reed_lewis | 25 januari 2017

First: He is comparing refined fuel (gasoline) versus Natural gas and coal which is not refined to run a power plant. There is a LOT of power required to refine crude oil.

Second: Even some renewable power lowers the fossil fuel footprint of the EV compared to the car which cannot be lowered ever.

Third: In your home, you can use some Solar and some line power to charge. This is typical of idiots like the writer. To him it is always all or nothing, never multiple sources of power.

Rocky_H | 25 januari 2017

I just read this, because someone had posted it on Tesla's Facebook page. I found the gigantic gaping hole in his calculations that you can literally drive a truck through. Normally, I would grind my teeth at the misuse of the word 'literally' there, but it's accurate. It is actually driving a truck.

He counts up the penalties of transmission line losses for getting the electricity to where people are going to use it, but he totally leaves out any transportation emissions or energy usage from the oil and gas side. He pretends that it exists wherever it's needed all the time by teleportation. Either he meant to leave it out to make the gas numbers look better (malice), or it just never occurred to him (stupidity). I don't particularly care what the reason was, but it does show that his article is wrong.

SCCRENDO | 25 januari 2017

Did not spend too much time looking at the math but The main point is burning gasoline is burning a dirty fuel whereas electricity is clean depending on the source. If purely from solar it is clean. If electricity comes from coal not so much. The efficiency is not the issue. As efficient as fossil fuels may be they are hurting the planet

Rocky_H | 25 januari 2017

Whoa, I put in a disagreeing comment pointing out how he included distribution costs for electricity but not for gasoline, and the author actually jumped in there and responded to my comment to argue with me, where I obligingly corrected many other of his false assertions. This is getting fun!

rxlawdude | 25 januari 2017

I'm embarrassed that an attorney did the math in that article. Then again, attorneys are notoriously bad at math.

Root around that website. What a hoot. And what a crock of steaming fecal material.

bigd | 25 januari 2017

rxlawdude | January 25, 2017 "I'm embarrassed that an attorney did the math in that article. Then again, attorneys are notoriously bad at math." Only thing close to as bad as attorneys is health care providers. O sorry I am wrong attorneys are far worse

brando | 25 januari 2017

Do you think buried hydrocarbons are finite? oil and coal
If so, what will you do when it is all burned up?
Why would you wait for them to run out? Start now moving to sustainable energy (wind, solar, hydro, tidal)

Also, why would you experiment with the planet's air just to see how much CO2 it can hold?
Isn't it just prudent to try and keep things in balance, avoid extremes?

No one thought the Grand Banks could ever be over fished. Started fishing in with schooners about 1880 and a little over 100 years. Many other fishing grounds have/are suffering.

Rocky_H | 26 januari 2017

@rxlawdude, I wouldn't criticize his math. The arithmetic is all correct, and he is sourcing his numbers, which is good. It's some of the glaring assumptions and omissions that are terrible. In my back and forth with him about how he is completely neglecting any of the energy use and emissions from transporting and refining oil, which is not insignificant, he continues to blow it off as unimportant or negligible and repeats "gas wins". There have been plenty of well to wheels studies, which he doesn't even seem to have heard of or want to look at.

rxlawdude | 26 januari 2017

@Rocky, math is math. But garbage in to a mathematical solution results in garbage out. That's what I refer to.

@bigd, I look forward to your next insult.