Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No, the Tesla Model S Doesn't Pollute More Than an SUV

Posted by Soulskill on from the also-does-not-consume-live-kittens-or-drive-on-water dept.

thecarchik writes "In an exhaustive 6,500-word article on the financial website Seeking Alpha, analyst Nathan Weiss lays out a case that the latest Tesla Model S actually has higher effective emissions than most large SUVs of both the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and smog-producing pollutants like sulfur dioxide. This is absolutely false. Virtually all electric car advocates agree that when toting up the environmental pros and cons of electric cars, it's only fair to include powerplant emissions. When this has been done previously, the numbers have still favored electric cars. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, concluded in a 2012 report (PDF), 'Electric vehicles charged on the power grid have lower global warming emissions than the average gasoline-based vehicle sold today.' Working through every one of Weiss' conclusions may show a higher emissions rate than Tesla's published numbers, but in no way does a Model S pollute the amounts even close to an SUV."

9 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. Same as last time by RustyTheCat · · Score: 5, Informative

    When the Prius first got popular the same thing was said about it. Was soon proved false.

    1. Re:Same as last time by catchblue22 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I drive a 2010 Prius. The power is quite acceptable. I actually spun my wheels the other day on wet roads when starting hard from a light. I am able to accelerate safely on freeways, and I can easily cruise at 85 mph if I want (though the fuel economy obviously drops). The other day, I gave the accelerator a kick to get across a changing yellow, and the acceleration was quite good.

      The main thing you have to get used to in a Prius is that the engine speed is dependent almost completely on how hard you press the accelerator, and not on how fast the wheels are spinning. This means that you don't get that same increasing engine pitch on accelerating that you do on cars without a continuously variable transmission. This might give some the impression that acceleration isn't taking place, until you look at your speedometer and realize you are going quite fast. I have gotten used to it now, and it seems natural to me.

      The main thing that sold me on the Prius, apart from the fuel economy (which has been 50+mpg by the way) is the durability. I spoke with a cab driver in my area who drove his 2008 Prius for 500000 miles without any significant problems...only brakes and similar things. No new battery. No engine troubles. Nothing. He said he would still be driving it if there weren't regulations on the age of taxis in our area.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  2. Efficiency by redwards · · Score: 3, Informative

    Per kwh, a coal-fired powerplant pollutes less than your average Camry. I'm not sure how significant the average transmission loss is, but powerplants obviously have enormous efficiency advantages over a standard internal combustion engine.

    1. Re:Efficiency by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure how significant the average transmission loss is

      According to the local power company, transmission losses have averaged 9.3% over the last 5 years.

      http://www.saskpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2012_saskpower_annual_report.pdf - PDF page 119

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  3. Re:Tesla shorts, not Ford investors. by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Informative

    They have a very thorough section here: http://www.teslamotors.com/true-cost-of-ownership including how long you spend at the gas station and tax incentives. I still think for about 70k (their cheapest car seemingly) they may be in more of a premium market kind of like the land rover.

  4. Re:Associations, tribalism by Walter+White · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are studies that show "conservatives" here in the USA will buy CFL bulbs on their own (if they think) but as soon as you label them "green" or with other labels and slogans that have been associated as belonging to the enemy tribe, they will fuck themselves just to not have anything to do with the opposing tribe.

    Ooh, how I would love to see a citation for that one...

    http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/news_events/news-releases/rick-larrick-energy-efficient-products/#.UYARyMqcWUN

    QED

  5. Re:Let's compare the two by cplusplus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Good point. In my area, you can pay a small surcharge to ensure that all the electricity the power company purchases on your behalf comes from renewable resources like wind, solar, and hydro. I pay said surcharge, so my Model S will be eco-magically-delicious.

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
  6. Re:Same as last time? Well, nope. by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Batteries - even the old lead acid kind - are recycled as a rule and not as an exception.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  7. Re:They still miss the whole picture by mevets · · Score: 3, Informative

    Who would want to drive a hummer? It is a trailer trash Cadillac.
    Second, you might want to check your facts. There was an advert-disguised-as-study a few years ago claiming something like this. It was BS.
    Third non radioactive rare-earths are actually plentiful. It is like conservatives who aren't particularly conservative. Don't know why, maybe they just like the name.
    Ps
    A hummer will burn about 1300kg more gasoline per year than a prius. A prius weighs about 1300 kg.