Yeah yeah, that’s a standard flawed, or at least potentially-flawed, argument. First, yes, every product has a one-time energy (and thus CO2) production footprint. The argument is that, when you buy a new car, you effectively release a boatload of CO2 into the air, whereas if you’d just kept driving the ordinary Prius you already drive, you’re not causing a huge energy expenditure. The flaw in that reasoning regards your current Prius: Is it at the end of its life? If so, then you’re going to buy some car anyway, so you’re going to, in essence, “belch out that CO2” one way or another. If it’s *not* at end of end-of-life then you will “belch out that CO2,” but whoever buys you old car from you *will not*. Either way, one-new-car-production’s amount of CO2 will be emitted. As for the “EVs just have a longer tailpipe” argument, that’s all “a big maybe”: Even if the electricity comes from an oil-fired power plant, that power plant operates at a much-higher efficiency than a weight- and size-constrained engine forced to operate at a large variety of RPM ranges, all-too-often ones where its least efficient. Meanwhile, EV power trains run in the 90ish-percent-efficiency range. But if you look at pollution in general, and not just CO2 in particular, stationary power plants are much easier to apply scrubbers to, and can be placed outside of town centers away from where most of our lungs are.. Of course that’s all assuming that our energy sources are zero% renewable, when in fact rooftop solar cost is dropping very rapidly. Plus of course, there’s reduced noise in urban centers.
Fundamentally I agree, but ICEs *are* getting more efficient (e.g., with HCCI starting to become a reality). Just not enough more efficient.
Let me try to un-confuse you. Yes, currently the production of Tesla vehicles uses about as much energy as the production of ICE vehicles. Tesla would like to convert more of its production facilities to solar power, reducing fossil fuel dependence, but the insistence of the financial news media (and some on this forum) and Wall Street that Tesla show an immediate profit has required that Tesla slow their conversion to solar power. Having said that, the benefit of an EV is when it hits the street. The EV has almost zero impact on emissions whereas the ICE car continues to pollute for the rest of its lifespan. So, overall, the EV has a considerably less impact on the environment compared to the ICEV.
Lucifer, this is nothing new, and nothing that isn’t common for other companies to do. It would be like acting it was a bad thing for Tesla to expect buyers to pay for the cars. I also don’t believe the deposits show as assets on the balance sheets. They appear as liabilities until the sale is complete.
don't people call that rhetorical? ..... oh wait - again - even that question begs 'no amount of explanation' .... .
Our two Tesla's are MUCH cleaner than petrol rivals. Here is a good article to consider: Oil industry 'peddling misinformation' about electric vehicles
Religious fervor for one particular viewpoint or another can go both ways, especially since the science is incomplete. And not to be a devil's advocate, but lithium mining and PV production aren't clean processes either. Unlike fossil fuels, however, they can be reused for many cycles/decades.
No one ever claimed EVs make no impact during production. I don’t think you will get any argument there.
400k people were willing to do so for a Model 3. I don't know what the UK's electric generating mix is, but a Tesla's production and operation will emit less carbon dioxide over its life time even on the dirtiest grids in the US. On the other side of that coin is the fact that oil production will result in higher emissions as the energy required to bring it to market increases. The article linked here was discussing CO2 emissions. A BEV car results in more during production than an ICE car, but more than makes up for it during operation. Then any CO2 emissions from electric generation could be reduced through shifting to renewable sources. Other pollutants and damages shouldn't be ignored for any side.
I personally doubt that, but I’d have to see why specifically they claim that. (This particular article required me to subscribe to read the rest of the article.) I’m open to evaluating the numbers, though.
I don’t believe I have seen a single study from anyone that doesn’t conclude that a BEV is more carbon intensive to build. However, that deficit is quickly made up for in fueling, even off the US Grid.
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf Page 16-17 for the part on manufacturing. Appendix B for more nitty gritty.
Other, neutral sources have come to that conclusion. A big chunk of the material going into a BEV is the battery. A BEV weighs more than a comparable ICE car. Moving that extra material around and converting it into useful bits takes energy, and most energy production results in CO2 emissions. On top of that, the new battery might require its first charge that will be counted in production. other sources CO2 Intensity of Electric Cars | Energy Matters Battery Electric Vehicles vs. Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles | Arthur D Little
Here is one focused on European countries. Effects of battery manufacturing on electric vehicle life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions | International Council on Clean Transportation While there is a lot of variability, all are cleaner than ICE vehicles over the car’s lifetime. Yet all have higher GHG costs in construction.
Thanks for the references, folks. I haven’t had a chance to read them yet, but I will. Most likely, I’m guessing, what they’ll cite is the energy to mine lithium, cobalt, nickel, etc. to feed the battery chemistry. That’s certainly a reasonable concern, but again, it’s a *one-time* concern, the benefits of which will go way beyond the lifetime of the car they initially go into. That, since those batteries will then go into stationary power systems, then those materials will be “mined” (i.e., recycled) from older batteries into new batteries, rather than from the Earth, which is far less energy-intensive. However, yes, there is a larger impact the first time around.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear about that: She said she doesn’t like the Model 3’s screen. She didn’t say specifically why it looks to her like a PC on a temp employee desk (and she told me that in Mandarin, so hopefully I’m not misrepresenting her ), but I’d I guess it must be the fact that it’s attached by a pedestal rather than being integrated into the dash, combined with the wood (venir) strip behind/below it makes the whole setup look like a PC on a desk. She and I are both fine with the P.Prime’s screen.
This is what a number of us have been saying all along. The energy that goes into building an EV (a one time cost) is higher than building an ICE. We also have held that this is easily made up for over the operational lifetime of the vehicle. I don't think we are in disagreement here mr88cet
I certainly agree, and even more so if you charge it from rooftop solar. However, my point was that it’s not only a one-time expense over the life of the car, but that plus the 10-20 years those batteries are reused in stationary power stations, plus the subsequent time when that lithium and cobalt is recycled into new batteries. It’s a one-time expense over many decades!
