First version of the electrical drivetrain ready for the 9-3 sedan

“Production starts early next year” reports P4 Väst’s reporter Victor Jensen.

The city of Qingdao, part owner of Nevs, will purchase the first 200 EVs with delivery starting April.

Mattias Bergman is quoted saying “You will observe a continuous change, but the first specifications have arrived. The specifications will be gradually changed, both battery and drivetrain”.

Range at first will be limited to ~200km and the car itself will be 80% similar to its ICE cousin. “The difference will be the drivetrain”.

The car will be produced in Trollhättan with final assembly taking place in China. Nevs have two facilities producing batteries there, so they will be mounted there.

“Production of the EVs in Trollhättan will commence early next year” adds Mattias Bergman, “it does not take long to produce them, but then they must be shipped to China as well”.

“This is an important part of our vision that our customers not be dependent of fossile fuelds, but retain the freedom of getting around in a passenger car. This is what is important to us, and where our focus is. Finally we let the customers decide if they prefer an EV or a conventional ICE.”

206 thoughts on “First version of the electrical drivetrain ready for the 9-3 sedan”

  1. Short range will always restrict the sale of pure electric vehicles. I regularly visit the far North of Scotland from my home, 1000Km each way and at least another 1000 touring around. A hybrid would be what I need. Are there plans for this ?

  2. “Finally we let the customers decide if they prefer an EV or a conventional ICE.”
    Does this mean that they will continue to produce Saabs with turbo petrol motors?
    I’d love a 1.4 twin turbo hybrid for Christmas ……. next year.

    • I am optimistic that NEVS leadership is smart enough and ambitious enough to listen to the customers. They might want to promote EVs but they also want to make money and stay in business. Over time, with any luck, we’ll get some of the Saabs we are anxious for—-including your twin turbo.

  3. I would like an sc with the new gm 1.6 hp diesel with a/t . But want to testdrive it first here in holland at my Saab dealer. When are you ready for that nevs? Might also be a hybrid sc.

  4. Rune…………Is this “Range at first will be limited to ~200km ” a generic average for the driving of this car or is this based on a dwarf driving with no dwarf passengers, downhill gradient and a strong tailwind?

    I would assume that once loading is placed on the batteries such as lights, air-con, entertainment etc that the 200km will be drastically reduced rendering this car as about as much use as an electric wheelchair.

    Until EV ranges reach 500km as a generic average then I will hang out with the rest of the ICE club regardless of where this takes me in car marques.

    200km would certainly allow a townie to get back and forward to Ikea or the local Tesco store but little else.

    Sorry about the negativity but enough of this euphoria and more reality please when exploring the EV route (all car manufacturers).

    • I merely translated parts of Mr Jensen’s article and I don’t quite see where you get the sense of euphoria from?

      Saab’s engineers are traditionally quite conservative with their estimates. If they are the source for the 200km estimate, then I expect this to be a fully loaded car driving this distance on a cold winter day.

      Personally, I would require about 300 km range for my daily driver.

      My hope/guess is that we will see a 500 km range within two years. I too remain in the ICE camp — at least until high voltage chargers are deployed widely at convenient spots throughout my continent.

      • +1
        If Saab says their cars go 8.7 seconds to 100 km / h, it is exactly 8.7 seconds instead of 7 seconds, as if this was mentioned in the BMW, for example 🙂

    • Alastair: I am clinging to the hope that NEVS outsmarted everybody, including me—by feigning commitment to silly, not ready for prime-time, overpriced EVs, (and that they continue to do so) as a method to get the nod to purchase Saab in the first place. Perhaps they aren’t eco-weenies after all. Perhaps they outsmarted the eco-weenies. They can produce obligatory EVs and always have one available—-but maybe shift the focus to gas and diesel as market conditions around the world demand—-and eventually join the leaders in fuel cell technology, which is destined to leapfrog EVs to replace ICE engines in the future anyway. EVs are a hoax. The batteries will never have vacation charge range—-and if we’re going to invest in a real infrastructure to replace or accompany gas stations, it should be fuel cell related.

        • Ken: Many, many hoaxes throughout the ages had profiteers who were extraordinary. Maybe Mr. Musk was a victim (brainwashed by the hoax and becoming it’s leading catalyst) or maybe he’s the one perpetrating it, and will dump Tesla on General Motors for a tidy sum someday—-but from an investment/profit/loss standpoint, where is Tesla now? I know they are working on a sport ute. At what point are they going to introduce a practical car that is attainable by most of us and does what we need? What decade/century will THAT be? Right now, he has a great, rich man’s hobby going.

          • The Model E is supposed to arrive no earlier than start of 2016. Probably late 2016. It will be the 3rd Tesla, and the one that Tesla/Musk are determined to sell affordably. Words like affordable are often subjective, but Tesla (and more importantly Musk) has shown an emphatic commitment to delivering exactly what it says it will. If Tesla determines that their next 3rd automobile will be an affordable electric daily driver for the masses, then I bet with Tesla and say that they will.

            All that said, who knows if Saab will be as successful as Tesla has been with electrics? Not me.

            • Actually Quixcube, according to sources quoted this week, the Model E will be unveiled at the beginning of 2015 with a price under $40,000 (before incentives) and range of about 200mi. By then they will have expanded their supercharging infrastructure to look something like this:

              And in Europe the rollout of the network is moving along rapidly too, in 2014 they will be within 200 miles of every person in a number of countries – the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Denmark.

      • I have suspected that for some time now. We and NEVS all know the history here of duplicity by others and I think NEVS are master business people determined to outsmart them.
        The first hint that this may be true: “Finally we let the customers decide if they prefer an EV or a conventional ICE.”

  5. And we who live in apartments, parking in the street are often a forgotten group when talking EVs.
    I have nowhere to charge at home, so NEVS please develop a hybrid.

      • A f a i k there are no plans on establishing fast charging stations in Stockholm.
        Only an alternative if I can fill it up with Electricity in the same amount of time as when I fill it up with gasoline.
        I dont think its an option for the city to put up rows of charging poles on the sidewalk along every street.

        But fast charging stations are perhaps just around the corner….. 🙂

        • Fast charging may be obsolete before it really arrives. I read that Tesla is establishing stations where, when you pull in, the run-down battery is swapped out for a fully charged battery in less time than it takes to refuel a petrol car.

          • I wonder how they’ll handle it though, when the battery can’t hold a charge? Will the guy who just bought a new Tesla and swapped his new battery for an old one be on the hook if the station tells him “his” battery is inadequate/can’t hold a charge? Or will you not own the battery in the car you buy? Not sure how this all works.

        • Not perhaps on every street, but atleast enough streets so people like you are likely to park next to one at some point in the day for top-off charging (and rely on fast-charging to get up to 80% in between)?

          That seems to be the plan in Oslo. The best parking right outside my favorite restaurant is reserved for EVs, so I had to park half a block away (which was much better parking than what I achieve on average at that location).

          But yeah, this is definitively problematic. Why is the state suddenly paying for motorists’ fuel? (in additional to the infrastructure for delivering that fuel) Eventually they will probably charge money for the parking, but free parking is part of the incentive to trick people to adopt EVs.

          I do sometimes play with the idea of writing an article exploring the more political (and climate scientific…) part of Nevs’ business plans, but this is a car blog, not a political soap box. I will try to get better at asking Nevs for their backup plans in case the EV market does not evolve.

          • Rune: No, eventually the “state” (whether it’s in Osio or Ohio) will charge for miles driven. Then we’re doomed. They need to get out of the way—-stay the hell out of my business and let me pick and choose, let for profit companies use the market to grow EVs or watch them decline. I don’t want the government to be the millionaire makers in this—-they use my/our money for that and they have a conflict of interest—rewarding their supporters at any cost and in the process, not always doing the right thing for the majority of us, who pay for this all.

        • Stefan, I don’t know where you live or move around in Stockholm, but EVs are getting prime parking spots around Stockholm already, including Arlanda. Initially in limited numbers but it is coming, seems the charge is free as well…

          • Over 10,000 free parking spots in Stockholm city for EVs (and superenvironment cars). Nuerous charging stations as well, some free, some for leasing. Check for exact locations…

            • You’re right, and looking at Arlanda you’ve got parking right next to the entrance for SkyCity if you have an electric car! Charging is supposed to be free!

          • I think its a long way to go before you manage to convince people like myself, living in apartment and parking in the street, to buy an expensive car with which you have to rely on that some dedicated charging spots are not occupied. Going to work the next day depends on such a matter, or that you have to drive to a mall or equal to charge.
            You have to be able to charge wherever you park legally near your home.
            People = me = lazy 😀
            Hybrid, thank you. Or assisting CE.

            • I have seen hints that more EU countries are set to follow Norway’s example: Tax the heck out of ICEs. 🙁 “Expensive” then becomes more relative… (be very careful whom you vote for in the coming elections, StefanH)

              • That might be one way to do it.

                Something needs to be done about ICE:s and the environmental impact, that’s just the way it is and one way might be to tax the heck out of them.
                It won’t be fun for anyone and will create a uproar.

                Battery technology today probably won’t be sufficient to cover everybody’s need but those who have needs outside of what technology can offer in say perhaps the coming 10 years could probably “just” have to pay for them in hard cash instead.

                It isn’t fun to have to take a step back and revise comfort or needs but we just might have to. Hopefully just for a while or better yet not at all but it isn’t impossible.

                • No, we don’t have to yet. There is plenty of oil in the ground to be tapped—enough for decades. Let private industry continue to develop a good ultimate replacement for ICEs while we use fossil fuels. And if “something needs to be done” to save the Earth, try to relax and enjoy yourself. That one is a hoax, a myth. The greenies outfoxed big oil on this one—-making fat money off our taxes, off our backs—“researching” something we don’t need. They’re getting rich off the government teet and accomplishing nothing. It’s snake oil, a pipe dream. NEVS will be best served to spend just as much in developing cars that the market wants, needs and can afford, NOW, which is to say NEVS needs to put at least half of their eggs (if not considerably more) in the ICE basket. They can be at the environmental forefront with efficient ICE, biofuel, diesel, etc.—-while continuing to try to overcome the myriad of issues with battery powered cars. Hopefully, fuel cells will be perfected and affordable in a couple decades and they can then ride that bus in the future. Right now, we need ICE for the foreseeable future and there is absolutely no reason not to continue on improving that technology.

                  • Angelo, you hit the nail on the head! Actually there is enough oil for centuries when you take into account nontraditional sources. We are not going to run out any time soon.

                    It is very unfortunate that Europe has permitted itself to be taken over by the greens, I really feel for the people there being raked over the coals in the name of a nonexistent problem. Hopefully we still have a shot at keeping this nonsense at bay here in the U.S. The greenies’ war on CO2 is ludicrous, that gas is not a pollutant, and the entire “man made global warming/climate change” idea is a hoax being used by governments to acquire ever more wealth and power. (Does anyone actually believe that these people are going to control the Earth’s climate using electric cars and windmills? If so I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!)

                    My own personal pledge is that I will not lower my so-called “carbon footprint” in any manner and will seek to continue increasing it despite the wishes of the environmentalists. An increased carbon footprint is synonymous with increased prosperity!

                    • All true and the notion that we should “tax the hell out of ICE cars” is so invasive and such a power grab—-the notion that reasonable people would voluntarily go along with this nonsense like sheep to the slaughter is mind boggling to me. They need to grow a pair and fight back already—-confront these people who are taking over your/our lives and fight them. Punch them in the nose (metaphorically of course) and get in their face/in their space the way they get in ours. Enough is enough with the “green revolution.” Time to stem the revolt with a “Black Carbon Revolution, the More the Merrier” ourselves.

            • @Stefan: Definitely, no everyone could be convinced to buy a ICE car either when there wasn’t a petrol station nearby them in the beginning either.

              Newcomers, curious people and technology buffs will be the first ones out of the gates and then “they” (as in government, state etc) will have to make a decision to build the infrastructure needed to get the other ones on the train (if “they” think the train is a good idea). And it is happening in some country’s:


              This is a great initiative and I hope many more will follow. Granted that the Netherlands perhaps has some “advantages” with how their country looks compared to other parts of the world but still.

              We as the consumer can’t be asked to pay for all the advances by ourselves.

              • Why does the government have to do this Beakon? That’s precisely the problem. The government didn’t build the gas station fueling infrastructure—-private money did. That’s the way this should work for the next generation of personal transportation too. There’s no excuse for taking taxpayer money and “aiding and assisting” this car vs. that car. “We as the consumer can’t be asked to pay for all the advances by ourselves.” So you expect some retired people who don’t even drive to see their taxes raised to give the edge to EVs? Yes, the markets should determine this.

                • Private money do that as well (that’s the ones I included in the “etc” “(as in government, state etc)” yes, I never said they didn’t.

                  Look at Tesla and their Supercharger stations. There the price for these investments come from the price of the car. If those in power to decide about taxes and regulations want to make electric cars a viable option they have to make investments and facilitate the option. Not everyone can afford a Tesla priced car.

                  What do you think would happen IFthey “taxed the hell out of ice” cars without at facilitating another option ? People would go ballistic. No question about that and I understand that. It would be political suicide as well.

                  >Yes, the markets should determine this.

                  There is alot of things the market or the people “should” decide on their own that they don’t. Some of the decisions that are forced upon us makes sense to us, some don’t. That’s the world we live in for good or worse.

                  I for example don’t smoke. My tax money goes to treat people with lung cancer.
                  I don’t agree with my countries views on military aid/decisions in all cases either, but I don’t have a say in this either. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t treat sick people, but we have to pay for things we don’t take part of/use/need ourselves nor always agree with.

                  And regarding your comment below. You didn’t answer the question in hand.
                  With the correct infrastructure in place, why wouldn’t electric cars be a viable option ? Just imagine that the infrastructure was there, regardless of who funded it or why.

                  • Working backwards: With the correct infrastructure in place, golf carts could work too. Or trollies. Or Rickshaws. Could it work? I guess so. At what cost? We don’t know. Military decisions: In the U.S., one of the governmental, constitutional obligations, to which they are free to spend government money, is in defending the citizens from harm—external or internal. That’s why governments pay for military and police. The specific decisions we can agree with or disagree with, but the general premise of spending money for defense is in the constitution. Transportation (and for that matter, healthcare) is not. Smoking: I don’t smoke either. I tried when I was younger and never liked it. Don’t like the smell of cigarettes on my clothes and I got no physical high from it. But as a non-smoker, I see the massive taxes that smokers pay for the “privilege” to smoke (not that anyone should consider it that—-I think it’s more of a right). But they pay for their habit. And if you’re going to consider them a drain, you have to start looking at anyone in a high risk activity—an amateur sport or leisure like rock climbing/hiking/skiing/skateboarding or surfing, diving—-anything you do that puts you at risk of injury can cost others money, right? What about eating the wrong foods and becoming obese—are you going to legislate that too? If you don’t like your tax money going to treat these people, why not make people responsible for themselves then? That way, we take care of us and ours. You are right that we as customers can’t be asked to pay for everything—but on the other hand, if corporations see a big future profit to be made from this, they’ll invest and little by little, through our purchases, we’ll pay them back ten fold and then some. Problem is, for this first trial at least—-the jury is back and EVs have not caught on—-for a lot of reasons, they are not what consumers want or need…YET. How does this relate to Saab? I think it’s a “beacon/beakon” (no pun intended) of light that should convince NEVS that for now at least, the “E” in their name needs to cool down a little bit. Keep it—-but don’t let it consume every effort Saab is making. If they do that, Saab will die again and maybe this time, for good. Work the electric angle, preferably with a hybrid or something like the Chevy Volt—-practical solutions, not pathological/ideological suicide by spending an enormous amount of resources trying to stay pure to the EV idea. Please NEVS, while you dabble in that, keep Saab viable with new and better ICE cars too.

                    • Regarding american politics you know those better then me, no question about that. That wasn’t my point. My point was that politicians sometimes make decisions you don’t always agree with and I can pretty much bet that happens regardless what country you live in.

                      And one of those decisions that most likely will happen, that you don’t agree with, is the taxation or regulation to try and shift from fossil fuel to other means of propulsion.
                      The reason isn’t corporations that see big profits in this, the reason is the environment and that we have limited resources.

                      How much we have left of the resources or how much the environment have been damaged is debatable. That isn’t the point.

                      The point is that a shift have to come and rather sooner then later. Simply because if “we” are wrong and we have more resources and done less damage to the environment, we have begun earlier and have more left. But if we do it too late or have thought we have to much resources and are proven wrong the,it will be harder (if even possible) to rectify that.

                      This is happening now and Nevs putting the main part of there money on this isn’t a bad thing. Quite the opposite, if they can manage to be in the forefront they have won alot of ground.

                      Maybe there are or will be other techniques or means of “cleaner” propulsion that are proven better but as of now they don’t really have the time to research that in a lab until the time is right.



  6. Make no mistake,,,, true electric technology is not viable,, the technology does not exist to meet reality. Basically a scam..If Nevs dedicates large sums of R&D budgets into this and not gas powered Saabs its over..Sadly just the facts..

    I think, unfortunately this is where this going (Electric)….Think about the enormous undertaking and financial resources necessary to develop three new up to date gas powered saab models. The distribution network,,, Advertising, Customer service for international Sales etc… Just for Nevs to return to the U.S. would cost millions and millions for a complete advertising campaign, Network, dealership confidence etc.

    • No doubt about it. And contrary to what people think after reading my comments about EVs, I’m NOT opposed to them. In fact, I’m a multi car household—so an EV priced right would appeal to me for some of my driving, like local weekend errands. But truly, my opposition to it is based on the push from governments to favor it—stripping money from some to be “king makers” for the EV movement for others. It’s pointless to discuss views on global warming as if you’re in the camp who believes that—-you’ll justify taking money from working class people who don’t even have drivers licenses to give tax credits to wealthy people adding a higher voltage electrical outlet to their four car garage. You’re all in. For me—-if the technology works for people, those people should be enough to support migrating to EVs. If private money (car manufacturers, employers, etc.) want to invest hundreds of millions into charging stations—-I do think that makes sense. If private shopping malls want to have preferred spaces for EVs and hybrids, that’s just fine. This should not be the case with government owned property. If the technology is good and useful, money will be generated to make it work. Privately.

  7. Sorry Rune, the “Euphoria” reference was not directed at you but to the many contributors who see this EV design as some sort of revelation.

    I would dearly like to be wrong in my assumption that we will never see a realistic mileage from any EV design regardless of what manufacturer is designing it. All these dedicate EV cars or commercials are for city dwellers only with the convenient resources and logistics to charge them.

    I believe as Angelo says, the Fuel Cell scenario appears to be the only possible viable way to go as an alternative to ICE. Alternatively if service centres can either fast charge or remove/replace a pod of batteries in close to the normal service halt time then perhaps there is a way forward with EV, but I would not put the kettle on for this ever happening.

    • Alastair,
      EV’s fit to the needs of many car drivers but not to all. I’m looking forward to see how an 9-3Convertible EV looks/feels/drives like. This is a kind of car that could fit my daily driving needs quite well with a range of 200 km, but 350km would be ideal to get me to Trollhättan without no extra stops.

      Will I buy one? Probably not, but this has more to do with my personal situation and not the car, as I don’t think I will buy any car in the next 3-4 Years. But I’m looking forward to the next gen of car and Batteries so I can hear the birds in the summer when I pass by with my open CabrioEV.

    • EVs are like cassette tapes. People loved buying their LP music on vinyl (and vinyl is still the format of choice for many). Vinyl was ICE. Then there were factory recorded cassettes for a while, being sold alongside vinyl. A lot of people loved cassettes and thought that ultimately, they would replace vinyl. Cassettes = EVs. Then along CDs, rather quickly—-and all but replaced cassettes and most vinyl. CDs are fuel cells in this analogy. Now, MP3 players and music downloads have replaced CDs for many, especially the young. That might just be the flying cars of the future.

  8. If you’re ran out of gas (yes, sometimes happen, even to the best drivers), you can bring some in canister, or even plastic bottle! enough to get to petrol station. What if you dry out your batteries? Bring some electricity in a bucket? Or there will be lots of people pushing their cars around the city? And rememeber, It’s easier to empty the battery, than a gas tank. Just turn on your lights, AC, radio, and power windows.

  9. Ok, I am an EV fan boy. I see that already today EV, even pure ones like Leaf and ModelS can be sufficient for a large number of drivers. This tech is being intensively researched and developed. In a few years we will be where you suggest/want/need, ranges of 500km+, charge times in 10s of minutes. It is inevitable. In Sweden electricity is over 90% CO2 free, better than “neutral”. The much higher efficiencies in large scale fossil to electric plants is generating a well to wheel pollution that’s a magnitude less than ICE. While the political system in China is questionable, it facilitates massive infrastructure makeovers, including the shift from fossil to electric propulsion. That’s why I believe NEVS in absolutely on the right track with their upstart. I remain convinced that within my lifetime, I will be able to purchase a pure EV, charge it with my PV cells on the roof of my house, drive guilt free AND having fun doing it!
    The future is bright, the future is electrifying…
    In the mean time I’ll be driving my TXSC (@14L/100km)

    • No doubts about the big advantages, and I agree that we need to go into that direction. Still, after several years of investigation, I am by far not as optimistic as you, for the following reasons.

      Today, Sweden’s electricity may be environmentally friendly. However, will this be still the case when the car fleet is converted? Estimates for Germany assume that the additional power for EVs alone will increase the overall electrical power consumption by 20-40%. Where will that come from?

      “It is inevitable”? Unfortunately, the capacity increases for the batteries that have been under heavy investigation, which resulted in a number of interesting experimental developments, have not materialised in commercial products. There is no battery at the horizon with a fourfold energy density, at the same price. Apparently, the pace of progress is in no way comparable to what we are used to in the field of computer tech.

      • Do keep in mind that the parent company of NEVS is an energy company with a stated interest in developing biomass as a source of electricity to power EVs.

      • I keep hoping Baas, I keep hoping. If they were smart enough to outfox the government with a “Save the Earth” plan that has now, rightfully, been transformed to a “Save Saab” plan, then we will see incredible cars from this manufacturer—-with real engines that run on gas and diesel, E85, bio, etc. If they got their foot in the door with the claim of “electric” but common sense prevails and they build actual new Saabs again, I nominate NEVS for a Nobel Prize.

  10. You are right theSandySaab to counter my doubts so that your comment can bring some debate into this ‘questionable’ subject, but I am with Miko on this one and perhaps NEVS will fit some kind of ‘old generation starting handle’ to the car so that we can wind it around and generate enough power to get the disabled car to the hard shoulder when the batteries decide to cough out.

    We have been using Lithium batteries now in power tools for over 10 years and they are still as flakey as when they first came to be. When the run out of juice, there is no warning unlike their predecessor’s that simply lost power gracefully.

    Yep NEVS EV cars (I am certain) will have more battery warnings that the space shuttle but unless the computer has a brain that can cope with every climatic condition and topology of terrain my guess is that there will be many stranded trying to insert an AAA battery to move a metre or two

    • A former employer of mine was an early adopter of an EV and it was the smallest car imaginable (and the guy was two meters tall). I have never been so cold inside a car as when I hitched a ride with that guy. The car’s heater was fueled with kerosene, but in that particular car it felt like it had been added just to tick off an item on some list and not so much for serving a useful purpose. All my Saabs are warm and cozy inside after a few minutes, and I must say I do not look forward to testing an EV in the winter.

      I do however share RedJ’s fascination with a possible 9-3 EV Convertible. That must be the ultimate car to drive during the summer!

      • I came back from the airport in my friends Tesla. Once we landed, via his Iphone, he had preprogrammed the cabin to 70 degrees f, so the car was warm from the minute you got in, you didn’t have to even wait for the engine to heat up, as per a normal car. Sounds like the EV you were in was from the dark ages.

        • The EV car company Rune is talking about has gone bankrupt many times in the last years, and I’m not sure if they exist any more. But Norway has never build good cars 😉

          Regarding the Tesla and the iPhone controlled AC. Anyone can currently hack into your car and change the cabin temperature to very cold, so next time the car will be freezing cold from the minute you get in.

          • Yes, I’ve been hearing about that Red J. But on the other hand, if you don’t have a fire extinguisher handy, your Tesla might also be very, very hot—-in flames in fact—and you won’t be able to cool it down. Hope you have good insurance if you drive one of them. “Poof.”

            • Well NEVS is using a different battery tech that has a lower specific capacity bur is much much less prone to get on fire.
              My insurance is to know. 😉

            • My gosh, not sure if our Angel has regressed to his trolling…??!
              The Teslas that caught fire hit massive solid objects on the road puncturing one of the 16 battery cells. While that lead to a smoldering fire, the drivers where instructed to safely leave the road, park and leave the vehicle. The fire then slowly progressed but only after the attempts by fire fighting (breaking open the battery cell open which damaged the firewalls) did the fire progress further, before being extinguished.
              The Li-ion cells tesla uses a are a magnitude LESS energy dense than gasoline (tanks). And for US, you are 5 times more likely to get an explosive gasoline fire in an gasoline car compared to the slow smoldering fire in the Teslas incidents mentioned in any kind of collision, with other cars or objects.

              • I wasn’t trolling, I was joking (obviously). But it seems as though you might be trolling in favor of EVs. Is Musk paying you a tidy sum? I hadn’t heard that these fires were all the result of hitting a solid object on the road. Fact is, the road is full of solid objects. Usually, if those objects are sharp, they cause flat tires. Haven’t heard of cars catching fire after running them over. Now we have to retrain EMTs/Fire Departments of how to deal with an emergency? By not trying to extinguish the fire, but by letting it smolder? Yeah, just like the Titanic wasn’t supposed to sink if the iceburg damage was contained to one holding cell of the hull. Got it.

                • This was the reply from Tesla top the incidents:

                  ” Earlier this week, a Model S traveling at highway speed struck a large metal object, causing significant damage to the vehicle. A curved section that fell off a semi-trailer was recovered from the roadway near where the accident occurred and, according to the road crew that was on the scene, appears to be the culprit. The geometry of the object caused a powerful lever action as it went under the car, punching upward and impaling the Model S with a peak force on the order of 25 tons. Only a force of this magnitude would be strong enough to punch a 3 inch diameter hole through the quarter inch armor plate protecting the base of the vehicle.

                  The Model S owner was nonetheless able to exit the highway as instructed by the onboard alert system, bring the car to a stop and depart the vehicle without injury. A fire caused by the impact began in the front battery module – the battery pack has a total of 16 modules – but was contained to the front section of the car by internal firewalls within the pack. Vents built into the battery pack directed the flames down towards the road and away from the vehicle.

                  When the fire department arrived, they observed standard procedure, which was to gain access to the source of the fire by puncturing holes in the top of the battery’s protective metal plate and applying water. For the Model S lithium-ion battery, it was correct to apply water (vs. dry chemical extinguisher), but not to puncture the metal firewall, as the newly created holes allowed the flames to then vent upwards into the front trunk section of the Model S. Nonetheless, a combination of water followed by dry chemical extinguisher quickly brought the fire to an end.

                  It is important to note that the fire in the battery was contained to a small section near the front by the internal firewalls built into the pack structure. At no point did fire enter the passenger compartment.

                  Had a conventional gasoline car encountered the same object on the highway, the result could have been far worse. A typical gasoline car only has a thin metal sheet protecting the underbody, leaving it vulnerable to destruction of the fuel supply lines or fuel tank, which causes a pool of gasoline to form and often burn the entire car to the ground. In contrast, the combustion energy of our battery pack is only about 10% of the energy contained in a gasoline tank and is divided into 16 modules with firewalls in between. As a consequence, the effective combustion potential is only about 1% that of the fuel in a comparable gasoline sedan.

                  The nationwide driving statistics make this very clear: there are 150,000 car fires per year according to the National Fire Protection Association, and Americans drive about 3 trillion miles per year according to the Department of Transportation. That equates to 1 vehicle fire for every 20 million miles driven, compared to 1 fire in over 100 million miles for Tesla. This means you are 5 times more likely to experience a fire in a conventional gasoline car than a Tesla!

                  For consumers concerned about fire risk, there should be absolutely zero doubt that it is safer to power a car with a battery than a large tank of highly flammable liquid. ”

                  — Elon

                  • What about the other fireS? And this is from Elon himself? Bit of a conflict of interest if he’s the reporter. Not saying it isn’t true, but…

                    • The other fire in a model S was due to a drunk (and wealthy) driver in Mexico who left the road and hit some immovable objects (tree). He survived with minor bruising and was able to leave the vehicle, doors openable.
                      Compare that with Paul Walkers accident….

  11. At this point in history concerning EV’s I am definitely not convinced that they are anywhere near as economical or even that “green”. The costs to recycle/dispose of hybrid batteries is not inexpensive. It is also not an easy task. Besides that, the cost to replace a hybrid battery is insane. Case in point…my daughter is law’s mother has a 2006 Camry and she was complaining that she’s using more and more fuel because the ICE engine is running more often than it did in its first five years. This car now has 68k km’s on the clock and a replacement battery from Toyota is going to cost her $7500.00 CDN. ouch…. so much for saving fuel and now the planet is going to have to swallow the disposal of the bad battery. I guess my point is how does a person balance the equation of ICE vs EV power? Seeing that my personal jury is out on hybrids the questions beg to be asked.

      • Interesting. To change the Camry Hybrid battery should be approx 3,500 usd + 2 hours labor. 7,500 CDN does not seem reasonable at all….??? The NiMH batteries might be prematurely excessively worn due to the rather limited mileage that have not allowed for proper charging. The more recent PIH design allows for much greater battery life, reducing the risk of a to high DOD (Depth of Discharge), too frequently, that is the battery killer…

        • regulations regarding the disposal of the old batteries may differ between US and Canada, and hence could explain a certain Price difference?! I don’t know.

        • I got that quote from one of my city’s oldest Toyota dealer. Am I surprised that the replacement battery in USD is a LOT lower but those are the facts in my neighbourhood. Why do you think Canadians who live close to the border flock to the US to buy anything and everything that is available at their corner stores?

    • There must be a sensible way to recycle these batteries. But the battery way IS green. You must consider how congested a lot of cities are, and how polluted. Putting electric cars there instead of fuming ICE vehicles are going to make the cities a lot healthier.

  12. I think NEVS is taking a level-headed and proper approach here. It’s too early to stake their future entirely on EVs. And, let the Toyota’s et al. showcase their fuel cell vehicles. I think they only do it to pretend to be “green” companies. Battery technology has hurdles to overcome for effective EV penetration, but fuel cells seem to be more of a pipe dream. They can never be as efficient as batteries. Hydrogen fuelling infrastructure “requires a large amount of energy: The hydrogen gas first has to be split off from water, then transported to fueling stations, then condensed at high pressures, and then converted back into electricity inside the car. That’s a relatively inefficient process” (Washington Post). Carlos Ghosn of Nissan certainly doesn’t believe in fuel cell technology. The infrastructure for EVs is mostly there already, at least for short-commute drivers. Battery technology just needs a few more breakthroughs, one for increased charge density, and one for increased longevity. Problems with the old Toyota nickle-based batteries should not be used as a basis for dissing EVs since that’s a near-obsolete technology now.

    I think NEVS should watch fuel cell technological developments, but let others spend their money developing it. I can’t see governments spending billions to build a hydrogen infrastructure, at least not in the next 50 years. NEVS can’t wait that long. Plus, I’m old and retired. I can’t wait too long either for NEVS to be successful and selling in the USA.

    • Saabyurk +1
      The hybrid technology is only a stop gap measure that fits the car companies perfectly. Not only can they sell a much more complex product at a higher price, it will still require the same or more maintenance as a regular ICE vehicle. To have bought a Hybrid Camry in 2006 was enthusiastic and daring, while maybe not the best car purchase ever… The battery lifetime would have been much extended if driven more, and newer PIH designs prevent the damaging complete discharge. Furthermore, a pure EV will be requiring much less maintenance and service and as Tesla and Nissan (to a degree) has shown to be a useful and attractive product. The lead battery tech is mature but is already being replaced for the EV market. Here I have high hopes for NEVS with their connections to both tech and manufacturing, combined with the Saab platform.
      It is now some 2.5 years ago I test drove the Pure Electric Saab 9-3 convertible from Electroengine in Sweden (wrote about it here). That car felt perfectly production ready (except for the lack of heating). I can’t wait to see something like that coming out from the factory in Trollhattan…
      (Not more than a decade, then I’m retired and will have no more moneys…)

      • You hit the nail on the head when you said “except for heating”
        An EV Saab will not work in northern climates…not in Sweden and not in Canada and northern USA…nowhere cold.

      • You hit the nail on the head when you said “except for heating”
        An EV Saab will not work in northern climates…not in Sweden and not in Canada and northern USA…nowhere cold. No EV car will be able to cope with the demands of cold climates.

        • Well, not agreeing. Tesla tested their roadster and modelS in Sweden, in winter. As a matter of fact, tesla is proud of the cars perform on snow. With its advanced rwd system, it works so well that there is little need for 4WD. Now, if you live in a colder region, you probably will want to get the highest capacity battery available…. Also, options like a kerosene heater might be considered. And plan your route adequately…

          • For how long did they run the test? A day, a week, a month, all winter long? The point is adding a kerosene heater is doing the exact opposite if your talking semantically. I thought the idea was to be more green? All that aside, technically speaking, chemical processes in ALL batteries are seriously temperature dependent. Here in Canada, a typical 700 CCA battery is only that at room temperature. At zero degrees Celcius it is only 50% efficient. You get my point? EV vehicles are not for all markets, period.

    • Dissing EV cars and technology? Nope, Not even close. Green moving of the masses is here to stay. Can NEVS afford to be a viable player when it’s trying a restart on shaky ground? That’s my point…and part of it is made up of the disclosure of how the public is duped into believing EV is THE future when it’s FAR from being present.

  13. If you’re talking about equivalent emissions it takes to produce the electricity to charge EV cars’ batteries then the issue has to be addressed by a country to country basis. And I don’t care what battery technology you’re talking about. The fact is the vast majority of countries produce “dirty” electricity. Here is a decent report put together with hard facts concerning EV data.

    • Well, that article ends by stating that “giving the EV the right juice, it’s no contest” to EVs advantage. Even with the oldest and dirtiest coal to electricity generation and the longest distance = dirtiest grid, an EV is at worst on parity with the most efficient ICE, including all CO2 costs for manufacturing of respective vehicle (figures I personally doubt).

      Furthermore: “Emissions are not just CO2, It would be good to include CO, O3, NOx, THC, PM10 in Emissions discussions also and contrast Street Level Emissions verses Grid Emission and its impact on Public Health…”

      It’s a complex issue with many variables, you must try to see the big picture. And then realize that fossil fuel is finite and its continued use and extraction will increase the environmental toll.

      “The last users of fossil fuels will be the remaining two armies…”

      • You’re right about the complex issue with many variables. We all know about the battle for the almighty dollar. Big oil, so far, always wins. Back in the late 60’s early 70’s we had government funded testing of alternative fuel vehicles. Natural gas was the focus for my father’s shop. That was when there were hardly any emission controls and we had opportunity to tear down several engines that had run 100,000 plus miles running on natural gas.

        Those engines were so squeaky clean with hardly any thick carbon deposits that was from the formation of sludge. Bear in mind that this was also before the ban on lead in gasoline. What was the outcome of the testing? nothing. Big oil lobbied hard enough against government that they were strong armed into abandoning the natural gas project.

        Natural gas was/is super cheap and very abundant in Alberta at 33 trillion cubic feet that is readily available. Another est 500 trillion cubic feet available from coal seems. Why isn’t it exploited while the brainiacs of the world develop truly viable “green” machines? Because it’s cheap. It’s not profitable. If only the public gave a shit enough to voice an opinion about “big oil companies” the world would be a much better place much faster.

        Hell…back in the 80’s when my Saab parts catalogues existed on microfiche (remember those?) the factory offerd two different propane systems for the H engine… Did anyone buy those??

        • Thanks Mark for sharing, interesting story.

          On a side note, a colleague’s god child, a genius but a fragile person, studied at Zurich Tech university (ZTH, same like Einstein), stayed there to develop a new battery technology and filed for a few patents. Without people skills, marketing or business flair he was unable to interest any established battery manufacturers (has this ever happened earlier and later?) but, eventually found a JV partner in Germany. He got paid a large initial amount but the IP rights where to be with then JV. After all papers were signed, the person representing the JV partner disappeared. A long investigation ensued, involving the Swiss police, later Interpol, and before being terminated, the investigation found evidence that Saudi interests where behind this activity, purchasing interesting energy IP to be put in the deep freezer. No crime could really be proven and the young inventor went to work in California. He encountered more disappointments, and suffered from depression and other psychological problems.
          The last I heard was that he lived in a shabby house in a shabby suburb of LA, drove a shabby car, living for shooting homemade rockets in the Californian deserts.

          Point – big oil is guarding their business the best they can… And we are addicted to oil!

          • That’s interesting. Are there any news features online to read specifics? If there’s a full scale conspiracy to keep EVs from progressing, the leaders of the free world are in on it too. The current U.S. President has showered alternative energy companies (including failing ones) with hundreds of millions (maybe billions) of dollars to try to find clean solutions. It’s a shame this person you know of couldn’t catch on at one of these places—-he’d have made an enormous salary and solved perplexing problems at the same time, unless even our government is keeping green energy down—and only paying these people for appearances sake. That would be a criminal waste of our money.

            • I have no online reference to what happened, only the poor guys godfather, who I worked for and with many times. We were together in LA where he had met up with his godson and on the way back to Switzerland he told me the story. This is approximately 20 years back, probably 1993-94 when I was told and this guy should probably been suckered a few years prior that, say end of 80’s. His payment had been in the order of a few hundred thousand German Marks for the IP that then belonged to the JV, to which he had lost all rights and control. After the guy moved to US he lived a very simple life, though he had been working on some EV project for some time….
              The story does not matter now (and I can’t remember all details), more than to explain the methods that Big Oil use to defend their positions. While most industries would probably do the same, I think most people living IN the US do not quite understand how a few big players (incl. Big Oil) affect and infect US politics, both domestic and international.

              Show me the “confirmed weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, for example…

  14. mmmm! in Sweden they have something called cold weather, where you have to keep a traditional car battery on charge when the vehicle is not in use for one reason, it will be flat if you do not. When you use the heater, the range drops, so how are the cars to keep charge in Sweden exactly? Also electric cherry pickers have notorious battery issues and do not last very long. Bad idea, badly thought through.

    • I’ve never ever put a charger on my battery in any of my 9-5’s, and it usually sits in the parking lot of Landvetter airport for at least a week at a time in temperatures of down to -30°C sometimes, car always starts perfectly fine every time! =)

      • My parents in Sweden, who don’t drive much anymore, recently replaced their aging Passat with the new Kia Ceed. (Not Saab fans). They have always mounted an engine block heater and a battery maintainer in their cars. When it gets really cold, they will plug this into mains at their leased outdoor parking spot, near their apartment. I’d say at least 25% of the local car owners have this and all the outdoor parking spots have the 220v connectors. What I am getting at is that while maybe different from what most people/drivers are used to, to plug in a car when parking and unplug it before driving is doable and will quickly become second nature. It will also eliminate the need to wait in line at the gasoline pumps…

        • The problem with todays cars is that they use extremely weak batteries… have a look under the hood of that Kia, you’ll probably find a 50Ah battery or perhaps smaller, no wonder it doesn’t cope with the cold…

          I too use an electric engine heater and coupe heater at home, but thats just so that I can drive on E85 during winter…

  15. These range statements should really be put away with. The “big” Tesla S has such a range Statement as well. 500 km. I was finally able to get Information on Tesla’s range when driven fast (yes, I drive fast), above 200 km/h, and it turned out to be 150 – 200 km. Not shaby, but not enough for most Saab drivers, I’d assume; at least not as their one-and-only car (at 100000 Euro, well…)

    • Why this range anxiety???
      Tesla clearly states the range as “up to…” Miles, depending on driving style, environment, climate control, etc. Their homepage even let’s you play with all the variables to get a realistic range. If you need range don’t drive 200kmh. If you want fun, go ahead, but don’t expect max range.

      I think NEVS EV Saab will have similar data and functionality. In any case, it can only get better and cheaper….

      • Well, I want to drive longer stretches in short time. It is not about fun, but about being bored and loosing time. And I believe that I am not the only one.

        • If I was living in Germany, I would say exactly the same thing. Going between the major cities, I’d try to maintain an average speed of 200 kph if at all possible. At least that is what I’ve done the few times I’ve been driving in Germany.

          • Ok, so today’s EVs are not suitable for prolonged Autobahn driving at speeds around 200kmh. I’d agree with that… But this is unique for a few roads in Germany. Normal highway speeds are 100-130 kmh, afaik.
            Again, an EV is not one for all purposes. But for many, it is absolutely sufficient. But it takes someone from outside of the classical established industry to develop this or these technologies, ie. Musk.

            • OK. I used the Tesla tool that estimates distance for various highway speeds and temperatures. Typical highway speed limits in the US are 65pmh(100kph), with some higher at 75mph. However, very few drive at 65mph. Most drive between 70 and 75, But funny, the Tesla tool doesn’t allow you to input speeds above 65mph, nor temperatures below 32F(0 C). At those parameters, range is 218 miles (350 Kilometers). Interpolating a bit, there appears to be about a 17mile drop in range for every additional 5mph, and about at 17mile drop for every 18degrees F. So for a car driven around 72-73mph at 32 degrees, range would be 218 – 25 = 193 miles (310 k) and about 175 miles at 18 degrees. That would be far below my requirement to get to our house in Martha’s Vineyard from New York (260 miles), or get to Vermont for skiing (300 miles). So even with a big battery, there’s a big gap between range and a somewhat typical scenario for anyone who is making medium distance weekend drives.

              • Great post Hugh. The fact that there’s even the need for an online “tool” to check range is ridiculous. Why do people want to be compromised this way? How silly. To these people I say: ” Buy an ICE vehicle. Go fill up at a gas station when you’re at 1/4 tank or so—-stop the drama, stop the nonsense.” Geesh.

          • To Thylmuc: This is part of Evolution. We cannot expect 500km of range just like that. Rember we are a small company . Even if we would be able to go 200km , fully loaded in winter, i would be very pleased and i think the car would be very competitve to other brands….

            • 200km might be fine for driving around town, but it’s really not very far. For instance, our daughter lives in suburban New York CIty and her husband commutes by car to the city, a round trip of about 150km. There’s no way that he would feel safe driving that in winter with the possibility of traffic tieups with a car with a range of 200km.

              Yes, this is a matter of evolution, but small company or not, I’m afraid that there is an extremely limited market in the US, and probably Europe also, for a vehicle with a listed range of 200km, even if 200km was under winter driving conditions and speeds of 120km/hr, which I assume that it’s not. And competitive to what? Other brands that don’t meet the needs of most drivers? Competitive to Audi and BMW, or competitive to KIA and VW? Following is a quote from VW’s announcement where they address the real possibility of someone running out of juice in what I think is essentially a joke of a solution:

              “To make owners worry less about running out of juice, VW has an interesting roadside assistance program that will deliver the car to a nearby charger when they are within 100 miles of home. VW will also spring for a taxi ride home or to work if they decide not to stick around while the car recharges.”

              • Hugh: Are you joking or did Volkswagen actually publish something so ridiculous and harmful (to this whole EV idea) ? It’s supposed to make drivers feel secure that in the dead of Winter, they’ll wait in a freezing car for the “interesting” tow truck driver to rescue them? Wow. Every once in a while, there are surprise weather events, like ice/snow when rain is expected. In these cases, if you live near and work in a city—-you WILL be a victim of historic traffic jams. You could easily end up on the road for several hours or more to travel less than 10 miles. Cars run out of gas in these events—if people drive around without enough gas in the tank and are caught off guard, they get stranded. I have to believe someone in an EV—not moving much for hours—-but keeping the heat on—-would run out of charge. It happened here in the Washington, DC area a couple years ago. Nissan Leafs (or is that Leaves?) found on road dead.

                • It sure sounds like a joke but this is a quote from their news release dated 11.13.13 at
                  Customer Experience
                  “Volkswagen intends to make the e-Golf ownership experience as seamless as possible. This includes offering a Roadside Assistance Plan that’s designed to take the anxiety out of “range anxiety”. For instance, if the customer runs out of charge and is within 100 miles of their home, Volkswagen’s Roadside Assistance provider will deliver the car to a nearby and convenient source for charging and will even pay for the customer to take a taxi home or to work if they decide not to travel with the car. The plan covers unlimited events.”

                  • Okay, I think I have it figured out. Volkswagen has no interest in selling EVs. They feel that EVs are a necessary nuisance to pacify some well placed meddlers. So by releasing something like this—-it’s a subliminal way of telling people “You really don’t want one of these, seriously, you really don’t want one. Get a proven petrol or diesel Golf or Jetta—-get ANYTHING except an EV.” Please—-they are basically laying out there, the “unlimited events” that will drive an owner crazy—the fact that they’ll be riding in a taxi—-the scenario that the driver could be 99 miles from home and stranded in a dead car. Even using the words “range anxiety” is a method to plant the seeds of doubt. Wow.

                  • Hey, but if I’m wrong and people flock to the e-Golf, just think how history might have been different for Yugo: “We at Yugo realize that you’ve heard that our cars are junk. So to give you peace of mind, Yugo introduces the SAR Ownership Experience. SAR stands for “Search And Rescue” and we pledge to send a tow truck out to your location to take your Yugo to the nearest dealership or junkyard—and will give you a bus token to get home. If there is no bus service in the area, please refer to the hitch hiker guide supplement to your owners manual.”

                    • It’s just because an EV it is soooo efficient, there is no spill or waste energy to make heat. It’s up to you, what temperature is comfortable and what range do you need…?

                    • In an efficient EV, energy is energy – you decide what to use it for, range, heat, cool, light, wipers, ZZ top?, etc…
                      In an inefficient ICE, at least 80% is wasted as various heat losses. So the heating is for “free” and an a/c only takes a few percent of the energy, maiking little overall difference.

                    • I don’t want to have to decide in order to make it home or to where I’m going. In a gas engined car, I’ve never had to decide between comfort and how far it will go. I stop and refuel. This is insanity.

                    • Hey Angel, I start to believe you should not get an EV…???

                      But get back to the subject when gas is 10+ USD a gallon, or maybe even per Litre… Or when your family is choking on the local fracking and oil sand extraction pollution.
                      When that happens nobody knows, I certainly hope not in my lifetime, as it will disrupt society and civil life as we know it. I am also change my statement that “the last drivers of gasoline vehicles will be the two remaining armies” to “the one remaining army”. The dependence on oil has already killed, slaughtered and maimed thousands of people, also americans, so I don’t quite understand the reluctance to EVs as one of a few first steps to clean up our doorstep. “Oh, it’s too cold, to hot, to short range, takes me too long to recharge”….? Well, if my kids would say that, I’d say “spoiled effing brats!”

                      …and it will only get better from there…

                    • There’s no reason (other than government meddling) for gas to be over $10.00 per gallon in the U.S. in the foreseeable future. Inflation can make the cost go up but relative to everything else, gas should not spike—unless people in power decide they WANT to make it unaffordable for the masses—for example, if they stupidly believe that they can control the climate by doing so. As for fracking, it’s like anything else—-risk/reward and here is a case where I’m all for regulation/oversight as long as it’s done responsibly—to prevent a catastrophe but NOT to throttle efforts to extract the energy that we need. It’s so hilarious though—-because the energy to recharge batteries comes largely from coal and other fossil fuels, nuclear, etc. And the same people in favor of EVs seem to object to nuclear as well as oil, coal, natural gas and just about everything else. Wind and solar they say, wind and solar. We know that wind and solar won’t cover even 15% of our energy needs in the next couple decades—-and not much more than that this century. So I guess they want us to go back to the caves? What we know is that there’s plenty of supply of the traditional fuels in the ground and nuclear is a rational, clean option. Let’s focus on those please and then at the turn of the century, we can pursue these other fantasies.

            • Anton Björklund: There are several concerns I have. First, let me say that I am absolutely in favor of EVs, and have been following the discussion and developments for several years. Concerns:
              -A new technology intending to replace and older one that might eventually come to an end for external reasons, still has to compete with that old technology. As far as I can see, that is presently not the case with EVs vs. ICEs, in most practical regards (top speed, range, towing capacity, overall costs). The same holds for example, for CMOS technology in chip manufacturing, or, to stay in the automotive field, alternatives to the somewhat old-fashioned reciprocating engines (Wankel, gas turbines). Saab could well become a victim of this still rather experimental phase.
              -If fuel prices continue to climb, while battery development stagnates, that will have a major impact on many people’s life style; for the worse. We could end up in a situation where operational costs of conventional cars become prohibitive for most People, while the Initial Investment in EVs might still be prohibitive for those people. Individual transportation may once again become a privilege of the wealthy.
              -Aside from the above two aspects, that are somewhat of “temporal” nature, i.e. at what time, what will happen or be available in relation to what would be needed, there is also something like a non temporal risk. Progess in the two fields of energy storage costs/density, and energy generation costs cannot be taken for granted. This is not Computer science, where there was brutal progress for more than 40 years. It might well turn out that we will never find a way to store more electrical energy in the same volume/weight/cost frame. When the topic came up first in the public, in about 2008, there where lots of press reports on potential improvements in battery tech, with up to ten fold energy density (Wikipedia is full of this stuff). Five years later, None of those were incorporated into a commercial product. Oops.

  16. I was watching a TV advert for one of the Japanese Car Manufacturers [Toyota or Nissan].

    As the advert was running to the end the small writing [disclaimer/facts] was shown a the bottom of the screen & it said ‘price xxxx’ plus cost of monthly battery hire…….

    This will be a crunch thing with any new all EV. The batteries will wear out & the cost to replace will be high, so there is the question?…..Batteries, Cost & do you buy with the car or lease them, or operate a swap when discharge service, or what… An expensive thing to set up such a network, so NEVs will need to get it right.

    NEVs also say the main batteries will be fitted to the car in china, so there is not likely to be an EU version for some time yet.

    In reading the title of this post ”First version of the electrical drivetrain ready for the 9-3 sedan’…
    What does this mean?, is there a second version being readied to follow the first version?.
    It could be like the current ICE 9.3N on offer, in a few months a second version will be readied, with a facelift..

  17. Great news. I hope NEVS will focus on Biopower, EV en fuel cell powertrains. I think their benchmark for EV will be Tesla. (In The Netherlands around 3200 EV were sold, 616 Tesla Model S, up to november this year) For Europe Tesla ships the car body and the powertrains seperately over to the Netherlands. The cars are assemblied over here for the European market in order to avoud massive import duties. I don’t know how this will work for Saab. (getting the EV powertrain over to Trollhattan?)

    • I guess the return freighters, after delivering the Saab shell to Qingdao for EV drivetrain installation can bring back some EV drivetrains for installation in Trollhattan, for the local market…???

  18. “Saabs will be produced in Trollhattan and completed in China with unknown battery technology solely for the Chinese market. Some autos will be sold in Sweden and perhaps no other countries. Your guess is as good as ours but don’t count on much for the next 5 years for our non-Euro friends.

    Though still beautifully aggressive and stylish, these somewhat outdated models, with a range of roughly 200 km, will be available to the Chinese with absolutely no charging infrastructure. Fleet sales will require long extension cords for the time being but this contingency was expected based loosely on translated press releases of unknown origin.

    The business plan to introduce “green” technology in China, beyond mass transit efforts, is expected to be heartily adopted by the populace in the not-so-distant future. There is concern that the Flying Car Consortium could make significant strides but officials were quick to dismiss the notion with a polite wave of the hand and locking of doors.

    We are happy to report that the negative impact of battery production and disposal will rest solely upon the Chinese and we trust they will do so in an eco-friendly manner. ‘Out of site, out of mind’ as the old saying goes since the idea of going green outweighs common sense these cold, cold days.

    Hug your loved one or simply yourself, if you must, but do stay warm and keep that beautiful Saab faith marching on (you two-strokers know what we’re talking about!).”

    Can one really “troll” a Swedish blog? 🙂

  19. So… Tesla is a pure electric and it continues to roll out. Fisker has a “hybrid” solution and the company seems dead. I guess I prefer SAAB to go fully electric then.

    • But Dave, that’s oversimplifying it. I can do the same thing: “Toyota sells far more hybrids than Tesla sells EVs, so I guess I prefer Saab to go hybrid then.” Two can play at that game and a game it is. There are a whole lot of reasons why Tesla is still around and Fisker is being ushered out and the least of those reasons is probably EV vs. Hybrid technology. I understand why some people want to make a case that EVs are the future and hybrids aren’t (even though I don’t agree with that) but using these two companies to promote that assertion is absurd, at least in my opinion.

    • Does not matter if its EV or Petrol SAAB. It only matters how good it is.
      If its EV it should be at least good as Tesla.
      If its entry level petrol/E85 it should be as economical as VAG cars are. (a3 new / golf 7 etc with 1.2tsi+dsg)
      If its hybrid. Well, when you make both good EV and Petrol car you should know how to deal with it. Also i don’t think hybrids are something special. For it looks like another eco feature, like start stop.
      If its diesel – it should be economical, like 320d
      If its performance car – it should be faster than AMG with 4matic

      Personally i see myself both in high performance EV or Petrol SAAB. Only thing i care is safety.

      And yes – i love idea of direct sales.

  20. if nevs or any other electric auto manufacturer out there cannot offer range of at least 500 clicks [km’s] then hybrid must be the way to go, for australian residents ev’s will not work, nevs have to aim for every sale possible, placing all your bets on china and ev’s has some serious risks, they should just aim for selling each vehicle produced at a profit [acceptable return on investment], the very smart people at porsche went hybrid with the 918 and nevs should ask themselves why?…

  21. EV’s make a lot of sense, in the right circumstances. As a second car for a family, they are perfect. If you are going to buy a second car anyway, for around 20K with incentives you can get and EV and drive around at 1/10th the cost of gas. Plus your kid is limited by range…how perfect is that!!!!

    • Consider the 1/10th as a myth. Assuming a Tesla S, and with decent driving, for a typical stretch of 600 km (Home to my parents’ home), you need like two charges of the batteries of 80 kWh, i.e. about 150 kWh. That will equate to 150 x 0.25 Euro = 37,5 Euro here in Germany. In contrast, using my 9-5 TiD, I will need about 50 litres Diesel fuel, i.e. something like 70 Euro. Even if these numbers could be somewhat influenced by how one drives, the relation will be between 1/2 and 1/3 of the costs.

      • If you then average out the cost of the replace battery that will be required on due course the gap closes even further. Added to which there is no guarantee that the energy companies wont double the price of electricity over the next few years with the excuse that they need the funds for new power stations!

          • Indeed. The owners of the oil companies will be looking to get out n whatever replaces their oil products. BP some time back rebranded themselves. Next the government – they won’t want prices or company profits to drop because that will lower their tax take.

        • Or, and this seems more realistic, that the governments decide to raise taxes on “mobility electricity”, to compensate for less tax collection in the field of fossile fuels. Keep in mind that in most European countries, the biggest chunk in the fuel prices is actually taxes.

          • The U.S. government takes far more money for each gallon of gasoline sold than the oil companies/gas station owners do. And they do absolutely nothing to deserve it really.

              • Yepper, not to mention the outlandish social spending and propping up failures like Solyndra. Green energy millionaires and military industry giants have been made with the money we’ve borrowed Sandy. Why are you ignoring the other wasteful spending and focusing on national defense? Defense spending is in our constitution, “free everything” isn’t.

                • I am not american and do not live in america. Your social spending does not affect me directly, but I fear the day that nobody shows up to buy the US gov bonds to fund the QE and deficit spending. The Chinese have in effect sponsored all your government programs (incl. military spending!).
                  My issue is with the US (big oil) foreign interest and action, that is killing people, including americans, everyday. Your constitution even states that America should not get involved in “foreign entanglements” for whatever reason. That few influential people can lobby the US government and military into doing their (dirty) wars is regrettable, to say the least.

                  If we could get away from our oil addiction with other energy sources, where feasible and where it makes sense, I believe the world would be much more peaceful.

                  World Peace, brother…

                  • I agree that we need to get off foreign oil—-which can be accomplished through American land and offshore oil exploration, coal, nuclear, natural gas—-along with wind and solar. The problem is that wind and solar alone won’t get us off foreign oil—-and liberal obstructionists are standing in the way of the other energy initiatives. Regarding our borrowing from China—who holds such a huge amount of our debt—-crushing our economy by calling in the notes will also crush their economy, as we are the ones buying so many of their goods—-everywhere you turn in the U.S., in almost every store you go to, “Made In China” is the order of the day. When our economy crumbles and our consumers can’t afford those goods—-Chinese factories suffer and so does their economy. We’re linked it seems.

      • Depends on your cost of electricity. In Toronto, off peak power is 10 cents/kwh, so 150 KWH will only cost $15 or about 11 Euro, so 11 Euro vs 70 Euro? Pretty massive savings.

  22. A bit off topic, but I was frothing (foaming) milk for a cappuccino this morning and the electric motor behavior reminded me in some way of my 900 turbo classic.
    If NEVS could develop a (bit more powerful ;)) similar behaving electrical motor to get some electric power boost when passing ICE or Hydrogen driven BMW’s I’d buy one.

    Link youtube 0:54-1:00 (warning: do not watch the entire video ;))

        • Maybe NEVS could revolutionize the industry with a dash mounted cappuccino maker. I’d prefer that over factory GPS. My Magellan gets me where I’m going—-but it doesn’t serve cappuccino.

          • Sounds like a new excuse for being late for work. “No sir,my Magellan has the directions right, but my battery died while I was making my third cup of coffee”.

            • Yes and if the government really wants to force EVs on us, they could pass legislation making it illegal to fire an employee who is late for work because their EV crapped out of power. They seem to be giving them every other advantage, so why not?

              • On the other hand, considering the exponential growth of technological progress in general, within a few years the coffee might even not be cooled to drinking temperature in the time needed to charge the EV. Which would be a shame, I’d love to have a small ‘forced’ coffee break to watch my brand new SAAB charge. Just enyoing the view…

                • That would be a good problem to have Black Arrow. But exponential growth of batteries/recharging has lagged far behind other technologies. Thomas Edison was doing electric cars well over 100 years ago.

                  • But then there was oil, which is of course much easier to sell en exploit. So there was no need to invest in the development of EVs. Apparently lately some people do think that in the near future some kind of profit can be made in selling EV’s. I do expect massive progression within a couple of years. We’ll see…

                    • Edison developed his car strictly for profits too. It was Goliath vs. Goliath to try to establish which form of propulsion would become the most popular and make the most money. I think gasoline won out for a lot of reasons—-including the fact that it made more sense at the time. I think it still does. It will eventually be replaced, but I don’t see that as being only a couple years. I’d lean more toward a couple decades. And then, it might not be replaced by EVs as we know them today.

  23. I don’t know, personally, as fact that the burning of fossil fuel is the main contributor to global warming. I don’t even know global warming is mostly due to human activities at all (conveniently). Still, burning of our finite fossil fuel results in harmful substances and compounds. That is why I feel that as long as we are burning these finite fossil fuel we should do so carefully and generate as much useful energy as possible of each unit burned. I am not against nuclear or oil or coal. I just think we need to use what we have as efficient as we possible know and can.

    New coal co generating power plants (CHP) are reaching efficiencies of over 90%, over 40% coal to electricity efficiency, the rest used for district heating. This is being done today in Scandinavia and Germany. But there are NO coal driven vehicles…

    Mass air transport is probably never going electric, but I’m still concerned about its pollution, putting the exhaust directly into the high atmosphere…

    For very long distances, heavy road transport, fast speeds, there will also be more developments required for electrical propulsion to be viable. So, today, for personal transportation over shorter (medium) distances I see EVs ARE already viable, usable and attractive for a lot of drivers. Teslas ModelS is the pinnacle of that fact today. Prices are still too high for most people, but that’s where NEVS and new Saab comes in, their niche. Medium priced EVs with decent range for many people’s transportation needs. BUT not for all of you, that’s clear to me, now…

    It’s just that an EV is so much more energy efficient, even from well to wheel, cradle to coffin, all considered, even when running on electricity from coal. Then you can also run it 100% renewable energy, be it hydro, solar, wind. That it then is also so much fun to drive (if you don’t want/need to maximize the range) with huge torque from stand still, is just extra.

    So, where is my solar charged Saab EV CV ????

    • Do you have any concerns about the mining activities for the chemicals/materials in the batteries or the long term disposal of these batteries if we really do convert the majority of cars to EVs? That would put EVs in the millions.

      • Obviously.
        Calculations, assessments, analyses have to be done from a whole picture big picture, well to wheel, cradle to grave. When people talk about the “bad” batteries, it has to be seen in the complete gasoline from oil perspective and relation. It is all relative. IMO, the oil, location, resources, extraction and related politics on a world stage has to included in the evaluation.
        And agree, most first adopters of EVs with limited range will likely be multi vehicle households. I’d be one…

        • And honestly, the act of buying any new car is damaging to the environment. If you have an older car that you like—-even if it’s not at all fuel efficient and even if it’s so old—-it’s emissions systems are outdated and it pollutes more than a more modern car—-keeping that vehicle and driving it, fixing it, driving it until it can no longer be fixed in a financially feasible way—-THAT is much more responsible for the environment than trading it in for a new car. Now, I’m all about drivers for the world economies—-so I’m all for people who can afford to—-buying new cars—-expensive ones even—-whatever they want. And along with the cars, God bless them if they buy boats, planes and designer clothes too. I believe that is good for all of us—-including wage slaves like me. People at the top, making a lot and spending a lot, keeps the rest of us in a relative prosperous state too. But, if you are a true environmentalist, rather than being proud of being seen in a Prius or an EV—-you should be prouder to be seen in an ’89 Chevy Caprice. Yep—-it’s big, it uses a lot of gas and all—-but by holding that car forever and not buying a brand new vehicle, you are doing the Earth a big favor. When you consider everything that goes into a new car—-plastics/vinyls, leather, metals, glass, rubber—-the energy to extract these materials from the Earth, the energy to move these materials to factories, the energy to move those materials from factories to assembly plants—-painting—-the energy to keep the factories going—-the act of then moving the newly finished cars out of the factory to ports—-then the energy and pollution from getting these cars to dealerships all over the place—-all the pollution along the way, cradle to grave as you say—-if you limited a car purchase to once every 20 years or even longer—-instead of once every 4 or 5 years—-or more frequently than that—-think of the slow-down you’d have on damage to the planet, right? So respect the poor dolt driving around in his old gas hog clunker, because he’s being far kinder to the planet than the eco-weenie in the shiny new Chevy Volt.

          • Agree on this one, Angelo.. However, few cars manufactured the last 30-40 years were designed, engineered or built to last more than a few hundred thousand miles. Especially, as labor cost increases, so does all service, maintenance and repair costs.
            Now, with an EV, there are no real scheduled maintenance. Tesla recommends you bring the car in at least annually to rotate the tires and check brake fluid level – that’s it. The car can last virtually for ever, like your old electrical shaver. Change the battery pack after 300,000 miles or 10 years and you are back on the road.

  24. Interestingly, I did some research on battery production and disposal. Presently there are two battery types used in EV cars. Nickel-metal hydride batteries are commonly recycled around the world mostly because it is profitable to do so. Lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt batteries used in advanced EV cars (such as the Leaf) is another story. It seems, at the ‘Plug-in 2013’ conference in San Diego this past October, that once an EV’s battery is less than 75% efficient it is no longer viable as the energy source in the car. One method of recycling is to install these “almost spent” batteries onto the grid to act as buffers for wind/solar installations to ensure a more even flow of juice. I wonder how much space all those buffers are going to take up…

    There are active recycling plants in Europe but there is only one, under construction, in Ohio. It doesn’t seem to add up. The need or ability to recycle EV batteries compared to the number of EV cars on the road is suspect to me. That’s all beside the fact that Angelo pointed out as to the large-scale mining of rare and environmentally dangerous materials. Heck, it “may” be even dirtier than extracting oil from sand (tongue in cheek). I have to get my digs in somewhere…

    Another interesting fact pointed out at the conference stated that two large scale power delivery companies have just gone bankrupt. Why? Because it is not profitable…even if Nissan subsidizes a charging station network to the tune of 1.2 million dollars a month. How long do you think THAT is going to last? The bankrupt power delivery stations are now in suspended animation because bankruptcy courts can’t find a viable way to liquidate other than pouring gobs of cash into the dead ventures.

    I’m much more a fan of hybrid technology than pure EV. This is good discussion…I hope NEVS is listening.

    • Mark: Also, I read that drilling for oil, fracking for natural gas and even mining for coal—–takes place far below the Earth’s surface. There is risk of environmental dangers, water contamination, etc.—-but if done correctly/safely, can have a minimal impact. But mining for the materials for these EV batteries is much, much closer to the surface and apparently, can do serious damage—-leaving the areas in question off limits for many decades, stripped. I’m not a scientist, so I can’t describe it better than that—-but people should do some reading on this before they declare that EVs are some sort of Godsend to protect the environment. And that doesn’t even begin to consider the disposal of these large batteries.

      • …hmm, and the Deepwater Horizon was just one off…???
        …and the nuclear power projected to be needed for the oil sand extraction is not an issue….??? (expecting to put in some 90% of the energy extracted)
        …and the (oil-) wars and “foreign entanglements” in the middle east is enough far away to ignore…???
        Big Oil is affecting everyone, everywhere, battery manufacturing & recycling and is a local matter and can be done perfectly safe…

        • And regarding the Deepwater Horizon, it didn’t lead to the consequences environmentalists were HOPING FOR. That’s right, they WANTED a bigger catastrophe than this has turned out to be. And wars in the middle east—-oil related, or the result of people imposing their will on others, having nothing to do with oil—-and flying planes into buildings in the process? My office was located within a couple miles of the Pentagon on 9-11. I understand what compelled us to go to war in the middle east and it wasn’t oil. I got a very close first hand look at it.

  25. So local swedish “green” news:
    “A vision for a fossil fuel independent vehicle fleet by 2030”

    Sweden is lucky in many ways, being able to produce a lot if its energy CO2 free, be it hydro, nuclear, wind and CO2 neutral with wood chips and energy forests. Also, studies being made with biomass.

  26. Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group
    Uppsala University, Sweden


    WHEREAS the passage of history has recorded an increasing pace of change, such that the demand for energy has grown rapidly over the past 200 years since the Industrial Revolution;

    WHEREAS the required energy supply has come mainly from coal and petroleum formed but rarely in the geological past, such resources being inevitably subject to depletion;

    WHEREAS oil provides 90 percent of transport fuel, essential to trade, and plays a critical role in agriculture, needed to feed an expanding population;

    WHEREAS oil is unevenly distributed on the Planet for well-understood geological reasons, with much being concentrated in five countries bordering the Persian Gulf;

    WHEREAS all the major productive provinces had been identified with the help of advanced technology and growing geological knowledge, it being now evident that discovery reached a peak in the 1960s;

    WHEREAS the past peak of discovery inevitably leads to a corresponding peak in production during the first decade of the 21st Century, assuming the extrapolation of past production trends and no radical decline in demand;

    WHEREAS the onset of the decline of this critical resource affects all aspects of modern life, such having political and geopolitical implications;

    WHEREAS it is expedient to plan an orderly transition to the new environment, making early provisions to reduce the waste of energy, stimulate the entry of substitute energies, and extend the life of the remaining oil;

    WHEREAS it is desirable to meet the challenges so arising in a co-operative manner, such to address related climate change concerns, economic and financial stability and the threats of conflicts for access to critical resources.



    A convention of nations shall be called to consider the issue with a view to agreeing an Accord with the following objectives:
    a. to avoid profiteering from shortage, such that oil prices may remain in reasonable relationship with production cost;
    b. to allow poor countries to afford their imports;
    c. to avoid destabilising financial flows arising from excessive oil prices;
    d. to encourage consumers to avoid waste;
    e. to stimulate the development of alternative energies.
    Such an Accord shall having the following outline provisions:
    a. No country shall produce oil at above its current Depletion Rate, such being defined as annual production as a percentage of the estimated amount left to produce;
    b. Each importing country shall reduce its imports to match the current World Depletion Rate.
    Detailed provisions shall be agreed with respect to the definition of categories of oil, exemptions and qualifications, and scientific procedures for the estimation of future discovery and production.
    The signatory countries shall cooperate in providing information on their reserves, allowing full technical audit, such that the Depletion Rate shall be accurately determined.
    Countries shall have the right to appeal their assessed Depletion Rate in the event of changed circumstances.

    Proposed by
    Colin J. Campbelll and Kjell Aleklett
    Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group
    Uppsala University, Sweden

      • Trust the market to sort out the EV versus ICE question. When ICE’s are truly as efficient, reliable, easily charged and affordable as ICE’s, then they will have a future. But until that time, all of the government arm twisting and “marketing” won’t build true demand — only the free market can do that. I hope you’re not advocating a “command economy”, where the government dictates what manufacturers must produce, and consumers must purchase. History shows that a command economy is a losing proposition.

        • People who want to impose their beliefs on others don’t trust “the market” or anything else to sort out any questions. They want top-down control over our lives.

          • The “free market” operates off of essentially two variables; consumption and production, with consumption largely tied to pricing for the end user. There are benefits and drawbacks to this; one benefit being that Joe Schmo from kokomo can, at least in theory, come up with an idea, find the means to produce it and then attempt to make a profit. That then is fine for Joe. Socially and Environmentally however, there may be some serious negative implications to his idea. This is where Libertarians (in particular Ayn Rand style right libertarians) fail in my opinion. They can’t see past the market and understand that people generally do not make an informed choice about much of anything, they base their decisions on what looks the biggest and costs the least. This is why the “poor man pays twice” phenomena exists. Upon making a purchase, people only think of their immediate concerns and not their long term needs.

            Libertarianism would work in a society of educated (not necessarily through formal means but people who do their research when it comes to buying a product) persons or intellectuals. The vast majority of everyone out there falls into neither category. That then, is why a Mixed- Market economy has the least drawbacks out of any current system.

            Bringing it back to Saab, I have a friend who has his own firm dealing with the development of business plans. After asking him to look into NEVS, his response was essentially “it looks like this is the SAAB brand’s last shot. They have to try something different than in the past (which they seem to be doing now) or they will end up the automotive equivalent of the Pennsylvania Railroad.”

            My 0.02$

            • Well again, trying “something different” can mean a lot of different things. EVs aren’t really different—-other manufacturers—-far better funded—-have EVs already on the market and others in development. In fact, the EV business hasn’t really done much for these others, so it’s hard for me to see how it will do much for Saab. The China market might be their salvation I guess—-but there are other Chinese car companies and other car companies doing business in China, fully capable of producing EVs. I’m just not seeing where Saab being a “mostly electric” company is going to accomplish a whole heck of a lot as far as their product positioning, image or reputation is concerned. I actually see it losing more than it gains. As for your other point—-I take exception with the notion that “someone” has to protect us from ourselves. There is no one who knows more than I do what is best for my family and me. I want to make the decisions—-and not leave it to a government bureaucrat. Further, many of the advancements and inventions we value most were/are the result of the concept of a person using their talent, time and energy to develop an idea—-something to make life better for everyone—-that in turn, will make that person rich—-able to take care of their loved ones for generations by striking it rich—based on a fabulous idea. Most of the conveniences we enjoy today are the fruit of that labor. I don’t want that interrupted by government bullies who have never had to make a payroll—-who never created wealth or took any type of risk to better themselves. Those are the LAST people I want interjecting themselves into my life.

            • Good point – water is likely the next fluid we go to war for, but probably less US centric.
              I drink water, I loose it, no problems.
              Oil, different story entirely.
              I might come across as an enemy of oil, but not so. Read somewhere oil is probably one of the most versatile fluids on earth and in history. It’s just a shame to war over it and burn it and make all kinds of political shinanigans to control it.
              Perfect free markets? They exist only the academic world, on paper. In reality, there are no such thing….

    • When it comes to petroleum, people have predicted that the sky is falling since before the first oil crisis in the 1970’s, but EVERY prediction has been WRONG. The prediction that there will be no more cheap oil is a manufactured crisis. New drilling technologies are revolutionizing oil recovery and none of this was predicted even a decade ago. The world is swimming in petroleum — it is governments that keep the price high in order to control economies, and the global warming farce is part of this control mechanism dreamed up and executed by those who do not believe in free markets and free economies. A free market will always level the playing field. And IF electric vehicles ever do gain traction it will be because of entrepreneurs using the free market to develop these technologies, NOT top down central planning that is being used now to force people into EV’s. Sandy, are you so arrogant that you think you know what’s best for everyone? Please take a step back and quit preaching about your utopian electric vision for the world. I come to SU to read about what has been my favorite car brand, not to be indoctrinated.

      • I don’t mind debating Sandy as I don’t believe Sandy’s intentions are bad—-but the fact is, your post is correct. As a child in elementary school, I remember reading in a kid’s news letter that “man’s pollution” was about to cause a new ice age in a couple decades if we didn’t stop industrial polluting. That was around 1973. Well, 20 years later, a big buffoon former American Vice President changed direction (as the winds changed) and started talking about how it was getting too hot, not too cold. But aside from that small detail (“we’ll boil to death” instead of “we’ll freeze to death”) it was the same crap sandwich about “human kind ruining the planet.” This lie has made millionaires out of dopes, over and over. Time for sane people to soundly reject it. And how that relates to Saabs/cars is simple: Saab Dog, you’re right—-the market will determine it. EVs have a lot of serious advantages over ICE powered cars. If there’s a way to improve the range dramatically, as shorten the charging time or make battery swaps simple/easy—-like filling your car with gas—-and bring the price closer to where ICE cars are—-EVs will take over, because people will want them—–not because we’ll be cohersed into buying them by eco-bullies.

        • Angelo, thanks for a balanced post. I do enjoy this debate and trust me, it is a personal choice. Most of us have a choice, and are free to air our opinion. If an EV is not right for you – don’t get one!
          I’ve been an EV freak for many years, and am not trying to convert anybody, just bring some of my accumulated opinions across. I am not against oil, per se, it;s one of the world’s most versatile fluids, with thousands of uses. I just find it a shame that we burn it. It is not the best use of it, IMO.
          And I don’t want to bully anyone, less be an “eco-bully”. My uncle called the whole environmental movement “eco-facsists” by the way. Names aside, I think this is a good debate, and I am obviously subjective with my own needs, experiences and opinions.
          But all that aside – I really think that NEVS knows what they are doing and where they want to go. They are not stupid. I think their plans will fit me perfectly, if I eventually can get my hands on my CV EV!!!

        • Also, I work and live in one of the planets oil producing countries… I know people in the oil industry and talk to them frequently. Ie. did you know that most of the oil (and gas) is radio active, requiring serious scrubbing at source before any further use?
          It is also clear that while technologies develop generally, and we will continue to find oil for the foreseeable future, it’s extraction IS getting ever more difficult and troublesome with more impact on the environment. Obviously, there will be choices to be made, and I know that US has avoided to extract and use some of their richest domestic oil and gas resources, still in “deep reserves”.

          …and ever seen the warning labels (and tax) on the cigarette package or the beer label? The government’s reach is long, only to protect its citizens????

  27. So, just been to a Tesla showroom.
    They state that their propeitary battery technology is good for about 300.000 miles or 8-12 years. The batteries are today 98% recyclable with no harmful remaining substances….
    The model S is stunning, and next year model X with electric 4wd will be presented.
    In 2015 the third (fourth) model will be shown, at a much lower price point, allowing for salaried people to enter the EV market (LEAF?). But maybe by then there will be a Saab option available…???
    More EV news from Tesla – the Supercharger is extended continuously, and soon with a 30 minute charge form empty to full, you can plan to do road trips anywhere in the US. In Europe, Tesla is just finishing the Supercharger network in Germany, allowing pure electric road trips throughout that country. In Sweden they are just starting their distribution and infrastructure buildup.
    The future IS electrifying!

    • If all of this is true and comes to fruition, no doubt I’ll be joining you on the electric bandwagon. I don’t mind being late to the party—-it’s better than not going and by being a little late, it affords me the opportunity to make sure the cops don’t break the party up early. I’ve never owned a car for 300,000 miles, but I’ve owned many cars older than 8 years and sometimes longer than 8 years. 8-12 years might work out—but what is the cost to replace the battery after its useful life? And what is the warranty on it? 8 years I’d hope, if they claim 8 years minimum life?

      • Yep, both battery options have an 8 year warranty, while the smaller is limited to 125,000 miles. No limit on the larger battery pack….
        I did not ask for specifics, but I believe this is for a 90% capacity/range….

      • I believe that the California Air Resources Board requires a 10 year/150000 mile warranty on the main propulsion battery if a manufacturer is claiming ZEV credits. Since Telsa is selling their ZEV credits to Honda and others (this is where their U.S. profit comes from), they must honor the California battery warranty. The 8 year warranty is probably for non-California cars. This is not unlike ICE vehicles that have different emission warranty requirements for California vs Federal sold units.

Comments are closed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.