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

Question

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?

Answer 1

It does 2cents to the mile I heard, It must be efficient  to get that sort of performance. It's all on thier website.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Do a calculation for how much you would drive and figure out what sort of electric bill you would get, then compare that to a gas bill for the same mileage

Answer 2

Tesla offer a home solar panel instalation service.

So for the xtra cost of little more than some people pay for leather seats, you could have completly free secure electric supply for life.

Well to wheel electric vehicles are much more efficient than infernal combustion engines (ice). ICE rarely run at optimum temperature & load, electric max torque from 0rpm which is why it accelerates so fast. Refuel at home or work from a 90% efficient national grid, no tankers, pipes or vapour...

Answer 3

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 d**n 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.

Answer 4

Depends on the electricity costs; I'm not familiar with those in NZ. How much is it to recharge a 53 kWh battery? Add several percent due to recharging loss when calculating. And if you have some solar panels, wind turbines, etc at home you might be able to lower the costs (to nothing?) ;-)

In my opinion it's more interesting what the cost (energy consumption) is to drive 100 km - and also how far (in this case up to 390 km) you can go before you'll need the next 3.5 hrs coffee & recharging break.

Answer 5

No, the fuel bill would be much lower because electric engines are much more efficient than internal combustion engines.

If you have a car that averages 30 mpg and gas costs $3/gallon, that's 10 cents per mile to refuel.

A Tesla Roadster costs about 2 cents per mile to refuel, so your fuel cost is five times lower.

The Roadster will go about 200 miles per charge, so if you waited 200 miles to recharge it, it would cost about 400 cents, or $4 for a full recharge.

Answer 6

How much it will cost you to charge, will depend on which tariff, and which utility you use. (off peak is usually a whole lot cheaper). ( For me it would be between  $3 - $8)

Based comparisons with European fuel economy testing Tesla claim 110 watts per kilometre.

For lithium ion batteries the maximum discharge is 80% so while the battery is 53KWh the useable portion is only 42.4 KWh. If you do your sums you should find that 42.4 KWh @ 110 watts/km works out to the claimed range of 240 miles(385.45 km) ( don't you just love mixing metric and Imperial)

Lithium ion batteries return around 90% of the energy that you put into them and you can expect to lose 2-5% through the charger. So if you round it up to 50 times your utility charge that would be pretty close.

At nearly $100 grand (US) for the car, the pay back time in fuel savings is still going to take a while.(The cost of style)

Fortunately for me I still love riding bicycles. Dreaming costs nothing.

--------------------------------------...

The increased efficiency over a standard vehicle mostly comes from the fact that a large portion of the energy used to accelerate the car is recaptured during braking (regenerative braking), rather than being wasted as heat.

The electric motor is more efficient over a larger range of speeds than most internal combustion engines.

So generally, yeah it will be really cheap to run and the energy used for the same distance will be much less.

If it is cheap to run, will you drive it more?

___________________________

If you live outside of the continental U.S. There are no plans by Tesla to sell you a car anytime soon.

Probably getting a little off subject, but what the hay.

Regenerative braking is the same feature that Cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrids use. This is the main reason for the improved fuel consumption. Other things like a more aerodynamic shape lower rolling resistances help but not nearly as much as regenerative braking. (They also have a larger curb mass than the non-hybrid equivalent)

In terms of energy any car with the same frontal area/ co-efficient of wind resistance figures (6.35 for Lotus Elise most similar to Tesla) will use the same energy to move through the air that accounts for most of the energy used at highway speeds. (Around 80% @ 60 mph). Weight directly affects about 20% of energy used.

If we ignore thew fact that most driving involves acceleration, braking climbing and descending, then a well matched diesel engine would match this load more efficiently.  Mainly because the overall weight of the power plant plus fuel would be significantly less. (Less rolling resistance). But if the engine is designed solely for efficiency the car is going to be slow to accelerate. (Which I understand was the problem with the Lupo)

Now if you want a fair and impartial assessment of the true energy in electricity versus diesel you need to factor in not only all the losses in the electricity generation and distribution (fuel and waste transport etc), but also the energy required to transport, process and distribute the diesel. Wheel to well for diesel and wheel to mine for electricity, studies have been done and electricity stacks up quite good.

The Tesla does not use capacitors; the batteries can handle the inrush current that the alternator supplies. If the driver wants to break harder then they apply the foot to the other pedal (wasted energy).  This cars big sell point is that it is fast. The current used to accelerate will slow it at the same rate.

In terms of efficiency neither diesel nor electric cars stack up against the humble bicycle. Powered by double chins , love handles, blubber, thunder thighs and badonkadonk butt the bicycle is the most efficient form of transport. (About 100 miles per pound of ugly fat)

For mine the 100 grand would buy a reasonable sailing boat with enough change for a good bicycle. While not being extremely efficient user of energy the sailing boat hardly pollutes and goes places that cars can’t. Neither a Tesla nor a Lupo is going to tow a boat though.

Answer 7

Yes it would, but the cost would depend on where you were charging it up...