We Aren’t Saving the Earth Like People Think When Buying an EV.

[Xenoilphobe]

Did anyone send the linked report to POTUS

They did - I think that guy got fired.

 

[McRat]

I bought a Prius Prime while waiting for a Model 3, and it does not stink. In fact, it is a superb car. I will say though that the occasional ICE revving as the car switches between ICE and EV mode is easily my least appreciated aspect of the car.

The peace and quiet of EV driving is hard to give up.

A Prius is about as close as you're going to get to cycling or walking.

Not CO2 levels, performance.

 

[Zaxxon]

I guess you can call me a treehugger because... I rarely use the dish washer and wash by hand

Had to respond to this one. That's a common misconception--a modern dishwasher generates fewer GHG than most hand-washing. If you're looking to reduce your emissions, fill your dish washer completely before running it, don't pre-rinse dishes, turn off heated dry, and power the thing with solar. If you do hand-wash, fill the basin rather than letting the water run, and wait until you have a sufficient amount of dirty dishes to adequately use the filled basin.

With all that said, it's possible that you're one of the very few wash-by-hand folks who already does so in an efficient manner. Since most hand-washers fire up the tap and expend a couple dozen gallons, I wanted to jump in and comment.

Just to contribute something on-topic: there are emissions involved in driving an EV? Say it ain't so! As has been mentioned repeatedly prior, EVs are a step in the right direction. They're not the only step, but they're a step. Drive EVs. Drive fewer unnecessary miles. Power your EV with rooftop solar. Carpool. Encourage your power co to use clean sources (eg sign up for optional clean-generation programs). Etc.

Carry on.

Sources: Energy Star, 2013 UCLA study, University of Bonn study

From the UCLA study:

Ultimately, the most significant finding of our study revealed that the comparison between dishwashers and hand washing entirely depends on the model and setting of the dishwasher, and the methods that are used in hand-washing. While dishwashers generally generate fewer GHG emissions and use less water than hand-washing, they use more energy than hand washing. We expect future trends to have a positive impact on both methods. Previous trends demonstrate that dishwashers are consistently becoming more energy efficient and many utilities are cleaning up their acts by transitioning their energy portfolios away from fossil fuels. We expect that increasing clean energy sources, better overall water and energy conservation strategies, and improved dishwasher models will make both methods friendlier for the environment. We believe that our study and findings help contribute to an improved understanding of how to lessen dish cleaning’s impact on the environment by encouraging hand washers to use the basin method, rather than allowing their water to continuously run. We also found it significant that prewashing dishes before placing them in the dishwasher, while not contributing to the dish’s cleanliness, substantially contributes to energy use and GHG 16 emissions. We hope that hand washers and machine users will take these findings into consideration for the future!

 

[Craiggow]

Simply put, the Tesla is a step in the right direction. I have 34 solar panels on my roof and at my job we have over 4000! I charge mostly at work for free and at home only on occasion. I have only used a supercharger twice as most of our travel is in or trusty "old" '04 Toyota AWD Minivan ;-)

 

[T34ME]

With all that said, it's possible that you're one of the very few wash-by-hand folks who already does so in an efficient manner. Since most hand-washers fire up the tap and expend a couple dozen gallons, I wanted to jump in and comment.

Yes, we are those people, in fact rather anil about it. Also we don't leave the water running while shaving or brushing our teeth, rarely use the garbage disposer because we compost (makes for a lush landscape as topsoil), clothes washer is only used for full loads, only Navy showers, etc.

I checked with our local water district, we use 1/3 of the water compared to the average residential user and that includes our award winning landscape too. But too be fair, we are a household of two as compared to the average household of about three. It can be done, you just have to commit to doing it.

Drive EVs. Drive fewer unnecessary miles. Power your EV with rooftop solar. Carpool. Encourage your power co to use clean sources (eg sign up for optional clean-generation programs). :

Yep, got it covered, but we can and will do better. Waiting for advancements in the PowerWall so that one day we can go completely off-grid.

 

[SageBrush]

No one has a 100% pollution free Tesla. Including mine Not trying to be rude, just stating the fact. And Sadly, yes there are a few people on here who think otherwise.

So what ?

Close to half the country are in denial over climate change and the goof-balls in the White House think coal is "clean."

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Your selective culling of the facts leaves the wrong impression. You are using the outliers for examples.

I am a frequent cruiser, therefore "el crucero." The average cruise ship burns about 1,100 gallons per hour with total passengers (including crew) of about 3000 people. That works out to less than 1/3 gallon per hour per person which is a lot better than driving an ICE car or flying. California is now requiring low sulfur fuels to be used much to the chagrin of the cruise industry. I can't speak for other States or countries. I suppose that will change with new EPA policies but Governor Brown says no, he is going to RESIST. Like many things, the newest cruise ships are more fuel efficient, with new technologies, because they are better for the industry's bottom line. The article you cited does not give a complete picture but intended to enforce and justify a preconceived idea.

I am sure your facts are correct for a mid-sized ship. The ships I have experienced with have been much larger. The stats I posted are from the Freedom of the Seas - it works out to 14 gallons per day per passenger. Glad they are moving from heavy marine fuel oil to Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in California, unfortunatley that just means they will fuel somewhere else.

Back on topic - I just don't like the "holier than thou" behavior I hear sometimes from Tesla owners - everyone wants to judge everything... it reflects on the rest of us who sell the car on its benefits - not some ecofrankenstein story - most people see it as foreign to their current lifestyle and are naturally resistant to change. Being an EV is a feature - people buy benefits - sell the benefits of the overall package. Unfortunately, not everyone cares about the environment - Tesla will find that out once the 3 gets launched - and they have to deal with the rest of the not-so-eco consumer market.

BTW I loved cruising - I refused to do it for over 30 years and finally caved to my significant other - it was pretty awesome. We recently booked a suite with Celebrity Constellation out of Fort Lauderdale - it was nice - no kids, mostly mature adults, with fairly decent service.

 

[Peteybabes]

...Carpool...

i'm finding this quite easy recently as everybody wants to come with me, in my MX, instead of their cars! lol

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

This topic was prompted by someone I met with an EV making snotty remarks about ICE cars and how they are polluting the earth. I suggested he do more research about how his own EV is built and runs.

Yea, this will make some people upset who think our EVs are perfect alternatives to ICE cars on the environment. As much as I like to think my Tesla is a perfect alternative, I am a realist.

While our Teslas are much better at reducing pollution and waste, I’m not one to brag about it. Consider about 30% of the electricity generated in USA to charge the cars is made by coal-powered plants (over twice the number of Wind, solar, and hydro plants combined), and the 20% of nuclear plants to generate the electricity will make waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years. And while roughly 30% of electricity is from natural gas plants that are cleaner than coal, they still pollute.

But then there is pollution that goes into making the car; diesel equipment mining and processing the Lithium, factories that smelt and create all the aluminum and steel, oils from the plastics, and factories to create all the other components of fabric, electronics, wiring, and on and on. Then there are the toxic chemicals to create the computer chips and many other components. Maybe as bad as making an ICE car.

So I hope folks keep in mind when creating that custom license plate of “No Waste”, “No CO2” or whatever, then you are just denying reality. The reason I bought the car is because I like it. I don’t think I am helping to save the earth. Yea, it is a lot better alternative to ICE, but not pollution free.

The good news is that as we switch to higher percentages of clean sources for energy generation, the numbers work in our favor.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're taking a subjective statement literally. Clearly there is waste when manufacturing any product. The point of license plates like that is that there's comparatively little waste associated with driving/powering an EV versus an ICE, all things being equal or similar.

 

[SageBrush]

hmm. So about 8 gallons a day per person. You would have to drive your Prius plug-in about 450 miles* a day to match the ship CO2 emissions.

;-)

*Diesel CO2 emissions are about 13% higher per volume than petrol.

Come to think of it, if that cruise is for two people, the Prius will have to go ~ 900 miles a day to match emissions.

 

[Zythryn]

Fabulous. You got it. Nope I am NOT ignoring the impact you mention. Don't miss mypoint.... too many people really are ignorant about this topic and that is why I mention it. You and most others on here are obviously not one of them Great that you are creating your own electricity, but you do realize that pollution of various sorts including CO2 went into making your solar panels, equipment, and car. Thus that was my point. No one has a 100% pollution free Tesla. Including mine Not trying to be rude, just stating the fact. And Sadly, yes there are a few people on here who think otherwise.

This is a gigantic straw man.
Nobody I know of, or have ever met, believes that EVs are perfect.

The only people who I have ever heard put forth similar statements are people using that as a straw man in order to imply that EVs are worse than existing alternatives (like a gas guzzler).

Anything we use to create energy, live in, or any position creates some level of pollution.
EVs are currently cleaner than the average car (including manufacturing) over its lifetime.
EVs are not perfect, but they are better than many alternatives.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Marine Diesel is not Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel #2 they use Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO). There is a reason they call it Heavy Fuel Oil - its the pollution waste left over after making other more refined fuels... like Diesel.

HFO

You must have a rolling coal Prius - these guys are using Diesel #2, in a 6 liter engine, HFO would be far worse -- especially with an engine that is 1000's X larger than these trucks

Ship Engine

 

[T34ME]

I am sure your facts are correct for a mid-sized ship. The ships I have experienced with have been much larger. The stats I posted are from the Freedom of the Seas - it works out to 14 gallons per day per passenger. Glad they are moving from heavy marine fuel oil to Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in California, unfortunatley that just means they will fuel somewhere else.

Freedom of the Seas is one of the older Royal Caribbean behemoths launched in 2006. It holds 5000 passenger and crew. It is built with older technology. Assuming your specs are correct (I don't know and it's not worth researching) that works out to be about 1/2 gallon per passenger per hour, not as good as the newer ships but still better than flying or an ICE car.

FWIW, California Harbor Patrol checks the fuel supply of all cruise ships entering in California waters to make sure they are carrying comparatively clean burning diesel. No clean fuel means YUGE fines and sanctions. That is one of the reasons most cruise lines have abandoned the California market.

BTW I loved cruising - I refused to do it for over 30 years and finally caved to my significant other - it was pretty awesome. We recently booked a suite with Celebrity Constellation out of Fort Lauderdale - it was nice - no kids, mostly mature adults, with fairly decent service.

Celebrity is our preferred cruise line. Our first experience on Celebrity was a cruise to the wine country in France, Spain, and Portugal on the Connie (about 3000 passengers and crew). We have been on her one other time, a TransAtlantic. Although an older ship, she is still our favorite.

But let's get back on topic. I happened to meet an 80+ y.o. single woman from San Juan Capistrano on a Celebrity cruise last year. For some reason, the subject of cars came up. She said she was trading in her four year old Tesla to get a brand new one. She said her car had 10,000 miles on it and it was time to trade it in!!!!!!!!!! She was going to pick it up as soon as the cruise was over.

Go figure.

 

[ohmman]

Freedom of the Seas is one of the older Royal Caribbean behemoths launched in 2006. It holds 5000 passenger and crew. It is built with older technology. Assuming your specs are correct (I don't know and it's not worth researching) that works out to be about 1/2 gallon per passenger per hour, not as good as the newer ships but still better than flying or an ICE car.

I don't mind looking it up. I think it's interesting.

Freedom of the Seas holds 3634 passengers (also referenced at 3782 passengers) and 1300 crew, which is your 5000 person capacity number, though it's combined. I'd argue that you cannot count crew as part of the consumption estimate, because the crew is incidental to the travel. Passengers are what matters. Cruising speed is 24.9 mph (21.6 knots), and the reference I see says it burns 2800 gallons of fuel per hour. The math on that, using the "double capacity" passenger number, is:

3782 passengers * (24.9 mph / 2800 gph) ≈ 33.6 mpg per passenger when at full capacity. I agree with your assessment that it's better than (or at least similar to) a modern ICE vehicle when traveling alone. Traveling as a couple, the ICE is twice as good, and for my family of four it's significantly better to take a road trip.

I'm still surprised at the efficiency. I would have expected much worse.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

We like Celebrity too - thinking about doing the NE USA passage from Baltimore to Nova Scotia this summer. 10 days - hits all the unique ports.

BTW the engineering tour by the Captain is amazing - the Freedom of the Seas consumes approximately 12,800 kg (28,000 pounds) of fuel per hour for propulsion and has 6 - 12,600 KW electric generators!!! (Would make one nice supercharger)

Propulsion:

• Diesel-electric; Three ABB Azipod units, two azimuthing and one fixed.
• Four bow thrusters

I love these shows -

 

[Canuck]

Damn, all these years I thought I was saving the earth with my EVs until this thread.

 

[CmdrThor]

I do not own an ICE vehicle, and while I think our EVs are better on the environment than an ICE and will continue to improve as the grid improves, I have no delusion that I am single handedly saving the earth.

 

[ohmman]

I don't mind looking it up. I think it's interesting.

Freedom of the Seas holds 3634 passengers (also referenced at 3782 passengers) and 1300 crew, which is your 5000 person capacity number, though it's combined. I'd argue that you cannot count crew as part of the consumption estimate, because the crew is incidental to the travel. Passengers are what matters. Cruising speed is 24.9 mph (21.6 knots), and the reference I see says it burns 2800 gallons of fuel per hour. The math on that, using the "double capacity" passenger number, is:

3782 passengers * (24.9 mph / 2800 gph) ≈ 33.6 mpg per passenger when at full capacity. I agree with your assessment that it's better than (or at least similar to) a modern ICE vehicle when traveling alone. Traveling as a couple, the ICE is twice as good, and for my family of four it's significantly better to take a road trip.

I'm still surprised at the efficiency. I would have expected much worse.

As a follow-up to this. Air travel isn't quite the climate devil I had always assumed it was. It appears that flying on a typical long-range flight has an approximately equal carbon footprint to a 44 mpg passenger vehicle, driven alone. So, flying is actually better than cruising from that particular standpoint. But once again, a car with more than one person in it wins, and an electric car wins regardless of the number of passengers (so long as it's equal to or greater than 1!)

The difference, of course, is that driving has a time factor that limits distance. I might be happy to fly to Costa Rica, but it's very unlikely I'd bother to drive. So one is more likely to fly or cruise farther than they would road trip.

 

[T34ME]

Freedom of the Seas holds 3634 passengers (also referenced at 3782 passengers) and 1300 crew, which is your 5000 person capacity number, though it's combined. I'd argue that you cannot count crew as part of the consumption estimate, because the crew is incidental to the travel..................................... Traveling as a couple, the ICE is twice as good, and for my family of four it's significantly better to take a road trip.

And therein lies the error in your logic! If crew is considered incidental to a cruise (in my mind they are essential) then the kids in a car are incidental in the same vein and at this time in my life, disposable! Although I am long past that stage in life, there were times in the past that I wish I had ejection seats in the back seat! Now can I count our little Havanese dog, Ricky Ricardo, as a second or third passenger in the car? This could solve my HOV sticker dilemma plus get me better kw/hr calculations!

 

[SageBrush]

I'm still surprised at the efficiency. I would have expected much worse.

I guessed much better, based on my prior attempts to figure out fuel use to ship a car from Asia to the US. I wonder how much of the fuel consumption is to move the ship and how much to placate the passengers.