Anyone waiting for PIP getting the "itch" to consider a Chevy Volt instead?

Discussing the average US grid is misleading. The "average" American does not drive a hybrid either. Hybrid sales, dominated by Prius, are < 3% of the sales, so don't approach average. The average is a 23MPG vehicle.

One has to look at the segment to be meaningful. Hybrid sales are much larger in exactly the parts of the country where the grid is cleaner. (E.g. check out this map


(from http://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v2/npr....,tooltips,legend,share.html#4.00/36.65/-96.97
and

as well

And you can notice the sates with high hybrid sales are also states with much lower coal generation, cleaner hyro/NG and GHG goals. Hybrid sales are highest where the gird is cleanest.. and PHEV/EVs are expected to be equally correlated

Most People buying a Prius PHV or Volt, are thinking about the environment, at least partially, and are going to emit less GHG than average. And importantly, even in below average regions of the country, such people may choose to go with greener power generation which can help clean up the grid. The more EV the better. With a regular HV, one makes a choice but cannot help clean up the grid or choose the source.

If one looks at wind power and its potential
much of it is right where the HV/PHEV sales are concentrated. We currently "curtail/waste" so much of our wind power in the US, we "curtailed" 25Tw in 2010. That means we just turn off the wind generators because their power cannot be used at night. The grid could be cleaner already if we used that power! 25TW is equivalent to 700Million gallons of gasoline. How many EV/PHEVs do we need on the road to start using that clean energy we currently just waste.

You cannot meaningfully argue about the the "average" GHG for PHEV, you need to look at the regional marginal GHG for an EV charging mostly at night. The PHEVs have plenty of green power they could use now and even greater growth potential.

 

First, lower temperature. We are here to exchange views not to throw personal accusations.

I don't have to check every Volt sold, it was published that the average Volt driver is on EV 67% of his miles.

I made the following chart based entirely on EPA publication.

As you can see, on GHG intensity of the US average mix [estimated as about 620 gCO2(e) to include up-stream emissions] The Volt 67% emits 248 gCO2(e)/mile - 12% more than a Prius G3 driver.

To show the trend, I have added to the chart PIP 35% and PIP 55% EV, I based this two on my estimate of 28 kWh/100 miles for the PIP, once the sticker will come, I promise to change the PIP lines accordingly.

 

drinnovation,
Very nice presentations, thank you.

Back to topic.
Do you think the Volt is better for the environment than the Prius PHV?

 

Check out my post again. I said that the Volt is better than the PiP if the driver seldom uses gasoline. Elsewhere I've said that for longer trips, the Prius is better. My own choice, which I consider ideal, given the state of EVs and infrastructure, is to drive a pure EV, using nearly 100% hydroelectric power with a bit of wind power in the mix, for any trips under about 200 miles (I'll always give myself a buffer, and my EV has a 245-mile range) and to drive my 2004 Prius for longer trips, or when I park at the airport (a couple of times a year) and hauling recyclables to the recycling center (also a couple of times a year).

Volt can be better for the environment than Prius or PiP, depending on driving patterns and the source of electricity.

And FWIW, I oppose the burning of coal, and I choose to live in a region that does not use coal. We don't get to vote on national energy policy except indirectly by voting for candidates, where one must consider many issues in addition to energy. But if we could, I'd gladly vote to tax myself to install more clean, renewable energy.

 

If they were first or second, sure. But they are 7th- it may be later, that is not innovative. They also had their partially owned subsidiary, now majority owned, buy the company that produced the tech. We call that vertical integration which was popular in the 60s. Toyota is following a fast follower strategy. There is nothing wrong with that, but they are not leading here.

Its average grid today, which gets repeated, and a perfectly ok bench mark. I agree that the plug-ins are going to be weighted on a much cleaner than average electricity source, but this wasn't a made up statistic. One of the big car magazines did the comparison and also showed state by state.

 

Better for the ENV has multiple dimensions. Long term using a non-renewable resource has other implications for the ENV.. but I'm guessing you are asking from a pure GHG point of view.

The answer to "better for the env w.r.t. GHG " depends on the owner' driving needs and choices. Assume the owner has a choice and is getting electricity that produces less pollution than gas. Then its all about the relative EV/CS rations. If the commute is say 35m between charges, (say 6 days a week) (10500 EV miles) and the number of long trips is modest (Say 2000mi a year) so the EV ratio is > 70%. Then I'd say the Volt is better for the environment. (Those are my personal estimates). If they can charge on 100% renewable, then their EV ratio can go down to 60% and still be better.

If the commute is shorter with say 10 miles, and/or long trips are more common (either way if > 40% of miles on gas) then the Prius PHV will be better for the environment.

For points in the middle it would take a more detailed analysis (and depend on range of trips outside volt EV but < 70 miles).

And the Prius PHV will be better for the environment for a family that needs the space.. as its more likely to get them to stop driving an SUV/CUV for the room... Volt is only good for long trips with 2 adults and maybe 2 small children.


In my view both are important as we shift from oil to EV and build the technology base for the future. Its good that there is competition and choices for different lifestyles/needs. Its not really a question of if one is better than the other, its when is one better than the other.

 

drinnovation,

OK, I will come back to this analysis once the Prius PHV sticker will become public, or even better, when we have data collected on "average Prius PHV driver EV ratio".
Right now, we don't have enough data to make quantitative analysis but it seems the grid (OK local grid) should be around 300-350 gCO2(e) (including up-stream emissions) to break-even between the two 'average' drivers.

 

Oh yeah, there is a good business decision for a manufacturer who wants to make money selling cars in volume. It is not like a big battery pack would make such a car more expensive resulting in low sale volume despite a $7,500 tax.

 

I said it was a business decision.. and exactly why I said it was classic innovator dilemma. If you've not read Christensen book I highly recommend it (see "http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Change-Business/dp/0062060244" or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology"] for a synopsys).


Toyota has done great job on sustaining innovations (i.e. cost/quality). When they introduced the Prius it was a disruptive innovation that help
propel them ahead in both technology and mindshare, even if sales were slow at the start. Then it built over time to be a solid performer and in a few years could be their best seller. That is what disruptive innovations do. The difference can be seen in this chart:


The book is called the innovator dilemma because it talks about the history of companies that grew because they were innovative, then face the same choice.. pursue sustaining innovation or disruptive innovation.
The Short term "best business strategy" is almost always sustaining innovation. Long term it may not be. Apple is not #1 in tech company capitalization because they focused on sustaining innovation. They had a mix of both. My comment was that Toyota gave up some of its disruptive lead. Its still in the game, but if the Prius PHV had been released in 2008 (well within Toyota's technological abilities), they would have established leadership. Now its a N-th follower. Nothing wrong with being a fast-follower, its often a safe business strategy. But don't confuse that with being innovative.

 

Giora you still are ignoring the fact that people even places dominated by coal can pay for wind power. The people who want to spend $40k on a vehicle to drive on electricity are a lot more likely to want to pay extra for green power as well.

BTW dr. Apple followed on a lot of things. That actually is a very good position to be in if you can follow quickly so that the first mover doesn't get market share advantage. You can see what works and what doesn't then adapt.

 

Totally agree on the choice isssue. CO is dominated by coal.. but I pay for wind.


And yes Apple was also a fast follower. Even dumber than not innovating, is not recognizing it when others do it and getting in fast (especially with a better product. Ipod was not first, but it followed fast enough, and with the Itunes store, was disruptive).



And sometime there is an advantage in disruptive tech being second so the first guy out can take more of the punches... Not saying Toyota has made a business mistake (only time will tell). I just wish the PHV had been released in 2008, when they had the tech but not the nerve!

 

Toyota's traditional strength has been continuous improvement not innovation. The prius broke from this tradition.

If you note apple failed on the newton before it succeeded in the ipad/iphone. The technology was not ready for the newton. I don't think that Toyota had the battery tech in 2008, and there were news stories in 2008 and 2009 that support this. Part of the problem is vertical integration, which can make a company move more slowly. This was one of the big problems with GM, as external suppliers moved faster than gm's internal or owned suppliers. It looks like PEV's solution to this was the sanyo acquisition to supply some of the battery tech. PEV led on Nimh, and this was a strategic advantage, sanyo was their biggest competitor on this technology and they bought them.

On the prius, Toyota did gain first mover advantages, the payoff of innovation. I do not think the tesla/gm/nissan first mover advantages will pay off as well given how fast other companies can follow. Toyota is following tesla, by partnering with them on the rav4 bev.

 

National statistical analysis can only be made on national averages.
We sometimes hear arguments like: many people this...or few people that, they mean nothing for any quantitative analysis.
You, and sxotty are only two data points in making an average.

BTW hope you made sure you get what you paid for.

 

I don't think you understand though.

Unless you can demonstrate that PHEV buyers are average then you cannot use national averages to talk about them and have any more accuracy than saying many people this and few people that. The studies done on this are for some far off future when PHEVs are ubiquitous. It is quite likely that is PHEVs made up 20% of the light duty fleet they would follow national averages, but when they make up 20,000 vehicles in a year one cannot assume that. Right now people generally are buying b/c they want to, not because it is rational given fuel prices. Thus we cannot even assume that they are making what economists term rational choices in their buying choices. If buyers were more predictable then one could make inferences about driving habits.

So if you want to use nationwide statistics you need to make some effort to show that buyers follow national averages.

 

No one said we wanted National Statistical analysis. The data I supplied before show maps of hybrid sales and how power was generated. Digging a bit more I found the following chart


(from http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/09/hybrid-all-electric-vehicles/)

Which considers regional generation methods and then compared a Prius to a Roadster. Green means the EV is better and yellow is about equal. (Red/orange is worse). The Volt is not as efficient as a roadster but sill, relating this map to the maps I posted earlier on where hybrids are selling. My previous maps were relative (percentage). Even more signficnat is total sales:


for which the most recent map I could find was Nov08.

So once again I'll argue that the national average is not so much of an issue as the regional mixes, which just happen to correlate well with those likely to purchase a green vehicle.

And yes, I do track my energy sources. Just last week I had a call with the VP of my electric co-operative about how they can make that easier/better. Right now my level of "verification" is that the 511 members of our co-op bought 7,542 – 100 kWh blocks last month (which slightly exceeded our usage, the credit roll forward per customer ). I want to make sure they are buying it closer to WHEN we use it, not just matching the total. Colorado has good laws for tracking the renewable credits but right now end-customers have limited access to the data. (Though the university of Colorado and connections at NREL, I can get to things normal customers cannot). I've been pushing for direct-customer access into parts of http://www.wregis.org/ or a refined green-e certification process which is the two largest areas certified green-e- Renewable energy credits are tracked in my state. I helped a local company bid on software for the green-e certification program last year. Unfortunately we they did not win, but it gave me an intro to the processess/and needs and insights into what we could do. Since the state already approve the move to market+ pricing, so I pay mostly the premium for the added green energy (plus a fixed fee of $.20/month). But this means they need to track costs at the time of purchase which means I should be able to see the purchases at any given hour which is what I'm pushing them to do. I want to make sure that as they move to market+, we improve the transparency.

 

I do think the national average does have some validity. There is a shift in EVs though from the prius cars because of temperature and commute pattern, to get to a second cut.

In 2011 the lion's share of ev's went to california, with 60% of leafs and 23% of volts - the highest share of any state for both cars. Texas was second. California is much lower than the natural average, texas is adding wind faster than any other state. You can probably get a good approximation just taking the top 5 states in projected plug-in sales and using their mix, then applying the rest to the grid ex these states.

But back on topic, if we are talking about the better plug-in that perspective owner can check on their own grid, and charge when the energy has the cost/ghg/pollutants that they want.

I don't expect that many salivating on the prius will switch to the volt, the volts been out for a long time. Some in California may decide they want a volt now that gas prices are going up, it qualifies for hov, and the real phv's range is out there.

 

drinnovation,

Regional mixes are good enough (as long as grids are not interconnected I suppose).
One can look at the chart I posted in #182 of this thread and find out how he and his neighbors can do with a Volt and with aPrius PHV.
GHG intensity of the mix should include upstream emissions though to be on the same basis as gas emissions include upsteam.

 

The GHG from everything above is based on the Greet/Egrid data. It includes upstream emissions. But Greet/E-grid is, in my view, also quite slow to update and ignores the "co-generation" value which is about 8% of "generator" energy use. The Greet/EGrid mode is based on data from 2005, and our grid is already a lot cleaner with carbon reductions of the past 7 years.

And if one wanted to be more accurate would also look at the regional GHG of the gas, which varies a lot by region -- both because of transport and because of source. RockyMountain refineries do almost all tar-sands-based gas which is horrible compared to california sweet light crude. Tar sands -based petroleum production and use is 15% higher in GHG (wells-to-wheels) than gas from light crude. The difference between a Prius and a PHEV is less than that. Furthermore, over their lifetime, the PHEV will keep getting greener and a Gasser will keep getting dirtier.


Your plots (or a simple formula) allow a comparison given the GHG of the grid, and simple assumptions about driving efficiency. The harder problem is getting a good estimate on GHG from the Grid (and from regional gas).

 

Absolutely correct!

National averages are important when discussing national energy policy. You might want to think twice about offering tax credits for the purchase of electric cars in a region where 100% of the electricity is from an old, highly-polluting, coal-fired plant. But when comparing cars for their impact on the environment, you must take into account the electricity used for the particular car. Drinnovation, in a state with a lot of coal, uses wind power for his car, and Darrell (the EV Nut) gets his electricity from PVs on the roof of his house (as do some others).

You CANNOT assess the car without knowing and taking into consideration the energy source. According to the map above, driving my Tesla Roadster here in WA, in 15,000 miles I'll produce 4,000 fewer pounds of CO2 than I would produce in my Prius. (Because my Roadster, on hydro power, produces no CO2 at all.) The national average, if everyone drove a Tesla, would be very different, due to the regional differences in power generation. But everyone doesn't drive a Tesla. I do, and I drive it here. Likewise the Volt, the Leaf, the (soon to hit the roads) PiP will each be driven at a specific place, not on the "national average" grid.

The national average is important. But not for assessing the impact of any specific car.

 

The map also correlates to population density. You first have to normalize based on population density to get normalized percentages before you can argue that hybrids are more prevalant in areas with a greener electricity generation.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with your point; I just disagree that this particular map supports it.