Does the supposedly clean, green Tesla Model S really pollute more than a gas-guzzling Jeep Grand Cherokee sport-utility vehicle?
That's what one analyst has claimed.
In an exhaustive 6,500-word article on the financial website Seeking Alpha, analyst Nathan Weiss lays out a case that the Model S actually has higher effective emissions than most large SUVs of both the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and smog-producing pollutants like sulfur dioxide.
As a 2013 Tesla Model S owner, I was shocked and concerned by his claims.
Although carbon emissions were not a big factor in my decision to buy a plug-in car--I was more interested in performance, style, and low operating cost--the car's green cred was a nice bonus.
Now here's this Weiss guy, calling me a global-warming villain.
But I couldn't help but notice that in his role as financial analyst, Weiss had been advising his clients to "short" the stock of Tesla Motors [NSDQ:TSLA]--to bet against it. (Tesla stock price down = happy clients; Tesla stock up = very unhappy clients.)
And is it a coincidence that the article appeared the same day Tesla stock skyrocketed 30 percent, after Tesla's first-quarter earning report? (It's since risen another 30 percent.)
Weiss's motives aside, his claims deserve a close look on their merits.
Not only the tailpipe
Like all 100-percent electric cars, the Model S indisputably has zero tailpipe emissions.
But Weiss looks at emissions from the powerplants that supply the Tesla's electric "fuel," as well as the excess electricity consumed by the Model S due to charging inefficiencies and "vampire" losses.
These two factors, he concludes, give the Model S effective carbon emissions roughly equal to those of a Honda Accord.
Throw in the carbon emitted during production of the Model S's 85-kWh lithium-ion battery, says Weiss, and the Model S ends up in Ford Expedition territory.
Not so fast....
Although Weiss makes a number of valid points, I see several flaws in his argument. And he bases his carbon-footprint estimates of battery production on a single report that is far out of sync with previous research on the subject.
Furthermore, he fails to account for the carbon emissions resulting from the production of gasoline. If the carbon footprint of a Tesla's fuel counts against it, why shouldn't a standard car's fuel be subject to similar accounting?
So let's go through his analysis and his conclusions point by point.
*Power plant emissions count against electric cars
Virtually all electric car advocate agree that when toting up the environmental pros and cons of electric cars, it's only fair to include powerplant emissions.
When this has been done previously, the numbers have still favored electric cars. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, concluded in a 2012 report, "Electric vehicles charged on the power grid have lower global warming emissions than the average gasoline-based vehicle sold today."
The carbon-friendliness of the electric grid, of course, varies wildly from region to region, depending upon the type of powerplants there.
Tesla Motors has an interactive calculator on its website that allows you to calculate the effective carbon emissions of your Model S, depending on your particular state's powerplant mix (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, etc.). The numbers range from 26 gm/mi in Idaho (mostly hydro) to 310 gm/mi in West Virginia (mostly coal).
According to Weiss, the national average for Tesla's claimed Model S CO2 emissions works out to 163 gm/mile. Tesla says the corresponding figure for gas cars is 400 gm/mi.
Although not truly zero-emission, electric cars in general (and the Model S in particular) are still better than most gas cars. Or so goes the mainstream scientific thinking.
Weiss begs to differ.
*Tesla's numbers are too optimistic
According to the Tesla website, it assumes a Model S electricity usage of 283 Watt-hours per mile for its CO2 calculations. That's the power required to drive at a steady 55 mph.
Weiss disputes that number as unrealistically low. He cites, among other sources, the EPA's number of 321 Wh/mi, as well as 48 reports on the Tesla owners' forum that averaged to 367 Wh/mi.
He concludes that the real-world power consumption of the 85-kWh Model S is actually more like 375 Wh/mi. That's 33 percent higher than Tesla claims.
Accordingly, CO2 emissions would also be 33 percent higher.
I can't argue with Weiss on this one. In 3,000 miles of driving my 60-kWh Model S, I've averaged 343 Wh/mi. Since my 60-kWh car is about 7 percent more efficient than the heavier 85-kWh model, that would correspond to a real-world consumption of 367 Wh/mi for the longer-range car.
Because my driving--as well as that of the 48 Tesla owners Weiss cites--has occurred mostly in winter, I would expect average energy usage to decline as the weather warms. (I've already seen my efficiency improve in May.) I'd guesstimate a real-world year-round number for the 85-kWh Model S of 340 Wh/mi.
But I won't quibble with Weiss's figure of 375.
So a 33-percent bump raises Tesla's claimed Model S effective carbon emissions of 163 gm/mi to 216 gm/mi, or about the same as the Toyota Prius V.
*Charging losses boost carbon emissions by 18 percent
Not every kilowatt-hour of energy that comes out of the wall plug ends up in the Model S battery. Citing EPA figures and reports from owners, Weiss estimates the Model S's real-world charging efficiency at about 85 percent.
Again, Weiss has a good point. I've measured charging losses of 10-15 percent in my own car. Tesla quotes a "peak charging efficiency" of 92 percent on its website. An average charging efficiency of 85 percent seems plausible.
That means a Model S typically draws 17 percent more power from the plug than it uses to power the car.
So now our Model S carbon emissions are up to 254 gm/mi, slightly less than those of a 2013 Honda Civic.
*Vampire losses further raise emissions by 55 percent
Whoa! This is truly a shocking claim. It implies that vampire losses--the power used by the Model S when it's off, just sitting there in your garage--amount to nearly as much as Tesla claims the car uses while driving.
Weiss, citing a number of sources, (including my own report on Model S vampire losses on this site), settles on a number for vampire losses of 5.1 kWh per day. He then combines that figure with an estimate of 7,728 miles driven per year to conclude that vampire-related Model S CO2 emissions amount to 140 gm/mi.
This brings his new total up to to 394 gm/mile, about the same as a BMW 5-Series.
I'd call Weiss's number for vampire drain a bit high, but not implausible. I measured at-the-wall vampire losses averaging 4.5 kWh per day on my car.
One reason for Weiss's high-ball estimate may be his apparent misunderstanding of the Model S battery thermal management system. He claims that vampire losses in the 30-to-50-degree range are nearly triple those occurring at temperaturess of 50 to 80 degrees, due to the extra juice required to keep the battery warm.
This is simply wrong. I have noticed no such variations.
And a Tesla rep confirmed to me that the Model S battery is not temperature-controlled when the car sits idle, so there is no battery heating/cooling power draw. (Elon Musk has publicly confirmed this.) The brief pre-heat/cool prior to the once-a-day "topping off" charge cycle would have only a minimal impact on vampire losses.
I also take issue with Weiss's estimate of the Model S average yearly driving distance of only 7,728 miles. (His derivation of the number is too lengthy to analyze here.)
How could it be that Model S owners drive barely half as much as the national average of 13,476 miles per year? l know my own driving mileage has actually increased since I got my Model S, simply because the car is such a blast to drive.
It's only temporary
But Weiss's major miscue in the section about vampire power drain--other than misspelling my name--is his implication that these daily losses are a permanent long-term condition.
Tesla has in fact been working on "sleep mode" software improvements to reduce vampire losses. Its next major update, due this summer, is expected to cut vampire losses by half.
By the end of the year, they will be virtually eliminated, according to Tesla spokesperson Shanna Hendricks.
Weiss acknowledges the promised sleep mode, but doubts that it will make any difference. "History (and the mechanics of the battery) suggest it will not meaningfully reduce idle power consumption," he writes.
I suggest it will. And that by the end of the year, 55 percent of Weiss's argument will have gone up in smoke.
Anticipating the new sleep mode, I'm going to ignore vampire losses and stick with 254 gm/mi as the Model S carbon footprint, compared to Weiss's vampire-bloated number of 394 gm/mi.
*Battery production adds 39 percent more
The manufacture of a car contributes to its lifetime carbon emissions. And it's well established that the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries is a carbon-intensive process. The question is, how much?
For his battery-production carbon numbers, Weiss relies primarily on an outlier study from the Journal of Industrial Ecology. Its estimates of carbon footprint from lithium-ion battery production are far higher than previous studies, and it has been pilloried in the blogosphere for numerous errors too arcane to enumerate here.
A 2010 study in the journal of the American Chemical Society, on the other hand, concludes that the environmental impact of the battery is "relatively small." It estimates that battery production adds about 15 percent to the driving emissions of an electric car.
A 2012 study for the California Air Resources Board puts the number at 26 percent, assuming the California powerplant mix. But if you adjust to the dirtier national U.S. grid powerplant mix, driving emissions go up. So the percentage share of battery production goes down, also to about 15 percent.
Tesla may, in fact, beat even those lower numbers. Uniquely among electric car manufacturers, Tesla uses what are arguably the most efficiently manufactured lithium-ion battery cells on the planet: "commodity" 18650 laptop cells, which Panasonic churns out by the billions in highly automated plants. (I'm unaware of any carbon life-cycle analysis for these batteries.)
We'll go with the consensus mainstream number of 15 percent, which brings total Model S carbon emissions up to 292 gm/mi, against Weiss's battery-boosted grand total of 547 gm/mi.
We've arrived at a number for the real-world effective CO2 emissions of a Model S of 292 g/mi. Admittedly, that's lot higher than Tesla claims on its website
But worse than a Grand Cherokee? Hardly.
The V-6 Grand Cherokee's official EPA CO2 number is 479 g/mi when fitted with the smallest engine offered, a 3.6-liter V-6. The more powerful V-8 model logs in at a whopping 592 g/mi.
In a follow-up post a few days later, Weiss backed off and significantly downgraded his estimate for Model S carbon emissions.
He concedes that, in calculating vampire losses per mile, total distance of 12,000 miles per year makes for a better comparison. He also downgrades his estimate of idle power losses to 3.5 kWh per day.
And, strangely, he neglects to account for the carbon footprint of battery production in any way.
With these new numbers, he recalculates the Tesla's total effective carbon emissions to be 346 g/mi, not a lot more than the 292 g/mi I calculated above.
Weiss also downgrades his SUV bogeyman, pointing out that even at his revised lower figure of 346 g/mi, the Model S is still a worse carbon polluter than the Toyota Highlander, which the EPA rates at 312 g/mi.
What about carbon from gasoline production?
But for all his zeal in exhaustively parsing the carbon footprint of electricity production, Weiss conveniently forgets to mention that producing gasoline also has its own carbon footprint.
According to a 2000 report from the MIT Energy Lab, gasoline production accounts for 19 percent of the total lifetime CO2 emissions of a typical car. Actually driving the car accounts for about 75 percent of its lifetime carbon output.
Thus the carbon footprint of fuel production adds about 25 percent to a gas car's nominal CO2 emissions number.
Sorry, Mr. Weiss. If you apply the same rules to gasoline cars that you did to the Tesla, your Toyota Highlander just went from 312 g/mi to 390 g/mi.
On this adjusted apples-to-apples basis, the Tesla figure of 292 g/mi is roughly comparable to that of the Scion iQ.
With all the growing concern about global warming and carbon emissions, old-fashioned "smog" air pollution--primarily nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)--has receded into the background.
Due to strict emissions laws, modern gasoline cars emit very little of these lung-threatening pollutants. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, about coal-fired powerplants.
Weiss calculates that powerplant emissions give the Model S an effective level of NOx pollution about triple that of the EPA limit for gas cars. (I'm discounting his suspect inclusion of vampire losses.)
The situation for sulfur dioxide is much worse. Weiss calculates that effective Model S sulfur dioxide emissions equal that of about 400 gas cars. (Again, the suspect vampire data is discounted.)
Weiss writes, "In many states, including California, if a smog-testing center could measure the effective emissions of a Tesla Model S through a tailpipe, the owner would face fines, penalties, or the sale of the vehicle under state 'clunker buyback' programs."
In terms of sulfur dioxide, gas cars are so clean and coal-fired electricity so dirty that a 60-watt light bulb effectively emits as much sulfur dioxide as an average gasoline car driving at 60 mph.
Frankly, I can't argue with these disturbing numbers, and I have not seen them refuted anywhere. But they say more about the tough emission laws for gas cars and the remarkably lax rules for coal-fired powerplants belching sulfur dioxide than they do about the Model S.
Nevertheless, I'm feeling a bit guilty about the sulfur dioxide spewing out of my Tesla's virtual tailpipe.
At least I live in New York state, which uses coal for only about 10 percent of its power production. That's about one quarter of the U.S nationwide percentage, so presumably I'm "only" 100 times worse than a gas car when it comes to sulfur dioxide emissions.
Fortunately, I'm not alone; the vast majority of electric cars operate in states with low-coal grids like California, Washington, and New York.
And the grid is slowly getting cleaner. As more wind, solar, and natural gas come online and antiquated coal plants are shut down, my effective SO2 emissions will steadily decline.
So in the end...
After all of this, the conclusion seemed clear: I drive a kick-ass, high-performance, five-seat all-electric luxury sport sedan that has the same wells-to-wheels carbon emissions as a tiny Scion minicar with two real seats.
Anybody got a problem with that?
When it comes to virtual tailpipe emissions, carbon and otherwise, the Model S ain't perfect.
But if you ask me, it's a huge step in the right direction.
Its sad that it seems people can skew numbers into there favor no matter what the truth. First of all, at least in the past, people that were adopters of plug in electric cars were 200% more likely to have PV solar panels on their roof (offsetting some of the required power) secondly, power plants are soooooo much more efficient and converting fossil fuels to energy, then any combustion engine in a car could ever dream of being. so if you talking of emissions per mile, you have to take the efficiency of the conversion into place, which swing dramatically in favor of the power plant. Agreed that the US needs to do something about its ageing "DUMB" grid that we do currently have, as far more power is wasted in transmission of the power then is actually consumed. Once that is corrected, there is NO arguing that electric cars or more efficient. If you really want to be carbon neutral.. get yourself a good solar PV array.. for you electric car, and give the ignorant Nathan Weiss the good ol' bird
I'm curious -- has anyone (I'm sure someone must have?) attempted to quantify the differences between dispersed emission of pollutants (such as from fossil-fuel-burning motor vehicles) and single-site emission of pollutants (such as from fossil-fuel-burning electricity generation plants). I've always thought that it "must be" cheaper and easier to deal with pollution coming from a single point source than pollution coming from millions of point sources. Anyone have any actual data they can point to? Thanks!
I have heard the "battery production" argument before but what about the energy required to produce a combustion engine vs the much simpler electric motor? I would think it would require much more energy to produce engine block, pistons, tie rods, crank, cams, valves, alternator etc then a Tesla motor.
No sane person would believe that these new electric cars are any sort of free lunch to the environment. The may however hold a value to the nation in terms of reduced oil imports. They may be the key or stepping point to more efficient cars and trucks. I would love to have a Tesla S but you can't justify it's cost when local power is 19 cents/kw. Even if you got free power it wouldn't make economic sense. Hopefully consumers buying them will spur invention. Reduce production cost and drive up efficiencies. The Tesla also kind of cheats the local roads. The tax that normal fuels are charged have not so far been charged to electric cars. The cars are much heavier than other cars and tend to damage roads more so this effect was not included in the total energy equation. The cost of electricity is also a very subjective cost. Many of the true costs of electricity is not included in your bill. Government tax breaks, to even free right of way isn't considered to the water used to cool plants. Even the coal tar and tree's used in construction of electric isn't being considered.
Not this crazy PV cell deal again? No, PV cells are batteries that used a lot of energy to make, the DC they provide has to then go to a dc to dc inverter to then charge the lithium batteries.
If a PV could (and may soon) provide more energy than they consume, we'd see all sorts of people creating PV factories that run only on PV cells wouldn't we?
If anyone wanted to give me a Tesla S, I'd take it.
The problem with all these calculations is they are based on the coal and most owners of these vehicles have solar power on their homes and charge completely free from any CO2 generation. Secondly, coal production is dropping dramatically and is less than half of the electrical in many states and far less than half in some states.
So making worst case assumptions and comparing to coal is just a bunch of BS by electric haters.
See the world is full of haters. Never changes.
Everyone hates something big time. For example--I hate Pit Bulls, Child Molesters, Rapists, etc as just a few of the things I hate. Were a nation of haters.
For some REAL WORLD FACTS and not BS like this EV hater, read this:
@LeftCoast71 - Air Quality agencies do just this in their regional models and when they quantify the benefits/costs of new regulations that are imposed on stationary or mobile sources. California is a good example of this as they have the authority at the state level to regulate mobile sources (CA emission standards from CARB). They also regulate emissions at the regional level (e.g., SCAQMD or BAAQMD).
Mr. Noland, I appreciate your analysis overall, but I'm not sure it is fair to assume companies will deliver on their promises for the sleep mode to address vampire losses. This is important information and I think Tesla is pretty amazing too, but there can be setbacks. If it really is an analysis based on a current snapshot, it isn't fair to give too much credence to promises. What if Toyota promised to bring down the Highlander's emissions in the same time period? It is hypothetical until it is proven and you would probably be best sticking with what is currently happening and can be documented.
Second, you give up too easily on the "other pollutants" section. Yes, power plants emit these, but so do oil refineries. Refineries emit both regionally impacting criteria air pollutants as well as locally harmful toxic emissions. Delivering the refined fuel to the service stations via tanker trucks also results in emissions (including diesel particulate matter, which is a toxic air contaminant). Basically, one should never live next to a power plant, refinery, or freeway if one can help it - but I don't think anyone can say that it is the fault of electric car drivers.
Also, I think you should probably follow the path of the NY Times and address critics like Nathan Weiss using a title like mister (ESPECIALLY when there is any question about whether he even deserves it...misspelling your name is pretty sloppy). Anyway, it just makes you the bigger person.
"Its sad that it seems people can skew numbers into there favor no matter what the truth."
By which I assume you mean that numbers that don't agree with your philosophy are "skewed" and the ones that DO support your position must be the gospel truth ...
"First of all, at least in the past, people that were adopters of plug in electric cars were 200% more likely to have PV solar panels on their roof (offsetting some of the required power)"
The total amount of solar power produced in this country is reported to be enough to power 200,000 homes. That's about 0.15% of the housing units in the United States. Not all of that solar power generated is from home-installed cells, and of the homes that do have them "on their roof", not all have sufficient power generating capacity to recharge a car. Still, even if we assumed that there were 200,000 homes in the U.S. producing their own electricity from PV cells, depending on whether your claim that "people that were adopters of plug in electric cars were 200% MORE likely to have PV solar panels on their roof" is accurate, or if it's "200% AS likely", that would mean that, on average, between 0.3% to 0.45% of Tesla owners power their cars from PV cells on their roofs. Not a really big offset there, jbagel.
Don't forget to consider that it takes 1851 gallons of water to refine one barrel of crude oil. One barrel of crude oil produces 19 gallons of gasoline, so it takes 97 gallons of water to produce a gallon of gasoline.
Sadly, Nathan's Weiss' retraction will go unnoticed. The blogosphere will continue to quote the bogus analysis as "gospel truth" forever. But there's nothing a right-wing hater hates more than losing money. Hopefully all his followers will go bankrupt shorting Tesla.
The people that are praising wealthy Tesla S buyers for their environmental awareness are the same folks that typically denounce the purchase of other similar luxury goods as "rampant consumerism". 99% of those people who have $90K to spend on a Tesla S also live in large, expensive homes, which consume huge amounts of energy for air-conditioning and big screen TVs. Not to mention large amounts of water for filling their pools and watering their lawns.
While nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide are toxic when they get into the atmosphere don't they help cool down the planet temporarily? I remember reading this from a previous popsci article and followed up on it. They supposedly bond with carbonyl oxides and then act as aerosols, reflecting solar radiation. So you can count it as a pollutant but it cools down the planet. So just keep these energy plants away from the major human and other life form populations which are sensitive to these compounds.
Your math is flawed by using an 15 year old study( hint off by 100%). America now gets a large part of its Gasoline from heavy oil sources, oil that needs to be steamed out of the ground and turned into synthetic crude before it even gets to a refinery.
That means that a plug in like the tesla model S can go further on the energy used to create a gallons of gasoline (13 kwh ), that a Honda civic can on the gasoline.
Check it out:
Sounds like soem oil giant backed reasearch to me to make sure electric cars wont get popular.
A SINGLE large Hydro powerplant or a windfarm could power all the current electric cars in the world - therefor cuttign emission rating to near 0.
Not including geothermal power, nuclear power (no carbon emissions?), garbage and biofuel/gas power stations.
Coal plants are so efficient these days that the amoutn of energy per kg of gas is way mroe efficient then gasoline or disel. The filters in modern plants are designed to scrup sulphur and other chemicals from the smoke - some even scrub co2 and pump it under ground.
"Tesla's numbers are too optimistic"
"I can't argue with Weiss on this one."
But you do take all the gasoline manufactures word on all their numbers on the emisions of their cars.
I bet if you did a real world test on those cars, one would also see subsantial higher emisions than they claim.
(at least in Europe this earlier this year in the news for about every cars manufacturer. They all manipulated their fuel consumtions numbers and the real number where up to 50% higher than claimed)
Anyone who thinks that the Tesla Model S is about "being green" is completely missing the point. It's about being the best possible car, period. One that just happens to be electric. You buy it to be able to go from 0-60 in 3.9, 5.4, or 5.9 seconds due to the monstrous, constantly-available torque. You buy it for the day-to-day utility of having a fastback with a gigantic trunk and additional front storage. You buy it for the super-low center of gravity and the good handling it entails. You buy it for the gargantuan 17-inch touchscreen. You buy it for the super-smooth, quiet ride. You buy it for the unprecedented 265-mile range.
You don't buy it because you want to be "green," if you did you would buy a bicycle or a Nissan Leaf or something instead. The car's green cred is just icing on the cake.
Always defer to facts rather than philosophy.
I use Green Mountain Energy as my electric provider. Most (but not all) of that comes from Wind Turbines. I'm sure that is more common than having solar panels on your roof. Either way, you can choose to not get your electrons from coal.
"There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics"
-Mark Twain, attributed to Benjamen Disraeli
Although apparently he never actually said it and Twain was lying about it.
THF-122112 your water figures are a little off. The EPA says refineries us about 1 to 2.5 gallons of water per gallon of gas. Yes, a lot of water but less than 13% of the amount you suggest.
All this is moot anyway. The components that will make up the electric vehicle of the future are still a long way off. Those components will bare the same resemblance to components used today as the smart phone does to the original Bell phone.
Until such time oil, natural gas and coal are going to rule. The entire lifetime production of Tesla will never change that by one millionth of one percent.
If everybody chose to have non coal electricity then nearly half the country would have to do without it. Go ahead with a good example, sacrifice your grid connection.
Two items of note.
1.Tesla cars generate 20 to 25% of the electricity they use by regenerating when you take your foot off the accelerator. Nobody seems to be taking this into account in these studies of pollution.
2. Today, only 44% of USA electricity is generated by burning coal. Only 19 states are predominately coal generated. Numbers are trending rapidly down, largely due to natural gas which is 50% less polluting, but with help from renewables, such as hydro, sun and wind.
Does it pollute more than cars in it's own size class? Yes. We are now done.
As mentioned many times, the problem is the future and how we get there.
There is an option, in Ontario, to have all of your electricity generated from renewable sources. So then the argument gets more complicated, the carbon and other toxic materials coming from the production of the solar panels or the wind turbines.
But ultimately, I think the important bit about the consumption of an electric vehicle exists on a couple deeper levels.
If you look at the details you have provided, and examine the environment cost of producing the batteries, remember that once a battery is produced it can be recycled, and so producing the next battery will likely be much less intensive.
Also, a gasoline powered vehicle has a catalytic converter, do you have any insight in to how these are produced, and what the impact is of having a CT on a car?
Regardless of the amount of gasoline an internal combustion engine consumes, it will always consume that gasoline, and require its production etc.. We have gasoline engines that, frankly, if they could be better optimizes probably would be by now, but seem to be stuck at a very high consupmtion level.
at least with these electric cars, they are the second generation, how many generations of gas engines have come and gone and we're stuck.
This is also an investement in the future, by building electric cars, and solving the technical problems, we move toward a future where, solar panels become incredibly effecient, there is enough solar power in an area the size of your car, emmited from the sun every day, to run your car forever, at some point we'll have the technology to use this energy, why not get ahead of the curve on the technology to consume it...
"You buy it to be able to go from 0-60 in 3.9, 5.4, or 5.9 seconds due to the monstrous, constantly-available torque. You buy it for the day-to-day utility of having a fastback with a gigantic trunk and additional front storage. You buy it for the super-low center of gravity and the good handling it entails. You buy it for the gargantuan 17-inch touchscreen. You buy it for the super-smooth, quiet ride. You buy it for the unprecedented 265-mile range"
To add, the world is moving ever so slowly to more green electricity, so at some stage your electric car is
going to be even more green than it already is.
If you go the fossil fuel route, you're stuck with it's byproducts for eternity.
I believe his article was very well written and well supported, although unlike some comments say it isn't logical to add in transportation costs of gasoline because than why don't you add in maintenance costs of electrical lines which is one of the biggest costs we are paying for our electircity. Either way the future of cars will trend for more milage for less money and less emission, gasoline engines are becoming much more fuel efficient as well as electric cars being more efficient. Less coal and more hydroelectric, solar, wind and nuclear is on the horizon although there are still many new technologies developing for those. I just hope I won't have to pay 90k for the car of the future.
As for you buy the car because it's a fun car that accelerates quickly, I can buy many other cars that I would rather have for 90k, I could buy MULTIPLE cars I would rather have for 90k.
like Joan implied I am dazzled that anybody can profit $7249 in four weeks on the computer. have you read this web link Go to site and open Home for details
Its not about less emissions of oil, or the government spending money on Tesla, or how impractical electric cars are right now. This is a giant baby step in telling BP and every oil company to shove it. Shove the overnight price gouging that they do whenever they feel like it. The range is a non issue, all that remains is how do we build in infrastructure for these cars. I have no idea how my own republican party doesn't seize the day on this. If you are against electric cars you are for every oil company, period.
It is important to remember that we can not only take fossil fuel vehicles off the roads, we can also take their power-plant-counterparts offline. One of the nice things about electricity is it can be generated without fossil fuels.
Here is to a cleaner future and the people that will try to get us to lose sight of it.
It is quite sad that for personal gain, a analyst who is not a scientist or engineer can make such glaring mistakes, missteps and even false hoods with no peer review. Certainly the Tesla has some carbon footprint. Everything does. But it is so minuscule in comparison that the analyst most certainly has no idea really about the science associated with all the factors involved with this or any other scientific study. Perhaps he can give us all insight to cold fusion or the elemental ideals of string theory. He is a financial analyst, certainly not an environmental or any other type of scientist. But then, any one can make a comment or uneducated guess. I would hope he does better in the financial world than he does in the scientific world. Do financial analyst go through "Peer" review as we do. I know he appears to comment for his own gain, perhaps the Federal Government would be interested in his attempt to manipulate Tesla's stock price. We will see.