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
John Parsons says:
April 10, 2013 at 11:08 pm
“And just how low did I claim they were Dirk?”
You evaded any such claim; so is 50% too low? Whatcha say? 75%? I’d go with that as well; I have use for a sub 100 km range car.
“The author adds the CO2 cost of the batts on the EV, “based on our assumptions”. That “assumption” needs some supporting documentation. He also talks about “idle” losses of lithium ion batteries in the 20-30 percent range. Lithium ion batteries are known to have very low “idle” losses. It’s why the can sit on a store shelf 10 years and still be guaranteed.”
Google the difference between a non rechargeable Lithium cell and a rechargeable Li-Ion battery. You know not what you are talking about.
“Anyway you cut it though Dirk, an emerging technology is going to cost more than a mature technology. When economies of scale become equal, that equation can reverse.”
The ingredients of an EV are mature technology. For Renault and Nissan, building the vehicle around those ingredients is mature technology. Some parts like the transmission and the generator fall away, reducing the cost.
Setting up an assembly line to produce a new kind of car is something the bulk producers do every five years for each of their lines; i.e. ALL THE TIME. This is their CORE EXPERTISE; they stay in business because they know how to set up the next assembly line.
I don’t care whether Tesla’s are handmade and bespoke and whatnot; I was explicitly mentioning the Nissan/Renault products because they have intentionally targeted a bulk production, trusting in promises by EU politicians to have a million EV’s on the road real soon now. So they tried from the start to reap all the economies of scale you aim for when setting up a car factory. They now have two years worth of production sitting on parking lots. If they’re halfway smart they haven’t installed batteries.
As for the Li-Ion batteries: I don’t know what Tesla puts into the Tesla S but they crammed thousands of notebook batteries into the Tesla Elise or what it was called. They did this BECAUSE the notebook batteries were a mature mass produced item.
Phil’s Dad:
I write to knit-pick and to provide a request in response to your April 11, 2013 at 4:01 am which says
Perhaps that demonstration is the purpose of Tesla cars and – if so – then it has been fulfilled.
But, so what?
Electric milk floats and golf buggies are built, sold, and used because they are the best option for their purpose. Most golf buggies would be petrol powered if petrol-powered golf buggies were more economic, more convenient, and useful than electric golf buggies.
Similarly, petrol powered cars are built, sold, and used because they are the best option for their purpose.
And this does raise the issue of subsidies.
It is not reasonable to subsidise luxury items that have no purpose except as rich-boys-toys.
Super-cars are luxury items purchased for fun. There would be public outrage if Bugatti and Ferrari cars were subsidised from the public purse.
As your analogy admits, purchase of Tesla cars also has no purpose except for their use as rich-boys-toys. Perhaps you would be willing to point this out to your Parliamentary colleagues?
Richard
Here in the UK we have the ludicrous situation of tax incentives being given to company car drivers to drive these low-CO2 emitting vehicles (not to mention large cash discounts funded by the taxpayer). The figures used to determine the tax base for the cars are, of course, the manufacturers idealised numbers, assuming the cars are driven economically. In the real world, company car drivers don’t generally have time to drive like saints, so my taxes are wasted.
John F. Hultquist:
Another question: Is there an electric pick-up that will pull a 4-horse trailer and all related gear from Biggs Junction [el. 67 m] on the Columbia River south to Madras [el. 683 m] and the grasslands to the southeast.?
Can’t argue with your point, John. But hey, when your batteries poop out halfway out of the Columbia Gorge, you’ve got four good horses….
I’m now confused. I need help. Nathan’s article begins “The EPA tells us 51% of total CO2 emissions result from motor vehicle use.” Call me suspicious, but I assume EPA’s remarkably high percentage refers to the global ‘man-made’ part of total CO2 only – and not all the natural occurring stuff (all respiration including cellular, photosynthesis, volcanoes, natural wildfires, decomposition, calcification, flatulence, natural fermentation, etc., etc.).
A Request. Bearing in mind that only 0.0314% (1 x 3,200th) of the total atmospheric volume is CO2 (with 96.775% of this measly amount occurring naturally), does anyone have a ‘reliable’ CO2 emission percentage breakdown for all the other ‘unnatural’ man-made ways we make this stuff? If you cannot provide it, please point me in the right direction. It would be interesting to see because I doubt wether the EPA’s remaining 49% is enough to cover it.
Excluding 51% for ‘motor vehicles’ (EPA), I need the remaining 49% breakdown for:
Burning of oil, kerosene, paraffin & paraffin wax.
Burning of coal, natural gas, peat, ethanol & nitro-methane.
Burning of timber, bio-mass, charcoal manufacture & incineration.
Global alcoholic beverage market’s CO2 emissions from all fermentation (plus beer dispensing).
Worldwide carbonated soft drinks industry & decaffeinated coffee process emissions.
Bread, snack foods & baking industry (yeast & sodium bicarbonate used everyday worldwide).
Other foodstuff manufacture & processes (yeast extract, modified air packaging, dry ice).
All refrigerant gas (incl. air conditioning).
Global industrial processes (welding coolants, lime kilns, sand blasting, laser cutting).
Propellants (extinguishers, air bags, life jackets, exit slides).
TV, stage, film & theatre (smoke effects, CO2 stunt cannons, etc.).
Controlling Ph of water (sewage treatment, swimming pools).
All lime scale removal products, liver salts & denture cleaning products.
and . . . . Anything we throw on the garden compost (peelings, clippings, garden waste).
Unless someone can prove me wrong, I doubt that the EPA percentages are true.
PS
I now have a light-hearted multi-page PDF entitled:
“May I please ask sir, just how much man-made CO2 there is up there in the sky?”
Based on HCA’s fairy tale ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’.
Anthony, please e.mail me if you feel your WUWT readers may like to see it.
I have one and I love it. Here is why:
1. I don’t care about the CO2 “emissions”. In a perfect world I would live in a region rich in hydro generation but I do not.
2. I do not buy gas from who knows what country. My fuel is LOCAL to North America / USA. This is my MAIN point. I would rather use our coal/natural gas.
3. It is stylish, fast and fun to drive.
4. It seats seven ( kids 10 and under in rear facing seats ) which is very convenient for me.
5. Loads of space for bike/groceries … you name it. It is bigger than you think.
6. I bought it because I can. You buy a big truck because you can. It’s a free world to buy what we like and I never complain about huge SUV’s or trucks idling on the road next to me.
7. I have no issue with range. I get into my internal combustion engine vehicle and drive it if I have to go more than 200 miles in one trip ( two or three times a year ).
8. Superchargers are fast and free ( about 45 minutes to recharge )
OK – it’s time to rip apart my arguments …
“Lithium ion batteries are known to have very low “idle” losses. It’s why the can sit on a store shelf 10 years and still be guaranteed.”
Others have already pointed out that this does not apply to rechargeable Li-ion batteries, where losses are more typically something like 10% a month (if the battery is in good shape), which is still better than rechargeable batteries..
Furthermore a multiple-cell system must have a load-balancing system, otherwise some of the cells may be damaged or even have a thermal runaway if the battery is rapidly discharged or charged. This system must be on even when the car is idle, since the cells will self-discharge at slightly different rates. The load-balancing will inevitably use some power, so a multiple-cell system will actually discharge faster than a single cell.
And just what are those ‘losses’ that everyone claims yet no one quantifies (esp. with DATA)?
.
GeeJam:
re. your post at April 11, 2013 at 6:27 am.
I think the answer to your question is in my post at April 8, 2013 at 12:02 pm in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/are-climate-models-realistic-now-includes-at-least-february-data/
If not then please feel free to get back to me.
Richard
An experience to the contrary on a good-sized sample lot.
In 2008 while working on wireless infrastructure development at a Cisco-purchased company, during the move to the GWB campus in Richardson I inherited a box (literally) of some 30 to 40 rechargeable Li Ion ‘candidate’ or evaluation cells date-coded 2004 … these had been acquired for evaluation for incorporation in the ‘Surfer’ line of subscriber equipment (transceiver).
Of the 30 or 40 cells, most were still exhibiting non-dead characteristics and took a charge. 10 or so exhibited no cell voltage and did not revive upon a ‘charging’ attempt. The cells that survived have been incorporated in flashlights and cordless drills and are operable *still* today (2013)!
All of these cells were equipped with the usual ‘supervisory’ circuit (meaning they had some sort of continuous current drain to start with) to cut-out the load under shorted conditions, etc.
I have found that NiMH cells have what seems like the highest self-discharge rates; my several Dell Latitude laptops with half dozen NiMH batt packs require regular rotation thru a laptop for a refresh charge whereas the later-model Latitude Dells with Li Ion require refresh charge cycles far, far less often … but don’t get me wrong, Li Ion cells heavily used and deeply discharged will deteriorate much more quickly than cells treated more gently.
Uh – oh … mods, what do we do now if one of our comments gets stuck in the spam bin?
The amount if slant in this article is shocking. I really wish ICE vehicles are scrutinized just as much as EV vehicles.
When we look at evs u start seeing all this cost of energy manufacturing numbers factored in and idle waste bla bla bla. Is the cost if fractional distillation free and without pollution? And thats just what goes into making the fuel before u go on to burn it in your car.
I can understand people being resistant to change. But let’s play a little game. If every car on the road were powered by batteries. And these batteries were a standard 200kwh pack. And every gas station was actually a solar station. And everyone had solar panels on their roofs as a grid contribution thing. I’ll be willing to bet that not only will the global individual carbon footprint drop considerably it would also be greatly localized.
In a 100 years of fossil fuel use look at what it has done to our planet. Do any of these critics realize that in 100 years we have done more damage to the planet than in the 10,000yrs before it? I don’t know, but I would think that EVs and solar systems should be given as much support as humanly possible so the tech in those fields will grow as fast as possible. Like what is wrong with people? In what planet and what future can using fossil fuels ever be better than a solar and battery electric setup? Yes its not viable now, but that’s cause its pioneering tech. It will never become viable without support. And EV is not going to suddenly go 500miles on one charge and cost $20k unless there are those willing to spend $70k to go 250miles now. Call such people whatever you want, but theys are in the long run doing more for the planet by simply laying the groundwork for where our future could go. Show me a car made in the first year of ICE cars that could sit up to 7 people, haul grand Cherokee laugauge do 500+miles and priced at a point that would allow the average consumer buy it and you can call me an idiot. It took over 100 years for Cars to get tons where they are today. And the model s hasn’t even been out for a year and some look for every single way to talk it down?
Come on….. Get real people.
richardscourtney says:
I think the answer to your question is in my post at April 8, 2013 at 12:02 pm in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/are-climate-models-realistic-now-includes-at-least-february-data. If not then please feel free to get back to me.
Thanks Richard. Useful info. As you know, you could add weight to your study by including the Northern Hemisphere’s April to Sept increase in natural CO2 forcing through photosynthesis (with more prevalent land mass) compared to Southern Hemisphere CO2 forcing from Oct to March. Probably like you, I always argue that some unreasonably high CO2 measurements are fudged to where on our planet they’re taken and what growing season months prevail. We’ve posted quite late on this thread – so I’ll wait for another topic (with CO2 relevance) to post comments and see what the response is then.
Yup. Convinced me: Longer lifetimes, paved roads, sanitary sewer systems, water purification and delivery systems to water ‘taps’ in every public building and nearly (probably out to four or five 9’s, i.e. 99.9999%) every human habitable structure (house), a very capable hospital system with critical Emergency Room care services, fire and rescue systems complete with trained paramedics, CareFlight helicopter accident-victim transport services (comes in REAL handy far saving time in transporting motorcycle-car accidents) and LOTS more I don’t have time to list …
Thanks David, I had forgotten about all that …
.
For this to be a true comparison, one should consider all the non similar parts between a gasoline and electric vehicle. You cannot simply add the battery to the EV’s equation and compare it to ONLY the tailpipe emission of a gasoline vehicle.
A truer comparison would be:
EV: emissions of electricity to charge, emissions to produce batteries, emissions to produce electronic motors
Gasoline vehicle: tail pipe emissions, emissions to refine oil, emissions to build an engine/gas tank/alternator/possible other components not found in an EV.
Beyond the ‘green’ factor in an EV, it also takes away reliance on refining oil for our vehicles (which they say is running out? or at the very least, is becoming more and more expensive to refine). An EV can get electricity from renewable sources like hydro, wind, solar, etc.
Also, the emissions is a per mile equation but batteries is fix variable. If you amortize the battery missions over 100,000 miles as opposed to 200,000 miles (or life of the EV), the ‘effective CO2 emissions’ will be much lower.
David says:
April 11, 2013 at 7:31 am
3rd para down last line:
“I’ll be willing to bet that not only will the global individual carbon footprint drop considerably it would also be greatly localized.”
REPLY
I agree with Jim (April 11, 2013 at 8:24 am).
If the sales pitch for driving electric vehicles emphasised that “a reduction in toxic emissions and harmful pollutants cannot be guaranteed (due to how the source of the electric supply originates) – but it will directly reduce toxic emissions and harmful pollutants being released from your car”, then fine.
But, reducing “the global carbon footprint” as you say is now irrelevant and so “last year”. Fact: The minuscule amount of CO2 is not going to cause armageddon – be reassured. If they said that the world was warming up due to Nitrogen, then we would have a reason to start seriously worrying!
I think there are a couple of other aspects here that need to be considered:
(1) “noise”, ie. the audible sound produced by an electric GC in operation is minimal vs that of an ICE powered GC,
(2) ‘byproducts’ of use; I have yet to witness a really clean-burning small ICE (verily, I think they are exempt from emissions rules, no catalytic converters etc., which go a LONG ways to making the exhaust from today’s car cleaner!),
(3) Ease of use: no engine ‘start’ required per se for an electric GC vs something ICE powered.
An observation: Our local parks department uses a little vehicle called a “Gator” to move manpower and materials around … the Gator is not quiet, produces noticeable ‘products of combustion’ (exhaust fumes, noticeable a few hundred feet away when the wind is right even!)
GeeJam:
I am understanding your post at April 11, 2013 at 7:59 am to say that my answer to your question is adequate for now. I am posting this so you can correct me if I misunderstood and ignore this post otherwise.
Incidentally, our paper does cover the issue of differential sequestration.
Richard
_Jim:
re your post at April 11, 2013 at 8:55 am.
It seems you overlooked my phrase “more convenient”. This is surprising because you boldened the sentence which included it.
Richard
re: richardscourtney says April 11, 2013 at 9:15 am
An exculpatory phrase to be sure; I also covered areas (‘pollution’ and ‘noise’) not expressly covered by the exculpatory phrasing.
_Jim:
And just what are those ‘losses’ that everyone claims yet no one quantifies (esp. with DATA)?
Start here:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011publications/CEC-200-2011-009/CEC-200-2011-009.pdf
Richard,
You say, “Electric cars are NOT an “emerging technology”.
The new technology for EV’s is energy storage, not four wheels and a motor. JP
I can understand people being resistant to change. But let’s play a little game. If every car on the road were powered by batteries. And these batteries were a standard 200kwh pack. And every gas station was actually a solar station. And everyone had solar panels on their roofs as a grid contribution thing. I’ll be willing to bet that not only will the global individual carbon footprint drop considerably it would also be greatly localized.
You are asking us to throw away something that works for something where the benefit is speculative and possibly even false (ie, continued CO2 production is somehow going to destroy us or maybe only make more plants grow.)
I think you have to get real. Give us real numbers on the benefits. Tell us the real cost not some scary made up scenarios.
Just gonna ‘throw the document’ at me huh? <grin> (Not expressly an RC trick eh?)
Do the losses they use or assume come close to the losses claimed by Smith above?
Any particular page in that doc applicable to the issues at hand?
.
John Parsons:
I am copying all your post at April 11, 2013 at 9:54 am so it is clear that I am attempting to answer what you wrote
Sorry, that does not cut it.
The development you specify is part of the power system of an old technology which pre-dates the internal combustion engine.
According to the same logic Ford and GM cars should be subsidised because they continue to develop fuel injection systems as part of the power systems of their cars.
This development of fuel injection is directly analogous to the “energy storage” in electric cars because not long ago internal combustion engines used carburetors and not fuel injection systems.
I repeat,
Electric cars are NOT an “emerging technology”.
Electric motors pre-date internal combustion engines
and
electric cars pre-date diesel and petrol cars.
Richard