Ooops, looks like those “saving the planet” Tesla snobs just got their eco-ride de-pimped
From NyTeknik: h/t to Don Shaw (translated)
Huge hopes have been tied to electric cars as the solution to automotive CO2 climate problem. But it turns out the the electric car batteries are eco-villains in the production process of creating them. Several tons of carbon dioxide has been emitted, even before the batteries leave the factory.
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency to investigate litium-ion batteries climate impact from a life cycle perspective. There are batteries designed for electric vehicles included in the study. The two authors Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare has done a meta-study that is reviewed and compiled existing studies.
The report shows that the battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory. The researchers did not study individual brand batteries, how these were produced, or the electricity mix they use. But if we understand the great importance of the battery here is an example: Two common electric cars on the market, the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Model S, the batteries about 30 kWh and 100 kWh.
Even before buying the car emissions occurred, corresponding to approximately 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons of Carbon Dioxide. The numbers can be difficult to relate to. As a comparison, a trip for one person round trip from Stockholm to New York by air causes the release of more than 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO calculation.
Another conclusion of the study is that about half the emissions arising from the production of raw materials and half the production of the battery factory. The mining accounts for only a small proportion of between 10-20 percent.
The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used in the battery factory consists of more than half of the fossil fuels. In Sweden, the power production is mainly of fossil-nuclear and hydropower why lower emissions had been achieved.
The study also concluded that emissions grow almost linearly with the size of the battery, even if it is pinched by the data in that field. It means that a battery of the Tesla-size contributes more than three times as much emissions as the Nissan Leaf size. It is a result that surprised Mia Romare.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There was another study on this a few years back with a similar result. Anyone else remember it? I can’t locate it.
It’s all a false argument.
CO2 does not harm the environment. The planet benefits from CO2, plant food.
I think most here would agree with you Wally. But this does show, once again, the hypocrisy of the Alarmist crowd, does it not?
It’s not really hypocrisy – it’s more lack of critical reasoning skills. But that was already a given just by virtue of their “alarmist” beliefs.
Anyone actually read the study?
“This report also concludes that there is no fixed answer to the question of the battery’s
environmental impact.” – Page 6, second paragraph of the study used to write this article.
You can find it here: https://www.ivl.se/download/18.5922281715bdaebede9559/1496046218976/C243+The+life+cycle+energy+consumption+and+CO2+emissions+from+lithium+ion+batteries+.pdf
Also, this is a “study” based on the findings of five different studies, which vary wildly in terms of expected co2 production per kwh of battery storage (based on total energy expenditure of the entire facility). The lowest being 3.1 MJ/kWh and the highest being 586 MJ/kWh. The suggestion that these can be averaged to get a correct number is ludicrous.
The study also doesn’t directly compare the manufacturing costs in co2 or MJ/kWh to traditional battery manufacturing. This article suggests that one method of manufacturing is vastly more polluting than another, which may or may not be true, but isn’t even remotely proven by this study.
Okay Steve…context, yes? “This report also concludes…” –Impacts on environment in how are the batteries to be DISPOSED of, not the impacts on the environment while PRODUCING the battery–Which, clearly they state “There is, regardless, a good indication of the total emissions from the production”—a few sentences above your “gotcha” quote.
The study clearly lists 7 organizations and institutes whereupon they relied for their resource information. By the way, the Bibliography page lists 45 different resources.
“Traditional battery manufacturing”….you mean like the batteries in a gas or diesel powered car?–Seriously?
So, I would like to ask you the very same question you posed but in singular fashion…Did you actually read the study? Because if you did…WOW…you missed a bunch.
What counts is the total life-cycle cost to the environment. What is not mentioned in this study is the environmental burden of melting all this metal down and recycling it. That is not zero. Worse, each Tesla is financed with thousands of dollars of government money, in one form or another. Each one of those dollars came from somewhere else in the economy at some time, even if that time is in the future when the debt is finally paid. (Ha). We can divide the total tons of CO2 in the US by the total GDP and get pounds of CO2 per dollar. That cost counts in the price of each Tesla no matter how badly environmentalists don’t want to acknowledge it.
If you start down that route you might end up doing a cost-benefit analysis on various CO2 reduction measures, and that would be anti-science in the extreme.
Another way to relate to it.., The average person’s carbon footprint is about 1,200 kg/year (my calculation… I admit there might be more precise methods but at least it’s a start). Therefore according to this article, buying a Tesla will produce 15 years of carbon emissions “up front.” Wow.
Wanna lower that (imaginary) “carbon footprint?” EASY-PEASY:
Stay off airplanes. Like, permanently.
Don’t take vacations. Recreate at home.
Wear the clothes you’ve got. Don’t buy more.
Grow a garden, raise chickens, go on a 1,500 calorie a day diet. Like, permanently.
Get rid of EVERY SINGLE electric device in your home not a life necessity (Yeah, all of it.)
Go to bed every night at dark and get up at dawn.
Don’t commute. Work from home. See garden and chickens above.
Take a shower twice a month, and use a composting outhouse out back to save water.
No AC. Minimal heat in one room in the winter, “sustainable” means wood pellet stove.
Bonus: Just solved the “obesity” problem along with global warming. /sarc.
You could include on your list giving up disposable diapers, feminine hygiene products, and toilet paper. A piece of cloth can sustainably substitute for all of these needs. (Yuck, no thanks.)
Of course, having children is frowned upon.
Or just elect a government which encourages renewables and shuts down coal power plant… shop with companies which use renewable electricity (Walmart, IKEA).
Germany has 32% renewable electricity and a better standard of living than most of the USA…
Griff,
We did not do that and are happy for that fact.
The Paris agreement goals are not achievable because according to the IEA Obama failed to provide sufficient renewable fuels to meet the climate goals, despite spending a trillion dollars on numerous failed, foolish projects that do not work like Solyndra and Range Fuels.
You apparently missed reading this which was covered by WUWT.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/energy-technology-is-not-advancing-fast-enough-to-meet-climate-goals.html
Even the head of the UN admits it is about wealth re-distribution, not CO 2
Get over it
Griff,
Already tried that
It was called the Obama Presidency
Thankfully he couldn’t be reelected in 2016 and instead sanity was elected in his place
While getting gas this past Sunday at a multi-pump facility, an SUV pulled up to the next pump. The passenger jumped out and headed for the Starbucks next door. Driver got out, filled the tank, washed the windows, and took the receipt.
Just then the passenger returned with drinks and snacks. Off they went — and another vehicle replaced the SUV at that pump, one of about 24 at that plaza.
For a large percentage of autos to be EVs, there will have to be plazas for them that will have this sort of throughput — call it the “velocity” of ‘covfefe’ or something.
Allegedly, with supercharging, you can charge your batteries in only one hour. Versus 5 minutes to fill up a tank.
From this alone, you will need 12 times as many charging stations as gas pumps.
I think I fill up (or get enough) in less than 5 mins, in traveling in Asia where NGas is quite common, its a real pain to wait about 10-15 mins to fill up, not even counting the frequent wait to get to the pump\
@ur momisugly scottmc37
and how long would you have to wait (or even find) a charging station in most of Asia and then complete a charge?
PS I live in Asia in one of the more advanced bits where charging stations are not easy to find.
The average car drives less than 60 miles per day, and fills up the tank once a week. Given that, an EV can be charged at home, no need to use a station. In a family with 2 cars, one could be electric (primarily for commuting), one gas (for longer trips or hauling).
Depends on the EV and your daily driving habits. With a Tesla you’re exactly right since the battery holds 200-300 miles per charge, all of which can be regained overnight. It’s only the road trips that are a minor inconvenience. Unless Superchargers are spaced so far apart that you need to fully recharge, it usually only takes about 15-20 minutes to charge enough to get you to the next one.
Leafs on the other hand, with a starting range of only about 70 miles (which degrades over time) could be a hassle unless you really just don’t drive many miles per day. And road trips would be a major hassle given the short range and the slow charging.
You hit the nail on the head: To be able to afford a “renewable energy” production and delivery system you first need the energy system we already have; if you want an electric car, you first need a conventional car.
By the way: Do you see how absurd calculating with averages can be?
@chris
So as has been said many times, many (most?) EVs are not peoples’ cars but their second (third,…) car.
In your scenario you have one car (ICE) that you can use for anything and plus an EV that has limited use. And what if there are two people who need a car for commuting? Do you then need and ICE and two EVs?
I am not against EVs per se. But the state of play at the moment (and for the next decade or so) is that there are are two options:
– Limited range (e.g. Leaf) that is very expensive for what it is and can only be used for commuting / town driving.
– Moderate range (e.g. Tesla) that ridiculously expensive for what it is and can only be used for long-distance travel if you plan your route carefully.
Chris: The average progressive tells other people how to live only a few times a day. Why does it seem like they never shut up?
“emissions grow almost linearly with the size of the battery…………a result that surprised Mia Romare”
Since large batteries are just an assembly of small cells it seems pretty obvious that manufacturing emissions will grow almost linearly with the size of the battery. It certainly shouldn’t come as a surprise to an intelligent person.
These Tesla’s should be equipped with a noise generator, I had one sneak up on my yday and HONK the horn a few feet behind me, almost jumped out of my pants..
see John Hardy’s comment above … if it would have hit you going at quiet speed it wouldn’t have injured you.
What do you define as “quiet speed”?
I don’t really know. The EV advocate, John Hardy, seems to define it as when tire noise is not apparent ….
Wonderful prose, Anthony. Starting the story with the word ‘Ooops’. You cannot improve on that choice. 😉
That’s not why you buy an electric car. You don’t buy an electric car to SAVE the environment – it won’t. You buy an electric car for the same reasons you buy any car – to get you from one place to another.
No shit? Did you think electric cars would cost more because they use less resources? You can not disobey physics, but there are some economic laws you can’t beat either 😉
Owen in GA commented: “…They already have that covered. Place a GPS tracker in each car and send them a bill for the miles traveled each month.
Think about that statement. Fossil fuels are the most heavily taxed by Western governments of any commodities. Transfer ALL that tax to cars by the mile and the economics of driving a personal vehicle would collapse.
…And I’m sure everyone would love to have a tracker tattling their movements to the state. Since it’s to do with tax revenue, you can bet the penalty for tampering with such a tracker would be a six figure fine and about ten years of prison time.
I think Oregon was the first state to test this technology.
-First all the volunteer testers loved it, what a surprise considering only those who where for this ability to begin with tested it.
-Second, the state has assured us that if this becomes law they will not be storing any of the GPS data and it will be dumped ASAP. Of course we do have public records laws mandating the state keep all information. To avoid public record laws they were talking about having the gas station pump talk to your GPS, calculate the tax and add it to your fuel bill on the spot. That’s going to increase the cost of doing business to the gas stations and increase our out of pocket for gas as they have to raise rates. The road mile tax would also have to be front loaded onto your bill for those paying in case and only wanting $20 in gas. Heck, those scrounging up quarters to buy enough gas to make to their next pay check could end up paying all road tax and not having money left over for gas with this system.
-Last of all they are lying about the proposed tax per mile tax rate. By their numbers and doing the math, vehicles that get under 30mpg will end up paying less taxes when substituting per mile tax vs per gallon tax then they currently do. Any Vegas odds on a state letting “gas hogs” get away with paying less tax then they currently do?
Oh yeah, I almost forgot that it will cost ~$600/vehicle to buy the hardware to do this. No estimate on how much it will cost you to install it. If they give us a tax break equal to the cost of installation they’ll blow the states budget for road works for years. If they don’t give us a tax break that’s one heck of a tax hike.
This is good to know, realize, and make fun of but in a totally fair comparison, you have to include emissions for engine production and operation and maintenance (electric and gas) also emissions for producing gasoline (from well to pump).
Not forgetting the emissions from the replacement and disposal of dud batteries
One very important aspect yet to be mentioned is that the US and many other countries have an extensive gas and diesel distribution system that allows driving almost every where in the country with the confidence of refueling. This was built with private money and will involve enormas cost to duplicate for electric cars. Of course Musk and others think the taxpayer should build it.
How many years will it take to replace our refueling system.
Of course this is never mentioned or discussed by the advocates.
This is the fast charger map for Norway, and as you can see, there is a lot of charging stations here and many more are coming:
http://elbil.no/ladekart/
Many of the Circle K stations has at least one 50kW charging station, like this one:
So when will Norway be completely covered with stations and who is paying for it.
Norway is a beautiful country with lots of back roads to less populated areas, at least when I traveled there. It is also blessed with fossil fuels in abundance that has helped the economy considerably over the years.possibly paying for these charging stations?
What do you think the cost would be to replicate the gasoline and diesel distribution in the US INCLUDING UPGRADES to the electrical supply system?
Will Tesla pay for it?
Tesla gets about $7500 per car on the federal subside, Kalifornia has unbelievable corporate welfare perks in the pot for Tesla as well. Stock around 370, up 50% since DJT election, clearly no worries about Paris exit or serious EPA climate scam reforms that “emissions” tripe are linked to.
Their official reply to this article would go something like this;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA
Their response to article
In Norway, almost all electrical production is comming from hydro power plants (135 TWh/yr) and almost 50 percent of all cars sold i 2017 is expected to be an electric or hybrid. I drive an electric car myself and I’m very happy with the overall experience. My fuel cost has been cut from about 10 NOK/10 km to 1 NOK/10km.
EV stats for Norway:
http://elbilstatistikk.no/
In Norway, almost all electrical production is comming from hydro power plants (135 TWh/yr) and almost 50 percent of all cars sold i 2017 is expected to be an electric or hybrid. I drive an electric car myself and I’m very happy with the overall experience. My fuel cost has been cut from about 10 NOK/10 km to 1 NOK/10km.
EV stats for Norway:
http://elbilstatistikk.no/
I use the electric car scheme here in Paris because 1) you are guaranteed a parking space, a true luxury in this overcrowded city; 2) it’s a handy backup for when my car is off the road – clutch wore out last week; 3) I get something back on my taxes; the scheme is highly subsidized; 3) there is some sort of trick which ensures the radio is always tuned to my favorite station; 4) also I love CO2, so good to hear I’m contributing more to the atmosphere by using the service.
A Tesla model X costs 5.8 cents per km to run based on charging the battery at a home supply @ur momisugly 25 cents per kWh (Australia).
A Kia Optima costs 10.6 cents per km based on RON 91 fuel at 135 cents per litre (Australia)
Since the Tesla costs $100,000 more than the Kia to buy it would take about 13 years to break even.
Who keeps their car for 13 years or more before trading in?
You get 13x the fun driving the Tesla. Those things are fast! Besides trying to justify an exotic sports car purchase economically never works.. try the same comparison with any performance/luxury ICE car and it will take longer than 13 years.. but they still sell.
I am a motorhead, love anything motor powered, cars, motorbikes, snowmobiles etc. Recently I have been playing around with electric vehicles and I am hooked. Not because of love for the planet (I am happy to hear battery production also produces CO2!) but because of the instant torque.
I built my own electric powered fat tire mountain bike. So much fun! I test rode a Zero motorcycle and the quiet linear acceleration is addicting. I also like the fact that I don’t need to re-map the FI, adjust the valves, change the oil etc. Too expensive new though so I am watching the used section..
I am now also shopping for a used Spark EV or Volt. The prices are low enough on used EV’s that I can find an EV with similar miles for similar cash to ICE. However the drive is quiet and smooth and the acceleration is enjoyable. An overnight charge is enough to get me through my ~40 miles of daily activities too.. as a bonus.
So you can hate on electric, love it, argue back and forth about the economics, but in the end the performance and maintenance advantages of electric are enough for some people. I could care less how much or little CO2 they produce.I am more interested in how much torque the produce.
I do wish the cars weren’t subsidized. Let them duke it out in the market with the other products and stand or fail on their own. Not much I can do about that except to keep voting the right people in..
I’m with you in loving anything tech if it does something radically better. I tried a Segway for the 1st this year. Wow! Brilliant fun, I had to ask the guy running the tour how come we weren’t all on them for commuting short distances. Answer: they are illegal here on roads or footpaths! As are all ‘hoverboards’ and most electric bikes.
You can only use them off your own land to participate in guided, authorised (read ‘licenced by government’) tours along predefined routes.
Government needs to quit doing subsidies and over-zealous regulation and start joining the dots to see the big picture.
We’ll know EVs are ready for the mainstream when F1 and IndyCar are pushing to use them. It will come, but not without solving the current energy crisis (to burn or go nuke). And in those timescales, I suspect the growth potential of the Tesla market will be overtaken by person-carrying drones. The poor government regulators will be having kittens but I don’t care what laws there are, once electric motors and batteries can lift 100kg for 20 minutes using a backpack drone, I’m going to be using it to commute to work and generally have a blast.
“…We’ll know EVs are ready for the mainstream when F1 and IndyCar are pushing to use them….” There’s already an EV circuit for F1/Indy type cars.
Reading their assumptions for gasoline/diesel cars it seems to me they’ve simply taken the manufacturer (read the NEDC) emissions label number. Which will be completely wrong. Unless of course new cars in Sweden really do average 50-55 MPG (1 gallon of diesel for 55 miles = 135 g CO2/km). Given the climate there I would suggest this is far fetched.
0-55 mph in 4 seconds, who cares about co2?
The Tesla Model S P85D, a dual motor all-wheel drive vehicle has a governed top speed of 155 mph (250 km/h) and it accelerates from 0 to 60 miles per hour (0 to 97 km/h) in 3.2 seconds (tested to 3.1 seconds), under “Insane Mode”, with 1g of acceleration.
Griff
So what the recent Corvette goes from 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds and looks better.
1g? I think not, more like 3g
David
97 km/h is about 27 m/s.
Three seconds at 1g (10 m/s^2) would take you to 30m/s.
Therefore 0-97 kmh in 3.1 seconds while impressive, is slightly less than 1g.
3g would take you from 0-97 in one second.
You are assuming a constant acceleration…. May be a reasonable assumption, but probably not (I guess the electric car could run in a vacuum….). The peak acceleration is just after the start, and is related to tires/surface friction as well other factors The RATE of acceleration is negative after the first half second.
And the new Tesla P100D goes 0 – 60 in 2.3 seconds. (Ludicrous mode)
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-s/2017/2017-tesla-model-s-p100d-first-test-review/
Problem is, With a Vette, if you run out of gas you can push it to the gas station accross the street.
While, If your Tesla runs out of power (total depletion) 20 feet from the plug, you have a brick until the tow truck gets there and drags you to the plug.
Bryan A: “drags you to the plug” ….. NOPE
..
“All of the car’s safety systems are powered by a separate small battery so that the brakes, power steering, lights, instruments etc. will still work normally after the main battery has run out and switched itself off.”
…
http://teslapedia.org/model-s/tesla-virgin/what-if-you-completely-run-out-of-charge/
Who cares about straight line acceleration when they apparently suck on the track?
http://www.thedrive.com/news/5207/this-video-reminds-us-that-the-tesla-model-s-is-an-awful-track-car
I guess it’s cool being able to run a 10.xx quarter with minimal driving skill, but if your car overheats and goes into slow mode ten seconds later, that’s suddenly a lot less interesting.
Bryan A – did they really time the 0-60s to the nanosecond? “2.275507139 seconds”
Amen!!
Surely the issue here is not the comparison between E.V and I.C.E for how good they compare for Co2 emissions. Those of us sceptical enough, don’t consider Co2 to be a dangerous gas. The claim to glory for Tesla etc is how Co2 clean they are. It’s a non issue to begin with. Even if I.C.E
. vehicles do produce more Co2, big deal. The point is, the false and misleading claim that E.V.s do not produce Co2. It’s their bogey man. Tesla does not deal with their problem.
I would like to read the study itself. Does it exist in English?
Not sure what you read, did you read this?
http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761#conversion-122831618
Call me names, but it’s in Swedish and I don’t understand Swedish.
I’m “Killing the Planet” By driving, infrequently, a “Gas-Guzzling” 1999 Audi A8 with 345,000 miles on it. How much ‘Carbon’ would replacing it 3 times have put into the climate system?
Just ran a quick calculation: that 5.3 to 17.5 tons of CO2 corresponds to the CO2 emissions of a gasoline-fueled vehicle getting 30 miles per gallon driving 17,000 to 56,000 miles.