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

nwdiver · Oct 31, 2016

'Well-to-wheels' calculations are by far the most difficult analysis in terms of the variables involved and how those variations can effect the results.

Are the materials recycled? How viable is recycling? Is this likely to change? What is the energy cost of obtaining the materials? Is that likely to change?

Small improvements in any part of the chain can cause a dramatic shift in the end result. Some examples.

- Silver was once a critical ingredient in solar panels. Technology improvements eliminated the need for silver dramatically improving the ecological foot print and decreasing the cost. High purity Silicon is another ingredient that the industry is slowing finding ways around... further reducing the cost of solar.

- Cobalt is still a critical element in lithium batteries. It's costly to obtain and refining it is very negative environmentally. Eliminating the need for Cobalt will dramatically lower the impact of manufacturing batteries.

It's useful to approach these issues from a 'First Principals' perspective. What are the physical limitations of each technology. Then build out from there.

Jetta SS · Oct 31, 2016

nwdiver said:
Um.... no... oil is nearly 3 orders of magnitude worse than nuclear power. ~4 if you take into account the fact that electric vehicles use ~70% less energy per mile than their fools fuel powered equivalents...

Thankfully coal is in rapid decline and probably won't live to see 2030.

Thats debatable. Nuclear power seems cheaper, but factor the cleanup costs of one accident like Fukishima and you're in the hole with an area uninhabitable. Then factor in the cost of long term storage of waste, thats a cost thats not going away any time soon and will increase over time. The waste can also cause a catastrophe.

This stuff is like politics, the nuclear industry / gov sponsors a lot of biased studies and such.

nwdiver · Oct 31, 2016

Jetta SS said:
Thats debatable. Nuclear power seems cheaper, but factor the cleanup costs of one accident like Fukishima and you're in the hole with an area uninhabitable.

I never said that nuclear was cheaper. I said it was safer. ~1000x more people have been killed by oil and it's external effects than those killed by nuclear power. The Fukushima nuclear disaster will be very expensive but it didn't kill anyone.

oilhammer · Nov 1, 2016

All of this is fun to talk about, but if the population continues to rise and more people (mostly in other parts of the world) demand access to modern things we take for granted it really won't matter much in the foreseeable future what we do here.

India stated recently they are planning to bring electricity to a bunch of people who have never had it before, and that "bunch" is about equal to the entire US population. And they are going to do it the cheapest way possible: coal.

China was rapidly maxing out its supply of coal, oil, and natural gas (mostly from Russia) until it recently (thankfully) came up against a wall of what happens when you build too much cheap junk and the world backs off its demand. I guess Harbor Freight can only sell so many junky sand cast bench vises before consumers realized that a $20 junky sand cast bench vise is a worthless piece of junk. They make good boat anchors, though.

nwdiver · Nov 1, 2016

oilhammer said:
All of this is fun to talk about, but if the population continues to rise and more people (mostly in other parts of the world) demand access to modern things we take for granted it really won't matter much in the foreseeable future what we do here.

We'll have a lot of resource constraints... but if we're smart about it energy won't be one of them.

Of course... we have a terrible track record of being incredibly.... INCREDIBLY foolish

VeeDubTDI · Nov 1, 2016

All the more reason to get started on building out the renewable infrastructure now. Demand is ever-increasing, and the longer we wait, the further behind the curve we get. Designs and vetting take time - you have to make some mistakes before you get it right. Better to make the mistakes now than when we're really pressed for resources.

wxman · Nov 1, 2016

Here is an updated graphic comparing various vehicle technologies and fuels using the latest version of the GREET model (GREET_2016 which was released just a few weeks ago - https://greet.es.anl.gov/ ).

The gasoline vehicle technology is listed as "SIDI (E10)" on the graphic.

VeeDubTDI · Nov 1, 2016

Thanks wxman! What is Diesel R100? Synthetic fuel like Propel HPR?

wxman · Nov 1, 2016

VeeDubTDI said:
Thanks wxman! What is Diesel R100? Synthetic fuel like Propel HPR?

Yes, R100 = 100% "renewable diesel", which is what Propel Diesel HPR is (albeit with a small amount of lubricant added).

wxman · Nov 1, 2016

If anyone is interested, here are energy and emissions per million BTU of product per GREET_2016...

(BTU/mmBTU or grams/mmBTU)

Parameter..................Diesel..........................E10……………….………………..Electric

Energy…….……………….231,455 [81.2%]……..305,404 [76.6%]………….…..1,156,970 [46.4%]
VOC…..……...................9.604.......................31.468………………………………17.380
CO............................24.745.......................31.468………………………………78.456
NOx..........................35.508.......................44.540……………………………..103.354
PM10..........................3.060.........................4.385……………………………...27.427
PM2.5.........................2.204.........................2.740……………………………...10.624
SOx………......…….…………27.016….……....…….……..41.404………………..…………..236.736
GHG…………….........………21,244……………....……….22,678…………………...……….145,843

Edit: this is based on the latest U.S. electric generation mix through first half of 2016 per EIA.

bhtooefr · Nov 1, 2016

I'm curious about the methodology behind the SI HEV manufacturing emissions, as they look awfully high, especially right next to the PHEVs (which are the same thing with a lot more battery).

Also, what model is being used to determine damages? IIRC GREET just covers emissions, not the effect of the emissions.

wxman · Nov 1, 2016

bhtooefr said:
I'm curious about the methodology behind the SI HEV manufacturing emissions, as they look awfully high, especially right next to the PHEVs (which are the same thing with a lot more battery).

Also, what model is being used to determine damages? IIRC GREET just covers emissions, not the effect of the emissions.

GREET2_2016 was used for emissions generated manufacturing the vehicles themselves. Both GREET1_2016 and GREET2_2016 are available for free download (just need to register) if you wish to verify my results.

I used published EPA damage cost factors. Complete methodology explained at bottom of http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/emissions2016.html .

NAS used the "APEEP" model to determine damage factors, available at https://sites.google.com/site/nickmullershomepage/home . I settled for the EPA damage factors because APEEP requires a program (STATA) that has a nearly $1,000 annual subscription fee.

At any rate, the damage factors give different "weights" to the various regulated pollutants. It's fairly intuitive that a gram of PM2.5 is far more damaging to public health and the environment than a gram of NOx.

Oilerlord · Nov 1, 2016

EV's exist in an artificial bubble, propped up by CARB, CAFE, and government subsidies. Even with all that help, and after 20 years since the EV-1, EV's will only comprise ~0.6% of overall sales this year, so clearly they have a long way to go to garner widespread acceptance.

Curiously, Toyota has all but abandoned EV's:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-toyota-is-leaving-electric-cars-to-tesla-and-gm-161423450.html

It's fair for Toyota's CEO to consider that a 1200 pound, $44,000-to-replace, 85kWh battery pack comprised of 7104 laptop battery cells, in a heavy car with 260 miles of degrading range that also shrinks by up to 50% in a cold winter - could be considered a fail.

I'm all about encouraging innovation, and If Toyota chooses to make a big investment in bringing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles into the Camry mainstream, all the power to them. If they pull it off, Toyota suddenly owns an alternative fuel car market while Tesla is making laptop batteries.

It's fun to dream about the future, but until car companies build EV's that can muster some mainstream demand, let's realize that oil will be with us for a long time - and find ways to mitigate it's risks. Pipelines help do that.

bhtooefr · Nov 1, 2016

I find Toyota's hydrogen fuel cell project hilarious.

Horrifically expensive fuel to make, the fuel's massively subsidized, it tends to have fossil fuel feedstock predominantly (in the US, it's natural gas, in Japan, it's Australian coal), horrifically expensive to build filling stations, you can't fill at home, FCVs aren't light either, and the well to wheels efficiency assuming best case numbers at the current mandated Californian NG vs. renewable mix for feedstock energy (which, AFAIK, isn't actually anywhere close to reality) is... not really any better than my Prius.

wxman · Nov 1, 2016

I agree. It appears FCVs are the most damaging of any current technology if using hydrogen from NG sources.

VeeDubTDI · Nov 1, 2016

I really don't understand why Japan is so stuck on hydrogen... national pride? It doesn't make sense to me, considering the emissions and inefficiencies - let alone the major challenges in its implementation.

Oilerlord · Nov 1, 2016

bhtooefr said:
I find Toyota's hydrogen fuel cell project hilarious.

Horrifically expensive fuel to make, the fuel's massively subsidized, it tends to have fossil fuel feedstock predominantly (in the US, it's natural gas, in Japan, it's Australian coal), horrifically expensive to build filling stations, you can't fill at home, FCVs aren't light either, and the well to wheels efficiency assuming best case numbers at the current mandated Californian NG vs. renewable mix for feedstock energy (which, AFAIK, isn't actually anywhere close to reality) is... not really any better than my Prius.

All fair points, and ironically, some of the same challenges that still exist with an EV:

- Heavy
- Uses coal, natural gas, and "massively" subsidized solar as feedstock.
- Expensive to build Supercharger stations

Our home has natural gas service that is also piped into our garage, so it isn't out of the realm of possibility that a FCV fueling appliance hangs on the wall just like our EVSE does now. Perhaps in a decade or two, Toyota finds a way to bring FCV's into the mainstream.

MrSprdSheet · Nov 1, 2016

Oilerlord said:
EV's exist in an artificial bubble, propped up by CARB, CAFE, and government subsidies. Even with all that help, and after 20 years since the EV-1, EV's will only comprise ~0.6% of overall sales this year, so clearly they have a long way to go to garner widespread acceptance.

I'm all about encouraging innovation, and If Toyota chooses to make a big investment in bringing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles into the Camry mainstream, all the power to them. If they pull it off, Toyota suddenly owns an alternative fuel car market while Tesla is making laptop batteries.

I think the hydrogen snow continues to blind people, but most writing about it know they are trying to preserve sales of the feedstock that makes it. Natural gas. This isn't innovation, as much as preservation. Usually, when you innovate, you try to capitalize on something you can offer cheaper. Hydrogen isn't. The cars aren't. The refueling isn't. Making it out of renewable kwh wouldn't be. Your pseudo tells me you might already know this? Toyota does. How else do you avoid losing fossil fuel sales, and prevent the uptake of batteries?

.6% PHEV growth was 2015. 2016 will break 1%. This week, alone, Fitch and Moody's are out with fresh (and rehashed oil pitches) about EV's. The coverage is getting more intense than it ever has. Fitch predicts 32-36% combined annual growth in plug-ins. .6%, to 1%, of total US auto sales is a 67% CAGR. So much for Statoil influencing Fitch's transportation research.

At this point oil companies are holding back a cracked dam.

MrSprdSheet · Nov 1, 2016

Oilerlord said:
All fair points, and ironically, some of the same challenges that still exist with an EV:

- Heavy
- Uses coal, natural gas, and "massively" subsidized solar as feedstock.
- Expensive to build Supercharger stations

Our home has natural gas service that is also piped into our garage, so it isn't out of the realm of possibility that a FCV fueling appliance hangs on the wall just like our EVSE does now. Perhaps in a decade or two, Toyota finds a way to bring FCV's into the mainstream.

I spent the morning on this report. Some highlights:

-Heavy. Wasn't covered, but for public road use, ~500lb Volt batteries/1,000 pound Tesla batteries aren't so bad, when Porsche makes a 5,500 Cayenne GTS. I "hate the weight" too, but at least its wayyy down there, and blends right in with where most OEMs were going, anyway. Touring daily drivers need no "breakthrough".

-Expensive to build supercharger stations. The piece mentioned Tesla's carried book cost, for 584 superchargers, at 339mm. VW reported 2.3 billion euros of profit last quarter, alone. How fast do you think they, or any half-trillion dollar oil major could sneeze off an "expensive" supercharger network? $580k per station, where California has to work to keep H2 fill stations under $2,000,000 each, in subsidy.

RE: Natural gas, which is what I take to be what you mean by "FCV", is a lot more expensive from your gas company, than from your outlet. EIA data show (don't have link handy, sorry) that electric generators pay about a 30% premium to the well-head, where retail customers pay a mulitple of 2-3 times (like $1+ per therm), to have gas piped in. Despite more nominal electric retail mark-up, the economics of thinking you'll ever have a CNG filler in your garage are somewhat killed by this, and by the cost of CNG filling hardware being a lot more than EVSE parts (relay, $50 J1772 chip, plug).

bhtooefr · Nov 1, 2016

Not only that, but nobody's talking about steam reforming of natural gas into hydrogen in the home, AFAIK - it's all about centralized filling stations.

VeeDubTDI · Nov 1, 2016

MrSprdSheet said:
-Expensive to build supercharger stations. The piece mentioned Tesla's carried book cost, for 584 superchargers, at 339mm. VW reported 2.3 billion euros of profit last quarter, alone. How fast do you think they, or any half-trillion dollar oil major could sneeze off an "expensive" supercharger network? $580k per station, where California has to work to keep H2 fill stations under $2,000,000 each, in subsidy.

RE: Natural gas, which is what I take to be what you mean by "FCV", is a lot more expensive from your gas company, than from your outlet. EIA data show (don't have link handy, sorry) that electric generators pay about a 30% premium to the well-head, where retail customers pay a mulitple of 2-3 times (like $1+ per therm), to have gas piped in. Despite more nominal electric retail mark-up, the economics of thinking you'll ever have a CNG filler in your garage are somewhat killed by this, and by the cost of CNG filling hardware being a lot more than EVSE parts (relay, $50 J1772 chip, plug).

When you say 584 Superchargers, I assume you mean Supercharger sites. Each site has between 4 and 12 Supercharger stalls, with every two stalls sharing one actual Supercharger unit. What is the cost per charging stall?

"FCV" means fuel cell vehicle, typically hydrogen. Oilerlord is talking about the possibility of home hydrogen processors that would take natural gas from the grid and turn it into hydrogen to fill a fuel cell vehicle. I don't see this happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

Oilerlord · Nov 1, 2016

VeeDubTDI said:
When you say 584 Superchargers, I assume you mean Supercharger sites. Each site has between 4 and 12 Supercharger stalls, with every two stalls sharing one actual Supercharger unit. What is the cost per charging stall?
"FCV" means fuel cell vehicle, typically hydrogen. Oilerlord is talking about the possibility of home hydrogen processors that would take natural gas from the grid and turn it into hydrogen to fill a fuel cell vehicle. I don't see this happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

Honda was selling home NG fueling stations a few years back, perhaps Toyota has plans to do the same with an appliance that processes hydrogen. It appears that BEV's were only a stop-gap measure for Toyota to grab CARB credits, and instead Toyota sees FCV's as their future.

"At this point oil companies are holding back a cracked dam."

Despite all the government assistance, EV's are money losers for all manufacturers that sell them. Until automakers find a way to make EV's profitable yet affordable, in packaging that people want to buy, that can be refueled anywhere, and as quickly as other cars - I don't think that dam is going to burst anytime soon.

El Dobro · Nov 1, 2016

Oilerlord said:
Curiously, Toyota has all but abandoned EV's:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-toyota-is-leaving-electric-cars-to-tesla-and-gm-161423450.html

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...-cars-its-tamed-lithium-ion-batteries-it-says

bhtooefr · Nov 1, 2016

An appliance that processes hydrogen would be deep into the six figures. I really, really doubt a home steam reformer would be a thing.

VeeDubTDI · Nov 1, 2016

EVs aren't black and white, either. They encompass a wide range of vehicles from full-electrics to plug-in hybrids with varying degrees of electric range. The Volt is probably the most well-known plug-in hybrid, and Toyota Prius Prime is going to be a barnstormer when it finally arrives later this month.

In the coming years, I expect to see more EVs in packaging that people want, with ranges that people need (or at least think they need), in addition to many more plug-in hybrids that have enough range to handle the majority of regular work commutes. They will become more accepted and should yield good profit margins once the economies of scale improve due to increased sales.

gcodori · Nov 1, 2016

Hydrogen is just a few automakers attempt to keep customers in a Refinery/Fueling Station dynamic. Oil companies are scared to death that people can "fill" their electric cars at home.

Hydrogen makes no sense. Let's take boat loads of electricity (from coal plants) to generate a little hydrogen, and then ship this to a fueling station where we can pump it into your car. Which is an electric car, by the way.

As Elon has already stated, why waste all of that electricity making hydrogen when you can eliminate the middle man and put it directly into a car?

bhtooefr · Nov 1, 2016

And, really, the most cost effective way to make hydrogen isn't from electricity, it's from steam reforming of natural gas.

Meaning, really, hydrogen's a fossil fuel in practice, and it might even be less efficient than just burning the source fossil fuel in an ICE.

tikal · Nov 1, 2016

nwdiver said:
'Well-to-wheels' calculations are by far the most difficult analysis in terms of the variables involved and how those variations can effect the results.

. . .

It's useful to approach these issues from a 'First Principals' perspective. What are the physical limitations of each technology. Then build out from there.

You make good points here. What I think is valuable in this study by the National Academy of Sciences is not the absolute values of health damages but how they compare relative to each other.

Sure I can make Li-Ion batteries greener (and probably more expensive for the consumer) but I can make them dirtier outside the USA and not tell the consumer either (but the price will be cheaper most likely).

I think the graphs and values we are seeing are averages and not extremes so it is as much as possible "apples to apples".

I hope I make sense.

bhtooefr · Nov 1, 2016

wxman said:
GREET2_2016 was used for emissions generated manufacturing the vehicles themselves. Both GREET1_2016 and GREET2_2016 are available for free download (just need to register) if you wish to verify my results.

I used published EPA damage cost factors. Complete methodology explained at bottom of http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/emissions2016.html .

NAS used the "APEEP" model to determine damage factors, available at https://sites.google.com/site/nickmullershomepage/home . I settled for the EPA damage factors because APEEP requires a program (STATA) that has a nearly $1,000 annual subscription fee.

At any rate, the damage factors give different "weights" to the various regulated pollutants. It's fairly intuitive that a gram of PM2.5 is far more damaging to public health and the environment than a gram of NOx.

OK, that (ultimately) answers my question - the EPA damage cost factors are ultimately derived from this 2002 study: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4d60/f3696dcdb91784711b1f8b6c9bddfad72fa1.pdf

(The EPA/NHTSA Joint Technical Support Document for the 2017-2025 CAFE standards is referenced in your reference, and goes on to reference that study in chapter 4: https://web.archive.org/web/2016051...pa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10901.pdf)

One huge problem I see is that the study's confined to metropolitan areas, due to that being where pollution monitoring was available. So, impact in an area with little monitoring - where most manufacturing and power generation will be, I suspect - isn't considered. That will have quite a bit of impact to the environmental costs of automotive (and fuel, actually) manufacturing and electricity generation, I suspect, for some emissions...

Oilerlord · Nov 1, 2016

gcodori said:
Hydrogen is just a few automakers attempt to keep customers in a Refinery/Fueling Station dynamic. Oil companies are scared to death that people can "fill" their electric cars at home.
Hydrogen makes no sense.

My "other" car is a TDI. We made the trip from Utah to Phoenix, AZ last week on one tank, cruising at ~90 MPH. Ten years from now, it will still be able to make that trip, with no reduction in range, no 5 figure battery to replace, and no searching / planning / waiting for L3 charging.

As more ICE cars like the 60 MPG Prius come into the market, you (along with 99.4% of people that buy new cars this year) could also argue that EV's don't make sense either.

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

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor

Veteran Member

Wanderluster, Traveler, TDIClub Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Wanderluster, Traveler, TDIClub Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor

Veteran Member

Wanderluster, Traveler, TDIClub Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor

Wanderluster, Traveler, TDIClub Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor

Wanderluster, Traveler, TDIClub Enthusiast

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor

Veteran Member