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

[wxman]

Just to further the EV discussion, there was a paper published recently - Amgad Elgowainy et al. “Current and Future United States Light-Duty Vehicle Pathways: Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (4), 2392-2399 - which looked at both LCA GHG emissions of various technologies and fuels, and cost of driving over the expected useful life of each vehicle technology.

For the cost of driving analysis, the paper concludes that long-range BEV ("BEV210" - 210 miles AER) is actually the least cost effective of any of the technologies considered, even in the future (2030) when charged exclusively by solar:

The results of this study are vastly different from the conclusions in a recent Bloomberg report. Based on this study, gasoline will be hard to beat from a cost perspective.

Thoughts?

 

[bhtooefr]

The first question that comes to mind is... are they counting the cost of the CO2 emissions, or just pure end user $/mi?

 

[dremd]

My reply would be that my $4,000 purchase price ownership cost break down as follows

Vehicle purchase price $4,000
Shipping from Knoxville Tn to Scott, la $700
Maintenance in 46,000 miles $400 (2 tires, washer fluid, wiper blades and a brake fluid flush)
Electric consumption $1,125 based on KWH used by car x my electric rate. Does not subtract “free” electricity from random sources.

So
Purchase $4,000
Ship. $700
Maint. $400
Fuel. $1,125

So $5,425 to drive 46,000 miles and I still have a working car.

8.46 cents per mile assuming the car vanished today.

I simply don’t know of a cheaper way to drive.

 

[bhtooefr]

Although you bought the car used, presumably this study used new price instead, as new does matter (and a resale value hit used won't help matters at all).

 

[wxman]

It appears societal cost of carbon isn't included in the cost of driving.

Abstract available at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b06006 (full paper paywalled).

 

[kjclow]

If we look at current or near future developments, I don't see a great leap in electric vehicles and cost of ownership. The majority of the e-vehicles are probably second cars. As pointed out a few posts up, if this is your primary car, you will need to rent something different for a long driving trip. Thus negating a portion of that savings. Battery technology is going to have to change to both bring the msrp down and make e-vehicles more main-stream acceptable. Give me a battery that can run 300 miles, regardless of weather, and then recharge in less than 15 minutes.

Gasoline has been the fuel of choice for over 100 years. It's hard to replace but it will eventually be done.

 

[Tin Man]

Just to further the EV discussion, there was a paper published recently - Amgad Elgowainy et al. “Current and Future United States Light-Duty Vehicle Pathways: Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (4), 2392-2399 - which looked at both LCA GHG emissions of various technologies and fuels, and cost of driving over the expected useful life of each vehicle technology.
For the cost of driving analysis, the paper concludes that long-range BEV ("BEV210" - 210 miles AER) is actually the least cost effective of any of the technologies considered, even in the future (2030) when charged exclusively by solar:

The results of this study are vastly different from the conclusions in a recent Bloomberg report. Based on this study, gasoline will be hard to beat from a cost perspective.
Thoughts?

This was what I suspected all along. Diesel is converted to energy by individual modern engines at a very economical rate.

I also have the belief that it is possible that the price of gasoline is low because it is produced at a surplus, since diesel (and variants like Jet-A) is in highest demand worldwide.

Thanks for the great information, as usual wxman!

TM

 

[bizzle]

I don't think that chart is telling us what we are concluding from it. For one thing, the BEV210 has the most efficiency *gains* even though it doesn't get as cheap as the others. That is to be expected and we can't fully extrapolate the future reductions in cost based on methods used today.

The other thing to consider is that cost per mile isn't the end all be all. If it was, for example, we might be tempted to throw rail cost per mile in that chart (or flight, too). It doesn't matter how inexpensively I can travel from San Diego to New York, I'm not going to take 7 or more days to do it so trains, horses, boats, walking, and to some extent EVs are out.

The flip side of that is that once the fossil fuels are gone that's pretty much it. The chart, as I read it anyway, seems to be supporting the advancement of other alternative fueling choices rather than electricity and eventually gas/diesel. Regardless, I haven't read the study but it doesn't seem to be saying that gas is cheaper so let's stick with it at least from the chart's information.

 

[bhtooefr]

A friend got me a copy of this.

So, here's the images from the ACS site:

It is worth noting that their conclusion is that the societal cost of CO2 is $14-152/tonne in 2025-2030 from EPA numbers (released January 19, 2017), and they believe that the cost of any GHG reductions outweighs the externalities.

I'll also take this as an opportunity to point out that one author each representing FCA, GM, Chevron, and Ford contributed to this article (as well as three from Argonne, three from the Department of Energy, two from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and one from Electric Power Research Institute).

 

[turbocharged798]

I don't think that chart is telling us what we are concluding from it. For one thing, the BEV210 has the most efficiency *gains* even though it doesn't get as cheap as the others. That is to be expected and we can't fully extrapolate the future reductions in cost based on methods used today.

The other thing to consider is that cost per mile isn't the end all be all. If it was, for example, we might be tempted to throw rail cost per mile in that chart (or flight, too). It doesn't matter how inexpensively I can travel from San Diego to New York, I'm not going to take 7 or more days to do it so trains, horses, boats, walking, and to some extent EVs are out.

The flip side of that is that once the fossil fuels are gone that's pretty much it. The chart, as I read it anyway, seems to be supporting the advancement of other alternative fueling choices rather than electricity and eventually gas/diesel. Regardless, I haven't read the study but it doesn't seem to be saying that gas is cheaper so let's stick with it at least from the chart's information.

Fossil fuels will never be "gone", that is a myth that has been fed to us since the 1970's. Crude oil will slowly become harder to find and cost more as time goes on. Also there has been some evidence that crude oil is replenishing as it is formed from waste products from the ocean and heat/pressure from the earth. I know this will go against some people's religion here but its the truth. I do think we are pumping crude oil from the ground at far faster rates than the earth can ever recover but the myth that we will suddenly run out of oil is just that, a myth.

 

[turbobrick240]

We'll never extract every last drop of oil/coal/gas but it will get more expensive as we exhaust it. Fossil fuels accumulate on geologic timescales, not human timescales. My takeaway from that analysis is that of the 7 listed powertrain options, the BEV210 class have the greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions in the future. I think the monetary costs of ownership estimates are pretty much a crap shoot. Oil prices could double or triple, and battery costs could plummet by 2030.

 

[nicklockard]

Fossil fuels will never be "gone", that is a myth that has been fed to us since the 1970's. Crude oil will slowly become harder to find and cost more as time goes on. Also there has been some evidence that crude oil is replenishing as it is formed from waste products from the ocean and heat/pressure from the earth. I know this will go against some people's religion here but its the truth. I do think we are pumping crude oil from the ground at far faster rates than the earth can ever recover but the myth that we will suddenly run out of oil is just that, a myth.

Humans will lose interest in oil long before it physically runs out. It'll get so expensive and the use cases for it that remain will be niche uses.

Once upon a time saffron was traded regularly and pretty widely (for the era). Today, I bet not one of the 70,000+ members of this club have ever known anyone trading in, buying, or selling saffron, or care, or even know what saffron is. Not the best analogy I know, but it's good enough to illustrate the point.

 

[Lug_Nut]

If let's say, 90% of the time you are driving 100 miles or less in a day then an all electrical car would be a better option in my view.

And for that 10% you would use?

A rental? Another car in your fleet?

The main reason I chose the Volt was that I only have to have the one car. I drive the first 45 miles on battery, then the remainder of the distance the on-board generator system keeps the battery from dropping below the minimum state of charge. As long as I can keep feeding gasoline, I can keep driving. So far (only two weeks) the generator hasn't started up once.


402 miles driven, 115 kWh of off-peak "pumped in", average miles per kWh is 3.5. Approximate energy content of 115 kWh is equal to 3.15 gallons of B99 biodiesel, or 127 mpg(e). Energy cost per mile is just under 2 cents.
The B99 was about 75% carbon neutral versus near 0% for petro diesel. My municipal utility's mix is coincidentally also 75% renewables and carbon neutral. They don't say what the other fossil 25% is though.

 

[CraziFuzzy]

We'll never extract every last drop of oil/coal/gas but it will get more expensive as we exhaust it. Fossil fuels accumulate on geologic timescales, not human timescales. My takeaway from that analysis is that of the 7 listed powertrain options, the BEV210 class have the greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions in the future. I think the monetary costs of ownership estimates are pretty much a crap shoot. Oil prices could double or triple, and battery costs could plummet by 2030.

There is something to be said about the electric drivetrain being the simplest, and most versatile and mechanically efficient option, regardless of the energy source - and improvements in that drivetrain's operation will impact the viability of not just BEV's, but series Hybrids, as well as FCEV's. Every new BEV that is designed results in improvements and cost reductions that will trickle across the market (just as ICE development did for the last 100 years - and much more aggressively in the 90's and 00's.).

 

[CraziFuzzy]

I also like to point out that environmental impacts of vehicle use are not JUST GHG emissions. I live in a valley that is crossed by nearly 75% of all products coming into the US from China, all by diesel burning truck or train. It's one of the worst areas for fine particulate pollution because of it. Electrification of that segment of the transportation would likely have much greater impacts on my and my children's health than reducing CO2 will.

 

[rotarykid]

I bet that I am not the only one that hasn't been on here in a while to comment,

I hate using that stupid smartphone in that way due to my heavy thick southern accent makes "most" word(talk) to type software kind of useless for me. Unless I want to spend more time going back and correcting what it thought I said to what I actually wanted to type...... then throw in the fact that those touchscreen keyboards are also pretty useless to someone with numb hands....Typing on a real keyboard is a much more practical option for me due to those numb fingers...as long as I use the lineup keys a real keyboard is so much better option for me...

I also still have trouble answering calls with those swipe to answer touchscreens that seem to laugh at me when I get a call..... I never know if I will actually be able to get to answer the call when that thing rings... seems like it chooses which calls it wants me to take, and which ones it decides (not gonna happen)...

With that said, that I bet many my age can sympathize with...I was sitting in a bookstore the other day when I picked up a couple of british car mags to see what was new in the rest of the world where diesel power in cars still rule the roads. I was reading something in april's "CAR" mag. where it was talking a generator based mild hybrid offering now being sold in audi tdi's....

Is this being talked about over here since the political hatchet job done to vwag diesels has for now ended our ability to buy them new today.?..

, Also has anyone here actually seen one of these first hand? that would be a cool addon if enough of the boost is given to any of the diesel offerings we still have on the road here...

If practical "$$$" wise to install if it would take my A4 Jetta TDI from mid 50s mpgUS today on straight D2/B%? into maybe the 60s or 70s mpgUS in my everyday driving I would consider installing this as a kit(batteries & a powerfull generator/alternator)....anyone else?

 

[compu_85]

... I drive the first 45 miles on battery, then the remainder of the distance the on-board generator system keeps the battery from dropping below the minimum state of charge.

Shhh... don't let GM know I told you... but there are some circumstances where the engine gets coupled directly to the wheels...

-J

 

[oilhammer]

Haha, yeah, that was the big myth early on I remember.

 

[El Dobro]

Shhh... don't let GM know I told you... but there are some circumstances where the engine gets coupled directly to the wheels...
-J

Over 70mph, climbing a mountain. It's not a secret, it's in a video GM put out.

 

[KITEWAGON]

My reply would be that my $4,000 purchase price ownership cost break down as follows

Vehicle purchase price $4,000
Shipping from Knoxville Tn to Scott, la $700
Maintenance in 46,000 miles $400 (2 tires, washer fluid, wiper blades and a brake fluid flush)
Electric consumption $1,125 based on KWH used by car x my electric rate. Does not subtract “free” electricity from random sources.

So
Purchase $4,000
Ship. $700
Maint. $400
Fuel. $1,125

So $5,425 to drive 46,000 miles and I still have a working car.

8.46 cents per mile assuming the car vanished today.

I simply don’t know of a cheaper way to drive.

$4k for a 2013 Leaf?!! Am I missing something?

 

[tikal]

So let me see if I understand these graphs correctly. Are they dealing mainly with GHG (Greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane as an example)?

A friend got me a copy of this.
So, here's the images from the ACS site:

It is worth noting that their conclusion is that the societal cost of CO2 is $14-152/tonne in 2025-2030 from EPA numbers (released January 19, 2017), and they believe that the cost of any GHG reductions outweighs the externalities.
I'll also take this as an opportunity to point out that one author each representing FCA, GM, Chevron, and Ford contributed to this article (as well as three from Argonne, three from the Department of Energy, two from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and one from Electric Power Research Institute).

While the chart below not only takes into account GHG emissions but all the other pollutants involved in the manufacturing AND operation of said vehicles during its life cycle (cradle to grave)?

You're welcome, tikal.
Thanks to a comment by bhtooefr, I searched for, and was able to find, a document that provided damage cost factors for both urban and rural emission scenarios, albeit it is calculated for Ireland ("Air Pollutant Marginal Damage Values Guidebook for Ireland 2015"). I'm still not able to run the APEEP model, which would still probably provide the best estimate of each vehicle technology/fuel pathway.
GREET provides total and urban emissions for both WTW and vehicle manufacturing. Thus, urban and rural damages can be calculated individually (rural emissions calculated by subtracting the urban emissions from the total emissions), and a "composite" damage derived from combining the urban and rural damages.
Using that methodology, here is a graphic of the results I get:

This shows EV in a better light, especially if it's a very clean grid like California (virtually no coal generation), since a higher percentage of emissions are generated in rural locations.
Edit: The "Diesel @X5" uses the average overall "real world" exhaust emission profile of the BMW X5 35d measured by WVU in the ICCT report.

 

[bhtooefr]

That is correct, although AFAICT those graphs are covering full lifecycle GHG emissions, not just in-use.

 

[wxman]

Here is an update of the non-GHG damages of various technologies and fuels using the most recent version of GREET (GREET_2017), and using urban/non-urban damage factors as suggested by bhtooefr:

For this graphic, the damages (European damage factors) were adjusted based on interpolation of damage factors from the American Lung Association (http://www.lung.org/local-content/california/documents/2016zeroemissions.pdf , page 22)

 

[tikal]

Excellent and thanks again wxman! One comment I have is that maybe the BEV (U.S. Mix) graph is not that helpful as it is a very large average or 'one size fits all' approach. Maybe one for California (which you already have) and one for Texas would be more representative. Thoughts?

Here is an update of the non-GHG damages of various technologies and fuels using the most recent version of GREET (GREET_2017), and using urban/non-urban damage factors as suggested by bhtooefr:

For this graphic, the damages (European damage factors) were adjusted based on interpolation of damage factors from the American Lung Association (http://www.lung.org/local-content/california/documents/2016zeroemissions.pdf , page 22)

 

[wxman]

Hi tikal,

I certainly could do that. I used the current "U.S. mix" because most other LCA studies use that for BEV and PHEV. For example, the 2009 National Academy of Sciences report:

The University of Minnesota (Tessum) also used one example of BEV with U.S. mix:

I have calculated non-climate damages in the Midwest grid (MRO). The damages would be well off the chart (5.6 cents/mile) for that region.

 

[tikal]

Ok, so in this case for 'non-climate damages' the 'U.S. Mix' or 'grid average' is an accepted approach. Fair enough. Somehow it does not give a good light to EV impact unless the source of electrical charging is from renewables as we have a choice here in Texas when we sign up for residential electricity supply.

I appreciate the quick and thorough response wxman!

 

[CraziFuzzy]

Ok, so in this case for 'non-climate damages' the 'U.S. Mix' or 'grid average' is an accepted approach. Fair enough. Somehow it does not give a good light to EV impact unless the source of electrical charging is from renewables as we have a choice here in Texas when we sign up for residential electricity supply.

I appreciate the quick and thorough response wxman!

You have to realize, however, that 'US Mix' is the mix today. Just looking at how different California is from the US Mix, you can see how much that mix can change over time (20 years ago, California looked just like the US Mix). It is very reasonable to expect that the contribution that renewables make to the US Mix will grow at the same time the number of EV's in the operating fleet does - so the overall environmental impact would be compounding.

For me, living in coastal valley with typically on-shore winds forcing localized air pollution concentration, the last externalities graph (black & white) really shows the impact of EV's.

 

[wxman]

The Tessum graphic (last graph in my post #4495) shows the wide range of non-climate damages of BEVs. The damages range from much better than gasoline ("EV WWS" - which is "wind, water, solar" or 100% renewable electricity) to "EV coal" which is far worse than gasoline.

A quick calculation of the non-climate damages of the Texas electricity grid (2017) results in about 2.52 cents/mile, which is somewhat better than the 2017 U.S. mix.

 

[turbobrick240]

One of the things about the Tessum graph that caught my attention was how much healthier it is to use natural gas to produce electricity for charging EV's as opposed to burning it directly in ICEV's.
There's definitely a synergy between EV's and clean, renewable power sources. People who buy EV's are far more likely to install PV systems at their homes, and vice versa.

 

[Tin Man]

What's a PV system?