Market Currents
Is Tesla Motors (TSLA +0.4%) next in line to get a slap from the SEC over social network...
-
Friday, December 7, 2012, 10:39 AM ETIs Tesla Motors (TSLA +0.4%) next in line to get a slap from the SEC over social network commentary from execs? Only days ago, founder Elon Musk tweeted the automaker was "narrowly cash flow positive" last week.
Other date
Latest Consumer Articles
This news story has 12 comments:
Mentioning that the cash flow had turned positive was just repeating a known fact. The tweet was no big deal.
Could you forget about Musk's tweets and look at Andrew Left's Citron.
Thanks,
US Taxpayer
What exact study are your referring to?
If you are comparing apples (EV using all virgin materials that have to be mined in some remote jungle) to oranges (ICE car using 100% recycled materials), naturally an EV is going to be more harmful. you must, and must compare an apples to apples comparison and follow ISO 14040 standard.
Most studies show that the battery manufacture contributes 10-50% more towards the total vehicle manufacture (this manufacturing environmental harm gets overtaken in year 1-5 by oil environmental harm dependent on source of electricity) . There are some one-off studies that use odd data and odd assumptions that show drastically different results, but those should not be the standard bearers. The 10-50% studies actually have more science behind them and have more input with regards to weights, the one-offs typically use database modeling.
Some studies that many people refer to use as more environmentally damaging do not use the same battery chemistry, cut off the end use prematurely, exclude recycling, exclude other end uses, use comparator vehicles, compare low end high fuel efficient cars to cars in different classes or use substantially older data.
As a prime example, one person decided to say the LiAlCoNiO battery has the average eutrophication potential as a LiFePO4 and LiNiMnCo. Now for those who are environmentally inclined know eutrophication is associated with phosphates, so averaging FePO4 and NMC and calling it AlCoNi is completely and totally wrong. You have one chemical that has a very high euthrophication potential, FePO4, and the other not high, If anything use NiMnCo as the comparator, that's still wrong, BUT less wrong than averaging something that knowingly throws off the results into the mix. If I was grading a paper I would give partial credit for using NiMnCo and no credit and probably flunk them for an average using FePO4 for calculating euthrophication potential.
Either the person doesn't understand environmental chemical concepts, or does and manipulated the results to suit their needs. Either way, that's a red flag not to take it seriously