Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by btian | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

btian

Where is the report? Which journal is the study published in?

View on HN

Here is the hyperlink to the PDF report:

http://www.energimyndigheten.se/globalassets/forskning--inno...

I skimmed through it and didn't find where they concluded that battery production equaled 8 years of gas emmissions.

According to the article that was a calculation made during interview.

The conclusion is Tesla uses much larger batteries than needed for typical usage. You're driving back and forth to work, not across the country. Emissions grow linearly with battery size. The result is excessive but unnecessary pollution.

Your range anxiety is bad for co2 emissions. If you're not just signalling and actually care about co2 emissions, you choose a car with smaller batteries.

And that conclusion is wrong, because a bigger battery has a longer life... the lifetime of a battery is better thought of as being a number of miles, instead of a number of years.

A bigger battery results in greater co2 emissions. Over 17 tons in the case of a model s. 8.2 year worth. A Tesla battery has an 8 year shelf life based on Tesla's warranty coverage. Nice spin though.

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/battery-technology-gua...

Here's some longevity data on real batteries:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110149_tesla-model-s-ba...

As you can see, the actual lifetime is projected to be a lot more than 8 years for a typical car.

Also, please don't post insults like "Nice spin" on Hacker News. Data works a lot better.

You're still spinning. Your argument is invalid. You're not making a direct comparison. A direct comparison would ask how much CO2 is generated in the production of an internal combustion engine vehicle. A quick search tells me a similar sized sedan, a Ford Mondeo, produces 17 tons of CO2 in the manufacture process. That's about the same as the battery alone on the Tesla.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...

You're trying to change the subject. That's what spin doctors do. If you find that insulting, try not spinning instead. I find your anti-science spin insulting. Please don't do that.

I'm pointing out an error in the article about the effect of battery weight on CO2, and also your error about Tesla battery lifetime. I have no idea what you think this discussion is about! Have fun name-calling on HN!

The actual life of the cells is much longer than 8 years. It's probably up to double that. Even after the cells degrade to the point where they are no longer useful in cars, they are still perfectly good for stationary storage.

Why not grow some greenery on the car to offset the larger batteries, a la Chia Pet? Then you would really be signalling you cared!

You didn't even read the submission, did you?

>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.

This is Sweden, the country that has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050.

This is fake news. I actually read the study, and it's not even close to supporting what the author wrote.

Tesla has pledged that the Gigafactory would be net zero: https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/teslas-gigafacto...

If this is accurate and comes to pass, then assuming like the Swedes did that the batteries would have 50% fossil fuel sources for production wouldn't apply.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1105404_tesla-gigafactor...

Last I read, no panels.

It's not even a third complete, I think it's a little premature to be complaining about the lack of solar panels.