Does The Tesla Model S Electric Car Pollute More Than An SUV? Page 3
![2011 Chevrolet Volt and 2013 Tesla Model S [photo: David Noland]](http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/2011-chevrolet-volt-and-2013-tesla-model-s-photo-david-noland_100427531_m.jpg "2011 Chevrolet Volt and 2013 Tesla Model S [photo: David Noland]")
How could it be that Model S owners drive barely half as much as the national average of 13,476 miles per year? l know my own driving mileage has actually increased since I got my Model S, simply because the car is such a blast to drive.
It's only temporary
But Weiss's major miscue in the section about vampire power drain--other than misspelling my name--is his implication that these daily losses are a permanent long-term condition.
Tesla has in fact been working on “sleep mode” software improvements to reduce vampire losses. Its next major update, due this summer, is expected to cut vampire losses by half.
By the end of the year, they will be virtually eliminated, according to Tesla spokesperson Shanna Hendricks.
Weiss acknowledges the promised sleep mode, but doubts that it will make any difference. “History (and the mechanics of the battery) suggest it will not meaningfully reduce idle power consumption,” he writes.
I suggest it will. And that by the end of the year, 55 percent of Weiss’s argument will have gone up in smoke.
Anticipating the new sleep mode, I'm going to ignore vampire losses and stick with 254 gm/mi as the Model S carbon footprint, compared to Weiss's vampire-bloated number of 394 gm/mi.
*Battery production adds 39 percent more
The manufacture of a car contributes to its lifetime carbon emissions. And it's well established that the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries is a carbon-intensive process. The question is, how much?
For his battery-production carbon numbers, Weiss relies primarily on an outlier study from the Journal of Industrial Ecology. Its estimates of carbon footprint from lithium-ion battery production are far higher than previous studies, and it has been pilloried in the blogosphere for numerous errors too arcane to enumerate here.
A 2010 study in the journal of the American Chemical Society, on the other hand, concludes that the environmental impact of the battery is "relatively small." It estimates that battery production adds about 15 percent to the driving emissions of an electric car.
A 2012 study for the California Air Resources Board puts the number at 26 percent, assuming the California powerplant mix. But if you adjust to the dirtier national U.S. grid powerplant mix, driving emissions go up. So the percentage share of battery production goes down, also to about 15 percent.
Tesla may, in fact, beat even those lower numbers. Uniquely among electric car manufacturers, Tesla uses what are arguably the most efficiently manufactured lithium-ion battery cells on the planet: "commodity" 18650 laptop cells, which Panasonic churns out by the billions in highly automated plants. (I'm unaware of any carbon life-cycle analysis for these batteries.)
We'll go with the consensus mainstream number of 15 percent, which brings total Model S carbon emissions up to 292 gm/mi, against Weiss's battery-boosted grand total of 547 gm/mi.
Carbon summary
We've arrived at a number for the real-world effective CO2 emissions of a Model S of 292 g/mi. Admittedly, that's lot higher than Tesla claims on its website.
But worse than a Grand Cherokee? Hardly.
The V-6 Grand Cherokee's official EPA CO2 number is 479 g/mi when fitted with the smallest engine offered, a 3.6-liter V-6. The more powerful V-8 model logs in at a whopping 592 g/mi.
Oops...
In a follow-up post a few days later, Weiss backed off and significantly downgraded his estimate for Model S carbon emissions.
He concedes that, in calculating vampire losses per mile, total distance of 12,000 miles per year makes for a better comparison. He also downgrades his estimate of idle power losses to 3.5 kWh per day.
And, strangely, he neglects to account for the carbon footprint of battery production in any way.
Related Articles
-
NY Motorcycle Show: Sole Electric Is Harley-Davidson Livewire
-
![2012 Nissan Leaf in the autumn outside Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [photo: Ricardo Borba]](http://static.hgmsites.net/images/cache/2012-nissan-leaf-in-the-autumn-outside-ottawa-ontario-canada-photo-ricardo-borba_100445702_130x80.jpg "Plug-in Electric Car Sales In Canada, Nov 2014: L-E-A-F Spells Consistency")
Plug-in Electric Car Sales In Canada, Nov 2014: L-E-A-F Spells Consistency
-
Electric-Car Charging Station At Gas Station In Tar-Sands Land
-
![Gathering of electric motorcycle riders [photo via author Ben Rich]](http://static.hgmsites.net/images/cache/gathering-of-electric-motorcycle-riders-photo-via-author-ben-rich_100491311_130x80.jpg "Electric Motorcycle Gangs: You'll Never Hear Them Coming")
Electric Motorcycle Gangs: You'll Never Hear Them Coming
-
Tesla Model S Vs BMW i3: Electric-Car Efficiency Comparison Test
-
Follow Us
On Facebook
![2013 Tesla Model S electric sport sedan [photo by owner David Noland]](http://images.thecarconnection.com/tmb/2013-tesla-model-s_100421975_t.gif)
![2013 Tesla Model S electric sport sedan [photo by owner David Noland]](http://images.thecarconnection.com/tmb/2013-tesla-model-s_100421969_t.gif)
Get FREE Dealer Quotes
Most Popular This Week
More »
2014 Tesla Model S P85D: First Drive Of All-Electric AWD... 
2016 Toyota Prius Was Delayed Due To Redesign For Sportier Style 
Gas Cars Parked In One Electric-Car Spot Earn Raleigh $27,000 A... 
2016 Chevrolet Volt: Another Video Teaser, This One On Snow And... 
Tesla Roadster 3.0: 70-kWh Battery, Aero Kit, New Tires, For... Find Green Cars
Photo Galleries
More from High Gear Media
- Follow Us
Have an opinion?
No gas car can ever drive on sunshine.
Instead, plug-in electric cars may save those widely dispersed suburbs by eliminating the impact of fluctuating gas prices:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1057008_high-gas-prices-may-soon-turn-your-lovely-suburb-into-a-slum
"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...just went from 312 g/mi to 390 g/mi."
75% means the lifetime carbon output is 4/3 of the driving output, not 5/4 (this is a common mistake, which is often negligible when it's something like 5% or less, i.e. 20/19 ~= 21/20). So 312 => 415.
The report, as quoted in the article, says 75 percent of the lifetime carbon emissions come from driving, and 19 percent from gasoline production.
75+19=94.
94/75=1.25333
Thus 94 (driving emissions plus gas production emissions) is 25 percent more than 75 (driving emissions only).
QED: Gas production increases the driving-only carbon number by 25 percent.
There ares still 6 percent additional carbon emissions from other sources that were not included in this calculation.
The other six percent involved the manufacture of the car, which is another topic dealt with later in the article.
Maybe, and that is a big maybe. Have you ever seen a bloated battery, whose plates have been fused together? The only way to recondition such a battery is to melt the casing, re-mold it, melt the fused plates, purify them chemically in some way, re-cast them... and what of H2SO4?
The really interesting question becomes: how much energy is required to recondition such a battery, and how much pollution does such reconditioning generate?
As much as I am an advocate of recycling, I would like to see some numbers before we all get on the happy bandwagon that recycling is always cheaper and better. I want to be sure, not lie to myself
Fossil fuels however are increasingly scarce and come with a terrible cost in terms of pollution.
Do not misunderstand me, I am all for recycling (we recycle everything we can in the household), but what you are implying, which is that recycling facilities run on clean energy, I simply do not believe.
Could it work? Yes, it could. But I do not believe that is the case at this time.
Refineries are not owned by a monopoly, either, of course. Often, there are actually several companies sharing refineries, which is the not even close to a monopoly, of course.
To the other 99% of people here, we understand that Tesla may be focusing on the expensive end first, but the volume, lower-cost EVs are not that far behind. Look up the next generation vehicle plans for Tesla first before assuming the company is only interested in making $75K+ vehicles.
We consider it deceptive to quote the price net of the Federal income-tax credit, which not every buyer qualifies for and which can take up to 15 months to be realized.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1076417_electric-car-prices-tesla-nissan-chevy-should-be-ashamed--heres-why
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-ins-and-outs-of-electric-vehicle-tax-credits.html
But cost of ownership is a different issue from the stated list price, which is the amount the buyer actually has to *write a check for* long before realizing any Federal tax credit or getting other incentives.
That was the only part of your comment I was debating.
Also, anything out of Seeking Alpha is completely out of touch with reality.
I use my local Supercharger and am installing a solar installation on my roof that will charge my S without recourse to the grid.
Pity the shorts. They have lost a lot of money by now.
Solar was subsidized, but less than $5k and $40/month for 20 years. I am trying to find a hole in this real life plan....someone might.
Anybody with half a brain will understand that. What I take issue with is the electric car advocates constant claims that electric vehicles have zero emissions. It is frustrating, when I can clearly see that is not the case, as you just dissected in detail. How can the electric car advocates not see it, or is that a case of "I really want everyone else to drive electric cars at all and any cost"?
To be truly at zero, the creation of an electric automobile would have to cost zero in terms of emissions, in addition to being zero during the life time of the vehicle, and that includes any servicing work and materials.
2. EV owners have a choice as far as the "upstream" emission goes, where ICE owners don't have any choices...
Also, driving to work will never truly cost you nothing, unless your time is completely and utterly worthless. If you also happen to bill by the hour, it becomes even more expensive.
The Tesla S is still a blast to drive than any of that clunky diesel that you propose. In fact, NOT a single diesel car in that class is faster than the Tesla S. Not to mention the fact, each mile that Tesla S is driven, it is completely emission free at the point of the car.
Which argument? That service and parts for the lifetime of the vehicle would also have to be zero in terms of emissions? Do you mind explaining why you believe that is not the case?
"The Tesla S is still a blast to drive than any of that clunky diesel that you propose. In fact, NOT a single diesel car in that class is faster than the Tesla S."
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Go to Germany, drive any diesel Mercedes or BMW, then come back to discuss your findings, and how fast they go. Until then, you have no business telling me that they are clunky or slower than Tesla. What utter nonsense.
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs
so you have no evidence to support your claim that model S is faster (or slower) than any diesel vehicle.
And the top speed is at least 130 mph:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084557_tesla-model-s-top-speed-more-than-130-mph-emission-free
For the record.
Please name me the Diesel car that does 0-60mph or 1/4 mile faster than the Telsa S...
Also, name one of those diesel that has NO emission at the point of tailpipe of the car...
I would like to see Tesla report actual grams/mile carbon of the cars sold as most seem to be sold in California and to people who are more likely to be charging them with solar panels.
If the rate of increase in renewable wind and energy production continue then the increase in the use in electric cars will keep pace with the greening grid.
What an Evil MF.
Reroute the exhaust system of your SUVs into the vehicle's interior. Get in. Drive away.
Now we're talking apples to apples.
We can get SO MUCH electricity from renewable sources, we won't know what to do with it all. The next generation of PV panels and wind and tidal turbines etc. will be made with renewable power produced by the current renewable systems.
Eventually, the energy overhead of electricity will be moot.
Neil
The bunker oil used in supertankers, and the solvent used for bitumen has to be produced - just so it is possible to pump this crap through a pipeline...
In my state of Delaware, the 100% green electricity from the supplier I chose costs LESS than the brown (coal, nuclear) from the utility! It's free to switch, takes about minutes via an online form, and doesn't require investing thousands on solar panels or my own windmill!
So when I get my Tesla S, all arguments about "soup to nuts" emissions issues will be moot!
1: Apples to oranges comparison (EPA for 1 and vs real world for the other)
2: Winter driving using more
3: Poor assumptions on mileage driven
4: Vampire load
5: Car configurations (21s decrease efficiency)
You did forget to mention that he mentioned two studies in his paper..
Lomborg- the widely discredited politcal scientist
Hawkins LCA- so bad that Hawkins had to print and addendium and retraction for using grossly incorrect numbers
Here's a very throrough scientific rebuttal- pots 532
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/8285-Anti-Tesla-Gibberish/page54
Their sophistry would be laughable if it wasn't so absurd...
Perhaps if this Weiss person had the tailpipe of his car coming out of his steering wheel, he'd have a better understanding.
Breathe deep, Turkey!
MrEnergyCzar
Now, the last point is that I can't do anything to clean up that gasoline emission (with an ICE car), but I can do something about the electricity by installing solar panels on my roof.
This is absurd. One point you fail to notice is that gas stations are open 24/7 all over the world. These facilities use a lot of electricity - enough to charge you car for its lifetime, as well as many others. Weiss of course did not factor that fact in either. Add that to the equation, along with the delivery processes of electricity versus fuel and you will find the footprint of the EV's are far below any other vehicle being offered today. No coal power plants have been made to fuel your car - they were built to keep the lights on 24/7 so people can buy gasoline. Go solar if you feel the need. I did and drive free.
Did I say wars for fuel? I meant wars for "freedom," of course...
On the other hand the cost of running an EV has the potential to fall and reading some of the posts already has fallen to very low when one considers the very low cost of capital these days.
Our society is based on the future potential of things, what is the stock market if not a monetised crystal ball. So as sensible capitalists we should always migrate to the future benefits that EVs gives us.
We all know the grid has gotten alot cleaner in the last 8 years and the worst offenders of the high CO2 emissions have been taken off line
As several people have pointed out - it takes a lot of electricity to find and drill and extract and transport and refine and transport again and store oil and gasoline. The estimates I have seen are between 7.5 and 8.5kWh per gallon of gasoline. Now with tar sand bitumen and deep water wells and other non-conventional heavy crude oil - it takes far more electricity than that, in all probability. And all oil takes a lot of natural gas - which itself takes a lot of electricity to get.
All that overhead negates the conclusion...
ALL the money spent on electricity stays in our local economy. Nobody can monopolize the sun, and it will be shining for the next 5 Billion years, or so.
Neil
What about the taxpayer and the invalid soldier that comes back from war?
Tesla would have blown them away...
Then you can start dealing with food Calories and the 10 petroleum Calories needed to produce one food Calorie in our modern food system.
And shouldn't we be using the carbon footprint of the marginal production of electricity? The Telsa adds to the demand for electricity, therefore the last plant online is the carbon footprint that we should be comparing it to.
This would almost always be either a coal or natural gas powered plant (hydro and nuclear are baseline electricity producers that are almost always in use- the coal and gas plants come online to support peak demand)
However, NO Coal power plants has been built in the US in the last 35 years. So, marginal new plants are mostly natural gas plant which is FAR cleaner than coal.
secondly, the power plants are here LONG before EVs are here. They are producing powers regardless whether there are EVs or not. So, it is NOT fair to include the production of coal in the power plant.
Also, if you look at the last 10 years, far more renewable power has been online and they produces 10x more power than what current 100,000 needs. So, in a way, those EVs are actually enjoying newer and cleaner power mix.
Also, did anyone include carbon footprint of oil changes?
You know, as opposed to completely ignoring the energy used by gas stations, our endless wars for fuel, the fuel used to make and transport ICEs, etc...
Again, you're not wrong, but I think you're missing the bigger picture, but just my opinion.
So, the natural gas associated to production oil that cannot be reinjected is simply burnt.
I believe that is the case. So, some of the examples have already "double counting" that charging loss...
I also calculate:
231 gm CO2 per mile for my 42 mpg Jetta diesel
550 gm CO2 per mile for a 16 mpg Ford Expedition
176 gm CO2 per mile for a 50 mpg Prius
Using electricity from PG&E, a Tesla Model S has the CO2 emissions of a 101 mpg gasoline engine car.
Tesla's website uses some outdated data on the US electrical grid. In 2012 coal was 37% of US electricity production, down from the 44% Tesla's shows for 2009.
Why not put this argument to bed, at least at your home?
www.SolarCity.com is the largest installer of solar systems in the US; they're in New York too.
All their estimates are at no cost, and I think you might even get paid for the excess power you produce in New York.
I'm in Texas; my first electric bill (last month) was a CREDIT! First time that's ever happened and I think I could get used to that . . . .
A Tesla and a PV System go together like peanut butter and jelly; this is a no-brainer.
Enjoy!
Mark Peters
Hurst, TX
While fossil fuels get dirtier and dirtier and dirtier.
You must also count regular maintenance - producing the crankcase oil, and the filters, etc. all will add to the carbon footprint of ICE's.
The electricity used to produce gasoline is anywhere between 7.5kWh/gallon and 13kWh/gallon for tar sands bitumen. The Model S can travel between 23 miles and 40 miles on this alone - and none of the gasoline is required. The natural gas used during all this ALSO has electricity and other carbon overhead, too.
The long tailpipe argument is MOOT.
Neil
I think they made the mistake of basing models off of traditional car companies & ever since then, they've tapped into a rich well of media coverage by appearing to be anti-Tesla. I suspect it's part link-bait, part being contrarian. As their audience is not engineering focused, they can get away with a few salacious headlines & nothing more. Some times they even include links to supporting articles that, if read in context actually depose their own argument. But, that doesn't matter, they've got eyeballs & ad. revenue.
We do need to reach their audience though with the truth.
Consider the source: the guy's advocate short-sale of TSLA. I'd LOVE to sell it short AND make money. But, the stock doesn't drop unless something adverse happens, like car fires clustered in a short time and a possible NHTSA investigation.
Have an opinion? Join the conversation!