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

Model S will not save the planet

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Yep, I'm an economist, not a political scientist, so "cost" as I use it nearly always means $$. The current political rhetoric is exactly that -- it, too, shall pass. Remember "read my lips"? But the real cost of fixed infrastructure can't be changed instantly even by the best-intentioned politicians. Hence the need to provide clear guidance about future regulatory changes today, so we can all begin to adapt rationally.
 
And more data about what it takes to save the planet.

Guess what, it will take replacing lots of different cars to "save the planet".

From Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com

About 12 million vehicles will be sold in the US this year.
Through the first 11 months, 11.5 million vehicles were sold. 5.7 million of those were cars. Of those cars 910,000 were luxury or large cars.
About 16% of cars sold are luxury or large cars. They probably consume more than their share of the gasoline, and make more than their share of emissions.
Each luxury car you replace with an EV is at least as good - maybe better - for the planet as replacing a small car.

Of the non-cars: 3.6 million were SUVs or crossovers ( 62% of non-cars ).
The Model S ( and Model X ) will be excellent replacements for most of those as well.
 
I have another piece of data about the capital investment necessary to produce a high volume car.
Nissan's new plant in Tenessee to produce the Leaf has a pricetag of $1.7 billion. That plant will produce 150,000 Leafs and 200,000 batteries packs per year.
I think LEAF production may currently be limited by battery pack supply. I heard that the TN LEAF factory will make batteries for a while before it is ready to start making full cars. I am guessing that means they will export packs for a little while to keep the LEAF output going from the Japan factory. Not sure when the UK factory will come online.
 
As far as I can tell, Tesla is the only car company with a major interest in saving the planet.

The OP pretends to have difficulties understanding that this might result in Model S being a premium sedan.

I don't think the OP has actual difficulties understand the reasoning, rather that the misguided argument is a result of ignorance-as-choice based on statistics-oriented dogma.
 
de 704 - You don't get any points for insulting people, calling them fools. It just makes you look bad descending into name calling.
Aluminium? I am glad you mentioned this. I think it is a mistake to use aluminum. Steel is more environmentally friendly both from a primary energy requirement, global warming potential and recycling. There is also the matter of acidification. OK so it is lighter than steel but you need more of it. Especially if your intent is to build a large sedan for a few people rather than a small vehicle for the middle and working class. THIS is what Elon should have done. I don't buy his Premium vehicle first and small car later. I will repeat. Everything about Model S is a case of ego over eco. Oh yes. The weight I referred to in my OP was the weight of batteries, enclosure, additional battery management.
 
extesla: Using steel would be cheaper but would also weigh significantly more and decrease the range. This is not meant to be a car for the 'common man', it's a luxury car and it will be more 'eco' than almost every other car out on the road. Why would you need more aluminum than steel to build the same car?

Again, you have addressed nothing that people have responded to in your original post other than you are offended. Aluminum can be easily recycled using 5% of the energy to make the original material. What world saving car specs would you have Tesla make? Anyone buying the Model S and upgrading from a fuel inefficient car is making a huge step in the right direction with their environmental impact. Would you rather have them stay in their V8 sedan if they refuse to buy any small car you'd have Tesla produce?
 
extesla: Using steel would be cheaper but would also weigh significantly more and decrease the range. This is not meant to be a car for the 'common man', it's a luxury car and it will be more 'eco' than almost every other car out on the road. Why would you need more aluminum than steel to build the same car?

Again, you have addressed nothing that people have responded to in your original post other than you are offended. Aluminum can be easily recycled using 5% of the energy to make the original material. What world saving car specs would you have Tesla make? Anyone buying the Model S and upgrading from a fuel inefficient car is making a huge step in the right direction with their environmental impact. Would you rather have them stay in their V8 sedan if they refuse to buy any small car you'd have Tesla produce?

You need thicker gage aluminum to do the same job as steel.
I agree that anybody buying a Model S is making a step in the right direction, especially if we can get off coal as the primary fuel for creating electricity. My point is and always has been, that Musk is building luxury electric cars for a few wealthy people. As such I don't see he can take too many shots at Fisker. I believe that established manufacturers will beat Tesla and Fisker to the development of a small eco vehicle. This will leave tesla and fisker as niche vehicle manufacturers, unworthy of the 500 million of taxpayer loans at cheap rates.
 
You need thicker gage aluminum to do the same job as steel.
I agree that anybody buying a Model S is making a step in the right direction, especially if we can get off coal as the primary fuel for creating electricity. My point is and always has been, that Musk is building luxury electric cars for a few wealthy people. As such I don't see he can take too many shots at Fisker. I believe that established manufacturers will beat Tesla and Fisker to the development of a small eco vehicle. This will leave tesla and fisker as niche vehicle manufacturers, unworthy of the 500 million of taxpayer loans at cheap rates.
There are already small, eco vehicles people can buy. For EVs, there's the Leaf and Nissan received 1.6 billion dollars and Ford received 5.9 billion dollars from that same loan you have a problem with.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You make it sound like Tesla should go after a market that is already being served. Some people simply don't want to buy a small car and if they can find a luxury, electric sedan what is wrong with that? Would you be for not allowing any cars to be built in the US that are larger than a Honda Civic? I don't understand exactly what you're asking for.

You can power a electric car from from any source of electricity. What's to say you can't install solar panels on your house or pay for green energy from your power company? There are options. Again, what would you have us do? Your argument makes no sense.

Anything that can be done to reduce the weight of cars is a good thing. I don't understand your problem with Aluminum. Lighter cars means less energy to move the car. Aluminum can be recycled as well.
 
Last edited:
I don't buy his Premium vehicle first and small car later.

Then it's a good thing you're not starting your own electric car company. My view is that Tesla has a very smart business plan.

As automobile historians will tell you, the last half century has not been kind to new car companies (Tucker, Bricklin, DeLorean, etc.). It's really hard to get a new car company established. First, the upfront costs are enormous: Design and manufacturing costs alone (not to mention sales and service infrastructure) approach a billion dollars - and all of that needs to be spent before you can sell even 1 car. Thanks to sophisticated computer simulation and the luck of Toyota selling its factory at a firesale price, Tesla will do it for less. For comparison, GM's Volt cost them over a billion.

Since this is your first vehicle, you can't just turn the switch and start producing 100 high quality cars off the line a day. That means you can't make your profits in volume, you have to make it by margin. That means you need more profit per vehicle, which means a higher price, which means you have to have a vehicle that's worth the higher price to your customers. Also, being low volume means you don't have to spend as much on advertising, nor on high pressure salesmen, nor on a robust service network. Tesla runs their own sales distribution, so they get to keep the traditional "dealer markup" as profit for themselves. Pretty smart all the way around.

Tesla has the further complication of utilizing a new, costly technology. But, what's smart about "Premium first" is that Tesla can include the costlier technology (mostly in the form of big batteries) at little or not profit, and make their money on the high margin luxury items instead. As Tesla refines its designs, the technology will cost less, and then they can make money on the low cost, more mainstream, cars. The tradeoffs that Nissan and BMW are making with their lower priced cars will limit not only sales, but profits. Nissan can afford to do that, like Toyota did with the Prius for almost a decade, but a startup company like Tesla can't.
 
Back to the lighter car (aluminum) meaning less energy to move it: In fact the difference in weight of the aluminum versus steel bodyshell is negligible compared to the weight of the extra batteries (for an unecessarily long range) and the luxury fitments. Model S is not a green vehicle and should not be billed as such. Tesla do not deserve to be 'the poster child' for the electric vehicle revolution. They have wasted their green capital by building luxury cars for the wealthy.
 
Sorry, AO, I can't resist:

extesla, you are making the rash assumption that people are willing to make drastic changes in their lifestyles to achieve sustainability. Some will; most won't. People committed to sustainability move into small city apartments, walk most everywhere or take public transit, and might use ZipCars or the like occasionally for special occasions.

Good on them. Few people do this.

Many, many people in the US want to drive a well-appointed, spacious vehicle with excellent handling, acceleration, and fitments. Let's accept this as a given. How, then, can a socially responsible company best move this affluent segment towards a more sustainable outcome?

I submit to you that it is not through making uncomfortably small, lightly equipped, under-powered vehicles. They will simply be ignored, and this market segment will then just continue to buy vehicles that burn lots of gasoline.

The better route, and the route that Tesla has chosen, is to make a vehicle that is, first and foremost, a vehicle that this affluent group will want to buy, regardless of whether it is green or not. They are being tricked, if you will, into being sustainable; alternatively, those of us (myself included) who want both luxury and sustainability can have both. Could they be greener still? Sure, they could all move into small city apartments and bicycle everywhere. But that's not going to happen, so it's better that this segment drives around in a large EV than a large ICE.
 
Can we seriously stop entertaining this moron? He isn't digesting anything said, just blindly regurgitating his beliefs as facts.
You do not get any points in a forum for name calling. It is undignified. I am not regurgitating beliefs. I have given you some valid factual data. (e.g. steel versus aluminum. Actually if I were designing a car it would be built around aluminum and steel but I digress).
 
...luxury cars for the wealthy.

Face it, extesla, you could care less about efficiency, ecology, or the logistics of making a startup successful. For you, this is all about class warfare. You hate that Tesla got a loan from the US government. Whether you think GM should have gotten more money, or whether you think no company should have gotten any loan, Tesla gets in your craw because it's currently making a luxurious car that most people can't afford.

What you're continually missing amid the smokescreens of weight and "extra battery" penalties is what I previously said: in order to be a successful new car company, Tesla needs to make money early. That means low-volume, high price. After establishing that, they can move to more mainstream markets. So, be patient. Know that if Tesla produced the car you want them to produce, they'd go out of business and then the taxpayers wouldn't get repaid. In a half year's time, smile at every Model S you see, because each one means Tesla is making money, and they'll repay the government and then produce more mainstream cars. Someday, you'll own a Tesla.
 
Last edited: