Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

WSJ: Bjorn Lomborg: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Bjorn Lomborg: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret - WSJ.com

I found the report this article was based on. Here's the part that was not emphasized in the article...

Although EVs are an important technological breakthrough with substantial potential environmental benefits, these cannot be harnessed everywhere and in every condition. Our results clearly indicate that it is counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal, or even heavy oil combustion. At best, with such electricity mixes, local pollution reductions may be achieved. Thus EVs are a means of moving emissions away from the road rather than reducing them globally. Only limited benefits are achieved by EVs using electricity from natural gas. In the absence of foreseeable improvements to electricity mixes, a more significant reduction in GWP could potentially be achieved by increasing fuel efficiency or shifting from gasoline to diesel ICEVs without significant problem-shifting (with the exception of smog).

Conversely, the combination of EVs with clean energy sources would potentially allow for drastic reductions of many transportation environmental impacts, especially in terms of climate change, air quality, and preservation of fossil fuels. The many potential advantages of EVs should therefore serve as a motivation for cleaning up regional electricity mixes, but their promotion should not precede commitment to grid improvement. Consideration of alternative vehicle technologies should be undertaken from the perspective of benefits across time. While EVs may only offer minor benefits or even setbacks under an initial grid, their development and market penetration should be evaluated together with realistic scenarios for grid development in the long term.



The entire report can be found here: Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles - Hawkins - 2012 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library
 
Guess I'm the resident LCA expert here so I'll chime in:
1. Can't use it for a Model S comparison, it does not use NMC or FePO4- highlighting eutrophication is not correct and CAN NOT be translated to the NCA Tesla uses. kind of a duh moment- phosphates are a major contributor for eutrophication- FePO4
2. Failed to account for emission system (precious metals anyone??)
3. Used a low mileage (actually went against the ISO LCA standard for no apparent reason except they felt like it)
4. 273 kg battery- that's NOT a leaf battery, that's a Model S weight battery, off there big time
5. Brakes don't wear as much on an EV
6. incidental gas/fueling spills not covered

It's just a horrid study
 
Not again...

EV Myths: #3 EVs are not environmental in the long-run

I think Robert Llewelyn said it best:

When they calculated the materials that went into making electric motors for cars, they accidentally used a static electric motor (the sort of thing you’d use to drive a large milling machine or industrial lathe) instead of a small, compact motor that would be found in a Nissan Leaf or similar car. Their calculations were for a 1,000 kg motor, the motor in the Nissan Leaf weighs 53kg. As you can imagine, an error of this magnitude could skew the figures rather badly.

Well, their entire prognosis rests on the amounts of materials used and the ability to re-cycle those materials efficiently and economically at the end of the car’s life. A 1,000 kg motor contains 91 kg of copper, copper is expensive and it’s mining and production has, without question, a negative environmental impact. All cars use a lot of copper, the wiring loom, the starter motor etc. Electric cars use a little bit more, that phrase is accurate, they use a little bit more. Not 90kg more.

The report also ‘casually misjudges’ the size, weight and copper content of the frequency inverter, the bit of an electric car that transforms the AC current fed in from the electricity supply, into the DC current stored in the battery. These units do indeed contain copper but the report happened to measure a large, industrial scale frequency inverter you’d find in a factory tool shop. The factory one contains 36kg of copper, the one in the Nissan Leaf is 6.2 kg, total weight, most of which is the steel box it's housed in.

They then analysed battery chemistry which no EV maker uses, battery capacity that no plug in car uses, then skewed the figures of how much coal is burned to generate the power to charge the non existent batteries in the mythical car.
Essentially, the report is trash from start to finish. It's sad really because it raised some very important points. The main one being we really should stop burning coal to make electricity. That I totally support. But in their zeal to prove their utterly spurious point they pushed too far. They've shot themselves in the foot and the BBC likewise.

First the BBC, now the WSJ... This report is well and truly brodered.
 
Guess I'm the resident LCA expert here so I'll chime in:
1. Can't use it for a Model S comparison, it does not use NMC or FePO4- highlighting eutrophication is not correct and CAN NOT be translated to the NCA Tesla uses. kind of a duh moment- phosphates are a major contributor for eutrophication- FePO4
2. Failed to account for emission system (precious metals anyone??)
3. Used a low mileage (actually went against the ISO LCA standard for no apparent reason except they felt like it)
4. 273 kg battery- that's NOT a leaf battery, that's a Model S weight battery, off there big time
5. Brakes don't wear as much on an EV
6. incidental gas/fueling spills not covered

It's just a horrid study

And, on the ICE side of the equation, I don't believe they mentioned the impact of refining and distribution of gasoline.
 
Not again...

I think Robert Llewelyn said it best: [...]

First the BBC, now the WSJ... This report is well and truly brodered.
Just in case that you are looking for the source of the Robert Llewelyn quote, I found it here:
The LlewBlog - Electric Cars - The Truth WillOut.

Robert Llewelyn doesn't even mention Bjorn Lomborg in that blog post which is no surprise because he wrote that post five months earlier, to the day, than Lomborgs Dirty Little Cheat was published. Llewelyn directly tackles the original report which dates back to October 4th, 2012:
Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles - Hawkins - 2012 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library
(Thanks to ToddRLockwood, above, for digging up that link.)