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

Ridiculous Forbes Article - Tesla Model S A Nice Fossil Fuel Car

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I notice that he quoted coal as producing 67% of the *world's* electricity. And that includes all those countries where Tesla does not yet sell.

Domestically, we have gone from just over 50% coal-generated electricity to about 40% in *just the last few years*. Notice he did NOT say THAT.

(Locally, we get most of our power from nukes and gas with coal backup)
 
I'm the author of the Forbes piece. I'm sorry that many on the Tesla forum did not like it, and I want to take the opportunity to elaborate on its argument.

The fundamental question being argued on both sides is, as I see it, whether the government should severely restrict fossil fuel use--and, as part of that policy, promote electric cars as an alternative.



In my view, because cheap, plentiful, reliable energy is so important to technological and human progress, and because fossil fuel technology is essential to providing that caliber of energy for a long time to come, governments should absolutely not be restricting fossil fuel use. (For those interested in seeing how this case stacks up in an open debate, see my recent Stanford debate with Sierra Club Senior Director Bruce Nilles.) Making this case requires addressing concerns about climate head-on, which I did.


"Perhaps the most neglected benefit of fossil fuel energy is in making us safer from the climate. Our cultural discussion on 'climate change' fixates on whether or not fossil fuels impact the climate. Of course they do—everything does—but the question that matters is whether it is becoming safer or more dangerous. Here, the data is unambiguous—in the last 80 years, as fossil fuels have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from .03% to all of .04%, we have become 50 times less likely to die because of climate-related causes. Give thanks to the proliferation of climate-protection technology (climate control, sturdy homes, weather satellites, drought-relief convoys, modern agriculture), which are made possible by fossil fuels."


Most of the posts on this forum assume that climate change is a basis for government action, but none even attempted to address my case about the actual effects of CO2 emissions on climate safety. The underlying data here place an enormous burden of proof on anyone claiming future catastrophe. And that burden cannot be met as the catastrophic climate models are demonstrable failures at predicting climate. (As I will argue later, even if there was a big problem, advocating solar as the solution would not be logical.)


Other posts on the forum assume that the finite nature of fossil fuels implies some sort of necessary government support of electric cars. But basic economics tells us that the price of the finite commodities involved in every mode of transport will signal if and when a change is necessary. (Note: price is more important than "energy efficiency." Energy efficiency is just one form of resource efficiency, and often not the most important. If you're admirer of solar, note that an excellent solar panel is "20% efficient"--should that disqualify it?)


Given that electric cars are currently a tiny, luxury, resource-intensive niche of the transportation market, it is odd to assume that all the resources involved will smoothly and economically scale globally. We have no idea, just as we have no idea whether there will be a revolution in coal-to-liquids or gas-to-liquids will mean superior hydrocarbon fuels for hundreds of years to come. Or even whether synthesizing methanol from biomass and burning it using standard internal combustion engines will be more efficient than powering cars with energy-intensive batteries. If we're free to choose along the way, we don't have to know in advance.


Although I do not believe that CO2 emissions are a problem, even if it was the public approach of Elon Musk, Tesla, and much of Tesla's following would be counterproductive--because any constructive approach requires taking on the leading opponents of cheap, plentiful, reliable, non-carbon energy: the environmentalist movement.


I am an adamant supporter of nuclear power and hydroelectric power, as are some of you; the environmentalist movement is the leading opponent of both forms of power--the Sierra Club being a particularly egregious example. These organizations are the ones who made nuclear power uneconomic; without them, there is a strong case nuclear would have won out worldwide on the free market. (For more on this issue, see my pro-nuclear Facebook page, I Love Nuclear," as well as Petr Beckmann's classic "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear."


Elon Musk should use his public position to every anti-nuclear group. Instead, he endorses their empty promise that solar can power our civilization. That's why in my article I focused on solar--that's what Tesla assures us will replace the fossil fuels it opposes (but uses).


To be solution-oriented means to advocate the best options--and that could also include geo-engineering, also opposed by environmentalists--not just the politically correct ones.


To be solution-oriented in this context also means to look for *global* solutions that would actually work. In my article I cited the fact that globally solar and wind produce less than 1% of the world's electricity--and that must be backed up by a reliable source, usually fossil fuels. Several posts on this forum took me to task because their Teslas run on a higher percentage of solar and wind. No one addressed the point about requiring backup--usually "100% solar means a reliable source of energy is providing 100% backup (which doesn't scale). And more broadly, no one acknowledged that solar/wind is a luxury good. It's very expensive and it scales very, very poorly. If we're talking 80% global CO2 reductions, the fact that your particular Tesla uses X% solar is completely irrelevant because few can afford it and the "solution" wouldn't scale if more could.


If you believe that catastrophic global warming is the problem of our age, then the solution is to take a hard line against the environmentalist movement and look for global solutions on the scale of the problem. It is not to, forgive me, be self-righteous about your Tesla.


I bring up the self-righteous point because I very much admire the Tesla, and I think it deserves to be supported in a spirit of pure enthusiasm for technology and humanity--not defensiveness and partisanship.


When I write an article trying to convey that the Tesla S is testament to the unacknowledged virtues of fossil fuel energy, and the response I get in the Tesla forum is to be labeled a "hater," that is partisan.


It is also partisan to dismiss me because I support fossil fuels. A few people wrote me off for wearing an "I Love Fossil Fuels" shirt to a Tesla store, or period. Well, I do love fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry and I came to that love honestly, for reasons that I hope are clear. (For more reasons, read my book.) I believe it was an incredibly appropriate shirt to wear to the Tesla store. Incidentally, it was not premeditated--I just happened to be wearing it at the Fashion Island mall, but I'm glad I did.


I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from. If you're interested in learning more about how to think about environmental issues from a consistently humanist, technological perspective, I hope you'll take a look at my book and my essay "The Industrial Manifesto."
 
This is the kind of ridiculous thinking that has become mainstream in the US. Utterly counter-logical and deliberately so. I weep that this is in Forbes since my namesake Great-Uncle used to be an editor there. This propoganda piece is so stupid it hurts. Coal is on the decline and for good reason.
 
No, he is not correct. That whole coal driven Tesla argument is just bullocks. If you say Tesla runs on fossil fuel you might just as well say an ICE runs on (very old) solar fuel. A Tesla runs on electricity PERIOD. How that electricity is generated is not to be accounted on Tesla but on society as a whole. We have to start somewhere in transforming our society away from fossil fuel, and Tesla is doing it's part in the whole process. We have to get rid of these dirty electricity plants as well but that is a different project and not to be accounted on Tesla

First of all, he's absolutely correct. The Tesla cars still are fossil-fuel driven.
 
No, he is not correct. That whole coal driven Tesla argument is just bullocks. If you say Tesla runs on fossil fuel you might just as well say an ICE runs on (very old) solar fuel. A Tesla runs on electricity PERIOD. How that electricity is generated is not to be accounted on Tesla but on society as a whole. We have to start somewhere in transforming our society away from fossil fuel, and Tesla is doing it's part in the whole process. We have to get rid of these dirty electricity plants as well but that is a different project and not to be accounted on Tesla

Good points, but even if you want to look at the fuel that generates electricity the statement "the Tesla is a coal car" is false.
Coal provides less than 40% of US electricity so he is wrong.
 
This is the kind of ridiculous thinking that has become mainstream in the US. Utterly counter-logical and deliberately so. I weep that this is in Forbes since my namesake Great-Uncle used to be an editor there. This propoganda piece is so stupid it hurts. Coal is on the decline and for good reason.

The articles on the Forbes website are often written by "contributors" which makes it only one step above Yahoo! Finance message boards and is on par with Seeking Alpha. This will eventually kill the Forbes brand, but right now, people look at the brand and assume that the articles are written by someone with at least some journalistic integrity. Sadly, I find that is often not the case.
 
This is a tricky subject. I googled Gasoline vs Coal and found this 5 year old answer: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080927100559AAq4lTM In conclusion he says that coal is actually more carbon efficient if you take into account all the processing and shipping of both.

Even if it's about carbon equal there are many other sources of electricity in the USA.

The store should of shown him the http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric site where it answers the "How is Electricity Generated" even though it only shows the CO2 the cars emit.
 
I think some EV owners point to their grid tie solar panels and claim that they fully negate the impact of burning fossil fuels if you charge your EV at night from fossil fuel electricity generation. I don't believe that is true. In other words, if your solar panels can eliminate the need to burn fossil fuels to charge your EV, then you can claim that your EV is fossil fuel free. You may be negating your daily A/C load, or someone else's industrial use or TV watching or something else during the day with your grid-tie solar panels, but you are not negating the environmental impact of charging your EV if that electricity is coming from fossil fuels.

"fully negate the impact of burning fossil fuels" and "eliminate the need to burn fossil fuels" are not the same thing. I can claim the first one easily, but obviously not the other.

Since I produce more from solar than I use to charge, no additional additional Fossil (or nuclear) fuel was needed for my charging. Therefore, I have "eliminated" the impact of charging, which is my main goal.
 
"fully negate the impact of burning fossil fuels" and "eliminate the need to burn fossil fuels" are not the same thing. I can claim the first one easily, but obviously not the other.

Since I produce more from solar than I use to charge, no additional additional Fossil (or nuclear) fuel was needed for my charging. Therefore, I have "eliminated" the impact of charging, which is my main goal.

That's what I'm saying is not true. Since the electricity from your panels are not used by your EV when charging at night, it does not offset. You are offsetting some other electricity use during the day. I'm not saying that the grid tie solar is not a good idea or that it doesn't help overall carbon footprint. It does. But for EVs which usually charge at night, you *have* to use something else - it must exist or your EV won't charge. Therefore, when going out and evangelizing the benefits of EV especially as part of public policy, I think we have to be clear about how the electricity is generated for EV charging.

In the northeast, we have a lot of baseband nuclear generation. In many places, hydro is the baseband load source. In some places, wind is also available intermittently at night. We may actually have a higher coal generation at night than natural gas. It would be useful for some think tank or the EIA to actually report night time electricity generation so we get a more accurate picture of what EV's use to charge. Right now, people use 24 hour and annual averages that are very misleading. The solar offset argument is too easily dismissed by the critics because they rightly point out that nighttime charging often isn't done with solar (yet). I think pointing to grid-tie solar actually weakens the pro-EV argument.
 
That's what I'm saying is not true. Since the electricity from your panels are not used by your EV when charging at night, it does not offset. You are offsetting some other electricity use during the day.

Since not a single ounce of additional coal, oil or natural gas was used to produce the extra electricity needed to charge my car, I am definitely "offsetting" my fossil fuel use. This is the same concept as carbon offsetting.

It does not matter if the exact electrons are used, just that no new ones (metaphorically) were generated from fossil fuels.

Also, this does not take into account the true elimination of the fossil fuel burned by my previous car (approximately 40 gallons a month)
 
Last edited:
Yeah total coal consumption for the U.S. is 37%
What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Further state-by-state many don't use coal at all, many more only use a small percentage, while a few use coal heavily.

Click on the states within this map to find out about your own state's energy mix...
http://www.eia.gov/state/

Tesla used to have a function on their site that showed how much the Model S saves via the pipe. That's gone now.
 
Now this is an interesting article. Makes the case that one day the power grid won't really be necessary. Haven't read it full yet. But I like how he explains the domino effect of how ad electricity prices rise more people are switching to solar which causes them to raise electric rates to stay in business and that only causes more ppl to switch to solar as its cheaper. Makes the point that solar has reached equal costs now to switch or will be cheaper everywhere within the next 2-3 years. This domino effect and dramatic rate increasing rate rate of conversion to solar year over year means in the next 10-20 years the power grid will become obsolete and unnecessary!!
Why the U.S. Power Grid's Days Are Numbered - Businessweek
 
The author's response: (note: this is not me! -- but my comments in [brackets])

from: http://industrialprogress.com/2013/08/22/the-tesla-debate/

I’m sorry that many on the Tesla forum did not like it, and I want to take the opportunity to elaborate on its argument.
The fundamental question being argued on both sides is, as I see it, whether the government should severely restrict fossil fuel use–and, as part of that policy, promote electric cars as an alternative.
In my view, because cheap, plentiful, reliable energy is so important to technological and human progress, and because fossil fuel technology is essential to providing that caliber of energy for a long time to come, governments should absolutely not be restricting fossil fuel use. (For those interested in seeing how this case stacks up in an open debate, see my recent Stanford debate with Sierra Club Senior Director Bruce Nilles.) Making this case requires addressing concerns about climate head-on, which I did.

“Perhaps the most neglected benefit of fossil fuel energy is in making us safer from the climate. Our cultural discussion on ‘climate change’ fixates on whether or not fossil fuels impact the climate. Of course they do—everything does—but the question that matters is whether it is becoming safer or more dangerous. Here, the data is unambiguous—in the last 80 years, as fossil fuels have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from .03% to all of .04%, we have become 50 times less likely to die because of climate-related causes. Give thanks to the proliferation of climate-protection technology (climate control, sturdy homes, weather satellites, drought-relief convoys, modern agriculture), which are made possible by fossil fuels.”

[so what? previously past tech developments were from the horse and buggy, or due to the telegraph, or due to simple wood burning -- we replace old tech with new tech when it is better. Pointing to past developments doesn't justify future use when there are better alternatives being developed. And does it follow from this historical fact that we should now discourage fossil fuel use or at least make the cost include externalities? does it follow that we shouldn't incentivize alternatives to fossil fuel? no. ]

Most of the posts on this forum assume that climate change is a basis for government action, but none even attempted to address my case about the actual effects of CO2 emissions on climate safety. The underlying data here place an enormous burden of proof on anyone claiming future catastrophe. And that burden cannot be met as the catastrophic climate models are demonstrable failures at predicting climate. (As I will argue later, even if there was a big problem, advocating solar as the solution would not be logical.)

[Climate change is a collective action problem. It usually takes government to solve collective action problems. Go to Somolia if you want to be free from all government regulation and enjoy their collective action problems. The author is looking like one of those simple minded Ayn Randians who never took econ beyond the simplistic perfect market micro econ models.]

Other posts on the forum assume that the finite nature of fossil fuels implies some sort of necessary government support of electric cars. But basic economics tells us that the price of the finite commodities involved in every mode of transport will signal if and when a change is necessary. (Note: price is more important than “energy efficiency.” Energy efficiency is just one form of resource efficiency, and often not the most important. If you’re admirer of solar, note that an excellent solar panel is “20% efficient”–should that disqualify it?)


[again, the author shows an ignorance of basic econ on externalities.]

Given that electric cars are currently a tiny, luxury, resource-intensive niche of the transportation market, it is odd to assume that all the resources involved will smoothly and economically scale globally. We have no idea, just as we have no idea whether there will be a revolution in coal-to-liquids or gas-to-liquids will mean superior hydrocarbon fuels for hundreds of years to come. Or even whether synthesizing methanol from biomass and burning it using standard internal combustion engines will be more efficient than powering cars with energy-intensive batteries. If we’re free to choose along the way, we don’t have to know in advance.


[sure just choose at prices that reflect all externalities.]


Although I do not believe that CO2 emissions are a problem, even if it was the public approach of Elon Musk, Tesla, and much of Tesla’s following would be counterproductive–because any constructive approach requires taking on the leading opponents of cheap, plentiful, reliable, non-carbon energy: the environmentalist movement.

I am an adamant supporter of nuclear power and hydroelectric power, as are some of you; the environmentalist movement is the leading opponent of both forms of power–the Sierra Club being a particularly egregious example. These organizations are the ones who made nuclear power uneconomic; without them, there is a strong case nuclear would have won out worldwide on the free market. (For more on this issue, see my pro-nuclear Facebook page, I Love Nuclear,” as well as Petr Beckmann’s classic “The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear.”
Elon Musk should use his public position to condemn every anti-nuclear group. Instead, he endorses their empty promise that solar can power our civilization. That’s why in my article I focused on solar–that’s what Tesla assures us will replace the fossil fuels it opposes (but uses).

[Musk should do what he is good at, which is already considerable. He made a superior product and can remain agnostic on how the electricity should be generated -- let the market figure out how to create the electricity and let tech developments improve that creation. But do price products appropriately so that externalities are accounted for.]

To be solution-oriented means to advocate the best options–and that could also include geo-engineering, also opposed by environmentalists–not just the politically correct ones.

To be solution-oriented in this context also means to look for global solutions that would actually work. In my article I cited the fact that globally solar and wind produce less than 1% of the world’s electricity–and that must be backed up by a reliable source, usually fossil fuels. Several posts on this forum took me to task because their Teslas run on a higher percentage of solar and wind. No one addressed the point about requiring backup–usually “100% solar means a reliable source of energy is providing 100% backup (which doesn’t scale). And more broadly, no one acknowledged that solar/wind is a luxury good. It’s very expensive and it scales very, very poorly. If we’re talking 80% global CO2 reductions, the fact that your particular Tesla uses X% solar is completely irrelevant because few can afford it and the “solution” wouldn’t scale if more could.

[elec car tech won't scale? we are at the beginning and people like this author are going to look so foolish in the years to come. This is like someone saying in 1993 that the internet won't scale. . . ]

If you believe that catastrophic global warming is the problem of our age, then the solution is to take a hard line against the environmentalist movement and look for global solutions on the scale of the problem. It is not to, forgive me, be self-righteous about your Tesla.

I bring up the self-righteous point because I very much admire the Tesla, and I think it deserves to be supported in a spirit of pure enthusiasm for technology and humanity–not defensiveness and partisanship.

When I write an article trying to convey that the Tesla S is testament to the unacknowledged virtues of fossil fuel energy, and the response I get in the Tesla forum is to be labeled a “hater,” that is partisan.


[Tesla can be completely agnostic on the source of the electric. Who cares. Tesla is about the car and how it works and how it compares to other cars. And on the externalities it imposes on others. -- e.g., Tesla avoids the externalities and inefficiencies of ICE cars: smog from the tailpipe, increased maintenance, traditional car dealerships, and other deadweight losses on society. ]

It is also partisan to dismiss me because I support fossil fuels. A few people wrote me off for wearing an “I Love Fossil Fuels” shirt to a Tesla store, or period. Well, I do love fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry and I came to that love honestly, for reasons that I hope are clear. (For more reasons, read my book.) I believe it was an incredibly appropriate shirt to wear to the Tesla store. Incidentally, it was not premeditated–I just happened to be wearing it at the Fashion Island mall, but I’m glad I did.


[What does it mean to "support fossil fuels"? That seems like supporting telegrams, or gopher, or chariots -- sure helpful in their time, but technology moves forward.]

I hope that clarifies where I’m coming from. If you’re interested in learning more about how to think about environmental issues from a consistently humanist, technological perspective, I hope you’ll take a look at my book and my essay “The Industrial Manifesto.”

- See more at: The Tesla Debate | Center for Industrial Progress

[if the reasoning and factual support and analysis in the book is anything like the above, I think I will skip it.]

 
"fully negate the impact of burning fossil fuels" and "eliminate the need to burn fossil fuels" are not the same thing. I can claim the first one easily, but obviously not the other.

Since I produce more from solar than I use to charge, no additional additional Fossil (or nuclear) fuel was needed for my charging. Therefore, I have "eliminated" the impact of charging, which is my main goal.

Don't forget that your solar panels also have a carbon debt too (payback time is 3.5 years in CA assuming 1,700kWh per m[SUP]2[/SUP] per year - link ) - make sure you include that in your calculations :)

It's an interesting debate where there is no real answer and lots of emotion on all sides. For example, greener alternatives to the MS exist - according to nextgreencar, the Panamera 3.0 hybrid is a greener car than the MS! Trains.. bikes... living close to where you work and walking ... all greener.

All we can really say is that the MS improves local air quality where used. We can hope that the source of the electricity in the MS is being managed in a "green" way, but, realistically, we all know that on the whole it isn't. As for the non-recoverable carbon debt and other environmental impacts of manufacturing and eventual disposal of the car ...

IMO, the Forbes post is correct in that the MS is a luxury product, that most drivers will charge with power partially derived from fossil fuel. I accept that and still will be enjoying it for what it is, without wasting my life trying to justify it as something that it is not.
 
The author's response is really good. He demonstrates that he is the one who is pro technology, be it Tesla S or fossil fuels. As he said, Musk should be championing technologies that actually produce energy, namely fossil fuels and nuclear, instead of taking a partisan anti- fossil fuels position.
 
This is good debate to have, and kudos to Mr. Epstein for putting facts into the discussion. Folks on these forums embarrass themselves sometimes with their hating of the "haters."

Anyway, CO2 in the concentrations we see in the atmosphere isn't an unhealthy pollutant (doesn't cause lung disease, for instance). (Coal and petroleum exhaust particulates are another matter.) So the question is: is it otherwise a positive or negative externality?

The Model S was billed to be the best car. That's the most inspiring thing about it.
 
Last edited: