Here’s why Tesla’s Master Plan 3 makes a lot of sense for a sustainable future

03 Jul 2023 James McKenzie

James McKenzie is impressed by the latest plans for a sustainable future outlined by the Tesla electric-car company

Environmental vision Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 describes a future in which the world uses vehicles powered by electricity generated from renewable energy sources such as the Sun. (Courtesy: Tesla)

Whether it’s buying Twitter for $44bn, running SpaceX, or winning approval for a clinical trial of the Neuralink brain implant, the physicist-turned-business leader Elon Musk is never far from the headlines. He was again in the news earlier this year when he promised to use an investor’s day in March to lay out his vision for a “fully sustainable future” for Tesla – the electric-car company he’s been chief executive of since 2008. Musk also said he’d explain how Tesla would scale up the firm’s operations.

Many investors and analysts had expected that Tesla would unveil a cheaper, base-model electric car. But when Musk and his team eventually presented what he had dubbed Master Plan 3 (MP3), there was much disappointment. “Master Plan 3 looks like a flop” said the Seeking Alpha financial-news website, complaining of a lack of detail, an absence of new vehicles, and nothing about, say, self-driving cars. Tesla’s stock immediately dropped by 8%.

Tesla’s first master plan was published in 2006 and called The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (Just Between You and Me). The title was tongue in cheek, but the message was clear. “Build sports car,” it explained. “Use that money to build an affordable car. Use that money to build an even more affordable car. While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options. Don’t tell anyone.”

The strategy proved successful and was followed 10 years later by Master Plan, Part Deux, presumably a nod to the 1993 spoof Rambo movie Hot Shots! Part Deux. In fact, Musk seems to be a fan of old movies. The fastest version of the Tesla Model S car is called the Plaid, while its vehicles have an acceleration mode called Ludicrous Speed, both references to the starship in the 1987 Mel Brooks movie Spaceballs.

Movie gags aside, there was more detail in the second plan than the first. “Create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage,” it said. “Expand the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments. Develop a self-driving capability that is 10x safer than manual via massive fleet learning. Enable your car to make money for you when you aren’t using it.”

Much of the luke-warm reaction to Tesla’s new master plan was simply down to the US stock markets’ notoriously short-term view of the economy

The final two aims have not yet happened but Tesla’s plan is coming along fast. Indeed, if you watch Musk’s presentation at the investor day, he believes that, with the right measures, we can sustainably support a planet with more than eight billion people. I believe that much of the luke-warm reaction to MP3 was simply down to the US stock markets’ notoriously short-term view of the economy; for them, it’s all about the quarterly figures. Trouble is, dealing with climate change requires a long-term plan.

Well-thought out

When the MP3 was published on the Tesla website in early April, an initial skim read suggested a well-thought plan that covered all the bases. But when I examined it in more detail on holiday, I was extremely impressed. Using data from the International Energy Agency, the plan reminds us that the world currently uses about 165 petawatt-hours of energy per year (PWh/yr), of which 80% is from fossil fuels. Losses and inefficiencies, however, mean that barely 36% of the total energy is actually used for the purpose intended (59 PWh/yr).

But because electrically-driven power sources are far more efficient than combustion engines, the “electric economy” only needs 82 PWh/yr to do the same work. A Tesla Model 3, for example, is 3.9 times more energy efficient than a petrol-powered Toyota Corolla, while a heat pump is 3–4 times better than a gas boiler. Of course, a truly electric economy will need vast amounts of materials to build solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and so on.

What’s more, as the MP3 report estimates, we’d need 240 TWh/yr of battery storage to manage the 30 TW power generated from solar, wind and other renewable-energy sources. That in turn would require us to spend up to $10 trillion mining, refining and manufacturing everything from concrete, glass and steel to all sorts of rare-earth elements needed in batteries.

It is an eye-watering figure but, according to the MP3 analysis, it’s actually less than the $14 trillion the world is projected to spend over the next two decades on fossil fuels. What’s more if the $10 trillion were spread out over 10 years, it would be only 1% of the world’s total GDP (currently $100 trillion) and only 0.5% if spread out over 20 years. It doesn’t sound implausible if we put our minds to it, especially when you realize that fossil-fuel firms made a total of $4 trillion in profits last year.

The challenge will be to persuade oil and gas companies to rethink their strategies because without any compunction, nothing will change how money is invested

In fact, we’d need to turn over less than 0.21% of the global land mass to build enough wind and solar power plants. Another advantage is that less mining would be required in an electrical economy than in a combustion economy. The challenge, I suspect, will be to persuade oil and gas companies to rethink their strategies because without any compunction, nothing will change how money is invested.Concrete impact Tesla reckons $10 trillion will have to spent if we are to make greater use of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries, but that’s less than the $14 trillion that fossil-fuel firms are projected to fork out over the next 20 years.(Courtesy: Shutterstock/Robert-Lucian-Crusitu)

Five steps to success

MP3 outlines five steps we need to take to reach an all-electrical economy. First, we need to switch to renewable power, which would cut our use of fossil fuels by 35%. Second, move to electrically-powered vehicles (a 21% reduction). Third, install heat pumps (a 22% saving). Fourth, get industry to switch to “green” hydrogen for processing metals and other high-temperature operations (a 17% cut). Finally, sustainably fuel planes and boats (a 5% saving).READ MORE

Why you should concentrate on this form of solar power

Of course, none of this is new. Many companies, governments and institutions around the world have been talking about the need to expand renewable energy production, while many car firms already plan to move mostly (or completely) to electric vehicles at some point in the future. But Musk – and Tesla – make the case much more clearly than most in one well-presented report. Sure, you could challenge some of the assumptions outlined in MP3, but I don’t believe anything would fundamentally change what he has to say.

The world, for example, might adopt more nuclear, geothermal or hydroelectric power. True, but that would only mean it takes us less time to get there. It could also turn out harder than we think to develop batteries and motors for electric vehicles that don’t require rare-earth metals and yet still retain their efficiency. But there are a lot of people working on this problem and who knows what technological breakthroughs lie round the corner?

Some have argued that the investment costs may be higher by 30–50% in certain areas. Yes, but whatever the precise figure, it will not materially change the points eloquently made by Musk at the end of the MP3 presentation. Tesla’s plans are entirely feasible and bring hope and optimism – not just for those who are investors in the company – but for all of us who are, ultimately, investors in the Earth.

James McKenzie is the writer of the Transactions column for Physics World about physics in industry. He is writing here in a personal capacity

FROM PHYSICSWORLD.COM    9/9/2023