According to Singapore the Tesla is a net upstream polluter due to the amount of Wh/km used by its drive train:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...usaolp00000618

 

Wow, that is absolutely shocking! 222 gCO2/km makes it no better than the S500. Even as pro-Tesla as the mainstream media is, I can't believe this hasn't gotten more press.

 

"As for all electric vehicles, a grid emission factor of 0.5 g CO2/Wh was also applied to the electric energy consumption. This is to account for CO2 emissions during the electricity generation process, even if there are no tail-pipe emissions. The equivalent CO2 emission of Mr Nguyen’s car was 222g/km, which is in the CEVS surcharge band," the spokesperson added."

That only makes sense if Singapore has next to no renewable power generation, which I think is the case. Most of the electricity there is from coal or gas power plants.

This is totally a non-issue. An S500 pollutes during the production process and for every single inch it moves, not to mention the huge amounts of power needed for hydrocarbon extraction and refining.

There's also pollution when a Model S is made and if it uses electricity from fossil fuels. On the other hand, using solar/wind/hydro power like in northern Europe, the Tesla has very little emissions.

Wheel to well emissions analysis, do read up on it.

 

Singapore, being a small island city-state, has no natural resources of any significance; Singapore even has to import water. Electricity is generated predominantly by burning natural gas. Although burning natural gas is cleaner than burning oil or coal, it is still dirty.

Well (extraction of the raw petroleum or coal to refine to a usable fuel) to wheel emissions is important when considering the total emissions of EVs. The lack of a tailpipe on EVs only affects the micro-environment, not the macro-environment.

 

I'm surprised why the Singapore LTA applied that CO2 calculation because it's so one-sided. Singapore is a huge oil refiner and exports refined petrol and diesel to its neighbors. That activity alone produces loads of emissions. Singapore also uses natural gas to generate most of its electricity.

If they're actually doing a well to wheel analysis for EVs, shouldn't the same thing be done for petrol and diesel cars? That S500's CO2 figure could easily double once emissions from transporting and refining crude oil are included.

Norway is an oil producer and refiner but Teslas sell like hotcakes there thanks to generous import duty waivers. I don't see them applying crazy calculations against EVs, they're encouraging EV usage and also building up renewables generation capacity.

 

To all that focus only on "Singapore" , should instead look at the principle behind the calculation. Yes, electricity generated through clean energy is then cleanly consumed by the Tesla, but how much of the world's electricity is cleanly generated today? Oil production is also dirty business, downstream and upstream. However, only a fraction of today's oil end up as gasoline for passenger vehicles. The majority on the downstream ends up as raw material for industrial/commercial/scientific products and even the fuel ends up being used for heavy duty transportation needs.

Another point. At full capacity, Tesla's new mega-factory will need the world's entire supply of Lithium., couple that with the harmful chemicals, water discharge and other pollutants related to battery production, it becomes clear that battery based EV's don't make sense given current battery technology. Tesla will entrench that technology for generations to come.

 

You tell us. And then tell us how burning oil will become cleaner and cleaner going forward.

 

Why take one sentence out of the whole post to try and make a point that I never implied or tried to make? I already said oil production was dirty business. Burning oil will ever become as clean, but so won't charging batteries using electricity generated through non renewable sources. This is why hydrogen fuel cell will be the future.

Extracting and refining oil will be needed for a long time to sustain our entire technological, industrial and scientific based economy. Way too many products need recycled dinosaurs.

 

Hydrogen is created from fossil fuels. And that's just the creating is also takes large amounts of electricity to compress the fuel and takes more energy to transfer and store. Not only that the fuel cell car has lithium batteries.

 

Were do you get that the fuel cell need batteries? the fuel cell generates electricity to power the motors directly. Current technology is challenged to produce it a high rate for top performance, but things are improving. Hydrogen can be created through hydrocarbons or from water through electrolysis, photoelectrolysis or photobiological methods.

We are getting way off topic from the LC 500h discussion.

 

do you still have the 1990 camry in your sig and drive it? just curious.

 

Yes I do. And by not buying a new car I have not contributed any more carbon output due to the energy used in the manufacturing of a new vehicle. But nice try. How many cars have you bought in the last 25 years?

 

Judging by your responses on the state of the current technology, perhaps you should look into a new car. It's enlightening how much technology has evolved. You live in Alberta, the land of carbon emissions, either through Agriculture, those farms use tons of hydrocarbon based fertilizers, and diesel powered equipment. Meat Production, bovine farms, and mega pig farms not only generate more green house gases through the animals farts and excrement than all "passenger cars{" in the province but also pollute the waterways through the ground waters. This is without even mentioning the Oil Sands, which relates to the topic at hand, but way off topic for this thread.

Mod: Can we move the environmental discussion posts to a separate dedicated thread?

PS: Full disclosure, I lived in Edmonton well over 20 years, and have done work for some of the oil sands, and power generation companies.

 

Make a thread then request to have the posts moved.

 

Developed Europe still is around .3 grid EF, so the effective emissions of the Tesla is still quite high (just multiply Singapore's number by 60%). And most of that is due to Europe's dependence on nuclear power, which obviously doesn't have (net) CO2 emissions but brings up a (perhaps even bigger) environmental debate on its own. Hydro/wind/solar energy only makes up about 20% of Europe's energy production (2013 numbers). Nuclear is 20-25%, depending on who you ask and what year.

Grid EF as typically calculated isn't "wheel to well", btw. It assumes the grid exists, just as we assume gasoline infrastructure exists so as to focus on the pragmatic, actual polluting unit.

Also - just FYI, the industry most notorious for overstating grid EF? Alternative power and the carbon credit industry. With higher grid EF, alternative energy producers get more CERs. This has been a huge deal in China recently. Anything for money.