Electrifying everything at the rate required to meet our climate goals
rewiringamerica.org
rewiringamerica.org
So what do the people and companies responsible for mining nigh on 900 million tonnes per annum of raw materials (iron ore, lithium, etc) think about this?
“We believe battery-electric, green hydrogen and green ammonia will all be critical to our decarbonisation plan, and we are taking practical steps to apply the best solution to each situation,” she said.
“Through our partnership with Liebherr and our acquisition of UK-based WAE Technologies, our Green Fleet team are exploring options for both battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell haul trucks.
“We currently have two prototypes that we are testing, with the aim to have our first green haul truck operational at our sites during 2026.”
Given the transnational footprint of Fortescue Metals and Rio Tinto is clear those practices will ripple outwards from W.Australia.
I still wouldn't buy a Tesla though.
https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/fortescue-and-rio-say-b...
https://thedriven.io/2023/06/23/bhp-says-battery-electric-ch...
This is the way.
“Each year our Australian operations use roughly 1,500 mega litres of diesel in over 1,000 pieces of equipment,” said vice president of planning and technical minerals Australia Anna Wiley.
“Over half of this is used in our truck fleets. Electrification is the preferred pathway to eliminate this diesel. Part of the reason for this is energy efficiency.”
The carbon emissions to build a Tesla are less than two years of carbon emissions of an ICE car ([1], page 22). Over the average life of a car a Tesla car is estimated to reduce emissions by 55 tons of CO2-equivalent.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2022-tesla-impact-report.pdf
In the Godfather, a Mafia don was saying "I Don't Like Violence. I'm A Businessman. Blood Is A Big Expense." It does not follow that mafiosi don't kill, they do.
The same with companies and their public statements. "Lies are a big expense."
Tesla may lie about their CO2-equivalent emissions. But that would make sense only if the additional profits brought by this lie justify the risk of an SEC investigation or a class action lawsuit. Do people buy more Teslas because they read and believe the Tesla's claims about CO2 reductions? Some do, but 90% of the Tesla buyers just care about the car. Sure, they like the green part. But very, very few Tesla buyers would buy the car if they didn't actually like it on its own merits.
But leaving aside Tesla statements, their claim stands scrutiny against a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
When you make a Tesla car, you follow the same process as when you build an ICE car. The differences are that in a Tesla car you put a chunky battery, and in an ICE car the engine and the transmissions are much bigger. I venture to say that the emissions savings from having smaller engine and transmission are significant, but let's be conservative and ignore that. How large are the emissions associated with manufacturing a battery?
This MIT paper [2] states that the emissions for a Tesla Model 3 battery are between 2.4 and 16 tons of CO2-e. An average US car emits about 4.6 tons of CO2-e per year. So, a Teslas extra manufacturing emissions are offset in 0.5 to 3.5 years. The average is 2 years, which is in line with Tesla's claims.
If anyone wants to present different numbers that contradict these numbers, please do. And just to be on equal footing, analyze the biases in those estimates too, just like you are asking me to do.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...
[2] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufac...
That's comparing an SUV/pickup (average vehicle sold today in the US) with a sedan. A comparable sedan, or even better a hybrid is closer to 2-3 tons per year (based on 1 gallon of gasoline = 8.8 kg of CO₂).
Also, you have to include the CO₂ emissions of electricity production. At 0.818 lbs per kWh (US average from googling), that gives you roughly ~100 grams per mile. Or in the ballpark of 1.2 tons per year (12,000 miles per year average US driving).
That's only a 0.8-1.8 ton reduction per year. Which is to say, at the high end of your calculations, and assuming the alternative is a efficient hybrid, then you're looking at ~20 year payback period.
In other words, just using your numbers, but switching to an apples-to-apples comparison, and not ignoring grid emissions, the conclusion is totally different.
NOTE: I'm assuming 1 ton = 1000 kg, so a metric ton.
A non-hybrid Camry gets between 26 and 32 mpg in combined economy, according to the US government [1]. The average is about 30.
The average driver in the US travels about 13500 miles per year, per the US FHWA [2]. That means about 450 galons. Times 8.8 makes 4 tons of CO2. Not 2-3.
A hybrid is a completely different story. I personally think hybrids would be a much better solution towards decarbonization, but that was not what was being discussed here.
[1]https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2023_Toyota_Camry.sh...
Also note that people who drive longer distances tend to be highway driving. MPG numbers go up even more. So even 39 MPG is realistic. So no, my claims are not wrong.
People ignore hybrids because it is an inconvenient truth. They haven’t realized that cars of the future could easily reach 50-55 MPG with minimal cost. This weakens the argument against BEVs, so they ignore it. Even though this should be the default comparison given how straightforward it is to switch all new cars to hybrids.
For example, if we could switch overnight all passenger cars in the US to be fully electric, we'd save about 375 megatons of CO2-e [1]. Of course, we can't do that, but we could probably be able to do it in 20 years. Or 30.
But if we could switch overnight all the coal power plants to run on natural gas, we'd save about 525 megatons of CO2-e [2] (the calculation is: 919 MT currently produced by coal times times 0.97/2.26 = 394 MT if we switch to gas, for a saving of 525 MT). Again, we can't switch overnight, but we can easily do it in 10 years; we are doing it, because coal is inefficient compared to gas.
But how many people would think that it's more worth switching from coal to natgas than switching from gasoline cars to battery cars?
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1235091/us-passenger-car...
The problem with "purist" is that they're the classic example of letting the perfect defeat the good. In reality, they are anything but. They are arguably just greenwashing since their ideas don't scale.
You've done it for me:
> The carbon emissions to build a Tesla are less than two years of carbon emissions of an ICE car
The truth of this claim depends entirely on how much you drive, and the Tesla report says nothing about what assumptions went into their comparison. Two years of emissions of a Ford Explorer driving 50,000 miles a year is going to be a lot different then two years of emissions of a Civic driving 5,000 miles a year.
Obviously there is a set of not-entirely-unreasonable assumptions under which electric vehicles come out ahead. But the best way to reduce emissions from driving is not to use an electric vehicle, it is to drive less.
Good. Maybe next time you'll do it for you.
I think this is a beautiful attitude.
It will help. The devices are just generally better on a variety of metrics, even if powered by existing grids. But, as grids clean up, they get even better again.
That's should tell you something; that climate can't be reduced down to just CO2 levels.
> That is not survivable for modern technological civilization.
According to whom?
If you read more about Rewiring America, they're focused less on the supply side (which most of us can't really do anything about) and more on the demand side which many of us can do something about.
My understanding is that this is strategic because no one else was really focusing on it. In some ways it's easier to replace 1 million big gas-fired power plants with solar and wind (especially given the current economics and trends) than it is to replace 1 billion small consumer machines. Both need to happen, but helping 300 million people heat their homes without emissions in the next 30 years is a hell of a challenge and needs specific focus.
Where is the source for dramatic statements like this, that Earth won't be survivable for modern technological civilization?
We literally have people living in the vacuum of space, the bottom of the ocean, and the antarctic continent. Sure climate change could be devastating to ecosystems, disproportionately affect poor people, and make things harder on ourselves, but I find the idea that it would be civilization ending kind of unrealistic.
Yes, but those people are heavily dependent on support from the rest of civilization. None of the settlements in extreme environments are self-sustaining.
> I find the idea that it would be civilization ending kind of unrealistic.
Modern technological civilization depends heavily on stable rainfall patterns to produce crops. We are already seeing problems in this regard, e.g.
https://www.reuters.com/business/china-ensure-agricultural-p...
You will be on the way if you use a Tesla in Norway, Washington State, British Columbia, or even California. If your argument is merely that they are getting energy from coal/NG rather than hydro. For those locales Tesla makes a lot of sense.
I assume by gas-fired plants you mean natural gas and not diesel, which is only used in some remote settlements (like small islands or places off the grid in Alaska).
For things like air travel carbon neutral fuels are likely a better short to medium term solution (in the long term we can posit magical high density batteries).
However, if we are going down the path of actually trying to clean up the earth we should take a really long term view and remove all heavy polluting and heavy land use off planet. There is plenty of mass out there to do manufacturing, farming etc. Let's make earth into a garden planet giant park.
The article is targeting homes mainly, and even discarding some already existing electric devices because “they are not efficient”. But what is already electric is automatically converted if the electric generation in the network is decarbonized, so that is a point to put the finger, right now. And not just energy companies decarbonized generation, but from heavy industries to private homes generation too. And if possible contributing the excess generated electricity to the network.
And better than converting the 100% of vehicles to electric is rationalize its usage. More remote working, more public transport, electrifying everything of mass transport, better sharing, cities not built around having to drive for even buying a bottle of water should drop badly the need of so many vehicles. Then would be the moment of deciding what to electrify or not.
And, of course, there is the lion’s share of emissions, that are not homes. That should be addressed too, sector by sector.
Same plan: electrify everything.
I sympathize with this view, but I think a change in perspective can be really helpful in soothing negativity and bitterness. It's more like we, as "little people", actually have some power to make a collective change that improves our climate and health. Around 42% of energy emissions come from consumers — transport, home heating / cooling, cooking, clothes drying, etc. We are not powerless! It's like the victory gardens of WWII — we can all pitch in together, including industry and government which can play leading roles. And actually we all have to decarbonize everything together or else our planet will continue warming disastrously.
If the G7 nations cut their fossil fuel usage they just make it cheaper for the BRICS.
Electrify when it's better, i.e. cheaper and cleaner, not to try to influence a complex and intractable global issue immersed in uncertainty.
While I am fully on board with an electrified world, I won’t pretend it is for the “climate”.