Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

How does one justify it...

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
On strictly economic grounds, the answer is you can't. Not without saying relative to what.

My justifications for Model S, in decreasing order of rationality, were:
- Greatly reduced running costs making the TCO roughly the same as a $80k ICE car after 5 years
- I took a punt that the car would last longer and not depreciate as much
- I could afford it
- Wife approved (well, not a first, but now I can't get her out of it)
- I was going to buy a new car anyway
- I'm a smug know-it-all greenie and electric car nut (since teenage years)
- I just wanted one.

Not much else required, really...
 
Cars of any kind are a negative to the environment. And expensive. The road commute from Northern Beaches to Sydney is TERRIBLE.
That said, if you're going to have a car, any car, the Tesla is the one to get.
Best car I've owned (and I could own pretty much anything I want), and I feel a little privileged every time I get in it.
All the best.
Do I really want to be commuting from the northern beaches into Sydney traffic?
 
When I purchased my first tesla, the wife took it for a drive when I got it home, and decided it was hers.....so I had double your problem, I had to spend on two model S. Still dont regret it. Upgraded them both last year.
A big tip, you will read a lot of negativity on the internet. Its rubbish sponsored by petrochemical companies, ice car manufacturers, and short sellers of tsla shares. Best ignore all of it. Tesla have been ‘on the edge’ since I bought the first one, and have since added model x, house batteries, utility batteries, model 3, and under development is the semi truck, model y, and roadster. Then there are the gigafactories. Doesnt seem like a company that is about to fall over.
But above all, dont take life too seriously as no-one gets out alive.
 
I have sampled most of the famous luxury brands but have never got addicted to any.
But now I am - I cannot contemplate driving another brand.
Partly because we are are part of the Tesla mission, and our purchases and driving (especially on AP) are furthering the cause.
Partly because they constantly change with the updates, and my interaction with AP as I drive is constantly evolving.
Partly because we have had to establish our own charging network in WA, for which we established a great team.
But mainly because the cars are so much fun to drive and demonstrate to others.

I have driven much further in Teslas than I ever used to drive in ICEs, just because they are so much fun.
My wife wondered what all the fuss was about when I ordered the first one in 2012, and we only test drove one in December 2014 by the time ours had arrived. But now she is looking past the P3D- which is coming soon, and wants to order a Model Y.

The one downside is that if you fly somewhere, then hiring a Tesla (which has become necessary) is a lot more expensive than hiring an ICE.
 
For me there are several reasons..

I cant sit still and do nothing about climate change, I am making many changes in my life, the car is just one (currently drive a phev) but an important one.

Second to that I can afford it (through being careful and saving), I dont have kids to worry about.

What pisses me off is (wealthy) people with kids buying huge diesel SUVs to ferry them around and 'keep them safe' when it poisons them and destroys their future.

Plus I personally support tesla and their mission and their approach, I cant see the company going anywhere but up.

We have lots of solar, battery, 2x Tesla’s, only need to put the bins out every 4-6 weeks (usually half empty or more), grow at lot of our own veggies, have chooks etc. etc. etc., however if we just stopped eating red meat we’d achieve more for the environment than all the aforementioned put together.....that’s the reality of things....
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ICUDoc
We have lots of solar, battery, 2x Tesla’s, only need to put the bins out every 4-6 weeks (usually half empty or more), grow at lot of our own veggies, have chooks etc. etc. etc., however if we just stopped eating red meat we’d achieve more for the environment than all the aforementioned put together.....that’s the reality of things....
It happens a lot that US-generated data is applied in OUS countries, just because they do so much good science and data gathering (thank you CDC and NIH).
For example, a lot of the negative health impact of beef comes from US studies, but those studies are using corn-fed cattle, which have a different fat profile than grass-fed cattle (most Australian cattle). Grass-fed beef is leaner and has higher omega-3. There is not much nutritional research though, because good studies take 40 years and 100,000 participants, and we don't have the budget.
It makes me wonder if there is a different carbon cost for beef in the US compared to OUS. I would imagine that a cow wandering about eating grass would have no greater carbon cost than a kangaroo doing likewise, excepting transport, packaging etc.
 
I have sampled most of the famous luxury brands but have never got addicted to any.
But now I am - I cannot contemplate driving another brand.
Partly because we are are part of the Tesla mission, and our purchases and driving (especially on AP) are furthering the cause.
Partly because they constantly change with the updates, and my interaction with AP as I drive is constantly evolving.
Partly because we have had to establish our own charging network in WA, for which we established a great team.
But mainly because the cars are so much fun to drive and demonstrate to others.

I have driven much further in Teslas than I ever used to drive in ICEs, just because they are so much fun.
My wife wondered what all the fuss was about when I ordered the first one in 2012, and we only test drove one in December 2014 by the time ours had arrived. But now she is looking past the P3D- which is coming soon, and wants to order a Model Y.

The one downside is that if you fly somewhere, then hiring a Tesla (which has become necessary) is a lot more expensive than hiring an ICE.
I prefer to hire an ICE when I fly. It helps bring me back to how good my tesla really is. So easy to forget.
 
Sorry @ShockOnT - Grass feed beef is just as bad as grain (corn etc.) and in a land that has water issues even far worse....

Here’s Why Grass-Fed Beef is Just as Bad for the Environment as Grain-Fed
The only time a comparison was made in that article was the line: "In fact, each pound of grass-fed beef produces 500 percent more greenhouse gases than grain-fed."
Obviously this sounded like quite an extravagent claim, so I followed the "source", which turned out to be a video by Penn State University on the differences between the two farming techniques, mainly from an agro-business perspective. The video contained no reference to greenhouse gases whatsoever, so the article writer (Sara Farr of "Our Green Planet") may have remembered that number from a conversation at the pub.

I'm not trying to make that case that beef production doesn't produce a lot of CO2, I'm trying to make the more subtle case that we can't necessarily make a claim for how much CO2 is emitted in Australian beef production because the information we have about a beef:CO2 (kg:kg) ratio comes from US studies, and beef production is different in the US than in Australia.

So in the health example we have learned from the large longitudinal nutrition studies (which are how we know anything at all about nutrition) that there are cardiovascular risks associated with beef consumption. But the more subtle point is that these studies predominantly come from the US, and US grain-fed beef has a slightly different composition than Australia grass-feed before. Better or worse we don't know, and can probably never know, because there are too many other health inputs different between US and Australian eating habits. We suspect grass-fed is healthier because it has higher omega-3, but we don't really know.

In the same way, the ratio of kilograms of CO2 generated per kilogram of beef produced is only accurate in the country it was researched (the US). It is easy for article writers or even academic researchers to miss this when doing local analysis, although the article you linked was many steps short of this mistake, having already stumbled at the "that's just gotta be true" stage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tobygriffin
There are many areas one needs to take in to account, you are only taking in to account the difference between moving cows between fields (less trees cut down and energy spent growing corn etc.) and not taking all aspects that should be considered (such as trees being cut down for more grass grazing cows). We have struggled being vegans (failed), struggled being vegetarians (failed) and now flexitarian's (success).....it is blatantly obviously having 2 billion+ cows, and that number is growing each year, on earth to serve humans is not a good thing...period. I don't want to see farmers go out of business, but the human race does need to eat a hell of a lot less, not no, animal protein (go read the China Study). On a side note my father/mother have been vegans for a few years now....they are in the best shape of their lives, my fathers cholesterol is that of a healthy young man and he's out running 10km's+ per day....he's 74! The difference in their health is without a doubt obvious and there is absolutely no disputing the reason why.

@ShockOnT then there is this (Are cows the cause of global warming? | Time for change):

A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2). But the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Therefore the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2'300 kg CO2 per year.

Let's compare this value of 2,300 kg CO2: The same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated by burning 1,000 litres of petrol. With a car using 8 litres of petrol per 100 km, you could drive 12,500 km per year.

World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!

According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide (this is more than the whole transportation sector).

Cattle-breeding is taking a major factor for these greenhouse gas emissions according to FAO. Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO's Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

The following tables indicates the CO2 production in kg CO2 equivalents per kg of meat depending on the animal:

1 kg of meat from produces kg CO2e:
  • beef 34.6
  • lamb 17.4
  • pork 6.35
  • chicken 4.57
Albert Einstein (Nobel prize 1921): Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.
 
  • Should I really be spending this amount of money on a car?!?
  • Shouldn’t I be considering the long term future of my kids?
  • What if Tesla bombs out - and i’m left with a $120k car- now worth nothing.
  • Do I really want to be commuting from the northern beaches into Sydney traffic?

I live in the same part of Sydney. I made this decision with similar questions about 3 months ago. I could be accused of post rationalisation but I was buying something, question was what.

Price: It’s expensive. The question is what is your alternative? All electric cars are expensive. So if you’re buying electric you only consider the cost delta from a comparison vehicle. The Kona is $65k. You could be sitting in the base Tesla for not much more. If you have the money, use it.

Kids: I learned quickly when looking at comparisons (Jag I-Pace) the kids think Tesla is cool. Buying a Tesla will not upset your children.

Risk: The scare stories were doing the rounds when I was transferring my funds too, there wasn’t any problem and there isn’t likely to be any beyond the deposit. Nobody can make cast iron guarantees about any company but I am not sure how you figure the car would be worth nothing. It would probably go up in value, if it became a collectible. I reckon a buyer would pick up Tesla in a heartbeat though.

Commute: The Northern Beaches loves traffic, and weekends are worse than weekdays. It’s a weird and satisfying feeling when you’re sitting there burning no fuel while all around you are going nowhere and burning cash. I drive to Penrith every day. Honestly doesn’t bother me. I’m in a Model S, I spend 3 hours a day in the car and when I get home I ask my wife if she’d like to go for a drive up McCarrs Creek Rd.

I was ready to spend more on a nice car, my commute justifies it. I wanted electric. I leaned towards Tesla but considered others, test drove the Jag (up McCarrs) and the Tesla is better. My family made that decision. My wife baulked at cost, it was 3x more than we had ever spent. What’s the point of money if you don’t use it for your benefit though?

Tips: Leave the software options (FSD) until after delivery. No point paying LCT on something you can buy a day later through a software update. If you’re buying with an ABN, be sure you understand the GST threshold as you’ll go over it with the performance model. For your home charger install, get LME Electrical to do it, they were super professional and do lots of work for Tesla. I had to upgrade my mains and they took care of it. Their number is on the Tesla website (or message me) ask for Isaac to come do the work.
 
One other thing to consider if you’re on the beaches, I opted to go for paint protection film. My old car looked like it had the measles from all the stone chips I got. Spending this much on a car, I wanted to protect it. Australian Detailing Services at Mona Vale are who you want to see. They included ceramic coating as part of the cost. I drove the car from pickup straight there and I don’t regret it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T3SLA3
There are many areas one needs to take in to account, you are only taking in to account the difference between moving cows between fields (less trees cut down and energy spent growing corn etc.) and not taking all aspects that should be considered (such as trees being cut down for more grass grazing cows). We have struggled being vegans (failed), struggled being vegetarians (failed) and now flexitarian's (success).....it is blatantly obviously having 2 billion+ cows, and that number is growing each year, on earth to serve humans is not a good thing...period. I don't want to see farmers go out of business, but the human race does need to eat a hell of a lot less, not no, animal protein (go read the China Study). On a side note my father/mother have been vegans for a few years now....they are in the best shape of their lives, my fathers cholesterol is that of a healthy young man and he's out running 10km's+ per day....he's 74! The difference in their health is without a doubt obvious and there is absolutely no disputing the reason why.

@ShockOnT then there is this (Are cows the cause of global warming? | Time for change):

A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2). But the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Therefore the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2'300 kg CO2 per year.

Let's compare this value of 2,300 kg CO2: The same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated by burning 1,000 litres of petrol. With a car using 8 litres of petrol per 100 km, you could drive 12,500 km per year.

World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!

According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide (this is more than the whole transportation sector).

Cattle-breeding is taking a major factor for these greenhouse gas emissions according to FAO. Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO's Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

The following tables indicates the CO2 production in kg CO2 equivalents per kg of meat depending on the animal:

1 kg of meat from produces kg CO2e:
  • beef 34.6
  • lamb 17.4
  • pork 6.35
  • chicken 4.57
Albert Einstein (Nobel prize 1921): Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.
You misunderstand me.
My point has nothing to do with beef, or CO2, or vanilla milkshakes.
It’s about data, how we derive data.
We get our data from large registries, careful studies. Most of these are done in the US.
But the data these studies provide to the world are actually specifically sourced in that nation.

For example you give ratios for meat:CO2.

My point is that these ratios aren’t universal. They would change depending on countless variables such as breed, climate, feedstock, grid energy source for processing etc etc

That’s what I mean when I wonder if Australian grass-fed beef is less detrimental than the “official” (US) figures for beef.
 
You misunderstand me.
My point has nothing to do with beef, or CO2, or vanilla milkshakes.
It’s about data, how we derive data.
We get our data from large registries, careful studies. Most of these are done in the US.
But the data these studies provide to the world are actually specifically sourced in that nation.

For example you give ratios for meat:CO2.

My point is that these ratios aren’t universal. They would change depending on countless variables such as breed, climate, feedstock, grid energy source for processing etc etc

That’s what I mean when I wonder if Australian grass-fed beef is less detrimental than the “official” (US) figures for beef.
Have a look at the link I posted - covers a lot of that stuff