Good luck explaining to the average Tesla driver that his cars did pollute a lot.

I tried to explain once that the "zero emission" label on the Nissan Leaf is misleading because building a car makes emissions.

I do think electric car are a good solution where developing public transports would have a higher (environmental) cost, but building cars pollutes.

"I tried to explain once that the "zero emission" label on the Nissan Leaf is misleading because building a car makes emissions."

I don't know why anyone would ever think the "zero emissions" label applies to the manufacture of the car. *obviously" it only means the car doesn't emit anything when moving, that's what it's about.

That's your opinion but anyway a Leaf will still emit when it's moving. Indirectly with the production of the energy, which can be very low in countries such as France or Norway, and directly with brakes dust even though the electric regen reduces that a lot, and particles from the tires.

Tire particles are emissions? When I walk are my shoe particles emissions? My skin shedding?

Yes, those are particulate emissions. Your skin biodegrades quite readily so it's not much of an issue. Leather-soled shoes could be a tradeoff that I'm unprepared to compute... but yes even your shoes pollute, if to a lesser degree than a motor vehicle.

When it snows, do you notice that slush turns black? Much of that is shredded tires; that ends up polluting our waterways or (hopefully) burdening water purification plants.

What does this have to do with comparing a Leaf to non-BEVs? Is there some reason why the tires would be significantly more or less polluting?

It has everything to do with the "zero emissions" claim, and nothing to do with a comparison.

If nothing has zero emissions, then the phrase "zero emissions" would have no use whatsoever, so applying a context where nothing has zero emissions is internally inconsistent. It can't be a null phrase and not a null phrase at the same time.

If something has zero emissions, but it's not a BEV, then maybe you should say what and why the correct definition excludes BEVs.

> If nothing has zero emissions, then the phrase "zero emissions" would have no use whatsoever

Yes, that's the ideal: don't claim that you've achieved the impossible. I don't want to see folks marketing "perpetual motion" machines for the same reason.

For a detailed comparison:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhau...

Seems fair to call these vehicles "zero exhaust." Electric rail vehicles have extremely low emissions -- if the rails and wheels are carbon steel without added heavy metals, then the direct emissions are relatively benign. Maglev vehicles are even better -- but even so, there's friction with air, moving parts such as doors and lynch pins. Still not zero.

Perhaps you should explain further the distinction you are making between emissions and exhaust, and why it is correct, and why everyone else should adhere to it.

But I stand by my previous comment - you can't treat a phrase or term as meaningless just because you refuse to acknowledge the context.

The EPA[1] defines particulates produced by tires and brakes as emissions, and lists exhaust as one kind of emission. Exhaust[2] is a term used to describe the gas byproduct of a combustion engine. The "context" is a category error mistaking a part for the whole.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

I'm not an expert in environmental regulations, but designations like ULEV and ZEV seem to come from California and not the Feds.

So in my opinion, this is where the context is being misapplied - you want the CARB terminology to match the EPA. Neither one was handed down on stone tablets though.

The "zero emission" label is on the back on the car, maybe they should use something else for their marketing.

If you don't like "zero emissions vehicles", what do you think of:

- partial zero emissions vehicles

- transitional zero emissions vehicles (plug-in hybrids)

- advanced technology partial zero emissions vehicles

All of these have tailpipes!

To the extent that "zero emissions" does mean "no tailpipe" it's pretty straightforward and reasonable.

Electricity. In some places, electricity is still largely produced in thermal power plants, which do pollute a lot. In France and Norway, I guess most of their electricity is from nuclear and water?

Tesla is hoping for their cars to last a million miles. The electric motors should already be able to do that. If they can continue with not changing the complete car every 5 years, like most other car manufacturers do (to make older versions look dated and drive sales of new cars), you might be able to figure out everything that breaks before a million miles and fix them. This would be a real improvement on the amount of pollution/mile that comes from manufacture of a car.

Gas powered cars in recent decades generally don't die because the engine died. It's structural rust, the interior falls apart, the electronics are obsolete and probably broken, gadgets fail, the safety features are outdated and may no longer work, people refuse to spend more than the car is worth on repairs...statistically, cars get scrapped around 15 years old at something over 200Kmi.

Teslas even if they are designed with the best intentions will have these problems. And there's always the possibility they won't last near as long, because they're basically expensive iPhones and sold to people are simply not the sort who drive Corollas.

The Model S and Model X are aluminum so the rust isn't a big problem. Parts availability perhaps more. We will see how the cheaper Tesla in steel like the Model 3 will do over time but if they hold well, they may be a good cheap car in 10 years or more. In Norway, where the number of Tesla per habita is very high, the average car age is about 10 years.

Also, it's likely that the batteries will get a second life as home energy storage when no one would want to keep the car running anymore.

One (speculative) way to look at it, is that with ICE cars, there is this conceptual division, for the manufacturers or the customers, between the propulsion, and all the electronic gadgets. It is understood that the engine is what's essential but many of the electronic gadgets and features will probably die over the years and the car will remain driveable.

I bet that with a Tesla, because it's electric and there's no dividing line in everyone's minds between systems, that it will fail according to the usual pattern with electronics, and the motor and batteries won't be isolated from that.

Building any car involves emissions. Deciding whether your prejudices about electric cars are accurate requires taking a specific point of comparison and actually running the numbers.

And assuming that BEVs are not the most environmental vehicles on the market doesn't mean that a gas guzzler truck is better.

My gut reaction (or prejudice, but I like mine better than yours) is that currently hybrids, plug-in or not, have the lowest total CO2 emissions. But we should all remember how often people claimed that cars like the Prius were worse for the environment and surely in this era of them being taxicabs, you have to retreat on that.

The simplest rule of thumb is, in my opinion, whether something is cheaper, unsubsidized. There may be externalities, but if you are unbiased, you cannot use special pleading to say thing A has externalities as if thing B doesn't (unless or until you have specific justification).

I'm also really sick of hearing that the Leaf or whatever is coal powered. I live in one of the largest states in the US, and virtually none of the electricity comes from coal. And everywhere, coal power is in a major decline due to market forces.

Just be honest.

You are right and I totally agree with you. I do have an electric car and I would never buy anything not electric anymore as long as I can afford it. I just want to point out that buying a new car is not saving the planet, and you are not neutral when you drive an electric car. It's much better than anything else so far though. Better than hydrogen too.

About the hybrids, I personally think the same than Carlos Tavares, president of PSA, who said to the French government that hybrids are only a temporary solution because two motors systems is one too many for cost reasons, when batteries will become cheaper.

I keep saying that this idea of PHEVs being transitional is wrong and it should be easy to understand why.

A BEV that meets essentially all of your needs in terms of range has to have a battery ten times the size (give or take) of a PHEV that runs on electricity for 80-90% of your travel.

No matter how good batteries get, ten times will always be ten times - the expense, the environmental impact, the weight, the charging time.

Think about ICE cars - at least in the US, people want tons of power that they rarely use - you can get a car with 300 hp, but most of the time you're not using 30 hp.

It is never going to be optimal to have a battery enough for all your travel any more than an ICE for the maximum performance you might want.

The rational transportation device of the future has a small battery, a small ICE, and a big electric motor.

But the point I am going to keep making until I hear a good counterargument is that this is independent of foreseeable technology advances in batteries. It doesn't matter how you get your kWh or what it costs, it's not good for anyone or anything to utilize ten times the amount.