Can you believe this?

Can you believe this?

What in tarnation?


Apparently our Model 3s give off more CO2 than a diesel Mercedes

Who writes this stuff?

Better yet, who believes this garbage?

rehutton777 | 2019年10月9日

Consider the source - - Truck180, sponsored by Ford/Dodge/Jeep/Chevy. They cite the researchers (German) that claim that "battery production and charging" results in emission of "lots of CO2". What about crude oil production, processing, filling and burning in the case of diesel truck propulsion, not to mention CO2 generated during truck production? They base their comparison on EV charging in an area of Germany that has 35% of its energy derived from coal burning, not to mention other fossil fuel energy sources. This is a joke - - trash "science" being pushed by the major "big truck" manufacturers and sellers.

pjwheeler83 | 2019年10月9日

That's exactly my point, how can this be published as anything but extreme satire?

It's been proven time and time again that while BEVs aren't 100% zero emission they are magnitudes better than even their most fuel efficient counterparts.

This type of public misinformation should be illegal.

rehutton777 | 2019年10月9日

For reference, below is a link to an analysis (German) of the IFO study cited in the TRUCK180 article. It is very informative. Note that the German "study" compares two German cars (both Mercedes) to a Tesla Model 3. Note that more than half of the estimated CO2 emissions from the Tesla are associated with "battery production and recycling". No comparable figures are factored in for either of the Mercedes models production or recycling. The attached article quotes other authoritative sources as suggesting the "battery production/recycling" emission estimates are way too high. I hope the link works - - I need to figure out how to "attach" source information.

kevin_rf | 2019年10月10日

Also worth noting, the study was largely debunked for many of the reasons cited above. Anyone have a link to a good point by point debunk of the study?

Don't forget, they also only expected the batteries to last less than the warranty and be replaced every 80,000 miles, hence doubling the already dubious battery CO2 emission number.

Surprised it came back up, wasn't the IFO study last spring?

calvin940 | 2019年10月10日

Not necessarily point for point...

Electric car ‘hatchet job’ debunked

andy.connor.e | 2019年10月10日

Pretty good article. A whopping 6 non-scientific sentences, and zero sources/references. Highly believable and accuracy is beyond my comprehension.

Scrannel | 2019年10月10日
rehutton777 | 2019年10月10日

Calvin940: Nice find! Thanks.

rehutton777 | 2019年10月10日

Interesting that the IFO study published early this past Spring was roundly criticized and de-bunked by DE in April and by Transport and Environment in early May. The Truck180 re-hash of the discredited study was published 5 months later (October). Seems they are a "little" behind in getting an accurate picture of the real science.

Passion2Fly | 2019年10月10日

The website name "TRUCK 180" says it all...
You know what? Why don't we add the CO2 emissions to extract and produce gasoline fuel?? Why don't we add this to the emissions of an ICE car??

Also, diesel engines produce 20-30% lower CO2 emissions than gasoline cars due to better efficiencies.

The big problem with diesel are the "particles" emissions... the famous "black" smoke... that's a health hazard and the reason why "clean" diesel is being/was introduced...

apodbdrs | 2019年10月10日

Here is a way to debunk these ICE idiots:t

Make them a wager, they lock themselves in the garage with the motor running and you lock yourself in the garage with the Tesla on, after three hours who is left standing?

rxlawdude | 2019年10月10日

@apod, but the ICEholes will tell you that with new ICE technologies, the air coming out of the tailpipe is cleaner than the air taken in by the engine.

Agree your proposal is a valid way to test that. ;-)