Danish TV Interviews Tesla CEO Elon Musk
Originally published on EV Obsession.
Update: This article has been updated to put some comments in better context.
With deliveries of the Tesla Model X SUV finally (after a very long wait) set to begin in a few hours, what’s next for the company? That’s the question many — especially Model S owners and soon-to-be owners — are asking themself. Well, of course, there’s the Model 3 unveiling currently set for next year; there’s the ongoing work at the Gigafactory construction site; there’s the ongoing work on the company’s autonomous-driving technologies; and, also, there’s the somewhat recently unveiled battery line (Tesla Energy).
That’s all quite a lot on its own, but a recent interview that Elon Musk gave on Danish television had plenty of extra comments on such topics and more.
On thing Musk noted, when prompted, was that a Model S could achieve a range of 1,200 kilometers (745 miles) to be achievable by 2020, amongst other things.
But this is based on extreme cases of record-breaking attempts. Musk commented that the current distance record for the Model S currently stands at over 700 kilometers (achieved by traveling the whole trip at 25 miles per hour).
Here’s a highlight of some of the other interesting comments made by Musk in the interview:
- He wants to be selling 500,000 EVs a year by 2020.
- He expects autopilot autonomous features to be available by that date.
- While the technology is now simply in Beta testing, a “wide release” won’t have too long to wait.
- While the technology will at first be limited to an automated-passing function, he’s aiming for the creation of a fully-autonomous system. He expects this to be possible within only 3 years, though regulatory hurdles may delay legalization for a few additional years.
- “If civilization still exists” 20 years from now, Musk thinks that most new cars will be completely autonomous, and many of these will be EVs.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
Makes sense. I assume they’ll use the cheaper batteries produced at scale for the model 3 in the model S.
The price of Model 3 remains to be seen. Tesla has demonstrated way overpriced products than their first target prices and target delivery dates 100% of the time!
Well, yes, but I’m assuming that the model 3 will still be substantially cheaper than the model S. So the conclusion does not change.
Marion, your Tesla bashing has become very old. Yes, Tesla has missed some time targets. But do you give Tesla no credit for what it has produced?
Tesla was late to market with cars.
But no other companies have released comparable cars sooner. In fact, they have yet to deliver anything that goes head to head with the Roadster and ModS.
Remember the old saying “I might be slow, but I’m ahead of you”?
No other company has anything like Tesla’s Superchargers.
No other company has anything like Tesla’s Gigafactory.
Slower than they hoped to be? Yes.
Far ahead of everyone else? Also yes.
Yes, an building an excellent product to boot.:))
Nobody else comes close, so far.
Tesla found out that the average household income of folks leasing the ev-1 from GM was 250k. So they started at the top and want to grow down. What’s wrong with that? They made EV’s cool. They have to get bigger before they can make cars cheaper.
“If civilisation still exists” Blimey, that’s burst my bubble and i was having such a good day 🙁
Personally I find it vaguely depressing that our wasteland raiders are starting to use electric motors and solar panels on their mutant mobiles. Somehow it just doesn’t seem right.
You wouldn’t catch this fella with a wussy solar panel…
…And if you were driving a Tesla in ludicrous mode – he wouldn’t catch you!
Witness!
Shiny and chrome!
Nah. Opening scene from “post-apocalyptic near-miss movie” set 25 years in future:
Prolonged car chase in which hero/cop distractedly reels in bad guy in illegal ICE Mustang while enjoying vintage Mad Max chase scenes in his hi-performance Tesla set to auto-chase mode.
Yeah that made me feel a bit depressed as well. However, I’m taking heart that it’s almost certain that global co2 emissions are going to fall this year for the first time ever in a non-recession year.
It could be that 2014 could be the peak…
http://climate-energy.blogs.panda.org/2015/03/23/was-2014-the-year-co2-emissions-peaked/
That was most likely a reference to artificial intellegence. Elon is really scared of that (everyone else should be as well). The good thing is, it’s still not too late for proper safety measures and regulation.
So that was more of a wake-up call to do something about it and there is a chance that we won’t be here in 20 years if we do nothing about it.
AI already writes up our individual Canadian Municipal Budgets, all from the same ‘Merican program.
Yes, that 600 mile range is based on hyper miling projections. Probably a solid 400 mile range under all conditions is what we can expect. However, I would not be surprised to see a high end model s come out with a 125kwh battery. It could attain that 500 mile range with the air con at 70 mph. Batteries are getting cheaper and lighter. And Tesla will have a bit of time to innovate, after the gigafactory is up and running.
I assume we’ll see large capacity increases over the next decade or so. I wonder where the market will set the max range level?
Would enough people really want 500 or more miles at 70 mph with the AC on? Or would the market decide that 300 before lunch and 250 (via recharging) after is plenty?
Wouldn’t the max range be determined by speed of charging and charging availability? Fast charge and ubiquitous chargers, no need for big range. Or are you thinking that humans can’t shake the ‘bigger is better’ mentality?
Well, there will be people who will want a pull a trailer through the mountains in the winter, and they’ll have to pay for bigger packs.
Also, the bigger packs will also always have the higher performance, due to the nature of the beast.
There are reasons other than getting to the next charger to want a bigger pack.
Personally, I think the market will settle in on about 250 mile range. A few people might be willing to pay for a lot more range but it’s hard to figure out who they might be.
Taxis seem to average no more that 200 miles per day. Given that they can charge during driver meal breaks they don’t need lot of extra range.
Some one on a long trip probably wants to take a break after 3-4 hours.
The current ModS has an 85 kWh battery. A 125 kWh battery would mean 40 more kWh at, perhaps, $125 per kWh or $5k more.
Outside those few people for whom $5k is just a night or two out on the town….
I think a bit more range needed. For me to drive to the middle of the far side of the lake district from home (where there is unlikely to ever be a plethora of charging points for obvious reasons) it’s 170miles, so a 340mi round trip. Now I guess, it’s possible that I’ll need to plan a charging break on that route, but I’d think we can get to the point where 500mi is doable.
Think of the regen braking coming down Hardknott and Wrynose pass 🙂
Ha! Think that’s what I’d need on my bike before I attempt it…although I do fancy giving the Fred Whitton a go at some point, which means climbing it…
It will come down to how often you take a drive like that and how much you’re willing to pay to save the time.
Would you,for example, pay $5k more or stop for 20 minutes after 100 miles to top off (or stop after 80 miles on the way back)?
What if our charging spots turn into pleasant places? Nice landscaping, variety of types of food, good wifi connection, ….
I guess that’s the key isn’t it – manufacturers are going to have to offer a range of ranges on the batteries.
Those that need more simply pay the base price + battery + extra and those that need it for pootling to the shops and back pay base price + small battery.
For me, a journey like that, I might take 3-4 times a year at present, but if I could do it more frequently without sending CO2 into the atmosphere, then I might well do so.
I rarely use my car in the city much at all (I have a bicycle for that!) – perhaps a couple of short journeys per week. I have my car for getting to events pretty much all over the North of England, so journeys of up to 200mi, possibly to ‘remote’ locations, for me aren’t uncommon.
Then on top, I’d like to be able to go to Scotland more frequently – which is further, but perversely is likely to be easier due to the motorway driving!
Or two? That’s only if they cheap on the wine, and go for the bad year in the Château Lafite.
Yes. We only have 500 mile ranges on ICEs because there is very little cost or weight penalty. It’s not really needed, and as you say the market will settle for less under the quite different EV tradeoffs.
Driving up hill to Lake Tahoe from the Bay Area is 200 miles. However, the 6000 feet of elevation gain uses a lot more electricity, so at least 400 miles would be very useful. 500 would be even better. Then, when you go to Tahoe on Friday from the Bay Area in your AWD Tesla SUV, you won’t have to charge up over the weekend for your return trip on Sunday. Can’t wait!
So moving the record from currently 800 to 1200 kilometers at 25 kmh by 2020? So after a 40 minute lunch distances would go up from 125 miles to 190 miles at 80 mph. Still under 200 real miles.
Ze foolish Americans, zey are limited to only 65 or 70 miles per hour in most cases. And ze Oestralins? Zey can usually go at only 62 miles per hour. But sometimes they enjoy 69 when driving on ze better highways.
lol. 🙂
Electric vehicles are only a theory. Gas vehicles are here to stay, because that’s what God wants for us ( I know this from praying to God )
Snark?
Or a cry for help?
Sarcasm
Sometimes people with very similar statements show up here in the comments and they are dead serious. 🙂
600 Miles range, I take it. I am holding on to buy this car for the lack of range. 2 years is still a long way. For the time being, Musk can do rapid battery swapping along the highways, so that people can continue their journey with wasting little time.(say 15 mins). I know they have charging stations, but still 45 mins before charging 70%. Not good.
170 miles in 30 minutes.
Higher powered chargers in the works.
Tesla introduced battery swapping under a beta test for 80 dollar. However it received a poor response from owners used to free charging from superchargers.
who cares what Tesla does? Gas is about $2.50/gallon. At $2.50, there is little reason for Tesla to exist. Musk had better focus one one business … AND DELIVER! SOON!
Yes, let us all drive gasoline cars. That $147 a barrel oil certainly could never happen again if we consume enough to keep getting bulk discounts.
Not the only, but one reason gas is down right now is because the Sauds see a fleet of EVs looming over the near horizon. They’ve opened the taps. Sell the low cost extraction oil now while people still want it.
Ever run the number for the cost of extreme climate change?
That’s a huge reason for Tesla to exist.
Elon has will mention Gov policies. His SolarCity solar panels does not stand alone without Gov subsidies. Electric cars are not economical yet.
“has will”
I’m afraid that doesn’t make sense…
As for subsidies – solar PV is now cheaper than new coal in many places, including in the US. http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/22/solar-parity-coming-faster-expected/ – so yes, possibly in some places at the moment, but this will change very fast. In 5 years time, Solar PV will be very cheap.
“Electric cars are not economical yet.” – actually they probably are. On a total cost analysis (i.e. by the time you factored in the cost of petrol or diesel and maintenance costs) they are probably cheaper than an ICE. The issue for most people is the upfront cost.
However, by 2017-18, I expect to see 200+mi EVs from a number of manufacturers (probably Tesla, Renault and possibly BYD if they stray from China) at a cost comparable to a mid-range new ICE (so I’m guessing around £15,000). By 2020, I expect to see 200+mi EVs common across a number of manufacturers and multiple ranges (probably based on existing designs) and within the price range of most working people.
Nissan too.
Elon seeks rebates from Governments, His business models need Gov rebates to exist. He call his cars ‘sustainable cars’.
Sustainable is a step too far. Not sure cars will ever be truly sustainable in the fullest sense of the word, but they are certainly cleaner than ICEs and will be better for climate change, even if the grid isn’t completely clean of FF.
I sold solar panels and I’m a cert emission tester back in the day. Its a misconception that NEW cars pollute. 99.9% cars under 100k miles dont throw enough poison to kill yourself. Brown cloud from cars comes from the 70’s and 80s. After exhaust goes thur the catalytic converter mostly water out the tail pipe. Your being fooled.
Err, so cars don’t produce CO2 then?
I think you will find that they do. CO2 is a major pollutant. Unless you disagree with 99% of the world’s climate scientists?
very little CO2 from cars, 14 to 1 air-fuel ratio is almost perfect in cars today. In cities like Denver with high and low elevations I’d worry more bout nitrous oxides but even that cleaned up with the catalytic converter. Fly high and all you see is clean air and occasional city you might see a puff a smoke from the coal plants but the slight PUFFS of brown cloud from cities is from other sources now, not cars. Car CO2 is a pin drop in the ocean of air.
Well, since the IPCC disagrees with you, I’m going to go with them over you.
From IPCC AR4 (2007) chapter 5: “Transport predominantly relies on a single fossil resource, petroleum that supplies 95% of the total energy used by world transport. In 2004, transport was responsible for 23% of world energy-related GHG emissions with about three quarters coming from road vehicles. Over the past decade, transport’s GHG emissions have increased at a faster rate than any other energy using sector (high agreement, much evidence)”
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter5.pdf
Given CO2 is a colourless gas, then of course, you won’t see it. Doesn’t mean it’s not a pollutant, nor a serious problem.
And yes, the concentration is “only” 400ppm, but this is significant in the radiative forcing that is causing Global Warming. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 we are putting up there, not increase it further.
Funniest subject ever, the sky is falling… You cant change the rotation of the earth or the tides of the ocean. Cut those rain forest trees and mother nature will warm yur ass up and make more. We aint God but look out when we try.
Actually we do change the rotation of the Earth.
https://theglyptodon.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/whoa-dam-water-reservoirs-shift-earths-rotation/
Now I’m not sure why you choose to remain ignorant about how humans have changed the planet’s climate, but you certainly seem to have done exactly that.
If you’d like to educate yourself a bit go over to the NASA site and see what rocket scientists have to say.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
That said, on this site we just don’t have the time or patience to argue with people who decide to remain ignorant about climate change. If you’d like to stick around and talk about solutions you are welcome. But keep your denier stuff to yourself.
http://cleantechnica.com/cleantechnica-comment-policy/
Like I said be careful of me if I am able to change the tide and rotation.
you really got me laughing … they found running water on Mars to… be careful of those messages from those who seek money… they’ll have you believing salt is water just like global warming.
this is joke.,, and I respect that you believe what you believe but that fact is that NIETHER you nor I are 100% … So hold on, while I go to pull my tail cause they told me I came from a monkey to… Dont buy that crap. We Just found another primate that messed up those smart scientist you quote from THEORIES so I go by what I see. I some some polar bears bout to revert to great cave bears again while you see the sky falling..
Marc, your ignorance level is incredible. You don’t even have a basic grasp of evolution.
Marc, you might be a nice guy but you don’t know enough to participate in the conversations here. Your junk is simply too disruptive.
Please spend some time learning.
Start here. http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Then when you’ve educated yourself that CO2 causes radiative forcing through the greenhouse model and then understand that CO2 emitted from us “burning stuff” and that that is causing an imbalance in the CO2 concentration and thus our action in releasing this CO2 is causing rapid warming and climate destabilisation effects that are already being seen.
If you can’t be bothered or are too ignorant, the you’re just a climate change denier and this is no place for you.
I see the ice age ending bro,,,, earth cycles,,, I wished I was smart enough to control that, but be careful of me if I am….
1. I’m not your “bro” – my brother doesn’t deny climate science.
2. Our releasing CO2 is a non-natural and doesn’t fit into the cycles. Hence the problem.
Have a read of this: Climate myth #1 http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
And myth #11 http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
And myth #57 http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
Climate change, how quick people forget about the eye burning 70’s smog. 400 ppm will foul a plug by now days standards. In Colo we have road side emission testing. 90% of cars 2005 or newer rarely register even 1 part per million, At the pipe more water emmited than anything else
So you are saying that burning fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) doesn’t release CO2? Hmm… let’s look at the chemistry and physics and you’ll see it does.
An average car releases 14.3kg CO2 per gallon (source http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_car.htm). Multiply that by the amount of petrol each car uses (not sure what that adds up to be), then multiply by 1billion cars….
Cars release a significant amount of CO2 – yes, they are better than they were in the 1970s, but there are a lot more of them now, so more CO2.
Since burning FF releases CO2 and this CO2 has to go somewhere, it sits in the atmosphere. Since this is not a short-term natural cycle, this is rapidly increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Since we know that from 19th century physics, co2 causes radiative forcing, resulting in a warming, the extra CO2 is causing the planet to warm.
Take your denier crap elsewhere please.
CO2-carbon is held in the CAT and water comes out the tail pipe… CATs are good for bout 200K mi…
Err. No. You are wrong. CO2 is released in the exhaust fumes through the exhaust pipe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is removed and converted to CO2 and water
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are removed and converted to Nitrogen and Oxygen.
Unburnt Hydrocarbons are removed and converted to CO2 and water
Thus quite a lot of CO2 is released. In fact, about 14.3kg per gallon.
Marc, you’re just plain lying.
Are you that ignorant or lying intentionally?
niether
Marc, here’s your choice.
1) Keep your denier crap to yourself.
2) Leave.
why do you get frustrated about my facts. I dont mean to belittle your comments if that helps your feeling at all. I’m a solar designer and emission tech so I deliver info from these fields,
Then stick to stuff you know.
You are very ignorant when it comes to climate change. Here’s the evidence.
“New cars hardly throw any green house gas”
SolarCity USA leading solar provider owned by E musk that sucks ass as a company. New cars hardly throw any green house gas… what wrong with those facts.
What’s wrong with your claim (which is not factual) is that petroleum fueled vehicles emit large amounts of CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Brown cloud been gone for decades folks…
CO2 is colourless…
when a car is cold the cpu run in a closed loop producing enough emission that sometime the catalytic converter cant clean all particulars. Some german cars RECENTLY have the cpu fool the tests and pollute slightly for more powerful motors but even in these instance not very toxic
This is irrelevant to the discussion here. Yes, VW have been taking illegal steps on emissions tests. That’s not the discussion here.
I asked if burning fossil fuels (oil) creates CO2. It does.
Toxicity is not the issue (this is caused by particulates). The issue is CO2 released into the atmosphere is causing global warming.
Marc, not sure what rock you are living under…$7500 Fed rebate is not selling $80K-120K Teslas.
SolarCity will loose more money as time passes. Solar will be an option someday. It takes mega cash – upfront cost or ridiculous loans for solar on your roof or to drive those elec cars.
PPA power purchase agreements are a burn. 20k-30k contract to save a $100/mth..lol
MyPower purchase agreement isnt much better.
And if you got 20k for solar Id hope you could make more than $100/mth with that much money
Err..wrong. A 4kWp system in the UK costs about £5000.
Payback time is about 7-8years, depending on factors.
#1 solar provider in the states , SolarCity, consumes Gov rebates and the profits thru the solar panel loan. USA peeps see reduced power bills but the real savings takes 20 – 30 years
SolarCity and other big solar companies will fold if it looses the Gov rebates and subsidies.
Show evidence please.
Show me your evidence please, or I’m going to assume you’re just trolling now.
I think you are labouring under a misapprehension, since pretty much all evidence suggests that under current (early 2015) prices, payback time should be, at the most, 7-10years, as quoted on SolarCity’s own website: http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-much-do-solar-panels-cost#purchase
That tallies with most estimates I’ve seen, but exact details depend on the deal you get, the cost of wholesale electricity and the amount you generate, plus any rebates to which you are entitled.
20-30years is so far off the mark, even the most die-hard FF fanatics would have to admit that that is wrong….
WRONG.
Solar panels now can supply same home electrity for same monthly cost. Yes, Fed rebates –just like Exxon. 7-year loan for purchase of panels and installation equal to average monthly electric bill.
Then, in SEVEN years, pv loan is paid off –at 2015 monthy electricity bill rate, while utility company cost of electricty will rise (-pv loan maintains today’s electricity monthly cost)
–and in 7 years paid-for pv panels supply FREE electricity. This is real-life actual monthly budget. So Marc, get off your made-up theorizing.
agreed, Elon’s ventures would have went bankrupt long ago without Gov help. He preys on clean energy loans that build affordable products. He just got a super deal out of Nv. to build his plants using his clean energy save the planet trick.
did someone drive over your feet with an EV and hit you with a solar panel afterwards?
So far you didn’t bring any sources, just claims and drivel.. better get up to speed here or get out mate.
“Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.”
“…in 2014 that US taxpayers were subsidising fossil fuel exploration and production alone by $21bn a year.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies
In DK the government rebate for the “small” Tesla S 70D is more like ~150K EUR, as it is sold for only ~79K EUR.
Slightly simplified explanation: It is because in DK a car cost ca. 3 times the price as in other countries, after all cars are luxury items and should hence be heavily taxed. A side effect of that cars are expensive is that a lot of people use bicycles in DK.
When electric cars began to appear sporadically ~30 years ago, and were costly and functional limited, they were made tax exempt, except of course for VAT (25%).
In recent years the EV market has stepping forward cm by cm, but the tax exemption is planned to run out this year unless renewed. Recently there has been sold a lot of Tesla S because with the rebate it so much cheaper than other luxury cars, yet it is still a very expensive car only accessible for high income people. The government has now realised what was a way to start a market with many EVs for normal income people has become a costly rebate of luxury cars for millionaires. So now it looks like that EVs step by step over 4 years will become taxed like other cars. If this goes through it will essential bring a stop to EV sales in DK the coming years.
What they rather should do is put a limit on the rebate given, perhaps max 30K-40K EUR rebate, so normal priced EVs like BMW I3, Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe, VW Golf-E etc. would still be affordable but sinful luxury cars would be heavy taxed.
This seems strangely irrelevant here?
If civilization still exists 20 years from now… Smh
Elon is not the 1st to exploit our ignorance of green energy… I still see those old ‘water solar panels’ on roofs , Hey, those people who bought into those, well they saved a little money, now how the hell do I get those old ‘water solar panels’ off my roof? lol