5 ms·

The website says: ~ 1,895 tons of CO2 emissions. According to the EPA (https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle ht

The website says: ~ 1,895 tons of CO2 emissions. According to the EPA (https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t...): "A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year." So about 420 cars worth of emissions.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
Elon has taken at least that many internal combustion engines off the road thanks to Tesla, right? /s What are the actual stats on manufacturing a Tesla vs manufacturing an internal combustion engine car? Where is the "CO2 emission breakeven"?
- lancesells 4y ago
  This is the question I would love to have answered for so many things. When is buying a used gas guzzler better than a brand new electric vehicle?
  - ajross 4y ago
    It depends more on your own use than the vehicle itself. Most old vehicles sit in garages most of the time as secondary vehicles. So extending the life of a ICE car vs. manufacturing another to do the same (light) workload is a loss. But if you're buying a vehicle to use as a rideshare or whatever for 8 hours a day, the beater is going to be much worse for emissions.
    - mikojan 4y ago
      Can you link to an article on that?
    - chris222 4y ago
      Yes, all of that can easily be boiled down to the efficiency of an electric motor versus a gasoline engine. The more miles you drive the faster you will offset any carbon from manufacturing.
  - chris222 4y ago
    BEVs on average currently take more energy than ICE to build but the difference is made up in a couple years because electric motors are so efficient compared to gas engines.
- ajross 4y ago
  A quick Google pulls up this article that says[1] "2500 miles" (to offset the energy overhead in manufacturing a 80 kWh battery assuming all the input was coal electricity): https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufac.... Basically, yes, things are as they seem and EV's carbon footprint has only a minimal manufacturing overhead to go with the extremely large consumption advantage. They aren't as good as giving up private transport entirely, but yeah: buy the Tesla. This argument doesn't fly, basically. It's just the same recycled FUD distributed by the fossil fuel industry, just coming out of the mouths of different folks now that it turns out Musk is a political enemy. [1] Among a ton of context. As always, "it's complicated". But the answer is definitely in favor of the EV.
  - culi 4y ago
    That's only looking at the production of a 80 kWh lithium-ion battery EDIT: also that's a mistaken quote. The article actually says it takes between 6,250 (all hydro) and 40,000 (all coal) miles for an ICE to produce the amount of CO2 that the manufacturing of a battery would produce. Doesn't at all account for 1. the rest of the damn car 2. emissions due to unclean energy sources But yes the battery is definitely the most polluting part of making an EV, so that is somewhat promising even though a battery's lifespan tends to last less than an ICE
    - ajross 4y ago
      The comparison is between an EV and an ICE vehicle. Surely 1 and 2 favor the EV by definition (no engine, so less material; and <100% fossil fuel usage vs. ==100%[1]), no? Where is the disadvantage you're seeing coming from? You're also forgetting: 3. Much higher energy efficiency per distance travelled. Even if you have a bunch of oil and are forced to use it to push wheels around on roads with no other energy source, EV's still win on carbon output! [1] Depending on how you classify ethanol additives, I guess. But regardless, the carbon emissions content of the electricity grid is vastly higher than any agriculturally-source fraction of the gasoline economy.
      - 4y ago
- cosmodisk 4y ago
  I don't know about electric cars, but from what I remember, for a car with ICE, it's about 8 years.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The breakeven milage is depressingly far. Electric cars take a lot more stuff and much more polluting manufacturing processes to be made. Around 2016, the total carbon footprint of a gas car was lower than a Tesla, pretty much for its entire life. It's getting better and better as energy gets cleaner, though.
  - ajross 4y ago
    What's the conversion between "depressingly" and "miles"? What you're saying is untrue, but you don't provide a cite so I don't know what to refute.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      This is an intentionally vague statement because "depressingly" means "between 5,000 and 200,000 depending on your circumstances and alternatives, and whether you take a high or low estimate of the additional pollution involved in EV manufacturing."
  - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
    So is it safe to safe that the average Tesla buyer/"consumer" is "virtue signaling" that they are actually contributing a measurable change towards climate change but instead just doing something trendy? Granted, the cars have "good tech" (fake full-self-driving claims or not).
    - Kranar 4y ago
      Never take what people on this site say at face value. If someone is unwilling to provide sources, it's usually a sign they are hiding something and you should put in some effort to independently verify their claims with reputable sources. Doing so will produce a wealth of sources that all point to OP being misinformed on this issue.
      - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
        as in I'm misinformed or somebody else?
hammock 4y ago
Can we also get this for leaders of Congress, Taylor Swift, Al Gore, etc?
- vasqw 4y ago
  [dead]
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  Taylor Swift lets the company that manages the jet (that she owns? that she leases? I have no clue) so it looks like it's all her but it's just under her name I think. I could be wrong.
  - culi 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - bb88 4y ago
    It's even possible to get a contract with the leasing company to be carbon neutral. See: https://verijet.com/ https://verijet.com/ And if they're not actually carbon neutral than the leasing company is committing fraud, not say, Taylor Swift.
    - aaomidi 4y ago
      “Carbon Neutral”
    - Yizahi 4y ago
      Carbon Neutral is bullshit. Unless they are actually sequestering gasses from the atmosphere, and they don't do it. What they are doing is buying "carbon credits" (according to their own website), which means - "someone else will be responsible for my own emissions". Running one of the worst possible businesses for emissions (vanity air travel) and having the gall to call it sustainable is rather jarring.
clnq 4y ago
Greta has some work to do.
aeroman 4y ago
Another way to think about it is in terms of average person years American: ~15 tonnes CO2 per year - 126 years European: ~10 tonnes CO2 per year - 190 years World average: ~5 tonnes CO2 per year - 379 years This one plane emits many lifetimes of CO2 per year. I don't think this accounts for non-CO2 impacts either (e.g. contrails). Multiply the years by about 2 as an estimate of that.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

MuffinFlavored 4y ago

Elon has taken at least that many internal combustion engines off the road thanks to Tesla, right? /s What are the actual stats on manufacturing a Tesla vs manufacturing an internal combustion engine car? Where is the "CO2 emission breakeven"?

lancesells 4y ago
This is the question I would love to have answered for so many things. When is buying a used gas guzzler better than a brand new electric vehicle?
- ajross 4y ago
  It depends more on your own use than the vehicle itself. Most old vehicles sit in garages most of the time as secondary vehicles. So extending the life of a ICE car vs. manufacturing another to do the same (light) workload is a loss. But if you're buying a vehicle to use as a rideshare or whatever for 8 hours a day, the beater is going to be much worse for emissions.
  - mikojan 4y ago
    Can you link to an article on that?
  - chris222 4y ago
    Yes, all of that can easily be boiled down to the efficiency of an electric motor versus a gasoline engine. The more miles you drive the faster you will offset any carbon from manufacturing.
- chris222 4y ago
  BEVs on average currently take more energy than ICE to build but the difference is made up in a couple years because electric motors are so efficient compared to gas engines.
ajross 4y ago
A quick Google pulls up this article that says[1] "2500 miles" (to offset the energy overhead in manufacturing a 80 kWh battery assuming all the input was coal electricity): https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufac.... Basically, yes, things are as they seem and EV's carbon footprint has only a minimal manufacturing overhead to go with the extremely large consumption advantage. They aren't as good as giving up private transport entirely, but yeah: buy the Tesla. This argument doesn't fly, basically. It's just the same recycled FUD distributed by the fossil fuel industry, just coming out of the mouths of different folks now that it turns out Musk is a political enemy. [1] Among a ton of context. As always, "it's complicated". But the answer is definitely in favor of the EV.
- culi 4y ago
  That's only looking at the production of a 80 kWh lithium-ion battery EDIT: also that's a mistaken quote. The article actually says it takes between 6,250 (all hydro) and 40,000 (all coal) miles for an ICE to produce the amount of CO2 that the manufacturing of a battery would produce. Doesn't at all account for 1. the rest of the damn car 2. emissions due to unclean energy sources But yes the battery is definitely the most polluting part of making an EV, so that is somewhat promising even though a battery's lifespan tends to last less than an ICE
  - ajross 4y ago
    The comparison is between an EV and an ICE vehicle. Surely 1 and 2 favor the EV by definition (no engine, so less material; and <100% fossil fuel usage vs. ==100%[1]), no? Where is the disadvantage you're seeing coming from? You're also forgetting: 3. Much higher energy efficiency per distance travelled. Even if you have a bunch of oil and are forced to use it to push wheels around on roads with no other energy source, EV's still win on carbon output! [1] Depending on how you classify ethanol additives, I guess. But regardless, the carbon emissions content of the electricity grid is vastly higher than any agriculturally-source fraction of the gasoline economy.
    - 4y ago
cosmodisk 4y ago
I don't know about electric cars, but from what I remember, for a car with ICE, it's about 8 years.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
The breakeven milage is depressingly far. Electric cars take a lot more stuff and much more polluting manufacturing processes to be made. Around 2016, the total carbon footprint of a gas car was lower than a Tesla, pretty much for its entire life. It's getting better and better as energy gets cleaner, though.
- ajross 4y ago
  What's the conversion between "depressingly" and "miles"? What you're saying is untrue, but you don't provide a cite so I don't know what to refute.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    This is an intentionally vague statement because "depressingly" means "between 5,000 and 200,000 depending on your circumstances and alternatives, and whether you take a high or low estimate of the additional pollution involved in EV manufacturing."
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  So is it safe to safe that the average Tesla buyer/"consumer" is "virtue signaling" that they are actually contributing a measurable change towards climate change but instead just doing something trendy? Granted, the cars have "good tech" (fake full-self-driving claims or not).
  - Kranar 4y ago
    Never take what people on this site say at face value. If someone is unwilling to provide sources, it's usually a sign they are hiding something and you should put in some effort to independently verify their claims with reputable sources. Doing so will produce a wealth of sources that all point to OP being misinformed on this issue.
    - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
      as in I'm misinformed or somebody else?

hammock 4y ago

Can we also get this for leaders of Congress, Taylor Swift, Al Gore, etc?

vasqw 4y ago
[dead]
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
Taylor Swift lets the company that manages the jet (that she owns? that she leases? I have no clue) so it looks like it's all her but it's just under her name I think. I could be wrong.
- culi 4y ago
  [flagged]
- bb88 4y ago
  It's even possible to get a contract with the leasing company to be carbon neutral. See: https://verijet.com/ https://verijet.com/ And if they're not actually carbon neutral than the leasing company is committing fraud, not say, Taylor Swift.
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    “Carbon Neutral”
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    Carbon Neutral is bullshit. Unless they are actually sequestering gasses from the atmosphere, and they don't do it. What they are doing is buying "carbon credits" (according to their own website), which means - "someone else will be responsible for my own emissions". Running one of the worst possible businesses for emissions (vanity air travel) and having the gall to call it sustainable is rather jarring.

clnq 4y ago

Greta has some work to do.

aeroman 4y ago

Another way to think about it is in terms of average person years American: ~15 tonnes CO2 per year - 126 years European: ~10 tonnes CO2 per year - 190 years World average: ~5 tonnes CO2 per year - 379 years This one plane emits many lifetimes of CO2 per year. I don't think this accounts for non-CO2 impacts either (e.g. contrails). Multiply the years by about 2 as an estimate of that.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]