Featured Data for 2018 is in, EVs continue to get cleaner in the USA

Less Coal - More natural gas - less C02 & other less desirable things here in the USA. The offset? China, not so much. India, same thing. Still - EV's mean less gas being burned on top of non-renewables.
.

 

Also, half the cost per mile in EV versus the most efficient hybrids on a trip.

Bob Wilson

 

Short answer: MI, WI, IL and MO residents should drive the most efficient EVs. Everyone else can pretty much drive any EV.

EV's have substantially benefited from the collapse of coal over the last decade:

 

@noonm Would you mind explaining the chart a bit? I live in Illinios, but I am actually north Illinios outside Chicago, which is in the light blue area. My two Prii are getting long in the tooth, so I am starting to research what to do to replace one when needed. Jill

 

I suspect this was the source:
Are Electric Vehicles Really Better for the Climate? Yes. Here’s Why - Union of Concerned Scientists

BTW, you might consider getting an efficient, plug-in hybrid with a fast DC charging port. This will teach important lessons about the technology. Candidates include any end-of-lease BMW i3-REx.

I live in North Alabama, well south of the Mason Dixon line, so we tend to have mild winters versus your area. You might look around for local Tesla and other EVs clubs to find out how they deal with your climate. But I can share my January trip.

The 3d week of January, I visited a 'celebration of life' for my late friend, Beau, in Richardson TX:

• 1980 miles
• $60 Supercharger costs
  • stayed overnight in two motels with free chargers (and breakfasts)
  • using free L2 chargers on the road took too long

Bob Wilson

 

Short Answer: Driving a gas car with <56mpg is worse for the environment than an EV (in the Chicago/RFCW area).

In general, except for a few places in the U.S. (Southern IL, MO, WI, parts of HI) an EV will be better for the environment than all but the most fuel efficient gassers.

 

even in dirty States, there are many exceptions. A larger & larger contingent of plugin owners are incorporating rooftop solar, which means they're offsetting/clean energy factors outweigh the typical dirty power generation in even those States. The other redeeming thing is that those dirty states are far less populated (thus less plugin drivers) then the heavily populated states where one finds most of the plug-in's anyway.
Lastly, there's irony in worrying about dirty power generation States as a refueling of plug-ins, yet dirtier power generation also applies to the dirty state"s toaster ovens, blenders AC /TV, computers lighting Etc. Just saying, how come the plug-ins have to take the brunt of the dirty state power issue - since they're the minority user anyways, while the majority of dirty power users get a free pass?

.

 

We need a proper survey but I suspect the electric rates in dirty states are higher than clean states. "Dirty" power generation tends to be inefficient and likely more expensive.

Bob Wilson

 

Not to counter the argument that EVs are cleaner than ICE vehicles (especially non-hybrid ICE vehicles), but I wonder if the study takes into account the fact that 2.3% of natural gas produced in the US leaks. One gram of methane leak is equivalent to 25 grams of CO2 release in terms of its global warming impact over the course of 100 years. Accounting for the methane leak, natural gas is only marginally better than coal. And for the short term, it might even be worse. And if the leak was found to be 3% or so, gas is actually worse than coal any way you slice it.

 

It probably is using the epa's leakage rate of 1.4% although others consider it higher, lots of places it is much lower. THe solution is not to stop using methane but to use best practices and reduce the leakage. Camera's that detect leaks are falling rapidly in price. Regulation is part of the key. I'm sure the mountain regioni oil fields are leaking a great deal of methane. Coal is much nastier than natural gas for the medium term and ghg in the US has decreased greatly as more natural gas and wind have been replacing coal in the grid even at the 2.3% figure. EDF says that the leakage would have to be 3% to have greater global warming impact over shorter 20 year period for natural gas, so it is much better than coal at levels you are using, but not as low as it should be. I'd like to see leakage below 1%.

The problem is these dirty grids are very cheap to maintain as all the infrastructure - coal power plants, rail tracks, electrical grid connections have been fully depreciated by the utility. It costs more to build new wind, solar, or natural gas than keep using the old polluting stuff. The extra cost is not that high though when its done in a smart way. The extra labor for coal is easily paid for by the new plants over a long enough time horizon, but wind and solar need new infrastructure.

 

As one seeing rate hike requests for remediation as opposed to capitol costs of building new, it is the requirement to undo the damage from the dirty sources that drive costs in dirty areas.

 

you are in north carolina right? That is not a dirty state but california is lower in ghg and pays over $0.18/kwh. I'm sure you don't want to jump to their poor regulation and prices but continue slow improvement. Maybe speed up that improvement? Duke needs to be regulated better.

 

My electricity comes from a Nuke. But Duke has millions of tons of coal ash in dozens of unlined ponds and chemicals are leaking into groundwater and getting washed into streams. So the push to remediate. Put in old sand and clay mines that have been lined. Which involves transport (the cities that benefited from those coal fired plants in the past don't want the coal ash pit anywhere near them and so they ship to rural less populated ares) with all the pollution that generates.

 

It should also be noted that the US map shows just a single MPGe for EVs. This equates how efficient an ICE car would have to be to emit the same as an EV...I presume. But in fact there is a range of EVs/PHEVs that consume more or less watt-hours per mile. Some EVs are 25-40% more efficient than others.

Mike

 

I would suggest the ratio is greater than that but I tend to follow EV technology. For an absolute MPGe, the map depends on the make and model and the chart claims "88 MPGe." Put my Std Rng Plus Model 3 in the model and the absolute value of numbers would likely go up, significantly. The relative values are more important.

Bob Wilson

 

There are three BEV models, plus the Model X with 22in wheels, that are below 88mpge.
There are several PHEVs with lower. Their ICE efficiency is far from a Prius, and many are power hybrids.

 

the Prius efficiency formula - delicate combinations of (chassis/fuel/cargo/traction-pack/passenger) weight, drag, ICE efficiency, motor efficiency, wind drag. Total of all these yields 50ish MPG. Kind of a gold standard. A modern, efficient passenger jet, fully loaded with cargo, crew & people is pretty close to the same level of efficiency when factoring in miles per gallon divided by total passenger/crew weight. SO - it should be no surprise when larger plugins Like the Chrysler Pacifica & Model X render fuel cosumption in the 80's-90's MPGe. The class of big/heavy high-efficiency vehicles necessarily yield higher fuel consumption.
Hypothetically by raising (fuel) efficiency in a Prius 10% - and you want to drive 1,000 miles - instead of burning 20 gallons - you would only need ~18.2 gallons. You would save 1.8 gallons via efficiency.
Now - raise fuel efficiency 10% of a 2½ ton ride, getting 20mpg. Your fuel consumption goes from needing 50 gallons to go 1000 miles, to only needing 45½ gallons. Through a mere 10% efficiency improvement - you saved 4½ gallons. So - increasing land barge efficiency is more beneficial - by a factor of what ...... >2 ?
If folks are so hell-bent to ditch smaller cars for SUVs Vans & Pickup sized rides - it begs the question - why havn't most manufacturers sought higher efficiency via a plug on their 5,000 lb offerings?
.