-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Anti-Tesla Gibberish
- Thread starter bonnie
- Start date
Tesla should sue. Everyone knows Fox is trash, but that **** is outrageous.
- - - Updated - - -
works for me
The link worked for me.
The reporter? said that the Tesla battery "conks out" after sixteen miles which is why Tesla is building so many Superchargers. She then equates that to the American taxpayer paying for the Superchargers.
So someone who has no clue making crap up. Much much worse than Broder but a very short segment.
The reporter? said that the Tesla battery "conks out" after sixteen miles which is why Tesla is building so many Superchargers. She then equates that to the American taxpayer paying for the Superchargers.
So someone who has no clue making crap up. Much much worse than Broder but a very short segment.
At least in a couple months the Broder article will be officially obsolete. As promised the superchargers will now be close enough to make it impossible to run out of range no matter how stupidly you drive.
Fox Business news at it again with another negative piece:
Beware! Tesla is a bubble just waiting to burst | Fox Business
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Poor analysis of the SC network build out: Tesla's Ambitious SuperCharger Infrastructure Build Is SuperExpensive - Seeking Alpha
It's so bad that Petersen even pops in to point out some errors :biggrin:
It's so bad that Petersen even pops in to point out some errors :biggrin:
Yeah like in an article purportedly about Tesla financials he throws in the complete non-sequiter about battery replacement costs to consumers, which just highlights that this is typical anti-Tesla throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks FUD. He decides (apparently through divine revelation) that Tesla is paying 10K per month to lease a few parking places for each supercharger.
The "which is worst of ICE and BEV" discussion didn't consider battery recycling. Adding the CO2 emitted during battery production to the BEV life cycle carbon footprint without considering battery recycling yields a skewed result.
This has been discussed here before, and I linked to a report from a very solid source (I think it was Argonne National Labs, might have been DOE) which confirmed Tesla's claim that Li-ion battery recycling costs next to nothing and recovers practically all the raw materials. The requirement is that only a single chemistry is being processed at a time.
You can't use numbers for general battery recycling, because in that case the input stream is a mix of who-knows-what and therefore requires energy intensive processing. Batch-wise processing of large, uniform automotive batteries can use a much simpler process, because you know exactly what chemistry that batch of batteries contains.
This removes a large chunk of the battery CO2 footprint in a ten-year perspective. And you should look ten years ahead, because those raw materials will still be needed then, and their production will still release CO2.
However, a large part of the carbon footprint of battery production, about half, if I remember correctly, is due to the electricity consumed by the battery factory. This can't be recycled, but it can be improved, most realistically by building more nuclear power.
In my opinion, the current debate on whether BEVs are worse than an ICE focuses on the tiny details and misses the big picture. The big picture is that EVs constitute the only available technology that can completely eliminate automotive CO2 emissions and local air pollution. They're not perfect yet, because their energy supply is still dirty, but in almost every electricity market even large and powerful EVs are already better than small, economical ICEVs, even if you just dump the battery on a landfill after use.
If we really intend to get rid of pollution and CO2 from transportation, we had better get moving towards EVs right now, because complete electrification is a prerequisite for future emission free transportation. Even if EVs currently really were worse than ICEVs, it would make sense to start the transition now.
This has been discussed here before, and I linked to a report from a very solid source (I think it was Argonne National Labs, might have been DOE) which confirmed Tesla's claim that Li-ion battery recycling costs next to nothing and recovers practically all the raw materials. The requirement is that only a single chemistry is being processed at a time.
You can't use numbers for general battery recycling, because in that case the input stream is a mix of who-knows-what and therefore requires energy intensive processing. Batch-wise processing of large, uniform automotive batteries can use a much simpler process, because you know exactly what chemistry that batch of batteries contains.
This removes a large chunk of the battery CO2 footprint in a ten-year perspective. And you should look ten years ahead, because those raw materials will still be needed then, and their production will still release CO2.
However, a large part of the carbon footprint of battery production, about half, if I remember correctly, is due to the electricity consumed by the battery factory. This can't be recycled, but it can be improved, most realistically by building more nuclear power.
In my opinion, the current debate on whether BEVs are worse than an ICE focuses on the tiny details and misses the big picture. The big picture is that EVs constitute the only available technology that can completely eliminate automotive CO2 emissions and local air pollution. They're not perfect yet, because their energy supply is still dirty, but in almost every electricity market even large and powerful EVs are already better than small, economical ICEVs, even if you just dump the battery on a landfill after use.
If we really intend to get rid of pollution and CO2 from transportation, we had better get moving towards EVs right now, because complete electrification is a prerequisite for future emission free transportation. Even if EVs currently really were worse than ICEVs, it would make sense to start the transition now.
Last edited:
jvonbokel
John VonBokel
My favorite quote from this article is "as a recent NY Times article showed, the range estimates can vary dramatically from actual performance."
Really? "recent"? Hardly. (I assume they're referring to Broder.)
"Debunking The Tesla Motors Myth"
Really? "recent"? Hardly. (I assume they're referring to Broder.)
"Debunking The Tesla Motors Myth"
Who wrote that article, and who forgot to proofread it?
"Based on these prices and the NPV calculation, you could buy a combustion engine vehicle priced up to $77,944.68 and break-even with economic and environmental benefits of a Tesla Model S Performance."
but a BMW M5 costs a lot more than $78k. and my smile was bigger after driving the MSP than it was after driving an M5.
"other company's [sic] are making more appealing electric vehicles. Nissan's LEAF is an all-electric vehicle offered around $30,000. Assuming a similar value proposition to Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA), the economics make a much more compelling argument."
The Leaf was not more appealing to me than a Model S.
"These vehicles also come with the convenience of not having to constantly remember to plug in your car"
but my car comes with the convenience of never needing to go to a gas station. This convenience is more convenient than your car's convenience. I spend about 1 minute per week plugging/unplugging my car, and I'm never late because of the few seconds it takes to unplug. An ICE always seems to be empty at an inconvenient time.
"Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) seems to be flying high on hype. While they are moving vehicles, there [sic] products are not economically rationale [sic] and are not marketable to the masses. The better play on electric vehicles belongs to Nissan and General Motors who have created vehicles that are more inline with the 2012 average new vehicle price of $30,000."
Should we ignore the reality that Tesla's EV revenue is several times the EV revenue of Nissan and GM?
I can't say I have actually read this. I scanned it and the eye-rolling made it difficult to read.
"Is Tesla A Threat?" - article in American Conservative
"Is Tesla A Threat?" - article in American Conservative
bollar
Disgruntled Member
I thought the essay and most of the responses were quite articulate. It's a completely different level of discourse from most of what we get. At least there were some points that it's actually possible to debate!
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Agree. For the most part it and the responses were rather thoughtful. Not really gibberish at all.
I appreciate that; the hardest part about writing it was balancing the broader questions I wanted to raise with my genuine appreciation of Tesla. It's an impressive company, and the Model S is simply a superb car.
Similar threads
