3 ms·

Do you have a source for tesla being a net producer of CO2? Your assertion goes against my understanding that even when powered by coal plants, it is less CO2 p

Do you have a source for tesla being a net producer of CO2? Your assertion goes against my understanding that even when powered by coal plants, it is less CO2 per mile and over lifetime of vehicle as well.

robocat 7y ago
Sorry, I probably shouldn't have mentioned Tesla since it tends to provoke needless reaction. However: 1. A geeky acquantance bought a Tesla X in New Zealand. I think it cost $200000. To me, that price implies a large amount of embedded energy. He felt he was helping the world, but by my calculations it wasn't. 2. In New Zealand a large amount of our power comes from hydroelectricity, so electric car owners are often smug. But every marginal extra kWh consumed comes from gas, so electric cars here indirectly use hydrocarbons (that's because virtually 100% of our hydro is already allocated). There are arguments about efficiency, but those arguments are hollow for expensive cars, or for low kilometres. 3. The electric car industry would have happened even without Tesla. They rightly claim some speedup of the market, which implies some gains (if we are careful to ensure electric cars don't cause more CO₂ than other transport options through other side effects). I don't see buyers being careful about finding real facts, and sellers don't really care to give them, so it is hard to know where the truth lies. 4. We import a lot of used cars from Japan, something like a second-hand Prius will usually be far better for the environment for most people than a Tesla IMHO. Obviously non-car choices, or to offset the CO₂ might be better still.
- Ancalagon 7y ago
  I also want to point out a lot of CO2 comes from the manufacturing process as well, and buying a lightly used vehicle that is a hybrid or runs on gas might actually be better than buying a new car.
McWobbleston 7y ago
It typically is unless you're comparing it to an efficient hybrid vehicle in certain areas. I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13 kg tons* C02 to produce, and found in my area a Tesla Model 3 getting ~58mpg equivalent to charge has a similar CO2 output as a 44mpg vehicle over 200k miles I'd say the Tesla still wins since you can likely recycle that 75kWh pack for energy storage afterwards, but it was interesting to see
- robocat 7y ago
  > I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13kg C02 to produce That just sounds completely unbelievable to me. "That same battery if Elon is the believed will cost Tesla $100 per kWh by the end of 2018" so let's underestimate that it costs $7500 to the consumer. And let's say a barrel of crude costs $60, 13kg of CO2 is $2.50. I think that is 0.0325% embedded energy - I can't see how that could come close to covering transport costs, let alone all the other CO2 uses in the production. My crude heuristic is that $ cost indicates CO2 production, which helps when smelling the whacky numbers thrown around by most sources.
  - McWobbleston 7y ago
    You're right, I meant to say 13,000kg.
    - robocat 7y ago
      Even that is only the battery, and it works out to be very roughly 1 litre of crude per dollar. 2.5 kg CO2 per litre of crude, USD60 for a barrel, 160 litres per barrel. So 40% of $7500 cost is embedded energy by my calculations. So let's say a USD35000 car is 35000 embedded litres of crude, which is 500 tanks full. Of course you need to compare against embedded energy in whatever other car you might choose to use. All the above doesn't matter too much to me, since I simply believe that cost is the most honest estimate for CO2 production I can use. Which doesn't mean I don't want a high salary, but it does mean I don't have kids!

robocat 7y ago

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have mentioned Tesla since it tends to provoke needless reaction. However: 1. A geeky acquantance bought a Tesla X in New Zealand. I think it cost $200000. To me, that price implies a large amount of embedded energy. He felt he was helping the world, but by my calculations it wasn't. 2. In New Zealand a large amount of our power comes from hydroelectricity, so electric car owners are often smug. But every marginal extra kWh consumed comes from gas, so electric cars here indirectly use hydrocarbons (that's because virtually 100% of our hydro is already allocated). There are arguments about efficiency, but those arguments are hollow for expensive cars, or for low kilometres. 3. The electric car industry would have happened even without Tesla. They rightly claim some speedup of the market, which implies some gains (if we are careful to ensure electric cars don't cause more CO₂ than other transport options through other side effects). I don't see buyers being careful about finding real facts, and sellers don't really care to give them, so it is hard to know where the truth lies. 4. We import a lot of used cars from Japan, something like a second-hand Prius will usually be far better for the environment for most people than a Tesla IMHO. Obviously non-car choices, or to offset the CO₂ might be better still.

Ancalagon 7y ago
I also want to point out a lot of CO2 comes from the manufacturing process as well, and buying a lightly used vehicle that is a hybrid or runs on gas might actually be better than buying a new car.

McWobbleston 7y ago

It typically is unless you're comparing it to an efficient hybrid vehicle in certain areas. I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13 kg tons* C02 to produce, and found in my area a Tesla Model 3 getting ~58mpg equivalent to charge has a similar CO2 output as a 44mpg vehicle over 200k miles I'd say the Tesla still wins since you can likely recycle that 75kWh pack for energy storage afterwards, but it was interesting to see

robocat 7y ago
> I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13kg C02 to produce That just sounds completely unbelievable to me. "That same battery if Elon is the believed will cost Tesla $100 per kWh by the end of 2018" so let's underestimate that it costs $7500 to the consumer. And let's say a barrel of crude costs $60, 13kg of CO2 is $2.50. I think that is 0.0325% embedded energy - I can't see how that could come close to covering transport costs, let alone all the other CO2 uses in the production. My crude heuristic is that $ cost indicates CO2 production, which helps when smelling the whacky numbers thrown around by most sources.
- McWobbleston 7y ago
  You're right, I meant to say 13,000kg.
  - robocat 7y ago
    Even that is only the battery, and it works out to be very roughly 1 litre of crude per dollar. 2.5 kg CO2 per litre of crude, USD60 for a barrel, 160 litres per barrel. So 40% of $7500 cost is embedded energy by my calculations. So let's say a USD35000 car is 35000 embedded litres of crude, which is 500 tanks full. Of course you need to compare against embedded energy in whatever other car you might choose to use. All the above doesn't matter too much to me, since I simply believe that cost is the most honest estimate for CO2 production I can use. Which doesn't mean I don't want a high salary, but it does mean I don't have kids!