Tesla Motors Pays Fine For Lacking Emissions Certificate Of Conformity... Even Though It Lacks Emissions

from the funny-how-that-works dept

A few of you sent over this bizarre story of how famed electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors apparently need to pay a $275,000 fine for lacking a "Certificate of Conformity" from the EPA, needed to comply with the Clean air Act. As is noted in the article, it doesn't seem like Tesla should have to get such documentation in the first place, seeing as it doesn't even have a tailpipe, but such is the nature of regulations being a bit behind the technology times.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Nick Dynice (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 11:24am

    This is like charging the first car makers for a road apple pickup fee, if there ever was such a thing. In other words, this is horse shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    John Gardner (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 11:57am

    It's dumbass things like this that only prove how useless our gov't has become.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 11:57am

    Just because it doesn't emit anything doesn't mean it doesn't need a certificate of CONFORMITY, its not like they are being taxed FOR having emissions, just that they did not go through the proper steps to prove they don't. Food companies do this everyday with the FDA... Prove something has zero calories, or 0g of sugars... There are plenty of regulations that require proof that something doesn't exist.

    People discovered the Number Zero by the 9th century AD, get with the times.

    In Tesla's Case, I disagree with the whole "Zero Emissions" notion, its only a marketing buzz word. Sure the car doesn't produce anything directly, but charging it does, if you drive your car 100 miles the oil / coal power plants still worked a little bit harder for you to do that... (The exception here being hydro, solar, wind, and other renewable energies, but they count for 10%ish that means 90% of drivers are still creating carbon.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Matt (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 12:44pm

      Re:

      Well, but there is more stupid here than might meet the naked eye. Cars manufactured _domestically_ must have a certificate. Cars that are imported must have a certificate unless they are excluded from the requirement. There are a few ways to get an exclusion, including using an excluded (unregulated) fuel. For cars built after 2004, electricity or electric fuel cells are excluded: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/imports/factmnb.htm.

      So if the Tesla were built overseas and imported to the US, it would not have needed a certificate - it would have been excluded by the express provisions of the regulation because it has no tailpipe. Obviously, requiring domestic electric car makers to comply with regulations that foreign ones do not undermines the competitiveness of domestic producers. Either the regulation is intended to put US companies at a disadvantage, or it is archaic. Makes one sympathize a bit with the "Who Killed The Electric Car" crowd.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        CJL (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 2:40pm

        Re: Re:

        I am going to take you at your word that you are correct. And I am also going to agree that it is a disadvantage for the US auto maker. Falls along the same lines where you could drive in the car pool lane with your hybrid if it achieved a certain gas mileage. Of the three out there, only the American car was excluded. Yes, I know, they should have made their car better, but it was cheaper than the other two and more people could afford it and that would have been an improvement, right?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Cynyr (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 3:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Isn't there a fee(tax/tariff) for importing a car though, that is meant to balance this stuff out some?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Michael, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 5:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            There are fees for cars assembled outside the US. I'm not sure what happens with these two sets of fees if you manufacture the parts outside the US and assemble it here (like Honda and Toyota do).

            Regardless, how crazy is it that you are suggesting that the way to balance out a stupid law that hinders domestic manufacturers by adding another stupid tax on foreign manufacturers? I understand your thinking, but shouldn't we simply remove the first stupid tax rather than adding a second stupid tax?

            Oh, and let's not get into what these dollars are spent on. I assure you it is not making sure the air is clean.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ac, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 12:46pm

      Re:

      so by that rational, laptop makers need to get an EPA certificate of conformity too.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      interval (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 1:29pm

      Re:

      So the cars need to be certified for using electricity that is generated by some one up the chain who is already certified 100+ different ways already for generating electricity? Still smells like over-regulation to me. I think the thought process from the Gov. side is more like this: "Car. Car is regulated. Where car regulation permit? Me smash!"

      Its nonsense. If the car doesn't generate the regulated pollutants, the regulation doesn't apply. Its a an entirely new, and permitted (due to the fact that this same Gov. is giving out loans and credits for same) classification. The left arm once again is completely unaware of what mayhem the right one is committing. More VIVID illustration, at least to me, that we have much more government than we need.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      redwall_hp (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 5:29pm

      Re:

      >Sure the car doesn't produce anything directly, but charging it does

      The *car* has zero emissions. The generation is all up to the power companies, and should not be a factor. Electricity can be generated by wind, photovoltaics, geothermal, nuclear, or solar-thermal plants. The fact that it isn't is the fault of the companies generating the power.

      90% of electric car drivers wouldn't be generating emissions, 90% of *power plants* would be.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jager2, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 5:49pm

      Re:

      That seems more like an argument in favor of renewable energy than one against electric cars.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 12:06pm

    Hydro, solar, wind, etc all need mechanical parts, maintenance, Iron, steel, shipping (3 football long field blades are not built on site).

    None of this is cheap, all of them have environmental issues of space.

    If we could build a self contained forge in space, build orbital solar collectors from space rock then beam the power via microwaves then we "could" have something thats truly zero emission after the vast up front capital cost of getting to space.

    so.. not in my life time.

    Sadly, if we did manage to build such an insane device, eco nuts would claim we are causing climate change by intercepting the suns rays in space and that microwaves are destroying our atmosphere.

    That and the giant death ray problem :P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 12:08pm

    Read the Article

    From the linked article:

    Ouch. While it may seem as if Tesla shouldn't need such documentation since its products don't even have a tailpipe, the fact that the company had the proper certification in '08 means it should have known better in '09. Live and learn, eh?

    It's one thing to never have the certification because of a lack of a tailpipe. Is another thing to have it and then let it lapse. This has less to do with behind the times than with due diligence to maintain something that you've already started.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ryan, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 12:11pm

      Re: Read the Article

      Why is it another thing? Because the government comes to depend on the extra money coming every year?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 12:31pm

        Re: Re: Read the Article

        "Why is it another thing? Because the government comes to depend on the extra money coming every year?"

        Let's not confuse the fine with what it costs to get certified. They're being fined because they didn't comply. It's especially bad because they obviously knew they had to comply already, having been certified the year before. That fine is likely going to have a great deal of punitiveness included in it. It doesn't mean that's what it costs to get regularly certified (though, admittedly, I don't know what that cost is).

        The question is: should they have to get certified if they don't have a tailpipe? I'd probably say yes. The powers that be have placed trust in the EPA to certify that vehicles are safe for the air. To do that, they must test the vehicles and then certify them. If they don't do the test, how does the EPA have any oversight? What if there was another part of the vehicle that was bad for the air? Maybe it had no tailpipe, but the electric motor spit out noxious fumes as a byproduct?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          TtfnJohn (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 1:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: Read the Article

          Still, it rather does smell of bureaucratic rules overriding reality. Still, if they need the cert they need the cert and they ought to have gotten one.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 2:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the Article

            Exactly. I mean, if we drew a molecule of blood from our bodies every time we found some inneficiency in our world governments or systems, we'd be bled dry in a week.

            Sometimes you just have to accept the bad with the good. I think this is one of those cases....

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Michael, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 5:24am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the Article

              A week? I think we would be taking about attaching a fire hose and a vacuum to our arms.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Pete Braven (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 7:17am

          Re: Re: Re: Read the Article

          "If they don't do the test, how does the EPA have any oversight? What if there was another part of the vehicle that was bad for the air? Maybe it had no tailpipe, but the electric motor spit out noxious fumes as a byproduct?"

          Er,.. I think this is more a matter of officials in government offices having absolutely no idea what any of the legislation they pump out actually applies to. They probably don't have collectively, enough technical knowledge to pass an elementary physics exam.
          I'm surprised they have the wits to make a decent legal case!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 12:38pm

      Re: Read the Article

      How about a $240k advertisement. Papers run with the story. Tesla Motors says, "Hey, we didn't submit an Emissions Certificate of Conformity because we don't have any emissions. Our cars are environmentally friendly."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NullOp, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    Fine

    Does Trek bicycles have to have a cert? It's the same principle!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 12:43pm

      Re: Fine

      If Trek built motorized bicycles it would probably apply. No reason for them to ignore the EPA. If their cars are exempt then whats the big deal about filing a form that says that you are exempt? We have regulations for a reason.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 1:19pm

      Re: Fine

      So Trek would have to certify that their bikes don't produce noxious fumes but the smelly riders are free from such requirements... something seems wrong here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 12:58pm

    If Trek made a battery assisted bike that charges when you peddle and discharges when you stop it should also have a cert.

    So should lawn mowers (those really guzzle gas)

    Crap humans need the cert too, you eat hydrocarbons (food) and output methane and other crap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 1:55pm

      Re:

      My lawnmower has a cert and a rating blessed by the EPA.

      And are you suggesting that some bureaucrat attach some kind of meter to MY tailpipe? :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 6:45am

        Re: Re:

        I guess I see this as a good opportunity to tell everyone something. I've said this before and I'll say it again.

        One of the most important health tips that I can give to everyone that is highly overlooked is to reduce indoor air pollution and that very much includes the pollution that your body creates.

        When at home, OPEN A WINDOW AT ALL TIMES!!!!

        First of all oxidative phosphorylation is a much more efficient means of energy production than is lactate fermentation. Secondly, the toxins your body releases are very bad for you. Thirdly, diffusion forces will make viruses and bacteria go outside and hence will reduce your exposure rate to harmful micro organisms, not to mention these organisms often don't like oxygen rich environments very much (but your body thrives in such an environment). Fourthly, your body is meant to handle cold weather, it is not meant to handle unventilated air.

        Burn energy more efficiently, keep a healthy weight (lose fat, gain muscle, get stronger and improve your athletic performance. Also make sure you drink plenty of water, avoid unhealthy tap water), improve your intelligence, sleep better, heal faster (ie: your ligaments heal slow because of reduced oxygen exposure. Likewise, exposing your body to less oxygen also causes it to heal slower in general), get sick far less often (and get over sickness much faster), allow your body to better regulate its potential hydrogen (good quality oxygen is a necessary component of pH regulation, and, by extension, you can potentially reduce your chances of getting cancer). It costs you nothing and the benefits are tremendous.

        Diet, sleep, exercise, and high quality air. I say this because I love mankind and I sincerely want everyone to benefit from the air that God provides us to breath.

        and, while anthropogenic pollution is less prevalent than naturally produced pollution, I see that as no excuse for humans not to take care of our environment.

        (if you live next to one of those petroleum refinery, you're in trouble. That hydrogen sulfide is very bad stuff. You can either move or somehow figure out a way to filter that stuff out of your incoming air).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 6:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Even ants understand the benefits of a well ventilated home when they dig holes in the sand to provide their underground nesting regions with highly ventilated air. God is using nature to tell you something and I would very much listen. Why humans think it's OK to lock ourselves up in insulated homes is beyond me. It's unnatural.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 8:10am

          Re: Re: Re:

          First of all oxidative phosphorylation is a much more efficient means of energy production than is lactate fermentation.

          "It is the anaerobic form of respiration that occurs in some bacteria and animal cells, such as muscle cells, in the absence of oxygen.[1][2][3] If oxygen is present in the cell, many organisms will bypass fermentation and undergo cellular respiration;"

          You are not going to run out of oxygen sitting in your house, they are not airtight. Have you ever seen a candle in a house go out because it ran out of oxygen? Have you ever passed out in your home because you had the windows closed and used up the oxygen? Of course not. Neither will your muscles switch to fermentation to produce energy due to lack of oxygen. This happens during heavy exercize, when the muscles are using so much energy that the bloodstream can't supply them enough oxygen for oxidative phosphorylation.

          It does not happen when the windows are closed.

          Secondly, the toxins your body releases are very bad for you.

          What toxins, exactly?

          Thirdly, diffusion forces will make viruses and bacteria go outside and hence will reduce your exposure rate to harmful micro organisms,

          No. No, they won't. Opening a window will not cause "diffusion forces" to eject microorganisms out onto the surface of your skin.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion

          these organisms often don't like oxygen rich environments very much (but your body thrives in such an environment)

          Opening a window or going outside is not going to turn your body from an oxygen-poor to an oxygen-rich environment.

          good quality oxygen

          Oxygen is oxygen, it's all the same.

          anthropogenic pollution is less prevalent than naturally produced pollution

          Natural pollution, isn't that an oxymoron? Anyway, how do you define that?

          By all means, open your windows. Enjoy the fresh air, and get some of those indoor pollutants aired out. But don't fear that you're not getting enough oxygen.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 9:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "You are not going to run out of oxygen sitting in your house, they are not airtight."

            I never said you will run out, but that doesn't mean you won't have less oxygen.

            "This happens during heavy exercize, when the muscles are using so much energy that the bloodstream can't supply them enough oxygen for oxidative phosphorylation."

            Yes, I know. But to some degree some level of lactate fermentation is always happening.

            "What toxins, exactly?"

            The toxins your body releases, like methane among others. You don't think your body releases toxins? Of course it does, your skin and body releases waste into the air and it releases them because they're bad for you.

            "Opening a window will not cause "diffusion forces" to eject microorganisms out onto the surface of your skin."

            It will cause diffusion forces to more effectively get those microorganisms outside of your house which means you will breath fewer of them.

            For instance, if you run the shower and you keep the windows and doors closed the air will stay moist and so will the window/mirror. If you open a window diffusion forces cause the moisture to go outside. Same principle.

            "Opening a window or going outside is not going to turn your body from an oxygen-poor to an oxygen-rich environment. "

            It will raise the partial pressure of oxygen in your body now that you're breathing fresher air.

            "Oxygen is oxygen, it's all the same."

            Of course, but by oxygen quality I am referring to its concentration gradient.

            "Natural pollution, isn't that an oxymoron? Anyway, how do you define that?"

            Volcanos also release carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              nasch (profile), Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 1:19pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I never said you will run out, but that doesn't mean you won't have less oxygen.

              What is the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere compared to inside a typical house?

              But to some degree some level of lactate fermentation is always happening.

              What percentage is it happening with the windows closed, and what percentage with them open?

              The toxins your body releases, like methane among others.

              If you're releasing enough methane to make the air toxic, you have way bigger problems than opening a window will solve. Seriously.

              Of course it does, your skin and body releases waste into the air

              Other than methane, methyl mercaptan, and hydrogen sulfide, released in very small quantities in flatulence, what toxins does the body release into the air? And in the quantities it releases them, what harmful effects do they have?

              It will raise the partial pressure of oxygen in your body now that you're breathing fresher air.

              Again, by how much? I mean, you have information to back up these claims, right?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 4:06pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "What is the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere compared to inside a typical house?"

                Here is a google search.

                "The measured co2 in my living area ranges from approximately 500 ppm to over
                2000 ppm. The higher concentrations generally occur during the winter
                months when I am spending more of my time indoors, and am preserving the
                heat by running the forced air intake fans less."

                http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/chem/6069/Oxygen-percent-in-a-room

                While the above doesn't seem to indicate that the theoretical decrease in oxygen is all that much (21% to 20.8%, though I think that even that, over a prolonged period of time, can have a huge impact), it does seem to indicate that CO2 levels can be a problem. Also see

                "CO2 can build up in buildings that house a lot of people or animals, and is a symptom of problems with fresh air circulation in the building or home.
                ...
                High CO2 levels, generally over 1000 ppm, indicate a potential problem with air circulation and fresh air in a room or building. In general, high CO2 levels indicate the need to examine the HVAC system. High carbon dioxide levels can cause poor air quality and can even extinguish pilot lights on gas-powered appliances. "

                http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/ChemFS/fs/CarbonDioxide.htm

                Also see

                http://www.aces.edu/dept/poultryventilation/documents/MgMnVPVP.pdf

                "If you're releasing enough methane to make the air toxic, you have way bigger problems than opening a window will solve. Seriously."

                The toxins that your body release isn't toxic in the sense that it will immediately kill you, but it is toxic enough to be detrimental to your health if not ventilated.

                "What is the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere compared to inside a typical house?"

                There are studies on indoor air pollution, many of which have found that the level of pollution indoors is far greater than that outdoors. Some of those toxins also come from your body.

                "(NaturalNews) Indoor air pollution is arguably one of the most overlooked threats to human health, particularly affecting young children who spend an estimated 80% of their time indoors. Studies released in the past few years demonstrate clearly that poor indoor air quality not only increases asthma symptoms but can also be responsible for headaches, fatigue, nausea, allergic reactions, hormone imbalances and liver, kidney or central nervous system damage. Evidence has even been found that it causes cancer."

                http://www.naturalnews.com/025772_pollution_health_indoor_air.html

                "A committee of the World Health Organization estimates that as many as 30 percent of new or remodeled buildings may have unusually high rates of sick building complaints. While this is often temporary, some buildings have long-term problems which linger, even after corrective action. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reports that poor ventilation is an important contributing factor in many sick building cases"

                http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ventilat.html#Health%20Problems%20and%20Ventilation

                "Influe nza transmission occurred from one index case to 72% of the 54 passengers aboard an airliner, on the ground in Alaska, while the ventilation system was turned off (Moser 1979). This outbreak is widely thought to represent a second piece of evidence for airborne transmission and it is also thought that the high attack rate was due in part to the ventilation system not being in operation (Moser 1979). "

                http://www.sanuvox.com/PDF%20Brochures/ASHRAE_position_on_Airborne_Infectious_Diseases.pdf

                " There is evidence that low ventilation rates and other building characteristics can lead to increased incidence of
                respiratory diseases caused by viruses (Brundage, et al., 1988; Fisk, 2001). "

                http://eetd.lbl.gov/ie/pdf/LBNL-48287.pdf

                "What percentage is it happening with the windows closed, and what percentage with them open?"

                I don't know exactly but it would naturally be higher with the windows closed.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 4:09pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "But a recent study by Johns Hopkins` Bloomberg School of Public Health found that in many cases, the level of indoor pollution was twice that of outdoor (other studies have claimed as much as 5 times higher) and that the presence of these elevated levels of pollution significantly increased asthma symptoms in the children being studied."

                  (form above Naturalnews link).

                  Opening a window will substantially solve these problems.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 4:15pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Now granted, increased CO2 levels signal your body to increase respiration to compensate and it also indicates your body, in the long run, to release erythropoietin to stimulate red blood cell production. But increased respiration and an increased heart rate to compensate for less oxygen will, itself, demand more oxygen (the heart and lungs/diaphragm need oxygen to operate).

                  Also, submarines have huge CO2 problems and methodologies are implemented to reduce those problems. Granted, submarines probably have less ventilation than your house but that still doesn't mean that your insulated house doesn't have excessive CO2, and other toxic, problems if you don't ventilate it every once in a while.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  nasch (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 9:20am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Hardly any of that was related to my question, if any at all. As far as CO2 goes, your own source says "CO2 can build up in buildings that house a lot of people or animals, and is a symptom of problems with fresh air circulation in the building or home." Which implies that a correctly functioning building will not suffer such a buildup of CO2.

                  The rest was about CO2, indoor pollution, and influenza, when your main point that I was questioning was about oxygen levels in the bloodstream from having windows closed vs. open.

                  Again, I agree with you that having windows open from time to time is common sense and a good idea, but I question whether blood oxygen level is a reason why. But in the end I guess it doesn't matter. Go ahead and open your windows. :-)

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 1:07pm

    Every new lawnmower I've seen does have EPA ratings on them. Its on a scale from 1-10.


    I think everyone here could be forgetting that charging and discharging the batteries can release fumes. Are those fumes counted as emissions??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      interval (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 1:34pm

      Re:

      Those fumes are for the most part hydrogen gases, in parts per hundred, at the most, depends on how well they are made. Might not be enough to regulate, or may not be regulated at all, I don't know anything about the statutes. I do know, being a non-professional mechanic, that I don't need any particularly non-ordinary permits to charge a car battery, and I believe the batteries in these vehicles are pretty much the same. I've not heard of any particularly different or extra-ordinary permittage needed to run these cars because of any fumes from the batteries.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 2:47pm

        Re: Re:

        "I do know, being a non-professional mechanic, that I don't need any particularly non-ordinary permits to charge a car battery"

        Does my cars alternator need a permit every time it charges the battery?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        nasch (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 3:15pm

        Re: Re:

        I believe the batteries in these vehicles are pretty much the same.

        The Tesla uses lithium-ion batteries, rather than the lead-acid battery in an ordinary car. So their behavior during charge and discharge is not necessarily the same.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      RaEV, Oct 3rd, 2010 @ 10:08pm

      Re:

      Lead Acid Batteries discharging and recharging release hydrogen and maybe a a drop or two of acidic material if they boil or over heat. Sulferic Acid is generaly harmless as it is water soluble. Hydrogen combines with oxygen to make water. What's the big deal about that? Water's good. It does sometimes combine to form ozone, but it does that anyway. It's not like a CFC. The Hydrogen can later be contained (even tho harmless) and stored in a fuel cell and burned later, to make more water. Tesla's automobiles are different. They operate using Lithium Ion batteries (laptop's, cellphones) which are latley VERY reliable. They DO contain Lead and Sulfuric Acid (and who want's NiCd's in a motor vehicle because the usually die without much warning and are pretty un-reliable) And they are sealed and I don't think they release any vapors... IDK. Most electric cars use a feature called something like Brake-power-regeneration. If you have the cruse controll on going down a hill the car turns the E-motor into a generator which slows the car or maintains downhill speed. The E-motors are very well controlled and are done so by a controller board that regulates power output in pulses and freq's that maintain armature and field life as well as battery life.
      As far as electric cars go, dollar for dollar, they beat gas, as long as you have a quick charging station like Rayovac's AA batteries used to have where they charge in an hour. The EV1 got something like 300+ MpCharge... I'd put an outlet in my Driveway for that with a Credit Card slot on it too. Plus the fact that they CUT CARBON emmisions and require about a 10th of the maintenance that a Gas powered car needs. That is a fact. When's the last time you saw a dry run 11" 42v DC motor ever leak oil all over the ground. Plus there's no need for a conventional transmission, so no more ATF you can use Vegtable Oil in a standard trans.
      All in all, I don't think they should have to pay it. And I think OUR country is trying to kill itself with all this crap about =Forign Imported cars can be COMPLETLY exempt... What?!? Why the hell do we have to pay??= Our government is getting more idiotic everyday, and I'm not helping things with my inability to spell, sorry about the rant,

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        RaEV, Oct 3rd, 2010 @ 10:13pm

        Re: Re:

        When I said "They DO contain Lead and..." I was talking about standard Car batteries for a Gasoline engine... NOT the Tesla Roadster... sorry about the mixup, Eh...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Boost, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 1:33pm

    Just because it's electric doesn't mean it doesn't emit...

    Mike,

    There are several sources of pollution emissions onboard a modern automobile and an engine is only one. For instance, all of the plastics, resins, and glues used in the car also emit polutants (and continue to after the car is sold) and EPA regulations control these emissions too.

    Therefore, it is not out of the question for an electric car manufacturer to have to prove that it meets these regulations as well.

    Boost

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      RaEV, Oct 3rd, 2010 @ 10:53pm

      Re: Just because it's electric doesn't mean it doesn't emit...

      I DO agree that some hydrocarbon emitting processes in the MANUFACTURING of the car are possible, BUT if they use protiens and oils from Soy or Corn that makes a bio-degradeable product or a recycleable product from these plants, than the only Hydrocarbon emissions that are created are the ones that the "plant" it was made from originaly took out of the environment. Plants do NOT make hydrocarbons, they Intake hydrobons (Carbon Dioxide) and convert it into carbons and O2(oxygen) while it's alive. The plant stores the carbon that it get in the cell structures and releases the O2 back into the air. When the plant is converted to energy by burning the carbons out of it, the carbons combine with O2 in the atmosphere to the same extent that it was when the plant took the CO2 out. There is No emission probelem here due to the fact that Other plants will take the products back in. HOWEVER, If you use an OIL based product to make the energy, you release the Carbons that were taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago that were consintrated and that releases WAY more CO2 (and heat sometimes) than if you had just used the plant product in the first place because the carbons were sub-terrain for millions of years, contained forever(?) untill they were mined back to the surface. If a car only consumes and or burns Plant oils and products they should be exemt as well because if they leak their oils on the ground it is a biodegradeable because it never consintrated to the point of becoming a hazardous material in the first place, so, it will basically turn to dirt and basic elements easier and be RE-consumed into nearby plants. Also as the next fuel-plants are grown they take in the same amount of (or more if the farming of the plant increases) CO2 that was created by burning the plant based fuel from the previous cycle. So you have either option... a car that ONLY uses Plant based materials and was made from Plant based materials *(most cars built before the mid/late '40's "plastic" parts were made out of Soy or Corn byproducts you can tell from the shrinking and cracking because the strength of the vulcanization decayed over the years caused by UV light)* Or, an electric vehicle lubricated by plant oils and charged by an e85 powered generator (could also be portable connected to the main motor, however you like it) or solar supply.
      If this was the case you'd have a highly EnFV ((c) Copyright ME) ... I also realize most of you know how photo synthisys works I'm just explaining it for those who dont. http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/g-m-en-v-sharpening-the-focus-of-future-urban-mobility/
      A tiny EV (if it did 90 or better I'd get it hopefully by 2030 we have better batteries) Random.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wayne, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 1:45pm

    publicity

    So how much do you think the traffic and attention from getting fined was worth?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 2:38pm

    So...

    ...why didn't Tesla just follow the law and get the certificate in the first place? Did they somehow think they were above the law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Vic, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 2:47pm

    OK, everybody should go do a check for prostate cancer!

    What do you mean? So you're a woman, and what..? Which part of "everybody" you did not understand?!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    V (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 3:03pm

    You mean Tesla Motors can make cars without polluting the environment...??!!!?///!11!!!!!???

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Eugene (profile), Aug 31st, 2010 @ 3:07pm

    Senator Fred Flintstone thought this was a perfectly reasonable requirement. He doesn't get what everyone's complaining about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RaEV, Oct 3rd, 2010 @ 11:16pm

    Our government's filled with idiots...

    Basically our government is filled with outdated lawmakers and idiots that care more about issues like gun controll and the drug issues than the environment. Legalize drugs to anyone over 21 (except in public) do them at home if you want, I don't care, and guns change some laws around so criminals cant sue you if they break into your house and your dog eats their lower torso off (or thier face) and you can shoot someone trying to steal your car while you're watching. If it doesn't make pollution don't tax it as a pollutant. Give US engeneers a dang break so our country can come back. That is the real reason our country sucks right now. Why does China and Japan know more about computers than we do (as a collective)? We invented the damg thing. We don't see any profits from them. They do tho. Cars to. Tax importers and exempt what we make HERE. Period. When people ask me what I do for a living in 2015 I don't wanna say "I wurk et Sonic" just because I have dislexia. I want to build stuff but there are too many scammers and idiots stealing money from your pockets, and most of them are from forign countries. How muck do you think it really costs to build that accura? Buy a ford or a Chevy or Hell if exotic is your thing there's always the Vector or the TESLA. (I know Accura is "put together" here, but it's parts are ALL imported, and idiots still say it's domestic... Toyota too. Shipping is cheeper when you can pack more into that shipping container and it takes up less space. It probably does help use less oil to get it here but whatever.) We need to ditch these lazy people in office and hire NEW minds. Minds that are THINKING AND looking to BETTER America, not blatently exploit it. Vote for me! -

    -This was probably entirely off toppic, but not really. Tesla is an American product. Lithium Ion batteries are an American product - and again farmed out to japan. I don't hate the Japanese at all either. But, they bombed us once. Now we GAVE them all of our technology. GE is an American company, White Westinghouse/Nash, We have the resources, we need to quit all the importing junk. Things are already more expensive, why dont we see any real progress. Everything stays the same untill we build it and spend an extra buck on US. I'm out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This