"Toyota Corolla has less emissions than a Tesla"

Discussion in 'General' started by 101101, Mar 6, 2018.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member


    Machiavellian's need jail- misleading the public on matters of public interest in this way that appears to be intentional bought and paid for misrepresentation (understood this may be construed as speech quelling and is a slippery slope) should lead to some sort of prosecution. Somewhere such people are either compromised with a hook in their arse at risk of exposure or on the take or both. Instead of the prosecution we need we have this bribery culture where bribery is supposed to be a mitigating factor not a damning one.

    If this person thinks the emissions are less with a Corolla maybe he would be happy trying to breath off the respective tail pipes. Breathing the Corolla exhaust even sans the heat pollution would be instant death. He should have been asked if he would care to directly inhale the Corolla exhaust or if he would prefer it to the Tesla's exhaust- clue on this is the non existent exhaust pipe. Or which he thought in practice was more of a problem the Corolla where as Musk has commented you sit their and smoke tail pipe in traffic or the what comes out of a Tesla- even in the use case where it comes out of a smoke stake more than 100 ft high from a still dirty grid. Maybe he would care to comment on the CO2 content in grams of CO2 of a Tesla that uses the intended battery plus roof top solar at home for all or the vast majority of its charging or where the Tesla owner buys from the grid through a contractual arrangement (as you can in CA) only power that's been sent over super conducting lines from 100% wind or renewable mix (dirty biomass excluded- claims or carbon neutrality still take up arable land and are temporarily dirty and imply radically more wasteful machinery and heat waste and other pollutants etc- even with alcohol.) Or where the Tesla is produced in factories like the giga factory where plant is fully powered by (or very soon to be) %100 re-newables.

    Sorry the continued existence of the petrol fuel industry is criminal, its is not a matter of pointing at green hypocrisy its a matter of getting rid of an enemy (for a long time now) of humanity as fast as humanely possible. First we get rid of it especially using the power of tax (carbon tax,) education and proper green subsides while eliminating petrol subsidies (it dies right there) and then we ban it (as is increasingly happening city by city) but we then produce a total ban (Norway and others having slated time limits,) and then we criminalize its use applying civil penalties and then we seek actual reparational costs (totally foreseeable) as NY and CA are doing and then we prosecute where there is resistance and finally we go for Nuremberg style prosecution and hold those accountable for genocidal petrol bailouts wars accountable where profit is a hugely aggravating factor- we do this while they are alive so we accelerate this and we go after their fortunes tracking it all down cutting through trusts etc just as with Nazi gold. Oh this is cutting the right's money- should have happened a long time ago. Then we produce proper history that groups the petrol pushers with the 3rd Reich- its a terrorist industry putting the survival of humanity at risk. If Iraq's oil has been stored in the ground in Texas- we ship it back charging the companies and families that benefited. Also need to make these companies that installed the pipelines like Keystone pay to dismantle them- injuct them where they resist. We also correct the record on what petrol has done to the US- it has for instance driven nuclear proliferation and hollowed out the public sector and the people's prosperity and standard of living while radically increasing the security risks to the American people. Do this all over the next 10 years.

    One more thing- we need carbon trackers on our products including our financial products that read like an ingredient label and are easier to use than the new automated calorie counters, that rank products on sites like Amazon by this factor along with the traditional price and review sorting orders. Every product on Amazon needs a carbon content. Every financial product needs to show full exposure to petrol and carbon content. With regard to pension funds of every form it needs to be financial malpractice to invest in petrol fuel energy stocks or investments as the assets are both politically and economically stranded and the industry is already concretely bankrupt. Tariffs meant to shield the petrol industry should be met with corresponding tariffs on petrol imports- especially with regard to US petrol exports as the US must be held to the Paris accord and should be financially divesting petrol- it should be shielding financial institutions from petrol derivative obligations- liquidating these derivative contractual debt obligations them vice considering ultra stupid bail-ins to bail-out dead and useless petrol yet again. This stuff is just obvious common sense. Also, there should be no shielding on petrol derivatives opacity, they need to be made fully transparent and auditable- vice the current laws that make this illegal- they are worse than junk bonds and that needs to be obvious to everyone including the public.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    I don't think anyone can dispute the claim that it is is possible for a Corolla to be responsible for emitting less carbon dioxide per mile than a Tesla. It is true if the electricity comes from coal. Coal power stations are notoriously inefficient, and for every ton of coal whose thermal energy is converted to electricity, a further two tons are burned without producing any electricity at all! All three tons contribute to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, however.

    Australia seems to have a fixation with coal, and the electricity in New South Wales is almost all coal produced, so the statement is true.

    Where it all goes wrong, however, is to conclude from this that ALL electric cars are more environmentally damaging than all ICE vehicles.

    Fortunately, this sort of huffing and puffing seems to be having little effect on Australians who are installing solar power panels like crazy, and as a result the demand from their utilities is falling alarmingly.

    And long may it continue.
  4. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    As is not uncommon, it depends. If you drive 100 miles a week yeah your break even point for the Tesla to take over for the Corolla is pretty unachievable. But this has always been the dilemma of the EV. People who buy an EV to drive 5 miles a day stymie me. Has to be just for the image because you are never coming close to break even on the initial environmental cost.
  5. What if you just enjoy the driving or ownership experience more? Why does it have to be about image?
    101101 likes this.
  6. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Good point. But the statement is also wrong on the science too, way wrong. Because it stupidly presumes we are stuck with a petrol grid when we are not, and can even skip the grid with solar battery. Its a typical programmed talking point lie response.
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Except it is not possible at all of for the Corolla to have a lower carbon foot print than even a Tesla X is that X is charged the way it was meant to be charged or best charged in the case of charging at home with a powerwall and roof top solar or integrate solar roof. Then the corolla is what it is now obolete sht.
  9. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    It's certainly true that a favorite strategy of EV bashers is to do an apples-to-oranges comparison between a small and relatively efficient (or rather, less inefficient) gasmobile, versus a large, powerful EV, to support the EV-hater claim that EVs "aren't really green". This is generally coupled with picking one of the few States where the majority of electricity comes from coal, despite the fact that the States with the "greenest" grid power tend to be the ones where EV sales are by far more common than they are in States with the "dirtiest" grid power.

    So, that EV-hater claim is two, two, two lies in one!

    As with most EV bashing claims, that one has been around for years and has been thoroughly debunked.

    The infographic below is targeted at false "greenwashing" claims for fool cell cars, but the data given includes proper comparisons, non-biased comparisons, of greenhouse gas emissions from gasmobiles and BEVs.


    Note "NREL" = National Renewable Energy Laboratory
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
    101101 likes this.
  10. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    I see no difficulty in understanding that a BEV is only cleaner than an ICE car if the electricity it uses is not produced by burning coal. Its hardly an attack on BEVs as electricity IS increasingly coming from renewable sources in most countries. Coal is well on its way to being abandoned completely and will be followed in due course by natural gas. The result will be that BEVs - neglecting any consideration of the carbon cost of its manufacture - will perfectly 'green'.

    Australia, sadly, has been slow to make this change and still mainly produces the bulk of its power from coal. No doubt it will follow the rest of the world in the fullness of time.

    Clearly, if you buy a green car and hardly use it, you are unlikely to reap the benefit of its use of cleaner fuel, and consideration of what car to buy (if you are keen to be 'green') needs to primarily about the carbon cost of its manufacture.

    I feel, however, Dominick that if you only drive a car a mile or two every day it is hardly likely to be because you are enjoying the experience.
  11. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Big Oil propaganda sources (including, unfortunately, the California Fuel Cell Partnership) like to compare energy use of big, powerful EVs such as the Tesla Model X, with much less powerful gasmobiles such as the Toyota Corolla. That's a very biased comparison, and intentionally so.

    Here's a comparison which actually attempts to compare cars on a level playing field:

    To see the above graphic in context, visit "Time To Come Clean About Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles"
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    I wouldn't buy that anyone who drives that little buys for driving or ownership experience. And what is 'ownership experience' if you're not really even using it? It's just to say 'yeah I have a Tesla or Benz' or what have you. Which itself is for the image.
  14. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    People buy cars for all sorts of reasons. If you don't use it, then it's an environmental disaster whatever it is fuelled with.
  15. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    Sure, but some are more of a disaster than others.
  16. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    Well, it's degree of disaster is defined by the carbon footprint of the vehicle. I have no idea of what this is for BEVs, FCVs or ICEs. I'd guess the heaviest would be the worst - all things being equal - but haven't really looked into it, so it remains just a guess.
  17. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    People do buy cars for all manner of reasons no doubt. I have neighbors that keep their Maserati and Benz GL550 outside in the rain with an empty garage and others who baby Prius Prime. Knowing the 2 of them I would say the Maser guy just likes boasting he has a Maserati even if it's filthy. Doesn't matter, he does still HAVE it and that's what is important to him.
  18. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    Well, let them enjoy their ownership. It does no harm, surely. My personal opinion of people who imagine ownership of a posh car confers status on them is not flattering, so I will keep it to myself.
  19. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Oops! I didn't realize I was posting the same infographic twice, especially in posts so close together. Sorry for the duplicate! :oops:
  20. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Sorry an S even one fueled on coal is cleaner than a Corola- have to look at the whole picture.
  21. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    Not if it never gets driven. The original sin of the S is way higher than the Corolla. Need to have a look at the whole picture.
  22. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Okay, let's look at the whole picture.

    The single-motor Model S 85 is rated at 283 kW.

    According to NREL figures listed on the infographic I posted above, a 100 kW BEV in California would have only 14% of the emissions of a 100 kW gasmobile. Even if the 283 kW of the (single motor) Model S85 indicated a straight ratio of emissions, that would still come to only (14 x 2.83 =) 36.62% of the emissions of that 100 kW gasmobile.

    According to Wikipedia:

    Two versions of engines are available: the 81 kW (110 bhp), 1.6 L 3ZZ-FE engine and the 100 kW (134 bhp), 1.8 L 1ZZ-FE engine, both with VVT-i technology.

    So we can indeed use the Corolla for that theoretical 100 kW gasmobile.

    So in California -- and also Oregon and Washington State: No, the Tesla Model S most certainly is not as polluting as the Toyota Corolla, or even close to that polluting! And of course, a large percentage of all Tesla cars are sold in California.

    Here is a pie chart from two years ago:

    (Source: InsideEVs news)

    Bottom line: When emission figures are weighted according to which State the Model S is sold in, then the average Model S operating in the USA is considerably less polluting than the average Toyota Corolla, even when driven the same number of miles per year.
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
    101101 likes this.
  23. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    What on earth are you even going on about? I can't understand how you can take a post and just run so wildly the other direction with it. Model S sales by state? What? Where is that even coming from?

    I really think that for the most part you don't actually read anyone's posts and just spout off into the ether whether it's pertinent to the post you quote or not.

Share This Page