Uh oh! Tesla batteries not very green

[WVPATX]

From a Swedish study, difficult to claim bias.


Delingpole: Tesla Car Batteries Not Remotely Green, Study Finds

Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

by JAMES DELINGPOLE21 Jun 2017206

The car batteries used in a Tesla generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for eight years. And that’s before they even come off the production line.
This news, from a study by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, will no doubt delight all those U.S. taxpayers who have been forking out billions of dollars to prop up Tesla’s share price having been assured by their government that subsidizing overpriced electric cars represents a vital step towards “combatting climate change.”

The report, commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, cannot easily be dismissed because it is a meta-analysis (ie a summary) of all the available studies on the subject.

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 bilmärkens batteries, how these produced or the electricity mix they use. But if we understand the great importance of play battery take 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 when buying the car has thus emissions occurred, corresponding to approximately 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons, the batteries of these sizes. 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.

One of the authors, Mats-Ola Larsson at IVL, has made a calculation of how long you have to drive a petrol or diesel before it has released as much carbon dioxide as battery manufacturing has caused.

The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as the Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of the Tesla-size.

Truly the enduring mystery of why Tesla is now more highly valued than such non-Potemkin U.S. car manufacturers as Ford and General Motors grows more mysterious by the hour.

 

[Mntneer]

I'm not interested in buying a Teslas to be "green"... I'm interested so I can stop buying gas as much.

 

[TN EER]

Another example of...."how to manipulate statistics". Yes, components of the batteries don't grow on trees but need to be manufactured. However, where are the details that say how many batteries are made per reported CO2 units ???? Where are the details comparing CO2 units for gasoline vs. battery life? From what countries are they using the emission data from? Are they actually the smelters producing the components of the batteries ?
For sake of transparency, I have spent 40 years in the environmental field and am required to convert utility use at our plant to Greenhouse Gas emissions for our customers. We are in process of converting all of our propane fueled forklifts to battery powered AVG trains and all remaining forklifts to battery. Payback is 10 months just on propane and maintenance costs. If you add in saved insurance cost due to safety issues, pfft. No brainer.

 

[WVPATX]

I'm not interested in buying a Teslas to be "green"... I'm interested so I can stop buying gas as much.

You better do a good cost/benefit analysis. I did a few years ago and the payback was over 7 years based on the additional upfront cost for the auto and the time value of money vs. the cost of fuel.

 

[WVPATX]

Another example of...."how to manipulate statistics". Yes, components of the batteries don't grow on trees but need to be manufactured. However, where are the details that say how many batteries are made per reported CO2 units ???? Where are the details comparing CO2 units for gasoline vs. battery life? From what countries are they using the emission data from? Are they actually the smelters producing the components of the batteries ?
For sake of transparency, I have spent 40 years in the environmental field and am required to convert utility use at our plant to Greenhouse Gas emissions for our customers. We are in process of converting all of our propane fueled forklifts to battery powered AVG trains and all remaining forklifts to battery. Payback is 10 months just on propane and maintenance costs. If you add in saved insurance cost due to safety issues, pfft. No brainer.

I doubt the Swedes (who are doing all they can to combat "global warming" are manipulating anything. You can study their research for yourself. It is a meta study encapsulating all prior studies.

 

[Op2]

You better do a good cost/benefit analysis. I did a few years ago and the payback was over 7 years based on the additional upfront cost for the auto vs. the cost of fuel.

I don't know what details "a few years ago" you're referring to but the fact that you'd even use that phrase tells me that you don't get it when it comes to new technologies. I've explained this to you before. Mature technologies mostly make incremental improvements, with the rare big jump tossed in now and then (like with fracking and natural gas). New technologies develop much more quickly. Talking in 2017 about what the state of a new technology
was in 2014 is pointless. It's much better now than it was in 2014 and it will be much better in 2020 than it is now.

Think of it like a baseball player. Suppose a baseball player is 30 (and pretend getting old isn't a factor). When a player is 30 he's about as good as he's gonna get. Maybe he'll get a little better by 32 or a little better yet by 34 (remember, we're discounting the effect of age here). But compare that with a baseball player that is 10. By the time he's 12 he's going to be much better than when he was 10. By the time he's 14 he's going to be much better than when he was 12.

Tesla is building a factory that by itself will double the WORLD OUTPUT of lithium batteries in less than ten years. So even if nobody else did anything (which isn't the case) the lithium battery output will double in less than ten years because of that one factor. That makes all the lithium batteries cheaper. Which makes the technology more attractive. Which makes more incentive to solve other problems about the technology. Which again makes the technology more attractive. Etc.

Driverless cars is one area where don't appreciate how fast things are improving. Some people just poo-poo them and they just keep getting better. They had a track record of no major accidents until last year (of either driving themselves or telling the drive when to take over I mean). Then there was a fatal accident last year. "A-HA," said some people, thinking it meant those cars were crappy even though they had gone many, many miles before that with no major accidents.

Well guess what? Just the other day it comes out that that fatal accident was the result of HUMAN ERROR! The car told the guy again and again that he was in a situation where he should take over the wheel and he ignored it.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/busine...-in-florida-using-autopilot-ignored-7/2328005
http://www.tampabay.com/news/busine...-in-florida-using-autopilot-ignored-7/2328005

 

[Op2]

From a Swedish study, difficult to claim bias.


Delingpole: Tesla Car Batteries Not Remotely Green, Study Finds

Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

by JAMES DELINGPOLE21 Jun 2017206

The car batteries used in a Tesla generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for eight years. And that’s before they even come off the production line.
This news, from a study by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, will no doubt delight all those U.S. taxpayers who have been forking out billions of dollars to prop up Tesla’s share price having been assured by their government that subsidizing overpriced electric cars represents a vital step towards “combatting climate change.”

The report, commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, cannot easily be dismissed because it is a meta-analysis (ie a summary) of all the available studies on the subject.

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 bilmärkens batteries, how these produced or the electricity mix they use. But if we understand the great importance of play battery take 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 when buying the car has thus emissions occurred, corresponding to approximately 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons, the batteries of these sizes. 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.

One of the authors, Mats-Ola Larsson at IVL, has made a calculation of how long you have to drive a petrol or diesel before it has released as much carbon dioxide as battery manufacturing has caused.

The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as the Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of the Tesla-size.

Truly the enduring mystery of why Tesla is now more highly valued than such non-Potemkin U.S. car manufacturers as Ford and General Motors grows more mysterious by the hour.

Of course this is from the overtly political Breitbart. And of course the link to the study is in Swedish so we can't check if what they say is true.

But the last paragraph should make you take note. "...the enduring mystery of why Tesla is now more highly valued than ...Ford & GM..."

So why is it? When people invest they are essentially placing bets. And they can bet on any stock they want. So why are they betting more and more on Tesla specifically and EVs more generally? If they're wrong then an easy way to make a bundle is find the car company putting the least research into EVs and put all your money in their stock.

Another way to make a fortune is to start your own insurance company and base your rates on the assumption that climate change is not happening, as opposed to making rates on the assumption that climate change is happening like all the other insurance companies do. If you're right then you'll make a fortune. So why isn't anyone doing it?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I don't know what details "a few years ago" you're referring to but the fact that you'd even use that phrase tells me that you don't get it when it comes to new technologies. I've explained this to you before. Mature technologies mostly make incremental improvements, with the rare big jump tossed in now and then (like with fracking and natural gas). New technologies develop much more quickly. Talking in 2017 about what the state of a new technology
was in 2014 is pointless. It's much better now than it was in 2014 and it will be much better in 2020 than it is now.

Think of it like a baseball player. Suppose a baseball player is 30 (and pretend getting old isn't a factor). When a player is 30 he's about as good as he's gonna get. Maybe he'll get a little better by 32 or a little better yet by 34 (remember, we're discounting the effect of age here). But compare that with a baseball player that is 10. By the time he's 12 he's going to be much better than when he was 10. By the time he's 14 he's going to be much better than when he was 12.

Tesla is building a factory that by itself will double the WORLD OUTPUT of lithium batteries in less than ten years. So even if nobody else did anything (which isn't the case) the lithium battery output will double in less than ten years because of that one factor. That makes all the lithium batteries cheaper. Which makes the technology more attractive. Which makes more incentive to solve other problems about the technology. Which again makes the technology more attractive. Etc.

Driverless cars is one area where don't appreciate how fast things are improving. Some people just poo-poo them and they just keep getting better. They had a track record of no major accidents until last year (of either driving themselves or telling the drive when to take over I mean). Then there was a fatal accident last year. "A-HA," said some people, thinking it meant those cars were crappy even though they had gone many, many miles before that with no major accidents.

Well guess what? Just the other day it comes out that that fatal accident was the result of HUMAN ERROR! The car told the guy again and again that he was in a situation where he should take over the wheel and he ignored it.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/busine...-in-florida-using-autopilot-ignored-7/2328005

You have a tendency to go off on wild tangents unrelated to the topic.

A CBA like what PATX was talking about was largely based on the upfront cost of the Tesla vs a similar car. $85k vs $60k as an example. The additional $25k you would pay for a Tesla would take X years of your average driving for the X average price of gas to become cost neutral. In essence it takes X years to make the investment worthwhile from a financial perspective. In his case, it was 7 years. Do you generally keep a car for 7 years? I never have, so that's a factor I would consider.

 

[WVPATX]

I don't know what details "a few years ago" you're referring to but the fact that you'd even use that phrase tells me that you don't get it when it comes to new technologies. I've explained this to you before. Mature technologies mostly make incremental improvements, with the rare big jump tossed in now and then (like with fracking and natural gas). New technologies develop much more quickly. Talking in 2017 about what the state of a new technology
was in 2014 is pointless. It's much better now than it was in 2014 and it will be much better in 2020 than it is now.

Think of it like a baseball player. Suppose a baseball player is 30 (and pretend getting old isn't a factor). When a player is 30 he's about as good as he's gonna get. Maybe he'll get a little better by 32 or a little better yet by 34 (remember, we're discounting the effect of age here). But compare that with a baseball player that is 10. By the time he's 12 he's going to be much better than when he was 10. By the time he's 14 he's going to be much better than when he was 12.

Tesla is building a factory that by itself will double the WORLD OUTPUT of lithium batteries in less than ten years. So even if nobody else did anything (which isn't the case) the lithium battery output will double in less than ten years because of that one factor. That makes all the lithium batteries cheaper. Which makes the technology more attractive. Which makes more incentive to solve other problems about the technology. Which again makes the technology more attractive. Etc.

Driverless cars is one area where don't appreciate how fast things are improving. Some people just poo-poo them and they just keep getting better. They had a track record of no major accidents until last year (of either driving themselves or telling the drive when to take over I mean). Then there was a fatal accident last year. "A-HA," said some people, thinking it meant those cars were crappy even though they had gone many, many miles before that with no major accidents.

Well guess what? Just the other day it comes out that that fatal accident was the result of HUMAN ERROR! The car told the guy again and again that he was in a situation where he should take over the wheel and he ignored it.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/busine...-in-florida-using-autopilot-ignored-7/2328005

I don't need a lecture from you on technology. I simply suggested the person do a thorough cost/benefit analysis. That can't hurt right? If the electric car is cheaper, and meets the person's needs, buy it.

 

[WVPATX]

Of course this is from the overtly political Breitbart. And of course the link to the study is in Swedish so we can't check if what they say is true.

But the last paragraph should make you take note. "...the enduring mystery of why Tesla is now more highly valued than ...Ford & GM..."

So why is it? When people invest they are essentially placing bets. And they can bet on any stock they want. So why are they betting more and more on Tesla specifically and EVs more generally? If they're wrong then an easy way to make a bundle is find the car company putting the least research into EVs and put all your money in their stock.

Another way to make a fortune is to start your own insurance company and base your rates on the assumption that climate change is not happening, as opposed to making rates on the assumption that climate change is happening like all the other insurance companies do. If you're right then you'll make a fortune. So why isn't anyone doing it?

You completely ignore the point of the study. The manufacturing of the battery produces an enormous amount of CO2. This means electric vehicles may cause more problems, and if you believe CO2 is the cause of all global or even most global warming are doing more harm than good.

The study is posted. I am sure you can find summaries elsewhere.

 

[WVPATX]

You have a tendency to go off on wild tangents unrelated to the topic.

A CBA like what PATX was talking about was largely based on the upfront cost of the Tesla vs a similar car. $85k vs $60k as an example. The additional $25k you would pay for a Tesla would take X years of your average driving for the X average price of gas to become cost neutral. In essence it takes X years to make the investment worthwhile from a financial perspective. In his case, it was 7 years. Do you generally keep a car for 7 years? I never have, so that's a factor I would consider.

This is exactly what I considered (my wife wanted a Tesla). I also included the time value of the upfront capital. I earned, at that time, roughly 9% on my investments, and that had to be included in the analysis. It just did not make economic sense. And I never keep a car past its warranty period.

The one thing I loved was the Tesla was incredibly fast out of the gate.

 

[Op2]

You have a tendency to go off on wild tangents unrelated to the topic.

A CBA like what PATX was talking about was largely based on the upfront cost of the Tesla vs a similar car. $85k vs $60k as an example. The additional $25k you would pay for a Tesla would take X years of your average driving for the X average price of gas to become cost neutral. In essence it takes X years to make the investment worthwhile from a financial perspective. In his case, it was 7 years. Do you generally keep a car for 7 years? I never have, so that's a factor I would consider.

Unless you read Swedish you have no idea what the study says.

 

[WVPATX]

Unless you read Swedish you have no idea what the study says.

Like I said, I am sure you can find another summary of this study on other sites. Google is your friend.

 

[Op2]

The amount of payoff of EV batteries depends on what you compare it to. Naturally, a study in Sweden compares it to how people drive in Sweden, which is much different than how people drive in the US. Thus, the study linked to in the OP is useless for anyone that doesn't live in Sweden. And some other stuff too. Read. Or not. It doesn't matter.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/no-tesla-batteries-are-not-a-global-warming-disaster

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Unless you read Swedish you have no idea what the study says.

Yea, my post had nothing to do with the Swedish study.

 

[dave]

Unless you read Swedish you have no idea what the study says.

Math in Sweden is the same as here you moron.

 

[moe]

From a Swedish study, difficult to claim bias.


Delingpole: Tesla Car Batteries Not Remotely Green, Study Finds

Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

by JAMES DELINGPOLE21 Jun 2017206

The car batteries used in a Tesla generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for eight years. And that’s before they even come off the production line.
This news, from a study by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, will no doubt delight all those U.S. taxpayers who have been forking out billions of dollars to prop up Tesla’s share price having been assured by their government that subsidizing overpriced electric cars represents a vital step towards “combatting climate change.”

The report, commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, cannot easily be dismissed because it is a meta-analysis (ie a summary) of all the available studies on the subject.

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 bilmärkens batteries, how these produced or the electricity mix they use. But if we understand the great importance of play battery take 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 when buying the car has thus emissions occurred, corresponding to approximately 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons, the batteries of these sizes. 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.

One of the authors, Mats-Ola Larsson at IVL, has made a calculation of how long you have to drive a petrol or diesel before it has released as much carbon dioxide as battery manufacturing has caused.

The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as the Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of the Tesla-size.

Truly the enduring mystery of why Tesla is now more highly valued than such non-Potemkin U.S. car manufacturers as Ford and General Motors grows more mysterious by the hour.

What is the carbon foot print of manufacturing a Tesla?

The Union of Concerned Scientists did the best and most rigorous assessment of the carbon footprint of Tesla's and other electric vehicles vs internal combustion vehicles including hybrids. They found that the manufacturing of a full-sized Tesla Model S rear-wheel drive car with an 85 KWH battery was equivalent to a full-sized internal combustion car except for the battery, which added 15% or one metric ton of CO2 emissions to the total manufacturing.

However, they found that this was trivial compared to the emissions avoided due to not burning fossil fuels to move the car. Before anyone says "But electricity is generated from coal!", they took that into account too, and it's included in the 53% overall reduction.

And it's probably worth asking what happens to the battery at end of lifecycle. Answer: Tesla recycles it, recovering 70% of the carbon.

Umicore’s factory plants are able to recycle our batteries into completely reusable materials and substantially reduce the carbon footprint of manufacturing Lithium-ion batteries.

The Umicore battery recycling technology is able to save at least 70 percent on CO2 emissions at the recovery and refining of these valuable metals. It does this by creating “products” and “byproducts,” rather than following a mechanical separation process.

Tesla's Closed Loop Battery Recycling Program

Before anyone gets really excited about smaller cars, basically the report says you have to be driving a tiny hybrid in a serious coal generation area before the Tesla is equivalent full lifecycle to any internal combustion vehicle.

So as long as people are buying and driving cars, Teslas are excellent choices regarding carbon emissions. Along with NOx and particulate emissions. And sheer, unbridled fun.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-foot-print-of-manufacturing-a-Tesla

 

[Boomboom521]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jeremi...-global-warming-disaster-greentech-media/amp/

 

[wvu2007]

Global Warming and CNN are fake.

 

[Boomboom521]

I'm curious if some people on this message board are beginning to notice that the conservative sites they seek their "truth"!from usually have the same articles reproduced on a daily basis. Of course they make sure the websites and publications seem disconnected by not having ALL stories the same across the publications, but the "talking points" are usually always uniform within a very short period of time. It seems as if there is a "direction" of information in the conservative informational world. This is becoming more influential as conservatives destroy the credibility of the MSM.

I know the left is seeking to fight fire with fire, but no way can liberal publications find this same harmonic tone.

 

[Airport]

Global climate change, if there is any man made, is a rich man's folly and a poor mans burden that the rich man is putting on the poor man's back.

 

[WVPATX]

The amount of payoff of EV batteries depends on what you compare it to. Naturally, a study in Sweden compares it to how people drive in Sweden, which is much different than how people drive in the US. Thus, the study linked to in the OP is useless for anyone that doesn't live in Sweden. And some other stuff too. Read. Or not. It doesn't matter.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/no-tesla-batteries-are-not-a-global-warming-disaster

Nice try, but the point is that Tesla and other electric cars are not the green saviors the libs on this board tout them to be. Manufacturing of the batteries produces enormous amounts of CO2. And to recharge those batteries requires electricity which by and large is produced by fossil fuels. I agree that the time period for recovery vs. conventional vehicles depends on how you drive. In the U.S. some areas will be worse than Sweden and others better.

 

[moe]

Nice try, but the point is that Tesla and other electric cars are not the green saviors the libs on this board tout them to be. Manufacturing of the batteries produces enormous amounts of CO2. And to recharge those batteries requires electricity which by and large is produced by fossil fuels.

The point is that a Tesla produces about half the CO2 of a normal sedan over its lifetime. Electric cars will slowly take the place of internal combustion cars. Get with the program old man.

 

[WVPATX]

The point is that a Tesla produces about half the CO2 of a normal sedan over its lifetime. Electric cars will slowly take the place of internal combustion cars. Get with the program old man.

Not according to the comprehensive Swedish study. It's in Swedish, so google a summary. One is posted above by OP.

 

[moe]

Not according to the comprehensive Swedish study. It's in Swedish, so google a summary. One is posted above by OP.

You posted yours and I posted mine which refutes yours. You haven't even read anything about the Swedish article since it's not in English, you just take the word of the author who doesn't seem to know that Tesla is more than a car company. Of course Tesla owns Solar City, the largest American manufacturer and installer of solar panels not to mention the battery business.

 

[WVPATX]

You posted yours and I posted mine which refutes yours. You haven't even read anything about the Swedish article since it's not in English, you just take the word of the author who doesn't seem to know that Tesla is more than a car company. Of course Tesla owns Solar City, the largest American manufacturer and installer of solar panels not to mention the battery business.

You're getting off track. You posted no study that refutes the Swedish Study. OP did post an article in English that you can read.

 

[moe]

You're getting off track. You posted no study that refutes the Swedish Study. OP did post an article in English that you can read.

Scroll up, I can't read the thread for you.

 

[WVPATX]

Scroll up, I can't read the thread for you.

Two points. Your article is from 2015. The Swedish Study was just finished and is a mega study (takes advantage of all prior studies) and thus far more comprehensive than the study you posted. The Swedes have no agenda other than they support green energy. Thus their study, more comprehensive and the bias is on the green side which makes their conclusions pretty shocking for electric car fans.

 

[moe]

Two points. Your article is from 2015. The Swedish Study was just finished and is a mega study (takes advantage of all prior studies) and thus far more comprehensive than the study you posted. The Swedes have no agenda other than they support green energy. Thus their study, more comprehensive and the bias is on the green side which makes their conclusions pretty shocking for electric car fans.

The reason their conclusions are shocking is because they're not true, pretty simple.

 

[WVPATX]

The reason their conclusions are shocking is because they're not true, pretty simple.

Yeah, the most comprehensive study to date, they have a green energy bias and their study is in accurate. I'm sure, somehow, this makes sense to you.

 

[Mog]

Here's a link to the Swedish study in English.

I would say there is no bias in the study. I would say there is bias in the conclusions drawn by the linked article, which are not mentioned by the study. The study itself makes no effort to compare pollution with the manufacture of car batteries to that of gasoline powered vehicles.

For starters, an important quote at the beginning of the study:

Based on the assessment of the posed questions, our conclusions are that the currently available data are usually not transparent enough to draw detailed conclusions about the battery’s production emissions. There is, regardless, a good indication of the total emissions from the production, but this should be viewed in light of there being a small number of electric vehicles being produced compared to the total number of vehicles.

The study does say estimate greenhouse gas emissions of 150-200 kg CO2 per KWh of battery size during production:

Based on our review greenhouse gas emissions of 150-200 kg CO2-eq/kWh battery looks to correspond to the greenhouse gas burden of current battery production.

Where things are difficult is determining how that compares to emissions from a gasoline vehicle. The article references one of the authors stating he calculated it to be 2.7 years for a Leaf to 8.2 years for a Tesla, but it doesn't indicate how those figures were reached. There is no link to where that conclusion is reached, and reading a Swedish language site isn't my specialty, so it's hard to know what assumptions were made. So I'll do some math on my own.

Let's look at the size of EV batteries and the equivalent CO2 emissions during production:

• Nissan Leaf (30 kWh battery) - 4,500 kg - 6,000 kg
• Chevy Bolt (60 kWh battery, also speculated to be the size of the base battery for the upcoming Tesla Model 3) - 9,000 kg - 12,000 kg
• Tesla Model S (75 kWh battery, current base version) - 11,250 kg - 15,000 kg
• Tesla Model S (100 kWh battery, highest trim version) - 15,000 kg - 20,000 kg

So how does that compare to emissions from a gasoline vehicle? This EPA study gives information. It indicates that using a gallon of gasoline creates 8,887 g of CO2 emissions. Using the average fleet fuel efficiency of 21.6 mpg (as of 2012, so that figure has and will continue to improve) and average mileage driven of 11,400 per year within the United States, it indicates that a typical gasoline vehicle emits 4,700 kg of CO2 per year. Based on those numbers, here are how the vehicles compare:

• Nissan Leaf (30 kWh battery) - 1 year - 1.3 years, 11,400 - 14,820 miles
• Chevy Bolt (60 kWh battery) - 1.9 years - 2.6 years, 21,660 - 29,640 miles
• Tesla Model S (75 kWh battery, current base version) - 2.4 years - 3.2 years, 27,360 - 36,480 miles
• Tesla Model S (100 kWh battery, highest trim version) - 3.2 years - 4.3 years, 36,480 - 49,020 miles

Now one important consideration to note here is that you're comparing CO2 emitted during the entire production process of a battery with the CO2 emitted only by burning gasoline. That does not take into account CO2 emitted in the production of gasoline (drilling for oil, transporting, refining, etc.), which is certainly non-negligible. In other words, you're not looking at an apples to apples comparison here by any means.

As far as differences between American driving and Swedish driving? Well for one, Sweden requires fuel efficient driving lessons in order for drivers to receive a license. Two, the average Swedish driver drives 7,600 miles per year compared to 11,400 for American. I'm sure there are also differences in vehicle fleets. We love our SUVs and trucks in America, after all.

Now there are also two conclusions from the study that are important:

How large are the greenhouse gas emissions related to different production steps including mining, processing and assembly/manufacturing?

Mining and refining seem to contribute a relatively small amount to the current life cycle of the battery... The largest part of the emissions, around 50%, is currently from battery (including cell) manufacturing

And..

What differences are there in greenhouse gas emissions between different production locations?

This review shows that assuming the current level of emissions from manufacturing, the electricity mix of the production location greatly impacts the total result. This is due to the fact that the manufacturing is a large part of the life cycle, and that most of the production energy is electricity.

This is of particular interest with regard to Tesla. To date, they have imported battery cells produced by Panasonic in Japan for the Roadster, Model S, and Model X. However, they have been constructing their own battery factory near Reno Nevada. It recently began producing battery cells for the Model 3, which is slated to begin production next month. Presumably they will eventually make cells for all their vehicles in-house at that location.

The building does not directly consume any fossil fuels as is (i.e. no natural gas lines to the plant). When complete, the building will be powered entirely by sustainable energy and house the largest rooftop solar array grid in the world.

Based on that, it's safe to conclude that when the factory is complete, production of batteries in Tesla vehicles will result in a fraction of CO2 emitted compared with those made today.

 

[Op2]

The last part of the previous post, whether the specifics of that or in a more general sense, is what I think some people fail to appreciate. Even if a study done today really did show that the EVs weren't so good on CO2 or whatever right now, what does that matter in the long run? The technology is rapidly getting better, unlike the technology of the ICE which is pretty much maxed out. It's coming and the only question is exactly how fast. You can't stop progress.

 

[WVPATX]

The last part of the previous post, whether the specifics of that or in a more general sense, is what I think some people fail to appreciate. Even if a study done today really did show that the EVs weren't so good on CO2 or whatever right now, what does that matter in the long run? The technology is rapidly getting better, unlike the technology of the ICE which is pretty much maxed out. It's coming and the only question is exactly how fast. You can't stop progress.

Simply disagree. Technology marches forward on all fronts including cleaner burning fossil feels.

 

[WVPATX]

Here's a link to the Swedish study in English.

I would say there is no bias in the study. I would say there is bias in the conclusions drawn by the linked article, which are not mentioned by the study. The study itself makes no effort to compare pollution with the manufacture of car batteries to that of gasoline powered vehicles.

For starters, an important quote at the beginning of the study:


The study does say estimate greenhouse gas emissions of 150-200 kg CO2 per KWh of battery size during production:


Where things are difficult is determining how that compares to emissions from a gasoline vehicle. The article references one of the authors stating he calculated it to be 2.7 years for a Leaf to 8.2 years for a Tesla, but it doesn't indicate how those figures were reached. There is no link to where that conclusion is reached, and reading a Swedish language site isn't my specialty, so it's hard to know what assumptions were made. So I'll do some math on my own.

Let's look at the size of EV batteries and the equivalent CO2 emissions during production:

• Nissan Leaf (30 kWh battery) - 4,500 kg - 6,000 kg
• Chevy Bolt (60 kWh battery, also speculated to be the size of the base battery for the upcoming Tesla Model 3) - 9,000 kg - 12,000 kg
• Tesla Model S (75 kWh battery, current base version) - 11,250 kg - 15,000 kg
• Tesla Model S (100 kWh battery, highest trim version) - 15,000 kg - 20,000 kg

So how does that compare to emissions from a gasoline vehicle? This EPA study gives information. It indicates that using a gallon of gasoline creates 8,887 g of CO2 emissions. Using the average fleet fuel efficiency of 21.6 mpg (as of 2012, so that figure has and will continue to improve) and average mileage driven of 11,400 per year within the United States, it indicates that a typical gasoline vehicle emits 4,700 kg of CO2 per year. Based on those numbers, here are how the vehicles compare:

• Nissan Leaf (30 kWh battery) - 1 year - 1.3 years, 11,400 - 14,820 miles
• Chevy Bolt (60 kWh battery) - 1.9 years - 2.6 years, 21,660 - 29,640 miles
• Tesla Model S (75 kWh battery, current base version) - 2.4 years - 3.2 years, 27,360 - 36,480 miles
• Tesla Model S (100 kWh battery, highest trim version) - 3.2 years - 4.3 years, 36,480 - 49,020 miles

Now one important consideration to note here is that you're comparing CO2 emitted during the entire production process of a battery with the CO2 emitted only by burning gasoline. That does not take into account CO2 emitted in the production of gasoline (drilling for oil, transporting, refining, etc.), which is certainly non-negligible. In other words, you're not looking at an apples to apples comparison here by any means.

As far as differences between American driving and Swedish driving? Well for one, Sweden requires fuel efficient driving lessons in order for drivers to receive a license. Two, the average Swedish driver drives 7,600 miles per year compared to 11,400 for American. I'm sure there are also differences in vehicle fleets. We love our SUVs and trucks in America, after all.

Now there are also two conclusions from the study that are important:


And..


This is of particular interest with regard to Tesla. To date, they have imported battery cells produced by Panasonic in Japan for the Roadster, Model S, and Model X. However, they have been constructing their own battery factory near Reno Nevada. It recently began producing battery cells for the Model 3, which is slated to begin production next month. Presumably they will eventually make cells for all their vehicles in-house at that location.

The building does not directly consume any fossil fuels as is (i.e. no natural gas lines to the plant). When complete, the building will be powered entirely by sustainable energy and house the largest rooftop solar array grid in the world.

Based on that, it's safe to conclude that when the factory is complete, production of batteries in Tesla vehicles will result in a fraction of CO2 emitted compared with those made today.

So according to your own calculations, since I trade my car in every 2 to 3 years, my gasoline powered vehicles produce less CO2 than your Tesla.

 

[Mog]

So according to your own calculations, since I trade my car in every 2 to 3 years, my gasoline powered vehicles produce less CO2 than your Tesla.

Well, no. That's wrong. First off, the numbers I listed came with a huge caveat- that the figures regarding emissions from gasoline vehicles do not take into account emissions resulting from drilling for oil, refining oil into gasoline, and transporting the gasoline. They essentially assume a magic fairy creates gasoline out of thin air and places it into your gas tank.

I don't know much CO2 is emitted in that process, but I think it's safe to say that the number is significant. For reference, this page indicates that the refining process requires 6 kWh of energy for a gallon of gasoline. The EPA indicates the US grid produces an average of 0.703 kg CO2 per kWh produced. So, you end up with an additional 4,218 g of CO2 to refine gasoline on top of the 8,887 g you get from burning it. That alters the figures significantly, and it still doesn't consider emissions resulting from drilling or transportation.

With regard to trading your car in every 2-3 years, that really doesn't make sense. You're comparing a one-off production cost for an electric vehicle with a continuous cost of use for a gasoline powered vehicle, limited to a small portion of its overall lifespan. I would assume your cars don't end up in the junk yard every time you trade them in.

 

[Mog]

Of course Tesla owns Solar City, the largest American manufacturer and installer of solar panels not to mention the battery business.

Worth noting that they don't yet manufacture their own solar panels. They're building a factory in Buffalo to that end, though.

 

[WVPATX]

Well, no. That's wrong. First off, the numbers I listed came with a huge caveat- that the figures regarding emissions from gasoline vehicles do not take into account emissions resulting from drilling for oil, refining oil into gasoline, and transporting the gasoline. They essentially assume a magic fairy creates gasoline out of thin air and places it into your gas tank.

I don't know much CO2 is emitted in that process, but I think it's safe to say that the number is significant. For reference, this page indicates that the refining process requires 6 kWh of energy for a gallon of gasoline. The EPA indicates the US grid produces an average of 0.703 kg CO2 per kWh produced. So, you end up with an additional 4,218 g of CO2 to refine gasoline on top of the 8,887 g you get from burning it. That alters the figures significantly, and it still doesn't consider emissions resulting from drilling or transportation.

With regard to trading your car in every 2-3 years, that really doesn't make sense. You're comparing a one-off production cost for an electric vehicle with a continuous cost of use for a gasoline powered vehicle, limited to a small portion of its overall lifespan. I would assume your cars don't end up in the junk yard every time you trade them in.

But it means that I buy a car every 2 to 3 years and it makes no sense from a CO2 standpoint to buy an electric vehicle. I put about 8000 miles on my vehicles each year.

And your analysis assumes that the batteries never go bad and have to be replaced.

 

[Mog]

But it means that I buy a car every 2 to 3 years and it makes no sense from a CO2 standpoint to buy an electric vehicle. I put about 8000 miles on my vehicles each year.

That only makes sense if the electric vehicle is trashed after you get rid of the car.

I mean, isn't the question at large really: How much CO2 will a vehicle account for over the lifespan of the car? It seems there are two main components to that: the amount of CO2 emitted during production, and the amount of CO2 emitted during operation of the car.

Does it really make sense to say that the original buyer of a car is responsible for all CO2 emitted during production, and buyers of used cars are responsible for none? I think it makes more sense to amortize that over the life of the car, so to speak.

And your analysis assumes that the batteries never go bad and have to be replaced.

With regard to batteries themselves, they have shown to be very reliable on Teslas (I'm less familiar with other manufacturer's batteries, though I have heard that early Nissan Leafs have had some issues), and they have an 8 year / unlimited mile warranty. The degradation rate has been very low to date, though given they haven't been around for that long, there's limited real-world data on super high mileage vehicles. But while there have been reliability complaints with various parts on Teslas, batteries have not been one of them. There's no expectation that they'd have to be replaced during a vehicle's normal lifespan.

Of course, you're right in that it's inevitable that some battery packs will go bad on a vehicle and need to be replaced, just like any other part. The analysis above didn't include that. But it also didn't include any potential CO2 savings due to recycling or giving EV batteries second lives in other applications. Here's a real-world example of the latter.

 

[WVPATX]

That only makes sense if the electric vehicle is trashed after you get rid of the car.

I mean, isn't the question at large really: How much CO2 will a vehicle account for over the lifespan of the car? It seems there are two main components to that: the amount of CO2 emitted during production, and the amount of CO2 emitted during operation of the car.

Does it really make sense to say that the original buyer of a car is responsible for all CO2 emitted during production, and buyers of used cars are responsible for none? I think it makes more sense to amortize that over the life of the car, so to speak.


With regard to batteries themselves, they have shown to be very reliable on Teslas (I'm less familiar with other manufacturer's batteries, though I have heard that early Nissan Leafs have had some issues), and they have an 8 year / unlimited mile warranty. The degradation rate has been very low to date, though given they haven't been around for that long, there's limited real-world data on super high mileage vehicles. But while there have been reliability complaints with various parts on Teslas, batteries have not been one of them. There's no expectation that they'd have to be replaced during a vehicle's normal lifespan.

Of course, you're right in that it's inevitable that some battery packs will go bad on a vehicle and need to be replaced, just like any other part. The analysis above didn't include that. But it also didn't include any potential CO2 savings due to recycling or giving EV batteries second lives in other applications. Here's a real-world example of the latter.

I don't feel I am responsible for anything outside of my control. When I sell the car, I lose all responsibility for it. If I were an alarmist, I guess I would buy the smallest green car since that creates the least amount of CO2. Do you drive such a car?

More importantly, people are constantly preaching about green energy and now we find out that one of the supposed saviors, electric vehicles, have some significant issues with emissions. Not the story being painted by the media, right?

 

[PriddyBoy]

What is the carbon foot print of manufacturing a Tesla?

The Union of Concerned Scientists did the best and most rigorous assessment of the carbon footprint of Tesla's and other electric vehicles vs internal combustion vehicles including hybrids. They found that the manufacturing of a full-sized Tesla Model S rear-wheel drive car with an 85 KWH battery was equivalent to a full-sized internal combustion car except for the battery, which added 15% or one metric ton of CO2 emissions to the total manufacturing.

However, they found that this was trivial compared to the emissions avoided due to not burning fossil fuels to move the car. Before anyone says "But electricity is generated from coal!", they took that into account too, and it's included in the 53% overall reduction.

And it's probably worth asking what happens to the battery at end of lifecycle. Answer: Tesla recycles it, recovering 70% of the carbon.

Umicore’s factory plants are able to recycle our batteries into completely reusable materials and substantially reduce the carbon footprint of manufacturing Lithium-ion batteries.

The Umicore battery recycling technology is able to save at least 70 percent on CO2 emissions at the recovery and refining of these valuable metals. It does this by creating “products” and “byproducts,” rather than following a mechanical separation process.

Tesla's Closed Loop Battery Recycling Program

Before anyone gets really excited about smaller cars, basically the report says you have to be driving a tiny hybrid in a serious coal generation area before the Tesla is equivalent full lifecycle to any internal combustion vehicle.

So as long as people are buying and driving cars, Teslas are excellent choices regarding carbon emissions. Along with NOx and particulate emissions. And sheer, unbridled fun.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-foot-print-of-manufacturing-a-Tesla

That "rigorous assessment" has a section in Chapter 2 titled "Global Warming Emissions from Manufacturing Electric Vehicles" that doesn't address Global Warming Emissions from Manufacturing Electric Vehicles. The *ahem* Assessment looks like a prospectus.
How do rare earth metals go from ore to batteries? What powers the factories? Doesn't really matter, I'm getting one of those bad boys.