Say it aint so.. but but driving one makes me "feel" greener, and that is all that matters to liberal progressive greenies,, Feelings and not in my back yard..
I have seen reports like that before and I am going out on a limb here and saying that it is probably true. Way back in my youth when I first went to college my environmental science professor equated everything to energy instead of money. Everything's cost can be broken down to energy use. Dollars were just symbols of how much energy it was worth. So if you look at things that way and you look at the price of a Tesla you can determine just how much energy it uses in being built. And they are pretty steeply priced, even though they are subsidized by the federal and sometimes state governments. And since Tesla is still not profitable that cost is not eaten up in exorbitant profits. So to determine how much energy something will use over its lifetime add up the cost to buy and the cost of energy for its use and then you can determine how much energy is used over its life. So with all its vaunted "green" energy it is still an energy hog.
My wife and I joke about how "green" we were in out past lives.
As you probably know by now we both took care of ill spouses for extended periods of time. That meant very little traveling, to the tune of about 3K miles a year for decades.
We have a lot of carbon credits in our personal accounts and now we're burning 'em as fast as we can.
Tesla batteries generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for 8 years, assuming that "X" percentage of the energy used to manufacture the batteries comes from this or that particular energy source... coal, natural gas, oil/diesel, photovoltaic, solar mirrors, wind, waves and tides, biomass, geothermal, and hamsters in spinning cages that drive electrical generators.
"X" isn't a constant. It can change as time goes by, as a result of changes in the energy production sector.
Tesla batteries generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for 8 years, assuming that "X" percentage of the energy used to manufacture the batteries comes from this or that particular energy source... coal, natural gas, oil/diesel, photovoltaic, solar mirrors, wind, waves and tides, biomass, geothermal, and hamsters in spinning cages that drive electrical generators.
"X" isn't a constant. It can change as time goes by, as a result of changes in the energy production sector.
True details are important, some gasoline cars get 25 and some get 40 mpg too. So 6-10 years ?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-22-2017).]
I think this is the first question that this new report suggests for me:
Technology developments and engineering refinements will affect the amount of CO2 emissions per road vehicle pound-of-passenger-mile (to factor in the human obesity factor) and road vehicle pound-of-freight-mile. Can we predict how these tech and engineering changes will affect CO2 tailpipe emissions from gasoline engines in cars and trucks? Can we predict it, factoring in likely changes in Tesla battery technology and manufacturing?
Yes, duh, it takes energy to manufacture anything. And most energy production still emits CO2. More duh.
Have they compared battery production to the CO2 emissions it takes to build a gasoline engine? Until somebody can compare total life cycle CO2 emissions of a Tesla and a comparable (luxury) gasoline car, we're comparing apples to cider blocks.
Tesla batteries generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for 8 years, assuming that "X" percentage of the energy used to manufacture the batteries comes from this or that particular energy source... coal, natural gas, oil/diesel, photovoltaic, solar mirrors, wind, waves and tides, biomass, geothermal, and hamsters in spinning cages that drive electrical generators.
"X" isn't a constant. It can change as time goes by, as a result of changes in the energy production sector.
"X" isn't a constant, you are right. The study just evaluated the carbon emissions of battery production. What about the recharging of the batteries ? How many photovoltaic, solar mirrors, wind, waves and tides, biomass, geothermal, and hamsters in spinning cages that drive electrical generators will we need if everybody has an electric car ?
På något sätt får man verkligen se till så att man optimerar batterierna. Man bör inte köra runt med en massa kilowattimmar i onödan. I en del fall kan en plug in-hybrid vara det optimala, i andra fall ett rent batterifordon.
That's the final paragraph of Johan Krisstenson's report for NyTeknik. That's where the blog entry on the Watts Up With That? (Original Post here on Pennock's) came from.
Wanna argue with that?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-22-2017).]
På något sätt får man verkligen se till så att man optimerar batterierna. Man bör inte köra runt med en massa kilowattimmar i onödan. I en del fall kan en plug in-hybrid vara det optimala, i andra fall ett rent batterifordon.
That's the most understandable thing you've written on here in ages.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
How much does a bunch of kilowatt-hours on a battery weigh ?
'bout the same as a cider block, give or take an apple or two.
[This message has been edited by RayOtton (edited 06-22-2017).]
Tesla batteries generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for 8 years, assuming that "X" percentage of the energy used to manufacture the batteries comes from this or that particular energy source... coal, natural gas, oil/diesel, photovoltaic, solar mirrors, wind, waves and tides, biomass, geothermal, and hamsters in spinning cages that drive electrical generators.
"X" isn't a constant. It can change as time goes by, as a result of changes in the energy production sector.
What happens years from now don't matter, The HERE AND NOW does.. What is said to be in the future may never come, I have books and books on what the automobile will be by the year 2000.. Still no flying cars for the masses that are @$$$E$.
The same can be said for gas burning vehicles, in the future they could make 500 hp and get 100 mpg.. but the greenies would never allow anyone to use that statement.. so COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, duh, it takes energy to manufacture anything. And most energy production still emits CO2. More duh.
Have they compared battery production to the CO2 emissions it takes to build a gasoline engine? Until somebody can compare total life cycle CO2 emissions of a Tesla and a comparable (luxury) gasoline car, we're comparing apples to cider blocks.
I don't have a "handle" on this. The CO2 emissions involved in building a gasoline engine and drivetrain, vs Tesla motors and batteries. Comparing the manufacture of an ICE-powered four-door sedan, to a four-door Tesla sedan, about the same external dimensions on both sides of the comparison.
Seems like one of the more cogent observations that have been registered here.
As far as looking into the future (E.Furgal), I was thinking just the next 10 to 20 years. But I don't have much of a "handle" on that, either. As to whether there could be any surprising changes in battery technology (or in the battery manufacturing process, itself) during that time period that could seriously affect these calculations.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-22-2017).]
Tesla got a 450 million dollar loan for creating electric vehicles. Ford got 3.8 billion, and GM got 5.3 billion. Tesla paid off its loan 9 years early. GM bankrupted so they didnt pay theirs back. Ford is paying theirs. There is no government subsidy paid to Tesla...its a myth. The only thing close is a discount to buyers for buying electric...not anything to do with Tesla...applied to any electric car. Even Volt buyers got it.
I bought mine to generally run my short errands and I like gadgets. I dont give a crap about the ecology and that had absolutely nothing to do with my choice. I also have two vehicles that get less than 10mpg or less so I love burning fossil fuel.
" Many of the anti-Tesla arguments center on the supposedly huge amount of financial support that the company has received from the government. The Teslaphobic tend to insist that they aren’t singling Tesla out - they’re against government subsidies for any private company. However, few if any of them mention the government largesse lavished on the Big Three automakers, and on the fossil fuel industry, both of which dwarf the government support Tesla has received. Before getting into that however, let’s clarify just how much federal financial support is currently flowing specifically to Tesla’s automobile business. And the figure is (drumroll, please): NOTHING. "
" Now lets look at auto incentives :
The 2009 DOE loan. The only direct federal aid Tesla has ever received was a $465 million federal loan under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (which it repaid in full nine years early, delivering a profit to taxpayers). In contrast, Ford received $5.9 billion, and Nissan North America got $1.6 billion as part of the 2009 auto industry bailout package.
The federal EV tax credit. This is available to any citizen who buys (or leases) a plug-in vehicle from any manufacturer. It will be phased out for each individual automaker as soon as EV sales reach a certain level. For Tesla, this threshold is expected to be reached soon after Model 3 goes into production.
SolarCity. Yes, there’s a good argument to be made that Tesla’s new subsidiary is dependent on government subsidies. The 30% federal tax credit for solar installations, combined with various incentives from local governments and utilities, is enough to make solar an economically viable option for many. Of course, this is an indirect subsidy that is available to customers of any solar energy company. ZEV credits. Tesla has made a nice little side business out of selling Zero Emission Vehicle credits to automakers that choose not to sell enough of their own EVs to satisfy the ZEV mandate in California (and 9 other states). While some depict this program as a sneaky rip-off of taxpayer funds, analyses by the LA Times and others have shown that the law is working precisely as intended. Tesla (and Nissan) are profiting because they are the only companies selling substantial numbers of EVs, but the income is available to any automaker. In fact, as Elon Musk recently pointed out, Tesla arguably sees less effective income from ZEV credits than the legacy automakers do, because it sells them at less than face value.
State and local incentives. The state of Nevada granted Tesla a substantial package of tax breaks and other goodies in return for locating the Gigafactory in the state. While the total of $1.3 billion is one of the largest incentive packages in the history of the US auto industry, it’s not unprecedented. According to Good Jobs First, Chrysler received $1.3 billion from Michigan, and Nissan scored $1.25 billion from Mississippi. California has also granted Tesla tax breaks and other goodies. Tesla is far from unusual in this regard. State and local governments frequently offer incentives to businesses large and small. As is the case with Tesla’s Nevada score, they usually take the form of tax breaks to be delivered over a period of several years, and they are often contingent on a company delivering on its promises of jobs created. Federal CAFE standards. It isn’t a subsidy, but the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard is the most important federal program that promotes EVs. By requiring automakers to achieve a minimum average fuel economy across their entire fleets, it has the effect of forcing them to produce a certain number of plug-in vehicles. The legacy automakers have made massive efforts to repeal or water down this law and, assuming the incoming administration follows through on its stated plans, this time around they are likely to succeed. Ironically, this could be seen as good news for Tesla - if the Big Three exit the growing plug-in vehicle segment, it will leave Tesla as the only American EV-maker. An inside look at oil and auto industry subsidies
Now, about those oil and auto industry subsidies. According to Good Jobs First, Ford has received $3.8 billion in state and local subsidies, most of it since 2010, and $27.5 billion in federal loans since 2000. Over a similar time period, GM received $5.2 billion in state and local goodies and over $50 billion in federal loans, while Fiat Chrysler scored $2 billion and $17 billion. "
Back on topic, I think all it says for sure is that electric cars aren't the be all - end all that environmentalists would like them to be. They bring along their own set of problems.
FWIW, rather than invest in any of the electric vehicle companies I bought Lithium mining stock.
Tesla got a 450 million dollar loan for creating electric vehicles. Ford got 3.8 billion, and GM got 5.3 billion. Tesla paid off its loan 9 years early. GM bankrupted so they didnt pay theirs back. Ford is paying theirs. There is no government subsidy paid to Tesla...its a myth. The only thing close is a discount to buyers for buying electric...not anything to do with Tesla...applied to any electric car. Even Volt buyers got it.
I bought mine to generally run my short errands and I like gadgets. I dont give a crap about the ecology and that had absolutely nothing to do with my choice. I also have two vehicles that get less than 10mpg or less so I love burning fossil fuel.
" Many of the anti-Tesla arguments center on the supposedly huge amount of financial support that the company has received from the government. The Teslaphobic tend to insist that they aren’t singling Tesla out - they’re against government subsidies for any private company. However, few if any of them mention the government largesse lavished on the Big Three automakers, and on the fossil fuel industry, both of which dwarf the government support Tesla has received. Before getting into that however, let’s clarify just how much federal financial support is currently flowing specifically to Tesla’s automobile business. And the figure is (drumroll, please): NOTHING. "
" Now lets look at auto incentives :
The 2009 DOE loan. The only direct federal aid Tesla has ever received was a $465 million federal loan under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (which it repaid in full nine years early, delivering a profit to taxpayers). In contrast, Ford received $5.9 billion, and Nissan North America got $1.6 billion as part of the 2009 auto industry bailout package.
The federal EV tax credit. This is available to any citizen who buys (or leases) a plug-in vehicle from any manufacturer. It will be phased out for each individual automaker as soon as EV sales reach a certain level. For Tesla, this threshold is expected to be reached soon after Model 3 goes into production.
SolarCity. Yes, there’s a good argument to be made that Tesla’s new subsidiary is dependent on government subsidies. The 30% federal tax credit for solar installations, combined with various incentives from local governments and utilities, is enough to make solar an economically viable option for many. Of course, this is an indirect subsidy that is available to customers of any solar energy company. ZEV credits. Tesla has made a nice little side business out of selling Zero Emission Vehicle credits to automakers that choose not to sell enough of their own EVs to satisfy the ZEV mandate in California (and 9 other states). While some depict this program as a sneaky rip-off of taxpayer funds, analyses by the LA Times and others have shown that the law is working precisely as intended. Tesla (and Nissan) are profiting because they are the only companies selling substantial numbers of EVs, but the income is available to any automaker. In fact, as Elon Musk recently pointed out, Tesla arguably sees less effective income from ZEV credits than the legacy automakers do, because it sells them at less than face value.
State and local incentives. The state of Nevada granted Tesla a substantial package of tax breaks and other goodies in return for locating the Gigafactory in the state. While the total of $1.3 billion is one of the largest incentive packages in the history of the US auto industry, it’s not unprecedented. According to Good Jobs First, Chrysler received $1.3 billion from Michigan, and Nissan scored $1.25 billion from Mississippi. California has also granted Tesla tax breaks and other goodies. Tesla is far from unusual in this regard. State and local governments frequently offer incentives to businesses large and small. As is the case with Tesla’s Nevada score, they usually take the form of tax breaks to be delivered over a period of several years, and they are often contingent on a company delivering on its promises of jobs created. Federal CAFE standards. It isn’t a subsidy, but the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard is the most important federal program that promotes EVs. By requiring automakers to achieve a minimum average fuel economy across their entire fleets, it has the effect of forcing them to produce a certain number of plug-in vehicles. The legacy automakers have made massive efforts to repeal or water down this law and, assuming the incoming administration follows through on its stated plans, this time around they are likely to succeed. Ironically, this could be seen as good news for Tesla - if the Big Three exit the growing plug-in vehicle segment, it will leave Tesla as the only American EV-maker. An inside look at oil and auto industry subsidies
Now, about those oil and auto industry subsidies. According to Good Jobs First, Ford has received $3.8 billion in state and local subsidies, most of it since 2010, and $27.5 billion in federal loans since 2000. Over a similar time period, GM received $5.2 billion in state and local goodies and over $50 billion in federal loans, while Fiat Chrysler scored $2 billion and $17 billion. "
Road and Track posted online today that this study/article is bunk.
Says the reality, apples to apples, is more like 2.4 years.
Road and Track.. A mag that needs Ad's to keep it's shrinking reader base.. That not dare piss off any vendors that might spend ad dollars.. That rag and car and driver lost all cred a decade+ ago
Originally posted by cliffw: "X" isn't a constant, you are right. The study just evaluated the carbon emissions of battery production. What about the recharging of the batteries ? How many photovoltaic, solar mirrors, wind, waves and tides, biomass, geothermal, and hamsters in spinning cages that drive electrical generators will we need if everybody has an electric car ?
Not to mention the emissions from upgrading the electrical grid so it can deliver all the power needed.
This is same issue/problem when force to use Ethanol in gas. Diesel fumes etc to grow the corn and make ethanol eats most clean the air claims then add corn prices raised other prices. Many switch to grow more corn made other problems too.
quote
Originally posted by Khw: Not to mention the emissions from upgrading the electrical grid so it can deliver all the power needed.
The grid can barely handle normal loads in many areas as it is now. Current heat wave for SW US is causing blackouts cause by high AC use. Many areas can't upgrade the grid w/o new towers and greenies et al will fight that and tie up in court for years.
Then Add "Greenies" and many others not happy to force old power plants to close thru USEPA rules, Many fight any new Water Solar and Wind plants too for killing birds/fish, too ugly, too noisy, etc.
And yet they wonder why so many jobs go away? Even ignoring Globing Warming circus... Building more houses stores etc but cutting power generation in a region then expect brownouts and blackouts to get much worse. Big business look at energy cost and reliability. Areas w/ power problems can kiss many jobs Bye Bye now and future. Retail stores close for blackout may eat Hundreds to many Thousands of $ but Factory and other shutdowns can cost Millions to Billions for same down time. That's why One Big Bank in Wilmington DE have built enough backup power just for their data centers there that can likely light most of Newark area. (minus U Del)
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
This is same issue/problem when force to use Ethanol in gas. Diesel fumes etc to grow the corn and make ethanol eats most clean the air claims then add corn prices raised other prices. Many switch to grow more corn made other problems too.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Khw: Not to mention the emissions from upgrading the electrical grid so it can deliver all the power needed.
The grid can barely handle normal loads in many areas as it is now. Current heat wave for SW US is causing blackouts cause by high AC use. Many areas can't upgrade the grid w/o new towers and greenies et al will fight that and tie up in court for years.
Then Add "Greenies" and many others not happy to force old power plants to close thru USEPA rules, Many fight any new Water Solar and Wind plants too for killing birds/fish, too ugly, too noisy, etc. [/QUOTE]
Yes, duh, it takes energy to manufacture anything. And most energy production still emits CO2. More duh.
Have they compared battery production to the CO2 emissions it takes to build a gasoline engine? Until somebody can compare total life cycle CO2 emissions of a Tesla and a comparable (luxury) gasoline car, we're comparing apples to cider blocks.
I agree with this. The article compares the production of one thing to the usage of another. That's not an accurate comparison. You need to compare the production of both things, or the usage of both things, etc in order to get an accurate comparison. Otherwise, you're basically just mentally masturbating.
Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can figure out that manufacturing produces CO2. You don't need to conduct a study to figure that out. But interestingly enough, the study is OK because it fits the alt-right narrative. If the study contradicted the narrative, I'm willing to bet the response would be something like "oh great, more money wasted on useless studies!"
With all that said, I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of the CO2 production over the entire lifespan of a vehicle, including manufacture. (with the caveats that it would be the average lifespan with an average usage cycle of an average gasoline car vs an average electric car)
Only first two paragraphs are mine...rest is all quoted, I didnt write any of it. The complete post is simple facts. Some people just cant come to grips that Tesla Motors has NO government subsidy. The ONLY possible question is on their commercial solar power business...which has absolutely no relationship with the car manufacturer...two different entities under one conclomerate. Thats like saying GE lightbulbs are produced by NBC Television...both under General Electric conclomerate. Another example is General Dynamics who builds both aircraft and submarines, neither of which have anything to do with the other.
Originally posted by rogergarrison: Only first two paragraphs are mine...rest is all quoted, I didnt write any of it. The complete post is simple facts. Some people just cant come to grips that Tesla Motors has NO government subsidy. The ONLY possible question is on their commercial solar power business...which has absolutely no relationship with the car manufacturer...two different entities under one conclomerate. Thats like saying GE lightbulbs are produced by NBC Television...both under General Electric conclomerate. Another example is General Dynamics who builds both aircraft and submarines, neither of which have anything to do with the other.
NBC Universal including NBC TV is Comcast Property and been so for several years. Comcast buying everything it can. Dreamworks Animation is another one.
Only first two paragraphs are mine...rest is all quoted, I didnt write any of it. The complete post is simple facts. Some people just cant come to grips that Tesla Motors has NO government subsidy. The ONLY possible question is on their commercial solar power business...which has absolutely no relationship with the car manufacturer...two different entities under one conclomerate. Thats like saying GE lightbulbs are produced by NBC Television...both under General Electric conclomerate. Another example is General Dynamics who builds both aircraft and submarines, neither of which have anything to do with the other.
You are still high.. ever one sold, government pays 7-8k and the epa emission credit program is the only thing keeping them afloat.. they have not made a penny on any vehicles sold.. even with the government kicking in 7-8k per car.. try again.. They also got grants to build the factory.. (taxpayers paid the whole bill) and because it is a grant it doesn't ever have to be paid back..
unlike your post above about g.m. not paying the loans back.. totally false.. but whatever keeps you happy..
No they dont. Buyers get that as a discount/credit...doesnt go to Tesla Motors... and that goes away in August when the Model 3 starts delivery. GM DID NOT pay back its bailout...it bailed. It paid SOME, and government took receivership of 61% ownership for the balance. (taxpayers own 61%) True they got some grants, but mostly states offered incentives to build factories in their state...a practice thats been common for 100 years. Tesla received a total of 8 subsidies, most of which are in the form of state tax incentives for things like building the Giga Factory in Nv. They receive those breaks for the next 20 years starting next year. They received NO government grants. They repaid their original 450 million dollar government loan already, early, with interest.
Google shows me General Electric owns NBC and all its affiliates...at least partly. My point was large corporations have multiple interests not associated with each other. One division can go bankrupt without affecting others.
" in 1986, GE acquired RCA, primarily for the NBC television network and affiliates (also parent of Telemundo Communications Group)"
" On December 3, 2009, it was announced that NBC Universal will become a joint venture between GE and cable television operator Comcast. The cable giant will hold a controlling interest in the company, while GE retains a 49% stake and will buy out shares owned by Vivendi."
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 06-26-2017).]
Had no influence one way or another on me. I paid more in sales tax than the 'bonus discount' was. Others maybe so. Same offer was to anyone buying any other electric vehicle like Volt, etc. If someone pays $120,000 for a vehicle do you think they care about a $7000 discount. The Volt was such a failure from the start, I doubt anyone would have bought one without it. Volt certainly is not a $40,000 vehicle by anyones standards. It might be a viable $15,000 vehicle, but GM would lose $20,000 on each one.
No doubt anything that sells another car benefits a manufacturer. So indirectly I guess the discount did help Tesla. Didnt give them more cash in hand, just sold more vehicles which in a roundabout way...did give them more cash.
Some people like to push the idea that the government gives Tesla an x amount of dollars check for each one they sell, which is totally untrue.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 06-26-2017).]
