Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

EV's being considered "Green"

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
While some electricity is generated by wind, solar, fission, and hydro, the vast majority is still generated by the inefficient burning of coal, gas and oil.
Not in your case: Seattle City Light - Wikipedia

Seattle's electricity supply[edit]
The most recent official fuel mix statistics by the state of Washington for Seattle City Light show approximately 88% hydroelectric, 5% nuclear, 4% wind, 1% coal, 1% natural gas, 1% biogas.[9] City Light's portfolio of energy sources includes electricity purchased through long-term contracts with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The remaining power comes from a mixture of sources.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: jebinc and nwdiver
So you have seen reliable CO2-e battery analyses?

How's this analysis from UCS?

New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to Get Cleaner (2018)

Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave (2015)

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-FAQ.pdf

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul...ner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

In other words, the extra emissions associated with electric vehicle production are rapidly negated by reduced emissions from driving. Comparing an average midsize midrange BEV with an average midsize gasoline-powered car, it takes just 4,900 miles of driving to “pay back”—i.e., offset—the extra global warming emissions from producing the BEV. Similarly, it takes 19,000 miles with the full-size long-range BEV compared with a similar gasoline car. Based on typical usages of these vehicles, this amounts to about six months’ driving for the midsize midrange BEV and 16 months for the full-size long-range BEV.

Meanwhile, the global warming emissions of manufacturing BEVs are falling as automakers gain experience and improve production efficiency. With a focus on clean manufacturing, emissions could fall even more. There are many ways in which the EV industry might reduce these manufacturing-related emissions, including:

• Advances in manufacturing efficiency and in the recycling or reuse of lithium-ion batteries;
• The use of alternative battery chemistries that requireless energy-intensive materials; and
• The use of renewable energy to power manufacturers’ and suppliers’ facilities.​

How Clean is Your Electric Vehicle? (calculator)

 
Not in your case: Seattle City Light - Wikipedia

Seattle's electricity supply[edit]
The most recent official fuel mix statistics by the state of Washington for Seattle City Light show approximately 88% hydroelectric, 5% nuclear, 4% wind, 1% coal, 1% natural gas, 1% biogas.[9] City Light's portfolio of energy sources includes electricity purchased through long-term contracts with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The remaining power comes from a mixture of sources.

Guess you didn't read the thread from your response...
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Dr. J
Well... If you walk or ride a bike more, as you suggest, you will have to eat more (fuel) which results in increased methane gas emissions from the traveler. Avoid milk, as the upstream source produces even more methane gas than said traveler. And, as we know, methane gas is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2! :eek:
Ride an electric bicycle, scooter, or skateboard. I did a rough energy analysis for a presentation last year and confirmed that personal electric transport is even better than an EV or human powered transport. This is because of the lower mass of just moving the person and lightweight scooter/bicycle. This was for single person transport. Mass transport can be much more efficient, even using internal combustion engines over electrics, but there needs to be significantly more people being transported.

On a side note: growing your own food eliminates much of the excess embodied energy in commercial groceries. Transporting food thousands of miles often requires more energy than the nutritional energy we obtain. I’ve gardened for many decades, primarily for pleasure, but some for frugality. However, due to the warming environment and derisive political climate, I decided to start “gardening on steroids.” I have eliminated my lawn and now produce nearly all of my own food, while still giving away huge quantities to neighbors. Unfortunately, I am now able to produce food in ALL seasons (though last February I kept my winter garden covered during the unusual 40” of snow and lived off of root vegetables). Harvesting started again in March when I lifted the covers.

I’m probably carbon negative right now. My gardening techniques are actually putting more carbon in the ground (at least temporarily) than I’m taking out due to my daily composting of 5-10 gallons of coffee grounds (from local coffee shops and hence redirected from going into a landfill) and annual composting of 3-4 dump truck loads of wood chips (also saving a local tree trimming business 10 RT miles/load to the landfill). Plus all of my give away vegetables are reducing my neighborhood carbon footprint. I’m also using string beans to shade the south and west sides of my house, reducing AC needs. I live where 95% of my electricity is hydro, nuclear, and wind and only have electric vehicles. My house is from the 1960s, but with upgraded windows and insulation and allowing for seasonal temperature swings inside (60-80 F), I consume less than half of what some newer buildings do. All of this while still having real winter (near 0 F) and summer (110-115 F). Gardening is getting more difficult with the shifting and wildly swinging temperatures but I’m able to grow more and spread it throughout the year. Fortunately, I’m too old and will be spared having to experience the real climate emergency after 2050 or so. However, annual wildfires in the West are impacting us all right now, and will probably reduce my lifespan.
 
How's this analysis from UCS?

New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to Get Cleaner (2018)

Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave (2015)

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-FAQ.pdf

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul...ner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

In other words, the extra emissions associated with electric vehicle production are rapidly negated by reduced emissions from driving. Comparing an average midsize midrange BEV with an average midsize gasoline-powered car, it takes just 4,900 miles of driving to “pay back”—i.e., offset—the extra global warming emissions from producing the BEV. Similarly, it takes 19,000 miles with the full-size long-range BEV compared with a similar gasoline car. Based on typical usages of these vehicles, this amounts to about six months’ driving for the midsize midrange BEV and 16 months for the full-size long-range BEV.

Meanwhile, the global warming emissions of manufacturing BEVs are falling as automakers gain experience and improve production efficiency. With a focus on clean manufacturing, emissions could fall even more. There are many ways in which the EV industry might reduce these manufacturing-related emissions, including:

• Advances in manufacturing efficiency and in the recycling or reuse of lithium-ion batteries;
• The use of alternative battery chemistries that requireless energy-intensive materials; and
• The use of renewable energy to power manufacturers’ and suppliers’ facilities.​

How Clean is Your Electric Vehicle? (calculator)

Thanks for the link. So UCS put the battery pack CO2 at 6 tonnes, which is about 3 years of emission from a Camry hybrid. So, it is not bad.
But there are some studies saying it is 8 years of CO2.
 
Ride an electric bicycle, scooter, or skateboard. I did a rough energy analysis for a presentation last year and confirmed that personal electric transport is even better than an EV or human powered transport. This is because of the lower mass of just moving the person and lightweight scooter/bicycle. This was for single person transport. Mass transport can be much more efficient, even using internal combustion engines over electrics, but there needs to be significantly more people being transported.

On a side note: growing your own food eliminates much of the excess embodied energy in commercial groceries. Transporting food thousands of miles often requires more energy than the nutritional energy we obtain. I’ve gardened for many decades, primarily for pleasure, but some for frugality. However, due to the warming environment and derisive political climate, I decided to start “gardening on steroids.” I have eliminated my lawn and now produce nearly all of my own food, while still giving away huge quantities to neighbors. Unfortunately, I am now able to produce food in ALL seasons (though last February I kept my winter garden covered during the unusual 40” of snow and lived off of root vegetables). Harvesting started again in March when I lifted the covers.

I’m probably carbon negative right now. My gardening techniques are actually putting more carbon in the ground (at least temporarily) than I’m taking out due to my daily composting of 5-10 gallons of coffee grounds (from local coffee shops and hence redirected from going into a landfill) and annual composting of 3-4 dump truck loads of wood chips (also saving a local tree trimming business 10 RT miles/load to the landfill). Plus all of my give away vegetables are reducing my neighborhood carbon footprint. I’m also using string beans to shade the south and west sides of my house, reducing AC needs. I live where 95% of my electricity is hydro, nuclear, and wind and only have electric vehicles. My house is from the 1960s, but with upgraded windows and insulation and allowing for seasonal temperature swings inside (60-80 F), I consume less than half of what some newer buildings do. All of this while still having real winter (near 0 F) and summer (110-115 F). Gardening is getting more difficult with the shifting and wildly swinging temperatures but I’m able to grow more and spread it throughout the year. Fortunately, I’m too old and will be spared having to experience the real climate emergency after 2050 or so. However, annual wildfires in the West are impacting us all right now, and will probably reduce my lifespan.
Wow, I’m very impressed by your efforts and care for our fragile world. Keep up the good work and promote conservation to all!
 
Let's try another approach to this problem, as a check on the UCS 2015 paper. The 2019 Tesla sustainability report p16 lists GHG emissions for all operations in 2017. That includes both direct and indirect figures, which I take to include Panasonic battery manufacturing — almost the only kind for 2017 production. It'd be nice to have 2018 numbers, but let's roll with 2017 and see where it takes us. Now, Tesla delivered 101,312 vehicles in 2017 and wikipedia says 101,027 were produced — about the same. Take all facilities emissions, direct and indirect, from the sustainability report, and divide by all vehicles: that's about 1.4-tons/vehicle. Add sales & delivery: 1.8-tons/vehicle. Include all emissions (even Superchargers and Tesla Energy, which probably shouldn't count) and it's up to about 2.8-tons/vehicle.

Compare this to the UCS 2015 model, which predicts an extra 1-ton of CO2 for a low-range Leaf-ish BEV and 6-tons for something like a Model S. That's in addition to normal manufacturing emissions of about 10-tons. But that's old data, and not specific to Tesla. Note that Tesla reports "metric tons CO2e", while UCS doesn't say if their tons are metric or not. The conversion factor is about 0.91, so let's be conservative and call it 3-tons/vehicle.

More recent data might well be lower, because reducing emissions per vehicle is basically Tesla's mission — so you'd think they'd work on it. But if 3-tons/vehicle is about right for 2017, that's much less than what the 2015 UCS model estimates. There are some possible improvements: the 2017+ USA grid is cleaner than it was in 2015, Tesla installs some of its own renewable energy, and Nevada-made cells may be greener than the ones from Japan. But all in all it's probably too low: maybe Tesla's accountability report needs revision, or maybe I slipped a decimal point. Anyone able to check my math and assumptions?

Assuming no glaring errors, this exercise reinforces my belief that the 2015 UCS numbers were in the right zip code at the time, and the UCS figure of 6-16 months to green is reasonable.
 
You are incorrect, sir.

Guess you missed post #34 then, Dr.

I had thought my original post would be generally understood as a general, not region specific question (not specific to my local grid), but some before you also didn’t get that so I clarified my point in post #34. Had you read that, I don’t know why you posted what you did in #42, when I stated that (not a regional question) in post #34. So, I concluded you must have not read the entire thread, as opposed to you just trying to stir the pot, sir.
 
I must be missing something, what is it?

EVs generally don't use 'grid mix'. It's easy to charge them off-peak when generation sources are cleaner. As curtailment becomes more of an issue it will soon make sense to aggregate your EV into a demand response network which can allow your utility to charge your car at a discounted rate instead of wasting solar or wind. So even if the grid is ~50% fools fuel your car could be charge from 100% solar or wind that would have been wasted if you didn't have an EV. Doesn't get any cleaner than that.

BTW: This is the mid-west right now :) And this is an average night.

Screen Shot 2019-09-08 at 11.20.16 PM.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: jebinc
EVs generally don't use 'grid mix'. It's easy to charge them off-peak when generation sources are cleaner. As curtailment becomes more of an issue it will soon make sense to aggregate your EV into a demand response network which can allow your utility to charge your car at a discounted rate instead of wasting solar or wind. So even if the grid is ~50% fools fuel your car could be charge from 100% solar or wind that would have been wasted if you didn't have an EV. Doesn't get any cleaner than that.

BTW: This is the mid-west right now :) And this is an average night.

View attachment 452497
Thank you for sharing. Learning a lot from this thread!
 
Guess you missed post #34 then, Dr.

I had thought my original post would be generally understood as a general, not region specific question (not specific to my local grid), but some before you also didn’t get that so I clarified my point in post #34. Had you read that, I don’t know why you posted what you did in #42, when I stated that (not a regional question) in post #34. So, I concluded you must have not read the entire thread, as opposed to you just trying to stir the pot, sir.
From Post # 34:

My question was a general one (pushing pollution upstream), I as I thought was obvious. People also move; perhaps you were unaware of that?
Yeah, I saw that. I thought my point was obvious also: for your location, your question is basically irrelevant. I consider my pot-stirring a legitimate answer to your OP pot-stirring, but clearly people will differ on what they consider pot-stirring.
 
Source or it's FUD.
Try this. It has all the details to locate the actual paper/study if you wan to go to the real source.
As I said in other thread, results can vary if assumptions are changed.

New Study: Large CO2 Emissions From Batteries Of Electric Cars - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

"For each kilowatt-hour storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are generated, already in the factory."

"The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used by the battery plant is based by more than half by power generated by fossil fuels."

"Mats-Ola Larsson, their colleague at IVL, has calculated how long you need to drive a petrol or diesel car before it has released as much carbon dioxide as an electric car battery. The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of Tesla size, based on a series of assumptions."
 
  • Informative
Reactions: jebinc
From Post # 34:


Yeah, I saw that. I thought my point was obvious also: for your location, your question is basically irrelevant. I consider my pot-stirring a legitimate answer to your OP pot-stirring, but clearly people will differ on what they consider pot-stirring.

Fair enough, but I wasn't pot stirring and was actually interested in learning more on this topic when I created the thread - it was a genuine post. And, as I replied to other posters before you (and you know from reading the thread), I understood my grid is clean and where the power comes from. Also, as I've mentioned before your post, people move (like we have); hence my inquiry being general in nature. Carry on...
 
Try this. It has all the details to locate the actual paper/study if you wan to go to the real source.
As I said in other thread, results can vary if assumptions are changed.

Here, I think?

And yet you're still blindly posting worst-case scenario numbers that aren't credible at all. You're associating yourself with FUD, which makes you look bad.


Anything on GWPF is likely to be FUD: GWPF is a denier lobby that fails to disclose its funding. Got anything credible?

For contrast, here's the funding info from UCS.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: srs5694
"Mats-Ola Larsson, their colleague at IVL, has calculated how long you need to drive a petrol or diesel car before it has released as much carbon dioxide as an electric car battery. The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of Tesla size, based on a series of assumptions."

One of those assumptions was that the EV is using grid mix. If it's using cleaner energy it's lower. If it's using otherwise curtailed renewables it's lower still. The battery problem is a non-issue. Unlike the thermodynamic nightmare of hydrogen, batteries are already viable and we don't have to violate any physical laws to make them even better.

I hope that we can at least agree that carrying a 100kWh battery for a 5 mile commute is less absurd than using Hydrogen for a 5 mile commute. Smaller batteries would be more efficient and all FVCs should be PHEVs to take advantage of the efficiency of batteries for daily commutes because physics.
 
Here, I think?

And yet you're still blindly posting worst-case scenario numbers that aren't credible at all. You're associating yourself with FUD, which makes you look bad.



Anything on GWPF is likely to be FUD: GWPF is a denier lobby that fails to disclose its funding. Got anything credible?

For contrast, here's the funding info from UCS.
You asked for the link, I gave it. If you have issues with the study, take it up with the authors.
What do you mean by worst case? I took the average.

Anyway, it seems you are one of those hecklers with reading comprehension skills. I am going to start using a forum feature here.
Don' expect any more responses from me.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: mblakele