A Tesla Model 3 is touted as a zero-emissions car by government regulators, but it actually results in more carbon dioxide than a comparable diesel-powered car, according to a recent study.
When the CO2 emissions from battery production are included, electric cars, like Teslas, are “in the best case, slightly higher than those of a diesel engine, and are otherwise much higher,” reads a release from the German think tank IFO.
“It’s better read as a warning that new technologies aren’t a climate-change panacea. Recall the false promises about corn and cellulosic ethanol,” The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote of the study.
Driving a Tesla Model 3 in Germany, for example, is responsible for 156 to 181 grams of CO2 per kilometer, compared to just 141 grams per kilometer for a diesel-powered Mercedes C220d — that includes emissions from producing diesel fuel.
IFO looked at electric car production in Germany, which is heavily reliant on coal power. Electric car emissions in other countries depend on their energy mix, but Germany is the world’s third-largest electric car maker.
China and the U.S. are the first- and second-largest electric car producers, respectively. China gets 65 percent of its electricity from coal power and the U.S. relies on coal for 27 percent of its electric power.
China is also the top battery-producing country, using coal power to produce batteries for electric vehicles that are then subsidized for being “zero” emissions.
California, for example, requires automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions in cars by producing lower emissions vehicles or buying credits from companies, like Tesla, that make electric vehicles. At the federal level, the U.S. gives tax breaks of up to $7,500 per electric vehicle.
Federal subsidies for Teslas are set to be phased out since the company, founded by Elon Musk, hit the 200,000-vehicle production cap. However, Congress is debating whether or not to extend electric car subsidies.
It’s not just battery production but charging vehicles that emit lots of CO2. Germany gets 35 percent of its electricity from coal-fired power plants, so charging a Tesla in, say, Bavaria results in 83 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven.
“Over the long term, hydrogen-methane technology offers a further advantage: it allows surplus wind and solar power generated during peaks to be stored, and these surpluses will see a sharp increase as the share of this renewable energy grows,” study co-author Christoph Buchal, professor of physics at the University of Cologne, said in a statement.
Read rest at Daily Caller
In all the articles on climate change aircraft emissions are never mentioned, perhaps because air transportation is a billion dollar/year industry that can’t be inconvenienced. The truth of the matter is that jet aircraft emit over 800 million tons of CO2/year in the upper atmosphere where it can remain up to 100 years.
The combination of CO2 and NOX (300 times the greenhouse effect of CO2) create a greenhouse gas layer equivalent to 2 billion tons?year. Aircraft CO2 exhaust is equal to all cars in the world. Reducing car emissions is tiny
compared to totally unregulated aircraft emissions. Research on the subject is available on blog, energyconservationtech.blogspot.com.
From the article, “It’s better read as a warning that new technologies aren’t a climate-change panacea.” The real climate-change panacea is even if we do nothing the earth is not headed for any type climate change disaster, at least not from carbon dioxide. We still are in danger of a mini ice age.
I would like to address the new technology part of the statement. At one time a very hopeful new technology was a genetically engineered bacterium that when exposed sun light and given the right nutrients would produce a substance that could be used as oil. I have always known that the climate change movement is a fraud but I did have great hope for this technology. If a practical renewable energy source could be found that would replace other solutions such as energy taxes and artificial scarcity. That was one of the main problem liberals had with the technology. It wouldn’t support all of the hidden agendas riding on the climate change movement, so funding was cut. I now realize that the bacteria solution couldn’t have worked. The issue is energy density. There isn’t enough solar energy hitting an acre of ground to replace the high density options such fossil fuels and nuclear.
The technologies warning also says a lot about the Green New Deal. For this to work in theory we need a new technology to store energy for when renewables are not available. It is a pretty safe bet this technology will not be developed in the next ten years. The Green New Deal not only can not work in reality, it can’t work in theory.
Liberals have two reasons to drive electric cars. As I have said before, their actions don’t have to actually do something about the problem they are worried about. All that is necessary is they think it is helping so they can feel good. The second reason is the “not here” mentality. Much of Europe’s effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions has resulted in the emissions (and jobs) being transferred to another county, such as China. However, they can feel good that these emissions are no longer in their country. In the case of batteries for electric cars, such a high percentage of them are made in China. Thus, the emissions are “not here.”
Not being a liberal we do need to remember the reality check that there is no need to reduce emission. There is a very poor correlation between carbon dioxide levels and the Earth’s temperature history. Even if there was, a warmer world is a better world.
By all means drive a Tesla or any other all-electric or hybrid vehicle, if you want to. The biostratigraphic record shows clearly that our planet even still is deep within an atmospheric CO2 depleted phase. We need all the carbon dioxide output we can muster. Our food supply will love you for your efforts.
Goofy, demented Neil Young put together a lead-acid battery-powered 60’s vintage Lincoln.
He called it the LincVolt. Backup power was E85. He was trying to prove that saving old cars was environmentally friendlier than building new cars. He deliberately drove it North to Alberta, where there is no E85, ran it out of juice and hooch, then mocked Alberta.
The LincVolt , long may you run.
I heard that it spontaneously combusted one night.