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 and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Morgan Stanley climate change impact stock study

Discussion in 'Electric Vehicles' started by jahav, Aug 20, 2017.

  1. jahav

    jahav New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    Prague
    There was an article at the MarketWatch few days ago called Want to fight climate change? Don’t invest in Tesla.

    The Morgan Stanley study is about where to invest when you want most environmental/social impact per buck.

    Tesla and others EVs were excluded because of basically a long tailpipe argument plus batteries are CO2 intensive.

    "For Tesla, such an investment [$1 million] adds nearly one-third of a metric ton of CO2"​

    I tried to find the study to see how they got their numbers but failed.

    Does anyone know where to read it(if it is public/free)?

    If it is private/paid content, can someone enlighten me how they got their numbers?

    Thanks.
     
  2. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,197
    Location:
    Iceland
    You don't turn to "Morgan Stanley" to estimate environmental impact, you turn to peer-reviewed research. To sum up:

    * The "long tailpipe" argument isn't even valid on today's grids in the US or Europe, let alone with respect to new power being added to the grid to meet new demand such as EVs, which is overwhelmingly clean.

    * The "battery energy consumption makes EVs worse than gasoline cars" is a myth that just won't die, despite being debunked time and time again in peer-reviewed research. And with mass production it gets all the more ridiculous with each passing day, since most battery energy costs are not in the raw materials, but in manufacturing, while the energy per kWh vastly decreases in mass production. And to top it off Gigafactory production (to repeat, the primary energy consumption in battery manufacture) is to be done with solar.

    I swear, this whole thing is like an endless game of whack-a-mole.
     
    • Like x 2
  3. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    3,857
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    It's premise is that the US grid is 72% fossil fuel. It makes the assumption that a mile in an ICE = a mile in an EV when it comes to energy efficiency.

    The problem? Most EVs in the US exist where the grid is far greener than 72%. And the average ICE car is not a Prius Eco.

    An EV in the US produces less CO2 on the average than an ICE vehicle does on the average, by a significant amount.

    Morgan Stanley apparently is not very good with numbers. Sort of scary since they claim to be geniuses with billions in their hands.
     
  4. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,197
    Location:
    Iceland
    There's only one argument that's even semi-fair which you see leveled sometimes, which is that the money put toward EV subsidies could prevent more carbon emissions if applied elsewhere. But that misses the point of EV subsidies entirely, and could equally have been said about early wind and solar subsidies. The whole point of subsidies toward disruptive technologies in their early phases is not their immediate benefit per dollar applied - it's to accelerate the scaleup of the technology to where it can stand on its own. The impact of EV technology, production processes, and infrastructure maturing over a 10-20 year timescale is hugely different from them maturing over a 50 year timescale. From a long-term perspective, early subsidies pay off hugely - even though you could have short-sightedly gotten more benefit in the short term applying them elsewhere.
     
    • Like x 1
  5. jahav

    jahav New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    Prague
    Please note that I have no interest in endless 'long tailpipe' discussion and rebuttal. There are probably thousands of threads about that.
    Go read those threads or Union of concerned scientists EV study.

    I am only interested in how did this study came to their conclusion.
     
  6. jahav

    jahav New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    Prague
    Do I understand correctly that they took energy needed to move a vehicle 1 mile using gas and then calculated how much CO2 would be produced when same amount of energy would be generated in power plants(avg.)? So they ignored that EVs are several times more efficient? That sounds weird.

    Sorry if everyone is bored by this endless "whack a mole" repetition of something that was squashed many times already, but I think it is a worth to display error in each such study.
     
  7. Missile Toad

    Missile Toad Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2016
    Messages:
    281
    Location:
    Houston
    I have Washington Post synthesized data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration dated 2015 (reader version in getPocket.com):

    2015 ????
    U.S. Grid.....WaPo* Morgan Stanley
    Natural Gas...34%
    Coal..........30
    Oil...........1
    ..Totals......65%...... 72%


    * Derives from Energy Information Administration​

    So, at least we can rule out the Energy Information Administration -- unless Morgan Stanley is going further back in time than 2015.
     
  8. kort677

    kort677 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    4,090
    Location:
    florida.
    the question not being asked is which masters is MS serving with their "research paper"
     
  9. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    3,857
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    If that were the case, they would have used a "dual power option" car.

    Focus EV vs Focus ICE
    Spark EV vs Spark ICE
    Kia Soul EV vs Kia Soul ICE
    etc

    Instead they used the current MPG champ of 2012? the Prius, vs the Leaf when driven in states where Leafs hardly exist, if any at all.

    I can prove the Tesla Model S has a bigger carbon footprint than the Bugatti Chiron.

    CO2 per mile x avg miles x # of cars on the road.

    But my 'proof' is pure stupidity at best. Or worse yet, deliberate fraud to trick investors, which is technically a felony for certain investment corps under the jurisdiction of the SEC.
     

Share This Page