
With The Tesla Model S, Elon Musk Has Created A Nice Fossil Fuel Car - dmor
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2013/08/21/with-the-tesla-model-s-elon-musk-has-created-a-nice-fossil-fuel-car/
======
lutusp
The article misses a simple point -- if present trends continue and if we act
wisely, there will be fewer fossil energy sources in the future, and more
renewable sources. And in the long term this change will be forced on us -- we
will be required to move to renewable energy sources. When that happens, gas-
fueled cars will stop running, and electric cars will become the norm.

The author is right -- at the moment, in most places, the Tesla is a fossil-
fueled car. In principle it could be powered by renewable energy sources like
wind, solar, hydroelectric and (eventually) fusion power. But take note -- in
the long term that principle will become a fact.

Also, because electric cars powered by centrally generated electric power
create less pollution per watt than gas-powered cars, while we're waiting for
renewable energy to take over, it's still more environmentally sound to drive
an electric car.

[http://content.sierraclub.org/evguide/myths-vs-
reality](http://content.sierraclub.org/evguide/myths-vs-reality)

Quote: "According to a range of studies doing a ‘well to wheels’ analysis, an
electric car leads to significantly less carbon dioxide pollution from
electricity than the CO2 pollution from the oil of a conventional car with an
internal combustion engine. In some areas, like many on the West Coast that
rely largely on wind or hydro power, the emissions are significantly lower for
EVs. And that's today. As we retire more coal plants and bring cleaner sources
of power online, the emissions from electric vehicle charging drop even
further. Additionally, in some areas, night-time charging will increase the
opportunity to take advantage of wind power -- another way to reduce
emissions."

~~~
oojensen
Recoverable oil reserves in the US increased 15% this year.

[http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/08/f...](http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/08/frackers-
generate-greatest-annual-increase-in-u-s-oil-reserves-ever/)

Let's use the best energy source (for transportation) that we have access to.
I want to live fully today, rather than bang my head against time and try to
live in the future before it is time.

------
snowwrestler
Terrible article in that it does not supply actual facts about the U.S. energy
grid:

Electricity generation by source 2012 [1]

Coal - 37%

Natural Gas - 30%

Nuclear - 19%

Renewables - 12%

So, it's only 37% correct to call the Tesla a "coal car."

[1]
[http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/tables/?tableNumber=22#](http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/tables/?tableNumber=22#)

~~~
oojensen
I looked at your source, and it includes hydropower as a renewable source of
energy. I'm not going to argue that we'll run out of gravity to pull water
through turbines, but the gigantic dams that come with hydropower are hardly
something that the Sierra Club and their kind get excited about.

So if we present your numbers honestly without inflating the "green" sounding
category, we find that 4.4% of power comes from wind, and 0.3% of energy comes
from solar. If turnabout is fair play, it's only 4.7% correct to call the
Tesla solar & wind powered (rounding up).

------
secstate
This has been argued a multitude of times already. Cars are massively less
efficient than coal power plants at converting fossil fuel to energy.
Massively.

More concerning to me about 100% electric cars is the dependence it places on
the power grid. The 2003 NE Blackout(1) was caused by a software bug in a
small office in Ohio. Two days without power. At this rate, it's really only a
matter of time until our electric grid is compromised by someone with an
agenda. I hope you have at least a few gallons of gasoline lying around and a
gasoline-powered car to maintain locomotion.

1:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003)

~~~
moocowduckquack
_it 's really only a matter of time until our electric grid is compromised by
someone with an agenda_

Already happened, they were called Enron.

~~~
oojensen
Public utilities (and any other kind of government sanctioned/protected
monopoly) are a terrible idea. Any other kind of monopoly has pressure to stay
ahead, but government backed monopolies don't sort themselves out. The person
who compromised the electric system are those who made utilities public.

------
moocowduckquack
_Several years ago, I discussed Musk’s anti-fossil-fuel political activism
with a close friend his. The man was an excellent engineer, and looked at Musk
with pure technological enthusiasm. “I understand where you’re coming from,” I
said. “But here’s the thing. If he has any success whatsoever with his
political goals, he will do damage to billions of lives. Someone can perform a
lot of great engineering feats and still be a negative force in the world.”_

You can't quote yourself as an authority like that to close a piece you are
writing. Not unless you are a bit mental anyway.

I would also be very interested to know what the private uptake of solar is
among the people why own tesla cars. I would suspect a reasonable amount of
them are already being charged off rooftop solar.

~~~
lutusp
> I would also be very interested to know what the private uptake of solar is
> among the people why own tesla cars. I would suspect a reasonable amount of
> them are already being charged off rooftop solar.

The article also conveniently overlooks the fact that, even when powered by
fossil-fueled power plants, electric cars create substantially less pollution
than gas-powered cars.

~~~
moocowduckquack
The whole thing with an electric car is that you decouple the car from the
fuel, which he acknowledges by calling it a coal fuelled car, he doesn't call
it electric fuelled, for instance. So it is an _n_ fuelled car. You could
decide to fuel it entirely by setting fire to old socks in the burner of an
old steam genset, if you had enough old socks.

------
amirmansour
This is article was simply terrible. It was written by a guy that calls
himself an "energy philosopher." This philosopher does not work off facts, and
has not seen the data. The well-to-wheel efficiency for a Tesla is
approximately double the well-to-efficiency of a 55mpg Toyota Prius. The
efficiency of providing gas to a station from the raw source is much higher
than the efficiency of electricity generation and transmission. However,
electric motors are so much more efficient that combustion engines, that
electric vehicles win in overall efficiency at the end. Don't need to take my
word for it, just look at the engineering:
[http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/T...](http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf)

~~~
oojensen
Why does efficiency matter more than price? You seem to hold efficiency as a
value beyond what's actually conserved.

------
tomasien
When things run on electricity, the power grid becomes ready to be de-
centralized, the power can come from anywhere. Right now, it comes from coal
and fossil fuels, but things running on electricity make it easier for that to
no longer be the case.

Imagine an entirely de-centralized power grid: then, if you could install
electricity-generating mechanisms into your home, you could run your Tesla (or
other electric car) and home without paying for it. THEN, the incentive to
make and sell things that can generate, store, and transfer electricity
becomes huge - anything that can do that is like buying people electricity.

~~~
secstate
You miss a major point. I live in rural Maine and there are plenty of folks
trying to live "off grid" and generate their own electricity. Here we sit,
2013, those with solar panels on their house have to make sure not to run the
dishwasher more than once a solar cycle in winter. Good luck charging your car
on that. I'm sure there are ways to generate more power, but you wind up
needing LOTS of panels and that increases the chance of failure and need to
replace.

I know the technology will get better, but like AI, they've been promising
improvements in solar panels for decades now and they never seem to appear.

~~~
Nrsolis
Maine isn't representative of the amount of potential solar energy available
in other parts of the USA.

~~~
secstate
That's valid. But I would also argue that solar power has yet to deliver on
promises made anywhere in this country. And countries like Germany that
doubled down on subsidies for solar are seldom heard from these days (as are
wind farms). In fact, most people in may tend to shy away from solar and wind
in Maine these days in favor of tidal, which is much more reliable, though
harder to keep equipment maintainable.

~~~
Nrsolis
You not counting the trillions spent on military intervention in the oil-rich
Middle East as a subsidy?

Germany just decided to decommission all of its nuclear power generation. That
power is going to come from somewhere.

------
spladat
Wake me when an electric ambulance demonstrates a proven track record of
traveling long distances in cold weather in rural America. Never mind electric
helicopters and airplanes.

Embrace energy freedom (which we don't have now--eliminate all subsidies,
controls, and taxes for all businesses--no loopholes or special favors)
instead of a centrally planned or mixed economy energy policy.

------
Sull4
I believe both sides are missing the point, that we should allow the market to
dictate how technology develops and use all our resources ( ie, fossil fuels
and sustainable ). We don't need the government to determine our future for
us. When sustainable technology becomes more viable as a energy source it will
naturally turn away from fossil fuels. As of right now fossil fuels allow for
people to buy cheap cars, get to work. buy food because we are able to produce
more food then ever before. And that extra income will naturally be invested
into technology, things that allow people to save money. Right now the
electric car who can afford it. Does anyone in this forum own one? Is it able
to sustain the logistics such as Semi's moving produce and products across
this nation? The real revolution will be when they can create a electric
engine that can haul 80,000 pounds in 5 days across the country. Until then,
the electric car is a gimmick that only rich people can afford.

------
drcode
Yes, it is true that the carbon footprint on a Tesla right now is just as
shitty as on a gas automobile. What the article overlooks, however, is that it
costs extraordinary amounts of MONEY to pull carbon out of the ground (whether
in the form of gas, coal, or whatever else) and pump it in the air... we just
don't have any better solutions yet.

This means it is likely civilization will eventually migrate to cheaper ways
of generating energy without the expense of pulling carbon reservoirs out of
the ground.

Even if most electricity is currently generated by burning carbon sources,
this won't always be the case, and electric cars will eventually be decoupled
from fossil fuel sources.

~~~
oojensen
Thank you for pointing out that fossil fuels are the best solution we have for
generating power today.

------
chaostheory
A lot of people pair their electric cars with solar panels on their houses so
it's not the best argument.

------
Randgalt
FYI - here is the author's response to various BBS comment:
[http://industrialprogress.com/2013/08/22/the-tesla-
debate/](http://industrialprogress.com/2013/08/22/the-tesla-debate/)

------
jayfuerstenberg
Is it Tesla's fault if the electricity is generated from coal?

------
bparsons
Author of that article runs a coal/oil propaganda organization called "The
Center for Industrial Progress".

You can take a wild guess who pays his bills.

------
alexepstein
I’m the author of the Forbes piece. I elaborated on the issues in a recent
post I submitted to the Tesla forum in response to many of the criticisms
raised here. You can read it here or pasted below.
[http://industrialprogress.com/2013/08/22/the-tesla-
debate/](http://industrialprogress.com/2013/08/22/the-tesla-debate/)

The fundamental question being argued on both sides is, as I see it, whether
the government should severely restrict fossil fuel use–and, as part of that
policy, promote electric cars as an alternative.

In my view, because cheap, plentiful, reliable energy is so important to
technological and human progress, and because fossil fuel technology is
essential to providing that caliber of energy for a long time to come,
governments should absolutely not be restricting fossil fuel use. (For those
interested in seeing how this case stacks up in an open debate, see my recent
Stanford debate with Sierra Club Senior Director Bruce Nilles.) Making this
case requires addressing concerns about climate head-on, which I did.

“Perhaps the most neglected benefit of fossil fuel energy is in making us
safer from the climate. Our cultural discussion on ‘climate change’ fixates on
whether or not fossil fuels impact the climate. Of course they do—everything
does—but the question that matters is whether it is becoming safer or more
dangerous. Here, the data is unambiguous—in the last 80 years, as fossil fuels
have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from .03% to all of
.04%, we have become 50 times less likely to die because of climate-related
causes. Give thanks to the proliferation of climate-protection technology
(climate control, sturdy homes, weather satellites, drought-relief convoys,
modern agriculture), which are made possible by fossil fuels.”

Most of the posts on this forum assume that climate change is a basis for
government action, but none even attempted to address my case about the actual
effects of CO2 emissions on climate safety. The underlying data here place an
enormous burden of proof on anyone claiming future catastrophe. And that
burden cannot be met as the catastrophic climate models are demonstrable
failures at predicting climate. (As I will argue later, even if there was a
big problem, advocating solar as the solution would not be logical.)

Other posts on the forum assume that the finite nature of fossil fuels implies
some sort of necessary government support of electric cars. But basic
economics tells us that the price of the finite commodities involved in every
mode of transport will signal if and when a change is necessary. (Note: price
is more important than “energy efficiency.” Energy efficiency is just one form
of resource efficiency, and often not the most important. If you’re admirer of
solar, note that an excellent solar panel is “20% efficient”–should that
disqualify it?) Given that electric cars are currently a tiny, luxury,
resource-intensive niche of the transportation market, it is odd to assume
that all the resources involved will smoothly and economically scale globally.
We have no idea, just as we have no idea whether there will be a revolution in
coal-to-liquids or gas-to-liquids will mean superior hydrocarbon fuels for
hundreds of years to come. Or even whether synthesizing methanol from biomass
and burning it using standard internal combustion engines will be more
efficient than powering cars with energy-intensive batteries. If we’re free to
choose along the way, we don’t have to know in advance.

Although I do not believe that CO2 emissions are a problem, even if it was the
public approach of Elon Musk, Tesla, and much of Tesla’s following would be
counterproductive–because any constructive approach requires taking on the
leading opponents of cheap, plentiful, reliable, non-carbon energy: the
environmentalist movement.

I am an adamant supporter of nuclear power and hydroelectric power, as are
some of you; the environmentalist movement is the leading opponent of both
forms of power–the Sierra Club being a particularly egregious example. These
organizations are the ones who made nuclear power uneconomic; without them,
there is a strong case nuclear would have won out worldwide on the free
market. (For more on this issue, see my pro-nuclear Facebook page, I Love
Nuclear,” as well as Petr Beckmann’s classic “The Health Hazards of NOT Going
Nuclear.”

Elon Musk should use his public position to every anti-nuclear group. Instead,
he endorses their empty promise that solar can power our civilization. That’s
why in my article I focused on solar–that’s what Tesla assures us will replace
the fossil fuels it opposes (but uses).

To be solution-oriented means to advocate the best options–and that could also
include geo-engineering, also opposed by environmentalists–not just the
politically correct ones. To be solution-oriented in this context also means
to look for global solutions that would actually work. In my article I cited
the fact that globally solar and wind produce less than 1% of the world’s
electricity–and that must be backed up by a reliable source, usually fossil
fuels. Several posts on this forum took me to task because their Teslas run on
a higher percentage of solar and wind. No one addressed the point about
requiring backup–usually “100% solar means a reliable source of energy is
providing 100% backup (which doesn’t scale). And more broadly, no one
acknowledged that solar/wind is a luxury good. It’s very expensive and it
scales very, very poorly. If we’re talking 80% global CO2 reductions, the fact
that your particular Tesla uses X% solar is completely irrelevant because few
can afford it and the “solution” wouldn’t scale if more could.

If you believe that catastrophic global warming is the problem of our age,
then the solution is to take a hard line against the environmentalist movement
and look for global solutions on the scale of the problem. It is not to,
forgive me, be self-righteous about your Tesla.

I bring up the self-righteous point because I very much admire the Tesla, and
I think it deserves to be supported in a spirit of pure enthusiasm for
technology and humanity–not defensiveness and partisanship.

When I write an article trying to convey that the Tesla S is testament to the
unacknowledged virtues of fossil fuel energy, and the response I get in the
Tesla forum is to be labeled a “hater,” that is partisan.

It is also partisan to dismiss me because I support fossil fuels. A few people
wrote me off for wearing an “I Love Fossil Fuels” shirt to a Tesla store, or
period. Well, I do love fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry and I came
to that love honestly, for reasons that I hope are clear. (For more reasons,
read my book.) I believe it was an incredibly appropriate shirt to wear to the
Tesla store. Incidentally, it was not premeditated–I just happened to be
wearing it at the Fashion Island mall, but I’m glad I did.

I hope that clarifies where I’m coming from. If you’re interested in learning
more about how to think about environmental issues from a consistently
humanist, technological perspective, I hope you’ll take a look at my book and
my essay “The Industrial Manifesto.” (Both are at
[http://industrialprogress.com](http://industrialprogress.com))

------
drobilla
This guy is so biased he can't even see straight.

------
briholt
The author is missing the bigger picture.

1) Generating electricity through coal and sending it over the power lines is
WAY more efficient than transporting liquid gasoline to your local pump and
burning it in your highly inefficient V6 engine. Electric cars do an equal
amount of work with less fossil fuels burnt.

2) Given current technology, solar, wind, water, nuclear, etc. can only be
practically harnessed on a large scale and can only be practically converted
to a transportation energy as electricity to be piped to electric cars.
Therefore this is a two-step process: (1) build renewable plants, (2) build
electric cars. Tesla is working on 1/2 of the equation.

~~~
seferphier
sadly, if the author would have done some research and seen some interview he
would have known that.

