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

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.

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 world annual 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...

 

As measured by owner in New York State
Tesla, Model S
Electricity cost, c/kWh	19
Recorded travel, miles/y	15243
Recorded by vehicle meter, kWh/y (1)	5074
Annual average, vehicle meter basis, kWh/mile	0.333
Seasonal values
kWh/mile, vehicle meter basis	0.301	Apr-Oct
kWh/mile, vehicle meter basis	0.290	Jul
kWh/mile, vehicle meter basis	0.371	Nov-Feb
kWh/mile, vehicle meter basis	0.400	Jan
		c/mile
Recorded by wall meter, kWh/y (2)	5969	7.4
Charging, plus misc. losses (2)/(1)	1.176
Annual average, wall meter basis, kWh/mile	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 (112,114 Btu/gal), then the Btu of that fuel is used to determine EPA MPG-eq.

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

 

EV mileage, per EPA = total miles/(fuel energy used/energy/gal) = 65/(83672/112114) = 87.1 MPG-eq

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 MPG-eq 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