5 ms·

Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel ones, German study shows

14 points by kerng 8y ago

jnurmine 8y ago
"When all these factors are considered, each Tesla emits 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometre, which is more than a comparable diesel vehicle produced by the German company Mercedes, for example." Well, since they are considering all factors, the next step would be to consider the costs of diesel, too, starting with oil drilling, transport, etc. culminating in the subsequent burning of diesel in the engine.
- m463 8y ago
  there's always bunker fuel (a few transport vessels pollute more than all the cars in the world)
  - Arnt 8y ago
    Please stop to think when you read such things on Twitter or wherever. Here's what you should think: If a few map to all the cars in the world, then one really big vessel maps to the cars in Europe, perhaps? That fuel was chosen because it's cheap and a tankful can propel a giant loaded ship from Shanghai to Rotterdam, and that tank is small enough to leave most of the ship's space for payload. Is it plausible that something that fits in one tank can pollute as much as all the cars in Europe? Or is there something fishy about the computation or comparison?
    - m463 8y ago
      I believe when I read this, the pollutant was sulfer. So it's not CO2.
  - detaro 8y ago
    In one specific type of pollution.
    - Gibbon1 8y ago
      Yeah I think half a percent or some such of the energy in bunker fuel is from sulfur. One thing that is often missed is large ships are very fuel efficient compared to trucks.
woadwarrior01 8y ago
“The CO2 given off to produce the electricity that powers such vehicles also needs to be factored in”. They seem to be assuming that electricity production is always going to be based off of burning fossil fuels. Also, the whole argument reeks of reductio ad absurdum.
- SigmundA 8y ago
  Even if it is mostly fossil fuels right now, the big win is decoupling fuel from vehicle so that the source of power can be changed without the vehicles having to change.
audunw 8y ago
This study (if you could call it that) has already been shown to be heavily biased and misleading. Here’s an article with comments from Norwegian fact checking site: https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/NKl/forskere-mener-tysk-elbil-rapport-er-uvitenskapelig-og-grovt-villedende https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/NKl/forskere-mener-tysk-elbi... One flaw is that it does not account for energy used and emissions related to extraction of oil and production and distribution of diesel. Another flaw is that the estimate for CO2 emissions in the production of the battery makes assumptions that we know are false in the case of Tesla. But the whole premise is also bogus. The point of EVs isn’t to cut a few percent of CO2 emissions. It’s to build towards a future where we cut ALL emissions. And it’s the only technology (possible alongside fuel cell tech, which is a branch of EVs as far as I’m concerned) that can plausibly do that for the land transportation sector. Sure you need to clean up production emissions and the grid too. But that’s problems we have to solve anyway, and are improving on every year. We can’t just go toward whatever leads to the most CO2 decreases at a given time. We need a long term plan that actually builds towards cutting all emissions. Studies like this completely miss this point, and so does people thinking their hybrid or EV is personally saving the planet for that matter.. but hey they help drive investments that actually matter so they help even if they miss the point
- MuffinFlavored 8y ago
  > One flaw is that it does not account for energy used and emissions related to extraction of oil and production and distribution of diesel. If you wanted to go that far, you'd need to account for all of the fuel used in transporting Tesla parts, right?
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Yes. This is a standard form of emissions measurement called “wheel to wheel” measurement. It includes the cost of making the raw material, transport, manufacturing, and fuel production. But the trick is that the frame of an EV really isn’t all that different than the frame of an ICE vehicle from an emissions standpoint. So all that you really need to measure is the difference in drivetrain production and operation.
namlem 8y ago
The analysis assumes the energy used for battery production is typical grid energy, whereas in reality the Gigafactory where they are made is mostly solar-powered.
- reitzensteinm 8y ago
  Do you have a source for this claim? As far as I know, that was just a plan that was not yet executed, and the building is largely uncovered: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-gigafactory-1-solar-panels-model-3-battery-production/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-gigafactory-1-solar-panels-m...
  - reitzensteinm 8y ago
    Back of the napkin calculations: From the photo, I'll assume 5% of the Gigafactory is covered. 5.5 million square feet across 3 floors [1] => 151k sqm of footprint => 7550 sqm of solar panels => 2.3 MW @ 31% capacity factor [2] => 20.1 GWh per year Tesla Model 3 production @ 252k/yr [3] => 80 kWh per Model 3 produced Enough to fill up a high end Model 3 once... [1] https://www.theverge.com/transportation/2018/11/30/18118451/tesla-gigafactory-nevada-video-elon-musk-jobs-model-3 https://www.theverge.com/transportation/2018/11/30/18118451/... [2] http://energy.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/energynvgov/content/Synapse%20Nevada%20RE%20Report%20w%20Disclaimer%20and%20Comments%20112812.pdf http://energy.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/energynvgov/content/Synap... [3] https://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/news-release-details/tesla-q1-2019-vehicle-production-deliveries https://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/news-release-details/tesl...
malshe 8y ago
The original study in German is here: http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/sd-2019-08-sinn-karl-buchal-motoren-2019-04-25.pdf http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/sd-2019-08-sinn-karl-buchal... Can anyone with German proficiency please clarify whether they took into account the carbon footprint of producing and transporting petrol, diesel, etc.?
- Arnt 8y ago
  They quote someone who else who did, and add a factor of 21% on top of the vehicle's own fuel use to account for production and transport of the fuel. They didn't add anything to account for the engine, though. They compute the carbon footprint of producing an electric engine and silently assume that the carbon footprint of producing a petrol/diesel engine is zero.
thenaturalist 8y ago
In a hurry, so unfortunately I can not translate key arguments, but there were some German publications which actively criticised this study. Summary article can be found here: https://www.electrive.net/2019/04/20/experten-entlarven-elektroauto-studie-von-hans-werner-sinn-als-unwissenschaftliche-meinungsmache/ https://www.electrive.net/2019/04/20/experten-entlarven-elek... It links to articles [0] and [1]. Most notably, though, this isn't at all a scientific or peer reviewed publication. Hans-Werner Sinn is a well known German economist, Christoph Bruchal is a material physicist and Hans-Dieter Karl seems to be a former employee of Sinn's economic institute (ifo) who isn't mentioned in any common research publication platform. [0]: https://www.focus.de/auto/elektroauto/studie-zu-klima-folgen-ifo-institut-rechnet-e-autos-schlecht-und-macht-dabei-viele-fehler_id_10611851.html https://www.focus.de/auto/elektroauto/studie-zu-klima-folgen... [1]: https://www.wiwo.de/technologie/mobilitaet/ist-das-e-auto-ein-rueckschritt-was-hans-werner-sinn-bei-seiner-elektroauto-studie-uebersehen-hat/24237236.html https://www.wiwo.de/technologie/mobilitaet/ist-das-e-auto-ei...

14 points by kerng 8y ago

"When all these factors are considered, each Tesla emits 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometre, which is more than a comparable diesel vehicle produced by the German company Mercedes, for example." Well, since they are considering all factors, the next step would be to consider the costs of diesel, too, starting with oil drilling, transport, etc. culminating in the subsequent burning of diesel in the engine.

m463 8y ago
there's always bunker fuel (a few transport vessels pollute more than all the cars in the world)
- Arnt 8y ago
  Please stop to think when you read such things on Twitter or wherever. Here's what you should think: If a few map to all the cars in the world, then one really big vessel maps to the cars in Europe, perhaps? That fuel was chosen because it's cheap and a tankful can propel a giant loaded ship from Shanghai to Rotterdam, and that tank is small enough to leave most of the ship's space for payload. Is it plausible that something that fits in one tank can pollute as much as all the cars in Europe? Or is there something fishy about the computation or comparison?
  - m463 8y ago
    I believe when I read this, the pollutant was sulfer. So it's not CO2.
- detaro 8y ago
  In one specific type of pollution.
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    Yeah I think half a percent or some such of the energy in bunker fuel is from sulfur. One thing that is often missed is large ships are very fuel efficient compared to trucks.

woadwarrior01 8y ago

“The CO2 given off to produce the electricity that powers such vehicles also needs to be factored in”. They seem to be assuming that electricity production is always going to be based off of burning fossil fuels. Also, the whole argument reeks of reductio ad absurdum.

SigmundA 8y ago
Even if it is mostly fossil fuels right now, the big win is decoupling fuel from vehicle so that the source of power can be changed without the vehicles having to change.

audunw 8y ago

This study (if you could call it that) has already been shown to be heavily biased and misleading. Here’s an article with comments from Norwegian fact checking site: https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/NKl/forskere-mener-tysk-elbil-rapport-er-uvitenskapelig-og-grovt-villedende https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/NKl/forskere-mener-tysk-elbi... One flaw is that it does not account for energy used and emissions related to extraction of oil and production and distribution of diesel. Another flaw is that the estimate for CO2 emissions in the production of the battery makes assumptions that we know are false in the case of Tesla. But the whole premise is also bogus. The point of EVs isn’t to cut a few percent of CO2 emissions. It’s to build towards a future where we cut ALL emissions. And it’s the only technology (possible alongside fuel cell tech, which is a branch of EVs as far as I’m concerned) that can plausibly do that for the land transportation sector. Sure you need to clean up production emissions and the grid too. But that’s problems we have to solve anyway, and are improving on every year. We can’t just go toward whatever leads to the most CO2 decreases at a given time. We need a long term plan that actually builds towards cutting all emissions. Studies like this completely miss this point, and so does people thinking their hybrid or EV is personally saving the planet for that matter.. but hey they help drive investments that actually matter so they help even if they miss the point

MuffinFlavored 8y ago
> One flaw is that it does not account for energy used and emissions related to extraction of oil and production and distribution of diesel. If you wanted to go that far, you'd need to account for all of the fuel used in transporting Tesla parts, right?
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Yes. This is a standard form of emissions measurement called “wheel to wheel” measurement. It includes the cost of making the raw material, transport, manufacturing, and fuel production. But the trick is that the frame of an EV really isn’t all that different than the frame of an ICE vehicle from an emissions standpoint. So all that you really need to measure is the difference in drivetrain production and operation.

namlem 8y ago

The analysis assumes the energy used for battery production is typical grid energy, whereas in reality the Gigafactory where they are made is mostly solar-powered.

reitzensteinm 8y ago
Do you have a source for this claim? As far as I know, that was just a plan that was not yet executed, and the building is largely uncovered: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-gigafactory-1-solar-panels-model-3-battery-production/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-gigafactory-1-solar-panels-m...
- reitzensteinm 8y ago
  Back of the napkin calculations: From the photo, I'll assume 5% of the Gigafactory is covered. 5.5 million square feet across 3 floors [1] => 151k sqm of footprint => 7550 sqm of solar panels => 2.3 MW @ 31% capacity factor [2] => 20.1 GWh per year Tesla Model 3 production @ 252k/yr [3] => 80 kWh per Model 3 produced Enough to fill up a high end Model 3 once... [1] https://www.theverge.com/transportation/2018/11/30/18118451/tesla-gigafactory-nevada-video-elon-musk-jobs-model-3 https://www.theverge.com/transportation/2018/11/30/18118451/... [2] http://energy.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/energynvgov/content/Synapse%20Nevada%20RE%20Report%20w%20Disclaimer%20and%20Comments%20112812.pdf http://energy.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/energynvgov/content/Synap... [3] https://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/news-release-details/tesla-q1-2019-vehicle-production-deliveries https://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/news-release-details/tesl...

malshe 8y ago

The original study in German is here: http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/sd-2019-08-sinn-karl-buchal-motoren-2019-04-25.pdf http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/sd-2019-08-sinn-karl-buchal... Can anyone with German proficiency please clarify whether they took into account the carbon footprint of producing and transporting petrol, diesel, etc.?

Arnt 8y ago
They quote someone who else who did, and add a factor of 21% on top of the vehicle's own fuel use to account for production and transport of the fuel. They didn't add anything to account for the engine, though. They compute the carbon footprint of producing an electric engine and silently assume that the carbon footprint of producing a petrol/diesel engine is zero.

thenaturalist 8y ago

In a hurry, so unfortunately I can not translate key arguments, but there were some German publications which actively criticised this study. Summary article can be found here: https://www.electrive.net/2019/04/20/experten-entlarven-elektroauto-studie-von-hans-werner-sinn-als-unwissenschaftliche-meinungsmache/ https://www.electrive.net/2019/04/20/experten-entlarven-elek... It links to articles [0] and [1]. Most notably, though, this isn't at all a scientific or peer reviewed publication. Hans-Werner Sinn is a well known German economist, Christoph Bruchal is a material physicist and Hans-Dieter Karl seems to be a former employee of Sinn's economic institute (ifo) who isn't mentioned in any common research publication platform. [0]: https://www.focus.de/auto/elektroauto/studie-zu-klima-folgen-ifo-institut-rechnet-e-autos-schlecht-und-macht-dabei-viele-fehler_id_10611851.html https://www.focus.de/auto/elektroauto/studie-zu-klima-folgen... [1]: https://www.wiwo.de/technologie/mobilitaet/ist-das-e-auto-ein-rueckschritt-was-hans-werner-sinn-bei-seiner-elektroauto-studie-uebersehen-hat/24237236.html https://www.wiwo.de/technologie/mobilitaet/ist-das-e-auto-ei...