0
7

[–] ThatsSoJewish 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Idgaff about the environment or virtue signalling. I just want to never step foot in a gas station again, except for 3am condom runs. I want to go to work, come home, and plug my car in, rinse and repeat. One day I suspect the price of these vehicles will be cheap enough to justify the switch. I get hating on these cars because 'faggit' is up Elon's ass, but I want them to succeed because Fuck gas stations.

0
2

[–] Titus-of-Voat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Competition is a good thing. So I'm glad these are in the market, although it's BS how much the government meddles in the auto industry.

0
2

[–] rwbj 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

At least three huge mistakes I immediately see here:

  • The study assumes the factories producing the batteries are pumping out large carbon emissions. The gigafactory will be a zero-carbon emissions plant.

  • The miles are misleading, even assuming their overstating their emissions. It states every kWh of battery storage results in emissions of 150-200 kilos of carbon dioxide. We'll say 175. According to the EPA, the average car produces about .411 kg of CO2 per mile. So a Tesla 85kWh battery would be equivalent to about 175*85/.411 = 36,192 miles. They claim that's 8 years of gasoline driving, which would be 4,500 miles a year.

  • While they account for all CO2 involved in the production of the batteries, they assume the petrol somehow just magically appears in the car's gas tank. The drilling, processing, international transportation, and then domestic transportation and handling in between everywhere leave an enormous additional CO2 footprint on each gallon of gas's total CO2 footprint.

And I'm sure there's more.

1
2

[–] piratse 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

To your third point, you ignore the mining needed for batteries, which is WAY worse than drilling for oil. And the disposal is batteries is fucking horrible. Making batteries is a filthy, nasty, polluting business. From beginning to end. And electricity isn't magic. Coal plants etc have to pump out more energy to charge these cars.

1
-1

[–] rwbj 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

You're very misinformed here. Lithium mining is incredibly unique in that the metal is mostly dissolved into salt waters. The way its mined involves pumping out some subsurface water onto the surface and letting it dry out in the sun - that substance that remains is then processed to finally produce the battery. It requires energy, but has no inherent carbon emissions. This is why the Tesla factory is able to be 0 emissions. The entire processing there will be done using solar energy. Here is an interesting video showing the entire process from water to battery.

And it's the same story for charging. How people get their energy for charging their cars is up to them. The Tesla supercharger stations are already working towards going off-grid completely and relying completely on solar. Similarly as people solar up their homes, they could also charge their vehicles without relying on external energy providers - let alone coal which is fortunately already dying naturally and no longer the #1 source of energy in the US - natural gas is.

0
0

[–] MarcusA 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Why are we just measuring the carbon. At the end of its life, a traditional auto powertrain is infinitely recycleable, and ecologically inert if it isnt recycled. On the other hand, a battery on this scale is one of the worst kind of waste created on the large scale of mass commercialization.

The electric car is no panacea for planetary pollution.

2
2

[–] InfidelAl 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Facts don't matter when what you're selling is a method of signaling virtue.

0
3

[–] rwbj 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yeah totally man. Nobody's getting these cars because...

  • they're now literally the quickest production vehicle in the world
  • they're interested in trying out autopilot.
  • they think it's handy to be able to simply charge your vehicle while you sleep and pay a fraction of what you do at the gas station, without ever having to go there.
  • because they like having a car that requires next to no regular maintenance or one that is vastly more reliable than a combustion engine (seriously, no moving parts = no oil, no gears meaning no transmission problems and none of the million and one possible points of failure in a combustion engine)
  • definitely nothing to do with its incredibly high safety ratings
  • they maintain their value absurdly well

No.. it's all just virtue signaling. Yip. That must be it. If not for that, I'm certain they'd have gone for a real car.

3
0

[–] piratse 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Fastest 0-60, and nowhere near fastest 1/4 mile or top speed, or on a track. Not to mention the batteries can only handle a few runs at that speed before they die. It's not a huge difference between gas and electricity cost. And all savings are negated the second you have to replace the batteries. They have actually been having a lot of reliability problems. Most new cars don't have engine failures, and Tesla has been having a lot of issues. Safety ratings are good, but it's not a deciding factor for A LOT of people. And lots of normal cars retain their value absurdly well, who cares.

Your comments are the same that we hear in the car world all the time, and the excuses are half truths or just wrong. Electric cars are super expensive, no better for the Earth, and are an inconvenience to many due to range and charge times. Go ahead and buy one if you want, but they aren't that good.

2
-1

[–] InfidelAl 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Alright, I'll bite 1. Quickest production vehicle. What was the previous holder of that title? Don't know of the top of your head? That's because no one gives a shit. It's a neat badge to have earned, but let's not pretend that's selling $80k vehicles. 2. Autopilot... How many stories have we seen about people getting in accidents, some serious, due to autopilot? I don't think that's the draw you might think it is. 3. People that pay $80k for a vehicle don't give a flying fuck about how much it costs to fill the tank. 4. Reliability... Yeah didn't CR remove their purchase recommendation precisely because of the poor marks from owners? 5. It does have some good safety ratings. Good point! 6. Resale value... Again people who have $80k to drop on a car usually aren't concerned about how many sheckles they'll get when they turn it in.

0
1

[–] varialus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

But not in my backyard. Small main street business district with lots of traffic smells so strongly of fumes that it's pretty unbearable. ICE cars smell like shit while they're running, Teslas don't.

0
0

[–] 9594297? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Now add in the toxic chemicals that need to be disposed of and the chance of setting your garage on fire if the battery is faulty. But I am still glad people buy them as new tech improves rapidly.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] ot_to_know 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

A few years ago that was the price, no argument there. They have gotten it under $190/kWh, but even at $190 the 70 pack is around $14k

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/26/teslas-battery-pack-costs-are-cheaper-than-you-thi.aspx

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
2

[–] RoundWheel 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Hydrogen IS NOT a viable solution. The only people pushing is big oil. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not an energy source. The vast majority of hydrogen comes directly from processing fossil fuels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production "As of 1999, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming or partial oxidation of methane and coal gasification with only a small quantity by other routes such as biomass gasification or electrolysis of water.[4] Around 8GW of electrolysis capacity is installed worldwide, accounting for around 4% of global hydrogen production (Decourt et al., 2014)."

To advocate for hydrogen is to advocate for fossil fuels, plus lots of extra costs and special handling and metallurgy to avoid metal embrittlement.

Today, nuclear is the only mainstream, green, and reliable energy source available to man.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
-1

[–] piratse 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

..... You can make hydrogen with heat. And with solar... You have no idea what you're talking about. The people pushing hydrogen want to take sea water and then turn it into hydrogen.

1
-1

[–] RoBatten 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Not to mention the environmental cost of all of that extra electricity production. Burning gasoline in today's cars is very clean.

1
-1

[–] Grospoliner 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

And this is why you need life cycle assessments.