3 ms·
TLDR: the study referenced is inherently flawed. Among others: * It used outdated NEDC tests instead of WLTP numbers. (Diesel) car makers are known to have che
by NiekvdMaas 7y ago
TLDR: the study referenced is inherently flawed. Among others:
* It used outdated NEDC tests instead of WLTP numbers. (Diesel) car makers are known to have cheated NEDC tests for decades, using corrected WLTP numbers changes the whole story.
* It exaggerated the CO2 emissions for production of batteries, Tesla's Gigafactory emits 2.6x less CO2 per kWh than assumed.
* It assumed a battery lifespan of just 150k km. Tesla's rated battery lifespan is over 2M km, so taking 300k as very conservative number changes the calculation significantly.
* It assumed an energy mix of today, instead of an increasing share of renewable energy in the future.
Using corrected data, the Tesla emits actually 63% less CO2 instead of 11-28% more.
- pdpi 7y ago> It assumed an energy mix of today, instead of an increasing share of renewable energy in the future. This is probably worth top billing. Even if electric vehicles were to produce more pollution _today_, they would still be a positive in that it would move a large part of the pollution problem upstream, where we have many more strategies available to solve it. Not entirely unlike an abstraction layer that produces worse performance today but enables performance-optimising refactoring tomorrow.