大家都表太相信Tesla , 它不比普通车环保。 有专家称它比吉普车Grand Cherokee 还脏。

Electric cars are squeaky clean, of course, in the sense that they don't burn gas. With no engine, no gas tank, and no exhaust, they're considered to be zero-emissions vehicles. But there's more to a vehicle's environmental impact than what comes out of the tailpipe. The Tesla doesn't run on air. It runs on electricity, which in turn is generated from a range of different sources, from nuclear fission to natural gas to the darkest, dirtiest fossil fuel of them all: coal.

So if you're going to stack a Tesla's per-mile emissions against those of a gas-powered vehicle, you'll need to start by looking at the composition of the electrical grid. Nationally, the grid is roughly 40 percent coal, 25 percent natural gas, 20 percent nuclear power, and about 10 percent renewable sources, led by hydroelectricity. So it's fair to say that your average Tesla is powered in large part by burning fossil fuels.

For any given Model S, though, the emissions per mile depend heavily on the mix of energy sources that go into your local grid. According to Tesla's own emissions calculator, if you're driving your Model S in West Virginia—where the power mix is 96 percent coal—you're spewing some 27 pounds of CO2 in a typical 40-mile day, which is comparable to the amount you'd emit in a conventional Honda Accord.

 A market analyst named Nathan Weiss prompted spit-takes throughout the clean-energy world in May with an incendiary post on the financial-news site Seeking Alpha. The headline: "Is the Tesla Model S Green?" Weiss' answer: a resounding, math-heavy, 6,500-word "No." In fact, Weiss argued, the Model S is in many ways dirtier than a Jeep Grand Cherokee—and nearly as dirty as a Ford Expedition, one of the largest SUVs on the market. That's an extreme position, and large swaths of Weiss' argument were readily rebutted by electric-car advocates. Facing a barrage of criticism, Weiss soon revised his calculations, but still insisted that the Model S's effective CO2 emissions exceeded those of a smaller SUV like the Toyota Highlander.
 

所有跟帖: 

在荒山野岭烧什么都行。在城市里烧油会有雾霾。 -蒙得- 给 蒙得 发送悄悄话 蒙得 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 05/01/2014 postreply 08:13:07

仅凭这一点, TESLA就有存在的意义. -不开窍- 给 不开窍 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 05/01/2014 postreply 08:43:03

Tesla 放在车库里不开也要浪费电和煤的 -ManOfHonor- 给 ManOfHonor 发送悄悄话 (785 bytes) () 05/01/2014 postreply 08:15:42

每人每天就开1-2小时车 停在车库里要22小时啊 不停的在耗电 :-) -ManOfHonor- 给 ManOfHonor 发送悄悄话 (10 bytes) () 05/01/2014 postreply 08:20:51

说的不无道理, 但定量考察, 这种损耗是很小的. -不开窍- 给 不开窍 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 05/01/2014 postreply 08:45:18

Tesla 车和电池造起来比普通车耗能多很多。 -ManOfHonor- 给 ManOfHonor 发送悄悄话 (757 bytes) () 05/01/2014 postreply 08:33:40

"an extreme position" was Tesla's counter argument -ManOfHonor- 给 ManOfHonor 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 05/01/2014 postreply 08:42:57

"Facing a barrage of criticism" - actuall all from Tesla -ManOfHonor- 给 ManOfHonor 发送悄悄话 (78 bytes) () 05/01/2014 postreply 09:11:34

一个要点:电能是二次能源 严格地说, 电是能, 不是源. tesla是一种过渡办法. -不开窍- 给 不开窍 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 05/01/2014 postreply 08:51:31

只是污染转嫁给了另一种能源上 对地球的结果都是一样的 甚至更差。 -ManOfHonor- 给 ManOfHonor 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 05/01/2014 postreply 09:22:45

请您先登陆,再发跟帖!