So... Let's get back to burning coal and gas by the gigatons so we can have a sauna planet by 2050? I say the sooner we move off fossil fuels for all purposes, the better. I don't look forward to pumping gasoline into cars for the next few decades.

The Singapore LTA calculation makes no sense because for EVs, it assumes the grid is the polluting unit whereas for ICE cars, the car itself is the polluting unit. They're assuming the grid is the energy source for EVs but ICE cars magically get hydrocarbon fuel produced without emissions.

If they can factor in upstream emissions for EVs, they should also factor in crude oil extraction, transport and refining emissions, including the huge amounts of electricity used during refining. In Singapore, that electricity most likely comes from natural gas power plants.

 

Singapore is historically 96%+ oil/gas/coal in terms of electricity production. Grid EF doesn't factor in where the oil, gas, or coal came from or how much energy was used to extract/mine it, refine it, transport it, etc., so not sure why you keep suggesting it makes "no sense". The point of consumer comparison is to focus on marginal/incremental difference and assume infrastructure exists either way. You can feel free to cheerlead for structural change, but that's a different debate.

 

I say the LTA calculation makes no sense because it's an apples to oranges comparison - EVs get slapped with CO2 emissions from the grid whereas ICE cars are evaluated based on individual engine emissions. If they really wanted to be fair, they should look strictly at tailpipe emissions for all vehicles. Or they should go upstream where the energy source is first made available for downstream usage - at power plants for EVs, at refineries for ICE cars - and calculate emissions at that point onwards.

How can a Model S with no tail pipe spew more CO2 than an S500? If you think it can, then I don't think I can change your mindset. Keep burnin' that dino juice then.

 

Comparing electricity generating station emissions for EVs with tailpipe emissions of ICE vehicles is NOT an apples to oranges comparison; it is fair.

Both the generating station and the ICE vehicle burn a refined fossil fuel to generate power. That power is then transmitted some distance in order to drive the vehicle. The generating station is the engine powering the EV, just as the ICE is the engine powering the normal car.

If the engine for the EV burns especially dirty fuel (e.g. oil or coal) or burns fuel in an inefficient generating station, then it is entirely possible that it will spew more CO2 (on an equivalent basis) than a modern, highly-efficient ICE-powered car.

 

I concede that could true when you look at it from a well to wheel POV if you had a very inefficient power plant burning very dirty coal. That wouldn't be the case for modern gas-fired plants though.

The gasoline/diesel car may have less tailpipe emissions but the externalities of gasoline/diesel production aren't accounted for, whereas they are for EVs. That's my beef with the whole thing. Maybe they should call it last-tailpipe analysis

Anyway, Tesla left the Singapore market in 2011 because of a spat over R&D subsidies on EVs. Apparently Musk had a chat with PM Lee over the LTA CO2 figure.

 

Again, that's not right. As I posted before, Singapore is 96%+ oil/gas/coal in terms of electricity production. But the grid EF calculation doesn't factor in where all that oil, gas, or coal came from or how much energy was used to extract/mine it, refine it, transport it, etc.

 

Which is why I think using grid EF to calculate EV emissions is flawed, especially when the same upstream calculation doesn't apply to ICE cars. Either do well to wheel or on-vehicle emissions. It doesn't make sense for an EV to emit more emissions *in total* than ICE cars.

 

Don't at all understand your comment. Grid EF also ignores any upstream factors (and any downstream factors too, for that matter) - that's been the point of my last three posts.

 

Grid EF only looks at point of generation for CO2 figures. Car emissions tests look at tailpipe emissions for ICE cars but the Singapore LTA applies a different standard for EVs by looking upstream. I don't know of any other country that came up with Model S emissions figures like how the LTA did it.

As the owner of that Tesla said, why aren't people in Singapore being fined for charging their iPhones using dirty electricity? And why does an i8 *with* a tailpipe have lower emissions than a Model S?

 

I agree, and this supports my statement. But it contradicts your last post.

I don't think you have any basis for that claim - if you do, please provide it. As we've discussed, Singapore uses no nuclear power and virtually no hydro/wind/solar (again, 96% oil/gas/coal). Given that, the LTA's stated gCO2/Wh figure (of .5) is in line with most other developed nations after factoring in those nations' usage of nuclear power and hydro/wind/solar. You brought up developed Europe, which has a grid EF around .3, and that's right in line when considering the 40-45% nuclear and hydro/wind/solar input. It's pretty serious to allege that Singapore is using a different standard for calculating grid EF.

Why did I pay a $3700 gas guzzler tax on a car I drive 500 miles a year, but a Suburban or Yukon with worse gas mileage that people on average drive 11,000 miles a year is exempt? Simple answer is because there's a law about it. As I said before, if you want to cheerlead for structural change, go for it. However, you should not allow your desire for structural change affect how you perceive reality.

 

What is 'grid EF'?
What is 'Singapore LTA'?
Please explain abbreviations all.

 

Grid Emissions Factor is a calculation of the emissions produced by electricity generation plants, typically given in tCO2 / MWh (tons CO2 per megawatt hour, but it's the same as gCO2/Wh, just multiplied by 1MM top and bottom). IIRC originally it focused on just CO2 emissions but has expanded to SO2, NOx, etc. Typically, what's referenced is grid EF in a certain country or region so that we know how much pollution is caused by end user electricity usage in a certain country or region. The relevance to this thread is that grid EF allows us to estimate how much emissions an electric vehicle effectively generates.

It should be noted (as I have had to repeat multiple times in this thread, for reasons I cannot understand) that grid EF does not factor in upstream or downstream factors in its calculation. Grid EF does not care what the resources used for electricity are or where they came from, how much energy was used / emissions were created in mining/collecting, refining, transporting those resources, etc. etc.; and grid EF also does not care about how much energy might be wasted in transmission, conversion, etc. after it is generated.

As I pointed out earlier, what's ironic is that grid EF was originally standardized by the UN to calculate carbon emissions credits (i.e., for environmental money-grubbing purposes), because the carbon credit industry needed to know how much incremental/marginal emissions that alternative power sources were actually saving versus the existing grid. What's particularly ironic is that the industry most notorious for overstating grid EF is actually the green and alternative energy industry, since the higher the assumed grid EF, the more carbon credits they receive (as mentioned earlier, a bunch of companies in China got in big trouble for this recently).

As per the original news story, the Singapore Land Transport Authority (LTA) assesses taxes on imported vehicles based on their emissions. For EVs, they calculate that based on the car's power usage and Sinagpore's grid EF. Because Singapore has no nuclear power and minimal alternative power and mostly relies on oil/gas/coal for electricity generation, their grid EF is particularly high (~.5) and therefore the Singapore LTA considers the Tesla to have similar gCO2/km as an S500, so the import tax is very high.

/cliff's notes

 

@gengar thanks for the explanation. Now if everyone would realize that current rechargeable EV's for passenger vehicles are not the environment friendly panacea they think.

 

And... how did that go for him?

 

Go ask PM Lee?

Apparently the LTA are going through their figures again but the owner of the car paid the fine anyway so he could drive the car after months of waiting. He also had to put in writing that he would only charge the car at home.

Across the small pond in much more dysfunctional Malaysia, the government there is waiving all import and road taxes on 100 Model S cars to be brought in by an official R&D agency. Those cars will be leased to government-linked companies to test EV usage and shape future policy. Tesla gave their approval to the deal, saying they'd prefer not selling to individual customers until the proper regulatory framework and charging infrastructure was available.

Singapore is an autocratic state that makes much of its "open for business" credentials. Malaysia is an autocratic and openly kleptocratic state that also touts its business-friendly policies. Only one of them thinks a Model S spews more CO2 than a big Benz...