650 km Wintertime Trip With VW E-Car Took 13 Hours, 3 Recharges And Lots Of Warm Clothes

By P Gosselin on 18. January 2022

Consumers’ expectations for e-cars are still unrealistic…can’t hold a candle to conventional combustion engine vehicles

When it comes to performance parameters like fuel consumption, car manufacturers’ brochures often boast figures that in reality are only possible under really ideal conditions. But rarely are such conditions the case in real life. The result: disappointed consumers.

The VW Up. Image cropped from VW.

Electric cars are notorious for their limited range and need of constant recharging – factors that are often not considered  by buyers. Recently German auto reporter Lisa Brack put her brand new electric car through a long distance, wintertime test. The result was hardly thrilling.

“The result is sobering – she saves time by consistently freezing,” reported the German kreiszeitung.de here, on Ms. Brack’s test.

13 hours of driving and charging

Ms. Brack and EFAHRER.com conducted the long-distance test on her new VW e-Up by driving it from VW in Wolfsburg, where she had picked it up, to her home in Munich.

The 650 km trip would normally be done easily in less than 7 hours with a conventional diesel engine car (assuming no traffic jams) and without the need to stop to refuel. However, for Brack in her new VW e-Up vehicle, the trip needed almost 13 hours – a time the kreiszeitung.de describes as “appalling”. Numerous hassles were encountered.

No heating

After being handed her new car from VW in Wolfsburg, she departed for Munich at 2:45 p.m. The subfreezing weather was a  major drawback for the VW e-car. According to the kreiszeitung.de, “the heating system was heating the battery, but did not have enough capacity to also heat the cabin, i.e., no heat for almost the entire journey with freezing temperatures”.

This meant that to survive the trip, Brack had to take along a generous supply of “hats, scarves, gloves and generally warm clothing” and hope to find enough CCS charging stations along the way. Without these charging stations, getting the batteries charged up would take much longer.

In total she needed three charging stops.

Reached destination at 3:30 – in the morning!

It was 3:30 in the morning by the time Brack reached her destination in Munich, half frozen to death.

According to the kreiszeitung.de, she made the crucial mistake of charging up too seldom and wasted much time charging the batteries to 100% instead of 80% (the last 20% take the longest, and also shorten the range and life of the battery).“Charge faster, accept a little less range and charge again earlier – but again faster.”

“One more charge alone would have saved 1.5 hours,” she commented.

“The trip turned into a long winter excursion that she will not soon forget,” reported the kreiszeitung.de.

Expectations too high

The experience shows electric vehicles, though practical for short trips, still have a long way to go before they can keep up with today’s modern diesel and gasoline engines.

Studies also show that e-cars offer very little, lifetime CO2 savings, if the evaluation is performed on an A-to-Z, lifetime basis, and with proper values of g CO2/kWh, and if upstream CO2 of obtaining materials, and manufacturing the battery and vehicle, etc., are taking into account.

APPENDIX 1

CHEVY BOLT CATCHES FIRE WHILE CHARGING ON DRIVEWAY IN VERMONT

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/chevy-bolt-catches-fir...

 

THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, battery pack cost about $10,000, or 10000/66 = $152/kWh, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.

 

He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89

He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts

He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.

His battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging.

Charging over such a wide range is detrimental for the battery. However, it is required for “range-driving”, i.e., making long trips. See Note

 

NOTE: Range-driving is an absolute no-no, except on rare occasions, as it would 1) pre-maturely age/damage the battery, 2) reduce range sooner, 3) increase charging loss, and 4) increase kWh/mile, and 5) increase the chance of battery fires.

 

Charging at 32F or less

Li-ions would plate out on the anode each time when charging, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.

 

Here is an excellent explanation regarding charging at 32F or less.

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/263036/why-charging...

 

Fire in Driveway: Firefighters were called to Briglin’s house on Tucker Hill Road, around 9 AM Thursday.

Investigators from the Vermont Department of Public Safety Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit determined:

 

1) The fire started in a compartment in the back of the passenger’s side of the vehicle

2) It was likely due to an “electrical failure”. See Note

 

NOTE: Actually, it likely was one or more battery cells shorting out, which creates heat, which burns nearby items, which creates a fire that is very hard to extinguish. See Appendix

 

https://www.vnews.com/Firefighters-put-out-blaze-in-car-of-Vt-State...

https://www.engadget.com/gm-chevy-bolt-fire-warning-215322969.html

https://electrek.co/2020/11/13/gm-recall-chevy-bolt-evs-potential-f...

 

GM Recall of Chevy Bolts: In 2020, GM issued a worldwide recall of 68,667 Chevy Bolts, all 2017, 2018 and 2019 models, plus, in 2021, a recall for another 73,000 Bolts, all 2020, 2021, and 2022 models.

GM set aside $1.8 BILLION to replace battery modules, or 1.8 BILLION/(68,667 + 73,000) = $12,706/EV.

 

https://insideevs.com/news/524712/chevrolet-bolt-battery-recall-cost/

https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/568817-gm-expands-bolt-ev...

 

Owners were advised not to charge them in a garage, and not to leave them unattended while charging, which may take up to 8 hours; what a nuisance!

I wonder what could happen during rush hour traffic, or in a parking garage, or at a shopping mall, etc.

Rep. Briglin heeded the GM recall by not charging in his garage. See URLs

 

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/09/16/electric-social-distancing/

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governme...

 

NOTE:

- Cost of replacing the battery packs of 80,000 Hyundai Konas was estimated at $900 million, about $11,000 per vehicle

https://insideevs.com/news/492167/reports-lg-chem-cost-hyundai-batt...

- EV batteries should be charged from 20 to 80%, to achieve minimal degradation and long life, plus the charging loss is minimal in that range

- Charging EVs from 0 to 20% charge, and from 80 to 100% charge:

 

1) Uses more kWh AC from the wall outlet per kWh DC charged into the battery, and

2) Is detrimental to the battery.

3) Requires additional kWh for cooling the battery while charging.

 

- EV batteries must never be charged, when the battery temperature is less than 32F; if charged anyway, the plating out of Li-ions on the anode would permanently damage the battery.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-does-lithium-ion-battery-work

 

APPENDIX 2

 

HERE IS AN EXCELLENT EXPLANATION REGARDING EV CHARGING AT 32F OR LESS

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/here-is-an-excellent-e...

 

Here is an excellent explanation regarding EV charging at 32F or less.

 

Explanation by Expert

 

'Cold temperatures' is awfully vague. First, let me actually specify some real, hard numbers.

Do not charge lithium-ion batteries below 32°F/0°C. In other words, never charge a lithium-ion battery that is below freezing.

 

Doing so even once will result in a sudden, severe, and permanent capacity loss on the order of several dozen percent or more, as well a similar and also permanent increase in internal resistance. This damage occurs after just one isolated 'cold charging' event, and is proportional to the speed at which the cell is charged. 

 

But, even more importantly, a lithium-ion cell that has been cold charged is NOT safe and must be safely recycled or otherwise discarded. By not safe, I mean it will work fine until it randomly explodes due to mechanical vibration, mechanical shock, or just reaching a high enough state of charge. See URL

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/263036/why-charging...

 

Now, to actually answer your question: why is this?

 

This requires a quick summary of how lithium-ion batteries work. They have an anode and cathode and electrolyte just like any other battery, but there is a twist: lithium ions actually move from the cathode to anode during charging and intercalate into it. The gist of intercalation is that molecules or ions (lithium ions in this case) are crammed in between the molecular gaps of some material's lattice. 

 

During discharging, the lithium ions leave the anode and return to the cathode, and likewise intercalate into the cathode. So, both the cathode and anode act as sort of a 'sponge' for lithium ions. 

 

When most of the lithium ions are intercalated into the cathode (meaning the battery is in a fairly discharged state), the cathode material will expand slightly due to volumetric strain (because of all the extra atoms wedged in between its lattice), but generally most of this is intercalation force is converted to internal stresses (analogous to tempered glass), so the volumetric strain is slight. 

 

During charging, the lithium ions leave the cathode and intercalate into the graphite anode. Graphite has is basically a carbon biscuit, made of a bunch of graphene layers to form an aggregate biscuit structure.  American biscuit structure.

 

This greatly reduces the graphite anode's ability to convert the force from the intercalation into internal stresses, so the anode undergoes significantly more volumetric strain - so much so that it will actually increase in volume by 10-20%. This must be (and is - except in the case of a certain Samsung phone battery anyway) allowed for when designing a lithium-ion cell - otherwise the anode can slowly weaken or even ultimately puncture the internal membrane that separates the anode from the cathode, causing a dead short inside the cell. But only once a bunch of joules has been shoved into the cell (thus expanding the anode). 

 

Ok, but what does any of this have to do with cold temperatures?

 

When you charge a lithium-ion cell in below freezing temperatures, most of the lithium ions fail to intercalate into the graphite anode. Instead, they plate the anode with metallic lithium, just like electroplating an anode coin with a cathode precious metal.

 

So, charging will electroplate the anode with lithium rather than, well, recharging it. Some of the ions to intercalate into the anode, and some of the atoms in the metal plating will intercalate later over 20+ hours, if the cell is allowed to rest, but most will not. That is the source of the capacity reduction, increased internal resistance, and also the danger.

 

If you've read my related answer on stack exchange to the question 'Why is there so much fear surrounding lithium-ion batteries?', you can probably see where this is going. 

 

This lithium plating of the anode isn't nice and smooth and even (like chrome plating). It forms in dendrites, little sharp tendrils of lithium metal growing on the anode.

 

As with the other failure mechanisms which likewise are due to metallic lithium plating of the anode (though for different reasons), these dendrites can put unexpected pressure on the separating membrane as the anode expands and forces them into it, and if you're unlucky, this will cause the membrane to one day fail unexpectedly (or also immediately, sometimes a dendrite just pokes a hole in it and touches the cathode).

 

This makes the cell vent, ignite its flammable electrolyte, and ruin your weekend (at best).

 

However, you might be wondering, "why do below-freezing temperatures cause lithium metal plating of the anode?"

 

And the unfortunate and unsatisfying answer is that we don't actually know. We must use neutron imaging to look inside functioning lithium-ion cells, and considering there are only around ~30 (31 I think?) worldwide active research reactors (nuclear reactors that act as a neutron source) that are actually available for scientific research at a university rather than used for medical isotope production, and all of them booked 24/7 for experiments, I think it is just a matter of patience. There have only been a few instances of neutron imaging of lithium-ion batteries simply due to scarcity of equipment time. 

 

The last time this was used specifically for this cold temperature problem was 2014 I believe, and here is the article. 

 

Despite the headline, they still haven't really solved exactly what it is that causes plating rather than intercalation when the cell is below freezing.

 

Interestingly, it is actually possible to charge a lithium-ion cell below freezing, but only at exceedingly low currents, below 0.02C

(a greater than 50-hour charge time).

 

There are also a few exotic cells commercially available that are specifically designed to be chargeable in cold temperatures, usually at significant cost (both monetarily and in terms of the cells' performance in other areas). 

 

Note: I should add that discharging a lithium-ion battery in below freezing temperatures is perfectly safe. Most cells have discharge temperature ratings of -20°C or even colder. Only charging a 'frozen' cell need be avoided.

 

APPENDIX 3

 

See section Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions in URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governme...

 

Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions

 

A 3-layer tape (cathode, separator and anode) is wound on a core to make a battery cell.

An EV battery pack has several thousand cells. The cells are arranged in strings, i.e., in series, to achieve the desired voltage

The strings are arranged in parallel to achieve the desired amps.

Power, in Watts = Volts x Amps

 

EV Normal Operation at 32F and below: On cold/freezing days, EVs would use on-boardsystems to heat the battery, as needed, during daily operation

 

EV Parking at 32 F and below: When at home, it is best to keep EVs plugged in during periods at 32F and below, whether parked indoors or outdoors.

When parking at an airport, which may not have enough charging stations, it is best to fully charge EVs prior to parking, to enable the on-board systems to heat the battery during parking, as needed.

 

Charging at 32F and below: Li-ion batteries must never be charged when the batterytemperature is at 32F or below. Do not plug it in. Turn on “pre-conditioning”, to enable the battery heating/cooling system (which could be a heat pump) to very slowly heat up the battery to about 40F. After the battery is “up to temperature”, normal charging can be started, either at home, or at a fast-charging rate on the road.

 

If the battery does not have enough charge to heat itself at about 40F, it needs to be heated by an external heat source, such as an electric heater under the battery, or towed/driven to a warm garage. All this, while cumbersome, needs to be done to safeguard the expensive battery.

 

Pre-conditioning can be set to:

 

1) Preheat the cabin and/or seats

2) Defrost windshield wipers, windows, door handles and charge port, etc., in case of freezing rain conditions; newer Teslas have charge port heaters. See URL

3) Pre-heat the battery, before arriving at a fast charger.

https://getoptiwatt.com/news/tesla-extreme-weather-considerations-h...

 

Power Outage, while parked at 32F and below: During a power outage, partially charged batteries, connected to dead chargers, could use much of their remaining charge to keep the batteries at about 40F.

If the power is restored, and the EV is plugged in, charging must never begin, unless the battery temperature is 35 to 40F

See URLs.

 

During charging, Li-ions (pos.) are absorbed by the anode (pos.) at decreasing rates as the battery temperature decreases from 32F

Any excess Li-ions arriving at the anode will plate out on the anode and permanently reduce the absorption rate.

 

The plating is not smooth, like chrome plating; it is roughish and may have dendrites, which could penetrate the thin separator between the anode and cathode, and cause a short and a fire.

 

A similar condition exists, if charging from 0 to 20% and from 80 to 100%; the more often such charging, the greater the anode resistance to absorbing Li-ions, and the greater the likelihood of plating.

 

The plating condition is permanent, i.e., cannot be reversed.

 

Also, frequently charging from 0 to 20% and from 80 to 100%, increases the charging percentage, increases kWh/mile of travel, and reduces range.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/12/electric-bus-inferno-in-hano...

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/263036/why-charging...

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_at_high_and_lo...

 

NOTE:

- EV batteries have miscellaneous losses to provide electricity to on-board systems

- On cold/freezing days, an electric bus should be ready for service as soon as the driver enters the bus

- On cold/freezing days, the bus driver would need at least 70% charge, because travel would require more kWh per mile

 

NOTE:

If the battery temperature is less than 40F or more than 115F, it will use more kWh/mile of travel

The best efficiency, charging and discharging, is at battery temperatures of 60 to 80F.

Batteries have greater internal resistance at lower temperatures and at high temperatures.

Pro-bus folks often point to California regarding electric buses, but in New England, using electric buses to transport children would be a whole new ballgame, especially on colder days. See URLs

 

https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-cold-weather-tips/

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127610_keep-your-parked-elect...

 

EV Electricity Supply: Where would the electricity come from, to charge and protect from cold, expensive batteries during extended electricity outages/rolling blackouts, due to multi-day, hot and cold weather events, with minimal wind and solar, as occur in New England throughout the year?

Would charging electricity be supplied by emergency standby diesel-generators, or emergency standby batteries?

 

APPENDIX 4

 

Tesla reported WORLDWIDE deliveries that totaled 241,300 EVs for the third quarter of 2021, up from 201,250 in Q2 and 184,800 in Q1. 

https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones...

 

APPENDIX 5

 

HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-are-money-l...

 

I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.

The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.

The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000

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

 

My Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House

 

The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

 

I do not operate my HPs at 15F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures.

The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3

 

High Electricity Prices

 

Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:

 

1) Increase already-high electric rates and

2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal

 

- HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills

- Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 20 c/kWh.

- My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house

- Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement

- My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64, which required, at 35% displacement of fuel, 2489 kWh; 100% displacement would require 8997 kWh

- The average Vermont house COP was 3.34, which required, at 27.6% displacement, 2085 kWh, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey.

- I operate my HPs at temperatures of 15F and greater; less $/h than propane

- I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 15F and less; less $/h than HP

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0199-y

https://acrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/HeatPumps-ACRPC-5_20.pdf

 

Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y

 

After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.

 

My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 - 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y

My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 - 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%

My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y

 

My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 - 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

 

Amortizing Heat Pumps

 

Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.

This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Other Annual Costs

 

There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.

This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

 

Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs

 

Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2489 kWh of electricity x 3412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu.

 

However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all engineers know is an absolute no-no.

 

A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus in propane vs thermal Btus to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A

 

Table 1A, Energy Savings

Heat in propane, Btu/y, HHV

25275000

Fuel to power plant, Btu/y

23312490

Fuel to power plant, kWh/y

6833

Conversion efficiency

0.4

Fed to grid, kWh

2733

Transmission loss adjustment, 2.4%

2667

Distribution loss adjustment, 6.7%

2489

Heat in propane, Btu/gal, HHV

84250

Purchased propane, gal/y

300

Purchased electricity, kWh/y

2489

Heat in propane Btu/gal, LHV

84250

Standby, kWh

91

Defrost, kWh

154

To compressor, kWh

2244

COP

2.64

Heat for space heat, kWh

5926

Btu/kWh

3412

Furnace efficiency

0.8

Btu/y for space heat

20220000

20220000

 

APPENDIX 6

 

EXCERPT from:

 

ELECTRIC TRANSIT AND SCHOOL BUS SYSTEMS REDUCE LITTLE CO2, ARE NOT COST-EFFECTIVE

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...

 

China has made electric buses and EVs a priority in urban areas to reduce excessive air pollution, due to: 1) coal-fired power plants, and 2) increased vehicle traffic.

 

The US has much less of a pollution problem than China, except in its larger urban areas. 

The US uses much less coal, more domestic natural gas, and CO2-free nuclear is still around.

 

New England has a pollution problem in its southern urban areas.

Vermont has a minor pollution problem in Burlington and a few other urban areas.

 

RE folks want to “Electrify Everything”; an easily uttered slogan

 

It would require:                                                                     

 

- Additional power plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, bio

- Additional grid augmentation/expansion to connect wind and solar systems, and to carry the loads for EVs and heat pumps

- Additional battery systems to store midday solar output surges for later use, i.e., DUCK-curve management.

- Additional centralized, command/control/orchestrating (turning off/on appliances, heat pumps, EVs, etc.) by utilities to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

 

1) Charging times of EVs and operating times of heat pumps, and major appliances

2) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses

 

RE Folks Want More EVs and Buses Bought With “Free” Money

 

RE folks drive the energy priorities of New England governments. RE folks want to use about $40 million of “free” federal COVID money and Volkswagen Settlement money to buy electric transit and school buses to deal with a minor pollution problem in a few urban areas in Vermont. RE folks urge Vermonters to buy:

 

Mass Transit Buses

Electric: $750,000 - $1,000,000 each, plus infrastructures, such as indoor parking, high-speed charging systems.

Standard Diesel: $380,000 - $420,000; indoor parking and charging systems not required.

 

School Buses

Electric: $330,000 - $375,000, plus infrastructures

Standard Diesel: about $100,000

https://atlaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Electric-Buses-a...

  

This article shows the 2 Proterra transit buses in Burlington, VT, would reduce CO2 at very high cost per metric ton, and the minor annual operating cost reduction would be overwhelmed by the cost of amortizing $million buses that last about 12 to 15 years.

 

The $40 million of “free” money would be far better used to build zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses for suffering households; such housing would last at least 50 to 75 years.

  

NOTE: Spending huge amounts of borrowed capital on various projects that 1) have very poor financials, and 2) yield minor reductions in CO2 at high cost, is a recipe for 1) low economic efficiency, and 2) low economic growth, on a state-wide and nation-wide scale, which would 1) adversely affect Vermont and US competitiveness in markets, and 2) adversely affect living standards and 3) inhibit unsubsidized/efficient/profitable job creation.

 

Real Costs of Government RE Programs Likely Will Remain Hidden

 

Vermont’s government engaging in electric bus demonstration programs, financed with “free” money, likely will prove to be expensive undertakings, requiring hidden subsidies, white-washing and obfuscation.

 

Lifetime spreadsheets, with 1) turnkey capital costs, 2) annual cashflows, 3) annual energy cost savings, 4) annual CO2 reductions, and 5) cost of CO2 reduction/metric ton, with all assumptions clearly stated and explained, likely will never see the light of day.

  

Including Amortizing Capital Cost for a Rational Approach to Projects

 

RE folks do not want to include amortizing costs, because it makes the financial economics of their dubious RE projects appear dismal. This is certainly the case with expensive electric buses. If any private-enterprise business were to ignore amortizing costs, it would be out of business in a short time.

 

Capital cost of electric school bus, plus charger, $327,500 + $25,000 = $352,500

Battery system cost, $100,000, for a 100-mile range.

Capital cost of diesel school bus, $100,000

Additional capital cost “to go electric” 352500 - 100000 = $252,500

 

APPENDIX 6

 

EXCERPT from:

 

POOR ECONOMICS AND MINIMAL CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

This article describes the efficiency of electric vehicles, EVs, and their charging loss, when charging at home and on-the-road, and the economics, when compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.

  

In this article,

 

Total cost of an EV, c/mile = Operating cost, c/mile + Owning cost, c/mile, i.e., amortizing the difference of the MSRPs of an EV versus an equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicle; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

 

CO2 reduction of equivalent vehicles, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis = CO2 emissions of an efficient gasoline vehicle, say 30 to 40 mpg - CO2 emissions of an EV

 

SUMMARY

 

Real-World Concerns About the Economics of EVs

 

It may not be such a good idea to have a proliferation of EVs, because of:

 

1) Their high initial capital costs; about 50% greater than equivalent gasoline vehicles.

2) The widespread high-speed charging facilities required for charging "on the road".

3) The loss of valuable time when charging "on the road".

4) The high cost of charging/kWh, plus exorbitant penalties, when charging “on-the-road”.

 

High-Mileage Hybrids a Much Better Alternative Than EVs

 

The Toyota Prius, and Toyota Prius plug-in, which get up to 54 mpg, EPA combined, would:

 

1) Have much less annual owning and operating costs than any EV, for at least the next ten years.

2) Have minimal wait-times, as almost all such plug-ins would be charging at home 

3) Be less damaging to the environment, because their batteries would have very low capacity, kWh

4) Impose much less of an additional burden on the electric grids.

 

Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, save about the same amount of CO₂ as electric cars over their lifetime, plus:

 

1) They are cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles, even without subsidies.

2) They do not require EV chargers, do not induce range anxiety, can be refilled in minutes, instead of hours. 

3) Climate change does not care about where CO₂ comes from. Gasoline cars are only about 7% of global CO2 emissions. Replacing them with electric cars would only help just a little, on an A to Z, lifetime basis.

 

“Electrify Everything”; an easily uttered slogan

 

It would require:                                                                     

 

- Additional power plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, bio

- Additional grid augmentation/expansion to connect wind and solar systems, and to carry the loads for EVs and heat pumps

- Additional battery systems to store midday solar output surges for later use, i.e., DUCK-curve management.

- Additional command/control-orchestrating (turning off/on appliances, heat pumps, EVs, etc.) by utilities to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

 

1) Charging times of EVs and operating times of heat pumps

2) Operating times of major appliances

3) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses

 

Comments on Table

 

Summary table 1 shows the CO2 emissions for four vehicles, lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

The table shows higher-mileage gasoline and hybrid vehicles have CO2 emissions comparable with equivalent EVs.

It was assumed 20% of charging would be on the road and 80% at home.

The Model Y kWh/mile values were prorated from real-world Model 3 values.

 

Summary 1/CO2, Lifetime/A-to-Z basis

Kona

Kona

Model Y

Model Y

Subaru

Toyota

Road

Home

Road

Home

Outback

Prius L Eco

Charging fraction

0.2

0.8

0.2

0.8

EPA combined, Model Y

27

27

EPA combined, Model 3

25

25

Mileage, mpg

30

56

CO2, incl. upstream, lb/gal

23.371

23.371

Consumption, wall meter basis, kWh/mile

0.284

0.299

0.335

0.352

Travel, miles/10 years

105600

105600

105600

105600

105600

105600

Total electricity, kWh/10 years

29990

31538

35354.88

37180

NE grid CO2, wall meter basis, g/kWh

304

304

304

304

g/lb

454

454

454

454

lb/Mt

2204.62

2204.62

2204.62

2204.62

2204.62

2204.62

Total CO2, Mt/10 years

9.109

9.579

10.738

11.292

Total CO2, Mt/10 years

1.822

7.663

2.148

9.034

Total CO2, Mt/10 years

9.485

11.182

37.315

19.990

Embodied vehicle body CO2, Mt

5.700

5.700

5.700

5.700

Embodied battery CO2, Mt

10.100

13.358

Total CO2, Mt/10 years

25.285

30.240

43.015

26.490

Total CO2, Mt/y

2.529

3.024

4.302

2.649

CO2, g/mile

239

286

407

251

 

Views: 89

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 arthur qwenk on January 20, 2022 at 9:37am

Oh Lord, Why Are "Greenies" so blinded by their ideology so as to not see Common Sense Facts!

 

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!

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/

© 2022   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service