You would be surprised. It takes several years for the low emissions of an EV to compensate the increased emissions during fabrication compared to ICEs (and disposal: ICEs are mostly steel and plastic, with fewer fancy chemicals as batteries). Teslas, being large and heavy, also use way more energy than they should to move around 100 kgs of human. Energy that is not free of GHG emissions.
EVs are mostly good over the long term, but they are not an instant win button.
Yes, the batteries are very energy intensive to produce. Which is a very strong incentive to build lithium ion battery factories where cheap electricity is available, which most likely means hydro, or other renewables (because hydro, wind, solar tend to be far from population centers). I've seen some really unfair analyses of the CO₂ produced by EV production that assume all energy inputs are from renewable sources at the US average (just 21% of electricity in 2021), which is not true.
So battery production is a good way to transport energy from where it's cheap to produce to where it's needed, much better than bitcoin.
Yes, in isolation. But it the electricity production is burning gas, the inefficiency is moved to the power plant rather than avoided (this still makes EVs better, just not as good as they could be in a completely carbon-free grid).
The main effect of mass is when comparing 2 different EVs: one that is twice as heavy has ~twice the initial production emissions, as well as twice the energy consumption (and emissions, as the case may be). Even with EVs, large and heavy cars are very wasteful.
Generally for EVs it matters where the electricity comes from. (From memory), coal fired electricity has a EV break even at 110k miles, hydro power break even is down at 20k. (I'm on a phone, but can try to dig out the article that looked at this exact question - it also mentioned that a lot of places where we get rare minerals for the batteries are run by warlords which use child labor.. so it is not all roses)
Tesla's sales of approximately 4.5 million vehicles have each offset about 20 tons of CO2 over their lifetimes compared to a traditional gas vehicle [1]. This equates to preventing a total of 90 million tons of CO2 from entering our atmosphere. As we continue to transition to renewable energy, the environmental benefits of each Tesla vehicle are set to increase further.
In contrast, a SpaceX launch generates around 300 tons of CO2 [2], totaling about 72,600 tons of CO2 for the 242 launches to date. We mustn't forget the wide-ranging benefits these launches provide, from improved weather forecasting and GPS services to crewed missions to the International Space Station.
If we subtract the CO2 emissions from SpaceX launches from the CO2 savings attributed to Tesla, we see a net savings of about 89,927,400 tons of CO2.
90,000,000 / 72,600 = 1,240x
The emissions from his remaining companies are comparably negligible. Furthermore, this calculation doesn't account for Tesla's influence on the automotive industry, propelling other manufacturers to accelerate their production of EVs. As Tesla's sales continue to rise and EVs become more accessible through Tesla's charging network, these benefits will be multiplied. Also, this doesn't factor in the positive environmental impact of Tesla's energy division, which likely offsets the emissions from all of his other companies on its own.
[1] is interesting as an approximation. The source of electricity is really important for EV. If more teslas are in a place with clean energy, it could be even better.
Though, everyone that bought a tesla, they would have bought a gas vehicle instead? I think that is potentially a very invalid assumption which negates that savings calculation. Yes, EVs can be cleaner than conventional cars, but it still adds an impact. Less bad does not necessarily mean all good.
The mentions of teslas charging network sounds very PR heavy. What if that network flops in 5 years and meanwhile the non-common standard means a global charging infrastructure is never properly developed?
Musk's hyperloop was supposed to be built in a few towns that lost money on the deals and pulled funds from other transit projects. Those transit projects never happened.
I don't think anyone can at all decide whether musk, tesla and his companies are yet a net good without the benefit of more time and 20/20 hindsight.
> Tesla's sales of approximately 4.5 million vehicles have each offset about 20 tons of CO2 over their lifetimes compared to a traditional gas vehicle [1].
Aren't you presuming that Tesla is the only seller of electric vehicles, and those who bought Tesla would thus never even consider buying any other electric vehicle?
I mean, currently Tesla represents around 15% of the overall EV sales, and BYD auto alone representing 21%. This means that as of right now around of 85% of all ev buyers are not buying Tesla.
Tesla's role in shaping the EV landscape is undeniable. Their advent redefined the trajectory of electric mobility when major automakers were largely dismissive of the concept. With the success of their Model S, and more the Model 3, Tesla shattered the misconception that EVs lacked practicality, thereby nudging traditional manufacturers to expedite their own electric ventures.
The opening of Tesla's Supercharger network has been instrumental in making EVs from all manufacturers viable for a broader demographic in the U.S. Moreover, for a considerable period, Tesla struggled to meet the high demand for their vehicles, with many potential owners enduring long wait times to receive their cars. Given the limited and less attractive EV alternatives at that time, it's unlikely that these consumers would have opted for another EV.
In the U.S., where Tesla has a market share close to 60%, Chinese automakers like BYD, SAIC, or Geely have not yet established a significant presence. Thus, most American consumers would not have likely considered these other EVs.
Additionally, Tesla's pricing strategy has exerted downward pressure on the overall EV market, making these vehicles more accessible to the masses. Other manufacturers are indeed emulating Tesla's approach, further acknowledging Tesla's influence on the industry's transition to electric vehicles.
As to the emissions offset calculation, the figures referenced consider each Tesla vehicle as a replacement for a conventional gasoline car. Whether a Tesla purchaser might have considered another EV is irrelevant to the emissions reductions associated with each Tesla vehicle. Also the amount of emissions needed to offset SpaceX emissions is comical and obviously Tesla covers those even with a small fraction of the vehicles they sell.
> Tesla's role in shaping the EV landscape is undeniable.
You're jumping to conclusions. Just because Tesla exists that does not mean that all hypothetical transitions from fossil fuel to electric should be attributed to Tesla.
I repeat: Tesla is responsible for only 15% of EV sales, and nothing leads to believe that the remaining 85% of the EV market does not serve as a substitute good. Claiming that Tesla is an environment protection messiah is peak corporate worship.
For the same reason the carbon footprint of every Elon rocket launch is being attributed to SpaceX even though some other entity "paid out of their ass" for many of them.
Because it takes two to tango. In both cases "all the credit" or "all the debit" goes to the manufacturer for making the product AND the customer for paying for it.
The harm they cause to public transportation (such as politically stalling rail systems with Hyperloop) outweighs the good they do with their cars, especially now that car companies that don't directly hurt more efficient forms of transport are making electric cars.
And self driving taxis, if they ever do make it which is still waaaaay out even by Elon time, are not going to balance it out.
Indeed, Elon Musk made an effort to halt the California high-speed rail project, but failed, leading to the project pushing forward. The repercussions have been billions of taxpayer dollars funneled into a project that remains considerably far from completion. The budget has skyrocketed from a modest $9 billion to an eye-watering $128 billion. Adding insult to injury, the first phase isn't expected to kick off until 2030. Given the speed at which FSD is advancing, it's quite likely that it will be fully developed before this rail service even gets off the ground. Interestingly, the original 2008 target completion date for the rail project was 2020, but not a single mile of track had been laid by that time. As such, blaming Musk's efforts for the state of California's issues seems misplaced. One can't help but wonder if things might have been better off if his attempt to cancel the project had been successful.
> Indeed, Elon Musk made an effort to halt the California high-speed rail project (...) As such, blaming Musk's efforts for the state of California's issues seems misplaced.
Ok. So you agree Musk tried to sabotage California high-speed rail, but as he failed then... We should ignore it?
Not sure if you read the rest of my comment, but I'm saying it wasn't a negative thing that he tried to get the project canceled and it seems like he was right about how it was going to go. So maybe not ignore it, but praise that he tried to get it canceled?
> Not sure if you read the rest of my comment, but I'm saying it wasn't a negative thing that he tried to get the project canceled and it seems like he was right about how it was going to go.
That's specious reasoning at best. It's absurd how you try to depict a Robber Baron move as a simplistic fiscally responsible stance. It's even sillier once you realize the only reason Elon Musk did his best to sabotage the program was because he believed it would be a success and thus a threat to his bottom line.
I really do not understand this corporate worship nonsense, specially when dealing with this specific corporation.
> That's specious reasoning [...] the only reason Elon Musk did his best to sabotage the program was because he believed it would be a success and thus a threat to his bottom line.
The only specious reasoning I'm seeing here is the weird assumption that one high speed rail line in California would meaningfully suppress Tesla car sales. It's competing with air travel, not car ownership.
It's ridiculous enough to suggest that it would suppress the sale of cars generally. It's especially ridiculous to suggest that it would suppress sales of Tesla vehicles. It's a 760 mile round trip between SF and LA — not an issue for an EV if you're doing it occasionally. But someone buying a new car for the specific purpose of driving this route simply wouldn't consider an EV.
