Electric vehicles (EVs), their emissions, and future viability

Like I said at the end, it's not growth, it's plants that used to be in other regions being reclassified as being part of NWPP.

CraziFuzzy said:

Also consider that these maps are based only on greenhouse gas emissions. This doesn't consider the significant pollution reduction that EV's bring. The ability to better deal with emissions such as NOx and SOx at a central power plant vs a car's tailpipe mean that actual smog generating pollutants per mile are FAR less for EV's than any other option.

Click to expand...

Most studies don't support that conclusion.

A 2009 report by the National Academy of Science projected that full life-cycle emissions from BEV would produce more non-climate damages than diesel, and epecially biodiesel:





http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794 (full report available at link on top of press release; image is Figure 3-7,page 212 of full report)


A 2014 study by Tessum ("Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111 no. 52, 18490–18495, http://www.pnas.org/content/111/52/18490.full ) shows that BEV runs from the cleanest to by far the dirtiest with respect to non-GHG damages, depending on the electricity generation mix:




(note: EV WWS = wind, water, solar electricity mix)



Based on the latest version of the GREET model, here are relative non-GHG damages of the GM vehicle technologies:

turbobrick240 said:

The only problem I see with those models is that they don't account for the fact that the average EV owner is certainly getting a far greater percentage of their electricity from clean, renewable sources than the national average for the grid. Pretty much every EV owner I know of in my area has significant PV installations for instance. And the national grid gets cleaner every year, so 8 year old data may not be very accurate today.

Click to expand...

I think you need to consider an area somewhat larger than in your area. Further, who is "the average" EV owner? One that lives in California, or one that lives in Michigan?

To that point, take another look at the map on the previous page. It states:

"The 73 MPG U.S. average is a sales-weighted average based on where EVs were sold in 2016."

Also, look at what wxman posted again. One study is from 2014, the GREET model is from 2017.

Although, AFAIK, GREET is using 2014 eGRID data...

Oilerlord said:

I think you need to consider an area somewhat larger than in your area. Further, who is "the average" EV owner? One that lives in California, or one that lives in Michigan?
To that point, take another look at the map on the previous page. It states:
"The 73 MPG U.S. average is a sales-weighted average based on where EVs were sold in 2016."
Also, look at what wxman posted again. One study is from 2014, the GREET model is from 2017.

Click to expand...

Actually, the biggest issue I have with the GREET models is that they completely ignore carbon emissions. Which seems pretty farcical.

bhtooefr said:

Although, AFAIK, GREET is using 2014 eGRID data...

Click to expand...

You're correct, but I used the "User Defined" option in GREET for the electricity generation mix, which I obtained from the latest EIA data (used Q2 2016 - Q1 2017).

turbobrick240 said:

Actually, the biggest issue I have with the GREET models is that they completely ignore carbon emissions. Which seems pretty farcical.

Click to expand...

It does calculate GHG emissions. I just didn't include them in the non-GHG damages in the preceding graphic. The current U.S. grid mix does have lower GHG emissions for EV, as suggested in the UCS report (map) posted earlier.

Actually, I believe UCS used GREET to calculate regional GHG emissions in those reports, IIRC.

wxman said:

You're correct, but I used the "User Defined" option in GREET for the electricity generation mix, which I obtained from the latest EIA data (used Q2 2016 - Q1 2017).




It does calculate GHG emissions. I just didn't include them in the non-GHG damages in the preceding graphic. The current U.S. grid mix does have lower GHG emissions for EV, as suggested in the UCS report (map) posted earlier.

Actually, I believe UCS used GREET to calculate regional GHG emissions in those reports, IIRC.

Click to expand...

Very good. I think we can all take comfort in the fact that PV and wind power generation is growing at an incredibly fast rate. And hopefully coal power will continue to diminish at a steady rate as well. I think the models should look much different in 5 years time when EV sales start to really take off.

The new VW electric microbus coming in 2022 looks pretty cool. Should be a little faster than the original with 369 hp. http://www.autoweek.com/article/green-cars/confirmed-volkswagen-id-buzz-van-coming-2022

SilverGhost said:

But this is part of the reasoning why people are driving around in big 1/2 ton and even 3/4 and 1 tons as daily drivers. And like others have said, if I just dropped $50k to $60k on a truck, I'm not going to buy a car just to save gas the rest of the time. The tax, insurance, license, and purchase price of a second vehicle would buy a lot of fuel for the gas hog.

Click to expand...

Insurance rates are usually calculated based on annual miles driven. In addition to insurance, a $60,000 truck is going to depreciate a lot more $/mile than a little commuter car. So it isn't just fuel savings... it's fuel, insurance, depreciation, cost of maintenance, consumables such as tires and brakes, etc. Add all of those things up and you're saving a lot by daily driving something other than your tow rig. Of course, this all depends on your own situation - Michigan residents pay a lot more in insurance than Virginia residents, for example.

If and when we are in the market for a new (not used clunker) car I think an electric would fit at least one of our commutes, if not both. Interesting idea though - who has TWO electric vehicles and has the electric service to handle charging both? Both on capacity of wiring and actual charging hardware.

Click to expand...

We have two electric vehicles in our house right now (soon to be three) and we added charging infrastructure for both. Adding the additional power was straight-forward and we have spare capacity available in our panel for the Tesla that we will be getting soon. Even with all three vehicles charging at night with the house air conditioning and the electric dryer running, we will be using only 125 amps out of our 200 amp service, which is well within the 80% margin of safety. YMMV depending on how your home is wired and how you use energy. If we were closer to the limit, we could easily stagger our charge times so that all three vehicles don't charge simultaneously.

VeeDubTDI said:

Insurance rates are usually calculated based on annual miles driven. ... - Michigan residents pay a lot more in insurance than Virginia residents, for example.

Click to expand...

That would be a mostly no. Insurance rates are initially based on population density. My insurance doubled when I moved from South Bend, IN to Charlotte, NC. Same cars, same company.

Second would be cost of the vehicle and costs of repairs. A $60k vehicle is going to cost more to insure than a $30K vehicle. The F150 aluminum box is more expensive than the C1500 steel box primarily due to the Ford taillights being on piece. (from Car and Driver report)

Third piece is the state you live in. In your example, Michigan is a no fault state, which means the opposite. All parties in the accident are given some portion of the fault and therefore the repair costs. Means that, on average, you'll end up filing more claims with your insurance company. More claims, higher rates.

In over 30 years of insuring vehicles, I've never been asked for my annual mileage. Yes, I have category deductions, such as living within 5 miles of my work place. Doesn't stop me from putting over 20k miles on a year.

Great news! We don't need no stinking electric cars!

According to the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung"

Synthetic fuel to save the combustion engine
The German National Academy of Science and Engineering argues that the combustion engine is in line with climate goals if it is driven by artificial fuels, which release hardly any particulate matter or nitrogen

kjclow said:

In over 30 years of insuring vehicles, I've never been asked for my annual mileage. Yes, I have category deductions, such as living within 5 miles of my work place. Doesn't stop me from putting over 20k miles on a year.

Click to expand...

I get asked for annual mileage estimates for my cars every time I renew.

kjclow said:

In over 30 years of insuring vehicles, I've never been asked for my annual mileage. Yes, I have category deductions, such as living within 5 miles of my work place. Doesn't stop me from putting over 20k miles on a year.

Click to expand...

Every car I've insured, I've been asked for my estimated annual mileage on that car.

kjclow said:

That would be a mostly no. Insurance rates are initially based on population density. My insurance doubled when I moved from South Bend, IN to Charlotte, NC. Same cars, same company.

Second would be cost of the vehicle and costs of repairs. A $60k vehicle is going to cost more to insure than a $30K vehicle. The F150 aluminum box is more expensive than the C1500 steel box primarily due to the Ford taillights being on piece. (from Car and Driver report)

Third piece is the state you live in. In your example, Michigan is a no fault state, which means the opposite. All parties in the accident are given some portion of the fault and therefore the repair costs. Means that, on average, you'll end up filing more claims with your insurance company. More claims, higher rates.

In over 30 years of insuring vehicles, I've never been asked for my annual mileage. Yes, I have category deductions, such as living within 5 miles of my work place. Doesn't stop me from putting over 20k miles on a year.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I shouldn't have said that the primary factor is mileage --- you're right that it's vehicle cost to repair and population density. But mileage driven absolutely factors into your premiums... I've routinely adjust my USAA coverage based on the annual mileage each vehicle gets, which adjusts my bill. 10,000 miles in our Passat costs a lot more than 10,000 miles in our Fiat, and the difference would be even more significant in something more expensive like a new Ford F-350 or Chevy Silverado. Insuring a cheap commuter could be completely offset by the mileage reduction on a luxury "tow vehicle," especially if that commuter doesn't require full coverage. Then add the other factors such as fuel savings, maintenance savings, and depreciation... you see where I'm going with this.

Michigan has the highest auto insurance rates in the country (by far), even higher than DC with its higher population density, worse traffic, and higher accident rate. http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/car-insurance-rates.html

Anyway, we've digressed quite a bit from the topic, although I think it's important to dispel the myth that a luxury tow vehicle needs to be a daily driver in order to be financially viable.

El Dobro said:

I get asked for annual mileage estimates for my cars every time I renew.

Click to expand...

Me too, although I have never had them "check". Of course, I've never crashed a car either, so maybe that is why. I think it is something they want to have to give at least a small idea of what your potential for an accident is. Stands to reason if you drive 50k miles a year, you would be twice as likely to be involved in a crash than if you drove 25k miles a year, assuming everything else was the same.

Usually, though, the highest number they allow before going to "unlimited" is 7500, at least that has been my experience. So we almost always have to go to unlimited because we live so far from anywhere aside Walmart and a few local places. Sprinter will pass 7500 miles before we've had it a year (we are already at almost 5k miles after 8 months) and that is a car that does not even get driven every day and often sits for 5+ says at a stretch.

VeeDubTDI said:

10,000 miles in our Passat costs a lot more than 10,000 miles in our Fiat, and the difference would be even more significant in something more expensive like a new Ford F-350 or Chevy Silverado. Insuring a cheap commuter could be completely offset by the mileage reduction on a luxury "tow vehicle," especially if that commuter doesn't require full coverage. Then add the other factors such as fuel savings, maintenance savings, and depreciation... you see where I'm going with this.

Click to expand...

To be fair, the case for insurance savings you're making is more about buying a small, cheap, already depreciated used sub-compact vehicle vs big expensive new full-size vehicle. Of course the other cars cost more to insure. A used $8,000 TDI would cost less to insure than a new Ford F-350 too. My 2014 B250e costs about the same to insure as my 2012 VW.

I get the fuel savings, but depreciation? EVs depreciate - big time. I'm not sure how losing half your money to EV depreciation in three years or less can be considered a financial advantage.

Oilerlord said:

To be fair, the case for insurance savings you're making is more about buying a small, cheap, already depreciated used sub-compact vehicle vs big expensive new full-size vehicle. Of course the other cars cost more to insure. A used $8,000 TDI would cost less to insure than a new Ford F-350 too. My 2014 B250e costs about the same to insure as my 2012 VW.
I get the fuel savings, but depreciation? EVs depreciate - big time. I'm not sure how losing half your money to EV depreciation in three years or less can be considered a financial advantage.

Click to expand...

Correct. I'm talking about cheap used commuters - EVs, TDIs, a Prius, whatever. Depreciation on anything new is going to be killer, no matter what it is. The point I'm trying to make is that the argument for daily driving a $60,000 truck "because it was expensive" doesn't make sense. You will save more money in the long run by driving a second vehicle (a cheap commuter) and not racking up the miles on the truck.

Depreciation on the big [non diesel] gas guzzler trucks is pretty incredible, too. It amazes me so many people buy those things new, too, because of that. A $45k Silverado is worth $40k by the time you get it home, and by the time it is a year old is is worth a whole Cruze' MSRP less. And if you finance it with little money down, you are driving around in a virtual money fire, not even considering the fuel it is burning.

oilhammer said:

Depreciation on the big [non diesel] gas guzzler trucks is pretty incredible, too. It amazes me so many people buy those things new, too, because of that.

Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I bought my 2-year old EV that had only 6,000 miles on it - for 65% off it's original MSRP. It was an absolute steal for me, but I recognize that someone had to do the heavy financial lifting to make it possible. In my case it was a combination of MBUSA & Uncle Sam lighting money on fire. I otherwise wouldn't be in a position to save so much money on fuel & maintenance costs.

God Bless America!

oilhammer said:

Depreciation on the big [non diesel] gas guzzler trucks is pretty incredible, too. It amazes me so many people buy those things new, too, because of that. A $45k Silverado is worth $40k by the time you get it home, and by the time it is a year old is is worth a whole Cruze' MSRP less. And if you finance it with little money down, you are driving around in a virtual money fire, not even considering the fuel it is burning.

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with big truck depreciation, but when I was looking at getting a new truck last winter (expecting year end sales), I was shocked to find that the "cheapest" F-150 on the lot was carrying a MSRP of $42,000. And it was nothing special. 90% of the F-150 inventory at the dealer I was at was $55 - $70K.

Needless to say, there is no new truck in our driveway (and won't be).

The next scary part is that used pickups are selling for bigger dollars in Texas than I care to spend. My not be the same elsewhere.

You do realize you CAN order a base model F150, right? They start around $23k, with the incentives. But yes, if you want the KingKongLaredoXLRLMNOPLaramieLariatMoeLarryCurlyPlatinum Edition, with 6 doors and a 3 foot bed, which is typically what the dealers like to stock, then it will be much much more.

I really do have to scratch my head with Americans' love affair with giant pickups. Although part of it is that we simply cannot buy what the rest of the world gets, and I think it is a catch-22. We cannot buy that because the profit level is just too high on these behemoths, and they do not want that to go away. I would love a T5 Doka TDI, or a Hilux diesel, or even the cool old versions of the Land Cruiser pickups (still available in Australia).

Of course, I have owned a lot of pickups myself over the years, and my current one, a '96 F150, may very well be the last one I own. I scored a near museum quality one that sat inside for 15 years. I have had to do a few things to it due to sitting, but overall it is in great shape, and is the old simple sturdy type of truck, with very little bells and whistles. It has 4 options: A/C, XL trim package, cloth seat, and the appearance package which is chrome aluminum wheel accents over the styled steel wheels, and two-tone paint along the bottom. No power windows, power locks, no fancy radio, inline 6 cyl, 5 speeds, 3 pedals, 2WD, and a proper 8 foot bed. I rarely drive it, but when I need it, it is nice to have. And I only gave $3k for it, spent another $1500 on it (most of that was tires, shocks, a battery, fuel pumps, and fluids).

oilhammer said:

I really do have to scratch my head with Americans' love affair with giant pickups. Although part of it is that we simply cannot buy what the rest of the world gets, and I think it is a catch-22. We cannot buy that because the profit level is just too high on these behemoths, and they do not want that to go away. I would love a T5 Doka TDI, or a Hilux diesel, or even the cool old versions of the Land Cruiser pickups (still available in Australia).

Click to expand...

Haven't you ever dreamed about being King of the Ranch? The top-end F-150 makes it happen.

Oilerlord said:

Haven't you ever dreamed about being King of the Ranch? The top-end F-150 makes it happen.

Click to expand...

There must be a lot of kings in Missouri then, LOL. We are swimming with royalty here. Although the Silverado and Ram give them a good run for the money lately.

I know of someone who is sitting on a '51 GMC 2500 in great condition. That would be perfect for the few times I would need a p/u. But getting Mr. Mariani to part with it is the hard part. Only thing not original is we converted it to 12v while we worked there back in the '90s.

Still keeping my eye open for a deal on an eGolf for a commuter. The best deals I have found are either up north (rust!) or west coast (>2000 miles away). Cars closer to me are less of a deal, so far.

Jason

aja8888 said:

I don't have a problem with big truck depreciation, but when I was looking at getting a new truck last winter (expecting year end sales), I was shocked to find that the "cheapest" F-150 on the lot was carrying a MSRP of $42,000. And it was nothing special. 90% of the F-150 inventory at the dealer I was at was $55 - $70K.

Needless to say, there is no new truck in our driveway (and won't be).

The next scary part is that used pickups are selling for bigger dollars in Texas than I care to spend. My not be the same elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Auto manufacturers have been able to absolutely hose buyers due to cheap Fed money and almost zero interest rates. Take a look at this article on price creep:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/07/27/pickup-trucks-prices/30736615/

VeeDubTDI said:

I currently see 328 CPO and 557 new inventory Teslas across the entire United States. I don't know how that compares to other makes, but I recently heard that Chevy has a >100 day backlog of unsold Bolt EV inventory.

I'll keep an eye on www.teslainventory.com over the coming weeks to see if those numbers go up or down. I've been watching it pretty closely lately, but I haven't been paying attention to total unsold vehicle numbers.

Click to expand...

Today's count is

CPO (221)
Inventory (414)

Total vehicles is 635, down from 885 vehicles in my last post.

VeeDubTDI said:

Today's count is
CPO (221)
Inventory (414)
Total vehicles is 635, down from 885 vehicles in my last post.

Click to expand...

Tesla isn't very good about keeping that data base updated... they kept their 50k+ mile cars off the market for a while and I've also seen them dump 100+ cars in a day. Not sure what causes this... I think they keep a certain number in their loaner fleet then just purge dozens in a day. But; I also know they've had loaners available on the CPO market. The P85D loaner I got last year was available for sale.

nwdiver said:

Tesla isn't very good about keeping that data base updated... they kept their 50k+ mile cars off the market for a while and I've also seen them dump 100+ cars in a day. Not sure what causes this... I think they keep a certain number in their loaner fleet then just purge dozens in a day. But; I also know they've had loaners available on the CPO market. The P85D loaner I got last year was available for sale.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I've been curious about how their centralized inventory database works.

For all the interest in EVs, they account for less than 1/4 of 1% of the cars on the road. I find that amazing.

rustycat said:

For all the interest in EVs, they account for less than 1/4 of 1% of the cars on the road. I find that amazing.

Click to expand...

Just saw my first EV "traffic jam " yesterday. I managed to count 25 EV's in one view. I'm in Highland Park Il this week.
I'd say Tesla makes up 25% of traffic here.