Connect with us

News

Tesla and other EVs’ potential to reduce emissions is widely underestimated: study

(Credit: Tesla)

Published

on

There are a lot of misconceptions about electric vehicles, but arguably the most prominent is the argument that EVs pollute more than their internal combustion engine-powered counterparts. Despite being debunked over and over again by people like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and organizations like Bloomberg NEF, the “long tailpipe” myth has remained incredibly persistent.

A recent study from electric mobility expert Auke Hoekstra has concluded that electric vehicles actually have the potential to be far cleaner than expected, especially since battery manufacturing and the power grid will likely not remain static. As the adoption of more efficiencies in battery manufacturing are rolled out and as more and more energy is gathered through renewable sources, the greenhouse gas emissions of electric cars like the Tesla Model 3 will see a dramatic reduction.

The findings of Hoekstra et al. stand in stark contrast to the conclusions of a study published by scientists Christoph Buchal, Hans-Dieter Karl and Hans-Werner Sinn earlier this year, who claimed that a Tesla Model 3 pollutes more than a Mercedes-Benz C 220 d due to the greenhouse gas emissions involved in the production of the electric car’s batteries. This conclusion, according to Hoekstra, has several critical mistakes.

For one, researchers such as Buchal et al. tend to overestimate the emissions produced in the battery manufacturing process. Hoekstra noted that around 65 kg of greenhouse gas emissions is emitted for every kWh of battery produced, which includes extracting and refining raw materials and actually producing the battery cells themselves. Buchal’s study estimated that the Model 3 emits 145–195 kg/kWh for its battery production, which does not take into account new chemistries that are adopted for battery production, or improvements in the cell manufacturing process.

The lifetime of batteries is also grossly underestimated in studies that allege EVs pollute more (or marginally less) than gas cars. In Buchal et al.’s case, for example, the scientists estimated that the Model 3’s batteries would only last 150,000 km (around 93,000 miles) before they are scrapped. This is a miscalculation, considering that current-generation batteries are estimated to last at least 1,500 to 3,000 cycles before they lose 20% of their capacity. For a vehicle like a Tesla Model 3 with Dual Motor AWD, which has a range of 310 miles, this would give the car around 747,000 km (about 464,000 miles) on the low end (1500 cycles) before their batteries would need replacing. And even after this, the batteries are recycled, not discarded, as noted by Elon Musk.

Advertisement

Perhaps the most notable miscalculation from EV critics is that many fail to account for the fact that electricity itself is getting greener with the adoption of renewable energy solutions. Battery-electric vehicles in some areas of the globe might be driving on power generated from coal today, but that will not always be the case. If an EV is driven on renewable energy sources, Hoekstra estimates that the battery-powered vehicles’ emissions would drop by a factor of 10. And that’s computing it using current-generation renewable technology.

The struggle for the future’s preferred form of propulsion will continue to be waged between batteries/electric motors and fossil fuels/internal combustion engine. Yet, it is essential to note that the internal combustion engine is already a mature technology that has likely reached its peak. Battery-powered cars, on the other hand, are only getting started. Heralded by the Model 3, the advent of disruptive vehicles like the new Tesla Roadster, the Rivian R1T pickup, or even the Porsche Taycan could ultimately seal the deal on electricity being the preferred source of propulsion in the years to come.

An Abstract of Hoekstra et al.’s study could be accessed here.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla kicks Robotaxi geofence expansion into high gear in Austin

Tesla has nearly doubled its Robotaxi geofence in Austin for the second time less than two months after it initially launched.

Published

on

Credit: @AdanGuajardo/X

Tesla has kicked the expansion of its Robotaxi geofence in Austin, Texas, into high gear, as it grew the service area once again early Sunday morning.

Tesla launched its Robotaxi platform in Austin on June 22, and less than a month later, it was able to expand it. After its first expansion, Tesla had a larger geofence than Waymo, which launched its driverless ride-hailing service to the public in Austin in March. Waymo expanded the week after Tesla’s first augmentation.

Waymo responds to Tesla’s Robotaxi expansion in Austin with bold statement

Now, Tesla has answered Waymo once again by developing its service area in Austin to an even larger size. We expected it, as just two weeks ago, CEO Elon Musk said that the company would be growing the Austin geofence, but did not give an indication by how much.

The first geofence in Austin was roughly 20 square miles. On July 14, when the first expansion took place, Tesla Robotaxi riders had roughly 42 square miles of downtown Austin available for travel.

On the morning of August 3, Tesla nearly doubled the geofence by growing it to roughly 80 square miles, according to Grok. For reference, Waymo’s current service area in Austin is about 90 square miles:

The expansion further extends the Southern portion of the geofence, going into suburban zones such as Barton Creek.

The continuous growth shows Tesla is prepared to extend its geofence in basically any direction. Now that it is going into suburban areas, we may get to see more Austin residents experience Robotaxi for an entire evening of activities, including pickup and dropoff at home.

The only question that remains is how much Tesla can expand at one time. The company seems to have the ability to push the geofence to a majority of Austin, but it maintains that safety is its biggest priority.

The company was spotted testing vehicles in the West Austin suburbs in areas like Marble Falls recently, indicating that Tesla could be expanding its service area to hundreds of square miles in the coming months.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla to appeal jury verdict that held it partially liable for fatal crash

Tesla will appeal the decision from the eight-person jury.

Published

on

tesla showroom
(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla will appeal a recent jury verdict that held it partially liable for a fatal crash that occurred in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019.

An eight-person jury ruled that Tesla’s driver assistance technology was at least partially to blame for a crash when a vehicle driven by George McGee went off the road and hit a couple, killing a 22-year-old and injuring the other.

The jury found that Tesla’s tech was found to enable McGee to take his eyes off the road, despite the company warning drivers and vehicle operators that its systems are not a replacement for a human driver.

The company states on its website and Owner’s Manual that Autopilot and Full Self-Driving are not fully autonomous, and that drivers must be ready to take over in case of an emergency. Its website says:

“Autopilot is a driver assistance system that is intended to be used only with a fully attentive driver. It does not turn a Tesla into a fully autonomous vehicle.

Before enabling Autopilot, you must agree to ‘keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times’ and to always ‘maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.’ Once engaged, Autopilot will also deliver an escalating series of visual and audio warnings, reminding you to place your hands on the wheel if insufficient torque is applied or your vehicle otherwise detects you may not be attentive enough to the road ahead. If you repeatedly ignore these warnings, you will be locked out from using Autopilot during that trip.

You can override any of Autopilot’s features at any time by steering or applying the accelerator at any time.”
Despite this, and the fact that McGee admitted to “fishing for his phone” after it fell, Tesla was ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damages.

Tesla attorney Joel Smith said in court (via Washington Post):

“He said he was fishing for his phone. It’s a fact. That happens in any car. That isolates the cause. The cause is he dropped his cell phone.”
In total, Tesla is responsible for $324 million in payouts: $200 million in punitive damages, $35 million to the deceased’s mother, $24 million to their father, and $70 million to their boyfriend, who was also struck but was injured and not killed.

The family of the deceased, Naibel Benavides Leon, also sued the driver and reached a settlement out of court. The family opened the federal suit against Tesla in 2024, alleging that Tesla was to blame because it operated its technology on a road “it was not designed for,” the report states.

Despite the disclosures and warnings Tesla lists in numerous places to its drivers and users of both Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, as well as all of its active safety features, the operator remains responsible for paying attention.

CEO Elon Musk confirmed it would appeal the jury’s decision:

The driver being distracted is a big part of this case that seemed to be forgotten as the jury came to its decision. Tesla’s disclosures and warnings, as well as McGee’s admission of being distracted, seem to be enough to take any responsibility off the company.

The appeal process will potentially shed more light on this, especially as this will be a main point of emphasis for Tesla’s defense team.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk echoes worries over Tesla control against activist shareholders

Elon Musk has spoken on several occasions of the “activist shareholders” who threaten his role at Tesla.

Published

on

Credit: xAI | X

Elon Musk continues to raise concerns over his control of Tesla as its CEO and one of its founders, as activist shareholders seem to be a viable threat to the company in his eyes.

Musk has voiced concerns over voting control of Tesla and the possibility of him being ousted by shareholders who do not necessarily have the company’s future in mind. Instead, they could be looking to oust Musk because of his political beliefs or because of his vast wealth.

We saw an example of that as shareholders voted on two separate occasions to award Musk a 2018 compensation package that was earned as Tesla met various growth goals through the CEO’s leadership.

Despite shareholders voting to award Musk with the compensation package on two separate occasions, once in 2018 and again in 2024, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick denied the CEO the money both times. At one time, she called it an “unfathomable sum.”

Musk’s current stake in Tesla stands at 12.8 percent, but he has an option to purchase 304 million shares, which, if exercised, after taxes, he says, would bump his voting control up about 4 percent.

However, this is not enough of a stake in the company, as he believes a roughly 25 percent ownership stake would be enough “to be influential, but not so much that I can’t be overturned,” he said in January 2024.

Musk’s concerns were echoed in another X post from Thursday, where he confirmed he has no current personal loans against Tesla stock, and he reiterated his concerns of being ousted from the company by those he has referred to in the past as “activist shareholders.”

Elon Musk explains why he wants 25% voting share at Tesla: “I just want to be an effective steward of very powerful technology”

The CEO said during the company’s earnings call in late July:

“That is a major concern for me, as I’ve mentioned in the past. I hope that is addressed at the upcoming shareholders’ meeting. But, yeah, it is a big deal. I want to find that I’ve got so little control that I can easily be ousted by activist shareholders after having built this army of humanoid robots. I think my control over Tesla, Inc. should be enough to ensure that it goes in a good direction, but not so much control that I can’t be thrown out if I go crazy.”

The X post from Thursday said:

There is a concern that Musk could eventually put his money where his mouth is, and if politicians and judges are able to limit his ownership stake as they’ve been able to do with his pay package, he could eventually leave the company.

The company’s shareholders voted overwhelmingly to approve Musk’s pay package. A vast majority of those who voted to get Musk paid still want him to be running Tesla’s day-to-day operations. Without his guidance, the company could face a major restructuring and would have a vastly new look and thesis.

Continue Reading

Trending