Sep 19, 2011
JRP3 A quick Google for "Rochester RV Parks" makes it look as if you'd be well covered for potential charge points.�
Sep 29, 2011
EVFest EV Fest & AMPhibian!
JR - a quick look at - Building the AMPhibian Building the AMPhibian - tells me - this would make a great addition to EV Fest's Exhibits on October 23, 2011!
EV Fest Electric Vehicle Show - Electric Car Show and Toronto's Premier Electric Vehicle Fall Festival and - I bet it's winter performance would be a point of discussion too! Any chance we could see you joining us as an exhibitor at EV Fest 2011 as a PErsonal Vehicle Exhibitor??�
Sep 30, 2011
JRP3 Unfortunately the AMPhibian is completely disassembled and undergoing major reconstruction at this time. The 40 year old ABS plastic body has too many cracks so I'm going to reinforce it and sheath it with fiberglass cloth and epoxy resin.�
Oct 2, 2011
Kipernicus I asked a guy at the battery assembly area if there would be a weight difference between the 3 options and he said "I cannot say".
Also I asked someone else about renting a 300mi pack and he said he didn't know, but probably not.�
Oct 2, 2011
vfx We got two different answers from two battery techs. They apparently have not decided weather they will achieve the 160 low mileage battery by putting in smaller cells or simply removing cells.�
Oct 2, 2011
JRP3 Seems as if they should have that figured out by now :scared: From a performance/efficiency standpoint the lighter weight pack would be the better choice. The lighter pack would give more range from the same kWh. Maybe the weight reduction would cause handling/suspension tuning issues?�
Oct 2, 2011
AnOutsider A tech was telling my wife sport option wouldn't be available until 2013 as I was texting her that I saw on twitter it would be available at launch. 10 minutes later elon confirmed it. I'm not sure everyone knows everything.�
Oct 2, 2011
Citizen-T Could be that some of the lower-level guys weren't told the whole truth to cut back on leaks.�
Oct 2, 2011
vfx Jim and I specifically asked many battery guys if the car would be "lighter-faster" with less batteries, or de-tuned. Not detuned and not any faster was consistently the the answer.
And yes, after Elon's sport announcement there were a few who did not even know they would have to do it.�
Oct 2, 2011
JRP3 If they go with a lighter pack but performance remains the same they would indeed be de-tuning it somewhat by limiting the power from the pack. This would make some sense since pulling the same power level from a smaller capacity pack would mean the cells are putting out a higher C rate which could accelerate degradation. If the power level is the same then you would certainly expect better 0-60 times from dropping a few hundred pounds of weight. If they are keeping pack weight the same but using smaller capacity cells, and performance is the same as the longer range models, then the smaller capacity pack would have to put out higher C rates than the larger capacity packs to keep the same performance. If I were doing the design I'd go with the lighter pack of higher density cells and de-tune the power draw from the pack to keep performance the same with the lighter pack while easing the draw on the smaller pack.�
Oct 2, 2011
NigelM I was told that the different pack sizes would use more or fewer cells but in different configuration across the one battery tray. I also heard a rumor that there might not be a 160 mile option at all, so I asked a couple of the engineers about it - the reply was "we're not going to produce an option nobody wants to buy"; I interpret that to mean it's wait and see if there is demand.�
Oct 2, 2011
cinergi Oh, they have. That was discussed. Weight, range, per-cell amperage draw, etc. They've got ways to model this.
I was told 525kg for the 300 mile pack, at 83 Kwh�
Oct 2, 2011
William13 Both the power train and battery engineers were hesitant to answer the question of what is faster a 160 mile or 300 mile. They were both concerned about the power draw on fewer cells in the 160. The cells must all be the same capacity in an individual vehicle. There were four people who said the 300 mile would be 85 kWh. When asked if this was useful or nominal capacity they said this is their answer. I expect this means useful though it may be equivalent to the current "range mode".�
Oct 2, 2011
JRP3 300 miles from 85 kwh means 283 wh/mile if you get to use all 85 kwh.�
Oct 2, 2011
doug From my conversations, I believe they've considered all their options but will decide the best option when the time comes since some factors may change by the time they need to start producing smaller packs. Fortunately they're starting with the 300 mile pack.�
Oct 2, 2011
Doug_G Speaking of Range mode, when asked about that we were told that they haven't decided on the charge modes yet.�
Oct 3, 2011
onlinespending Given these two facts, I think it's best to start with the 160 mile battery pack and upgrade to a larger size pack when you need a replacement.
"Tesla expects the battery to retain approximately 70% of its initial capacity after seven years or 100,000 miles."
"The 230-mile range option is priced at about $10,000 more than the base and the 300-mile option at about $20,000 more than the base."
7 years from now, I imagine the cost of replacing the battery will be considerably cheaper than the 10k or 20k upgrade that it costs now. If you intend on keeping your Tesla for many years to come, as I do, it's only inevitable that you'll need to upgrade your battery. That 300 mile pack will "shrink" to 230 miles, 230 to 161, and 160 to 112 (assuming the 70% quoted by Tesla).
So if the Tesla will not be your primary vehicle, or if you plan on avoiding long trips with it, I'd suggest holding off on getting anything but the cheapest option. It's the least expensive entry into owning the Tesla, and that $7500 federal tax credit constitutes a greater % savings on the cheapest option. And given that you'll need to replace your battery anyways, you could push out the decision to go for the larger capacity pack at that time when the price will not only likely be cheaper, but the battery technology will much improved. As anyone else opting for the 160 mile option due to a similar line of thinking?�
Oct 3, 2011
NigelM However, you'll have to wait for the 160 mile battery pack. Tesla has already signaled that it will work through all 300 mile reservations first, then 230's and then the 160's. This makes sense from a production and cash flow point of view for the company, but if you're ordering a 160 now then you can bank on not receiving it till spring 2013 based on current reservation numbers and it may be much later if the reservations list is increasing as we write....�
Oct 3, 2011
onlinespending I already have my reservation and am about 2000. If I went for the larger battery pack it would be a purely emotional decision and due to a bit of impatience. But I suppose cars are one of the few things can have that impact on a man!
�
Oct 3, 2011
dsm363 I actually recommend getting the biggest battery pack that makes financial sense to you for the same reason. The pack will decrease slowly overtime so starting at 160 miles (I assume ideal miles so actual range will be a little lower) doesn't give you a lot of room for longer trips. Of course, as you said, if this is purely a city car then the 160 pack makes perfect sense. Especially up the battery upgrade costs go down over time which they should.�
Oct 3, 2011
Kevin Harney No I look at it this way. If you need only the 160 battery and you plan on keeping the car until it dies then the 300 mile might be the best idea. After 7 years you would still have a 230 mile car and then you would still have some more years for it to get down to 160 miles (and more to the 112 miles). So you could go MUCH longer without replacing it Right ?!?!?!�
Oct 3, 2011
onlinespending But that's a $20,000 upfront cost for the 300 mile upgrade. I'd rather save that money (and earn interest on it) and upgrade to a larger battery size if I really feel the need 5 - 10 years down the road when I need to replace my original battery pack.
Also, I am surprised that the 300 mile pack is the clear winner in this poll, considering that most people do not drive 160 miles per day. Even if just driven 5 days a week for a 160 mile commute, you're talking about over 40,000 miles a year (and that doesn't even consider weekend driving). Unless you have a commute that is close to 160 miles round trip, it simply does not make any sense to opt for the 300 mile option. Just plug it in overnight. It makes far more sense to rent a car for the few times you'd take a long road-trip. Just think about the kind of nice rental cars $20,000 can buy you over a 7 year period!�
Oct 3, 2011
dsm363 It's really a personal preference. You're right that a large majority of driving will fall within that 160 mile range. There are some people that make trips often enough that this wouldn't work though and the convenience of keeping your own car for this trips might be worth the cost of the larger packs.
Also, most people don't keep a car 10 years so by the time the battery is down to 70% after 7 years, many people buying a higher end sedan will look to upgrade anyway. Not everyone but that's something people are probably considering.�
Oct 3, 2011
kgb I'm going to start off with, "You're right." I tell everyone that same line when I tell them about the 240 mile range of my Roadster. But, not every decision is made logically. Some people are willing to spend more for "convenience" than others. When you rent a car, you have to call and reserve it, you have to "get a ride" to the rental place, you have to remember to transfer your sunglasses from your car to the rental, etc... That requires mental preparation too - mental effort. So, the more you can use your own car, the more convenient it is.
Assume you can actually drive 300 miles with a 300 mile battery pack (but we know you can probably do a little more). That means to charge at home, you can go 150 miles to your destination and 150 miles back. Certainly that is plenty for commutes and for tooling around town. Many people have nearby towns to which they like to drive for day trips. Of course, if you want to drive your vehicle once you arrive, you can't actually go to a town 150 miles away, you'll have to go to one that is 120 miles away, so you can use 60 miles or so while you are at the destination town. Many people do a 2 hour drive to a "local" destination. The 300 mi pack is perfect for that. Anything longer than that, it is probably easier and cheaper to catch a commuter plane or rent the car. I don't think it is surprising that many people opt for the convenience of the bigger pack.�
Oct 3, 2011
AnOutsider Correct KGB, convenience is huge. Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, I'd like a buffer. If I forget, don't want to or can't plug in one night, I don't want to be screwed. 300 mile range means I can charge at the beginning of the week, and do my daily commute for pretty much the whole work week before needing to charge.
Maybe I've got the wrong mentality, not having owned a roadster or any other electric car, but HAVING to plugin nightly just feels like a ball and chain.�
Oct 3, 2011
Doug_G Yep, wrong mentality. It takes me 10 seconds to plug it in. Big deal. I'd far rather do that in my garage daily than freeze my butt gassing up my car even once! (Picture 5 minutes holding a cold spigot with wind howling around you at -30C).
Personally I wouldn't go for less than the 230 mile pack, because I'm very happy with the Roadster's range. Around town I don't have to worry that local public charging infrastructure is completely nonexistent. It's simply always enough. I'd like the 300 mile simply because it makes road trips easier.�
Oct 3, 2011
AnOutsider Ok, but what if you forget? Heck, some nights I don't even plug in my cell phone, but it's cool because it's got hefty battery life and I've got a desk charger at the office.
What if I stay at a friends house? What if I lose power? A lot of what ifs true, but I'm huge on being independent (funny for a guy that's married), and get really uneasy if I feel as if I'm on a short leash.
In any case, it'll vary for everyone, but suffice to say if the 160 pack were the only option, I might not even be considering an s.�
Oct 3, 2011
kgb AnOutsider, you have the "wrong mentality." Assuming you don't set up your charger in some remote location and you set it up near your parking space (like most everyone does), the added moment of plugging in the car is nothing. In stead of being a ball and chain, it feels a bit more like tucking your kids in bed at night. It's actually a pleasant experience. The bonus is when you get to think of all the time you save NOT fueling up on gas. Not sweating out in the heat, freezing in the cold, getting wet in the rain. Assuming that I spent about 10 minutes fueling up on average, and I gassed up about 5 to 6 times per month (before my Roadster), I've saved 11 hours of my time this past year!!!!!! (I just did the calculation)�
Oct 3, 2011
onlinespending I entirely agree with you. There will always be those willing to spend more for the added convenience, even if it's borderline irrational. But I figured that would account for a fair amount of people leaning towards the 300 mile battery option, not a majority. That's what I find surprising.
But hey, when I first looked at the battery pack options, I too convinced myself that 160 miles was not enough. But once I realized it was a $20,000 difference (a 40% premium on the total value of the base model) I started to think it through.
I also have to imagine that most people who have the money to even consider the 300 mile option likely have 1 or 2 other cars that are better suited for longer trips anyways.�
Oct 3, 2011
ckessel That'd be like forgetting to stop and get gas today. Or forgetting to set the emergency brake. Or forgetting to lock the car when you get to work.
If you find yourself constantly forgetting these sorts of small automotive related tasks, then I can see your point, though you might also look at getting tested for Alzheimer's�
Oct 3, 2011
qwk It all depends on which batteries go into the 160 pack also. If tesla uses the same batteries accross the board, the 160 pack might be a decent pack(value for the money). The biggest unknown is the performance of the 160 pack. Since Tesla's plan is to sell the 300 mile pack first, I really doubt that anyone has a chance to drive the 160 mile car to compare before comitting to buy.�
Oct 3, 2011
shark2k In fairness to the bold part, a lot of people do not bother using the e-brake because they feel just putting the car in park is good enough, so I don't think that is the best example
Though AnOutsider bringing this up I did have a question. How many of you have your chargers in a EVSE (correct acronym, right?) in a garage vs. outside? I ask because at my parents house, if I were to get an EV, I wouldn't be able to put the EVSE inside the garage (we don't use it for cars, like most people in my neighborhood). I would have to put the EVSE outside, so I'm wondering how that would chance the "convenience" factor of it? For instance (I'm in Northern NJ so it does get cold, though admittedly not as bad as Canada or other places more north). I'm also wondering about charging when it's raining or snowing. That could make it nicer to have the larger battery so that if you need to wait out the weather a few days to charge, you have enough range.
-Shark2k
P.S. AnOutsider, I like your new avatar.�
Oct 3, 2011
AnOutsider I'm not dissuaded lol. I honestly can't see myself whipping out the Cale and plugging in every night. Heck when I get home I hate running back out to get the mail or unloading bags. In any case, I still think my choice works best for me.
Thanks shark, I used it on fb and everyone was confused... Thought it was a new mouse from Logitech or something�
Oct 3, 2011
JRP3 I'd be tempted to go with the 160 mile pack for the reasons Onlinespending mentioned, of course I drive an EV with 50 miles max range, so that would be a huge upgrade for me. You're basically taking a gamble either way, will the smaller pack last long enough and will prices of new batteries drop enough in the future, or will the extra mileage and shallower cycling of the larger pack make it last substantially longer and pay off in the long run? If you think you'll actually use a good portion of the larger pack often enough then there is no question.�
Oct 3, 2011
dsm363 It's really not an issue for me at least. I've forgotten maybe twice to plug in since December when I got my car. The 245 mile Roadster pack is more than enough for me the next day anyway. I'm the kind of person who charges my mobile phone each night though. It's really just a new fact of modern life. You charge your cell phone, you remember to turn your TV off before you go to bed....you plug your car in when you get home for the night. With the mobile app, maybe then can make an alert that if you don't plug your car in by 10PM, it sends you a text message or e-mail.�
Oct 3, 2011
ckessel My logic runs counter to Onlinespending.
Edit: found the old post describing my thinking.
�
Oct 3, 2011
Lloyd Not mentioned is the DC fast charging network. Until this network is up and running with locations every 25 to 50 miles along every major highway in the US, the extended range is NECESSARY to make normal travel possible. Once the network is deployed then smaller batteries are an option, at least for my driving.�
Oct 3, 2011
JRP3 I think he, (and certainly I), was thinking more along the lines of keeping the battery until it wears out enough that it no longer provided enough range, and then getting a new pack, which would take much longer than the 3 years you used in your calculations.�
Oct 3, 2011
kgb Did you not see what I wrote before? It would be like forgetting to put the kids to bed!�
Oct 3, 2011
onlinespending I think your cost estimates are off. Telsa uses a 300Wh/mile consumption average for their calculations. This means the 160 mile pack has a roughly 48 kWh capacity. The 230 mile pack would have a 69 kWh capacity. And the 300 mile pack would have a 90 kWh capacity.
Lets suppose we use a cost of $400 per kWh for the Li-ion batteries. Tesla is likely paying sub $400 per kWh given the bulk pricing discounts they can get, but this is a conservative estimate.
That would mean the difference in cost of the 230 mile pack over the 160 pack is roughly $8,400. And $16,800 for the 300 mile pack over the 160 mile pack. The cost of the battery pack structure and cooling mechanism are a common cost to all capacities. The Li-ion cell costs to Telsa are likely considerably less, so make no mistake about it, they are making fairly good margins on selling the larger capacity packs. These margins on the batteries themselves are arguably more on a first generation model given that they are a young company with a desperate need for cash, and are taking advantage of early adopter psychology.
I also have to imagine that if you were to upgrade to a larger capacity pack, you wouldn't necessarily be paying for the entire pack structure, but it'd be more for the Li-ion cells themselves. The Tesla dealership could likely swap them out, or within a few years there may even be non-OEM solutions for the cells. So you're argument that 300 mile upgrade price 3 years from now would be more than it is now for the cells is likely off. I could easily see the 300 mile pack being a $10k upgrade (or less) 4 years after initial production. As more and more automakers manufacture EVs, the price of Li-ion cells will drop significantly.
And technology will only improve also. I imagine one day not far from now there will only be a single battery capacity offered, as costs drop and energy densities increase. It simply won't be cost effective to offer the different options, especially when the prices of these cells drop tremendously and become a lower percentage of the overall cost of the vehicle.�
Oct 3, 2011
ckessel I told you they were fictional for the sake of the mathematics exercise. The fact they were fictional didn't really change the point that if you want a large battery, you're likely better off getting it now rather than later.
Someone that's done actual battery cost analysis: How Much Does a Tesla Model S Battery Pack Cost You? We do the Math
They put the 300 mile pack at 40-45k (consumer price, not Tesla price). To upgrade from 160 to 300 later down the line for 10k you'd have to see A) HUGE reductions in battery prices, which historically haven't seen dramatic drops, and B) really good trade in value on your old pack, which seems questionable given you're giving back a degraded old-technology battery.�
Oct 3, 2011
onlinespending Exactly. By then the price of a 300 mile range pack (or perhaps even greater capacity) will be significantly less that upgrading to a 300 mile pack versus simply replacing it with another 160 mile pack will be a far easier decision.
And not that I think this will happen, but by getting the lower capacity battery and not paying that extra $20k upfront, I minimize my exposure to something bad happening. What if Tesla fails as a company? What if the Model S is riddled with reliability issues? I'll feel far better knowing that I didn't sink another 40% into the car. The 160 mile option covers 99% of my trips and allows me to enjoy the car with the least upfront cost. If all goes well, costs come down, then perhaps I'd consider the 300 mile option down the road.�
Oct 3, 2011
dsm363 If the 160 mile pack meets your needs, go for it. Others want or need more range. I'm looking forward to the 300 mile pack even though it won't be used every day.�
Oct 3, 2011
WhiteKnight For what it's worth . . .
Here is my earlier argument for why you want to go with the 300 mile battery pack.
Also I talked to a Tesla representative who said that warranties are not final but most likely the 300 mile pack will carry a longer warranty because you don't have to use as deep a discharge for the same amount of driving. If you're doing 50 miles per day then you're using 32% of the 160 mile pack but only 16% of the 300 mile pack. So the 300 mile pack will last longer with the same amount of driving.�
Oct 3, 2011
onlinespending Yeah, maybe not in 4 years time....but I'd guess certainly within 7 years. I think this is a fun exercise though...to hypothesize how this may all play out :smile:
Does anyone know if the 160 mile pack simply uses less Li-ion cells than the 300 mile pack, or does it use the same number of cells but each of a lesser capacity? If it's the former, and there's essentially empty space in the battery pack structure for more cells, you could conceivably populate the space with higher density cells down the road while keeping the original, slightly degraded cells to increase your overall range. This could result in a cheaper upgrade path versus having to replace every single cell with new ones.�
Oct 3, 2011
WhiteKnight I remember hearing/reading that the 230 mile pack uses more cells than the 160 mile pack but that the 300 mile pack uses more advanced chemistry (higher density cells) than the 230 mile pack.
The home run would be if ultracapacitor technology advances to the point where you can get a pack of ultracapacitors with the same mileage. Then you could quick charge in less time than it would take to fill your gas tank.�
Oct 3, 2011
NigelM At the station showing the battery tray, I did ask if the smaller battery pack was using the same cells and was told "yes, we just will have a different layout in the tray".�
Oct 3, 2011
ckessel The packs are complete units. I don't think they'd ever mix and match them in that kind of refit. Presumably they'll give you a trade-in value and swap it out for a new pack.�
Oct 3, 2011
JRP3 That would be a bit of a battery management nightmare.�
Oct 3, 2011
richkae I talked to the "Vehicle Range & Efficiency Architect". He told me some interesting things about the cells.
The cells they are going to use have different chemistry from the roadster.
The cells they are choosing from have a higher/wider "optimal temperature" range for longevity and performance than the cells in the roadster - that means they need to use less energy to cool the cells than the roadster needs.
The cells they are going to use have a lower self discharge rate than the ones in the roadster, so you can safely leave the car sitting not plugged in for longer than you can leave a roadster.�
Oct 3, 2011
Doug_G It rapidly becomes part of your routine. Yeah, in the last 15 months of ownership I've forgotten twice; got distracted or something. Wasn't an issue because I don't have to charge every night.
It would only be a problem if your friend lives 200 miles away. And I think if he was that far you would have made arrangements for charging.
Most blackouts last a few hours at most. Big deal.
When we had the huge Northeast blackout in 2003, my car just happened to be on fumes already and I couldn't buy gasoline because the gas stations had no power. Send my Tesla back in time, and that day I would have had over 200 miles range available when the blackout hit, because I plug in every night. I would have been in better shape.
Well, there is a certain range below which I would not be comfortable if it was my only car, given the current state of charging infrastructure here (there isn't any). I can say that 240 miles is plenty. I use 15% to 25% most days, 50% once in a while, and barring the occasional longer road trip, I've never come anywhere close to 90%.�
Oct 4, 2011
JRP3 Yes I think they added Ni to the mix, and have a higher energy density. I think 3.2ah as opposed to the Roadsters 2.4ah
This is good since that helps improve the charge efficiency which seemed rather poor on the Roadster, especially in warmer conditions.�
Oct 4, 2011
jkirkebo My LCS-25 EVSE for our Leaf is mounted outside. I see no problems with this, and I live in Norway which gets it's fair share of rain, snow and cold weather...�
Oct 6, 2011
vfx I LOVE this image!�
Oct 6, 2011
vfx Two more (very different) reasons to buy a 300 mile battery pack.
The additional cost means nothing to you.
And
What is one of the first three questions you get about your Roadster?
To answer "300 miles" is opening their eyes that the future is here.�
Oct 6, 2011
JRP3 Some eyes might close again when they hear the price. :wink: But you can always come back with the fact that in 3 years time Tesla went from selling a $120K Roadster with 240 miles of range to selling an $80K sedan with 300 miles of range.�
Oct 6, 2011
Mycroft IMO, the most Joe and Jane Public would think to spend on the most luxurious car would be about $40k. Most buy used cars for $20k or less. So I think Tesla's goal of between 30 and 40 is a good one.�
Oct 6, 2011
shark2k Thanks for the response. Appreciate it.
-Shark2k�
Oct 6, 2011
Doug_G You're welcome to it. Any time. You can have this one, too:
Yes, that really is my snow blower pretending to be a submarine, while people walk by on the trail above the top of the machine (it's not a fake perspective, they really are walking above the top of the machine). The winter of 2008 was insane.
Sorry for the off-topic diversion... back to battery packs!�
Oct 6, 2011
vfx I'm imaging another commercial where ICE drivers are in all sorts of miserable places filling up when our soccer mom unplugs while safe and warm in her garage.
Being in sunny CA I never thought of it before.
and OT
Buying a 300 mile pack means more cells sold means more demand = more development to better batteries.�
Oct 7, 2011
W.Petefish Or as in here where it is hot as blazes and everyone else is dripping sweat.
Or here when it is just about to hail and the wind is picking up.
Either way, electric wins.�
Oct 7, 2011
Mycroft Just wait 'till the radical Tesla supporters get their hands on an S. I can just imagine what the YouTube "commercials" will be like!
See headline in paper (iPad?) as soccer mom or dad sip their morning coffee. The headline mentions gas shortage and lines. They head to the garage, unplug the car and the next scene is driving by a long line at the gas station and then onto an empty Interstate.�
Oct 7, 2011
JRP3 [Petersen]Wasteful use of scarce resources for eco bling bragging rights[/Petersen] :wink:�
Oct 7, 2011
AnOutsider The only place I can think of offhand that the ad wouldn't work in is NJ. I miss that state only for the fact that it was LAW that someone pumped your gas for you.�
Oct 7, 2011
W.Petefish Then you'd have Archie with his wallet. :biggrin:
One...Two...Three, keep the change sonny.�
Oct 7, 2011
Thumper Oregon also has the no self-pump law. I must admit I now prefer it. The price never seems higher. I don't think the labor savings is usually passed to the customer anyway.�
Oct 20, 2011
ckessel This seemed about as close the right thread I could find. I'm trying to figure out my costs to charge the Model S. My electric company charges 4.422 cents per kwh for night usage. The 300 mile battery is 90 kwh, so I assume 90 * 4.422 ~= $4? If I assume 75% of 300 for actual range due to losses at freeway speed, then 225 miles for $4?�
Oct 20, 2011
Doug_G Check your power bill, and make sure there aren't any additional charges - there often are.
Here in Ontario electricity is 7.5 cents per kwh, but there are also delivery charges, a regulatory charge, a debt retirement charge, and sales taxes, for a grand total of 13.4 cents per kwh. (Yes, it's horrible - Quebec charges half that.) It will cost me about $12 to fill the pack.�
Oct 20, 2011
zack I'd buy a 1000 mile pack if I could.�
Oct 20, 2011
AnOutsider I was going to say "wow that's $160/month" but you wouldn't be filling up from empty every night. If you fill up once per week that's $16/month which would be less than a gas's fill up. Heck, even twice per week would be cheaper than a single fill up for many cars.
Sent from my T7575 using Board Express�
Oct 20, 2011
ckessel Heh
PGE (not PG&E) doesn't have a lot of other charges, so I think 4.422 cents/kwh is going to be about right. If I figure an ICE at 25 mpg and an average of $4/gallon of gas over 100,000 miles, that's a savings of $14,000ish. Of course, that's filled with all sorts of assumptions about the difference in long term gas prices vs. long term energy prices, though I suspect the long term trends would make the savings better rather than worse.�
Oct 20, 2011
richkae Gasoline has been increasing at an average of 9% per year over the last 10 years. My electricity prices have been going up about 4% per year for the last 10 years.
If you start at $3.50 per gallon today, and you assume 12500 miles per year for your 100,000 miles ( 8 years ), and you assume a constant 9% per year the average gas cost over those 8 years is $5.24
If you are comparing to a sports sedan, most likely should add .30 for premium gas.�
Oct 20, 2011
Larry Chanin Hi,
Another major variable is the speed you were traveling during those 100,000 miles. Using the Roadster data as an indicator you would have to be traveling at 70 mph for all those miles to derate the range from 300 to 225 miles. Traveling at 40 mph the range would be increased to about 390 miles. Since the range vs. speed data is non-linear we can't use a simple average speed to estimate the average range. Nevertheless, for many of us our weighted average speed would be closer to 40 mph than to 70 mph, so the economic benefits could be greater than your figures.
Larry�
Oct 20, 2011
neroden I think you're right, since where I live it's legal to pump gas yourself.... but the cheapest gas in town is often at the only full-service gas station. (I'm not sure how any of the others stay in business, now that I think about it...)�
Oct 20, 2011
neroden Have you factored in the fact that 300-mile models get released first?
Most of us are early adopters here, and I suspect a lot of us are eager to get our electric car ASAP -- I sure am! I was going to get the 230 (I really don't need more than that), but it wasn't worth the delay. The time value of getting it sooner turned out to be worth a lot to me. Anyone else?�
Oct 20, 2011
neroden Yep. But for a trip from Ithaca to Columbus, Ohio (not an arbitrary choice), think about how long it will take. It can be done comfortably in one day in an ICE. In order to do it in one day in a BEV, you really want a fast charger in the middle. Doing it entirely from L2 requires at least 9 hours of en-route charging, making it a very long day... or a two day trip. How do you arrange an overnight at an RV park? You have to have a well located RV park....
Honestly, until the L3 charger is available, I'd probably just use an ICE for the trip to Columbus. But it got me to thinking what L3s are good for. This is what L3s are good for.
Yes!
Will look. I'll see how many of them are upstate.
As a Model S driver, I'm not pushing to install a J1772 EVSE unless it's better than a NEMA 14-50. Which in most cases, apparently, they aren't, apart from coming with a meter. It's startling how many EVSEs are very expensive devices which provide very low wattage. It's almost certainly going to be cheaper to get an electrician to wire in a NEMA 14-50, since it's a pretty common standard (thank you RV parks!)
I'm thinking someone at Tesla is thinking the same way, based on the defaults which are apparently shipping with the Model S.�
Oct 20, 2011
WhiteKnight I was under the impression that Level 3 chargers required 3-phase power. I called Georgia Power here in Atlanta and they said only commercial locations can get 3-phase power. So 240W / Level 2 is as high as I can go at my house.�
Oct 20, 2011
JRP3 Not sure why you'd want Level 3 at your home but you could do it with a large bank of batteries that are slowly charged and then dump charge the car when you need it. Plus you'd have a large back up power bank for power outages.�
Oct 21, 2011
VolkerP while this is technically feasible, it doesn't make sense in a financial way. Because you need LOTS of batteries and very powerful electronics. With the Model S supporting fast DC charging and no AC charging above 20kW, Tesla owners in North America cannot help other owners in fast charging at their home. They are limited to the power output of the UMC 2.0.
Tesla owners can gather to fund some fast DC chargers in a highway station, though.�
Oct 21, 2011
richkae A quick google search shows 100kWHr of lead acid can be bought retail for $15k USD. I wonder what kind of control electronics you would need to DC fast charge, given that you already have DC from the batteries.�
Oct 21, 2011
JRP3 I don't think Level 3 makes sense at home financially no matter how it's configured :wink: It's going to be a large investment for a capability that will rarely be used, unless you intend to turn your home into a public charge station.�
Oct 21, 2011
WhiteKnight I do like the idea of having battery backup for the house - especially if the power goes out and I can't drive anywhere because I can't recharge. More likely to consider a natural gas generator though, since they're only about $5K.
And my house is the one place where I do not really need the quick charge capability.�
Oct 21, 2011
VolkerP Control electronics will be cheap. Just a micro controller to implement the DC charging protocol.
Fast DC charging must feed 250 amps to the 300 mile pack, following the voltage curve of the battery pack as the SoC goes up, then finally cut back the amps as the pack nears 100% SoC. An empty Tesla battery pack starts to charge near 325V and cuts off at 375V. Your lead acid battery bank will end up at ~ 1.8V cell voltage after a C/1 discharge, so you need ~ 220 cells in series. Thus, your start voltage is near 440V.
You need some DC/DC converting power electronics to step down from 440V to 325V at 250A. If you burn the delta, you must get rid of 28kW and need an even bigger battery bank.
For a more efficient way, look into a Pentium 4 desktop computer. Near the processor socket you can see fat electrolyte capacitors and semiconductor devices with bulky heat sinks. They are for converting 150W DC from 12V to around 1.25V. Scale it up 600 times.�
![[?IMG]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sRj42-PxX6UrmT0p1mklsvSvW0DCTBzclaJRChPzUtC57iifxfnhsXOaYfUea79wbSdzF4QKk7fshC21nDskY7sv4zSDhtllmcRLpdubWKhFkTUa3JHUZK0c9M49AJA0yPWoRi8K74XcU_vpjHn6e-VNWVYJIoclLBu9MKMT29gw=s0-d)
Oct 21, 2011
mnx aren't you on TOU billing? We've been on it for over a year now here in Hamilton...
�
Oct 21, 2011
Doug_G Only just started this month. It reduces the price by 1.5 cents at night, and raises it by 2.5 cents during the day. And they're now talking about a rate increase. :cursing:�
Oct 23, 2011
VolkerP go get solar.�
Oct 25, 2011
Robert.Boston Canada isn't the best place for solar. Nor is Germany, but for the insanely high feed-in tariff rate that subsidizes solar.�
Oct 25, 2011
Doug_G You'd be surprised. In summer the daylight goes on and on. It's also peak sunlight when we have peak demand - when the air conditioners are all cranked up.�
Oct 25, 2011
Robert.Boston I guess I should have said "compared to other parts of North America, ..." Southern Canada has a potential of about 4kWh/m^2/day, about 60% of the potential in southern California. See http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html�
Oct 30, 2011
neroden This is really the sort of thing I was thinking of regarding level 3, getting together to fund a public charger in a key location. It's not at all clear what standard to push for when talking to governments or businesses though. Sigh... standards wars strike again.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét