3 ms·

The second part of what you said is a widespread myth. There is a crossover point after you drive a certain number of miles in an EV, after which the lifetime

by natch 5y ago

The second part of what you said is a widespread myth. There is a crossover point after you drive a certain number of miles in an EV, after which the lifetime carbon cost is lower than that of an equivalent ICE car. For Model 3 the crossover point is estimated at around 5,000 miles. Not "many years." The sources and methodology for this estimate are discussed in detail in Tesla's 2020 Impact Report. https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2020-tesla-impact-report.pdf https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2020-tesla-impact-report.pdf Excerpt: — Variables often overlooked by other lifecycle studies: * Using Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel/energy consumption data (both of which overestimate fuel-economy and underestimate emissions) rather than real-world data; * Not considering the higher energy efficiency of Tesla’s powertrains; * Assuming the average EV needs a battery replacement at some point in its life; * Not considering emissions generated through the oil refining and the transportation process; and * Using outdated data for the carbon impact of cell manufacturing.

novok 5y ago
I like this youtube video that goes over various crossover points. The tesla beats the RAV4 prime at ~45k miles and a rav4 ICE at ~28k miles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqxaH47DTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqxaH47DTs I think 5k miles is a bit low, and using tesla as your only source biased.
- natch 5y ago
  I wouldn't count out the possibility that this YouTube channel is receiving affiliate commissions and is not as reliable a source as you think. Putting that up against Tesla, which would have a lot to lose by putting the wrong analysis into their Impact Report, I would give Tesla more credibility despite the fact that they have a vested interest here. Their vested interest is out in the open, not a secret… it's the mission of the company even.
tsimionescu 5y ago
That report compares the total lifetime emissions of a Tesla with an ICE, as far as I can tell. Also, I don't see any discussion of the cost of mining, smelting, etc the chassis and engine parts, it seems that those are acquired and not included in the production costs. Furthermore, it assumes that the car is locally built, it doesn't seem to include the cost of transporting the car and/or parts long distance. Finally, the 24.8MPG number they cite is pretty large consumption compared to the usual fuel economy of cars I've seen around me at least: it's basically 10 l/100 km, where the cars people around me own are at ~4-6 l / 100 km in real driving (maybe a difference between EU and US?). Regardless, the discussion wasn't about replacing an ICE car with an electric, it was about replacing an old ICE car with a newer ICE one. I will also note that personally I have a a very low level of trust for any statements put out by Musk's companies - they have a clear history of greatly exaggerating various good news.
- natch 5y ago
  >mining, smelting, etc the chassis Perhaps chassis costs (meaning carbon costs of making the chassis) are roughly comparable between ICE and EVs, so I suppose there was no need to focus on this in the report. >and engine parts, it seems that those are acquired Tesla motors are wound and made from scratch from raw materials on site. This data point would not be in favor of ICE cars, for the reasons you mention. Batteries on the other hand do increase the carbon cost and that's why EVs start off behind ICE cars at the start of their lifetime, catching up in terms of lower carbon used only after some period of use. >Finally, the 24.8MPG number they cite is pretty large They go by real world consumption, not manufacturer claims. Remember VW Dieselgate? Credibility is not a given in ICE circles. But you have a good point it's probably more about the EU/US difference here with US cars being gas hogs, due to size and possibly the impact of different emissions equipment in some states. >Regardless, the discussion wasn't about replacing an ICE car with an electric OK. It was one line, not so much a discussion, but it did come from you to be fair, so although I didn't read it that way, you get to decide. Still, I believe the comparison makes most sense against an EV, although it may not have been what you had in mind. If one cares enough about carbon to even make the comparison, and to try to defend the position that driving an older car is better for the environment, it doesn't make much sense to ignore the cars that are indeed better. >clear history of greatly exaggerating various good news. SpaceX and Tesla are legitimately doing great as far as I can see. Which good news were you talking about?

by natch 5y ago

novok 5y ago

I like this youtube video that goes over various crossover points. The tesla beats the RAV4 prime at ~45k miles and a rav4 ICE at ~28k miles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqxaH47DTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqxaH47DTs I think 5k miles is a bit low, and using tesla as your only source biased.

natch 5y ago
I wouldn't count out the possibility that this YouTube channel is receiving affiliate commissions and is not as reliable a source as you think. Putting that up against Tesla, which would have a lot to lose by putting the wrong analysis into their Impact Report, I would give Tesla more credibility despite the fact that they have a vested interest here. Their vested interest is out in the open, not a secret… it's the mission of the company even.

tsimionescu 5y ago

That report compares the total lifetime emissions of a Tesla with an ICE, as far as I can tell. Also, I don't see any discussion of the cost of mining, smelting, etc the chassis and engine parts, it seems that those are acquired and not included in the production costs. Furthermore, it assumes that the car is locally built, it doesn't seem to include the cost of transporting the car and/or parts long distance. Finally, the 24.8MPG number they cite is pretty large consumption compared to the usual fuel economy of cars I've seen around me at least: it's basically 10 l/100 km, where the cars people around me own are at ~4-6 l / 100 km in real driving (maybe a difference between EU and US?). Regardless, the discussion wasn't about replacing an ICE car with an electric, it was about replacing an old ICE car with a newer ICE one. I will also note that personally I have a a very low level of trust for any statements put out by Musk's companies - they have a clear history of greatly exaggerating various good news.

natch 5y ago
>mining, smelting, etc the chassis Perhaps chassis costs (meaning carbon costs of making the chassis) are roughly comparable between ICE and EVs, so I suppose there was no need to focus on this in the report. >and engine parts, it seems that those are acquired Tesla motors are wound and made from scratch from raw materials on site. This data point would not be in favor of ICE cars, for the reasons you mention. Batteries on the other hand do increase the carbon cost and that's why EVs start off behind ICE cars at the start of their lifetime, catching up in terms of lower carbon used only after some period of use. >Finally, the 24.8MPG number they cite is pretty large They go by real world consumption, not manufacturer claims. Remember VW Dieselgate? Credibility is not a given in ICE circles. But you have a good point it's probably more about the EU/US difference here with US cars being gas hogs, due to size and possibly the impact of different emissions equipment in some states. >Regardless, the discussion wasn't about replacing an ICE car with an electric OK. It was one line, not so much a discussion, but it did come from you to be fair, so although I didn't read it that way, you get to decide. Still, I believe the comparison makes most sense against an EV, although it may not have been what you had in mind. If one cares enough about carbon to even make the comparison, and to try to defend the position that driving an older car is better for the environment, it doesn't make much sense to ignore the cars that are indeed better. >clear history of greatly exaggerating various good news. SpaceX and Tesla are legitimately doing great as far as I can see. Which good news were you talking about?