I am currently reading Elon Musk’s biography. It mentions an interesting fact: when everything was just beginning, there were disputes within Tesla about who should be considered a founder. The company was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, but the current company leadership refers to Elon Musk, Jeffrey Brian Straubel, and Ian Wright as co-founders. Back in the early 2000s, the press wrote about Tesla as Eberhard’s brainchild, and Musk was occasionally not mentioned at all. Musk played two roles there: he provided funds (~$70M) and contributed extensively to production as an engineer. Isaacson writes that there was a piece in the NYT where Musk was not mentioned at all, while Eberhard and Tarpenning posed for a photo. Musk freaked out and published an essay on Tesla’s website titled “The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between us)”
Probably, someone will tell me that I am 18 years late with this news and it is already an “old story.” Well okay 🙂
Below I provide its translation. The essay itself can be searched by “Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan”. It was published in 2006. I found the engineering calculations in the second half of the essay interesting. The translation is done by machine translation, so if you see anything awkward — tell me, I’ll fix it.
—
“THE SECRET TESLA MASTER PLAN” (Just between us!)
“As you know, the first product of Tesla Motors is the Tesla Roadster electric sports car. However, some readers may not know that our long-term goal is to create a wide range of models, including affordable family cars. This is because the main purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am financing the company) is to help accelerate the transition from an economy based on the extraction and burning of hydrocarbons to a solar-electric economy.
What is critically important for this is the creation of an ‘uncompromised’ electric vehicle. Therefore, the Tesla Roadster is engineered to directly compete and beat gasoline sports cars like Porsche or Ferrari. Moreover, it is twice as energy-efficient as the Prius. However, some may doubt whether this really benefits the world. Do we really need another roadster? Will it actually impact global carbon emissions?
Well.. the answer: no, not really. However, behind this answer is the main point. Virtually any new technology initially has high costs before it can be optimized, and this is especially true for electric cars. Tesla’s strategy is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are willing to pay a lot, and then move as quickly as possible down-market to higher volume production and lower prices with each subsequent model.
Without revealing too much, I can say that the second model will be a four-door family sports car at about half the price of a $89,000 Tesla Roadster, and the third model will be even more affordable. All free cash flow is reinvested back into research to reduce costs and aimed at as rapid as possible the market introduction of subsequent products. When someone buys a Tesla Roadster sports car, they are actually helping finance the development of an affordable family car.”
Now I would like to respond to two recurring arguments against electric cars—battery disposal and power plant emissions. The answer to the first is short and simple, the second requires a bit of math:
1) Batteries are non-toxic to the environment. I would not recommend them as a topping on your dessert, but Tesla Motors’ lithium-ion batteries are not classified and have never been classified as hazardous, plus they are safe for landfill disposal. However, throwing them away is essentially throwing away money, as the battery can be sold to recycling companies (without subsidies) after its lifespan of over 100,000 miles. Moreover, by this mileage, the battery does not die, it just has a reduced range.
2) Power plant emissions, or ‘The Long Tailpipe'”
A common objection against electric cars as a solution for carbon dioxide emission problems is that it merely shifts CO2 emissions to the power station. The obvious counterargument is the potential for diversifying power generation in various ways, many of which, such as hydro, wind, geothermal, nuclear, solar energy, etc., do not involve CO2 emissions. However, let’s assume for a moment that electricity is generated from a hydrocarbon source like natural gas, which has been the most popular fuel for new power plants in the U.S. in recent years.
General Electric’s H-System combined-cycle generator is 60% efficient in converting natural gas to electricity. ‘Combined cycle’ means that natural gas is burned to generate electricity, and then the waste heat is used to create steam, which drives a second generator. The efficiency of natural gas extraction is 97.5%, processing is also 97.5% efficient, and then the efficiency of transmission across the grid averages about 92%. This gives us an efficiency from the well to the electrical outlet of 97.5% x 97.5% x 60% x 92% = 52.5%.
Despite the body shape, tires, and transmission oriented toward high performance rather than peak efficiency, the Tesla Roadster requires 0.4 MJ per kilometer or, in other words, travels 2.53 km per mega joule of electricity. The overall charging and discharging efficiency of the Tesla Roadster is 86%, meaning that out of every 100 MJ of electricity used to charge the battery, about 86 MJ reaches the motor.
Putting the math together, we get a final efficiency figure of 2.53 km/MJ x 86% x 52.5% = 1.14 km/MJ. Let’s compare this to the Prius and several other options typically considered energy-efficient.”
Fully accounted ‘well-to-wheel’ efficiency for a gasoline-powered vehicle is the energy content of gasoline (34.3 MJ per liter) minus losses in refining and transport (18.3%), multiplied by miles per gallon or kilometers per liter. Thus, a Prius rated by the EPA at 55 miles per gallon has an energy efficiency of 0.56 km/MJ. This is actually an excellent figure compared to a ‘normal’ car, like the Toyota Camry, which clocks at 0.28 km/MJ.”
It’s worth noting that the term ‘hybrid’ in relation to the vehicles currently on the road is somewhat misleading. They are actually just gasoline cars with a bit of battery help, and unless you are one of the few whose car has been modified in the garage, their small battery must be charged by the gasoline engine. Hence, they can be considered just slightly more efficient gasoline cars. If EPA-certified mileage is 55 miles per gallon, it is indistinguishable from a non-hybrid achieving 55 miles per gallon. As my friend says, a world filled entirely with Prius drivers would still be 100% dependent on oil.”
The CO2 content in any given source fuel is well-known. Natural gas contains 14.4 grams of carbon per mega joule, and oil contains 19.9 grams of carbon per mega joule. Applying these carbon content levels to vehicle efficiency, including as a reference cars like Honda running on combusted natural gas and Honda on fuel cell natural gas, the clear winner is purely electric:
Honda CNG
Source: Natural Gas
CO2 Content: 14.4 g/MJ
Efficiency: 0.32 km/MJ
CO2 Emissions: 45.0 g/km
Honda FCX
Source: Natural Gas-Fuel Cell
CO2 Content: 14.4 g/MJ
Efficiency: 0.35 km/MJ
CO2 Emissions: 41.1 g/km
Toyota Prius
Source: Oil
CO2 Content: 19.9 g/MJ
Efficiency: 0.56 km/MJ
CO2 Emissions: 35.8 g/km
Tesla Roadster
Source: Natural Gas-Electricity
CO2 Content: 14.4 g/MJ
Efficiency: 1.14 km/MJ
CO2 Emissions: 12.6 g/km
The Tesla Roadster still wins by a large margin, assuming an average CO2 content per joule in U.S. power production. The higher CO2 content in coal compared to natural gas is offset by the negligible CO2 content in hydroelectricity, nuclear power, geothermal energy, wind power, solar energy, and so forth. The exact makeup of power generation varies from one part of the country to another and changes over time, so here natural gas is used as a fixed benchmark.”
I must mention that Tesla Motors will jointly promote sustainable energy products from other companies along with the car. For instance, among other things, we will offer a modestly sized and priced solar panel from SolarCity, a photovoltaic cell manufacturing company (where I am also a major investor). This system could be installed on your roof in an out-of-the-way spot because of its small size, or set up as a covered parking lot and would generate enough electricity for about 50 miles of driving per day.”
If you drive less than 350 miles per week, you would thereby be ‘energy positive’ with respect to your personal transportation. This is a step beyond conserving or even neutralizing your energy use for transportation—you are actually returning more energy to the system than you consume in transportation! So, in short, the master plan is as follows:
1. Build a sports car.
2. Use that money to build an affordable car.
3. Use that money to build an even more affordable car.
4. While doing above, also provide zero-emission electricity generation options.”
“Don’t tell anyone.”
Hi, I'm Rauf Aliev. 