The Tesla Roadster: An Evaluation

by Steve Puma
The Tesla Roadster is a state‐of‐the art electric car that is taking the automotive world by
storm. In this analysis we evaluate the sustainability of the Tesla Roadster based on the
principles of Edwin Datchefski’s Total Beauty framework.

Sustainable Products and Services (SUS 6090)

Instructor: Nathan Shedroff
Presidio School of Management

Ta
 2 THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION

Table of Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................3
Description of the Tesla Roadster.................................................................................3
Choice of Framework ...................................................................................................4
Sustainability of Tesla Roadster, Based on Datchefski's"Total Beauty" Framework ......4
Cyclic ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Solar................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Efficient .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Social ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Safe................................................................................................................................................................................ 10
How Can We Make It Better? .....................................................................................10
Conclusion .................................................................................................................12
Works Cited ...............................................................................................................13
 Introduction

We have chosen the Tesla Roadster because we are both passionate about speed,
cars and transportation, and the Tesla Roadster presents a unique opportunity to
evaluate a "green"‐marketed product from a sustainability standpoint. We feel that
the Tesla is a great product for changing the public perception of what an electric
car is, from that of a slow, short‐range ungainly niche vehicle to a high‐performance,
zero‐emissions eye‐catcher. This is an important shift, if sustainable automobiles
(and other products) are ever to become mainstream, or even desirable.

But, even with its low‐emissions nature, the Tesla is not a perfectly "sustainable"
product. There are still many things that could be changed to make it that way, and
we felt that this makes the Tesla a very interesting candidate for study.
Description of the Tesla Roadster

The Tesla Roadster is high‐efficiency and high‐performance electric sports car,

which takes advantage of some of the unique features of electric propulsion in an
attempt to make environmentally friendly automobiles "sexy". The Wall Street
Journal Online described the Tesla as "a $98,000 electric roadster...that uses 6,831
lithium‐ion batteries similar to those used in laptop computers, a patented electric‐
motor system, and a highly sophisticated package of controllers and software to
deliver an exotically attractive car that zaps from standstill to 60 miles per hour in
under four seconds and can travel up to 245 miles on a single charge."(White) By
redefining what an electric car can be, the Tesla Roadster is an important tool in the
effort to make energy efficient transportation seem appealing to the average driver.
The real question to be answered, "is the Tesla Roadster sustainable?"
The Tesla Roadster is the brainchild of "Martin Eberhard and his business partner
Marc Tarpenning [who] founded a company based on a portable eBook reader.
Frustrated at the mainstream auto industry's inability to create an effective electric
car that had mass appeal (he often refers to early electric cars as "punishment
cars"), Eberhard decided to create one himself" (Grabianowski). The Roadster is
the first in what the company hopes will be a full line of cars, including a luxury
sedan and an economy car. By beginning with the luxury market, Tesla Motors
hopes to avoid the image problems that have plagued previous attempts at mass‐
producing an electric car, such as Ford's EV‐1. It is hoped that the lessons learned
from the Roadster will trickle down to the less expensive offerings.

The Tesla Roadster's chassis is loosely based on the Lotus Elise, with the cars
sharing a similar look. The basic design of the car is very simple: a single electric
motor, coupled with a 2‐speed transmission and powered by a lithium‐ion battery
pack, is situated on an extruded‐aluminum chassis and covered by a carbon‐fiber
body. According to he company's website, "the Power Electronics Module (PEM)
contains high‐voltage electronics that control the motor and allow for integrated
battery charging. The motor and PEM have been designed as a tightly integrated
system that delivers up to 185 kW of motor output"(Tesla Motors). Wheels, tires,
brakes and interior components are all industry standard fare. All systems are
designed to maximize power and range and to minimize weight.

THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION 3

 4 THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION

While the Tesla Roadster is a huge step forward in terms of electric car development
and energy efficiency, there are many things about its design that would not be
considered "sustainable", such as the energy it takes to produce its batteries or the
inability to recycle its carbon‐fiber body. In addition, it merely shifts the power
source from fossil fuels burned by the vehicle to fossil fuels burned by power plants.
We have found that the Tesla Roadster is a mixed bag, and actually has a long way to
go, in terms of sustainability.
Choice of Framework

Before explaining why we chose the framework for evaluation that we did, we'd like
to explain why we didn't chose the ones we didn't. Of course, all 6 frameworks
presented in class represent valid ways to evaluate a product for sustainability.
Several of them were simply too unwieldy to be useful in the short time frame which
we had to complete the assignment. Life­Cycle Analysis (LCA),Natural Capitalism
and the Sustainability Helix all fall into this category, with Life‐Cycle Analysis
being the most cumbersome of the three. Both Natural Capitalism and the
Sustainability Helix account for factors that seem to be too broad in scope for our
needs, including things like economics and government. The next three, Cradle to
Cradle, Biomimicry and Natural Step, all have elements which seem appropriate
for our use, and there is some overlap in concepts, especially the concept of cycling
"technical nutrients" through a closed system once they are taken out of the Earth's
crust. These three frameworks suffer from a lack of quantifyability; how will we
rate the relative effectiveness of particular products in these frameworks?

Datchefski's "Total Beauty" framework solves these problems by giving us some

simple rules that we can use to rate a product. Total Beauty is a framework that was
made specifically to score individual products, and, thus, is the most useful for the
purposes of this exercise. In addition, Total Beauty includes many of the concepts
that we find desirable, and which appear in other frameworks, including the
concepts of cyclicity and social equity.

Sustainability of Tesla Roadster, Based on

Datchefski's"Total Beauty" Framework

The Tesla Roadster excels in some parts of the Total Beauty evaluation, but does not
do so well in others.

Cyclic

“The product is made from organic materials, and is recyclable or compostable,

or is made from minerals that are continuously cycled in a closed loop.”

RATING: 15.6
Using information compiled from an interview with Stephen Davies, a Presidio
student and Tesla Motors Supply Chain Engineer, plus various anecdotal sources, we
were able to compile the following chart:
 % of Total Weight
Component Weight % Recycled
Weight Recycled

Battery Pack 992 lbs 37% 30% 297.6 lbs

Motor/Transmission 150 lbs 6% 100% 150 lbs

PEM 30 lbs 1% 20% 6 lbs

Chassis 150 lbs 6% 100% 150 lbs

Body 150 lbs 6% 50% 75 lbs

Wheels 60 lbs 2.20% 100% 60 lbs

Tires 100 lbs 3.70% 50% 50 lbs

Other 1024 lbs 38.10% 0% 0 lbs

Total 2690 lbs 100% 31.20% 838.6 lbs

Source: Interview with Stephen Davies, Tesla Motors Engineer

% of recycled material used in manufacture = 0%

% that is recycled at end of life = 31.2%
If we plug these numbers into the equation given to us by Datchefski, (the % of
recycled material used + the % that is recycled at end of life) / 2, we get the
following:
(0 + 31.2)/2 = 15.6
Therefore, we would rate the Tesla at a 15.6 out of 100 on this scale. This low
number shows just how difficult it is to achieve sustainability in this area. Tesla
would most likely rank very well when compared to other auto manufacturers. But,
in overall terms, they still have a long way to go; most notably in using more
recycled raw materials.

The following are brief descriptions of the reclamation efforts that are currently
under way at Tesla:

Batteries: The battery pack makes up over a third of the total weight of the Tesla
Roadster, and the company makes some effort to recycle what is can from its use.
The problem lies in its construction. The 6000‐plus lithium‐ion cells are held
together in a resin substrate, which is surrounded by an aluminum box. At the end
of life, the aluminum container is completely recycled. The rest of the battery pack is
processed by freezing and then shredding. This shredding process produces two
types of "fluff" (shredded material), lithium fluff and cobalt fluff. Cobalt is recovered
from the cobalt fluff and the lithium fluff is land‐filled. The only good news about the
unrecoverable material is that lithium is not considered toxic, although this is still
less than ideal. (Davies)
THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION 5
 6 THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION

Motor/Transmission: The electric motor is made from a combination of aluminum

and copper. The transmission is made from aluminum. According to the company,
these components are 100% recyclable.
Chassis and Wheels: The chassis and wheels are also made from aluminum, and
are therefore also 100% recyclable.
Power Electronics Module (PEM): This electronics control component is made
from aluminum with silicon and other electronic components. Tesla estimates that
means that this part is only 20% recyclable, with the remainder needing to be
handled as electronics waste.(Davies)
Body: To save weight, the Tesla Roadster's body is made from a carbon‐fiber
composite material. Unfortunately, the technology does not currently exist to reform
carbon fiber, so that the only thing to do with it at end‐of‐life is to “downcycle” it.
The material may be reused in other applications after the original part is shredded.
The reuse applications are ones that do not require fibers as long as those in the
original material:
"Carbon fiber reinforced plastics have an almost infinite service lifetime. But when it is
time to recycle them, they cannot simply be melted down like metals. The best that can
be done is to mill or shred them to reclaim the carbon fiber, which shortens the fibers
dramatically. Just as with recycled paper, the shortened fibers ensure that the recycled
material is less strong than the material started with. But there are many industrial
applications that don't need the full strength of full­length fiber reinforcement. For
example, chopped reclaimed carbon fiber is used in consumer electronics, such as
laptops, where it provides excellent reinforcement of the plastics used, even if it lacks
the strength­to­weight ratio of an aerospace component." (Wikipedia)

Tires: Although Tesla Motors advertises that it has a recycling program for the
Yokohama tires it employs on the Roadster, the program is of the same kind as is
used in the carbon fiber recovery process. Tires are currently ground up for use in
other processes, such as filler in concrete manufacture. (Davies)
Other: The rest of the vehicle features standard components found on many other
vehicles, such as plastic dashboards, leather seats, and various other metal and
electronic components. As far as we know, there is no specific recycling that will
occur for these parts. However, in the automotive industry it is very common to see
many of these parts utilized as spares when the whole of the vehicle is no longer
serviceable. Only time can tell if this will or will not be the case. At the very end, the
remaining components may be land‐filled.

Solar

The product uses solar energy or other forms of renewable energy that are
cyclic and safe, both during use and manufacture.

RATING: 50
In the best‐case scenario, the Tesla Roadster can actually be used in a zero‐
emissions, zero‐consumption mode. This can be achieved by charging the car with
renewable energy sources. The company is planning on implementing a program
whereby they will sell customers solar panels for their houses, which will charge the
car. However, even in the worst‐case scenario, the roadster is still highly efficient
compared to gasoline‐powers cars, and is also highly efficient when powered by
non‐renewable sources of electricity generation. According to Tesla's 2006
publication, "The 21st Century Electric Car", "the Tesla Roadster only consumes
about 110 watt‐hours (0.40 mega‐joules) of electricity from the battery to drive a
kilometer, or 2.53 km/MJ.....Taking into account the well‐to‐electric‐outlet efficiency
of electricity production and the electrical‐outlet‐to‐wheel efficiency of the Tesla
Roadster, the well‐to‐wheel energy efficiency of the Tesla Roadster is 2.18 km/MJ x
52.5% = 1.14 km/MJ, or double the efficiency of the Toyota Prius."(Eberhard and
Tarpenning)
It has been difficult to determine whether or not renewable energy is used in the
manufacture or assembly of the Tesla Roadster. We have been unable to find any
data from the company itself on whether or not they use renewable energy during
any part of the process. Since the components are manufactured by various
companies outside the U.S., and final assembly is completed in the U.K., we can only
assume that the percentage is very small. In addition, transportation via sea and
land would add a large amount of non‐cyclic or safe energy usage to the equation.

Efficient

The product in manufacture and use requires 90% less materials, energy and
water than products providing equivalent utility did in 1990.

RATING: 50

When considering how to compare the Tesla Roadster in terms of materials

efficiency, we must think about what we mean by "equivalent utility". In this case,
the utility is not merely transportation, or even gas mileage; otherwise we could
compare the Tesla to the EV‐1 or other early electric cars, or perhaps other energy‐
efficient vehicles, such as the 1993 Honda Civic VX. Given its $98,00 price tag, the
Tesla Roadster clearly is positioned as a high‐performance sports car, and competes
in the market with cars such as the Porsche 911 and the Lotus Elise (unlike its
earlier cousins). Therefore, we calculated that a comparable car would cost
approximately $60,000 in 1990 dollars, and came up with the 1990 Porsche 911 as
our basis for comparison.As we can see from the chart below, the 1990 Porsche 911
is very close in size to the 2008 Tesla:
2008 Tesla Roadster 1990 Porsche 911
Gross Vehicle Weight 2690 Lbs 3234 lb
Length 155.4 in 167.3 in
Width 73.7 in 69.0 in
Materials, Body Carbon Fiber Steel
Materials, Chassis Extruded Aluminum Steel
Engine AC Induction electric motor 4‐Cylinder Gasoline,
(Aluminum, Copper) light alloy block and head
Source: teslamotors.com and carfolio.com

THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION 7

 8 THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION

Even though the motor of the Tesla is much smaller and lighter than the engine of
the Porsche and the body and frame are made of lighter materials, the weight of the
battery pack almost completely negates the reduction in material usage from the
lighter materials used in other components. This means that an analysis of
materials efficiency is not that simple. It would seem that if you were to remove the
weight of the battery pack from the mix and you remove the weight of the analogous
gas tank from the Porsche, the picture would be much different:
Weight of the Tesla Battery Pack System = approx. 992 lbs / 450 kg
Weight of a 15 gallon gas tank (full) = approx. 50 lbs
2008 Tesla Roadster 1990 Porsche 911
Modified Vehicle Weight 1698 lbs 3184 lbs

Based only on the combined weight of the chassis, body, engine and drive train,
minus the weight of the fuel storage system, the Tesla represents a 47% reduction in
materials over the Porsche.
In the case of both cars, interior components, such as seats, dashboards and
electronics instruments and wheels and tires are essentially the same, so we will
exclude them from our analysis (assuming 1,000 lbs of equivalent material in each
car), and only consider the main raw materials. Thus, we get the following charts:
Simplified Materials Usage for 2008 Tesla Roadster
(Excluding wheels, tires and interior components, such as seats)
300 lbs 150 lbs 992 lbs
Aluminum Carbon­Fiber Lithium Batteries
Energy Consumption 68,161.5 MJ 47,554.65 MJ 498,632.73 MJ

Solid Waste 2,090.28 lb 146.32 lb 665.62 lb

Water Emissions 63.61 lb 0 lb 0.0042 lb

Greenhouse Gasses 3635.28 lb 1829.025 lb 0.0025 lb

Hydrocarbon 2.27205 lb 1.46322 lb 0.0001 lb

Sulfur Oxides 31.8087 lb 14.6322 lb 0.0045 lb

Simplified Materials Usage for 1990 Porsche 911

(Excluding wheels, tires and interior components, such as seats)
1000 lbs 1000 lbs
Steel Aluminum
Energy Consumption 25,025.00 Mj 227,205.00 Mj

Solid Waste 2,502.50 lb 6,967.62 lb

Water Emissions 80.08 lb 212.06 lb

Greenhouse Gasses 13,013.00 lb 12,117.60 lb

Hydrocarbon 4.00 lb 7.57 lb

Sulfur Oxides 140.14 lb 106.03 Lb

Source: Gibson, Thomas, “Life Cycle Assessment of Advanced Materials for Automotive Applications”. 2000. SAE International
 Totals Comparison
2008 Tesla Roadster 1990 Porsche 911 Tesla Improvement

Energy 614,348.88 252,230

Consumption Mj Mj ­41.06%

Solid Waste 2,902.22 9,470.12 +30.65%

lb lb
Water Emissions 63.61 292.14 +21.77%
lb lb
Greenhouse Gasses 5,464.30 25,130.6 +21.74%
lb lb
Hydrocarbon 3.73 11.57 +32.24%
lb lb
Sulfur Oxides 46.44 246.17 +18.87
lb lb

The data shows that the 2008 Tesla Roadster has achieved an 18% to 32% gain in
efficiency over the 1990 Porsche, except for energy usage. It seems that, contrary to
our intuition, the Tesla required almost 50% more energy to produce, and most of
this energy is used to manufacture the battery pack.
So, we have a conundrum; how do we rate the overall efficiency? It is not clear. The
Tesla has a significant edge in almost every area, except for energy usage, in its
manufacture. The Tesla also has significantly reduced materials consumption in its
use phase, due to much higher efficiency and greatly reduced mechanical complexity
and maintenance. The answer is not clear, and our overall rating is based more on
our own interpretation of the facts, and on our opinions, not on purely empirical
data.

We feel that the Tesla can only be given a middle grade, due to the high materials
and energy costs to produce the batteries. If a battery technology were to come
along which were much less resource‐intensive, the Roadster might be able to
achieve a perfect score

Social

The product's manufacture and use supports basic human rights and natural
justice.

RATING: 30
Tesla Motors is manufacturing a sustainably‐operated product. It is not company’s
policy currently to chose only sustainably manufactured and distributed materials
and parts. According to Stephen Davis, when possible, company is working with
socially responsible and environmentally conscientious suppliers. A good example
of such a supplier would be their tire supplier, Yokohama, that has been recognized
in Japan as one of the ten most environmentally conscious companies in the country.
All of Yokohama’s factories are ISO 14001 certified, and those in Japan have
achieved zero emissions one year ahead of the Kyoto Protocol. Yokohama is

THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION 9

 10 THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION

continuously developing its manufacturing and technology to produce tires that

minimize environmental impact.
Over all, in our opinion, the Tesla Roadster is not scoring very high on social
performance. Their main goal is to create a good‐looking, fast, electric car. The price
of the product is targeted for high‐income clients. However, the company does plan
to address these issues in the future, once their concept is proven. For example, a
more modest $50,000 luxury sedan and a $30,000 economy car are planned for the
near future.

Safe

The product is non­toxic in use and disposal, and its manufacture does not
involve toxic releases or the disruption of ecosystems.

Rating: 30

Based on factors previously discussed in the Cyclic and Efficient sections, the Tesla
has a long way to go in terms of environmental safety. Greenhouse gasses, sulfur
oxides, solid wastes (including toxic metals) and water emissions are still produced
in the use and disposal phases. The Tesla will continue to produce emissions to the
air via its energy consumption, as long as the electricity it runs on is produced by
burning fossil fuels, although it does represent a large jump in efficiency over other
automotive technologies. The Roadster also will continue to represent significant
disposal problems as long as its supporting technologies remain consistent with
current automotive technologies, such as those for tires, brakes, interior plastics and
upholstery materials. As with most of the other ratings, our rating is based more on
intuition than on hard numbers.
How Can We Make It Better?

Source aluminum with recycled content: Aluminum is a very good material to

use, from a cyclicity standpoint, because it can be almost entirely recycled into new
raw aluminum. Using aluminum with recycled content can save approximately
20,787 MJ of energy during the manufacturing process. This would represent a 33%
energy savings over using virgin aluminum, and would most likely result in a
significant cost savings to the company.
Attempt to recover lithium from lithium fluff: Our understanding, from our
sources at Tesla Motors, is that lithium cannot currently be recovered from the
shredded battery waste. Although lithium is non‐toxic, we still want to recover it
and cycle it back into the technospere. Although we are not scientists, we have seen
a couple of abstracts for patented processed that claim to be able to recover the
lithium from lithium‐ion batteries. We would like to see Tesla Motors research this
topic more thoroughly.

Alternative materials for body: Stephen Davies directed us to several technologies

that could reduce the impact of the Roadster’s carbon fiber body and plastic parts.
 • Carrot fibers: Scottish company Cellucomp, launched in 2004, has developed
a new bio‐composite which uses carrot fiber as the main reinforcement
material. The first product that was produced using these fibers was a high
performance fishing rod. Curran, the material made from carrot fibers, has a
lower density than carbon fiber. It can also be molded which makes it
valuable for many applications. (Press Association)

• Chicken feather fibers: Nearly four billion tons of chicken feathers are
produced in the United States each year. They are generally incinerated, or
fed to chickens and other barnyard animals. At the end of last century the
technology was developed to extract fibers from chicken feathers. Due to its
high resistance to both mechanical and thermal stress and light‐weight, these
fibers have many uses. (Wagner)
Some examples of the prototype product formulations include: strong
lightweight construction materials, biodegradable agricultural weed control
films, air filters, insulation mats, composites with natural and synthetic
polymers. Two pounds of feathers can produce about one pound of fiber
material.

• Biopolymers: Currently, several projects are developing biopolymers for

automotive use. These polymers will be biodegradable and could be used to
replace the plastics currently used in the body and interior components. If
combined with the biological fiber technologies mentioned above, this
combination could potentially replace carbon fiber.

Different battery technologies: There are a lot of new battery technologies

emerging. One of them, which was developed in 1996, is the nanotechnology‐based
lithium‐ion battery. Designers of this new battery claim that it has “unprecedented
power, safety, and life as compared to conventional Lithium technology.”
(Press Association)( Nanotechnology News)
Right now batteries are targeted at applications that require high power, high levels
of safety, and longer life. Manufactures claim that unlike conventional Lithium‐ion
batteries, batteries based on the nano‐scale electrode technology, employ new
thermally stable, non‐combustible active materials, enabling a safer cell and
allowing cost reductions such as the elimination of unnecessary battery pack
components. In addition, those batteries are made using an environmentally
friendly chemical process. All of these qualities seem to be perfect for the Tesla
Roadster.

THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION 1

1
 12 THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION

Conclusion

Evaluating the Tesla Roadster is complex task, due to the complexities inherent in
life‐cycle analysis and the complexity of an automobile. We found that this electric
car, while not a sustainable as we would have hoped, is a good step in the right
direction.
Tesla Motors is attempting to do something that many auto experts feel is
impossible: launch a new automobile on a shoestring budget. Tesla’s strategy is to
star with the luxury buyers, and have them fund the development of necessary
technologies and prove the concept. We feel that this is a strategy that can work.
Due to the startup nature of the company, their focus is to make sure that their
product is viable, and then fix the sustainability issues. Given statements by the
company and by people who we know who work there, we are confident that Tesla
Motors will continue to improve the sustainability of its cars in the future. We wish
them great success in this endeavor.
 Works Cited

Nanotechnology News. Revolutionary New Nanotechnology‐Based Lithium‐Ion

Battery. 03 November 2005. 15 February 2008
<http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1606>.
Davies, Stephen. Interview with Stephen Davies Steve Puma. San Ramon, 6 February
2008.
Eberhard, Martin and Marc Tarpenning. The 21st Century Electric Car. Whitepaper.
Tesla Motors. San Carlos, CA: Tesla Motors, 2006.
Gibson, Thomas L. Life Cycle Assessment of Advanced Materials for Automotive
Applications. Conference Report. General Motors. Detroit: Society of Automotive
Engineers International, 2000.
Grabianowski, Ed. How the Tesla Roadster Works. 10 February 2008
<http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tesla‐roadster2.htm>.
Press Association. The future is orange for hi‐tech material made from carrots. 9
February 2007. 15 February 2008
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/feb/09/news.uknews>.

Tesla Motors. Under the Skin. 10 February 2008

<http://www.teslamotors.com/design/under_the_skin.php>.
Wagner, Matt. Featherfiber maker undaunted by red tape. 2 November 2003. 15
February 2008 <http://springfield.news‐
leader.com/specialreports/innovationintheozarks/1102‐Featherfib‐205351.html>.
White, Joseph B. Electric Car Maker Aims For the Top With Sports Car. 15 October
2007. 6 February 2008
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119220246200657368.html?mod=Eyes+on+the+
Road>.
Wikipedia. Carbon fiber reinforced plastic. 30 January 2008. 10 February 2008
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite‐reinforced_plastic>.

THE TESLA ROADSTER: AN EVALUATION 1

3