The Truth About Cats and Dogs - The Green Credentials of EV

 Let’s take Tesla X as a case study. The carbon emissions for the manufacture of Tesla X’s battery have an estimated range of six to fifteen tons for a 100KWh model, with a midpoint of 10.5 tons of carbon emission. And the battery could last for about 200,000 miles.

So, let’s drive this Tesla for 200,000 miles. This would require charging the car 760 times. Based on the energy mix in the US, that would result in 30.4 tons of carbon emissions.

The total carbon emissions, excluding the body and all other paraphilia of the Tesla X to drive for 200,000 miles, would be 41 tons. The weight of a Tesla X and similar size petrol car, excluding the battery, is more or less the same and hence an assumption that both would be similar in carbon burden to manufacture is reasonable.

Considering a modern petrol car of similar size, the UK average carbon emission per mile is about 200 grams. Therefore, driving 200,000 miles would emit about 40 tons.

EV cars are undoubtedly attractive, with their modern features and efficiency. However, it's important to delve deeper into their environmental impact. Understanding the full story of their emissions and green credentials will leave you feeling enlightened and knowledgeable. 

Sure, one can buy EVs for running cost savings and all that, but I don’t think it makes sense to save the planet on a carbon emission basis.  What EV does is that you pre-spend the carbon emissions with the making of the battery, and the polluting effect is not in the cities or where you drive but in the sites where batteries are manufactured and the mines where essential elements like lithium and nickel are extracted.

This is not an advocation to buy or not buy an EV. It's a call for responsible decision-making. By presenting data gleaned from the net, the aim is to empower the buyer to make an informed decision, armed with knowledge and a sense of responsibility towards the environment.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Flood - Then & Now

Image
  The story of the Flood is threaded through various mythical and religious texts, be it the Noah’s Ark in Abrahamic religious accounts, the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Greek myth of Deucalion and Pyrrha or the Hindu Manu Flood or the Mayan myth of Mesoamerican Flood; they all depict an underlying common theme: Excess of Sin, exceeding the limits of moderation, leads to a Divine Judgement. Cleansing of all that is wicked and corrupt humanity. Survival of a select few living beings within the creation of an Ark that protects those who abide in it/by it. Repopulation of the Earth on a new foundation, a new form allowing those who boarded the Ark to go forth and multiply. Etymology of the word Sin can be traced to adoption by several languages: in old English, syn broadly referred to moral wrongdoing; Proto-Germanic, sundjo , meaning fault, crime or failing; Greek, hamartia , missing the mark, an archery term; and; Latin,  peccatum , fault or error; a...
Read more

The Median Reality: Somewhere Between the Absolute Yes or No Lies the Truth(s)

‘The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely momentum is known in this instant and vice versa.’  - Heisenberg. ‘If a system was complete- if you could use it to prove every true statement, then it could never be free of contradictions.’ – von Neumann. ‘Fair is foul, foul is fair’ – Macbeth. ‘The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.’ – Milton.  ‘People generally see what they look for and hear what they listen for.’ – Harper Lee. ‘It is better to live your destiny imperfectly than to live an imitation of someone else’s life.’ – Bhagavad Gita. The excerpts of these great thoughts, what is it that runs through all of them? I think uncertainty, an element of doubt, creates room for differences in perspective. Not only does nature tell us this, but numeracy guides us through the same idea; politics of power dictate it, our inner voice shouts at us to consider it, our biases colour it, and finally, accepting the impe...
Read more

Global Warming is Our Problem, Not of the Earth.

‘Chemistry and Physics don’t negotiate, but they do balance their own books. […] Nature doesn’t care about our human wishes. Physics and chemistry do not give second chances.’ -           Margaret Atwood   And somehow, I think about how different human wishes, human nature, hopes, and desires are compared to  the laws of nature. If ice can absorb heat from its surroundings, it melts into its own water. The state changes, but the chemistry remains the same.  We can not wish for it to become something else or hope that heating ice would not lead to its melting. We can not say, okay, this time, I forgive you; do not do it again. The issue with global warming is not that it is a problem for the earth; it will find a way to balance itself out.  The average temperature of the planet is currently around 15.5 degrees Celsius. For most of Earth’s history, it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present. Technically, in th...
Read more