GCC: Emissions Analytics: mass adoption of hybrids, rather than low-volume BEVs most effective for cutting CO2 now, meet

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Emissions Analytics: mass adoption of hybrids, rather than low-volume BEVs most effective for cutting CO2 now, meeting 2030 targets; best use of limited resource
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/06/20190618-ea.html

Emissions Analytics, a leading independent specialist for the scientific measurement of real-world emissions, suggests that mass adoption of hybrid vehicles, rather than low-volume take-up of full BEVs, is the most effective solution to cutting CO2 now and also in meeting 2030 emission targets.

Of all electrification strategies, full BEVs currently offer the least effective CO2 reduction per kWh of battery size, according to the analysis by the firm: 21 times worse than mild hybrids and 14 times worse than full hybrids.

With automotive battery capacity currently scarce, expensive and suffering supply problems, the deployment of this limited resource is critical to maximizing CO2 reduction, Emissions Analytics says. With tardy consumer adoption of BEVs and slow infrastructure roll-out compounded by concerns around an economical supply of batteries, it is essential to find the fastest, most efficient way to reduce CO2 now.

  • One of our biggest challenges is fleet turnover, with vehicles staying on the road typically for up to 12 years. It means that refreshing the entire fleet is a very slow process. Given reservations about current BEVs, we require an alternative that will have a more immediate impact. Due to CO2’s long life in the atmosphere, a small change now is far better than a large change in the future. We need to optimize the use of the industry’s available battery capacity to facilitate a critical early reduction.

    —Nick Molden, CEO of Emissions Analytics. . . .

Using mild, full and plug-in hybrid real-world emissions test data from both European and US vehicles, Emissions Analytics compared hybrids with their internal combustion engine equivalents. Using its standardized on-road cycle, the company determined the average CO2 reduction from hybridization was 23% for the EU and 34% for the US, with an average of 30% across all pairings.

Emissions Analytics then calculated the distance-specific CO2 reduction per unit of battery size (capacity), in g/km/kWh, for mild, full, plug-in hybrids and BEVs.

The results indicated that mild hybrids are the most efficient way to reduce CO2, given limited global battery capacity. With a reduction of 73.9g/km/kWh, the technology was a clear favorite, with full hybrids coming in second at 50.5g/km/kWh.

Due to their disproportionately large batteries, BEVs were the worst of the available options, with a mere 3.5g/km/kWh reduction. The size of BEV batteries tends to be large to accommodate infrequent, extreme use cases—such as high-mileage trips, not often undertaken by average drivers—and do not make the best uses of limited supply.

The calculations did not take into account the upstream CO2 in fuel extraction, refining and transportation, or the production and distribution of electricity. Some studies suggest the upstream CO2 of electricity is greater than for gasoline, but the relative efficiency calculations here implicitly assume they are equal. . . .

Molden outlined two potential paths that are immediately available. One is a switch from gasoline to diesel, reducing CO2 by 11%, coupled with a mild hybrid system, providing a further 6% reduction. A final swap to full hybrids would deliver an addition 16% reduction for a 34% total. Alternatively, switching directly from gasoline to gasoline mild hybrids provides an 11% reduction, with a further 23% from the move to full hybrid.

The EU’s post-2021 CO2 reduction target for passenger cars is 37.5% by 2030. Emissions Analytics tests clearly shows that, even with current technology, widespread hybridization would achieve more than three-quarters of that target.

Given a decade of further advances and innovations, it is possible that the goal could be met without the need for BEVs at all, Emissions Analytics says. Beyond the 37.5% reduction target, more extensive electrification would be required to bring whole fleet emissions down.

  • The ideal solution is an immediate transition to petrol and diesel hybrids, with a further decade spent refining the technology, infrastructure and battery supply chain to allow the adoption of BEVs. By 2030, the EU and the US would have had another decade to develop expanded, cleaner electricity generation capacity, improving the lifecycle emissions of BEVs.

    Alternatively, by 2030 the availability and price of renewable energy may well fall to a level at which hydrogen fuel cells could be economically viable. These avoid the environmental and geopolitical issues caused by largescale battery production and would likely offer even lower lifecycle emissions. The overall message is this though: it is paramount that governments and industry take into consideration real-world data when promoting technologies to efficiently reduce CO2.


    —Nick Molden. . . .
Not exactly news, but further confirmation.
 
Interesting that they broke the hybrids down into 3 categories, but lumped all BEVs into 1 category. It would have been interesting to see the difference between short-range (say less than 100 miles) vs. medium-range (100 - 200 miles) and long-range BEVs. I suspect the short-range BEVs would score much better than the long-range ones. For typical driving models, the short range BEVs would get similar life-cycle miles but on much less battery capacity; thereby scoring much better in the analysis.

However, doing that would weaken the argument for hybrids over BEVs. I guess that was part of the study design intended to help support the desired conclusion.

Another skewing is that they compared mass adoption of hybrids vs. low adoption of BEVs. Mass adoption of BEVs can get there too, but to support that with the scarce battery issue, that mass adoption would need to be by short-range BEVs. Again, the lack of analysis on this segment ensures that their conclusion isn't contradicted by any annoying details.

Despite these design flaws, the conclusion makes a lot of sense. From a scarce resource allocation perspective, hybrids, PHEV, and short-range BEVs make a lot of sense. If (and that is a real big if) the battery supply constraints can be effectively dealt with, then the conclusion isn't so clear to me. But the constraints and ethical issues of battery sourcing do warrant considerable weight being given toward maximizing efficiency of that resource allocation.
 
DarthPuppy said:
Interesting that they broke the hybrids down into 3 categories, but lumped all BEVs into 1 category. It would have been interesting to see the difference between short-range (say less than 100 miles) vs. medium-range (100 - 200 miles) and long-range BEVs. I suspect the short-range BEVs would score much better than the long-range ones. For typical driving models, the short range BEVs would get similar life-cycle miles but on much less battery capacity; thereby scoring much better in the analysis.

However, doing that would weaken the argument for hybrids over BEVs. I guess that was part of the study design intended to help support the desired conclusion.

Another skewing is that they compared mass adoption of hybrids vs. low adoption of BEVs. Mass adoption of BEVs can get there too, but to support that with the scarce battery issue, that mass adoption would need to be by short-range BEVs. Again, the lack of analysis on this segment ensures that their conclusion isn't contradicted by any annoying details.

Despite these design flaws, the conclusion makes a lot of sense. From a scarce resource allocation perspective, hybrids, PHEV, and short-range BEVs make a lot of sense. If (and that is a real big if) the battery supply constraints can be effectively dealt with, then the conclusion isn't so clear to me. But the constraints and ethical issues of battery sourcing do warrant considerable weight being given toward maximizing efficiency of that resource allocation.
I think most of your criticisms re different classes of BEV are covered by their analysis of PHEVs, especially as we know from experience here short-range, expensive BEVs don't meet most people's desires and value proposition. If short range BEVs cost $15k instead of $30k it would be a different matter, but given battery shortage and their current high prices, that's kind of a moot point. The Prime is selling quite well here, because it can meet many people's routine needs on the battery while still doing everything else a car needs to do, and starting at under $28k.

I think it really comes down to whether or not your over-riding priority is reducing GHGs as quickly and cheaply as possible, or reducing GHGs while also reducing local air pollution. The latter argues for PHEVs with the smallest possible battery, which I've suggested should provide at least 20 miles of AER in order to encourage people to actually plug them in instead of just buying them for HOV and similar perks, as we saw was sometimes the case here in California with the PiP; apparently a lot of Volts bought as company cars were also never plugged in.
 
GRA said:
encourage people to actually plug them in instead of just buying them for HOV and similar perks, as we saw was sometimes the case here in California with the PiP; apparently a lot of Volts bought as company cars were also never plugged in.
This is my suspicion too, that PHEVs are way too often bought for the perks and then not used as intended (meaning daily charging for daily use.) I'm inclined to be against tax credits for PHEVs for this reason, and while the article is probably correct on paper, it is in my opinion likely wrong in practice.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
encourage people to actually plug them in instead of just buying them for HOV and similar perks, as we saw was sometimes the case here in California with the PiP; apparently a lot of Volts bought as company cars were also never plugged in.
This is my suspicion too, that PHEVs are way too often bought for the perks and then not used as intended (meaning daily charging for daily use.) I'm inclined to be against tax credits for PHEVs for this reason, and while the article is probably correct on paper, it is in my opinion likely wrong in practice.

When the PHEV gets outstanding fuel economy without being plugged in, that shouldn't be necessary. The Prius PHEV & Prime both get well over 50MPG when driven as plain hybrids. I wonder if people are driving Volt, Outlander and Niro PHEVs the same way, or if the MPG penalty is too great for those cars...?
 
Some will abuse the concept. But PHEV remain a viable route to quickly reduce the pollutants. The fact that some don't plug them in doesn't warrant discriminating regarding the tax credits. When I replaced my ICEV with my Clarity PHEV and gained access to workplace charging, I eliminated 90+% of my gas consumption. If we are going to set the rules based on some people's conduct, then my example warrants higher tax credits because some get more GHG bang for the amount of scarce battery resource and therefore provide better environmental benefits on the whole.

Some BEV owners don't drive theirs to the fullest potential because of range anxiety or their Tesla sized batteries have far more range than they will use daily. Perhaps we shouldn't support tax credits for BEVs because of their conduct?

Sorry, but I can't buy into stances where if I own a BEV, that should be supported but other approaches shouldn't be supported because I can find some nit-pick about some people's conduct. Each of these approaches have their pros and cons and have been debated ad nauseam on this forum. And each is subject to non-optimal use by owners who choose poorly in terms of aligning their purchase and driving conduct in an effective manner to maximize environmental benefit.
 
DarthPuppy said:
Sorry, but I can't buy into stances where if I own a BEV, that should be supported but other approaches shouldn't be supported because I can find some nit-pick about some people's conduct..
Straw-man argument.

Social support of PHEV via subsidy must take the average plug-in owner behavior into account. This is all about utility.
However, if you want to scrap ALL subsidies and simply tax pollution you have my vote.
 
SageBrush said:
Social support of PHEV via subsidy must take the average plug-in owner behavior into account.
Average, not some.

SageBrush said:
This is all about utility.
And risk, a factor often ignored in economics. PHEVs have some insurance value. In a gasoline shortages driver behavior (plugging in more) can change gasoline usage more than in the past.

SageBrush said:
However, if you want to scrap ALL subsidies and simply tax pollution you have my vote.
Subsidies are more efficient when the desired alternative is a small fraction of the market.

Taxing pollution is more efficient when the alternative is a large fraction of the market.
 
AFAIA, the only case where PHEV owners routinely failed to plug in was the PiP. In the case of company-car Volts, the issue there was one of economics; the drivers were reimbursed for gas they bought, but not for electricity they used for charging at home, so why would they charge? This should be fixable.

The reason I suggest 20 miles or so as a reasonable minimum, aside from the fact that it can cover the routine daily driving needs of 50% of American drivers (assuming it's all done in between charges which won't always be the case, so the actual % may be greater), is that the extra cost of the car is high enough that most people will consider it worthwhile to get their money's worth out of the car by charging it, even if they aren't ideologically motivated to do so.

It does suggest to me that subsidies and perks should be looked at and maybe modified. Right now, subsidies encourage big battery packs, but that may be the wrong approach; maybe they should give the largest subsidy per kWh to the smallest packs that meet the 20 mile (or whatever minimum AER is chosen for PHEVs) limit, with the subsidy decreasing as the battery gets bigger. That way, the people buying bigger batteries are doing so with the full intention of plugging them in, because they know they'll use it. And it pretty much guarantees that people will make full use of their battery range on a daily basis, thus spreading the limited battery storage across the greatest number of cars. Also providing a smaller subsidy to HEVs that meet some mpg requirement (say 45 mpg) would encourage people to really consider their needs, although with the highest gas prices in the country (and another 5.6 cents/gal. tax hike on July 1st, to add to the 12 cents that went into effect 11/2017), maybe no subsidy for HEVs in California will be needed. Prius sales took off starting in 2004 thanks to gas prices.

We really can't allow HEVs back into existing HOV lanes, as they're already too crowded in many parts of California, but what we could do is dedicate another regular lane to them (rather than building new ones, as we know that doesn't decrease VMT or traffic). Naturally, this would be immensely unpopular, and probably politically impossible at least for now.
 
Dang. And those resource constraints are just the U.K. electrification plans. It is clear that the migration to solar, wind, and battery needs to be done efficiently to get the biggest bang for those scarce resources. Now if we can only find a way to entice people to actually shift consumer demand based on this efficiency need.

I realize the temptation to go big on batteries is strong. Had the 2018 Leaf been the 60kwh version on launch, I would have bought that as that was large enough to work for my commute. But my Clarity PHEV gets the job done, eliminating 90+% of my gas use on less than 1/3 of the batteries.

Smaller range BEVs like my 2013 Leaf are also a great option for those whom that works - in our case it does since we also have a hybid in the family for the longer trips. But as pointed out by Sagebrush, getting people to go that route hasn't been real successful.
 
DarthPuppy said:
Dang. And those resource constraints are just the U.K. electrification plans. It is clear that the migration to solar, wind, and battery needs to be done efficiently to get the biggest bang for those scarce resources. Now if we can only find a way to entice people to actually shift consumer demand based on this efficiency need.

I realize the temptation to go big on batteries is strong. Had the 2018 Leaf been the 60kwh version on launch, I would have bought that as that was large enough to work for my commute. But my Clarity PHEV gets the job done, eliminating 90+% of my gas use on less than 1/3 of the batteries.

Smaller range BEVs like my 2013 Leaf are also a great option for those whom that works - in our case it does since we also have a hybrid in the family for the longer trips. But as pointed out by Sagebrush, getting people to go that route hasn't been real successful.
One of the reasons I'm in favor of FCPHEVs is that it gives us the option of trading off scarcity in one tech's raw materials for abundance in the other, assuming that FC and H2 costs can be brought down to a commercially viable level. Of course, there's also the issue of energy efficiency, but we have to trade that off against likely storage costs of all that RE (and the shortages that will incur). Which is one reason why I'm not willing yet to eliminate nukes from consideration, aside from their hugely reduced steel, cement and land requirements compared to RE.

Realistically, I don't think the one car per adult ownership model is viable going forward - we'll have to adopt MaaS as well as better urban design to eliminate as much powered VMT as possible, and (here) re-adopt mass transit.
 
Back
Top