California offers Tax Breaks to help sell $70,000 Tesla Model S

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

Electric cars aren’t selling anywhere near enough to make them a profitable business.  Because they just won’t do for you what gasoline will do for you.  Let you carry lots of stuff over great distances.  Because the electric car is so less of a car as a gasoline-powered car governments bribe manufacturers to build them.  And people to buy them.  Just so rich people can have these toys (see California Is Giving Tesla Another Huge Tax Break. Good Move. by Will Oremus posted 12/19/2013 on Slate).

This is going to drive the Tesla-haters crazy. The luxury electric-car maker is getting a huge new tax break from California, SFGate reports. The state will let it off the hook for sales and use taxes on some $415 million in new equipment it’s purchasing in order to expand production of the Model S at its Bay Area factory. That amounts to a $34.7 million tax break to produce more of a vehicle whose sticker price starts above $70,000…

So, in fact, it isn’t Tesla per se that’s getting special treatment from the state. It’s the clean-tech industry in general, which California is very keen to promote…

More broadly, whatever sense a tax on the purchase of manufacturing equipment might once have made for California, it’s patently counterproductive in the context of clean-tech startups in the 21st century. Add to that some of the highest income and sales taxes in the nation, and it’s no wonder California is worried about companies like Tesla picking up stakes and heading elsewhere. Businessweek notes that new manufacturing jobs in the state have risen less than 1 percent since 2010, compared with nearly 5 percent nationally. Gov. Jerry Brown has been chipping away at the tax already, and Tesla is just the latest example.

Nor is the deal likely to burden the state’s taxpayers. Tesla’s Model S is in huge demand, and the company has been scrambling since its launch to ramp up production.

No.  The Model S is not in huge demand.  Demand may be up for the car.  But if the demand was ‘huge’ like every other popular car that sold well you wouldn’t need subsidies or tax breaks to build and sell them.  For cars in high demand are often the cars with the greatest profit in their selling price.  Because people want them so much that they are willing to pay these higher prices.  SUVs and pickup trucks were these kinds of vehicles.  And before gas prices spiked they were the lifeblood of manufacturers.  Because people paid more for these than they would for the sedans at the time.  Which is when the imports took over that segment.

People like SUVs and pickup trucks because they are big.  They carry a lot of people.  And a lot of stuff.  Even pull campers and boats.  The ideal vehicle for the family vacation.  Something the electric car just sucks at.  For any extra weight just sucks away charge time.  Limiting your range.  Which takes all the fun out of going on vacation.  And makes it a little scary.  For there is nothing worse than having a car that doesn’t move anymore in a strange place far from home.

But if you’re still convinced that tax breaks to big manufacturers are unfair and wrong, you might want to train your ire on a state a little further north, which just offered an all-time record $8.7 billion in tax breaks to a company that manufactures perhaps the least-green transportation technology of all. The worst part: Boeing might just move out anyway.

There is a bit of a difference between Tesla and Boeing.  Boeing employs a great many more people than Tesla.  And they’re all union workers ‘further north’.  Hence part of the reason for the tax breaks.  To help them compete with their high labor costs against the heavily subsidized Airbus.  Also, Boeing leads U.S. exports.  And is about the biggest component in U.S. GDP figures.  So while tax breaks and subsidies are abhorrent at least Boeing gives us something for theirs.  Unlike clean-tech industries.  That receive huge government subsidies and tax breaks.  Only to go bankrupt (Solyndra, Fisker, etc.) a short time later.  Tesla is the exception to the rule.  Because its founder, Elon Musk, is a billionaire who spends his own money.  A lot of it.  Unlike the other failed clean-tech start-ups.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

A 2013 Tesla Model S turns a 9.5 Hour Trip into a 12.5 Hour Trip

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 14th, 2013

Week in Review

There are times when we like to take to the open road and just drive.  And if we have the time there are few things more enjoyable than taking the road less traveled.  Seeking out and exploring things we’ve never seen before.  But there are also times when the journey is so long that we want to make it in the shortest time possible.  For if we’re traveling to the favorite family fun park we’d much rather arrive by 7 PM in the daylight.  Instead of 10 PM in the dark.  So we can easily find our room.  Freshen up.  Have a nice dinner.  Shower.  And get to bed by 10 PM so we can get a good night’s sleep for a long day of fun in the morrow.  Something that a gasoline-powered car can help us do a lot better than an electric car (see We Took The Tesla Model S On A Road Trip — Here’s How It Did by George Parrott posted 12/12/2013 on Business Insider).

Once Tesla Motors built out its Supercharger network of quick-charging stations along Interstate 5, my wife and I decided to drive from our home in Sacramento to Portland in our new 2013 Tesla Model S…

It was almost 600 miles from our home in West Sacramento to our hotel room in Portland…

Our West Sacramento to Downtown Portland driving time was about 9 hours and 35 minutes of actual driving, with another 2 hours in short Supercharger stops–plus a longer stop for a full recharge (for the car) and for us (breakfast) that took a full hour.

That’s another 3 hours added to the trip.  Three hours is a lot of time.  A 30-minute charge time may seem like a short stop but if you’ve ever gone on a long trip (say, driving in excess of 8 hours) a 30-minute stop is excruciating.  Because the sun doesn’t stop with you.  It’s still racing across the sky.  And there is nothing worse than having a 9 hour trip turn into a 12 hour trip.  Where you find yourself driving dead-tired in the black of night.  Drinking coffee to try and stay awake.  Slapping your face.  Talking to yourself.  Anything to stay awake as you drive on and on into the black of night.  Praying you don’t see any moose in your headlights.  And then when you finally get to your room for the night you can’t sleep because of all that coffee you drank.  Which just ruins the first day of your vacation.

Now imagine all of this and you arrive at a charging station and you have to wait in line as other cars get their 30 minute charge.  Or you arrive at the charging station only to find it out of order.  Leaving you to find a 120V outlet to ‘steal’ electricity for 6 hours or so to give you enough charge to get to the next charging station.  Or that your car runs out of charge in the middle of nowhere in the black of night.  Before you ever made it to the charging station.  What then?  I can’t say for sure but I’ll bet it’ll involve an expletive, a reference to your electric car and a yearning for a gasoline-powered car.  As you could be surrounded by lit up gas stations full of gasoline that just won’t do a thing for you and your electric car.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Will Three Model S Fires make Tesla join the Long Line of Green Car Company Failures?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 10th, 2013

Week in Review

Tesla has had three car fires with their Model S in six weeks.  Causing their stock price to slide after surging earlier in the year.  Forbes wrote about those better days in a May article that is making the rounds again.  Explaining why Tesla was escaping the fate of so many other green car companies (see The Real Reason Tesla Is Still Alive (And Other Green Car Companies Aren’t) by Joann Muller posted 5/11/2013 on Forbes).

Add VPG to the growing list of recent green car failures: Bright Automotive (electric delivery vans) , Carbon Motors (clean diesel-powered police cars), Aptera Motors (three-wheeled electric cars), Coda Automotive (inexpensive electric sedans) and, arguably the most infamous, Fisker Automotive (plug-in hybrid sports cars).

All had applied for financing under a $25 billion U.S. Energy Department loan program to promote development of cleaner cars, but only Fisker and VPG managed to draw the lucky tickets. Fisker was awarded $529 million (but received only $193 million before the DOE cut them off because of missed milestones) and VPG received $50 million. But now, they’re all dead, or almost dead. (One exception: tiny Wheego Electric of Atlanta, an EV start-up that started out making glorified golf carts and now sells a handful of bubble-shaped two-seaters with a top speed of 65 mph. The company is talking about introducing a $44,000 electric SUV next, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.)

That leaves only Tesla Motors TSLA -1.27%, maker of the plug-in Tesla roadster and the new Model S sedan, still standing. Which begs the question: why has Tesla made it when so many others have not..?

Experience, for one thing. While most of the other green car start-ups were founded by traditional car guys with a dream but little experience running a company, Tesla founder Elon Musk, with degrees in physics and business, had already built and sold one successful company, PayPal, (to eBay in 2002 for $1.5 billion) and also runs SpaceX, a maker of rockets and spacecraft. He had the stomach to push through difficult times, and the chutzpah to twist the arms of reluctant investors…

Tesla has been clever in other ways, too. It sells credits it receives from the state of California for producing zero emissions vehicles to other automakers that aren’t so clean. At up to $35,000 per vehicle, it’s a windfall that has helped keep the company alive, according to Gartner analyst Thilo Koslowski. “At the end of the day, other carmakers are subsidizing Tesla,” Koslowski told the Los Angeles Times.

While true until now, Tesla says those credits will decline as sales spread beyond California and into Europe.  In the first quarter, Tesla said credits sold to other automakers amounted to approximately $68 million or 12% of its revenues.

So the long list of green car company failures tells us there is no market for these cars.  Making it a poor economic model.  Companies that have depended on selling cars to succeed have failed.  But if you’re creative and can think of other sources of cash you can keep a green car company in business even without selling cars.  But tax credits and government loans still weren’t enough to fund Tesla.

Musk, luckily, is a billionaire. He pocketed roughly $180 million as a cofounder of PayPal, and helped get Tesla off the ground in 2004 with an initial investment of $6.3 million. He put in another $20 million in 2007, and then in fall of 2008, with the company on the verge of collapse as the economy seized to a halt, Musk was virtually broke. He spent his last $20 million trying to keep the company afloat, while living off personal loans from friends.

The $465 million government loan helped, as did Tesla’s initial public offering in 2010, which raised $226 million.

Today, Musk is worth almost $3.8 billion — $1 billion more than Forbes estimated less than three months ago. Tesla stock has surged 40 percent this week alone, following the positive earnings report and the Consumer Reports review…

Musk could well make it happen because unlike those other green car companies, he has things you can’t get from the government: huge skin in the game, passion and talent.

This is why Tesla is still in business while those other green car companies are not.  Passion.  Something that is hard to truly appreciate unless you’re an entrepreneur.  And lots and lots of money.  While other companies ran out Musk was still able to go on by putting his money where his passion is.  Makes you want to cheer him on to success.  Even if you don’t believe the electric car is a valid economic model.  You love gasoline.  And you love the internal combustion engine.

Will those three fires in 6 weeks be too great an obstacle for Musk to overcome?  Will the passion and cash last?  Time will tell. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

A Third Tesla Model S is Consumed by Flames from their Lithium-Ion Batteries

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 9th, 2013

Week in Review

There were two Boeing 787 Dreamliners that had a battery problem and a burning smell.  Fire is dangerous.  Especially in an airplane.  There was no loss of life in either incident.  And there was minor damage.  But two incidents were enough for the FAA to ground the entire Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet.  Yes, fire is dangerous on an airplane.  But the government was also mad at Boeing for wanting to make the Dreamliner with nonunion labor.  Did this play a role in the grounding?  Who knows?

Tesla has now had three lithium-ion fires.  Not battery problems with a burning smell.  The federal government likes Tesla.  Wants everyone to drive an electric car.  And subsidizes the electric car industry.  Interestingly how Tesla can have three fires that destroy the car entirely and yet receive no scrutiny from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  Guess the government thinks Boeing wants to put people on unsafe airplanes while Tesla doesn’t want to put people in unsafe cars (see Tesla reports third fire involving Model S electric car by Ben Klayman and Bernie Woodall, Reuters, posted 11/8/2013 on The Globe and Mail).

Tesla Motors Inc. reported the third fire in its Model S luxury electric car in six weeks, this time after a highway accident in Tennessee, sending shares down sharply on Thursday.

The Tennessee Highway Patrol said the 2013 model sedan ran over a tow hitch that hit the undercarriage of the vehicle, causing an electrical fire on Interstate 24 on Wednesday. A highway patrol dispatcher called the damage to the car “extensive.”

The Model S undercarriage has armour plating that protects a battery pack of lithium-ion cells. Tesla said it did not yet know whether the fire involved the car’s battery.

An electrical fire in an electric car probably involved the car’s battery.  For without gasoline and a source for ignition what else can burn in an electric car other than a high energy density device under heat and pressure?

The first Model S fire occurred on Oct. 1 near Seattle, when the car collided with a large piece of metal debris in the road that punched a hole through the protective armour plating…

The second fire took place later in the month in Merida, Mexico, when, according to reports, a car drove through a roundabout, crashed through a concrete wall and hit a tree…

While none of the drivers in any of the Tesla accidents were injured, the glaring headlines about fires were unwelcome for a company whose stock soared sixfold in the first nine months of the year. Since the first fire, Tesla’s shares have lost more than 27 per cent, and this week’s declines are the worst one-week drop since May, 2012.

“For a company with a stock price based as much or more on image than financials, those recurring headlines are highly damaging,” Kelley Blue Book senior analyst Karl Brauer said.

When image is more important than financials that means the electric car isn’t selling.  That the costs far exceed revenue.  And probably the only things allowing them to stay in business are government subsidies (both for Tesla and for Tesla buyers) and irrational exuberance.  Like when investors created a dot-com bubble in the late Nineties.  Bidding up stock prices into the stratosphere when companies had nothing to sell let alone profits.  At least in the dot-com bubble investors were betting that they found the next Microsoft and were going to get rich.  It’s a little more puzzling why investors are buying Tesla stock in the first place. 

Tesla may build the best electric cars in the world.  But they are still electric cars.  The problem is no one is buying electric cars.  Except rich people who can afford a third car.  With the other two being powered by gasoline.  In case they want to travel a long distance.  Or drive at night or in the cold with the lights and heat on.  Or have to rush a sick child to the hospital when the Tesla is on the charger.

Tesla’s battery pack is made up of small lithium-ion battery cells that are also used in laptop computers, an approach not used by other auto makers. The battery pack stretches across the base of the vehicle. In comparison, General Motors Co. uses large-format battery cells in a T-shape in the centre of the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid car.

Other auto makers have dealt with battery fires in electrified vehicles, including GM’s Volt and Mitsubishi Motors Corp.’s i-MiEV…

“For consumers concerned about fire risk, there should be absolutely zero doubt that it is safer to power a car with a battery” than a conventional gas-powered vehicle, he said on a blog post.

Company executives called that first fire a “highly uncommon occurrence,” likely caused by a curved metal object falling off a semi-trailer and striking up into the underside of the car in a “pole-vault effect.”

Gasoline engines are dangerous, but Americans have learned to live with them over the years, said Tom Gage, the former CEO of AC Propulsion, which developed the drive train for Tesla’s first model, the Roadster.

“Obviously, gasoline can be lit more easily and can burn with more ferocity than a battery can, but a gas tank in a car now benefits from 120 years of fairly intensive development and government regulation regarding how you make it safe,” he said.

Ever smell gasoline?  In a parking lot?  When you shouldn’t?  It might have been more common in the old days.  When the Big Three were selling their rust buckets.  Which rusted out in the northern climates where they salt the roads during winter.  Salt makes metal rust.  Including gas tanks.  Causing leaks.  If you smelled gas, though, did you run away from that car and wait for it to explode?  No.  You didn’t.  You probably thought something along the lines of, “That guy should get that fixed.  Gasoline is too expensive to waste like that.”

And you can fix a leaky gas tank.  It’s dangerous but you can.  For a tank full of gas has more liquid than fumes in it.  But an empty gas tank may be full of lingering gas fumes.  That can explode if ignited with a welding torch.  Which is why before they weld a gas tank they fill it full of sand.  So there is no room for any explosive gas vapors.

Gasoline is flammable.  It will burn.  But it won’t explode.  For gasoline in a liquid form is not as dangerous as in other forms.  It can leak out of a gas tank.  And then evaporate into the atmosphere.  In a car wreck something can puncture the gas tank and cause fuel to spill out.  If this fuel is ignited it can burn.  And the fire will follow the gasoline back to the source.  If the fire reaches the gasoline fumes under pressure in the gas tank there can be an explosion.  A very big one at that.  But if the fire department is on the scene they can wash that gasoline away with a fire hose.  And prevent any fire or explosion.  When a lithium-ion battery burns, though, throwing water on it won’t do much.

For gasoline to power a gasoline-powered car we first have to vaporize it.  Mix it with oxygen (pulled from the air).  Compress the air-fuel mixture.  And then ignite it with a spark.  That’s when it’s dangerous.  When it’s inside our engines.  Not in the gas tank.  For a piece of metal can puncture the bottom of a car—including the gas tank—without causing a fire.  Whereas it’s a little iffy with a Tesla.  If something punctures the batteries covering the bottom of the car there’s a good chance there may be a fire.  While if you puncture a gas tank you may just run out of gas.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Federal Regulators find no Problem with Tesla Battery Design after one Burst into Flames this Month

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2013

Week in Review

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a state-of-the-art fuel-efficient intercontinental jetliner.  Something that made airlines dealing with razor-thin margins and rising fuel prices stand up and take notice.  This was an airplane that they wanted.  And how did they squeeze these fuel savings out of the Dreamliner?  Well, they used more composite materials than before.  Reducing the amount of heavier metals.  And they eliminated some other ‘heavy’ metal in a way that increased engine efficiency.  By eliminating pneumatic systems and replacing them with electric systems.  Which eliminated the bleed air system that bled efficiency from the jet engines.  And removing all the metal ductwork that piped that hot pressurized air throughout the aircraft.  Such as to the anti-icing systems in the wings.  Which they replaced with electric heaters.

The Boeing 787 is the most electric plane in commercial aviation.  It uses an enormous amount of electric power.  Which requires powerful backup batteries.  Lithium-ion batteries.  That have a very high energy density.  Created from powerful chemical reactions.  Requiring complex controllers to regulate the power, temperature and pressure in the batteries to try and prevent a ‘thermal runaway’.  Especially during charging.  Which happened a few times.  Starting a fire or two.  Prompting the FAA to action.  And grounding the entire 787 Dreamliner fleet because of these high energy density batteries.

Electric cars also use these high energy density batteries.  And some of them have caught fire.  But federal regulators aren’t taking any electric cars off of the street (see Tesla dodges full investigation after fiery crash by Charles Riley posted 10/25/2013 on CNNMoney).

Federal regulators have decided not to open an official investigation into the crash of a Tesla Model S earlier this month that resulted in a fire in the electric car’s battery section.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that while it continually reviews vehicle complaints, the crash had not led to the discovery of any safety faults…

Auto blog Jalopnik posted photos and videos of the Seattle-area accident in early October, showing an electric Tesla Model S engulfed in flames…

Musk’s 560-word post explained the accident in his usual painstaking detail. He said the cause of the accident appeared to be a piece of metal that fell off of a semi-trailer and struck the Model S.

A fire then erupted in the car’s front battery section, but was contained to that area, the CEO wrote. No flames entered the passenger compartment.

Musk also tried to reassure his readers. “There should be absolutely zero doubt that it is safer to power a car with a battery than a large tank of highly flammable liquid,” he wrote.

Well, one thing about our roads.  They are clean as a whistle.  So although there was a piece of metal once there will never be another piece of metal on our roads.  So there is no need to add some heavy metal under the Tesla to protect the battery from pieces of metal thrown up from the road.  Increasing the weight of the electric car.  Decreasing its range.  Further discouraging people from buying them.

If that piece of metal had hit a gas tank it may have dented it.  It may have even caused it to leak.  But it wouldn’t have burst into flames.  As the millions of cars driving on our metal-strewn roads testify to every day.  Gasoline stored in a tank slung underneath a car is pretty safe.  For it’s not what we combust in our engine.  No.  First we must aerosolize the liquid into a vapor.  Mix it with oxygen.  Compress it (greatly increasing its temperature).  Then ignite it with an electric spark.  And only then will it explode.  For an explosion needs heat and pressure.  Which isn’t present in a gas tank under normal conditions.  But they do exist in lithium-ion batteries under normal conditions.  Which is why they explode.  And burst into flames.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Another Electric Car bursts into Flames

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 5th, 2013

Week in Review

One thing we learned from Breaking Bad was to respect the chemistry.  And that’s what batteries are.  Chemistry.  The kind of chemistry that’s a little on the dangerous side.  Unlike gasoline.  Which we can store relatively safely in tanks under our cars.  Where little chemistry goes on inside our gas tanks.  To use that gasoline to power our cars we have to do a couple of things.  We have to aerosolize it.  Combine it with oxygen.  Compress it.  Then ignite it.  Then and only then does it release its incredible energy.  Producing great heat in the engine.  But not the gas tank.  Which needs no cooling system.  It’s a little different in an electric car.

In a battery the chemistry is all local.  It produces electricity—and heat—where the chemicals are stored.  In the battery.  One of the problems with electric cars is their limited range.  And you fix this problem with bigger and more powerful batteries.  That can produce a lot of electricity—and heat—as they charge or power the car.  Making battery cooling a requirement for safe battery use.  To keep those chemicals under control.  But sometimes these chemical reactions go out of control.  Causing fires as cars re-charge in their garages.  Causing fires that grounded the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner.  And this (see Hot Wheels! Tape of Tesla Fire Has Stock Tanking by Dan Berman, Hot Stock Minute, posted 10/3/2013 on Yahoo! Finance).

Tape of a Tesla (TSLA) on fire is giving new meaning to the term “hot wheels.” The video was shot on Tuesday after a Model S sedan went up in flames…

In an e-mail sent to The New York Times, Tesla spokeswoman Elizabeth Jarvis-Shean wrote that the fire was caused by the “direct impact of a large metallic object to one of the 16 modules within the Model S battery pack.” The e-mail went on to say, “Because each module within the battery pack is, by design, isolated by fire barriers to limit any potential damage, the fire in the battery pack was contained to a small section in the front of the vehicle.”

Contained to a small section?  It looks like the fire engulfed the whole car.  All because of some metal debris thrown up from the roadway.  Of course, a way to protect against something like this in the future is to add a metal shield that can take a direct hit without damage.  Adding a thick piece of metal under the car, though, adds weight.  Which, of course, reduces range.

This is a problem with electric cars.  Improving safety results in a reduction in range.  Because it adds weight.  It adds weight, too, with gasoline-powered cars.  But one full tank of gas can hold a lot more energy that all the batteries can on an electric car.  And when you run out of gas all you have to do is stop at a conveniently located gas station and fill up.  Which takes about 10 minutes or so.  Unlike a recharge of an electric car.  Which can take anywhere between a half hour (with a high-voltage fast charger) to overnight in the garage plugged into a standard outlet.  Which is why electric cars are more of a novelty.  Those who have them typically have other more reliable cars for their main driving needs.  For though gasoline-powered cars catch fire, too, when they’re not on fire you know you’re going to get home.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the Finest All-Electric Cars is Beaten by the Cold Temperatures of the East Coast

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2013

Week in Review

The all-electric car is great as long as it’s warm and you don’t plan on driving great distances (see Tesla stock dips on poor Model S review by Maureen Farrell posted 2/11/2013 on CNN Money).

The idea of a driving an electric car has always intrigued me, but after reading a New York Times review of the Tesla (TSLA) Model S on I-95, it sounds like a total nightmare.

According to the writer, the battery on the Model S drained much quicker than promised in cold weather during a recent trip up and down the East Coast. With only a few charging stations in the Northeast, the writer was forced to turn off the heat in 30 degree weather to conserve power. And that didn’t help him much. At one point he needed to get towed for 45 minutes to the next charging station.

Here are some excerpts from the New York Times article.

The 480-volt Supercharger stations deliver enough power for 150 miles of travel in 30 minutes, and a full charge in about an hour, for the 85 kilowatt-hour Model S. (Adding the fast-charge option to cars with the midlevel 60 kilowatt-hour battery costs $2,000.) That’s quite a bit longer than it takes to pump 15 gallons of gasoline, but at Supercharger stations Tesla pays for the electricity, which seems a reasonable trade for fast, silent and emissions-free driving. Besides, what’s Sbarro for..?

I began following Tesla’s range-maximization guidelines, which meant dispensing with such battery-draining amenities as warming the cabin and keeping up with traffic. I turned the climate control to low — the temperature was still in the 30s — and planted myself in the far right lane with the cruise control set at 54 miles per hour (the speed limit is 65)…

At that point, the car informed me it was shutting off the heater, and it ordered me, in vivid red letters, to “Recharge Now…”

I spent nearly an hour at the Milford service plaza as the Tesla sucked electrons from the hitching post…

When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford. It was a different story at 8:30 the next morning. The thermometer read 10 degrees and the display showed 25 miles of remaining range — the electrical equivalent of someone having siphoned off more than two-thirds of the fuel that was in the tank when I parked.

I called Tesla in California, and the official I woke up said I needed to “condition” the battery pack to restore the lost energy. That meant sitting in the car for half an hour with the heat on a low setting…

The Tesla people found an E.V. charging facility that Norwich Public Utilities had recently installed. Norwich, an old mill town on the Thames River, was only 11 miles away, though in the opposite direction from Milford.

After making arrangements to recharge at the Norwich station, I located the proper adapter in the trunk, plugged in and walked to the only warm place nearby, Butch’s Luncheonette and Breakfast Club, an establishment (smoking allowed) where only members can buy a cup of coffee or a plate of eggs. But the owners let me wait there while the Model S drank its juice. Tesla’s experts said that pumping in a little energy would help restore the power lost overnight as a result of the cold weather, and after an hour they cleared me to resume the trip to Milford.

Looking back, I should have bought a membership to Butch’s and spent a few hours there while the car charged. The displayed range never reached the number of miles remaining to Milford, and as I limped along at about 45 miles per hour I saw increasingly dire dashboard warnings to recharge immediately. Mr. Merendino, the product planner, found an E.V. charging station about five miles away.

But the Model S had other ideas. “Car is shutting down,” the computer informed me. I was able to coast down an exit ramp in Branford, Conn., before the car made good on its threat.   Tesla’s New York service manager, Adam Williams, found a towing service in Milford that sent a skilled and very patient driver, Rick Ibsen, to rescue me with a flatbed truck. Not so quick: the car’s electrically actuated parking brake would not release without battery power, and hooking the car’s 12-volt charging post behind the front grille to the tow truck’s portable charger would not release the brake. So he had to drag it onto the flatbed, a painstaking process that took 45 minutes. Fortunately, the cab of the tow truck was toasty.

At 2:40 p.m., we pulled into the Milford rest stop, five hours after I had left Groton on a trip that should have taken less than an hour. Mr. Ibsen carefully maneuvered the flatbed close to the charging kiosk, and 25 minutes later, with the battery sufficiently charged to release the parking brake and drive off the truck, the car was back on the ground.

And this is perhaps the finest all-electric car in the market.  And it is a modern marvel.  But even as high-tech as it is it still can’t change the law of physics.  Batteries don’t work well in cold temperatures.  It takes time to charge a battery.  Even at 480 volts.  And it should also be noted that charging lithium-ion batteries is itself not the safest thing to do.  For if they over charge they can catch fire.  These are the same batteries they have on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.  That the FAA grounded because their lithium-ion batteries were catching on fire.

Had he been driving at night he probably would have gotten a message that the car was shutting off its headlights, too.  To conserve battery charge.  Which would probably be a little more hazardous than driving without heat in the dark.

If you drive where it is cold the last thing you want is for your car to shut down.  Unable to get you home.  And this is the warmth and security a gasoline engine gives you.  You can top off your tank the night before to be extra safe you won’t run out of fuel.  And if the temperature falls to 40 below zero over night you will have the same amount of gasoline in your tank in the morning.  If you get stuck in bumper to bumper traffic in 40 degree below zero weather you will be able to stay toasty warm.  And if you’re driving after dark you will even be able to see where you are going.  Thanks to gasoline.  And the internal combustion engine.

Or you can try to save the environment and die of exposure instead.  Your choice.  Gasoline.  Or electricity.  Range anxiety or carefree driving.  Shivering in the cold to squeeze out a few extra miles.  Or sitting comfortably in your car with your coat off.  Killing an hour every time you charge your car perhaps once or twice a day.  Or spending 10 minutes pumping gas maybe once a week.  Pain in the ass.  Or convenience.  Your choice.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,