After failing to ascend to the top slot at software maker SAP, forty-year-old Israeli entrepreneur Shai Agassi has decided to populate the world with electric car recharging stations. The International Herald Tribune reports Agassi's newly-founded "Project Better Place's" plans to "extend the existing electric-power grids with a wide network of intelligent recharging stations in urban areas." Sticking to the cellular phone biz model, Agassi wants to sell motorists juice on a subscription basis, and lease and/or finance the vehicles to end users (that's motorists to you and me). And here's the big difference between your silly ideas and his: the software maven has raised $200m to fund his ambitions. Investors include Israel Corp. (a transportation and technology holding company), Vantage Point Venture Partners (Tesla's backers) and private investors such as booze billionaire Edgar Bronfman Sr. and former World Bank head James Wolfensohn (uh-oh). As for the problem of waiting for a recharge, Agassi envisions a smaller number of "car wash style" automated battery-swapping stations. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that Tesla has yet to deliver a single electric roadster to a customer after multiple production delays, while iPhone has delivered over 1.4m units since its scheduled launch. 

There's a lot riding on battery-maker A123's high energy capacitors. Their technology must be improved, tested and perfected for GM's Chevy Volt to make the transition from vaporware to showroom smash. According to Red Herring (how ironic is that?), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and five blue chip companies have placed their chips on the Massachusetts-based high-tech firm: Procter & Gamble (think Duracell), Alliance Capital, Motorola (think cell phones), Qualcomm and General Electric. Not to mention YOU, the American taxpayer. OnPoint, the U.S. Army's investment arm (I'm not making that up) gave A123 a financial boost during its fourth, $40m round of venture capital fund raising. Earlier this week, existing (that's you again) and new investors added another $30m to A123's kitty. And yesterday, GE scored two Department of Energy projects worth $6.8m to "accelerate the development of plug-in hybrids." A123 will perform the research on GE's behalf. Meanwhile, A123 has a drop-deadline of 2010 to get the Volt's batteries ship-shape. If GM loses face on this one, A123 will find it a lot harder to raise funds in the future.  

"'People who took interest in electric vehicles are showing interest in plug-in' vehicles, Mr. Asakura said, through a translator. 'But my wife does not accept charging [the vehicle] every day.'" Speaking to The Wall Street Journal in Tokyo, Toyota's hybrid vehicle system-engineering division's project manager poured a torrent of cold water on GM's belief that their plug-in hybrid Hail Mary Volt will be practical, affordable, desirable, reliable or doable. Other than that… Toyota says its exploring plug-in possibilities using its existing nickel-metal hydride battery-powered Prius. An undisclosed number of Prii are headed for two undisclosed California universities for testing. Oh, and Toyota will also look at lithium-ion technology for their Synergy Drive system, in accordance with an undisclosed timetable. In any event (or lack thereof), Toyota's NOT down with GM's plan to build a car that motors around on battery power alone, then switches to internal combustion. If Toyota develops plug-in hybrids, they plan on powering the car on electricity for short bursts, alternating with power from the gasoline engine. 

Now that Tesla's delayed the delivery of their $100k lithium-ion-powered Roadster for the third time, and lowered production expectations again, you'd think that the automotive media would begin to share TTAC's skepticism about this Silicon Valley venture. Not so. Perhaps that's because A) The media really want it to happen and B) Tesla's wrapped the delay in [increasingly familiar] hyperbole. In a letter to Tesla Club Members ($50k and you're in!), Tesla's freshly-minted CEO apologizes for the delay and resets customers' expectations. "While we expect to produce a limited number of production cars in the fourth quarter," Michael E. Marks writes. "I have set a production goal of shipping fifty cars in the first quarter of 2008, with an additional 600 cars in the 2008 model year." (In case you're not a lawyer, "expect" and "goal" are not legally binding terms.) And then the really good news: "Range: 245 miles on the EPA combined cycle, confirmed!" Confirmed by… Tesla! Although the company feels free to use the term "EPA" in their claims, nothing about the Roadster is government certfied. And there is still no independent confirmation of the Roadster's safety, range or recharge time. Yet the press continue to repeat Tesla's claims as if they were gospel. Rest assured, the Devil's Advocate will keep you posted.

CBS' Sunday Morning program has joined the caravan of love for Tesla Motors' not-ready-for-prime-time electric car and GM's not-ready-for-prime-time electric car. New York Times correspondent David Pogue's report leads with the usual "gas sucks" mantra, and then gets down to business: repeating Tesla's oft-repeated (never proven) claims for their LiIon-powered electric roadster. Ah, but doesn't the electric car simply shift the energy problem to powerplants? The recently demoted Martin Eberhard demures: "If you do the math, you'll find that an electric car, even if you use coal to make the electricity, produces less pollution per mile than burning gasoline in the best gasoline-powered car." After gasping at the Tesla's sticker, Pogue trots out GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz, who promises a user-friendly price tag for the Volt: "My personal target still is to bring this car into the market at, you know, nicely below $30,000." Yeah, well what about the EV1? "Now, it turns out that from a PR standpoint probably the dumbest move we ever made," Lutz said. "It was done for all the right legal reasons, but PR-wise it was dumb. So, now I'm getting e-mails saying, 'I hope you rot in hell.'" After revealing that the first Teslas will hit the streets this fall and promoting the forthcoming film "Who Saved the Electric Car?" (really), Pogue gives Maximum Bob the last word. "…I think the future for electrics is absolutely unlimited." At least the PR is.

California-based utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E ) has formed a partnership with aspiring electric automobile manufacturer Tesla Motors to "further evolve" vehicle-to-grid (V2G) recharging technology. Tesla's Chief Technology Officer JB Straubel announced a new piece of jargon– MotorsSmart charging– and quickly moved to quash any idea that Tesla recharging would be a two-way e-street. "The vehicle does not provide power back to the grid. Instead, the vehicle charging rate is controlled remotely in order to support the operation of the grid or to best match load to the availability of intermittent renewable energy resources such as wind and solar." Huh? Did he just say that Tesla Roadsters' recharging can be automatically restricted to those times when the California power grid is running on renewable resources? Yup. "Tesla Motors' goal in developing V2G is to eventually [our emphasis] provide our customers with an option that could reduce their cost of electricity for vehicle charging while supporting greater penetration of renewable energy on the grid." Promises, promises. Meanwhile, PG&E gets a way to restrict encourage company-compatible recharging timing so that their grid isn't overwhelmed by plug-in vehicles. As if. If only?

Take that Toyota! Not only is GM going to bring us a lithium-ion-powered plug-in hybrid by 2010, but they're going to produce an entire family of electric vehicles. So sayeth GM Car Czar "Maximum" Bob Lutz in Frankfurt. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) described Lutz' remarks as "the latest salvo in a combined product-development and public-relations campaign… to dispel the image that it has its corporate head in the sand when it comes to advanced vehicle technology, oil prices and concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions." Lutz also said GM wants to build its E-Flex vehicles alongside mainstream models; a common chassis would accommodate either a conventional or alternative-propulsion powertrain. The WSJ cautions that the Volt– and any other electric vehicles in GM's future– depend on battery suppliers, and "it isn't yet certain the suppliers will come through." OK, Toyota– your turn!

Austin-based EEStor says its cracked it. It's developed an electric car battery that will allow a car to travel for 500 miles on a five-minute charge. According to the AP, the Texas company's ultracapacitor (that's ultra, not flux) has a secret ingredient: "a material [barium titanate] sandwiched between thousands of wafer-thin metal sheets, like a series of foil-and-paper gum wrappers stacked on top of each other. Charged particles stick to the metal sheets and move quickly across EEStor's proprietary material." Although Canadian electric car maker ZENN Motors says its taking delivery of the new battery for its "short-range, low-speed vehicles" and hailed the technology as "paradigm shift… that would would make internal combustion engines unnecessary" (note: would not will), skeptics are plenty damn skeptical. Ultracapacitor competitor Maxwell Technologies says the EEstor's doo-hickey won't work with regular wall outlets, could crack from road surface jolts or slowly discharge on it own, leaving the driver stranded. Georgia Tech Prof Joseph Perry shares similar concerns, but "I'd be very happy to be proved wrong." Amen.

C/net News editor Michael Kanellos tackles that most filmic of questions: who killed the electric car? His answer: no one. Well, not intentionally. Kanellos rejects the idea that there was a carmaker-led conspiracy to kneecap battery-powered transportation.  "The most innovative things they've come up with in three decades are the cupholder and the Lee Iacocca goggle glasses. These people are going to engineer a global conspiracy that eludes regulators around the world, financiers and competitors?" Kanellos says electric car technology simply couldn't meet the demands of the average consumer. Or, as he puts it, "consumers are cheap and don't want to be inconvenienced by a car that will die on the freeway before they get to Ikea's produce and burger stand when they're driving from the Bay Area to Lake Tahoe." 'Nuff said?

Who said you can't have your cake and drive it too? Wired Magazine continues the top ten transport trend (thanks Forbes) with its list of "The 10 Fastest Green Cars on the Planet." They range from the ridiculous (muscle-powered FM-4 HumanCar) to the ridiculous (1200hp, ethanol-powered SVS Power Dodge Viper). The list also includes Audi's LeMans-winning diesel R-10 TDI, Ford's record-setting fuel-cell Focus and (of course) the "Where is it Now?" Tesla Roadster. Unfortunately, very few of the cars on Wired list are street-legal or in production. Even fewer qualify as anything remotely resembling practical transportation. Still, gearheads and greenies together forever? As Rodney King famously enquired, "Why can't we all just get along?"

While GM is trash talking about selling 60K plug-in Chevrolet Volts in their first year on the market (whenever that may be), Toyota is more circumspect about the technology's chances. The International Herald Tribune reports that the world's largest automaker (ToMoCo) wants to conduct more consumer testing and market assessment before offering a plug-in Prius. Toyota's U.S. manager for advanced vehicle technology admits "there's a lot of enthusiasm right now about plug-ins." But, Bill Reinert adds, "I'm a little cautious about how much of that ends up as real consumer behavior." In other words, will consumers walk the talk? Cost and convenience may be the critical factors. GM pegs the cost of their plug-in Volt– with a 40-mile electric-only range and mandatory extension cord fun– at around $30K. Toyota's gas-electric Prius currently sells in the low 20s– and experienced a major surge when the price was lowered. Do the math. 

Tesla Motors is set to send its lithium-ion battery-powered prototype Roadster on a 200-mile road trip. According to Green Wombat , it's a "publicity stunt designed to demolish the perception that electric cars are short-range put-put mobiles more suited to suburban cul-de-sacs than the open road." Tesla PR wonk David Vespremi claims it's no biggie; Tesla has already "put the car through its paces during long-distance testing." The trip is sponsored by the Hyatt hotel chain and will include several stops at Hyatts along the route. Even though Tesla claims a 200-mile range for the Roadster and they're taking it on a 200-mile road trip, AutoBlogGreen reports they'll be stopping at a Hyatt in Sacramento "to show off the charging capability (and charge the batteries)." According to Vespremi, this was "the plan all along." Funny that this plan doesn't show up in any of the news stories about the jaunt before now. TTAC has been questioning their range claims from the start; too bad the company can't won't use this opportunity to prove us wrong.

This website has been skeptical of Tesla Motors’ claims for their lithium-ion-powered Roadster since day one. While some readers think we’ve “had it in” for the California-based car company, rest assured TTAC is an equal opportunity muckraker. Anyway, yesterday, when Martin Eberhard revealed that he’d relinquished Tesla's top job, we held fire to avoid accusations of smug satisfaction. But Eberhard’s email to Tesla customers piqued our interest. As Tesla has yet to deliver a single customer car, by thy words thy shall be known.

Eberhard begins his e-sayonara by expressing his personal pleasure at helming Tesla for the last four years. He then outlines the management shuffle: “This week I move from the CEO position to become President of Technology, and I remain on Tesla’s board of directors. In my new job, I will focus on the final details of the Roadster and on advancing Tesla’s leadership in our core technology. I will also be able to spend more time with you, our customers.”

Ah, those pesky “final details.” Presumably the new Technology Prez (a title missing from any other automaker’s personnel files) will be focusing on the electro-mechanical minutiae that have prevented Tesla from meeting its first two deadlines for customer deliveries. Eberhard’s claim that he’ll be advancing his company’s “leadership in our core technology” is classic Tesla: asserting technological leadership— not competence, leadership— without showing the goods. 

Meanwhile, Eberhard’s promise to “spend more time” with his customers is more than slightly perplexing. Spend more time with them doing what? There are no demo cars. Again, given the delays, I’m thinking Martin’s about to become Tesla’s Hand-Holder General.

Next up: Eberhard's explanation for why he was shunted from the top slot. “We at Tesla need leadership with that same kind of passion and talent for operations – passion that will secure Tesla’s future as the next major automobile company. I initiated an intense CEO search some time ago, but the board and I have yet to find the right person to fill this role – even as Tesla continues to grow and its operational needs become paramount.”

Eberhard is saying two things here. First, his move was planned a long time ago, and, therefore, does not represent any kind of management crisis at Tesla. Second, modestly enough, Tesla can’t find anyone with his passion and talent to run “operations.” Judge for yourself, but this journalist does not find either of these claims remotely plausible.

Common sense suggests that the timing of the transition, hot on the heels of yet another delay in Roadster deliveries, indicates that someone with money lost faith in Eberhard’s ability to git ‘er done. Hubris aside, there are plenty of current and ex-auto industry execs who could handle Tesla’s operational needs. And the appointment of an interim CEO after “some time” tells us that either the choice was actually made in haste, or there is ongoing conflict in the boardroom. 

Now, about those deliveries…

“We are still planning to start production of the Roadster by the end of next month and deliver the first cars to customers this fall. We have a good chance of meeting this goal, but to be fully transparent, I want you to know that while it is within our reach, it is not yet fully within our grasp.”

That is one major piece of sophistry, or, if you prefer, a textbook example of weasel words. Eberhard’s insistence on seasonal deadlines– rather than dates– has got to worry those [erstwhile] customers who’ve signed checks to Tesla. By the same token, a “good chance” is not a statistically relevant term. But both qualifiers pale next to the obfuscatory majesty of Eberhard’s metaphor.

If something’s within your reach but evades your gasp, uh, what does that mean? You could get it to in theory but you can’t in practice? How very reassuring. The addition of the words “yet” and “fully” is what takes this Zen koan to the next level. Jeff, Murray, Anthony and Greg should enjoy so much wiggle room.

Eberhard eventually gets down to brass tacks, identifying Roadster crash testing and durability as the remaining stumbling blocks. Oh, about that crash testing, “there is always the chance that something unpredictable occurs… in which case we would incur a delay to address the issues.” And regarding reliability, “The results of this testing are critical to the schedule.” But if there are testing-related delays, “I will let you know.”

Even if everything goes according to plan, Eberhard says Tesla’s looking to produce one– count it one– car per week; you know, until they get the bugs out. 

Eberhard concludes by promising that “the end is in sight.” But not within view.

[Link to email via Jalopnik here .]