How "clean" are electric cars?
Forums:
Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving
Huge hopes have been tied to electric cars as the solution to automotive CO2 climate problem. But it turns out the the electric car batteries are eco-villains in the production process of creating them. Several tons of carbon dioxide has been emitted, even before the batteries leave the factory.
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency to investigate litium-ion batteries climate impact from a life cycle perspective. There are batteries designed for electric vehicles included in the study. The two authors Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare has done a meta-study that is reviewed and compiled existing studies.
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 brand batteries, how these were produced, or the electricity mix they use. But if we understand the great importance of the battery here is 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 before buying the car emissions occurred, corresponding to approximately 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons of Carbon Dioxide. 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.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-rele...
Add to this the fact that the electricity to recharge the battery is most likely supplied by...
a coal fired plant.
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
if they also are fueled by
if they also are fueled by dirty energy, then they are not so green.
this has been known for a long time.
the car corporations can sell new product and get people to think they are doing a good thing.
...instead of being mandated to increase fuel efficiency
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ________
The flying Uber's will not be
Can't wait for flying Ubers
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Briank
The original Prius had a
The original Prius had a higher carbon footprint than the Hummer.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Briank
Wouldn't electric cars be
Wouldn't electric cars be good for the coal industry?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Billy Shears
If "the numbers are difficult
If "the numbers are difficult to relate to", then why do they compare car emissions to flight emissions? This gives you no context and is misleading, at best.
The average yearly mileage for a passenger vehicle in the US is 11,244 miles.
The Nissan Leaf uses 34 kW/h to go 100 miles. So, to travel the average yearly mileage it takes ~3823 kW/h
The Tesla S uses 32.33 kW/h to go 100 miles. So, to travel the average yearly mileage it takes ~3635 kW/h
Currently, ~65% of US power comes from fossil fuels. The US average is .000548 tons of CO2 produced per kW/h of electricity generated.
The Leaf generates .65 x (.000548 tons / kW/h) * 3823 kW/h = 1.36 tons of CO2 per year
The Tesla generates .65 x (.000548 tons / kW/h) * 3635 kW/h = 1.29 tons of CO2 per year
The average gasoline passenger vehicle emits approximately 5.2 tons of CO2 per year.
Both electrics produce less yearly CO2 emissions than than the gasoline vehicle. Even if you said all electricity is produced from fossil fuels, they are still cleaner.
Now, let's consider your initial CO2 cost for battery production.
The average life of a passenger vehicle in the US is 8 years.
Average Gas Guzzler: 8 years x 5.2 tons/yr = 41.6 tons of CO2
Tesla: 17.5 tons + (8 years x 1.29 tons/yr) = 27.82 tons of CO2
Leaf: 5.3 tons + (8 years x 1.36 tons/yr) = 16.18 tons of CO2
The electric cars are much cleaner. The numbers don't lie.
If the batteries weren't rechargeable, you might have a point.
If you could only charge them off coal and the renewable energy market share wasn't consistently increasing, you might have a point.
If the technology wasn't consistently improving, you might have a point.
But none of those things is true.
Electric is the way forward.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
Don’t try and use arithmetic
Don’t try and use arithmetic to take on the plucky group of oil billionaires who have uncovered these truths.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
Well done, jackoroses!
Well done, jackoroses!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
In other related news....
In other related news....
The National Academy of Science refutes Mark Jacobson’s dream that our economy can run exclusively on ‘green’ energy..
In their scathing takedown of Jacobson, Clack and his co-authors — who include Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Dan Kammen of the University of California, Berkeley, former EPA Science Advisory Board chairman Granger Morgan, and Jane Long of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory — concluded that Jacobson’s 2015 paper contained “numerous shortcomings and errors.” The paper used “invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” Those errors “render it unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100 percent wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system.”
Among the biggest errors — and one that should force the Academy to withdraw Jacobson’s 2015 paper — is that Jacobson and Delucchi overstated by roughly a factor of ten the ability of the United States to increase its hydropower output. Furthermore, the paper ignores two key issues: electricity storage and land use. Jacobson claimed that the U.S. can store energy underground or store it in the form of hydrogen. Clack and his co-authors wrote that “there are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448846/renewable-energy-national-a...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
Who other than Mark Jacobson
Who other than Mark Jacobson ever said it has to be 100% green energy. How about we shoot for 80%. See how easy that was to solve.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: GravyTrain
Nice to see Billy Shears drop
Nice to see Billy Shears drop some useful facts, and funny to watch Thom scramble to change the topic.
Seriously considering Chevy EV for next car purchase here.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Fly
More Thomfoolery.
More Thomfoolery.
Nice sensible and informative response Billy Shears. Thanks.
Thom must have a lot of his millions in Murray Coal stock and this is just a guess, Big Oil.
Man all you sem to want to do here is stir up shit and act like a know-it-all with music. Its tiresome.
Why does a human not care about the planet? Money
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Billy Shears
>>>Why does a human not care
>>>Why does a human not care about the planet?
Many have become convinced that a world of "Life, Liberty, and Happiness" for all is a pipe dream, and that they have to get their's while the getting is good. Ends justify all means.
Who cares about future generations? They want to get their kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
the republican mascot should
the republican mascot should be an ostrich.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Billy Shears
or a Lemming
or a lemming