Why Do Car Dealerships Fear Tesla Motors

I was reading the Chris Christie thread about his denying Tesla stores in his state and decided to follow up on Tesla issue specifically. I ran across this article that explains what is going on.

Car dealers fear Tesla. In states across the country, powerful car dealer associations have lobbied to ensure the electric car maker and its direct-sales model are kept out. This movement claimed another victory this week when New Jersey banned Tesla stores in the state.

On the surface, the fear is hard to fathom. In New Jersey, for instance, sales of Tesla’s $70,000 Model S reportedly number in the hundreds. But if you dig a little deeper, it becomes obvious why dealers are worried. They don’t just fear Tesla’s cars. They fear Tesla’s plan to create a world where you never have to bring your car into the shop again.

Yea I can see the concern from dealerships, but we have seen this before and will see it again. Technological advances are inevitable and will be costly along the way, but ultimately this situation with Tesla will be better for consumer and the planet.
Is it legal for a state to refuse a business, and if so on what grounds in this case? I have a feeling that more business will be delivering straight to customer, bypassing middlemen and saving us and them some money.

The ability to repair a car via software is especially important when the vehicle itself consists of so much new technology that traditional mechanics don’t know how to fix. The flip side is that without an internal combustion engine, there’s not as much to fix. I’ve written before that a Tesla without its outer shell looks like a cell phone on wheels. It’s basically just a big battery. That means no spark plugs, no air filters, no fuel pumps, no timing belts. In short, Teslas don’t have any of the parts that force you to take your car in for “regularly scheduled maintenance” — services that can cost dearly at the dealer. But it’s hard to charge for an oil change when there’s no oil to be changed.

Well hallelujah! I realize these changes will cost jobs, but as mentioned, that is collateral damage from growth, but this growth will ultimately be the right direction. Think of the manufacturing involved with service shops and parts. This will begin to become minimized over time also, using less energy/resources overall in the lifespan of typical automobiles. Win win?

At Tesla’s most recent annual meeting, one shareholder asked founder and CEO Elon Musk about whether challenges to the company from traditional auto dealers hurt the company’s business outlook. Musk argued that consumer desire for a better way of buying and owning cars would win out. He said the traditional franchise model that dominates auto-selling in the U.S. wouldn’t work for Tesla for several reasons, including its reliance on maintenance to make money. “Our philosophy with respect to service is not to make a profit on service,” Musk said. “I think it’s terrible to make a profit on service.”

Indeed! I can just imagine the politics involved with the traditional car purchasing paradigm, both for manufacturer and consumer. People like straight forward dealing and this will enable that.

The shareholders applauded — the same shareholders that have sent Tesla’s stock price up nearly 650 percent over the past year. Yes, for now, Tesla only makes luxury cars, and its approach to service might seem like a luxury. But if it starts making cars regular people can afford, that applause for car dealers could be the sound of money spiraling down the drain.

When Tesla does start making more affordable cars the tipping point may soon be ushered in for automobiles on the road that do not use oil. Hydrogen cars are coming soon and apparently Elon is not too excited. I think hydrogen will become the new standard over electric, but that is just an opinion looking at the data. Hydrogen is the most abundant energy source in the universe, so it only makes sense to make this happen and produce affordable hydrogen cars over time. Will that make electric lithium powered cars obsolete? Tesla may taste their own medicine unless they jump onboard the hydrogen development, which I am surprised they are not.

www.wired.com...

reply to post by speculativeoptimist

I think hydrogen will become the new standard over electric, but that is just an opinion looking at the data. Hydrogen is the most abundant energy source in the universe, so it only makes sense to make this happen and produce affordable hydrogen cars over time.

Huh? Abundant energy source in the universe maybe but not on planet Earth. Unless you are planning to refuel on Rigel 7.

So here we hsve greed holding back tecnology.

And i thought the USA was ment to be a free market?

reply to post by boncho

I would like to think Earth is part of the universe no? Hydrogen all around….

ETA: I left out a critical term boncho, fuel cell. NASA used to use liquid hydrogen but for auto fuel cells hydrogen is combined with oxygen, as you mentioned, so coyly.

Hydrogen is high in energy, yet an engine that burns pure hydrogen produces almost no pollution. NASA has used liquid hydrogen since the 1970s to propel the space shuttle and other rockets into orbit. Hydrogen fuel cells power the shuttle's electrical systems, producing a clean byproduct - pure water, which the crew drinks.

A fuel cell combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, heat, and water. Fuel cells are often compared to batteries. Both convert the energy produced by a chemical reaction into usable electric power. However, the fuel cell will produce electricity as long as fuel (hydrogen) is supplied, never losing its charge.

www.renewableenergyworld.com...

speculativeoptimist
reply to post by boncho

 

I would like to think Earth is part of the universe no? Hydrogen all around….

Yes, sure it is. Bonded with oxygen or carbon...

Considering the latter, you may as well say we already live on hydrogen power.

Hydrocarbon. CH4

Yep, me and my Chevy 454, hydrogen power!

This article says Elon Kush thinks hydrogen cars are bullsnip!!

Musk countered this week by arguing that hydrogen fuel cells, even in the "best case," can't equal what lithium ion batteries currently offer in terms of cost and range. He also said such technology would require more cost-intensive distribution systems while posing serious dangers to consumers, since hydrogen is a flammable gas

Seems there are claims form both sides refuting each other as less viable.
www.latimes.com...

But Mutolo added, "That said, the consumer should be wary of two things, hype and safety."
Mutolo said it wasn't likely that a driver would get more than 140 miles out of a 20-minute charge, and only that far if they were traveling less than 50 miles an hour.
"The numbers don't add up," Mutolo said.
On Friday, Musk had said that his supercharger network would soon allow cross-country travel from New York to Los Angeles -- free of charge, so to speak -- for drivers of the Tesla Model S sedan, which starts at about $70,000.
The super-charging stations are about 10 times faster than other available electric vehicle charging stations.
Mutolo also said that current lithium ion technology wouldn't safely allow such a powerful charge.
"It could potentially catch on fire. Not a good idea," Mutolo said.
It should be said here that Mutolo is a hydrogen fuel cell chemist, a competing technology.

Another source about hydrogen vs lithium.

Elon musk seems to be the kid on the bloc

space x / tesla car's and he want's a high speed train soon

musk should be running the country

just look what the auto industry did to the tram's in San Fransisco and how much it has cost to put back a fraction of what was there .

reply to post by 999zxcv

Yea the auto industry has certainly been guilty of crony capitalism and they are a powerful bunch with numerous lobbyists.
Plus they probably have some oil men in their pocket…or is it the other way around?
All I know is I welcome innovation in transportation and we should not let a profit war restrict these emerging technologies.

GM spent a lot of money to buy up all their electric cars and destroy them because they were too efficient and didn't need much maintenance. The big three will no doubt do their very best to keep these cars out of the public reach.
See "Who killed the electric car"


VinMan

reply to post by VinMan

Yea I saw that doc, a shame for sure. Now the issue of electric innovation has been brought into the light as it develops and hopefully gaining enough support to stick and become more popular, especially as the prices come down on the cars. I am glad to see the implementation of hydrogen cars too sourced in the OP, that gives me hope that one day we will be off the petro teet, at least for transportation.

What can poor people pay you? Nothing!
What satisfaction you get from helping them? None!
Who wants to help poor people anyway? Nobody!

speculativeoptimist
Hydrogen is the most abundant energy source in the universe, so it only makes sense to make this happen and produce affordable hydrogen cars over time.

Only if you're fusing it in a star. On Earth, it's not generally an energy source per se - you can't mine it, pump it or drill for it, because it's so reactive you're going to find it as water, which is burnt hydrogen.

Since it's already burned, you have to "un-burn" it by electrolysis, which always is going to use more energy than you'll ever get back from it. So it's not a source of energy, at best it's a somewhat inefficient means of storing some other form of energy. The energy density of lithium cells and liquid hydrogen are somewhat comparable, so you have to ask if it's better to:

1) have an internal combustion engine for the hydrogen - inefficient and mechanically complex
2) use a hydrogen fuel cell and have a set of electric motors - inefficient and requires cranky-assed fuel cells that use rare earth
3) or put the energy into a lithium battery and turn the motor with that

Given that lithium cells have an energy density around 4.6 MJ/l and liquid hydrogen is 5.7 MJ/l, you'd have to have a damned efficient, cheap, compact way of turning the hydrogen into electricity to come out ahead. That's assuming you have a really spectacular containment system for the hydrogen - it is a very small molecule and tends to get out, so if you have any leakage at all, the lithium battery's going to come out ahead on MJ/l that you end up with.

So I can see the guy not thinking much of hydrogen cars. I don't.

speculativeoptimist
reply to post by VinMan

 

...that gives me hope that one day we will be off the petro teet, at least for transportation.

Which teat shall we be on? The hydrogen isn't going to give itself up willingly. You're going to have to come up with the requisite energy for freeing the hydrogen from whatever it's tied up in.

reply to post by Bedlam

So I can see the guy not thinking much of hydrogen cars. I don't.

Did you see the other source too:
www.rebresearch.com...
What do think of their claims?

Two obvious problems with batteries are the low speed of charge and the annoyance of having to change the battery every 500 charges or so. If one runs an EV battery 3/4 of the way down and charges it every week, the battery will last 8 years. Further, battery charging takes 1-2 hours. These numbers are acceptable if you use the car only occasionally, but they get more annoying the more you use the car. By contrast, the tanks used to hold gasoline or hydrogen fill in a matter of minutes and last for decades or many thousands of fill-cycles.

Another problem with batteries is range. The weight-energy density of batteries is about 1/20 that of gasoline and about 1/10 that of hydrogen, and this affects range. While gasoline stores about 2.5 kWhr/kg including the weight of the gas tank, current Li-Ion batteries store far less than this, about 0.15 kWhr/kg. The energy density of hydrogen gas is nearly that of gasoline when the efficiency effect is included. A 100 kg of hydrogen tank at 10,000 psi will hold 8 kg of hydrogen, or enough to travel about 350 miles in a fuel-cell car. This is about as far as a gasoline car goes carrying 60 kg of tank + gasoline. This seems acceptable for long range and short-range travel, while the travel range with eVs is more limited, and will likely remain that way, see below.

The volumetric energy density of compressed hydrogen/ fuel cell systems is higher than for any battery scenario. And hydrogen tanks are far cheaper than batteries. From Battery University. batteryuniversity.com...
The volumetric energy density of compressed hydrogen/ fuel cell systems is higher than for any battery scenario. And hydrogen tanks are far cheaper than batteries. From Battery University. batteryuniversity.com...

Cost is perhaps the least understood problem with batteries. While electricity is cheap (cheaper than gasoline) battery power is expensive because of the high cost and limited life of batteries. Lithium-Ion batteries cost about $2000/kWhr, and give an effective 500 charge/discharge cycles; their physical life can be extended by not fully charging them, but it’s the same 500 cycles. The effective cost of the battery is thus $4/kWhr (The battery university site calculates $24/kWhr, but that seems overly pessimistic). Combined with the cost of electricity, and the losses in charging, the net cost of Li-Ion battery power is about $4.18/kWhr, several times the price of gasoline, even including the low efficiency of gasoline engines.

Hydrogen prices are much lower than battery prices, and nearly as low as gasoline, when you add in the effect of the high efficiency fuel cell engine. Hydrogen can be made on-site and compressed to 10,000 psi for less cost than gasoline, and certainly less cost than battery power. If one makes hydrogen by electrolysis of water, the cost is approximately 24¢/kWhr including the cost of the electrolysis unit.While the hydrogen tank is more expensive than a gasoline tank, it is much cheaper than a battery because the technology is simpler. Fuel cells are expensive though, and only about 50% efficient. As a result, the as-used cost of electrolysis hydrogen in a fuel cell car is about 48¢/kWhr. That’s far cheaper than battery power, but still not cheap enough to encourage the sale of FC vehicles with the current technology.

My company, REB Research provides another option for hydrogen generation: The use of a membrane reactor to make it from cheap, easy to transport liquids like methanol. Our technology can be used to make hydrogen either at the station or on-board the car. The cost of hydrogen made this way is far cheaper than from electrolysis because most of the energy comes from the methanol, and this energy is cheaper than electricity.

In our membrane reactors methanol-water (65-75% Methanol), is compressed to 350 psi, heated to 350°C, and reacted to produce hydrogen that is purified as it is made. CH3OH + H2O –> 3H2 + CO2, with the hydrogen extracted through a membrane within the reactor.

reply to post by Bedlam


I guess a water teet would be better, if the source is the oceans, and we could do it affordably.
Additionally, since California is already setting up hydrogen fueling stations and Toyota is making a hydrogen caravailable next year, they must have the containment issue resolved, especially with Cali's standards.
I apologize for just posting excerpts without saying much. I admit I am not well versed on this subject but hope to learn. I do value your view Bedlam so carry on.

You're going to have to come up with the requisite energy for freeing the hydrogen from whatever it's tied up in.

Today, most hydrogen is made from natural gas, some from electrolysis of water and some from bio-methane.

Automakers and bus builders use fuel cells to power their electric vehicles. They use a particular kind of fuel cell, known as a proton exchange membrane (PEM). The PEM fuel cells are stacked together, like slices in a loaf of bread, to form a fuel cell stack.

In its simplest form, a PEM fuel cell is two electrodes—the anode and the cathode—separated by a catalyst-coated membrane. Hydrogen from the vehicle’s storage tank enters one side of the fuel cell stack and air on the other side. The hydrogen is naturally attracted to the oxygen in the air. As the hydrogen molecule moves through the stack to get to the oxygen, the catalyst forces the hydrogen to separate into electron and proton.

How the vehicle works

The proton moves through the membrane and the electron moves to the anode. The electricity flows into a power module, which distributes electricity to the electric motor that turns the wheels of the car. The power module also distributes electricity to the air conditioning, sound system and other on-board devices.

At the cathode, the electron recombines with the proton, and the hydrogen joins with the oxygen to create the vehicle’s only tailpipe emission—water. Fuel cells produce electricity as long as fuel is supplied.

cafcp.org...

reply to post by speculativeoptimist

I have a PDF that tells you how to convert your car to run purely off water with no catalist. You will never need gasoline again if you follow the directions.

I did not write it, It is not my patent or invention but it is in the public domain.

The only by products are h20 and O2. It comes from xogen, A canadian company that uses electrolisis to get rid of human biowaste, but if you use it in your car the way the pdf explains then you will never have to rely on gas again, also if you adjust the system right you can between 50 mpg - 300 mpg.

Remember this information is in the public domain, its called "fuel from water E-book" if you want to torrent it, or you can send me a pm with your email and I will gladly give you this pdf. I believe everyone should know about this.

why spend 30-40 thousand on a new hybrid electric car when you can convert to Hydrogen/oxygen for only a couple grand and a few hours of work.

speculativeoptimist

Did you see the other source too:
www.rebresearch.com...
What do think of their claims?

He likes to make bad comparisons, that's pretty obvious. He also likes to handwave away the bits that make the comparison not go his way.

Two obvious problems with batteries are the low speed of charge and the annoyance of having to change the battery every 500 charges or so. If one runs an EV battery 3/4 of the way down and charges it every week, the battery will last 8 years. Further, battery charging takes 1-2 hours. These numbers are acceptable if you use the car only occasionally, but they get more annoying the more you use the car. By contrast, the tanks used to hold gasoline or hydrogen fill in a matter of minutes and last for decades or many thousands of fill-cycles.

We were playing around with lithium batteries with really exceptional charge and cycle times when we were doing one particular design with SORDAC. We got some test cells from Toshiba you could recharge in under 10 minutes that had several thousand cycles. It used nanoparticulate cathodes. So it's more a matter of tweaking the battery tech you have to make that sort of battery more cost effective.

On the other hand, you'll notice your guy switches to the tanks used to hold gasoline. He doesn't address the wearout of the fuel cell. Fuel cell membranes don't last forever either. But he dodges that part.

Another problem with batteries is range. The weight-energy density of batteries is about 1/20 that of gasoline and about 1/10 that of hydrogen, and this affects range. While gasoline stores about 2.5 kWhr/kg including the weight of the gas tank, current Li-Ion batteries store far less than this, about 0.15 kWhr/kg...

And here he's using weight densities. Sure, hydrogen has more energy per kg, because hydrogen's light. However, what he is avoiding telling you is...the car as a system requires more crap to go with hydrogen. With a hydrogen car, you either have to burn the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine which drives a transmission that drives wheels (lots of weight there) or you have to have some sort of fuel cell. He didn't factor in THAT weight did he? Nope. With an electric car, you don't have an IC driveline and the hydrogen fuel cell car is going to have to have a fuel cell, hydrogen tankage and the same drive system as the battery car. But he's concentrating on the fuel weight vs the battery weight instead of system-for-system weight.

The volumetric energy density of compressed hydrogen/ fuel cell systems is higher than for any battery scenario. And hydrogen tanks are far cheaper than batteries.

It's not MUCH higher - 5.7 to 4.6. And he's assuming you have no leakage. He's also once more comparing tanks to batteries. What's the cost of the fuel cell, buddy? You have to look at the entire system.

Combined with the cost of electricity, and the losses in charging, the net cost of Li-Ion battery power is about $4.18/kWhr, several times the price of gasoline, even including the low efficiency of gasoline engines.

You can recycle the batteries really efficiently, recovering a very large percentage of the raw materials. Left that out I see.

Hydrogen prices are much lower than battery prices, and nearly as low as gasoline, when you add in the effect of the high efficiency fuel cell engine.

And once more comparing fuel to systems.

If one makes hydrogen by electrolysis of water, the cost is approximately 24¢/kWhr including the cost of the electrolysis unit.While the hydrogen tank is more expensive than a gasoline tank, it is much cheaper than a battery because the technology is simpler. Fuel cells are expensive though, and only about 50% efficient. As a result, the as-used cost of electrolysis hydrogen in a fuel cell car is about 48¢/kWhr. That’s far cheaper than battery power, but still not cheap enough to encourage the sale of FC vehicles with the current technology.

Again comparing fuel to systems. Seems a thing with this guy. If you want to compare fuel to fuel, then it should be hydrogen vs electrons. If you want to compare systems to systems, it's fuel cell vs battery. But hydrogen gas vs battery is not a proper comparison. It's like comparing gasoline to engine. You'll note he continues to not state that the electrolyzer has a cost, and that it uses up material and requires regular maintenance, same as the fuel cell, and that the fuel cell wears out like the battery, and is heinously expensive, and most of them require rare earths.

My company, REB Research provides another option for hydrogen generation

And that would no doubt be why you make such egregious comparisons.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


I will tell you why the fear them...competition..has nothing to do with fossil fuels...I can't see myself buying one of these cars simply because of the price...they are not affordable and although their may be a market for is cars it will be from the pockets of well to do folks.

If that's the case he can mass produce a lot of cars but it's not going to make a huge difference for us blue collar people..his company is still very young and a lot can go wrong..

snypwsd
why spend 30-40 thousand on a new hybrid electric car when you can convert to Hydrogen/oxygen for only a couple grand and a few hours of work.

Because this is tripe. I like to get places with my car instead of having it sit there.

Water has no fuel value. It's burnt already.

In order to turn it back into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to put in energy. Lots of energy. More than you get back.

So it's more efficient to just use that energy to make the car go.

Anyone who tells you they have a magic way to make water turn into hydrogen and oxygen "for free" is lying to you.

If they told you they had a magic powder you could sprinkle on a pile of ashes and the ashes would un-burn into logs, would you believe them? No. But that's what they're asking you to buy with a water car. They're just tarting it up with sciency terms.