ELECTRIC VEHICLES COMPARED WITH GASOLINE VEHICLES

Please note, this article is a short excerpt, with references to tables and the Appendix, from this much longer article. Much additional information is provided in the longer article. Please, also read the longer article.

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

 

EXCERPT:

 

DECEPTIVE EAN METHOD. AIDED AND ABETTED BY VT-DPS

The Vermont average mileage for light duty vehicles, LDVs, all sizes, was 22.7 mpg in 2018. See URL, page 2.

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

 

If the “Vermont LDV mix” were EVs, it would draw, via a wall socket, at least 0.400 kWh/mile, based on real-world driving of about one year.

 

A typical eco-conscious person, who would buy an EV, likely already drives a higher mileage vehicle, say 30 mpg EPA combined. Any CO2 reduction of EVs should use such a vehicle for comparison.

 

However, EAN engineers compared a medium EV (Nissan Leaf) using only 0.315 kWh/mile with the “Vermont LDV mix” (22.7 mpg), which is a deception, i.e., apples to oranges.

 

On top of that, EAN engineers, colluding with VT-DPS engineers (ten leading employees of VT-DPS are members of EAN! Collusion? Oh no!), used an artificial/political, extra-low, 34 g CO2/kWh, based on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs, which is another deception. See Note 

  

The combination of deceptions enabled EAN to falsely claim a CO2 reduction of 4.500 metric ton/y per EV.

EAN engineers likely knew the deceptions would overstate CO2 reduction by at least 4.504/2.941 = 53%. See table 4

 

NOTE: If EAN had compared “Vermont LDV mix” versus “Vermont LDV mix as EVs” (which would include 4WD, ¼-ton-pick-ups and large SUVs), i.e., apples to apples, and had used 323 g CO2/kWh, per ISO-NE (see Note and table A), EAN would have needed, not 90,000 EVs, but at least 1.53 x 90,000 = 137,826 EVs to reduce CO2 by 0.405 million Mt/y to “meet Paris by 2025”. See table 1

 

NOTE:

- The 34 g CO2/kWh is an artificial/political value for 2018, concocted by VT-DPS, based on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs. It has absolutely nothing to do with physical reality.

- The low CO2 value was concocted to make EVs (and air source heat pumps) look extra good versus gasoline vehicles, primarily to: 1) deceive legislators and lay public, and 2) get more funding for subsidized energy programs.

- Most legislators know they are being deceived, but they go along anyway to promote party politics. See table B.

 

NOTE:

This “EAN method” is just one example of rah-rah claims by pro-RE entities, which has led to:

1) Vermont spending $billions of on expensive energy programs that placed an excessive burden on the near-stagnant Vermont economy (such as Net-Metered at 21.813 c/kWh and Standard Offer at 21.793 c/kWh. See table D), and

2) Did not reduce Vermont’s total CO2 from 1990 – 2018.

  

Table 4/CO2 reduction

EAN

EAN

Realistic

WM basis; PE basis

VT LDV mix

Med. EV

LDV mix as EVs

miles/y

13200

miles/y

13200

13200

mpg

22.7

kWh/mile

0.315

0.400

gal/y

581

kWh/y

4158

5280

CO2, lb/gal

17.612

CO2, g/kWh

34

323

Mt/y

4.645

Mt/y

0.141

1.704

CO2 reduction, Mt/y

4.504

2.941

 

REAL-WORLD CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES, LIFETIME BASIS 

Lifetime evaluations of EVs versus gasoline vehicles have been performed for at least 25 years. All show EVs would reduce very little CO2 compared with efficient light-duty vehicles, LDVs, using gasoline or diesel.

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

 

Engineers, including at Vermont Energy Action Network, EAN, very well know, a proper evaluation of EVs versus gasoline vehicles has to be on a lifetime basis, such as the 105,600 miles for 8 years used in this article, plus the evaluation must be based on:

 

1) CO2 of source energy, 23.371 lb/gal = CO2 of upstream energy, 5.759 lb/gal + CO2 of primary energy, 17.612 lb/gal; EAN ignored upstream

2) CO2 of NE grid, 356 g/kWh, per ISO-NE; EAN used an artificial/concocted 34 g CO2/kWh

3) Embodied CO2/kWh of the vehicle body and battery; EAN ignored embodied

4) Comparison of EVs with efficient gasoline vehicles; EAN used the VT LDV fleet average of 22.7 mpg. However, purchasers of EVs usually replace high mileage vehicles., not gas guzzlers.

5) Long-term wall meter and vehicle meter readings, obtained during real-world driving conditions.

 

 The EAN “parameters” yielded a CO2 reduction of 4.5 metric ton/year/EV. However,

 

1) A Toyota Prius has about 0.15 Mt/y less than a Nissan Leaf  

2) A Mitsubishi Mirage has about 0.84 Mt/y more than a Nissan Leaf.

 

The EAN “parameters” resulted in deceiving non-technical Legislators and non-technical Vermonters.

 

See tables 4 and 5 in this URL

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

 

Comments on Table 4

Base Vehicle:

The popular Nissan Leaf, 62 kWh, was used as base vehicle for comparison with four other vehicles

EPA rated at 118, city/97, highway/108, combined

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Nissan2020.shtml

 

(33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(108 mpg-eq) = 0.299 kWh/mile; includes charging losses

Adjusted to 0.299 x 1.055, loss factor* = 0.315 mile/kWh; includes 1) charging loss, 2) self-use losses due to heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and 3) losses due to NE road/climate conditions, 4) losses due to idle time, such as parked in a garage, or at an airport.

* The loss factor covers items 2, 3 and 4, which are not measured by EPA

 

Comparison Vehicles:

Toyota Prius L Eco hybrid, 56 mpg

Mitsubishi Mirage gasoline vehicle, 39 mpg

Medium gasoline vehicle, 30 mpg

“Vermont LDV gasoline mix”, 22.7 mpg

 

Other Parameters:

- CO2, tailpipe plus upstream = 23.371 lb/gal; combustion CO2 of corn ethanol in gasoline is not counted  

- CO2, electricity = 356 g/kWh, per ISO-NE

 

Result of Analysis: EAN claims 90,000 EVs, purchased during 2020 – 2025, or 18,000/y, would reduce CO2 by 405,000 Mt/y in 2025. That claim is based on false assumptions. See Note.

 

This lifetime analysis found, to reduce CO2 by 405,000 Mt in 2025:

 

- About 4.50/3.58 x 90000 = 113,128 EVs would be needed during 2020 – 2025, each reducing about 3.580 Mt/y, if “LDV gasoline mix” vehicles were replaced, which is unlikely, because the required “LDV mix as EVs” likely would not yet be marketed during 2020 – 2025. Also, the larger 4WD-SUVs, ¼-ton-pick-ups, and minivans, with 80 to 100 kWh batteries, would be prohibitively expensive for Vermonters.

 

- About 4.50/1.92 x 90000 = 210,938 EVs would be needed during 2020 – 2025, each reducing about 1.920 Mt/y, if medium gas vehicles (averaging 30-mpg) were replaced, which is far more likely, because small and medium EVs are marketed, affordable (with federal and state subsidies) and bought by Vermonters. See Note and table 3

 

NOTE: Vermont total registered plug-in vehicles was 3716 in January 2020, of which about 60% were plug-in hybrids and 40% were pure EVs. The total increase was 674 in 2018 and 753 in 2019, about 1.6% of Vermont total new vehicle registrations. See URL

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

 

NOTE: The deceptive/fraudulent EAN method overstated the CO2 reduction of EVs by 4.50/1.92 = 234% compared to the lifetime method. Such fraudulent methods are known to almost all energy systems engineers, including EAN engineers.

 

NOTE: Eco-conscious persons, who would buy EVs, likely already drive higher-mileage gasoline vehicles. Just ask them what they drove before buying an EV.

NOTE: A friend of mine sold her 54 mpg Toyota Prius and bought a $45000 Chevy Bolt, for which she paid only $27000, because of the various federal and state tax credits, and a utility cash grant, which was matched by the car dealer. I just stood there with my mouth wide open! She said, if it had not been for all the incentives (paid for by others), she would have never done it.

 

Capital Cost

Cost for EVs; about 210,938 x $40000/medium EV = $8.483 billion

Cost for private and public chargers; about 210,938 x $1500 = $0.318 billion

Total = 8.483 + 0.316 = $8.801 billion

 

Comment: It should be abundantly clear why EAN engineers chose to:


- Consider only the combustion CO2 of the fuel and electricity, plus use flawed values, plus use unmatched vehicles (apples to oranges), because they knew that approach would have high CO2 reduction/EV, compared to gasoline vehicles, which would fit the RE narrative of the EV-hyping strategy.

 

- Shy away from lifetime analysis, that includes upstream CO2, combustion CO2 and embodied CO2, plus uses realistic values, plus uses matched vehicles (apples to apples), because that approach would have low CO2 reduction/EV, compared to efficient gasoline vehicles, which would not fit the RE narrative of the EV-hyping strategy.

 

Table 5/Lifetime CO2, SE basis

Toyota

Nissan

Mitsubishi

Any mfr.

Any mfr.

Prius

Leaf

Med. car

Med. SUV

Small car

Med. SUV

VT LDV mix

Model

L Eco

Mirage

Type

Hybrid

EV

Gasoline

Gasoline

Gasoline

Plug-in

no

yes

no

no

no

Battery, kWh

0.75

62

no

no

no

Travel, miles

105600

105600

105600

105600

105600

EPA combined, WM basis, mpg

56

39

30

22.7

EPA combined, WM basis, kWh/mile

0.315

NE grid CO2, WM basis, g/kWh

356

E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal

17.612

17.612

17.612

17.612

E10, upstream for extract, process, transport, lb CO2/gal

5.759

5.759

5.759

5.759

E10, total, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal

23.371

23.371

23.371

23.371

.

CO2

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted

15.06

21.63

28.12

37.16

E10, upstream for extract, process, transport

4.93

7.07

9.20

12.15

Electricity, WM basis, kWh

11.92

Body, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*

5.70

5.70

5.70

5.70

7.00

Li battery, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*

0.80

10.10

Total

26.49

27.72

34.40

43.02

56.32

Mt/y

Mt/y

Mt/y

Mt/y

CO2 reduction Mt/y

-0.15

0.84

1.92

3.58

 

* Numbers are partly based on Hall and Lutsey and on Hausfather at carbonbrief.org factcheck, adapted for Vermont conditions.

WIND, SOLAR AND HYDRO

 

If massive build-outs of heavily subsidized wind and solar were to occur (at great expense and environmental damage), which would have upstream CO2 emissions, electric grids would gradually become “cleaner”, i.e., have less CO2/kWh. Table 6 shows prices, c/kWh, and lifetime costs of electricity, LCOE, of various electricity sources.

 

COMMENTS ON TABLE 6:

 

Indirect subsidies are due to loan interest deduction and depreciation deductions from taxable incomes.

Direct subsidies are due to up front grants, waiving of state sales taxes, and/or local property (municipal and school) taxes. See URL.

 

An owner of ridgeline wind would have to sell his output at 18.8 c/kWh, if the owner were not getting the benefits of cost shifting and upfront cash grants and subsidies.

That owner could sell his output at 16.4 c/kWh, if his costs were reduced due to cost shifting.

He could sell his output at 9 c/kWh, if on top of the cost shifting, he also received various subsidies. The same rationale holds for solar. See table.

 

In NE construction costs of ridgeline wind and offshore wind are high/MW, and the capacity factor of wind is about 0.285 and of solar about 0.14. Thus, NE wind and solar have high prices/MWh. See table.

 

In US areas, such as the Great Plains, Texas Panhandle and Southwest, with much lower construction costs/MW and much better sun and wind conditions than New England, wind and solar electricity prices/MWh are less.

 

Those lower prices often are mentioned, without mentioning other factors, by the pro-RE media and financial consultants, such as Bloomberg, etc., which surely deceives the lay public

 

Future electricity cost/MWh, due to the planned build-out of NE offshore wind added to the planned build-out of NE onshore wind, likely would not significantly change, because of the high costs of grid extensions and upgrades to connect the wind plants and to provide significantly increased connections to the New York and Canadian grids.

 

1) The subsidy values in table 1 are from a cost analysis of NE wind and solar in this article. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for...

 

2) The grid support values in table 1 are from this report. See figure 14 for 2.36 c/kWh for wind, and figure 16 for 2.1 c/kWh for solar
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019...

 

NOTE: For the past 20 years, Germany and Denmark have been increasing their connections to nearby grids, because of their increased wind and solar.

 

NOTE: The NE wholesale price has averaged at less than 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

NOTE: Importing more low-cost hydro (about 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP) from Quebec to replace “dangerous nuclear” and “dirty fossil” would be a very quick, smart and economic way to reduce CO2.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-refusing-to-buy-add...

 

NOTE: Owner prices to utilities are based on recent 20-year electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in New England.

These prices would have been about 48% to 50% higher without 1) the direct and indirect subsidies and 2) the cost shifting.

Similar percentages apply in areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW, than New England. The prices of wind and solar, c/kWh, in those areas are lower than New England.

 

Table 6/Vermont & NE sources

Total

Grid support

Subsidies

Paid to

GMP

 Added to

cost

cost

to owner

owner

adder

rate base

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered

25.5

2.1

5.4

18.0

3.8

21.8

Solar, com’l/ind’l, legacy, standard offer

34.4

2.1

10.5

21.8

?

21.8

Solar, com’l/ind’l, new, standard offer*

23.5

2.1

9.6

11.8

?

11.8

Wind, ridge line, new*

18.8

2.4

7.4

9.0

?

9.0

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lifetime Cost of Electricity, LCOE

Gas, combined cycle, existing

4 - 5

Gas, combined cycle, new

5 - 6

Gas, open cycle, peaking, existing

9 - 10

Gas, open cycle, peaking, new

 

 

 

18 - 20

 

 

Nuclear, existing

4.0

Nuclear, new, 60-plus-y life

7.5

Coal, existing

4.0

Coal, new

7.5

Hydro, existing

4.0

Hydro Vermont, net-metered, new

10.0

Wood burning Vermont, net-metered, existing

10.0

* Competitive bidding lowered prices paid to owners.

APPENDIX 1

 

ELECTRIC BUS SYSTEMS ARE LIKELY NOT COST-EFFECTIVE AT PRESENT.

 

Governor and senators seeking more electric vehicles with COVID money

 

“Investing in more energy-efficient public transportation is important for our economy and environment,” the governor said. He added that the money is enabling the transportation agency to replace as many as 30 buses and fund energy-efficient projects."

http://www.truenorthreports.com/governor-and-senators-seeking-more-...

 

At present, the Vermont House Energy/Environment Committee and the VT Transportation Department echo the same message, to "convince" people in the Governor's Office to buy electric buses, for show purposes and virtue signaling.

They urge to buy electric buses at about:

 

$750,000 - $1,000,000 per mass transit bus, plus high-speed charging systems; a diesel bus costs $380,000 - $420,000

$330,000 - $375,000, per school bus, plus high-speed charging systems; a diesel/gasoline bus costs about $100,000

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

 

They are throwing COVID money, meant for suffering people and businesses, into another black hole.

Vermont has cold winters, and hills, and snow-covered roads, and dirt roads in rural areas; kWh/mile would be high.

Those buses would need 4-wheel-drive, or all-wheel-drive.

Massachusetts Electric School Bus Program was a Flop

 

Here is an evaluation of the MA electric school bus project by the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, VEIC.

See page 4 and 45 of URL

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

The project was funded through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) with about $2 million, and administered by the Massachusetts State Department of Energy Resources.

 

Low Utilization Rates and Operating Challenges: Participating school districts encountered a number of mechanical and logistical challenges that suggest this emerging technology requires further testing and refinement before widespread deployment can occur.

All three buses were out of service for a high number of days

 

The three buses logged a total of 13,902 miles, or 4,634 miles/bus

The three buses provided school transportation for about 382 days (including some summer school), or 127 days/bus

If the buses had been driven every school day (180 days), including summer school (say 40 days), each bus would be on the road 220 days, but each bus was on the road only 127 days, i.e., 42% of the days the buses were absent.

 

NOTE: Annual school bus travel is about 12,000 miles, in the US.

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310

 

School

Total miles

Recorded days

Travel days

Miles/d

kWh/mile

Amherst

5302

 150

150

34

2.38

Cambridge

4425

39

142

31

2.38

Concord

4176

90

90

46

2.38

Total

13902

279

382

 

 

Days/bus 

 

 

127

 

 

 

Electric Travel Range: The range averaged from 60 miles at 15F, increasing to 90 miles at 75F. The buses used much more kWh/mile at low temperatures. See page 34 of URL.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

Zero Energy Cost Savings: Fueling costs were greater for the electric buses than traditional diesel buses, due to:

 

1) Uncontrolled charging of batteries,

2) High miscellaneous losses associated with fans and heaters to heat or cool batteries during charging,

3) Excessive electricity usage and demand charges

 

Electricity cost = 13,902 miles x 2.38 kWh/mile x 21.9 c/kWh = $7,240, or 52 c/mile  

Diesel cost = 13,902 miles x 1,765 gallons x $2.50/gallon = $4,413, or 32 c/mile, about 7.9 mpg, which appears somewhat high.

 

Amortizing Capital Cost Difference

 

The capital cost difference of electric vs gasoline/diesel is about $250,000.

Annual school bus travel is about 12,000 miles

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310

 

Amortizing $250,000 at 3.5%/y for 15 years would be $21,446/y, or about $1.79/mile.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Also, there would be amortization costs for high-speed chargers

CO2 and Other Emission Reduction: Electric buses emitted less than half as many tons of GHG than comparable diesel buses.

Emissions of other harmful pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, NOx, and SOx, were also les.

 

Diesel CO2eq /gallon = 10.21 kg CO2 + 0.41 g x 25/454, CH4 + 0.08 g x 298/454, N2O = 10.244 kg

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

 

CO2 of electricity is 2.38 kW/mile x 390 g/kWh, NE grid at user meter in 2017 x 13,902 miles x 1 Mt/1000000 g = 12.9 metric ton

 

GHG of diesel is 10.244 kg/gallon x 3,065 gallons x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 31.4 Mt, about 4.5 mpg, which appears very low.

 

GHG of diesel is 10.244 kg/gallon x 1,765 gallons x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 8.2 Mt. See page 37 of URL and Note

 

NOTE: In New England, people who drive school buses would not have incentives to minimize kWh/mile

NOTE: My numbers show VEIC likely made an error, which made electric buses look much better than diesel buses, regarding GHG. Their 31.4 Mt is not possible, because the 3065 gallons x $2.50/gal = $7,666, which is much greater than the above $4,413. VEIC needs to make a better estimate of diesel gallons. See page 34 of URL

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

NOTE: If the embodied emissions of the batteries, and the embodied emissions of manufacturing the $350,000 buses were included, there likely would be no reductions of GHG emissions, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

 

China, India, and New England

 

China is using electric buses and EVs to clean up is urban pollution, due to using a lot of coal and increased vehicle traffic.

 

The US will need to do the same in many urban areas, but less so, because the US uses more gas and much less coal, and nuclear is still around.

 

India has a China pollution problem, but not China's money and work ethic, i.e., few electric vehicles.

 

Those two countries represent about 45 - 50% of all world pollution and GHG.

Views: 264

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

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!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service