Skip to comments.Tesla Motors' Dirty Little Secret Is a Major Problem
Posted on 01/20/2014 6:22:29 PM PST by logi_cal869
Energy independence, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, lower fuel costs: All of these promises are factors behind the rise in electric vehicles' popularity. Unfortunately, they're more fiction than fact. Here's why, and how it could affect companies like Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA ) .
Do you want cancer with that battery?
Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy undertook a study to look at the environmental impact of lithium-ion batteries for EVs. The study showed that batteries that use cathodes with nickel and cobalt, as well as solvent-based electrode processing, have the highest potential for environmental impacts, including resource depletion, global warming, ecological toxicity, and human health. The largest contributing processes include those associated with the production, processing, and use of cobalt and nickel metal compounds, which may cause adverse respiratory, pulmonary, and neurological effects in those exposed.
In other words, li-ion batteries that contain nickel and cobalt have a significant effect on health and the environment. More specifically, this includes Panasonic's automotive grade li-ion batteries, which contain lithium, nickel, cobalt , and aluminum, and a proprietary cathode geometry developed jointly by Panasonic and Tesla -- and are currently used in the Model S.
Exchanging one energy dependency for another
The above sounds bad, right? It gets worse. One of the big pushes behind "green" vehicles is the goal of reducing the country's energy dependence. Consequently, when considering battery-powered vehicles that rely on lithium, it's important to ask where the lithium comes from.
The answer? Not America. That's not to say America doesn't have lithium, it does, but most of the lithium that America uses is imported from other countries. Precisely, according to the 2013 U.S. Geological Survey, from 2008-2011 America's import sources were: Argentina, 52%; Chile, 44%; and China, 3%. This necessarily leads to the next question, "Why does America prefer to rely on imported lithium?"
Simply put, lithium, in its pure form, doesn't occur naturally on Earth. So in order to obtain it, it must be mined through hard rock or salar brines. More importantly, salar brines -- the most economical and popular way of obtaining lithium -- destroy the environment. Friends of the Earth, Europe states:
The extraction of lithium has significant environmental and social impacts, especially due to water pollution and depletion. In addition, toxic chemicals are needed to process lithium. The release of such chemicals through leaching, spills or air emissions can harm communities, ecosystems and food production. Moreover, lithium extraction inevitably harms the soil and also causes air contamination.
And, the European Commission on Science for Environmental Policy states that "[lithium's] continued use needs to be monitored, especially as lithium mining's toxicity and location in places of natural beauty can cause significant environmental, health, and social impacts."
A bleak outlook
Clearly, the above isn't great news for those who are concerned about the environment beyond their backyards. And it's not the only bad news for EVs. The EPA found that when looking at life-cycle impact assessments, categories such as global warming potential, acidification potential (transformation of air pollutants into acids), eutrophication potential (water pollution often leading to excessive water weed/algae growth), ozone depletion potential, photochemical oxidation potential (air pollution), human toxicity potential, occupation cancer hazard, and occupational non-cancer hazard, the only time an EV battery scored better than a plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle's battery is in the category that measures potential for global warming.
Unfortunately, the EPA added this statement about global warming potential: "GWP benefit only appears when the electricity grid relies less on coal production and more on natural gas and renewables. ... Accordingly, in regions where the grid is more heavily coal-centric, the study results suggest that PHEV-40 vehicles may be preferable if global warming impacts are highly valued."
Obviously, that's bad news for EVs, which brings us back to Tesla. Tesla's made a name for itself as the future of "green" cars, and as of the time of this writing, its stock price is trading as if that's true. However, according to Climate Central, in 46 states Tesla's Model S is the least climate-friendly EV, and it's worse than all but two hybrids when it comes to CO2 emissions over 100,000 miles of driving. When you couple that with the above information from the EPA, it's clear that Tesla isn't nearly as "green" as it wants you to believe.
What to watch
EVs sound promising on the surface, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty, they're not nearly as environmentally friendly as they seem, nor do they help America become energy independent. Further, thanks to its battery, the Model S is even less environmentally friendly than most other EVs. As such, it doesn't meet the requirements for "green car of the future," which means Tesla's high stock price may be unsustainable in the long term.
Yes, the Model S is a nice car -- it should be for what you pay for it -- but the future of green technology? Not without a major overhaul of its battery. Further, if you're looking for an environmentally friendly car, greenercars.org, part of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, lists Toyota Motor's (NYSE: TM ) Prius C as the Greenest Vehicle of 2013. It's closely followed by Honda Motor's (NYSE: HMC ) Fit, and Volkswagen's (NASDAQOTH: VLKAY ) Jetta Hybrid. Consequently, if you're looking for your next truly green auto stock, you may want to steer clear of Tesla Motors. Or, if you're just looking for an environmentally friendly ride, I'd take a closer look at the above three vehicles.
The article was linked via Yahoo, surprisingly, as they are typically a shill for Tesla spin. (imho) Furthermore, The Motley Fool asserts that they own Tesla stock. It's not very objective, but touches on all the subjects avoided by mindless bots & deserves to dwell among the pool of propaganda. (again, imho)
(Note: My parents made the foray into EV/Hybrids with a Nissan Hybrid 5-6 years ago. The performance was subjective and the gas powerplant had issues the dealer wouldn't address (valvetrain noise during the 5th year). My father was ready to drop on a new Nissan, but he felt slighted by the dealer and went with a climate-changing Honda instead that, ironically, is getting better mileage than the Nissan Hybrid without the intense heat of the batteries in the backseat (impossibly uncomfortable for passengers unless it's COLD outside). He was drawn to the Tesla, but once he read up on all the counter-claims, i.e., non-Tesla-produced information, some courtesy of yours-truly, he opted not, despite a shiny new network of Federally-paid-for Supercharger stations up & down I5.)
Personally don’t believe the Earth is so fragile that I make it ill by driving an old Ford pick em up truck.
I seriously doubt we will ever support the environmentalist culture with our dollars buying a hybrid, or EV. Neither seem to be all that great a deal to our perspective.
From two years ago:
According to the report, five rare earth metalsdysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium and yttriumwere found to be in critically low supply in the short term (20122015.) These rare earth metals are typically found in magnets used in todays wind turbines, electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Supply of other elements, including cerium, indium, lanthanum and telluriumwere found to be near-critical in the short and medium term (20152025.)
Batteries are batteries, there are fundamental limits as to how efficient we can make them, and even at that limit, they won’t work to make a truly useful vehicle.
We’re never going to see a battery that stores 1/10th of the energy of combustible fuels per weight, or that charges in 1/10th the time that it takes to fill up a fuel tank.
If we’re going to see electric that are as capable as internal combustion, we’re going to need something very different than batteries. (Hydrogen fuel cells? Super capacitors? Something else? I have no idea. But it won’t be chemical batteries.)
Tesla can’t exactly be blamed for this (though their customers might want to dial their sanctimony back a notch) — but we should not forget that these cars are ultimately powered, in large part, by coal.
Exactly. That’s why I asserted it was a whole separate story altogether.
You may have seen this. If not, here-go:
Coal is 37% and dropping fast nationally.
Nat gas and the Baraqqi regime are making sure of that.
And coal not much of a factor at all where most Tesla’s are sold.
Having said that, I’ve felt Tesla stock was a slam dunk short but am afraid to do it because of Musk’s relationship to the regime. It’s dangerous to be against crony capitalism.
Only piston engines over 300 HP here.
I’ll buy a Telsa when they make a Suburban like SUV that will tow 7000 pounds. Until then, Telsa is an overprice golf cart.
Your graphic raises the question: “ What is the true gasoline mileage of a car that runs on electricity generated by an electrical power station that uses crude oil to generate electricity?
Green used to be a color.
Now it is just a word that means stupid, impractical, politically correct, feckless.
But is it out of the lab yet? I’ve not been following it for a while; I’ll have to look it up. I’ve been saying for years that Lithium tech was short-lived, almost frothing at the mouth over all the taxpayer $$ that went to all these alternative energy (A123, among others) manufacturers that have come & gone. GM was the last straw.
Preacher’s graphic has it right. This is what we get when emotion trumps science.
Liberals/Progs: We all know they’re F.I.N.E. to the point of putrescence. But I’m at odds what the coming years are to bring...
The Honda Fit is a GASOLINE vehicle! Even the greentards at greenercars.org admit that the BEST EV/Hybrid isn't much greener than a gas powered car.
Lithium is a rare and scarce metal found only in significant quantities in two remote, unspoiled and fragile parts of the Earth: the Andes and Tibet. The Salar de Uyuni is quite justifiably recognised as a Natural Wonder of the World. To extract enough Lithium to meet even 10% of global automotive demand would cause irreversible and widespread damage to these environments, that have taken millennia to form. On the other hand, the alternative and superior battery technologies of ZnAir and Zebra (NaNiFeCl) depend on common metals and materials that are already the mainstay of industrial civilisation and found ubiquitously.
The concept of the Green Car is incompatible with the fact that if LiIon batteries are used to propel it, it will be produced at the expense of two of the most fragile and beautiful ecosystems that are left on this planet. The degradation of the salars and effects on their wildlife will be hard to defend and justify, when it was completely avoidable by using metals that are already well established in our industrial infrastructure.
It would be irresponsible to despoil these regions for a material which can only ever be produced in sufficient quantities to serve a niche market of luxury vehicles for the top end of the market. We live in an age of Environmental Responsibility where the folly of the last two hundred years of despoilment of the Earths resources are clear to see. We cannot have Green Cars that have been produced at the expense of some of the worlds last unspoiled and irreplaceable wilderness.
dependency on liquid fuel is the real problem.
EVs running on coal, very good.
I’ll have mine hooked up to a bald eagle, spotted owl, Califonria Condor chopping windmill!
Yeah, we are robbing Peter to pay Paul if not more by relying on rare earth elements for these cars and other stuff. Well, we could always go back to the old lead-acid batteries that have been in use for over 100 years. I can see why they want to recycle electroics.
Heard on the radio today that six Tesla charging stations have been installed at Orangeburg, SC which is near I-26 and I-95. Story said this is the halfway point between NYC and FL on I-95. Also said use of the charging station was free. Uh-huh.
1936 3 window Chevrolet coupe with a 385 HP on the dyno small block.
325 HP small block in my 65 pickup.
The cars sound dangerous but “what difference at this point does it make?” to quote Hillary.
So Gaia does not drive a Tesla, and I’m supposed to think that is a negative?
It really does give pause to the whole scenario, doesn’t it? I’ve shared this document with many since I found it 4 years ago.
The response from those F.I.N.E. with the status-quo: Typically hysterical attacks. Others, with silence.
Nobody has yet to debunk the report. Makes one wonder why Japan is moving to Hydrogen, why A123 really went banko and if the rest of this isn’t just a continuation of crony capitalism for the benefit of a select few. All the hundreds of millions in tax dollars wasted collectively on EV/battery tech when we could have been 20-30 years closer to something better. Shameful, really...
What was the latest accidental discovery? It’s late here...can’t recall more than they discovered a coating fired with a DVD laser caused it to have electrical storage capacity.
Show this article to all your leftard friends... heh
My point was to determine what the true energy cost is per mile for electrical versus crude oil derived fueled cars.
The common “green” assumption is that electrical cars “saves” fossil fuels, (coal, nat. gas, crude oil), when the reality is that 40 % of our electricity is generated from the burning of the fossil fuel coal, and its derivative coke.
Thus, the true cost per mile of electric powered cars needs to include the cost of the coal, loss of heat while the coal is burned, and cost to clean up the coal smoke and ash.
A better measure of cost per mile might be the to convert the energy consumed to a standard, such as the old BTU, and then use that to compare the expenditure of BTUs per mile for the various types of power consumed by vehicles.
Depleteable fuel sources, (such as Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, Crude Oil), are being depleted to provide electric power to “green” energy electric cars, but the cost, and loss of these valuable resources is not realistically included.
Shouldn't a Tesla car be powered by wireless electricity? And what's the environmental/safety impact of that?
If you are going to do that, you need to add in energy used in exploration, drilling, production, transportation of crude oil, refining, transportation of gasoline, etc.
There should only be one measurement that matters to the end consumer, Miles per dollar.
Imagine that, a coal powered electric car that is environmentally messy...
Electric cars will probably be the most costly per mile driven.