High Quality, Affordable EVs. Made in China?

"I clearly remember a very interesting debate I was involved in while at Tesla. The debate was about the manufacturing strategy for the WhiteStar (now known as the Model S) sedan.

The plan had always been to manufacture the car in the US, but the new CEO was challenging our thinking on that plan. Michael Marks had built an extraordinarily successful company in Flextronics by providing outsourced electronics manufacturing services for its customers. Michael was one of the more knowledgeable people in business when it came to high quality manufacturing in China.

The debate took place at the table in a hotel bar in Detroit with several members of the Tesla team. In order to achieve the necessary cost targets for the car, Michael had concluded that the only solution was off-shore manufacturing, preferably China. Alternatively, he said, you could consider near-shore manufacturing in Mexico, but the cost advantages of Chinese manufacturing were so great that it made the most sense. And the kicker: according to Michael, there would be no trade-off in quality or safety."

http://www.darrylsiry.com/2009/03/high-quality-affordable-evs-made-in.html

materials and methods they use are covered by occupational health laws? And they perform environmental impact surveys before they build factories or totally change over lines? I hadn't heard! Well then, absolutely it makes sense to build environmentally friendly cars in China!

Otherwise, I think it's straight-up bullshit.

no. But either does Mexico, or easter europe, or Korea etc. Remember, it is the US who is killing the environment, so they don't have to follow the same rules, thus less cost per vehicle=more sales. Thank your US congress for that one, especially the repukes. They were more interested in supporting the shift of US companies overseas for more profit. In order to do this, they increased the rules on the US operated companies. Funny how that is. When was the last time you heard anyone fighting to push them to follow the same rules, or even to have fair trade rules. never.

violators of human rights AND environmental standards is foolish and misguided. I know exactly what you're saying.

for moral and ecological reasons.

And an expert on straight-up bullshit.

children's clothes made by children. I don't want crap I don't need made by people I don't know working in conditions I can't even imagine. Do I go without a lot? Yes, but most often it's stuff I don't need anyway. Do I sometimes buy stuff from China? Yes, because there sometimes isn't an alternative. Do I feel better about the purchases I do make? Mostly, yep. And yes, it is mostly for moral reasons.

He'd always look for stuff made in the good-ol' USA (preferably by union labor.)

Recently, we were comparing notes. He's had to compromise. Now, he looks for the union label, then for Made in USA, then he looks for goods that are at least made in countries where he's confident they treat their workers well. Too often, his only choice is between different Chinese manufacturers.

I don't do it to show off, although often people take it that way, and I don't know why. I do it because I think it's the right thing to do, the least I can do.

A few months back, our trusty Black and Decker Toast-R-Oven gave up the ghost, so I went looking for a new one.

I checked almost a dozen stores. They were all made in China, except one up-scale model that was made in… India! Eventually, m'lady stopped humoring me. We bought a new (Chinese) Black and Decker…

Damn you Wal•Mart!

I'm all for getting rid of the need for burning fossil fuels, and I don't begrudge people in other countries decent jobs (of course not), but putting American families out of work and out of their homes is not something I'm willing to support.

Maybe there was some reason…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_EV_Plus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV

vehicles are generally too fucking heavy.

Better battery technology and better materials technology are crucial.

However, it's not disputable that we need some form of electrified transportation to survive in the future.

Most seem to believe that GM colluded with the oil companies to prevent us from having electric cars…

The Model T was about as fuel efficient (high teens to low 20's mpg) as many of the cars we drive today, one hundred years later.

Since then, we put a man on the moon, connected the world via the internet, developed supercomputers, developed the space shuttle program, and created the nuclear bomb (not to mention, nuclear power plants).

I think any logical person could see that there's not been a major emphasis on fuel efficiency.

I mean, if you owned a lot of stock in both the car companies and the oil companies, wouldn't you be just happy not to keep everything as it is?

But..but...anything but the internal combustion engine is inefficient!!!

Thanks, George Will, for that commentary.

However, when an individual is driving an ICE vehicle down the road, 0.8% of the energy spent is actually moving the mass of that person.

0.8% is efficient?

Whereas I will concede that we don't have the technologies fully realized yet, I still blame that on the auto and energy industries that have been very happy to keep things where they are for the past 100 years - almost no progress made.

Peak oil will force a real change, and I think we are at the beginning of that.

During the 70's and early 80's, when people saw gasoline as expensive, MPG figures went up.

Then the "energy crisis" was forgotten; gas was "cheap" again; and people decided they wanted "http://musclecars.howstuffworks.com/muscle-car-information/how-muscle-cars-work8.htm">muscle cars" instead. So, gas mileage crept back down again (but not as low as they had been.)

Comparing the mileage of a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T">Model T" to today's automobiles is a bit disingenuous. It weighed about half as much as a modern "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_(BMW)">Mini Cooper," which gets better than twice the MPG. (Saying a "Model T" got 20MPG is stretching the case a bit.)

I said for years, "So long as SUV's are popular, gas is too cheap!"

Don't be naive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal

Are you sure you really want to do that?

In this case, it appears to.

Manhattan has a great public transit system, but no trolleys.

A lot of public transportation in New York are subway systems on rails...so?
France has a really fast train system...so?
There are motor vehicles that get 15,000 miles per gallon...so?

I think the Cato institute fits your line of thinking. This tells me more about you than it does about the comparative efficiency of different forms of transportation.

I just don't accept the Pollyanna notion that the auto industry and the oil industry along with their major stockholders have had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we are not appreciably more efficient than we were 100 years ago.

Would you care to buy some snow in Alaska? How about some sand in Arizona?

Unfortunately, that efficiency has (to a large extent) been wasted on larger, heavier, faster vehicles.

The problem with electric vehicles isn't efficiency, it's range. As you've pointed out, in order to have satisfactory range the batteries have been too expensive.

However, joules/mile in and out, electric beats ICE hands down.

And now, an Li-ion based EV may be marketable. (If not today, then in a few years, when gas prices go back up again.)

I think the EV-1 and its siblings died because they weren't marketable at the time.

:rofl:

"Although defendants insist that each supplier merely obtained business from the City Lines defendants through separate negotiations, the documentary evidence referred to above and other circumstances in evidence seem to us clearly sufficient to justify the jury in finding that the contrary was true. It is clear that representatives of two or more supplier defendants were in attendance in Chicago and New York at meetings and conferences, out of which grew the investment and requirements contracts. And the fact that copies of a memorandum of discussions held between one of the supplier defendants and one of the City Lines defendants, as well as copies of many of the letters which passed between the contracting parties prior to the execution of the contracts, were sent to representatives of other supplier defendants, coupled with the fact that the latter corresponded with one another relative to the provisions of the contracts, is hardly reconcilable with defendants' contention that their several contracts were negotiated independently of one another but is, rather, convincing that each of the contracts was regarded by the parties as but a part of a 'larger deal' or 'proposition', to use the words of certain of the defendants, in which all of the supplier defendants were involved."

By definition, a conspiracy. Read the whole article, not just the meager and insubstantial part that supports your preconceived opinion. You're starting to sound like James Inhofe.

that it's just been plain impossible?

I find that extremely hard to believe. You would have to lend a lot of faith, if not outright gullibility, to the auto industry, the oil industry, and the government to believe that.

I guess the flip side of what you are saying is that "consumer demand has just 'never been there' for highly efficient vehicles". I guess that's a little easier to believe. However, I think consumer demand is highly subject to manipulation. Otherwise, advertisement and marketing wouldn't work. I think the scores of billions spent on advertising would serve to dispel that notion.

My sense is that it's never been highly profitable at a corporate level to move toward highly efficient vehicles, so we never did. I don't necessarily think there was some super-secret skull and bones meeting to keep fuel efficient low but I do think there's been a conscious effort on the part of the industries involved to focus on marketing highly inefficient vehicles. This has kept everyone happy. Like I said, if you owned auto stock and oil stock why would you want to increase the cost of making cars (even if temporarily) while lowering the demand for the energy supply you sell?

The problem is that what is good for GM and Exxon isn't necessarily good for the country. And the costs of inefficient vehicles are hidden, buried deeply in things like our perpetual war for oil, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

It's pretty apparent to me that had we embarked on a national quest for an electrified fleet of vehicles back in the 70's (when we realized our own PEAK OIL constraint), we'd be there by now. However, Reagan came along and made sure that wasn't going to happen. Every President until now, has maintained that course.

You are right, every time gas goes up we all get in a dither to shrink our cars and make them more compact and lightweight. Then, they find some way to loosen up supply to get the price back down and advertise how sexy big vehicles are, then we go back to our old broken ways. The can gets kicked down the road.

Well, eventually world peak oil will be here and there will be no more road to kick the can down to.

Then, if not sooner, we will develop highly efficient electric vehicles and wonder to each other "what the fuck took us so long"?

Look at it this way. Europe has had more efficient cars than the US for years. Are the oil companies not powerful in Europe? No, it's simply that gasoline has been more expensive in Europe for years, so European consumers have wanted higher mileage vehicles, and Ford, GM and other companies have obliged.

which we are both well aware of, is a direct example of how fuel costs can be directly influenced by industries and governments in order to create a desired effect. What you cite is a direct example of manipulation of the system.

To answer your question: "Are the oil companies not powerful in Europe?" I think what you really have to answer is this "Are the oil companies in America more powerful than the oil companies in Europe?" I think you'd have to be fairly ill-informed not to know the answer to that one.

Finally, like I said before, demand is HIGHLY subject to manipulation. If you don't understand that, then you have a lot to learn my friend.

There are limitations imposed on an ICE by physics.

I too often mention my old (used) Datsun 210. I loved that car! It got better mileage than most cars available today. Of course it was also smaller and lighter than most cars today.


Similarly, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-X">Honda CR-X got higher mileage, ditto on the size and weight.

Why were these cars discontinued? If people had kept buying them, surely, these Japanese companies would have continued selling them.

how gas prices affected demand in both countries. Just like you said, this difference in price has affected difference in demand for fuel efficient vehicles. As this difference in price has been manipulated through taxes, subsidies and other goodies like War for oil, it clearly supports exactly what I've been saying all along in this thread.

And again, if fuel efficient cars are so beloved, why would car companies discontinue making them? I mean if it's so beloved and all, you'd think there'd be adequate demand. Wouldn't there? And if demand fell off, where'd the love go? Advertising and marketing strategies wouldn't have anything to do with that?

Fuel inefficient vehicles are bankrupting us and force us to exploit other countries for oil. That's an indisputable fact. Do you ever see than in an advertisement? NO.

What do you see...

Big cars and trucks are advertised as status, power, and sex symbols.

If the products were marketed truthfully, with their true costs, you'd see a change in buying patterns.

But that doesn't happen and it's a conscious decision by the people that own and run the auto and oil industries.

I've long been in favor of a higher "gas tax" to encourage conservation. Most people I know think that's anathema even unpatriotic.

When gas prices went up last year, "Detroit" (well… GM and Ford) started making arrangements to build their (more efficient) European models here.

OK, so… that means the oil companies would sell less of their product. Right? (How disloyal of GM and Ford!) The conspiracy fell apart just like that!

you think it means.

Seriously, I haven't suggested any "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory". That's your own misplaced language.

It's silly of you though to act as if the oil industry, which is extremely powerful in influencing US politics hasn't tried to use it's influence to keep demand high.

I guess we could argue back and forth all day. As long as you maintain that basic simple observations and conclusions amount to a "conspiracy theory" you can dismiss out-of-hand, there's not ground to be gained or covered.

The funny thing is though that the "it's a conspiracy theory" defense is a pretty Right-wing tactic and somehow always seems to come down on the side of supporting the status quo. I wonder why that is?

Bottom line, I just don't buy what you are peddling but I will agree with you NiMH batteries, as currently incarnated, are not the answer to our electric car solution.

Wtmusic believes in the GM+Oil Companies killed the EV-1 conspiracy. (Neglecting that they apparently also killed all of the other EV prototypes from other companies as well.) I just get tired of it.

Generally, in my experience, most of the people I know (unfortunately) like the biggest, fastest, most powerful car they can get. Although they bought lighter cars in the 70's and the 80's, they really didn't like them. ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econobox">Econobox" was not a term of praise.)

My personal tastes have always run toward smaller "sportier" cars.

A quick thought experiment, if you'll humor me.

Let's say that the US auto makers were intentionally keeping higher MPG technology under wraps, to satisfy the oil companies (a common conspiracy theory.) This would allow some other clever car company (say Toyota) to come out with a slightly better technology, with better MPG. Consumers, naturally (all other things being equal) would start buying more of the more efficient cars, their market share would go up, and the US companies share would go down. The oil companies would also suffer (since they'd be selling less of their product.) On the whole, I'd say the conspirators fail in this scenario. (Unless they can control all of the car companies in the entire world!)

Now, granted, advertising is a wonderful thing. You can get Americans to buy anything with a good enough ad campaign. (Why just look at how well the Edsel sold!) OK, bad example. Alright, just look at how well those http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?art_aid=100800&fa=Articles.showArticle">"Blu-Ray" DVD's are selling! Hmmm… OK, another bad example.

Just look at how well MS-Windows sells!

and it is telling. As you say:

"Generally, in my experience, most of the people I know (unfortunately) like the biggest, fastest, most powerful car they can get."

I find that true in my community as I live in a rural area where parking is not an issue, people love their GWB/Bibles/Guns, and where a man can compensate for a lot with a very large pickup truck.

And yes, cars are status symbols and have to have "sex appeal".

However, that we attach status and sex appeal to big gas guzzlers, I think, is more of a trick of marketing than inherent need for a something huge.

On the other hand, even if we want sexy and powerful, electric can deliver. A lightweight electric vehicle will have a lot better acceleration than a gas counterpart because you don't have to weight for the rpm's to get high enough to get the needed torque. This translates into very sporty performance in the city and passing on the highways. Carbon fiber components could go a long way to decreasing weight to volume so that we can maintain a roomy ride. I think you could make an electric vehicle every bit as sporty and as sexy as an ICE. Even just as big if you wanted, you just don't want to go as heavy or have bad aerodynamics.

Now these are some prohibitively expensive electric cars:




But they are extremely sexy performance cars by most standards.

This vehicle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPBREn3ibgI

blows a porche away off the blocks

This vehicle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqqtJpfZElQ&feature=related

will fuck a Ferrari up

So, you know and I know, it's a matter of combining technology, design, art, and will and we will be able to make attractive electric cars and trucks. So far, we haven't done this. Someday we will have to.

I think right now, like many do, it's a matter of current limitation in the battery technology but we'll get there.

I'd cheered for the various California EV's. I'd love a Tesla. (I'd also love enough money to afford one! I'd get a really great PV system for my house!)

I think GM's specs for the Volt™ make sense, and I really would like to help out the Detroit assembly line workers. I just question whether I'll be able to justify the price. (Generally, I like to buy used cars and sell 'em to the junk yard when I'm done with them, 'cause no one else would pay money for them.)

and LCD TV's. A expensive and huge leap in the right direction.

At first these kind of TV's were $5000 to $6000 dollars. Then they made a lot of the factories to produce these and the prices have went dramatically down. You can now buy something for less than a thousand dollars that is better and bigger than what you used to pay $5000+ for.

Once a standard for battery technology is determined and set, then it's a matter of getting enough factories producing worldwide to bring cost down. Basically, this is true of anything.

So, the early adopters will pay more but pave the way for the mass market production. This is what the tax credits are for.

Come to think of it, It's probably not a stretch to think that when autos originally came out they were for the rich only until the techniques and manufacturing processes were in place to make them broadly affordable. I don't know the history on that as I haven't researched it in detail but I'd dare anyone to prove me wrong.

I like the idea of the Volt too. I was holding out for that but I've read some plugin hybrid minivans will be out by 2012 and that's what I'm going to get for the family.

If it's 10K more expensive but I get that offset by tax credits to a degree, I will pay more.

If anything it will just mean a bigger monthly payment... but then again I will save on gas so the cost of ownership may actually be comparable.

The only thing is that the battery pack will have to be replaced so they have to work that out in terms of lifetime cost of ownership.

I think we are almost there and I believe that once we get more battery manufacturing plants going it will become more and more economical.

I think this forum is rife w/ the nuclear vs wind/solar debate but for me, I don't care which side wins as long as I can put some relatively clean energy in the car I drive.

I used to live on 20 acres not too long ago, 60,000 square meters, 18,000,000 joules per second in broad daylight (figuring 300 watts/sq.meter)...if only I could have caught some of that and pumped it into my car. I could have spent my money on a car, some solar panels, a converter, and some wires instead of oil from Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, and the Middle East.

Check out coal. It's the source of 23% of our energy, and responsible for 36% of our CO₂ emissions, also check out the emissions due to transportation, vs the emissions due to electrical generation. (Take all of those pink segments, and stack 'em up next to the transportation bar.)


If we clean up our electrical supply, and keep driving our gas guzzlers, we'd do better than if we only addressed the gas guzzlers.

OTOH: If we clean up our electrical supply, and switch to electric (or hydrogen fuel cell) transportation…

FWIW: I don't expect to see the price of EV's plummet like flat panel TV's. There's just no getting around the fact that there are (literally) tons more raw materials (and labor) required to make a car.

You are right, if we just power vehicles w/ coal that's not going to do much for climate change.

However, electrical sources aside, the ability to be less reliant on oil going forward will have huge strategic, security, and economic ramifications.

I don't see how you can say battery tech won't become more affordable as manufacturing and use becomes more widespread as long as the substances in the batteries are abundant. That always happens. Of course a car will be more expensive than a comp monitor, but compared to where it is now the price should come down if basic economic principles still apply.

However, the decrease will not be as dramatic as the decrease in price for flat panel TV's.

For example, although the price of a car has effectively fallen from their original price, even after 100 years, you cannot buy a new car for $1,000.

Just curious why you use "™" for the Volt only. Did your boss tell you to? :D

I just think using the word "volt" to describe a car looks funny.

Better tell Toyota, they hadn't heard.

A Prius has about 200 NiMH cells (some more, some less.) They weigh about 2 pounds each. Their range in EV mode is 1-2 miles at ≤ 34 MPH.
http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Prius_EV_Mode_Button
http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Battery_Specs

OK, now, let's say you'd like a range of oh… 200 miles… how many cells will you need? How much will they weigh?

The NiMH battery pack in an EV1 weighed 1,147 lbs, giving the car a weight of 2,908 lbs. (more than a third of the car's weight was in the battery pack.) This gave a range of "75 to 130" miles.
http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/glossary/glossary.htm

Compare this to the Li-ion battery pack in a Tesla (once again, it's a two seater.) The Tesla battery pack weighs less, but it has a range of "more than 200 miles."
http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/TeslaRoadsterBatterySystem.pdf

except for the plugin hybrid ones.

But at any rate, NiMH batteries really have a lot of technical limitations. They aren't going to take us where we need to go (300 mile range, relatively short charge times, no excessive heat discharge, long life and rechargeability, and affordable).

I'd be willing to have the gov't invest hundreds of billions in the sort of battery tech we need, because imo its the holy grail. However, NiMH is not the ticket unless there's some breakthru with those.

LOL.

Actually, you raise a really good question. I only use that number because that's around what most cars and trucks we drive today are designed to get. Would people be able to settle for less? Sure. Would a 60 mile range w/ diesel backup be acceptable? Yes. I just think a 300 mile range would be highly competitive and a reasonable goal.

I am truly holding out for the first plugin hybrid minivan that is suitable for my family even though we could use a minivan now. That might be a few years off, ??2012?? Would I be ok w/ 40 miles before gas kicks in? yes. Would I be ecstatic with even more range, if not all electric, Yes! I know I will probably have to settle for the former.

BTW most of the next gen plugin hybrids that I'm reading about are not NIMH but rather Li ion. The reading I come accross seems to indicate Li ion batteries are better but we need better technology even still.

that you have an internal combustion vehicle as a second car. Right for everyone? No, but for millions of households it would be.

80% of my driving is done on a battery electric car that has a range of 40 miles - and that's the lead-acid kind that was invented 160 years ago. They really are that practical.

http://www.aspire-ev.com

that's the best compromise I can see happening in the next 5 years.

I dislike the concept of EV's being produced in China. We need those jobs here.

On the other hand, I like the idea of EV's being cheap enough to actually be affordable. It will hasten the transition away from the ICE.

Curious if there's a way to split manufacturing - electronics there, body and final assembly here.

Safety for whom?