UPDATE: Electric cars pollute more than petrol cars: report

Article
Gallery

By Brett Davis | March 21st, 2011

A recent report is claiming electric vehicles (EVs) aren’t as environmentally friendly as they seem. Motoring expert and editor of New Zealand’s Dog & Lemon Guide, Clive Matthew-Wilson, says the fully electric Tesla Roadster that is being used to tour across Australia in an EV demonstration will use more energy and produce more CO2 than the average petrol car.

Tesla recently announced it has set off to break the record in Australia for the longest road trip by an electric vehicle, travelling from Melbourne to Brisbane in a Tesla Roadster consuming zero petrol. However, Mr Matthew-Wilson is saying the car isn’t going to be as much of an environmentally friendly showcase as it seems. He says,

“Claims that electric cars like the Tesla are ‘emissions-free’ are simply a lie; electric cars merely transfer the pollution from the road to the power station. The vast majority of Australia’s electricity is produced using dirty fuels like coal. Burning coal to make electricity to power an electric car creates more pollution than if you simply powered the same vehicle using petrol.”

Mr Matthew-Wilson says electric cars are being promoted as if they are being recharged using green, renewable energy sources when, according to Mr Matthew Wilson, most of the world’s energy producers are increasingly using more-pollutant methods rather than less-polluting methods. He says the increasing popularity of electric cars is only going to induce the need for more dirty energy resources, polluting more into the air in the long run.

The report goes on to say that although there are a large number of innovative renewable energy producers being put up around the world, including windmills and solar panels, the report claims these only make up a very small percentage of the world’s energy source. It says that one of the reasons for this is because fossil fuel energy producers are a lot cheaper than greener alternatives.

According to Tesla, however, the Tesla Roadster being used for the trip offers a full-charge range of around 360-394km. This means that during the 3000km trip, the car will need to be recharged around eight or nine times. In the case of the record-breaking attempt, the Tesla will be recharged using a combination of solar, wind, hydro and biomass energy provided by AGL Resources. In normal circumstance however, the Tesla would normally need to consume conventional electricity for around four hours for each recharge, using a fast-charge 240 volt outlet.

Mr Matthew-Wilson conducted a 160-page report last year called The Emperor’s New Car, which compared the Tesla Roadster with its petrol-powered brother, the Lotus Elise, a car on which the Tesla is based. Mr Matthew-Wilson commented on the report and results spreadsheet, saying,

“In four of the five countries we surveyed, the Tesla electric car was less efficient and more polluting than its petrol sibling. In Australia, on average, a Tesla will use over 25 percent more energy than the Elise, and the Tesla will emit more than twice the pollution.”

So what’s the solution? According to Mr Matthew-Wilson, there is no quick fix.

“Most of the world’s alternative energy industry is based on quick fixes to the current system. In reality, most of this technology either isn’t economic, doesn’t work, or simply doesn’t exist and isn’t going to exist anytime soon. It disturbs me to see politicians and business leaders on television promoting fantasy technology using fantasy economics.”

Feel free to tell us what you think of Matthew-Wilson’s claims and what you think of ‘EV versus petrol power’ in terms of their environmental impacts below.

(Please keep in mind, the opinions expressed in this article are not of CarAdvice in any way. It is simply a report of a report by Matthew-Wilson which is used for discussion and debate purposes.)

UPDATE

Since producing this report CarAdvice has been contacted by a Tesla representative arguing against Mr Matthew-Wilson’s claims. According to recent research by the Electric Power Research Institute, Tesla says electric cars are less pollutant than the petrol-powered equivalents, saying,

“Even in predominantly coal-burning regions, electric cars produce 35 to 60 percent less CO2 than comparable conventional cars.”

The company said, providing recent research evidence, that energy producers worldwide are getting greener, even in Australia, and said in these greener areas EVs make even more sense.

“In areas with eco-friendly power mixes, emissions associated with EVs are up to 75 percent lower [compared with petrol cars].”

Tesla is understandably upset by Mr Matthew-Wilson’s claims and told CarAdvice,

“It makes no sense to discourage EVs now when they are the only vehicles that will be able to take advantage of the cleaner grid of the future.”

Tesla says that not only do electric vehicles produce zero tailpipe emissions, the specific emissions released into the atmosphere by petrol-burning cars are highly damaging to the Earth. Emissions such as HC (hydrocarbons), CO (carbon monoxide) and NOx (nitrogen oxides), are all produced by internal combustion engines.

The company added, citing recent research, that EVs and powerplants are more than twice as efficient at converting fossil fuel energy into mechanical force compared with car engines.

“Almost 75 percent of the energy in one gallon of gas [3.8L of petrol] is wasted as heat,” Tesla said.

Tesla also says there’s no argument in the production of electric vehicles versus the production of generating fuels associated with petrol cars either.

“Citing the material costs of EVs doesn’t strengthen Matthew-Wilson’s argument. It is far more expensive and damaging to extract, refine and deliver gasoline than it is to distribute domestic electricity or create EV battery packs. Look no further than last year’s BP oil spill.”

So it seems this topic will be argued for some time yet. The important thing is we do continue to discuss the matter to hone and engineer better methods and to make sure what we have is as good as it can be.

Fiz

Doesn’t surprise me at all. Electric Cars, or the “EV”, are really this generation’s ‘hover car’ from the Jetsons. Only this time we don’t want to be seen to be dreaming of a future but actually living it (even tho it is a pretense).

I love the EV idea but there really could be some things that don’t add up. One is that we are far further from resource depletion than we are being led to believe.

Get governments and other lobby (read adjenda) groups out of the way and let the free market work it out in the most eficient way.

Sumpguard

I’d love to see your evidence that fossil fuels are far more abundant than claimed. Especially given the cost of getting it out of the ground now due to the massive amount of water needed to float it up. Oil companies are all about profit so if we hadn’t passed peak oil back in the 80′s they would be the last ones to claim we have. Even they have acknowledged the fact which has driven the search for alternatives and subsequent erosion of said profits .
andronicus

Why are we listening to the scientific opinion of the bloke who runs the NZ version of the lemon guide?

Dumba**

vini

In addition to andronicus response.

who is this bloke from NZ?

what study has been done and investigation to make this absurd statement?

if electrical cars are not the solution for our planet? what is the solution?

Energy has emerged as one of the most significant and invasive issues, society will face in the twenty first century. Our dependence for oil raises questions of national security and economic stability. Our dependency for fossil fuels is generating carbon emissions that are causing global warming, perhaps the most severe environmental problem of the century. we still are in time for change. change is needed.
vini

Me

Hydrogen is the solution. Cheaper solar cells is the solution. Tidal driven generators are the solution.

Qwerty

Also checkout the 2011 March edition of the Choice magazine. Unleaded is ahead of Diesel, Electric and LPG in terms pollution per kilometre, except in Tasmania where they have Hydro Electric generation, there the electric car wins hands down.

Dlr1

I don’t believe that the sole purpose of electric cars is to be less polluting, that may or may not be the case, however one of the main benefits is the fact that they don’t rely on oil based fuels for their propulsion. so when ULP is $5 per litre against maybe $2 or even $5 per charge what would you prefer

Andrew M

Yeah, as of todays prices you will be paying 5 bucks to charge an EV (less milage too dont forget), but electricity prices are going up at a steeper rate than unleaded fuel, and thats without any demand in the grid for EV’s here in OZ.

If petrol hits $5, an EV charge will be $40.

If you want to rid yourself of an oil based fuel, hook onto some LPG. We have so much of that stuff naturally occuring that we have to burn it off

Jacob Martyn

The government should mandate that public transport buses must run on LNG, Hydrogen or Electricity not diesel!

Richard

A lot of buses in Sydney run on CNG

Andrew M

Same in brissy too
Deano

My understanding’s that they are unfortunately moving away from LNG buses and the new ones they are purchasing are Petrol/Diesels.

Peter Stone

And as a bus driver in sydney I have a lot to do with CNG buses. The are expensive to purchase, expensive to maintain and are EXTREMELY unreliable, overheatng is a common problem, next time you see a bus with two humps on the roof (one aircon, one gas pod) listen for the screaming loud fans even on a colder day.

They also use quite a lot of fuel and are very slow and rough.

Maybe NSW government should just look into purchasing more fuel efficient diesel buses like mercs that average the high 30′s per 100k’s rather than all the diesel volvos they are buying using in excess of 55L/100k’s. Which only seems to get worse with them as they get older.

STA has a fleet of approx 2150 buses, of this approx 650 are CNG, spreading over 3 generations of buses back to theearly 90′s and finishing with buses only jsut finished being delivered. All are no good and I have been told on good authority that they won’t be buying anymore, at least not for a long time.

Stoney!

G

I’ve not seen many CNG buses in Brisbane having issues. Seems to be mainly older diesel ones. The CNG buses seem to be faster too – maybe it’s just the benefit of being newer and the fact that Council seems to only buy new CNG and not diesel buses. I read somewhere that QLD has the largest deposits of CNG in the world so why not utilise it.
Andrew M

At least CNG emits something like 90% less stuff into the air, and in a city environment where fumes are trapped by tall buildings, thats a big health advantage to the city goers.

I also doubt CNG performance wise is that bad, the Brissy ones seem to go really well, but hey, Ive never driven one, just saying they dont seem like dogs
brissy_girl

My Dad has to fix alot of the LNG buses for BCC and he also said The Merc diesels would be so much better in the long run instead of heaps of rates going to continually fixing the “green” buses.

JEKYL & HYDE

i’d not a rocket scientist,nor an idiot,but i refuse to believe this finding(and particularly a finding from this guy…)

Ivan

Don’t forget the big impact on such scientific findings by oil companies. They won’t just give up in favor of EV.

http://MARTIN BP legacy 3.0RB

I am bit confused about this article.
Does this NZ guy said something like “Don’t blame a murderer, blame murderer’s parents !” ?

How to produce clean, safe, efficient and cheap electricity is still long way to success, but it’s coming soon or later.
Andrew

i too fail to see the environmental benefits of electric and hybrid vehicles and agree with the writers opinions and findings. personally i think Honda is on to a good thing with the Hydrogen powered vehicle that James May did a segment on Top Gear about.

Alexander

You do realise that producing hydrogen is an incredibly inefficient process, as it takes huge amounts of electricity to produce the hydrogen that goes into Fuel Cell cars. It is a negative process as more energy is spent creating hydrogen than what is gained from it, and since Australia’s energy grid is largely coal based, it is simpler, greener, and less wasteful to just put that electricity straight into an electric car. Hydrogen cars also call for far more expensive and complicated infrastructure than electric cars, as an electric car really just needs a 15 amp socket and it’s fine…

Ben

We have a choice, YES a CHOICE in OZ to choose 100% clean energy from your supplier.. What idiot put this pretend research together. Please hang up your researchers cap and go back to school..

Article is a big FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.

Andrew M

Yes, you do have a choice, if you want to make the world a better place its more beneficial to donate to your favourite charity than to the elcetricity supplier.

So if you tick the green box do they put up lines directly linking your house to a wind farm?? No, your neighbour gets their electricity from the very samelines as you.

Re-read the article, majority of out electricity in the grid is coal burnt electricity, and based on that, this articles research is correct.

Just because Ben ticks the green box, doesnt mean the electricity in his EV is 100% green.
What you are effectively paying for is carbon offsets, not true green electricity to your door.

Take off the blinkers

Alexander

good point, although the more people who elect to have their electricity ‘offset’ by putting electricity into the grid from renewable sources, the higher the percentage of renewable energy in our grid, which in turn eases our reliance on coal?

G

Carbon offsets do not equal renewable energy. It just means they plant trees or buy offset credits to offset the carbon dioxide released as part of energy production. This only focuses on CO2 and not any of the other pollutants released. If anything, it enables coal based electricity generation to continue whilst appearing “environmentally friendly” rather than force us into energy production using greener methods.

union

Choosing 100% clean energy from your supplier does not mean the energy you are using at any given time is form a “green” source. eg. When you have your heater/fridge/hotwater/oven running in the middle of the night you are using electricity produced by the burning of Coal. During the day when you are at work and not using electricity at home the supplier is contractually required to purchase “green” electricity equal to the energy you used by the burning of fossil fuel.

You do not have a dirty electricity filter on your meter box!!!!

You are not removing the need for base-load (24/7) electricity generation that is currently not produced by any green source.

Solar energy is produced for 6-9hours a day
Wind is mostly generated in the very early morning and very little during the day and at night.

I work in the electricity industry and have a good understanding of the current technologies and energy market

Ask yourself when will you be charging your EV car? when you return home from work? This is when the demand of electricity is high because of every one going home and turning on their heating/air conditioner, tv’s etc… plugging in your EV will create even more demand. demand currently met by GAS!!!
jeremy

Actually union, charging will mostly occur overnight – because of offpeak. Particularly as most EVs will need a minimum of 8Hrs charging.
This is a good use of electricity.
Powerstations have what is known as “thermal inertia”.
That is, the coal burning is increased in anticipation of peak demand in the morning. This is to ensure the generators can be running at maximum pressure at that time (to cope with maximum loading of the generators).
The lead time to get this temperature ramp-up can be hours.
The same is true in the opposite direction after peak hour.
The plants cannot easily be idled because the heating energy required is so large.
What off-peak enables us to achieve is less fluctuation in thermal inertia and less demand in peak time because the power consumtion is spread over a 24Hr period.
The less fluctuation in temperature and better averaging of power consumption means greater efficiency.
In summary, it’s better charging a car offpeak. it will be cheaper and mean less CO2 produced per Megawatt hour.
Andrew M

G,
The term “Offset” was being used loosley to represent that the 100% green energy one thinks they are purchasing does not go solely to their household if at all.

Jeremy,
I think “Unions” point is that no green energy is produced during hours or darkness which s when your car will be charged.
What that means quite obviously is that your car that charges overnight when you get home will be coal fired electricity.
union

Jeremy – Please do not try and tell me how a coal fired power station works. I am currently a Power Station Operator (one of the guys who keeps the power going at night) and odds are know far more about their operation than you!

Yes – A Coal Fired Power Station does take a lot of time to run up and down from a shutdown state 4-8hours depending on how long it has been shut down (turned off).

However – It is very possible to reduce the output of the boiler (and therefore generated output) to a minimum of approximately 50-60% of its rated capacity overnight. Thus reducing the CO2 emissions buy 50-60%!!!!!! This practice is common place. When the demand for electricity is low. So is the price. So we don’t make electricity! Though this does cause increased metal fatigue due to creep shortening the life of the boiler between overhauls.

Also – Using auxiliary firing or an alternative fuel such as dried coal (a technology that is readily available, tried and tested in several forms) it would be possible to reduce the output of the boiler to 5-15% of its rated capacity. Thus cutting CO2 emissions by a whopping 85-95%. In fact a project to achieve exactly this was abandoned by the company I work for because of the uncertainty created by the ridiculous behavior of the federal government (both parties) over the past 5 year in relation to the CPRS. Now replaced with a carbon tax – Maybe – Businesses still have no certainty. Because of this there has been very little investment in power generation since 2008 (Green or otherwise)

Please do some real research before making comment where you do not understand the facts. It does not take additional energy to reduce load on the boiler unless it is being taken off line. To increase load no additional energy is lost it all (less the overall efficiency losses of the unit) into electricity! One does not need to change the pressure of the boiler to alter the power generated by the turbine-generator. One changes the amount of fuel and air mixing and reacting (burning) thus changing the amount of thermal energy being created. The boiler pressure is maintained my closing the steam control valve on the turbine. In turn changing the output of the generator. (although normally the boiler reduced the air fuel mixture due to the closing of the steam control v/v)

You are not doing anyone and favors by using more power at night. You are simply adding to the Global CO2 emissions!!! The best time to charge you EV is for about 2 hours from 4-6 am when the wind generators are producing there maximum across SA and VIC and the demand of the eastern states energy grid is at its lowest.

My experience in the electricity industry: 10 years operating in Thermal Power Stations. Plus a degree in Engineering

Technofreak

Change can be a messy thing. When big money and politicians are involved it is very messy indeed.
Alexander

This article IS flawed. The kind of person who buys an electric car would obviously care about the environment in some form and have a knowledge of fossil fuels etc, therefore they are far more likely to invest in Solar Panels or Greenpower electricity plans from their electricity provider to charge their electric car, essentially making it near zero total emissions?
Nick K

Yes, there is circuit breaker technology… It’s called Hydrogen Fusion. There should be $ poured into making this work. Fusion reactors use water for fuel not uranium and produce no radiation, just heat. A fusion reactor replicates the way the sun works in miniature. Imagine lots of cheap baseload electricity fueled by water. Having a hydrogen based fuel ecosystem for cars and aircraft becomes possible. I don’t understand why this technology is not being pursued by the U.S. and others to stop their oil dependency.

Doctor

I agree, hydrogen is the way of the future but its some way off yet. Hybrids and EVs are just there for window dressing.
Just like the carbon tax is all about social engineering.

Alexander

I think Hydrogen and EVs can easily co-exist, A hydrogen fuel cell car is essentially and EV with a hydrogen fuel cell powering the electric motor, rather than a battery. It’s very similar to petrol and diesel cars co-existing?

Jacob Martyn

Absolutely right, a hydrogen car IS an electric car…its just got a mini power station on-board.

Whereas the Renault Fluence ZE has a big battery instead.

stopcrazypp

I say it’s the other way around.
Hybrids and EVs are actually for sale. Hydrogen is just to parade around, but with no cars for sale.
G

Exactly, buying a Prius, Insight or Tesla is all about looking green, without actually being green. It’s all PR. The buyers are morons who don’t think about where the electricity is coming from to recharge their car or the environmental impact of producing the car especially when you look at the production and future disposal of the batteries in these cars.

Alexander

You’re the moron who thinks the Insight and Prius need to be plugged in. The Insight and Prius charge their own batteries and cant, and dont need to be plugged in. You’re also the one who doesn’t realise that Honda and Toyota have battery recycling programs.

G

Where did I state that I thought they needed to be plugged in? I’m just generalising my statement to cars that erroneously thought of as being eco-friendly by vapid Hollywood types.

MF

G, I dont know if you know that if you cant move forwards with the rest of the human beings, you are more than welcome to stay behind.

Fossil fuel cars will extinct in the future, same as your species.

G

I’m all for EV vehicles as a replacement in the future (mainly for the performance) but anyone thinking they are more eco-friendly in their current state is delusional. Jaguar’s C-X75 hybrid concept got me really excited but Toyota’s models do nothing for me both in performance and ecological impact.

Rowan

The Tesla is a vehicle for early-adopters. Those who have money to splurge and always want new things.

The point of the Tesla is to get people thinking about electric vehicles. To spur innovation in battery technology to make their range longer. To encourage cheaper and more cost effective methods of generating electricity.

It was never meant to be the car for the masses, and even their new 4 door won’t be either. It will take 10 years for pure EV cars to become mainstream. The point is, rather than people talking about it being 10 years away with nothing but designs on paper, it’s now 10 years away with the prototypes on the road.
Phil

Where are the facts to back up the claims in this article?

The only one I can see produced is the claim that the Tesla uses 25% more power than the Elise. Even if that is true, this is a flawed comparison.
The Elise puts out 100KW and does 0-100km\h in 6.5 secs (S model brings that to 141KW and 5.4 secs). The Tesla puts out 200KW and does the 0-100km\h in 3.9 secs.
An Elise that could match the Tesla’s performance would burn a lot more fuel than the original version.

I also find it interesting to compare the range and energy cost of the Elise S. It has a 8.2L\100km of Premium fuel consumption with a 32 litre fuel tank. If it is run dry, this gives it a range of 390km, the exact same as the Tesla. Difference is, 32L of premium will cost about $50, the Tesla’s recharge will be about $5 – 10 times less.
BarryHamburger

Please do not call this a report from an expert. What qualification does this guy have in this area. What research did he do? Seriously, I googled this guy and he left school at 15. Do not care. Will not read.

Fiz

Albert Einstein left school real early too.

aspirant

Yea, and bought his degree on the internet!

Boris

It might be argued that using coal powered plants to generate electricity is not the most efficient but using electric cars w/ solar generated power is and will be the most efficient. Check solar shingles from DOW.
DG

This is simply FUD. Electric cars are far more efficient than gasoline cars – 90% or more versus 25%.

It takes huge amounts of energy to extract, refine, and deliver gasoline. It takes as much electricity to refine a gallon of gasoline as it would to drive an electric car an equivalent distance. So cars have a “long tailpile”, in addition to their own tailpipe.

Andrew M

Its a good thing coal for the powerplants just magiclly appears then.
It would be a shame if they had to use massive machines to dig it out of the ground and semi trailers to get it to the stations.

Im not entering into which one I believe is actually cleaner, but you certainly cant argue with this statement…..”electric cars merely transfer the pollution from the road to the power station.”

Just because you dont see tailpipe emissions from an electric car people think their contribution to pollution is zero.

MF

They should compare Tesla (EV supercar) to Ferrari (Petrol supercar). I doubt Ferrari is any more environment friendly…

To those fossil fuel lovers, if you view electric cars as an alternative motor transport when oil prices peak, you will appreciate it a lot more. Being environment friendly is not the sole purpose when people developed EVs.
http://electric-vehicles-cars-bikes.blogspot.com/ Paul

Comparing the Tesla roadster with the Elise is like comparing a 4 cyl against a V8 in performance terms. A standard Elise has a 100kw motor and does 0-60 in 5 sec, a Tesla Sport has 215 kw and does 0-60 in 3.7 sec.

Yet despite the huge difference in performance, in terms of energy efficiency, a Lotus Elise consumes 9.6 Liters per 100 km. The energy content of petrol is 8.89 kwh per liter so to drive 100 km in an Elise requires 85.34 kwh worth of energy or approx 853.4 watt hours per kilometer (wh/km).

A Tesla Roadster uses 110 wh/km so consumes only 11 kwh to drive 100 km. That’s 1/7th the amount of energy to drive the same distance. Quite literally the energy required to drive one lightweight, small 1.8L engined, Lotus Elise around town could power seven Tesla Roadsters driving the exact same distance.

So the answer to the question is… a Tesla Roadster in fact uses 87% less energy than a Elise to do the same work, or looking at it the other way the Lotus Elise uses 775% more energy than a Tesla Roadster.

That’s exactly why Car Advice shouldn’t quote from the fact-free Kiwi report.

Mark

Nice to see some actual numbers and calculations

thanks
union

Yeah BUT.

Paul has failed to factor in the efficiency/losses from generating and transporting the the electricity used to charge the Car to the point of charging and the losses in the conversion of that AC power into DC power or the same for petrol.

Also. If we did a life cycle assessment on a petrol car and an EV (where EV\’s only have a life equal to the battery life) what will be the total energy consumption and over what duration. Will I need to own 2 EV\’s to meet the expected life of a petrol car?

Where will the electricity to charge the EV come from? What energy is require to create this energy? how much energy does it take to create a liter of petrol?

These are the true measures we should be looking at!!! Not what just the energy used in driving from point A to point B.

MF

you obviously didnt read the article. EV’s batteries can be replaced, so the life of an EV can be a lot longer than the life of its battery. EV batteries can be recycled too, unlike fossil fuel.

And again, I think the most important thing is point out is: Fossil fuel is LIMITED! It may not seem to make too much “environmental” and “economical” sense to have an EV right now (actually it does, but you are just not accepting them). In 10 or 20 years, when petrol becomes even more expensive, you will appreciate the idea of EVs.

Doesnt matter how much you love your petrol/diesel…Where there is no more of them, there is no more.

MF

The reference i made was from the nissan leaf article, not this bullcrap.
Andrew M

The funny thing cost wise with EV’s is people think the price per kwh for electricity will remain the same for eternity and only petrol will go up in price.

The kwh price will be double before you know it. Im not saying electricity will or wont always be more cost effective, just laughing at the mentality that electricity will always be cheap

MF

Doesnt even matter if electricity price goes up. The bottom line is: “when there is no more oil, there is no more oil.”

BUT for electricity, you can always get it from RENEWABLE sources! How long can our sun live for for example, another 5 billion years! How about Thermal? Wind? Tidal? You name it.
Andrew M

What about LPG and ethanol??

union

Yes the batteries can be replace. However anyone who has bought a battery drill knows it is cheaper to buy a new drill with a new battery in it than to buy a new battery.

Battery Tech uses earth precious metals that will also run out! Unless we recycle the batteries at great expense and using a lot of energy!

At our current level of tech EVs do not make sense on a mass scale.

Range Extended EVs look more promising. Small battery pack. Small petrol/diesel generator and an electric motor.
Joe

7kwh per gallon

Andrew M

Many things you havent factored, and on top of the points by Union, coal fired electricity releases about double the Co2 compared to a fossil fuel like Gas.

Straight away that chops the advantage in half, then you have to factor other losses that Union outlined

http://www.iwanttobuyanelectriccar.com Sean M

Don’t forget that it takes electricity to make gasoline…lots and lots of dirty, dirty coal-generated electricity. Oh, and each gallon made wastes at least 6 KWh of that precious man-made lightning. I say put the electrons straight into the Electric Cars – you may still be making soot at the stack, but you won’t be burning the nasty petrol on the highway.
Carl

This guy Clive NEVER has anything positive to say, and as a NZer I find it embarrassing that he represents my country. If you pick up a copy of the dog and lemon guide with the intention of finding a good reliable car to buy, you’d end up using public transport because every single car he reports on is flawed. When I see him on TV, I’m amazed that the media give him a chance to speak.
Yeti

If you want your Telsa to be zero emissions all you have to do is tick the Wind/solar option on your electricity bill. It will cost flighty more but it’s still cheaper to run than a petrol car. BTW when you choose 100%green power it does mean that the power company buys more wind/solar power it’s not a carbon offset ie planting trees. If more people ticked this option then power companies would have to build more solar and wind farms.

Every other report I’ve read about EVs are that even using coal power they produce less CO2 than a petrol.
Michael

Matthew-Wilson dropped out of high school at 15 years old and has not taken any tertiary education. With no formal qualifications in science or technology I don’t see how he is qualified to make such radical claims or statements. Shame on Brett Davis for wasting our time with attention grabbing headlines with no scientific based evidence.
gms

What’s it with people with hyphenated names. There’s something wrong with each and every one of them. Disrespectful, nutjob feminist mothers perhaps?
Pete

Well duh, of course emissions would still occur if the electricity is produced by coal! Surely if you buy an EV you would purchase green power from your electricity retailer to offset the carbon impact, otherwise what’s the point? Still EVs will play an important role to a climate friendly future, together with the increase of renewable energy which is set to be 20% of Australia’s electricity use by 2020. It needs to go hand in hand otherwise it won’t work or will just be a gimmick
TBS260z

Completely correct. Never mind the batteries which can’t be recycled. Even after battery technology becomes sustainable it has no place in a sports car. Ethanol is the answer period. It can be fortified and changed to suit a variety of needs. Ethanol plantations in the form of switch blade grass or a GM plant that can survive in the outback where food crops wont is whats needed. Look at Brazil, look at sweden and wise up. The death of the petroleum industry will cost jobs but new jobs will be created in the ethanol industry. This is the change that has to be made. The internal combustion engine won’t have to change drastically and we can have carbon neutral motoring.

Andrew M

Brazil is making it big in Ethanol because they use sugar can crops which are by far the most efficient crops. Can needs to be grown in tropical areas or places with high rainfall, so competition for food crops may occur.

Ive never heard of “switch blade grass” but as I said, I doubt its a very efficient plant.
Some of these plants that they make bioethanlol out of actually release more C02 than fossil fuels.
On avaeage entanol crops release about the same as the fossil fuels, with the exception of sugar cane which is cleaner by a country mile
Devil’s Advocate

One thing you neglected to mention TBS260z is the amount of electricity etc that is required to make Ethanol. It takes much more energy to produce 1L of ethanol than the energy it actually gives off. Not to mention the amount of water (on the world’s driest continent might I add) that needs to be used from growing to when the ethanol leaves the “plant” to go to the service station etc.
You also left out the carbon produced by the farm equipment required to prepare the soil, plant whatever crop you intend to use, harvest the crop and then transport the crop to the plant for extracting the ethanol.
Sure it is a viable alternative, but it is not carbon neutral nor the answer to all our problems you are making it out to be…

Dan R.

I’m going to buy an EV and charge it with my recent solar install…

So I’ll charge batteries during the day that I will then use to charge another set of batteries at night! Sounds efficient.

Andrew M

What size system did you get??
Anything under a 3kwh system wont leave enough power after your normal day to day use.

These grid connect system sound all nice and fuzzy, but simple fact is that the 1.5kwh system that is covered under Government rebates wont be enough to run a household standalone, so dont be fooled into thinking you can power what ever you want for free.

Most households wont even receive any feed in credits so no real point for the house holder in grid connecting the normal 1.5kwh system.
I know 2 of the states pay you for all of it, then sell it back cheaper, but most just balance it off against what you use

hyundaikia

geez get over it

what on earth isn’t polluting???

we’re polluting everything as we type
Ben

Sorry, but some of this thinking going on here is just flawed and fails to take into account some simple facts. Instead it concentrates on technical distorts.

My 100% green energy comes from 100% green sources. How do I know this. Because I ticked the box that says so.

Does it matter that at any given time the actual electron came from a coal plant or my chosen green source. NO. Why not you ask. Because I paid for the exact amount of green energy that I used. Yes it all goes into the grid and is mixed with all the other dirty little coal generated electrons, but that makes no difference to the FACT.

If I used 100kw of electricity then 100KW of electricity was generated for me from green sources. Seriously if this simple concept is too hard for you, you really should ask someone else to explain it to you.

Andrew M

So your are effectively purchasing an offset as I previously termed it.

Instead of receiving the 100% green electricity to your door, you subsidise the production of it which may be used elsewhere.

By doing this you assume the Co2 made from producing the electricity that actually arrives at your door is offset because you pay for emission free electricity (if such a thing exists) elsewhere.

Its really no different to me buying a tree farm to offset my household usage, and as a matter of fact, trees are probably the only true offset because emissions are created to manufacture and install as well as monitor solar and wind farms etc

Ben

You really don’t get it do you.. WOW.

This is not different to me having a large solar array on the roof and generating my own electricity, feeding it to the grid and only using the exact same amount from the grid. It matters not one tiny little bit whether I received the same electrons back. That is just plain stupid thinking. This is NOT carbon offset at all. Electricity IS being generated. It is not a tree sitting in the woods.

Do you think that the electricity that was generated somehow disappears or is magically corrupted when it enters the grid. That is funny.

union

I am not sure you get it Ben. Yes a solar array feeds into the grid during the day and wind blows predominantly in the mornings helping reduce our reliance on thermal power from coal and gas. However when are people going to be charging their cars? AT NIGHT! This is Coal generated electricity!!! This new demand will created CO2 emissions that are not currently produced. As coal fired generators reduce output overnight currently as demand reduces.

EVs will create a new peak period of electricity demand that is currently not there and is currently not able to be meet by solar or wind!

The price of electricity (driven by demand and a carbon tax) will/needs to eventuate for renewables to become affordable to operate by generators.

Currently wind generation receives a credit from the government for every generated MW to be competitive. The tax payer is paying most of the total cost of wind power directly from the budget!! The price of green electricity is currently being met by taxpayers and not users!!!!! This is the sole reason I have not taken up the government rebate and put in a solar system or taken up a green power option. Why should I force everyone else to pay from my fuzzy feeling to having green power? Especially when I know at night if we did not have a coal power station generating electricity my lights would not work and the beer in the fridge would be going warm!!

Ben

None of that changes the fact that I have paid for and used the 100% green energy.. You would have to be daft not to realise that the tech is improving and will continue to improve over time. Better more efficient turbine designs, better and more efficient PV and adoption of Solar thermal ,a tech capable right now of being a 24/7 baseload 100% green source. You know this and you also know this is capable of being produced at comparable to coal costs.

There is no point in NOT moving forward. Sitting on the fence and doing the same historic actions will only produce the same result. You do not have to wait for tech to be 100% to use it. Even if it costs us all more to begin with. Every tech has been taken up this way. Including the cheap supercomputer sitting on your desk.

It’s not about warm and fuzzy.. That is just mindless clap trap commentary. Poor you.. You don’t want to pay more for electricity and your too lazy to contribute anything more that what you are forced to contribute by the government to improve things. Hey, be very proud of yourself. Good job. You may be an operator at a power plant but that does not make you very forward thinking.. clearly.

EV take up will be slow and gradual and leave us plenty of time to bring renewables online. You talk like the overnight drain is already there.. It is not.
union

Ben you have NOT paid for your 100% green energy. Most of the cost has been paid by others through their taxes.

Green energy will never match the cost effectiveness of open cut coal power. We have the cheapest power price in the world because of our easily accessible coal resources. This is why a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme is being pushed. A carbon tax of $25-35 will drive up the cost of coal power and make CCGT (combined cycle gas) power competitive as a base load source and essentially drive coal out of business due to the lack of flexibility (CCGT can be both baseload and peaking) once a few coal power stations go out of business the the need for peaking power will increase driving the power price into that of europe et al (more than 4-5 times the current) making renewable profitable without government handouts.

And you insinuating that you are a hero because you are paying 10% more for your power is yoke. You are not paying the full cost. I am and everyone else is so YOU can feel fuzzy!!!!!!!

I truly feel that the power station i work for should have been shut down and replaced (as it would have been years ago if it were still owned by the state) but not by selling it and forcing it out of business and over inflating the energy price increasing every one’s power bill to levels far above what they are now. Plus the new demand on gas will also drive up gas prices. Yep you guessed it – everyone’s gas bills will be skyrocketing too!

EV’s do not make sense with Australia’s current mix of power generation as you have basically admitted.

Andrew M

Damn right I dont get it, I dont believe how you can hinestly believe in this statement……..

” I have paid for and USED the 100% green energy”

Ben

How could I not.. It is true, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Just like you just paid for that tank of fuel.. I’m sure you did not pick the specific batch of oil or the specific oil well it came from. And even if you did, it makes no difference to the fact that you still paid for and used a tank of fuel.
Andrew M

True, but Im not out there saying the fuel in my tank is more responsible than anyone elses

Ben

Another mistake here is the line that the EV life span is the life of the battery.. HAHAHAHA.. That sounds like an iPhone.. What rubbish. The batteries can be replaced and ARE replaced. More importantly, each time you replace the batteries you have the opportunity to update your tech with better cheaper batteries. More range, faster charging, more life cycles. Oh, and these are NOT cheap throw away battery drills.. That was a funny comment above.

Battery tech is changing fast in the lab and is being commercialised as fast as they can. 1st gen nano tech based batteries can be had already, but are at the premium end. But they already offer fast charge rates, very high life cycle (more than the life of the car) and are lighter.

Andrew M

Whats a battery worth then, say for the i-mev or something??

Octavian

I care for the environment, I’m getting 100% green energy (from natural gas in central Queensland). But I’m of the instinct that using natural gas to power a simple drivetrain is less polluting than a complicated, highly refined EV. Even Jeremy Clarkson would think so. Yes natural gass is finite, but there’s a reason why so many busses in Brisbane are powered by it, because it’s cheap and relatively green.

Ben

EV’s are not complicated. I have used them and I have been involved in their production and design. Compared to a combustion engine they are extremely simple.

Ben

What is the point of asking what a battery is worth today. You would be absolutely stupid to take perfectly good batteries from a brand new car and replace them. Was this a serious question?

Or did you mean to ask what is a battery worth in 10 years or 15 years or even 5 years? Let me just grab my crystal ball shall I. OK, that was just mean. My apologies. If interested here is just one indicative figure, but of course no guarantee of future movement rates.

From just one reseller a specific 40ah LiFePO4 cell that was selling in April 2008 for $100 is now available at the regular price of $60 for the exact same cell. This is just one example, but it is very indicative of the movement. This also does not factor in any change in tech at all.

So that is a three year movement for a 40% cost reduction. Does that help.

Andrew M

Will since you said its more cost effective to replace batteries in an EV I thought you crystal ball may have listed figures to prove this.

One thing you are also forgetting, is that battery replacement prices wont come down because with the ever improving tech, they still have to pay for themselves.

Take battery drill concept used earlier…
A good quality battery drill today costs the same as it did 10 years ago.
Why is that?? well battery tech has improved. 10 years ago $600 bought a good Ni-cad drill, now that same drill for $600 comes with Lithium bateries.

If your EV with todays tech packed it in 10 yrs from now, you will be replacing it with an up todate tech battery as you suggest. Battery tech in 10 yrs time will cost the same as todays battery tech, only in 10 yrs you will get (you would assume) a better pack perhaps capable of quicker charges etc.

The price of todays pack is still relative as the cost for a user replacement will be the same, just better.

WHats todays pack worth??

Ben

You bought a new drill in this scenario and You did not just replace the batteries. Also, $600 dollars from 10 years ago is not the same value as $600 from today anyway. So even in your drill example IT DID GET CHEAPER.

Now perhaps you would like to compare the cost of your old NiCad batts to New lithiums today? That would make more sense.

Still no point in asking what a pack replacement cost today is for an I-miev. Ask what the replacement cost is in 10 years time. That would make more sense and can only be answered by speculation or price projections if you prefer. You can take my 40% reduction in 3 years example if you want a real world example of what is possible. Extrapolate from there by all means.

There are some very good battery tech coming. Just do a little searching if you’re interested.

Octavian

I meant complicated in the sense of the production of electric components such as batteries. But I could be wrong and lithium or future batteries will be in cheap plentiful supply for the masses in the not too distant future.

Andrew M

There are already concerns over depleting rare metals used in batteries, unless batteries are made of different stuff, I cant see supply being terribly “cheap”

I know Mazda was working on something that used bugger all rare metals…

Ben

Ok, got it.. The batts are not all that complicated to manufacture in any case. There are a few videos floating about showing the process..
union

This is relative Ben. The cost of buying a new EV will also reduce over time along with the batteries.

Eventually EVs will be a cost equivalent to a conventional petrol/diesel model or they will never replace them.
Ben

Except you forget that the running costs and maintenance costs are far less for an EV. The cost can be initially a little higher and still be cheaper over a number of years. That is already possible. Not so obvious with the mainstream models that are shown around I will grant you, but it is a reality.

Besides.. Who doesn’t like to replace their cars over time. We all do it now. Not because the motor/engine or in this case batteries were tired, but because other parts started to feel tired or we just wanted a change.. Why would anyone think this will change in the future?
Ben

Union.. On reading that again.. Maybe that was your point. The car would be replaced rather than the batteries anyway? In which case.. yes, quite possibly.
union

Yes Ben that is my point.

If the primary motivation on moving to EVs is environmental and the overall life span of the EV is less than a conventional car the equation of CO2 or L/100 go out the window. A Total Life Cycle Assessment based on the total environmental impact must be considered. An of coarse the cost is a key consideration in determining how people will respond.

Ben

All good points. The batts are recyclable and that is the intention too. Not to mention a possible post vehicle other life uses that are often bandied about for the batts. Eg. grid load balancing/buffering service. Let’s not forget that batteries are considered end of life at 80% of original capacity. What is the best use?? In any case whether internal combustion or electric motor, they both need to be disposed of and or recycled.

Yep, can’t argue with cost driving peoples decisions. But only to a point. Many other factors drive decisions too. If it was only cost we would all be driving the cheapest transport we could get our hands on. Clearly we are not.

Car Fanatic

Clive Matthew-Wilson was born in 1956 in Wellington, New Zealand, the son of a wealthy local businessman. Despite being largely educated at exclusive private schools, Matthew-Wilson outraged his parents by leaving school at 15. After several years traveling, he became a motor mechanic. He ended up running his own garage before becoming bored and experimenting with a number of careers, including advertising, songwriting, jewellery, computers, publishing and public relations. He eventually became a professional writer, whose published works include The Information Effect, The Turners & Growers Natural Foods Cookbook & The Dog & Lemon Guide.

Sounds like he knows what he is talking about given he has worked everywhere bar a womens Gym. Should change his name to Eddie the expert
Tom

A review from last year puts perspective into Mr. Wilson’s remakes …

‘Clive Matthew Wilson: A Fool or Just Plain Wrong?’
Jacob Martyn

The Tesla has a HUGE battery…put that in a Chevy Volt and see people’s range anxiety disappear!

Shak

In a Volt you don’t have range anxiety, that’s what the Petrol engine is for.

http://Stig paulb

Are we getting a bit ahead of our where we should be at the moment.The international oil barrel price jumps at the drop of a hat.
For Aust,Pertol Hybrid+New LPG Technologys have to be the next logical step away from unreliable overseas Crude OIL.Electric is only going to pressure the ezisting power grid.Surley AUST,LPG must be our near term motoring future
Ben

Your comments Union are not ridiculous. I do pay for my 100% green energy at the price it is being charged. I have no control over what that price is, but I certainly am paying for and using it.

Your suggestion that something is not paid for if the govt includes incentives to do so is just plain stupid and naive “hero” of the coal. I hope you don’t drive and use the roads paid for by everyone whether they drive or not. Or use water from the tap paid by everyone or use a public hospital or any of the emergency services. Damn that just would not be right Union. Get off your high horse. How about you take you head out of the old technology that it is obviously buried in and do a little research on cutting edge green tech instead of regurgitation the old coal backed official line. Take a look at Solar Thermal for example. Yes this is cost effective and you know it or you SHOULD know it. The tech for the solutions are not even hard to implement. Sure we have had some very indecisive govt’s on both sides. Unfortunate, but that is not reason to stop moving forward. Industry can and does do some really great stuff despite govt will.

union

A am no “hero” of coal. I just told you that it should have been replaced!!! You are the one who is naive!

Solar is not currently a replacement to gas or coal!!

Google: Solar Energy Generating Systems
This is the largest solar operation in the world. A maximum output of 354MW! However it only has a loading/availability factor of 21%. Coal and gas have loading/availability factors of over 95%!!!!

And as for solar thermal. Gemasolar in spain is the only 24/7 operation with a maximum output of 17MW and a load/capacity factor of 75%. This is very impressive but would not even power 20% of the Victorian Desalination plant!

There are currently no viable alternatives for fossil fuel baseload electricity other than Nuclear (which is about as green as gas because you need to enrich the fuel etc…)

We should NOT stop moving forwards in finding alternative sources of reliable electricity supply!! However EV’s will simply not help this. They will simply drive up overnight power prices with increased demand making coal even more profitable against alternatives.

And yes Tech for the solutions IS very hard to implement when it is not currently available at a scale suitable for a wholesale roll out. Most of the alternative baseload plants running around the world are for commercial scale research and development. They are not “off the shelf” items like a CCGT plant which can be ordered like a house for a builder.

The alternative solutions are on the horizon. But the horizon is 10-20 years away.

Wil

Electricity from a power plant is definitely more efficient than drilling oil from somewhere in the middle of the ocean, pumping it into a ship, transporting the ship to the petrol refinery which also uses “electrical power” to refine & pump in to trucks, to delivery to a petrol station, then using “electric pumps” to pump them into our cars, which are only 30% efficient as petrol motors turn a lot this energy to heat. While on the other hand, there are very minimal loses to bring the electricity from the power plant to the battery of the car and electric motors are much more efficient than petrol. We just need to invest more money into generating electricity more efficiently so that electric car technology can be more commercialised!

My Cars Called T-Rex

Wil – you forgot digging the coal in massive open cut mines that have had massive amounts of earth removed by diesel powered diggers and dump trucks.Then its washed,which produces a nasty byproduct called coal slurry which has to be stored,than transporting it by rail to load on a ship.

Coal power seems pretty energy intensive as well.

Wil

That’s fair enough, but who said electricity needed to be created from coal? There are a lot more opportunities to improve the way we create electricity than improving the efficiency of a combustion engine.

Ronald Martens

Thats a very interesting point Wil. Information which is conveniently left out. Its all about money.

Octavian

Plus the affects of an unfortunate oil spill on the environment. I wish there was hardly any coal left in Australia, then Australia would be much more productive and successful in green energy generation.

G

What about the huge reserves of CNG we have?

Elitist

I follow Europe and Japan…
They are going bio fuel and Hydrogen…
America once again fail…Australia just follows…

My Cars Called T-Rex

Bio fuel is the worst of them all
Its hard to type this but i would rather be seen in a hybrid than a bio fuel car.

Save It for the track

What qualifications does this Kiwi have to be called an ‘expert’? I’ve seen the ‘Dog & lemon Guide’, and basically just about every car has negative comments.
.
He sounds more like a critic with an opinion. Much like a movie reviewer or ‘entertainment’ reporter.
Octavian

I’ve also read through some editions of the Dog & Lemon guide, I got the impression that the only reliable cars were Japanese, mostly Toyotas from the late 80s and early 90s. The author seems to think my Golf will be dead at 180,000 kilometres, yeah right. I’ve had about 10% of the problems that were listed in the guide. I don’t know how accurate the guide is, or the validity of the author’s knowledge is, but I do think we need to have full emission statements for all new cars, from mining to driving.

Baddass

I read it for entertainment, nothing more. It’s funny to read where he has rated a certain cars’ safety rating as ‘Deadly (probably)’. He made this assumption without any formal safety ratings!

nickdl

I can’t really be bothered reading all 100 other comments but thought I’d add my 2 cents worth (hopefully not repeating anything above). The reality is that in Australia, it is much cheaper and easier to get our fuel from coal. Not sure if it’s added into the calculation, but what about all of the effort to get crude oil out of the ground and refine and ship it over here? Surely that has to count for a fair bit of CO2 emissions.

Personally, I’m yet to be convinced that man is causing the climate to change. That’s another point but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely tiny (around 0.3%). Of that carbon dioxide, the amount that man produces is again a very small number and the amount of man-made CO2 that Australia produces is even smaller. Remember it is a relatively harmless gas as tehy go, animals breathe it out and plants need it to survive. There are plenty of worse gasses out there which cause the smog around LA and Beijing. Anyway I could go on but it’s not really car-related.

That’s why Gillard’s Carbon Tax is a load of bullsh!t. Not to mention she ousted Rudd over the same thing, lied about it at the last election and now won’t seek a mandate from those who voted for her, thinking it wouldn’t happen.

The point of EVs is that, with India and China so rapidly increasing in demand for cars, it won’t be long before the world’s crude oil is all but run out. We’ll still need it for planes and ships where there are few viable alternatives. Australia has an abundance of coal, enough to last many, many years so electricity generation is all but safe for a long time into the future.

What annoys me the most is the ignoring of LPG, CNG and Hydrogen for cars. With the new LPi systems in Holdens and Fords, the negatives are all but erased. Yet the government cut money from the Green Car Innovation Fund, slowing the development of even more advanced systems. LPG, CNG and Hydrogen are a much more realistic alternative at the moment. The idea of the tax on LPG is bullsh!t as well, quietly funding those rebates that the Howard government gave out a few years back.

nickdl

And wow was that a long comment…

Ronald Martens

Clive Matthew-Wilson has got it all wrong. That is an old fashioned argument used to discourage people from potentially moving to green transport. Apart from the manufacture of the vehicle, The car itself is zero emission. The reason our power plants aren’t more green has nothing to do with the car itself. Power companies and Government have a big role to play for a greener energy. There is no rebate in solar companies. Imagine solar fuel stations across the Nollarbor. They will have ample sun to charge the electric cars. They could have battery banks to store the electricity. What do people do when they travel long distance? They carry a few extra fuel cans. The same can be done on electric transport. Carry a few more charged batteries. Simple. Every house solar every building solar and wind. Once again I reiterate just because our backwards train of thought from our electric supply is mainly coal, has nothing to do with the electric car travelling long distances. We must make ourselves more green and it is very easy but unfortunately it is up to individuals to pursue this interest because no one else will do it for us.
http://www.livingsystems.com.au Robin Harrison

EV and alternative power generation tecnologies are in their infancy so improvements are coming in large lumps. I think the first Tesla had a range of 100-150kms and the latest 350kms. There’s now a global electric motorbike GP series, TTXGP. Only 2 seasons so far. First season lapping at fast 250cc speeds, second season fast 400cc. In 2-3 years, certainly less than 5, anyone wanting to go fast on a bike will be on electric and tin tops won’t be far behind.

It’s better tech for performance vehicles but our current manufacturers would rather sell us steel vehicles with internal combustion engines. Those engines will cost more over their lives for servicing and parts than the original car, so there’s plenty of bad PR for EV’s from the current manufacturers. There are also people emotionally attached to internal combustion engines, like the chaps in cardigans orgasming over steam power. only the author know why he wrote that nonsense. Either he has a vested interest in oil and steel or he’s wearing a cardigan which should come in handy because internal combustion engines are nearly redundant. Roll on the next generation of better performing and much more efficient vehicles.
David Glynne Jones

Clive Matthew-Wilson has got it completely wrong. Battery electric cars like the Tesla Roadster achieve ‘well-to-wheel’ energy eficiency around 60-65%, compared to 20-30% for fossil-fuelled internal combustion vehicles.

The Tesla Roadster currently doing the Aussie road trip drove on a single charge from Albury to Canberra (340km) and used around 50kWh of 100% renewable sourced elecricity to do it – ie essentially zero emissions at car and source.
Frank

Australia consumes 1,000,000 barrels/day.

@$100/barrel = $36,500,000,000/year.
TBS260Z

Wrong it is carbon neutral is done the right way. Hydroponics and drip feed watering would be very sustainable. What makes you think we need all this machinery? As for the electricity there are ways of breaking down green waste without it. Another benefit is its a perfect replacement industry for the petroleum industry. Plus we have large amounts of open soil, so why not genetically modify a plant that has a high yield rate to be less water intensive. e.g fuse with cactus genes (has been done before)See your lacking the forward thinking. We have the technology now. It’s very easy to to be cynical coming up with answers isn’t. People out there already have the answers, you just need to use them.
TBS260Z

@ Ben, you have got to be kidding 10-20 years away you wake up to yourself and go and get informed.
Joe

consider it takes more than 7kwh to make 1 gallon of petrol, it’s better to leave the oil in the ground and use electricity, whether it from coal or your girlfriends UFO.
Do the math!
Concerned.

Has anyone read his report? I’m a scientist and I have and what his report says makes perfect sense and is backed up by facts.

Tesla’s responses are all very evasive.

Or is what he’s saying not what some of you want to hear?

Yes there is an alternative to automobiles and that’s public transport and cycling and more condensed urban living.
UNTRUE ARTICLE

It’s 12 months since this article was written and it is verified that there is considerably less carbon produced by powering a car from the grid only.

Saving varies depending on local power sources, but for most people the carbon saving is 60 – 75% less and worst performing areas still produce worthy savings.

Thus the premise for this article (and supporting comments) are all INCORRECT.

P.S. Watch “Model X Reveal” on youtube to verify or to elay doubt