"Tesla Model 3 Produces More CO2 than a Diesel Car" - Please debunk

[Saghost]

Follow-up with an example:

Say I am considering an EV today. Regardless of whether the clean energy component of the grid is 1% or 99%, my EV will be fueled with additional fossils

Define "additional" in this context, though...

If you're driving miles that weren't going to be driven before, because you would have sat on your hands at home instead of going out, more dinosaurs die for you.

In almost any other condition, fewer dinosaurs die. If EV is replacing another car, then even if it's consuming some dinosaurs, it's consuming fewer than the other car would. In a lot of cases, it might be consuming fewer dinosaurs than your portion of a bus you get on, and certainly less than your portion of a typical car pool.

 

[SageBrush]

Define "additional" in this context, though...

If you're driving miles that weren't going to be driven before, because you would have sat on your hands at home instead of going out, more dinosaurs die for you.

In almost any other condition, fewer dinosaurs die. If EV is replacing another car, then even if it's consuming some dinosaurs, it's consuming fewer than the other car would. In a lot of cases, it might be consuming fewer dinosaurs than your portion of a bus you get on, and certainly more than your portion of a typical car pool.

Agreed, but that is an efficiency argument of how best to use fossil fuel. I was pointing out the fallacy of thinking that a greener grid is a cleaner EV.

I can think of a counter argument that might apply. If a utility has a mandated RPS they are not exceeding then additional demand via EVs requires more clean energy generation than would otherwise be built.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

The biggest thing about EV environmental impact that I never see mentioned (and indeed, still hasn't been mentioned in this thread) is the efficiency of burning fossil fuels in a large power plant vs. the efficiency of burning them in individual cars. This is gigantically important.

When you burn fossil fuels in an individual ICE vehicle, the average efficiency (that is, how much of the inherent/theoretical energy of the fossil fuel gets converted into useful work) is about 15%. The ICE engine can, under some very narrow conditions, reach 35%+ efficiency, but that is usually only when it's producing maximum power. ICE cars very rarely produce maximum power, and instead spend 80%+ of their lives idling or producing minimal cruise power.

When you take those same fossil fuels and burn them in a large power plant, you can use many things that increase that conversion efficiency. You can use regenerative steam cycles, reheat cycles, double- and triple-stage reaction turbines, and general economies of scale. The net efficiency can come out over 40%, all the time.

Even if you consider the exact same fossil fuel (say, natural gas ICE vs. natural gas power plant), and consider the electrical losses of transmission and distribution, the EV can still be over twice as efficient as the ICE in terms of pounds of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere vs. number of miles driven, simply due to the conversion efficiency in the power plant.

 

[ecarfan]

I was pointing out the fallacy of thinking that a greener grid is a cleaner EV.

Here is the way I look at it:

The US electrical grid is getting cleaner over time 4 Charts That Show Renewable Energy is on the Rise in America

US EV sales are clearly increasing dramatically US Electric Vehicle Sales Increased by 81% in 2018

Therefore, the electricity those EVs are consuming is less polluting than it used to be.

It seems fair to say that those two trends will continue.

 

[Kiwiadventure]

I only worry what I can control in my house and property but in saying that New Zealand has 90% renewable energy. Australia is only 11% the worst in our western world and they are looking at putting people in jail up to 2 years if they protest over renewable sustainable energy.

 

[MaryAnning3]

Sick of getting forwarded articles like this from friends/family. Can anyone help me out and definitively debunk this article?

A Tesla Model 3 Produces More CO2 than a Diesel Car, Says New Study

This article is total nonsense. Union of Concerned Scientists has debunked this garbage many times over. It is the case that diesel cars, while the emit a lot of PAHs (black soot), do tend to have less CO2 emission than gasoline cars. Model 3 is at least a factor of 2 lower in CO2 emission than a diesel comparison.

 

[ecarfan]

Union of Concerned Scientists: How Clean is Your Electric Vehicle?

Also from that organization: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/what-are-electric-cars

Quote: “In terms of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, electric cars and trucks are often cleaner than even the most efficient conventional vehicles. Exactly how clean depends on the type of vehicle and the source of the electricity. When battery electric EVs are powered by the cleanest electricity grids, greenhouse gas emissions from EVs are comparable to a car getting over 100 miles per gallon. When charged exclusively with renewable electricity like solar or wind, charging and operating an EV can be nearly emission free.”

Sick of getting forwarded articles like this from friends/family. Can anyone help me out and definitively debunk this article?
A Tesla Model 3 Produces More CO2 than a Diesel Car, Says New Study

It took me about one minute to find the articles I quote above. Surely your friends and family can make the modest effort and do the same?

 

[Lanzer]

And you think making solar panels have zero environmental impact?

And how are you charging at night and in the winter. By chance is it using the grid? Or are you using more batteries that you think have zero environmental impact?

No form of energy usage has zero impact and you do have to measure EVERYTHING.

Absolutely true. No one should purchase any appliances thinking that they're making no environmental impact. Solar panels do not generate electricity 24/7, and the lifetime of all appliances should be considered, outside their performance at one point in time.

You also forgot to mention that in order to have a compelling article, you need to measure more than just one datapoint.

That being said,

The point of the joke is that "you too can cherry pick some data and publish a ridiculous article". I hope you get it.

 

[SammichLover]

This much beloved trope of the EV world is more wrong than right because it presumes that clean electricity consumed by EVs would not have been utilized to displace dirty energy elsewhere.

Right now EVs aren't yet at the use level that their demand they create will keep "dirty" producers on the grid that would otherwise be decommissioned. They are nearing to the level of deployment in California that that could be a risk except that California also has regulation and programs to clean their grid sources, so even there it is still going in the right direction and on track.

The economics of electricity production are shifting so fast away from coal, and we're already passing the tipping point of fuel cost alone for NG electricity production being above cradle to grave cost for wind electricity in the US, that by the time EVs are significantly reducing HC fuel use the grid is still going to keep getting cleaner, both in CO2 and particulates, even in the face of a full shift to near 100% BEVs.

It might be a little slower getting cleaner due to keeping a bit more NG peak production, to fill renewable production gaps, online longer and in more use but even that only modestly blunts the huge gains in a move from crude oil based fuels.

 

[SammichLover]

If you're driving miles that weren't going to be driven before, because you would have sat on your hands at home instead of going out, more dinosaurs die for you.

It is true I'm driving miles I wouldn't have driven before but a large portion of those are in place of airplane miles. For example the CO2 accounting on my Canada trip this summer with my daughter had my total CO2 for the trip of 6700 mi in the Model 3 wouldn't have even gotten us across the US/Canada border one way on a 737. Plus over 1/3 of those miles were also covering ground that I'd have to rent another vehicle for and/or more plane flights (there is no longer public, intercity bus service on the Canadian Prairies so that's not an option).

 

[Probllama]

This seems credible enough to refute the anti-EV claim, go to the 13:34 mark:

 

[pipestem]

A bottom line report i like is this one by the UCS. How Energy Efficient Is Your Electric Car? It Depends On Where You Live - Digg. I have also seen a version with individual state values I don't find it right now. This is a 'wheel to well' study, but I did not see anything about gas tanker transport to the fuel stations. It's an old 2009 map, but I am not sure how much progress the energy grid has made since then and especially the last 3 years.

This shows where I live, an EV is like driving a 60 mpg car. The regional Duke Energy is roughly 32% natural gas, coal, and nuclear, each, and then another 5-10% of solar and wind. it is not a great utility. Notice that if iwas in NY state I would get a surprising 115 mpg; however, if I lived in Colorado, i might be better off with a really good hybrid. The future needs to be a combination of EV, public transport and carpooling, and clean energy; especially clean energy.

 

[SageBrush]

The biggest thing about EV environmental impact that I never see mentioned (and indeed, still hasn't been mentioned in this thread) is the efficiency of burning fossil fuels in a large power plant vs. the efficiency of burning them in individual cars. This is gigantically important.

Very true, but the result has to be corrected for the carbon intensity of the fuels being used if CO2 emissions are being considered. A Prius is superior to a coal supplied EV because it has ~ 50% better average thermodynamic efficiency than a generic ICE and oil has a carbon intensity about 73% that of coal.

It works out ~ like this:
Prius burning oil:
20% loss to refining
65% loss in the ICE
3% drivetrain losses
-> 0.8*0.35*0.97 = 27% of source energy to wheels

EV on Coal:
33% power plant thermodynamic efficiency
7% transmissions losses
12% charging losses
5% battery to wheel losses
1.37x higher carbon intensity
-> 0.33*0.93*0.88*0.85 = 23% of source energy to wheels but 1.37*27/23 = 1.6x higher carbon emissions

If you restrict the analysis to a modern coal plant at 40% thermo efficiency then the numbers work out to 1.6x*33/40 = 1.32x higher carbon emissions

 

[dhrivnak]

Very true, but the result has to be corrected for the carbon intensity of the fuels being used if CO2 emissions are being considered. A Prius is superior to a coal supplied EV because it has ~ 50% better average thermodynamic efficiency than a generic ICE and oil has a carbon intensity about 73% that of coal.

It works out ~ like this:
Prius burning oil:
20% loss to refining
65% loss in the ICE
3% drivetrain losses
-> 0.8*0.35*0.97 = 27% of source energy to wheels

EV on Coal:
33% power plant thermodynamic efficiency
7% transmissions losses
12% charging losses
5% battery to wheel losses
1.37x higher carbon intensity
-> 0.33*0.93*0.88*0.85 = 23% of source energy to wheels but 1.37*27/23 = 1.6x higher carbon emissions

If you restrict the analysis to a modern coal plant at 40% thermo efficiency then the numbers work out to 1.6x*33/40 = 1.32x higher carbon emissions

Except that runs counter to utilities own reporting. Utilities report an average of 1 lb of CO2 per delivered KWh. West Va the worst is near 2. The model 3 will go 4 miles per kWh for an effective rate of .25 lb/mile. A Prius will use a gal to go 50 miles. A gallon of gas is 20 lbs of CO2 and then add at least 4 lbs to refine it. So a Prius is double the CO2 of the model 3. In WVa it is a tie but in 49 other states the Model 3 is better than a Prius. And another interesting fact is 60% of Tesla owners power their car from solar. Making the Model 3 essentially run emission free. Driving on Sunshine

 

[SageBrush]

A bottom line report i like is this one by the UCS

That map is from 2009 data and has been updated. The general ideas remain the same: An EV run on coal sucks. I think the jury is out whether an EV run on NG is an environmental bargain due to methane pollution at the extraction site.

 

[SageBrush]

Except that runs counter to utilities own reporting. Utilities report an average of 1 lb of CO2 per delivered KWh. West Va the worst is near 2. The model 3 will go 4 miles per kWh for an effective rate of .25 lb/mile. A Prius will use a gal to go 50 miles. A gallon of gas is 20 lbs of CO2 and then add at least 4 lbs to refine it. So a Prius is double the CO2 of the model 3. In WVa it is a tie but in 49 other states the Model 3 is better than a Prius. And another interesting fact is 60% of Tesla owners power their car from solar. Making the Model 3 essentially run emission free. Driving on Sunshine

I only wish to correct the notion of EV on coal being better CO2 wise than a Prius
The EV is 4 miles per kWh but remember 7% transmission line loss and 12% charging losses. I'll be kind and not consider vampire drain since that is somewhat Tesla specific.

4*0.93*0.88 = 3.2736 miles a kWh. The corrected EV emissions for coal are then 2/3.27 = 0.611 lbs per mile
The Prius is 24 lbs per 52 EPA miles = 0.46 Lbs per mile

0.611/0.46 = 1.32x

 

[dhrivnak]

I only wish to correct the notion of EV on coal being better CO2 wise than a Prius
The EV is 4 miles per kWh but remember 7% transmission line loss and 12% charging losses. I'll be kind and not consider vampire drain since that is somewhat Tesla specific.

4*0.93*0.88 = 3.2736 miles a kWh. The corrected EV emissions for coal are then 2/3.27 = 0.611 lbs per mile
The Prius is 24 lbs per 52 EPA miles = 0.46 Lbs per mile

0.611/0.46 = 1.32x

The power companies report on kWh delivered or sold so it includes the line losses. Also the EPA includes charging losses and shows the Model 3 at 260 watts/mile. So at 3.84 miles/kw I was just slightly off

 

[Msjulie]

Why do all those anti-EV (cause that's how I see them) articles always neglect to talk about the power (electricity) used to refine the fossil fuels, and how it is produced.

Stuff like this is illuminating to me Oxy starts first solar farm to power oil production

There are more of those articles around..

Even simplistic thinking suggests that the efficiency of generating electricity to directly power vehicles vs to produce a different fuel that needs transport (at fuel costs to distribution centers etc etc) to power vehicles is better overall for environmental costs, no?

True Costs: Fossil Fuels vs. Solar Energy |

 

[astrowunder]

Electric cars create more CO2 during production but make up that deficit over the first 30-70k miles

main point is that we have significant opportunities to make EV production and electricity production cleaner. Fossil fuel cars don’t have the same potential.

also, when people tell you they are dirtier, does that mean they actually care how much pollution they create? Or is it just an easy excuse to not change their lifestyle?

Even EV users claim that EV cars create more CO2 during production. Has anyone accounted for the building of offshore oil rigs and fleets of diesel trucks hauling gas around the planet? Have those been added to the carbon cost of gasoline itself?

 

[SageBrush]

The power companies report on kWh delivered or sold so it includes the line losses. Also the EPA includes charging losses and shows the Model 3 at 260 watts/mile. So at 3.84 miles/kw I was just slightly off

I'm sorry, but the bolded part is incorrect.

Carbon intensity varies by coal type
SAS Output
but since bit and sub-bit coal are the lions share of power plant use and are used in about equal amounts
Subbituminous and bituminous coal dominate U.S. coal production - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
it is reasonable to use 95 Kg CO2 emissions per 1,000,000 btu = 293 kWh.
SAS Output
The heat rate of power plant combustion overall is 10,645 btu per kWh.
SAS Output

The calc then works out to
(3412/10,6450)*293 = 93.9 kWh electricity has 95 Kg CO2 emissions. This is all to show that your starting estimate of 1 Kg CO2 emission per kWh does not include transmission losses. Proceeding on ...
7% is lost in transmission: 93.9*0.93 = 87.3 kWh to the meter

The Model 3 varies from 116 to 133 MPGe by combined city/highway EPA testing -- 260 - 290 Wh/mile.

Best case Model 3 (260 Wh/mile)
87.3/0.26 miles per 95 Kg CO2 = 95000/(87.3/0.26) = 283 grams per mile

Worse case Model 3 (290 Wh/mile)
95000/(87.3/0.29) = 315 grams CO2 per mile