Chart comparing CO2 footprint—for comment

[AC1K]

Full size version (Warning! Large!) >> http://i.imgur.com/sCewUP3.jpg

please suggest any changes or additions.

What i find interesting is that every stage of fuel production (gas/diesel) is that electric motors are used everywhere and are moving ridiculous volumes of various fluids or solids.
the earth mover (Komatsu 930E) uses dual AC traction motors, one on each side of the rear axel, quite simply, driving with internal combustion just doesn't cut it when raw power and torque is needed

 

[CalDreamin]

I suggest you check your calculations. The well-to-wheel CO2 emissions of an ICE averages 1.25x the tailpipe emissions. According to the EPA, the well-to-wheels CO2 emissions of a 2015 BMW M5 (auto) are 554 g/mile at the tailpipe + 126 g/mile upstream = 680 g/mile or 423 g/km. Upstream includes everything associated with gasoline -- drilling, refining, and transportation. Your chart shows 2592 kg/500 km = 5184 g/km, which is about 12 times higher than the EPA number.

 

[walla2]

You need to include the lithium mining, transport, and refinement since that's always the argument against EVs.

 

[AC1K]

I suggest you check your calculations. The well-to-wheel CO2 emissions of an ICE averages 1.25x the tailpipe emissions. According to the EPA, the well-to-wheels CO2 emissions of a 2015 BMW M5 (auto) are 554 g/mile at the tailpipe + 126 g/mile upstream = 680 g/mile or 423 g/km. Upstream includes everything associated with gasoline -- drilling, refining, and transportation. Your chart shows 2592 kg/500 km = 5184 g/km, which is about 12 times higher than the EPA number.

thats what i dont get, my numbers are extremely conservative on the gas side, i dont think the epa is actually including every number associated, there is a reason why a drilling rig costs $1M to punch a hole in the ground.

get this, it takes around 100 semi truck loads to move a rig (how much diesel is that?)
you are moving that rig in the middle of nowhere, which means you have to make your own road (how much diesel is that?)
before you even make the road you use helicopter for mapping the area (how much av-gas is that?)
then when you think you have a place mapped out you need to clear lines of trees for kms for ground radar (how much diesel is that?)
then you have more semi trucks roll in for ground radar equipment and thumpers (how much diesel is that?)
after the rig makes the hole, you need to build your holding tanks and valves and whatnot to have the oil flow, the equipment is so large the company im at had to use several Antonov- 124's to make the trip to the nearest airport and truck the rest of the way (the fuel for this is ridiculous)
the camps for the workers requires at least a 2MW generator running non stop (this alone will double the number as it does not stop running the entire time even after the well is dry, the diesel requirements is crazy)
the lights, the work trucks (usually hundreds of these), and any other equipment all have their own fuel requirements and are generally running non stop, and they all require maintenance
generally workers work on rotation, month on month off type of deal, they are flying to site every rotation and the back to back guy is flying home, how much aviation gas or jet fuel is that? we are talking hundreds of people worth of plane trips every month

i didnt include any of those steps,

You need to include the lithium mining, transport, and refinement since that's always the argument against EVs.

no manufacturing was included because i would have to include the same stuff for the internal combustion vehicle, im just including what "differs",

look at how many parts there are for an equivalent power output engine (JUST THE ENGINE! no transmission or anything else)

for the Tesla this is similar, it would differ by only several parts

 

[CalDreamin]

thats what i dont get, my numbers are extremely conservative on the gas side, i dont think the epa is actually including every number associated, there is a reason why a drilling rig costs $1M to punch a hole in the ground.

Your bottom line number is an order of magnitude higher than authoritative sources have determined. I suggest you check the EIA and Argonne National Lab's GREET model, where the numbers are explained.

look at how many parts there are for an equivalent power output engine (JUST THE ENGINE! no transmission or anything else)

A well-to-wheels analysis for a car does not include the embedded energy to manufacture the car. However the latter is included in lifecycle assessments. The published LCAs on this subject have found that BEVs require more energy to manufacture than comparable ICE vehicles. Tesla's JB Straubel acknowledged in a 2014 Q&A that a Tesla Model S requires more energy to manufacture than a comparable ICE car, though he said the energy payback is less than 10K miles.

 

[Paul Carter]

Also, BC isn't 100% clean. wikipedia: "As of 2014, 97 percent of BC Hydro's electricity generation comes from clean or renewable sources and only emits 730 kilotonnes of CO2 annually from thermal plants", source: BC Hydro 2014 Annual Report. Sadly that's expected to rise 870 kilotonnes in two years.

 

[walla2]

no manufacturing was included because i would have to include the same stuff for the internal combustion vehicle, im just including what "differs",

You asked for feedback. I still think Lithium to battery is an important component. The long tail pipe and manufacturing CO2 costs are the only arguments ICE people have against BEV's with regard to the environment. Those same people don't actually likely care about CO2 emissions but people tend to use arguments / facts however they fit their own perspective. If you are trying to make a chart to refute a belief (BEV's are more harmful), you need to include a response to the most common statement (fact or fiction) against BEV's in my opinion. You could even leave out manufacturing of an ICE to give them the "edge" but make the cost of driving 15,000 miles the comparison.

 

[CalDreamin]

You asked for feedback. I still think Lithium to battery is an important component. The long tail pipe and manufacturing CO2 costs are the only arguments ICE people have against BEV's with regard to the environment. Those same people don't actually likely care about CO2 emissions but people tend to use arguments / facts however they fit their own perspective. If you are trying to make a chart to refute a belief (BEV's are more harmful), you need to include a response to the most common statement (fact or fiction) against BEV's in my opinion. You could even leave out manufacturing of an ICE to give them the "edge" but make the cost of driving 15,000 miles the comparison.

You are referring to a lifecycle assessment (LCA). An LCA is a far more complicated analysis. To understand how complex, have a look at this LCA by Renault comparing one of their car models in ICE and BEV forms.

 

[3mp_kwh]

I suggest you check your calculations. The well-to-wheel CO2 emissions of an ICE averages 1.25x the tailpipe emissions. According to the EPA, the well-to-wheels CO2 emissions of a 2015 BMW M5 (auto) are 554 g/mile at the tailpipe + 126 g/mile upstream = 680 g/mile or 423 g/km. Upstream includes everything associated with gasoline -- drilling, refining, and transportation. Your chart shows 2592 kg/500 km = 5184 g/km, which is about 12 times higher than the EPA number.

I think of a gallon as just above 20lbs of CO2, at the tail pipe. On top of that ~20, is well-to-wheels. The Congressional Review Service comes up with about a 32lb average, per gallon, rising to around 37lbs if we're talking about tar sands, or heavy "sour" crude. In that case well-to-wheels is almost 2X tail-pipe, after you do conversions from the following paper.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42537.pdf

 

[AC1K]

I think of a gallon as just above 20lbs of CO2, at the tail pipe. On top of that ~20, is well-to-wheels. The Congressional Review Service comes up with about a 32lb average, per gallon, rising to around 37lbs if we're talking about tar sands, or heavy "sour" crude. In that case well-to-wheels is almost 2X tail-pipe, after you do conversions from the following paper.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42537.pdf

You are referring to a lifecycle assessment (LCA). An LCA is a far more complicated analysis. To understand how complex, have a look at this LCA by Renault comparing one of their car models in ICE and BEV forms.

thanks for these 2 documents, im reading over it

 

[shwapnil]

You need to include the lithium mining, transport, and refinement since that's always the argument against EVs.

@ Walla : A lithium ion battery as a power source is produced once for every single EV. Yes for manufacturing this there is carbon footprint and pollution and that happens once, not like in ICEV where to produce gasoline as a power source to drive the car, You have carbon emission all the time. I hope You got the point.

 

[shwapnil]

Your bottom line number is an order of magnitude higher than authoritative sources have determined. I suggest you check the EIA and Argonne National Lab's GREET model, where the numbers are explained.



A well-to-wheels analysis for a car does not include the embedded energy to manufacture the car. However the latter is included in lifecycle assessments. The published LCAs on this subject have found that BEVs require more energy to manufacture than comparable ICE vehicles. Tesla's JB Straubel acknowledged in a 2014 Q&A that a Tesla Model S requires more energy to manufacture than a comparable ICE car, though he said the energy payback is less than 10K miles.

@ CalDreamin : You are talking about Energy Payback. We would really like to here more of how it was calculated to measure Energy footprint of Tesla. One thing we forget to add is that, when we extract and ship gas, more often there are explosions in extracting and shipping the gas. We need to add that carbon footprint as well. It may not be accurate since gas explosions are random but we can make an average based on previous incidents of oil spill, oil clearing operations, fire due to explosion at every supply chain including the human cost ...