Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- From: Bill Swears <wswears@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:36:18 -0800
Lee Derbenwick wrote:
In article <13u5582kgk2hv08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bill Swears <wswears@xxxxxxx> wrote:
[big snip]
Separately, I think, service wise, that the nominal state will be a very quick charge with the battery remaining in place for the standard life of a car, which is closer to five than ten years. I think 220 miles per charge in an urban environment is reasonable, but that the competitive electric car will need to get in excess of three hundred miles per charge out on the open road.
I find the "very quick charge" hard to believe. According to the
Tesla website, the Roadster uses 110 Wh/km (Watt-hours per kilometer),
which is roughly 175 mpg (miles per gallon, US). In its claimed range
of 220 miles, that's about 38,720 Wh. (FWIW, that equates to about
14 horsepower at 60 miles/hour.)
I'm suggesting that the Tesla won't be competitive with internal combustion. We need an unanswered jump in electric technology before electric cars will be attractive/competitive.
Bill
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- From: David Friedman
- Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- References:
- Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- From: Catja Pafort
- Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- From: Sea Wasp
- Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- From: Bill Swears
- Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- From: Lee Derbenwick
- Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- Prev by Date: Re: What makes bad guys bad?
- Next by Date: Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- Previous by thread: Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- Next by thread: Re: Electric vehicles, was Re: hey
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|