4 ms·

> In his two-year battle to get production running at the site, Musk has expressed irritation at German laws and processes, arguing complex planning requirement

> In his two-year battle to get production running at the site, Musk has expressed irritation at German laws and processes, arguing complex planning requirements were at odds with the urgency needed to fight climate change. Meanwhile, SpaceX is going to build a 250MW gas power station in Boca Chica to be run 24/7…

bryanlarsen 5y ago
Citation needed on the 24/7. A launch complex probably has much higher peak power usage than steady state usage.
- masswerk 5y ago
  SpaceX said they wanted to run production 24/7 and this is meant to power production (not fuel processing). Regarding emissions: > SpaceX estimates that it would produce 47,522 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year once the entire Starship base kicks into high gear. The power plant alone will contribute 9,858 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year. However, as per the tabulation by ESG Hound, the emissions from this power plant are likely to exceed 1 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year. [0] https://wccftech.com/as-spacex-gears-up-to-build-natural-gas-related-infrastructure-in-an-ecologically-sensitive-area-environmental-concerns-take-a-backseat/ https://wccftech.com/as-spacex-gears-up-to-build-natural-gas...
masswerk 5y ago
Regarding the credibility of said statement, also mind that – depending on estimates and your local mix of energy production – the rather high CO2 footprint of long-range battery production is only offset after 3.5 – 15 years of average use [0]. Where average use is US millage, with millages being typically lower in Europe. So Tesla Europe will not be saving the world. What it really does, is relocating the source of emissions. [0] Compare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM and studies referred to in the description.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  The latest numbers I've heard are 6-18 months. The numbers are dropping rapidly. This makes intuitive sense because costs are dropping rapidly. It used to cost $1200/KWh to build an automotive battery, and now it's close to $100/KWh. Costs and CO2 emissions are highly correlated -- a more efficient production process uses less energy. The other big factor is the source of the electricity used to power the car. But that's a chicken and egg problem. To decarbonize transporation you need to both electrify the car and decarbonize the electricity. In other words both steps are necessary -- doing only one of the two is a huge step towards both steps getting done, but it doesn't show in the final numbers until both steps are done. It takes about 20 years to turn over the car inventory and even longer to turn over power plants, so we need to start aggressively doing both now.
  - masswerk 5y ago
    Mind that not all EVs are built the same. Maybe, EVs with smaller (possibly swappable) batteries, which are also lighter and smaller are a better fit for the specific environment. The solution offered by Tesla is very much linked to the US, the wide distances, its suburbia and the implications thereof. There's a certain possibility that it may not represent the optimum for a European scenario.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  The average car on the road in the US is 12 years old [1]. With Teslas battery degradation seems to be a non-issue [2], with the battery still having ~90% capacity after 200k miles. So except for maybe the very upper end of your range I don't see how that's evidence against electric cars reducing CO2 emissions. 1: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33457915/average-age-vehicles-on-road-12-years/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33457915/average-age-vehi... 2: https://www.inverse.com/innovation/tesla-battery-life-replacement-cost https://www.inverse.com/innovation/tesla-battery-life-replac...
  - masswerk 5y ago
    As noted, millages are typically lower in Europe. Infrastructure is less extensive, ways shorter, there's more public transport and serves a notable quantity of daily commute, and there's less need for long-range. So calculations are different for a European scenario. (Tesla cars are really built for an US environment, which is rather atypical for everywhere else.)
MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
What are they supposed to do? The local grid is ill equipped for industrial power requirements, and they need to desalinate huge amounts of water for their sound suppression system. You can't launch rockets in densely populated areas, where power might be more plentiful. Its not great, but making humans an interplanetary species is more important, especially considering that we are already de-carbonizing cars, partly thanks due to Tesla. The German NGOs are mostly being unreasonable. What they defend is a not an organic forrest, but basically an artificial wood factory with hardly any environmental value. Water consumption is apparently another issue, but its not like you use it and then its gone forever - its being cleaned.
- masswerk 5y ago
  Regarding water and the Tesla plant, mind that the plant is located in a dedicated protected area, serving an area with about 100K inhabitants. So concerns are not totally unreasonable.
  - MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
    Agree this has potentially some merit, but I gave up looking at all the issues in depth after it turned out most of them were unreasonable. Which is sad, really.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

Citation needed on the 24/7. A launch complex probably has much higher peak power usage than steady state usage.

masswerk 5y ago
SpaceX said they wanted to run production 24/7 and this is meant to power production (not fuel processing). Regarding emissions: > SpaceX estimates that it would produce 47,522 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year once the entire Starship base kicks into high gear. The power plant alone will contribute 9,858 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year. However, as per the tabulation by ESG Hound, the emissions from this power plant are likely to exceed 1 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year. [0] https://wccftech.com/as-spacex-gears-up-to-build-natural-gas-related-infrastructure-in-an-ecologically-sensitive-area-environmental-concerns-take-a-backseat/ https://wccftech.com/as-spacex-gears-up-to-build-natural-gas...

masswerk 5y ago

Regarding the credibility of said statement, also mind that – depending on estimates and your local mix of energy production – the rather high CO2 footprint of long-range battery production is only offset after 3.5 – 15 years of average use [0]. Where average use is US millage, with millages being typically lower in Europe. So Tesla Europe will not be saving the world. What it really does, is relocating the source of emissions. [0] Compare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM and studies referred to in the description.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
The latest numbers I've heard are 6-18 months. The numbers are dropping rapidly. This makes intuitive sense because costs are dropping rapidly. It used to cost $1200/KWh to build an automotive battery, and now it's close to $100/KWh. Costs and CO2 emissions are highly correlated -- a more efficient production process uses less energy. The other big factor is the source of the electricity used to power the car. But that's a chicken and egg problem. To decarbonize transporation you need to both electrify the car and decarbonize the electricity. In other words both steps are necessary -- doing only one of the two is a huge step towards both steps getting done, but it doesn't show in the final numbers until both steps are done. It takes about 20 years to turn over the car inventory and even longer to turn over power plants, so we need to start aggressively doing both now.
- masswerk 5y ago
  Mind that not all EVs are built the same. Maybe, EVs with smaller (possibly swappable) batteries, which are also lighter and smaller are a better fit for the specific environment. The solution offered by Tesla is very much linked to the US, the wide distances, its suburbia and the implications thereof. There's a certain possibility that it may not represent the optimum for a European scenario.
wongarsu 5y ago
The average car on the road in the US is 12 years old [1]. With Teslas battery degradation seems to be a non-issue [2], with the battery still having ~90% capacity after 200k miles. So except for maybe the very upper end of your range I don't see how that's evidence against electric cars reducing CO2 emissions. 1: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33457915/average-age-vehicles-on-road-12-years/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33457915/average-age-vehi... 2: https://www.inverse.com/innovation/tesla-battery-life-replacement-cost https://www.inverse.com/innovation/tesla-battery-life-replac...
- masswerk 5y ago
  As noted, millages are typically lower in Europe. Infrastructure is less extensive, ways shorter, there's more public transport and serves a notable quantity of daily commute, and there's less need for long-range. So calculations are different for a European scenario. (Tesla cars are really built for an US environment, which is rather atypical for everywhere else.)

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

What are they supposed to do? The local grid is ill equipped for industrial power requirements, and they need to desalinate huge amounts of water for their sound suppression system. You can't launch rockets in densely populated areas, where power might be more plentiful. Its not great, but making humans an interplanetary species is more important, especially considering that we are already de-carbonizing cars, partly thanks due to Tesla. The German NGOs are mostly being unreasonable. What they defend is a not an organic forrest, but basically an artificial wood factory with hardly any environmental value. Water consumption is apparently another issue, but its not like you use it and then its gone forever - its being cleaned.

masswerk 5y ago
Regarding water and the Tesla plant, mind that the plant is located in a dedicated protected area, serving an area with about 100K inhabitants. So concerns are not totally unreasonable.
- MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
  Agree this has potentially some merit, but I gave up looking at all the issues in depth after it turned out most of them were unreasonable. Which is sad, really.