TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Carnegie Mellon Study, on EVs and cost / environment

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by Jae Kwon, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. Jae Kwon

    Jae Kwon New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    I came across an article on a Carnegie Mellon Study that shows that plugin hybrids make more environmental sense than electric vehicles.

    Tesla Motors Pollutes Today for a Greener Tomorrow - TheStreet

    It would be nice to have a solid response to this, by understanding the study and seeing where the holes are, if there are any.
     
  2. ToddRLockwood

    ToddRLockwood Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,263
    Location:
    Burlington, Vermont
    #2 ToddRLockwood, Nov 7, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2012
    Here's a 2010 Swiss study that directly contradicts the Carnegie Mellon Study...

    Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles - Environmental Science & Technology (ACS Publications)

    "The study shows that the environmental burdens of mobility are dominated by the operation phase regardless of whether a gasoline-fueled ICEV or a European electricity fueled BEV is used." In other words, the environmental impact of Li-Ion battery manufacturing is insignificant compared to power plant pollution from charging electric vehicles. And as we already know, even in places that generate electricity exclusively from high-sulphur coal, the environmental impact of the Model S is still less than a gas-powered car driven the same distance.
     
  3. dhrivnak

    dhrivnak Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,150
    Location:
    NE Tennessee
    In looking at the CMU study I found a few flaws. First they compare against the Prius, a great car and low emissions but hardly the average car. They use a battery cost between $625 and $850 and Tesla is under $500. Then I am not sure they are properly accounting for battery production. Here is an excerpt "a materials-based assessment is performed for battery manufacturing, including lead-acid (plastic, lead, sulfuric acid, fiberglass, water), nickel metal hydride (NiMH)". Today's electric cars do not use lead batteries and we know lead is particularly nasty.They use a "the high case assumes all electricity is from coal". Nowhere are we 100% coal and I cannot imagine a case where we will be all coal. The majority of the air pollution costs for the electric vehicle is from SO2, not a good pollution, but it only comes from coal, a power source that is in decline. They also appear to assume battery production is 100% coal powered as half of the pollution cost of the battery is SO2. Again I am unsure making lithium batteries makes that much SO2. Finally they assume $30,000 on battery replacement costs on a BEV that has 150 mile range. I can't imagine that a new battery for Tesla 40 KWH pack would cost $30,000. I am sure they are plenty of other "errors" in the study.
     
  4. Robert.Boston

    Robert.Boston Model S VIN P01536

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,842
    Location:
    Portland, Maine, USA
    My comment:
     
  5. PureAmps

    PureAmps Model S P85 (#2817)

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    354
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    A discussion was started on this already in another thread (Anti-Tesla Gibberish), but got side tracked by a discussion on conflict of interest (my fault).

    The main problem with the CMU study (IMHO) is they are attempting to place a dollar value on "environmental damage" of emissions. Unfortunately, this is not something one can easily calculate, but they attempt to anyway. For example, they assign a $6 million value to each statistical (presumably human) life in their morbidity and mortality calculations for various pollutants. They then then use that along with actual measurable costs of raw materials and fuel to calculate a cost associated with the production and operation of a vehicle over 12 years and draw their conclusions. I have questions about their emissions model for battery pack production, but don't really have time to dig into that.

    They have also stacked the deck against the BEV by including only a 240km battery pack which is quite costly compared to the smaller packs in the plug-in hybrids. They are using a vehicle driving range model which favor shorter distances, so 240km is probably too much range for typical use in their model. If they had included a 120km pack similar to the Nissan Leaf, then the Leaf equivalent would have most likely had the lowest costs across the board. Curiously, this additional (and more appropriate) BEV pack size was omitted even though they modeled two battery pack sizes for a plug-in hybrid (20km and 60km).
     
  6. PureAmps

    PureAmps Model S P85 (#2817)

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    354
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Another comment from Jack Burgess posted on JB's street.com article:


     
  7. Dan5

    Dan5 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    422
    Location:
    Delran, NJ

Share This Page