CO2 OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES COMPARED WITH GASOLINE VEHICLES

Please note, this article is a short excerpt, with references to tables and the Appendix, from this much longer article. Much additional information is provided in the longer article. Please, also read the longer article.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

EXCERPT:

 

DECEPTIVE EAN METHOD AIDED AND ABETTED BY VT-DPS

The Vermont average mileage for light duty vehicles, LDVs, all sizes, was 22.7 mpg in 2018. See URL, page 2.

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

 

If the “Vermont LDV mix” were EVs, it would draw, via a wall socket, at least 0.400 kWh/mile, based on real-world driving of about one year.

 

A typical eco-conscious person, who would buy an EV, likely already drives a higher mileage vehicle, say 30 mpg EPA combined. Any CO2 reduction of EVs should use such a vehicle for comparison.

 

However, EAN engineers compared a medium EV (Nissan Leaf) using only 0.315 kWh/mile with the “Vermont LDV mix” (22.7 mpg), which is a deception, i.e., apples to oranges.

 

On top of that, EAN engineers, colluding with VT-DPS engineers (ten leading employees of VT-DPS are members of EAN! Collusion? Oh no!), used an artificial/political, extra-low, 34 g CO2/kWh, based on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs, which is another deception. See Note 

  

The combination of deceptions enabled EAN to falsely claim a CO2 reduction of 4.500 metric ton/y per EV.

EAN engineers likely knew the deceptions would overstate CO2 reduction by at least 4.504/2.941 = 53%. See table 4

 

NOTE: If EAN had compared “Vermont LDV mix” versus “Vermont LDV mix as EVs” (which would include 4WD, ¼-ton-pick-ups and large SUVs), i.e., apples to apples, and had used 323 g CO2/kWh, per ISO-NE (see Note and table A), EAN would have needed, not 90,000 EVs, but at least 1.53 x 90,000 = 137,826 EVs to reduce CO2 by 0.405 million Mt/y to “meet Paris by 2025”. See table 1

 

NOTE:

- The 34 g CO2/kWh is an artificial/political value for 2018, concocted by VT-DPS, based on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs. It has absolutely nothing to do with physical reality.

- The low CO2 value was concocted to make EVs (and air source heat pumps) look extra good versus gasoline vehicles, primarily to: 1) deceive legislators and lay public, and 2) get more funding for subsidized energy programs.

- Most legislators know they are being deceived, but they go along anyway to promote party politics. See table B.

 

NOTE:

This “EAN method” is just one example of rah-rah claims by pro-RE entities, which has led to:

 

1) Vermont spending $billions of on expensive energy programs that placed an excessive burden on the near-stagnant Vermont economy (such as Net-Metered at 21.813 c/kWh and Standard Offer at 21.793 c/kWh. See table D), and

2) Did not reduce Vermont’s total CO2 from 1990 – 2018.

 

NOTE: Electric vehicles (cars, SUVs, 1/4-ton pick-ups) are driven an average of 7,000 miles per year, compared to 11,467 miles per year for gasoline and diesel vehicles, i.e., the “EAN Method” is bogus.

See URL, pages 1498 and 1500 for the 7000 miles/y

See afdc.energy URL for 11.467 miles/y

 

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/Davis%20AEL%202019.pdf

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/

 

Table 4/CO2 reduction	EAN		EAN	Realistic
WM basis; PE basis	VT LDV mix		Med. EV	LDV mix as EVs
miles/y	13200	miles/y	13200	13200
mpg	22.7	kWh/mile	0.315	0.400
gal/y	581	kWh/y	4158	5280
CO2, lb/gal	17.612	CO2, g/kWh	34	323
Mt/y	4.645	Mt/y	0.141	1.704
CO2 reduction, Mt/y			4.504	2.941

 

REAL-WORLD CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES, LIFETIME BASIS 

Lifetime evaluations of EVs versus gasoline vehicles have been performed for at least 25 years. All show EVs would reduce very little CO2 compared with efficient light-duty vehicles, LDVs, using gasoline or diesel.

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

 

Engineers, including at Vermont Energy Action Network, EAN, very well know, a proper evaluation of EVs versus gasoline vehicles has to be on a lifetime basis, such as the 105,600 miles for 8 years used in this article, plus the evaluation must be based on:

 

1) CO2 of source energy, 23.371 lb/gal = CO2 of upstream energy, 5.759 lb/gal + CO2 of primary energy, 17.612 lb/gal; EAN ignored upstream

2) CO2 of NE grid, 356 g/kWh, per ISO-NE; EAN used an artificial/concocted 34 g CO2/kWh

3) Embodied CO2/kWh of the vehicle body and battery; EAN ignored embodied

4) Comparison of EVs with efficient gasoline vehicles; EAN used the VT LDV fleet average of 22.7 mpg. However, purchasers of EVs usually replace high mileage vehicles., not gas guzzlers.

5) Long-term wall meter and vehicle meter readings, obtained during real-world driving conditions.

 

 The EAN “parameters” yielded a CO2 reduction of 4.5 metric ton/year/EV. However,

 

1) A Toyota Prius has about 0.15 Mt/y less than a Nissan Leaf  

2) A Mitsubishi Mirage has about 0.84 Mt/y more than a Nissan Leaf.

 

The EAN “parameters” resulted in deceiving non-technical Legislators and non-technical Vermonters.

 

See tables 4 and 5 in this URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-compa...

 

Comments on Table 4

Base Vehicle:

The popular Nissan Leaf, 62 kWh, was used as base vehicle for comparison with four other vehicles

EPA rated at 118, city/97, highway/108, combined

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Nissan2020.shtml

 

(33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(108 mpg-eq) = 0.299 kWh/mile; includes charging losses

Adjusted to 0.299 x 1.055, loss factor* = 0.315 mile/kWh; includes 1) charging loss, 2) self-use losses due to heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and 3) losses due to NE road/climate conditions, 4) losses due to idle time, such as parked in a garage, or at an airport.

* The loss factor covers items 2, 3 and 4, which are not measured by EPA

 

Comparison Vehicles:

Toyota Prius L Eco hybrid, 56 mpg

Mitsubishi Mirage gasoline vehicle, 39 mpg

Medium gasoline vehicle, 30 mpg

“Vermont LDV gasoline mix”, 22.7 mpg

 

Other Parameters:

- CO2, tailpipe plus upstream = 23.371 lb/gal; combustion CO2 of corn ethanol in gasoline is not counted  

- CO2, electricity = 356 g/kWh, per ISO-NE

 

Result of Analysis: EAN claims 90,000 EVs, purchased during 2020 – 2025, or 18,000/y, would reduce CO2 by 405,000 Mt/y in 2025. That claim is based on false assumptions. See Note.

 

This lifetime analysis found, to reduce CO2 by 405,000 Mt in 2025:

 

- About 4.50/3.58 x 90000 = 113,128 EVs would be needed during 2020 – 2025, each reducing about 3.580 Mt/y, if “LDV gasoline mix” vehicles were replaced, which is unlikely, because the required “LDV mix as EVs” likely would not yet be marketed during 2020 – 2025. Also, the larger 4WD-SUVs, ¼-ton-pick-ups, and minivans, with 80 to 100 kWh batteries, would be prohibitively expensive for Vermonters.

 

- About 4.50/1.92 x 90000 = 210,938 EVs would be needed during 2020 – 2025, each reducing about 1.920 Mt/y, if medium gas vehicles (averaging 30-mpg) were replaced, which is far more likely, because small and medium EVs are marketed, affordable (with federal and state subsidies) and bought by Vermonters. See Note and table 3

 

NOTE: Vermont total registered plug-in vehicles was 3716 in January 2020, of which about 60% were plug-in hybrids and 40% were pure EVs. The total increase was 674 in 2018 and 753 in 2019, about 1.6% of Vermont total new vehicle registrations. See URL

https://www.driveelectricvt.com/Media/Default/docs/maps/vt_ev_regis...

 

NOTE: The deceptive/fraudulent EAN method overstated the CO2 reduction of EVs by 4.50/1.92 = 234% compared to the lifetime method. Such fraudulent methods are known to almost all energy systems engineers, including EAN engineers.

 

NOTE: Eco-conscious persons, who would buy EVs, likely already drive higher-mileage gasoline vehicles. Just ask them what they drove before buying an EV.

NOTE: A friend of mine sold her 54 mpg Toyota Prius and bought a $45000 Chevy Bolt, for which she paid only $27000, because of the various federal and state tax credits, and a utility cash grant, which was matched by the car dealer. I just stood there with my mouth wide open! She said, if it had not been for all the incentives (paid for by others), she would have never done it.

 

Capital Cost

Cost for EVs; about 210,938 x $40000/medium EV = $8.483 billion

Cost for private and public chargers; about 210,938 x $1500 = $0.318 billion

Total = 8.483 + 0.316 = $8.801 billion

 

Comment: It should be abundantly clear why EAN engineers chose to:

- Consider only the combustion CO2 of the fuel and electricity, plus use flawed values, plus use unmatched vehicles (apples to oranges), because they knew that approach would have high CO2 reduction/EV, compared to gasoline vehicles, which would fit the RE narrative of the EV-hyping strategy.

 

- Shy away from lifetime analysis, that includes upstream CO2, combustion CO2 and embodied CO2, plus uses realistic values, plus uses matched vehicles (apples to apples), because that approach would have low CO2 reduction/EV, compared to efficient gasoline vehicles, which would not fit the RE narrative of the EV-hyping strategy.

 

Table 5/Lifetime CO2, SE basis	Toyota	Nissan	Mitsubishi	Any mfr.	Any mfr.
	Prius	Leaf
	Med. car	Med. SUV	Small car	Med. SUV	VT LDV mix
Model	L Eco		Mirage
Type	Hybrid	EV	Gasoline	Gasoline	Gasoline
Plug-in	no	yes	no	no	no
Battery, kWh	0.75	62	no	no	no
Travel 10 years, miles	105600	105600	105600	105600	105600
EPA combined, WM basis, mpg	56		39	30	22.7
EPA combined, WM basis, kWh/mile		0.315
NE grid CO2, WM basis, g/kWh		356
E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal	17.612		17.612	17.612	17.612
E10, upstream for extract, process, transport, lb CO2/gal	5.759		5.759	5.759	5.759
E10, total, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal	23.371		23.371	23.371	23.371
.
CO2	Mt	Mt	Mt	Mt	Mt
E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted	15.06		21.63	28.12	37.16
E10, upstream for extract, process, transport	4.93		7.07	9.20	12.15
Electricity, WM basis, kWh		11.92
Body, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*	5.70	5.70	5.70	5.70	7.00
Li battery, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*	0.80	10.10
Total	26.49	27.72	34.40	43.02	56.32
		Mt/y	Mt/y	Mt/y	Mt/y
CO2 reduction Mt/y		-0.15	0.84	1.92	3.58

 

* Numbers are partly based on Hall and Lutsey and on Hausfather at carbonbrief.org factcheck, adapted for Vermont conditions.

APPENDIX 1

 

WIND, SOLAR AND HYDRO

 

If massive build-outs of heavily subsidized wind and solar were to occur (at great expense and environmental damage), which would have upstream CO2 emissions, electric grids would gradually become “cleaner”, i.e., have less CO2/kWh. Table 6 shows prices, c/kWh, and lifetime costs of electricity, LCOE, of various electricity sources.

 

APPENDIX 2

 

COSTS OF WIND AND SOLAR SHIFTED FROM MILLIONAIRE OWNERS TO STRUGGLING RATEPAYERS AND TAXPAYERS 

 

Clever multi-millionaires have known about wind and solar being much more expensive compared with existing generation (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, etc.) for at least 25 years.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/...

 

By beating the drums of climate change and global warming, and using clever lobbyists in the halls of Congress and State legislatures, they were able to get all sorts of goodies, such as upfront cash grants, upfront tax credits, low-cost loans, generous, above-market, feed-in tariffs, production tax credits, and loan interest and asset depreciation write-offs to avoid paying income taxes.

 

All that enables them, and others to claim wind and solar is equivalent and competitive with other workers. What more could these millionaires ask for?

 

APPENDIX 3

 

COST SHIFTING ONTO RATEPAYERS, TAXPAYERS AND DEBT 

 

Clever multi-millionaires have known about wind and solar being much more expensive compared with existing generation (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, etc.) for at least 25 years.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/...

 

By beating the drums of climate change and global warming, and using clever lobbyists in the halls of Congress and State legislatures, they were able to get all sorts of goodies, such as upfront cash grants, upfront tax credits, low-cost loans, generous, above-market, feed-in tariffs, production tax credits, and loan interest and asset depreciation write-offs to avoid paying income taxes.

 

All that enables them, and others to claim wind and solar is equivalent and competitive with other workers. What more could these millionaires ask for?

 

Cost Shifting: Here is a partial list of the costs that were shifted, i.e., not charged to wind and solar plant owners, to make wind and solar appear less costly than in reality to the lay public and legislators.

 

1) The various forms of grid-stabilizing inertia (presently provided by synchronous gas, coal, oil, nuclear, bio and hydro plants).

 

2) The filling-in, peaking and balancing by traditional generators (mostly gas turbines in New England), due to wind and solar variability and intermittency, 24/7/365. Their random outputs require the other generators to inefficiently ramp up and down their outputs at part load, and to inefficiently make more frequent starts and stops, which also causes more wear and tear, all at no cost to wind and solar owners.

 

The more wind and solar on the grid, the larger the required up and down ramping of the gas turbines, which imparts added costs to owners for which they likely would not be paid: And the wind and solar erratic output is coddled by government programs and subsidies!!

 

Owners of traditional generators:  

 

- Have less annual production to cover power plant costs, which jeopardizes the economic viability of their plants.

 

- Are left with inefficient remaining production (more fuel/kWh, more CO2/kWh), due to up and down ramping at part load, and due to more frequent starts and stops, which leads to less fuel and CO2 reduction than claimed, and increased costs for owners. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions...

 

- Have more wear and tear of their gas turbine plants, which further adds to owner costs

 

NOTE: All of this is quite similar to a car efficiently operating at a steady 55 mph, versus a car inefficiently operating at continuously varying speeds between 45 mph to 65 mph, and accelerating for frequent starts and decelerating for frequent stops.

 

3) Any battery systems to stabilize distribution grid with many solar systems. They would quickly offset downward spikes due to variable cloud cover. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/large-scale-solar-plant...

 

4) Any measures to deal with DUCK curves, such as a) daily gas turbine plant down and up ramping, b) utility-scale storage and c) demand management.

 

NOTE: GMP in Vermont, has determined 70 of its 150 substations will eventually need upgrades to avoid “transmission ground fault overvoltage,” (TGFOV), if more solar is added per requirements of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan. This is nothing new, as utilities in southern Germany have been dealing with these issues for over ten years, which has contributed to German households having the highest electric rates (about 30 eurocent/kWh) in Europe.

 

5) Grid-related costs, such as grid extensions and augmentations to connect the remotely distributed wind and solar, and to deal with variable and intermittent wind and solar on the grid. Those grid items usually are utilized at the low capacity factors of wind and solar, i.e., a lot of hardware doing little work.

 

6) Utility-scale electricity storage (presently provided by the world’s traditional fuel supply system).

https://www.neon-energie.de/Hirth-2013-Market-Value-Renewables-Sola...

 

The above 6 items are entirely separate from the high levels of direct and indirect subsidies. They serve to make wind and solar appear to be much less costly than in reality. See sections 1 and 2 and Appendix.

  

All that enables wind and solar proponents to endlessly proclaim: “Wind and solar are competitive with fossil and nuclear”.

 

Example of Cost Shifting: For example, to bring wind electricity from the Panhandle in west Texas to population centers in east Texas, about 1000 miles of transmission was built at a capital cost of $7 billion. The entire cost was “socialized”, i.e., it appeared as a surcharge on residential electric bills. Wind in Texas would have been much more expensive, if the owning and operating cost, c/kWh, of those transmission lines were added to the cost of wind.

 

Example of Cost Shifting: Often the expensive grid connection of offshore wind plants, say from 20 miles south of Martha's Vineyard, across the island, then about 7 additional miles under water, and then to the reinforced mainland grid, is not separately stated in the capital cost estimates, i.e., all or part of it is provided by the utilities that buy the electricity under PPAs to make PPA-pricing appear smaller than in reality. That cost would be “socialized”, i.e., it appears as a surcharge on residential electric bills, or is added to the rate base.

 

Wind and Solar Wholesale Prices in NE: Here are some wholesale prices of wind electricity RE folks in New England, especially in Maine, do not want to talk about. They would rather dream RE fantasies, obfuscate/fudge the numbers, and aim to convert others to their dream scenarios, somewhat like religious missionaries.

 

EXHORBITANT REAL COST OF WIND AND SOLAR ELECTRICITY

 

Pro RE folks always point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:

 

1) Above-market-price paid to Owners 

2) Subsidies paid to Owners

3) Owner return on invested capital at about 9%/y

4) Grid extension/augmentation

5) Grid support services

6) Future battery systems

 

Comments on table 6

   

- Vermont legacy SO solar systems had greater subsidies, up to 30 c/kWh paid to owner, than newer systems, about 11 c/kWh

 

- Wind prices paid to owner did not have the drastic reductions as solar prices.

 

- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems

 

- "Added to the rate base" is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, used to set electric rates.

 

- “Total cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which wind/solar are added to the utility rate base

 

- “NE utility cost” is the annual average cost of purchased electricity, about 6 c/kWh, plus NE grid operator charges, about 1.6 c/kWh

for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.

 

"Utility cost" is the annual average price paid for electricity by a utility, about 6 c/kWh,

- “Grid support costs” would increase with increased use of battery systems to counteract the variability and intermittency of increased build-outs of wind and solar systems.

 

NOTES:

1) NE wholesale grid price averaged about 5 c/kWh or less, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants providing at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid, in 2019.

 

- Wind, solar, landfill gas, and methane power plants provided about 4.8%

- Pre-existing refuse and wood power plants provided about 4.6%

- Pre-existing hydro power plants provided about 7.4%

- The rest was mostly hydro imports from the very-low-CO2 Canada grid, and from the much-higher-CO2 New York State grid

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf

2) There are Owning costs, and Operating and Maintenance costs, of the NE grid

ISO-NE charges these costs to utilities at about 1.6 c/kWh.

 

3) ISO-NE charges are for: 

 
Regional network services, RNS, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a month

Forward capacity market, FCM, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a year.

 

Table 6/VT & NE sources	Paid to	Subsidy	Grid	GMP	Added	ISO-NE	Total	NE	Times
		paid to	support		to rate	RNS+		utility
	owner	towner	cost	adder	base	FCM	cost	cost
	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh
Solar, rooftop, net-metered, new	17.4	5.2	2.1	3.5	20.9	1.6	29.8	7.6	3.92
Solar, rooftop, net-metered, legacy	18.2	5.4	2.1	3.5	21.7	1.6	30.8	7.6	4.05
Solar, standard offer, combo	11	6.74	2.1		11	1.6	21.44	7.6	2.82
Solar, standard offer, legacy	21.7	10.5	2.1		21.7	1.6	35.9	7.6	4.72
Wind, ridge line, new	9.0	4.1	2.4		9.0	1.6	17.1	7.6	2.25
Wind, offshore, new	12.1	5.4	2.8		12.1	1.6	21.9	7.6	2.88

 

*

Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems

Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems

Excludes cost for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...

 

“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE. These prices would have been about 48% to 50% higher without the direct and indirect subsidies and the cost shifting

“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.

Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/MWh, than NE

 

APPENDIX 4

 

NE grid CO2 Adjusted for Low-CO2 Imports

 

The NE grid combustion CO2, due to the fuels for NE generation, is 323 g/kWh, fed to grid basis.

It becomes 275 g/kWh, by adding low CO2 imports, and adjusting for HV grid loss and for distribution grid loss.

That value should be used for evaluation heat pumps, EVs, electric buses, etc.

Of total electricity loaded onto the grid, about 92% arrives at user meters.

Utilities bill users based on meter readings.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/04/estimating_e...

 

CO2 of NE grid	Generation	CO2	CO2	Add HV grid loss	Add Dist. Grid loss	Fed to meters
				5%	3%
	MWh	lb	lb/MWh	lb/MWh	lb/MWh	g/kWh
ISO-NE	103740000	68192000000	657	690	711	323
- New Brunswick	4044000
- NY	5086000
- HQ	12032000
- HQ Highgate	1934000
Imports	23096000	2964273960	128	135	139	63
NE grid load	126836000	71156273960	561	589	607	275