Electric Vehicles in Maine: Consumer awareness and interest remains very low

................An estimated 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in Maine stem from burning petroleum products, and more than half of that comes from cars and trucks. And as of last year, less than 1 percent of the 1.3 million vehicles registered in Maine were all-electric vehicles, or EVs.

There are many reasons. Even with government incentives, EVs cost more than comparable gas-powered cars. Drivers have lingering concerns about running out of battery charge, so-called range anxiety. Then there’s the lack of charging stations and, at least for now, low gasoline prices.

And despite publicity about manufacturers ramping up EV production, the report cautions that consumer awareness and interest remains very low........................

Maine now has a $2,000 tax credit for EVs, though at the same time, a federal incentive worth up to $7,500 is being phased out.

“Usually, the bigger the problem, the more attention you need to pay to get to solutions,” said Jeff Marks, Maine director at the Acadia Center, a regional group working on climate change issues. “And transportation is it.”

the Acadia Center supports the Transportation and Climate Initiative, a collaboration of states from Maine to Virginia working to reduce carbon emissions on the road. But part of that effort envisions raising money through a surcharge on gasoline and diesel fuel, with some of it going to EV rebates and new charging stations. That’s a non-starter for opponents such as the Maine Heritage Policy Center, which said the tax would hurt low-income residents.

Marks said similar arguments were made against the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the multistate program that raises money by offsetting power plant emissions. RGGI, as it’s known, has raised millions of dollars to help Mainers pay for conservation and efficiency.

“It’s a political challenge anytime you talk about fees,” he said. “But we need to help the conversation along by saying this is an investment we need.”

https://www.pressherald.com/2020/02/05/maine-must-plug-in-to-fight-...

************************************* 


Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views: 134

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

Comment by Kenneth Capron on February 6, 2020 at 7:17pm

They are so good that you just can't give them away. How is the insurance on that battery with wheels?

I like this idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1rf_lOb3b0

Coming soon.

Comment by Willem Post on February 6, 2020 at 3:50pm

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, but the actual sales rate appears to be about 700/y

 

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 WM/VM for a Tesla Model S, in upstate NY is 1.3035

The ratio of WM/VM for a Tesla Model 3, in California is 1.2576

 

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, AND log the increase in charge, kWh, in the battery, as shown by the vehicle meter.

That should be done for at least several months.

WM - VM = charge loss and self-use loss.

The ratio of WM/VM for the above Model S, in upstate NY is 6614/5074 = 1.3035

The ratio of WM/VM for the above Model 3, in California is 3442/2737 = 1.2576 

 

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

Charging + Self-use

1540

0.1010

705

0.0631

Charging loss, 15% of WM

992

0.0651

516

0.0462

Self-use

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

LDV mix

Tesla

Tesla

NE grid CO2

NE grid CO2

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.

 

Comment by Willem Post on February 6, 2020 at 2:36pm

Many folks in Montpelier are going nut, because they think Vermont will make a difference.

The want:

GOVERNMENT COERCION, and MANDATEs,

FORCE THE PEOPLE BY LAW TO COMPLY,

NO FREEDOM ANYMORE.

TCI is another Dem/Prog dream fantasy going up in flames.

What other nutty ideas will be next?

Blittersdorf's 80-y-old, el-crappo trains that he bought for a song and a dance in Texas?

Electric buses, at $350,000 to $500,000 each, plus special chargers, everywhere?

"TCI will distribute a FRACTION of the allowances revenues to states?"

After paying exorbitant salaries and expenses to the TCI organization and wise bureaucrats thinking up and administering this cumbersome TCI scheme, what happens to the fraction, after exorbitant expenses, that is NOT distributed to states?

This looks to me like another costly boondoggle about to go viral.

New England needs it like another hole in the head!

The TCI scheme is wide open to fraud, waste and abuse, as there will be minimal, to no, meaningful oversight, other than by pre-selected insiders who agree with the TCI agenda, i.e., the fox guarding the hen house!!!

TCI will become a proxy CARBON TAX collector for states, AT A FAT FEE. Vermont needs that like another hole in the head!

Legislators in each state do not have to vote for much-hated CARBON TAXES, which would be increasing each year, until we all croak.

They would be “off the hook”. They would say with sad faces: "I know you pay more taxes, but it is not my fault, and re-elect me anyway. Bull manure!

November is near. Vote the bums out. Term limits.

Legislators of each state should be ashamed to allow a large amount of hard-earned CARBON TAX money being mis-appropriated by a TCI “super-state” entity over which they likely would have minimal, or no, control.

Another autonomous/out-of-control Big Brother Entity.

Analysis shows the new CARBON taxes would add up to about $56 BILLION, due to fuel dealers buying allowances over 10 years, to reduce CO2 by an additional 1% to 6%, above what would be reduced by EXISTING policies. That sounds really cost effective!!

TCI is legal? Oh no, it is a robbery, developed/supported by know-nothing politicians who need funding for more untested, unproven “programs" that would further increase Vermont State government budgets, i.e., INCREASE the tax burden on hard-working Vermonters.

TCI is not serious about dealing with the issue of climate. Airline travel is FAR worse.

There are about 20,000 commercial jetliners in the air.

All burn a large quantity of DIRTY jet fuel; much, much dirtier than ULS fuel, propane and natural gas.

Airline travel climate impact is a factor 6 to 47 times greater than the impact from car travel, because its CO2 and major particulate pollution is released in the UPPER atmosphere.

Raising gas prices in tiny Vermont will have ZERO effect on global warming, but it provides lots of “feel good halo” to Dem/Prog Volvo-Democrats.

As for the people who cannot afford higher fuel prices? Well, they can take the bus.

How are these $350,000 electric buses working out?

And no one seems to mention that increasing the price of fuel will increase the price of everything else – your groceries come on a truck.

And for all you people who voted for the current Dem/Prog legislators, because you hate Trump (induced by endless Media anti-Trump barrages), please do ponder your vote when you’re gassing up, or when you will be in the voting booth in November; JUST VOTE NO.

 

This recent study in Finland shows CO2 has minimal effect on climate and global warming.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

“In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. 

That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the greenhouse gases in the observed temperature. 

This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. 

Further, they have to leave out the strong negative feedback, due to the clouds, in order to magnify the sensitivity. 

In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

 

Comment by Robert Powers on February 6, 2020 at 2:32pm

I know a couple with an electric car here in Maine (not a hybrid)...100% electric.   Forget about heat in the winter, windshield defrosting and air-conditioning in the summer unless you are on a very short trip!   Power is needed for driving and other uses cut into drive distance and creature/safety comforts.  Will work for short trips around town in good weather, etc....

Need to tow a boat or snowmobile trailer?  Forget about it!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"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."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

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

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(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 https://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?" https://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.” https://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!

© 2020   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service