Wait until the author finds out how the batteries are made.
EDIT: just to be clear, I am not a "climate change denier"...although always interested to have lots of random people attempt to diagnose me. I worked in equity research, I have seen mountains of reports on this topic: lithium and cobalt production are terrible for the environment (ignoring issues with forced labour and human cost at mines, most people who mine this stuff won't make it 50), this is why Tesla is acting (onshoring production, attempting to alter their supply chain, focusing on increasing battery life)...but if you buy one today, the effect on the environment is going to be pretty negligible...relative to people taking their PJ every two days, relative to coal-powered electricity, and even relative to ICE cars with good MPG. This has nothing to do with my views on climate change, and everything to do with how electric batteries are produced. And personally (I will take my turn diagnosis), my view is that people buy the car, and then go about judging other people...because people, particularly wealthy people in my experience, like judging other people...climate change is a way for wealthy people to feel less guilty about being wealthy when they drive past a homeless person in a tent. If you are concerned about climate change: there are still coal mines in the US, still coal mines in China, coal consumption isn't going to peak until 2030...it is just madness to suggest what we really need is for poor people to go out and buy a $40k car because wealthy people said so.
The biggest mistake you can make if you believe that climate change is caused by humans and a looming catastrophe is ostracising people like OP who have a healthy dose of scepticism and actually put down data-based arguments.
You can disprove the data OP has put out, but simply downvoting him means you are passing up on your last chance to convince the part of the so-called "climate change deniers" that can actually be convinced (which I assume OP is part of).
We can only win this if all people pull together, and downvoting a portion of "all people" instead of talking to them and convincing them means we automatically fail.
You're making a stock-vs-flows comparison: a battery is manufactured ~once for the lifetime of a car and then produces ~zero emissions per marginal mile driven. Combustion engines produce emissions for every mile driven (and require some emissions to produce as well).
Both ICE and EV vehicles require a lot of GHG emissions to produce[1][2] - in the case of an ICE car, that works out to about as much as driving it for its working life. For the EV it's more - but then driving it is associated with much less in the way of emissions, that's sort of the point. Either way, getting rid of a working ICE vehicle that's got life left in it is going to mean all the emissions that stem from its manufacture were for naught (though I'd hope it get sold to someone else who will continue to use it, not scrapped).
No, I am not. I didn't mention a flow. You seem to be assuming I said something I did not.
The battery has a life of ~120k miles, constructing the battery (and often, but not always, the electricity used to charge it) is so polluting that ICE cars will typically pollute less over that same period of usage. That is what I am saying: nothing about stocks or flows. The difference in pollution is, if it exists, very marginal.
EDIT: I will add, look at how cobalt is mined...it is a slave commodity from the Congo, no rules, no environmental laws...same for many other constituents of the battery.
Notably, this isn't about Tesla specifically — the broader point is that the technology exists for mass-market car batteries to support many hundreds of thousands of miles/kms within a reasonable lifespan of the battery.
Tesla warranty for 100-150k (depending on model). There is so much misinformation about Tesla it is unreal (and not really worth arguing about, just crazy stuff like: Teslas will appreciate in value).
> There is so much misinformation about Tesla it is unreal (and not really worth arguing about, just crazy stuff like: Teslas will appreciate in value).
How is this not real? This is literally something I can observe myself. I bought a new Model 3 LR AWD in 2019, and when I look for used listings for the same model right now, the exact same models from 2019 with about 22-30k mileage on them cost as much as what I paid for the new one 2 years ago.
Sure, you might say it didn't appreciate since it costs just as much. But imo, when a used car with solid mileage 2 years later costs as much as the new one with zero mileage did 2 years ago, I would definitely count it as, at least, "doesn't depreciate in value nearly as much as cars are expected to".
To be fair, I think that's more attributable to the secular trend around car prices recently (car prices across the board are up because of chip shortages and buying demand from rental companies) rather than anything specific to Tesla.
But, re "there is so much misinformation about Tesla it is unreal" — I agree, but that doesn't mean you can just categorically ignore _all_ information about Tesla.
The rule of thumb I've seen is that electric cars are about 25-75% better than fossil fuelled ones over their lifetimes, depending on energy mix and taking into account battery construction.
So it's hardly nothing - it puts them roughly in the same league as steam trains per passenger-mile.
This may depend strongly on how your electricity is generated. Probably best to assume the electricity is solar generated since, over the life of a new EV, that's likely to be the closest to the mark.
Last time I checked France was the best place since they accidentally have a very climate friendly power grid. Then you're left with just the embedded emissions from battery construction and the rest of the car.
Edit: this is wrong
Another fun fact is that short haul flights have fewer emissions per mile than electric vehicles for many current energy mixes.
Edit: wrongness ends (I hope)
It's hard to beat mass transportation no matter what you stick in the engine - it's just physics that power requirements scale mostly with cross sectional area, so it's more efficient to increase length and volume.
Edit: I'd remembered a per km figure and a per mile figure and forgot that the units were different. In reality, fossil fuel cars are about 35% better than short haul flights, so electric cars emit about 1/3 as much as short haul flights.
I don't have any hard data but I assume most car trips only have one necessary passenger.
("Necessary" being aimed at people doing the school run, where the parents wouldn't need to be there if the children got collective transport instead).
There are many people driving from London to Warsaw on a semi-regular basis. That a 1000+ mile drive. It can be done in 19 hours with a ferry crossing. I’ve done it myself a number of times. Relaxing drive takes 22 hours.
There is no reason this should take twice as long.
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. I've read so many horror stories about bad experiences with non-Tesla fast charging.
One of the YouTubers I follow (Out of Spec Motoring) frequently takes road trips in non-Tesla EVs and vlogs about them. As a Tesla owner, I frequently watch his vlogs and feel a huge amount of schadenfreude. His trips are much more "interesting" than my own experiences road tripping using the Tesla network. He frequently encounters slow charge rates, failed chargers, and even entire stations being offline. In fact, he talks about how Electrify America shut down its entire network in the I95 corridor for upgrades, leaving non-Teslas stranded.
I've got about 36K on my Model X, about 50% of which came from road trips on the east coast. I've encountered 2 failed chargers, and had to wait to charge once.
Agree. I've driven nissan leaf for the last 5 years and just added tesla y.
Non-tesla chargers in my city are blocked by careless ICE drivers about 20-25% of the time, and the rates some of them charge are more expensive than gasoline.
the Y on the other hand, its like impossible to run out of juice, and not even a problem i have to think about unless i really want to. For non-tesla drivers: it navigates you where to go for charging when you need it, optimizing your route for the fastest charging experience.
But the good news is Tesla will supposedly open their chargers to all EVs soon, mostly to get the benefit of government subsidies. Governments aren't going to fund chargers that only charge one brand:
The sales numbers exactly follow my generous assessment. Most of the BEV market worldwide is not Tesla and Tesla's market share is falling. In the last year it has gone from 28% to 23%.
This isn't surprising. It's a direct consequence of other automakers ramping up BEV production and selling more BEVs.
Is there an website where I can see what a long distance trip plan for a electric vehicle would be, how long it would take including the charging times?
Assuming that there is only one driver, 750 miles is 12.5hrs and 1000 miles is 16.6hrs at 60mph average. Both of those are above the 11 of 24hrs that a commercial truck driver is permitted to be on the road in the US. Say what you want about regulations, but I take that as an upper limit to how long one can safely operate a motor vehicle. I try to stay under 8hrs per day for long trips with around 7 being my target average.
I did a ~965mi trip regularly in my Model X 100D during the pandemic when I was not comfortable flying. The trip is about 18hrs door-to-door, with about 14hrs driving and ~4hrs charging. Autopilot is very helpful in reducing fatigue, as are the required frequent stops.
The charging time was somewhat inflated, because my friend does not have destination charging at her downtown condo building. That meant that on the outbound leg, I needed to stop at a close by, but slow, urban supercharger and top my car up. And on the return leg, I was not starting with a 100% charge.
This was especially frustrating, because there are chargers in the garage they share w/a hotel, but the chargers are for hotel guests only...
EDIT: just to be clear, I am not a "climate change denier"...although always interested to have lots of random people attempt to diagnose me. I worked in equity research, I have seen mountains of reports on this topic: lithium and cobalt production are terrible for the environment (ignoring issues with forced labour and human cost at mines, most people who mine this stuff won't make it 50), this is why Tesla is acting (onshoring production, attempting to alter their supply chain, focusing on increasing battery life)...but if you buy one today, the effect on the environment is going to be pretty negligible...relative to people taking their PJ every two days, relative to coal-powered electricity, and even relative to ICE cars with good MPG. This has nothing to do with my views on climate change, and everything to do with how electric batteries are produced. And personally (I will take my turn diagnosis), my view is that people buy the car, and then go about judging other people...because people, particularly wealthy people in my experience, like judging other people...climate change is a way for wealthy people to feel less guilty about being wealthy when they drive past a homeless person in a tent. If you are concerned about climate change: there are still coal mines in the US, still coal mines in China, coal consumption isn't going to peak until 2030...it is just madness to suggest what we really need is for poor people to go out and buy a $40k car because wealthy people said so.