle a 100-mile trip. Instead, you only get the 40 miles, while still also hammering the battery pack pretty hard, and dealing with all the maintenance hassle of maintaining the gas engine.

Maybe 50% charge buffer isn't the choice that GM makes. If they pick a smaller charge buffer, the battery pack wears out sooner. If they pick a larger buffer, then they are just wasting more battery pack on a hobbled electric drive that could handle even longer occasional pure electric trips. Not matter how you slice it, trying to drive a daily commute with a small battery pack burdened by extra generator weight wastes the full electric potential of the vehicle.

Driving Pure Electric

Compare that to a pure electric vehicle with a 240-mile range. You can do your 40-mile commute with just one sixth of the battery pack's charge cycle, and you have a car that can go over a hundred miles with less impact on battery life than your daily commute in a Volt. Even a 200-mile trip is possible while leaving 20% of the charge range untouched. That's excellent battery life in a vehicle that never burns any gas and is capable of a good long drive, especially if you can get access to an outlet at your destination.

Right now there aren't many choices when it comes to driving pure electric, but that's changing. Just like when any new technology is introduced, initial models are expensive and produced in low volumes. Even the Model T was viewed as a rich man's toy when it came out. With higher production comes both better availability and lower prices. Although electric vehicles have been around longer than gas-powered vehicles, the production electric vehicle market is in its infancy, but is about to get far more interesting.

Today, you can buy a high-end, pure electric sports car with a top speed of 125 mph and an EPA-certified range of 244 miles: the Tesla Roadster, available in limited quantities for a mere $109,000. If they cost less, you probably still wouldn't be able to get one because demand would far outstrip the production rate of about 1200 per year.

But Telsa isn't in the business of solving a shortage of expensive sports cars. Their mission is to get lots of affordable electric cars on the road, the Roadster is just the start. In 2011, just months after GM is expected to start producing the Volt, Tesla Motors expects to start delivering their $60,000 Model S, a luxury sport sedan with a range of about 240 miles. By 2012 or so they expect to deliver their third model, a $30,000 all-electric economy sedan.

But Tesla Motors isn't the only one in the game. Lots of companies, both big auto makers and daring start-ups are promising electric vehicles in the near future.

Aptera expects to start producing their Typ-1e, an EV with a 120-mile range in late 2008, available initially in California for $27,000. BMW is working on an all-electric Mini-E version of the Mini Cooper, available for lease through a pilot program this year in California, New York and New Jersey. In 2009, Miles Electric Vehicles expects to begin delivery of their highway speed sedan, cleverly called the "Highway Speed Sedan," with a top speed of 80 mph and a range over 100 miles for about $40,000. Daimler has plans to introduce electric versions of both a Smart car and a Mercedes in 2010.

Brother, Can You Spare a Trillion Dollars?

Meanwhile the big Detroit automakers have resisted years of pressure to produce more efficient vehicles, instead betting their profitability on giant gas hogs. Who could imagine that either environmental or national security concerns could sour the American public on huge gas guzzlers? Combine that with the brutally obvious result of global oil production leveling off while demand has continued to grow, literally exponentially. Is it any wonder years of short-sighted profiteering have put the big American automakers on the edge of bankruptcy? All of their lobbying to prevent more stringent domestic fuel economy standards while also locking  more efficient diesel fuel vehicles out of the US market has destroyed their competitiveness overseas, and now the American buyers aren't interested in their bloated product lines either.

Their solution is to have the US Government pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the ailing US auto industry to pay for their past mistakes, while they try to retool to build incrementally more efficient vehicles based on a compromised PHEV design, hiding behind inflated and misleading MPG numbers.

That's not how I want my tax dollars spent.



*The cost to drive a car on electricity is generally really cheap, due to the superior efficiency of an electric drive, even taking into account power plant efficiency and transmission loses. But, the cost does depend on where you live. Also, the emissions associated with the energy used in an electric vehicle vary widely depending on how electricity is generated in your area.

The good news is that we are already motivated to green up our electrical generation and EVs benefit from that without changing the car at all, while their gas-powered peers get dirtier with age. Oh, and gasoline prices can only go up, give or take short term fluctuations: global production is flattening out while worldwide demand is increasing.

Joe Nocera - Slime Bucket of Incorrect Facts

My thoughts on Joe Nocera's uninformed rant on Tesla Motors.

Disclaimer: My wife and I are a customers of Tesla Motors. You might think this means I want Tesla to succeed because they have a chunk of our money, but I think it's the other way around: Tesla has a chunk of our money because we believe in their vision and strategy for making it happen. We also own a RAV4-EV.

OK, enough about me. Let's get straight to Nocera's article and learn why Steve Jobs recently described him as "a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong."

[Elon Musk] is using [his] wealth to finance two quixotic efforts.

Don't mince words, tell us what you really think.

I'm no auto expert...

Well, at least we can agree on something!

Tesla expects to be delivering four cars a week soon, a number it eventually hopes to double.

Actually, they hope to get to about 35 a week within 6 to 12 months, but maybe math isn't his area of expertise, either.

By the end of 2010, Mr. Musk and his executive team expect to be manufacturing a five-seat, all-electric $60,000 sedan. This, however, will be a much more expensive and difficult task -- and many auto experts doubt that Tesla can pull it off.

What auto experts? Does he mean auto experts who make their living off of the big auto makers? Would they really be expected to say they think this tiny upstart company can easily do what the big guys have been whining can't be done for 10 years?

Among its flaws, the EV1 used a nickel metal hydride battery that couldn't get more than 75 miles before needing a charge.

Now he is getting the facts totally wrong. The first version of the EV1 used lead-acid batteries, 19th century technology, and had a range of 75 miles. The second generation EV1 used NMiH and had a range of over 100 miles.

"My daily commute was 37 miles one way," wrote a man named Michael Posner on a Web site called The Truth About Cars, who drove an EV1 for several weeks back in 1997. "Every trip was loaded with drama," he added. "If I went to lunch, I gave up a few precious miles. That could mean disaster." At General Motors, they took to calling this problem "range anxiety."

99% of all travel is less than 100 miles, so there's 1% of travel that couldn't be done in a second-generation EV1. This one guy tried to do his 74-mile commute in a first generation EV1 with a range of 75 miles. It didn't work out for him. Duh.

Is it any wonder the car didn't catch on?

Who says it didn't catch on? GM only leased 800 of them, but they never mention the waiting list of 4,000 more people who wanted to buy one. This happened with not only no promotion of the vehicles, but with ads clearly designed to dissuade potential customers from considering EVs. One can only guess what would have happened if the car companies actually promoted the strengths and benefits of EVs. When the big auto industry got the California Air Resources Board to eviscerate their Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate, they took back all of those leased cars from their passionate owners, despite offers of cash for the cars and organized public protests. Then they crushed the cars. If you haven't already seen Who Killed the Electric Car, I highly recommend it.

Jump ahead a decade. Oil is so expensive that everybody is thinking about alternatives to $4.50-a-gallon gasoline. At the same time, the technology that makes electric cars possible has greatly improved. The development of lithium ion batteries, in particular, was such a great leap forward that it has made it possible, with enough additional innovation by electric car companies, to produce vehicles that get more than 200 miles. Suddenly, an electric car seems viable.

Wow, that sounds cool.

And yet, and yet. Despite all this progress, we're not close to being ready to mass-produce an electric car. For starters, everyone trying to build an electric car is coming at it from different directions.

Lots of companies are trying to do something that's never been taken seriously, and they all have different approaches. That sounds like innovation. I'd be more worried if they were all doing the same thing.

For instance, while the Tesla has a 1,000-pound battery pack, consisting of over 6,800 cells (at an estimated cost of $30,000) ...

Whose estimate is the $30,000? If that's true, how could Tesla Motors be promising an EV for less than $30,000 by 2012? Maybe the estimate is wrong. Maybe the cost comes down with economies of scale.

...the new Aptera Typ-1 -- a Jetson-mobile if ever there was one -- uses a much smaller battery; its secret sauce is its aerodynamic shape, which greatly reduces drag.

Sure the Aptera has a smaller battery: it's not an electric vehicle, it's a gas/electric hybrid.

Bill Gross, the head of Idealab, which is behind Aptera, told me that he believes that when the car comes on the market late this year, it will sell for around $29,000 -- meaning of course that its business model is the opposite of Tesla's.

So Aptera is making a hybrid, hasn't passed crash testing, and is promising a car this year. That's why he's comparing them to Tesla, because they are where Tesla was two years ago, except they are trying to do something completely different.

Meanwhile, a third company, Phoenix Motorcars, is hoping to make traditional cars, like S.U.V.'s, that just happen to run on electricity.

Wow, that sounds crazy, sort of like the RAV4-EV and the Chevy S-10 EV. Oh, wait, it's already been done, and quite successfully considering how well-loved the few RAV4-EVs are.

It will take years, if not decades, for the marketplace to choose a winner, which, in turn, will keep consumers from committing to an electric car.

Why do all electric vehicles have to be the same in order to be popular? The Honda Insight and Toyota Prius have pretty much opposite strategies, and yet the Prius is wildly successful and our local Honda dealer keeps sending us letters begging us to trade in our Insight because they are in high demand but Honda stopped making them.

Secondly, even though the range of an electric car can extend to 200 miles or more, that is still not enough for people to abandon internal combustion engines. Surveys have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of people drive 50 miles or less a day -- and the nascent electric car industry takes great comfort in those numbers.

Who said everyone has to give up ICE vehicles for EVs to be successful? How about if every household in the US that currently has two ICE vehicles replaced one with an EV? It seems like that would make a successful business.

But what happens when you want to take a longer drive?

How about a hybrid? See how handy it is that we don't have everyone building the same vehicle?

For an electric car to truly take hold, the country will need some kind of national electric car infrastructure -- either a place where people can stop to charge the battery (although that still means waiting hours to get a full charge) or a system in which batteries can be exchanged like propane tanks.

Gosh, how could we possibly create a national infrastructure for charging electric vehicles? We'd have to build power plants and string wires across the entire country, then put outlets on the ends of those wires. Sounds prohibitively expensive, except for the fact that we've already done it.

According to Tesla, a high current charging station could charge the Roadster's battery pack in less than an hour. So, stop for lunch, plug in your car in the parking lot, and an hour later your EV is fully charged.

Then there are the manufacturing problems. Just because Tesla has succeeded in making an expensive electric sports car does not mean that it will be able to make a moderately priced five-seat sedan. The latter is a quantum leap more difficult. "If the Roadster costs $100,000, how much will the sedan cost?" Mr. Sherman of Automotive magazine said. "It will have more doors, more seats, more metal, larger brakes. The operative word here is 'more.' "

Gosh, maybe they could lay off the carbon fiber and find some savings in economies of scale. I wonder what it cost Henry Ford to make the first 2,000 cars in inflation adjusted dollars. More than a Tesla Roadster, I'll bet.

David Cole, the chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, is another Tesla skeptic. For one thing, he says, the battery solution in the Roadster probably won't work in a heavier car. "Lithium batteries are going to change the world," he said, "but they are not ready for prime time." Tesla's solution in the Roadster -- tying together thousands of small batteries into one giant one -- is "suboptimal." He added, "On a degree of difficulty scale, building a sports car is a 2. Building a high-volume affordable car is a 10."

Ah, so he did find a big auto industry wonk that will put his name on a statement that says starting a new car company is hard. Wow! Fortunately, Tesla Motors figured this out all on its own and is working slowly toward mass-producing EVs while taking advantage of the growing demand for efficient, clean, fun electric vehicles. They sold around 1,000 before delivering a single car. What do you think the demand will be like when they are cranking them out and they are no longer an unproven car company?

Tesla, of course, insists that it is well aware of the difficulty, but remains confident it can succeed. Darryl Siry, the Tesla marketing chief, argues that the company has access to all the capital it needs, that it has just hired a manufacturing expert from Chrysler and that it has a hard-headed chief executive, named Ze'ev Drori, who has a reputation for getting things done. The more I prodded, though, the more skeptical I became.

In other words, Drori is a big auto industry guy who thinks it can be done, therefore he must be high.

For instance, what Tesla doesn't say, unless you really push, is that the sedan it hopes to sell for $60,000 will not get 200 miles per charge but closer to 160.

That's a big problem because 99% of all travel is under 100 miles, and apparently the cheapest Tesla sedan only goes an extra 60 miles of top of that.

It will cost considerably more to get 200 miles per charge -- which of course makes it an awfully costly car even for the moderately wealthy.

Yeah, cars that cost over $60,000 don't sell at all. Well, except for high-end sports sedans. Do you think Tesla can sell 20,000 high-end electric sport sedans? I sure do. 6-year-old RAV4-EVs sell for over $60,000 on the rare occasion when a lucky owner of one decides to sell. (The linked eBay item #230254014549 shows a RAV4-EV auction which closed at $89,200 but the top bidder flaked so it sold to another bidder for $69,850.) Could Tesla sell a million sedans at that price? Probably not. Given that they are only going to make 20,000 a year, it seems highly likely to me they could sell them at $60K even if they can get the cost down well below that.

I also don't see any problem with Tesla's plan to sell 200,000 EVs per year at less than $30,000 each. The only problem I can see with that is the length of the waiting list. They might need to sell them for more so their supply can meet the demand.

And that kind of petty dissembling on Tesla's part doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Tesla said the sedan starts at $60,000, but they have never said the cheapest model will have a 200-mile range. In fact, they have not announced the specs for the sedan at all. It is somewhere between naive and disingenuous to connect the dots incorrectly and call Tesla liars.

So where should we pin our short-term electric car hopes? Andrew Grove, the former chief executive of Intel, has lately been pounding the table on behalf of something called a plug-in hybrid -- which uses a far more energy efficient design than the Prius, Toyota's popular hybrid. The Prius is powered both by batteries and an internal combustion engine, but essentially they are both working at the same time, so it is always consuming gas.

Well, except for the fact that a Prius has a small range that it can drive on pure electric. It's a small matter of installing and flipping a switch to give the US version of the Prius an extended pure electric range like the model sold in Japan. Then, for under $10,000 you can increase that range to over 40 miles.

A plug-in hybrid would drive completely on electricity until the battery runs down -- after about 40 miles or so -- and only then would the car switch to internal combustion.

A plug-in hybrid can go either way. It can have the design of a Prius (a parallel hybrid) with a larger battery, or it can be a serial hybrid like the Aptera or Chevy Volt.

Such a solution has the potential to cut the nation's gasoline bill in half.

That sounds a lot like what replacing half of the ICE cars with EVs, except with the hybrid strategy, everyone gets to keep paying for maintaining their internal combustion engines, catalytic converters and mufflers. I wonder why the big auto companies are doing everything possible to stall the adoption of pure EVs?

Mr. Grove believes that big cars like S.U.V.'s can be retrofitted to become plug-in hybrids, and he's right. But it is also expensive; Martin G. Klein, the founder of the battery company Electro Energy told me that it costs $50,000 to turn a Prius into a plug-in hybrid. (He's done it.) "But in a future scenario," he added, "it would cost a few thousand dollars."

So, it's wildly expensive, except that it isn't. In fact, companies like HyMotion are doing it today for about $10,000.

So where should we look, realistically, for a mass-market electric vehicle? Believe it or not, Detroit. In fact, the quick-fix approach that strikes me as the most promising comes from -- surprise! -- General Motors, the chief villain of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The Chevy Volt, which the company wants to bring to market in 2010, is a plug-in hybrid that aspires to be able to travel 40 miles before switching to gasoline power. But the best part is that the combustion engine will automatically recharge the battery -- so it can switch back even while you're driving.

Yes, that's right: we should look to Detroit to do what small companies are doing today, while also not actually producing pure electric vehicles and protecting their ICE maintenance revenue stream. It's amazing how unattractive EVs look when you can just keep doing the same old thing, with a twist. They want to create a more efficient ICE vehicle by burdening a perfectly good EV with the weight and hassle of the ICE engines they have built their business around. Go Detroit!

It's not sexy like the Tesla, and it's not aerodynamic like the Aptera Typ-1. But for a mass-market solution in the here and now, that's the one to root for.

Except for the part where it's neither here nor now, it's set to match Tesla's Model S time frame, and it isn't an electric vehicle. But other than those things, it's great. So, let's all kneel and bow toward Detroit and hope that we can get in our reservations for Tesla's Model S and the 2012 sedan before they are sold out as far as the Roadster is.

Open Letter to CARB

The California Air Resources Board seems poised to cave into big auto pressure and gut their mandate for zero emissions vehicles. This blog from Tesla Motors that explains the situation.

Basically, the staff recommendation is to lower requirements on the big auto makers to levels that are likely to be met by tiny Tesla Motors all on their own, and likely to be blown away if any of the other promising ZEV startups deliver a small fraction of what they are promising.

You can express your opinion to the CARB through this web form.

Here's the letter I sent them...

To the California Air Resources Board

The big auto companies have no excuse for not developing vehicles which are more friendly to the environment.

Energy efficient vehicles are popular with consumers. Next time you go for a drive, just count how many times you see a Toyota Prius.

ZEV vehicles are technologically viable today. In response to previous CARB mandates, the big auto makers proved that ZEV vehicles can be developed and sold in quantity to consumers who want them. Witness the GM EV-1, the RAV-4 EV and the Chevy S-10 EV. The big auto companies produced these cars, sold them to a fraction of the consumers who wanted them and did everything in their power to hide and un-popularize them. This is well documented in the film "Who Killed the Electric Car." I personally know people who are still using the RAV4-EV and S-10 EV without any manufacturer support. These are awesome vehicles, loved by their owners and in high demand, with used vehicles selling for more than their original selling prices in many cases.

Recently Tesla Motors has started regular production of a fully safety-approved, highway-capable EV that has pre-booked orders approaching the numbers mandated by the watered-down CARB ISOR for the time period 2012-2014.

   http://www.teslamotors.com/

That a tiny startup company can be ready to produce 1800+ ZEVs in 2009 proves that the big auto companies can easily produce far more in the 2012-2014 timeframe, even 25,000 seems like too low a number to really push the auto industry to do their part to improve air quality and reduce CO2 emissions.

My wife and I will be Tesla owner number 241. We have driven one of their late evaluation prototype vehicles, and I assure you this vehicle is quite real. We will gladly replace our Acura NSX-T with the Tesla Roadster, a high-end sports car that is cost competitive with gasoline-powered vehicles in the same performance category.

Tesla Motors will use the experience gained from producing this expensive, low-volume vehicle to design and produce their next vehicle in the much larger $50,000 to $70,000 sports sedan market in 2010. I expect they will have a ZEV in the $30,000 price range shipping upwards of 300,000 vehicles by 2012.

Tesla Motors alone is likely to far exceed CARBs embarrassingly small demands on the big auto makers. Now is the time to increase the pressure on the big auto makers rather than reduce the CARB mandate to less than what the market is clearly already demanding.

Tesla Motors is just the first of several promising companies to start regular production of ZEVs. Aptera, Miles Electric, and Phoenix Electric all have credible plans to produce safe, highway capable ZEVs in the 2009 to 2010 time frame.

    http://www.aptera.com/details.php
    http://www.milesev.com/
    http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/

Many other companies are working in ZEV market segment, as are many dedicated enthusiasts who are converting ICE vehicles to ZEV electric vehicles.

The California Air Resources Board has an opportunity to push the auto industry toward reasonable environmental progress. Please do so.

Tom Saxton

Amazon Kindle

kindle.jpg

THE GOOD


The Kindle's display is nearly as readable as paper, the only issue is a slight glossiness.

It's about the same size and lighter than the paperback I just finished reading, and much lighter than the large number of books it can contain. Finally, I'll be able to take a Neal Stephenson book on vacation!

You can read the Kindle with it sitting in your lap without holding the book to keep it open and positioned.

The keyboard below the screen is great for reading in bed, because the Kindle can sink into the comforter without obscuring any text.

The page is always flat, there's no curve as the page meets the binding. You don't have to fight with the book to get a good view of the entire page even when you're near either end of a long book.

The shopping experience is awesome. I really like that it doesn't require a computer and is very fast for downloading purchased content. Finish a book, buy a book, keep reading.

The cover is really important, and makes the experience of holding and using the Kindle better.

Having a dictionary instantly available, even when you're away from home, is a really great addition to the reading experience.

You can change the font size from pretty small to pretty large, which should be a boon to a wide spectrum of users who want fonts size to suit their taste and eyesight.

THE BAD

Kindle is uncomfortable to hold in left hand by itself. To get it to easily rest in a stable position, the lower left corner of the Kindle digs into my palm and gets uncomfortable in just a couple of minutes.

The cover attachment seems flaky, but is working well so far. I feel like the catch mechanism isn't very secure and will likely loosen up or wear slightly and stop working. Time will tell.

The screen flash when changing pages is distracting, as is the slight delay. The delay is noticeable, but not annoying. I expect people will get used to the flash.

The power and wireless switches are cheap-feeling sliders on the back of the book, which is a real pain to get at when in its case. You don't need to mess with the wireless switch that often, but I feel like I should turn the book off whenever I put it down for more than a few minutes. Should I pop it out of the case to get at the power switch or try to snake my finger between the Kindle and the case without detaching the flaky little catch? It's an annoyance every time I put the book down.

Newspapers don't work on the Kindle. First off, newspapers are not a text-only medium but the Kindle is largely a text-only device. That's fine for novels, but terrible for newspapers. I tried a sample issue of the Seattle Times and it was horrible. I would really like to stop consuming paper by the pound, but newspapers need photos, comics, crossword puzzles and non-linear browsing. I'm not much of a sports fan, so I spend about one second looking at the front page of the sports section to see if there's some new hope for the Mariners then move on. In the Kindle edition, five of the eleven pages in the table of contents were sports headlines. The Kindle edition of the Seattle Times is just a flattened text-only subset of their web site. I'll keep recycling the paper for now.

THE DRM

The last electronic eBook I tried was The Rocket eBook which required the use of (bad) software on your computer, and the content you bought was tied to one device. If you broke or lost the device, your content was also lost. Even with those annoyances (with a device that was larger, heavier, and had a less advanced display), I liked the Rocket eBook for reading on vacation and would have kept using it if the product hadn't died. The Kindle has solved the Rocket eBook's most obvious problems and has really moved the electronic book technology forward.

Still the digital rights management (DRM) issues make the Kindle books a lot different from a traditional book. You can't loan or resell content and your content is only available as long as Amazon keeps supporting the content and device. If you buy a book and the bookstore goes out of business or stops selling sci-fi paperbacks, you still own the book. My wife and I read a lot of the same books, so now we have to buy two copies if we both want to read it on our own Kindle? Swapping Kindles doesn't work: if you finish one book and start another, you've effectively glued those two books together -- you can't pass the book you've finished to the other person without also giving up the one you're now reading.

The Kindle books seem to be priced lower than the price of the corresponding paper book, whether it's hard cover or paperback. That sounds good until you realize you're getting a lot less than what you get when you buy a book.

Amazon could improve the proposition by making it possible to transfer a book from one account to another for a small charge, like 50 cents or a dollar. That way, when I'm done reading a book, I can transfer it to my wife's account, or I can pass it on to a friend, or even sell it. Something like this would give users a better sense of owning what they buy, and at the same time give Amazon and the publishers a stream of revenue when books change hands.
  1 2

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.