4 ms·

You’re right about needing to do those other things, but if I can buy a Tesla (or whatever other EV) and charge it from my solar panels, then I’m going to do th

by nnf 3y ago

You’re right about needing to do those other things, but if I can buy a Tesla (or whatever other EV) and charge it from my solar panels, then I’m going to do that so that at least I’m helping move things in the right direction.

lisper 3y ago
That depends. Building that Tesla and those solar panels is not yet a carbon-neutral activity. So a Tesla may or may not be making things better depending on what the alternative would have been.
- defrost 3y ago
  Fair point. So what do the people and companies responsible for mining nigh on 900 million tonnes per annum of raw materials (iron ore, lithium, etc) think about this? “We believe battery-electric, green hydrogen and green ammonia will all be critical to our decarbonisation plan, and we are taking practical steps to apply the best solution to each situation,” she said. “Through our partnership with Liebherr and our acquisition of UK-based WAE Technologies, our Green Fleet team are exploring options for both battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell haul trucks. “We currently have two prototypes that we are testing, with the aim to have our first green haul truck operational at our sites during 2026.” Looks like they're aiming to make their 100+ tonne haul paks, diggers, plants, etc carbon neutral. Given the transnational footprint of Fortescue Metals and Rio Tinto is clear those practices will ripple outwards from W.Australia. I still wouldn't buy a Tesla though. https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/fortescue-and-rio-say-batteries-will-beat-hydrogen-for-trucks-20230614-p5dgj4 https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/fortescue-and-rio-say-b...
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    BHP also recently released their plans. They believe converting their mining trucks will overall save them money. https://thedriven.io/2023/06/23/bhp-says-battery-electric-cheaper-than-hydrogen-as-it-dumps-diesel-for-haul-trucks/ https://thedriven.io/2023/06/23/bhp-says-battery-electric-ch...
    - defrost 3y ago
      Big numbers, big savings. This is the way. “Each year our Australian operations use roughly 1,500 mega litres of diesel in over 1,000 pieces of equipment,” said vice president of planning and technical minerals Australia Anna Wiley. “Over half of this is used in our truck fleets. Electrification is the preferred pathway to eliminate this diesel. Part of the reason for this is energy efficiency.” Savings in both $$ and climate gases.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  People should stop using this argument. Or feel free to use it, but show your numbers. The carbon emissions to build a Tesla are less than two years of carbon emissions of an ICE car ([1], page 22). Over the average life of a car a Tesla car is estimated to reduce emissions by 55 tons of CO2-equivalent. [1] https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2022-tesla-impact-report.pdf https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2022-tesla-impact-report.pdf
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    Your source is Tesla. Do you really think they are going to release a report that says anything else?
    - credit_guy 3y ago
      A publicly traded company can bend the facts, but not by much, otherwise it commits securities fraud. A random NGO that publishes some estimation that a single Tesla emits a gazillion tons of CO2 is subject to no regulations, and has no fear of any class action lawsuit. Given that, which one should I trust more?
      - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
        Like publicly traded tobacco companies lying about addiction for decades? So naive, you must be young.
        credit_guy 3y ago
        Those companies were made to pay hundreds of billions of dollars [1]. This was unprecedented at the time. Companies have watched and learned. Will some companies still lie and cheat? As long as humans exist, that's for sure. But they will carefully think if it's worth the risk. In the Godfather, a Mafia don was saying "I Don't Like Violence. I'm A Businessman. Blood Is A Big Expense." It does not follow that mafiosi don't kill, they do. The same with companies and their public statements. "Lies are a big expense." Tesla may lie about their CO2-equivalent emissions. But that would make sense only if the additional profits brought by this lie justify the risk of an SEC investigation or a class action lawsuit. Do people buy more Teslas because they read and believe the Tesla's claims about CO2 reductions? Some do, but 90% of the Tesla buyers just care about the car. Sure, they like the green part. But very, very few Tesla buyers would buy the car if they didn't actually like it on its own merits. But leaving aside Tesla statements, their claim stands scrutiny against a back-of-the-envelope calculation. When you make a Tesla car, you follow the same process as when you build an ICE car. The differences are that in a Tesla car you put a chunky battery, and in an ICE car the engine and the transmissions are much bigger. I venture to say that the emissions savings from having smaller engine and transmission are significant, but let's be conservative and ignore that. How large are the emissions associated with manufacturing a battery? This MIT paper [2] states that the emissions for a Tesla Model 3 battery are between 2.4 and 16 tons of CO2-e. An average US car emits about 4.6 tons of CO2-e per year. So, a Teslas extra manufacturing emissions are offset in 0.5 to 3.5 years. The average is 2 years, which is in line with Tesla's claims. If anyone wants to present different numbers that contradict these numbers, please do. And just to be on equal footing, analyze the biases in those estimates too, just like you are asking me to do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre... [2] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufac...
Glench 3y ago
> You’re right about needing to do those other things, but if I can buy a Tesla (or whatever other EV) and charge it from my solar panels, then I’m going to do that so that at least I’m helping move things in the right direction. I think this is a beautiful attitude.

by nnf 3y ago

lisper 3y ago

That depends. Building that Tesla and those solar panels is not yet a carbon-neutral activity. So a Tesla may or may not be making things better depending on what the alternative would have been.

defrost 3y ago
Fair point. So what do the people and companies responsible for mining nigh on 900 million tonnes per annum of raw materials (iron ore, lithium, etc) think about this? “We believe battery-electric, green hydrogen and green ammonia will all be critical to our decarbonisation plan, and we are taking practical steps to apply the best solution to each situation,” she said. “Through our partnership with Liebherr and our acquisition of UK-based WAE Technologies, our Green Fleet team are exploring options for both battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell haul trucks. “We currently have two prototypes that we are testing, with the aim to have our first green haul truck operational at our sites during 2026.” Looks like they're aiming to make their 100+ tonne haul paks, diggers, plants, etc carbon neutral. Given the transnational footprint of Fortescue Metals and Rio Tinto is clear those practices will ripple outwards from W.Australia. I still wouldn't buy a Tesla though. https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/fortescue-and-rio-say-batteries-will-beat-hydrogen-for-trucks-20230614-p5dgj4 https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/fortescue-and-rio-say-b...
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  BHP also recently released their plans. They believe converting their mining trucks will overall save them money. https://thedriven.io/2023/06/23/bhp-says-battery-electric-cheaper-than-hydrogen-as-it-dumps-diesel-for-haul-trucks/ https://thedriven.io/2023/06/23/bhp-says-battery-electric-ch...
  - defrost 3y ago
    Big numbers, big savings. This is the way. “Each year our Australian operations use roughly 1,500 mega litres of diesel in over 1,000 pieces of equipment,” said vice president of planning and technical minerals Australia Anna Wiley. “Over half of this is used in our truck fleets. Electrification is the preferred pathway to eliminate this diesel. Part of the reason for this is energy efficiency.” Savings in both $$ and climate gases.
credit_guy 3y ago
People should stop using this argument. Or feel free to use it, but show your numbers. The carbon emissions to build a Tesla are less than two years of carbon emissions of an ICE car ([1], page 22). Over the average life of a car a Tesla car is estimated to reduce emissions by 55 tons of CO2-equivalent. [1] https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2022-tesla-impact-report.pdf https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2022-tesla-impact-report.pdf
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Your source is Tesla. Do you really think they are going to release a report that says anything else?
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    A publicly traded company can bend the facts, but not by much, otherwise it commits securities fraud. A random NGO that publishes some estimation that a single Tesla emits a gazillion tons of CO2 is subject to no regulations, and has no fear of any class action lawsuit. Given that, which one should I trust more?
    - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
      Like publicly traded tobacco companies lying about addiction for decades? So naive, you must be young.
      - credit_guy 3y ago
        Those companies were made to pay hundreds of billions of dollars [1]. This was unprecedented at the time. Companies have watched and learned. Will some companies still lie and cheat? As long as humans exist, that's for sure. But they will carefully think if it's worth the risk. In the Godfather, a Mafia don was saying "I Don't Like Violence. I'm A Businessman. Blood Is A Big Expense." It does not follow that mafiosi don't kill, they do. The same with companies and their public statements. "Lies are a big expense." Tesla may lie about their CO2-equivalent emissions. But that would make sense only if the additional profits brought by this lie justify the risk of an SEC investigation or a class action lawsuit. Do people buy more Teslas because they read and believe the Tesla's claims about CO2 reductions? Some do, but 90% of the Tesla buyers just care about the car. Sure, they like the green part. But very, very few Tesla buyers would buy the car if they didn't actually like it on its own merits. But leaving aside Tesla statements, their claim stands scrutiny against a back-of-the-envelope calculation. When you make a Tesla car, you follow the same process as when you build an ICE car. The differences are that in a Tesla car you put a chunky battery, and in an ICE car the engine and the transmissions are much bigger. I venture to say that the emissions savings from having smaller engine and transmission are significant, but let's be conservative and ignore that. How large are the emissions associated with manufacturing a battery? This MIT paper [2] states that the emissions for a Tesla Model 3 battery are between 2.4 and 16 tons of CO2-e. An average US car emits about 4.6 tons of CO2-e per year. So, a Teslas extra manufacturing emissions are offset in 0.5 to 3.5 years. The average is 2 years, which is in line with Tesla's claims. If anyone wants to present different numbers that contradict these numbers, please do. And just to be on equal footing, analyze the biases in those estimates too, just like you are asking me to do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre... [2] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufac...

Glench 3y ago

> You’re right about needing to do those other things, but if I can buy a Tesla (or whatever other EV) and charge it from my solar panels, then I’m going to do that so that at least I’m helping move things in the right direction. I think this is a beautiful attitude.