earl pottinger

I am in Ontario Canada, electricity here is 97% carbon free, so how pray tell can an electric car be worse for the climate than diesel? A good BEV will run for twenty years, do you realize how much junk will be release into the air drilling, pumping, cracking/processing, transporting to stations, pumping again, burning to use that diesel fuel? What kind of idiot believes this stuff?

Earl Colby Pottinger (BEV fan)

hf1

Looks like you didn't read the article.

Needsdecaf

I did, and it's nothing more than a one-sided piece that's serves to further a particular viewpoint. Note, I did not see an link in either this article (which is from a financial publication, gee wonder what their position on Tesla is) as well as the original Brussels Times article that links to the original study. So there's that.

More importantly, it ignores a bunch of factors. Sure, the manufacturing of batteries consumes resources and makes a measurable CO2 per mile. And yes, we also must take into account the amount of CO2 per mile that it takes to make electricity.

However. The conclusion presented has a glaring, glaring flaw. In that, their key point is:

When all these factors are considered, each Tesla emits 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometre, which is more than a comparable diesel vehicle produced by the German company Mercedes, for example.

They are comparing the CO2 per mile in creating a Tesla, and the impacts of electrical generation, vs. JUST DRIVING an ICE vehicle. Things that were not considered.

1. What is the energy impact when creating an EV, which has fewer pieces to assemble, than an ICE vehicle? Not shown.
2. What's the energy impact of refining, pumping, shipping and storing diesel fuel? Not entered into the equation.
3. What's the impact of increasing renewable sources of electricity? Not given credence.

Then you can get into the really arcane numbers.
A BEV has fewer parts. That means fewer suppliers are involved. That means fewer people working, and commuting to work, designing those parts. That means fewer plants making those parts. Fewer trucks carrying those parts from the supplier to the warehouse. Smaller warehouse for the manufacturer because of smaller parts means less emissions constructing said factory.

Well to wheel, a BEV is NOT a zero emisssions vehicle. But they are comparing well to wheel for a BEV vs. pure wheel costs for an ICE vehicle.

So as usual, straw man argument. Nothing to see here.

I'm no BEV fanboy but really, people need to dig a little deeper before writing crap like this.

hf1

The point, for me, was that "crap" like this is sorely needed to at least counterbalance and question the "zero-emissions", "planet-friendly", and "it's for the children!" crap which is spewed daily in 99.9% of MSM about BEV's. Why are things called something ("zero-emissions") which they are obviously not? Same thing lately about eating meat vs veganism. Where are the studies that truly compare alternatives apples to apples?

EDIT: And this is assuming that CO2 (which is the main input for the planet's flora) has much or anything to do with rising (sorry, "changing") temperatures, which is a whole another story.

daveo4porsche

the article has many glaring flaws - including assumption that the Model 3 battery needs to be replaced after 10 years 94,000 miles - there is NO data to indicate that is a reasonable assumption.

daveo4porsche

and no car is zero emission - but BEV's are zero emission at the tail pipe, and can be zero emission based on the electrical grid - and ICE will NEVER be zero emission at the tail pipe, and can never been zero emission while driving it...

I provide all my own solar power to charge my BEV's, so please explain to me how a Diesel is less emission?

daveo4porsche

a quick perusal of the other "headline" articles at this site are unsurprising

https://www.zerohedge.com

regardless of your political bent - I would suggest this site skews heavily in one direction, and a factual and thoughtful analysis of the situation isn't their main agenda…they have an agenda, and the EV article is a re-hasing of several de-bunked oil industry funded talking points.

this site is firmly on one side of the spectrum, and the rest of their articles are consistent with that side of the political equation, skewing closer to extreme than center, and mostly wrong across the board.

whiz944

Some of us like driving (performance-oriented) BEVs because they are fun to drive and basically better cars than their ICE equivalents.

Batteries can be, and are being, recycled.

PCA1983

Back to the OP topic: right now, Tesla is a threat to go the way of the Yugo. And if any accounting irregularities are uncovered, TSLA investors will not be able to get out the fire exit of that overcrowded dance club...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-tale-...mp-11555848000

Needsdecaf

Ah, in other words, you were looking for something that reinforced your viewpoint. Got it.

Look, I'm not an EV homer. I didn't buy one to save the planet, honestly. I bought one because for me, it is a BETTER CAR for what I do. Now, let's get back to the article.

They're called Zero Emissions because that's what they are. They emit nothing while performing their function...driving. Does their manufacturing cause emissions? Of course it does, same as an ICE car. Is it MORE than an ICE car because of the battery? Well, of that I'm not sure, but what I'm sure about is that this article doesn't paint the whole picture. It doesn't talk about battery recycling. It doesn't talk about automotive recycling in general. It doesn't discuss whether an EV will last longer on the road because it has fewer moving parts. An EV requires no oil changes every 5,000 miles. Over their 90,000 mile example, that's 18 oil changes avoided. 90 quarts of oil that didn't have to get refined, shipped, produced and recycled. Etc, etc. There are SO many factors that this article ignores, on both sides, just to further it's point.

I gather you don't like the push toward EV's and hybrids. I get that and respect that. As you indicate, there is an entire larger discussion to have. Why are we not focused on shipping, rail and Class 8 trucks, which emit hundreds and thousands of times more GHG and particulates than passenger vehicles? To me, that's the outrage. Focus there if you want to make meaningful progress.

But this article? A good example of how to make it seem like you have no agenda when you really do.

whiz944

In fact, railroads have been using various forms of electrification for well over 100 years.

Needsdecaf

This is true, however typical heavy freight and larger passenger train engines are still mostly diesel-electric hybrids. So while tractive power is electrical, they are still running some pretty dirty diesels.

But this is one area that could be improved pretty easily given the fact that their route is fixed and, as I said above, they are already using electric power for propulsion.

Nicole

Just announced: 370 mile range, faster charging, adaptive suspension with over-the-air updates.

http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model...ve-suspension/

They are constantly moving, and doing so fast. That could be a challenge for large manufacturers with annual refresh cycles.

cometguy

I still think that the masses aren't going to get enthusiastic about EVs until they can consistently go 350-400 miles on a single charge *in cold weather with the heater going full blast*.

daveo4porsche

range doesn’t matter for 99% of driving