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.

  

In this article,

 

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

 

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

 

SUMMARY

 

Real-World Concerns About the Economics of EVs

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

High-Mileage Hybrids a Much Better Alternative Than EVs

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

“Electrify Everything”; an easily uttered slogan

 

It would require:                                                                     

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

2) Operating times of major appliances

3) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses

 

CO2 Reduction of an EV, based on real-world values

 

According to the Haas study, EVs are driven an average of 7,000 miles/y, compared to 12,000 miles/y for the US and VT LDV mix.

The difference holds for: 1) all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, 2) single- and multiple-vehicle households, and 3) inside and outside California. See URL

 

This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce much less CO2 /y, than envisioned by the dream scenarios of RE folks.

 

However, despite the lesser CO2 reduction, EVs are a way to significantly reduce CO2 emissions over the next 10 years.

 

In 2020, about 123.73 billion gallons of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States.

In 2020 EVs and plug-in hybrids reduced gasoline consumption by 0.5 billion gallon.

It would take decades to achieve a 60 billion reduction due to EVs and plug-in hybrids.

 

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/09/13/how-much-do-electric-vehicles-...

 

However, increasing the mileage, mpg, of the VT LDV mix from 22.715 to 35 mpg, such as with highly reliable, very-long-range, 54 mpg, non-plug-in Toyota hybrids, could be achieved at far less cost, and would reduce CO2 at least as much as EVs. See URLs.

 

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/Davis%20AEL%202019.pdf

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35498794/ev-owners-low-mileage-s...

 

EV sales have been trending towards longer ranges. See table 3

EVs, with longer ranges, such as Teslas, are driven more miles per year, on average.

Thus, we can expect the 7,000 miles/y to increase over time.

This article used 9,000 miles/y

 

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
Charging	Road	Home	Road	Home	Outback	Prius L Eco
Fraction	0.2	0.8	0.2	0.8	No plug-in	No plug-in
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	90000	90000	90000	90000	90000	90000
Total electricity, kWh/10 years	25560	26879	30132	31687
NE grid CO2, wall meter basis, g/kWh	317	317	317	317
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	8.095	8.513	9.543	10.036
Total CO2, location adjusted, Mt/10 years	1.619	6.810	1.909	8.029
Total CO2, Mt/10 years		8.430		9.937	31.803	17.037
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		24.230		28.995	37.503	23.537
Total CO2, Mt/y		2.423		2.900	3.750	2.354
CO2, g/mile		269		322	417	262

 

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				2.423	269
Cost, on-the-road charging	8.39	12.3	20.69
Cost, at-home charging	5.98	12.3	18.28
Model Y, AWD				2.900	322
Cost, on-the-road charging	9.37	26.1	35.47
Cost, at-home charging	7.04	26.1	33.14
Subaru, Outback, AWD				3.750	417
Gasoline vehicle; 30 mpg	7.33	0	7.33
Prius L Eco, no AWD
Gasoline/electric; 56 mpg	3.93	0	3.93		262

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 1,100 MW, and peak demand of users is about 900 MW, without significant quantities of HPs 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 up to 200,000 x 10 kW (Level 2); see table 2 = 2,000 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...

 

- Each free-standing, 2000 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, would require 2 HPs. Vermont’s 200,000-plus HPs, would be operating, demanding up to 200,000 x 2.8 kW/HP x 2 HP/house = 1,120 MW, for many hours on cold days, to heat buildings, at the same time EVs would be charging. 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 is 100 kWh DC; charging loss is 16.58%

 

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%.

That reserve would become 0% in about 10 years, due to battery aging. 

  

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...

 

Table 2/Charger type	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, %, (2)/(1) = (3)	78.3	81.7	83.0	84.2
Charging loss, % 100 - (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, to preserve battery life.

Charging from 0% to 20%, and from 80% to 100%, has:

 

1) Greater percent loss, i.e., a greater ratio of kWh AC from wall plug / kWh DC in battery

2) Places greater stress on the battery

3) Reduces battery life.

 

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

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

 

Less CO2 Reduction per EV

 

These URLs show, EVs are driven an average of 7,000 miles/y, compared to 12,000 miles/y for the US LDV mix. The difference holds for: 1) all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, 2) single- and multiple-vehicle households, and 3) inside and outside California. This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less CO2 than envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios.

 

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/Davis%20AEL%202019.pdf

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35498794/ev-owners-low-mileage-s...

 

 PART TWO

 

NATIONWIDE EV CHARGING NETWORKS  

 

At present, there are two nationwide charging networks:

 

1)  The largest is owned by Tesla; it serves only Tesla EVs

2)  The second is Electrify America, a subsidiary of Volkswagen; it 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 - 17.97				13.03

 

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	17.6120	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 HPs

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

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, loss factor* = 0.317 mile/kWh, which 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, 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	90000	90000	90000	90000
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	317
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		12.839	23.966	31.673
E10, upstream for extract, process, transport		4.198	7.837	10.357
Electricity, wall meter basis, Mt/10 years	9.036
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	24.836	23.537	37.503	49.030
		Mt/y	Mt/y	Mt/y
CO2 reduction vs Base, Mt/y		-0.130	1.267	2.419

 

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

 

EV Energy Uses

 

This table shows estimates of various energy uses of an EV, mild weather, new battery.

The overall charging loss is about 17%.

Energy for motion is almost about 69%.

CO2 emissions per mile of travel = 0.350 kWh AC/mile x 317 g/kWh AC = 111 g/mile

CO2 emissions per mile of travel = 0.350 x 317 x 1.1 = 122 g/mile, if upstream CO2 for extraction, processing and transport is added.  See URLs

 

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml

https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/auxiliary.pdf

https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/how-do-all-electric-cars-work

 

Table 8/EV Electricity Uses	%			CO2
				g/kWh AC
Wall outlet, kWh AC		100.000		317
Charge loss, other than batteries and AC/DC	7.5	7.500
To AC/DC inverter		92.500
Inverter loss	6.0	5.550
From inverter		86.950
To main battery, kWh DC		79.034
To DC/DC converter			7.916
DC/DC converter loss	3.0		0.237
To 12V battery for accessories and auxiliaries			7.679
Battery loss	5.0	3.952
In battery, kWh DC		82.998
Battery loss	5.0	4.150
To motor/generator		78.848
M/G loss	10.0	7.885
To transmission		70.964
Transmission loss	3.0	2.129
To vehicle motion		68.835
Rolling resistance	29.5	20.306
Wind resistance	29.5	20.306
Braking	29.5	20.306
To DC/DC converter		7.916
To accessories		3.958
To auxiliaries		3.958
Remaining		0.000