Tesla Roadster Electric

April 12th, 2010

admin

Hot Tesla Roadster Electric on eBay

Tesla Roadster 2008 Tesla Roadster
US $74,500.00

Tesla 2dr Conv TESLA ROADSTER ELECTRIC EXOTIC 5700 MILES $132450 MSRP
Paypal

US $83,800.00

Tesla Roadster 25 Fusion Red 2011 Tesla Roadster Sport 25
Paypal

US $110,000.00

Tesla Roadster 2010 Tesla Roadster Immaculate Loaded One owner California Car
US $79,250.00

Tesla 2010 Tesla Roadster recent service 7k miles $139k MSRP
US $83,900.00

What is the cost of one full battery charge for the Tesla Roadster?

I like that electric sportscar. But is it really as efficient as they say? Wouldn't your power bill end up looking a lot like your fuel bill used to with a regular car if you used it in the same manner?

Ken Guru has provided all necessary information.

First to answer your question:
53kWh are on average 53 x 12cents/ kWh = US$6.-
(Note, compare if you will the energy content of the Tesla battery to a 9 kg propane tank, which has 125kWh and costs around US $15.-)

But, in the end it is all "smoke and mirrors". Price of electricity, oil, coal, natural gas are "market driven" and contain many hidden costs, .e.g. taxes and the "war in Iraq". (Explain to me, why OPEC charges > $ 80.- per barrel when the cost ex Saudi oil field is less than $5.-.)

Here to put things into perspective is an estimate of the REAL fuel consumption of the Tesla: Weight of the car 1220kg, of that 425kg for the batteries. I.e the car itself weighs ~ 800kg.

For comparison, VW's "Lupo" (built until 2005) had a weight of 830kg. (That car died because the public did not care about fuel consumption.)

Tesla: 1.7 ltr/ 100km (135 mpg). The "Lupo" had just below 3 ltr./ 100km (80 mpg).

The efficiency of the power plant and distribution network in delivering the electrical "juice" to the Tesla is ~ 30%, i.e. the REAL "fuel consumed" at the power plant (in terms of oil, natural gas, wind power) for the Tesla translates to only 40 to 43 mpg. Surprised?

To repeat this result, the VW "Lupo", a Diesel powered car, was almost twice as efficient as the Tesla is today: 3ltr/ 100 km versus 5.5 ltr./ 100km (or 80 versus 40 mpg).

The reason for the much higher "fuel consumption" of the Tesla is that it must carry an extra 425kg of batteries (~5 people) all the time. No fuel tank that gets lighter on "empty".

And this does not yet consider the issue of having to heat the Tesla. The drive train of the Tesla produces no "waste" heat. That waste heat from combustion of gasoline in a normal car is 70% of the total. It comes "free". For the Tesla the waste heat stays at the electrical power plant. For any Electrical Vehicle in a cold winter you must therefore add ~ 30% in fuel consumption (or the mpg divided by 1.3). Now the Tesla is down to 35 mpg..

Admitted, the Tesla is faster. But, the US speed limit is generally around 65mph.

Also the Tesla has much lower wind resistance. But then it is a two seater sports car. The VW Lupo had 4 seats, perhaps give or take one.

And finally,
ZEVs (Zero Emission Vehicles) are really EEVs ("Elsewhere Emission Vehicles").

@Dana1981: The efficiency of the electric 'engine' is NOT the issue. A Diesel engine in your car can be as efficient as the average utility power plant! The Tesla weighs more than a ton. Because it carries "dead weight", all those batteries. That is why the FULL CYCLE fuel consumption of the Tesla (car + power plant) is a disaster.

Also in Ken Guru's excellent link you will find that with my assumption of 12 cents/ kWh, the cost per mile is 3 cents (not 2 cents). This per Tesla.

"There are liars, there are damn liars, and there is the EV industry."

@Glenn B. Hate to disagree. Regenerative braking is a featue which most people do not want to use too much, many studies done. That is just not the way we drive. "Regen" is not aggressive enough for most people. Other issue: size and extra cost of the required super-capacitors if "regen" were to be made effective.

But that is not really the issue. The extra battery weight is about the ONLY reason why the Tesla does not cut it. Note in Ken Guru's link they admit to "my" argument. I think, I saw 48mpg for the full cycle (but that was under the old EPA rules). My 43 mpg is about right.

Your argument however is correct, with the combustion engine efficiency being a function of RPM. That is why diesel hybrids would be ideal. BUT, the US does not have "enough" diesel refinery capacities. In fact we must import diesel fuel already today. No refineries built in this country since 1979 (gas or diesel)! That is why FORD discontinued their work on diesel hybrids (as then 'world leader'). And that is why GM does their "diesel" work now in Torino (Italy), incidentally winning year after year "best this and best that European diesel engine". The full cycle efficiencies of those new GM designs equal the Tesla vehicle's at any given time.

One real reason why EV are tested most of the time in Southern California is the "air quality". Also the Southern California climate does not require a big electrical heater in the EV.

The Tesla Roadster: Electric Dream