COMPARISON OF TESLA MODEL S AND MODEL 3, BASED ON REAL-WORLD DRIVING CONDITIONS

Vermont has a Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP. The capital cost for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 BILLION PER YEAR FOR AT LEAST 33 YEARS, according to the Energy Action Network annual report.

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

 

The CEP projects plug-ins and EVs as shown in table 1.

The CEP-projected sales rate is 2,500 vehicles for 2020.

The actual sales rate appears to be about 600 - 700 per year during the 2017 - 2019 period.

 

Table 1/Electric Vehicles in Vermont	Plug-in hybrids	EVs	Total
CEP projected annual sales for 2020	1,750	750	2,500
Registered
As of Oct, 2017			2,100
As of Oct, 2018			2,800
As of Jul, 2019	2032	1,256	3,288
As of Oct, 2019; estimate			3,450

 

See CEP, exhibit 8-15.

See URL

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

Here is a list of URLs of articles relating to electric vehicles.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-cars-lose-rang...

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-cons...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/flawed-epa-method-of-ca...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-cons...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifecycle-co2eq-of-inte...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/evs-and-plug-in-hybrids...

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

EPA TESTING AND THE REAL WORLD

EPA testing of EVs is performed by experts, under standard laboratory conditions. The adverse effects on kWh/mile regarding cold weather, road conditions, snow, hills, dirt roads with potholes, etc., are ignored, which can increase kWh/mile and reduce range, by up to 40% during NE winters.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-cars-lose-rang...

EPA testing excludes the battery charge loss during non-driving times, which for most people is at least 20 hours per day.

 

EPA testing does not cover real-world situations, such as, parking an EV at the airport during a two-week trip, which likely leads to significant loss of battery charge.

As a result, the total electricity, kWh/mile, drawn via a dedicated wall meter over an extended period of time becomes significantly greater than the total change of battery charge, kWh/mile, used for traveling from A to B, as measured by the vehicle meter. For example, long-term testing shows:

The ratio of the Tesla Model 3 is about 1.2576 in California (good conditions for EVs)

The ratio of the Tesla Model S is about 1.3035 in upstate New York (more challenging conditions for EVs, especially in winter).

Both are based on about one year of real-world driving conditions. See URLs

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

SOURCE ENERGY = UPSTREAM ENERGY + PRIMARY ENERGY

The source energy of fuels for power plants is from oil and gas wells, and coal mines, etc.

The upstream energy is for extraction, processing, transport, etc., of the fuel to power plants; about 17% of primary energy for NG, about 8% for nuclear, about 2% for hydro, and about 5% for wood chip electricity. The weighted average for the NE grid is about 10.2%

The primary energy is the energy input to power plants

 

COMPARISON OF TESLA MODEL S AND MODEL 3

A Tesla Model S was driven upstate NY, which has weather and road conditions similar to Vermont. Winter performance required significant greater kWh/mile than summer performance, largely due to:

 

- Worse road conditions,

- Heating seats, cabin, and battery, and

- Defrosting glass, wipers and mirrors, and

- The battery having more internal resistance during cold weather.

 

The owner kept data logs of relevant operating parameters for a year. See URL.

 

The log of the odometer showed 15,243 miles.

The log of the vehicle meter showed 5,074 kWh, or 0.3329 kWh/mile.

The log of the wall meter showed 6,614 kWh, or 0.4339 kWh/mile.

The charging + self-use loss is 6614 – 5074 = 1,540 kWh, or 0.1010 kWh/mile.

Charging loss is about 15% of 0.4339 = 0.0651 kWh/mile.

Self-use loss is about 0.1010 – 0.0651 = 0.0359 kWh/mile. See URL table 4, and see below table 2

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

 

Comments on table 2:

The table shows the source energy required, to achieve 0.3500 kWh DC in the battery for A to B travel, after all losses.

It was assumed an NE mix of light duty vehicles, LDVs, including cars, SUVs, crossovers, minivans and ¼-ton pick-ups, would require about 0.3500 kWh from the battery to travel one mile.

The current NE mix of LDVs is about 50% SUVs and ¼-ton pick-ups, most of which have all-wheel-drive.

If charging and self-use losses were added, about 0.4563 kWh/mile would be drawn via the wall meter.

Electricity consumption for a NE mix of LDVs would be 12,000 mile/y x 0.4563kWh/mile, wall meter = 5,475 kWh/y

The charging loss occurs during charging the batteries, about 15% for a Tesla Model S, or 0.15 x 0.4563= 0.0684 kWh/mile.

The self-use loss takes place while the EV is parked or driven, about 0.1062 - 0.0684 = 0.0378 kWh/mile.

 

A Tesla Model 3 was used by Edmunds, one of the largest car dealers in California, to perform a long-term road test. Edmunds kept similar data logs as for the Model S in New York State.

 

Table 5A shows the data for the Model S and Model 3.

The Model S is a fuel-size, AWD sedan, the model 3 is a compact, AWD sedan.

The Model 3 is more efficient, because of later technology.

 

Driving, road and climate conditions in southern California are much better for EVs than in upstate New York.

Almost 50% of all EVs on US roads are in California. They likely have less kWh/mile than elsewhere!! See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

 

NOTE:

Most non-engineer analysts use EPA values, or manufacturer values for kWh/mile.

That is a gross mistake.

It is necessary to log the kWh drawn via a dedicated wall meter, WM, and log the increase in charge, kWh, in the battery, as shown by the vehicle meter, VM.

That should be done for at least several months or a year.

The WM - VM difference is due to charging losses, self-use losses, and real-world road/climate conditions   

The ratio of the Tesla Model 3 is about 1.2576 in California (good conditions for EVs)

The ratio of the Tesla Model S is about 1.3035 in upstate New York (more challenging conditions for EVs, especially in winter).

Both are based on about one year of real-world driving conditions. See URLs

 

Table 2/Model S and 3	Tesla Model S	Tesla Model S	Tesla Model 3	Tesla Model 3
		kWh/mile		kWh/mile
Miles	15243		11174
VM. kWh	5074	0.3329	2737	0.2449
WM, kWh	6614	0.4339	3442	0.3080
WM - VM, kWh	1540	0.1010	705	0.0631
Charging loss, 15% of WM	992	0.0651	516	0.0462
Self-use + Road/Climate, etc.	548	0.0359		0.0169

Table 3 shows the source energy required to have a quantity of electrical energy at a user’s wall meter.

The values for the Tesla EVs are based on real-world conditions.

The values for the NE mix of LDVs, were based on the mix using, on average, 0.350 kWh/mile from the battery, which is reasonable, as the mix would include full-size cross-overs, SUVs, minivans and 1/4-ton pick-ups.

 

Table 3/NE grid	NE LDV mix	Tesla	Tesla	NE grid CO2	NE grid CO3
		Model S	Model 3	PE	SE
	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	gram/kWh	gram/kWh
Source energy	1.2291	1.1713	0.8315
Upstream for extraction, processing, transport, etc., 10.2%	0.1138	0.1084	0.0770
Primary energy	1.1153	1.0629	0.7545
Efficiency loss, 55.5%	0.6078	0.5793	0.4112
Gross electricity generation	0.5075	0.4836	0.3433
Plant self-use loss, 3.0%	0.0152	0.0145	0.0103
Net electricity generation = Fed to grid	0.4922	0.4691	0.3330	310	342
T&D loss, 7.5%	0.0369	0.0352	0.0250
Fed to wall meters, as AC	0.4553	0.4339	0.3080	335	369
Charging loss, 15%	0.0683	0.0651	0.0462
Self-use loss, about 7%	0.0370	0.0359	0.0169
In battery a mix of LDVs in NE, as DC	0.3500	0.3329	0.2449	436	480
.
Travel, miles/y	12000	15243	11174
Wall meter electricity, kWh/y	5475	6614	3442
2 EVs	10950

 

The NE electric grid CO2 emissions for 2017 (latest numbers) were 682 lb/MWh, or 682 x 454/1000 = 310 g/kWh, as fed by power producers to the high voltage grid.
ISO-NE, the grid operator, excludes the CO2 emissions of upstream energy.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2019/04/2017_emissio...

 

- 310 g CO2/kWh, primary energy basis, would become 320 x 1.102 = 342 g CO2/kWh, source energy basis.

- 335 g CO2/kWh, primary energy basis, would become 335 x 1.102 = 369 g CO2/kWh, source energy basis.

- CO2 is 0.4553/0.3500 x 369 = 436 g/kWh, if battery charge change is used for calculating CO2 emissions, primary energy basis

- CO2 is 436 x 1.102 = 480 g/kWh, if battery charge change is used for calculating CO2 emissions, primary energy basis.

- Downstream not included. See Note.

NOTE: 

Most non-engineer analysts of EV energy flow do not use real-world values for upstream energy and driving energy.

Often, they omit the charging loss and self-use loss and it’s CO2.

Often, they do not ratio upwards the CO2, as above illustrated.

Their faulty analysis leads to lesser calculated values of EV kWh/mile and CO2/mile.

That likely leads to rosy thinking regarding EVs and likely to faulty decision-making and policy.

APPENDIX 1

Electricity Mix Based on Power Purchase Agreements: There are non-technical people talking about the “Vermont electricity mix” or the “New Hampshire electricity mix”. That mix exists only on paper, because it is based on power purchase agreements, PPAs, between utilities and owners of electricity generators.

A utility may claim it is 100% renewable. This means the utility has PPAs with owners of renewable generators, i.e. wind, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. That mix has nothing to do with physical reality.

If a utility did not have PPAs and drew electricity from the grid, it would be stealing, just as a person would be by bypassing the utility electric meter.

 

Electricity Mix Based on Physical Reality: Once electricity is fed into the NE electric grid by any generator, it travels:

 

- On un-insulated wires, as electromagnetic waves, EM, at somewhat less than the speed of light, i.e. from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1800 miles in 0.01 of a second, per College Physics 101.

- On insulated wires, the speed decreases to as low as 2/3 the speed of light, depending on the application.

 

If those speeds were not that high, the NE electric grid would not work, and modern electronics would not work.

 

The electrons vibrate at 60 cycles per second, 60 Hz, and travel at less than 0.1 inch/second; the reason it takes so long to charge a battery.

 

It is unfortunate most high school teachers told students the electrons were traveling.

Teachers likely never told them about EM waves, or did not know it themselves.

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

 

This article explains in detail what happens when electricity is fed to the grid.

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

 

NOTE:

- If you live off the grid, have your own PV system, batteries, and generator for shortages and emergencies, then you can say I use my own electricity mix.

- If you draw electricity, via a utility meter from a distribution grid, such as of GMP, which is connected to the Vermont HV grid and the NE HV grid, you draw the NE mix.

APPENDIX 2

Tesla US and worldwide sales are shown.

Tesla sold more Model 3, fewer Model S and Model X in 2019 than in 2018.

Tesla showed a profit for the last 2 quarters of 2019.

 

US sales decreased by 8.8% in 2019, and worldwide sales decreased 3.87%, while EV and plug-in hybrid models offered by manufacturers increased.

About 50% of US sales were in California

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.

https://insideevs.com/news/343998/monthly-plug-in-ev-sales-scorecard/

https://insideevs.com/news/344007/monthly-plug-in-ev-sales-scorecar...

 

Table 4/Tesla
Year	2018	2019	2020
Subsidies	Full Federal	Decreasing federal	No federal
Qtr. 1	90700	63000
Qtr. 2	83725	95200
Qtr. 3	40740	97186
Qtr. 4	29997	112000
Tesla, worldwide	245162	367386	500000+
.				Change, %
US sales, Tesla	191627	192250		0.33
US sales, All EVs + All Plug-in hybrids	361307	329528		-8.80
.
Worldwide	2018247	1940147		-3.87