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

john.jackson9213 · Dec 9, 2017

Oilerlord said:
For me, it started with buying a couple of electric bikes for my wife & I. Not only are they totally fun, I found I could ride it up to ~50 miles on a charge. A lot of guys call them "cheater" bikes but they are the great equalizer when going out on a ride with my wife. She simply uses more electric assist to keep up to me. We both end up great exercise and ride longer distances.

Before that, my take on electric cars was that they were expensive toys for the eccentric left wingers, and greenpeace activists. They made zero financial sense, and for that matter, the environmental benefits were marginal. Reading about the degradation on Leaf batteries confirmed my bias against them. I had made up my mind that EVs were pretty much a joke funded by taxpayers.

I started looking into solar as a hobby project, and more about sticking it to the power company than anything to do with the environment. I started out running the numbers on 4 panels, but the project morphed into 41. After minimizing the cost of the project by going with 5-year old panels and doing a lot of my own DIY - I got it done at under $2/watt (the local installer was quoting $4.50).

We were exporting a lot of power to the grid, especially in the summer. Because our base power rates are pretty low, it bugged me that I was basically giving it away for next to nothing so that the POCO could just turn around and sell it to my neighbors for a tidy profit. That's when I took a serious look at EVs. I was absolutely floored at how cheap you could pick up a nearly new, very low mileage "used" EV for. I ran the numbers, and it made sense for us.

The rest is history. So, I guess you could say I'm "doing my part" (for the environment) - but really, it was unintentional and only a side effect of looking for ways to save money while sticking it to the man.

This is how the EV and Solar will really grow - It (solar/EV) is/are very, very close to a tipping point for most of us in urban areas. Personally, I am seeing more and more people who have done the math with Solar and find it makes sense. Once you have the solar installed, an Electric Vehicles starts to make economic sense as a replacement for at least one car.

kjclow · Dec 9, 2017

bhtooefr said:
Generally laws have been trending towards more acceptance of electric bicycles, although with codifying specific restrictions for their use.

Thanks for the info. Quite interesting details when you drill down through it. I was thinking more specifically about RAGBRAI. It’s a week long fully supported and sanctioned bike ride across Iowa. Just you, your bike, and about 10,000 of you closest friends. My assumption is that ebikes will be refused entry over the next few years. Seems to be a safety issue with that many riders.

El Dobro · Dec 9, 2017

E-bikes still being sold in NYC despite ban.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/05...ted-in-new-york-city-despite-11-year-old-ban/

bhtooefr · Dec 9, 2017

The trick with that particular ban is that:

It never actually banned sales (it only required disclosure that the "motorized scooter" is for private property only)
It only applied to wheeled devices that could be propelled without human power - read, throttle, not pedal-assist-only.

My understanding is that NYC doesn't go after pedal-assist e-bikes, just throttle.

Oilerlord · Dec 10, 2017

In the event members are interested in electric bike laws in their area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws

Where I live:

"Alberta identifies e-bikes as "power bicycles" and is consistent with the federal definition of "power-assisted bicycle" in MVSR CRC, c 1038 s 2.[19] Motor output must not exceed 500 W (0.671 hp) and e-bikes cannot travel faster than 32 km/h (20 mph). Fully operable pedals are required. No driver's license, vehicle insurance, or vehicle registration is required. Operators must be 12 years of age or older. All operators are required to wear a motorcycle helmet meeting the standards set in AR 122/2009 s 112(2).[20] A passenger is permitted only if the e-bike is equipped with a seat designated for that passenger.[21]"

Here's a video of the BULLS E-Stream EVO FS 3 bikes we ride now as reviewed by my buddy Court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=-SECENhrHEg

They are full suspension bikes. I was going to buy a "women's" model for my wife, but it made more sense just getting two of the same model ones, only that we ordered her bike with a smaller frame.

If anyone is interested learning more about ebikes, check out his site:
www.electricbikereview.com. His reviews are great.

Oilerlord · Dec 10, 2017

john.jackson9213 said:
This is how the EV and Solar will really grow - It (solar/EV) is/are very, very close to a tipping point for most of us in urban areas. Personally, I am seeing more and more people who have done the math with Solar and find it makes sense. Once you have the solar installed, an Electric Vehicles starts to make economic sense as a replacement for at least one car.

Based on the size of this thread I'd say "Most of us" are interested in Solar / EV's but affordability and ROI give people pause. The math made sense, only because I got creative with the numbers, but mostly it still took a leap of faith.

2015vwgolfdiesel · Dec 10, 2017

Oilerlord said:
Based on the size of this thread I'd say "Most of us" are interested in Solar / EV's but affordability and ROI give people pause. The math made sense, only because I got creative with the numbers, but mostly it still took a leap of faith.

^^^^^^

bhtooefr · Dec 11, 2017

Careful with that Wikipedia article, verify what's stated in it with other sources.

I've seen some major errors re: Ohio in there in the past, and had to correct them - Ohio considers even one watt of assist to be a motorized bicycle, which requires licensing and registration (as well as some equipment requirements that are actually a bit hard for a bicycle to meet), and has zero legal access to cycling infrastructure. (There's also a lot of reliance on some provisions of the federal regulation on electric bicycles (namely, one that basically says that LSEBs are to be treated bicycles in all regulation), that probably don't work the way people think they do - for instance, while it definitely means that federal regulators must regulate a LSEB as a regular bicycle, it's unclear whether it affects state laws.)

Granted, if you aren't someone that the police are likely to pull over in the first place, and are using pedal assist rather than a throttle, keeping it quiet, and not going too fast, you're probably fine even in states like Ohio that fully ban e-bikes.

There's also some places like NYC that, even though NYS law fully bans e-bikes, the city treats pedal assist as legal, and therefore has decided not to enforce the state law (although they may pull over pedal assist bikes to verify, and may impound them if they can't verify that it's only pedal assist...)

kjclow · Dec 11, 2017

Those laws wiil (probably) only come into effect if you have already done something stupid and the authorities can use that extra push to assign you fault. Such as getting in an accident and they determine the fault was because you were going too fast. I've known a few people that were threatened with tickets for exceeding the speed limit on bikes before. Not sure any of them were actually ticketed though. Also, at least in NC, they can charge you with DUI for riding your bike while drunk.

bhtooefr · Dec 11, 2017

Same applies in Ohio - in fact, the only violations on a bicycle that can count against your driver's license are operating a vehicle under the influence, and vehicular homicide.

I'm personally of the opinion that DUI/OVI/DWI/whatever it's called "counting" on a bicycle is actually a dangerous policy, because it means that riding home and driving home are considered equally bad in the eyes of the law, and they're totally different levels of danger to the public.

kjclow · Dec 11, 2017

When I lived in Wisconsin, many people who had lost the licenses due to dui were riding scooters since they did not have to be registered. Didn't stop any of them from drinking and driving. Just meant they were less protected when they ran into something.

I should add that from a bike advocacy stand point, even if that is your only form of transportation, you should still carry vehicle insurance.

2015vwgolfdiesel · Dec 11, 2017

kjclow said:
When I lived in Wisconsin, many people who had lost the licenses due to dui were riding scooters since they did not have to be registered. Didn't stop any of them from drinking and driving. Just meant they were less protected when they ran into something.

I should add that from a bike advocacy stand point, even if that is your only form of transportation, you should still carry vehicle insurance.

They ???????

AFAIAC a dui on a 200-300 pound scooter is better for the rest of us.

maybe he/she will wear a helmet.

RabbitGTI · Dec 11, 2017

In Wisconsin it is legal to ride a pedal powered bicycle drunk as long as you are not a hazard. DUI does not apply. A guy does a pub crawl in Milwaukee and they use bikes. If you attach a motor of any kind to the bicycle, DUI applies.

turbobrick240 · Dec 11, 2017

That makes sense to me. DUI should only apply to motorized vehicles, imo. Public intoxication or some other charge should apply to drunken bicyclists who are operating in an unsafe manner.

Oilerlord · Dec 11, 2017

kjclow said:
Those laws wiil (probably) only come into effect if you have already done something stupid and the authorities can use that extra push to assign you fault. Such as getting in an accident and they determine the fault was because you were going too fast.

Speed limited 19 MPH electric bikes are perfectly safe, it's only a relatively few stupid riders that do stupid things like hacking their bikes to unlock 30+ MPH, and then run over people on public trails that ruin it for the rest of us.

2015vwgolfdiesel · Dec 11, 2017

Oilerlord said:
Speed limited 19 MPH electric bikes are perfectly safe, it's only a relatively few stupid riders that do stupid things like hacking their bikes to unlock 30+ MPH, and then run over people on public trails that ruin it for the rest of us.

.... hacking,

.... adjusting, modernizing, perfecting, personalizing, customizing, freeing, improving, tuning

Lightflyer1 · Dec 11, 2017

Takes even less to survive. But no one whats to live that way any more. Not to mention they died at a younger age usually.

Tin Man · Dec 11, 2017

wxman said:
According to GREET, replacing a Golf TDI with 60,000 miles on it (i.e., scrapping it) with a new eGolf would take 6,200 miles to offset the NOx emissions from manufacturing the gGolf, 1,600,000 miles to offset VOC emissions, 400,000 miles to offset the CO emissions, 39,000 miles to offset the GHG emissions, never offset the PM emissions, and never offset the SOx emissions.

This was based on the average of the emissions that WVU measured in their "real-world" driving study of the 2012 VW Jetta TDI (Thompson et al., "In-Use Emissions Testing of Light-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States." International Council on Clean Transportation Report, May 15, 2014).

Hi Wxman!

I have an interesting "outside the box" question:

If we are comparing fossil diesel burning automobiles to EV automobiles, shouldn't we double the emissions if not more of the diesel due to the following interesting concept:

Every gallon of diesel, like the original kerosene developed for market by Rockefeller, during its production creates a significant quantity of other distillates especially gasoline (it was considered to be a waste product and dumped into the environment!). There is a strong market for ULSD but a surplus of gasoline in the world as a result which may partly explain the lower price per gallon of gasoline.

All vehicles also emit particulates from tires and asphalt.

So, using diesel fuel may inadvertently create a market for gasoline that is overproduced and as a result wasted with SUV's etc. by the public that sees lower prices.

Just a thought, eh?

TM

GoFaster · Dec 11, 2017

^ That was from an era when refineries couldn't do chemical treatments to change one hydrocarbon into another. Cracking, hydrotreating, etc. It's easier for the refineries to take heavy fractions and hydrotreat them to make lighter distillates and they can tailor the amount of each fraction that they want. It's not so easy to go the other way, but it's more common to have too much heavy than too much light.

Oilerlord · Dec 11, 2017

2015vwgolfdiesel said:
.... hacking,

.... adjusting, modernizing, perfecting, personalizing, customizing, freeing, improving, tuning

I was in a pretty bad motorcycle accident back in 2013, and only at 30 mph. A lady blew through a stop sign right in front of me, and from experience; I can tell you 30 mph feels pretty fast when you're tumbling on asphalt. I get the case for individual freedom but shake my head every time I see guys on the freeway in Phoenix doing 80 on a bike, no helmet, shorts, t-shirt, and sandals. You never think it's going to happen to you until it does.

19 mph is plenty fast on a bicycle. Especially when you're probably not wearing a full helmet, boots, and leathers.

wxman · Dec 11, 2017

Tin Man said:
Hi Wxman!
I have an interesting "outside the box" question:
If we are comparing fossil diesel burning automobiles to EV automobiles, shouldn't we double the emissions if not more of the diesel due to the following interesting concept:

Every gallon of diesel, like the original kerosene developed for market by Rockefeller, during its production creates a significant quantity of other distillates especially gasoline (it was considered to be a waste product and dumped into the environment!). There is a strong market for ULSD but a surplus of gasoline in the world as a result which may partly explain the lower price per gallon of gasoline.

All vehicles also emit particulates from tires and asphalt.

So, using diesel fuel may inadvertently create a market for gasoline that is overproduced and as a result wasted with SUV's etc. by the public that sees lower prices.

Just a thought, eh?

TM

Hi TM,

My comment was based on turning in and subsequently scrapping a perfectly good TDI (i.e., the "cheating" ones that can't be "fixed", if there turns out to be any), and replacing that vehicle with a comparable EV (I assumed the TDI had 60,000 miles on it when it is replaced, and had at least 100,000 miles of useful life left). I actually submitted comments with these calculations in it to DOJ during the VW settlement litigation open comment period in July 2016. Never saw any response to any of the comments submitted during the comment period.

It was my intent to demonstrate that scrapping these non-compliant TDIs would be worse for the environment than just allowing the TDIs to remain on the road through their useful lives. By the way, the scenario wouldn't change by replacing the TDI with a comparable gasser (e.g., Golf TSI).

I used an earlier version of GREET in those calculations. It doesn't look like the calculus changed significantly in the latest version of GREET (GREET_2017 just released in October 2017).

Here are the GREET_2017 output files for diesel WTW, EV WTW, and vehicle manufacturing using the most recent U.S. electricity mix based on EIA data (Q4 2016 - Q3 2017):

I did adjust the GREET emissions data based on published weights and fuel mileage data of the VW vehicles.

I used the upstream emissions from GREET, but used the WVU TDI exhaust emissions data, except for SOx for which I used the default emissions in GREET. For PM2.5, I did add in the tire and road wear per GREET (0.005 g/mi).

Don't know if that addressed your question? Does that help?

Oilerlord · Dec 12, 2017

Hmm...seems a lot like "science" to me but don't take my word for it though...my logic is purely one dimensional.

turbobrick240 · Dec 12, 2017

Pepsi Co has reserved 100 of the tesla semi trucks. Model 3 deliveries to the general public are going forward. Looks like the echo chambers such as Seeking Alpha may be costing their readership dearly.

kjclow · Dec 12, 2017

Tin Man said:
Hi Wxman!

I have an interesting "outside the box" question:

If we are comparing fossil diesel burning automobiles to EV automobiles, shouldn't we double the emissions if not more of the diesel due to the following interesting concept:

Every gallon of diesel, like the original kerosene developed for market by Rockefeller, during its production creates a significant quantity of other distillates especially gasoline (it was considered to be a waste product and dumped into the environment!). There is a strong market for ULSD but a surplus of gasoline in the world as a result which may partly explain the lower price per gallon of gasoline.

All vehicles also emit particulates from tires and asphalt.

So, using diesel fuel may inadvertently create a market for gasoline that is overproduced and as a result wasted with SUV's etc. by the public that sees lower prices.

Just a thought, eh?

TM

GoFaster said:
^ That was from an era when refineries couldn't do chemical treatments to change one hydrocarbon into another. Cracking, hydrotreating, etc. It's easier for the refineries to take heavy fractions and hydrotreat them to make lighter distillates and they can tailor the amount of each fraction that they want. It's not so easy to go the other way, but it's more common to have too much heavy than too much light.

I'll follow up with a comment or two. Crude oil and petroleum distillates are traded on a world market basis which drives pricing globally. The pump price differences we see around the world are primarily related to individual state/province (US and Canada) or national taxes. If there is a shortage or supply interruption anywhere in the world, everyone's pump prices are effected. As GoFaster mentioned, refineries are not just distilling products but also cracking them to force higher output to more profitable products. The remaining "sludge" is still used in things like asphalt roads, shingles, and sound dampening. Very little goes to waste. if you're driving by a refinery and see a large fire plume, something in their process is not in control.

Oilerlord · Dec 12, 2017

turbobrick240 said:
Pepsi Co has reserved 100 of the tesla semi trucks. Model 3 deliveries to the general public are going forward. Looks like the echo chambers such as Seeking Alpha may be costing their readership dearly.

Tesla doesn't have a problem selling units...just making a profit per unit. Seeking Alpha (and others) question Tesla's seemingly lack of concern for earnings per share. I do too.

oilhammer · Dec 12, 2017

Oilerlord said:
Tesla doesn't have a problem selling units...just making a profit per unit. Seeking Alpha (and others) question Tesla's seemingly lack of concern for earnings per share. I do too.

Sure they do. Can't sell what you can't build.

2015vwgolfdiesel · Dec 12, 2017

Tesla has a P:E ratio of.........

neg 8.52
... but the *suits* are saying it will be better

Oilerlord · Dec 12, 2017

oilhammer said:
Sure they do. Can't sell what you can't build.

I'll rephrase.

Tesla has doesn't have a problem taking orders.

turbobrick240 · Dec 12, 2017

Still a good time to invest in TSLA- before it goes full bitcoin.

aja8888 · Dec 12, 2017

turbobrick240 said:
Still a good time to invest in TSLA- before it goes full bitcoin.

I wonder if Tesla will accept bitcoins for payment when buying a car from them?

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

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor

Top Post Dawg

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Moderator at Large

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg