Eight YEARS of CO2 Emissions Built Into Every Tesla Model S..

[flacaltenn]

There's no "free lunch" in Electric cars. Unless Musk runs his battery plants solely on solar/wind. Good luck with that strategy. And before you criticize this as just one study -- it's actually a meta-study combining the analysis of SEVERAL previous studies...



Stora utsläpp från elbilarnas batterier

Huge hopes tied to electric cars as the solution to automotive climate problem. But the electric car batteries are eco-villains in the production. Several tons of carbon dioxide has been placed, even before the batteries leave the factory.

IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency investigated litiumjonbatteriers 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 bilmärkens batteries, how these produced or the electricity mix they use. But if we understand the great importance of play battery take 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 when buying the car has thus emissions occurred, corresponding to approximately 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons, the batteries of these sizes. 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.
<SNIP>

His colleague, Mats-Ola Larsson at IVL has made a calculation of how long you have to drive a petrol or diesel before it has released as much carbon dioxide as battery manufacturing has caused. The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as the Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of the Tesla-size, based on a series of assumptions (see box below).

8.2 years to pay off the CO2 offset from producing that giant battery farm you're driving. And that doesn't count the emissions mix of what you're charging it from !!!! That's probably close to the REPLACEMENT time for a new battery stack..

So if you have to drive electric and you don't want to destroy the planet -- buy a small range car like a Leaf or a Volt....

 

[Old Rocks]

And the steel in an ICE engine is produced without carbon emissions? And the carbon emissions are based on use of electricity produced by burning coal? This article smells like shit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Tesla will power its Gigafactory with a 70-megawatt solar farm
9
Would be the world’s largest roof-mounted solar installation

Tesla


Tesla plans to power its Gigafactory in Nevada with a 70-megawatt solar farm, according to a company investor relations document obtained by Electrek. The document, which The Verge confirmed was genuine, was given to analysts at a tour of the Gigafactory last week. At the same time, Tesla announced that it had started production of battery cells at the facility.


The 70-megawatt solar array installation planned for the roof is the biggest news, and Tesla claims it will be seven times larger than the world’s next biggest rooftop solar installation. The plan is for the Gigafactory to not directly consume any fossil fuels, and for the solar installation to provide most of the power needed by the facility. Any excess power generated during the day will be stored by Tesla Powerpack power storage batteries for use at other times. It’s likely that the solar panels will be produced by SolarCity, which Tesla acquired late last year.

Tesla will power its Gigafactory with a 70-megawatt solar farm

The world's largest solar farm, mounted on a roof, and equiped with grid scale storage. Once again Musk is leading the way.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, we have to ask why "Conservatives' hate America, and Americans. Elon Musk has provided the US with a cutting edge technology, built right here in America, an automobile that goes head to head with $500,000 luxury sports sedans, and beats them. For $150,000 for a Tesla S with all the bells and whistles. SpaceX is actively putting loads into orbit, a private company, which is what the 'Conservatives' have always said they wanted, yet they cannot say a good word about SpaceX.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Old Crock thinks all the parts are built in Telsa's assembly plant....ROFLMAO

Moron....

 

[skookerasbil]

Less than 1% of the American population cares about the Tesla. What else does anybody need to know? Most American males, if given the choice, would choose 30-40 other performance cars over a Tesla. None of these electric car advocates ever read Motor Trend where something like exhaust sound becomes a major selling point of a car ( see this months camparo of the GT350 vs the LT1 Camaro ).....these people don't understand the typical car guy at all. Of course, in America there will always be a niche segment which is exactly what the Tesla S is......bought only by rich guys who have to be different. The numbers are few. For every Tesla S I see on the road, Im passed by dozen's M-Series BWM's or C-Class Benz's......and those car guys aint buying an electric car.

Im lucky enough to be able to attend a mega-car show every Sunday morning by me near the ocean. Hundreds of sIcK cars........you always see one of two Tesla's. But there are about 30 Hellcats and 50 Corvettes with nitrous set-ups. A Corvette guy is never gonna buy a Tesla S ever.......its an American male thing. If somebody offered a brand new Tesla S in a trade for a Mustang GT 500, any Mustang guy is going to laugh at him. Some progressives just don't understand that it is just part of the culture which has been going on for 75 years.

 

[skookerasbil]

http://www.guycounseling.com/7-reasons-guys-like-classic-muscle-cars/

Not for nothing, but to these guys, electric cars are ghey.

 

[mamooth]

All the deniers were snookered by this bit of junk science. But then, they're deniers, so all of their science is junk science.

That Tesla Battery Emissions Study Making the Rounds? It's Bunk.
---
The study's finding of 8.2 years is "based on a series of assumptions." To get to that figure, two of those assumptions must have been that the internal-combustion vehicle in question gets great mileage and isn't driven very much. Oh, and while battery production incurs a carbon footprint in these statistics, the gasoline in the study magically appears in your tank and the only carbon emitted is from burning it (that is, the calculations ignore the carbon emissions created by producing and moving large quantities of gasoline). Those are nifty assumptions.

Let's say the gas-powered car is actually something similar to a Tesla Model S P100D, which would use the battery in question. Let's say we're talking about the Audi A8 4.0, another quick AWD sedan. According to the EPA, that car emits 6.2 metric tons of CO2 per year, given 15,000 miles of annual driving. And since A8s don't automatically percolate their own 93-octane, the EPA also calculates an additional 1.1 tons of upstream carbon to get those ancient dinosaur innards coursing through your fuel pump. Math aficionados will note that 17.5 (battery production) divided by 7.3 (total annual A8 emissions) equals 2.4. As in, apples to apples, the battery's carbon footprint is zeroed out in less than three years.
---

So, only off by a factor of 3.5. For deniers, that's actually better than they usually do.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is NO assumption that vehicle isn't driven very much. It's a comparison by MILEAGE you dolt. And only a few Tesla S get 15,000 miles per year usage.. Your conclusion is BASS-ACKWARDS because the source you had to DIG FOR made the "phony assumptions" just to be devious...

This study came from the main govt transportation agency in Sweden. Using 4 or 5 Different studies as it's base. Until you have a study that CONTRADICTS the basic facts they laid out --- the way this science thingy WORKS is -- the numbers stand and will be re-quoted in further studies. In SPITE of the "alternative devious" facts that your source dug deep for...

 

[flacaltenn]

Tesla will power its Gigafactory with a 70-megawatt solar farm
9
Would be the world’s largest roof-mounted solar installation

Tesla


Tesla plans to power its Gigafactory in Nevada with a 70-megawatt solar farm, according to a company investor relations document obtained by Electrek. The document, which The Verge confirmed was genuine, was given to analysts at a tour of the Gigafactory last week. At the same time, Tesla announced that it had started production of battery cells at the facility.


The 70-megawatt solar array installation planned for the roof is the biggest news, and Tesla claims it will be seven times larger than the world’s next biggest rooftop solar installation. The plan is for the Gigafactory to not directly consume any fossil fuels, and for the solar installation to provide most of the power needed by the facility. Any excess power generated during the day will be stored by Tesla Powerpack power storage batteries for use at other times. It’s likely that the solar panels will be produced by SolarCity, which Tesla acquired late last year.

Tesla will power its Gigafactory with a 70-megawatt solar farm

The world's largest solar farm, mounted on a roof, and equiped with grid scale storage. Once again Musk is leading the way.

That is NOT -- grid scale storage. It's single site storage. And it's as real as any other Musk Meglomaniacal claims. Just like his national chain of "solar" Tesla chargers was.. THAT was a bunch of hooey knowing that the volume of use would be close to zero...

You post it when Musk actually RISKS that entire operation to "self-contained" solar power. Simply isn't gonna end up that way... .

 

[flacaltenn]

And the steel in an ICE engine is produced without carbon emissions? And the carbon emissions are based on use of electricity produced by burning coal? This article smells like shit.

It's not based "on burning coal". It states it's based on the local mix. And in fact, it doesn't even take into account the "MIX" of electricity generation that RECHARGES the vehicles. So the story is sadder than it appears...

 

[mamooth]

Yet another way in which the OP article fails hard is that 99+% of those automobile lithium batteries will be recycled, which will "get back" 75% of the energy costs.

Alas, that's engineering common sense, which nobody expects deniers to have.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing............

All the climate crusaders are so amped up about the Tesla models. Has anybody actually seen one on the road I have.......they are the most boring looking vehicles out there. Highly generic looking. Think a Challenger buyer or mini Cooper buyers is going to go for that level of bore? Only the climate k00ks think people will swarm to electric cars just based upon technology. How fucking duh? Oh.....like folks in the millions who like to drive around and hear the sound of their exhausts are suddenly going to like a silent car? Can you get more stoopid?

 

[flacaltenn]

Yet another way in which the OP article fails hard is that 99+% of those automobile lithium batteries will be recycled, which will "get back" 75% of the energy costs.

Alas, that's engineering common sense, which nobody expects deniers to have.

That's not even clear at this point. Because the process by weight and volume is more complicated when individual cells are as many as 5000 or more per vehicle. And the Li chemistry varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Not NEARLY as easy as Lead Acid or NiMh. Where the raw metals are easily separated. It's also an order of magnitude more HAZARDOUS and the wastestream from the process is gonna be severe.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, we shall see. Odd that you show no concern over the waste stream from coal. You know, watersheds poisoned from mountain top removal mining and from flyash spills at the generating plants.

 

[westwall]

Well, we shall see. Odd that you show no concern over the waste stream from coal. You know, watersheds poisoned from mountain top removal mining and from flyash spills at the generating plants.

On the contrary. We have always been concerned by that. What we find amazing is that you don't care about the waste stream from solar and wind which is severe. Add to that the fact that fossil fuel powered plants are RELIABLE, and it is a no brainer. A coal powered plant using anthracite coal has a far smaller footprint than wind or solar, and will power the grid reliably, day or night, fair weather or foul. Solar and wind can't.

It really is that simple.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Still living in the '50's, eh? In the next decade, we will see grid scale battery storage make wind and solar 24/7.

And that is a lie about the small footprint of the coal fired plants. That footprint includes the mountain top mining, the water sheds destroyed by that kind of mining. The fly ash spills from coal generating plants that have poisoned whole rivers. The heavy metals spewed into the air our children breathe.

 

[westwall]

LOL Still living in the '50's, eh? In the next decade, we will see grid scale battery storage make wind and solar 24/7.

And that is a lie about the small footprint of the coal fired plants. That footprint includes the mountain top mining, the water sheds destroyed by that kind of mining. The fly ash spills from coal generating plants that have poisoned whole rivers. The heavy metals spewed into the air our children breathe.

That's the claim. Yet to see it happen of course, and the technology isn't available, nor is the renewable energy production levels, you still seem to think that they actually produce the amounts they claim when they are lucky to produce a third of rated capacity.

 

[flacaltenn]

In the next decade, we will see grid scale battery storage make wind and solar 24/7.

Only thing "grid scale storage" would do is BANKRUPT the utilities, make Wind and Solar MORE EXPENSIVE than anything and generate the LARGEST hazardous waste stream in the history of mankind.

And that's the truth.. That's why I funnied your post...

 

[Old Rocks]

In the next decade, we will see grid scale battery storage make wind and solar 24/7.

Only thing "grid scale storage" would do is BANKRUPT the utilities, make Wind and Solar MORE EXPENSIVE than anything and generate the LARGEST hazardous waste stream in the history of mankind.

And that's the truth.. That's why I funnied your post...

Really?



Oncor, which runs Texas’ largest power line network, is willing to bet battery technology is ready for wide-scale deployment across the grid.

In a move that stands to radically shift the dynamics of the industry, Oncor is set to announce Monday that it is prepared to invest more than $2 billion to store electricity in thousands of batteries across North and West Texas beginning in 2018.

Utility-scale batteries have been a holy grail within the energy sector for years. With enough storage space, surplus electricity can be generated at night, when plants usually sit idle, to be used the next day, when demand is highest. Power outages would become less frequent. Wind and solar power, susceptible to weather conditions, could be built on a larger scale. The only problem has been that the price of batteries has been too high to make economic sense. But if they’re purchased on a large enough scale, that won’t be the case for long, said Oncor CEO Bob Shapard.

“Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out. We’re getting indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

Ranging from refrigerator- to dumpster-size, the batteries would be installed behind shopping centers and in neighborhoods. Statewide, Oncor estimates a total price tag of $5.2 billion. A study commissioned by Oncor with the Brattle Group, a Massachusetts consulting firm that provides power market analysis for state regulators, says the project would not raise bills. Revenue from rental of storage space on the batteries, along with a decrease in power prices and transmission costs, should actually decrease the average Texas residential power bill 34 cents to $179.66 a month, the report said.

At the time, Oncor stated that the point at which the batteries would be practical, would be $350 per kwhr. Tesla states in large sales, they can do $250/kwhr, and $125/kwhr in a decade.