The point of Tesla is to force electrification simply by making cars that are better than gas cars, because then the broader market does most of the remaining work. Tesla has always known that the whole environmentalism thing is insufficient and unnecessary.
I think what throws people off is Tesla's stock price and brand. People who don't understand what can go into these assume it must be "hype and dreams," and they conclude that Tesla is popular because of marketing tricks.
These cars will NEVER outpace their own footprint. But try explaining truth to people who just “want to believe”.
“However, they found that this was trivial compared to the emissions avoided due to not burning fossil fuels to move the car. Before anyone says ‘But electricity is generated from coal!’, they took that into account too, and it's included in the 53% overall reduction.” — Michael Barnard, Quora. <https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-foot-print-of-manuf...
[1] Rachael Nealer, David Reichmuth, and Don Anair, _Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave_, The Union of Concerned Scientists, November 2015. <https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cl... (PDF)
Can you provide citations and numbers for this claim? This seems extremely unlikely to me. A gas powered car that runs for 150,000 miles in it's lifetime could burn 6000 gallons of gasoline. Are you arguing that it takes more than 6000 gallons of gasoline worth of energy to manufacture a car? I would need to see hard data to believe this, as that seems like an incredible claim to me.
The top 15 biggest polluting ships produce more pollutants like sulfur oxide than all cars
The fuel has to go somewhere. We could bury it back in the ground because we don't want to burn it, but we need some fuel to power international trade.
In terms of energy per ton mile, you can't really beat a cargo ship.
Horribly long link from Google, pdf warning.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://...
Not to crap on composites because I work with them, but carbon fiver for example is extremely bad for environment.
At least aluminum recycles well. Lithium does to but not cost effective so “environmental” companies like Tesla don’t do it.
Tesla can't solve all the world's environmental problems. But the one they are helping solve seems important. Do you think they should stop because they aren't also solving how to use lithium sustainably?
Tesla also does the marketing game extremely well. Including marketing to the government for tax breaks.
I will admit their engineering on the power delivery is good, but that’s such a tiny thing compared to the marketing.
Short version... Tesla doesn’t exist if they made actually environmentally friendly vehicles (I like to explain most Teslas are coal powered cars), and doesn’t exist without their amazing marketing.
I do think Tesla is closer than anyone else, though, and while I personally think they'll make it, even if they don't, they'll certainly inspire or goad someone else into doing it, and that's a form of progress.
So, you have a car with highly advanced electronics that drives spectacularly well but has lousy fit and finish. That combination has produced a lot of very profitable cars over the years.
Basically, the stuff that can be improved gradually got pushed down on the list while the core stuff is correct from start.
https://youtu.be/CpCrkO1x-Qo?t=2176 "Anybody that's in the car industry that ignores this car is doing it at their own peril."
If all Tesla did was sell pretty good cars, they'd probably get crushed by the incumbents. Tesla, is selling way more than that - they're selling the idea of a brighter, better future. You're not just buying an EV, but you're helping climate change, you're reducing pollution, you'll be reducing human death and suffering and ending traffic jams and hey - it all comes in a exclusive, technologically-advanced, aesthetically pleasing package.
Now, some might object that this is largely a bunch of marketing/PR bullshit, and you will likely be technically correct, but would still miss the point. If people wanted a nice, efficient EV, they'd buy the Bolt, which by all accounts, is pretty damn good. But Tesla sells this "bullshit" because it's what people actually want to buy, and EVs happen to be the delivery vehicle. So as much as you might dislike this "bullshit", it's a core reason why Tesla even exists in 2018.
Where does Musk fit into this? He happens to be the personification of this idea today. In the popular mind he is "cool" so when you buy a Tesla, you're also implicitly buying part of this cool, much like buying an iPhone back in the day got you a part of Jobs' cool. Eventually Tesla will become it's own thing (as Apple is today) and outgrow Musk, but that's still years away.
OTOH, if you want to know what's actually going on at Tesla and what they need, this will probably give you the best idea out of any material on the internet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCrkO1x-Qo
It's an in-depth interview with a guy who owns a consultancy which disassembles, analyses and sells reports on vehicles, both for manufacturers looking for research on their competitors and at improving their own products. His findings are extremely interesting - he's downright astounded at how incredible parts of the car are (battery, electronics) and thinks established companies should be quacking in their boots. OTOH, he thinks they've made a number of blunders in other parts, such as their production line design or parts of the car (for example, he thinks the body is 20-25% heavier than it needs to be, with parts that serve no discernable purpose)