Hey Dan Neil, Plug-In Hybrids Would Reduce Carbon Emissions More Than Tesla

This was a masterful example where someone “did the math” and came to a conclusion that debunks a commonly held belief. This post summarizes why, if you’re trying to cut vehicle emissions, it’s actually better to focus on plug-in hybrids (PHEV) and not Tesla EVs. Someone let Dan Neil of the Wall Street Journal know this.

​Not that it would make much difference. Dan is an infamous shill for Tesla who will go out of his way to praise Tesla or tear down any other EV. 

Here is an excerpt from his well presented piece.
 
Once we take the above data and look at emissions from a fleet level, the results turn common perceptions around. Remember that we have a limited supply of batteries (and this reflects real world supply limitations). Once the battery from a large EV pack is repurposed or divided into multiple PHEVs and applied to the standard American driving pattern a clear trend emerges:

Lower is better. It’s better to have a lot of PHEVs than an a few EVs

I’ve long railed against the so-called green cred of the Tesla Model S, and I think the above chart is a good representation why. The Model S, when first released was an expensive car pitched to people who drove luxury vehicles. Most every early Tesla sale used an insane amount of battery cells to replace a single car for someone who would have bought a different status vehicle. One Model S battery pack, divided and put into 10 PHEVs, like the Prius Prime, effectively nullifies 35 *thousand* kilograms of CO2 emissions, per year! So you can imagine the frustration from those (like myself) who think about conservation from a macro standpoint seeing these giant cars, pitched to the upwardly wealthy, getting the largest tax breaks. It’s asinine. — ESG Hound