Forums

JOIGNEZ-VOUS À LA COMMUNAUTÉ
INSCRIVEZ-VOUSIdentifiant

The bad press on electric vehicles....

I am fully poised to place my order this month.. an avid EV supporter.
At work this week they posted a poll on our intranet site asking about EV interest and one colleague referenced this article. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/11/Average-Electric-Car-...

do you believe any of this? Is this all B.S.?

I hope it's inaccurate as hell.
Can anyone refute these points?

Don't call troll on me.. check my other posts.. I love this car and want it to be successful.

At 50,000 miles the EV matches the ICE vehicle and at 90,000 miles the EV has a "Carbon Footprint" that is 24% less than the ICE car. At that rate, if it is a linear relationship, at 130,000 miles the EV has a 48% smaller footprint and at 170,000 it would be 72% less impact. Since I typically run my cars to about 200,000 miles I think the EV is still the way to go.
I think someone may be writing a poison pen article about the EV. It isn't hard to guess what might be motivating them to do such a thing.

This is the best science to date we have on EVs.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/adva...

State of Charge: Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings Across the United States

"Electric cars produce lower global warming emissions and cost significantly less to fuel than the average compact gasoline-powered vehicle."

The commenters on that article are worse than the article. It's amazing what people will believe without doing any research.

Article assumes batteries aren't recycled. Wrong.

Assuming their numbers are accurate, "only 24%" less carbon footprint is an attempt to minimize.

IOW, typical BS from the usual suspects.

Breitbart, are you kidding? That is the most extreme, politically conservative blog today. Why anyone would pay attention to what these tools have to say is beyond me.

Funny thing is people who use this to argue against EV are usually the same people who actually deny men caused global warming. They really have to stretch the facts to fit their conclusion. Lithium batteries last much longer than 50,000 miles, not to mention the batteries are recyclable (Elon has proposed to use old batteries as energy storage for solar power station) and lithium in the batteries are recyclable too.

CO2 are not the only emission from ICE cars. Try to start your ICE car in a closed garage for a minute and smell what they put out in the air we all breath. Make sure you turn the engine off soon or it will be the last time you do it.

And of course EVs do not rely on foreign oil and will not cause military actions and casualties.

Yeah, I am not sure I would look to Briebart for a balanced perspective. :)

O

This is all great stuff... I knew you more experienced folks would have good feedback.

Fox news are their partners, enough said!

Yes, the underlying research is wrong. It's a lie to apply that research to Tesla.

Read the underlying research paper - it's using the wrong kind of motor (which weighs over 1,000 pounds). It's using the wrong assumptions for any number of things.

That is Faux Knows

Who cares anyway? The Model S is the Car of the Year. It is awesome in every way.

What you do as an individual will have absolutely no impact on the planet in the larger scheme of things either way, so buy one according to whether you consider the awesomeness worth the asking price. Then enjoy the G-forces as you drive your Tesla and sleep soundly in your insignificance to the environment. (But please not at the same time.)

This is a detailed and very balanced discussion of MS carbon footprint (answer to the question in the title is NO):

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084440_does-the-tesla-model-s-elect...

The article itself says EVs produce less CO2 than ICEs over any reasonable period of ownership so I don't see why they'd use that to make their anti-EV case. And that assumes the grid won't get cleaner, which in fact it is.

For those of us who's enthusiasm for EVs in general and Tesla in particular has nothing to do with GHG but with the inherently better car EVs are and the pro-US/anti-Putin et al economic and military benefit of 100% domestic energy, there is no argument.

As a registered Republican, I can tell you that the hatred for EVs based on government financial incentives and anything that liberals like as espoused by many vocal Republicans and conservatives should not be ascribed to all or even the majority of them. However, for those on the right who so proclaim their patriotism, their dishonest attacks on EVs are a direct refutation of what they claim to believe as well as their integrity.

My unscientific reply to this post is: This article PROVES to me EV's are making a statement! They are becoming significant and posing a threat to a 100 year old technology who's time is coming to an end. It proves to me what Tesla is doing is working! The little pebble is starting to ripple into big waves!

Did anybody really think that big oil would slink away into the night and let EV's become the next dominant technology? Me neither.

Would GM (Bob Lutz) have come out with the Volt without the Roadster? Not likely as stated by Lutz. Would we have the Leaf? probably not. See the movie 'Revenge of the Electric Car' for insightful details.

Tesla is stirring the pot!! They are making waves. Others will join them, compete against them or bad mouth them and their technology.

Even to the unscientific mind, this article just doesn't make sense.

I know your scared, Breitbart.....and you should be! There is a new sheriff (tecnology) in town and same ole, same ole, just isn't gonna cut it anymore.

Still grinning!
Jackie :-)

Great so they finally concede that YES, global warming is real.

But...it's cause by those EVil electric vehicles!! *insert villainous laughter*

Haha. Well...at least we won one point lol.

Great responses!

The article references a study by Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Centre, which has connections to big oil:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/23/bjorn-lomborg-climate-...

You should not listen to all this shit. Think by yourself. To produce 1 liter of gasoline, they have to use 4.5 kw of electric power

oildeathspirol,
Time to loose the label. I'm conservative by nature which is having less and less to do with the success of Rove (or Carville for that matter) and the like reshaping a party.

TeslaSvein63,
We should all teach our kids to think for themselves. As I tell my daughter, if you are going to have to pay for a mistake, make it your own mistake.

@lolachampcar:

You make a very good point. It would be better to keep politics (and especially labels) out of these forums.

I think the Tesla brand appeals to all folks who are critical thinkers.

The article doesn't just reference climate change skeptic Lomborg. Its entirely based on him. And he's a climate change skeptic. So draw your own conclusions.

+1 @stimeygee

@lolachampcar
Again, the more I read you, the more I like you ;-)
I'm also a fellow conservative by nature, not necessarily the party of today...

@sia
It would be better to keep politics (and especially labels) out of these forums.

I think the Tesla brand appeals to all folks who are critical thinkers.

I agree whole-heartedly... I'm doing much to promote Tesla and the success of EV in general by talking it up with my friends, coworkers, clients, etc. It is a technology whose time is drawing near, and the Model S and Gen III will help make it a reality. Let's enjoy the "big tent"

Being conservative or progressive, atheist or evangelical... what does this matter in a car forum?
This is a forum where we discuss topics around a simply amazing car. About the things we love, the things that bug us. Let's please keep politics and religion to other forums.

This argument has been advanced before and will be advanced again. There's nothing to be done about it because it is human nature to "cherry pick" data to support a hypothesis. It would be nice to presume journalists rise to a higher level, but in some cases they do not.

This particular argument is one where I believe the data surrounding manufacture, supply and maintenance of EVs has been analyzed from a number of different angles and the most pessimistic numbers for each factor selected. It's a better story, right? Those suckers actually went out and bought one of those "green" EVs. Joke is on them. But that's not necessarily true.

The other side of the coin really would be to analyze the manufacture, supply and maintenance of ICE vehicles. We're all pretty familiar with the Combustion == CO2 bit. But there are tons of other factors related to (as some articles have pointed out) extraction, refinement, transportation of fossil fuels. These may or may not contribute to environmental factors but they are typically disregarded in this discussion. Further, the simple act of pumping gas on a hot day allows some evaporation into the atmosphere. That's why California has such strict tolerances for nozzle collars on filler hoses.

But there are other factors as you age an ICE vehicle. They have batteries too. The batteries typically last no more than 7 years. It might not be as much of an environmental load per vehicle, but when you multiply the environmental cost of battery manufacture and disposal by the number of ICE vehicles on the road, it becomes significant.

Disposal and replenishment of crankcase and transmission oil is an ongoing service item. Typically, these don't burn but that doesn't make them zero-impact to the environment.

There are many ways to look at the "apples-to-apples" comparison, but I just don't think you can do one. You can try to quantify it by the number of kWh you use, but I don't think that exactly predicts the future impact of the vehicle. Neither does it take into account many of the factors outside of pure emissions observations inherent in an ICE vehicle.

As much as we love to be adored when we drive our Teslas around, we also have to accept the mantle of pioneers at the same time. And pioneers get shot full of arrows. I made the considered judgement based on the data available at the time that the Tesla Model S was a superior machine to anything else I might acquire in terms of performance, comfort, environmental friendliness, and operational cost. But I won't kid anybody that I'm making money on the deal. Neither hybrids nor EVs pencil out in the black on the balance sheet as compared to a low-priced ICE. My judgement was that this was a "good thing" and nothing I've seen thus far leads me to believe I've been bamboozled.

Just my $.02

I want everyone to buy Tesla's regardless of political views but having a rational discussion about the trash that is on Drudge or Breitbart is not possable.

Third rail topics: Religion, Politics and 'How to raise your children'

admjr@comcast.net
Third rail topics: Religion, Politics and 'How to raise your children'

Thank you.. Perfect..

If it's on Breitbart.com, it should not be believed.

End of story.

+1 lolachampcar and oildeathspiral
When people ask about my politics, I tell them I am a recovering republican, but "conservative by nature" is even better, let's conserve the environment and our history of innovation.

And I find it really refreshing that this community can discuss and defend our support for this comapny and its technology with facts in a bipartisan, rational way.


X Deutschland Site Besuchen