
It's a Tesla - ghosh
https://stratechery.com/2016/its-a-tesla/
======
ryanmarsh
> General Motors first unveiled the Chevy Bolt as a concept car in January
> 2015...

> As Pam Fletcher, GM’s executive chief engineer for electric vehicles,
> recently put it to me with a confident grin: “Who wants to be second?”

Yah but... it's a GM.

I own the finest luxury automobile GM makes, the Cadillac Escalade. It is a
chrome lined bucket of bolts. If they can't do this right how can they do a
$25k car right? As I type this my GM is in the shop RN with a hard to
reproduce transmission issue. Oh and it cost as much as a Model S. o_O

OTOH the Model S is the most well manufactured _anything_ I've ever sat in. It
boggles my mind why anyone would buy a second GM. They've had enough time to
get it right. Instead they've a consistent track record of mediocrity with an
epic failure about every decade.

Tesla tho...

All I can say is, the people baffled by Tesla's success can't have spent much
time behind the wheel of a Model S. I didn't realize how much cars suck, even
luxury cars, till I spent a day driving an S up and down the PCH.

~~~
bflesch
> OTOH the Model S is the most well manufactured anything I've ever sat in.

Have tried out a full-option Audi A8 or an S-Class or 7 series? During my time
in the US I was shocked by the bad interior quality of GM.

Apart from the actual software running on the cars, I think German
manufacturers still have very high quality interior in their flagship models.

RE: Software: Current Audis take ~15 secs to boot up the navigation, and
during that period you cannot input anything / the screen just hangs.

~~~
daveguy
Re: software... So the first time you get in it the A8 has a zero to 60 of
20.4 seconds? That sounds about right.

I drove an A4 for a while and the gas response was absolutely terrible. You
had to press it gently if you wanted it to respond immediately. If you gunned
it or even just pressed a little quick to get across oncoming lanes -- expect
about a half second delay. One of the worst cars I have driven. Taking it to
the dealer the response was -- "that's normal". My boring ass accord responds
to the gas pedal better than the A4. Maybe their higher end cars are better,
but I wouldn't get another audi.

~~~
tomp
Which cars don't have a delay? If you have a gas (i.e. relatively low torque)
car with automatic transmission, it needs to shift in a lower gear if you want
to accelerate rapidly, so that's where the delay comes from.

~~~
vinceguidry
GP was probably referring to turbo lag.

I love my 2014 Mazda 3's Sport Mode. When I hit that button, the engine goes
from being more than adequate to chomping at the bit. It just flies. Love that
thing. Paddle shifters so I can downshift without even moving my hands.

Test drive one someday, Mazda isn't kidding around with the "zoom zoom".

------
Someone1234
That table of "U.S. Sales of Large Luxury Vehicles" is pretty uhh selective.
When I search for "Large Luxury Vehicles" on Google it lists other four door
models and even manufacturers that don't appear in this table.

Their claim that the reason for the selection is "comparably priced four-door
sedans" is also inaccurate. They've skipped similarly priced "large luxury
vehicles" while including some on the list which are much more expensive
(almost $100K).

Obviously this was created to wow Tesla's investors. But I think you'll find
it was designed to create a picture that Tesla owns 50% of the "large luxury
vehicle" market with the highest growth and to accomplish that they had to
selectively include and exclude vehicles that didn't fit that narrative.

~~~
sixQuarks
So according to your research, which comparable large luxury vehicle sells
more than the Model S?

~~~
Someone1234
> So according to your research, which comparable large luxury vehicle sells
> more than the Model S?

That wasn't a claim I made.

I said the table was set up in such a way as to read like Tesla controlled 50%
of the large luxury vehicle market. If you include more vehicles, even if they
sell worse, then Tesla's proportional market share drops.

But since you brought it up, if you wish to tell us which comparable large
luxury vehicle outsells the Model S then I invite you to do so?

~~~
sixQuarks
Yes, but what are the other comparable vehicles you found? Are you considering
near-luxury vehicles like Cadillac and Lincoln? Because that's not in the same
class as a Model S. The closest competitors were all in that list as far as
I'm aware.

~~~
Someone1234
Well there is the rub. There is no set definition of what should or should not
appear in that list. They're including vehicles (e.g. S class) which are
$25-30K more than the Model S, so what is stopping us from including vehicles
which are $25-30K cheaper than the Model S? What is the standard to appear on
this list?

Just to give an example, if I search for "Large Luxury Vehicles" and click the
first link here is the list of vehicles:

\- Tesla Model S

\- Porsche Panamera

\- Audi A7

\- Cadillac CT6

\- Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class

\- Kia K900

\- Infiniti Q70

\- Cadillac XTS

\- Hyundai Equus

\- Acura RLX

\- Lincoln MKS

Now there are two interesting things about this list: We see a lot new
vehicles not on Tesla's list, and the price of these vehicles are a lot
tighter than Tesla's list. For example no $96K S-Class listed here.

It is hard to justify why some of these wouldn't be in Tesla's list, they're
in the same ballpark price wise, they claim to offer luxury, and even the fit
& finish seems to be as nice. So I'd argue Tesla's list is very arbitrary,
there's no rhyme or reason, no set standard. Just a list that makes Tesla look
good.

~~~
jazzyk
The absence of Lexus from the list is deafening. It is the highest quality
brand in this group (not an opinion, a fact - please check a couple of
rankings, most notably JD Powers Initial Quality survey, etc.)

~~~
sixQuarks
Yeah, I agree the LS should be on the list

------
paulsutter
Lithium Ion battery prices have come down 40% since 2010 (see third graph[1]),
and that is /caused/ by the increasing demand (it's called a manufacturing
learning curve[2] of which Moore's law is just an example).

Tesla's strategy is to drive volumes with gradually more affordable cars to
bring down battery costs until there is a crossover where gasoline cars are
impractical. That also explains the Gigafactory and the wall battery. So far,
it's working.

[1] [http://rameznaam.com/2013/09/25/energy-storage-gets-
exponent...](http://rameznaam.com/2013/09/25/energy-storage-gets-
exponentially-cheaper-too/)

[2]
[http://www.strategosinc.com/articles/strategy/learning_curve...](http://www.strategosinc.com/articles/strategy/learning_curves.htm)

~~~
mtgx
> Leaf battery pack at $270/KWh in 2014.

Tesla is expected to have $200/KWh batteries once the Gigactory starts making
batteries. Bolt is already said to use $145/KWh batteries, but I figure that's
mainly because they're using cheaper batteries with much shorter life (kind of
how Tesla's 10KWh PowerWall was cheaper than its 7KWh PowerWall).

------
mmastrac
Tesla had to first _build_ the market for their electric vehicles by proving
that they were powerful enough to satisfy the "petrolheads". Even starting at
the high end, they had trouble breaking through the public perception [1], but
nowhere near as much as if they had started at the low-end (IMO).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_controversies#Tesla_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_controversies#Tesla_Roadster_review)

~~~
vvanders
Yup, that's the most incredible part about the whole thing to me,
bootstrapping a market that didn't existing in such a high capital industry.

------
mikeash
"And yes, Tesla has a history of delivering cars late and with a higher price
than expected."

The article closes with a similar sentiment. I see this a lot, and I wonder
where it comes from. Late, no question, but higher price? I think the Roadster
may have had a price increase, but both the Model S and Model X hit their
price targets. I think there's a lot of confusion because prices are sometimes
quoted with the Federal tax credit (and even state credits in some cases) and
sometimes without, and because the Model S 40 was discontinued pretty much
immediately due to low demand.

I won't be at all shocked if the Model 3 ends up being late. But I think it's
a safe bet that it will cost $35,000 as announced.

~~~
pchristensen
Most Model S's sell for waaaaay more than the list price, because they're
bought by wealthy people that pile on the options. It's a safe bet that most
$35k Model 3's will sell for $45k+ for the same reason.

~~~
stepanhruda
The average price from all the bookings is ~$42k.

~~~
mikeash
Elon Musk posted a guess that the average Model 3 configuration will cost
about that much. There is no average price from the bookings, as the bookings
are just a $1,000 option to purchase, and no options pricing or configurations
have been made available yet.

------
11thEarlOfMar
When I purchased my last car in 2014, the order from mom was safety above all
else. It had to have 5 stars in the 3 major categories.

Dad had to give up performance. The car is jumpy, very loud and sluggish when
accelerating 50-60 mph and the stereo is just bad.

Tesla has satisfied both mom and dad by achieving both the safest and highest
performance car ever mass produced, and, the total cost of ownership,
factoring in depreciation, fuel, maintenance, insurance, is 1/2 an
equivalently priced gasoline car over 10 years.

That is why they have >300,000 pre-orders for the Model 3.

Environmentally friendly, never have to smell gasoline again, drive in the car
pool lanes, these are all icing on the cake.

~~~
dragontamer
> It had to have 5 stars in the 3 major categories.

Every vehicle I care about seems to have 5 stars in all categories. Safety of
modern vehicles is exceptionally better than even just 10 years ago. You can
achieve 5-stars in the original three categories with a $15k Honda Fit
(Moderate front, side, and roof)

[http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/fit-4-door-...](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/fit-4-door-
wagon/2015)

> highest performance car ever mass produced

Take a look at Leguna Seca lap times. Model S isn't doing as well as "high
performance" cars.

EDIT: Focus on the 1:48 laptime, the best one. It looks like it was a casual
race for the most part. The 1:48 time however is a record not only for Tesla
Model S, but for electric vehicles in general and should be taken as the
"serious" indicator of the Model S's overall performance.

[https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-
laguna-s...](https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-laguna-seca-
lap-times)

5-stars in every safety category with performance and cheap is like... Subaru
WRX. Fords are a bit easier to maintain though, so I'd go with Ford Focus ST
or Focus RS (and switch out the tires, because stock tires on that suck
apparently)

~~~
LeonM
> Take a look at Leguna Seca lap times. Model S isn't doing very well.

It all depends on how you like to 'measure' performance. The model S dominates
when it comes to acceleration, pedal response and road (!= track) handling due
to the low center of gravity. However, the S does very poor on a circuit
because the motor/inverter tends to get hot and the software will reduce the
maximum output power accordingly.

You have to keep in minds that the model S is a 4 door, 2 trunk luxury sedan,
not a race car.

~~~
dragontamer
> The model S dominates when it comes to acceleration

There are multiple Model S here. The P85D which "dominates" acceleration has a
curb weight of 5000lbs and likely handles like a boat. (The typical F150 truck
actually weighs less than the Model S P85D).

The older, more typical Model S, have Zero-to-Sixty scores in the 5-seconds to
6-seconds range, which is easily bested by the Subaru WRX STI.

The Model S probably wins on rolling-start 5-to-sixty, as the ICE engines
won't be able to rev-high and drop the clutch.

Only Model S P85D "dominates" in acceleration, and that car comes with its own
compromises.

> road (!= track) handling due to the low center of gravity

Model S measures .87g for road holding according to Car and Driver
([http://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-s](http://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-s)),
while the other cars I was talking about are all easily above .9+g. I'm unsure
which model it is, I can only assume that's a more typical Model S as opposed
to the heavier-than-a-Toyota-Sienna swagger-wagon P85D.

Electric vehicles are __heavy __, and that negatively plays into its
performance characteristics.

> You have to keep in minds that the model S is a 4 door, 2 trunk luxury
> sedan, not a race car.

Indeed. But if you want to step into the arena of "high performance", what
better comparison is there than a standardized track?

As for the apples-to-apples comparison, try 1:40 for the Cadillac CTS-V Sedan
on the Leguna Seca, while 1:48 seems to be the best time for the Model S.
Luxury sports sedan vs Luxury sports sedan, both are $85,000+ large cars
claiming awesome performance after all.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TcCuzaRFIw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TcCuzaRFIw)

------
ams6110
_a phenomenon that is nearly unprecedented_

Not at all; people camped out/stood in line to buy Windows 95.

Tesla popularity is a pop culture fad/novelty. Not to say the car isn't a
great technical achievement, but these kind of responses have been seen
before.

~~~
SonicSoul
where was this line? I was around when 95 came out and don't remember that
much excitement. Also in this case people are parting with a $1k for years
just to save a place in line. Has that happened for any car before? that's
what's unprecedented.

~~~
tsunamifury
Thats pretty standard in the upper-end of car purchasing, Ferrari, new models
from BMW or Mercedes. All dealers hold waitlists -- its just likely you've
never purchased a model that has one.

Also Windows had huge lines... the iconic photo:
[http://i.imgur.com/oc2EDhE.jpg?fb](http://i.imgur.com/oc2EDhE.jpg?fb)

~~~
SonicSoul
wow. thanks for that. I must have blocked it out of my memory. and the
comments on that photo are hilarious

~~~
rconti
It was fantastic. I was living just south of Redmond at the time. There was
news coverage about it. Ballmer and Gates were driving around town in a
Ballmer's Porsche blasting "start me up" (the theme for the Win95 launch),
congratulating shoppers.

~~~
SonicSoul
haha! oh I wish there was footage of this.

------
tlogan
It is interesting how my understanding of innovator's dilemma perfectly
explains Tesla.

\- there is market for luxury cars

\- luxury cars market was full of expensive but uninteresting, crapy and low
quality cars.

\- Tesla make cool car for same price as other luxury cars but it was way
cooler. It worked well.

\- Tesla now goes to conquer low end of the market

So it is typical market disruption: make something better than others for
lower price.

NOTE: People say Tesla Model S is expensive but it is actually less expensive
that Mercedes CLS which is has 2 stars reliability rating by JD Power.

~~~
hencq
Actually the way the Innovator's Dilemma" uses the word disruption is very
specific and doesn't match your explanation or the article's for that matter.
Christensen doesn't use disruption to mean "making something better than
others for a lower price". Disruption, as he defines it, is specifically about
making a product that is actually inferior on the metrics valued by the
existing market.

The canonical example from his book is about hard drive manufacturers
increasing the storage space of their hard drives for mainframes (something
the market asked for). They got disrupted by manufacturers making hard drives
that had much less storage space (so considered inferior by the existing
market), but were physically smaller allowing them to be used in
minicomputers, a new market.

Now, it might still be possible to apply disruption as Christensen defines it
to the market for cars, though arguably it might be stretching it. It seems to
me that Tesla sacrificed some of the metrics used by current buyers of luxury
cars, but appealed to a previously ignored segment of "green" or "techie"
buyers. Compare for instance the interior of a Tesla model S against a
Mercedes S class and the Tesla would lose. However, Tesla correctly identified
that there appears to be a market for electric cars where customers are
willing to pay a premium.

------
simo7
The author shows a poor understanding of car making business.

He tackles the whole topic from the demand side (how to have people liking and
buying the product), but the real issue with the model 3 will be: can they
PRODUCE it right?.

All the comparisons with Apple the iphone clearly show he's approaching this
business as it was just consumer tech, which is really not.

Just think about the effects that shifting from a low volume-high margin
business to a high volume-low margin one can have on return on capital... And
that's happening in a very capital intensive business, so tons of money
re/invested at low ROE..

I wish Tesla can really make it happen but if I was a shareholder I would be
quite reasonably scared.

~~~
aerovistae
You show a poor understanding of Musk's track record.

I just don't get people who hold this opinion. What exactly do you think is
going to happen?

Do you envision Tesla admitting, say Q2 2018, "Serious supply shortages
continue to prevent us delivering on the Model 3, we now hope for Q1 2019
delivery," and ultimately just go out of business, meanwhile competitors
suddenly come up with incredibly compelling cars that they've somehow never
managed to create before? Is that _really_ the outcome you anticipate??

This is the same guy who's now successfully _landed rockets_ . . . but you
think manufacturing cars will be unachievable for him, even after Tesla has
continually demonstrated rapidly climbing production and sales of the S and
X?????

~~~
mdorazio
It actually seems like a pretty good understanding of Musk's track record to
me.

They're obviously not going to go out of business as a result. But considering
Tesla has already had earnings calls pretty much exactly like that with
respect to slower than expected Model S production, yes I would expect Tesla
in 2018 to admit that most people on the pre-order list are going to be
waiting a very long time.

That leaves Tesla in the awkward position of either needing to massively ramp
up every aspect of its production pipeline now (which is a HUGE undertaking)
at the cost of not producing Model S and Model X on schedule, or facing a
significant number of pre-order people giving up on waiting, and a constrained
production capacity well into 2020.

The OP's comment was with respect to shareholder confidence, which is
currently propping up the stock price based on future expectations. I believe
the point was that if Tesla can't come even close to meeting the market demand
for its vehicles, that's a signal of weakness on several fronts that would
need to be priced into the stock.

I'm also not sure what landing rockets has to do with mass-producing cars.
SpaceX's achievements are indeed amazing and I watch all of their launches,
but figuring out how to land a first stage is an engineering challenge.
Figuring out how to produce 300,000 cars in a short time is a logistics
challenge. Not to mention no one yet knows how Tesla's model will scale to the
larger market with respect to service, support, parts replacement, etc. Scale
in the automotive market just brings with it a huge number of issues to tackle
that don't exist in smaller volumes.

~~~
aerovistae
Most of your post there is valid. But for the record, if they meet their goal
of delivering ~85,000 cars this year and can sustain the previous growth from
25k->50k->85k, then 2017 would see deliveries of ~100-110k and 2018 would see
~130k-150k, and 2019 ~160k-185k, which puts them very on track.

That's assuming continued linear growth of adding 20-30k per year. Musk has
said repeatedly he is aiming for 500k by 2020. While I don't doubt that will
be missed, it implies we'll see more than linear growth.

I understand there will be challenges -- I just have strong faith in their
ability to surmount them.

~~~
mdorazio
Good point. However, Tesla also missed its 2015 production target because
retooling the factory to produce Model X and to produce more Model S took
longer than expected and impacted the existing production line at the same
time. I think the exact same thing will happen with Model 3, only moreso given
the huge ramp-up needed. Rather than linear growth it's probably going to be
more like big staggered increases.

------
MrFoof
>an astounding 115,000 of them sent in their deposit before they even knew
what the car looked like.

Talk to Porsche enthusiasts who buy GT cars from their motorsport division.
They'll view such an ideal as not only normal, but required. The common phrase
is, "This is how the game is played."

Want the next GT3 RS (991.2)? Too bad, but you're already too late. Yes, the
car will probably not be announced for another 2-3 years, but Porsche
dealers/OPCs probably have enough deposits in hands TODAY in which 95% of them
are likely spoken for. Second hand at massive premium is your only real chance
at one. Hell, add the GT4 (and GT3, of course) to that as well.

Want the RS of 991.2's successor? That you have a chance at. Just get your
deposit in today. In five years you'll know what the car is, and you'll have
bought yourself right of first refusal. Porsche doesn't care if you don't want
it and want your money, because there's already a few people in line behind
you.

What is different is this isn't a low-volume enthusiast car. This is a volume
seller. This is targeting the 3-series, which moves over 100K units/year in
the US alone. As a result, that's what is impressive. It's the game normally
played by people wanting hard-edged Porsches, Ferraris, Lamborghinis,
McLarens, etc., but for a volume seller.

------
rwmj
Oddly I'm in the market for a "neighbourhood electric vehicle" \- a cheap,
limited, electric car that can get two people to the station and back daily (a
distance of around 4 miles).

There are really no good options. The closest is probably the Renault Twizy,
essentially an enclosed electric bike with 4 wheels. It's very expensive, and
more worryingly there are lots and lots of them available on the second hand
market, almost new, at greatly reduced prices.

~~~
drewrv
Does it have to be electric? A vespa would get the job done with a pretty
small carbon footprint.

~~~
varjag
Two-stroke engine pollution is massive.

------
musesum
Heh: "suped up golf cart". I drove one of those. It was called a Citicar:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citicar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citicar)

My dad owned a GM dealership. I was in high school when the 1973 oil embargo
happened. Around the same time, the 1973 issue of Scientific American showed
how bicycles where 46x more efficient that cars. (I think this was the issue
where Steve Jobs got the inspiration for "Bicycle of the Mind") So, I gave up
cars. But then, my Dad started to carry Citicars.

It had a couple issues: First, it had a 40-mile range. Second, the body was
ABS Plastic. Because there was so little mass, drivers would stomp down on the
accelerator, rear-end the car in front, and do $500 damage to the body. So,
after the first shipment, the dealership stopped carrying them.

[EDIT] 40 not 20 miles, though the last 20 didn't go up hills very well.

------
dismal2
Does anyone know if the power grid handle charging all these in the next 3-4
years?

------
pinaceae
I for one am still waiting for an actually useful electric car.

For reference, I currently have two vehicles: a 2008 Jeep Liberty and a
motorcycle. The motorcycle is the commute machine.

The Jeep is family travel and hauling machine. The latter is the killer use
case for a car for me. Recently cleaned out old furniture from my garage,
simply opened the backdoor of the car, folded the rear seats over and loaded
all the crap in. The car is dented, scratched, I don't care. A workhorse, at
my disposal. Ski trips, bike trips, shit weather commute.

Where is the electric version of that?

~~~
erikpukinskis
It doesn't exist yet because major car manufacturers don't believe it's
possible.

------
umeshunni
If you're like me and wondering what the title refers to - it's a play on an
old Ford commercial - "It's a Ford"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-YO5gzw6xg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-YO5gzw6xg)

~~~
LeonM
I think the author refers to "It's a duesy", which refers to the brand
Duesenberg [0], once the builder of the most luxurious cars on the planet, now
very rare and very valuable collectables.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesenberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesenberg)

~~~
mintplant
The "Etymological Note" section of the Wikipedia page you linked directly
contradicts you.

------
jcslzr
electric cars are the new: "if you black you never go back"

------
tambourine_man
_Moreover, given the fact that Tesla only delivered just over 50,000 cars last
year, no matter how quickly Tesla scales it will almost certainly be years
before this first week of reservations is fulfilled_

Yes, because there's no such thing as production scaling

------
Rockerczy
Better to ignore the writing of somebody who is blindly hoping that iPhone SE
will solve Apple's problem and capture indian marketshare.

~~~
Rockerczy
Apple's iPhone SE may have already flopped in India. The Friday launch of the
company's latest device had the weakest demand for a new iPhone on day one,
with barely 2,000 units

[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/iPhone-
SE-...](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/iPhone-SE-first-day-
demand-weakest-for-Apple-phones/articleshow/51752289.cms)

------
tbark42
"Tesla means something: yes, it stands for sustainability and caring for the
environment"

Nope #1:
[http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?rssid=32951](http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?rssid=32951)
Nope #2:
[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Only 30% of electrical generation in the US is coal (this number decreases
yearly). All new generators coming online this year are solar, wind or natural
gas.

Yes, natural gas still emits CO2 compared to a coal fired power plant. But,
those natural gas emissions are much cleaner, and those combined cycle plants
can be throttled much faster on demand from the ISO authority, _which helps
solar and wind generation_.

Electric cars get cleaner every year because of this. Gas cars will always
burn gas their entire life.

2016 EIA Generator Turnups:
[http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c....](http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png)

2016 EIA Generator Retirements:
[http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_d....](http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_d.png)

Also, Tesla has a closed loop recycling process for their battery packs.

~~~
brooklyndavs
"Electric cars get cleaner every year because of this. Gas cars will always
burn gas their entire life."

This might be true in the future but we aren't there yet unfortunately. This
is due to the incorrect assumption that natural gas is a clean bridge fuel.
Once you take into account the methane emissions/leaks from natural gas you
end up with a fuel just as bad as coal and oil from a global warming
perspective. This is due to methane being very dangerous greenhouse gas in the
sort term (now - 100yr time period). This plus the emissions required to
produce any consumer product like a car probably means for now electric cars
not much better than a traditional gas car.

The only way to make these cars truly emissions free is to remove ALL carbon
based energy from the chain. That includes car and battery production,
charging, maintenance, and disposal. Until you do that your just switching the
source of emissions around. The climate system doesn't care if the greenhouse
gas comes from a car or a power plant.

The best thing we could do in the short term until we have a 100% green grid
is to hold off on buying the car and walk/ride a bike :)

[http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-
terrifying-n...](http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-
new-chemistry/)

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL067987/abst...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL067987/abstract)

~~~
toomuchtodo
My math, extrapolating out current install velocity of utility/distributed
solar, as well as utility scale wind, shows a complete replacement of fossil
fuel generation in the US in 12-15 years (Congress finally did something right
extended the production tax credit for 6 years for renewables).

I agree natural gas isn't perfect, but we won't need it for very long.

~~~
brooklyndavs
I wish I could share this outlook but I see a few things slowing the
installation velocity of zero emission energy generation. These are a mix of
technological and political. What we are seeing currently in the install
velocity is probably the low hanging/small scale projects in politically
favorable states (in the US anyway).

On the technological side as projects get bigger they are running into issues.
Take the large solar plant in California for example:

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601071/one-of-the-
worlds-...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601071/one-of-the-worlds-
largest-solar-facilities-is-in-trouble/)

Naturally, these are typical issues that we see when scaling any new
technology up for the first time. They will be resolved, but how soon?

Secondly, and this is probably the bigger issue, without a Manhattan like
project for zero emissions energy production the political drive to switch
will be painfully slow. Remember how much MONEY there is in fossil fuels and
these companies are not going to go silently into the night. There are large
states where significant numbers of americans live (think Texas, Arizona,
Florida) where the politicians won't even acknowledge global warming! (IE see
who funds the campaigns). Homeowners in Oklahoma face a fee for using solar.

[http://www.climatecentral.org/news/oklahoma-solar-
surcharge-...](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/oklahoma-solar-surcharge-
bill-becomes-law-17335)

Nevada got rid of net metering

[http://www.marketplace.org/2016/02/23/world/nevada-
solar](http://www.marketplace.org/2016/02/23/world/nevada-solar)

There was this collapse of the Cape Cod wind project last year...

[https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/01/30/what-
really-...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/01/30/what-really-
toppled-cape-wind-plans-for-nantucket-sound/mGJnw0PbCdfzZHtITxq1aN/story.html)

Even though we NEED to be off fossil fuels for energy generation in 12-15
years I fear we won't be anywhere close.

The best thing that can be done for the near term is limit consumption as much
as possible until we are completely off ALL fossil fuels.

