One of the things that is rarely appreciated about batteries is that they can't, by the inviolable laws of thermodynamics, be more efficient than the energy source that was used to produce them. So while you might be able to get more energy of out of battery on a percentage basis than you could out of an IC engine, when you consider where that energy came from in the first place (typically fossil), they are less efficient, full stop. Unless or until we use renewables, EVs are worse for the environment, even though they have zero tailpipe emissions. I want to key every Tesla I see in MI that has a ZROCO2 vanity plate. In MI, and in most states, your EV power is coming from coal and natural gas.
Totally. Of course, there are many factors that go into the balance: gasoline vs. electricity delivery, refining and transportation of the required fossil fuels, etc. I wish our scientific literacy were higher, or at least the effort being made, if only to produce a scientific humility that we lack. Musk effectively arbitrages the difference between people's scientific literacy and science. It's part of his genius. I think a self-driving Tesla has been just 2-3 years out for 4-5 years now. In fact, he might be more futurist than industrialist. 2019 vehicle sales: GM: 7.7M Ford: 5.3M Tesla: 0.37M Marketcap: GM: $43B Ford: $27B Tesla: $400B Musk is not selling cars, as much as he is selling the selling of cars.
I didn't listen to the interview, but apparently he reminded the audience that he said Tesla was overvalued back in May (when the stock was one third of its present value) and also that it would be worth more in five years. It's easy to say now, but I think comparing Tesla to other carmakers is akin to comparing early Amazon to other bookstores. There's a vision priced into the stock. If the vision fails, it will be a dud like pets.com, but it's too early to say.
One thing I'll give him credit for is the acceleration of EV platforms at other companies. Definitely the EV industry wouldn't be where it is without Tesla. I think Tesla's market dominance in EVs is probably going to be short lived when, e.g., BMW, Audi, and other car makers who make cars that aren't ugly and rife with quality issues have viable products at competitive prices. Right now that giant market cap gives Tesla a big leg up on the competition by making them able to sell cars at a loss while still raising money whenever Elon feels like buying a new plane or whatever.Musk is not selling cars, as much as he is selling the selling of cars.
The first time I read this I nodded in agreement, but on reflection I don't understand what you mean. If by "produce" you mean manufacture, it is certainly possible to imagine arbitrarily inefficient ways to make batteries. You could mine asteroids for raw materials, for example. I think you mean that it is always better to connect a load directly to an electricity generator rather than to use the generator to charge a battery and then use the battery to carry the load. The charge/discharge process will necessarily have costs, though one old analysis suggests that lithium-ion batteries have charge/discharge efficiency of 80-90%, and more recent sources say "close to unity." But the whole point of batteries is to store energy for use when the generator is not available, so this seems like a minor criticism. An advantage of electricity is that you can produce it in the most efficient way available at any time and place and the end user won't notice. The first time I saw a diesel/LPG dual-fuel car I was impressed at the ingenuity, but it didn't seem like a win for efficiency. The annoyingly smug Tesla vanity plates around here often have some variation of "N0 01L". WanderingEng tells me it's not really correct to say your electricity comes from any particular nearby power plant. If so, we are all around 63% fossil fuel, 20% nuclear, and 17.5% renewable.batteries ... can't, by the inviolable laws of thermodynamics, be more efficient than the energy source that was used to produce them
Good point, but big power plants are more efficient (thermal efficiency). So there is some reduction in energy emissions, just not as much. Maybe not enough to compensate for the emissions cost of new materials and mining battery materials.when you consider where that energy came from in the first place (typically fossil), they are less efficient, full stop. Unless or until we use renewables, EVs are worse for the environment, even though they have zero tailpipe emissions
The only published research I've seen about it (and I'm not in the field, I don't follow the field closely, so take that with a giant grain of salt) concluded that EVs contribute more CO2 than a comparable IC in the majority of places in the US. I don't remember the numbers, but they had it broken down by what percent of coal and natural gas it takes to break even. IIRC the only places in the country that passed the test were in the West where they have a large percentage of solar and hydro. Obviously that should change over time as we integrate more renewables, but I was mostly just trying to point out that "EVs pollute less" has become sort of a heuristic for thinking green, when in reality the subject is complex. And it's more complicated by the fact that every asshole who owns a Tesla wants their car to go 0-60 in 3s, which, you know, takes the same amount of power whether it's gas or battery. "Gas guzzler" is such a pejorative lobbed at SUV/pickup drivers (and not without reason), but nobody who drives a sports car EV should get to use it. And yes, the mining and recycling of batteries is another topic that hasn't gotten a lot of attention that is also non-trivial. I only know enough to know that I don't know much about it. But my wife, who's well-placed at GM, tells me that it's one of those issues that Musk just says, "Fuck it, we'll figure it out later," while legacy companies worry about litigation and shit.