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 and _Jim:
John Parsons, much time has passed since I answered your point to me but my reply is still in the ‘bin’. I will make another post if it does not appear in another hour.
_Jim, I note your post at April 11, 2013 at 9:45 am. If you have a real point then I will address it.
Richard
_Jim: Any particular page in that doc applicable to the issues at hand?
Well, now, lemme see. If your interest is finding real data (which seemed to be the case from what you wrote) then I would recommend a quick scan of the whole document, including references to other sources.
On the other hand, if you simply want to reply to Smith, take a look at p. 19. It suggests the complexity of the problem, revealing that losses vary widely from one utility to another. But if you read the whole document you discover that losses from out-of-state generators to the state line may not be included. (There is an interesting discussion toward the end of specific losses from Hoover Dam, Palo Verde, etc.)
Do the losses they use or assume come close to the losses claimed by Smith above?
So far as I read, Brother Smith did not put forward a specific figure, so I can’t say whether this document refutes him or not. But the worst performer on p. 19 is Los Angeles Water and Power, with projected losses of 11.89%.
.
Just gonna ‘throw the document’ at me huh? (Not expressly an RC trick eh?)
RC is like my cardiologist. I try to stay away from him as often as I can.
: > )
John Parsons says:
April 11, 2013 at 9:54 am
“The new technology for EV’s is energy storage, not four wheels and a motor. JP”
The energy density per weight of Li Ion batteries is ten times lower than the energy density per weight of hydrocarbons. It looks like they have made a mistake there – the performance dropped! Are you sure they are trying to develop an energy storage?
David says:
April 11, 2013 at 7:31 am
get real people
THE given driving factor for moving to ev is CO2 emmisions reduction.
So given that all evs claim to have ‘zero tail pipe emmision’ we need to examine that claim in reality (get real !)
So it is most hightly relevent how much CO2 is actually generated from birth to death of a vehicle.
And if; as appears likely; the total birth to death savings of CO2 is marginal then the whole thing is a dream (dreams; of course are not real)
Batteries are an older technology than ICE. So are electric motors. ICE didn’t require subsidies to get the world moving. EVs will only be usefull when the battery power density starts to meet that of petrol/deisel and soem way is found to enable fast charge or battery swap out. SWAP battery packs for an EV ?– go on; just how much does that battery pack weigh ? Power density again means the ‘easy solution’ is an engineering; material handling nightmare. Get real; most people don’t know how to handle 50kg properly never mind over a tonne.
EVs are GOOD for some things; as mass transport providers they are rubbish; and to be quite realistic; they are likly to remain so for the forseeable future
Richard Sharpe: ‘And every gas station was actually a solar station.’ (and other statements).
What you are advocating does not add up. The electrical power recovered by solar panels is not sufficient to run electrical vehicles. Houses might generate 2kw (in the sun), panels on a gas station might be able to generate 20kw, but a viable electrical vehicle requires at least 15kw. So unless you are planning on having one gas station’s worth of solar panels for every car, you will never be able to generate enough power for transport from the sun.
Like you, I wish that this wasn’t the case. But, check the figures, you will realize that your dream does not add up. We use power for much more than transport. It is used to pump water, transform materials, agriculture, goods transport, etc. The more we increase the price of power – the more we push ourselves in the direction of the stone age…
Hi Richard, Just got back from the dentist, so I wasn’t dodging you. I appreciate that you don’t “bail”. I’ll reply to your comment(s) once I catch up. Looks like I largely agree with what you’ve said. See ya. JP
DirkH,
Interesting comment. I’ll address it. JP
John Parsons:
No problem. I hope your dental discomfort is not great. And we have time zone differences, too.
Richard
“””””…..David says:
April 11, 2013 at 7:31 am
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……”””””
David, one thing you can say about the human energy system history, is that since we used every waking minute clambering around in fig trees, collecting free clean green renewable non carcinogenic energy, up to today when we have coal, oil, and natural gas supplying most of our energy, the energy system has been self bootstrapping. It got to where we are, using just the energies available to us. There was nobody else, or nothing else from whom we could steal energy to subsidize our energy consumption.
And we also know that the human species did not take off and multiply to today’s numbers, until we discovered fire, and stored chemical energy. Social groups eventually discovered that the free clean green renewable forms of stored chemical energy could not keep pace with our need for more energy. Witness the places abandoned and desertified, after burning all the trees; Rapanui for example.
So it was only fossil fuels stored over millions of years, that has sustained humanity, sans government subsidies. The system fed itself; so now we have the largest single beneficiary of our “big oil” fossil fuel economy, is the US treasury, and it uses those appropriated funds, to feed and clothe those who seek to destroy this productive system.
So when EVs can carry their own weight, and not burden the existing systems that are self sustaining, then it will be time to talk of displacing “old technology” with the new.
As it is, the US department of energy, has not yet made available to us, even enough energy to apply the 35 Newton centimetres of torque it took to bolt in my new Titanium cored tooth.
I wish Elon Musk and Tesla, all the success in the world; but don’t start scrapping what is supporting you, until you demonstrate that you don’t need anything else supporting you.
And David, the one absolute truth in your missive that WE can believe, is when you said:
“I don’t know.” That’s your problem right there David. Come back when you don’t need to tell us that.
richardscourtney
Hi Rich, Thanks. The only pain was the bill. A 140 dollar Carmel candy. Should’a known better.
Rich, I basically agree with you. The only real point of difference is that I can see the new work on battery technology as emerging tech. But your point is well taken.
My real beef is this author’s obvious bias. I mean comparing a Tesla S with a Honda Civic? A fairer comp would be something like a Mercedes S. About the same price and accoutrements (although the Tesla blows the doors off the Merc).
Merc 15/21mpg
Civic 28/36mpg
Civic 0-60 ~9 sec
Merc 0-60 ~7 sec
Tesla S 0-60 ~4 sec
If the author compared apples to apples, his own “assumptions” (which I’d like to see) would show the Tesla with much less CO2 emissions than a comparable gas burner. Not even close. JP
DirkH says: “The energy density per weight of Li Ion batteries is ten times lower than the energy density per weight of hydrocarbons.”
But Dirk, we don’t dump a half a pound of the lithium battery into our atmosphere every mile we drive.
What if we could double that energy density? That’s a game changer. If our governments gave the same support to battery tech development that it did for franking technologies or satellite technologies, that could happen. Best, JP
“fracking” Thanks a lot spellcheck. JP
John Parsons:
It is nearly midnight here so please understand if you want comments from me which do not occur for several hours. I am pleased that your dental issue seems to be solved.
All your posts seem to resolve to being about need to develop large electrical energy storage in small physical volume. And you say to DirkH
Sorry, but no, that could not happen.
Immense amounts are being spent worldwide on attempts to achieve what you desire. And they have been for a long time.
If such electrical energy storage were possible then it would reduce need for electricity generation (and for power stations) by about a third.
It would also enable useful personal electric vehicles and permit intermittent sources (e.g. windfarms) to provide useful electricity.
The problem is not research funding. It is lack of any idea of how to do what is required. When there is a theoretical idea for the desired device then industry will throw money at R,D&D to provide a workable and commercially viable device because the returns from it would be so great.
At present electric vehicles, windfarms and tidal energy systems are being subsidised when they have no possibility of being commercially useful because they each require an energy storage device which does not exist.
Richard
PS I prefer Richard to any diminutive.
I take GREAT and PROFOUND offense at calling fear of carbon dioxide “environmentally aware.”
Every living thing derives all its tissues from the biochemical reduction of carbon dioxide. It is the foundation of Life.
Richard,
I notice you’re not trying to support the author of this post. And that was what I was taking issue with.
I did a little research and it seems to confirm most of what you say. The exception being your comment, “Sorry, but no, that could not happen”, to my suggestion that it might be possible to double battery density. I don’t know if you meant ‘no’ to the physical possibility or ‘no’ to the government enabling. From the quick research, it appears that a doubling of energy density won’t do it for EV’s. Looks like it’ll need to be about a quadrupling of E/D for that. A doubling would apparently make a PHEV directly comparable to an internal combustion engine in both cost and weight, but for an EV (with a 300 mile range) it’s going to take a big technical move (4X E/D).
There’s certainly no physical, read: physics, reason that can’t happen; but we’re a long way from home.
Cheers, JP
John Parsons:
I am replying to your post at April 11, 2013 at 7:16 pm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/10/is-the-tesla-model-s-green/#comment-1272899
(Please note my use of the link to your post which I learned in the ‘New WUWT’ thread. It is a new toy and this is my first – although here pointless – chance to use it).
Firstly, it is pleasing that we seem to have found some common ground, but there are two points of fundamental disagreement.
You say to me
No, that is a misunderstanding.
I do agree with the article but the main reason for my agreement is not mentioned in the article so I have been explaining it.
The article claims emissions from electric cars (ECs) are comparable or greater than emissions from internal combustion engine cars (ICECs) when total system is considered. This is true for several reasons.
The easiest reason to understand is that pressure to adopt ECs encourages people to have more cars: i.e. an EC for local travel and an ICEC for longer journeys. An example of this is explicitly stated by ‘meteorologist aka weather guy’ in his post at April 11, 2013 at 6:31 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/10/is-the-tesla-model-s-green/#comment-1272273
He says he purchased an EC and
And that brings us to my main point which concerns why all the arguments in the article and the point by ‘meteorologist aka weather guy’ are true.
There is no known or as yet imagined method for storing large amounts of electrical energy in small physical volume.
As you say, there is no known physical reason why such large electrical energy storage cannot exist.
But so what?
Until somebody imagines a viable method for the electrical energy storage then there is no possibility of developing a device to do it. No amount of research funding can change this because there is no hypothesis or theory to research.
Similarly, there is no known physical reason why a method to enable time travel cannot exist.
But so what?
Until somebody imagines a viable method for time travel then there is no possibility of developing a device to do it. No amount of research funding can change this because there is no hypothesis or theory to research.
Subsidising electric cars in hope of the needed device for large electrical energy storage is as rational as subsidising a warehouse in hope that a time travel device can be used in it.
Richard
… and just where does the energy to recharge an electric car come from? Don’t know if that was factored in or not.
Here is an interesting chart showing various battery technologies on a semi-log graph of
Y-Axis: Specific Power W/kg
X-Axis: Specific Energy Wh/kg
http://www.e-transportation.eu/catalog/img/p/71-412-thickbox.jpg
It shows various flavors of LI-ion, NIMH, NICd, with an apparent emphasis on the Gaia HE 60Ah Li-Ion
http://blog.genport.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ragone.jpg
A similar chart that shows more families of battery technologies, including super capacitors, Lead-Acid, Ni-Cd, NiMH, Na-NiCl2, Li-Polymer, Li-Ion in three configurations (High Power, Mid Range, High Energy (low power)) The chart very well shows the trade-off between Power Density and Energy Density.
What is missing from this chart? Hydrogen-Oxygen Fuel Cells, Coal, Methane, and Gasoline. Where would they plot?
Coal and the others are way off the chart! The batteries top out at 180 Wh/kg. Coal has a thermal energy of
6700 Wh/kg. Burn it in a 40% efficient coal fired power plant and you get 2680 Wh/kg coal in delivered electical power. Take the width of the chart, expand it 14 times to the right. Coal plots in the upper right corner.
That energy density gives you 1 GW-day per 100 car, 10,000 ton coal unit train. That train, if filled at the Black Thunder Coal Mine, a 70 foot seam in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, will cost you about $120,000 at the mine, less than $300,000 delivered.
To store 1 GW-day in Li-Ion batteries, you would need a battery bank of 140,000 tons. Picture 14 coal unit trains filled with Li-Ion batteries and wiring. At 2.5 Whr/US$ and 180 Whr/kg, that’s $72/kg. Times 140,000 tons is US$ 10 billion. All to save $300,000 worth of delivered coal for a GW-day of on-demand electricity? To break even, you need to recharge that battery bank 33,600 times — 92 years of charge and discharge every 24 hrs. But there is another problem: LI-Ion batteries cannot cycle a tenth that many times.
Now, to be fair, we are only counting the coal weight. A battery’s weight is composed of the cathode and anode. Were we to count the oxygen used in the combustion of the coal, the specific energy at 40% efficiency for electrical generation would be 730 Wh/kg (C+O2), 6 times bigger than the best battery. But coal isn’t rechargable — just cheap and
plentiful! And the air is free.
What about H2_O2 fuel cells? Hydrogen is 143 MJ/kg = 40 KWhr/kg H2 But that is only 2 parts of the 18 (2+16) parts of the H2O.
So that would be 4400 Whr / hg (H2O) Practical efficiency is 40-60%, Theoretcial maximum eff is 83% without heat recapture. So a fuel cell could deliver electrical power at 2200 Whr / kg (of 2H2+O2). It is a theoretically rechargeable system
However, if we include the weight of the storage tanks and the fuel cell, then 580 Whr/kg (for 5000 psi H2 composite tanks) can be reached. (Fig 3) The trouble is you cannot mine, pump, or grow hydrogen. You must make it.
Methane is 55.6 MJ/kg. = 15.4 KWhr/kg (CH4) CH4 has a weight of 16. combustion products are CO2 + 2 H2O. So add 2 O2 = 64. Total weight is 80. Methane converted to electricity at 40% efficiency = 7 KWhr / kg (CH4) or 1400 Whr/kg (CH4 + 2 O2)
Gasoline is 46 MJ/kg = 13 KWhr/kg Gasoline is about C8H18 (weight 114). It takes about 25 O to combust it. Use a 40% electrical conversion, 5200 Whr/kg gasoline (not counting the air) Or 1150 Whr/kg (gasoline + oxygen) Unlike Hydrogen or Methane, gasoline is a well behaved liquid at room and operating temperatures. It has a much higher KWhr/liter energy volume density than either liquid hydrogen or LNG without their handling problems. Only coal has a higher energy per volume density without going nuclear.
So when it comes to energy storage in vehicles, it is pretty hard to beat gasoline at 5200 Whr/kg of fuel. Use it in a 40% efficient air breathing gas turbine generator that powers a car and tops off and replenishes 180 Whr/kg Li-Ion batteries for peak power and regen breaking energy capture.
An out come the minions! Greetings ignorant americans and deniers alike. Welcome, to the forefront of the war of words. Its really great to be here with you tonight on Bullsh*t mountain. As only good judgement allows, I feel compelled to outline some very obvious downfalls with the conclusions made based on the facts provided as limited as they are. WARNING: The closed and stubborn minded may already be tuned out at this point so please if you have, dont waste your time reading. Go eat another hamburger and dig your own grave faster so that future generations may have a chance to live on this earth before we suck all the oil and resources out of it.
Do you know what the numbers 1.8L and 50 MPG means? Then let me explain. The reference to 1.8L is 1.8 liters (litres) and it refers to the volume of the piston bores. That’s the thing inside the engine that goes up and down every time the spark plug fires and ignites the fuel/air mixture inside the engine. I.E. The smaller the number the less the engine needs to do its job. The comparison this article makes between a prius and a BMW is only tailpipe emissions. nothing was spoken of MPG convieniently. But the numbers are very clear, 1.8L and 50MPG. The engine uses less gas to function and goes farther per mile. Im not sure how to make it more clear. As far as the emissions, those numbers are gathered from a car that is at or close to 0 miles, as tested by the EPA. Just because the BMW has a more complex emissions system, and more expensive, that does not mean that it will work forever. After about 20,000 miles the emissions system starts getting clogged with, well emissions because gas by nature is a very dirty substance to burn. The cost and carbon footprint it takes to keep making new emission system component and replacing them is not factored into the total footprint of the car. Of course the author was very keep to include the carbon footprint of making and replacing the battery on the tesla. How convienient!
If you feel comforable driving your 5.7L hemi after reading this article then by all means keep doing it! Everyone knows you arent to blame for your ignorance right? I mean you are a god fearing, heaven seeking american. You are always right. Who needs to dig deeper? Greed can be used for good. Make sure you tell them that at the pearly gates. They will surely let you in.
Worst, most biased article I have ever read in my life…