If one looks at the average power generation an EV is more efficient than diesel. Where I live none of my power is generated from diesel and a fair amount comes from renewable sources (wind, geothermal, solar, etc). The percentage of renewable power is growing quickly in my area as well and most new power plants coming online are natural gas since it's cheaper than coal. The percentage of power in the US generated from coal is dropping rapidly.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-d...

The energy losses in electricity transmission are fairly low (estimated around 7%). The chargers are also fairly efficient (over 90%) and charging Li-Ion batteries is also quite efficient. Similarly, the inverters are also quite efficient (over 90% is typical) and the electric motor are also quite efficient (typically 80% or higher). There is minimal loss in the transmission compared to an ICE vehicle as well since there are only two gears (single speed, just a 9.73:1 gear reduction). At least in my Tesla, losses due to resistance are quite low due to the very short runs between the battery, inverter and motors and very heavy duty power buses. On top of that, a lot of energy is recovered from braking, unlike diesel vehicles.

There are other advantages as well. An EV is extremely smooth and quiet, unlike a diesel. It cost me a fraction the amount it cost per-mile compared to a diesel vehicle as well. My EV gets cleaner as time goes on whereas most vehicles emit more pollution as they age.

Another thing to consider is that many EV owners have also installed solar to help offset their energy use, further reducing CO2 emissions.

For urban delivery trucks electricity makes even more sense.

https://www.fleetio.com/blog/n...
http://www.greencarcongress.co...

Which is why Tesla has numerous patents on this using a hybrid approach. They use the metal air batteries to charge normal batteries for peak demand.

My guess is that it will be a change in the GPS software to show the battery usage required for a destination and better integrating the superchargers into the GPS. Last week the loaner P85+ I drove while my car was having its annual service had beta software on it and I noticed this in the GPS.

Actually it's not 4x the price in the market the model S is in. It's actually fairly comparible and in some cases a bargain when compared to the other luxury cars it's competing against. Right now they have 28% margins on the model S. As for profitability Tesla is doing the right thing and is spending their money on growth which is exactly what they should be doing. They're not an old established company like GM or Ford so they have to spend a lot of money investing in the infrastructure they need for the future (i.e. the gigafactory, R&D for more models, superchargers, more manufacturing capability, etc.) Once they're out of the huge expansion phase then they should be profitable.

I don't know of any electric that gets 35eMPG. My model S is rated at 89MPGe. A leaf is even better. Also, the model S is not a sports car but a sedan. And we buy them because it beats the hell out of driving a Prius (my previous car). Hell, an electric can go 30 miles using just the energy required to refine a gallon of gasoline.

There's a web site I use that is pretty good at estimating range. It takes into account the destination, change in elevation, type of tires, speed, temperature and wind conditions. Last week when I had my annual service the loaner car I drove (A P85+) had beta software running on it. The GPS showed an estimate of how much battery would be used for the trip. I know they're working on better integrating the charging and battery support into the GPS.

I'd love to see a gas car take 1-3 minutes. It's typically longer than that. Even without a supercharger I spend less of my time charging than I did filling up my car. I spend 5 seconds plugging in at night and 5 seconds unplugging in the morning. The time spent actually charging is irrelivant in most cases except during long trips.

Actually a full tank does not take "hours". For long distance travel a full tank takes 75 minutes using the superchargers. If the battery is completely empty it takes around 40 minutes to charge to 80% with over 200 miles of range. Usually I spend around 30 minutes charging instead of the "hours". Usually the amount of time is irrelivant since it takes me 5 seconds to plug in at night and 5 seconds to unplug in the morning.

Currently I can get an 80% charge in 40 minutes with over 200 miles of range. A "full tanke" takes around 75 minutes. The thing is that usually the charging time doesn't matter. When I come home at night it takes me 5 seconds to plug in (yes, that fast) and it takes me 5 seconds to unplug in the morning to a full tank. I only need to plug in every few days if I want to. In that way, the charging time is usually irrelivant and only comes into play during long trips. Contrast that to my ICE car where every week or so I would have to wait in line and spend 5 minutes filling up the car.

Even at high torque at low speed they are far more efficient than an ICE. As for more expensive controllers, the controllers for an induction motor are no more complicated than that of a synchronous motor. A synchronous motor needs to know the position of the motor, an induction motor needs to know the speed. In terms of complexity, they're not all that different. Also, usually you're not running at peak power. In terms of average power usage, say on a freeway, an induction motor may be more efficient than a brushless motor. See http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/induction-versus-dc-brushless-motors for a good discussion.

I don't think that article is accurate. It does not take into account the well to wheel efficiency. Hell, I can drive 30 miles using the energy required just to refine a gallon of gasoline.

An electric can go at least 20-30 miles using the energy it takes to refine one gallon of gasoline. The wheel to well energy usage of an electric is far lower than any ICE.

Actually, even if the electricity is generated from coal the pollution is less. I can drive around 30 miles in my model S using the energy used to just refine one gallon of gasoline. Also, as time goes by, the pollution from an EV goes down, especially as the utilities move more and more towards natural gas and renewable energy sources, natural gas now being cheaper than coal for electricity generation. Gasoline and deisel, by comparison, become more and more energy intense to extract and produce, especially when sources like the Alberta tar sands are used.

Also, in countries like China and India their ICE vehicles tend to lack the pollution controls that are present in western countries.

I don't see the Apple watch as being much of a threat. A good Swiss watch will work just as well five years later as it did new. It won't go obsolete and it won't need charging after five hours of use.

Within three years the iWatch will probably need a new battery, which probably will not be easily replacable. It will quickly grow obsolete as watches with better battery life and better features come out.

And we all know that you never buy an Apple 1.0 product.

Besides, people would look silly if they treated their watches like a Dick Tracy watch or had to hold their wrist up to their ear to hear Siri.

I wear a watch that is a far better watch than the iWatch. I never have to charge it (solar) and the only time I need to set it is to change the time zone or daylight savings since it sets itself. If it breaks or I lose it I'm not out several hundred dollars and it will last me years. I tend to be hard on watches too. It does a supurb job telling me the time and date. It's water proof and I never have to take it off. I also don't get distracted by it. It doesn't beep or flash messages at me, talk to me or anything else. I don't have to update the firmware or worry about security issues. If I want to pay by phone it takes me 2 seconds to remove my phone from my belt pouch to pay for something. I don't have to turn my wrist into contortions for NFC or for something to read the screen.

Years ago I used to have watches that had features like a calculator or that could store a phone book and other stuff. With a phone I no longer need these features which were awkward to use at best due to the small size of the watch.

If I'm going to make a phone call I'll hold my phone. It will be a lot easier to hear and will be clearer for the person at the other end. If I'm on the phone a lot I'll get a bluetooth headset.

There are a lot of smart watches out there and none of them seem to be taking the world by storm. The iWatch is not all that different than many of the other watches out there other than the fact that it's more expensive and made by Apple. In some cases it's obsurdly expensive. $10,000 for a gold iWatch with well under $1000 worth of gold? It's just asking to be stolen like somebody wearing a Rolex. Unlike a Rolex, though, in 5 years time it will be worth far less. It's not something you'll be able to hand down to your children and grandchildren. It won't last 20+ years like a good watch will.

Some of the knock-offs are actually quite good and very difficult to spot the differences. They're not the $40 ones though. As I have said in other posts, I know someone with some of these fake watches and holding them side by side with the real thing it's impossible to spot the difference. The movement is the same, the same workmanship, everything. Only opening them up can you spot the difference, though the works in the fake "Rolex" were made in Switzerland.