3 ms·

I looked at your source, and it includes hydropower as a renewable source of energy. I'm not going to argue that we'll run out of gravity to pull water through

I looked at your source, and it includes hydropower as a renewable source of energy. I'm not going to argue that we'll run out of gravity to pull water through turbines, but the gigantic dams that come with hydropower are hardly something that the Sierra Club and their kind get excited about. So if we present your numbers honestly without inflating the "green" sounding category, we find that 4.4% of power comes from wind, and 0.3% of energy comes from solar. If turnabout is fair play, it's only 4.7% correct to call the Tesla solar & wind powered (rounding up).

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
snowwrestler 13y ago
Environmentalists oppose solar[1] and wind[2] installations too. It's impossible to generate significant power without significant infrastructure, and infrastructure is always opposed by someone. In any case, Tesla does not call its cars solar and wind powered. What they say is: > TESLA'S BATTERIES AND POWERTRAINS will help lessen global dependence on petroleum-based transportation and drive down the cost of electric vehicles. That is accurate in that powering the car with a battery disassociates it from any particular energy source, unlike IC cars which are locked permanently to petroleum. In some jurisdictions, homeowners can choose to purchase green power or renewable energy certificates for their home, or install solar panels themselves--again, options that are not available with IC cars. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/05/us-solar-wars-idUSTRE7042ZR20110105 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/05/us-solar-wars-idUS... [2] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-7-2007/jason-jones-180---nantucket http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-7-2007/jason-jo...