I agree. Buying a car that can be used for all purposes and keeping it for years and years is greener than having a commuter car and a full family car and buying new ones every two years.
I looked at a map of the US where Tesla stations are located. There are large sections with nothing. Until I could take a driving trip without worrying where I could recharge, they are just not practical.
Since the average vehicle trip length is in the single digits and the average occupancy is substantially less than 2 persons, I think we have to conclude that this is just more of the same misleading arguments.
More than half of all households have 2 or more vehicles. Choices. It’s about choices, particularly when vehicle ownership per household rises.
Regarding driving large cars… I will always drive a large car. After you’ve been rear-ended as many times as I have, I will never go small again. But my current SUV is ten years old and has 138,000 miles on it. I will probably hold onto it for another year or two, then go down an SUV size, but it will always be large. FWIW… none of those rear-ended collisions have been my fault. I just have really bad luck. I also finally reached a point when we were getting cars for our kids and they were driving back and forth to college, that I insisted on them not having compact cars. I will pay the difference in gas costs, etc. for the security of knowing they’re safe. If and when the day comes that they get something smaller on their own, I will worry more than I do now.
@great lakes mom-
Your H is correct, part of the answer is in efficiency, building houses that are energy efficient, things like getting rid of incandescent bulbs (the latest generation of LED bulbs work really well, I hated LED bulbs, the latest ones are cheaper and don’t bother my eyes), cars have become a lot more fuel efficient, and so forth. One of the biggest things we could do, but typical of the US with its idiotic building regulations, is to build houses around passive solar, in Europe they build houses in many places that take advantage of passive solar to heat the houses (basically, orienting the house to use the sun to max efficiency, and ventillation and such in the summer to deflect the heat), and it works really well (then again, how would they ever build cookie cutter houses that look like they are dropped out of airplanes?
There is alternative energy we probably should be pursuing, things like finding ways to produce hydrogen for fuel cells and/or burning it like natural gas (probably biologically), using solar where practical. It is funny how people say that solar installations are environmental disaster areas, how they are ‘eyesores’ that are ‘put in rural areas’, compared to what? Have they ever seen oil refineries (drive down the NJ turnpike sometimes), have they ever seen oil wells, have they seen the environmental cost of things like coal mining? There are ways to minimize the harm to animals and such from things like passive solar installations and wind farms, and I don’t know whether to laugh or scream when I get the Fox News “those things kill animals, how clean are they?”…when things like industrial plants, aircraft, existing high tension towers, sonar from submarines, pollution from factories, roads, houses, office buildings, and other man made things kill a lot of animals, a conventional power plant probably kills a lot more birds and other wildlife then a passive solar power plant, but of course that is never mentioned…and it would be really interesting to compare how many animals a passive solar plant kills a year versus a conventional power plant…or how many birds die in a typical year at a windmill, versus how many birds are killed running into the side of a tall office building…would be willing to be that with wind farms and passive solar it is a lot less than conventional industrial plants and such.
As far as the granola heads and knee jerk reactions, yep, that is a big problem, they do more harm then good. When you talk things like conservation, one of the problems is people immediately envision the fringe, the kind of people who advocate living in Yurts, riding bicycles, basically “living in harmony” with nature “like our ancestors did”, rather than advocating for changes that don’t require drastic changes. Rather than promoting banning plastic bags (which might in fact be environmentally less costly than the alternative) or like one moron proposed in the late 70’s, putting speed regulators on cars so they couldnt’ go more than 55, or telling people to keep their thermostats at 50 in the winter, rather than promoting the idea that small changes can make a big difference, or pointing out that with the banning of incadescent bulbs, we rapidly have seen LED technology move forward and such. Likewise, CAFE standards have led to cars that are both fuel efficient yet are not miserable to drive, in pollution and energy efficiency and reliability and safety, cars in the last 10 years have improved even more than they had. One of the things that has not been discussed much, for example, is that usage of gasoline and oil are both way down on a per unit basis, and other efficiencies have been achieved very quietly, things like dishwashers that use a lot less water and so forth.
Both the reactionaries, the ‘you can’t do that’ people (the ones who told me you couldn’t get improved fuel mileage without having tiny cars that are safety hazards), the ones who complain how expensive cars are today (without of course noticing that compared to the ‘good old days’ like the 50’s and 60’s, the cars today last 5-6 times longer, require a lot less maintenance and thus are a lot cheaper to own), and the hippy dippy granola heads with their ideas right out of the People’s Republic of Berkeley with their everyone should compost and eat sustainable food and live where you can bike and walk to work is all great and good, but it leaves out that what they propose isn’t pragmatic or easily sustainable with the lives people lead in real life. I prefer pragmatism, making changes that work. I am old enough to remember when the fatheads at GM, Ford and Chrysler said the pollution regulations they proposed back in the early 70’s would bankrupt the industry, lead to unsafe cars, after the initial period (which I will admit was aweful, anyone remember the air pump and other kludges), it led to cars with engines that can last several hundred thousand miles, gas mileage in typical cars that back then was the province of mini cars, and where many so called economy cars could kick the crap out of the so called muscle cars of the era (there is a story, that isn’t totally apocryphal, that when the pollution regs were proposed, the big three hired 10,000 lawyers to fight them, the Japanese companies hired 10,000 engineers to make it happen). The reactionaries would tell you the regulations were bad for business, would put them out of business, etc, the granola heads would tell you the regulations either didn’t go far enough (ie everyone getting so fed up with how crappy driving the cars was that they would use a bike) or should have banned cars, and in the end the middle ground created a revolution.
The last time we looked at hybrid cars, I did not like the pollution problems associated with disposing of the battery eventually. Have they figured that part out yet?
My car is 13 years old now. I hope it survives at least another 4 years while D is in college.
You should know that technology, including crumple zones and air bags, offset the advantages larger vehicles may have.
When I get a Tesla,( or other electric car), I agree I probably won’t be doing cross country road trips, although they did just update their software. But that will be more because I need room for camping stuff. I’d rather camp than stay in hotels.
But I stay on the west coast generally, lots of charging stations all over , we have a couple at the grocery store for example, & kids are currently within 200 miles and H commutes just 12 miles to work.
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/teslas-plan-kill-range-anxiety/
Tatin, there are more EV recharging stations than that Tesla map shows. They are not owned by Tesla though. There are several at the local mall, and those are prime parking spots. I plan on taking advantage of them when Mr. gets his wish of the above-mentioned electric tin can.
(We have 3 cars: a 2000 truck with 43k miles, a 2005 Lexus van with 125k, and a 2008 Corolla with 45k. Most of these miles were driven when kiddos were younger and when we needed frequent trips to HD and local lumberyard to get construction materials for our house. I have no desire to replace any of these vehicles soon, but Mr. signed up for a Tesla sight unseen. It is not the “green factor” that motivates him. He says he like the technology.)
We have one large SUV that we picked because my wife’s job (archaeologist) required that we buy or frequently rent/borrow such a vehicle. Our other car is a Ford Focus, bought back when EV’s and hybrids weren’t in showrooms. We are going to replace it soonish, and are looking at a Leaf or other small EV.
Cosmicfish, have you looked at the updated Focus?
I ask because H likes Fords, and is considering Focus over a Tesla. 
My typical driving trip is to national parks in somewhat remote locations; no charging stations. Teslas are beyond my budget anyway.
And Teriwitt, I agree with you. The death rate in a very small vehicle in a collision is higher. There is no way I’d get on the interstate in a Smart car.
I know a lot of people with the resources for a Prius, but am not one of them. Seems I read something recently about how a new car purchase is out of range for much of the middle class these days. I prefer to buy smaller, used cars with good MPG. My van was invaluable in the day, and D still drives it. However, I can easily rent a van for the rare times I need one, and save all that gas money.
You wouldn’t put an oil refinery within site of a national park.
I want a Tesla cause it’s sexy. The green & safety features are just topping.
I think that we need to keep raising fuel costs and lowering costs of other options.
Only 264 people died in traffic accidents in Sweden last year.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-16
Remove driver error, and perhaps US could lower traffic accidents as well.
http://rt.com/usa/242733-tesla-models-autopilot-software-update/
Teslas are good looking cars, but the cost is between 50 and 75k. And the charging stations are not free. It’s $1000 to buy the charging station access.
The cost of the Tesla is in the initial outlay. Since they were the highest performing car (of any type) by many ratings services, they are probably worth it.
$1000 access to charging stations is nothing compared to what a large vehicle uses in gas. If you drive 20,000 miles a year (less than average) and get 15 mpg and pay $2.50/gallon, then your spending more than $3333 every year on gas.
Aside from that calculation is the cost savings of the Tesla not polluting the air with exhaust fumes of any type. Of course, the production of both vehicles causes pollution, and the generation of energy to run the Tesla causes pollution, but I would wager that the oil production for the SUV causes more.
The whole thing about size versus safety is a complicated one, and those who defend 5000 pound SUV’s and pickups as safe are leaving things out of it. While sheer factors like momentum favor large vehicles (a larger vehicle with a heavier weight versus a smaller vehicle will do a lot more damage to the smaller vehicle), it also depends how the vehicle is made. Formula 1 and Indy cars are pretty light, yet drivers survive 200mph crashes in them (and yes, I realize they also have special seats, protective suits and so forth, but the same techniques are used in normal cars, tubular frames, crumple zones, impact panels).
Smaller cars have advantages over big ones, that Chevy Suburban that weighs 6000 pounds is a tank, it isn’t able to stop or maneuver as easily as a smaller car, so an SUV may get into an accident whereas a smaller car can brake or swerve out of the way. Smaller cars these days also have a raft of technology in them, crumple zones, impact panels in the doors, airbags and so forth, that make them a lot more survivable, if you look at the crash test ratings while the big vehicles will do better, the difference is not all that much.
There is another factor as well, and it is well documented. One of the problems with big vehicles, especially SUV’s, is that the people driving them often assume that because the vehicle is big, and has AWD and ABS brakes, that the weather “doesn’t affect them”. I have been on a rescue squad, and still maintain ties to the people on the one I was on, and one of the things in bad weather they see is SUV’s and such in accidents or rolled off the highway and so forth, and in most cases it is people driving too fast for conditions. While this is not the fault of the SUV or truck, it is a factor in accidents nonetheless. I have asked my friends about cars with AWD, like Subarus and sport sedans like BMW and Audi, and they said they don’t see them getting into that kind of problem all that much, that the sheer size of the vehicle makes them feel invincible or whatnot.
I also will add that with 50% of vehicle sales being SUV’s and other ‘light trucks’ another problem quite frankly is that a lot of people are buying these vehicles and will never use the capabilities they are designed for. There are people who buy suburbans and such because they haul boats, use them as work vehicles, go offroad, but the last stats I saw said that roughly 10% of those who buy these light trucks use them in this capability, and that many of them are simply status symbols and whatnot, being used to go to the grocery store and shopping mall with a family with maybe 4 people (and please, if you have a lot of kids, or take a lot of kids around routinely with sports gear and so forth, you are in that 10%), the real safety risk is the difference in weight between these behemoths and regular vehicles, and in reality if we went from 50% of the market being light trucks to 10%, driving regular cars would be a lot safer and accidents a lot more survivable…
I am just waiting with the surge in SUV sales thanks to low gas prices, for all the whining for suburban soccer moms and such when the price of gas spikes again at some point, when it hits 4, 5 bucks a gallon, about how much it costs them to fill up, how it is killing their budget. Besides the fact that the big SUV’s are very, very expensive compared to a car (or even a pickup truck, from which they are derived), what do they expect? Even with all the efficiency that has happened, the big SUV’s are still around 14 MPG on the highway with a good tail wind (I don’t care about EPA figures, for the trucks they way overstate real world mileage), and even the hybrid ones are only around 20mpg at best.
Most SUVs are classified as trucks, so they’re not subject to the safety standards enforced for passenger cars. For instance, passenger cars must keep their structural integrity if they flip over onto their roofs. That keeps the passenger compartment from collapsing and crushing the driver and passengers. Trucks don’t have this stringent regulation. SUVs also have a higher center of mass than passenger cars, especially when they’re loaded, making them more susceptible to flipping.
Remember reading one account of a fender bender–a sedan (a Mercedes IIRC) rearended a Hummer. The Mercedes was totalled, front end entirely crushed in. The Hummer barely had a scratch. But the Mercedes driver and passenger walked away with no injuries. The Hummer driver had whiplash and related issues. The sedan was engineered to protect the passengers, with the car absorbing all of the force of the impact. The Hummer was designed to protect the Hummer–that’s why they can be parachute dropped into a desert, after all–so all of the force of the impact was transmitted straight through the vehicle.
You guys are on a roll.
I was going to say that if you want a safe vehicle and don’t want to drive a beast - Mercedes, Volvo, and others are a good option.
@TatinG Who ever said that people are buying a new car every couple years? I will give the example of my parents. They have a Miata that was purchased in about 1995 so running for 20 years now +/-. They also have what they call “the big car” which is a Subaru Outback purchased in about 2000. They take “the big car” in bad weather and when driving a group and when they are traveling together and my dad wants to drive. They are a two person family with 2 cars - one of which is small and economical and one of which is practical for loads, people and weather.
If a family is going to have 2 cars for 4-6 people anyway it does save if one of those cars is small and/or electric or hybrid. The older people at church who have one car seem to pretty much have a Prius. The hip middle aged people have a Leaf, the rich tech people have Teslas, and the high school students have Smart Cars.