The fossil fuel industry keeps dragging out the same old tired arguments, over and over again. Reducing our emissions is a multi step process: first we get the emissions out of the cars, then we get the emissions out of the electricity generation. It will happen, it is happening, and an article in the WSJ won't change that.
I really question the math on this. An ICE gets 35 MPG w/ what 30% efficiency? But a BEV is 90% efficient. Transmission losses for electricity don't pollute, and that's what 2%. And like @apsley said, a BEV will have no emissions itself, and the possibility of no emissions for its source (today you can power your BEV w/ 100% solar at your house). There's no such possibility for an ICE. Plus the worst part of a BEV is the chemicals in the battery, and they can be recycled or re-used after they lose their effectiveness. You don't get to reclaim your gas/diesel once it's been used. It's just steam and pollution once you're done.
Both Elon and JB have talked about a white paper on this topic to counter the bad info propagated about it. I have never seen it, but I hope it's coming soon. In the mean time we'll keep up the good work here.
For me the electric car has two parts - the car and solar on your roof.
My solar creates 4-5x what the car needs. All owners I know have done the same. Elon created SolarCity for that reason and today SolarCity installations generate about 8 times the electricity the MS fleet is using.
Articles like above ignore that fact conveniently.
If anyone expects the WSJ to be objective they would be wise to look at who owns this rag, Rupert Murdoch(and Fox news). Money and time is better spent doing some exercise and meditation and enjoying driving around in the safest car ever made. Also just read that Mitch McConnell was kissing up to the Koch brothers. One needs a ton of salt listening to Congress or right wing newspapers.
Little mention is made about the lifetime of an EV. They last!
Like your refrigerator, EV will run 20 - 30 years.
ICE is almost a "classic" before then.
(What is the ICE life expectancy anyway?)
I think EV will outlast 2 or 3 ICEs.
So where does the disinformation campaign come from. There are obviously a lot on the right who don't profit from the fossil fuel industry but still adamantly support fossil fuels, regardless of their environmental impact. They are manipulated by the fossil fuel industry I think.
WSJ = Follow the Money ... digg deap...
@risingsun | SEPTEMBER 2, 2014
"So where does the disinformation campaign come from."
WSJ shares its ownership with Fox News.
They do a good job of finding 'news' that fits their owners preferred political preferences.
When all else fails, they simply make up stories.
Also look at who advertises in the WSJ. Old line ICE manufacturers and the oil companys
You think Murdoch doesn't own shares in Australian coal companies? I would be shocked if he didn't.
So are liberal papers biased in the opposite way like fox news contends?
Love tesla and only listen to Fox News , what is this nonsense .
Fox News is conservative and shills for the fossil fuel industry. Romney and Sarah Palin called Tesla a loser. The make no attempt at being objective on Fox News.
wsJ was the same one who lied about the range of the car......... wake up yo lol
Broder was with the NYT wasnt he?
It's kind of infuriating.
They do not add in the largely coal fired electricity needed for the refineries, the "Actual" energy in a gallon of gas, after efficiency is factored in, and the transport emissions to ship around, AND the environmental damage caused by pipeline and ship and platform disasters.
I just rabbit-holed on "how much does gas really cost" post. I finally hit this preso:
But without speaking notes and an acronym legend it was pretty useless. Except it shows that it is pretty difficult to get well-to-wheel cost because the model is pretty complicated. I think the Petro Industry keeps these costs hidden as a general rule, so folks cannot see all the pollution and waste they are buying. It's self preservation and competitive advantage info too.
They cannot show true waste numbers as waste (or ineffecency) is not only bad for profits, but usually pretty toxic too.
The fact is (as many on this forum have said) is that an EV owner will often get solar for their house too. So while averages may show so much fossil fuel is needed for EVs the actual consumed is less, possibly much less.
Sounds like Tesla needs to do a user survey! Would be an interesting way to contradict all the FUD.
WSJ: "Tesla, our back-of-the-napkin report shows you burn baby dinosaurs."
Joe 6-pack: "I knew y'all were not that green!"
Tesla: "We asked all our users (while they were stopped to charge) if they use solar, grid, or other charging. Of the 80% that replied, 20% said solar. That's way above average. Oh and 15% said they plan to get solar too. But we won't count them... yet."
WSJ & Joe: "D'oh!"