how green are EVs?

[oakvilleblake]

Seems to be some recent controversy about how green EVs are, with the release of Ozzie Zehner's new book Green Illusions (www.greenillusions.org) and the National Academy of Sciences report (chapter on transportation - see http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794) and recent national radio coverage of both here in Canada.

I was aware of the earlier Union of Concerned Scientists report that suggests that the environmental benefits of EVs depend on where you live (up to 90% of electricity coming from coal in some states, vs 45% national US average, versus 5% in my home province of Ontario), such that full-electric cars are not much better than hybrids in some areas. But the NAS study is more damning, claiming that EVs are worse than ICEs fuelled entirely with corn-based ethanol. I find that hard to believe, but the authors are a very reputable bunch. Still, this has put the brakes on our plans to buy the i-Miev until I can get some more clarity. So far all I've been able to deduce is that both detractors and EV proponents are armed with impressive amounts of data and much depends on starting assumptions, what's included and what isn't in terms of full cradle-to-grave impacts, etc. The NAS study claims that the ecological footprint of the bigger batteries puts EVs at a 20% disadvantage off the bat compared to ICEs, a disadvantage they somehow don't overcome during their service life due to the climate change impacts of electricity production (despite using that energy more efficiently and the impacts associated with fossil fuel extraction and delivery). What they seem to miss is that many greenhouse gasses like NOx are much worse than CO2, and that EVs have no disposal of transmission fluid and oil changes etc to contend with...

Have any of you done really extensive homework on this issue?

I would love to get an iMiev, but really can't justify it if it's of no benefit ecologically. Expecially since we're comparing a new iMiev to keeping our current 07 Matrix wagon (a less favourable ecological comparison than iMiev vs other new ICE car).

Thoughts?

 

[Don]

If only 5% of your juice comes from coal, it'd be very hard to beat the 'green factor' of an i in your garage . . . . unless the roof of your garage has solar panels on it

How 'green' ethanol is depends on how it's made . . . and how many gallons of diesel the farmer used planting and harvesting what it's made from - I think that varies a bunch. What could be grown on that ground (food?) that's being used to fuel cars would come into play in my mind too I think

We can't do too much about where our electricity comes from . . . . but we do know where much of our crude oil comes from . . . . and what they are doing with the money we pay them for it

Don

 

[iMiEVNZ7]

I think, based on the fact most of the iMiEV can be recycled, as can much of a petrol car, that it is pretty much the fuel used and air used to be considered only.

Global warming is debatable but the smell and fumes from a petrol car are clear to see and taste.

Assuming Global warming is not true, but it might be true, but If I focus solely on the cost and pollution where the fuel comes from, how it is made and transported etc, I think, given that even solar panels are recyclable, and while both petrol and solar panels use more power to make and transport to the consumer than they produce...That say both petrol and solar evens out on pollution to make and transport basis, I think solar panels would be less but say they were equal to petrol.


That leaves pollution, energy to produce them and transport, and recylcabilty say sorted, so I am left considering only the cost of fueling the car.

A set of Panels sufficient to recharge the car given 8 hours of nice sun, feed via a battery buffer or grid tied as a buffer, would based on a 16 Kw per day draw, require only a 2 Kw panel not allowing for losses of efficiency.

Practically it would be best to allow for losses, so say allow 20 Kw for the charging of 16 Kw per day, and allow say 25 % more to allow for days when the sun is less than 8 hours or say a wet day every 5th day.

As Grid tied is cheaper that would be best, but for say someone not wanting to use even a bit of coal power, assume a battery storage for say 30 Kw.

The current pricing for this in NZ is NZ $ 30, 000 for the battery, $ 4, 000 for the inverter, and for a set of panels that would produce 25 % more than needed over 8 hours, that would be a 3. 2 Kw panel or about NZ $ 12, 500.

All up to be able to make a 230 volt inverter powered, solar connected battery storage remote power unit, of 30 Kw capacity, enough to recharge the imiev even on a wet day, it would cost $ 46, 000.

This would give Free power for the life of the system, and while it is hard to work out real life how well the system would go, assuming it worked well and lasted say 25 years, The cost of electricity to you would be:

For system lasting one year. Unit producing about 25 Kw per day. 9, 334 Kw per year. Not allowing for wet days. Cost per Kw is $ 4 .92 per KW ! But non polluteing !

For system lasting 10 years, 41 cents per KW.

For system lasting 20 years, 20.5 cents per unit.

For system lasting 30 years, 10.25 cents per unit. Effectively, assuming no problems with the solar system setup, you would have 10 cents per Kw unit power, at a fixed price for 30 years, when other people's price would be increasing each year.


But if you grid tied, the pricing would be:

$ 16, 500 for the panels and grid tie unit, so you are putting in solar power to the grid or using it on the car if charging during the day. If at night you are using possibly coal power, but you assisted by providing solar power so reduced coal use during the day !

The system based on grid tie, would assuming a 25 year warranty of panels period:

provide power at 3.2 Kw, easily enough to recharge the imiev even if used 100 km per day, and would also provide for rainy days useage due to extra power already provided to the grid to draw back on wet days.

The cost per Kw unit would be:

If over one year lasting only, $ 1.77 per Kw Hr.

If over 10 Year lasting only, 17. 7 cents pr Kw Hr.

If over 20 years lasting only, 8.5 Cents per Kw Hr

If over 30 years lasting only 4.5 cents per Kw hr.

The figures are approxament, having rounded off the extra. Note this are NZ prices, US or Canada would be I think about 3 cents for the 30 year lasting. Imagine having clean power for 3 cents per Kw. Ok, I agree, not possible with that size panel in Winter, but possible if big enough.


In NZ power has gone from 3 cents per unit to 25 cent per unit in only 15 years. At night it was 2 cents now 19 cents. 9 pm to 7 am.

 

[sandange]

I am not that versed in all the aspects in calculating the green factor but

The way I understand it is

Power companies are very capable of supporting Ev charging at night with out having to expand their production or carbon footprint - no mater what they use to produce electricity

There are other significant "Side Effects" implications to mass ethanol production.
Food production would be a much less interesting crop and food prices would jump up significantly.
Corn production puts a large demand on water supplies/water tables and supply could be greatly affected creating shortages in these and nearby communities.

Lets not forget to look at the whole infrastructure to keep all the ICE operational , oil tanker ships , pipe lines, spills and environmental tolls in production (Tar Sands).

How about air quality?

Public Health levels & quality?

Food for thought.

What factors do they include in their report

 

[MLucas]

It sounds like spin to me.

They definitely have gotten your ear and commanding you to do their bidding.

Ontario is moving to a coal-free power production in the very near future. http://www.centreforenergy.com/FactsStats/EnergyStrategies/ON.asp I've heard as early as 2014, Ontario will be coal power free.

No longer having to handle toxic carcinogenic chemicals to fuel your car, that's a bonus.

Less brake dust in the atmosphere, wonderful.

80-90% efficient compared to gasoline 33% efficient - fanctastic!

No oil changes, no oil to recycle, no antifreeze to change or recycle, no transmission fluid to change or recycle.

Ontario Power Generation has the most generous and widely available Feed in Tarrif program, you can make your own 'fuel' if you want. Can't do that with a gasoline car unless you have an oil well in your backyard and access to a refinery.

I don't know, so where are the benefits of owning an ICE?

 

[fjpod]

I'm a strong believer in night-time only charging. The juice basically goes to waste.

 

[tonymil]

I was aware of the earlier Union of Concerned Scientists report that suggests that the environmental benefits of EVs depend on where you live (up to 90% of electricity coming from coal in some states, vs 45% national US average, versus 5% in my home province of Ontario), such that full-electric cars are not much better than hybrids in some areas. But the NAS study is more damning, claiming that EVs are worse than ICEs fuelled entirely with corn-based ethanol. I find that hard to believe, but the authors are a very reputable bunch. Still, this has put the brakes on our plans to buy the i-Miev until I can get some more clarity.

I have only read the summary you linked to, but I don't get the same conclusion that you do. First, the study was issued in 2009, before electric vehicles such as the Leaf and i MiEV were offered to the public. So, even though the study talks about electric vehicles, what it really studied was hybrids. Second, the summary is clear, the study looked only at non-climate related harm caused by different methods of energy production and consumption. If you want to know what types of pollution a gas engine produces, go to this link:

http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/05-autos.pdf

Apparently the NAS report considered all emissions other than CO2 since CO2 is not directly harmful to humans and the planet. But as we all know CO2 is the key contributor to global warming. This significantly limits the NAS report's utility. A major, if not primary reason people by an electric car is because of global warming. (As an aside, that's a long list of pollutants we i MiEV drivers are not emitting)

Next, the summary states:

Damages per vehicle mile traveled were remarkably similar among various combinations of fuels and technologies -- the range was 1.2 cents to about 1.7 cents per mile traveled -- and it is important to be cautious in interpreting small differences, the report says. Nonclimate-related damages for corn grain ethanol were similar to or slightly worse than gasoline, because of the energy needed to produce the corn and convert it to fuel.

I believe this understates the damage caused by ethanol. I've read a number of reports that fuel with 10% corn ethanol - which is what most gas stations provide - is substantially worse for the environment than fuel without ethanol. But even so, the report estimates the non-climate damage caused by gasoline engines to be 1.2 cents to 1.7 cents per mile. A little further up the study says that coal-fired power plants produce 3.2 cents of non-climate damage per kwh and that natural gas-fired plants produce .16 cents of damage per kwh. The MiEV gets about 75 miles without fully depleting its 16 kwh battery, so even taking into account inefficiency in charging, we're at least getting 4 miles per kwh. So, divide these power plant figures by 4 and that means the MiEV generates .8 cents of climate damage per mile if it is charged from a coal-fired plant and just .04 cents of damage per mile if charged from a natural gas-fired plant. Even when the MiEV is charged from a coal-fired plant it produces less damage per mile than an ICE car. Of course this analysis changes when you consider CO2 emissions. Burning coal produces a lot of CO2. Natural gas produces about half the CO2 of coal.

The NAS study claims that the ecological footprint of the bigger batteries puts EVs at a 20% disadvantage off the bat compared to ICEs, a disadvantage they somehow don't overcome during their service life due to the climate change impacts of electricity production (despite using that energy more efficiently and the impacts associated with fossil fuel extraction and delivery).

Again, I think this report is misleading. It lumps purely electric cars in with hybrids and treats them the same. The summary says:

Electric vehicles and grid-dependent (plug-in) hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher nonclimate damages than many other technologies for both 2005 and 2030....energy used in creating the battery and electric motor adds up to 20 percent to the manufacturing part of life-cycle damages.

If I'm reading this right, because the report lumps ev's in with hybrids, and because it gives 20% as the maximum increase in damages, that 20% figure must refer to the extra health/environmental cost of adding a battery and electric motor to a gas car. I cannot believe that producing a purely electric vehicle adds much, if any environmental costs. Somewhere in this forum someone linked a data sheet that lists the i MiEV's motor and transmission as weighing only 145 pounds total - a huge reduction over the size and weight of a gasoline engine and transmission. So even though producing a 1,000 pound battery has its costs, there has to be significant savings from not having a gas engine and transmission. Also, the MiEV is very minimalist. It's a small, light car that uses very little material when compared to the typical U.S. sedan. I just cannot believe that the production of a MiEV causes more health/environmental harm than the production of any gas-powered car. But again, the report was done in 2009 before the i MiEV existed.

Sorry if this has the tone of a rant, but this three-year old study really doesn't impress me at all. I'll stick with the findings of the two-month old UCS study, which I will link to again. From this link you can either go to the full report or a summary, both in pdf:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicle...issions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html

 

[oakvilleblake]

dear all,

I much appreciate your informative and detailed replies. I don't know how a lay person is supposed to navigate all this and discern the potential biases of vested interests on both sides, the implication of which kinds of data are included or omitted, etc.

Fortunately with less than 5 percent of our electricity from coal here in Ontario, plus plans to reduce that to zero by 2014 (as MLucas notes), + the fact that one can recharge at night (having listened to a recent seminar by someone in Ontario power about how many problems they've had with overcapacity at night and practically giving that power away this year at those times) + that we have 4kW solar PV panels on our roof (grid-tied, mind you) makes the case more compelling. I won't allow myself to buy the iMiev just because I'm in love with the concept - I need a watertight environmental case before I'll proceed. Glad to know there is lots of good info in that regard available for those who know where to look, even if teasing it apart and the extent to which it clearly outshines competing narratives can be a challenge.

I do think that the author of Green Illusions is probably right in his broader conclusions that societally we put too much emphasis on technology to solve our environmental woes and that public money should probably go into public transit rather than subsidizing purchase of individual cars of any kind... but one still has to make an informed decision about individual purchases, and in our case living and working where we do we cannot move nor can we do without any car... so it makes sense for us to be driving the very best (ecologically) we can, just as we've tried to make responsible decisions about our house (super-insulation, geothermal, solarPV, permaculture edible landscaping, etc).

Again thanks to you all. It's been fabulous to have this forum to bounce ideas off and get really good input. Much appreciated.

blake

 

[JoeS]

... I won't allow myself to buy the iMiev just because I'm in love with the concept - I need a watertight environmental case before I'll proceed... and in our case living and working where we do we cannot move nor can we do without any car...

oakvilleblake, I've been bemused by your numerous posts wherein you are microscopically peeling back the onion skin to assess whether the iMiEV is a suitable vehicle in your attempt to be good for the environment. Absent junking your present 07 Toyota Matrix wagon and switching to bicycles and (polluting) public transport, I challenge you to identify a more environmentally-friendly enclosed highway-capable vehicle that you can purchase today. The longer you procrastinate, the longer you'll keep polluting the world with your Matrix.

 

[tonymil]

I challenge you to identify a more environmentally-friendly enclosed highway-capable vehicle that you can purchase today. The longer you procrastinate, the longer you'll keep polluting the world with your Matrix.

I second that challenge!

 

[hannieB]

It is eco-friendly and economical.

 

[MLucas]

we've tried to make responsible decisions about our house (super-insulation, geothermal, solarPV, permaculture edible landscaping, etc).

With all you are doing, it's like you are growing your own hay to feed your horse. Seems like an electric vehicle is the logical progression in your green living plan.

 

[SteveB]

I'm a strong believer in night-time only charging. The juice basically goes to waste.

What do you mean "...goes to waste."? Electricity made is used when it's made unless you are converting and storing it.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

We are using less coal as time goes on -- the USA is down to about 38% electricity from coal the last I heard.

Remember it takes about 7.5kWh of electricity (and a lot of natural gas, as well) to make each gallon of gasoline. So that would let the i MiEV drive about 32 miles alone; and the rest of the carbon it goes to make each gallon of gasoline and the carbon of the oil is saved. We are now using lower and lower quality of oil now -- this produces less gasoline per barrel and it takes a LOT more energy to get -- heavy crude, and especially tar sand bitumen take much more electricity and natural gas and water (the latter two also take a lot of electricity to get) so the carbon overhead piles up quickly...

The "long tailpipe" argument is moot.

 

[oakvilleblake]

What I find myself unclear about is the extra ecological footprint of buying a new car versus keeping a current one - seems to me that the new vehicle would have to be a whole lot better before the extra ecological footprint could be offset, though if any car can do that it would clearly be the iMiev. This seems to be the debate for things like fridges, where I seem to recall it did make sense to replace because the net impact was beneficial. Answers like http://environment.about.com/od/environ ... d_cars.htm or http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/1699 or http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... efficiency or http://green.autoblog.com/2009/01/15/is ... r-buy-new/ are not terribly helpful.

The published paper I just found from the scientific journal Environmental Science and Technology at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es702178s is better and it shows that the battery production itself (albeit for smaller PHEV batteries) is not that large a component of the overall footprint of a plug-in car (Figure 1). It also shows that the lifecycle GHG reductions more than offset those associated with vehicle production. Using the PHEV90 figures provided in the article seems like a good proxy for the iMiev, given most people's commuting patterns. Figure 2 is particularly interesting because it shows that cleaner grid (like in Ontario) means an EV can make a huge reduction. To put it into numbers, the lifecycle g CO2-eq/km for PHEV90 (90km all-electric range) in a low-carbon electricity production scenario (renewables, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture) is 96 vs 269 for a conventional gasoline car. That's roughly a 70% reduction. The lack of a combustion engine in the iMiev would presumably tip even more in it's favour. The article takes into account the footprint associated with battery manufacture, "pre combustion" GHG emissions associated with both the extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels for power generation and for gasoline production, though not vehicle maintenance (oil changes etc), which the iMiev wouldn't have. That seems like a pretty strong case to me. It helps that we pay a household premium for Bullfrog power so that all our electricity is offset with investment in renewables.

Thanks for helping me make the case. I feel like we're back on track for getting an iMiev! In fact I have an appointment to visit the local dealer tomorrow at 11am to talk price in relation to a blue demo model they have for sale which they have had to park because they ran up 1900km with their staff using it to go to lunch, test rides, etc... and if they go over 2000km the car's not eligible for the rebate. I don't know if it's realistic, but I'm going to ask for $1,500 off MSRP in addition to them waiving the freight/PDI/admin charges, on the grounds that they already promised the latter but I should not have to pay full MSRP for a "used vehicle". We'll see how it goes.

blake

 

[sandange]

Good to see how you re-assessed all the information and feel assured that you are making the right decision.
Best of luck with the negotiations

 

[tonymil]

The published paper I just found from the scientific journal Environmental Science and Technology at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es702178s is better and it shows that the battery production itself (albeit for smaller PHEV batteries) is not that large a component of the overall footprint of a plug-in car (Figure 1).blake

The study you link to states the following:

The lifetime of a Li-ion battery depends on how the battery is used, so the vehicle use phase will influence upstream impacts from battery manufacturing. The lifetime of Li-ion batteries decreases as depth-of-discharge(DOD)of each cycle increases. It is assumed that the batteries in HEVs and PHEVs last the lifetime of the vehicle and will be discharged to a maximum of 80%DOD.

So, to help maintain battery life, avoid those deep discharges.

 

[Praxlus]

I would like to add to the challenge with question:

Is a million small 'clean' car, which is maintained annually (or bi-annually) by underpaid mechanic who we don't know the technical training level of, going to be more efficient than a single 'polluting' power plant run by engineers with constant supervision and tweaking? :lol:

 

[oakvilleblake]

I would like to add to the challenge with question:

Is a million small 'clean' car, which is maintained annually (or bi-annually) by underpaid mechanic who we don't know the technical training level of, going to be more efficient than a single 'polluting' power plant run by engineers with constant supervision and tweaking? :lol:

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of that.

 

[oakvilleblake]

Well folks, I took the plunge and bought an i-Miev. Got $2500 off on a demonstrator (blue with 1912km). Brought it home tonight and the 3 of us went out for a little ride to a neighbouring town for gelato. To our delight the range remaining was 88km when we left home and 90km when we returned an hour later. Go figure!

Feels great to have kicked the fossil fuel habit. Now we have absolutely nothing that uses gasoline , not even a lawn mower.

My wife loves that the back seat has adjustable backrest angle (she ends up back there because my daughter gets carsick if she's not in the front). We marvelled at how quiet it is on the road - no need to turn up the radio (which sounds quite nice, by the way).

You may recall that this will be our primary and only family vehicle, so we have recruited 5 sets of friends as 'carswap buddies' who have agreed to lend us their hybrid or ICE car when our daytrip plans exceed the i-Miev's range, in exchange for the privilege of borrowing our i for the day. We're organizing a little get-to-know-you party (since they have not yet met eachother or the car) for the coming weeks. This is fun!

Again, I want to express my appreciation for you all. It was so vital to our thinking and decision-making to have this group of well-informed and helpful owners to draw on and bounce ideas off of. You guys rock!

blake