Tesla’s NOx Problem: Model X Delay Explained?

Model S - Picture courtesy Tesla

As the maker of tailpipe-free electric vehicles, Tesla is perhaps the last auto manufacturer you’d expect to struggle with an NOx emissions problem. Yet like any other auto manufacturer, Tesla operates factories which produce a variety of emissions including the NOx carcinogens at the center of the recent Volkswagen scandal. In fact, Dailykanban has discovered that Tesla has self-reported an NOx noncompliance at its Fremont, CA factory that may be contributing to delays in the production of the firm’s new Model X SUV.

[Continue Reading]

Despite Barra’s Denials, GM Diesel Test Results Indicate VW-Style Cheating

DUHzafiraWEB

We’ve suspected for some time that more automakers would be caught up in the Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal, and the first new perpetrator has apparently been identified: General Motors. GM CEO Mary Barra’s insists that VW-style software cheating on emissions tests “is not a condition that exists in our vehicles,”  but the German environmental group Umwelthilfe has sponsored tests that throw that claim into serious doubt [English press release in PDF format here].

In testing of the Opel Zafira 1.6 CDTi, performed at the Bern University of Applied Sciences, GM’s diesel engine passed NEDC cycle NOx tests performed on a two-wheel (single-axle) rolling road but emitted two to four times the Euro6 limit for NOx when the same test was performed on a four-wheel rolling road. This strongly indicates that a software “test mode” exists for this engine, although Opel insists that “The software developed by GM does not contain any features that can detect whether the vehicle is being subjected to an emissions test.” But, says International Transport Advisor Axel Friedrich,  “I have no normal, technically plausible explanation for the emission behavior of the Opel vehicle.”

[Continue Reading]

Tesla And Its Customers Find It’s Not Easy Being Green

Tesla Motors and its customers are famously proud of their environmentally friendly image, but their anti-carbon and anti-oil sentiments are apparently not as absolute as their public statements and vanity license plates might suggest. In the course of investigating Tesla’s Harris Ranch, CA battery swap station, Daily Kanban found that Tesla’s solution to peak demand for grid-powered Superchargers that are also on-site does not involve stationary battery storage or customer battery-swapping at its only swap station. Instead, the company relies upon  backup Superchargers powered by diesel generators. Moreover, several Tesla customers were observed charging from the noisy, carbon-emitting backup generator even when the standard Supercharging station had numerous plugs available. This oddly un-green charging option, foisted on customers as a result of Tesla’s lack of desire to make its battery swap capabilities widely available, in turn raises unanswered questions about the environmental claims Tesla has made about its entire charging network.

[Continue Reading]

Analysis: Understanding Tesla’s Potemkin Swap Station

Where are the customers?

Where are the customers?

The return of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) to the US market nearly a century after internal combustion technology swept them aside is one of the most compelling automotive stories of the last decade, bringing a much-needed injection of fresh ideas and enthusiasm to an increasingly mature and commodified industry. Though BEVs remain less than 1% of global auto sales, they have become immensely important to automakers by aiding compliance with various emissions regulations, as well as creating an aura of environmental responsibility and technological innovation. The immense power of these incentives is made manifest in Tesla, the Silicon Valley-based BEV maker that has defied the industry’s immense challenges to startups and become the hottest automotive brand in the world. Despite selling just 31,655 vehicles in 2014, a tiny fraction of the industry’s global volume, Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk receive huge amounts of (largely favorable) media coverage and enjoy a market capitalization that exceeds far larger competitors like Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.

Sales of BEVs continue to grow in the face of lower gas prices, but nearly every model still sells far below initial estimates. Even President Obama’s goal of putting a million plug-in vehicles (BEVs and plug-in hybrids [PHEVs]) on US roads by 2015 has turned out to be wildly optimistic. The high cost of lithium-ion batteries is widely considered a key limiting factor on the growth of BEVs, but just as important is the issue of range and recharging; in a market long accustomed to the convenience of gasoline, the limited range and long recharging time of BEVs remains a major barrier to consumer acceptance. Though rapid charging infrastructure has grown as more BEVs have been brought to market, they still require at least 30 minutes to deliver a meaningful amount of power, speed battery degradation, use competing charging standards, and remain far less common than gas stations.

These shortcomings have pushed some automakers, like Toyota and Hyundai, to avoid BEVs altogether in favor of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) that generate zero tailpipe emissions but can be recharged as rapidly as gasoline cars. The only other way to provide rapid refueling of zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) involves swapping batteries rather than recharging them. This strategy was attempted by Project Better Place, a now-defunct firm that deployed battery swap stations and an innovative pricing structure in Israel and Denmark between 2008 and its 2013 bankruptcy, as well as several pilot projects elsewhere. When Better Place failed, the battery swap concept was widely seen as having been discredited. But by then, another startup had taken up the mantle of the promising-yet-challenging swap strategy: Tesla.

[Continue Reading]