Sorry motorheads, your days are numbered.
 

Sorry motorheads: The era of Noise-making lung-choking stinky gasoline-powered 100 year-old engines are coming to an end. Check this out.


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....ive_08_opt.jpg

This is the Telsa Model S

- Not gas powered, not a silly hybrid. It's 100% Electric.
- 0 to 60 mph in only 4.4 seconds
- Active air suspension (adjustable) and sport tuned traction control
- Top speed : 130 Miles (210 Kilometers) Per Hour
- 580 Watt 12 Speaker Dolby Pro Logic 7.1 Sound
- Plugs in to 110 Volt and 220 Volt outlets.
- Clean! No Gas or Oil! Quiet! High Tech! Planet saver!
- I want!

Just. Amazing.

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

No range, only good for around town.

160, 230, and 300 miles isn't a good enough range?

You could use the fuel savings to rent a car on the one or two weekends you need to drive further.

what happens if you run out of charge ?

Bullshit. Where do you think the electricity comes from to charge these things? It just magically appears?

No, it's generated by coal plants, nuclear power plants etc etc, all of which are fucking up the planet.

So, planet saver? Not quite.

You are so right. Everybody needs to make long drives.

And yes, that was sarcasm.

The Tesla plant is located in Fremont, not far away in the East Bay...

http://www.exectoystore.com/blog/wp-...ta-1-Front.jpg

http://www.exectoystore.com/blog/wp-...-Interior.jpeg

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/i...to-post001.jpg

ADG

to be fair , most people probably don't "NEED" to drive, we could take public transportation. Driving is a "want" not a "need". I would want to be able to take long drives in my car..

Yeah, true. BUT if these things came with a bank of solar panels that mounted to the top of your garage...planet savers.

Haha this will not end how cars are made. Just another option, not a replacement

and if the cars didn't require toxic batteries, and you didn't need to store the solar energy somehow.

Cars really do put out offensive emmisions.

Some people live an hour from the nearest city. Around here people often have to drive 45 minutes just to get to work (one way). Definitely only good for certain people / regions. I'm guessing you can't just charge these up in an hour if you do get stranded. Probably takes a while.

Development will never stop.The companies invested to much money into this.The cars will get better,batteries wil get better,more range,the charging will get easier and faster etc.This won't and can't stop.Our mineral fuel will end eventually and will get too expensive.

Nevada Power is raising rates another 15% to make up for their "smart" meters and people saving energy with CFL and LED bulbs and all the solar panels around here. I dont want an electric car.

yeah, they always find a way to fuck you, they installed smart meters here as well and guess what, the prices went up.

We are also paying a debt reduction charge in addition, due to their previous mismanagement, it will never end.

All these fancy energy saver bulbs are bullshit as well, they charge so much for them that you will never have any savings. Also most of them burn out a hell of a lot faster than what they are rated as, then how do you get a warrranty claim ? :winkwink:

Who can afford the $50,000 to $100,000 price tag?
And tell me how is electricity generated?

Feel good toy.

.

lots of people can , it's not out of line at all:2 cents:

if we let the old tell us how things go we would never have progress.

<sarcasm>Didn't know the only way to produce electricity was with nuclear power plants and coal plants.</sarcasm>

If the lifetime of laptop batteries is anything to go by.... :)

Electric cars are future, and this is good way to promote that style

The batteries are one thing. The fact that the panels are made of arsenic and cadmium is another. Every fifteen years when the panels have to be replaced that dumps another load of toxins into the environment.

On the positive side, if you live near the equator, solar produces significantly less greenhouse gases. Given the sunlight in much of the world, solar production produces similar amounts of CO2 and other gases. So on balance it's similar amounts of pollution - a lot more toxins, but less CO2 on average.

I love our noisy Cummins and it will probably still be running when all the newer made vehicles are falling apart :winkwink:

that energy is clean as shit compared to any viable alternative so yelling about that is tantamount to yelling at the ocean for being deep...


now if you were to challenge the cleanliness and environmental problems that would emerge from leaking batteries and disposal of them? Now you would have a valid point ;)



oh i should add... that car looks like a vagina mobile.. seriously.. i'm hardly a muscle car kinda guy here.. but that thing looks like it should have a skirt and a bra...

Electric is so 80's... Bring on the Hydrogen!

Then you should do some research, because in most places fossil fuels and nuclear are the only viable options. If you live near the equator and are happy with having power only on sunny days, and you're rich, you can instead use arsenic and cadmium to get expensive solar power. You'll be dumping a lot of toxins into the environment, but you can do it. About 1% of the population live in areas where you can use wind power on some days. For the vast majority, the two choices are fossil fuels and the clean, efficient, but slightly scary nuclear choice.

Cool, I want one of these :thumbsup

Planning to buy a Model S when they are available in Australia. Beyond the whole electric aspect, it is one of the best engineered cars in the world (which is what the US automotive industry lacks). It isn't right for everyone right now, and early adopters do need to pay a premium relative to gas cars (though that premium is returned mostly over the years in cheaper running costs), but it is selling well and electric is the future of automative.

For those complaining about range, 300 miles (or 320 miles with aerodynamic wheels) is certainly enough range for most people. Tesla (as well as Nissan, etc in separate programs) are also about to begin a nationwide roll-out of fast charging stations along highways and travel routes. These 'superchargers' (as they call them) can give the car 160 miles of range in 30 minutes.

For those that want an SUV Tesla is set to unveil one in the coming month or two. A company to watch.

Not true, renewable make up a large portion of most developed nations energy policies. I couldn't tell you exact numbers off the top of my head, but I know many European nations have, or are aiming for 20-30% renewable energies in the near term. Whilst renewable won't likely soon become a complete alternative (for reasons such as reliability, cost and energy storage), it will form a large portion of most nations energy requirements.

Fundamentally though we need to see breakthroughs on multiple levels in energy, and we fortunately are. Tesla is one aspect of a sustainable future, however it is not an entire solution of course. The cost in solar, wind, etc has also dropped substantially in recent years (in large part thanks to China) and it is likely this will in part help us move towards a more sustainable future. However, fundamentally we do need new breakthroughs and refinements to occur to replace current power production.

As an aside, the founder of Tesla also founded Solar City, and there IS an option to get solar panels on your roof that can completely power your car if you so choose.

true. i haven't had a car in 3 years. i walk or take a bus or taxi if need be.

but with electric, sure you have to charge it with electricity from a plant but the upside is no emissions from the car.

people don't consider the true cost of a gallon of gasoline, which is a big reason why gas is so expensive in europe for example-
"To calculate the amount of pollution generated from gasoline, CIR considered every step in the consumption process, including the extraction of crude oil from the ground and the evaporation of toxic chemicals, like benzene, when you undo the gas cap or lift the nozzle. After accounting for all of the costs of gasoline use, the CIR suggests that the actual price should be closer to $15. This price, however, does not reflect the cost of externalities, like oil spills, water pollution and reduced crop yields, in addition to increased rates of asthma and respiratory diseases caused by air pollution."
http://thecityfix.com/blog/the-true-...15-per-gallon/

.

:1orglaugh wtf?

science is your friend-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0225090826.htm

a)solar power is not very expensive, you can rig a house to run on solar for 25k.
b)the manufacturing of solar panels produces far less harmful waste per output than fossil fuel production.
c)you can use solar power in any area where there is sun, which i believe would be most of the planet, even if in some areas on a limited basis.

.

I'd buy one of these, it looks just like a Porsche Panamera.

I saw a Fisker Karma a few weeks ago and it's roof was a solar panel and whatever it could
generate went to running stuff inside the car which helped it's batteries. Looked sort of like a four door Ferrari California with adequate room inside for four.

I remember when the idea of electric cars was first being discussed and everyone was against it because they all thought they would have to look and be something like the smart car. After looking at the Fisker and Tesla and the prototypes from Porsche and BMW its quite clear there will be electric cars that can be sporty or luxurious.

After seeing how far they have come in design I'm sure that in the near future all the concerns in this thread will be covered in terms of usability. I don't know how much of trade off electric power is for gasoline in terms of economic and environmental impact.

Tesla cars are cool as hell.
we do as a race need to look for better energy sources though

For all those complaining about "where the electricity comes from"...

Yes, some of it might be coming from burning coal and other fossil fuels, but those energy conversion systems are much better than what you have in your personal car engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...ion_efficiency

A typical car engine might get 10%-50% energy conversion from gasoline to actual car movement while the rest is wasted as heat ( that's why you need to cool down your car engine! ) and mechanical waste.

Huge industrial plants on the other hand are designed for efficiency and have a much higher and constant/sustained rate of energy conversion efficiency.

Long story short, even if the energy you use for your electrical vehicle comes from a coal-burning plant, we are much better off that way than converting the fossil fuel in our personal, inefficient engines

you need to update your knowledge to 2012

and if you call nuclear waste "clean", you sure have no problem when we bury it in your garden

depending on where you live you could spend another 5-10k for a solar charging kit and you'd be stylin' :pimp

imagine having a car where you never (or rarely) had to pay to run it. how much do people pay to gas up every year? 3-5k?

while 50 to 100k for a car is still up there, in a few years we will be seeing decent size electric cars (with power) in the 30k range and that is when the game will be changed.

.

yes. nuclear waste disposal is already out of control. too much being manufactured and nowhere to safely put it. it's a ticking time bomb that could be worse than the nuke plants themselves.

.

I second that, I have 2 diesel tractors, one a '59, and one a '63, neither of them fail to start when I throw the switch. Even if they have sat for a year or more. No electronics.. just pure mechanics, so very little to go wrong. I suspect most older cars will be around far longer than any of these electric vehicles.

Our days will never be numbered, we are just getting started. These are the days of manufactures producing Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes, GT-Rs that can handle 7,8,900rwhp utilizing the stock longblock.

Enjoy taking the kids to school in your whisper quiet $70,000 sedan with a top speed of 130mph. I'll take a 800hp car screaming at 7,000rpms sideways damn near giving you old folks a heart attack everyday and twice on Sunday. :)

25K every ten years for solar, using utility company power when it's not so sunny. That's roughly double the cost of just buying electricity generated from natural gas, like I do. It also means I'm not dumping a bunch lead acid batteries every few years like you do with solar. I consider doubling the cost "expensive". Maybe you don't.


Pick either ONE of the above statements and it'll be partially true, depending on which location you choose. In sunny areas, solar produces less carbon emissions, but also arsenic, cadmium, etc., which aren't in gas. In less sunny areas, solar production creates roughly equal carbon emissions, side from.the toxins. So it's a reasonable choice in some areas. In many areas, it's an expensive, toxic option that lets you feel good if you choose to ignore the arsenic and lead.

this is what i consider the only viable alternative to gas - it just needs infrastructure to be build up - like one hydrogen station at least every 50 miles or so

but it's clean and with the right sized tank, 300-400 miles are no problem. and refueling is instant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_F-Cell

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/green-ov...fuel-cell-car/

That's my point: there is a good market for it. And there's more to the world than the USA. Lots of countries where the distances are quite short.

Well duh...but if you're telling me there's enough solar power to go around, think again.

I'm all for solar power(wind power not so much, ugly windmills) so I do hope that takes off and the efficiency grows a lot.
Just right now, it's not good enough.

Coal plants "clean as shit"? :1orglaugh
Nuclear waste "clean as shit"? :1orglaugh

Man, it must be nice down there in the sand :)

The science on nuclear waste is actually very interesting. There is dangerous waste and there is a lot of waste, but there's not a lot of dangerous waste. I wouldn't mind at all having most nuclear waste in my backyard. 90% of nuclear waste is what's called LLW, low level waste. It's less dangerous than your smoke detector. You get about a million times as much radiation taking a walk in the sun. You could eat a bowl of it and probably be fine. Not that I'd want to actually eat a bowl of it, but I did consider having a spoonful during a presentation to make the point. I'm less scared of that stuff than I am of a tanning bed.

That leaves some that's intermediate level and a few pounds of high level. High level is the dangerous stuff. You want to encase it in metal and bury it a couple hundred feet under the desert, or in a deep cave. Fortunately, there's so little of it, getting it well shielded and deeply buried isn't really a problem.

So you have one kind that's not a problem because it's very low level - much, much less radiation than the sun. Then the other kind that's produced in small enough quantities that isn't pretty easy to pack safely away. The problem, waste wise, is purely a political problem. Disposing of all the country's nuclear waste is actually less damaging than disposing of all the toxic chemicals in batteries from hybrids, but long standing political positions get in the way of clear thinking.