Tesla CEO Sees EV Batteries Soon Dropping to $200 Per kWh

Posted on by
Print Friendly

 
“In the not-so-distant future,” to be exact. The rather famous Tesla Motors CEO, Elon Musk, is someone to listen to when it comes to electric vehicles. He and Tesla have done what no one else was able to (or at least dreamt of or tried) in recent years, and they continue to ‘wow’ us with their strides forward (note Tesla’s upcoming ‘Model X’ electric SUV with falcon doors that just make me think of the batmobile for some reason).

One of the most important things to Musk, Tesla, the electric vehicle industry, and the environment (thus, everyone who needs clean air, clean water, and a livable climate) is cheaper EV batteries. Luckily, Musk sees continual and considerable cost drops in EV battery technology in the near (or ‘not-so-distant’) future. Here’s more from Chris:

$200 Per kWh Batteries By 2015? Maybe, Says Tesla CEO (via Gas 2.0)

Zachary Shahan (2303 Posts)

I'm the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular clean energy website in the world, and Planetsave, a leading green and science news site. I've been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and I've been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, bicycling, and wind energy for the past few years. You can also find my work on Scientific American, Reuters, Think Progress, GE's ecomagination site, several sites in the Important Media network, & many other places. To connect on some of your favorite social networks, go to zacharyshahan.com or click on some of the links below.


  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stefan-Pantea/100002221009815 Stefan Pantea

    The Government curbing the re-exportation of Li (International Mail) and relaxing export regulation on US oil products will give Tesla some market edge.

    To the “dude” who says that “climate change” is not man made I propose 3 simple experiments.

    1. Replace everything green around your house with bare land or cement.
    2. Collect all rain water and dump it in the sewer.
    3. If you live by a forest or forest preserve turn it into a monoculture.

    If you attempt any of the 3 is probably time to get your GED cause you are stupid and you will not get better.
    In my opinion cars are very low on the list of culprits but some roads are high.

  • Kylemwh

    i am one of the many many people who agree while global warming exists theres no evidence were causing it, in fact the only scientific evidence ice core samples show co2 levels waaay higher than now in much colder periods in the earths history. its just spurious correlation not causation!, for example there are less pirates than in the past does that mean the pirates were stopping global warming, or as the planet has warmed so has the number of rappers.

    the truth is global warming isnt the main incentive (or even an afterthought) for me and most people in regards to EV, its the inevitable depletion of oil and the nasty pollitical ties. Dependency on foreign oil is a problem for most countries and thats the real issue.

    While we still charge evs from fossil fuel type power plants were not really making much difference anyway.

  • Pingback: An Electric Luxury SUV that Accelerates From 0 to 60 mph in 4.4 Seconds. Meet the Model X. | Kompulsa - Geography | Energy

  • quietman

    I really love the green energy content on this site! I am starting to get concerned that this is a Democratic propaganda forum. Democrats scare me as much as Republicans, everyone please think for yourselves. Doesn’t have to be Democratic or Republican.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Nope, doesn’t have to be Democratic or Republican.

      Can you find me some Republicans in Congress or among the Republican candidates for president who support renewable energy? A single one?

      At the state level some Republicans are starting to get it. The way wind generation lowers electricity prices and creates jobs/tax revenues is converting Republicans.

      Unfortunately the message doesn’t seem to be getting from the state level up to the halls of Congress and to the campaign trail. As long as we see teh stupid operating full speed ahead at the Republican national level expect support for Democrats who support renewable energy.

      (Interestingly this article says nothing about politics. Wonder why you posted your seemingly pro-Republican comment here?)

      • quietman

        Thanks for the discussion guys. It can appear to be a strange concept. I’m actually not pro-republican nor democrat, I’m a free thinker. As long as green energy is seen as a republican vs democrat issue it will have resistance moving forward. It’s much bigger than that. Republicans and democrats both have their hidden agendas. Support what makes sense not a party.

        Oh yeah, end oil subsidies.

        • quietman

          Side note: don’t bash republicans for not seeing the light, try to guide them there. When people feel attacked they fight back or get out of the fight all together. Niether scenario is good for this situation.

          • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

            True.

            Agreed.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Thanks for the note.

      Unfort., for anyone who wants to see cleantech advanced in the U.S. (and all the good things that come with it), one side of the aisle is almost completely against clean energy of any sort. Meanwhile, most of the other side (which, believe me, I sometimes have issues with) has been supportive of it. It’s a shame this has been such a dividing line — there’s no reason Republicans shouldn’t support clean energy — it’s good for the economy, jobs, the environment, and our health, of course…

      • Bob_Wallace

        Let’s look at the individual whom, at the moment, Republicans want as President of the United States…

        “Santorum said he has never believed in the “hoax of global warming” calling the science of man-made climate change “bogus”.”

        “He again incited faith to contrast he and the president last Saturday to a Tea Party audience saying, “the president’s agenda” is “not about you… It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your job… It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology,” Santorum said to applause. “Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology.” Since that speech, Santorum has claimed that his comments were not made to cast doubt on the president’s personal faith but rather to highlight Obama’s theological worldview. A view he says “elevates the Earth above man… we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven — for example, that politicization of the whole global-warming debate… this is just all an attempt to centralize power and to give more power to the government… I’m talking about, you know, the belief that man should be in charge of the Earth and should have dominion over it and should be good stewards of it.”"

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-stenholm/rick-santorum-climate-change_b_1296092.html

        Now, I’m not quite sure what Santorum means by that last sentence. I can read it as him declaring that man should be a good steward of the Earth. I can also read it as him putting down PBO for believing that man should be a good steward.

        Looking at Santorum’s other statements, I’m betting he’s going the “Drill, baby, drill – we’re going to get raptured out of here anyway” route.

        Regardless, when the majority of the Republican party supports Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, or any other anti-science candidate I think they’re a lost cause.

        —

        That all said, $200/watt is great news. And since Secretary Chu agrees and says we’re short years from significantly better range, well, a whole pile of great news.

        Get us an affordable EV with a minimum of a 175 mile range and <20 minute recharging and the Great Transition from Oil will be underway.

        When we can buy an EV for not much more than a gasmobile and drive it all day long with a couple of short recharge/meal/pee stops the market will do a Romney-scale flip.

        • quietman

          Bob you made a good point about Santorum. Personally I don’t believe religion has a place in government. We’ll all be damned if Santorum is elected president, but that doesn’t mean I support Obama either! LOL

          If you do it’s cool with me, I just hope it’s because you see something in the man. Not because of his party affiliation.

          Again, great discussion.

        • Bob_Wallace

          I’ve never voted for someone based on their party affiliation.

          That said, I’ve yet to be offered a Republican choice that I thought was worth voting for. (I have seen a handful of decent folks running in districts outside mine. Not recently however.)

          Elections often come down to which candidate is likely to do the best for the country and I’ve found, going all the way back to Nixon, that Republicans put special interests ahead of the common good.

          And, all the way back to Nixon, that Republicans favor giving white males an advantage over all other citizens.

          While I’m a white male and live off my investments, I just don’t think it’s fair to use the power of government to give me an advantage over others.