So you will obviously see it wasn't me.
You may want to read the context of the comment before you start pointing fingers.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Upset at SMH article - Tesla worse than a Prius!
- Thread starter alpal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Australia New Zealand
So you will obviously see it wasn't me.
You may want to read the context of the comment before you start pointing fingers.
that's also assuming that a prius is driven is such a way to maximize the battery usage... Even when using dirty coal here in maryland I still save several tons of CO2 compared to the ICE vehicle, not taking into account anything having to do with production and transport of gasoline...there truly is no way a hyrbrid is cleaner than a pure EV... every argument against an EV is also an argument against a hyrbrid, plus the ICE argument...
reecho
Member
Doing some calcs with Hazelwood power station in Victoria (dirtiest in the world by the way) which has Co2 emissions at 1.56T/Twh, I convert that to 650gms per 100Kwh (including transmission losses) which is about 1.5gms per km based on 420kms.
Am I missing something??
That article rally is shite...
Am I missing something??
That article rally is shite...
garyjac
Member
What can we expect from a lawyer writing in the "popular press" ? The referred "expert" Prof. Bailles is a mathematical physicist and astronomer which does not make him an "expert" on power generation, power stations or Tesla cars. As such his opinion carries the weight of any intelligent, well-informed member of the public at best, possibly worse if he makes unwarranted assumptions.
RichardMcN
Member
The Green Vehicle Guide offers a comparison based on fuel lifecycle emissions, including the process of extracting, refining and transporting fuels.
Looks like, with standard electricity, the Prius does win (figures in red circle). As everybody says, it all depends on what type of power you put into your Tesla.
From Green Vehicle Guide FAQ:
"Fuel lifecycle emissions cover emissions from both the production and combustion of transport fuels.
In addition to emissions produced from the combustion of fuel to power an internal combustion engine, emissions can also be produced in the process of extracting, refining and transporting fuels. These include emissions from the generation of electricity for electric vehicles."
Just following on from Reecho above, if we charge up at Hazelwood ...
Looks like, with standard electricity, the Prius does win (figures in red circle). As everybody says, it all depends on what type of power you put into your Tesla.
From Green Vehicle Guide FAQ:
"Fuel lifecycle emissions cover emissions from both the production and combustion of transport fuels.
In addition to emissions produced from the combustion of fuel to power an internal combustion engine, emissions can also be produced in the process of extracting, refining and transporting fuels. These include emissions from the generation of electricity for electric vehicles."
Just following on from Reecho above, if we charge up at Hazelwood ...
- Hazelwood = 1.56 MT/TWh = 1560g/kWh CO2
- Tesla S90D = 206 Wh/km = 0.206 kWh/km
- Tesla fuelled by Hazelwood (multiplying the above two figures) = 321g/km CO2
Last edited:
Blue heaven
Fair Dinkum Tesla
Fellow Tesla drivers DONT SWALLOW THE ANTI-ELECTRIC CAR KOOL-AID, now the model 3 is in the news these "facts" will be rolled out left, right and centre, and rarely do they take into account the effort it takes just get petrol to a cars fuel tank in the first place, most of Australia's crude oil/petrol/diesel comes from overseas, supertankers burn massive amounts of bunker fuel per hour, an oil refinery consumes a huge amount of energy to produce the end product, they are not powered by renewable energy, the semi-trailer that delivers to the servo consumes diesel that's gone through the same process, the fuel pumps consume electricity, the tailpipe of a Prius is the least of its problems.
Apologies for the small rant but it's got to be said.
As a side note look up the amount of sulphur bunker fuel contains as a percentage compared to bowser diesel, it will make you sick.
Blue heaven
Fair Dinkum Tesla
I'm pretty sure I understand the context of Paul's comment, guess you didn't understand my play on words
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
If I am not mistaken, the 0.36 Kg CO2 figure is per kWh of heat energy, not kWh of electricity. For the latter, multiply by ~ 3
RichardMcN
Member
Thanks S'toon. A challenging video especially the figure of 4.5 kWh of electricity required to refine a gallon of fuel. The Green Vehicle Guide is an Australian government site which has a column that includes fuel lifecycle emissions on top of tailpipe emissions. It shows minimal difference between the two: 80 to 84 in the case of the Prius. However I am interested to see what more there is to the story. Does anybody know of reliable studies (CSIRO, university peer reviewed, UNFCCC etc) on the upstream emissions of motor fuel?
We have two Prii (the official plural of Prius), and are trading one in for a Model S. Maybe we need to trade the other in for a Model 3?
Last edited:
Blue heaven
Fair Dinkum Tesla
Sometimes it's very difficult to complete a reliable study due to the reluctance of some industry's to release figures, when you do see a study/report or comment tracing back to the source is a good option, who funded it, who do they work for, it's amazing what you'll find.
The headline in the SMH should have been "most Tesla owners offset the vehicles energy use from renewable sources due the authorities dragging their heels in cleaning up the grid" of course it doesn't fit on the page.
Thumbs up or down doesnt bother me. We live in a free society where we are all welcome to express our opinions. Why should everyone have to agree with me? To be honest I didn't look at who agreed or disagreed with my somewhat political statement.
garyjac
Member
This document, from Argonne National Lab in the U.S. examins the subject comprehensively for the U.S. (a fair sample):
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2009/03/63740.pdf
The "take away" (save you reading 70 pages), is what we already know. The cleaner your generation source the better. Get rid of coal ASAP!
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2009/03/63740.pdf
The "take away" (save you reading 70 pages), is what we already know. The cleaner your generation source the better. Get rid of coal ASAP!
First time post....no Tesla yet but patiently waiting until I put down the order.
This article is simple enough and is correct, in Australia, if you charged your car in Victoria and bought your electricity straight of the grid (ie.no green power) and put it into a Tesla you would be creating more CO2 per km...unfortunately.
Here is a great resource that illustrates it very simply in MPG and uses the average electricity generation to create it's base data. The original study was actually quite detailed.
The ‘electric cars aren’t green’ myth debunked
Unfortunately this article is written by a well educated person and quoting well educated and informed sources which adds credibility to the absolute nonsense underlying the article. Let's make a simple list of questions
Can a Prius have zero tail pipe emissions? No
Is the Prius designed to drive any distance without burning petrol? No
Does Australia have one of the dirtiest (highest CO2/Kwh) power generation systems in the world? Yes
Can an electrically driven vehicle be powered with 100% renewable energy? Yes
Can an electrically driven vehicle function only on 100% renewable energy? Yes
Can any ICE car function on 100% renewable energy? No (forget about biofuels, they're neutral at best, plus we need to eat!!)
Do we have the technological capability as a species to have electrically driven vehicles powered solely on renewable energy? Yes
What the article should say is something roughly like, 'Even with the ability to power a vehicle on 100% renewable electricity, electricity generation in Victoria is so dirty (carbon intensity) that if you powered that aformentioned vehicle on electricity generated in Victoria you would actually be damaging the environment more than driving a fuel efficient petrol car (my little Golf get about 40 mpg)'
All the article should stand to highlight is just how bad the situation for electricity generation is in Victoria and how much work we have got ahead of us. However, clearly there is an agenda, there has to be, otherwise you wouldn't use not just the dirtiest electricity plants in Australia as an example, which conveniently in Australia actually means you get to use the dirtiest power plants in the world as that example.
The author could have chosen Bolivia or Norway or NZ or Iceland or Tasmania to demonstrate just how much you could immediately reduce pollution and how much of a profound impact you could have globally. Or even the US, with an average fleet fuel efficiency of 20 MPG, you could reduce the CO2 generated by light vehicles in the US by 50% just by converting to electric cars, nevermind the fact that over time all grids will convert to renewable generation. Nevermind that huge amount of other toxins you could remove from the air. What about major cities in China, how much of an impact on air quality could electric vehicles have (China is also one of the dirtiest generators, however, also the biggest spender globally on renewables)?
The article is right though, electric cars are not the solution, they're part of the solution but at least they can be part of a solution. However, a Prius burning petrol or any ICE for that matter car can never ever be part of any solution to climate change because your still burning fossil fuels, and that is exactly what we need to stop. It's like saying we should cut down a whole bunch of trees to build a wall to protect a forest.....kinda defeating the point. Making a point that Tesla owners are trying to buy the change that is in fact required in electricity generation is a false and misleading statement. Without Tesla, the automotive industry would have just buried every single fuel efficiency and electrical vehicle programme (again) with the huge fall in oil prices. Tesla is having a profound impact already and in generations to come I hope we look at Elon Musk and Tesla as a game changer, 'you remember that guy who made us all figure this climate change problem out before it was too late....'.
Elon Musk has started two companies, a solar company and an electric car company. That is not one grand coincidence. It is so simple to convert a Tesla to 100% renewable energy. You make a small investment solar panels and possibly batteries or you make a choice on your electricity account to purchase green power. That guarantees that your vehicle is running on 100% renewable energy.....can the Prius make that choice?? The article didn't even do a poll, to see if for example the average Tesla user is more environmentally conscious and see if they all have solar panels or buy green power etc to power their vehicles. I am assuming that the overwhelming majority do and therefore the article is 100% speculative and useless, other than to feed the naysayers and coal powered car enthusiasts.
As a species we need to start making some smarter choices, otherwise the world will be here for a very long time.....but it may become inhabitable for humans for a while, and that is not a party that anyone wants to go to and we will only have ourselves to blame!!!!!
This article is simple enough and is correct, in Australia, if you charged your car in Victoria and bought your electricity straight of the grid (ie.no green power) and put it into a Tesla you would be creating more CO2 per km...unfortunately.
Here is a great resource that illustrates it very simply in MPG and uses the average electricity generation to create it's base data. The original study was actually quite detailed.
The ‘electric cars aren’t green’ myth debunked
Unfortunately this article is written by a well educated person and quoting well educated and informed sources which adds credibility to the absolute nonsense underlying the article. Let's make a simple list of questions
Can a Prius have zero tail pipe emissions? No
Is the Prius designed to drive any distance without burning petrol? No
Does Australia have one of the dirtiest (highest CO2/Kwh) power generation systems in the world? Yes
Can an electrically driven vehicle be powered with 100% renewable energy? Yes
Can an electrically driven vehicle function only on 100% renewable energy? Yes
Can any ICE car function on 100% renewable energy? No (forget about biofuels, they're neutral at best, plus we need to eat!!)
Do we have the technological capability as a species to have electrically driven vehicles powered solely on renewable energy? Yes
What the article should say is something roughly like, 'Even with the ability to power a vehicle on 100% renewable electricity, electricity generation in Victoria is so dirty (carbon intensity) that if you powered that aformentioned vehicle on electricity generated in Victoria you would actually be damaging the environment more than driving a fuel efficient petrol car (my little Golf get about 40 mpg)'
All the article should stand to highlight is just how bad the situation for electricity generation is in Victoria and how much work we have got ahead of us. However, clearly there is an agenda, there has to be, otherwise you wouldn't use not just the dirtiest electricity plants in Australia as an example, which conveniently in Australia actually means you get to use the dirtiest power plants in the world as that example.
The author could have chosen Bolivia or Norway or NZ or Iceland or Tasmania to demonstrate just how much you could immediately reduce pollution and how much of a profound impact you could have globally. Or even the US, with an average fleet fuel efficiency of 20 MPG, you could reduce the CO2 generated by light vehicles in the US by 50% just by converting to electric cars, nevermind the fact that over time all grids will convert to renewable generation. Nevermind that huge amount of other toxins you could remove from the air. What about major cities in China, how much of an impact on air quality could electric vehicles have (China is also one of the dirtiest generators, however, also the biggest spender globally on renewables)?
The article is right though, electric cars are not the solution, they're part of the solution but at least they can be part of a solution. However, a Prius burning petrol or any ICE for that matter car can never ever be part of any solution to climate change because your still burning fossil fuels, and that is exactly what we need to stop. It's like saying we should cut down a whole bunch of trees to build a wall to protect a forest.....kinda defeating the point. Making a point that Tesla owners are trying to buy the change that is in fact required in electricity generation is a false and misleading statement. Without Tesla, the automotive industry would have just buried every single fuel efficiency and electrical vehicle programme (again) with the huge fall in oil prices. Tesla is having a profound impact already and in generations to come I hope we look at Elon Musk and Tesla as a game changer, 'you remember that guy who made us all figure this climate change problem out before it was too late....'.
Elon Musk has started two companies, a solar company and an electric car company. That is not one grand coincidence. It is so simple to convert a Tesla to 100% renewable energy. You make a small investment solar panels and possibly batteries or you make a choice on your electricity account to purchase green power. That guarantees that your vehicle is running on 100% renewable energy.....can the Prius make that choice?? The article didn't even do a poll, to see if for example the average Tesla user is more environmentally conscious and see if they all have solar panels or buy green power etc to power their vehicles. I am assuming that the overwhelming majority do and therefore the article is 100% speculative and useless, other than to feed the naysayers and coal powered car enthusiasts.
As a species we need to start making some smarter choices, otherwise the world will be here for a very long time.....but it may become inhabitable for humans for a while, and that is not a party that anyone wants to go to and we will only have ourselves to blame!!!!!
Keiron
Member
I am a little puzzled as to why we are being dragged into a clearly biased fight. The existing Automotive Industry cannot and will not go the the global public and directly admit that they have it wrong. The singular reason we haven't seen any dramatic change is vested interest. If we observe other industry behaviors of deception i.e Big tobacco, Sugar (Fructose) etc we see the Status Quo defended to the death on deliberately misleading information to keep the money train running. Some years ago I had a consultant from GMH try and sell me on WHY electric cars as a principle where so toxic to our environment. We subsequently has a very animated discussion about misinformation with convenient omissions. No minds where changed that day but it convinced me that Electric propulsion would have to be a demand driven by USERS exclusively. Elon has triggered the change of thinking in WE the users. I note with interest that the same motor company's who have poo poo'd electric augmentations in various forms and now suddenly full on to catch up. Is that of itself a crystal clear admission of wrong thinking.?
If one puts aside the exact defendable data on "Whole of product Impact" including making of the parts, recycle-ability, energy sources etc. there appear to be 2 critical elements missing from most discussions. Namely : Firstly Pollution = Health costs of respiratory disorders directly attributable to smog emissions primarily from propulsion fuels ( anyone been to Mexico city, L.A on a summers day or Bangkok and almost any day recently ) and Secondly Oil is a NON renewable asset of the planet. Assuming we believe the data that Mankind has passed peak oil it defy s even basic logic that we should continue to expansion consumption on burning it!
If one puts aside the exact defendable data on "Whole of product Impact" including making of the parts, recycle-ability, energy sources etc. there appear to be 2 critical elements missing from most discussions. Namely : Firstly Pollution = Health costs of respiratory disorders directly attributable to smog emissions primarily from propulsion fuels ( anyone been to Mexico city, L.A on a summers day or Bangkok and almost any day recently ) and Secondly Oil is a NON renewable asset of the planet. Assuming we believe the data that Mankind has passed peak oil it defy s even basic logic that we should continue to expansion consumption on burning it!
TesAus
Member
Maybe this article gives some hope for SMH and humanity:
Wind and solar are crushing fossil fuels | smh.com.au
Wind and solar are crushing fossil fuels | smh.com.au
Similar threads
- Article
