Is Tesla really a green company?

[jerry33]

I'll start looking at sites -- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - Error page -- . My angle on this is from the point of view of a software developer. The data is out there. When it comes to the grid, there are finite boundaries to each of the major grids in the U.S. The driver behavior is easy to collect and average. It would be trivial for Tesla to show, in a meaningful way, the grams of CO2 saved -- perhaps even compare it to the CO2 present in an average mature tree (in a graphic). The display could show CO2 this trip, CO2, this month and CO2 since the purchase of the car. For extra credit, the display could tell me what percent of the recent hurricane season is my fault (or diminished because of my swapped energy source). I just don't want to be stuck answering the question, "Hey FakeStewart, how much less CO2 did you put in last year?"... and me going "Uh... I don't know."

So CO2 is the only pollutant anymore, and we've forgotten about everything else? You have to look at the whole picture, not just a part.

 

[cwerdna]

I doubt most buyers are Tesla are primarily buying to be green or reduce CO2 footprint. It's a side benefit for most folks, but if one wants to truly buy a really efficient EV, then they should look at ones like the i3 aor Spark EV. At least they get high MPGe scores.

It might be interesting to display something but yes, but giving an answer that's correct is complex.

Aside from any realtime displays, one can get estimates as tons of CO2/year or grams per mile at Compare Side-by-Side (example cars) under the Energy and Environment tab > Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Units and Show selectors on the left. This assumes achieving EPA mileage and for the annual tonnage, 15K miles/year w/the highway city/mix they mention. CO2 output of ICEVs is proportional to the amount of fuel burned: Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel | US EPA

"CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon

CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon"

For EVs, you can't directly get the figure for tonnage or grams/mile since it depends on the grid. Beyond Tailpipe Emissions: Results lets you see grams/mile depending on your zip and EV. But, this again has assumptions about the mix and your efficiency. How clean is the electricity I use? - Power Profiler | Clean Energy | US EPA lets you see the generation mix for your area.

However (!), the average mix for your area is NOT necessarily what actually charged your EV due to shifts on what produces the electricity at various times, esp. for sources that aren't constant (e.g. solar and wind).

 

[FakeStewartAlsop]

AudobonB makes some good points. Paraphrasing: "putting CO2 numbers on the dashboard does nothing more than make the driver feel good." I would go one step further. It results in one of three kinds of reactions in the driver:

1. I've done my part today, time to stoke the propane space heaters and bonfire at my ranch;
2. Well, I'm producing some change ... but I haven't gone far enough;
3. What the heck is wrong with these ICE drivers? They need to learn from my excellent example.

For the #1 and #3 guys, I agree that CO2 numbers are going to be useless. But for the #2 user, who might be a math major, engineer, accountant, etc., those details might encourage a) more lifestyle modifications or b) inventing something you and I haven't seen, but helps make something else green. Do the #1 and #3 guys outnumber the #2 guys? Probably. But why bother inventing something for the green economy if you have no way to measure what is the green economy.

 

[SageBrush]

But why bother inventing something for the green economy if you have no way to measure what is the green economy.

The measurement is kWh/mile and miles traveled. The point that others have tried to make is that the carbon intensity of the kWh (energy) is determined by source, and that is something the car cannot tell you. Certainly knowable by you, of course.

 

[Skotty]

Quick answer? Yes.

Now, if you were more interested in discussing CO2 calculators as part of the software package, you might try a different thread title.

Now, as for the build solar vs buy a Tesla question, I have to inject my own thoughts. Building solar might be greener on an individual level. But I don't care about the individual level, I care about where society is going as a whole. I care about where my money will have the greatest impact on moving society as a whole towards a greener better future. In my opinion, my money is better served supporting Tesla Motors and their mission. I don't think building solar on my house would have nearly the same impact. Tesla Motors is far more important than any solar company right now.

 

[Lance T]

I think one thing that everyone has somewhat overlooked is the great side benefit of zero emissions at the non-existent tailpipe. Even if the power grid may still be dirty (to various amounts depending on location), you are also not contributing to localized air pollution where you drive.

 

[ggr]

I had some sort of hybrid rental car a few months ago, and as you drove it had a pretty animated tree that would light up to show you how green you were being. I thought it was a total waste of time and effort and valuable screen space. Tesla doesn't have to get all frilly to show that they are green, they just need to keep providing compelling cars.

 

[FakeStewartAlsop]

...my money is better served supporting Tesla Motors and their mission. ... Tesla Motors is far more important than any solar company right now.

OK, I see the 'Tesla on the road' as a "conversation starter" to get others to think about steps they can take and even if it is worth it, to reduce CO2 output. In other words, driving the car is both altruistic and symbolic of the actual idea of each of us adjusting our habits.

 

[Canuck]

My Leaf grows a little tree in the instrument panel as I drive, and the more conservatively I drive, the more the little tree grows. Thankfully, Tesla opted to leave these "feel good" types of gimmicks out of its cars. Driving any electric car is not "good" for the environment, nor does it magically grow trees. It's just less harmful than most other ways of transporting yourself, and more harmful than some others.

 

[Skotty]

OK, I see the 'Tesla on the road' as a "conversation starter" to get others to think about steps they can take and even if it is worth it, to reduce CO2 output. In other words, driving the car is both altruistic and symbolic of the actual idea of each of us adjusting our habits.

I would agree I also bought a Model S so that people in my area can actually see it and get familiar with the idea of electric cars being real cars (you see very few of them in my neck of the woods). I can show people the car and convince them that it's a great car.

To discuss the solar install vs Tesla a little more deeply, I believe we can all have a bright future without having to reduce standards of living. It will take some serious passion to utilize clean energy, and make products that contribute to a high standard of living that are actually attainable on a mass scale. Tesla is doing this. They are trying to revolutionize a major industry, making it clean, and bringing the product cost down to mass market levels without losing the qualities that make it so desirable. That I believe is what we need to be striving to do. The equivalent in solar would be if some solar company was trying to engineer new better solar cells and installation techniques while also trying to significantly bring down the costs. No solar installing company around me has that kind of mission or passion. Solar City maybe comes close in spirit, but they don't do business in my state. Overall, this makes Tesla the far more important endeavor to support.

Now if I had endless funds, i would do both. Buy a Tesla and install solar all over my property. But I don't have the capital for that right now. I could potentially do one or the other, and for the reasons I've stated, buying a Tesla was the higher priority use of my purchasing power at this time. In another 4 or so years, this choice will likely come up again. Do I replace our 2nd car with a Tesla as well, or consider doing a major solar power install? I may choose the latter at that point, depending on how things are going, as it could potentially do a little of both -- solar power + supporting Tesla by integrating with one or more Tesla Powerwalls. That's not really something I can do right now as the Powerwalls aren't rolling off the production lines yet. And maybe by then Solar City will be doing business in my state, as I'd rather my money go to them than one of the currently existing companies that lack the more progressive forward thinking mission.

 

[AudubonB]

Woof: Yep.

 

[S'toon]

As for the life cycle question, the Union of Concerned Scientists took a look at ICE cars vs. EVs.
Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave (2015)

 

[Dithermaster]

The touchscreen displays in (many / most / all?) U.S. showrooms have a mode where you can pick your state and it will show where your electrical power comes from, and how much CO2 you'll be putting in the atmosphere compared to an ICE car. Even mostly-coal-burning Wisconsin was around 25% as much (although I pay extra for wind power, so it would be significantly less).

 

[YoungStranger]

More fuddiness in the Uk daily telegraph today.

Don't be fooled - Elon Musk's electric cars aren't about to save the planet


Author is Bjorn Lomborg. I think this guy has form.

Yes. Here
Anti-Tesla Gibberish

 

[EVie'sDad]

and to reiterate

"As for California, just 7.82% of the state’s electricity comes from coal sources. So saying there’s a relationship between the electric grid of the South and the charging stations out in the Golden State is purely mythical.

Myth 3: EV emissions reductions are negligible
Out in EV country, California’s electric grid uses natural gas (44.31%), renewables (18.77%), large hydroelectric (7.76%) and nuclear power (8.84%) to get its EVs charged. These sources of electric power are the ones University of Minnesota researchers said “reduce environmental health impacts” by at least 50%."

A Cheat Sheet to Debunking Myths About Electric Vehicles

 

[Saghost]

The measurement is kWh/mile and miles traveled. The point that others have tried to make is that the carbon intensity of the kWh (energy) is determined by source, and that is something the car cannot tell you. Certainly knowable by you, of course.

Is a very smart car. A very smart car permanently connected to the web.

In principle, there's no reason Tesla couldn't teach it to know where the power came from much better than a user ever could, using real time data for the relevant power grid from GPS data.

Having said that, I don't think that's the best use of Tesla's time/money, and I wouldn't want the sort of behavior modification displays some other carmakers provide.
Walter

 

[Jonas_man]

So i tried my CO2e in that calculator. Here is my data:

I currently drive a toyota prius. I made 4000Kms in 6 months. So im gonna assume i do 8000kms per year.
Calculator says this:
0.96 metric tons: 8000 km in a EU 2008 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 VVT-i Hybrid, E-CVT

Assuming a Tesla model S uses 100kwh for 500kms it means i would need to use 1600Kwh for the same 8000kms
Charging at home the calculator says this:
0.32 metric tons: 1600 kWh of electricity in Finland


So changing from a Prius (104 g/km CO2) to a Tesla I would save 0.64 tons of CO2e per year!
I can see that i can save much more CO2 in other areas like packaging, food, etc according to the calculator.

 

[Jonas_man]

A 5 kW PV array should be a whole lot cheaper than a MS so the question is not all that helpful, but it's pretty easy to see that investment in PV has a much better green return in terms of CO2 than a more expensive (but cleaner) car.

Think of it this way:
A kW of PV costs about $2000 and produces some 1.75 MWh of clean energy a year for about 25 years, thus about 44 MWh or about 22 kWh per dollar. Each kWh displaces somewhere between 1 - 2 lbs of CO2, depending on which fossil fuel is avoided. Take the middle ground and figure 33 lbs of CO2 avoided per dollar.

Give the EV the high ground, and say that it is carbon free and removes a regular car from the road that gets somewhere in the range of 25 - 50 MPG. Over 100k miles between 2000 and 4000 gallons are not spent by you (though perhaps by someone else!) and since a gallon of fuel has a WTW carbon footprint of 20/0.82 = 24 lbs, the EV has saved at most 96,000, or as little as 48,000 lbs of CO2

Almost there: Back to 33 lbs of CO2 saved per one dollar by PV: Somewhere in the range of
48,000/33 = $1500 - $3000 of PV to match the EV in terms of CO2 savings.

----
If I could only do one, I would choose PV
I will not buy an EV without PV

So with PV you save 33lbs of CO2 per dollar
How many lbs of CO2 do you save per dollar with a Tesla?

 

[SageBrush]

So with PV you save 33lbs of CO2 per dollar
How many lbs of CO2 do you save per dollar with a Tesla?

Say the extra cost of a Tesla compared to your Prius is Z, then

Between 48k/Z to 96k/Z

 

[jerry33]

So changing from a Prius (104 g/km CO2) to a Tesla I would save 0.64 tons of CO2e per year!
I can see that i can save much more CO2 in other areas like packaging, food, etc according to the calculator.

1. You're assuming that the Prius' emission level will always remain the same.

2. CO2 isn't the only pollutant.

3. ICE car emissions are mainly emitted where you breath them.

The raw number doesn't even remotely tell the whole story.