Slate: Are EVs really any better for the environment than gas-guzzling cars?
The Tesla Roadster was pitted against the 2006 Toyota Corolla, with the Roadster at 48.05 pounds of CO2 per 100 miles and the Corolla at 63.11 pounds of carbon dioxide per 100 miles.
So the Tesla wins out. Note that in states using the most coal, the figure will be only a few pounds less for the Tesla. However, in the Pacific Northwest you would likely be even cleaner.
Link to Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2179609/fr/flyout
Side Note:
I found this story through "the truth about cars" and, man, those people are negative about the Tesla Roadster.
You have choice comments like this:
"
quasimondo :
How do you calculate the CO2 footprint of a car that doesn’t exist?
Frank Williams :
Same way you computer its driving range, recharge time, top speed, crash test rating and EPA mileage estimate.
Kevin:
If one car ties up $100,000 in resources and another car ties up maybe $14,000 in resources, which is more harmful to the environment? What all are those resources — what really is required, consumed, wasted, in making a Tesla?
John B : (response to Kevin)
There’s no comparison between the price of a Tesla and a Corolla. The high price of the Tesla is due to a combination of recouping R&D costs, high labour component, no volume discounts for parts, high overhead relative to production and high margins being charged to early adopters (which could be used to fund further development).
rpn453 : (response to Frank Williams and Kevin)
Good answer! (not to John B. mind you)
I’m with Kevin; the way I see it, a Tesla uses $100k worth of energy and resources while a decent compact car uses $20k worth. I’m never going to make up the other $80k in fuel.
"
You have quasimondo and Frank Williams who talks like all the specs on the Tesla were made up. You have Kevin who believes a Tesla costs $100k b/c it used up around $100k worth of energy. And you have rpn453 who continues to believe that even after a clear explaination by John B of why the Tesla costs $100k.
The way the site reports on the Tesla Roadster you would think the Roadster was in the same stage of development as the Chevy Volt (not a good thing as the Volt doesn't even have a test mule yet). I suppose this is why in the Town hall meeting, Tesla has talked about releasing their cars with an earlier transmission design just to establish credibility. Blogs like this makes the state of Tesla's reputation worrying.
Link to TTAC:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/slate-tesla-roadster-vs-toyota-corolla/
The Tesla Roadster was pitted against the 2006 Toyota Corolla, with the Roadster at 48.05 pounds of CO2 per 100 miles and the Corolla at 63.11 pounds of carbon dioxide per 100 miles.
So the Tesla wins out. Note that in states using the most coal, the figure will be only a few pounds less for the Tesla. However, in the Pacific Northwest you would likely be even cleaner.
Link to Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2179609/fr/flyout
Side Note:
I found this story through "the truth about cars" and, man, those people are negative about the Tesla Roadster.
You have choice comments like this:
"
quasimondo :
How do you calculate the CO2 footprint of a car that doesn’t exist?
Frank Williams :
Same way you computer its driving range, recharge time, top speed, crash test rating and EPA mileage estimate.
Kevin:
If one car ties up $100,000 in resources and another car ties up maybe $14,000 in resources, which is more harmful to the environment? What all are those resources — what really is required, consumed, wasted, in making a Tesla?
John B : (response to Kevin)
There’s no comparison between the price of a Tesla and a Corolla. The high price of the Tesla is due to a combination of recouping R&D costs, high labour component, no volume discounts for parts, high overhead relative to production and high margins being charged to early adopters (which could be used to fund further development).
rpn453 : (response to Frank Williams and Kevin)
Good answer! (not to John B. mind you)
I’m with Kevin; the way I see it, a Tesla uses $100k worth of energy and resources while a decent compact car uses $20k worth. I’m never going to make up the other $80k in fuel.
"
You have quasimondo and Frank Williams who talks like all the specs on the Tesla were made up. You have Kevin who believes a Tesla costs $100k b/c it used up around $100k worth of energy. And you have rpn453 who continues to believe that even after a clear explaination by John B of why the Tesla costs $100k.
The way the site reports on the Tesla Roadster you would think the Roadster was in the same stage of development as the Chevy Volt (not a good thing as the Volt doesn't even have a test mule yet). I suppose this is why in the Town hall meeting, Tesla has talked about releasing their cars with an earlier transmission design just to establish credibility. Blogs like this makes the state of Tesla's reputation worrying.
Link to TTAC:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/slate-tesla-roadster-vs-toyota-corolla/
