Featured Hybrid and Alt Fuel Monthly Report (5/15/2016 Issue)

without seeing the numbers, it's hard to make a judgement. we do know that some people are still waiting for their cars, while others have received heavy discounts upon purchasing. i guess any bump from prior year months is acceptable, considering gas prices.
as far as capturing the imagination of the american driving public, i would say the jury is still out.

 

I'd rather see Toyota get to 77% of the market, but increase the total size of the market.
That would be much better than cannibalizing other hybrid sales.

I think the gen4 is fully capable of that, although I haven't driven one myself yet.

 

thanks! doesn't look too bad. should be an interesting summer.

 

There was one small part that 'raised my spidey sense:'

An Edinburgh University study says electric and hybrid cars emit as much pollution as a diesel engine vehicle, however, the emissions are not coming from the tail pipe, Car Keys (McElroy, May 9, 2016) said. Or the power plant smoke stack. Because the cars are heavier than their internal combustion engine counterparts, the brakes and tires work harder and create particulate emissions. The study also found that emissions from brakes and tires are larger than exhaust emissions in all cars, not just hybrids and electrics. ​

The popular press had this: Eco-vehicles fill air with deadly toxins | | The Times & The Sunday Times

Scientists have found electric, hybrid and other supposedly eco-friendly cars produce as much toxic particulate pollution as the “deadly diesels” they are meant to be replacing.

The tiny particles are produced by tyre and brake wear. This happens in all cars, including diesel and petrol, but eco-vehicles produce more because they are heavier, owing to the batteries and other parts needed to propel them. The extra emissions are roughly equal to the particulates saved by reduced engine use.

The added weight of eco-cars means that when they accelerate or slow down, the tyres and brakes wear faster, producing more particulates.
. . .​

To do a proper analysis requires getting a copy: Atmospheric Environment - Journal - Elsevier

The first problem is just a quick review of abstracts shows:

• 'EVs' are 25% heavier
• 'EVs' have harder braking

So the first problem is "atmospheric environment" shows a collection of dodgy claims. One example cited is the Fiat 500e since it has both a gas and battery configuration and was cited by others as the "25%" example. In contrast, we know one kludged EV, one not designed from the start to be an EV, is going to have the worst weight. Worse, they seem oblivious to regenerated braking as something separate from ordinary braking systems. They also claim no diesel weight penalty. Taken alone, a single, $45 paper might be worth the exercise BUT the home page page suggests multiple papers (probably citing a single source) repeating this claim over and over again in 'variations on a theme.'

Regardless, it turns out the "Test Car Database" from epa.gov has the raw information to do a study of weight vs vehicle type analysis … including SUVs and pick-up trucks. <GRINS>

Bob Wilson

 

wow. what if someone gave up their heavier car for an ev?

 

I may have found the paper being misquoted by hybrid and EV skeptics:
Non-exhaust PM emissions from electric vehicles

Non-exhaust PM emissions from electric vehicles

• Victor R.J.H. Timmersa, , ,
• Peter A.J. Achtenb

• a University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK
• b INNAS BV, 15 Nikkelstraat, 4823 AE Breda, Netherlands

Received 5 October 2015, Revised 4 March 2016, Accepted 7 March 2016, Available online 11 March 2016​

It is too common to see those who should know better misquoting or making claims not found in the original paper. Since this paper is behind a 'paywall', it becomes the 'boogie man' oft exploited by little more than propagandists.

A couple of credible citations, not endorsements:

• Green Car Congress: The importance of considering non-exhaust traffic emissions; the role of EVs
  
• Green Car Congress: Study finds total PM10 emissions from EVs equal to those of modern ICEVs; role of weight and non-exhaust PM

The comments in Green Car Congress are pretty much dead on. My favorite, 'moon dust.'

Anytime one sees "percentage" in a report, lock your wallet away as there are 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'. The problem is a purpose-built, hybrid or EV is not going to have the overhead of a gas car that is adapted or 'after thought' modified to be an EV. So the body will not be optimized for the heavy battery pack leading to weight inefficiencies in the 'adopted' body style. But it cuts both ways.

The BMW i3 has no gas equivalent nor does the Tesla. In fact it turns out the BMW i3 is ~250 lbs (~114 kg) lighter than the BMW i3-REx.

Bob Wilson

 

No problem as I'd seen that bogus paper before in Green Car Congress where it was pretty well shredded. So far, I've only found 'favorable' comments in the usual anti-hybrid and anti-EV sites. But laying facts and data in front of those the anti-folks is like trying to teach a pig to sing opera … it won't work and the pig resents it.

This bogus paper is not something I would have brought here and it is just a hitchhiker of a credible report based on Jeff Cobb's Hybridcars.com data. It shows how a bogus report can get inserted in credible reports like making a non-critical citation of the old 'nickel mine like the moon' or 'dust-to-dust lifetime cost' frauds. As Twain once said 'a lie can travel around the world while the truth is just putting its pants on.' But I'd seen it before and tend to swat it as soon as it shows up.

So when I reply about a bogus report is it to provide our friends the facts and data to reply in kind in other forums (or with friends, family, and co-workers.) Having an exception like the BMW i3 lighter than the BMW i3-REx or where is the purpose built Tesla versus the gas version handy makes it easy to reply quickly.

Point out that the cars cited were original gas models with EV retrofitted and not purpose built as an EV. So instead of incorporating the batteries into the frame, they and the power electronics are added on to car that came out as a gas-only. It is like the old Mad magazine article about how a spoon can become a fork; a fork into a knife, and; a knife into a spoon.

Bob Wilson

 

I ran into this on Fuelly. I wouldn't call the paper bogus. It is a literature review and mathematical analysis of that data. That alone doesn't make it a worthy or unworthy paper. The first can reduce the legwork for others doing literature research, and the second can inspire others to get off their butts to do an actual experiment.

The issue we see isn't with the paper, but with others misrepresenting the claims for their agenda. A BEV might have total PM levels close to ICE cars. The Daily Mail article that got me looking into this wanted the reader walking away think all the emissions were equal, and also lump hybrids in with the BEV of the paper.

On to the paper itself, which I luckily can access at work.
The first thing to remember is that it does not look at hybrids or PHEVs.

From Green Car Congress: Study finds total PM10 emissions from EVs equal to those of modern ICEVs; role of weight and non-exhaust PM
A nice graphic summary of what the paper looks at.

Note there is no brake wear bar for the BEV. Without enough data on the amount of PM emitted by regenerative brakes, they went conservative, and assumed it was zero.

The authors admit that looking at the ICE and BEV models can be problematic. It was pointed out here that the i3 REX weighs more than the BEV model, but that is PHEV to BEV. An i3 ICE would gain weight in the engine and transmission area, but likely lose overall without the traction pack. Weight saving technologies in plug ins now will move into ICE and hybrid cars to meet tougher fuel economy regulations.

One of their sources, Road transport: new life cycle inventories for fossil-fuelled passenger cars and non-exhaust emissions in ecoinvent v3 - Online First - Springer, does give non-exhaust PM emission levels as a factor of car weight. I do not possess Bob's table skills for this, but here it is.
Per vehicle kg, units in mg/vkm (vehicle km)

total PM10 PM2.5​

tires 0.05773 0.00408 0.00286
brakes 0.00445 0.00395 0.00174
road 0.00979 0.00490 0.00264
The brake numbers won't apply to regenerative brakes, obviously.

From the paper itself, "Resuspension is caused by the wake of a vehicle, which in turn is determined by the size, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle. Furthermore, heavier vehicles are able to grind down larger particles into smaller, more easily suspended PM. In addition, many heavier vehicles will also be larger, resulting in a larger wake. These factors together should cause increased resuspension."

Now, the paper ignores the size and aerodynamic aspects, and just focus on the weight. This likely because no one seems to have done any work to tease the variables out from each other. So a BEV's resuspension PM is likely going to be lower 'out in the field' than what is presented here. The Model S has better aerodynamics than other vehicles of its weight, and it is also likely smaller than them. Even BEV conversions of ICE models will likely have less. The weight alone may mean an increase, but the weight increase doesn't come with a size increase.

I'll end this with the paper's final concluding paragraph,
"Therefore, EVs are not likely to have a large impact on PM emissions from traffic. Non-exhaust sources account for more than 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from passenger cars, and this proportion is likely to increase in the future as vehicles become heavier. Policy so far has only focused on reducing PM from exhaust emissions. Therefore, future European legislation should set non-exhaust emission standards for all vehicles and introduce standardised measurement methods. In addition, it is recommended that EV technology such as lightweight car bodies and regenerative brakes be applied to ICEVs, and incentives provided for consumers and car manufacturers to switch to less heavy vehicles."

tl;dr
The non-exhaust PM issue is a factor of big, heavy cars, not their drivetrain.

 

I would like to read the paper but my curiosity does not run to $45 when the abstract alone causes grief:

Abstract
Particulate matter (PM) exposure has been linked to adverse health effects by numerous studies. Therefore, governments have been heavily incentivising the market to switch to electric passenger cars in order to reduce air pollution. However, this literature review suggests that electric vehicles may not reduce levels of PM as much as expected, because of their relatively high weight. By analysing the existing literature on non-exhaust emissions of different vehicle categories, this review found that there is a positive relationship between weight and non-exhaust PM emission factors. In addition, electric vehicles (EVs) were found to be 24% heavier than equivalent internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). As a result, total PM10 emissions from EVs were found to be equal to those of modern ICEVs. PM2.5 emissions were only 1–3% lower for EVs compared to modern ICEVs. Therefore, it could be concluded that the increased popularity of electric vehicles will likely not have a great effect on PM levels. Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic. These proportions will continue to increase as exhaust standards improve and average vehicle weight increases. Future policy should consequently focus on setting standards for non-exhaust emissions and encouraging weight reduction of all vehicles to significantly reduce PM emissions from traffic.​

My problems start with:

• 'because of their relatively high weight' - now this would make sense if they'd taken the EPA.gov "Test Car Database" and actually used this as the basis of estimate. But the qualifier 'relatively' suggests at best a weak or snapshot inspection. The one table I've seen searching for the metrics showed just one car with the high ratio. Perhaps you can get a screen shot of their weight table?
• 'In addition, electric vehicles (EVs) were found to be 24% heavier than equivalent internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs).' - again this came from their one table and I have ready access to the "Test Car Database". An incomplete, preliminary mapping suggests diesels weight even more BUT I want to rework my analysis and will share it here.
• 'Future policy should consequently focus on setting standards for non-exhaust emissions and encouraging weight reduction of all vehicles to significantly reduce PM emissions from traffic.' - now I agree with the goal and weight reduction is terribly important. But we are dealing with 'road dirt'. Then there are competing vehicle safety issues. For example, making the cars so they don't crush the occupants means stronger A, B and C piliars for the windshield, door jam, and rear window of cars. But these stronger structures limit visibility leading to more accidents including running over pedestrians in the cross-walk during a turn.

Per vehicle kg, units in mg/vkm (vehicle km)

	source	total	PM10	PM2.5
1	tires	0.05773	0.00408	0.00286
2	brakes	0.00445	0.00395	0.00174
3	road	0.00979	0.00490	0.00264

Always glad to help!

In this we are in total agreement:

tl;dr
The non-exhaust PM issue is a factor of big, heavy cars, not their drivetrain.​

Had they said anything about SUVs and oversized pick-up trucks instead of or along with EVs, the paper would be fine. But they cited EVs and that was wrong.

Bob Wilson

 

You could try emailing Timmers for a copy; the link to his address is on the abstract site.

• You have pushed past my computer skills here. I can down load a PDF or Excel file of the tables, but that doesn't seem to help here.

Comparison of weight between EVs and their ICEV counterparts, based on manufacturer information.

EV, ICEV Mass in running order EV (kg), Mass in running order ICEV (kg), Weight difference (kg), Weight difference (%)
Ford focus electric, Ford focus, 1719, 1500, +219, +14.6
Honda fit EV, Honda fit, 1550, 1215, +335, +27.6
Fiat 500e, Fiat 500, 1427, 1149, +278, +24.2
Smart electric drive coupe, Smart coupe, 1055, 820, +235, +28.7
Kia soul EV, Kia sou,l 1617, 1306, +311, +23.8
Volkswagen e-Up!, Volkswagen Up, 1289, 1004, +284, +28.3
Volkswagen e-golf, Volkswagen golf, 1617, 1390, +227, +16.3
Chevrolet spark EV, Chevrolet spark, 1431, 1104, +327, +28.6
Renault fluence EV, Renault fluence, 1618, 1300, +318, +24.4
But copy and pasting isn't too horrible. Better than I expected.

It is an EU based paper, so you can try the UK car company sites for diesel and petrol weight differences.

Part of their conclusion was suggesting regenerative braking be installed in more ICE cars.
Balancing weight with other goals is part of the challenge for future cars. More study appears to be needed on the amount of resuspension is effected by vehicle class, size, and aerodynamics. Improved aero could help reduce the PM levels from higher weight for instance, but we don't know for sure.
Then some of the road dirt could be the PM from tires, brakes, and exhaust that have settled out of the air. This paper doesn't go into that, but some of their sources might have.

The authors are Europe based. Large SUVs and pick-up trucks aren't much of a thing there. There also isn't any BEV models to look at. The Model X just came out. The Outlander is a PHEV, and isn't large. Neither is the Soul, which might called a SUV by some.

Gotta run, but some of their sources do look at the car vs truck angle.

 

There are two column separators, "|" and ",". So all I did was add the tags in "[" and "]":

• table=head
• /table

	EV	ICEVMass in running order EV (kg)	Mass in running order ICEV (kg)[/B]	Weight difference (kg)	Weight difference (%)[/B]
1	Ford focus electric	Ford focus	1719	1500	+219	+14.6
2	Honda fit EV	Honda fit	1550	1215	+335	+27.6
3	Fiat 500e	Fiat 500	1427	1149	+278	+24.2
4	Smart electric drive coupe	Smart coupe	1055	820	+235	+28.7
5	Kia soul EV	Kia sou	1617	1306	+311	+23.8
6	Volkswagen e-Up!	Volkswagen Up	1289	1004	+284	+28.3
7	Volkswagen e-golf	Volkswagen golf	1617	1390	+227	+16.3
8	Chevrolet spark EV	Chevrolet spark	1431	1104	+327	+28.6
9	Renault fluence EV	Renault fluence	1618	1300	+318	+24.4
10
11	BMW i3 EV	BMW i3-REx	1195	1315	-120	-10.0

Added one they missed that added an engine to the EV. The key a purpose designed, EV can minimize the weight penalty. Just look at the gross weights. The BMW i3 is the second lightest compared to the "Smart" (which isn't.)

Sad, the paper is EU centric yet our usual suspects in North America are quick to exploit-quote.

Bob Wilson

 

This is why Toyota not adding functions and features to the 2016 Prius makes no sense. Anyone who thinks they can stand on yesterday's products is going to lose market share (aka., see Apple 1990s.)

Bob Wilson

 

Preaching to the choir does not grow the church:

• 0-60 times compatible with a Jetta TDI - shame the auto-writers (and folks at a red light)
• 1.5kW inverter - sell to people with unreliable power who do not want to risk CO poisoning, the noise, and tiny fuel tanks. Then show someone rolling the vacuum cleaner to the car and plugging it in. For good measure, plug in an electric chain saw in the woods and 'go to town.' Heck, even a 'field of dreams' scene.
• Tow bar - Prius with a small boat; trailer of home improvement stuff; small couple's trailer, or; trailer with motorcycles or jet skis.
• TSS-P - fixing it in 2017 means losing 2016 sales
• kill the 12V lead-acid battery - this is a 'brain dead' problem and helps the 0-60 times

Bob Wilson