The car batteries used in a Tesla generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for eight years. And that’s before they even come off the production line.

This news, from a study by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, will no doubt delight all those U.S. taxpayers who have been forking out billions of dollars to prop up Tesla’s share price having been assured by their government that subsidizing overpriced electric cars represents a vital step towards “combatting climate change.”

The report, commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, cannot easily be dismissed because it is a meta-analysis (ie a summary) of all the available studies on the subject.

Quote

The report shows that the battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory. The researchers did not study individual batteries, how these produced or the electricity mix they use. But if we understand the great importance of play battery take an example: Two common electric cars on the market, the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Model S, the batteries about 30 kWh and 100 kWh.

Even when buying the car has thus emissions occurred, corresponding to approximately 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons, the batteries of these sizes. The numbers can be difficult to relate to. As a comparison, a trip for one person round trip from Stockholm to New York by air causes the release of more than 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO calculation.

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

One of the authors, Mats-Ola Larsson at IVL, has made a calculation of how long you have to drive a petrol or diesel before it has released as much carbon dioxide as battery manufacturing has caused.

Quote

The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as the Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of the Tesla-size.

https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761

Where I live electricity is generated at a coal-burning generating station.

All these self-satisfied maroons drive around in their electric cars. oblivious to the fact that it produces more CO2 charging their car then a gasoline engine ever would.

just an observation Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where I live electricity is generated at a
> coal-burning generating station.
>
> All these self-satisfied maroons drive around in
> their electric cars. oblivious to the fact that it
> produces more CO2 charging their car then a
> gasoline engine ever would.


That would be in addition to the CO2 counted here which are only considering that from production of the batteries before the car is even used.

Meanwhile producing a gasoline car produces 50 years of CO2 emissions. Nice try.

Gas Engines 10x As much Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meanwhile producing a gasoline car produces 50
> years of CO2 emissions. Nice try.


The Swedes already did the break-even calculation for you. Again, not even counting the time that it's on the road or production of the car itself, they calculate that it's 8.2 years just to cover the batteries alone. Nice fail.

So does building engines idiot, gas tanks, producing the lubricants engines require and internal combustion engines need a battery too dipshit.

There is still no comparison in footprint. You act as though internal combustion has zero footprint in manufacturing.

Gas Engines 10x As much Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meanwhile producing a gasoline car produces 50
> years of CO2 emissions. Nice try.

Yeah that seems about right. So much time is wasted on these negative lying people.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So does building engines idiot, gas tanks,
> producing the lubricants engines require and
> internal combustion engines need a battery too
> dipshit.
>
> There is still no comparison in footprint. You act
> as though internal combustion has zero footprint
> in manufacturing.


Argue with the IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute which, once again, already did the break-even calculation for you.

Posting from the Ikea ball pit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gas Engines 10x As much Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Meanwhile producing a gasoline car produces 50
> > years of CO2 emissions. Nice try.
>
>
> The Swedes already did the break-even calculation
> for you. Again, not even counting the time that
> it's on the road or production of the car itself,
> they calculate that it's 8.2 years just to cover
> the batteries alone. Nice fail.

Re-read the article. They have pulled a good magic trick on you.

Tesla batteries are lithium. Lithium is melted into batteries. Very easy and simple process. One of the reason meth cooks use batteries. The rest of the Tesla is the electric motors and plastic.

On a gasoline car you have close to the same plastic and frame but a shit load more part for a gasoline engine. Because you're dealing with flames you need a LOT of steel. That steel is TONs of CO2.

Relax.You need a Swedish massage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So does building engines idiot, gas tanks,
> > producing the lubricants engines require and
> > internal combustion engines need a battery too
> > dipshit.
> >
> > There is still no comparison in footprint. You
> act
> > as though internal combustion has zero
> footprint
> > in manufacturing.
>
>
> Argue with the IVL Swedish Environmental Research
> Institute which, once again, already did the
> break-even calculation for you.

Do you mean the Stockholm Environment Institute, SEI?

There's no such thing as the Swedish Environmental Research Institute

Swedish? Thats probably been taken over by Muslims by now!

Fuck the Muslims....

Post the link.

Goatfucker2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck the Muslims....

You must have a very productive life. Some day you will have real friends.

Reading Comprehension Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Posting from the Ikea ball pit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gas Engines 10x As much Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Meanwhile producing a gasoline car produces
> 50
> > > years of CO2 emissions. Nice try.
> >
> >
> > The Swedes already did the break-even
> calculation
> > for you. Again, not even counting the time
> that
> > it's on the road or production of the car
> itself,
> > they calculate that it's 8.2 years just to
> cover
> > the batteries alone. Nice fail.
>
> Re-read the article. They have pulled a good
> magic trick on you.
>
> Tesla batteries are lithium. Lithium is melted
> into batteries. Very easy and simple process. One
> of the reason meth cooks use batteries. The rest
> of the Tesla is the electric motors and plastic.
>
>
> On a gasoline car you have close to the same
> plastic and frame but a shit load more part for a
> gasoline engine. Because you're dealing with
> flames you need a LOT of steel. That steel is
> TONs of CO2.


You need to read it again. They aren't considering production of the car itself. Which would need to be counted for the Tesla as well. They are only considering the materials for the batteries and the production of the battery.

Your "very easy and simple process" of "melting lithium" (which wrong and idiotic to begin with btw) is exactly what they are counting and NOT counting anything else:

Quote

Even when buying the car has thus [no] emissions occurred, corresponding to approximately 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons, the batteries of these sizes. The numbers can be difficult to relate to. As a comparison, a trip for one person round trip from Stockholm to New York by air causes the release of more than 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO calculation.

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

Fake News. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Relax.You need a Swedish massage Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So does building engines idiot, gas tanks,
> > > producing the lubricants engines require and
> > > internal combustion engines need a battery
> too
> > > dipshit.
> > >
> > > There is still no comparison in footprint.
> You
> > act
> > > as though internal combustion has zero
> > footprint
> > > in manufacturing.
> >
> >
> > Argue with the IVL Swedish Environmental
> Research
> > Institute which, once again, already did the
> > break-even calculation for you.
>
> Do you mean the Stockholm Environment Institute,
> SEI?
>
> There's no such thing as the Swedish Environmental
> Research Institute


"IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency investigated litiumjonbatteriers climate impact from a life cycle perspective. There are batteries designed for electric vehicles included in the study. The two authors Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare has done a meta-study that is reviewed and compiled existing studies."

https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761

This thread is retarded. What's the point again that a Tesla has a bigger footprint in manufacturing than does a internal combustion vehicle? That's ridiculous.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread is retarded. What's the point again
> that a Tesla has a bigger footprint in
> manufacturing than does a internal combustion
> vehicle? That's ridiculous.


The point is that all that you want to count is a car that magically appears with a motor powered by unicorn glitter.

As the study notes, that's not the reality of the fuel cycle.

You had an epiphany you retard? You learn something new today? You sound like an idiot.

Its creates more C02 to make a combustion engine car. The combustion engine also requires gas and lubricants and a battery itself. I'm developing a headache with this stupidity.

Do you know how much C02 it takes to heat and bend steel or aluminum?

A fuckload.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2017 02:51PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its creates more C02 to make a combustion engine
> car. The combustion engine also requires gas and
> lubricants and a battery itself. I'm developing a
> headache with this stupidity.
>
> Do you know how much C02 it takes to heat and bend
> steel or aluminum?
>
> A fuckload.


That's why my mommy drives a Prius...I get to wash it. I never do because I never leave the basement.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its creates more C02 to make a combustion engine
> car. The combustion engine also requires gas and
> lubricants and a battery itself. I'm developing a
> headache with this stupidity.
>
> Do you know how much C02 it takes to heat and bend
> steel or aluminum?
>
> A fuckload.


No, it does not necessarily and you have zero basis for claiming that it does.

Listen closely. I'll type slow so you can follow along...

The study is looking at the CO2 emissions involved in *PRODUCING* the lithium batteries *ONLY*.

Most of the rest of the car (body, tires, etc.) would be a basically a wash between electric and gas powered. Both have motors. The electric might have some advantage in terms of weight but it requires a large amount of copper for windings which is environmentally expensive to produce vs iron/steel so again no substantial advantage there. The primary difference being the very large battery vs an empty gas tank. And the conclusion of the study being that in a linear manner, the bigger the battery, the greater the CO2 emissions to produce it.

Dude, it's like science. You aren't doubting science are you?

No you're leaving out the drive train, the battery, the starter, the oil required through the life of internal combustion, the oil filters, the air filters, the hoses, the spark plugs, the loss of a second trunk up front for storage capacity and the ability for the vehicle to transport more weight or items, the loss in energy from having a higher center of gravity. I can list a thousand more things. Aerodynamics saved from no need for front radiator cooling.

Go fuck a goat Gerry.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No you're leaving out the drive train, the
> battery, the starter,
> the oil required through the
> life of internal combustion, the oil filters, the
> air filters, the hoses, the spark plugs, the loss
> of a second trunk up front for storage capacity
> and the ability for the vehicle to transport more
> weight or items, the loss in energy from having a
> higher center of gravity. I can list a thousand
> more things. Aerodynamics saved from no need for
> front radiator cooling.


None of which is what's being counted for the Tesla or conventional here; rather it is, once again, ONLY considering the CO2 to produce the batteries alone.

They are FURIOUS that others can have Teslas, and THEY CAN'T!!!!!!!!

non-Tesla owners are jealous Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are FURIOUS that others can have Teslas, and
> THEY CAN'T!!!!!!!!

You got nail it. The fastest street car built in America and it's electric.

Plus zero toxic gas fumes, no stopping at gas stations, silent, better ride, no need to check anti-freeze or oil. No nasty oil leaks. "Insane" torque blast off mode.

non-Tesla owners are jealous Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are FURIOUS that conservatives who were
> engineering and business majors have jobs
> and can afford to have Teslas, and
> THEY CAN'T!!!!!!!! because they have art and
> gender studies degrees from NoVA and still live
> in mom's basement.

^ FIFY

Part of the Solution Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> non-Tesla owners are jealous Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They are FURIOUS that others can have Teslas,
> and
> > THEY CAN'T!!!!!!!!
>
> You got nail it. The fastest street car built in
> America and it's electric.
>
> Plus zero toxic gas fumes, no stopping at gas
> stations, silent, better ride, no need to check
> anti-freeze or oil. No nasty oil leaks. "Insane"
> torque blast off mode.


And that has what to do with the evil planet-killing CO2 required to produce their batteries?

Mean not so green CO2 machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Part of the Solution Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > non-Tesla owners are jealous Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > They are FURIOUS that others can have Teslas,
> > and
> > > THEY CAN'T!!!!!!!!
> >
> > You got nail it. The fastest street car built
> in
> > America and it's electric.
> >
> > Plus zero toxic gas fumes, no stopping at gas
> > stations, silent, better ride, no need to check
> > anti-freeze or oil. No nasty oil leaks.
> "Insane"
> > torque blast off mode.
>
>
> And that has what to do with the evil
> planet-killing CO2 required to produce their
> batteries?

Name a car that is less CO2 to produce? Crickets...

Less CO2 to Produce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mean not so green CO2 machine Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Part of the Solution Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > non-Tesla owners are jealous Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > They are FURIOUS that others can have
> Teslas,
> > > and
> > > > THEY CAN'T!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > You got nail it. The fastest street car
> built
> > in
> > > America and it's electric.
> > >
> > > Plus zero toxic gas fumes, no stopping at gas
> > > stations, silent, better ride, no need to
> check
> > > anti-freeze or oil. No nasty oil leaks.
> > "Insane"
> > > torque blast off mode.
> >
> >
> > And that has what to do with the evil
> > planet-killing CO2 required to produce their
> > batteries?
>
> Name a car that is less CO2 to produce?
> Crickets...


Virtually any due to the large lithium battery in the Tesla which according to the study ALONE is the equivalent of 8.2 years of driving a conventional vehicle and 2.7 times that of a smaller battery as used in the Leaf. And that's before it's ever even been driven, not counting the rest of the car, or the CO2 from electricity generated to operate it.

Compared to driving the car excluding the manufacturing you idiot. You have to mine the raw materials in both cars.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Compared to driving the car excluding the
> manufacturing you idiot. You have to mine the raw
> materials in both cars.


No shit Sherlock. But that's not what's being considered here. They aren't comparing operating one versus another. They aren't comparing the CO2 from manufacturing the car itself in either case. Once AGAIN It's ONLY LOOKING AT PRODUCING THE LITHIUM ION BATTERY ALONE which has a very large relative cost in terms of CO2 produced even vs smaller electric batteries. The larger the battery, the higher the CO2. They've simply quantified it on the basis of the roughly equivalent CO2 over time for a smaller electric and a conventional vehicle.

Well motherfucker you're not comparing vehicles you piece of shit. You're comparing the CO2 from driving on car to producing the battery on another. You might as well compare how much driving is equivalent to the production of garbage can. It doesn't mean anything. You're fucking stupid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2017 05:49PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well motherfucker you're not comparing vehicles
> you piece of shit. You're comparing the CO2 from
> driving on car to producing the battery on
> another. You might as well compare how much
> driving is equivalent to the production of garbage
> can. It doesn't mean anything. You're fucking
> stupid.


YOU were making the comparison you stupid shit.

> Its creates more C02 to make a combustion engine
> car.

Which I said that you had no basis for and that the study didn't address. As usual, go down your own rabbit hole with some stupid off-point bullshit and then crawl back out of your own asshole thinking that nobody's going to notice. lol

To call you a fucking idiot would be an understatement. Now go figure out how much you have to drive a internal combustion engine vehicle to produce the equivalent C02 it takes to slob my knob.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To call you a fucking idiot would be an
> understatement. Now go figure out how much you
> have to drive a internal combustion engine vehicle
> to produce the equivalent C02 it takes to slob my
> knob.


You go find something to back up your own bullshit.

Which will never fucking happen. lmao

ok tards, electric vehicles still have lower a lower carbon foot print from birth to death.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102307_once-again-electric-cars-have-lower-lifetime-carbon-emissions

Manufacturing-related emissions were found to be 15 percent higher for the Leaf, and 68 percent higher for the Model S.

The largest single source of emissions in this area was battery manufacturing, which accounted for 24 percent of the Leaf's total, and 36 percent of the Tesla's total.

But the electric car's "cradle-to-grave" carbon emissions remained much lower than those of gasoline cars.

The Leaf had 51 percent lower emissions over an assumed lifetime of 179,000 miles than a comparable mid-size gasoline car, while the Model S had 53 percent lower emissions than a full-size car.

That's because the battery-powered cars consumed far less energy while being driven--a benefit that becomes apparent almost immediately.

The Leaf's extra manufacturing-related emissions were offset within 4,900 miles of driving, or about six months of ownership, assuming sales-weighted electricity emissions based on where electric cars are sold today.

The Tesla's manufacturing-related emissions could be offset within 19,000 miles of driving, or about 16 months of ownership.

Both figures could increase or decrease, depending on whether the cars are charged using clean renewable energy, or higher-carbon sources for their electricity.

mjs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok tards, electric vehicles still have lower a
> lower carbon foot print from birth to death.
>
> http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102307_once-a
> gain-electric-cars-have-lower-lifetime-carbon-emis
> sions
>
> Manufacturing-related emissions were found to be
> 15 percent higher for the Leaf, and 68 percent
> higher for the Model S.
>
> The largest single source of emissions in this
> area was battery manufacturing, which accounted
> for 24 percent of the Leaf's total, and 36 percent
> of the Tesla's total.
>
> But the electric car's "cradle-to-grave" carbon
> emissions remained much lower than those of
> gasoline cars.
>
> The Leaf had 51 percent lower emissions over an
> assumed lifetime of 179,000 miles than a
> comparable mid-size gasoline car, while the Model
> S had 53 percent lower emissions than a full-size
> car.
>
> That's because the battery-powered cars consumed
> far less energy while being driven--a benefit that
> becomes apparent almost immediately.
>
> The Leaf's extra manufacturing-related emissions
> were offset within 4,900 miles of driving, or
> about six months of ownership, assuming
> sales-weighted electricity emissions based on
> where electric cars are sold today.
>
> The Tesla's manufacturing-related emissions could
> be offset within 19,000 miles of driving, or about
> 16 months of ownership.
>
> Both figures could increase or decrease, depending
> on whether the cars are charged using clean
> renewable energy, or higher-carbon sources for
> their electricity.


Not necessarily. The study cited in your post has been contradicted by various others before and since. As your post glosses over in passing, it depends largely on assumptions for the source of power used to produce the electricity used during manufacturing and operation and how you account for it. Also, on what emissions (and other environmental effects) in particular are included. In fact, CO2 can be up to 80% greater over the lifetime where coal is the primary fuel burned to produce electricity. That's largely a result of basic conversion efficiency. While an electric motor is very efficient, generating the electricity to power it is not - only about 30% from ground to use vs about 85% from ground to use in the case of gasoline.

For a more recent attempt to model full life-cycle effects which disaggregates by stage and specific components including CO2 in particular, see page 19 here:

http://kimmoklemola.fi/data/documents/SF-comparison-USA-20160110.pdf

Over the full lifetime fuel cycle, the Tesla S results in higher CO2 vs a VW Passat fueled by any of clean diesel, waste-derived diesel, gasoline, or flex-fueled.

It also disputes Gerry's claim above regarding comparable effects resulting from materials and manufacturing. Again, the Tesla results in higher CO2 emissions in all of materials production (primarily battery-related), manufacturing, end-of-life, and power for operation:

Tesla S vs Passat (tons CO2e, note exponents)
Materials 1.01E+01 vs 4.01E+00
Manufacturing 3.92E+00 vs 2.77E+00
Maintenance 1.70E+00 vs 1.70E+00
End-of-Life 2.02E-01 vs 1.43E-01
Fuel/Electricity 4.86E+01 vs 9.24E+00
Tailpipe 00E+00 vs 3.81E+01

Libtardz in their coal fired electric cars are the epitome of retarded.

Part of the Solution Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no need to check anti-freeze or oil. No nasty oil leaks.

No oil? I thought all moving parts needed lubrication.

(Serious question!)

NXT9B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Part of the Solution Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > no need to check anti-freeze or oil. No nasty
> oil leaks.
>
> No oil? I thought all moving parts needed
> lubrication.
>
> (Serious question!)


He meant engine oil. There are various lubricants used but none that need to be checked regularly. The motor uses sealed bearings. Technically the drive unit fluid needs to be replaced at ~12K miles and then every 5 years but not something that you'd check in normal maintenance.

4.86E+01 vs 9.24E+00

I want to know what they measured fuel vs electricity based upon. Are they regarding the electricity as produced from coal, nuclear or wind and hydro?

Considering the fuel vs electricity carbon footprint of the Tesla of half of that of a gasoline run vehicle I think is way too high.

Its funny, they may be using the use of coal to produce energy on a Tesla's overall carbon footprint to argue against it.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4.86E+01 vs 9.24E+00
>
> I want to know what they measured fuel vs
> electricity based upon. Are they regarding the
> electricity as produced from coal, nuclear or wind
> and hydro?
>
> Considering the fuel vs electricity carbon
> footprint of the Tesla of half of that of a
> gasoline run vehicle I think is way too high.
>
> Its funny, they may be using the use of coal to
> produce energy on a Tesla's overall carbon
> footprint to argue against it.


They're not arguing for or against anything. They're just presenting an inventory of effects for each. Had you actually looked at it, you'd see that your question is answered:

Quote

The technical data of the selected car models are given in Table 8. The electricity generation mix (%) of the United States in 2014 is given in Table 9 (EIA 2015). In allocating combined heat and power production impacts to electricity, the benefit sharing method was used.

Similarly as in Table 9, the electricity generation mixes with CHP shares (combined heat and power) of all U.S. states in 2014 were calculated from EIA data (EIA 2015) and the data were used in assessing the life-cycle impacts of driving Tesla Model S in each state. In this report, Tesla’s carbon footprint, petroleum use and the high-level nuclear waste “footprint” in each state are presented.

The top-line numbers above are overall averages for each vehicle. For that calculation, they assume that 38.64% of the electricity used is from coal-based generation. They do more specific calculations given different characteristics for power production for each state on page 22.

I was immediately suspicious of the knowledge of the authors of the article when they listed the storage capacity of a battery in kWh. What really got me was the 600kg of CO2 emitted by a plane flying from Stockholm to NY. That is not possible. This article is bogus.

TSLA stock has been flying recently. No doubt some shorts taking it in the ass trying to mock up some bs. EV is here to stay as is solar. Only Trump is trying to prop up coal and oil.

Stop killing my feelgood for TESLAs with facts, logic and reason, God dammit.

AlbertEinstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was immediately suspicious of the knowledge of
> the authors of the article when they listed the
> storage capacity of a battery in kWh. What really
> got me was the 600kg of CO2 emitted by a plane
> flying from Stockholm to NY. That is not
> possible. This article is bogus.


You're questioning the UN International Civil Aviation Organization? They used its calculator to derive the number. You can do the same:

https://applications.icao.int/icec

Methodology:
https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Documents/Methodology%20ICAO%20Carbon%20Calculator_v7-2014.pdf

AlbertEinstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was immediately suspicious of the knowledge of
> the authors of the article when they listed the
> storage capacity of a battery in kWh.

P c retardz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libtardz in their coal fired electric cars are the
> epitome of retarded.


So many Tesla driving libtards in LA where they get a large part of their power from a coal fired power plant in Arizona.

No wonder that state is broke. It's libtarded.

AlbertEinstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was immediately suspicious of the knowledge of
> the authors of the article when they listed the
> storage capacity of a battery in kWh. What really
> got me was the 600kg of CO2 emitted by a plane
> flying from Stockholm to NY. That is not
> possible. This article is bogus.


How else would you rate the power of a battery that produces that much power?

Nonsense!

Our Obama green studies show that with a gov grant we can inject CO2 1,000 feet below ground !

(it will never just rise through the dirt, duh)

CO2 hasn't proved harmful and plants love it

lack of oxygen, due to lack of plants, is absolutely deadly

KKKillary KKKlinton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AlbertEinstein Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I was immediately suspicious of the knowledge
> of
> > the authors of the article when they listed the
> > storage capacity of a battery in kWh. What
> really
> > got me was the 600kg of CO2 emitted by a plane
> > flying from Stockholm to NY. That is not
> > possible. This article is bogus.
>
>
> How else would you rate the power of a battery
> that produces that much power?

You need to take a Physics class. Batteries are not rated for power. That is a function of the engine that converting the energy into work, and I would use Watts or horsepower. Batteries are rated in Volts, amp-hours, and cold cranking amps. Capacitance is measured in Farads.

AlbertEinstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KKKillary KKKlinton Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > AlbertEinstein Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I was immediately suspicious of the knowledge
> > of
> > > the authors of the article when they listed
> the
> > > storage capacity of a battery in kWh. What
> > really
> > > got me was the 600kg of CO2 emitted by a
> plane
> > > flying from Stockholm to NY. That is not
> > > possible. This article is bogus.
> >
> >
> > How else would you rate the power of a battery
> > that produces that much power?
>
> You need to take a Physics class. Batteries are
> not rated for power. That is a function of the
> engine that converting the energy into work, and I
> would use Watts or horsepower. Batteries are
> rated in Volts, amp-hours, and cold cranking amps.
> Capacitance is measured in Farads.


Yeah, I guess that's why Tesla rates all of theirs in kWh.

https://www.tesla.com/models/design

As do most others. As does everyone who, in contrast to you, knows what the fuck they're talking about. It's a measure of energy content that's commonly used to describe larger battery systems. Tard.

U is just 2 smart 4 us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AlbertEinstein Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > KKKillary KKKlinton Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > AlbertEinstein Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I was immediately suspicious of the
> knowledge
> > > of
> > > > the authors of the article when they listed
> > the
> > > > storage capacity of a battery in kWh. What
> > > really
> > > > got me was the 600kg of CO2 emitted by a
> > plane
> > > > flying from Stockholm to NY. That is not
> > > > possible. This article is bogus.
> > >
> > >
> > > How else would you rate the power of a
> battery
> > > that produces that much power?
> >
> > You need to take a Physics class. Batteries
> are
> > not rated for power. That is a function of the
> > engine that converting the energy into work, and
> I
> > would use Watts or horsepower. Batteries are
> > rated in Volts, amp-hours, and cold cranking
> amps.
> > Capacitance is measured in Farads.
>
>
> Yeah, I guess that's why Tesla rates all of theirs
> in kWh.
>
> https://www.tesla.com/models/design
>
> As do most others. As does everyone who, in
> contrast to you, knows what the fuck they're
> talking about. It's a measure of energy content
> that's commonly used to describe larger battery
> systems. Tard.


They rate the amount of energy stored in kWh. But the author did not say the stored energy was kWh, they said the capacitance was in kWhr. Reading is fundamental.

kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
kWhr fkilowatt-hour
kW 1000 joules/sec


So, kW is rate of energy delivery. kWh is stored energy.

just an observation Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where I live electricity is generated at a
> coal-burning generating station.
>
> All these self-satisfied maroons drive around in
> their electric cars. oblivious to the fact that it
> produces more CO2 charging their car then a
> gasoline engine ever would.

Burning gasoline produces WAY more CO2 per mile than burning coal and converting to electricity simply because of the efficiency of the latter. Where ever did you come up the idea that is otherwise?

KKTUB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kW kilowatt
> kWh kilowatt-hour
> kWhr fkilowatt-hour
> kW 1000 joules/sec
>
>
> So, kW is rate of energy delivery. kWh is stored
> energy.

To put a fine point on it kW is Power, kWh is energy. The stored has nothing to do with it. When you multiply Watts and hrs (seconds really) you are left dimensionally with Joules.

Please don't be so technical. These people don't know what those terms mean or their proper usage. Yes, I know their proper usage and dimensional analysis. The layman believes power and energy are the same thing.

AlbertEinstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U is just 2 smart 4 us Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > AlbertEinstein Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > KKKillary KKKlinton Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > AlbertEinstein Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > I was immediately suspicious of the
> > knowledge
> > > > of
> > > > > the authors of the article when they
> listed
> > > the
> > > > > storage capacity of a battery in kWh.
> What
> > > > really
> > > > > got me was the 600kg of CO2 emitted by a
> > > plane
> > > > > flying from Stockholm to NY. That is not
> > > > > possible. This article is bogus.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How else would you rate the power of a
> > battery
> > > > that produces that much power?
> > >
> > > You need to take a Physics class. Batteries
> > are
> > > not rated for power. That is a function of
> the
> > > engine that converting the energy into work,
> and
> > I
> > > would use Watts or horsepower. Batteries are
> > > rated in Volts, amp-hours, and cold cranking
> > amps.
> > > Capacitance is measured in Farads.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I guess that's why Tesla rates all of
> theirs
> > in kWh.
> >
> > https://www.tesla.com/models/design
> >
> > As do most others. As does everyone who, in
> > contrast to you, knows what the fuck they're
> > talking about. It's a measure of energy
> content
> > that's commonly used to describe larger battery
> > systems. Tard.
>
>
> They rate the amount of energy stored in kWh. But
> the author did not say the stored energy was kWh,
> they said the capacitance was in kWhr. Reading
> is fundamental.


You're full of shit.

Nobody said anything about "capacitance" other than you. It is a measure of the stored energy in a given higher capacity battery. Which, as Tesla's own ratings shows, typically is given in kWh.

Just as you were wrong about the CO2 emissions for the Stockholm flight, you fucked this up too.

The rights interest in pushing this story is to keep the buggy whip manufacturers raping us - ok fine. But the study based the estimates on smaller high mpg euroean cars. Looks like if replacing a 20mpg vehicle it takes only 4 years to recapture the co2

read more here

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/24/no-your-tesla-wont-take-82-years-to-pay-off-its-ca.aspx

above the microwave Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rights interest in pushing this story is to
> keep the buggy whip manufacturers raping us - ok
> fine. But the study based the estimates on smaller
> high mpg euroean cars. Looks like if replacing a
> 20mpg vehicle it takes only 4 years to recapture
> the co2
>
> read more here
>
> https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/24/no-your-
> tesla-wont-take-82-years-to-pay-off-its-ca.aspx


Oh, that's much better. Only 4 years to make up the CO2 production just for the battery alone. That's MUCH better. lulz

And that doesn't address the rest of the car and the higher CO2 produced in generating the electricity to fuel it.

I love technology but electric cars are just the stupidest idea ever. They fail in freezing weather and the frigging electricity comes 90 percent from coal. And you need to burn extra coal just to deliver it over long distance power lines. Only stupid people with no common sense think they don't pollute as much or more than a internal combustion engine.

Electric cars have 2 advantages. One, they're fast. No waiting for turbo or blower to spool up, the power is instantly available.
Two, they're silent. If you want to sneak up and run over your ex, electric is the way to go.

But that V-8 roar and the knowledge I'm personally burning ancient forests and dinosaurs is what puts the grin on my face.

trumpitality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Electric cars have 2 advantages. One, they're
> fast. No waiting for turbo or blower to spool up,
> the power is instantly available.
> Two, they're silent. If you want to sneak up and
> run over your ex, electric is the way to go.
>
> But that V-8 roar and the knowledge I'm personally
> burning ancient forests and dinosaurs is what puts
> the grin on my face.


Fast is dangerous.

Do you know how many people are killed every year because of fast?

We need to ban fast.

Fast kills more kids per year than childhood cancer!

Think of the children!

whenever europe(ans) down a USA flagship (ie, car production) with mere talk

you should be suspicious

it behooves them to favor (toyota) or euro brands and down USA brands, if they are invested that way: and they likely are

culpability:

let's see a swede statement of toyota electric car models measured by the same standard

and compare that to made in USA Tesla

meanwhile, it's really old news that electric cars get government subsidy (so of course democrats in California would open a plant to make one !!!) and do not save fuel. it was ALWAYS said that it was hoped by mass-production that they would *become* energy savers in time

cars only use %15 of the heat/energy in fuel during combustion - most of that goes to heat the cat and out the hot tailpipe. steam engines on the other hand are far more efficient - more like %90 of energy used for motion

beyond that cars are pretty efficient (the engine, gears, wheel are actually innovative and up to date)

hydrogen cars loose more energy making fuel than saving

electric cars used to depend on heavy cobalt rich batteries making them hugely non-economical: however thin film lithium technology is "HERE" (kinda - better check your model)

============================

Swedes are right to NOT give USA cars subsidies.

It's DEMOCRATS IN USA THAT GIVE TOYOTA SUBSIDIES for selling cars that compete with Ford, Chrystler, Tesla, et al