Model S will not save the planet

[jerry33]

Step back for a moment. Sure Model s is a beautiful looking car and will have great performance BUT... Is this really the best way to spend 500 million of taxpayer loans. I for one would have been much happier to see a small commuter vehicle that truly could help to save the planet and the pockets of the middle class. The annoying thing is that Elon Musk and the engineering team could have pulled it off. Instead they chose ego over eco and built a luxury saloon for the wealthy.

1. Ford got 5.9 billion in taxpayer loans and won't pay it back for 25 years--if ever. Tesla already paid back their loan and yet the only complaints heard are for the measly 500 million that Tesla received. Something is rotten in Denmark.

2. No they couldn't have pulled it off--not and remain in business anyway. Small commuter cars have to have high volume to be profitable because they have to sell for a low price. You can't do that when you are a startup. You have to have high gross profits to cover your costs. This is just economics 101.

 

[lolachampcar]

extesla,
You need to do a bit of homework (and perhaps fail at a few start ups) before posting.

Tesla's plan calls for Roadster => MS => MX => G3. The Roadster will not save the planet. The MS will not save the planet. The MX will not save the planet. Heck, even the G3 in the numbers Tesla can produce it will not save the planet. It takes zero thought to make those statements.

What has happened to a degree and will continue to happen if Tesla executes is that it will be patently obvious to even the most casual observer that a quality no compromises electric transport system can be put in place. All the major OEM BS will be simply that, BS. You can not say it can not be done when, in fact, someone is doing it before your very eyes.

Tesla's plan is simple. Show the world it can be done thus forcing all auto manufacturers to do it. This WILL help to save the world.

 

[roblab]

Best way to save the planet?

I didn't see this as a solution, but I didn't read all the way back to the start of the thread. Still, I think it needs repeating.

Interesting to me that we are so arrogant that we feel that we must overpopulate this world, despoil it, and then simply move on to another world to despoil.

What is wrong with living within our means? Oh, of course, that would mean we might have to live more simply, less wastefully. No body wants to do that. Party til the end.

Really?

Other than the story that we were made to populate the world (religion) or need to keep our birthrate up for survival (science), I think we have overdone the whole mess. I vote for fewer people, even if it means that I might not be able to use facebook or my cell phone, or even drive 400 miles a week for no other purpose than visiting friends.

Oh, the degredation!

 

[abasile]

Interesting to me that we are so arrogant that we feel that we must overpopulate this world, despoil it, and then simply move on to another world to despoil.

"Despoiling" this world is not at all what I'm advocating, and if it appeared that way from my prior reply ("the planet doesn't need 'saving'"), I apologize. Environmentalists have often been accused (in some cases rightly so) of prioritizing the well-being of plants/trees/animals/etc. over the well-being of people. "Keeping the earth habitable" and "maintaining/improving our quality of life" are more realistic goals to promote than "saving the planet", whatever that means.

Also, in my opinion, Mars is already "despoiled"; most of its atmosphere is gone, there's no surface water anymore, and as far as we can tell, it's basically a wasteland. Not sure our presence there would make it a whole lot worse. ;-)

What is wrong with living within our means? Oh, of course, that would mean we might have to live more simply, less wastefully. No body wants to do that. Party til the end.

Living more simply can be a good thing. However, the Model S is proof that, with the right technology, we can have our cake and eat it too. We can transition to more sustainable forms of transportation and energy, use recyclable materials, and still enjoy ourselves.

Other than the story that we were made to populate the world (religion) or need to keep our birthrate up for survival (science), I think we have overdone the whole mess. I vote for fewer people, even if it means that I might not be able to use facebook or my cell phone, or even drive 400 miles a week for no other purpose than visiting friends.

You certainly covered the bases! I'm trained in the sciences (no Ph.D, admittedly), am a Christian, and have a family.

My belief is that if we develop the right technology and address global warming, the challenges of having a high population can be handled. This assumes that birthrates continue to decline in "emerging" nations as people move away from agrarian lifestyles, child mortality rates drop, and folks feel less of a need to have many children.

I think most or all of us agree on the need to transition away from fossil fuels, but we all have our own particular perspectives.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

My belief is that if we develop the right technology and address global warming, the challenges of having a high population can be handled. This assumes that birthrates continue to decline in "emerging" nations as people move away from agrarian lifestyles, child mortality rates drop, and folks feel less of a need to have many children.

We already have the technology. Unfortunately, to make sustainable happen we need it to be cheaper and better. Even then, some people will still fight the idea.

 

[GSP]

extesla -

Small commuter EVs have been tried before, by many companies, large and small, over many decades. They all failed. The cars do not have much appeal, and they cost a lot.

A Solectria Force driver told me long ago that after the EV novelty wears off, you still just have a Geo Metro, and he just got tired of it. He even worked for the company that made the car, and had converted it to use a NiMH battery making it an "honest 100-mile car." 100 miles was still a problem for him some days, if he had to run a cross-town errand.

Tesla's approach at least seems to have a chance.

GSP

Solectria Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[VolkerP]

We already have the technology. Unfortunately, to make sustainable happen we need it to be cheaper and better. Even then, some people will still fight the idea.

Fully agree. The point is to entice the majority to adopt to the new technology. There are always people who fight the "new stuff", be it railways, photography, vaccines, human flight, television, or electric vehicles.

 

[macpacheco]

extesla,
You need to do a bit of homework (and perhaps fail at a few start ups) before posting.

Tesla's plan calls for Roadster => MS => MX => G3. The Roadster will not save the planet. The MS will not save the planet. The MX will not save the planet. Heck, even the G3 in the numbers Tesla can produce it will not save the planet. It takes zero thought to make those statements.

What has happened to a degree and will continue to happen if Tesla executes is that it will be patently obvious to even the most casual observer that a quality no compromises electric transport system can be put in place. All the major OEM BS will be simply that, BS. You can not say it can not be done when, in fact, someone is doing it before your very eyes.

Tesla's plan is simple. Show the world it can be done thus forcing all auto manufacturers to do it. This WILL help to save the world.

When you add the G3 (model E) to the equation, then I'd say that if other vendors don't move their butts, Tesla might grow to be another Toyota (selling 10 million cars/year).
And at those kinds of scales, they could be making over 10% of all new cars sold in the world. Given enough time, they could grow larger.
The real question is how much demand ultimately there would be if Tesla could lower the Model S price to US$ 50-90k, model X the same, model E at US$ 30k. Will they run out of eco minded customers, or is it just a matter of price. My money is one Tesla getting at least 10% of worldwide market in 7 years time if other vendors can't effectively compete with them. One way or another 50% of new cars being EVs by 2030 is my expectation.

There's a big case for Tesla disruptive model being unstoppable. Like Elon alluded to, big corporation itis.

 

[lolachampcar]

Thus all the energy being put into battery production (pun intended).
Battery volume lets you build the cars at the same time lowering the cost and accelerating development.

Tesla is run by some smart people.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

When you add the G3 (model E) to the equation, then I'd say that if other vendors don't move their butts, Tesla might grow to be another Toyota (selling 10 million cars/year).
And at those kinds of scales, they could be making over 10% of all new cars sold in the world. Given enough time, they could grow larger.
The real question is how much demand ultimately there would be if Tesla could lower the Model S price to US$ 50-90k, model X the same, model E at US$ 30k. Will they run out of eco minded customers, or is it just a matter of price. My money is one Tesla getting at least 10% of worldwide market in 7 years time if other vendors can't effectively compete with them. One way or another 50% of new cars being EVs by 2030 is my expectation.

There's a big case for Tesla disruptive model being unstoppable. Like Elon alluded to, big corporation itis.

There's a big price v running cost issue, but it actually _helps_ Tesla's approach. Low running cost benefits people who drive a higher number of miles. Tesla's model is to build BEVs that can be driven large numbers of miles. PEVs have inherent "luxury" properties, so it will be easy to convince people to buy if the price comes down and the Supercharger network continues to grow.

The cheaper end is lower margin and more of a challenge, because of the capacity ~ cost ~ performance ~ range link, but I think there's an opportunity for Tesla to attack the budget end with a buy+rent model, either with hybrid batteries or vehicles.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I didn't see this as a solution, but I didn't read all the way back to the start of the thread. Still, I think it needs repeating.

Interesting to me that we are so arrogant that we feel that we must overpopulate this world, despoil it, and then simply move on to another world to despoil.

What is wrong with living within our means? Oh, of course, that would mean we might have to live more simply, less wastefully. No body wants to do that. Party til the end.

Really?

Other than the story that we were made to populate the world (religion) or need to keep our birthrate up for survival (science), I think we have overdone the whole mess. I vote for fewer people, even if it means that I might not be able to use facebook or my cell phone, or even drive 400 miles a week for no other purpose than visiting friends.

Oh, the degredation!

Overpopulation in this context is something of a misnomer in terms of impact on the planet. A rigorous version of I=PAT or similar is more accurate.

I = PAT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure, the poorest 3 billion may have a substantial impact on the planet, but if that impact is the same as the wealthiest 1, 10, or 100 million people, then the only overpopulation problem we have is that there are too many rich people around hoovering up resources/emitting pollution.

Putting it another way. ~300 million "Americans" have as big of an impact on the planet as ~9000 million Kenyans. I guess most would say, "I don't want those living standards.", and that's valid. The solution to that is more efficient/efficacious use of resources. With a smaller zero net energy house, less meat, a lot more rail, and an Aptera'ish car or two in every garage, etc... that's possible, but until that happens the wealthy are the strongest driver behind the impact of people on the planet, not the ~4-5+ billion poorest people.

Whats Your Consumption Factor? - New York Times

 

[macpacheco]

Overpopulation in this context is something of a misnomer in terms of impact on the planet. A rigorous version of I=PAT or similar is more accurate.

I = PAT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure, the poorest 3 billion may have a substantial impact on the planet, but if that impact is the same as the wealthiest 1, 10, or 100 million people, then the only overpopulation problem we have is that there are too many rich people around hoovering up resources/emitting pollution.

Putting it another way. ~300 million "Americans" have as big of an impact on the planet as ~9000 million Kenyans. I guess most would say, "I don't want those living standards.", and that's valid. The solution to that is more efficient/efficacious use of resources. With a smaller zero net energy house, less meat, a lot more rail, and an Aptera'ish car or two in every garage, etc... that's possible, but until that happens the wealthy are the strongest driver behind the impact of people on the planet, not the ~4-5+ billion poorest people.

Whats Your Consumption Factor? - New York Times

The only problem there is poor countries getting out of poverty will opt for the cheapest electricity source. Until they get close to China or India's level of development, they will be using COAL ! Unless we could get another half in Solar PV prices (plus cheap battery storage solution for running solely on renewables). Those quoting Solar at US$ 0.06/kWh are forgetting to include the li-ion battery packs, otherwise you're assuming low efficiency load following natural gas / coal to complement. The actual pollution from low efficiency is ultra high per GWh produced. Because they are inefficient.