• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Study: Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of driving on gas

by Johan Kristensson
June 20, 2017, 11:01 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 3 mins read
A A
27

No subsidies, no sales.Enormous hopes are linked to electric cars as the solution to the automotive industry’s climate problems. However, electric car batteries are eco-villains during their manufacturing. Several tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) are generated even before the batteries leave the factory.

IVL The Swedish Environment Institute has, on behalf of the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, investigated the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries from a life-cycle perspective. The batteries for electric cars were included in the study. The two authors—Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare—have done a meta-study, that is, reviewed and compiled existing studies.

The report shows that battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For each kilowatt-hour of storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide are generated in the factory. The researchers have not studied the individual car brand batteries, just how they were produced or what electrical mix they used. But to understand the importance of battery size, two standard electric cars on the market, Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S, have batteries of approximately 30 kWh and 100 kWh respectively.

Even before you buy the car, CO2 emissions equivalent to 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons, respectively, gets produced. The numbers can be difficult to put in context. By way of comparison, a trip for a person returning from Stockholm to New York by air emits more than 600 kilograms of CO2, according to the UN organization ICAO’s calculation model.

Another conclusion of the study is that about half the emissions come from producing the raw materials and the other half from the battery factory. The mining accounts for only a small proportion of between 10-20 percent.

Read more: “The potential of electric cars’ main advantage”

The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used by the battery factory consists of energy generated by more than 50% fossil fuels. In Sweden, the power production is mainly from fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydropower and why lower emissions had been achieved.

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. It means that a battery of the Tesla-size contributes more than three times as much emissions as the Nissan Leaf size. It is a result that surprised Mia Romare.

…snip…

Mats-Ola Larsson at IVL has calculated how long you need to drive a gasoline or diesel car before it released as much CO2 as the battery manufacturing produced. The result was 2.7 years of CO2 emissions for a battery the same size as a Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a Tesla-sized battery, based on a series of assumptions.

“It’s great for companies and government to embark on ambitious environmental policies and to buy climate-smart cars. But these results show that one should not think of choosing an electric car with a larger battery than is necessary,” he says, pointing out that manufacturers should also address this in the design of instruments.

Cobalt, nickel, and copper are recycled but not the energy required to manufacture the electrodes, says Mia Romare, pointing out that recycling is a resource-saving point rather than a reduction of CO2 emissions.

Peter Kasche from The Energy Agency highlights the close relationship between the battery size and CO2 emissions are important.

In some way, one must really make sure that you optimize the batteries. You should not drive around with a lot of kilowatt hours unnecessarily.

H/T TallBloke TalkShop

Read more at NyTeknik

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 27

  1. Pally says:
    8 years ago

    Swedish study lol

    Reply
  2. Maurice Douek says:
    8 years ago

    This shows the absurdity of the whole thing. Furthermore the electricity used to charge the batteries is made from fossil fuel. Even if we develop safe efficient fuel cells using hydrogen to make eletricity the hydrogen gas is made by electrolysis of water with power made from fossil fuel

    Reply
  3. Test it says:
    8 years ago

    Did they compare it with other manufacturing processes? E.g. oil/gasoline rafination or creating other classic cars parts.

    Reply
  4. Del Rey Pacheco says:
    8 years ago

    As several others have mentioned, the vast majority of “production” caused C02 is due to the high energy use in the battery creation. So…if the production facility such as the giga factory uses 100% renewable sources to provide for production energy…I would expect this would drastically cut the C02 production output specified in the article. Will be interesting to see the data when taking this into consideration

    Reply
    • G says:
      8 years ago

      And perhaps some of this would be relevant if CO2 was a “pollutant” that was causing a global climate crisis…

      Reply
  5. Bill Jackson says:
    8 years ago

    Does Tesla bother with counter-propaganda? or have they decided it is a fools game?

    Reply
  6. Sonnyhill says:
    8 years ago

    Similar cost / benefit analysis has been done for corn ethanol production. All inputs must be accounted for. In the end, someone has done a sales job from the Green end. I’ve been upfront about ethanol, it’s a make-work project for the Midwest. Maybe Tesla should come clean about the all-in carbon footprint of their cars. I don’t see anyone advocating hay-powered transportation.Yet.

    Reply
  7. Bill Jackson says:
    8 years ago

    Yes, that was the basis of my response. Sweden does not produce lithium.
    Brine based lithium does not involve smelting, but rock based might. An analysis of the power used in this production would be a better way to assess the CO2 balance. Sadly, all the brine makers might burn oil for power??

    https://www.thebalance.com/lithium-production-2340123

    Reply
  8. James Plotts says:
    8 years ago

    I think the conclusion that car battery production releases 8 years of CO2 is premature. Quoted from the PDF Study:

    “Not until we have a clear definition of
    stages can we assess where the energy consumption and emissions are largest, or what actions that
    can help lower the impact.”

    Reply
  9. Bill Jackson says:
    8 years ago

    I find a degree of conflict in what they say. Have they analyzed the energy inputs properly? Buffalo get all it’s power from Niagara falls = clean hydroelectric power. The actual production of lithium uses a lot of electric power. The lithium mining/brining cycle should be properly assessed.
    Nothing in it is smelter based. I would anticipate Tesla to make a counter to this. In addition, lithium is almost 100% recyclable from car batteries – again, an electric process.

    Reply
    • James Plotts says:
      8 years ago

      Did you find the study that purportedly claims this CO2 emmissions? The link in the article goes to some Swedish website that is not a research report.

      Reply
  10. James Plotts says:
    8 years ago

    Where’s the STUDY? This is just FAKE NEWS.

    Reply
    • sulfide says:
      8 years ago

      CANT U READ http://www.energimyndigheten.se/globalassets/forskning–innovation/transporter/c243-the-life-cycle-energy-consumption-and-co2-emissions-from-lithium-ion-batteries-.pdf

      Reply
      • James Plotts says:
        8 years ago

        Why thank you! I had a hard time finding the link in the article.

        Reply
    • kb says:
      8 years ago

      ^^ Tesla owner ^^

      Reply
    • Young says:
      8 years ago

      Indeed, truly cherry-picking data at its finest here.

      “Mats-Ola Larsson at IVL has calculated how long you need to drive a gasoline or diesel car before it released as much CO2 as the battery manufacturing produced. The result was 2.7 years of CO2 emissions for a battery the same size as a Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a Tesla-sized battery, based on a series of assumptions.”

      Let’s see.. the report states that the battery production produces 150 to 200 kg of CO2 per kWh of battery. That’s 441 lb of CO2 at high. Take Tesla’s largest pack @ 100 kWh battery. To produce this, it theoretically emits 100 * 441 = 44,100 lb of CO2. Now a gallon of gas produces 20 lb of C02 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm). An average person in US driving a car uses 656 gallons of gas per year (https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/01/14/heres-how-much-gasoline-the-average-american-consu.aspx).

      44,100 / (20 * 656) = 3.36 years. A STARK CONTRAST to 8+ years stated by this article’s source of Mats-Ola Larsson at IVL. Can we have HIS method of calculation? I fear not, as that would not be in the interest of this article’s clear propaganda.

      The reality is that economies of scale and efficiency involved in Tesla Gigafactory’s battery production are going to produce less CO2 than this study’s conservative estimate (which clearly states that it doesn’t have any transparency), and the energy source used in creating these battery cells will be less than 50% fossil fuel, further lowering the CO2 estimate. Here’s a tell-tale tidbit from the report (with CAP done by me):

      “Based on the assessment of the posed questions, our conclusions are that the currently available data are usually not transparent enough to draw detailed conclusions about the battery’s production emissions. There is, regardless, a good indication of the total emissions from the production, but this should be viewed in light of there being a small number of electric vehicles being produced compared to the total number of vehicles. THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF SCALE UP ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENTS. Primary data for production, especially production of different pack sizes, is therefore interesting for future work.”

      Reply
  11. G says:
    8 years ago

    Come, come people! Everyone knows electric cars are powered by energy that is pure as the wind-driven snow! They’re “pollution free”!

    “On that train all graphite and glitter
    Undersea by rail
    Ninety minutes from New York to Paris
    (more leisure for artists everywhere)
    A just machine to make big decisions
    Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
    We’ll be clean when their work is done
    We’ll be eternally free yes and eternally young

    What a beautiful world this will be
    What a glorious time to be free”

    -IGY, Donald Fagan

    Reply
    • Sonnyhill says:
      8 years ago

      Capital idea, G. I’ll crank it up after 7PM, when discount power rates kick in. Those lyrics reflect the irrational optimism of college youth. Reach exceeding grasp.

      Reply
      • G says:
        8 years ago

        “Those lyrics reflect the irrational optimism of college youth. Reach exceeding grasp.”

        So true. The difference is that we used to have experienced, sober adults standing between our starry-eyed, emotionally-driven, indoctrinated youth and the rest of society.

        Popular culture society now worships millennials as if they have great wisdom born of superior education and compassion. No wonder they take themselves so seriously. After all, they have so many participation trophies to acknowledge their profound achievements.

        Reply
  12. Amber says:
    8 years ago

    Unfortunately the added CO2 by the manufacturing of Tesla batteries has the same effect of human generated CO2 . Virtually nothing . But for the wealthy who wish to “do good ” and relieve a tiny bit of consumer guilt then buy away . After all people should be able to donate to the religion of their choice .
    Eight years equivalent of CO2 then it’s time to replace the battery . Hmm …
    Nice cars and nice subsidies. Imagine if everything got built that way .

    Reply
    • Bill Jackson says:
      8 years ago

      I would like to see a complete analysis of the Swedish study. If they assume all power used in the battery factory is made by coal burning – they are wrong. The Tesla factory in Buffalo is completely supplied by Hydro-electric power from Niagara Falls. What about the brine extraction and extraction of the Lithium? I agree that might use coal derived electricity – however the salt flats where brine is evaporated have year round sunlight and one would logically expect they would seek to use as much solar power as possible from the huge desert areas around them? Again, strongly driven by economics, so I would expect solar generation to rapidly increase.

      Reply
  13. Sonnyhill says:
    8 years ago

    It’s none of my business if Tesla builds cars. Go ahead and pretend that your new Tesla runs on green energy . Just don’t ask me to subsidize your fantasy.

    Reply
  14. Spurwing Plover says:
    8 years ago

    I can still remember all this mindless malarkey about FIGHT POLUTION RISE HORSE well surprise horses leave a mess and whining PETA idiots oppose using horses in anyway(Exscept in making dumb movies or for photo shoot)and a good car for Gore and iCaprio theres two choices the Flintstone car or Gilligans Island car both a foot powered

    Reply
    • Gregor says:
      8 years ago

      This is fighting wrong battle. I cannot replace car in horse. BUT I can make horse in cows, formidable green house CO2 and poison methane productions in livestock meats. I propose in replace cattles for horse to eat, live great reductions for climate changes, taste just as good.

      Reply

Comments are welcome! Those that add no discussion value may be removed.Cancel reply

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • Offshore oil rigFederal Judge Rules Biden’s Massive Offshore Oil And Gas Ban Was Illegal
    Oct 8, 2025
    A federal judge ruled Biden overstepped his authority when he blocked offshore oil and gas drilling across 625 million acres, overturning his permanent ban. […]
  • Legislating emissionsMaryland Supreme Court Casts Doubt On State-Level Climate Lawsuits
    Oct 8, 2025
    Maryland’s high court signaled deep skepticism toward three climate lawsuits seeking to use state courts to make national energy policy. […]
  • CityscapeMeteorologist Slams The Guardian: Urban Heat, Not CO2, Driving City Temperature Rises
    Oct 7, 2025
    The Guardian blames fossil fuels for hotter cities, but data show urban heat islands, not CO2, are mostly driving city temperature rises. […]
  • earth fire burningNational Academies’ Climate Report: Another Tale Of Climate Change Bias
    Oct 7, 2025
    National Academies’ climate report downplays natural variability, exaggerates risks, and conflicts with DOE findings on extreme weather. […]
  • Biden pimping solarLabor Unions, Green Groups Sue EPA For Ending Biden-Era Solar Program
    Oct 7, 2025
    Labor unions and green energy groups are suing the EPA for canceling the Biden-era Solar for All program, which funnels billions from the GGRF. […]
  • power grid lines solarRon Barmby’s ‘Sunset On Net Zero’ Exposes The Flawed Economics Behind Climate Targets
    Oct 7, 2025
    Ron Barmby’s new book explains in understandable language the science and economics of why Net Zero CO2 is pointless, unachievable, and unfair. […]
  • Wind farm constructionIn The Name Of ‘Green’ Energy, Wind Farms Are Devastating Natural Habitats
    Oct 6, 2025
    Wind farms touted as green energy are triggering soil erosion, insect collapse, and biodiversity loss, raising doubts about their true environmental cost. […]
  • Pope Leo ice blessingPope Leo Joins Climate Cultists In Bizarre Ice-Blessing Ritual, Betrays Church’s Mission
    Oct 6, 2025
    Pope Leo joined climate cultists in a strange ice-blessing ceremony, sparking backlash from Christians and raising questions about Catholic priorities. […]
  • Abigail SpanbergerReport: Spanberger Winning Virginia Governor’s Race Would Add $500M a Year to Electricity Bills
    Oct 6, 2025
    Abigail Spanberger’s plan to rejoin the RGGI could add $500M a year to Virginia electricity bills, while Earle-Sears opposes any carbon tax. […]
  • Wall Street financial districtUN-Backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance Shutters, Dealing Blow To ESG Activists
    Oct 6, 2025
    The Net-Zero Banking Alliance has shut down as banks exit, sparking ESG activist backlash over fossil fuel projects and climate goals. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky