2 ms·

> No surprises. What about all the resources and people used to develop the cars?

by groundzeros2015 9mo ago

chaostheory 9mo ago
It’s probably still more net efficient in the long run. Besides, the main advantage EVs bring isn’t being more environmentally friendly. The main advantage is that it allows a nation to have more flexibility with its energy sources. i.e. an EV can run on anything that can generate electricity like coal or natural gas, while ICE cars mostly only run on gasoline.
dymk 9mo ago
Six months break even and then it’s more carbon friendly than an ICE for the rest of its working lifetime
- groundzeros2015 9mo ago
  Tesla has used more than 40 billion of capital
  - vel0city 9mo ago
    They've made almost 9 million cars overall, with a lot of those made in the last several years. Spreading it over the cars they've made so far, 40,000 / 9 = 4,444.44. Doesn't seem that crazy. I'm not seeing your point.
    - groundzeros2015 9mo ago
      That 40 billion is investment money, not the cost of goods sold. I’m saying its not obvious at all that environmental cost is recouped.
      - vel0city 9mo ago
        That's 9 million (and probably many more unless Tesla disappears tomorrow) far cleaner cars on the road, offsetting what would have probably been ICE sales. I'm no Tesla-stan but spending $40B over a decade to inject massive amounts of change in an entrenched industry to move forward in efficiency and emissions sounds like a pretty good investment to me.
girvo 9mo ago
Now do the same for internal combustion cars. What a silly argument.
- yvely 9mo ago
  Yes do the same for ICE - very constructive suggestion. Completely unnecessary to call the argument silly though.. There are marked differences in what's needed in an EV vs an ICE, most obvious of which is the giant battery with a very different supply chain.
  - vel0city 9mo ago
    You're then acting as if the energy supply chain and it's impacts are about the same. They're radically different.

> No surprises. What about all the resources and people used to develop the cars?

It’s probably still more net efficient in the long run. Besides, the main advantage EVs bring isn’t being more environmentally friendly. The main advantage is that it allows a nation to have more flexibility with its energy sources. i.e. an EV can run on anything that can generate electricity like coal or natural gas, while ICE cars mostly only run on gasoline.

dymk 9mo ago

Six months break even and then it’s more carbon friendly than an ICE for the rest of its working lifetime

groundzeros2015 9mo ago
Tesla has used more than 40 billion of capital
- vel0city 9mo ago
  They've made almost 9 million cars overall, with a lot of those made in the last several years. Spreading it over the cars they've made so far, 40,000 / 9 = 4,444.44. Doesn't seem that crazy. I'm not seeing your point.
  - groundzeros2015 9mo ago
    That 40 billion is investment money, not the cost of goods sold. I’m saying its not obvious at all that environmental cost is recouped.
    - vel0city 9mo ago
      That's 9 million (and probably many more unless Tesla disappears tomorrow) far cleaner cars on the road, offsetting what would have probably been ICE sales. I'm no Tesla-stan but spending $40B over a decade to inject massive amounts of change in an entrenched industry to move forward in efficiency and emissions sounds like a pretty good investment to me.

girvo 9mo ago

Now do the same for internal combustion cars. What a silly argument.

yvely 9mo ago
Yes do the same for ICE - very constructive suggestion. Completely unnecessary to call the argument silly though.. There are marked differences in what's needed in an EV vs an ICE, most obvious of which is the giant battery with a very different supply chain.
- vel0city 9mo ago
  You're then acting as if the energy supply chain and it's impacts are about the same. They're radically different.