(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Tesla car battery

Geo-TH,In

Geo-TH,In

Well-known Member
Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline
driving.

I've learned I can't always believe what I read

Can't always believe what the greenies are selling.

I'm relying on Mark to fact check this.
George
Tesa battery
 

the biggest part of the production side of things is based on electric consumption in manufacturing. If the manufacturer is using "green" electricity, then there is much less impact than one that uses traditional power from fossil fuel electric production.

maybe this will help explain things further...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change
 
A close reading of the posted article reveals that the claim is actually in the ball park.

Dean
 
(quoted from post at 06:15:59 03/16/21) Man, that was easy! Its even linked to in the comments section!
Too easy
Click to expand...

The issue here is that the EPA claims and figures presented in that rebuttal are from the EPA. It isn't like the EPA never got caught in a lie. They have been caught in MANY lies. So why should I trust a rebuttal from a magazine that loves technology. Especially new tech. A heck of a lot of the the newest tech stuff out there revolves around battery powered vehicles and things like solar/wind energy. I have the feeling that the open pit mining in 3rd world countries to produce raw material for those batteries produce a heck of a lot of pollution. Lot more than the EPA is willing to admit. Bet those studies come out of the lithium mines in Canada, not the ones in China. It's so easy for the EAP to manipulate numbers. Like a few years back when they were only checking temperatures in asphalt parking lots in the hottest parts of the day to compare with temps taken years ago that were legit.

Rick
 
There are many environmental issues with going green, the mining of the lithium alone is creating massive environmental issues.
 
As long as you ignore all the ancillary costs of producing the gasoline and getting it to the pump, but account for every single cost in battery production, then yeah, almost...
 
George as you well know EV's rely heavily on Lithium based battery chemistry. As an Electrical Engineer and 50 year RV owner I am naturally interested in and have studied their advantages as well as disadvantages AND NOT TO MY SURPRISE FOUND SOME DEGREE OF CONFLICTING INFORMATION OUT THERE AMONG SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS..... Each may "fact check" each others opinions and conclusions to justify THEIR opinions I'm sure, so who to believe ?? Tesla??? This expert, That expert, Some person here ??? I sure cant make that decision for others and rely on MY own research, it may agree with some info or "fact checks" out there it may disagree with other "fact checks" yall are free of course to believe and do as you please....

I am NOT going to agree or disagree with your post "Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving." to do so would take study and research and then WHOM DO YOU BELIEVE AND TRUST ??? Tesla's info or other scientists and experts or some person here ?????

That being said I am researching the use of Lithium in my RV and will make MY own decision and MY choice of "fact checkers" lol

Best wishes and God Bless all here and this great Nation

John T Retired n rusty Electrical Engineer NOT any Lithium battery expert, maybe if any are here, they hopefully can add to this??
 
Yo Neighbor George, While not addressing your post "Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline
driving' this info I posted before because I found it interesting is somewhat related, and I'm NOT saying its right or wrong, judge for yourself.

https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar/?utm_source=Main+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=50f21f798c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_04_09_06_29_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f90832343d-50f21f798c-158939345

John T
Solar Video
 
Well, George, I found that article pretty much unreadable. It seems they google-translated some Swedish article and the results are bewildering (at least to me). For example:

"The study also concluded that emissions grow almost linearly with the size of the battery, even if it is pinched by the data in that field."

What the heck are they trying to say?

I assume their point is that battery manufacturing generates a lot of CO<sub>2</sub>. OK, I'm sure it does. So does the Bessemer process for refining steel. What really matters, if you're trying to reduce CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, is the average amount of carbon dioxide generated over the vehicle's lifetime. Here's an easy-to understand bar chart that compares the CO<sub>2</sub> emissions for different EVs, hybrid and IC vehicles. And yes, the EVs DO generate a lot of carbon dioxide. But it's not the manufacturing that produces the lion's share of CO<sub>2</sub> for EVs. It's driving them, and that's because we still use a lot of fossil fuels to generate electricity. The more we switch to renewable energy, the better EVs look.
IEA auto lifetime CO2 production
 
We'll all go to our graves believing whatever we want to, be it factual or not. Unfortunately our beliefs are based on:
1) Articles we read in print and online, and
2) Articles we read in print and online that align with our existing beliefs.
 
Pro electric car, pro environmental crisis people seem to agree with anything and everything that fits their agenda also.
 
(quoted from post at 12:03:42 03/16/21) We'll all go to our graves believing whatever we want to, be it factual or not. Unfortunately our beliefs are based on:
1) Articles we read in print and online, and
2) Articles we read in print and online that align with our existing beliefs.
Click to expand...

You forgot:
3) what others post on YT
4) what bubba's third cousin's sister's boyfriend's brother was told.
 
Right after they get that truck out!
cvphoto81726.jpg
 
Tanker ..... whether or not the EPA has ever been caught in a lie (or lies) depends on what sources you want to believe. Just like the current topic on this thread. One source says they have, another source says no. Obviously you believe the theory or story that they have so you support that version, which is fine. But I'm just sayin' ......
 
Perhaps, MJMJ, but one would think that those who "follow the science" would be more inclined to believe the Swedish Environmental Research Institute (no doubt, NOT a right leaning organization) than some
Popular Mechanics author.

But, hey, I'm just some guy who has done design engineering work on electric vehicles in one former life and who occasionally spends a few seconds in an antique tractor forum.

Dean
 
If you're going to ignore the cost of producing the electricity and getting it to the battery that seems fair.
 
I wonder if that study also included the total number of emissions for the fossil fueled car? from mining the iron ore, smelting the ore, manufacture the car parts, transporting all components, extracting crude oil, refining it and transporting it versus the same comparison for the ev car for total co2 emission?

would be nice to really see a spreadsheet to be able to make a conclusion using science instead of speculation.
 
Actually, they are somewhat on par- NEITHER has been submitted for peer review. Of course, the PM article does not claim to be, nor would it be confused with an actual research paper. It just pointed out the fatal fallacies in their methodology- problems that you only need a comprehension of English language and a dash of logical thinking to readily understand.

That might explain why the Swedish Institute paper was originally released in 2017, then revised in 2019 (Surprise!, electric cars fared better in the updated version). The original, unrevised version is what was naturally posted here. In the intervening 4 years however, it hasnt yet been formally submitted for, nor is it apparently pending or undergoing peer review to any science journal that I could find.

When you dont want your paper peer reviewed (or you retract it from the process), its because you either know its got serious problems that need revision (as has already happened), or you wish to disavow it altogether.

I dont know which it is, but a non-peer reviewed paper is preliminary at best. Lacking this review, it, like the PM article, should not be confused with a vetted, accepted and thoroughly scrutinized scientific paper.

Time (say, the next 10-20 years) will ultimately tell, but as the technology steadily advances, the carbon footprint of renewable energy production and electric vehicles in particular seems to be trending rapidly downward, making their original AND revised claims of "dirty" batteries less and less germane to the question of whether an electric or petrol powered car is the "greener" choice.
 
Thats true. It all depends on the electricity's ultimate source. Coal, natural gas, nuke, hydro, solar, wind- all in various proportions blended into the power grid will skew the "carbon footprint" data all around.

Luckily, as renewable or sustainable energy sources become more and more efficient (and certain states "weatherproof" them!) the replacement of older methods of generation will continue and those numbers will continue to fall as well.
 
I've done a little reading on Tesla.
They come with 3 different size batteries.
52 kw-hr, 62 kw-hr and 75kw-hr. Possible there could be larger batteries.
So the amount of time to charge will depend on how many KW your solar panels deliver, the number of hours to charge and you will need to get the correct charging voltage.
hope this helps.
geo.
 
I wonder if that study also included the total number of emissions for the EV car? from mining the iron ore, smelting the ore, manufacture the car parts, transporting all components, extracting crude oil, refining it and transporting it versus the same comparison for the fossil fueled car for total co2 emission?

Dean
 
No. It is an article in a general trade magazine. It is not pretending to be a scientific paper, nor could anyone honestly mistake it as such.
It is merely explaining a few points where the Swedish study went wrong, not giving a detailed data driven account in a point-by-point refutation.

However, the problems it highlights about poor data crunching are readily explained and exposed in other peer reviewed papers, and in most science textbooks.
 
It appears that you are now saying that the PM article does not refute the Swedish Environmental Research Institute study and that doing so was not "Too Easy" as previously implied.

Enough said.

Dean
 
(quoted from post at 13:17:30 03/16/21) Right after they get that truck out!
&lt;img src="https://www.yesterdaystractors.com/cvphotos/cvphoto81726.jpg"&gt;
Click to expand...

Oh, okay then.
I was wondering why this thread is in TRACTOR TALK.
 
There may be a place for electric vehicles for short trips in warm climates. They never talk about the reduced efficiency of electric cars when you have to run the heater in cold climates and the air conditioner in hot weather. My understanding is the 300 mile number is reduced greatly when heating or cooling the interior. If you have lived in the Northern States, you know what happens to battery efficiency as temps go down.
 
(quoted from post at 23:37:33 03/16/21) There may be a place for electric vehicles for short trips in warm climates. They never talk about the reduced efficiency of electric cars when you have to run the heater in cold climates and the air conditioner in hot weather. My understanding is the 300 mile number is reduced greatly when heating or cooling the interior. If you have lived in the Northern States, you know what happens to battery efficiency as temps go down.
Click to expand...


You are correct
In the other hand insulation against heat has never been a huge concern compared to noise reduction and car cabins are thermally unefficient. Now that electric cars arent as loud, more focus could be put in better thermal sulation.

Setting the ac to 65f when it is 100f should be fined or highly taxable.... Set it to 85f and sweat it trough...
 
No, what I'm saying is the PM article relayed what other, far more technical journals had described in detail as to the poorly contrived comparisons between vehicles found in this paper. PM did a quick Readers Digest type summary of a few pertinent points, that are easy to understand, and are backed by a more complete study of the actual production costs associated with both types of vehicles.

Apparently the Swedes agreed, because their 2019 revision cut their own numbers in half, bringing this outlier of a study more in line with other efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Minneapolis ZTU help required
Replies
1
Views
180
T.R.K.
T
L
So...battery cables and "skin depth"
Replies
8
Views
568
Dave G9N
D
S
Odds and Ends on the 3000
Replies
10
Views
508
Hobo,NC
Hobo,NC
Crazy Horse
Battery Charger Experts .... need help !!
Replies
18
Views
2K
JMOR
J
cpratt
I can't tell what I've already read?
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Rich'sToys
R
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top