ENERGY ACTION NETWORK REPORT TO REDUCE CO2 IN VERMONT

Vermont has a Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP. The capital cost for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 billion/y for at least 33 years, per Energy Action Network annual report. See URLs.

 

http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-... 

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

ENERGY ACTION NETWORK

“Meeting Paris”: Energy Action Network, EAN, claims about: 1) $1.115 billion less would be sent out of state to buy fossil fuels, and 2) $323 million in savings from additional, in-state investment (primarily weatherization), would yield net savings to consumers of  1115 – 323 = $792 million during 2020 – 2025, if its measures to reduce CO2 by 2.281 million metric ton to “meet Paris” were implemented by 2025. See Note, and page 4 and 5 of EAN URL

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

 

Capital Cost to “Meet Paris”:  The measures are a multi-billion-dollar wish list of EAN members with a cost exceeding $15.536 billion during 2020 – 2025, about $3.107 billion/y. EAN members want these heavily subsidized measures, because it is good for RE businesses.

 

Amortizing the cost of the mostly short-life assets (EVs, ASHPs, battery storage systems, etc.), at 3.5% over 15 years, would require annual payments of $1.333 billion, more than offsetting the 800/5 = $160 million/y of energy cost savings.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

It took about 20 years (2000 – 2020) to achieve the existing conditions by spending about $210 million/y, including Efficiency Vermont. The annual spending to “meet Paris” during 2020 - 2025 would be at least 10 times greater.

 

These measures would be major burdens on the stagnant Vermont economy, its businesses, ratepayers, taxpayers, etc., while in the middle of a major recession, with decreasing tax collections by state government (room & meals, sales, income, gasoline, etc.), due to the coronavirus.

EAN Savings and Capital Cost Estimate: The EAN report promises undefined energy cost savings, and lacks a capital cost estimate to “meet Paris”. Why does EAN not provide the spreadsheet that calculated these energy cost savings, as part of its glossy report? Why the reluctance to make a capital cost estimate by private entities and government entities?

 

EAN CO2 Reduction: EAN makes CO2 reduction estimates, based on primary energy, and on the artificial/political value of 34 g CO2/kWh for electricity, based on “paper” PPAs, as concocted by VT-DPS, to obtain very optimistic CO2 reductions per EV and per ASHP. See table 1

 

EAN Members Eager to “Meet Paris”: EAN eagerly urged the Vermont legislature to “meet Paris” a few years ago, because that would be good for their businesses, and would display proper virtue signaling. However, no entity, including EAN, made a capital cost estimate of what would be required to “meet Paris” at that time, or since.

 

EAN Members Eager for GWSA and “Fortress Vermont”: EAN is eagerly urging the Vermont Legislature to pass the Global Warming Solutions (Spending) Act. That act would turn aspirational goals of the CEP into mandated goals. The capital cost of GWSA would dwarf “meet Paris”. That would be sweet music for EAN members; heavily subsidized business and job security for decades at everyone else’s expense, despite the scam not yielding one iota of difference regarding climate.

 

NOTE: Ten senior state employees of VT-DPS are members of EAN, including Tierney, head of VT-DPS, and Perchlik, who is on loan to the legislature to help write the GWSA and $1.2 billion “Fortress Vermont” bills to ensure they contain all the bennies for EAN members. Perchlik manages the Clean Energy Development Fund that donates taxpayer money to renewable energy programs. No wonder VT-DPS resorts to artificial/political CO2 calculations regarding Vermont’s electrical sector, and EV and ASHP programs.

https://www.eanvt.org/about/people/network-members/

Table 1/Meet Paris	Existing	Addition	Total	CO2 reduction	CO2 Reduction
Year	2019		2025	2025	2025
				million Mt	%
EVs/plug-in hybrids	3,541	90,000	93,541	0.405
Fleet mileage increase				0.187
Solo driving increase				0.172
Total				0.764	33.5
ASHPs, space heat	17,717	90,000	107,717	0.370
Adv. wood. heat	21,421	25,000	46,421	0.258
Building retrofits	27,186	90,000	117,186	0.160
ASHPs, DHW	11,687	90,000	101,687	0.106
Total				0.894	39.2
Electricity; in-state	MWh	MWh	MWh
Wind	161,198	250,000	411,198
Solar	502,949	700,000	1,202,949
Hydro	513,183	50,000	563,183
Total	1,177,330	1,000,000	2,177,330	0.373	16.4
Miscellaneous				0.250	11.0
Total				2.281	100.0

 

Table 2 shows the EAN measures to “meet Paris”, based on source energy, and real-world values for CO2/kWh, per ISO-NE, instead of the artificial/political values concocted by VT-DPS, and lifetime basis, in case of EVs. As a result, many more EVs and ASHPs would be required to achieve the EAN estimated CO2 reductions.

 

Table 2/ Costs	EVs		ASHPs	Adv. Wood Heat		Wind/Solar/Storage	Hydro	Total
	$billion		$billion	$billion		$billion	$billion	$billion
EVs	8.483	Deep retrofits	2.700		Wind	0.095
Chargers	0.318	ASHPs, space	0.900		Solar	0.570
		ASHP, DHW	0.360		Grid	0.100
					Storage	0.900
	8.801		3.960	0.250		1.665	0.860	15.536
							Annual	3.107

NOTE:

Source energy, SE, is from mines, wells and forests, etc.

Primary energy, PE, is finished fuel/energy fed to power plants

Upstream = SE – PE

SE basis includes Upstream

PE basis excludes Upstream

Wall meter basis and wall socket basis = WM basis

Vehicle meter basis = VM basis

Metric ton = Mt = 2204.62 lb

Wall socket basis or wall meter basis = WM basis

Air source heat pump = ASHP

Electric vehicle = EV

New England = NE

Power purchase agreements = PPAs

New England grid operator = ISO-NE

 

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

The complete analysis of EVs is described in this article.

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

 

Capital Cost

Cost for EVs; about 210,938 x $40000/small 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

 

AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS FOR SPACE HEAT

 

The complete analysis of ASHPs is described in this article

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

 

Capital Cost:

"Deep" retrofits: 90,000 x $30,000/housing unit = $2.7 billion

ASHPs for space heat: 90,000 x $10,000/housing unit = $0.9 billion

ASHPs for DHW: 90,000 x $4000/system = $360 million 

Total = 2.70 + 0.9 + 0.36 = $3.96 billion

WIND, SOLAR AND STORAGE

Moving to ASHPs and EVs would require increased generation

 

EAN does not mention any costs and subsidies for: 1) Expanding/augmenting the grid, 2) Increased wind and solar systems, which would require:

 

- Wind turbines costing about 250000/(8766 x 0.30) x $2.5 million/MW = $95 million

- Solar systems costing about 700000/(8766 x 0.14) x $3.5 million/MW = $570 million

- Expanding/augmenting of the grid costing about $100 million

- Storage costing about $900 million

 

Storage would mitigate/counteract:

 

- Daily disturbances of distribution grids, due to: 1) Solar outputs impacted by variable cloudiness, 2) Midday solar DUCK curves

- Daily disturbances of high voltage grids monitored by ISO-NE, due to larger solar systems

- Year-round, random disturbances of high voltage grids monitored by ISO-NE, due to wind systems

 

The storage systems would store unused solar during low-demand, mid-day hours, and discharge solar during high-demand, late-afternoon/early-evening hours

 

NOTE: Battery storage loss is about 20% (100 in, 80 out), high-voltage-to-high-voltage basis.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-going-to-hel...

 

Capital cost = 0.095 + 0.570 + 0.100 + 0.900 = $1.665 billion

 

IN-STATE HYDRO GENERATION   

 

EAN recommends about 50,000 MWh/y of additional in-state, hydro generation, likely under a Standard Offer at 13 c/kWh; i.e., additional cost shifting to rate payers.

The NE wholesale rate has averaged about 5 c/kWh starting in 2009

Capital cost = 50000/(8766 x 0.40) x $6 million/MW = $86 million

 

APPENDIX 1

NE Electric Grid CO2

 

ISO-NE uses fuel/energy fed to power plants, PE, to calculate CO2/kWh.

ISO-NE does not include CO2 of upstream energy

Upstream is about 10.2% of PE CO2

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/01/draft_2018_e...

 

Fed to grid becomes 299 x 1.102 = 329 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

Fed to wall meter becomes 323 x 1.102 = 356 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

 

For analysis purposes, 356 g/kWh should be used for electricity via any wall meter in NE.

 

Table A shows:

 

Source energy required for a quantity of electricity at wall sockets.

Values for Tesla Model 3 (0.3080 and 0.2449 kWh/mile) and Model S (0.4339 and 0.3329 kWh/mile), based on real-world conditions in California and upstate NY, for a year. Both are more efficient EVs compared to other EVs.

Value for a mix of LDVs was assumed at 0.350 kWh/mile.

 

Table A/NE grid for 2018	LDV mix	Tesla	Tesla	Grid CO2	Grid CO2
		Model S	Model 3	PE	SE
	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	g/kWh	g/kWh
Source energy	1.2291	1.1713	0.8315
Upstream for extract, process, transport, 10.2%	0.1138	0.1084	0.0770
Primary energy = Fed to power plants	1.1153	1.0629	0.7545
Conversion loss, 55.5%	0.6078	0.5793	0.4112
Gross generation	0.5075	0.4836	0.3433
Plant self-use loss, 3.0%	0.0152	0.0145	0.0103
Net generation = Fed to grid	0.4922	0.4691	0.3330	299	329
T&D loss, 7.5%	0.0369	0.0352	0.0250
Fed to wall meters = Fed to grid x 0.925	0.4553	0.4339	0.3080	323	356
Charging loss, 15% of WM	0.0683	0.0651	0.0462
Loss due to self-use, NE road/climate	0.0370	0.0359	0.0169
In batteries for a mix of LDVs, as DC	0.3500	0.3329	0.2449	420	463

APPENDIX 2

Vermont Electricity Sector CO2

 

Based on Physics, per ISO-NE: Electricity, via any wall socket, would have the NE mix of electricity; CO2 of 323 g/kWh, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018. See table A

  

Electricity loaded by generators into the Vermont grid is about 6 billion kWh/y, aka “grid load“

User consumption is about 6 x (1 – 0.075) = 5.55 billion kWh/y

CO2 would be 5.55 billion kWh x 323 g/kWh x 1 lb/454 g x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 1,791,043 Mt/y, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018

 

Based on PPAs, per VT-DPS: CO2 of the “Vermont electricity mix”, based on PPAs, yields an artificial/political value of 190,000 Mt/y in 2018, or 190000/1791043 x 323 = 34 g/kWh, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018 

   

See URL for GHG estimates for 2017 and 2018

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

 

APPENDIX 3

GMP and VT-DPS Reduce CO2

No CO2 is reduced by GMP signing paper PPAs with electricity generators, in-state or out-of-state.

It is unscientific for VT-DPS to calculate CO2 of the electricity sector, and CO2/kWh, based on paper PPAs, and for EAN to base CO2 reduction of ASHPs and EVs on VT-DPS numbers.

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

   

VT-DPS calculates CO2 of the electricity sector at 32 g/kWh for 2018, based on PPAs

ISO-NE calculates CO2 at 299 g/kWh for 2018, based on CO2 of fuel combustion. See URL page 18

 

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2019/04/2017_emissio...

 

Table B/Grid CO2/Year	1990	2000	2015	2016	2017, est.	2018, est.
VT-DPS, PE basis
Electricity fed to VT grid, GWh	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000
Vermont electrical sector CO2, million Mt	1.09	0.43	1	0.81	0.49	0.19
Total CO2, all sectors	8.65	9.70	10.19	9.76	9.41	9.02
CO2, g CO2/kWh, Fed to grid basis		72	167	135	82	32
CO2, g CO2/kWh, WM basis		78	180	146	88	34
ISO-NE, PE basis
NE generation fed to grid, GWh		110,199	107,916	105,570	102,562	103,740
NE grid CO2, lb//MWh, Fed to grid basis		726	747	710	682	658
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, Fed to grid basis		330	339	322	310	299
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, WM basis		357	366	348	335	323

APPENDIX 4   

Vermont Electricity Prices

  

Table C last column, shows the c/kWh for electricity from wind. solar, hydro, etc., paid to owners of Standard Offer and Net-metered systems; those prices would be much higher without cost shifting and subsidies, paid by ratepayers and taxpayers. See URL

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

 

Table C/VT In-state generation, fed to grid basis	2000	2000 – 2018	2018	2018
	Existing	New added	Total	SO/NM
Energy Source	MWh	MWh	MWh	c/kWh
Hydro, VT-DPS Utility Facts 2013	491,878	21,305	513,183	13.0
Solar, behind and before the meter; per ISO-NE		502,949	502,949	21.8
Ryegate, wood, per US-EIA	166,902		166,902	10.0
McNeil, wood, per US-EIA	244,755		244,755	10.0
Middlebury College, wood, per US-EIA		2,298	2,298	?
Farm methane; Standard Offer		22,674	22,674	14.5 to 20.0
Landfill methane		52,931	52,931	9.0
Wind		161,198	161,198	11.6 to 25.8
Total	903,535	763,355	1,666,890
VT total fed to grid, MWh	6,000,000	6,000,000	6,000,000
VT in-state, %	15.1	12.7	27.8
Vermont Yankee, nuclear, closed in 2015	4,733,640	4,733,640
Out-of-state purchases, incl. HQ, MWh			4,333,110
HQ, MWh; per Power Purchase Agreement			1,300,000	5.549
ISO-NE annual average price since 2009				5.000

 

APPENDIX 5

GMP Cost of Electricity in 2016 

 

Table D shows the prices GMP pays for electricity. 

Standard Offer and Net-metering prices are off-the-charts expensive.

EAN members want more SO and Net-metered,

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

 

In 2016, the PUC began competitive bidding of SO solar systems.

Some recent SO solar bids were as low as 11 c/kWh.

More SO systems would slowly reduce SO solar below 21.793 c/kWh in future years. See Appendix.

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

 

Table D/GMP costs	1	2	3	4	5
GMP purchases, 2016	MWh	% of purchases	Cost, $	c/kWh	% of Cost
HQUS (Hydro-Quebec)	919312	22.13	51013678	5.549	20.34
Standard Offer	78920	1.90	17199202	21.793	6.86
Net-metered	71970	1.73	15699137	21.813	6.26
Ryegate (wood)	126707	3.05	12710175	10.031	5.07
ISO wholesale	575553	13.85	18645214	3.240	7.43
Misc. sources	1772462	42.66	115267406	6.503	45.96
Other sources	2382075	57.34	135516232	5.689	54.04
Total GMP purchases	4154537	100.00	250783638	6.036	100.00
ISO midday wholesale				6.000

 

APPENDIX 6

Gas Guzzler Fees to Reduce CO2

 

Vermont should have an energy efficiency standard for light duty vehicles.

Annual fees would be paid at time of annual registration.

Inefficient vehicles would rapidly disappear.

CO2 would be rapidly reduced.

The collected funds could be used for filling potholes.

The wasteful Comprehensive Transportation Initiative, TCI, would not be needed.

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

 

Table E/EPA combined, mpg	Fee, $/y
40	0
39	10
38	20
37	30
36	40
35	50
34	60
Etc.

 

APPENDIX 7

GMP Purchased Electricity Mix

 

GMP electricity mix based on PPAs, i.e., paper contracts. 

GMP increased purchases of large hydro and nuclear, which have very low CO2/kWh.

GMP decreased purchases on the wholesale market, which had 299 g CO2/kWh in 2018, fed to grid basis, PE basis.

 

GMP’s paper PPAs for hydro and nuclear did not physically reduce any CO2 anywhere.

GMP is required to have such PPAs to satisfy state-RES mandates.

GMP did not need to spend any money to make any changes in its operations to reduce CO2

  

Table F/GMP Electricity Mix	2017	2018	2019
	%	%	%
Large hydro	23.7	49.4
Existing VT hydro	6.3	6.3
Total hydro	30.0	55.7	60.6
Wholesale market purchases	30.4	28.2	9.8
Nuclear	14.7	14.7	27.9
Oil and natural gas	0.5	0.4
Methane	0.7
Hydro	5.5
Solar	5.2	0.9	1.7
Wind	8.0
Wood	5.0
Total RE	24.4	0.9	1.7

 

APPENDIX 8

More Wind, Solar and Storage Harmful for Vermont 

 

GMP would need to replace the nuclear electricity, as it cannot rely on Seabrook Nuclear to be generating far into the future.

 

If the replacement were in-state RE (primarily wind, solar and storage), there would be major adverse environmental impacts on pristine ridge lines and open spaces in Vermont, plus the cost would be prohibitively expensive, which would adversely affect the Vermont economy. See URLs.

 

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-more-wind-and-solar...

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

 

APPENDIX 9

Electricity Moves as Electro-Magnetic Waves at Nearly the Speed of Light

 

Electricity Mix Based on Power Purchase Agreements 

There are non-technical people talking about the “Vermont electricity mix” or the “New Hampshire electricity mix”. That mix exists only on paper, because it is based on power purchase agreements, PPAs, between utilities and owners of electricity generators.

 

If a utility claims it is 100% renewable, it has PPAs with owners of renewable generators, i.e. wind, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. That mix has nothing to do with physical reality.

 

If a utility did not have PPAs and drew electricity from the grid, it would be stealing, just as a person would be by bypassing the utility electric meter.

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should not use PPAs to calculate the CO2 of the VT electricity sector and CO2/kWh

 

Electricity Mix Based on Physics

Once electricity is fed into the NE electric grid by any generator, it travels:

 

- On un-insulated wires, as electromagnetic waves at somewhat less than the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1800 miles in 0.01 of a second

- On insulated wires, the speed decreases to as low as 2/3 the speed of light, depending on the application.

 

If those speeds were not that high, the NE electric grid would not work, and modern electronics would not work.

 

The electrons vibrate at 60 cycles/second, 60 Hz, and travel at less than 0.1 inch/second; the reason it takes so long to charge a battery.

 

It is unfortunate most high school teachers told students the electrons were traveling.

Teachers likely never told them about EM waves

 

http://www.djtelectricaltraining.co.uk/downloads/50Hz-Frequency.pdf

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/popular-misconceptions-...

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should use the ISO-NE estimated CO2/kWh, at wall meters, to calculate CO2 of the VT electricity sector and CO2/kWh

 

Living Off the Grid

 

- If you live off the grid, have your own PV system, batteries, and generator for shortages and emergencies, then you use your own electricity mix.

- If you draw electricity from a wall socket, you draw the NE mix

 

APPENDIX 10

Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated House

In 2008, Transformations Inc., Townsend, MA, was chosen among six builders to participate in the state’s investor-owned utilities Zero Energy Challenge, a competition to encourage builders to plan and develop a home with a HERS Index below 35 before December 2009.

 

Carter Scott, President of Transformations, Inc. brought together a team of design and energy experts to not only meet the challenge, but to figure out how to get all the way to zero, while still building an affordable, new house. The team designed a three-bedroom 1,232-sq ft house, called the “Needham," which has a “- 4” HERS rating, i.e., the home is producing more energy than it is using. Sales price: $195,200 in 2009

https://www.buildingscience.com/sites/default/files/2011-03-08%20NE...

Major Design Features:

 

Roof (R75): 5 inches of high-density polyurethane foam, HDF, and 13 inches of high-density cellulose all along the slope of the second-floor roof rafters; 2 x 12s and a 2 x 4s held off by 3 inches for a thermal break separation 
Walls (R49): 2 x 4 outside wall; added a second 2 x 4 wall for a total depth of 12 inches; filled 3 inches with HDF and 9 inches with cellulose 
Basement Ceiling: 3 inches of HDF and a layer of R-30 fiberglass batts 
Windows: Paradigm triple-pane model with Low-E and krypton gas 
Heating/Cooling: Two Mitsubishi Mr. Slim mini-split, ductless, ASHPs

Ventilation: Lifebreath 155 ECM Energy Recovery Ventilator 

Leakage: About 175 cfm at 50 pascal, per blower door test (or 284 cfm for a 2000 sq ft house. See table 8)
Solar: Evergreen Solar’s 30 Spruce Line 190-watt PV panels to create a 6.4-kW system;

Hot Water: SunDrum Solar’s DHW heating system

Heat Loss: About 10,500 Btu/h, at 70F indoor, 6F outdoor (or 2000/1232 x 75 delta T/64 delta T x 10500 = 19,975 Btu/h for a 2000 sq ft house, at 65F indoor and -10F outdoor, in Vermont)

APPENDIX 11

CO2 of Gasoline and E10

 

E10 fuel (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) has a source energy, which is reduced due to exploration, extraction, processing and transport, to become the primary energy fed to E10 vehicles. See URL.

http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-muc...

 

Burning E10 (90% gasoline/10% Ethanol) = 0.9 x 19.569 + 0.1 x 12.720 = 18.884 lb/gal

Upstream = 0.9 x 4.892 + 0.1 x 13.556 = 5.759 lb/gal

 

Total = 24.643 lb/gal, if CO2 of ethanol fraction in gasoline (aka, gasohol, or E10) is counted.

Total = 24.643 - 1.272 = 23.371 lb/gal, if not counted.

 

Table G/Fuel CO2	Combustion	Upstream	Total
	lb CO2/gal	lb CO2/gal	lb CO2/gal
Burning pure gasoline	19.569
Upstream = 25% of combustion, per EPA		4.892
Total			24.461
Burning pure ethanol	12.720
Cropping, processing, blending		13.556
Total			26.276
Burning E10 (90/10)	18.884
Upstream		5.759
Total, if ethanol CO2 is counted			24.643
Total, if ethanol CO2 is not counted	17.612	5.759	23.371
.
Burning pure diesel	22.456
Upstream = 27% of combustion, per EPA		6.063
Total			28.519
Burning pure biodiesel, B100, soy oil	20.130
Upstream = 43% of combustion		8.656
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted			28.786
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted			8.656
Burning B20 (80/20)	21.991
Upstream		6.582
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted			28.572
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted	17.965	6.582	24.546

 

APPENDIX 12

The Prius Prime, plug-in hybrid, 8.8 kWh battery, partial AWD, travels about 25 miles on the battery, after which it functions as any other Prius.

Owners, with short commutes, need not buy any gasoline for months.

They only need to plug-in every day.

 

Per EPA, (33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(133 mpg-eq) = 0.259 kWh/mile, WM basis; includes charging losses

Adjusted to 0.259 x 1.055, loss factor = 0.267 mile/kWh, WM basis; 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 at an airport. (Items 2, 3 and 4 are not measured by EPA)

 

On average, electricity use would be 25 x 0.267 = 6.675 kWh to travel 25 miles each day, WM basis.

 

Battery rated capacity is 8.8 kWh, DC, i.e., about 65% is utilized, because the battery control system renders the top and bottom 15% as off limits to extend battery life. The middle portion has the most efficient charging and discharging.

Summer weather increases the 25-mile range and winter weather reduces it.

 

https://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_battery_specifications.pdf

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

 

Daily Commuting Cost

 

Commuting cost of Prime would be 6.675 x $0.19/kWh = $1.27/day.

Commuting cost of a 30-mpg gasoline vehicle would be 25/30 x $2.50/gal = $2.08/day

 

Lifetime CO2

 

Lifetime CO2 of Prime would be about 26.49 Mt/105600 miles

Lifetime CO2 of 30-mpg vehicle would be about 43.02 Mt/105600 miles

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid

https://calevip.org/electric-vehicle-charging-101

 

2020 Prius	Standard	Eco L	Prime, AWD
Plug-in	no	no	yes
Battery packs	2	2	5
Pack arrangement	parallel	parallel	series
Cells/pack	28	28	19
Cells	56	56	95
Cell energy, Ah	3.6	3.6	25
Battery energy, Ah = cells x 3.6	201.6	201.6	2375
Cell voltage, V	3.7	3.7	3.7
Battery voltage, V = 28 x 3.7	103.6	103.6
Battery voltage, V = 95 x 3.7			351.5
Battery capacity, kWh = V x Ah/1000	0.746	0.746	8.788
City	54	58	52
Highway	50	53	48
Combined	52	56	50