[djehh3r7d]

That didn't leave the controversy behind at all, most of the controversy is far past their valuation. Tesla is only interesting as a car company to people who are willing to lower their expectations below those placed on the actual car companies.

They market themselves as environmentally friendly while representing a comedically small percent of global emissions reduction. And within the auto industry itself the increasing efficiency of ICE vehicles has reduced emissions by far more than Tesla and their electric car hype.

At the same time, they advocate infrastructure expansions to accomodate their vehicle's needs while handwaving away the emissions and environmental consequences this process would create. And every time this is mentioned people just blubber some line about the long term while covering their ears to the tide of environmentalists saying that we need change /now/.

They might conquer Europe through legislation but the only reason that's practical is because European countries are tiny so the range issue is less relevant to them. Tesla hasn't actually cleared their hurdles, they've surrendered to them.

Meanwhile, they drum up this idea that Tesla's can be more than toys for rich people even though no one blue collar who isn't already a hard fan chooses a Tesla. In fact, speaking of legislation, they're so uncompetitive that Europe has to ban ICE engines for them to gain ground.

Even you framed this as Tesla competing against luxury brands, key word being luxury. This world where they've paved the way for cheap mainstream electric vehicles is a fantasy. They've paved the way for novelty in the luxury market and since doing so have shown little aptitude beyond their ability to wield that accomplishment as a shield to deflect criticisms.

[elihu]

> They market themselves as environmentally friendly while representing a comedically small percent of global emissions reduction. And within the auto industry itself the increasing efficiency of ICE vehicles has reduced emissions by far more than Tesla and their electric car hype.

You have to start somewhere. Tesla is increasing their manufacturing capacity about as fast as you can reasonably expect any company to do it. Just because high-volume manufacturers like Ford or Honda or Volkswagen can have more impact on CO2 emissions by reducing fuel consumption slightly on many more vehicles is no reason to disdain what Tesla is doing on a smaller scale.

[vgchh]

Tesla is no longer a novelty. They just manufactured the millionth car. I own a model 3 and people ask me how do I like it. My usual answer is that I have "no compelling reason" to buy an ICE car - ever. Despite all the free marketing that Tesla gets, I don't think people grok how good the car actually drives in real. You really need to experience living with it to appreciate why it's a game changer.

[tardo99]

You think it's more of a game changer than the $8500 used Nissan Leaf I bought (which, before you start, is perfect for me because I use it around town, and yes it works fine for 95+% of my car trips, including 100% of my commuting miles)?

I'll tell you something. I'm sure enjoying having that extra $60k in my bank account that I saved by not buying a horribly overpriced depreciating asset.

[CydeWeys]

You're just making a general argument about buying used vs new. That's not interesting, or revelatory. It's just overly judgmental.

And you're quite off on the price of a Model 3. I think you're confusing it for the Model S.

[cjhopman]

$60k that he claims is much closer to the ASP than the $35k that Tesla claims.

[sfblah]

It’s impossible to buy a used Tesla for anywhere close to $8500. I find the comparison compelling.

[CydeWeys]

Because they're better cars than the Leaf and thus maintain resale value better. The Leaf isn't coming out on top in this comparison. There's a reason some things are worth more than others.

[rootusrootus]

Friend of mine is a Leaf enthusiast and even he concedes it's pretty awful. It could have been great, but the batteries degrade so fast you can practically watch the range decrease with every drive.

[mardifoufs]

What's the range on the used leaf you bought? Maybe 100 miles without AC/heating? There's a reason why the Leaf didn't succeed in the way Tesla did, and it's not all because of Musk.

Also, a new model 3 is 40k, and Teslas depreciate a lot less than a Nissan. But I do agree that buying brand new is generally a bad idea imo

[fragmede]

Define "didn't". The 1st generation Nissan Leaf in 2011 was was pretty terrible, but they kept making them, and brand new ones (since 2017) are actually quite nice, with more power and 200 miles of range. Definitely not Model S nice, but luxury cars are a totally different segment. There's room in the car industry for Nissan making the economy electric car and Tesla in the luxury or up-market segment.

[rootusrootus]

AFAIK the current Leaf still has terrible battery management, so I wouldn't plan on it holding value any better than the ones made 10 years ago.

[mark-r]

Buying a used Tesla might not be a great choice, because they've locked it down so you're forced to use their repair shops instead of 3rd party. That's going to increase your cash outlay in a way you weren't expecting.

[barkingtoad]

Most common car repairs 2015:

Replacing an oxygen sensor – $249 - Teslas don't have these

Replacing a catalytic converter – $1,153 - Teslas don't have these

Replacing ignition coil(s) and spark plug(s) – $390 - Teslas don't have these

Tightening or replacing a fuel cap – $15 - Teslas have a charging port cover, and it breaks

Thermostat replacement – $210 - Teslas don't have these (in engines)

Replacing ignition coil(s) – $236 - Teslas don't have these

Mass air flow sensor replacement – $382 - Teslas don't have these

Replacing spark plug wire(s) and spark plug(s) – $331 - Teslas don't have these

Replacing evaporative emissions (EVAP) purge control valve – $168 - Teslas don't have these

Replacing evaporate emissions (EVAP) purging solenoid – $184 - Teslas don't have these

[slaw]

If you have common ICE car, it is very inexpensive to keep it running when you can wrench yourself. I spent less than $600 in 15 years and 160k miles for all parts to repair 2005 Malibu. I had to go to dealer once, because ABS control module is locked. You need dealer codes and 'programming'. $240 for 15 minutes work.

For 2005 Malibu:

Oxygen sensors: one is $19, still running on originals.

Catalytic Converters: one side Carb Compliant $319, still running on originals

Spark plugs: Iridium NGK 6*$5, took me 1 hour to replace

Thermostat: $4 + $3 shipping, 15 minutes to replace

Mass air flow sensor: still original $62

Prices from RockAuto.

[mark-r]

And how much is a replacement battery pack? - ICE don't have those

[bsder]

You're not going to sway the people who were going to be buying a BMW or Mercedes with that argument.

Car buying is a LOT of signalling. There is a reason for the stereotypes surrounding people who buy those types of cars.

[xedeon]

> You're not going to sway the people who were going to be buying a BMW or Mercedes with that argument.

Did you not read the article?

Also: https://twitter.com/thirdrowtesla/status/1236678690462765057

[bsder]

The comment I was replying to was extolling the virtues of buying a Nissan Leaf.

The people interested in buying a BMW are not going to be swayed by "cost effectiveness" arguments.

[random314]

You should self reflect about how incredibly bitter you sound.

Tesla is a new successful electric car company that is helping with CO2 emission reduction. Nothing in your rant challenges this.

[mehrzad]

And how are the emissions of electric car and car battery production looking?

[CydeWeys]

Over the lifetime of the vehicle, much better than an ICE vehicle.

[new_realist]

Tesla has spent $20B so far. All of that money created a burst of carbon emissions which they haven’t yet offset though EV sales: especially since they sell pollution credits to other manufacturers. They’re still deeply in the hole.

[CydeWeys]

I'm not following this logic. That $20B created a million vehicles (and counting) that release much less pollution over their lifetime than $20B spent making ICE vehicles.

[tonyedgecombe]

Presumably they mean Tesla have spent $20B on laying cement for new factories, filling them with robots, buying computers, building paint shops, flying managers to China, etc. All that activity has an environmental impact.

It's a reasonable point, our economy is energy based and so the more you spend the bigger the environmental impact. We are trying to decouple it but we have a long way to go yet.

[cjhopman]

I don't think you understand. The $20B isn't the cost to make the cars, it's how much they've lost doing it. There's nobody in the world that is losing $20B making ICE vehicles, and even big daddy elon might have trouble convincing investors to blow that money on such a traditional product.

[bananabreakfast]

Yeah and so is every other company on earth. At least they're doing something about it.

[mehrzad]

Compared to used cars and public transit though, it doesn't nearly look as good. I like Tesla, but there is a lot more to be done before I consider their work truly environmentally friendly.

[AnthonyMouse]

Nobody manufactures used cars. They all start as new and they all have a finite lifetime as a result of wear and collisions.

A used electric car is better for the environment than a used ICE car, but the only way to get used electric cars is to make new electric cars.

[mehrzad]

Isn't it better for society to focus on improving public transit than electric? You could say "we don't have to choose" but it seems SV already did.

[CydeWeys]

Sure, agreed. Another problem is that cars are quite deadly, and EVs don't improve on that any. Then there's the whole issue of tire/brake dust (it's the majority of local pollution even for gasoline-powered cars).

E-bikes are a much better environmentally friendly solution for most trips. The problem is the road infrastructure isn't there for them to be safe enough yet; we only build roads for cars, and anyone else (pedestrian or cyclist) is at high risk.

[FpUser]

Care to post any numbers showing how much the overall lifecycle of Tesla's car is reducing CO2 emission over making better ICE based cars?

And what about overall pollution. Lithium batteries hold a lots of poison.

[Klathmon]

Here (PDF warning) is a link to a study done (in 2018) that shows that an electric car produces less co2 emissions than an ICE car over 150,000km.

It takes into account different types of ICE cars, it takes into account the environmental impact of building the batteries, it takes into account the emissions produced by the power plants for several European countries, and it even predicts how things can improve or change if current trends continue.

With the exception of Germany (where lifetime EV emissions are very similar to an "efficient" ICE due to their more "dirty" power generation), an EV produces less CO2 over it's lifetime.

In fact the higher upfront emissions in manufacturing an EV are "paid back" within 2 years on average.

And because the environmental impact of an EV is so dependent on how "green" the power generation is, investments in green power can lessen the impact of cars already sold!

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life...

[frandroid]

> They market themselves as environmentally friendly while representing a comedically small percent of global emissions reduction. And within the auto industry itself the increasing efficiency of ICE vehicles has reduced emissions by far more than Tesla and their electric car hype.

The emissions reductions attained by manufacturers have been done while fighting tooth and nail against them; also, it's good that they're reducing emissions, but you just eliminate them completely by driving a Tesla.

[tardo99]

What about the emissions involved in mining lithium, making the batteries, dealing with the batteries once they're exhausted, and in generating the electricity. Also, what about the emissions involved in building and maintaining the road infrastructure?

[toomuchtodo]

Necessary and solvable (if we've decided cars as a transportation method are here to stay, which appears to be the case in most countries). Lithium is evaporated in ponds, transport of which can move to electric. Lithium batteries can be recycled. All heavy vehicles (including for road infra work) can be electrified. Electricity is ubiquitous, and batteries will only decline in cost. This is not my opinion, these are facts.

As long as we keep ramping battery and renewables production, we'll get ahead of the emissions. To reduce emissions, you must displace combustion in all its forms, and destroy demand for fossil fuels. Renewables push out coal and natural gas on the grid, utility scale batteries push out natural gas due to price volatility (hat tip to Saudi Arabia on their current efforts to destroy the US fracking industry through pumping at full capacity, utilities desperately require stable prices for their fuels which is unlikely to happen if shale production declines due to low oil prices, which will prompt more rapid battery uptake), cheap/clean energy drives demand for EVs due to lower cost per mile than internal combustion (EVs are roughly half the cost per mile to operate as an internal combustion vehicle).

[Dumblydorr]

With this logic, you would've expected Steve Jobs to introduce a non-luxury iPhone and expect it to compete mass market from day 1. Tesla's plan was always to start at the high end with early adopters, show an EV can be great, and slowly scale down prices, which they have done. I can't envision them doing it a different way successfully.

[alasdair_]

> no one blue collar who isn't already a hard fan chooses a Tesla

My friend is a Master electrician in the IBEW union. He is in no way a “hard fan” of Tesla. He put down a deposit on the new truck that they are making because he thought it was better than his other options.

[cjhopman]

Haha. It's a $100 deposit for a car that'll never sell as they showed it. I wouldn't read too much into that.