Slashdot Mirror
No, the Tesla Model S Doesn't Pollute More Than an SUV
thecarchik writes "In an exhaustive 6,500-word article on the financial website Seeking Alpha, analyst Nathan Weiss lays out a case that the latest Tesla Model S actually has higher effective emissions than most large SUVs of both the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and smog-producing pollutants like sulfur dioxide. This is absolutely false. Virtually all electric car advocates agree that when toting up the environmental pros and cons of electric cars, it's only fair to include powerplant emissions. When this has been done previously, the numbers have still favored electric cars. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, concluded in a 2012 report (PDF), 'Electric vehicles charged on the power grid have lower global warming emissions than the average gasoline-based vehicle sold today.' Working through every one of Weiss' conclusions may show a higher emissions rate than Tesla's published numbers, but in no way does a Model S pollute the amounts even close to an SUV."
Wow, the amount of skew in that article is truly amazing. You'd almost think that some people have so much invested in the mainstream automobile industry, that they'd say anything to keep their money from going down the drain.
The issue is in the manufacturing of the batteries, which is very wasteful. The best estimate for the total emissions from manufacturing is probably as a proportion to the price of the vehicle wholesale and the Tesla is expensive to make. You also have to determine how long the vehicle is expected to last. Tesla's batteries will not last that long, so their replacements will have manufacturing emissions too.
I haven't read TFA of course, but does it include the lifetime environmental impact of the battery packs? (mining through disposal) That's what usually has me skeptical of today's electric vehicles.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Better would be to compare the S model to a typical current-model gas-powered sedan.
True, it likely does not pollute more than an SUV, but what about a Chevy Impala?
Because they're considered to be "green". If something is green, it's supported by hippies. If hippies support something, it must be bad. We must stop the hippies!
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Not true. With a good foot, you can have decent fuel economy in PWR mode.
It takes self-training, though. You obviously can't slam your foot down and expect 50 MPG.
That being said, I use ECO normally and PWR when people get stupid and I need to distance myself from mustangs or ricers.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I'm a true conservative. As such I do things that make sense to me. When I saw a CFL bulb in Lowes back in the 90's I bought one for the light in my shed. I often left the light on all night and the incandescent bulbs didn't last very long. After reading the package and seeing the projected lifetime I decided to try it. After about 6 months of surviving never being turned off I started to replace all my bulbs that burned out with CFL bulbs. I didn't do it because they were "green" but because it made sense. While I believe you are correct about many "right wingers" hating on CFL's because they are labeled green I see this behavior from lefties too. Many buy anything labeled green regardless if their is any actual valid reason to do so. Lots of people are so caught up in their obsession with political viewpoints that they lose any perspective. Just because a leftie came up with a good idea is no reason for me to reject it. By the way, that original CFL lasted 7 years.
Mistake #1: Betting against Elon Musk.
This is so true. If I saw Elon Musk moving into an industry I was involved with more directly, I would either try to send a resume off to his new company or start thinking about how to become a major competitor with Musk providing very stiff competition in hopes that my company could survive the fall-out.
Toyota saw that with Tesla and decided to invest into Tesla instead. That is also sort of the reason why Tesla has the old NUMMI plant.
Recycling content from automobiles is one of the best recycling options you can get, where most automobiles are recycled not just down to their raw components but often even machined parts are reused on more than one vehicle before they finally are worthless. While disposing of automobiles does cost some money, it definitely is cheaper to smelt down cars and trucks into raw steel or other metals (like Platinum from the catalytic converters and Copper from the electrical systems) than it is to pull those metals from the ground.
Very seldom does an automobile end up in a landfill just occupying space, unlike disposable diapers.
The concern with the stated metrics is not that the electric powerplant emissions being included, but that "total footprint" includes all the way back to coal mining techniques while the total footprint of gasoline vehicles stops at the gas tank.
That's exactly what I came to say. If they are going to factor in the total cost of producing the electricity that runs the vehicle, then they need to compare that with a gas vehicle where they also include the environmental cost to extract the oil, transport the oil to a refinery, refine the oil into gasoline, transport the gas to a distributor, and then worry about the emissions of the actual vehicle consuming the fuel. Likewise, if they want to factor in the cost to manufacture the batteries and motors, then they also need to factor in the cost to manufacture the engines. It's not a meaningful comparison otherwise.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
This is not correct. Prius uses electronic throttle control. This means that the gas pedal is only used to signal your intention. Do not attempt to finely control the engine - it won't work at least because the ICE is not directly connected to that pedal.
If I want to quickly merge onto a road I can press the gas pedal all the way to the floor. It only commands full power. The tires may lose traction momentarily as you do that, on a clean and dry road surface and with new Michelin tires (and certainly they will squeal if you use stock Goodyear tires.) This is quite sufficient for the intended use of the car. If you want to smoke tires all the time, get yourself a car that is designed for that.
For best fuel economy it is recommended to accelerate briskly - apparently as you do. This is because the ICE operates optimally in that mode. After the acceleration is completed the car needs very little power to maintain speed, and then you release the throttle. The efficiency bar jumps to about 50 mpg at that time. If the speed is under 42 mph the ICE may shut down completely and you will proceed in pseudo-EV mode.
And what about the manufacturing "price" of those heavy metal batteries? What impact does that have on the environment? What about the disposal of those heavy metal batteries? My guess is that some child in china is going to have cancer from those things just like they get it now from our electronics waste.
Interestingly Weiss's article damning the Tesla includes the carbon 'cost' of battery production, but interestingly omits the carbon 'cost' of building a petrol engine.
He also includes the carbon 'cost' of electricity production, but omits the carbon 'cost' of petrol production.
"According to a 2000 report from the MIT Energy Lab, gasoline production accounts for 19 percent of the total lifetime CO2 emissions of a typical car. Actually driving the car accounts for about 75 percent of its lifetime carbon output.
Thus the carbon footprint of fuel production adds about 25 percent to a gas car's nominal CO2 emissions number."
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084440_does-the-tesla-model-s-electric-car-pollute-more-than-an-suv/page-4