Slate's "Green Lantern" is the columnist who aspires to offer "illuminating answers to green questions." Brendan Koerner takes a quick look at the relative environmental impact of electric vs. gas-powered cars. Although you've got to wonder about Koerner's choice of the Tesla as an EV poster child– given that the Roadster remains unobtainable and the company's range claims are both vague and unverified– the man gets credit for almost shining his light on the entire environmental picture. (His calcs make mention of battery production and recycling.) Props for some fascinating energy-related links as well. And the winner is… the Tesla! In theory, the $100k plug-in go-kart requires 48.05 pounds of CO2 per 100 miles, while the Corolla unleashes 63.11 pounds of carbon dioxide per 100 miles. [thanks to jpc0067 for the link]
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Awesome picture and caption to go with this piece.
I’m just glad we no longer have to worry about any other toxins besides evil, evil CO2.
Indeed, who cares about the wasteland surrounding Sudbury, Ontario where nickel is mined and processed for use in ev batteries so long as that nasty and natural little devil, carbon dioxide, remains at bay…
The environmental movement seems to be moving in reverse, forgetting about what really causes environmental problems and focusing on emissions of a natural gas.
thats an awful lot of CO2 though
1. Isn’t nickel a major component of stainless steel and other alloys? I wonder how much nickel is in a Hummer…
2. Sudbury was a problem in the ’60’s and this is related to lax pollution controls on EVERYTHING. Was the Prius battery an issue in the ’60’s? I think not. Sudbury is reputed to be cleaner today than in decades past.
3. And some think we’ll move to lithium.
4. The natural level of CO2 in the atmospher is nowhere near the current level. Isotopic analysis reveals what is “unnatural” CO2.
5. Yes, everything we do has an impact. It pays to think ahead. Man is the only animal that can plan strategically for his survival and long-term prosperity but, unfortunately, strategic planning is the result of conscious effort and choices that may run counter to immediate or tactical aims.
The argument for EVs is that they can be charged overnight, when the coal plants are running anyway and have plenty of spare capacity. That's a 'drying your socks on the radiator' justification that makes sense to a point. Some people will forget and will dry their socks in the morning. Others will want to dry their socks on the radiators at work. The wealthy will irritate the rest of us by bragging about their tumble-dried socks. The poor won't even have socks. As I see it, either we discover dilithium crystals or we drive a lot less often. Some humor: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/2007_holiday_cheer_brought_to_you
KixStart,
You may indeed be more of an authority on Sudbury than I am, as I confess a limited working knowlege of the site and its operations.
I work in the mining industry and can attest that metal and hard-rock mining is taxing on the local environment. As you say, there’s nothing we can do that doesn’t have an impact.
We can go around and around on Hummer versus Prius and man-made global warming versus natural causes and we’ll never come to a consensus, and that’s fine.
I wonder if there’s anybody out there who drives both a Hummer and a Prius, just for the hell of it?
Did he really compare the footprint of a roadster to a family sedan? Unless the criteria was four wheels and forward propulsion, this is wrong on so many levels.
That is, the Tesla carries two average people and almost no cargo, while the Corolla carries 4 large Americans in comfort: making it a car that works for just about anyone. (Design and image issues aside, of course.)
Not to mention the Corolla costs $16,000 (or less) and the limited-scope Tesla doesn’t even exist.
How do you calculate the CO2 footprint of a car that doesn’t exist?
quasimondo :
How do you calculate the CO2 footprint of a car that doesn’t exist?
Same way you computer its driving range, recharge time, top speed, crash test rating and EPA mileage estimate.
N85532: I work in the mining industry and can attest that metal and hard-rock mining is taxing on the local environment. As you say, there’s nothing we can do that doesn’t have an impact.
There are ways to minimize impact. A notable one: replace X tons of mined coal with X kilos of mined uranium ore.
Of course, most enviros don’t want to hear that. Locally, NY enviros – dependent on Ontario/Quebec for a lot of power – don’t want to hear about the 2nd largest nuke plant in the world being built on Ontario’s Bruce peninsula.
That’s quite interesting. For all the whoopla, you save only about 24% of your CO2 output per mile travelled.
On top of that, it’s a steep investment for the saving.
N85523:
The pollution issues around Sudbury you refer to were the result of mining activities long ago. Much of the barren landscape is sue to surface roasting of the sulphide ores from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Since the construction of the “super stack” around 1970 and later pollution controls, the environment around Sudbury has staged a remarkable comeback given that most of the topsoil had been lost. We even had a university field trip there in the late 70’s to study the rehabilitation efforts.
BTW – I found this interesting when I did some real estate work there a few years ago. Many of the properties around the Sudbury area have smoke easements over them dating from way back.
If anyone is interested in the calculations referred to in Slate, there used to be (and may still be) a good interview with Elon Musk in the Tesla website where he gave quite a bit of detail on the relative efficiencies of electric propulsion compared with gasoline. This took into account the central generation of electricity, transmission, battery charging, etc. and compared it with gasoline, it’s distribution etc.
does jalopnik know about an entire Bruce peninsula?
“In states that use the most coal, such as Wyoming, North Dakota, and West Virginia, the CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour are higher—so much higher, in fact, that the Roadster may emit just a few pounds less carbon than the Corolla when all’s said and done.”
“if you’re a motorist in the Pacific Northwest, where hydroelectric power reigns, going with an EV is an even cleaner choice.” -Koerner
Perhaps I can get relocation carbon offset credits. Either that, or start building more rivers to dam.
Wyoming and North Dakota don’t use the most coal, they produce and generate lots of energy through coal mining and electrical generation, but the vast majority of these states’ coal production and generation is exported to other states. While Wyoming has one of the highest per-capita coal production and consumption rates, keep in mind that most of that power goes elsewhere – all over the midwest, Texas, and the northwest.
Just had to put in a good word for The Cowboy State, America’s energy ace-in-the-hole.
Do you US folks not have Companies like Bullfrog Power to use to allow you to get 0 emission power?
Bullfrog uses solely Wind and low-impact Hydroelectricity – this is one of the reasons I am looking forward to plug in vehicles!
That’s an invalid analysis, considering that Koerner completely ignores the resources consumed in producing one Tesla versus used in producing one Corolla. No doubt a Toyota factory is bigger and consumes more energy that a Tesla shop, but that is spread out over a hell of a lot more product, and we are comparing individual units of cars here, aren’t we?
There is a reason a Tesla costs $100,000 and a Corolla only costs $15,000 or so, and those values mean something. A Tesla isn’t pure-profit — far from it, I’d suppose in the early stages the things would be sold at a loss. It probably costs at least that $100,000 to build one, and that represents the real cost of a lot of resources.
If one car ties up $100,000 in resources and another car ties up maybe $14,000 in resources, which is more harmful to the environment? What all are those resources — what really is required, consumed, wasted, in making a Tesla?
I don’t know, that would be an interesting question, and this article doesn’t even acknowledge any of it.
Kevin:
There’s no comparison between the price of a Tesla and a Corolla. The high price of the Tesla is due to a combination of recouping R&D costs, high labour component, no volume discounts for parts, high overhead relative to production and high margins being charged to early adopters (which could be used to fund further development).
Kevin, consider the Tesla as a prototype for evaluation purposes. Like the Prius, EVs will eventually be mass-produced and resemble a Corolla in terms of cost and impact.
—
As for exactly what powers the Tesla, coal vs anything else, many of us with a green bent are willing to reconsider nuclear power as a source of energy.
But remember, it’s not just the greenies who get in the way of nuclear plants… it’s also the NIMBY effect and the real, practical considerations of what to do with the waste and how to keep the powerplants safe from terrorists. And then there’s raising the massive capital for it (this is a large part of what stalled nukes two decades ago).
Even with “streamlined” licensing, etc, how long will it take to get a nuclear plant on-line? Ten years? Conservation measures and alternative power sources can get into action much faster.
A brand-new hybrid car could be designed and brought to customers in just a few years.
A windmill can be manufactured and on-line in a very short time.
An SPV-cell manufacturing plant might take a year or two to build and you get power from the cells a month after they’re delivered.
We might be able to resurrect some defunct or abandoned damns and produce power from them in a very few years.
Sure, these might be small impacts but the risks are low and they can start delivering energy or energy savings relatively quickly.
For the price of a Tesla you could purchase a pretty big forest in Brazil, offsetting the carbon emissions of not just one but several Corollas.
So, the Tesla should be seen as a research project preparing us for the day in the future when those large batteries are an order of magnitude better and cheaper.
Frank Williams :
December 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
quasimondo :
How do you calculate the CO2 footprint of a car that doesn’t exist?
Same way you computer its driving range, recharge time, top speed, crash test rating and EPA mileage estimate.
Good answer!
I’m with Kevin; the way I see it, a Tesla uses $100k worth of energy and resources while a decent compact car uses $20k worth. I’m never going to make up the other $80k in fuel.
N85523
Indeed, who cares about the wasteland surrounding Sudbury, Ontario where nickel is mined and processed for use in ev batteries so long as that nasty and natural little devil, carbon dioxide, remains at bay…
The environmental movement seems to be moving in reverse, forgetting about what really causes environmental problems and focusing on emissions of a natural gas.
The air around Sudbury was quite clean by the time I bicycled through there on my way from Seattle to Boston in 1975.