The batteries in a Tesla aren't very green and sadly they are quite large. Big automakers think in volumes of millions of cars, Tesla delivers about 25K (EDIT: looks like 40K projected for this year[1]) cars a year.
The carbon footprint of producing the battery, even not considering the chemicals, is very large. So much so that you'd have to drive it on many years from a full-renewable source for you to break even with a regular car[1]. Tesla, sadly, maximizes the battery in their cars.
My read is that their main goal is selling batteries and everything from opening their "patents" (i.e. their custom connectors/battery pack) to the home wall-pack is designed to do that.
That doesn't really match up with the next page(8), it shows BEV beating traditional cars in both graph and quote:
"Our base case results suggest that a BEV uses the least amount of energy of all the vehicle types analyzed in this study, followed by a hybrid and a CV. The results of the CV
lifecycle analysis show that by far the greatest source of energy intensity is the use phase, at
95% of the lifecycle energy. This is due to the amounts of energy required to extract and process the gasoline and the energy intensity of the gasoline itself."
The linked report compares BEVs with ICE and Hybrid. Hybrid beats both because of the smaller battery.
BEVs have a very large upfront footprint due to the battery that needs to be paid off overtime by driving from a renewable source. However in US only 14% of energy comes from renewable sources, so it'll be a very long pay off.
Hybrids are the best way to go until we make significant strides in batteries (20-30 years off?). You rely on your charged battery for most of your trips, and the highly optimized gas engine kicks in when you need the extra range/juice.
I didn't. He is talking about the footprint of the fuel (electricity vs gasoline). The report addresses that as well. It looks at OVERALL footprint of the three different types, and includes upfront cost (i.e. production which includes battery) and on-going.
Larger battery means a much larger up-front carbon footprint. Unfortunately on an on-going basis due to profile of electricity production in US you are burning a ton of coal [1] to generate that electricity. Coal is far, far worse than gas in the carbon impact as well as extraction footprint.
Because of the much larger initial hole you've dug (due to a very, very large battery) you're not going to crawl your way out of this deficit for a long time.
The logical solution is to minimize the battery to a degree that it would cover most weekday commutes (which isn't 300 some-odd miles). You would have a much smaller, optimized, gas based generator to recharge that battery for the odd time the person needs the longer range.
It gives you the best of both worlds. You would get far greater savings. This is the reason why other manufacturers are making hybrids or if they do make pure EV it has a much smaller battery than Tesla.
Not sure if these are correct figures, but http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/01/usa-minivan-sales-figur... says the Chrysler Town & Country sold 138k, and the Dodge Caravan sold 134k, this appears to be US only data; and these two vehicles are really the same vehicle with different trim, so that's about 10 times the number of Tesla vehicles.
Isn't it an overstatement that the batteries aren't green? Yes, there are environmental impacts from the production, but still a lot less than the environmental impacts of all the oil that would otherwise be produced and burnt to fuel the car over its lifetime, no?
But, isn't the lifetime of the battery pack significantly lower than the (presumed) lifetime of the actual car? If your Model S stays on the road 20 years but requires 3-4 battery replacements, that's several big hits against its environmental friendliness.
The lifetime of the battery will likely be much longer than it's life in the car - if the plans for 'second life' re-use as static energy storage devices come to pass.
The lifetimes of battery packs have been greatly underestimated by detractors for quite some time. Hybrids have been on the US market since 1999, and battery life has never been a serious issue. The new batteries are far higher quality than the old ones anyway.
3-4 battery replacements over 20 years isn't anything close to what a Model S will require. Do you have a source for those figures?
That's my understanding, but it's important to keep this in mind when touting the merits of battery tech. Of course, the battery production and charging process can become drastically more green (and will do so once the Gigafactory is operational), so even this is somewhat of a moot point.
According to Tesla's own statements, they are planning to deliver 55k this year, and their Q2 deliveries of 11,507 puts them on track (by their own estimates). I would assume some of those deliveries will be for the Model X, which is supposed to start shipping in Q3. Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-sets-a-new-record-for-c...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/05/12/tes...