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

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.

 

EVs are designed to be aero-dynamic, and to have low rolling resistance, efficient drive trains, and efficient batteries. This will minimize vehicle weight and maximize range. Tesla is the industry leader regarding efficient EVs.

 

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

 

It is important to assess the cost and operating impacts of large-scale use of EVs on electricity generation, grid capacity and grid-scale energy storage capacity, on an A-to Z basis.

 

This article has six parts and an Appendix.

 

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 have none of the EV downsides, such as:

 

- Not requiring EV chargers,

- Not inducing range anxiety

- Refilling 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 a little. 

 

“Electrify Everything”, an easily uttered slogan that would costs $billions in Vermont

 

It would require:

 

- Additional electricity generation plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro

- Additional grid augmentation/expansion to carry increased loads for future EVs and heat pumps

- Additional battery systems to store the midday solar electricity surges for later use, aka, DUCK-curve management.

- Major command/control-orchestrating to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

 

1) Charging times and duration of EVs and heat pumps

2) Operating times of major appliances

3) Control of electricity demands of commercial/industrial businesses

 

New England Poor Wind and Solar Conditions

 

New England has the worst wind conditions, except for the US South, and the worst solar conditions, except for the rainy Seattle area

 

“Electrify everything” would be a major challenge just to figure out (never mind the cost and environmental impact of implementing it), how all this would actually be working during:

 

1) Five to seven-day periods, when both wind and solar are minimal (such periods occur at random throughout the year), and

2) Multi-day periods of cold weather, 0 F or less, with snow and ice on solar panels, while electricity demands of heat pumps and EVs would be maximal

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

https://21stcenturywire.com/2021/02/09/achtung-baby-its-cold-outsid...

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

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

0.800

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

 

EVs are Money Losers Compared to Efficient Gasoline Vehicles and Hybrids

 

Increasing the use of high-mileage vehicles, such as hybrids, and getting gas-guzzlers off the road (which need not involve any government subsidies), would reduce CO2 at much less cost per vehicle, than would the government-subsidized replacement of light duty vehicles with EVs.

 

The table shows the total cost of owning and operating four vehicles.

 

The Nissan Kona EV, and Toyota Prius L eco hybrid, both without all-wheel-drive, AWD, are not as versatile as the Subaru Outback and the Tesla Model Y for New England conditions, especially in rural areas.

All four have similar cargo space. 

 

The difference in vehicle purchase cost was amortized at 3.5% for 10 years.

 

Summary 2/EV vs Gasoline

Electricity cost

Amortize cost difference

Total cost

CO2

CO2

 

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

Mt/y

g/mile

Kona, no AWD

 

 

 

2.529

239

Cost, on-the-road charging

8.39

12.3

20.69

 

 

Cost, at-home charging

5.98

12.3

18.28

 

 

Model Y, AWD

 

 

 

3.024

286

Cost, on-the-road charging

9.37

26.1

35.47

 

 

Cost, at-home charging

7.04

26.1

33.14

 

 

Subaru, Outback, AWD

 

 

 

4.302

407

Gasoline vehicle; 30 mpg

7.33

0

7.33

 

 

Prius L Eco, no AWD

 

 

 

 

 

Gasoline/electric; 56 mpg

3.93

0

3.93

 

251

 

Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House

My annual electricity consumption increased about 50%, after I installed three 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each bedroom.

They are used for heating and cooling my, well-sealed/well-insulated house. 

They displaced a small fraction of my propane consumption.

 

My existing propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 15 F or less, because heat pumps would have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat; a perverse situation.

 

There have been no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges.

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

There likely will be service calls and parts, as the years go by, in addition to service calls and parts for the existing propane system.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com 

Government Electric Vehicle and Heat Pump Mandates

 

Subsidies do not just disappear. They would be charged to others, and/or would be added to government debts.

 

Celebrating energy cost savings, and ignoring amortizing costs, and having minimal CO2 reduction is like living a fantasy. See Part Five regarding CO2

 

Governments mandating hundreds of $billions be spent on such poor investments, as part of climate-change fighting,
meeting Paris”, etc., would impoverish the US people, and make the US less competitive on world markets.

 

The CO2 reduction would have minimal impact on climate change, because the US emits less than 15% of the world's human-caused CO2. See URLs.

 

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

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

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-con...

Additional Wind/Solar/Hydro Generating Plants, Grid Upgrades, Peak-Smoothing, Load-Shifting, Storage

 

Vermont’s maximum grid load is about 1100 MW, and peak demand of users is about 900 MW, without significant quantities of heat pumps and EVs.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

Major distribution and high-voltage grid upgrades, peak-smoothing and load-shifting and electricity storage systems, using battery systems and demand management, would be required, if, in the future:

 

- Vermont’s 200,000-plus EVs would plug in, demanding 200,000 x 9 kW; see table 2 = 1,800 MW, most of them recharging for 2 - 4 hours, some of them up to 10 hours, for next day driving.

 

NOTE: Vermont total registered gas/diesel vehicles was 547,000 in 2019

https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/planning/documents/plann...

 

- Vermont’s 200,000-plus heat pumps would be operating, demanding 200,000 x 2.8 kW = 560 MW, for many hours on cold days, to heat buildings.  Each free-standing, 2000 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, would require 2 such heat pumps. See URL

https://www.thermospace.com/ductless_split/ymgi/inverter-16-seer-2-...

PART ONE

EPA Mileage and Range Testing of EVs

 

EPA determines kWh/ mile and driving range in a laboratory, i.e., level, dry road; no wind; about 65F.

EPA combined kWh/mile is low, and range is long, because of ideal test conditions.

EPA measures electricity at the wall outlet, i.e., conversion from AC to DC and battery charging loss are included.

 

EPA does not measure miscellaneous losses, such as for: 1) cabin heating and cooling, 2) battery heating and cooling, 3) hot and cold weather operation, 4) heated seats/mirrors, 5) audio/video, 6) road conditions, such as snow, hilly terrain, 7) more than one person, and/or cargo, in the vehicle, 8) while parked in a garage or at an airport, 9) driving habits of operator. 

Real-world range is about 10 to 20% less than EPA, and up to 40% less on hilly, snow/ice-covered roads, during 20F-and-below-days in winter.

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/03/21/electric-cars-cold-weather-test...

Real-world consumption is greater than EPA, due to miscellaneous losses, which, on an annual average basis, vary from at least 6% (ideal conditions) to about 15% (cold climate, road conditions, such as snow, hilly terrain). See four real-world examples in Part Three.

Initial Battery Reserve

Tesla Model S makes available all of the battery charge; no initial reserve, because Tesla has detailed, vertical quality control over battery manufacturing, unlike other vehicle manufacturers.

 

Tesla Model S uses 29 kWh AC/100 miles, or 116.58 kWh AC/402 miles, per EPA

Tesla Model S available battery capacity ranges from 100 to 105 kWh, an average of about 102.5 kWh DC.

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=EPA+te...

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a34046953/tesla-range-strategy-de...

 

Audi E-tron makes available 86.5 kWh of the 95.3 kWh charge; an initial reserve of 9% for a battery that likely would be used about 10 years.

 

Audi E-tron uses 78 kWh AC/100 miles, or 173.16 kWh AC/222 miles, per EPA

Audi E-tron available battery capacity is about 86.5 kWh DC.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/5/21356342/2021-audi-e-tron-price-d...

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=43498

Table 1/2021 models

Model 3

Model Y

Model S

Model X

E-tron

Kona

 

Sm. Sedan

Sm. SUV

Med. Sedan

Med. SUV

Med. SUV

Sm. SUV

AWD or 4WD

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

Capital cost, no options, etc.

46,990

49,990

79,990

89,990

65,900

37,390

EPA combined, kWh AC/100 miles

25

27

29

35

78

27

Range, mile

353

326

412

360

222

258

kWh AC/range

88.25

88.02

119.48

126.00

173.16

69.66

EPA combined, kWh AC/mile

0.25

0.27

0.29

0.35

0.78

0.27

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Real-world/Model year

2019

2019

 

 

 

2020

On-the-road charging, kWh AC/mile

0.310

0.335

 

 

 

0.284

At-home charging; kWh AC/mile

0.326

0.352

 

 

 

 

EV Charging Loss, Based on Measured Values

  

Level 1 Charger: Such chargers operate at 120 V. Charging efficiency, at 120V/12A, would be about 1,440 W x 0.95, AC/DC - 240 W, cooling pump, etc. = 78.3%; a suitable wall outlet would suffice; very slow charging.

 

Level 2 Charger: Such chargers operate at 240 V. Increasing charging current, A, increases the charging efficiency. See table 2     

 

Charging efficiency, at 240V/48A, would be about 11,520 W x 0.95, AC to DC - 1244 W, cooling pump, etc. = 84.2%.

It would take about 10 hours to fully charge a 100 kWh Tesla Model S battery.

 

Fast charging heats up the battery much more than slow charging; the cooling pump, charge controller, etc., are operating while charging.

Most houses could be set up for Level 2 charging.

 

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/charging-efficiency.122072/

https://www.purepower.com/blog/electric-vehicle-charging-systems

https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/167646/battery-charging-kwh-com...

https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/167646/battery-charging-kwh-com...

 

Table 2/Charger type

Line

Level 1

Level 2

Level 2

Level 2

Voltage

 

120

240

240

240

Amperage

 

12

24

36

48

Power, watts

1

1440

5760

8640

11520

AC to DC efficiency

 

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

Power, watts

 

1368

5472

8208

10944

Cooling pump, etc.; watts

 

240

768

1037

1244

Into Battery, watts

2

1128

4704

7171

9700

Charging efficiency; line 2/line 1, %

3

78.3

81.7

83.0

84.2

Charging loss; (100 - line 3), %

 

21.7

18.3

17.0

15.8

Battery capacity, kWh DC

 

100

100

100

100

Charging time, hours

 

89

21

14

10

Operating Limits of Batteries

 

These articles recommend operating the battery from 20% full to 80% full is best for battery life.

Charging and discharging from 0% full to 20% full, and from 80% full to 100% full, has a greater percent loss, i.e., a greater ratio of kWh AC from wall plug / kWh DC in battery, and places greater stress on the battery.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484719310911

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_1003a_battery_aging_...

PART TWO

NATIONWIDE EV CHARGING NETWORKS  

 

At present, there are two nationwide charging networks; the largest is owned by Tesla, serves only Tesla EVs, and the second is owned by Electrify America, serves various EVs.

 

The owners of charging stations are charged commercial rates by utilities.

The owners mark up these rates to cover owning and operating costs and profit.

Government-owned charging stations, that charge below-market rates, are subsidized by non-EV owners.

 

Tesla

 

Charges an average of 28 c/kWh, plus mandated taxes, fees and surcharges. 
Rates vary by state, because some states have much higher commercial rates than others.

Zero-cost charging is used as an incentive to sell more Teslas.

 

Idle fees in the US:

 

- If vehicle remains connected to a Supercharger after it is completely charged; $0.50/minute

- If a Tesla charging station is 100% occupied; $1.00/minute. 

 

See URLs

https://www.tesla.com/support/supercharging

https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/tesla-charging-stations-everythin...

 

Electrify America

 

Charges 31 c/kWh, plus mandated taxes, fees and surcharges, regardless of slow or fast charging, and regardless of which state, for those who pay a $4.00/month membership fee.

If no membership, the charge is 43 c/kWh

If a user drives 1000 miles/month, the extra cost would be 400/1000 = 0.4 c/mile, i.e., a good deal for members.

 

If a person went shopping, or for lunch, etc., while the EV was charging, and came back late, say 30 minutes, the penalty, less 10-minute grace period, would be (30 - 10) x 40 c/kWh = $8

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1129626_electrify-america-rebo...

PART THREE

FOUR REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES OF EV ELECTRICTY CONSUMPTION AND COST

 

Below are four examples. There are two additional examples in the Appendix.

1) 2020 Hyundai Kona, Based on User Data

 

Charging a Hyundai Kona EV, 64 kWh battery, with Level 1 charger takes about 54 hours, with Level 2 charger about 10 hours.

 

On-the-road charging from 10% full to 80% full, adds about 0.8 x 64 - 0.1 x 64 = 44.8 kWh DC to the battery, or about 190 miles of range, according to the owner.

 

The Electrify America invoice stated 54.03 kWh AC, equivalent to 54.03/190 = 0.284 kWh AC/mile, which is greater than the EPA value of 0.270 kWh/mile in table 1

 

The Kona owner’s invoice states an electricity draw of 54.03 kWh AC, at a cost of $21.07, or 39 c/kWh, not a member*

 

*Since that time, Electrify America increased its rates to 43 c/kWh, not a member.

 

Real-world charging efficiency, on-the-road, is 100*44.8/54.03 = 82.9%, a loss of 17.1%.

The loss is similar to the real-world value in table 3

https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/electric-car-driver-discovers-fast-char...

Cost, on-the-road charging, for a member is 31/43 x $21.70/190 miles + 0.4 c/mile = 8.39 c/mile

Cost, at-home charging, is 20 c/kWh x 0.326/0.310, see table 3 x 0.284 kWh/mile = 5.98 c/mile

2) 2019 Tesla Model 3, Based on User Data

 

An owner logged the data shown bold in Table 3

 

1) Electricity, kWh AC, via a dedicated meter, and the kWh DC added to the battery, when charging at home, and

2) Electricity, kWh DC, added to the battery, when high-speed charging on the road.

 

His 2019 Model 3 used 0.326 kWh AC/mile, based on real-world driving, and at-home charging.

His real-world charging efficiency is a measured 82.2%, a charging loss of 17.8%

His consumption is significantly greater than in table 1, likely due to his driving habits, i.e., 1) more than one person, 2) cargo loading, 3) adverse environmental conditions, such as hot, cold, hilly, snow/ice, dirt roads.

 

His range could be 35 - 40 percent less on colder days in New England.

https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/167646/battery-charging-kwh-com...

 

Cost, on-the-road charging, is 28 c/kWh x 0.310/ kWh/mile = 8.68 c/mile

Cost, at-home charging, is 20 c/kWh x 0.326 kWh/mile = 6.52 c/mile

Consumption and Cost, If Model Y

 

Consumption, on-the-road charging, is 27/25 x 0.310 = 0.335 kWh/mile

Consumption, at-home charging, is 27/25 x 0.326 = 0.352 kWh/mile

 

Cost, on-the-road charging, is 28 c/kWh x 27/25 x 0.310/ kWh/mile = 9.37 c/mile

Cost, at-home charging, is 20 c/kWh x 27/25 x 0.326 kWh/mile = 7.04 c/mile

 

Table 3/Actual Driving; 2019 Model 3

Charging loss

kWh DC

%

kWh AC

On-road charging of battery

1055

15.8

1222

Home charging of battery, Level 2

6690

17.8

8135

Metered total

7745

9357

Total miles

28927

On-road miles, by proration of DC charges

3940

Home miles, by subtraction

24987

Consumption, based on on-road charging, kWh/mile

0.310

Consumption, based on at-home charging, kWh/mile

0.326

 

3) Long-Term Road Test of Tesla Model 3

 

Edmunds, a car dealer in California, performed a long-term road test of a 2018 Tesla Model 3, starting in January 2018.

Edmund logged three sets of data. See table 9. See URL

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

 

- Electricity use averaged at 0.314 kWh AC/mile

- Miscellaneous losses averaged 100 x (31.36/29.00 - 1) = 8.13% in excess of EPA tests. See Note

- Charging loss averaged 17.97%; similar to the values of the four examples in Part Three

- February, March and April were not shown, because of missing data.

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

 

NOTE: EPA combined for a 2018 Tesla Model 3, AWD, long-range, is 0.29 kWh AC/mile. See URL

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

 

Table 9/Tesla Model 3

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Average

Odometer, per Edmund

1388

2922

3937

5237

6009

6659

7679

9329

10307

11174

Travel, miles, per Edmund

1534

1015

1300

772

650

1020

1650

978

867

Wall meter, kWh AC/mile

Real-world, per Edmund

0.317

0.314

0.318

0.317

0.310

0.311

0.308

0.314

EPA combined test result

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

Misc. losses, %

9.31

8.28

9.66

9.31

6.90

7.24

6.21

8.13

Vehicle meter, kWh DC/mile

Real-world, per Edmond

0.252

0.248

0.250

0.251

0.248

0.247

0.245

0.249

Total loss, %

25.94

26.46

27.05

26.35

25.20

25.91

25.77

26.08

Charging loss; 26.08 - 8.13

16.63

18.18

17.39

17.04

18.30

18.67

19.56

17.95

4) One-Year Experience with a Tesla Model S

 

An upstate New York owner of a Tesla Model S logged the following, for one year:

  

Fill-up of 1,275 kWh DC, via on-the-road charger, for 4,000 miles, or 1275/4000 = 0.319 kWh DC/mile

Fill-up of 3,799 kWh DC, via at-home charger, for 11,243 miles, or 3799/11243 = 0.338 kWh DC/mile

Fill-up of 5,074 kWh DC, for 15,243 miles, or 5074/15243 = 0.333 kWh DC/mile; includes miscellaneous losses. See Note

 

Operating electricity, via wall meters, was 0.333 x 1.1795, charging factor = 0.393 kWh AC/mile; includes miscellaneous and charging losses.

Loss factor was 100 x (0.393 / 0.300, EPA - 1) = 31.00%, using EPA combined as a base.

Misc. losses, upstate NY, were 31.00 - 17.95 = 13.05%, of the electricity drawn via wall meters. Those losses are higher than in California, mainly due adverse conditions. See Note.

 

NOTE: EPA combined for a 2019 Tesla Model S, 100 kWh battery, is 30 kWh AC/100 miles. See URL

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&ye...

 

Table 4A/Tesla Model S

 

On-road

At-home

Total

Electricity leaving battery, per owner

kWh DC

1275

3799

5074

Travel, per owner

miles

4000

11243

15243

Electricity leaving battery, incl. misc., per owner

kWh DC/mile

0.319

0.338

0.333

Charging loss, %

 

17.95

Electricity, real-world, per owner

kWh AC/mile

0.393

EPA combined, laboratory

kWh DC/mile

 

 

0.300

Loss factor, 100 x (0.393/0.300, per EPA - 1)

%

 

 

31.00

Misc. losses, 31.00 - 17.95

 

 

 

13.05

PART FOUR

 

OWNING AND OPERATING COST OF EVs  

 

A 2021 Subaru Outback, medium SUV, has 32.5 cu. ft. of cargo space behind the rear seats and 75.7 cubic feet with the rear seats folded down, standard AWD, range about 540 miles in summer, costs about $27,000; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

A 2021 Hyundai Kona, compact SUV, has 31 cu. ft. of cargo space behind its rear seats and 61.9 cubic feet with these seats folded, AWD not available (unsuitable for rural New England), range about 258 miles EPA combined, cost about $37,390; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

A 2021 Model Y, compact SUV, has 68 cu. ft of cargo space, split between a front trunk and a large rear cargo area, standard AWD, range about 326 miles, cost about $49,990; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

Amortizing the MSRP difference of 37,390, Kona - 27,000, Outback = $10,390 at 3.5% for 10 years would be $1,233/y, or 12.3 c/mile, if 10,560 mile/y

 

Amortizing the MSRP difference of 49,990, Model Y - 27,000, Outback = $21,990 at 3.5% for 10 years would be $2,610/y, or 26.1 c/mile, if 10,560 mile/y

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

The cost of amortizing the MSRP difference of gasoline vehicles vs equivalent EVs should be added to the cost of operating EVs. See Notes and table 5

 

NOTE: On-the-road data from privately owned EVs was analyzed: 158,468,000 miles from 21,600 EVs

EV travel ranges from 9,548 to 9.697 miles/y. This article uses 10,560 miles/y. See table 7

See page 17 of URL

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/vss171_carlson_...

 

NOTE: Annual travel of gasoline vehicles:

 

1) Light duty truck/van, 11,991miles/y

2) LDV, 11,507/y

3) Car, 11,370/y

See image in URL

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

 

Table 5/EV cost/mile

Electricity cost

Amortize MSRP difference

Total cost

Kona, no AWD

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

Cost, on-the-road charging

8.39

12.3

20.69

Cost, at-home charging

5.98

12.3

18.28

Model Y, AWD

 

 

 

Cost, on-the-road charging

9.37

26.1

35.47

Cost, at-home charging

7.04

26.1

33.14

Subaru Outback, AWD

 

 

 

Gasoline vehicle

7.33

0

7.33

PART FIVE

CO2 REDUCTION OF EVs COMPARED WITH GASOLINE VEHICLES

 

There are 2 methods of comparing the CO2 emissions of EVs vs gasoline vehicles:

1) A simplified energy comparison shows only the combustion CO2 of electricity and gasoline, which makes EVs appear excessively favorable compared to gasoline vehicles. The method is easily understood by non-technical, lay people. However, it leads to widespread misunderstanding of EVs having major reductions of CO2. Vermont Energy Action Network, EAN, used the simplified method.

 

2) A more-inclusive comparison includes: 1) the upstream CO2, plus combustion CO2 of electricity, 2) the upstream CO2, plus combustion CO2 of gasoline, 3) the embodied CO2 of the vehicle body, 4) the embodied CO2 of the battery. This article used the more-inclusive method, which is vastly more realistic.

Description of Simplified Energy Comparison used by EAN

 

In addition to the simplified method, EAN also inflated CO2 reduction of EVs by cherry-picking parameters for evaluation to make EVs appear much better than gasoline vehicles. EAN;

 

1) Compared a compact EV using only 0.317 kWh AC/mile, whereas the “VT LDV mix”, if converted to EVs, would use about 0.400 kWh AC/mile.

 

For example, a Tesla Model X, a very efficient, medium SUV, uses 0.3703 kWh/mile, 5.8% more/mile, based on real-world driving than the EPA combined of 0.350 kWh AC/mile. The 5.8% is due to misc. losses. That percentage would be much greater in colder areas, such as rural New England. See note and URL, table 5

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

2) Used a 22.7-mpg vehicle, equal to the “VT LDV mix” that includes all sizes of LDVs, instead of a 30-mpg vehicle or greater, such as a Subaru Outback.

Purchasers of EVs trade in higher mileage vehicles, not gas guzzlers.

About 50% of EV purchasers also own PV systems.

See URL, page 2.

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

 

3) Used an excessive miles/y; EVs travel significantly less miles per year than gasoline vehicles, as noted in Part Four. 

 

4) Omitted the upstream CO2, plus combustion CO2 of electricity, 2) the upstream CO2, plus combustion CO2 of gasoline, 3) the embodied CO2 of the vehicle body, 4) the embodied CO2 of the battery.

 

5) Used a low 34 g CO2/kWh, based on utilities signing “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs, as concocted by VT-DPS.

The real-world NE grid value is about 304 g/kWh, as measured at a user meter.

 

Some legislators know they are being fooled, but play along anyway to promote RE “industrial-development” agendas. The heavily subsidized RE sector is made to serve as a substitute for the traditional, for-profit, private-enterprise sector.

 

EAN colluded with VT-DPS in a scheme of chicanery, that has nothing to do with physical reality.

Electricity travels, as electro-magnetic waves, at near the speed of light, 180,000 miles/second; the electrons vibrate in place at 60 cycles per second. To talk about Vermont electricity and CO2/kWh, or New Hampshire electricity and CO2/kWh, etc., is idiotic/unscientific.

EAN and VT-DPS likely were hoping no one would notice their shenanigans; lies have short legs. See Appendix.

 

EAN Report to Meet Paris

 

EAN prepared a report listing the measures required to “meet Paris by 2025”. That goal is mandated by the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, and in accordance with the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.

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

 

One EAN measure is adding 90,000 EVs to reduce CO2 by 0.405 million metric ton/y, or 4.5 Mt/EV/y.

Table 5A shows, the likely parameters used by EAN to obtain the 4.5 Mt/EV/y, and how EAN is using:

 - A concocted 34 g/kWh (Column 2), instead of a realistic 304 g/kWh (Column 3)

 - 13,200 miles/y, but the VT LDV mix travel is 11,400/y. See URL

https://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/average-miles-driven-per-year...

If using real-world 11,400 miles/y and 304 g CO2/kWh, the CO2 reduction would be much less, than if using the EAN values of 13,200 miles/y and 34 g CO2/kWh.

Many more EVs would be required to reduce CO2 by 0.405 million Mt by end 2025, than the 90,000 EVs in the EAN report.

Table 5A/CO2

EAN

EAN

EAN

VT LDV mix

Comp. EV

Comp. EV

Travel, miles/y

13200

Travel, miles/y

13200

13200

Mileage, mpg

22.7

kWh/mile

0.317

0.317

Gasoline, gal/y

581.5

Electricity, kWh/y

4184.4

4184.4

CO2, WM basis, lb/gal

17.612

CO2, WM basis, g/kWh

34

304

CO2, Mt/y

4.645

Mt/y

0.142

1.271

CO2 reduction, Mt/y, per EV

4.503

3.374

EAN

EAN

EAN

VT LDV mix

Comp. EV

Comp. EV

Travel, miles/y

11400

Travel, miles/y

11400

11400

Mileage, mpg

22.7

kWh/mile

0.317

0.317

Gasoline, gal/y

502.2

Electricity, kWh/y

3613.8

3613.8

CO2, WM basis, lb/gal

17.612

CO2, WM basis, g/kWh

34

304

CO2, Mt/y

4.0119

Mt/y

0.123

1.098

CO2 reduction, Mt/y, per EV

3.889

2.914

Description of More-Inclusive Method used in this Article

 

Any CO2 reduction analysis must be the difference of the CO2 emissions of an EV and an equivalent gasoline vehicle, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis. Such 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.

 

As future electric grid CO2 emissions, g CO2/kWh, decrease more and more (a decades-long process), EVs would reduce CO2 emissions more and more, compared with LDVs, using gasoline and 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 must be based on:

 

1) Lifetime/A-to-Z basis such as the 105,600 miles for 10 years used in this article. Usually, batteries are manufacturer-warranted for 8 years. Very few people would replace an old battery with an expensive, new battery in a 10-y-old EV, i.e., the EV likely would be scrapped. See Notes.

 

2) CO2 of a gallon of gasoline = CO2 of upstream energy, 5.759 lb/gal + CO2 of combustion energy, 17.612 lb/gal = 23.371 lb/gal. EAN ignored upstream CO2

 

3) CO2 of NE grid, 304 g/kWh, per ISO-NE; EAN used an artificial/concocted 34 g CO2/kWh.

See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

4) CO2 embodied energy in the vehicle body and battery; EAN ignored embodied CO2

 

5) Comparison of EVs with efficient gasoline vehicles; EAN used the VT LDV fleet average of 22.7 mpg.

Typically, EVs replace vehicles that have 30 mpg or better. 

 

6) Long-term wall meter and vehicle meter readings, obtained during real-world driving conditions, as show in the above four examples.

 

The more-inclusive method would yield a CO2 reduction of only 3.035 Mt/EV/y, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis, which would include: 1) the CO2 of upstream energy, and 2) the CO2 embedded in the vehicle, 3) a realistic g CO2/kWh for EV electricity. See table 6 and 7.

 

EAN would need 4.5/3.035 x 90,000 = 133,443 EVs, plus chargers, to reduce 0.405 MMT/y by 2025, if the VT LDV mix,

22.7-mpg, were used for comparison. See tables 6 and 7

 

EAN would need 4.5/1.705 x 90,000 = 237,537 EVs, plus chargers, to reduce 0.405 MMt/y by 2025, if a Subaru Outback, 30-mpg, were used for comparison.

 

Whether 90,000 or 237,537, such increases in EVs, by end 2025, are a total fantasy, because, the capital cost would be at least $10.0 BILLION, at $40,000/EV, which over-taxed, over-regulated Vermonters do not have to pay for:

 

1) EVs

2) Chargers at home and on the road

3) Grid expansion/augmentation, to connect additional wind and solar, and to serve the greater demand of EVs and heat pumps

4) Additional electricity generation plants to serve consumption of EVs and heat pumps

5) Utility-scale battery storage, in case of wind and solar build-outs, and DUCK-curve management, as proposed by EAN “to meet Paris”

 

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

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

NOTE: The EAN “parameters” likely were chosen to deceive non-technical Legislators and non-technical Vermonters to obtain favorable RE-subsidy legislation, such as the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA.

- GWSA is designed to subsidize the RE companies of EAN members for decades, at everyone else’s expense. 

The members of the GWSA “Committee of 23” are the same or similar people, who presided over 20 years of government energy programs, costing about $2 billion, which had the net result of increasing Vermont’s CO2.

 

- Vermonters would be much better served with increased energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles.

See URLs for much more information.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-global-warming-sol...

 

PART SIX

 

More-Inclusive Method: CO2 Emission Comparison of Four Vehicles; Lifetime/A-to-Z Basis

 

Base Vehicle:

 

The popular Nissan Leaf, 62 kWh, was used as base vehicle for comparison with three 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 loss

Adjusted to 0.299 x 1.06, Misc. loss factor = 0.317 mile/kWh

 

Comparison Vehicles:

 

Toyota Prius L Eco hybrid, compact SUV, 56 mpg

Subaru Outback, medium SUV, 30 mpg

“Vermont LDV mix”, a mix of all LDV sizes, 22.7 mpg

 

Comments on table 6:

 

Table 6 shows a CO2 comparison of the 5 vehicles.

 

NOTE:

Most EV owners are higher-income eco-people. About 50% also own PV systems. They received subsidies for PV systems and EVs.

Most people who buy EVs, already drive high-mileage vehicles., i.e., greater than 30 mpg. They just want to look extra green.

 

Table 6/Mfr.

Make

Size

Type

MPG

Mt CO2/y vs BASE

Nissan; BASE

Leaf

Compact SUV

EV

0.000

Toyota

Prius, L Eco

Compact car

Hybrid

56.0

0.052

Subaru

Outback

Medium SUV

Gasoline

30.0

1.705

Any mfr.

VT LDV mix

Gasoline

22.7

3.035

 

Comments on table 7:

 

Table 7 shows, a CO2 comparison of EVs versus efficient gasoline vehicles, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis.

 

Table 7 shows, increasing the use of high-mileage vehicles, such as hybrids, and getting gas-guzzlers off the road (which need not involve any government subsidies), would reduce CO2 at much less cost per vehicle, than would the government-subsidized replacement of Vermont’s light duty vehicles with EVs.

 

Table 7/CO2; Lifetime/A-to-Z basis

Nissan

Toyota

Subaru

Any mfr.

Leaf S Plus

Prius L Eco

Outback

Comp. SUV

Comp. car

Med. SUV

VT LDV mix

Type

EV

Hybrid

Gasoline

Gasoline

Plug-in

yes

no

no

no

Battery, kWh

62

0.75

no

no

Travel, miles/10 years

105600

105600

105600

105600

EPA combined, WM basis, mpg

56

30

22.7

EPA combined, wall meter basis, kWh/mile

0.317

NE grid CO2, wall meter basis, g/kWh

304

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

17.612

17.612

17.612

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

5.759

5.759

5.759

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

23.371

23.371

23.371

.

CO2

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted

15.064

28.120

37.163

E10, upstream for extract, process, transport

4.926

9.195

12.152

Electricity, wall meter basis, Mt/10 years

10.167

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

5.700

5.700

5.700

7.000

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

10.100

0.800

Total CO2, Mt/10 years

25.967

26.490

43.015

56.315

Mt/y

Mt/y

Mt/y

CO2 reduction vs Base, Mt/y

0.052

1.705

3.035

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views: 511

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 Thinklike A. Mountain on January 25, 2021 at 12:32am

Trump's Potential Legacy: 50 Million+ Enemies of the State

https://mises.org/power-market/trumps-potential-legacy-50-million-e...

Comment by Kenneth Capron on January 15, 2021 at 12:30pm

Thanks Willem. I just want to acknowledge the original author. The report is excellent.

Comment by Willem Post on January 15, 2021 at 10:51am

Kenneth

This article was written by me and was published only on this site.

All data is supported by URLs

Please let me know of a New England person, who has:

1) Kept accurate logs of kWh AC consumption drawn from a wall outlet, via dedicated meter, and

2) the kWh DC added to a battery and,

3) The corresponding mileage.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on January 14, 2021 at 5:47pm

Where was the original article published? I'd like to link some people to the source document.

Comment by Penny Gray on January 14, 2021 at 5:37pm

It wouldn't necessarily go on forever and ever, just until road rage at charging stations set in big time.

Comment by Willem Post on January 14, 2021 at 5:35pm

Comment by Willem Post just nowDelete Comment

Sure.

Any operation has losses.

The extra load on the car battery towing the trailer would be increased by the load of charging the trailer battery.

That would be good one for a Mickey Mouse cartoon, with all these EVs towing trailers for ever and ever.

Comment by Penny Gray on January 14, 2021 at 1:51pm

What if the trailer itself was the charging unit?  Wheels turning round and round powering an alternator.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on January 13, 2021 at 3:15pm

Who are our entrepreneurs here? What if we develop a "trailer" carrying batteries that could be connected for longer distances for an EV? And just exchange trailers when charges get low. "Gas" stations could handle these like a U-Haul trailer as far as rental and return.

Comment by richard mcdonald on January 13, 2021 at 1:57pm

peoplespunditdaily.com and see his podcast on YouTube - highly recommned Richard Baris - the best pollster for 2020 - he's a wealth of info and does a separate podcast with Robert Barnes - a must see. 

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on January 13, 2021 at 10:59am

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