4 ms·

The difference in price between fully charging / fueling is particularly striking. I wonder what this means wrt. electric cars and the environment? What would o

by eliben 13y ago

The difference in price between fully charging / fueling is particularly striking. I wonder what this means wrt. electric cars and the environment? What would our emissions look like if all cars were magically electrical tomorrow?

alexcroox 13y ago
£4.50 for 260~ miles is very exciting! Really hope they make an affordable version soon, and the UK gets geared up for these (although with a range of 260 miles it could be easily charged from home overnight)
at-fates-hands 13y ago
Probably worse: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html "Electricity is a significant source of energy in the United States and is used to power homes, business, and industry. The combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation, accounting for about 38% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 32% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. The type of fossil fuel used to generate electricity will emit different amounts of CO2. To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas." A lot of people don't realize the amount of CO2 that electricity produces. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2013/08/21/with-the-tesla-model-s-elon-musk-has-created-a-nice-fossil-fuel-car/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2013/08/21/with-the-... "The Tesla’s state-of-the-art materials, particularly that $30,000 battery, take a massive amount of energy to build–and that energy comes from fossil fuels, particularly coal. In fact, some studies argue that the Tesla battery takes so much fossil fuel energy to make that the car over its lifetime emits more CO2 than a gasoline-powered car."
- chc 13y ago
  The first link doesn't seem all that relevant (you're citing one number tangentially related to the issue at hand and acting like that constitutes a comparison — surely that would require at least two numbers, if not more). The second link is a propaganda piece on a guy's blog.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  The Tesla's battery should generally be more recyclable than burned gasoline. Especially in terms of the energy bound up in manufacturing it.
- schiffern 13y ago
  Yes, and you're forgetting that the Model S has the equivalent of a 2 gallon tank to go ~260 miles. Big expensive stationary heat engines are still more efficient than small cost- and weight-optimized heat engines. >"In fact, some studies argue that the Tesla battery takes so much fossil fuel energy to make that the car over its lifetime emits more CO2 than a gasoline-powered car." That car being a Prius, not a comparable full-size sedan. The study also assumes a vehicle lifespan of 100,000 miles, or about 8 years of driving. I would be quite surprised if an all-aluminum car with few moving parts dies 3 years before the average age of cars on the road today (11.4 years). Link to the actual report: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/a-roadmap-to-climate-friendly-cars-2013-16318 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/a-roadmap-to-climate-frie... Edit: digging deeper, their whole argument ultimately rests on this report: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es103607c http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es103607c GreenCarCongress reviewed it, saying >They also found higher life cycle global warming emissions than have been previously reported. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/04/ntnu-20110421.html http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/04/ntnu-20110421.html
- oblio 13y ago
  This doesn't matter as much now and will matter less and less since most developed countries are moving towards renewable energy. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Sustainable_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Sustainable_e... And they are actually doing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Renewable_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Renewable_ene... The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to over 25 percent in the first half of 2012. Renewable energy share of gross electricity consumption rose from 10% in 2005 to 20% in 2011.
- shawn-furyan 13y ago
  >To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas There are many factors that this statement fails to take into account. Perhaps most importantly, the efficiency at which that energy is turned into useful power to propel the vehicle. Further, this is speaking very broadly about these fuel sources, and so is not directly applicable to specific complex. A quick google search surfaced a DOE primer[1] on EVs that claims that they are both "Energy Efficient" since "Electric vehicles convert about 59–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels—conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels." and "Environmentally Friendly" because "EVs emit no tailpipe pollutants, although the power plant producing the electricity may emit them. Electricity from nuclear-, hydro-, solar-, or wind-powered plants causes no air pollutants." On the latter point, power plant technology is increasingly moving away from dirty coal generation processes in the developed world, so gas powered vehicles will be at an increasingly great disadvantage. The EPA also uses a method for rating vehicle fuel efficiency of non-petrol burning vehicles called eMPG[2] (effective miles per gallon) that takes into account the energy potential of the ultimate fuel source/sources used by the vehicle and converts them to the MPG (miles per gallon of petrol) scale. Electric vehicles rule the top of the rated vehicles followed by a couple hybrids and deisel compacts. EVs tend to be ~2x more fuel efficient than similarly sized petrol vehicles when compared by this particular method. Concerning the Model S in particular, the EPA rates it as the most fuel efficient large sedan at 95 eMPG. Speaking generally, the only car class (does not take into account trucks and SUVs) that is led in fuel efficiency according to the EPA is the Midsize Station Wagon class. It is led by the Prius Model V, and the class does not seem to have a pure EV option. Every other class is led in fuel efficiency by an EV. Finally, according to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions calculator, the 2013 Tesla model S generates a US average of 250 grams per mile driven of Greenhouse gas emissions compared to the average new car at 500 gpm[3]. So half as bad as the average new vehicle in terms of GHG emissions. P.S. Sorry for the somewhat poorly structured nature of this comment. It evolved organically along with the research used to produce it. [1]http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml [2]http://www.epa.gov/carlabel/electriclabelreadmore.htm#2 http://www.epa.gov/carlabel/electriclabelreadmore.htm#2 [3]http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?zipCode=78641&year=2013&vehicleId=33368&action=bt3 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?zipCode=78641&year=20... [edit: I can never seem to remember that the editor eats up single newlines, fixed the footnotes section so that they don't all appear on the same line.]
Hytosys 13y ago
Consider a graph of electricity sources[1]. About 70% of US electricity comes from fossil fuels, so statistically emissions related to cars would drop at least 30% (I don't know exactly how much cleaner coal and natural gas are compared to petroleum, but they are cleaner). One reason it would be cool to all switch to electric powered vehicles is that we'd centralize practically all consumer energy to one source (not counting the relative bit of natural gas used for home heating). This means that we'd only have to worry about energy reform of one source. [1]http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/ http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/
sliverstorm 13y ago
The difference in price between fully charging / fueling is particularly striking Yes, but 60% of the cost of petrol in the UK is taxes & VAT.
etler 13y ago
The Tesla should be very exciting in European countries that have very high taxes on gasoline. It makes an £80,000 a lot more affordable. A full charge takes an hour, and a full tank of gas will cost about £120 according to the video. Unless you value your time more than that, the charge time shouldn't be much of a negative. Especially considering that it's only a problem if you're on a long journey (and a trip from London to Glasgow is only 400 miles), and you can schedule it with lunch anyways (and get a really nice one with the £115.50 you just saved!) It should be a no brainer for anyone in the market for a ~£50,000 car considering the savings. It will be very interesting to follow the coming sales numbers of the Tesla in the European market compared to the US, as the gas savings will be considerably higher.
- gnoway 13y ago
  For now. As soon as electric vehicles become popular enough to reduce gas tax receipts, a new tax will appear to make up for the difference. It's already happening in the US: http://www.npr.org/2013/08/15/212311986/states-targeting-hybrids-as-gas-tax-revenues-ebb http://www.npr.org/2013/08/15/212311986/states-targeting-hyb...
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Well, yeah, the primary purpose of gas taxes is actually to be a simple-to-collect use fee for public roads (sure, the match between "use of public roads" and "consumption of gas" is far from perfect, but it is -- and even moreso was at the time that gas taxes were first implemented -- a lot simpler than putting mile-by-mile toll stations on all public roads.) So, to the extent that "impact on public roads" becomes more divorced from "consumption of gasoline", gas taxes get worse at performing their primary purpose (they still serve the secondary purpose of internalizing social costs associated with burning gasoline, but that's not their main purpose.)
- to3m 13y ago
  Let's say you drive 8,000 miles per year and your car gets 20mpg. (All non-metric units mentioned are Imperial: 1 mile = 1,609m, 1 gallon = 4.55L, 1 year = 31,536,000 seconds.) So for 1 year that's 1,514L. And 1L of super unleaded = £1.43, so you're spending £2,165.02 per year on petrol. You can make your own figures up for insurance and what have you - let's call it £5,000 per year, averaged out. Assuming the Tesla is £80,000, you don't break even until year 6, assuming the Tesla's running costs are £0/year. If you do drive a lot you'd probably buy some kind of diesel car, so then you could expect more like 30mpg, perhaps, assuming you're going for the equivalent of this 20mpg thing. And the break-even part recedes further into the future, or you can just drive more. (I've no real feel for what sort of car you'd get for £50,000 though. At a guess: BMW 530d, Jaguar XF, Range Rover TDV6...? Something like that. Are those really the Tesla Model S's natural competitors?)

by eliben 13y ago

alexcroox 13y ago

£4.50 for 260~ miles is very exciting! Really hope they make an affordable version soon, and the UK gets geared up for these (although with a range of 260 miles it could be easily charged from home overnight)

at-fates-hands 13y ago

Probably worse: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html "Electricity is a significant source of energy in the United States and is used to power homes, business, and industry. The combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation, accounting for about 38% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 32% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. The type of fossil fuel used to generate electricity will emit different amounts of CO2. To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas." A lot of people don't realize the amount of CO2 that electricity produces. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2013/08/21/with-the-tesla-model-s-elon-musk-has-created-a-nice-fossil-fuel-car/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2013/08/21/with-the-... "The Tesla’s state-of-the-art materials, particularly that $30,000 battery, take a massive amount of energy to build–and that energy comes from fossil fuels, particularly coal. In fact, some studies argue that the Tesla battery takes so much fossil fuel energy to make that the car over its lifetime emits more CO2 than a gasoline-powered car."

chc 13y ago
The first link doesn't seem all that relevant (you're citing one number tangentially related to the issue at hand and acting like that constitutes a comparison — surely that would require at least two numbers, if not more). The second link is a propaganda piece on a guy's blog.
maxerickson 13y ago
The Tesla's battery should generally be more recyclable than burned gasoline. Especially in terms of the energy bound up in manufacturing it.
schiffern 13y ago
Yes, and you're forgetting that the Model S has the equivalent of a 2 gallon tank to go ~260 miles. Big expensive stationary heat engines are still more efficient than small cost- and weight-optimized heat engines. >"In fact, some studies argue that the Tesla battery takes so much fossil fuel energy to make that the car over its lifetime emits more CO2 than a gasoline-powered car." That car being a Prius, not a comparable full-size sedan. The study also assumes a vehicle lifespan of 100,000 miles, or about 8 years of driving. I would be quite surprised if an all-aluminum car with few moving parts dies 3 years before the average age of cars on the road today (11.4 years). Link to the actual report: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/a-roadmap-to-climate-friendly-cars-2013-16318 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/a-roadmap-to-climate-frie... Edit: digging deeper, their whole argument ultimately rests on this report: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es103607c http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es103607c GreenCarCongress reviewed it, saying >They also found higher life cycle global warming emissions than have been previously reported. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/04/ntnu-20110421.html http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/04/ntnu-20110421.html
oblio 13y ago
This doesn't matter as much now and will matter less and less since most developed countries are moving towards renewable energy. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Sustainable_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Sustainable_e... And they are actually doing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Renewable_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Renewable_ene... The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to over 25 percent in the first half of 2012. Renewable energy share of gross electricity consumption rose from 10% in 2005 to 20% in 2011.
shawn-furyan 13y ago
>To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas There are many factors that this statement fails to take into account. Perhaps most importantly, the efficiency at which that energy is turned into useful power to propel the vehicle. Further, this is speaking very broadly about these fuel sources, and so is not directly applicable to specific complex. A quick google search surfaced a DOE primer[1] on EVs that claims that they are both "Energy Efficient" since "Electric vehicles convert about 59–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels—conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels." and "Environmentally Friendly" because "EVs emit no tailpipe pollutants, although the power plant producing the electricity may emit them. Electricity from nuclear-, hydro-, solar-, or wind-powered plants causes no air pollutants." On the latter point, power plant technology is increasingly moving away from dirty coal generation processes in the developed world, so gas powered vehicles will be at an increasingly great disadvantage. The EPA also uses a method for rating vehicle fuel efficiency of non-petrol burning vehicles called eMPG[2] (effective miles per gallon) that takes into account the energy potential of the ultimate fuel source/sources used by the vehicle and converts them to the MPG (miles per gallon of petrol) scale. Electric vehicles rule the top of the rated vehicles followed by a couple hybrids and deisel compacts. EVs tend to be ~2x more fuel efficient than similarly sized petrol vehicles when compared by this particular method. Concerning the Model S in particular, the EPA rates it as the most fuel efficient large sedan at 95 eMPG. Speaking generally, the only car class (does not take into account trucks and SUVs) that is led in fuel efficiency according to the EPA is the Midsize Station Wagon class. It is led by the Prius Model V, and the class does not seem to have a pure EV option. Every other class is led in fuel efficiency by an EV. Finally, according to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions calculator, the 2013 Tesla model S generates a US average of 250 grams per mile driven of Greenhouse gas emissions compared to the average new car at 500 gpm[3]. So half as bad as the average new vehicle in terms of GHG emissions. P.S. Sorry for the somewhat poorly structured nature of this comment. It evolved organically along with the research used to produce it. [1]http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml [2]http://www.epa.gov/carlabel/electriclabelreadmore.htm#2 http://www.epa.gov/carlabel/electriclabelreadmore.htm#2 [3]http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?zipCode=78641&year=2013&vehicleId=33368&action=bt3 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?zipCode=78641&year=20... [edit: I can never seem to remember that the editor eats up single newlines, fixed the footnotes section so that they don't all appear on the same line.]

Hytosys 13y ago

Consider a graph of electricity sources[1]. About 70% of US electricity comes from fossil fuels, so statistically emissions related to cars would drop at least 30% (I don't know exactly how much cleaner coal and natural gas are compared to petroleum, but they are cleaner). One reason it would be cool to all switch to electric powered vehicles is that we'd centralize practically all consumer energy to one source (not counting the relative bit of natural gas used for home heating). This means that we'd only have to worry about energy reform of one source. [1]http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/ http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/

sliverstorm 13y ago

The difference in price between fully charging / fueling is particularly striking Yes, but 60% of the cost of petrol in the UK is taxes & VAT.

etler 13y ago

The Tesla should be very exciting in European countries that have very high taxes on gasoline. It makes an £80,000 a lot more affordable. A full charge takes an hour, and a full tank of gas will cost about £120 according to the video. Unless you value your time more than that, the charge time shouldn't be much of a negative. Especially considering that it's only a problem if you're on a long journey (and a trip from London to Glasgow is only 400 miles), and you can schedule it with lunch anyways (and get a really nice one with the £115.50 you just saved!) It should be a no brainer for anyone in the market for a ~£50,000 car considering the savings. It will be very interesting to follow the coming sales numbers of the Tesla in the European market compared to the US, as the gas savings will be considerably higher.

gnoway 13y ago
For now. As soon as electric vehicles become popular enough to reduce gas tax receipts, a new tax will appear to make up for the difference. It's already happening in the US: http://www.npr.org/2013/08/15/212311986/states-targeting-hybrids-as-gas-tax-revenues-ebb http://www.npr.org/2013/08/15/212311986/states-targeting-hyb...
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Well, yeah, the primary purpose of gas taxes is actually to be a simple-to-collect use fee for public roads (sure, the match between "use of public roads" and "consumption of gas" is far from perfect, but it is -- and even moreso was at the time that gas taxes were first implemented -- a lot simpler than putting mile-by-mile toll stations on all public roads.) So, to the extent that "impact on public roads" becomes more divorced from "consumption of gasoline", gas taxes get worse at performing their primary purpose (they still serve the secondary purpose of internalizing social costs associated with burning gasoline, but that's not their main purpose.)
to3m 13y ago
Let's say you drive 8,000 miles per year and your car gets 20mpg. (All non-metric units mentioned are Imperial: 1 mile = 1,609m, 1 gallon = 4.55L, 1 year = 31,536,000 seconds.) So for 1 year that's 1,514L. And 1L of super unleaded = £1.43, so you're spending £2,165.02 per year on petrol. You can make your own figures up for insurance and what have you - let's call it £5,000 per year, averaged out. Assuming the Tesla is £80,000, you don't break even until year 6, assuming the Tesla's running costs are £0/year. If you do drive a lot you'd probably buy some kind of diesel car, so then you could expect more like 30mpg, perhaps, assuming you're going for the equivalent of this 20mpg thing. And the break-even part recedes further into the future, or you can just drive more. (I've no real feel for what sort of car you'd get for £50,000 though. At a guess: BMW 530d, Jaguar XF, Range Rover TDV6...? Something like that. Are those really the Tesla Model S's natural competitors?)