EVs indirectly pollute, and the Tesla Model S appears to result in greater effective CO2 emissions than an SUV
Guest post by Nathan Weiss
The EPA tells us 51% of total CO2 emissions result from motor vehicle use. As a result, many environmentally-aware consumers buy hybrid and electric vehicles, including the Tesla Model S, in an effort to reduce their CO2 emissions. One can easily picture these consumers exclaiming “wealthy Republicans are destroying the planet!” when they find their Prius driving next to a ‘one percenter’ in a BMW.
According to the EPA, the Toyota Prius V generates 212g of tailpipe CO2 emissions per mile driven, while BMW offers a host of vehicles that generate less than 140g of CO2 per km (225g per mile) driven. In fact, there are now quite a few new vehicles on the road that emit between 240g and 280g of CO2 per mile driven, including the Chevy Cruze and the base model Honda Civic. Hop into a Honda Civic hybrid and your tailpipe CO2 emissions fall to just 202g per mile. So where does the Tesla Model S stand in terms of effective CO2 emissions?
Tesla Motors implies that the Model S sedan effectively emits 176g of CO2 per mile driven, although we believe the power consumption estimate Tesla uses for these calculations – 300 miles per 85 kWh consumed – is unrealistic. Furthermore, unlike gasoline-powered vehicles, electric vehicles utilizing lithium-based batteries suffer charging inefficiencies of roughly 10% to 20% and often consume meaningful amounts of energy when they sit idle – especially in cold weather. If we incorporate charging and idle losses, using data provided by Model S owners, we calculate that the effective CO2 emissions of an average Model S are roughly 394 g per mile. It gets worse: Other research shows the massive amounts of energy needed to create an 85 kWh lithium-ion battery results in effective CO2 emissions of 153g per mile over the life of a Model S battery, based on our assumptions. When the CO2 emitted during the production of the battery pack are incorporated, we believe the total effective CO2 emissions of an 85 kWh Model S sedan are 547g per mile – considerably more than a large SUV, such as a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which emits 443g per mile!
Despite the substantial effective CO2 emissions of the Model S sedan, Tesla received $465 mln of low-interest loans from the DOE and the $82,000 average list price luxury sedan benefits from a $7,500 Federal tax credit, as well as various state and local incentives – including a $2,500 tax credit in the state of California. In addition, government environmental credit schemes required other auto makers to pay Tesla more than $40 mln in 2012 to “offset” the emissions of their gasoline engine-equipped vehicles with credits from the more heavily polluting Model S.
More:
http://www.uniteconomics.com/files/Tesla_Motors_Is_the_Model_S_Green.pdf
So it IS green–puts out more plant food!
…many
environmentally-awareeco-sanctimonious consumers buy hybrid and electric vehicles, including the Tesla Model S, in an effort toreduce their CO2 emissionsfeel greener-than-thou.Didn’t we discuss this sort of chain-of-energy 5-7 years ago before WUWT became the internet phenomena is so richly deserves to be? (Congratulations on the 3 year consecutive Best Science Blog award, by the way)
Nothing has changed. As true today as it was back then, even without the chain of loss to deliver electrical energy.
Here’s Canada’s newest entry in the two door golf cart market…the ZENN ! ! !
Zero Emissions…No Noise….holds cases of beer AND two sets of golf clubs !
http://youtube.com/embed/Ri2BG2qOvCg?feature=player_detailpage
To see the innovation of the Tesla S compared to the 1956 Citroen DS19, the most inovative car of the last century, watch Motor Trends Head to Head competition. You will have to watch the entire 12 minute segment to see which car wins >>
You http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6CS9eBn0O8
To top it off, Fiskers is having financial problems and may become an automotive Solyndra. As if we taxpayers need another Solyndra…… http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/house-panel-looking-into-financially-troubled-fisker-billion-dollar-federal/?test=latestnews
I do love the car’s styling though.
And they just fired most of their workforce.
Windmills increase co2 instead of reducing co2, and now we find that electric cars do the same. In addition the use of ethanol increases co2 emissions. I wonder if there is any so called green technology that actually does what it’s protagonists claim. Maybe LED lighting is the silver lining to the green party cloud.
And then we have power stations converted to wood chip burning by shipping the wood chips across the Atlantic. I’d sure like to see a comprehensive co2 audit for that idiocy.
In all fairness, they should also calculate how much CO2 is used in the production of the typical non-electric, non-hybrid car. . . . .
Never mind my last post. I got Tesla and Fiskers confused.
Lady Thatcher had a minor degree in chemistry. I know of no other politician that has had any background in science (not including social science) beyond high school. Therefore governmental agencies act within a void of scientific knowledge and reasoning. Idealists can promote their venue with little or no pragmatic challenge. Where are today’s Benjamin Franklins and Thomas Jeffersons ?
.
And take one of those Teslas north, into a Canadian winter, and turn on all the heating, seat heating and de-misting, and then see what happens to your effective MPG and CO2 production.
I did go onto the Tesla site to see what they say about heating, but it is not mentioned. I am assuming that the waste-heat an electric motor cannot heat a car interior (otherwise an electric motor cannot be 98% efficient). That means battery heating, and I would suggest that will halve your range and double your CO2 emissions? Any more accurate calculations for this?
.
Government subsidizes a rich person’s plaything. Just one of the many major distortions and abuses rampant in our government.
A Tesla weighs more than a Jeep Grand Cherokee. It is also longer. A Jeep Grand Cherokee can haul more people + cargo, etc. The JGC no need for government grants. There is no energy density problem with Jeep products, and of the fuel tank goes dry you will not be required to buy a new fuel tank. Parking a Jeep at the airport for a month will not cost $30,000 in repairs.
On the plus side for the Tesla, many places are looking at programs that will partially recharge your battery at a discounted rate but will not partially fill your Jeep tank. This makes no sense to subsidize a Tesla owner.
http://www.plugincars.com/questionable-price-structure-walgreens-electric-car-charging-107402.html
Green logic is always superficial – if something “looks” green (like wind or solar) it assumes that
it IS low carbon. Looks, as they say, can be deceiving.
At a hefty 4,000 plus pounds, the Model S is going to use a goodly amount of energy, regardless
of where it comes from.
Same as the Chevy Volt claims…
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/i-was-partially-wrong/
Zenn abandoned their lead acid powered golf cart and laid off all their employees except for executives and their secretaries. Sounds like Fisker? At least with subsidies Tesla is still in business making a product. Did I say nicely subsidized?
Despite these woeful energy consumption figures, Professor David Mackay, a UK government advisor, is still pushing the lie that electric vehicles are 5x as efficient as fossil fueled cars.
Free pdf book on renewable energy (for government ministers):
Claim is bottom of page 120.
http://www.withouthotair.com
What the disingenuous professor has done, of course, is to ‘massage’ the figures:
a. He has assumed the fossil fueled car is a US gas-guzzler.
b. He has assumed that the electricity for the electric vehicle comes free – with no costs or inefficiencies of electrical power generation.
Now that is plain deceitful. And since Prof Mackay is the chief scientific adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (sic), and this pdf book was designed for government advice, this is tantamount to “Misconduct in Public Office” and the good professor should be charged under that statute.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office
.
@Ben Klijn Wilson
You beat me to it, Ben. How much CO2 was released to manufacture that gas tank, fuel pump, carburation/injection system? How much for the oversized, periodically replaced non-regenerative braking system? Etc, Etc. The comparison gets really complicated in no time at all.
“The EPA tells us 51% of total CO2 emissions result from motor vehicle use.”
The EPA says 1/2 of the world’s auto C02 emissions come from US cars.
US vehicles, including boats, planes, etc., produce about 1.2 Billion metric tons of c02, annually.
Electricity generation causes about 2.4 billion metric tons of C02, annually.
How much CO2 is produced building that SUV drivetrain? This author has an ax to grind. Instead, he should be sharpening his pencil. JP
And yet still we have Professor David Mackay, the chief scientific adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (sic), claiming that electric vehicles are 5x as efficient as fossil-fueled cars.
Free pdf book from this site.
The claim is on p120
http://www.withouthotair.com
What the professor has done here, is to assume that:
a. The fossil-fueled car is a bit of a gas-guzzler (not a diesel).
b. That the electricity for the electric car come free, with no costs of inefficiencies of production from fossil fuels.
Claims like this are highly disingenuous, to say the least, as in normal circumstances an electric car is actually some 30% less efficient that a European diesel. (And that is without taking the lithium battery manufacture and inefficiencies into account.)
Since the professor is a chief scientific adviser and the publication is for ministerial usage, it is likely that Professor Mackay is guilty of ‘Misconduct on Public Office’, and should be charges accordingly.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/
.
The IPCC AR4 SPM tells us that transport is responsible for 13.1% of emissions. WUWT.
“$82,000 average list price luxury sedan”
Hmmm. Time to trade in the DeSoto.