JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Thank you. I don't know what "way" he thought the conversation was going simply because I pointed out that the 2% number was not valid.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Anti-Tesla Gibberish
- Thread starter bonnie
- Start date
Don't forget his fundamental flaw of comparing a Model S to a Civic, not a high end sports or luxury car, or even a mid sized SUV. My S didn't just replace my A4, but also often takes the place of our minivan on trips because it can carry so many kids and gear.
1. Write up outrageous story.
2. Give it an outrageous headline.
3. Sit back and cash in on the web traffic.
"Tesla Is Worse Than Solyndra
How the U.S. government’s bungled investment in the car company cost taxpayers at least $1 billion"
(Slate) 5/29/2013
2. Give it an outrageous headline.
3. Sit back and cash in on the web traffic.
"Tesla Is Worse Than Solyndra
How the U.S. government’s bungled investment in the car company cost taxpayers at least $1 billion"
(Slate) 5/29/2013
I read as much of the Slate story as I could tolerate, so I may have missed something, e.g., author was writing tongue-in-cheek. However, if not, using his logic mortgages should have the same terms, e.g., if property appreciates, lenders get more than just principle and interest. Why should owners be the ones who benefit? Seems only fair, and something he should suggest to HIS lender as soon as possible.
GlennAlanBerry
Member
No you both missed the point, it IS perfectly valid. One is a scientific study, the other is a bunch of horseshit. Don't fail to distinguish to two.
It's simple to get ballpark numbers from here.
So no one showed me any math, all got was number and word soup.
PHEV20 class car = Volt
Volt battery = 16kWh.
Tesla battery = 85kWh.
If you want to use the Leaf, even though it's wrong and not a PHEV20, then use 24kWh.
Regardless 85kWh/16kWh = 5.3125.
You are telling me than multiplying 2% of the total energy required to produce the car by 5.3 times somehow makes it significant?
OKAY. SURE.
Assuming battery addition only to the Volt: 2%*5.3=10.6%
Or perhaps Tesla specified they filled it with super "bad for the environment" pixie dust that was used to fake the moon landings? This is easily debunkable. All that energy use costs MONEY. The total energy required to build the battery and the car is bounded by the purchase price. You can basically use price to get a good estimate of it all. An equivalent car would spend $30k-$40k over a normal lifetime in fuel costs alone. Of course, the Tesla comes out to be cheaper over that time, and can be entirely fueled from non-CO2 producing sources which without need for any of the arguments above debunks the whole thing. I refer back to my description above: "horseshit"... sorry I meant "gibberish"
Just for the record, the Volt is a PHEV40 (as noted in the study). It's rated for 38 EPA miles of range and I personally got 49.9 miles on my single overnight charge yesterday before the gas engine fired up.
So, the Volt battery was roughly twice the size of the PHEV20 pack used in the study.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The 2% number is not at all accurate for the Model S.
Wrong. Volt is a PHEV40.
Yes, even using your numbers 10.6% is significantly not 2%. However since you mistakenly gave the PHEV40 Volt the same value as the PHEV20 in the study the actual number would be twice as large, meaning 21.2%, and yes that's significantly larger than 2%. Yes the original paper was garbage, but we don't prove anything by using equally inaccurate numbers.
Again you missed the point. Even at 21.2%, it's in the same order of magnitude and it's not relevant to the point that was trying to be made. A Tesla is not questionably dirtier than an ICE car, it's not even close.
You know, it actually is very close depending on your source of electricity for charging. In states with coal being the predominant source of electricity, even with manufacturing emissions equal, a Tesla can easily be dirtier than many gas powered vehicles in not only CO2, but other pollutants as well.
Now if you live in the north west where hydro is the predominant source of energy, then it's a no-brainer over the expected lifetime of the vehicle, but still, the big, heavy Model S represents a very large sunk cost of emissions that takes quite a few miles driven to make up for depending on where the energy used to manufacturer the vehicle comes from.
I thought Bush was responsible for the faked moon landings. Thanks for setting me straight.
There's this company called SCTY, you may have heard of them. Solar will be the dominant source of energy within 20 years.
You get a choice where to power it from, the alternative has no choice. Even biofuel is getting sub 1% or possibly even negative conversion efficiency from sunlight (tens of billions of dollars of subsidy later). Might as well go directly from solar via PV to your car.
Photons->electrons->ions->electrons->motion. Find me a simpler energy cycle than this.
I just drove from the SF Bay Area to Santa Barbara and back and most if not all of my charging was solar powered. How would that compare to an Audi S6 or Ford Taurus or M5? If I do this drive twice a year for ten years (assuming my other charging comes predominantly from PGE, I would think that would alone satisfy your undetermined/undefined "quite a few miles" to more than compensate for whatever other emissions put out by my "big, heavy" MS that transported four people and tons of bags in comfort. Might help if you actually put some numbers behind your unsupported guesses.
jeff_adams
Member
Short of riding a bicycle, every form of transportation is going to leave a carbon footprint. The good news with EVs is the fact that it can lessen with age.
That gas sipping Honda STILL needs refined gas for every mile it drives (gas refinement is very energy intensive). So for an ICE, you have the carbon it took to build it, the continuous carbon it takes to refine and deliver the fuel to the gas station AND the continuous carbon it spews out burning the fuel. With the MS and Solar Power, you only have the carbon it took to build both. After that, it can be carbon free for it's lifespan (except for recycling after useful lifetime which you would also expect from a ICE)
That gas sipping Honda STILL needs refined gas for every mile it drives (gas refinement is very energy intensive). So for an ICE, you have the carbon it took to build it, the continuous carbon it takes to refine and deliver the fuel to the gas station AND the continuous carbon it spews out burning the fuel. With the MS and Solar Power, you only have the carbon it took to build both. After that, it can be carbon free for it's lifespan (except for recycling after useful lifetime which you would also expect from a ICE)
Why insist on putting words in my mouth? Did I say that a MS is never significantly better than an ICE vehicle? No and I gave a specific example and now you are the one pulling wild guesses out of the air.
I also gave a specific example of where electric vehicles are either similar in "tailpipe" emissions to gas cars (areas where coal is the dominant source of electricity).
But I guess you want numbers and "supported" guesses.
So how about this report: Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across the United States
These numbers are fairly representative in my experience with reputable reports. They are also fairly easy to estimate yourself by looking up the CO2/MWh emissions for your local region.
However, those numbers are not full life-cycle emissions, only operating emissions.
Here's a UCLA study comparing EV to other vehicles, one can clearly see that manufacturing of an EV uses substantially more energy up front, even if they end up lower overall thanks to California's clean grid. That paper assumes a battery about half the weight of the Model S' and the overall vehicle weight being substantially lighter, too. It's very clear that there is a direct correlation between vehicle weight and manufacturing emissions - there are multiple studies that support this - it's nothing new.
On the role of Li-Ion batteries in those calculations you might also wish to consult this Swiss study of electric vehicles life cycles by their materials science laboratory (ETH). The battery is not all that important in life cycle calculations that consider all of the vehicle. According to Tesla also, recycling the batteries of their cars, recovers more than 70% of the CO2 invested in their initial production. As far as energy use for driving alone is concerned, Model S will beat any gasoline powered car of similar size and power (BMW 7 e.g.) - even when just coal generated electricity is used. Closer is only the comparison with the less lively Diesel version of this car. The finer points of the assumptions can tilt the calculation a bit in one or the other direction, but overall I also estimated that in reality things are closer to favoring electricity - always and even in a worst case coal scenario. Apart from the global CO2 production issue I would suggest that it makes a huge difference for your asthma whether the exhaust is blown downtown straight into your face or whether the gases escape hundreds of Km away from a high rise smoke stack. The city dwellers will thank you for switching to a Model S.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Probably not, but if so great. Has nothing to do with today's emissions, which is what we are discussing.
Not really. The solar panels on an SC station only generate a portion of the power consumed by the SC. Also that solar power was going to the grid before you plugged in, when you plug in that solar power is no longer being sent to the grid and that loss has to be made up for by an NG peaker plant filling in the drop.
The refining process is around 90% efficient.
Sort of, referencing my above post about solar power, without affordable storage you aren't technically using solar energy for all of your charging, especially night time charging.
The point Drees and I are trying to get across is it's not as straightforward as some of you are trying to suggest, and we can't fight misinformation with our own misinformation if we want to have an honest discussion, especially if you are talking to people who really know their stuff. I debate with knowledgeable people almost on a daily basis and weak arguments don't stand up under that type of scrutiny. We have to raise our game to compete.
Which of course is why these regions need to reduce their dependence on coal as well as switching to electric cars.
Most definitely. I highly encourage everyone to install as much solar PV as possible. If you can afford a MS, you can definitely afford solar.
Similar threads
