TESLA MODEL 3 LONG-TERM ROAD TEST by EDMUNDS

Long-Term Road Test of Tesla Model 3

 

Edmunds, in California, has been performing a long-term road test of a Tesla Model 3 since January 2018. Here are the latest results from the Edmunds website.

https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2017/long-term-road-test/2017...

 

- The EPA combined mpg of Tesla Model 3, AWD, long-range, laboratory conditions, is 29 kWh/100 miles

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2018_Tesla_Model_3.shtml

- Edmond testing mpg, with various drivers, various road trips, was about 31 kWh/100 miles

- The charging/resting time loss was about 20.6%, with various drivers and various road trips.

- February, March and April were not shown, because of missing data. See table 4 and URL

- EV drivers know little of the charging/resting time loss; they rely on the lower numbers of the EV meter.

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

 

Table 4/Tesla Model 3	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct
Odometer	1388	2922	3937	5237	6009	6659	7679	9329	10307	11174
Test travel, miles		1534	1015	1300	772	650	1020	1650	978	867
Wall meter, kWh/100 m
Lifetime average	31.70				31.40	31.80	31.70	31.00	31.10	30.80
Vehicle meter, kWh/100 m
Lifetime average	25.17				24.83	25.03	25.09	24.76	24.70	24.49
Charging loss	0.150				0.150	0.150	0.150	0.150	0.150	0.150
Charging loss, kWh/100 m	4.755				4.71	4.77	4.76	4.65	4.67	4.62
Resting loss, kWh/10 0m	1.78				1.86	2.00	1.86	1.59	1.74	1.69
Resting loss	0.056				0.059	0.063	0.059	0.051	0.056	0.055
Total loss, kWh/100 m	6.53				6.57	6.77	6.61	6.24	6.40	6.31
Total loss, %	20.60				20.92	21.29	20.85	20.13	20.58	20.49

Tesla Model 3 Prices

 

Tesla requires a $2500 deposit before an order is accepted.

Base price Model 3 with 4WD, long range battery ($9000), premium interior ($5000) is $57000

Pearl white paint is $2000

Total is $59000

If you add the $5,000 Enhanced Autopilot package and $3,000 Full-Self-Driving Capability, the total is $67000, before any tax credits.

https://www.kbb.com/tesla/model-3/2018/

https://3.tesla.com/model3/design?#payment

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 world annual average was 0.392 kWh/mile, house-meter basis, and 0.333 kWh/mile, vehicle-meter basis.

 

- The Model S has regenerative braking as a standard feature.

- The owner did not take into account the source-to-house electrical losses.

- Owners may use more or less than 0.392 kWh/mile 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 energy and its CO2 are 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...

 

NOTE: In these article, I used 0.350 kWh/mile, vehicle-meter basis, for a mix of NE LDVs (cars, SUVs, minivans, ¼-ton pick-ups, short- and long wheel base). As the Tesla Model S, with a very low drag coefficient, shows an annual average of 0.333 kWh/mile (vehicle meter basis), my assumed 0.350 kWh/mile likely is significantly too low. Table 2.

 

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

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

 

Table 2/Tesla, Model S
Electricity cost, c/kWh	19.0
Travel, miles/y	15243
Vehicle meter, kWh/y	5074
kWh/mile, vehicle meter	0.333	5074/15243
kWh/mile, vehicle meter	0.301	Apr-Oct
kWh/mile, vehicle meter	0.290	July
kWh/mile, vehicle meter	0.371	Nov-Feb
kWh/mile, vehicle meter	0.400	Jan
House meter, kWh/y	5969
Charging, resting time factor	0.85
kWh/mile, house meter	0.392	5969/15243
Travel cost, c/mile	7.4	5969 x 19/15243

Load Increase on NE Grid due to EVs

 

The load increase on the NE grid would be due to a mix of LDVs (cars, SUVs, minivans, ¼ ton pickups, short- and long wheel base).

 

If all NE LDVs became EVs, the load increase on the NE grid would be 56.543 TWh/y, or a 56.543/121.061 = 46.7% increase.

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

NOTE: Hybrids would not be allowed, unless they would use bio-fuels, of which the combustion CO2 would not be counted. If the energy used to produce the biofuels (cropping, processing, transport, etc.) were entirely from renewable sources, its CO2 would also not be counted.

NOTE: Biofuel in US diesel consumption was 4.04% of total diesel Btus, and in US gasoline consumption was 7.06% of total gasoline Btus, both after about 15 years of subsidies. Unless a breakthrough takes place regarding producing biofuels from algae, etc. These percentages could not be significantly increased, due to a lack of cropland availability.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biofuels-from-pond-algae

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-ma...

 

CO2 Emissions

 

The CO2/kWh for the NE grid are shown in table 2.

The 322 g CO2/kWh is from the ISO-NE 2016 grid emissions report.

The 322 g applies to all electricity drawn from the NE grid. See Note.

The 322 g increases to 347 g, at the wall meter, due to Transmission & Distribution losses.

The 8% upstream is the weighted average of all energy sources of the NE grid and is assumed the same as the US grid.

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.

 

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 are connected to the GMP grid, which is connected to the NE grid, and draw from any socket, then you draw the NE mix.

Source Energy and Primary Energy

 

Using source energy is the proper way to make fuel source comparisons, because source energy factors vary for different fuels.

 

If gas turbines were used for generating the electricity for EVs, and if 0.350 kWh/mile were the energy in the battery for a mix of LDVs, driven by a mix of drivers, about 0.433 kWh/mile would need to be fed into the NE grid, and about 0.891 kWh/mile of primary energy (LNG or NG)) would need to be fed to the gas turbines.

 

It takes about 17% of the combustion energy in a cubic foot of NG for extraction, process and transport, which emits about 17% of the combustion CO2 of a cubic foot of NG.

 

It takes about 43% of the combustion energy in a cubic foot of LNG for extraction, process (including liquefy to LNG, storage, etc.) and transport (including tanker load/transport/unload, storage, re-gasify), which emits about 43% of the combustion CO2 of a cubic foot of LNG.

Here are references for upstream factors:

 

Comparative Life Cycle Carbon Emissions of LNG versus Coal and Gas for Electricity Generation

Google the title and the PDF will appear.

http://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/node-page-field_file/LNGLife...

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

Table 3 shows:

- An EV charged with electricity from NG requires 3558 Btu/mile of source energy

- An EV charged with electricity from LNG requires 4345 Btu/mile of source energy

- An IC vehicle fueled with E10 requires 3905 Btu/mile of source energy

- CO2eq of an EV charged with electricity from the NE grid is 151 g/mile.

- The NE grid is clean due to nuclear and hydro and some solar and wind.

- CO2eq of an EV would be 194 and 237 g/mile, if charged with electricity from gas turbines.

That means, on a source energy basis, an efficient EV and an efficient IC vehicle use about the same Btu/mile, IF A PROPER COMPARISON IS MADE.

Almost ALL lay people do not know how to make a proper comparison.

Proponents of EVs, most likely lay people as well, do not know how to make a proper comparison, or, if they do know, are not about inform the general public.

Table 3	NG	NG	LNG	LNG	E10	NE grid	NE grid
Upstream factor	1.1700		1.4286		1.2887		1.080
Mileage, mpg					37	CO2	CO2
Heat content, Btu/gal					112114
Upstream, lb CO2eq/gal					5.847
Combustion, lb CO2eq/gal					18.631
Total, lb CO2eq/gal					24.478
Total, lb CO2eq/million Btu		140.4		171.4
	kWh/mi	Btu/mi	kWh/mi	Btu/mi	Btu/mi	g/kWh	g/kWh
Source energy	1.0429	3558	1.2734	4345	3905
Upstream; extract, process, transport	0.1515	517	0.3820	1303	875
Primary energy to gas turbines	0.8913	3041	0.8913	3041
Conversion loss, 50%	0.4457	1521	0.4457	1521
Electricity generation for EVs	0.4457	1521	0.4457	1521
Self-use loss, 3.0%	0.0130	44	0.0130	44
Fed to grid = grid load	0.4327	1476	0.4327	1476		322	348
T&D loss, 7.5%	0.0302	103	0.0302	103
To meters, measured by EPA	0.4025	1373	0.4025	1373		347	374
EV charging loss, 15%	0.0525	179	0.0525	179
In batteries/in gas tank	0.3500	1194	0.3500	1194	3030	398	430
Total, g CO2eq/mile		194		237	300		151

Electricity Cost and Annual Cost

 

A comparison of electricity cost, and annual cost, of nuclear versus three gas sources is shown in table 3.

RE proponents prefer the most expensive option, Russian/Middle East LNG.

The Jones act prohibits shipping LNG between US ports, unless:

 

- The tanker is US-owned

- The tanker is registered in the US

- The crew consists of legal US residents

 

Table 3/Electricity costs	Nuclear	Domestic gas	Louisiana LNG	Russia/Middle East LNG
	GWh/y	GWh/y	GWh/y	GWh/y
Generation	31538	31538	31538	31538
kWh		1	1	1
Btu/kWh		3412	3412	3412
Efficiency		0.5	0.5	0.5
Btu/kWh		6824	6824	6824
$/million Btu		3	6	9
Cost, fuel only, $/kWh		0.0205	0.0409	0.0614
Cost, other, $/kWh		0.0300	0.0300	0.0300
Cost, $/kWh	4.5	5.05	7.09	9.14
Cost, $million/y	1419	1592	2237	2883
Cost increase, $million/y		173	818	1464

 

RE Entities and NG and LNG

 

The following RE entities are agitating in favor of LNG instead of domestic NG from Pennsylvania.

 

- Sierra Club

- Conservation Law Foundation

- Acadia Center

- New Hampshire Office of the Consumer Advocate

- PowerOptions

- RENEW Northeast

- Vermont Energy Investment Corporation

- Cere

 

RE entities are against more pipelines for bringing NG from Pennsylvania, because they know what is good for us. They are adamant about weaning us off fossil fuels, no matter what the cost or inconvenience.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-will-need-t...

 

RE entities are for more Russian/Middle East LNG that costs about 3 times as much as NG from Pennsylvania, and emits about 1.43/1.17 = 22.2% more CO2 than NG from Pennsylvania.

They think choosing to emit more CO2 for decades while “building out wind and solar” would be saving the world.

Existing LNG Plus Future LNG Terminals

 

The existing LNG terminal in Everett, MA, operates at about 25% of capacity.

 

- If the terminal would operate at 50% of capacity (the industry average), on a year-round basis, about 36 tanker loads/y, each holding 67500 metric ton of LNG, would be required.

- If NE LDVs became EVs getting their electricity from LNG, about 119 additional tanker loads/y would be required.

- If all nuclear plants were replaced with LNG-fired gas turbines, about 67 additional tanker loads/y would be required.

- Total additional tanker loads would be {36 - (19 + 17)/2} +119 + 67 = 204, an increase of 204/(19 + 17)/2 = 11.3 times the 2016/2017 average.

Those tanker loads of Russian/Middle East LNG, at 3x the price of domestic NG, would be permanently arriving for several decades, per RE proponent wishes, while the following are being implemented at a capital cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. See table 5.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/LNG_primerupd.pdf

 

NOTE: Tanker loads for heat pumps are not included in above numbers. 

 

 - Wind and solar, plus

- Grid expansion, plus

- TWh-scale storage, plus

- Nuclear to LNG, plus

- LDVs from gasoline to LNG, plus

- Traditional heating from NG, fuel oil, propane, etc., to heat pumps

 

Table 5/Everett LNG Terminal		2016	2017	2016	50% CF
	Base Load	Actual	Actual	Jan/Feb	Year-round
LNG source	Trinidad/Other	Trinidad	Trinidad	Trinidad	Trinidad/Other
Storage capacity, billion cubic foot	3.4
Delivery, base load, bcf/y. See URL	265
Delivery, bcf/d	0.726
Delivery, billion Btu/d	726	191	175	320	363
Delivery, billion kWh/d	0.213	0.056	0.051	0.094	0.106
Delivery, TWh/y; 0.213 x 7860/24	69.688	18.365	16.791	30.715	34.844
LNG, million metric ton	4.824	1.271	1.162	2.126	2.412
Tanker loads/y	71	19	17	31	36
Capacity factor	1.000	0.264	0.241	0.441	0.500
.
NE LDVs as EVs
LNG to gas turbines, TWh/y	116.478
LNG, million metric ton	8.062
Tanker loads/y	119
Nuclear to LNG
LNG to gas turbines, TWh/y	64.968
LNG, million metric ton	4.497
Tanker loads/y	67
Total tanker loads/y	186
.
1 million metric ton LNG, MWh	14447205
1 million metric ton LNG, TWh	14.447
Tanker load of LNG, metric ton	67500
Everett tanker load of LNG, metric ton	33340

Capital Cost of New LNG Receiving Terminals

 

Germany: Construction of a new LNG receiving terminal facility (including receiving, 10 day storage, re-gasifying) could cost about $71 million/million metric ton of LNG.

https://www.vopak.com/german-lng-terminal

 

New England: The capital cost of any new LNG receiving terminal facilities would be about

(8.062 + 4.497)/0.5, capacity factor x $71 million = $1.78 billion, not including the transition to heat pumps.

 

Finding proper sites for the plants likely would be a major challenge.

 

NOTE: The output increase of Everett from about 25% CF to 50% CF would be allocated to normal growth of gas requirements, not to nuclear-to-LNG, and not to gasoline LDVs-to-EVs.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/LNG_primerupd.pdf

 

NOTE: In December, Russia opened the Yamal LNG project. Costing $27 billion, the plant has three production lines and a total capacity of 16.5 million metric of LNG per year, about $1.64 billion/million metric ton of LNG. Almost 96 percent of the Yamal LNG plant’s production has already been contracted.

	Everett	New Terminals	Germany
Storage, bcf, gas	3.4
Storage, cm, LNG			220000
Storage, std cm	96277188		135300000
.
Throughput, bcf/y, gas	265		177
Throughput, bcm/y, gas	7.50		5.00
Throughput, million mt/y, LNG	12.202	25.12	8.130
Throughput, cm/h, gas	856616		570776
.
Unloading, cm/h, LNG			14000
Unloading, cm/h, gas			8610000
Filling time, h			15.7
.
LDVs to LNG, million mt		8.062
Nuclear to LNG, million mt		4.497
CF		0.5
$/million mt of LNG		71
$million		1780	576
$/million mt of LNG			71

cf/cm	35.3147
cm of gas/cm of LNG	615
1 LNG metric ton equals	2.439	cubic meter
LNG density, metric ton/cm	0.410

 

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/international/nacei/18057

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

APPENDIX 1

Intent of Foreign Nations

 

Nations with minimal or no domestic gas, such as the EU, Japan, Korea, etc., import high-cost LNG, at about $7 to $9/million Btu. However, the US has an abundance of low-cost natural gas at $2.5 to $3.0/million Btu.

The US does not need to import any gas.

In fact, the US is exporting LNG to east Europe for geo-political reasons.

 

Importing LNG into New England would be extremely unwise. NG from Pennsylvania is preferred because it:

 

- Requires much less source energy than LNG

- Emits much less CO2 than LNG per cubic foot, on a source energy basis

- Is domestic; would not adversely affect the US trade balance

- Has 1/3 the cost of Russian/Middle East LNG, which are undesirable /unsafe suppliers 

- Requires much less capital cost than using LNG

- NE already has the highest electric rates in the US. Importing LNG to generate electricity would worsen that condition and be a headwind against NE economic growth.

 

Foreign nations want to move the US towards high-cost energy to make the US relatively less competitive. They want to move the US towards:

 

1) High-cost offshore wind (they have the most expertise in that sector and would get most of the projects)

2) High-cost solar (China has 50% of the world panel market) 

3) Importing LNG (mainly from Russia and the Middle East)

APPENDIX 2

High Levels of Wind and Solar

 

High levels of wind and solar, say 60% of NE grid annual load (the rest supplied by other sources), could not ever stand on their own, without the NE grid having 1) much more robust connections to nearby grids (Canada, New York State), plus 2) gas turbine plants and reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants that could quickly vary their outputs to compensate for the quickly varying outputs of wind and solar, including very low outputs of wind and solar, which occur at random, at least 30% of the hours of the year, according to minute-by-minute generation data posted by ISO-NE.

 

If high levels of wind and solar were built out after a few decades, and the gas turbine, nuclear, coal and oil plants were closed down (according to RE proponent wishes), and with existing connections to nearby grids, and with existing reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants, and with existing other sources, the NE grid would require 6 - 8 TWh of storage to cover 5 to 7 day wind/solar lulls, which occur at random, and to cover seasonal variations (storing wind when it is more plentiful, i.e., fall, winter, spring, and when solar is more plentiful in summer, so more of their electricity would be available in summer when wind usually is at very low levels). See URLs.

That storage would need to have a minimal level at all times, about 10 days of demand coverage, to cover multi-day, scheduled and unscheduled equipment and system outages and unusual multi-day weather events, such as a big snow fall covering the solar panels and no wind.

- One TWh of storage costs about $400 billion, at $400/kWh, or $100 billion at a Holy Grail $100/kWh.

- Any electricity passing through storage would have a 15 to 20 percent loss on an AC-to-AC basis, which would require additional wind and solar generation and storage.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-will-need-t...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...