EVERYONE Who Can Afford a Tesla Should Be Driving One

[Dutchie]

Better yet, first get rid of these trucks like the F150's RAM's etc which people drive just to go to work. If all these people start driving a smaller car like VW blue motion diesel or something similar it would already be a huge improvement on the environment.

If you can't afford a TESLA a Volt or a LEAF will do just fine too.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

ADDENDUM to my original post...

I think it's important to remember that a Model S is more than simply an electric car; it's a rolling announcement about the arrival of electric transportation. Sure, there may only be about 60,000 Model S on the road — hardly enough to have a measurable effect on global CO2 — but the effect these cars have on the rest of the car buying public is huge. The Model S has already redrawn the image of the electric car, changing it from a curiosity to an object of lust. Tesla is updating America's love affair with the automobile. The payoff for the environment will come later, when consumers have abundant choices of electric cars. But in the meantime, the more Model S vehicles that appear on the road, the better. We need to feed that lust to the point where public demand finally forces major car makers to build EVs that are worthy replacements of existing automobiles.

 

[Kofi]

The reality is that the Model S even in the base config with no options is far too costly for the vast majority of Americans and Europeans and other developed countries, and even more out of reach for the rest of the world. However, many Americans or Europeans or Japanese can afford a Nissan Leaf or similar.

Right. The average new vehicle sales price is $33,000 and Model 3/B Class will be an option for the 85%ers.

 

[FreeOfPge]

ADDENDUM to my original post...

I think it's important to remember that a Model S is more than simply an electric car; it's a rolling announcement about the arrival of electric transportation. Sure, there may only be about 60,000 Model S on the road — hardly enough to have a measurable effect on global CO2 — but the effect these cars have on the rest of the car buying public is huge. The Model S has already redrawn the image of the electric car, changing it from a curiosity to an object of lust. Tesla is updating America's love affair with the automobile. The payoff for the environment will come later, when consumers have abundant choices of electric cars. But in the meantime, the more Model S vehicles that appear on the road, the better. We need to feed that lust to the point where public demand finally forces major car makers to build EVs that are worthy replacements of existing automobiles.

Right on, well said! Love this>> I think it's important to remember that a Model S is more than simply an electric car; it's a rolling announcement about the arrival of electric transportation.

 

[mknox]

Have you gone 100% solar? That can make as big of difference as a car.

Well, that really depends on the supply mix from your local utility and how much electricity you consume. Right now as I write this (peak daytime hours), my supply mix is 63.7% nuclear, 28.7% hydro, 5.6% gas, 2% wind and other. CO2e intensity is 30g/kWh. Already pretty carbon low.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

Well, that really depends on the supply mix from your local utility and how much electricity you consume. Right now as I write this (peak daytime hours), my supply mix is 63.7% nuclear, 28.7% hydro, 5.6% gas, 2% wind and other. CO2e intensity is 30g/kWh. Already pretty carbon low.

Vermont has a very similar profile. Here, the incentive for solar is economic. For the energy I generate, I get paid $0.06/kWh above the cost of the energy I consume. As electric rates rise (3%/year on average nationally), it gets even better because I'm paying a fixed lease payment instead of an electric bill.

 

[tezco]

The truth of the matter is, US CO2 emissions have already declined to 1990 era levels and seem to be continuing. However, there is nothing, NOTHING, the U.S. can do that will mitigate the huge emissions coming out of China and India as they modernize their entire population. That goes for other developing countries as well. Those countries have also said they will ride the coal train until their economies improve. That's the real problem, and no number of $100000 luxury cars will fix that.

Ah, but as they modernize they can learn a thing or two from us and begin to embrace what we, as Tesla owners, are pioneering.

 

[rolosrevenge]

After reading about the latest UN report on global warming, I was inspired to write this blog piece...

Digital Toaster: EVERYONE Who Can Afford a Tesla Should Be Driving One

And someone who can afford two should give one to me...

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough, but we really need to look at root causes and a big one is over-population. No matter how green and eco-conscious you are, bringing more "consumers" into an already overpopulated world probably undoes every other effort you could make in your lifetime.

Unless you want to send them to Mars....

- - - Updated - - -

The truth of the matter is, US CO2 emissions have already declined to 1990 era levels and seem to be continuing.

And that's the byproduct of fracking killing coal.

 

[PopSmith]

In regards to the thread, I think that anyone in the market for car should at least give an EV an honest chance. (Not to go too far off-topic but I think that's a big reason for Tesla's recent "happiness guarantee", as Tesla has no need to hike demand.)

The truth of the matter is, US CO2 emissions have already declined to 1990 era levels and seem to be continuing. However, there is nothing, NOTHING, the U.S. can do that will mitigate the huge emissions coming out of China and India as they modernize their entire population. That goes for other developing countries as well. Those countries have also said they will ride the coal train until their economies improve. That's the real problem, and no number of $100000 luxury cars will fix that.

While Tesla currently has a negligible direct effect on emissions, they're at least indirectly responsible for practically all current EVs. We have to start somewhere in reducing emissions. Be a leader and others will follow.

As for China, the Chinese government is taking steps to reduce their coal usage. This article on the Economist states that:

Of the new power-generating capacity that China built last year, renewables such as wind and solar power for the first time accounted for more than the share made up of fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

While coal accounts for nearly 80% of China's energy production, the fact that renewables outpaced new fossil fuel in production is a small, but important, step.

 

[mknox]

Unless you want to send them to Mars....

Today, Earth's population grows by about 70,000,000 a year (births minus deaths). You'd need to send about 192,000 to Mars every day just to hold Earth's population level.

- - - Updated - - -

Vermont has a very similar profile. Here, the incentive for solar is economic. For the energy I generate, I get paid $0.06/kWh above the cost of the energy I consume. As electric rates rise (3%/year on average nationally), it gets even better because I'm paying a fixed lease payment instead of an electric bill.

In my jurisdiction, there is a Feed in Tariff program that pays 38.4 cents/kWh for rooftop solar on a 20 year contract. Our "all-in" Peak rate for electricity is around 19 cents. The incentive here is economic too, but it is not without controversy. The difference between the market rate for power and these contracts ends up getting passed on to all electricity consumers.

 

[AoneOne]

Arguing about tailpipe emissions misses the point. To a first approximation, the economic activity generated by owning and using something, referred to as the total cost of ownership (TCO), is proportional to the resources consumed and the environmental impact of that use.

For example, a solar electricity or solar heat system is green if pays for itself over it's lifetime (the TCO is actually negative). The same goes for CFL and LED light bulbs. If, however, they never generate (or save) as much energy as it takes to manufacture them, they actually hurt the environment.

More efficient (lower cost per mile) vehicle technology isn't generally green unless it reduces TCO: a small, low-cost, high-mileage ICE car creates much less economic activity, and hence much less environmental impact, than a large, expensive BEV like the Model S.

I own a Model S and I love it. I just don't pretend that the lack of fumes makes it green.

 

[Canuck]

Arguing about tailpipe emissions misses the point. To a first approximation, the economic activity generated by owning and using something, referred to as the total cost of ownership (TCO), is proportional to the resources consumed and the environmental impact of that use.

For example, a solar electricity or solar heat system is green if pays for itself over it's lifetime (the TCO is actually negative). The same goes for CFL and LED light bulbs. If, however, they never generate (or save) as much energy as it takes to manufacture them, they actually hurt the environment.

More efficient (lower cost per mile) vehicle technology isn't generally green unless it reduces TCO: a small, low-cost, high-mileage ICE car creates much less economic activity, and hence much less environmental impact, than a large, expensive BEV like the Model S.

I own a Model S and I love it. I just don't pretend that the lack of fumes makes it green.

That's a micro analysis and perhaps also misses the point. For example, the first CFL's were not as efficient in that many burned out sooner than expected, people didn't like them and threw them out, and even now, years later, many of these bulbs are discarded before their normal lifespan, broken, etc. But overall CFL's have cut power use tremendously over incandescents on a macro analysis.

The same, hopefully, will be said about the Model S - this is the start, hopefully, of changing all, or many more, vehicles to electric.

 

[richkae]

Arguing about tailpipe emissions misses the point. To a first approximation, the economic activity generated by owning and using something, referred to as the total cost of ownership (TCO), is proportional to the resources consumed and the environmental impact of that use.

For example, a solar electricity or solar heat system is green if pays for itself over it's lifetime (the TCO is actually negative). The same goes for CFL and LED light bulbs. If, however, they never generate (or save) as much energy as it takes to manufacture them, they actually hurt the environment.

More efficient (lower cost per mile) vehicle technology isn't generally green unless it reduces TCO: a small, low-cost, high-mileage ICE car creates much less economic activity, and hence much less environmental impact, than a large, expensive BEV like the Model S.

I own a Model S and I love it. I just don't pretend that the lack of fumes makes it green.

The "first approximation" is commonly not true that less economic activity causes less environmental impact.
An expensive labor intensive low volume item can have much less environmental impact than a cheap mass produced item.
If your manufacturing process uses clean energy and clean feedstocks, and cleans up after itself it can be a lot more expensive - and generate more economic activity, while having far less environmental impact.
A dollar of economic activity in the US is far more environmentally friendly than a dollar in China.
A dollar of electricity used is far more environmentally friendly than a dollar of gasoline burned.
A dollar of gasoline from a free flowing well is far more environmentally friendly than a dollars worth of gasoline strip mined from tar sands.

TCO is a good start, but you need a more comprehensive life cycle analysis.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

Arguing about tailpipe emissions misses the point. To a first approximation, the economic activity generated by owning and using something, referred to as the total cost of ownership (TCO), is proportional to the resources consumed and the environmental impact of that use.

For example, a solar electricity or solar heat system is green if pays for itself over it's lifetime (the TCO is actually negative). The same goes for CFL and LED light bulbs. If, however, they never generate (or save) as much energy as it takes to manufacture them, they actually hurt the environment.

More efficient (lower cost per mile) vehicle technology isn't generally green unless it reduces TCO: a small, low-cost, high-mileage ICE car creates much less economic activity, and hence much less environmental impact, than a large, expensive BEV like the Model S.

I own a Model S and I love it. I just don't pretend that the lack of fumes makes it green.

A Swiss study published in 2010 (granted, prior to the Model S, but two years after the Tesla Roadster release) concluded that the greatest environmental burden of an electric car is its operational phase, not its manufacture...

"The study shows that the environmental burdens of mobility are dominated by the operation phase regardless of whether a gasoline-fueled ICEV or a European electricity fueled BEV is used." http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es903729a

Perhaps the Models S aluminum body and big battery would shift the burden a bit more toward manufacture, but it is still hard to believe that a Model S driven over a 150,000 mile life would create a greater environmental burden than a Mercedes S Class burning gasoline. Given that greenhouse gas reduction has been Tesla's fundamental goal since the company was created, I think it is likely that Tesla has carefully considered the full life cycle impact of the Model S.