COMPARISON OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CO2 OF GASOLINE AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Many articles have been written about the comparison of the energy efficiency of gasoline vehicles (E10 vehicles) and electric vehicles, EVs. Most such articles have various flaws. Many studies fail to use the lower heating value of the fuel, or fail to use the correct heating value of the fuel.

This study assumes, for proper comparison purposes, the EV and the E10 vehicles have the SAME drag resistance and rolling resistance, and therefore require the same energy (17.172 kWh) to travel a distance of 65 miles. See tables 2, 3 and 4.

 

EVs are built for maximum efficiency (low fuel costs/mile, low CO2/mile), to get more range out of the battery. They should be compared with E10 vehicles built for maximum efficiency, such as the Toyota Prius (52 mpg EPA combined) and the Hyundai Ioniq (58 mpg EPA combined), both of which are hybrids.

 

Source to Meter: Electrical energy has a source energy, which, if reduced by about 8% due to exploration, extraction, processing and transport, becomes the primary energy fed to power plants, which convert that energy into electricity, which after transmission and distribution losses of about 6.5%, arrives at user meters. As a result, the energy fed to the meter has to be multiplied by 2.8776 to obtain source energy. The source CO2 of the US grid was 1.2712 lb. of CO2/kWh in 2013 (1.1275 in 2016). See Table 8.

Source to Tank: E10 fuel (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) has a source energy, which, if reduced due to exploration, extraction, processing and transport, becomes the primary energy fed to E10 vehicles. As a result, the energy fed to the tank has to be multiplied by 1.2568 to obtain source energy. The source CO2 of E10 is 1.2568 x (17.68, Fossil Fuel + 1.27, Ethanol) = 23.82 lb. CO2/gal, per EIA. See URLs.

 

http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-muc...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/source-energy-and-prima...

Comparison of E10 and Electric Vehicles: The below table shows a comparison of EV and E10 vehicles, each requiring 17.172 kW to the wheels to travel 65 miles. The E10 vehicle, at 38 mpg EPA combined, has source energy equal to an EV with an efficiency of 0.700.

 

EV: 17.172 kWh/0.7, eff x 2.8776, source factor = 70.639 kWh for 65 miles, source energy basis.

 

E10: 65 miles/38 mpg x 112114 Btu/gal = 191774 Btu = 56.206 kWh, to tank; adjusted for efficiency of 0.306 = 17.172 kWh, to wheels; 56.206 x 1.2568, source factor = 70.639 kWh, source energy basis

 

The E10 Prius, 52 mpg EPA combined, requires much less source energy than an EV with an efficiency of 0.700.

 

The 0.377 kWh/mile (meter-to-wheels) of the EV appears high, but it is on an annual average basis, with the EV driven throughout the year, under all weather and road conditions.

 

The table indicates only the driving CO2. The CO2 embedded in the vehicles (including the batteries) from source to user is ignored. See below section “Life-cycle Greenhouse Gases of Vehicles” for embedded plus driving CO2.

 

ENERGY

E10 vehicle

E10 Prius

EV 2013

EV 2016

kWh to wheels/65 miles

17.172

17.172

17.172

17.172

Efficiency, tank to wheels

0.306

0.418

Efficiency, meter to wheels

0.700

0.700

kWh to tank/65 miles

56.206

41.073

kWh from meter/65 miles

24.523

24.523

Upstream factor, source to meter

2.8776

2.8776

Upstream factor, source to tank

1.2568

1.2568

kWh/65 miles, source to meter

70.567

70.567

kWh/65 miles, source to tank

70.639

51.621

Btu to tank/65 miles

191774

140143

E10 Btu/gal

112114

112114

Gallon/65 miles, tank to wheels

1.711

1.250

Miles/gallon, tank to wheels

38.0

52.0

L/100 km, tank to wheels

6.190

4.523

kWh/mile, meter to wheels

0.377

0.377

kWh/km, meter to wheels

0.234

0.234

CO2

lb CO2/gal, source to tank

23.82

23.82

lb CO2/mile, source to tank

0.626

0.458

g CO2/km, source energy basis

177

129

lb CO2/kWh, source to meter

1.2712

1.1275

lb CO2/mile, source to meter

0.480

0.425

g CO2/km, source energy basis

135

120

1 lb

454

g

1 mile

1.6093

km

1 gallon 

3.7854

L

1 kWh

3412

Btu

 

Real-World Energy Efficiency and kWh/mile of EV: The energy to an EV is affected by various losses.

 

The internal losses are due to: the inverter; charging the battery; discharging to the wheels; heating and cooling the battery and passenger cabin; operating the electronics and sound system; “phantom” losses (while parked); battery system aging over time.

 

The external losses are due to: accelerations; going uphill; winds; hot and cold weather; snow on roads.

 

The efficiency of the EV, on a meter-to-wheel basis, is shown in below table. The 0.377 kWh/mile in above table is higher than advertised values which usually are from the battery to the wheels, i.e., about 15% less than from the meter, and ignore other losses. Some people do their “analyses” on advertised values, which produce excessively rosy results. See below APPENDIX “One Year Experience With a Tesla Model S”.

 

 

Loss, %

 

Inverter, AC to DC

 5.0

 0.950

Charger and into battery

 10.0

0.900

Out of battery to motor and drivetrain

 9.0

 0.910

Other losses

10.0

0.900

Real-world efficiency, M-t-W

 

 0.700

kWh to meter/65 miles

 

24.523

kWh/mile, M-t-W

 

0.377

kWh/km, M-t-W

 

0.235

 

Life-cycle Greenhouse Gases of Vehicles: A life-cycle assessment should cover four distinct phases of a vehicle’s life, and be based on driving, say 150,000 km (93,750 miles) during the 15 years of a vehicle’s life, using 10% ethanol/90% gasoline blend (E10), and a grid CO2 intensity of say 500 g CO2/kWh, or 1.10 lb CO2/kWh.

 

1) Vehicle production – to assess embedded CO2
2) In-use phase – to assess CO2 incurred during the driving
3) Disposal at end-of-life
4) Fuel production and delivery processes of electricity generation and gasoline production, depending on vehicle type.

 

The embedded greenhouse gases of average vehicles, as a percent of the lifecycle total emissions, in metric ton, are shown in below table.

The embedded greenhouse gases of average vehicles, as a percent of the lifecycle emissions, in metric ton, are shown in below table. CO2 estimates of the Toyota Prius, Toyota plug-in Prius and Tesla Model S were inserted for comparison purposes. See URL and click on press release.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/06/full-life-cycle-assesment-elect...

 

Vehicle

Embedded

Driving, etc

Lifecycle

 

CO2, Mt

CO2, Mt

CO2, Mt

Average E10 vehicle

 5.6 (23%)

18.4

24.0

Average hybrid

6.5 (31%)

14.5

21.0

Hybrid, Prius

6.5 (31%)

12.0

18.5

Average plug-in hybrid

6.7 (35%)

12.3

19.0

Plug-in hybrid, Prius

6.7 (35%)

10.0

16.7

EV, medium-size battery

 8.8 (46%)

10.2

19.0

EV, Tesla

11.5 (60%)

10.4

21.9

At a steady velocity, on a level road, and with no wind from any direction, the propelling force of the engine offsets the external resisting forces acting on the vehicle, which are wind and rolling resistance.

 

Wind Resistance: The wind resistance of a medium-size vehicle was calculated using 0.5*c*A*d*V^2, where; c is drag coefficient, 0.32; A is cross-sectional area of vehicle, 2.600 m2; d is air density, 1.293 kg/m3, V is velocity, 104.607 km/h. The wind resistance is 454 newton. See Table 2.

 

Table 2

 

 

Units

 

Units

Drag coefficient

c

0.32

 

 

 

Cross-section

A

2.600

m2

27.986

ft2

Air density

d

1.293

kg/m3

0.0807

lb/ft3

Speed

V

104.607

km/h

65

mph

Wind resistance

 

454

N

102.063

lb force

 

Rolling Resistance: The rolling resistance was calculated using m*g*f*cos (a), where; m is mass, 1395 kg; g is gravity, 9.807 m/s2; f is tire deformation, 0.01 m, a = 0.5 of tire radius, 0.2032 m. The cosine (a) is about 1. See Table 3.

 

Table 3

 

 

Units

 

Units

Vehicle mass

m

1395

kg

3075

lb

Gravity

g

9.807

m/s2

32.175

ft/s2

Tire deformation

f

0.010

m

0.033

ft

0.5 of tire radius

a

0.203

m

0.667

ft

 

cosine a

1

 

1

 

Rolling resistance

 

137

N

30.756

lb force

 

Wind + Rolling Resistance: The useful power to the wheels, kW, was calculated using f, the total of wind and rolling resistance; d, the distance travelled in one hour; J = N*m, the work done; t, the time; W = J/s. See Table 4.

 

Table 4

 

 

Units

 

Units

Wind + Rolling

f

591

N

132.855

lb force

Distance

d

104.607

km

343,195

ft

Work done

f*d

61,819,294

N.m = J

45,595,028

ft.lb force

Time

t

3600

s

3600

s

Watt

 

17172

W= J/s

17172

watt

Useful power

 

17.172

kW

17.172

kW

The Fuel: The vehicle is assumed to use E10, a mixture of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol. Its lower heating value is 31.25 MJ/L. In engines, the LHV must be used. HHV E10 = 0.9 x 124340 + 0.1 x 84530 = 120359 Btu/gal. See Tables 5.

http://hydrogen.pnl.gov/tools/lower-and-higher-heating-values-fuels 

Table 5

HHV

HHV

LHV

LHV

 

Btu/gal

MJ/L

Btu/gal

MJ/L

Gasoline

124340

34.65

116090

32.35

Ethanol

84530

23.56

76330

21.27

E10

120359

33.54

112114

31.25

Source Factors: Various fuels, extracted from the earth, are fed to US electrical power plants. For exploration and extraction mostly diesel is used, for processing mostly diesel, natural gas and electricity are used, and for transport mostly diesel is used.

 

- The well-to-pump source factor for E10 is about 1.2568.

- The well-to-power plant source factor for natural gas is about 1.09.

- The mine/well-to-meter source factor for electricity is about 2.8776. See table 6

- This upstream factor of the US electrical system is about 1.08, i.e., the equivalent of about 8% of the source energy is used to obtain the primary energy fed to power plants. That 8% usage causes CO2 emissions. See Table 6. 

 

Also there is the energy consumed for O&M and on-going replacements/upgrading of the infrastructures used for exploration, extraction, processing and transport of the source energy that is converted to primary energy for the US economy. The US electrical system uses about 40% of all primary energy.

Source Factor of US Electrical System: The US economy was supplied with about 25,451.00 TWh of primary energy in 2013. See Table 6. In this analysis, I used the 2013 emission data in conjunction with the 2013 electricity generation data. 

 

The EIA 2013 emissions data was higher than at present, mainly due to gas replacing coal. It is ironic, I could find the 2016 GERMAN electricity generation data, but not the 2016 US data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

 

Item

Table 6

%

TWh

1

Source energy

100.00

27664.00

2

Expl./Extr./Proc./Transp.

8.00

2213.00

3

Primary energy, per URL

92.00

25451.00

3a

Electrical PE = 0.4 of 3, per URL

 

10180.40

4

Electrical SE = 3a/0.92

 

11065.65

5

Gross generation

 

4227.62

6

Self-use

3.82

161.55

7

Net generation to grid, per EIA

 

4065.97

8

Conversion factor = 7/3a

 

0.3994

9

Imports, per EIA

1.15

46.74

10

Total to grid, per EIA

 

4112.71

11

T&D, % of To grid, per EIA

6.50

267.33

12

To electric meters

 

3845.38

13

System efficiency, PE basis = 12/3a

 

0.3777

15

System efficiency, SE basis = 12/4

 

0.3475

16

Source factor = 1/0.3475

 

2.8776

US CO2 Emissions Decreased Due to Less Coal and More Natural Gas: The URL shows the unusually rapid decrease of CO2 emissions during 2015 and 2016. Such a rapid decrease likely will not occur during the next few years, as natural gas prices likely will increase due to exports, and as changes in EPA rules likely will cause fewer coal plants to close. A “cleaner” US grid would mean EVs would compare more favorable with E10 vehicles regarding emissions. The US grid is “cleaner” than the German grid, on a source energy basis. See Table 2b.

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf

 

Table 8

Year

2013

2016

CO2, MMt

2053

1821

To meters, TWh

3845.38

3845.38

kg CO2/kWh

0.5339

0.4736

lb/kg

2.2046

2.2046

lb CO2/kWh, PE basis

1.1770

1.0440

Upstream factor

1.08

1.08

lb CO2/kWh, SE basis

1.2712

1.1275

g/lb

454

454

g CO2/kWh, SE basis

577

512

APPENDIX 1

Are EVs Competitive with E10 Vehicles?: Some people maintain EVs are competitive with E10 vehicles, but that is a fallacy, as Lithium-ion chemistry is about maxed out, according to Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla. At present, every manufacturer is loosing money on every EV sold, and that EV would not be sold without the $7000 federal cash grant, and state grants.

EVs are nowhere near competitive with E10 vehicles, on an economy wide basis. Whereas future subsidies likely would be reduced or eliminated, i.e., increasing the EV price, but that price increase likely would be offset by a reduction in battery costs, i.e., the net effect would be a near-zero change in price, and manufacturers would still be loosing money on every EV sold.

EV Market Penetration: The number of EVs on US roads has increased during the past 6 years. EV sales are expected to be about 1.2% of all light duty vehicle, LDV, sales in 2017. About 45% of EV sales are in California. See table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_Unit...

 

Year

US EV sales

US LDV sales

2017, est

200,000

17,400,000

2016

157,181

17,464,800

2016

114,248

17,396,300

2014

123,347

 

2013

96,602

 

2012

55,392

 

APPENDIX 2

Energy on the Grid: Regional grids have various CO2/kWh intensities. As EVs would be traveling all over the US, and grid energy travels (as electromagnetic waves) at near the speed of light, it is best to use the CO2/kWh intensity of the US grid as the basis to minimize confusion from study to study.

 

Once electricity is fed into an electric grid, it travels as electromagnetic waves, at somewhat less than the speed of light, on un-insulated wires, i.e. from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1800 miles in 0.01 of a second, per Physics 101. On insulated wires, the speed, on average, is about 2/3 the speed of light. The electrons vibrate at 60 cycles per second, 60 Hz, and travel at less than 0.1 inch/second. It is unfortunate most high school teachers told their students electrons were traveling and likely never told them about EM waves, or did not know it themselves. This article explains in detail what happens when electricity is fed to the grid.

 

http://www.djtelectricaltraining.co.uk/downloads/50Hz-Frequency.pdf

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/popular-misconceptions-...

APPENDIX 3

High Efficiency E10 Hybrids are More User-Friendly Than EVs: It would be much more economical for the US car industry and the US economy to have 45-mpg E10 hybrids, as Toyota has proven with its Prius models for more than 15 years, than to make the very expensive, capital-intensive transition towards EVs to reduce CO2 from E10 vehicles, especially when such a transition likely would have minimal impact on lifetime CO2 emissions. 

 

- An EV, medium-size, battery has emitted about 46% of its lifecycle emissions before it has been driven a single mile.

 

- If an EV has a large battery, such as a Tesla model S (75 - 100 kWh), then the 46% becomes about 60% or greater, and the lifetime CO2 of those EVs becomes greater than of an E10, medium-size battery, if battery replacement is included.

 

- The Toyota hybrid and plug-in hybrid have about the same capacity batteries at other vehicles of that class, but higher EPA combined mileages. It appears the Toyota vehicles have the lowest lifetime CO2 emissions in their class.

 

Whereas, there is very significant prospect to improve the mileage of light duty vehicles to 50 mpg or better, there is not much prospect of EVs becoming more efficient, because lithium-ion technology is about maxed out, per Elon Musk of Tesla. Mass production of batteries and EVs would drive down the PRICE, but likely not the lifetime CO2.

 

Whereas, an EV, medium-size battery, has a range of about 40 kWh (usable output)/0.377 = 106 miles (annual average basis), the Prius has a range of about 600 miles. That is very useful when millions are evacuating during a hurricane with flooding and power outages in Florida.

APPENDIX 4

One Year Experience With a Tesla Model S: An upstate New York owner of a Tesla Model S measured the house meter kWh, vehicle meter kWh, and miles for one year (bold numbers in table). There was significant kWh/mile variation throughout the year.His real worldannual average was 0.392 kWh/mile, House meter-to-Wheel. The Model S has regenerative braking as a standard feature. The owner did not take into account the source-to-house meter electrical losses.

 

- Owners may use 0.392 kWh/mile, or less, in other US regions.

- New EVs would have less kWh/mile than older EVs, due to battery system degradation.

- Data as measured by owner in New York State covers only the driving energy. The embedded CO2 is ignored.

 

See URLs, especially the second, which has a wealth of data.

 

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1090685_life-with-tesla-model-s...

http://www.uniteconomics.com/files/Tesla_Motors_Is_the_Model_S_Gree...

 

Tesla, Model S

Electricity cost, c/kWh

19.0

Miles in one year

15243

c/mile

kWh, vehicle meter, kWh in one year

5074

5074 x 19/15243 = 6.3

kWh/mile, vehicle meter basis

0.333

5074/15243

kWh/mile, vehicle meter basis

0.301

Apr-Oct

kWh/mile, vehicle meter basis

0.290

July

kWh/mile, vehicle meter basis

0.371

Nov-Feb

kWh/mile, vehicle meter basis

0.400

Jan

Vampire/charging factor

0.85

c/mile

kWh, house meter, 5074/0.85  

5969

5969 x 19/15243 = 7.4

kWh/mile, house meter basis

0.392

APPENDIX 5

Tesla Model S Driving Ranges on Non-urban Interstate Highways Under Varying Conditions: Interstate Highway speed limits; non-urban, contiguous 48 states; 12 states @ 65 mph, 20 states @ 70 mph, 14 states @ 75 mph, 1 state @ 80 mph (Texas). See: www.ghsa.org

 

Tesla Model S, 85 kWh. Range advertised by Tesla as 300 miles at 55 mph

Sources: www.teslamotors.com and Tesla battery engineer claims.

 

Table A. Ideal driving conditions: no AC, no heat, level terrain, 300 lbs aboard, windows rolled up, constant speed, no wind.

Table B. Ideal driving conditions, but using average AC, and average heat

Table C. Assuming additional 15% energy consumption due to non-ideal driving conditions, heavier AC and heavier heat

 

Table A

65

70

75

80

Age

mph

mph

mph

mph

New

262

241

222

200

4.5 years

243

223

205

185

9.5 years

220

203

187

168

 

Table B

65

70

75

80

Age

mph

mph

mph

mph

New

236

217

200

180

4.5 years

219

201

185

167

9.5 years

198

183

168

151

 

Table C

65

70

75

80

Age

mph

mph

mph

mph

New

197

181

166

150

4.5 years

182

167

153

139

9.5 years

165

152

140

126

 

http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/Model-S-range-Tables.pdf

APPENDIX 6

Debunking the Phony EPA Fuel Consumption Numbers:

 

- An E10 vehicle, 38.0 mpg, uses 1.709 gal x 112114 Btu/gal = 191577 Btu of E10 to go 65 miles in one hour (tank-to-wheel basis), or 240774 Btu, source-to-wheel basis.

- An EV uses 24.523 kWh x 3412 Btu/kWh = 83672 Btu to go 65 miles in one hour (meter-to-wheel basis), or 240774 Btu, on a source-to-wheel basis.

 

NOTE: The EPA mpg gasoline equivalent is based on the energy content of gasoline. The energy obtainable from burning one US gallon of gasoline is 115,000 Btu, or 33.705 kWh, or 121.3 MJ. If a different fuel is used, such as E10, then the Btu of that fuel is used to determine EPA MPGe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent

 

EPA EV mileage = total miles/(fuel energy/energy/gal) = 65/(83672/112114) = 87.1 MPGe. The EPA deliberately ignores the US electrical system upstream SE factor and the E10 upstream SE factor. The EPA just takes the Btu of the fuel and equates that with the Btu of the electricity, which is incorrect.

 

The car manufacturers are in on the deal to deceive the public, because they are allowed to take those high MPGe numbers and average them into their CAFE mpg, making it look better than it really is, which is a sham. 

 

The official explanation of the EPA is that people are familiar with miles/gallon, and EPA decided to call it “miles/gallon equivalent”. Engineers may not be befuddled, but Joe Blow likely is. Just ask some average people what it means. They have no idea. That means what EPA came up with was confusing.

 

E10

EV

gal/65miles, T-t-W

1.709

kWh/65 miles, M-t-W

24.523

Btu/gal

112114

Btu/kWh

3412

Btu, T-t-W

191572

Btu, M-t-W

83672

Factor

1.2568

Factor

2.8776

Btu, S-t-W

240768

Btu, S-t-W

240774

mpg

38.0

EPA mpg-eq

87.1

APPENDIX 7

US-DOE/Argonne National Laboratories GREET Program: ANL wrote the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation, GREET, computer program. The program enables comparing the well-to-wheel efficiency of gasoline and electric vehicles. If I had used the program, the inputs would have been a fuel mix to power plants for determining the CO2 of the EV, and E10 for determining the CO2 of the E10 vehicle.

https://greet.es.anl.gov

 

However, lacking sufficient familiarity with the GREET program, and always wanting to see equations, instead of just accepting printed results, readily available EIA data regarding CO2 emissions from the US electricity generating system, and EIA data regarding the generation of electricity, and data from various other sources, referenced in this article, were used to perform the analysis of this article.

 

NOTE: The article, “Is Ethanol a Cost Effective Solution to Climate Change?” shows, after a detailed analysis of the GREET computer program, the Argonne analysts relied on less-than-fully accurate international data bases, and overestimated well-to-wheel fossil fuels consumption (and associated CO2 equivalent emissions) of petroleum fuels by up to about 9%.

http://www.theenergycollective.com/jemiller_ep/172526/ethanol-cost-...

APPENDIX 8

Quick Charging of Batteries: Because low-voltage (110V+) charging of batteries takes a long time, higher voltage (220V+) charging is often used, because it reduces charging times. However, that negatively impacts:

 

- Charging efficiencies, which increases energy consumption and costs

- Battery aging, which requires earlier battery replacement, because of a loss of storage capacity, kWh, which negatively affects driving range

- Discharging efficiencies at required rates, which negatively affect acceleration and uphill driving.

APPENDIX 9

New England and EVs: With snow and ice, and hills, and dirt roads, and mud season, all-wheel drive vehicles, such as the Subaru Outback, SUVs, ¼-ton pick-ups, minivans, are a necessity in rural areas. There are a few EVs, such as the Tesla Model S, $80,000-$100,000, which offer road-clearance adjustment and all-wheel drive as options. Here is a list of EVs and Plug-in Hybrids. Very few have all-wheel drive and some of them cost 1.5 to 3 times as much as a Subaru Outback.

http://www.plugincars.com/cars

 

Driving an EV in winter, with 5 cm of snow, uphill, at low temperature, say - 10 C, with the heat pump heating the battery and the passenger cabin, would be slow going, unless the EV has a large capacity, kWh, battery. The additional stress causes increased battery aging and capacity loss.

 

Batteries likely will come down in cost, because of mass production, and weight, due to clever packaging (which would decrease rolling resistance), but the lithium-ion chemistry is pretty well maxed out, according to Musk, CEO of Tesla.

 

People switching from E10 vehicles to EVs likely will not happen anytime soon. There are no compelling CO2 reasons, as shown by the above table, unless the government compels people to do so, which would be a folly, as there are so many, less expensive ways, to reduce CO2. In fact, it would be best, if the government stopped interfering with the energy business.

APPENDIX 10

Efficiency of US Light Duty Vehicles: LDVs are cars, SUVs, ¼-ton pick-ups, and minivans. The average efficiency of LDVs has not changed much these past 15 years. Even though new vehicle efficiency increased during the past 15 years, it caused just a very minor increase in the efficiency of all LDVs. See table. A similarly slow increase could be expected if EVs were to replace E10 vehicles.

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publicati...

 

However, if more LDVs were required to be hybrids (such as the Toyota Prius), which could be more rapidly implemented by manufacturers, then an efficiency increase of at least 25% could be expected during the next 15 years, etc. Toyota has a proven line-up of high-efficiency hybrids in various sizes and shapes. Other manufacturers could have the same.

 

LDVs

2000

2015

2000

2015

Better

 

mile/gal

mile/gal

L/100 km

L/100 km

%

Existing

 20.00

22.00

11.76

10.69

10.0

New cars

28.50

36.40

8.25

6.46

27.7

New trucks

 21.30

26.30

11.04

8.94

23.5

APPENDIX 11

A Better Future Pathway: Future E10 vehicles likely would become more efficient, more quickly, and at much less cost, especially by increased use of hybrids, than:

 

- EVs could improve their efficiency, because lithium-ion technology is “just about maxed-out”, according to CEO Musk of Tesla. Such future EVs likely would become less costly, but not much more efficient.

 

- The US electrical system could reduce its CO2 intensity, kg CO2/kWh, such as with additional capacity, MW, build-outs of renewables and enlargements of the US electrical system. With higher-efficiency E10 vehicles, no such highly visible build-outs and enlargements would be needed. In fact, the capacity of the existing E10 fuel supply systems would be more than adequate for decades.

 

CO2 can be much less expensively reduced by:

- Making E10 vehicles more efficient

- Increased use of hybrid vehicles, such as Toyota Prius hybrids

- Increased building efficiency (having energy surplus buildings)

- Replacing existing nuclear plants with new nuclear plants

- In New England, getting more, low-cost, near-zero-CO2, hydro energy from Hydro-Quebec

APPENDIX 12

German 2016 Electrical Data: Here are the corresponding numbers for Germany.

http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de

 

Table 7/2016

TWh

Gross generation by plants

675.3

Self-use loss, 4% of gross generation

27.0

Net generation (fed to grid)*

648.3

Pumped storage loss*

19.4

Exports - Imports

53.7

Gross electricity consumption

575.2

T&D loss, 4% of net generation

25.9

To user meters

549.3

RE

188.3

% RE, user basis

34.3

% RE, net generation basis

29.0

% RE, gross generation basis

27.9

 

* Electric pumps pump water into hydro reservoirs, from which it is later discharged to the hydro plants to generate electricity. That process has a pumping storage loss and a generating loss.

*Upstream CO2eq adds about 8% to the combustion CO2eq of gross generation by plants

* Emissions of 306 Million Mt of CO2 by net generation fed to grid, or (306/648.3)/(0.96, self use x 0.92, upstream) = 534 g CO2/kWh, source energy basis. See URL, table 5, for German 2016 CO2 emissions. 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/germany-not-meeting-co2...

 

NOTE: Regarding electric vehicles in Germany, CO2eq = 534 g/kWh should be used for analysis for only the driving CO2eq, as in this article. The embedded CO2eq is separate issue.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-energy-ef...

APPENDIX 13

Energy Use of an E10 Vehicle: Per US-EPA, the energy of the gasoline is allocated, in percentages, approximately as shown in Table 1.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

 

Table 1

Combined

City

Highway

 

%

%

%

Engine

68.0

73.0

65.5

Parasitic

5.0

6.0

3.5

Drive train

5.5

4.5

5.5

Wind

10.0

4.0

15.5

Rolling

6.0

4.0

7.5

Braking

5.5

8.5

2.5

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

 

Views: 1241

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

First Prize

NE Book Festival

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT (excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?"  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2018   Created by Eben Thurston.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service