3 ms·

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...
- _hypx 3y ago
  > 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. That's comparing an SUV/pickup (average vehicle sold today in the US) with a sedan. A comparable sedan, or even better a hybrid is closer to 2-3 tons per year (based on 1 gallon of gasoline = 8.8 kg of CO₂). Also, you have to include the CO₂ emissions of electricity production. At 0.818 lbs per kWh (US average from googling), that gives you roughly ~100 grams per mile. Or in the ballpark of 1.2 tons per year (12,000 miles per year average US driving). That's only a 0.8-1.8 ton reduction per year. Which is to say, at the high end of your calculations, and assuming the alternative is a efficient hybrid, then you're looking at ~20 year payback period. In other words, just using your numbers, but switching to an apples-to-apples comparison, and not ignoring grid emissions, the conclusion is totally different. NOTE: I'm assuming 1 ton = 1000 kg, so a metric ton.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    > A comparable sedan, or even better a hybrid is closer to 2-3 tons per year (based on 1 gallon of gasoline = 8.8 kg of CO₂). A non-hybrid Camry gets between 26 and 32 mpg in combined economy, according to the US government [1]. The average is about 30. The average driver in the US travels about 13500 miles per year, per the US FHWA [2]. That means about 450 galons. Times 8.8 makes 4 tons of CO2. Not 2-3. A hybrid is a completely different story. I personally think hybrids would be a much better solution towards decarbonization, but that was not what was being discussed here. [1]https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2023_Toyota_Camry.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2023_Toyota_Camry.sh...
    - _hypx 3y ago
      Switching to 12,000 miles per year and 32 MPG (exactly, not ~30, the MPG system exaggerates differences for small numbers), you get 375 gallons or 3.3 tons per year. That is the driving number I used to get 1.2 tons per year for the Tesla (100 grams per mile). Also note that people who drive longer distances tend to be highway driving. MPG numbers go up even more. So even 39 MPG is realistic. So no, my claims are not wrong. People ignore hybrids because it is an inconvenient truth. They haven’t realized that cars of the future could easily reach 50-55 MPG with minimal cost. This weakens the argument against BEVs, so they ignore it. Even though this should be the default comparison given how straightforward it is to switch all new cars to hybrids.

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...

_hypx 3y ago
> 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. That's comparing an SUV/pickup (average vehicle sold today in the US) with a sedan. A comparable sedan, or even better a hybrid is closer to 2-3 tons per year (based on 1 gallon of gasoline = 8.8 kg of CO₂). Also, you have to include the CO₂ emissions of electricity production. At 0.818 lbs per kWh (US average from googling), that gives you roughly ~100 grams per mile. Or in the ballpark of 1.2 tons per year (12,000 miles per year average US driving). That's only a 0.8-1.8 ton reduction per year. Which is to say, at the high end of your calculations, and assuming the alternative is a efficient hybrid, then you're looking at ~20 year payback period. In other words, just using your numbers, but switching to an apples-to-apples comparison, and not ignoring grid emissions, the conclusion is totally different. NOTE: I'm assuming 1 ton = 1000 kg, so a metric ton.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > A comparable sedan, or even better a hybrid is closer to 2-3 tons per year (based on 1 gallon of gasoline = 8.8 kg of CO₂). A non-hybrid Camry gets between 26 and 32 mpg in combined economy, according to the US government [1]. The average is about 30. The average driver in the US travels about 13500 miles per year, per the US FHWA [2]. That means about 450 galons. Times 8.8 makes 4 tons of CO2. Not 2-3. A hybrid is a completely different story. I personally think hybrids would be a much better solution towards decarbonization, but that was not what was being discussed here. [1]https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2023_Toyota_Camry.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2023_Toyota_Camry.sh...
  - _hypx 3y ago
    Switching to 12,000 miles per year and 32 MPG (exactly, not ~30, the MPG system exaggerates differences for small numbers), you get 375 gallons or 3.3 tons per year. That is the driving number I used to get 1.2 tons per year for the Tesla (100 grams per mile). Also note that people who drive longer distances tend to be highway driving. MPG numbers go up even more. So even 39 MPG is realistic. So no, my claims are not wrong. People ignore hybrids because it is an inconvenient truth. They haven’t realized that cars of the future could easily reach 50-55 MPG with minimal cost. This weakens the argument against BEVs, so they ignore it. Even though this should be the default comparison given how straightforward it is to switch all new cars to hybrids.