camelot-forum.co.uk

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos- ... 021-06-29/

"But keep going - you'll have to drive another 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before you're doing less harm to the environment than a gas-guzzling saloon"

Anyone wish to comment?

firstly they are talking about a Tesla model 3
Secondly they do not state in the piece which model for context, ..bear in mind the difference in Battery tech, capacity, driving style, Motors dual singular etc.

IE a bad start if you wish your factual piece to be taken seriously.

There's more, & they failed to dip their toes into the water bar a few choice sentances.

Further down it does at least say (if joe bloggs reads beyond the headline paragraph) that the data was for a US model 3 car driven in the US compared to a US Model 3 car in Norway in relation to cleaner charging resulting in a carbon neutral mileage balance in the region of 8400 miles

SO this is another data set which hopefully someone will explore & elaborate on, however it does clash with the University of Liege researcher Damien Ernst said in 2019 that the typical EV would have to travel nearly 700,000 km before it emitted less CO2 than a comparable gasoline vehicle. He later revised his figures down.

Hopefully the "3" example can be tweaked to reflect properly other models & get better accuracy by degree.

Later on it says the Tesla has a 54kWh battery, which makes it the Standard Range Plus (the entry level machine).
Interestingly, the Made in China version of that car/battery size now features a LiFePO2 battery chemistry, completely different to the NCA chemistry used in the Fremont cars...

To be honest, I reckon a 15k miles break-even point isn't that unreasonable for lifetime CO2 generation - but of course doesn't include local particulates pollution, or NOx emissions.

Although worth noting that they also show that in countries with lower carbon-intensity grid generation (like Norway) that that breakeven point falls by half.

What it doesn't seem to say if it includes is whether the CO2 emissions for the ICE car includes the embedded CO2 creation in order to extract, refine and deliver the petrol to the car in the first place, or is it ONLY the tailpipe emissions from burning what's left?

Exactly, as usual so much is left hanging on a cliff edge of uncertainty.

And the dual motor is relevant as its another 225kg+ of motor "tipping the scales" of embedded materials energy & the like, without these it's a bit of joke & prone to being deemed flawed rather than covered all bases.

Not entry level dan, slightly more eco conscious variant that's all

I just wish the footwell lights worked.

Mr Gus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:27 pm Exactly, as usual so much is left hanging on a cliff edge of uncertainty.

And the dual motor is relevant as its another 225kg+ of motor "tipping the scales" of embedded materials energy & the like, without these it's a bit of joke & prone to being deemed flawed rather than covered all bases.

Quite a lot of that extra weight in the Long Range Dual Motor is from the additional 19kWh of batteries. Don't think the motor/gearbox assembly is 200kg

The store front Tesla boys quoted me 225kg+ but didn't make any split weight references just "overall" weight comparison* so it needs some work but you get the point, & that's a lot of additional weight in a car that carries just the one person (typically just the wife) in our opinion that can be gone without for us.

*at the time, possibly still, Tesla didn't have this info (& more) available to their staff in their shopping arcade based shop front.

For a short while, Tesla made the Long Range Rear Wheel Drive, this weighed 1725kg. So from that you can establish the front motor/gearbox/transmission assembly weighs about 100kg, and the additional batteries are another 100kg ish.