If you didn’t know better, you’d read Huffington Post writer (and HUMMER apologist) Matthew DeBord’s essay on Tesla’s travails as a post mortem. “But even though the downfall of Tesla seems like a disaster for boosters of all-electric vehicles, it should be a welcome development for the green-transportation movement. Tesla symbolized a science-fiction view of our future: it seemed like an instant cure for the problems of oil consumption and greenhouse emissions. In reality, it was a well-marketed distraction from a strategy that would yield more immediate results.” In other words, TTAC called it. But it looks like it’s gonna take a while before Tesla’s unsubstantiated claims for its Roadster/ WhiteElephant will R.I.P. “The big knock on electrics was always that they lacked the range of IC-powered cars. Then Tesla came along and not only unveiled a vehicle that could travel hundreds of miles on a single charge, but that could do 0-60 in four seconds. The gorgeous two-seater design, provided by Lotus and crafted in exotic carbon fiber, also didn’t hurt.” But DeBord has a more frightening message– at least for Tesla.
“We’ll all be driving electric vehicles some day, because we’ll eventually run out of oil. But by trying to force the timetable on electrics, we’re not doing ourselves any favors. And now that capital is scarce, we need to stop wasting it on quixotic undertakings. Tesla shouldn’t receive anymore financing, and the celebs who ordered Roadsters should ask for their money back.” Uh-oh. And now, for the tombstone inscription: “Tesla won’t have been a total loss. It proved that battery technology could power a car that’s both fast and has decent range.” Define “decent.”
“Tesla came along and not only unveiled a vehicle …”
Shouldn’t that read “unveiled a story about a vehicle that could …”
I think Tesla should win a award. Maybe a Hugo award for the best science fiction story.
“We’ll all be driving electric vehicles some day, because we’ll eventually run out of oil.”
I simply eludes me how people can be so ga-ga. Have a stiff drink, then take a very sobering look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation .
A mere 7.5% of America’s electricity production come from things remotely friendly to the environment. Most comes from environmental serial killers: Coal (48.9%), oil (1.6%), natural gas (20 %), nuclear (19.3%). Converting those candidates for the greenhouse gas chamber into electricity, and then back into forward motion (think losses, losses, losses every step of the way,) is a folly.
The people who applaud this don’t have a clue. And don’t get me going on the environmental impact of gadzillions of cars running on toxic batteries.
“We’ll all be driving electric vehicles some day, because we’ll eventually run out of oil.”
Huh? That has to be the dumbest statement ever committed to pixels. Where does this guy think electricity comes from? Might as well say we’ll all be floating around in air-scooters like the Jetsons.
But it is nice to see somebody else recognizing the scammarketing exercise that is Tesla Motors.
–chuck
Electricity can come from oil, but most does not.
Nuclear is a half way decent option to produce it, but it too is not without its caveats.
But electricity is not 100% dependent on oil as I think you are trying to say.
Yes, the implication that electricity has to come from oil is far more stupid than people who think it’s all clean today. Hardly any in this country comes from oil, and less every year, and it can eventually come from renewable sources (plus, there’s all that unused capacity sitting around at nighttime in regions with nuclear or wind plants – just when you want to recharge cars).
Bertel and Chuck, what do you suggest cars run on when oil eventually gives out?
Bertel, the challenges of creating GHG-friendly electricity is real, but potentially solvable with renewable technologies. The timetable and challenges to doing so are very real too, and the pros and cons of each technology are debatable.
But your statement about all the losses incurred from generating electricity to use in EV’s is just flat wrong; EV’s ARE more substantially energy efficient, period.
As a corollary to Paul’s point: why does everyone think oil actually needs to run out before it becomes impractical as a transportation fuel?
We’ll all be driving electric vehicles some day, because we’ll eventually run out of oil.
I’m quibbling a bit. I suspect there will be liquid fuels for at least the first half of this century, and we could probably keep using oil–made from tar sands, coal, and shale–for years, although eventually global heating probably would cause famine and pestilence that would decimate the human population. But I agree with Paul Niedermeyer, and I suspect that renewable energy technologies will happen sooner than he implies. For example, Texas already has plans for enough wind to supply 5% of the nation’s electricity, or more than half of its own.
That HuffPost article is full of errors.
That HuffPost article is full of errors.
What, a left leaning publication making factual mistakes? That’s not possible in Obamerica. How dare you? Why, you should have your private government records published for the shear mendacity of questioning those on the left.
Stop worrying. Quit whining. Live like you always have. The apocalypse is not coming next week. Oil will not run out tomorrow. The environment will not collapse in your lifetime (probably never). Take a deep breath and pass the valium.