Autoblog

Not really. Again... lithium ion batteries are produced only in China (which has no regulations whatsoever) and Japan, and need to be shipped all the way around the world? And how they only last roughly 5 years, and we have no way to recycle them yet? And the fact that building a new car is one of the most 'ungreen' decisions you can make? Want to be green? Drive an older car. Old cars kept on the road as long as possible is the best way to save energy, reduce waste and pollution, and help the environment.

This is just a stupid attempt at making people feel more 'green', but being the complete opposite.

↓↑report

Not really.

Lithium ion batteries are produced only in China (which has no regulations whatsoever) and Japan, and need to be shipped all the way around the world? And how they only last roughly 5 years, and we have no way to recycle them yet? And the fact that building a new car is one of the most 'ungreen' decisions you can make? Want to be green? Drive an older car. Old cars kept on the road as long as possible is the best way to save energy, reduce waste and pollution, and help the environment.

It's just an attempt to make people feel more 'green', but in reality it's actually doing more harm than good.

↓↑report

Let's hold the alarmist theories until you provide a source.

↓↑report

I've spoken no 'alarmist' theories, only conclusions I've made based on my research.

Fact: Lithium-ion batteries are ONLY produced in China and Japan.

Fact: They have an expected lifespan of 5 years.

Fact: Tesla claims they will get the used batteries recycled, but has no network setup for this yet.

Fact: Building a NEW car uses enormous amounts of energy and resources, while creating a lot of pollution. Google it. You will find a lot of research articles that support this.

Fact: The 1984 CRX achieved over 50mpg with a carbuerated 4 cylinder, and zero fancy technology.

Again, if you want to be green, buy a used car, and drive it until you can't fix it anymore. It will use FEWER resources and pollute LESS than the construction of a new 'environmentally friendly car''. The world is currently overproducing cars at an alarming rate, which is why cars that have relatively simple problems (a bad transmission) are sent to the scrapyard: their value drops because we have so many new cars being produced constantly, that it isn't a 'wise financial decision' to fix your old car with a bad transmission, because if you fix it, you won't get back what you paid for it.

HOWEVER, if you do fix it, you've saved a car from the scrap yard. Overproduction of new automobiles causes many MANY cars to be scrapped that have simple problems. This is a huge waste of resources and energy, not to mention all the pollution. It's disgusting.

Email me for more info@ wanker__@hotmail.com

↓↑report

I know that what he's saying is true. They are not good for the environment in any way, shape, or form. And yet.... I can't help but just say you're being a killjoy. :) The Tesla is a sexy electric car (never thought I'd say those words until this came along), and I hope that we can find a more environmentally friendly way to store power in ways that these batteries do. Ultra-capacitors are cool, but don't hold a charge long enough to be practical in this sort of vehicle if I understand correctly. Oh well- at least we're pointed in the right direction now (away from gas/oil).

↓↑report

I would not be surprised if the guy beyond these comments is the Detroit troll, driving 8MPG truck. Although there is some merit that current generation "green cars" have greater net poluting effect, it is just unavoidable for the transition technologies, until the economies of scale and full fledged infrastucture kick in.

↓↑report

@vintage
I have heard that argument many times. First off all, what you are saying applies to virtually any car (any product too) and any new lower emission technology. Making a new car expends a lot of energy, which is true. However, what your argument amounts to is that people should keep using their old cars and we should all stop manufacturing things. Even better is we should all bike and walk. However, that isn't realistic to expect at all. Following the same standards any new car follows today an EV will still have reduced emissions (though small) compared to a gasoline car factoring in all forms of pollution including manufacturing and battery and assuming all electric production comes from coal (which is not true as even places with the most coal (IE West Virginia) generation uses 73%); when it doesn't come from 100% coal the emissions fall drastically.
Link: http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.html
Here's an article from slate that compares emissions from a corolla and the tesla roadster. Keep in mind they weight around the same (2600lbs vs 2700 lbs) and the roadster has almost twice the power output.
http://www.slate.com/id/2179609/fr/rss/
EVs lower emissions not only from CO2 but also from methane, nitrous oxide, and assorted other greenhouse gases. The exception is sulfur dioxide created by coal fired plants.
Another thing is the argument the Roadster is useless since it is so expensive/impractical. However, it has been stated from the start that the Roadster is to raise funds so Tesla can drive downmarket as quickly as possible. Not only that, it proves that an EV can be viable and compete, which has really jumpstarted the EV and PHEV market recently (ie Lutz said he was partly motivated to push the Volt because of the Tesla proving it was possible).
Seeing that the EV does improve on the ICE car, I don't see why we can't support it, esp if we are giving ethanol, hydrogen, biofuels all a try. Not to mention there are new technologies being invented that extend battery life (ie like the batteries that GM's Volt uses). What's to say Tesla can't adopt the new batteries for their next car when the time comes.
Also adopting EVs mean that the focus on pollution will shift to the powerplants and manufacturing (instead of just tailpipe emissions which is only a small part of pollution today), which also isn't a bad thing.

↓↑report

Never have to visit gas station SWEET
Running out of power in the middle of nowhere PRICELESS

↓↑report

Maybe because it's packed to the brim with incindiarys and a main structural element, the engine, is removed.

↓↑report

Nope. There's certain exemptions, if I remember correctly.

↓↑report

McLaren F1 Crash Test (amazing): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPq760LC00

↓↑report

Every chassis type has to go through it. Cars that go through it are often pre-production cars that are identical to production versions, so they don't count in the production numbers. It costs upto $100 million to go through crash testing and there are a number of engineering groups that manage the process. Typically, it's 8-15 cars that are crashed and the expensive bit is the iterative design process when problems are found. That's much less common with computer modeling, but still.

On top of all that, manufacturers are required to have $500 million of liability insurance and there are a whole other set of non-FMVSS standards set out by a variety of DoT and non-DoT agencies that you have to meet.

Luckily they are doing this with Lotus, which basically knows everything about this..

Chris.

↓↑report