GM and Tesla Share A Dirty Little Electric Vehicle Secret

[78Lion]

Article in investor intel by John Peterson.

Is this another false equivalency comparison?

GM and Tesla Share A Dirty Little Electric Vehicle Secret | InvestorIntel

 

[techmaven]

Mr. Peterson can't seem to analyze worth crap.

Basically, his analysis boils down to... given a 24 kWh BEV (Leaf) that goes 73 miles that replaces an ICE version (Versa) , a 60 kWh BEV would have a higher battery manufacturing emissions and therefore, reduces the emissions advantage by 16%. Predictably, a 90 kWh battery would have higher manufacturing emissions and the advantage is even less.

Of course, that's all nonsense. First of all, 24 kWh BEVs have a limited use case. There are plenty of vehicles that would not be replaced by a 24 kWh Nissan Leaf. So, the comparison between a 60 kWh BEV or a 90 kWh BEV is not with a 24 kWh BEV, but with the ICE vehicle that is getting replaced, which isn't a Nissan Versa. A Model X doesn't replace a Versa, it replaces an Escalade, or a GL 550.

Furthermore, Tesla's cells are not made in China (as assumed in the research paper he based his figures from) and the vehicles are not made in Detroit. Additionally, Tesla's battery plant will have much better emissions than as modeled, so his input assumptions are pretty much garbage. As usual.

 

[Fallenone]

Article in investor intel by John Peterson.

Is this another false equivalency comparison?

GM and Tesla Share A Dirty Little Electric Vehicle Secret | InvestorIntel

Well, up to the UCLA study, everything is pretty solid. But when he turns to Tesla, there's one assumption I think was wrong. He was assuming the CO2 emission for battery manufacturing per kWh is the same for Tesla and Leaf. But in reality, the energy density of Tesla's battery is more than 50% better than the Leaf's.

Plus, the recycling the battery at its end of life is not considered. This is tricky to evaluate though.

 

[Fallenone]

Mr. Peterson can't seem to analyze worth crap.

Basically, his analysis boils down to... given a 24 kWh BEV (Leaf) that goes 73 miles that replaces an ICE version (Versa) , a 60 kWh BEV would have a higher battery manufacturing emissions and therefore, reduces the emissions advantage by 16%. Predictably, a 90 kWh battery would have higher manufacturing emissions and the advantage is even less.

Of course, that's all nonsense. First of all, 24 kWh BEVs have a limited use case. There are plenty of vehicles that would not be replaced by a 24 kWh Nissan Leaf. So, the comparison between a 60 kWh BEV or a 90 kWh BEV is not with a 24 kWh BEV, but with the ICE vehicle that is getting replaced, which isn't a Nissan Versa. A Model X doesn't replace a Versa, it replaces an Escalade, or a GL 550.

Furthermore, Tesla's cells are not made in China (as assumed in the research paper he based his figures from) and the vehicles are not made in Detroit. Additionally, Tesla's battery plant will have much better emissions than as modeled, so his input assumptions are pretty much garbage. As usual.

This, too.

 

[brianman]

"Article by John Peterson" => Don't feed the troll by clicking.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This is just another variation on his BS kWh per gas savings metric. He used this to justify his pumping of Axion power and proposed microhybrids. Feel free to ignore.

As pointed out by others, the impact of batteries does not scale linearly with kWh. Large capacity batteries tend to be higher energy density and use less materials (and manufacturing) for the same kWh. That is where the cost savings come from. It is typical of Petersen to use incorrect assumptions.