Scrubbers use pulverized limestone, spray it into the flume and that makes gypsum (aka - that stuff that’s in the middle of drywall).
And I dare say if you sum up all the emissions these days, total process, to run that Tesla compared to that Landrover, I’d bet on the Tesla to be lower. Electricity is cheaper than gasoline, too, so if they can get the production costs/vehicle prices down to where the total cost of ownership is competitive, it will continue to sell.
Yup, let's dig up county-wide limestone pits and open cast coal mines to keep those Teslas running... MUST be better for the planet, that...
You shouldn't compare a Tesla to our Land Rover (which we only use as a spare / bug-out vehicle during hurricanes and floods these days anyway). A more appropriate comparison would be the one I keep using - Honda Accord.
Right now, I expect the total cost of running a Tesla Model3 vs said Honda Accord over, say, 10 years or 150,000 miles (the most likely lifetime of both), assuming both are scrapped at zero residual value at the end of that period, are actually pretty much even, if not actually in favor of the Accord. Not least because the Tesla3 starts at $35K, the Accord base model at a shade under $25K. A quick finance calculation says the Tesla3 total cost (all financed 5% interest, 5 year term) is just under $40K, the Honda (on the same basis) just over $28K, i.e. $12K or about 12-1/2 cents a mile over 150K miles. In other words, the finance cost alone pays for the Accord's gasoline.
And I would like to see a total
environmental impact assessment from an unbiased
source too. On that takes in the total environmental impact of extracting the raw minerals, transporting them, processing them, turning them into a usable car, driving said car for 150,000 miles, then scrapping the car at the end. How you measure that environmental impact, I'm not sure. Maybe in raw Dollars or maybe in tonnes of CO2 equivalent, I'm not sure.