Delusional Owner of White Tesla - Number Plate "CO2 Free"

I saw a white Tesla sedan getting around with number plates that boldly stated "CO2 FREE". Can anyone who can afford a Tesla really be that ignorant?

Where does he THINK the electricity comes from to charge up his machine??? (I bet a million dollars it was a coal-fired power station).

Have people actually fallen for the hype and think that their Tesla recharges in Australia are miraculously supplied from 100% renewable energy? Does Tesla charge enormous battery banks from solar panels and then supercharge your Tesla vehicle's batteries from them? I think not.

Is he even grandiose enough to think that the manufacture of his expensive machine and its masses of batteries involved an insignificant amount of CO2 emissions? I'm sure no CO2 was released in the process of earning the vast amount of money to pay for the expensive machine?

Besides all that, one recent study found that, all things being added together, "in reality, the Tesla has emissions between 156 and 181 grams of CO2 per kilometre - significantly more than a comparable diesel Mercedes."

I should point out that I don't especially care about climate science. Nor do I hate Tesla Cars. I just find his bold public statement about "emissions" particularly odorous.

Related Stores

Tesla
Tesla

Comments

  • +410 votes

    Don't take life too seriously. It helps not to.

    • says the hybrid

    • +7 votes

      Indeed, 20 License Plates Tesla Owners Used To Troll Us there is one in the link as CO2FREE plate, seems common amongst them lot. 🤷‍♂️

    • I wouldn't take life too seriously if my net worth is a few billion richer.

      Nothing is wrong with 1 trillion fiat richer, right ?

      • No idea what your point is. Rich people exist, some of them are getting richer. Some of it is driven by our consumer lifestyles, literally this website. C’est la vie.

        • -14 votes

          Yeah my bad, I wasnt good at covey my point, was I? May I adds ultra rich*.

          • Where they use tax payer $ for their private gain.

          How ? Tesla was getting USA's government grand to prop up their balance sheet/assets > that in turn push up their share value > Elon cash out his share at higher profit ( a legal-round-about-way to tunnel tax $ > private wealth )

          Am I hate rich people ? No not to the slightest bit, I prefers the capitalism's way when it comes to economy ( as long as I dont do something unethically, cant say the same for others ). I do, however, have issue with so called DEMO-CRACY government do a favoritism-socialism-communism way when it comes to economy, ei bail-out private company, give grand to ultra rich cooperation, at the same time force small business closed their door under the umbrella of invisible virus.

          • @frewer: You have a problem with corporate socialism, despite those bail-outs saving thousands of jobs?

            That's the risk with running a small business. Maybe look up the definition of "small business" and understand the inherent risks associated with running one. Hint: there's often less income security, job security and most fail within 18 months.

            invisible virus

            Wrong again!
            If you think because we can't see it unassisted, it doesn't exist, you're the epitome of idiotic arrogance.
            Just look where that's got the USA.

            • @Speckled Jim: So you dont want ppl take responsibility for their greediness that brings about down fall to others ? No worries. Save the giant corporation and left small business to dies, small businesses dont create job ?!?!? No worries.
              Calling people name is very intelligent thing to do ? No worries.

              Just look where that's got the USA.

              I did and here is my latest found out about this M.D testimony. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w&feature=youtu.be..., drug name is Ivermectin.

              • @frewer: Reading includes something known as parsing, which is an essential and fundamental first step to comprehension.
                Please look them up.

                Now that you have a grasp of the basics, if you review the line you interpreted as a personal insult:

                If you think because we can't see it unassisted, it doesn't exist, you're the epitome of idiotic arrogance.

                You will notice it's conditional. This is denoted by the "If".

                This is unconditional: if you believe SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid19 doesn't exist because you haven't been given front-row, 8K UHD viewing privileges, you're an idiot.

                I won't be viewing an outlying quack on YT thanks. I know what Ivermectin is, and I know multiple studies across the world have discounted its efficacy in vivo. On April 10, 2020, FDA issued a statement concerning self-administration of ivermectin against COVID-19.

                From this Nature article to summarise:

                As noted, the activity of ivermectin in cell culture has not reproduced in mouse infection models against many of the viruses and has not been clinically proven either, in spite of ivermectin being available globally. This is likely related to the pharmacokinetics and therapeutic safety window for ivermectin.

                The blood levels of ivermectin at safe therapeutic doses are in the 20–80 ng/ml range, while the activity against SARS-CoV2 in cell culture (in vitro) is in the microgram range.
                ^ my insertion and emphasis

                The inference is, if you dose at a level effective enough to kill the virus, you will also kill the host.

            • @Speckled Jim: Small business > Job.

              Employee life = Employee mindset.

    • -2 votes

      really needs to be taught to all the Gen Z'ers

  • in reality, the Tesla has emissions between 156 and 181 grams of CO2 per kilometre - significantly more than a comparable diesel Mercedes.

    Also statements like this are obviously written with an outcome in mind, and short of providing details on the Tesla, 'comparable' Mercedes nor the link I wouldn't think that is anything more than just a poorly worded argument.

    It would hugely depend on how the Tesla is charged, how it is driven, where the electricity comes from (roof top solar top up?) etc etc

    • Even in that unlikely scenario, the reduction of particulate emissions I'm cities from electric over diesel is massive. They are the main reason that Europe has turned off diesels in passenger cars in such a big way.

    • It's probably from the heavily criticised study by the german IFO Institute.
      Here we go again: German research institute claims diesels are cleaner than EVs. This article has a link to the actual paper which is written in german.

      It would hugely depend on how the Tesla is charged, how it is driven, where the electricity comes from (roof top solar top up?) etc etc

      Indeed. If I see a comparison that assumes only 100% coal generated power or only 100% renewable, it's a red flag for bias.
      The good studies do the calculations both extremes and for a range of energy mixes in between.

    • There is CO2 produced during the manufacturing process.

      • There is CO2 produced even when you breathe? Whats your point?

        • If you buy a used car, you are not directly contributing to new manufacturing of cars, and thus indirectly avoiding new CO2 generation from manufacturing.

          • @pinchies:

            If you buy a used car, you are not directly contributing to new manufacturing of cars

            Yes.

            and thus indirectly avoiding new CO2 generation from manufacturing.

            No. If you buy a used car, you are not directly contributing to manufacturing of cars — you are indirectly contributing to their manufacture by enabling the seller to more easily purchase a new car. It's better than buying new, sure, but is not actively doing any real kind of "good" in the sense that you seem to be implying.

        • Stop breathing, save the planet.

      • Maybe next time he can get the extra-wide option and put CO2FREEPOSTMANUFACTURINGPOSSIBLYWITHTHEAIDOFOFFSETS and special snowflakes can feel less triggered.

    • True. Using a tesla powerball and lotsa panels on the roof to then cover electricity usage and car charges is the vision.

      Quick Google sessions shows tesla 3 can Dr I've 100km with approx 12kwh.
      Over 30,000 that's 3600kwh and according to powers shop in nsw this means 2.95tonnes of co2. That's 9.83kg of co2 per 100kms? Does that sound correct?

      I wonder if the emissions figures for combustible engines actually include the emissions of co2 that are connected to refineries.

    • One tesla owner I know, has a 12K solar system on his roof. Should be enough to recharge his tesla.

  • Mate, kindly move out of the way … you're blocking the man's virtue signal.

  • Dude. Don't FUD Tesla.

  • If he lives in Canberra, it is CO2 free - we produce more energy renewably than we consume

    • Yes, that bullshit coming from a certain group of people creates an enormous amount of methane, so that must be the renewable source :-).

    • Being Canberra, don't you mean "we produce more hot air then we consume"???

      • Being Canberra they also produce a lot of porn too apparently….surely that’s got a big carbon footprint (lights, cameras…and ahem…action)

        • Surely they're not producing that in the middle of a pandemic? That would be highly irresponsible - there are a hell of a lot of super-spreaders in that business ;P

    • Seriously? All our power comes from a couple of solar farms?
      They are doing a great job overnight too.
      Maybe /s ?

    • Pump water up a dam using coal power at night to release it during the day when energy costs more is not 'renewable'.

      Edit: Those dams are in NSW.

      • Should have spent the money on lithium battery arrays? The transmission loss using dams as big batteries kinda sucks. Should have sent the offgrid power into battery arrays to be released during the day.

        • What?

          Transmission losses on a 330kV line should be below 2%. From memory, the whole system (Hydro Scheme and Transmission) had ~5% loss. It's the whole point of using large plant.

          Battery losses alone are often more than 5% reported. This is ignoring parasitic losses like aircon, line drop and internal resistance. Aircon alone for small installs is often 2/3 or 3/4 of the load. Then you have depth of discharge issues like redundancy, derating and replacement programs. Yes, with size comes efficiencies, but losses would still be close to double the existing storage system.

          Batteries are usually more cost effective if you feed them with solar to replace a genset and are significantly better at dealing with transients, but they suck at bulk storage compared to existing hydro.

          Installing a new MW sized hydro system or battery system would cause insane ecological issues. We need to use what we have, with limited additional battery storage to respond to transients and properly distributed, redundant wind to support base load.

          (I have not looked into the snowy hydro 2.0 scheme or what ever it is call now in any depth).

          • @This Guy: I would have preferred to see an expanded snowy scheme than attempt to use it as a battery. I think there are better ways to achieve what they want to achieve with Snowy2.

            • @MorriJ: What part of the snowy 2.0 scheme do you want to expand? Why?

              It is a pipe between two reservoirs with a few turbines in the middle. As far as I can see in a 1 minute look, it's underground, to existing reservoirs, making the environmental damage minimal.

              What would you use hydro for instead in a drought stricken country in a location where most of the water is snow melt? (not being snarky, I want to know what I am missing)

              • @This Guy: The Snowy scheme is not a problem; neither is hydro, Snowy 2.0 is not a hydro system (source of the electricity is coal) and only uses water as a battery storage concept at 40% transmission loss. It's barking mad,.

                https://npansw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Snowy-2.0-c...

                The Scheme itself makes no sense to me. It's not using hydro to generate electricity, it's running at circa 40% transmission loss and it as a project, just doesn't stack up.

                It's not a closed loop system, at best it is only a consumer of electricity and only makes electricity seasonally available and at a 2MW max peak flow. None of it makes any sense.

                Why spend $5 on this crap let along $5b. The returns on paper aren't there either. The sale of the electricity has to be at double the buy price before considering extra transmission losses. The damage to the national park is a problem. So is the balancing of the water recesses.

                • @MorriJ: That is a very poorly referenced report.

                  Round trip efficiency has nothing to do with transmission. It's head loss. The diameter of the pipe is too small. It would have identical round trip efficiency at both power levels if it was transmission loss. It's on page 20 the referenced executive summary.

                  Grid connected batteries have similar losses due to pf, power electronics losses, parasitic loads like air con and actual 'transmission losses' (called voltage drop in low voltage systems). But you can't just gain 7% efficiency with batteries by operating at half load. Efficiency would decrease because you can't turn off the air con unless you want to significantly shorten your batteries life.

                  Why spend $5 on this crap let along $5b.

                  Because you measure batteries in Wh. Snowy 2.0 has 8GWh of storage. With a 50% discharge limit needed for LiFePO4 batteries, You would be looking at 16GWh of batteries with an additional 3.2 GWh needed every decade. So ~$16 billion up front and an additional $3.2B each decade…

                  Transmission losses

                  This system is to stablise a 800km plus long chain of renewable plants. You would be looking at 20% looses just to the east coast. This line goes thought this region. It would make no difference to have a storage plant in Canberra for Canberra and Sydney consumption. It might add 4% transmission losses for Victoria as you would be adding 300km.

                  And it barely matters. Renewable generation is almost free compared to thermal generation. Installations can be staged, on going costs are almost non existent and plant life can be measured in half centuries.

                  Environmental inpact

                  Significantly less than producing, transporting and disposing of 16GWh's of batteries.

    • If only your state produced more value than tax dollars it consumes

  • Maybe just the numberplate is CO2 FREE? lol

  • But.. do they charge for CO₂?

  • If a car that literally emits zero exhaust fumes has a factually correct licence plate makes you this irate, I can't imagine what else sets you off.

  • Have you considered the fact that they may charge their car at home using their solar panels and home battery system. You could make the argument the construction and sourcing of raw materials to produce these products cause emisions, but the assumption that this statement is automatically false is illogical.

    • Yeah you could make the argument about construction, sourcing, and logistics of such materials & goods but at the end of the day it's guaranteed to produce at least more than 0 CO2 somewhere down the line.

      But is this really worth a 50,000 word essay on how ridiculous it is? imo: No

      tl;dr: personally I wouldn't say it's necessarily illogical to argue it contributes CO2 somewhere down the line, I 110% think it's illogical to take it as far as OP LOL

      (And besides, you don't suddenly go from 100% CO2 to 0% CO2 in 1 day, incremental steps, like buying an electric car is a good step, you fund future electric cars etc.)

      • But is this really worth a 50,000 word essay on how ridiculous it is? imo: No

        *awkwardly hides away half-written thesis. LOL

  • +8 votes

    I should point out that I don't especially care about climate science. Nor do I hate Tesla Cars. I just find his bold public statement about "emissions" particularly odorous.

    That owner has got what s/he wants, attention, you have just boosted their ego further.

  • Could be just a coincidence, the Computer just randomly selected those numbers and letters for the new Number Plate :)

  • +27 votes

    Why does it bother you so much?

    • Bothers me too.

      If you want to make a difference, make sure your actions are not just making you 'feel' better about it… but are actually making a real difference.

      It demonstrates a growing lack of critical skepticism - where companies/media can impress upon us ideas/ideals to which determine public opinion and action… even though these ideas are erroneous or incomplete (and of course serve the interest of those companies)

      This is a great example of that.

      Caveat, I love Tesla cars and I think they are better for the environment - I plan to own one (one day)… but I'm not under a delusion they are CO2 free… even if I charge at home.

      • I think adoption of technologies, even if they're not 100% can fund improvements / future developments etc.
        Even if they're not 100% the solution now, a 10% step towards the final product is a good one imo

        • I agree. This is why believing it's a 100% solution is unproductive thinking.

          • @The Wololo Wombat: Why infer that the owner believes its 100% when he is clearly talking about the fuel used to power it. Solar take up in Australia is amongst the highest in the world, so it's not unlikely that he is 100% C02 free on the fuel if you don't count the manufacturing emissions.

            Teslas aren't cheap and a lot of people are spending more on their Tesla than they ever would have on their car because they want to lower their C02 emissions, and there's nothing wrong with that. People spending those big dollars are happy to pay a few extra bucks to gloat about their achievement. No big deal

            I feel like the real issue is people that don't want to spend the extra money, or are unable to for financial reasons, find this type of behaviour makes them feel bad about not doing the same, or otherwise "virtue signalling", but isn't another term for that "setting a good example" or "being happy to take the first steps ahead of others who can't"?

            • @Jackson:

              Why infer that the owner believes its 100% when he is clearly talking about the fuel used to power it.

              Maybe the owner is talking about the actual waste products produced by the car itself - which are of course 'CO2 Free'.

      • You're bothered because the guy that bought an EV should be making a real difference rather than just making himself feel good. He should do something like.. buying an EV, which you believe is better for the environment, and you would like to do yourself one day, but haven't yet..

        Makes perfect sense!

        All because he used a cheeky C02FREE license plate.

      • Spot on. Living a lie doesn't help the environment. I too want a Tesla Car and Powerwall.

  • I thought QLD number plates only contained six characters?

  • +34 votes

    Where does he THINK the electricity comes from to charge up his machine???

    Most likely their rooftop solar system. Thanks to things like the zappy charger you can direct excess solar into your car. So yeah.

    with number plates that boldly stated "CO2 FREE"

    Did you go smell their tailpipe and tell them its not CO2 free?

    • -14 votes

      Did you go smell their tailpipe and tell them its not CO2 free?

      Nope, but I work on the trucks and diggers that get the coal out of the ground, that fire the power stations that supply the power to run the foundries that make the aluminium that goes into the production of these vehicles. And this whole chain produces CO2 the whole way down it. And that is just one metal that is used. This process goes on for every metal that is dug up, refined, processed and manufactured for these vehicles.

      If you think electric cars are CO2 free, you are delusional. Everything about EV's is created from processes that belch CO2 into the atmosphere…

      • +27 votes

        Everything created in this world belches CO2 into the atmosphere…

        There fixed that for you.

        Your ICE powered car also has all those same issues, along with the extra CO2 created from sucking dinosaur juice out of the ground, refining it and transporting it around the earth so you can pump it into your tank and drive around and spew more CO2 into the air.

        If you think electric cars are CO2 free, you are delusional

        I never said they are CO2 free, But the fact is, they don't spew CO2 out the rear like your ICE vehicle does. Which is what the plate is referring to.

        Sure during making like everything else in this world, CO2 is produced.

        • -13 votes

          There fixed that for you.

          I guess, yes, technically, it does.

          Your ICE powered car

          Didn't say that ICE cars are CO2 free. Wasn't even talking about ICE cars for that matter. Was only dealing with EV's and Tesla vehicles in particular.

          But the fact is, they don't spew CO2 out the rear like your ICE vehicle does

          No, they spew it from other places. It's like sweeping the dust under the rug. Just because you cant see where it went, doesn't mean it isnt there. EV's are no different. They don't have a tail pipe, but that doesn't mean they are "CO2 free", it just means they do it in other areas where it is not quite so noticeable. (like 300km away at a power station or 10,000km away in a solar panel manufacturing plant…)

          Sure during making like everything else in this world, CO2 is produced.

          And that's the kicker. It cost a lot more CO2 to produce a Tesla than it does a comparable sized ICE vehicle. It's somewhere in the magnitude of about double the CO2 to make a Tesla than an equivalent ICE vehicle. So, essentially, you are emitting your CO2 up front in a Tesla

          • +12 votes

            @pegaxs: You should listen to the podcast How to Save a Planet. They have an issue that covers EVs and CO2. They're better in terms of CO2 in most places (accounting for manufacturing and operating).

            I think this is the link:
            https://traffic.megaphone.fm/GLT2446679603.mp3?updated=16052...

            In theory, the owner could have purchased CO2 offsets for manufacturing CO2, and charge the car off PV. So it could be CO2 free. We can argue it death, but at the very least it is better than buying and driving a new ICE car.

            • @Ak850: The problem is there are a lot of butt hurt people in here that read one thing and extrapolate that data up to fit their outrage. I have not said that EV's are a bad thing, I think EV's are wonderful and they are absolutely a step in the right direction (I own an electric motorcycle, scooter and a hybrid that I use for transport until EV prices come down). I don't need to listen to a podcast (but I hope some others listen to it), as I have already researched the topic of EV's in depth, and if anyone took notice on this forum of what I do say, they would know that I am very pro-EV, I'm just anti-ignorant-arrogant-vehicle owners/fanbois.

              The issues is that there are so many neggers here that think that EV's are totally green and emit no CO2, and this is an absolute fallacy. There is plenty of proof out there to see that EV's from production to end of life certainly contribute their fair share to the CO2 problem. There is no amount of negging my comments that changes the fact that EV's are not as clean as what people think they are. At some parts of their life cycle, they are worse than ICE vehicle, at other times, they are a lot better, but overall, taking in the whole life cycle of these vehicles, they are not the "zero emissions" vehicles they are marketed as being. And just because they don't have a tail pipe, doesn't mean they are "CO2 Free"

              As for the "offsetting", while it is a wonderful idea, it doesn't really fix other issues. It doesn't stop the CO2 from being produced, it's just a way of trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. It also doesn't offset the other environmental impacts that manufacturing has on the planet. The mining of the raw materials for making batteries and refining of it has more environmental impact than just the CO2 that is created from these processes.

              Anyway, neg away, sheep. It doesn't change the facts and it wont change my opinion.

              • @pegaxs:

                The issues is that there are so many neggers here that think that EV's are totally green and emit no CO2, and this is an absolute fallacy.

                And you’re here to enlighten us. So, as a typical car owner/user, if I go buy an EV, drive it for a few years then sell it, how much CO2 did my use of it emit?

                Do you also tell vegetarians that they are meat consumers because a human grew their vegetables?

                • @BigBirdy: Neg votes don't change facts.

                  If you purchased a brand new EV, unless they pulled it magically out of thin air, then you contributed about 12~14 tonnes of CO2 before you even drove it out the dealership parking lot.

                  To remain Zero Emissions after that, you would need to charge the vehicle entirely off solar (that is dirty to make the panels, cables and inverters). And that is best case, and you are still contributing CO2. Realistic case is you plug it in at home, charge over night, charge it at the shopping centre, at the charging station, your friends house, and all of these contribute to CO2.

                  All you neggers are butt hurt because you think I am saying that EV's are as dirty as ICE vehicles, and that is not what I am saying, all I am trying to say is that EV's, while cleaner to run, are not as clean to build (at the moment) or run or own as what people think they are…

                  No amount of getting upset at me stating facts and putting a little imaginary number into negative on a bargains forum is going to change facts.

                  • @pegaxs:

                    butt hurt

                    How old are you? Do you really think anyone doesn’t understand the silly point you are trying to make, and that it is just … silly?

                    • @BigBirdy: The "point" I'm trying to make is that so many people think that EV's are totally zero emissions. The sheer number of negs I have gotten is testament to the misinformation people are willing to accept as fact.

                      People think that EV's are clean, when, in fact, they are not. At some points in their life cycle, they are actually more damaging to the environment than an equivalent ICE vehicle. People don't want to hear this. All they hear is the marketing spin and anyone who says otherwise is wrong and needs to be shouted down.

                      As I said already, all the negs on this site are not going to change the fact that EV's are not as clean as people think they are. And a lot of people here are reading into what I am saying as "EV = bad" and that is not what I am saying here. EV's are great and will only get better with time, but to think that EV you buy now is "CO2 Free" is just ignorance of the larger picture that makes up EV's as a complete life cycle.

                      • @pegaxs:

                        The "point" I'm trying to make is that so many people think that EV's are totally zero emissions.

                        EV's ARE totally zero emissions.

                        You're just redefining 'emissions' to include things the vehicle never actually emitted at all.

                        There is a difference between vehicle emissions and total environmental impact.

                      • @pegaxs:

                        The "point" I'm trying to make is that so many people think that EV's are totally zero emissions.The sheer number of negs I have gotten is testament to the misinformation people are willing to accept as fact.

                        Absolutely everybody understands that electric cars cost CO2 to produce, and in many cases more up front than an equivalent petrol car.

                        This is not a controversial statement. It's not in dispute. You're not schooling anybody and you're not exposing some hidden truth that people are unaware of.

                        It's just that most people understand that it's a transitional state as the supply chain progressively gets cleaner. EVs are a small part of a larger solution, but they aren't a solution by themselves.

                        It's like saying "most people don't realise water is wet", when everybody already knows water is wet, and is sick of forums being full of people saying "Why won't people talk about water being wet!"

                        We already know.

                        .