7 ms·

Most of the environmental impact of a car is in its manufacturing, so global warming is made worse by Tesla selling more cars instead of people buying older one

by 115100 10y ago

Most of the environmental impact of a car is in its manufacturing, so global warming is made worse by Tesla selling more cars instead of people buying older ones.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> Most of the environmental impact of a car is in its manufacturing Do you have a reference for this?
- JimmyAustin 10y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...
  - anindha 10y ago
    It depends on the car you own, the one you are buying and how much you drive. If you don't drive a lot and have a fuel efficient car, keep the car. If you own a Land Rover and drive a lot, buying a Tesla you'd be up over a few years. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093657_buying-a-new-car-is-greener-than-driving-an-old-one-really http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093657_buying-a-new-car...
pcarolan 10y ago
Source?
anindha 10y ago
Tesla aims to make their cars last 10 times longer than the average gasoline car. There are less things that can go wrong with an electric car. They are creating ways to increase utility on each car. Less people will need their own car. Edit: I should clarify. Tesla is aiming to make their drive trains last 1m miles. Most car companies don't offer extended warranty past 100k miles. Normal car companies want you to buy a new car at that point. https://electrek.co/2015/11/04/musk-we-want-drive-units-that-just-never-wear-out-tesla-targets-powertrains-lasting-1-million-miles/ https://electrek.co/2015/11/04/musk-we-want-drive-units-that...
- ulfw 10y ago
  Ten times longer. Where is the proof in that hyperbole statement? So a Tesla lasts 200 years? And really - lithium ion batteries don't go bad ever? Of course an electric car needs less maintenance on engine, transmission etc. But it is by no means no maintenance. Especially a Tesla. See all the reports of people reporting how much repairing and maintenance they have to do. http://gas2.org/2016/05/21/2012-tesla-model-s-needs-8500-brake-repair/ http://gas2.org/2016/05/21/2012-tesla-model-s-needs-8500-bra...
- RealityVoid 10y ago
  Are you kidding me? 10 times longer lifespan is _huge_, if we assume the average car lasts only 10 years that would mean you'd be able to use a Tesla for 100 years. That is totally not happening, especially with Tesla's reluctance to share maintenance manuals. It seems, on the contrary, that the Tesla cars have lower life-span than classic combustion engine cars.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Elon has specifically said he's targeted a million miles of reliabiiity on the drivetrain. Maybe not 10 times longer, but still far more service life than a traditional ICE. Tesla doesn't need to share the repair manuals. You're not touching the battery pack internals or the electric motors; if they fail, they are swapped out entirely and sent to the Gigafactory refurbishment line.
    - RealityVoid 10y ago
      The Tesla is far more than a battery pack on wheels. There are plenty of things that can fail and need to be repaired. Failing to facilitate that means the lifespan of the car si significantly reduced.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Could you be specific what non-drivetrain components could fail that can't easily be swapped out on site or at a service center?
JimmyAustin 10y ago
True, but it's easier to fix those causes. It's a lot harder to take the millions of ICE cars off the road then it is to cleanup the environmental impact of a lithium mine.
- RealityVoid 10y ago
  It's not about lithium mines per se... it's about needing a new car and not a used one since you're buying a (new) Tesla. That means extra carbon in the atmosphere.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    New cars will be made and sold anyway; what Tesla is trying to do is to ensure that those new cars will all be electric.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Sure, as an individual I can always buy a used car. But that doesn't change much globally: cars are generally driven until they're uneconomic. If not by me, then by someone else. Put another way: if too many people buy new cars, then the price of used cars falls. There are enough people who compare the value of used cars vs new ones that a lower used car price causes them to prefer used over new. This is a fundamental feature of the car market, and that's why car dealers make it easy for you to trade in your used car.
sweden 10y ago
What is a better situation: having a polluting factory making polluting cars or having a polluting factory making eco-friendly cars? Maybe if the automotive industry had made this step a long ago, we could have been buying old but eco-friendly electric cars right now instead of buying gas/petrol cars. On another perspective, Tesla is also heavily investing in self-driving technology. So we could even stop buying cars and start using a fleet of unmanned self-driving cars which are also friendly to the environment.
- tombone12 10y ago
  Buying an 8 year old car means buying a used car, no? In that case you are comparing the polluting factory to no factory at all. Fleets of self driving cars are called public transport or taxis (depends on your preference), and have been around for a while. The environmental benefit of exchanging the bus driver with a more efficient steering method is probably offset by the idea that the inefficiencies of cars compared to buses for mass transit. Probably a net win for taxis though, but nothing revolutionary.
  - sweden 10y ago
    But a 8 year old car nowadays means a polluting car, not an electric one. I don't see fleets of self driving cars being the same as public transportation or as taxis, I view them as something between private transportation and public transportation, an enhanced version of the we nowadays call car pooling. A self driving vehicle can be a private one but at the same time, it could be also used to provide rides to other people other than the owner. For example: I am imagining that it would make it easier for companies and work places to arrange an efficient transportation to their employees without relying on the local governments or in public transportation agencies. But I admit that expecting this to be revolutionary and game changing for the environment might be a bit of a stretch.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
It's made worse in short term this way, yes. But the car production happens and will happen anyway - Musk is only a small fraction of that now. Tesla is aiming to convince everyone to switch to eco-friendly cars, which means that besides adding its own production, it's basically trying to force everyone else's production to switch to making electric cars. So you can't look just at this year's increase in numbers of cars manufactured vs. environmental savings of those cars when in use. You want to look at how car manufacturing and use will evolve over the years. Tesla is trying to change the trajectory of the entire industry, and so far it seems to be succeeding.
- dilemma 10y ago
  Are there any credible sources that show Teslas as more environmentally friendly? Electric vehicles run on coal and natural gas to varyingly large extents.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    They also run on nuclear power and wind power and solar power - it all depends on what a local power grid uses. But regardless, burning fuel at a power plant is much more efficient than doing it in an ICE, so even if Teslas were powered by gasoline, as long as it's burned at the central plant, it's more energy-efficient and better for the environment.
    - wott 10y ago
      Uh? Straight fuel -> mechanical energy conversion is less efficient than a series of fuel -> heat -> mechanical energy -> electrical energy -> transportation -> storage -> mechanical energy conversions?
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Yes, because ICEs are very inefficient compared to both electric motors and powerplant turbines. In the latter case, scale buys efficiency. And that's all before you factor in the transport costs of car fuel - gotta burn the fuel to move fuel to top up the gas stations, after all.
xiphias 10y ago
This not true, but also you have to look at the huge solar panel on top of the Tesla Gigafactory that decreases the footprint even more. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-foot-print-of-manufacturing-a-Tesla https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-foot-print-of-manuf... Also I'm biased because I'm suffering from COPD because of the car emissions, so actually I take health impact into account more than most people.
- hyperbovine 10y ago
  The Gigafactory makes batteries, not cars. Having toured Teslas factory in Fremont, it sure looked pretty carbon intensive to me. I'm thinking of the house-sized aluminum press, hundreds of giant robotic arms, etc.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Everything at the factory you described runs on electricity, most likely clean renewable electricity. And if not, it will be shortly as solar and wind continue to drive out fossil fuels in the electrical generating mix.
jernfrost 10y ago
It is starting to be a while ago since that was true. Today usage by far contributes most to pollution, not the manufacturing.

by 115100 10y ago

Most of the environmental impact of a car is in its manufacturing, so global warming is made worse by Tesla selling more cars instead of people buying older ones.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

> Most of the environmental impact of a car is in its manufacturing Do you have a reference for this?

JimmyAustin 10y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...
- anindha 10y ago
  It depends on the car you own, the one you are buying and how much you drive. If you don't drive a lot and have a fuel efficient car, keep the car. If you own a Land Rover and drive a lot, buying a Tesla you'd be up over a few years. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093657_buying-a-new-car-is-greener-than-driving-an-old-one-really http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093657_buying-a-new-car...

pcarolan 10y ago

Source?

anindha 10y ago

Tesla aims to make their cars last 10 times longer than the average gasoline car. There are less things that can go wrong with an electric car. They are creating ways to increase utility on each car. Less people will need their own car. Edit: I should clarify. Tesla is aiming to make their drive trains last 1m miles. Most car companies don't offer extended warranty past 100k miles. Normal car companies want you to buy a new car at that point. https://electrek.co/2015/11/04/musk-we-want-drive-units-that-just-never-wear-out-tesla-targets-powertrains-lasting-1-million-miles/ https://electrek.co/2015/11/04/musk-we-want-drive-units-that...

ulfw 10y ago
Ten times longer. Where is the proof in that hyperbole statement? So a Tesla lasts 200 years? And really - lithium ion batteries don't go bad ever? Of course an electric car needs less maintenance on engine, transmission etc. But it is by no means no maintenance. Especially a Tesla. See all the reports of people reporting how much repairing and maintenance they have to do. http://gas2.org/2016/05/21/2012-tesla-model-s-needs-8500-brake-repair/ http://gas2.org/2016/05/21/2012-tesla-model-s-needs-8500-bra...
RealityVoid 10y ago
Are you kidding me? 10 times longer lifespan is _huge_, if we assume the average car lasts only 10 years that would mean you'd be able to use a Tesla for 100 years. That is totally not happening, especially with Tesla's reluctance to share maintenance manuals. It seems, on the contrary, that the Tesla cars have lower life-span than classic combustion engine cars.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Elon has specifically said he's targeted a million miles of reliabiiity on the drivetrain. Maybe not 10 times longer, but still far more service life than a traditional ICE. Tesla doesn't need to share the repair manuals. You're not touching the battery pack internals or the electric motors; if they fail, they are swapped out entirely and sent to the Gigafactory refurbishment line.
  - RealityVoid 10y ago
    The Tesla is far more than a battery pack on wheels. There are plenty of things that can fail and need to be repaired. Failing to facilitate that means the lifespan of the car si significantly reduced.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Could you be specific what non-drivetrain components could fail that can't easily be swapped out on site or at a service center?

JimmyAustin 10y ago

True, but it's easier to fix those causes. It's a lot harder to take the millions of ICE cars off the road then it is to cleanup the environmental impact of a lithium mine.

RealityVoid 10y ago
It's not about lithium mines per se... it's about needing a new car and not a used one since you're buying a (new) Tesla. That means extra carbon in the atmosphere.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  New cars will be made and sold anyway; what Tesla is trying to do is to ensure that those new cars will all be electric.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Sure, as an individual I can always buy a used car. But that doesn't change much globally: cars are generally driven until they're uneconomic. If not by me, then by someone else. Put another way: if too many people buy new cars, then the price of used cars falls. There are enough people who compare the value of used cars vs new ones that a lower used car price causes them to prefer used over new. This is a fundamental feature of the car market, and that's why car dealers make it easy for you to trade in your used car.

sweden 10y ago

What is a better situation: having a polluting factory making polluting cars or having a polluting factory making eco-friendly cars? Maybe if the automotive industry had made this step a long ago, we could have been buying old but eco-friendly electric cars right now instead of buying gas/petrol cars. On another perspective, Tesla is also heavily investing in self-driving technology. So we could even stop buying cars and start using a fleet of unmanned self-driving cars which are also friendly to the environment.

tombone12 10y ago
Buying an 8 year old car means buying a used car, no? In that case you are comparing the polluting factory to no factory at all. Fleets of self driving cars are called public transport or taxis (depends on your preference), and have been around for a while. The environmental benefit of exchanging the bus driver with a more efficient steering method is probably offset by the idea that the inefficiencies of cars compared to buses for mass transit. Probably a net win for taxis though, but nothing revolutionary.
- sweden 10y ago
  But a 8 year old car nowadays means a polluting car, not an electric one. I don't see fleets of self driving cars being the same as public transportation or as taxis, I view them as something between private transportation and public transportation, an enhanced version of the we nowadays call car pooling. A self driving vehicle can be a private one but at the same time, it could be also used to provide rides to other people other than the owner. For example: I am imagining that it would make it easier for companies and work places to arrange an efficient transportation to their employees without relying on the local governments or in public transportation agencies. But I admit that expecting this to be revolutionary and game changing for the environment might be a bit of a stretch.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

It's made worse in short term this way, yes. But the car production happens and will happen anyway - Musk is only a small fraction of that now. Tesla is aiming to convince everyone to switch to eco-friendly cars, which means that besides adding its own production, it's basically trying to force everyone else's production to switch to making electric cars. So you can't look just at this year's increase in numbers of cars manufactured vs. environmental savings of those cars when in use. You want to look at how car manufacturing and use will evolve over the years. Tesla is trying to change the trajectory of the entire industry, and so far it seems to be succeeding.

dilemma 10y ago
Are there any credible sources that show Teslas as more environmentally friendly? Electric vehicles run on coal and natural gas to varyingly large extents.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  They also run on nuclear power and wind power and solar power - it all depends on what a local power grid uses. But regardless, burning fuel at a power plant is much more efficient than doing it in an ICE, so even if Teslas were powered by gasoline, as long as it's burned at the central plant, it's more energy-efficient and better for the environment.
  - wott 10y ago
    Uh? Straight fuel -> mechanical energy conversion is less efficient than a series of fuel -> heat -> mechanical energy -> electrical energy -> transportation -> storage -> mechanical energy conversions?
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Yes, because ICEs are very inefficient compared to both electric motors and powerplant turbines. In the latter case, scale buys efficiency. And that's all before you factor in the transport costs of car fuel - gotta burn the fuel to move fuel to top up the gas stations, after all.

xiphias 10y ago

This not true, but also you have to look at the huge solar panel on top of the Tesla Gigafactory that decreases the footprint even more. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-foot-print-of-manufacturing-a-Tesla https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-foot-print-of-manuf... Also I'm biased because I'm suffering from COPD because of the car emissions, so actually I take health impact into account more than most people.

hyperbovine 10y ago
The Gigafactory makes batteries, not cars. Having toured Teslas factory in Fremont, it sure looked pretty carbon intensive to me. I'm thinking of the house-sized aluminum press, hundreds of giant robotic arms, etc.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Everything at the factory you described runs on electricity, most likely clean renewable electricity. And if not, it will be shortly as solar and wind continue to drive out fossil fuels in the electrical generating mix.

jernfrost 10y ago

It is starting to be a while ago since that was true. Today usage by far contributes most to pollution, not the manufacturing.