Gov’t, industry, national labs collaborate on comprehensive cradle-to-grave LCA study and economic assessment of LDV GHG

Via GCC (getting SQL errors or I'd post more of it):

Gov’t, industry, national labs collaborate on comprehensive cradle-to-grave LCA study and economic assessment of LDV GHG reductions

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/02/20180211-c2glca.html

. . . However, the researchers noted, although the findings show that advanced vehicle and fuel technologies could lead to deep reductions in GHG emissions compared with a conventional gasoline ICEV, impacts on the upfront vehicle purchase price and the levelized cost of driving (LCD) are decisive factors in the actual adoption of these advanced vehicles by consumers.

For 2025–2030, ICEVs using conventional gasoline appear to be the least expensive vehicle-fuel systems for the end user on a per-mile basis. LCDs ranged from 26¢ per mile for conventional gasoline ICEVs to 38¢ per mile for long-range BEVs using electricity derived from solar energy. The costs of other pathways include 31¢ per mile for corn-stover ethanol ICEVs, 28¢–30¢ per mile for PHEVs and H2 FCEVs, and 34¢–38¢ per mile for BEVs. The central estimate of the future technology conventional ICEV is $2,110 more than the central estimate of the current technology version, due to advances in engine and materials technologies. . . .

Click to expand...

You have to wonder how the government can manage to come up with such nonsense numbers where the per-mile H2 FCVs cross below those of BEVs powered by solar when no such crossover is conceivable. Clearly you cannot come up with those results unless you are trying to match a preconceived conclusion.

Here are the numbers I recently calculated for my vehicles:

MY2011 Nissan LEAF: 33c per mile (which is significantly lower than the number the government calculated for a BEV manufactured 15 years later)
MY2003 Honda Civic Hybrid: 17c per mile (which may not be an overly-fair comparison given the prices have gone up a bit)

You have to ask yourself this: Why is our government trying to tell us that the best option for transportation (BEVs powered by PV power) will be the worst?

Skip the conspiracy crap,
the national labs are reputable sources.

I have been reading Elgowainy for years, the lead author in this article.

That said, I don't care to spend $40 to read the article so for now I'll just admit that I do not know details of the economic analysis. I do wonder if the Tesla Model 3 was included in the analysis or if a long range BEV was presumed to cost $80k like the Tesla Model S.

Personally, I am able to fuel my EV driving with inexpensive home PV that is about 4.5 cents a mile cheaper than HEV and around 7.5 cents a mile cheaper than ICEV. Over 200k miles that works out to a savings of $9,000 in fuel compared to HEV and $15,000 fuel savings compared to ICEV. So even though the $36k Tesla Model 3 is a lot more car, it ends up costing about the same as the alternatives before any incentives or externalized fossil fuel costs are considered.

With one huge presumption: that the repair and maintenance costs are about the same. I would not gamble on that being true today, but I do think it will be true as EV tech matures.

In my corner of Colorado the great sun, inexpensive PV and combined state and federal tax credits make the Prius Prime PHEV an outstanding value. I paid about $17k for the car and fuel averages out to ~ 2 cents a mile for my use which is mostly 90 mile commutes resulting in 40% EV miles. Oh ... and the Prius has phenomenal reliability for icing on the cake. I estimate ~ 7.5 cents a mile for capitalization+fuel lifetime. CO2 emissions are about 110 grams per mile, NOx 2 mg/mile and SOx 0 mg/mile during driving.

SageBrush said:

Skip the conspiracy crap,

Click to expand...

You need to educate yourself about the distortions that exist in science. All science. It is not the impartial, dispassionate endeavor which you and many others imagine it to be. All science needs to be looked at with a skeptical eye, not swallowed without thinking.

"A biased scientific result is no different from a useless one." -- Daniel Sarewitz

I'm not sure I would go quite as far as Sarewitz here, since all research has bias, but certainly some research is rendered worse than useless due to biases imposed.

Having looked carefully at what goes into hydrogen-based transportation versus BEV-based transportation, I have no problem calling bullshit on this type of "science" which predicts a factor of five or more reversal in the situation in just seven short years. The reality is that the costs of manufacturing batteries have been plummeting while the costs for manufacturing fuel cells have been stagnant. It's simply nonsense and should be treated as such. These scientists need to be held accountable for such ridiculous reports.

SageBrush said:

the national labs are reputable sources.

Click to expand...

On a good day they can be. But the U.S. national labs can ONLY do the specific research they are allowed to do by their funding agencies. If they don't produce the results that is expected, that funding can and does get cut off. As a result, they have produced some absolute crap over the years. In the recent past, government-funded research has been very consistent in the past couple of decades: H2 FCVs are to come out on top in all projections of future value. This has been true ever since politicians started promoting "the Hydrogen economy". This allows politicians to continue the charade that hydrogen is the endgame.

SageBrush said:

In my corner of Colorado the great sun, inexpensive PV and combined state and federal tax credits make the Prius Prime PHEV an outstanding value. I paid about $17k for the car and fuel averages out to ~ 2 cents a mile for my use which is mostly 90 mile commutes resulting in 40% EV miles. Oh ... and the Prius has phenomenal reliability for icing on the cake. I estimate ~ 7.5 cents a mile for capitalization+fuel lifetime. CO2 emissions are about 110 grams per mile, NOx 2 mg/mile and SOx 0 mg/mile during driving.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt the study that was published calculated costs after subsidies. Just because they might have biases doesn't mean they are such bad scientists that they would include that in the report.

RegGuheert said:

All science needs to be looked at with a skeptical eye.

Click to expand...

Did you read the report ?
Can you rebut any of the data or methods with logical and peer referenced sources ?

I didn't think so.

I'm well aware of the machinations against science by the current politicos in office, but you are engaging in the same BS.


---
Subsidies can be the flip side of externalized costs. Surprise !