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

[Jaestar3000]

There is a fair bit of light-hybrid tech tho- stop-start systems recharging ultracapacitors under braking, ecu controlled alternators that are commanded to put a high charge into the battery under braking etc.

That's what I'm talking about, these new 48V systems are basically a 48V battery pack with an alternator / motor, works like an electric "turbo". GM has been using them for years and Bosche says they have an even cheaper system they're offering to OEMs. It's really a no-brainer if they sell it as a performance upgrade too.

The diesel Equinox has stop-start.

 

[bizzle]

I get that. I wasn't under the impression that he is retired or even approaching retirement in the very near future. He's also living in a geographic region that gets superb solar exposure. Seems like a no brainer to me- but we all have different priorities.

It's probably counter-intuitive, but too much sun is as much or more of a problem as not enough sun.

 

[tikal]

A fair question would be what is "into compliance"?

Why don't we rate vehicles based on the overall life cycle environmental impact rather than looking at one thing at a time such as specific tailpipe emissions product? Cities such as Los Angeles are having a hard time with volatile organic compounds (VOC) coming from gasoline and gasoline-hybrid cars. So what do we do about it?

Now compare the complete life cycle environmental impact of the new GM Equinox diesel vs. the GM Equinox gasoline and a comparable sized gasoline-hybrid SUV. Which one would be superior on this overall metric?

However, particulate filters aren't necessarily required to bring gasoline engines into compliance. Turbocharged DI engines can be particularly bad, especially in boost enrichment, but there's plenty of examples of engines that are fine.

Let's use the 2015 2.0 DSG TDIs (they're all certified together, using a Jetta as the representative model) as our baseline.

2015 Volkswagen Jetta TDI, DSG: .0020 g/mi on "CVS 75 and later (w/o can. load)" test cycle

For comparison, there's four production gasoline engines at or above 40% thermal efficiency - the Toyota ESTEC 2ZR-FXE as used in the 2016+ Prius and Prius Prime, the Hyundai Kappa III 1.6 GDI Atkinson as used in the Ioniq and Kia Niro, the Toyota A25A-FKS as used in the 2018+ Camry, and the Toyota A25A-FXS as used in the 2018+ Camry Hybrid. There's no PM results for the Ioniq or Niro, so they'll be left out.

So...

2018 Toyota Prius, Li-ion battery: .0003 g/mi on "California fuel 3-day exhaust" test cycle, .0013 g/mi on US06 test cycle
2018 Toyota Prius, NiMH battery: .0002 g/mi on "California fuel 3-day exhaust" and US06 test cycles
2018 Toyota Camry Hybrid LE: .0001 g/mi on "Federal fuel 2-day exhaust (w/can load)" test cycle, .0002 g/mi on US06 test cycle
2018 Toyota Camry Hybrid XLE/SE: .0001 g/mi on "Federal fuel 2-day exhaust (w/can load)" test cycle, .0007 g/mi on US06 test cycle
2018 Toyota Camry XLE/XSE: .0001 g/mi on "Federal fuel 3-day exhaust" test cycle, .0015 g/mi on US06 test cycle

Note that all of these are unfiltered gasoline engines, and the Camrys are even direct injection, and they're beating the (filtered) TDI. The last one isn't even a hybrid. The solution is more displacement and Atkinsonization through variable valve timing, really.

Of course, this isn't considering PN, just PM, so microfines could be a problem especially on the Camrys.

Edit: Let's add ADAC EcoTest results, for the European market. The Camry isn't sold there, and the A25A hasn't appeared in anything destined for Europe yet (best bet will be the RAV4 I'd guess), but there are ADAC EcoTest results for the Ioniq.

Toyota Prius Executive: PM: 0.2 mg/km, PN: 2.22183 10¹¹/km
Hyundai Ioniq Hybrid Premium: PM: 0.0 mg/km, PN: 29.3351 10¹¹/km (read: holy crap the microfines)
Skoda Octavia Combi RS TDI DSG: PM: 1.5 mg/km, PN: 0.00473 10¹¹/km (this is the closest I could get to the US cars within VAG for the September 2016+ version of the EcoTest)

So, basically, the TDIs are able to control the microfines better, but the gassers have lower mass.

 

[turbobrick240]

The GREET models are great, and probably the best assessment tools we have, but they aren't really super precise in all ways. It's very complex how different pollutants are weighted in an overall impact assessment, and there are going to be large regional differences. Some electric grids are far cleaner than others for instance. And electric grids in general are getting cleaner at a faster rate than ICE emissions. So a new electric car purchased today could, and probably will, be powered by a much cleaner grid seven years from now, while an equivalent new ICE car should have pretty much the same environmental impact at that point.

 

[bhtooefr]

Certainly, VOCs are a colossal concern, and it is worth noting that there's some complex systems to manage those in the best cars. (My car has a system to pump the vapor out of the tank before refueling.)

 

[Oilerlord]

A fair question would be what is "into compliance"?
Why don't we rate vehicles based on the overall life cycle environmental impact rather than looking at one thing at a time such as specific tailpipe emissions product?

Another fair question: What is the extent of the environmental impact of suddenly scrapping 100's of thousands of cars, causing the demand to manufacture & sell 100's of thousands of cars to replace them?

While a lot of us made a quick financial gain, Mother Nature lost big time.

 

[wxman]

There is increasing evidence that direct PM emissions from gasoline engines are the tip of the proverbial iceberg. SOA produced from precursor emissions (primarily NMOG) is becoming a more and more significant fraction of total ambient PM2.5. According to recent studies, gasoline vehicles produce up to 6.5 times as much SOA as directly-emitted PM. The newest gasoline vehicles are the most efficient in producing SOA, so lower NMOG emissions from new cars are producing nearly as much SOA as older cars.

Damage from manufacturing vehicles is very significant. This is why it doesn't make sense from an environmental perspective to scrap otherwise perfectly good cars (cheating TDIs) and replacing them with new cars, regardless of the vehicle technology.

 

[tikal]

The GREET models are great, and probably the best assessment tools we have, but they aren't really super precise in all ways. It's very complex how different pollutants are weighted in an overall impact assessment, and there are going to be large regional differences. Some electric grids are far cleaner than others for instance. And electric grids in general are getting cleaner at a faster rate than ICE emissions. So a new electric car purchased today could, and probably will, be powered by a much cleaner grid seven years from now, while an equivalent new ICE car should have pretty much the same environmental impact at that point.

I agree with regard to pure electrical vehicles (no gasoline/diesel involved). What I do not understand is, from time to time, in this forum, there are posts that make reference to specific environmental aspects of a gasoline or gasoline-hybrid vehicle making it look superior from an environmental point in regards to a light duty diesel vehicle with SCR and DPF. What I am saying is that comparing 'apples to apples' the light duty diesel vehicle with SCR and DPF is superior to current gasoline and gasoline-hybrid vehicles.

EV and light duty diesel vehicles can work together very nicely. No need for gasoline and gasoline-hybrid vehicles then.

 

[tikal]

Another fair question: What is the extent of the environmental impact of suddenly scrapping 100's of thousands of cars, causing the demand to manufacture & sell 100's of thousands of cars to replace them?

While a lot of us made a quick financial gain, Mother Nature lost big time.

No arguments here either. I was just trying to say that if one has to choose between a light duty diesel, a gasoline and a gasoline-hybrid SUV, then total life cycle environmental impact of the light duty diesel SUV is going to be the smallest according to GREET. In this scenario I left an EV SUV out of the question due to cost/benefit realization (Tesla Model X vs other options).

So I am not advocating for short term (less than 10 years) ownership of our cars by any means!

 

[kjclow]

The GREET models are great, and probably the best assessment tools we have, but they aren't really super precise in all ways. It's very complex how different pollutants are weighted in an overall impact assessment, and there are going to be large regional differences. Some electric grids are far cleaner than others for instance. And electric grids in general are getting cleaner at a faster rate than ICE emissions. So a new electric car purchased today could, and probably will, be powered by a much cleaner grid seven years from now, while an equivalent new ICE car should have pretty much the same environmental impact at that point.

You're correct. Shutting down or retrofitting an older higher polluting power plant with a new cleaner one will have a much larger impact than replacing a few cars from ICE to electric. Power plant emissions can also effect a much larger geographical area. Wisconsin Power built a new coal fired plant just south of Kenosha in 1989. The stack had to be a specific height to ensure most of the particle emissions that were not captured by the scrubbers would stay airborne until they were over Lake Michigan. You could tell when the were burning a high sulfur containing coal because the exhaust cloud had a yellowish tinge to it.

 

[Oilerlord]

You're correct. Shutting down or retrofitting an older higher polluting power plant with a new cleaner one will have a much larger impact than replacing a few cars from ICE to electric. Power plant emissions can also effect a much larger geographical area.

I think it's important for governments and constituents to have clear, and measurable goals, and an understanding how they reach those goals before transitioning a power plant from feedstock X to feedstock Y.

Our government considers themselves the "leaders" in the fight against climate change. In their agenda of lowering CO2 emissions, they mandated the elimination of coal-fired power plants in our province by 2030. In doing so, they were forced to pay a $1.36B settlement to the operators of those plants. One of our coal-fired plants (Keephills) just came online in 2011 - and was engineered and built to be one of the cleanest coal-fired plants in North America. To the point about lifecycle mentioned earlier, the Keephills plant should have had a 30 year lifespan. Now, it's going to be transitioned to natural gas; and taxpayers will pay fees to pay for that transition. In terms of net CO2 savings, especially given the costs involved - I really don't see that as a win.

 

[kjclow]

I've seen similar things in the lower 48 too. In South Carolina, two of the utilities are proposing a merger. The radio add sounds like roses or thorns. If the people approve the merger, they are supposed to get $1000 payback per household. If they don't, then the taxpayers are on the hook for $4 million bill for a nuclear plant who's construction was stopped because "nuclear is bad".

 

[turbobrick240]

We may be a few steps behind Europe in the transition away from coal power, but we're headed in the right direction- despite the fallacy of "beautiful, clean coal" being regurgitated from time to time.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/electricity-generated-renewables-surpassed-coal-power-europe-last-year/amp/

 

[turbocharged798]

The article stated that a good chunk of europe is currently powered from oil and gas, how is that a right direction? IMO there is no good science behind that article, just trash. Theory is not reality.

No one is arguing that coal is beautiful, its what we have now that works, keeps people working and keeps the lights on. Its slowly being replaced by nat gas which isn't a huge step forward in CO2 reduction IMO.

Wind power is dead and uneconomical. Solar has storage issues. Hydro is nice but requires large amounts of land to be flooded.

There is no single magic bullet here nor should we be trying to copy others. We need to take logical common scene steps to fulfill our energy needs. People also need to understand and wind and solar are not end all energy sources. Until a method of storing AC power on a large scale becomes a reality, they will continue to be dreams.

 

[turbobrick240]

Natural gas is much more efficient and cleaner than coal. It's also cheaper now, so the market will gravitate towards gas and away from coal no matter how much the president touts beautiful, clean coal. Clean coal is an oxymoron, and I have no idea what beautiful coal is supposed to be. As far as wind power being dead, that's news to me.

 

[oilhammer]

When governments pick winners and losers based on agenda, it is difficult to figure out what works and what doesn't in regards to its own standalone ability to be not only profitable but be embraced by the consumer.

No electricity producing system is 100% clean. They all have downsides and upsides. Individuals trying to simply USE LESS of it, and that mantra becoming the norm and not the exception, will go further to reduce (but never eliminate) the problem.

I have no desire to live like the Amish, and I suspect most Americans do not either.

While I have no delusions about coal power plants being "clean", they ARE much cleaner and more efficient than they used to be, and are certainly among the best in the world if not THE best. If we just stopped using coal today, assuming we had something better ready to go on line that could meet the demand, I bet we'd just start exporting it to other places like China and India that are bringing more coal powered plants on line, and I am betting they are not nearly as clean as ours.

So what is the net gain in that?

By the way, if anyone want to cover my roof and part of my yard with solar panels, I will be glad to pay you monthly the equivalent whatever my electric bill is projected to be for as long as I own my house. Any takers? Didn't think so.

I am all for clean energy, but it needs to be both affordable AND needs to be so without any manipulation from taxpayers. We are not there yet for most people most of the time in most areas.

 

[bhtooefr]

I thought there were actually solar PPAs in which the panels would be installed for free, and you'd end up paying the same or less per kWh than grid electricity, so while you won't get any takers here, you might want to get a hold of solar companies to see what the situation is in Missouri.

 

[oilhammer]

I have. I will statistically not live long enough to see a return on my investment.

And neither electric company I deal with (my house and the farm property, two different entities) has any real incentives to make me want to use solar panels.

 

[Powder Hound]

Well said.

Although, IMO

... manipulation from taxpayers...

is a misnomer. The manipulation comes from politicians and ignorant media rather than taxpayers. The taxpayers are the ones being manipulated so the extraction of ever more funds via egregious tax rates will seem legitimate.

Cheers,

PH

 

[oilhammer]

Yes, you are correct. I actually was thinking manipulation OF taxpayers. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[El Dobro]

Last Summer, some solar panel company guy came around pushing leases on systems. When he came to me, I told him I want a price on purchase. After a few phone calls, he came back with $18,500. I pay less than $1100 a year for electricity, so I told him to have a nice day.

 

[oilhammer]

Last Summer, some solar panel company guy came around pushing leases on systems. When he came to me, I told him I want a price on purchase. After a few phone calls, he came back with $18,500. I pay less than $1100 a year for electricity, so I told him to have a nice day.

Mine was closer to $22k, and although I do pay more for electricity (our house is all electric, and there is always someone here 24-7), it is not worth the expense to me either. Heat is supplemented with wood, when I can, but I rarely do and am in the process of getting a new stove.

 

[turbobrick240]

Something to consider in the payoff calculus is the value that a PV system adds to the property. That added value could be beneficial if you sell the property at some point, or could just mean more property taxes if not. Additionally, it's quite likely that what we pay in electricity rates will be significantly more 10 or 15 years from now. I completely understand the economic analysis, but I'd also say that an awful lot of consumerism isn't based purely on economics. Do most people really need that $60k new truck, or expensive marble countertops, etc.? No, but it brings them some amount of satisfaction, and I think most PV owners would say the same thing of their installations.

 

[Oilerlord]

Something to consider in the payoff calculus is the value that a PV system adds to the property. That added value could be beneficial if you sell the property at some point, or could just mean more property taxes if not.

I completely understand the economic analysis, but I'd also say that an awful lot of consumerism isn't based purely on economics.

I have no doubt that if you were looking to buy a house in my area, my 9.2 kW of solar would be a big selling feature of the home, and (based on your posts) you'd recognize the value of lower electricity bills, and intangibles like the house being aligned with your environmental goals.

From what I've read, solar doesn't add much value to a house, if at all. The challenge will be waiting for the "right" buyer who recognizes green in more ways than one, and in all candor; I'm not nearly as optimistic as you are. Solar can, in fact, become a liability & complicate the process of closing the sale on your home.

The next buyer may view our 41 panels as ugly, and demand they be taken down & shingles replaced / roof repaired before taking possession. If that happens, the goal becomes recovering as much money as possible in the sale of all that solar to pay for complying with conditions of sale.

From a purely financial standpoint, adding resale value to your home has always been about kitchens and bathrooms.

 

[turbobrick240]

True, the amount of value added by a PV array will vary quite a bit on a case by case basis. Areas with cheaper electricity, and less insolation will see less benefit. Things like the age of the system, orientation/output, and ground mount vs. roof mount will also be significant factors.

http://costofsolar.com/is-my-home-worth-more-with-solar-energy/

https://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/How-much-would-solar-panels-increase-a-home%27s-property-value/244259/

 

[Oilerlord]

When governments pick winners and losers based on agenda, it is difficult to figure out what works and what doesn't in regards to its own standalone ability to be not only profitable but be embraced by the consumer.

I'd add that governments pick winners & losers based on an agenda for what they believe will be embraced by their voters. Responsible decisions seem to take a back seat to the perception of being responsible. That surprise $1.36B settlement our government was forced to pay to electricity providers will be pivoted as a "win" for the environment. In reality it was the result of a government that didn't do their due diligence during the process - and was forced to pay for that mistake.

 

[Oilerlord]

True, the amount of value added by a PV array will vary quite a bit on a case by case basis. Areas with cheaper electricity, and less insolation will see less benefit. Things like the age of the system, orientation/output, and ground mount vs. roof mount will also be significant factors.

http://costofsolar.com/is-my-home-worth-more-with-solar-energy/

https://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/How-much-would-solar-panels-increase-a-home%27s-property-value/244259/

If our rates go from 3 cents to 15 cents per kWh by the time we go to sell our home, there is no doubt our solar will add value to the house (even if it is ~20 years old by then).

To that point, I'm switching to a 12.5 cent per kWh plan from March through September. During those months, we sell a lot more electricity to the grid than we consume:

It's my own way of creating a subsidy for my part in actually lowering CO2 emissions. I just wish I didn't need to game the system like that.

 

[kjclow]

If we just stopped using coal today, assuming we had something better ready to go on line that could meet the demand, I bet we'd just start exporting it to other places like China and India that are bringing more coal powered plants on line, and I am betting they are not nearly as clean as ours.

So what is the net gain in that?

Actually, the Chinese government is building and converting to more gas fired plants in an effort to combat their own pollution issues. because of the colder winter, they have been taking gas from industry to move it to cleaner power plants. This will have a ripple effect on the economy because it stops basic feedstock for a lot of synthetic material production. It will also drive the chemical industry to try and make up the shortfall elsewhere in the world, which will push the price of natural gas higher.

 

[Tin Man]

I agree with regard to pure electrical vehicles (no gasoline/diesel involved). What I do not understand is, from time to time, in this forum, there are posts that make reference to specific environmental aspects of a gasoline or gasoline-hybrid vehicle making it look superior from an environmental point in regards to a light duty diesel vehicle with SCR and DPF. What I am saying is that comparing 'apples to apples' the light duty diesel vehicle with SCR and DPF is superior to current gasoline and gasoline-hybrid vehicles.
EV and light duty diesel vehicles can work together very nicely. No need for gasoline and gasoline-hybrid vehicles then.

It is my understanding that most if not all crude oil refining produces gasoline as well, so avoiding gasoline production is not economically feasible. It seems the more diesel produced, the more gasoline will be too.

This brings the whole diesel thing to a head if all we do is increase demand for diesel yet create more gasoline vehicle pollution. It makes sense that most if not all refineries favor diesel as it is in high demand and produce less gasoline when they balance out the refining process. The higher price of diesel fuel reflects this, especially ULSD which can more easily be exported.

TM

 

[bizzle]

Those quoted costs for PV systems should be 1/3 less as long as the federal tax incentive is operative (and when you do your calculations, the person selling the system to you will likely point out the local incentives but either not know or fail to mention that you have to subtract them from your system cost and filing the federal claim).

That 18K system would be 12K and that 22K would be 15K after incentives.

That said, PV hasn't added anything to our condo sale nor any of the other local sales. I have spoken to a few appraisers about the issue and they aren't entirely sure how to value them. The only way we got anything in our appraisal was the fact that we had all the receipts on the table when the appraiser came by, the system is paid off in full, and we are claiming depreciation for the past 6 months while the condo was "rentable."

I'm not entirely sure electricity costs are going to keep going up, too, or at least not as fast as some will project. Energy is becoming less expensive to produce in some ways (and more in others), but with some states like mine mandating huge proportions of their energy grid coming from alternative sources will drive the cost down. Solar fields are much more cost and energy efficient then rooftop solar. If nothing else, the payback keeps going down even as the retail price rises (however slowly) so it becomes increasingly difficult for the system to pencil out.