One Tesla owner's confusion......

Javelin wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: I just don't see the Tesla as the cure. As another poster noted, it's a high end product aimed squarely at the people who typically are hardest on the environment on an individual basis so they can pretend to be cool and with it.

I personally know two Tesla owners, and they are normal everyday people who bought them just because they like the car. That's such an asinine statement, like saying all BMW owners are pricks or all diesel 4x4 owners are small-phallus shiny happy people or all Miata owners are gay. WTF?

It's not that the Tesla owners aren't "normal" people. But they are normal people with enough money to buy $80k cars. So they most likely (though not definitely) live in a big house. And they most likely (though not definitely) have some other car that may or may not be a large sedan or SUV. I doubt the typical Tesla Model S owner is living in a small townhouse or their other car is a Honda Fit.

The point wasn't that the owners are shiny happy people or douches. The point was that even if they are driving electric cars, they probably use more electricity (aka "energy that comes mostly from fossil fuels") than an "average" person, due to large houses' energy uses. Which is not an issue to me. I just don't feel that those people should be lauded for being necessarily environmentally-friendly unless they follow that through in the rest of their lives that don't include the Tesla.

Also the point being that an $80k car is not going to sell in large numbers, so it can only have a miniscule impact on overall emissions. While I suppose any little bit helps, the only real answer is to have mass-produced, affordable no-emissions cars. And to do that you have to make a car that has appeal to (and affordability for) the mass-market.

People with $80,000 to spend on a limited use vehicle (let's face it, it's no XJ Cherokee) are not exactly living off the land, growing their own food and hanging thier clothes on a line in the backyard while reading books by candlelight.

Hello? Al Gore?

irish44j wrote: Also the point being that an $80k car is not going to sell in large numbers, so it can only have a miniscule impact on overall emissions. While I suppose any little bit helps, the only real answer is to have mass-produced, affordable no-emissions cars. And to do that you have to make a car that has appeal to (and affordability for) the mass-market.

Baby steps. Tesla reportedly already has a 30k 3-series competitor in the works, and the 3-series has sold about 100k cars annually in the US since 2001 (according to Wikipedia).

Mitchell wrote:

irish44j wrote: Also the point being that an $80k car is not going to sell in large numbers, so it can only have a miniscule impact on overall emissions. While I suppose any little bit helps, the only real answer is to have mass-produced, affordable no-emissions cars. And to do that you have to make a car that has appeal to (and affordability for) the mass-market.

Baby steps. Tesla reportedly already has a 30k 3-series competitor in the works, and the 3-series has sold about 100k cars annually in the US since 2001 (according to Wikipedia).

I'll be interested in seeing how this pans out, and, more importantly, if it can pan out and MAKE MONEY for the company without tax breaks, subsidies, or other "funding sources" from other companies via the current laws.

Then the real question is will they put out a "Civic competitor" that can make the real difference.

irish44j wrote: It's not that the Tesla owners aren't "normal" people. But they are normal people with enough money to buy $80k cars. So they most likely (though not definitely) live in a big house. And they most likely (though not definitely) have some other car that may or may not be a large sedan or SUV. I doubt the typical Tesla Model S owner is living in a small townhouse or their other car is a Honda Fit. The point wasn't that the owners are shiny happy people or douches. The point was that even if they are driving electric cars, they probably use more electricity (aka "energy that comes mostly from fossil fuels") than an "average" person, due to large houses' energy uses. Which is not an issue to me. I just don't feel that those people should be lauded for being *necessarily* environmentally-friendly unless they follow that through in the rest of their lives that don't include the Tesla. Also the point being that an $80k car is not going to sell in large numbers, so it can only have a miniscule impact on overall emissions. While I suppose any little bit helps, the only real answer is to have mass-produced, affordable no-emissions cars. And to do that you have to make a car that has appeal to (and affordability for) the mass-market.

I've been seeing quite a few Tesla sedans lately. Being in a city most of the owners live in apartments and were going to buy a car of that size and price, a BMW Benz ect.

I think they did a good job by starting out upmarket because they are the people most likely to take a chance on it. A regular person won't touch one because all the car people the know think it's stupid and they can't risk all the things they were told would happen to them like running out of juice in a bad neighborhood or dying a terrible flaming death when the battery spontaneously explodes.

A person with money is more likely to take the chance, and then when people see them around town they get comfortable with the idea. When cars first came out rich people had them and regular people would go near them for a number of crazy reasons. Every time electric cars come up i can hear my Grandfather bitching about having to buy a car with fuel injection. First they came for my Points, then they came for my Carburetor, now they don't use no gas at all.

In reply to HappyAndy and Pbw:

Thanks for the info way back on page 1. I had no idea they could get that type of range. I just looked at the Tesla website. I thought they were still just making electric elise's. Pretty cool cars. I still don't like the stock. If I were in the market for a $70k plus new car I might seriously think about one.

Geez.

Before you cast stones at Tesla and those who can afford them consider for a moment the life you lead. I suspect that even though you are not considered wealthy by your measure you are probably 'better off' than 95% of the worlds population. Or, That your lifestyle likely uses two to ten times the amount of resources as those in less developed nations.

I looked at the leasing options, compared to what my monthly payment is on my Subaru all I need is an extra five dollars a day and I can be a douc&ebag too. I will have to give up my snobby latte to afford it but wth.

I'm actually richer than 99.9% of the people in the world, according to this site (which of course, I have to believe, since it is on the internet). Also, I'm betting you and everyone here on GRM is right around there as well.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

meanwhile, I make just slightly more than the the per capita income in my own county, haha.....

Tralfaz wrote: Geez. Before you cast stones at Tesla and those who can afford them consider for a moment the life you lead. I suspect that even though you are not considered wealthy by your measure you are probably 'better off' than 95% of the worlds population. Or, That your lifestyle likely uses two to ten times the amount of resources as those in less developed nations. I looked at the leasing options, compared to what my monthly payment is on my Subaru all I need is an extra five dollars a day and I can be a douc&ebag too. I will have to give up my snobby latte to afford it but wth.

i'm supposed to buy an electric car because i feel guilty for being better off than other people that aren't even in my monkeysphere?

Ill just say that of all the ways to clean up the earth or be humane to our animal populations or to prevent pollution from damaging the environment, buying an electric car helps the least.

Electric cars are cool in my opinion and the technology has awesome potential. Just please don't buy one and think you became Captain Planet riding around in Noah's Ark.

novaderrik wrote:

Tralfaz wrote: Geez. Before you cast stones at Tesla and those who can afford them consider for a moment the life you lead. I suspect that even though you are not considered wealthy by your measure you are probably 'better off' than 95% of the worlds population. Or, That your lifestyle likely uses two to ten times the amount of resources as those in less developed nations. I looked at the leasing options, compared to what my monthly payment is on my Subaru all I need is an extra five dollars a day and I can be a douc&ebag too. I will have to give up my snobby latte to afford it but wth.

i'm supposed to buy an electric car because i feel guilty for being better off than other people that aren't even in my monkeysphere?

No

ebonyandivory wrote: Ill just say that of all the ways to clean up the earth or be humane to our animal populations or to prevent pollution from damaging the environment, buying an electric car helps the least. Electric cars are cool in my opinion and the technology has awesome potential. Just please don't buy one and think you became Captain Planet riding around in Noah's Ark.

Weird. I don't remember Captain planet in the Old Testament.

Tralfaz wrote: Weird. I don't remember Captain planet in the Old Testament.

What, you never saw a time machine?

irish44j wrote:

Mitchell wrote:

irish44j wrote: Also the point being that an $80k car is not going to sell in large numbers, so it can only have a miniscule impact on overall emissions. While I suppose any little bit helps, the only real answer is to have mass-produced, affordable no-emissions cars. And to do that you have to make a car that has appeal to (and affordability for) the mass-market.

Baby steps. Tesla reportedly already has a 30k 3-series competitor in the works, and the 3-series has sold about 100k cars annually in the US since 2001 (according to Wikipedia).

I'll be interested in seeing how this pans out, and, more importantly, if it can pan out and MAKE MONEY for the company without tax breaks, subsidies, or other "funding sources" from other companies via the current laws. Then the real question is will they put out a "Civic competitor" that can make the real difference.

Now THIS could make a difference. It still does not address the problem of 'shifting' fossil fuel emissions to coal fired powerplants instead of oil powered cars, but in combination with a move to nuke and hydro could definitely make a difference in emissions of many types.

In reply to crumudgeon: I'm guessing this cartoon is in just but, this wrong in so many ways that its not remotly funny. What would an ICE powered car be towing? The Exxon Valdez? The Persian gulf? Multinational Oil companies?

irish44j wrote: I'm actually richer than 99.9% of the people in the world, according to this site (which of course, I have to believe, since it is on the internet). Also, I'm betting you and everyone here on GRM is right around there as well. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ meanwhile, I make just slightly more than the the per capita income in my own county, haha.....

I am richer than 99.72% of the world.. I guess I can afford that big boat now

HappyAndy wrote: In reply to crumudgeon: I'm guessing this cartoon is in just but, this wrong in so many ways that its not remotly funny. What would an ICE powered car be towing? The Exxon Valdez? The Persian gulf? Multinational Oil companies?

That IS the whole point. In many parts of the country (not all), electric cars are recharged with electricity generated from burning fossil fuels.

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/

ICE powered cars just leave out the middleman.

HappyAndy wrote: In reply to crumudgeon: I'm guessing this cartoon is in just but, this wrong in so many ways that its not remotly funny. What would an ICE powered car be towing? The Exxon Valdez? The Persian gulf? Multinational Oil companies?

I won't speak for him but I assume its both in jest and had a sliver of truth to it.

Electricity is never free and/or free of damage to something. There's no free lunch.

Look at wind power for example: look at all the heavy equipment used to mine for the steel structures of the windmills, the petroleum lubricants in gears, the transport and manufacture of the concrete foundations, the several thousand gallons of industrial paint, the clear cutting of acres of woodlands (depending on build location of course). It goes on and on.

I suppose when you don't use so many ICE's and fossil fuels and chemicals just to manufacture and erect a windmill well be getting somewhere. But until then, electricity generation pollutes more than it helps.

mad_machine wrote:

irish44j wrote: I'm actually richer than 99.9% of the people in the world, according to this site (which of course, I have to believe, since it is on the internet). Also, I'm betting you and everyone here on GRM is right around there as well. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ meanwhile, I make just slightly more than the the per capita income in my own county, haha.....

I am richer than 99.72% of the world.. I guess I can afford that big boat now

As a fellow World 99-percenter, I invite you to bring your Ferrari (I will be in my Lambo) and meet me at my yacht, where we can cruise to the private country club. Because that's what we rich people do.

I'm richer than 99.63%. I guess I better start being ostentatious IMMEDIATELY.

Curmudgeon wrote:

Here in Northern California 60% of the power is produced without fossil fuels. 20% is nuclear. 30% is hydro. 10% is "renewable" meaning primarily solar and wind. That is expected to grow to 20% in the next ten years. The remaining 40% is natural gas generated. while it isn't carbon free, it is cleaner than coal. So here in Tesla's home town, the electricity isn't carbon free, but it is much more so than the national average.

Which is why I said 'in many parts of the country (not all)'...

Wonder if it would be feasible for each Tesla owner to have their own windmill? NOW we are talkin' GREEN!

Yet windmills, nuclear power plants, solar panels and natural gas extraction cannot exist without hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuel being burned in their creation and/or transport.

Ironic at best.

ebonyandivory wrote: Yet windmills, nuclear power plants, solar panels and natural gas extraction cannot exist without hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuel being burned in their creation and/or transport. Ironic at best.

but the fossil fuels we use cannot be available without hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuel being burned in their creation and/or transport. Ironic?

JoeyM wrote: but the fossil fuels we use cannot be available without hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuel being burned in their creation and/or transport. Ironic?

Not ironic at all. I think we proponents of internal combution engines are fully aware of the downsides of fossil fuels. Unlike so many proponents of electric vehicles that seem to believe Mother Nature should be kissing their butts.