1204 00255 4948
THE POTENTIAL AND IMPACTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES
IN THE DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA '
Urban and Regional Planning University of Colorado, Denver January, 1981
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction............................... 1
II. Electric Vehicles.......................... 7
III. Transportation Demand..................... 26
IV. Electric Utilities........................ 39
V. Impacts................................... 46
VI. Summary................................... 60
VII. Conclusions............................... 62
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Performance Charecteristies Matrix.........14
2. Simulation of Vehicle Usefulness...........28
3. Trip Lengths for U.S.......................30
4. Miles Travelled hy Purpose.................31
5. Pollution "by Vehicles and Power Plants....49
6. Pollution Impacts Table....................50
7. Typical Outdoor Sounds.....................52
American motorists travel 1.5 trillion miles prr year, using over 100 billion gallons of gasoline. About one quarter of our total energy use and over half of our petroleum consumption is for transportation] The rapidly rising price of oil, our precarious position of increasing dependence on foreign oil, and most importantly in the long run the limited world petroleum resources are all well known.
Other large energy requirements have associated with them a series of renewable and non-renewable options. Estimates and predictions as to future costs, potentials, and dangers of various renewable and non-renewable options differ, but these options do exist. Space heating can be provided by solar, geothermal, and electrical energy. Electrical requirements and industrial power can be provided by coal, hydroelectric power, synthetic fuels, and by solar energy with such devices as photovoltaic cells.
Resource options, however, do not presently exist for internal combustion engines, therefore practically speaking do not exist for vehicular transportation. Gasohol may be considered an exception, but even if present gasohol mixtures were substituted for 100% of gasoline use, the petrdeum saving would be only 10%, and other scarce resources would be used to accomplish this.
A switch from internal combustion vehicles to electric powered vehicles opens up new options for fulfilling this energy demand.
In addition to the broader range of non-renewable resource options
for producing electricity, photovoltaic cells and other solar systems offer possibilities of producing electricity using a renewable resource, the sun.
In addition, as will be shown later, the very nature of the kinds of electric vehicles (IV's) we are likely to see available in the near future is energy conservative. EV*s do not travel as fast as internal combustion vehicles and also have limited distance capabilities. These factors force such fuel conservative steps as combining and pre-planning trips.
Two important facts about the Denver Metropolitan Area make it a prime candidate to be somewhat of a pioneer in the introduction of EY's to its transportation fleet. First is the high automobile ownership and use rate per capita in the area, combined with, and largely due to, the inability of mass transportation to serve more than a small percentage of metropolitan transportation demand. It is hoped that mass transit, whether it includes a light rail system or expanded bus service, will serve an increasing percentage of transportation demand, but a 1976 Census report on the Denver area shows that 92% of
all people using a vehicle to commute to work use their own.car 2
or truck. It is certain that private vehicles will continue to account for a majority of this transportation segment for a long time into the future.
The second factor influencing EV development in Denver is the area^ acute air pollution problem, largely caused by internal combustion engines. In the event of continued high use and increased use of internal combustion vehicles, Denver is likely
to reach a "breaking point sooner than other areas due to the pollution factor. In the event of serious national gasoline shortfalls in the future, Denver is also likely to experience a larger than average crisis due to the dependence on conventional, individual transportation.
This study is aimed at examining the potential role of EV's in the transportation future of the Denver Metro Area. The argument that will "be .jnade is that EV's have the capability of satisfying a significant portion of the area's transportation demand, and that in so doing the sum of the impacts on the area would "be positive. In making this argument the study first examines the electric vehicle industry and the capabilities of the products it has produced and will likely produce in the near future. Next it looks at the ability of these EV's to fulfill the transportation demand in the Denver area. Finally it examines the impacts of the introduction of EV's.
Research in this study is limited to 'small vehicles'. This category includes vans, small delivery vehicles, passenger automobiles, and any other four wheeled vehicles. It does not include busses, trucks and other more than four wheeled vehicles.
Capablility assumptions about the EV's are based on present vehicles, vehicle user information, manufacturer specifications, government and private vehicle testing, and also on EV's to ... be produced in the next five years, based on manufacturers' and goveament's EV goals and predictions. The most crucial factor in the capabilities of EV's is the batteries. Some
EV researchers and supporters predict major "battery breakthroughs by using different materials than ones presently being ueed. Future EV capabilities used in this study, however, will assume only the gradual, though fairly rapid, increases in efficiency associated with more manufacturers spending more money on research. It will not assume any rna^jor, revolutionary breakthroughs.
A vitally important area of research which is not within the scope of this study is future fuels to be used for electric power plants or decentralized electrical power production.
The use of present electrical outputs and off-peak excess outputs for EV's is explored and future electric output requirements for certain levels of EV use are quantified. The study does not, however, deal with the problem of how best to increase electrical outputs. So it does not look at, for example, amounts of coal reserves or at different perceptions of the role of nuclear power in our energy future, or at the future cost-competitiveness of photovoltaics for electricity.
Data sources used in this study are in four main areas:
EV characteristics, transportation demand, electric utility data, and emissions data. In the case of EV characteristics all available source categories were used, including user experience, manufacturer specifications, manufacturer tests, government and independent tests, as well as projections from any of the above sources.. All these sources are used to produce a matrix indicating sources of information and vehicle characteristics. From this information comes a description of rep-
resentative vehicles from the present and 1985.
Data on transportation demand is taken from several sources, including Census reports, Colorado Highway Department reports, and other local agency reports. Some national figures are used in cases where local figures were not available and where great accuracy was not important. Travel statistics are from as long ago as 1970 but are assumed to be close enough to present statistics to suffice for the purposes for which they are used.
Electric utility output and peak and non-peak output figures are from Public Service of Colorado. Systems of pricing nonpeak electricity in other cities and associated pricing and output figures are used for comparison.
local emissions data |'s from the Colorado Department of Health. Comparisons of EV emissions versus conventional vehicle emissions are from electric vehicle studies.
The study proceeds as follows. Chapter II summarizes the history of ehctric vehicles, the extent of their present and recent use, the manufacturer and research activity on EV's,
EV urograms and funding sources, and the capabilities of different EV models. The chapter concludes with a choice of representative models to be used for the present and for 1985 projections.
Chapter III summarizes Denver Metro Area travel statistics.
It looks at different aspects of travel demand which can be used to determine the potential role of EV's in meeting transportation demand.
Chapter IV summarizes information on electric outputs, peaks
and projected demands to determine the potential of supplying the electricity needed to charge electric vehicles.
Chapter V provides some examples of different levels of electric vehicle usage, using EV capabilities from Chapter II combined with electricity production capabilities and transportation demand. Specific impacts in areas such as petroleum saved, emissions and noise comparisons with internal combustion vehicles, and costs of power sources, purchases and maintenance are examined for each example of EV usage levels. Other general and long range impacts are also examined.
Chapter VI summarizes the potential of EV use and the impacts of that use.
Chapter VII provides some conclusions.
II ELECTRIC VEHICLES
This electric vehicle description will begin with general descriptions of the vehicles, including their history, related legislation and activities, then moves to more specific EV characteristics, and concludes with a specific representative set of performance characteristics for a present and a 1985 EV.
GENERAL EV DESCRIPTION
The U. S. Department of Energy describes the four basic components of electric vehicles as follows? Several batteries are used to store energy and provide electricity to the motor. A controller controls the flow of energy from the battery to the motor so the driver can adjust speed. A motor converts electrical energy to mechanical energy and transmits it to the wheels of the vehicle. A charger converts and regulates the electricity from an outlet to recharge batteries. The vehicles are generally designed to be plugged into a normal 110 volt home electrical outlet and are typically plugged in for several hours every day for a recharge.
The batteries are the most bulky and the heaviest component, and they provide the key to the capability of the vehicle. Battery research centers on improvement of the power-weight ratio so that more power can be stored in one charge with the least battery mght possible. The conventional lead-acid batteries used presently in EV's have low energy density compared to, for example, a gallon of gasoline. Thus the major
technical disadvantage of EV's when compared to gasoline powered vehicles is that less power per unit of weight is stored in "batteries than in gasoline, so that EV's do not have the speed of acceleration or the ability to travel as far without a recharge (the vehicle's range) as their gasoline powered counterparts. Much EV research centers on either improving energy density of lead-acid batteries or experimenting with such other battery materials as zinc-nickel oxide or sodium-sulfur batteries with the potential of higher weight-power ratios.
The major technical advantages of EV's over gasoline powered vehicles are that they are quiet, almost silent when idling, do not use significant amounts of energy when idling, -do not emit significant levels of pollutants, and of course do not use petroleum.
The Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Quarterly reports that in the year 1900 57 manufacturers in the U.S. produced a total of 4192 automobiles4 Of these, 1688 were powered by steam, 1575 by electricity, and 959 by gasoline. In 1978 the production of electrics was about the same as in 1900 while roughly nine million gas powered cars were produced. In the early 1900's Henry Ford began effectively mass producing gasoline powered vehicles and they quickly dominated the market. This domination has been held through to the present and throughout the world, while gasoline was relatively cheap and plentiful. Electric
vehicle production stopped in the 1920's when Ford's cars were at their peak, ond "battery storage and EV efficiencies could not compete. Oije view of the history of the automobile industry held by EV advocates is that Ford's success and the temporarily plentiful gasoline can be seen as an interruption in the broad natural evolution of small vehicles. This interruption, the argument runs, caused our habits and our land use patterns, most notably in the U.S., to be built for a greater range and speed ability in vehicles than was necessary or could be permanently sustained.
EV production has begun again and the problem is to fit EV's into present tastes and transportation demand factors which are based on the internal combustion engine and on cheap and plentiful gasoline. It is clear that EV's cannot now, or most likely in the near future, replace all gasoline powered vehicles. They are impractical for long trips and for climbing mountains. But they have already been successfully introduced for certain purposes.
The largest present single use of EV's are for "milk floats" in England. Approximately 50,000 EV's are in use for milk deliveries in an ideal use, since they travel relatively short distances on fixed routes. Their quietness is also a big asset for early morning deliveries. The milk floats were introduced in the 1960's and expanded through the 1970's.
The first major introduction of EV's in the U.S was by the Post Office, mainly in Southern California, where 300 electric mail delivery vehicles were introduced in 1975. This is presently the largest U. S. EV fleet and 750 more vehicles have been
ordered for postal delivery.
Legislation directed at spurring EV production and demonstrations dates back in the U.S. only to 1976, when the Electric Vehicle Research, Development and Demonstration Act passed Congress. This act, which passed both houses of Congress over apresidential veto, authorized a federal program to promote EV technology and and to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of EV's. The program, administered by DOE, called for vehicle and battery research and development, development of state-of-the-art data, establishment of performance standards, con tracting for the purchase and lease of EV's, conducting EV demonstrations, prov-iding for loan guaranties, and the use of EV's by federal agencies.
This act.was amended in 1978 to provide for principal as well as loan guaranty assistance. The amendment also established the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Development Fund to carry out the assistance program. The demonstration period was extended through 1986. The amendment called for the procurement of at least 200 vehicles in 1978, 600 in 1979, 1700 in 1980, and 7500 between 1981 and 1984. A 10% tax credit was also given for all EV purchases.
This demand side federal commitment to EV's, the EV Acta... assistance and tax credit, is quite small compared to appropriations for other programs in DOE, including, for example, solar energy, which itself is small compared to what solar advocates
consider justifiable. Given the present range of demand side funding, the federal government can aid EV development but not provide the main impetus.
A 1980 amendment to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is potentially an important supply side step. This amendment adjusted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to allow EV's to be figured in. CAFF standards were placed upon American automobile manufacturers and importers requiring each manufacturer to meet certain specified mpg standards for their fleet averages. The 1980 Amendment allowed manufacturers to add EV's into the computations of their averages as an incentive to produce EV's. A formula was provided giving mpg equivalents for EV's.
On the negative side, for EV advocates, talk of EV commitments was notably absent in reports of Chrysler's loan guaranty hearings and in Chrysler, as well as other manufacturers to a lesser extent, as they embark on major retooling efforts to reorganize their vehicle production. On the positive side, EV programs may be expected to fair better during President Reagan's administration than other 'non-cunventional' energy programs, since one of the leading advocates of EV's in Congress thus far has been Senator McClure, a Republican from Idaho, who has recently become chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.
In Colorado, in 1980, a bill passed which exempted purchases of EV's from sales tax, licensing fees and registration, a significant savings for EV purchasers.
CURRENT EV ACTIVITY
News has estimated recent EV sales to "be as follows:
Vehicle type 1976 1977 1978 1979
Factory passenger cars 1680 400 400 700
Hobbyist passenger cars 900 1100 1000 1200
Vans under 1000 lb. load 450 600 700 740
Total 3030 2100 2100 2640
The breakdown of the numbers of the above being used in private fleets, public fleets, by individuals, or as demonstrations is not available. Neither is a breakdown of which companies are producing how many of the above. The producers range from such large corporations as General Electric and Briggs and Stratton producing demonstrating vehicles to the larger new EV production specialists such as Gould Corp. in California, which has supplied vehicles to the Post Office, to the smaller EV specialists, such as Unique Mobility in Englewood, Colorado.
A large impetus behind EV purchases among both public and private fleets has been the DOE's Electric Vehicle program. In 1978, in the first round of DOE's private sector demonstration AT&T, Consolidated Edison of N.Y., E/HV Distributors Inc., Long Island Lighting Co., and Walt Disney World Co. added a total of approximately 100 EV's to their fleets. In 1979 round two of these private sector grants added 190 EV's to seven private fleets. In addition, beginning in 1978, DOE has been purchasing demnstration vehicles from small and large EV manufacturers for testing and
The DOE also has "been sponsoring EV demonstrations for federal agencies, and for state and local government agencies beginning in 1980. Locally, DOE has sponsored the Denver/Lakewood Electric Vehicle Demonstration Program. This program is to include ten EV's in Denver to be used by the Parking Control and Safety Division within the Denver Police Department and five electric pick-ups used by Lakewood maintenance operations.
Page 14 is an EV performance characteristic matrix.^ It contains a compilation of available information on 15 important capability characteristics. A total of 23 vehicles are included. The first seven vehicles' data is based on user experience. In the cases of the Long Island Lighting Co. (LILCO), the U.S. Post Office, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), this data is collected by the agency on the performance of EV's used in their transportation fleets. In the cases of four vehicles purchased by the DOE the information is based on DOE performance testing.
Next on the matrix are ten vehicles for which data is based on manufacturer specifications, the manufacturers' statements describing the vehicle and its capabilities. Next, eight vehicles are listed for which data is based on manufacturers' predictions or goals for EV's they can produce. These goals range from 1980 to 1985.
For the entire matrix, roughly half of the information was
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS MATRIX
readily available. For each of the 23 vehicles enough information is provided to at least get a feel for its capabilities.
The most crucial characteristic for determining an EV's ability to satisfy a given demand is certainly it's range, and no vehicle was used for which the effective range was not available.
likewise in each performance category, information was available for enough of the vehicles to give a picture of the state-of-the-art and predicted values.
Reading across the categories at the top of the matrix, column one states whether the information is based on experience, specifications, or goals.
Column two gives the effective range. This distance refers to distance the EV can go on a full charge, which in normal use may be interpreted at the distance the vehicle will go in a day.
For the first two sources, 1I1C0 and the Post Office, the range figure given is the average distance travelled daily, so these distances reflect something less than the maximum range.
The use of the phrase effective range' indicates that the distances used describe range at normal, not optimal, driving conditions. Generally the cars are intended for urban use so the listed effective range includes stop-and-go traffic. Ranges at the car's best cruising speed would naturally be somewhat higher.
In some cases a range of effective ranges is given on the matrix. Some of the factors that would account for a higher or lower range include terrain (severe uphill grades would decrease effective range), temperature (colder weather generally decreases range), and driving habits (greater deviations from optimal cruising
speeds tend to lessen the range, whether stop-and-go conditions or at high speeds). All range figures once again reflect the range from a full charge. So if, for example, a commuter were able to plug his or her EV into an outlet while at work, the car's effective range could be increased.
Another factor to be considered in discussion of EV ranges is how close a driver may want to come to using the maximum range and still feel secure that they will have ample power to get back home. Commuters and delivery drivers who have regular routes have measured travel distances, while drivers using vehicles for shopping, recreational trips and so on travel less well measured distances. Instruments are available in EV*s to show the power left, similar to gas guages in conventional vehicles. The difference is that in a conventional car the driver can pull into a gas station and refuel immediately, while an EV driver would need to find an electrical outlet, and recharging would take up to several hours. All this brings up the point that EV users need to be more aware of trip planning and of distances to and from destinations. It is assumed that once users become comfortable with the effective range of their vehicles, they will become comfortable with using near to the full effective range.
In cases where a range of effective ranges is listed, the lower end of the range would seem most appropriate to use, since a commuter, for example, needs to drive to work in winter as well as in summer, and in heavy traffic as well as in light traffic.
The conditions for single figure effective ranges are not all
spelled out. Most claim to be conservative. Those that state traffic conditions all use urban conditions. The DOE uses ranges at 25 degrees centigrade: others do not specify temperature. Due to some of these variations, for settling on a range figure to use for current EV technology and for a 1985 predicted figure, the ranges that are significantly higher than others are given... less consideration than the lower ranges. A figure of 35 miles will be used for present EV range. A range of 75 miles is used for 1985 based on goals of near or above that for vehicles to be produced by that date. Gulf and Westerns well publici-zed prediction of a 150 mile range by 1983-1984- seems quite possible based on preliminary research on zinc-chloride batteries, but this prediction must go in the category of revolutionary battery developments which this study will not assume.
William Hamilton of the General Research Corporation in Santa Barbara has projected EV characteristics by parametric models based on past developments/ He concluded that future ranges would go up to 150 kilometers (about 90 miles) for improved lead-acid batteries and 250 kilometers (150 miles) and 450 kilometers (270 miles) for nickel-zinc and lithium-sulfur batteries respectively. This 90 mile range prediction for some time in the future is in line with the 75 mile 1985 figure used here for lead-acid batteries. The higher ranges for the other batteries are promising predictions, but again are probably farther into the future and use battery materials for which obstacles such as high operating temperatures will need to be tackled.
Column three on the matrix gives the top speed. Range is
generally lowbf-ec[ "by prolonged operation at this speed. The maximum speed, however, is important for occasional or short trips or for highway tripB in which the driver is not concerned with optimizing range. The top speed may also "be important for passing or for safety in traffic. For our sample present FV 45 mph will he used as the top speed for 1985 and for 1985 55 mph will he used. These quantitative values are not as important in this case as the descriptive label for hoth present and future EV samples as being highway safe. This label is based not only on speed capabilities but also on the fact that vehicles with these top speeds have been tested and licensed throughout the U.S., meaning that they have met the same safety requirements as internal combustion vehicles.
Cruising speed, column four on the matrix, was not availble for many vehicles. It is listed only to give an idea of the speeds which optimize range and the vehicle's most comfortable range of speeds. A 1980 figure of 40 mph and 45 in 1985 will be used. In both cases the cruising speed is sufficient to allow for keeping up with traffic in a great majority of urban streets.
Speed at 10% grade, column five, again was not available for most of the vehicles. Postal vans were tested at 10% and this test is also part of the DOE EV testing procedure. This is of course a very high grade and is very unusual. Present and 1985 speeds of 15 to 20 mph at this grade indicates that they could probabl climb any hill that would be encountered in urban driving, and probably in all driving. It is important to note, however, that hill climbing at high grades may take a significant amount of the
stored power, thus driving in rugged terrain would severely reduce ranges.
Columns six and seven are weights with full load and without load. It is not important to provide here a sample EV weight.
More important is the observation that can be made by comparing those vehicles with weight figures with their ranges and speed capabilities. This comparison demonstrates that, at least according to this sample, there is no correlation between weight and the other factors. The larger and heavier EV's have larger battery storage capacities (usually more batteries), so that those with weights and sizes around those of accustomed vehicles have similar performance characteristics to the smaller ones.
Column eight should be considered in a similar way. This category refers to the manufacturer's designation of the vehicles as being for commercial, passenger or both uses. In itself this category probably does not provide a crucial distinction because it may not be based on anything more than how certain interior or exterior features are designed or customized. An examination of the matrix shows that the commercial-passenger designation does not correlate with other key performance characteristics either.
Column nine, the number of passengers, is listed mainly in order to emphasize that EV passenger cars being produced and planned are small cars. Their seating capacities are either two or four passengers, not five or six for any of those listing seating capacity. Our sample vehicle will hae a seating cap-
acity of four for both the present and 1985* It is assumed that two-passenger cars will be continued to be produced but that four-passenger vehicles will be more prevalent. Since that is the case it can be further assumed that purchasers who choose a two-passenger model will do so because it suits their driving needs, and therefore that the seating capacity will only be a limited constraint in EV use. Chapter III will look more closely at vehicle occupancy statistics and seating capacities.
The next characteristic is battery life, and this figure was available for only three models. In these three cases each was expressed in a different unit: 2 years, 30,000 miles, and 1/3 the life of the car. Replacement of batteries is the largest normal maintenance cost in EV's. The three figures mentioned above are not sufficient to form any sort of sample, especially since two of the three are future projections. All three do indicate that this major expense will come up predictably every few years.
In the battery type category, only Gulf-Western, which makes the boldest predictions on future capabilities, is specifically considering a battery other than lead-acid. Others in the matrix which do not specify battery type are presumed to be lead-acid.
The sample vehicle used here for present and 1985 use lead-acid batteries.
Column 12 gives the vehicle's energy consumption in Kilowatt-hours per mile (KwH/mi). This figure will be useful in determining operating costs, impacts on public utilities of EV use, and
in energy consumption comparisons with conventional vehicles.
The four vehicles for which this figure was available, including two based on user information, are all close together around 1.0 KwH/mi and this figure will be used for both present and 1985 estimates. Of the four vehicles for which energy consumption is reported two are commercial in use and the other two are based partially on user experience and are comparatively large vehicles. This 1.0 KwH/mi figure, then, reasonably shows energy consumption of vehicles that will be used for various purposes. Smaller EV's would likeÂ£ have lower energy consumption rates, in fact the unit that is sometimes used for EV energy consumption is KwH/mile-pound.
The charging time is the estimate of how long it takes to fully charge an EV from a state of less than 20^ charge. Estimates for lead-acid batteries range from 8 to 12 hours, with 8 to 10 being the more common estimate, and the one we use here.
Charging systems indicate the voltage of the electrical outlet which the vehicle is designed to be plugged into. Three of the four vehicles for which charging system is stated may be plugged into normal home outlets of 110 volts or 120 volts. Postal vehicles require 240 or 480 volt outlets. It may be assumed that since three of the four could be plugged into home outlets and that there will be a range of options available in vehicle's charging systems, that purchasers of EV's will not have trouble finding a vehicle whose charging system is compatible to their electrical outlets. Commercial establishments or fleet garages that have larger voltages available may use vehicles designed for
higher voltages. EV producers would presumably supply vehicles that would meet the requirements of their prospective buyers.
The final column on the matrix is the matter of cost. The Figures listed are simply the purchase costs. Present costs were available for only two models and are $13,000 and $25*000. Three DOE contractor's goals for the end of 1980 ranged from $7,000 to $18,000. A 'sample' price will not be provided here, due to the lack of sufficient price information and to the wide variation in the few prices that are listed. Prices also can be expected to vary depending upon the size of the purchase (one vehicle versus a fleet contract to provide several vehicles) and also depending upon government support and tax incentives that can be used.
There is no doubt that the purchase price of EV's is greater than for conventional vehicles. A more mature EV industry should be able to produce EV's for substantially less than present costs. It remains to be seen whether purchase costs
for EV's can ever be brought down to the level of comparable conventional vehicles without the mass production techniques which are the hallmark of the automobile industry. It further remains to be seen whether a mass produced conventional vehicle, as some EV advocates contend, would actually cost more than a mass produced EV, based on EV's having fewer mechanical parts.
The other main component of the cost of a vehicle is the operating cost, or per/mile cost. This includes fuel costs and maintenance costs (including battery replacements). Fuel costs of electricity versus gasoline will be examined in Chapter IV
"but it can be stated here that based on present costs per mile fuel costs are lower for electrics than for gasoline powered vehicles.
Although maintenance cost analysis is not available for electtics, it is the unanimous contention of EV manufacturers that EV maintenance will be cheaper than conventional vehicle maintenance Electronic analyzers which cost in the neighborhood of $200 to $300 are available to service stations and provide the capability of diagnosing problems in the electrical systems, batteries, motors, and controllers. Mechanics have been and more will be trained to repair electric vehicles by the manufacturers. General Electric reports to have presented an EV training course to some 10,000 persons already, althou^most of them are in the industrial market. It is expected that large fleet purchasers of EV's will develop the ability to maintain their own vehicles to a large extent. Individual purchasers, before a large EV maintenance infrastructure is in place, may need to use the producer or dealer for repairs and maintenance, or may use a few service shops that have worked with local manufacturers to equip themselves with the materials and know-how to repair electrics. Increased EV sales will make it increasingly attractive for more repair shops to enter the EV repair market.
It is clear that the total costs of EV's are presently greater than for conventional vehicles in most cases. Something of a 'chicken and egg' problem may exist for cutting the price of EV's, in that for prices to be minimized manufacturers need to mass produce EV's thereby expanding the market. Manufacturers, however, have been unable or unwilling to produce
EV's in such large quantities until the market has been well established. Government funding can play a part in speeding up this process but funding levels have been relatively low thus far.
The obstacles to a speedy cost-competitiveness notwithstanding, the future trends toward this cost-competitiveness are positive.
If gasoline prices continue to rise at a faster rate than electric costs, then the per mile fuel costs of EV's will become even cheaper compared to gasoline powered costs. An increasingly better maintenance infrastructure and improved repair techniques will continue *o reduce maintenance costs of EV's. More producers, more experienced .producers, and increasingly mass produced EV's will get cheaper and cheaper over time. These cost trends all lead to an eventual closing of the cost gaps and potentially a crossing of the two cost curves.
Summarizing the characteristic profile of a 1980 EV:
range: 35 miles
top speed: 45 mph
cruising speed: 40mph
speed at 10% grade: 15 to 20 mph
weight, use category, passenger capacity: variable and
not correlated to range and speed
battery life: a few years
battery type: lead-acid
energy consumption: 1.0 KwH/mi
charging time: 8 to 10 hours
charging system: available for user's outlet
The characteristic profile of a 1985 EV:
range: 75 miles
top speed: 55 mph
cruising speed: 45 mph
6peed at 10% grade: 15 to 20 mph
weight, use category, passenger capacity: variable
and not correlated to range and speed
battery life: a few years
battery type: lead-acid
energy consumption: 1.0 KwH/mi
charging time: 8 to 10 hours
charging system: available for user's outlet
This description should provide a good picture of the nature of EV's. fhey clearly do not match conventional vehicles in several performance characteristics, but in the next three chapters we will see that they can satisfy large portions of the Denver area's transportation demand.
III TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
Having described the capabilities of electric vehicles, we can now see how these vehicles can fit into the Denver Metro transportation picture. Data is not available for the metro area which gives the numbers of vehicles which travel under a certain number of miles on a certain number of days.
If a survey of this nature were done it would approximate the number of vehicles that could be replaced by electrics based on present use. Even if such data were available:,, however, only an approximation could be drawn from it. There would still be the question of whether a driver who drives within the EV's range on, for example, 95% of the days of the year would be willing to rent a gas powered car for the other 5% or else would be willing to forego these longer trips, or could substitute another form of transportation. There would also be the question of whether a two or three car household could shift its automobile usage so that one limited range vehicle could be used. Furthermore, the entire transportation demand picture is certain to be dependent upon the unpredictable price of gasoline in the future. We can see that even with a survey done on the transportation demand relative to EV range, the potential role of EV's would still be an estimate.
Short of such a survey, all we can do is look at estimates of EV potential made elsewhere, piece together relevant available local data, and make some plausible observations and estimates on Denver Metro Area transportation demand.
A good starting point is the estimate made by William
Hamilton based on studies of urban driving in Los Angeles
and Washington. He was looking for an EV range that could satisfy 95% of the driving days of different driver categories.
He concluded that a range of 75 km (45 miles) could suffice for 95% of the days for a category he calls secondary drivers, meaning drivers reporting least driving in a more than one driver household. At single driver households a 150 km (90 miles) range would suffice for travel in 95% of the driving days. A range of 220 km (132 miles) would be required for 95% of the days for primary drivers, or drivers reporting the most driving in a multi-driver household. Among all households, Hamilton found that over 60% reported one or more trip beyond what he called the future range of EV's (over 220 km) per year. The average number of these long trips among all households with cars was five per year.
A similar study by H.J. Schwartz is based on a 1969 Federal Highway Administration study on American driving habitsHe took a daily average of motor vehicle miles driven and applied a Monte Carlo Simulation technique to estimate the numbers
of days in which certain mi-Lftaga.ranges would suffice. His "simulation of daily usefulness as a function of daily range"
is shown on page 28. This simulation differs from Hamilton's in that it does not break the usefulness into driver categories. Both are similar in that they find a percent of EV usefulness for a pool of driving days among large groups of drivers. This
60 &J ITj MILES/DAY
100 1 60 <00 KILOMETERS/DAY
Simulation of vehicle usefulness as a function of daily range. Courtesy H. J. Schwartz
Figure 2 _<
is a limitation in these studies. Put another way, they say that 95%, in the case of Hamilton's study, of all secondary driving days can he accomplished with a certain range, not that 95% of all secondary drivers could use EV* s for 95% or more of their driving days.
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION LATA
A 1976 Census Department housing survey for the Denver SMSA gives the following breakdown of households with different numbers of vehicles:11
Numbers of vehicles
three or more
Rearranging this data by number of vehicles in each category, we see that there are:
234,400 vehicles at single vehicle households 215,000 primary vehicles at multi-vehicle households 268,000+ secondary vehicles, the '+' being all fourth, fifth, etc. vehicles, which is not known.
A 1978 Bureau of Census report entitled Selected Characteristics of Travel to Work in 20 Metropolitan Areas provides some information on commuter trips in the Denver area. This report first breaks down the commuting mode of the 568,000 workers who use a vehicle to get to work, along with travel distances in miles:
Mode Number Percent Median Di
ising a vehicle 568,000 100 8.0
auto 439,000 77 8.1
truck 83,000 15 8.8
auto and truck 523,000 92 8.2
drives alone 416,000 73 7.9
carpool 104,000 18 9.4
public transportation 32,000 6 7.8
The most notably, fact to be drawn from the above table is the small variation in median travel distances between various modes. The latest available breakdown of vehicles on Denver Metro
roads was an Economic Analysis Report prepared for RTD use in 1 P
1975. It listed the number of vehicles as follows:
passenger 793,972 government 168,205 metro commercial* 3,262 farm vehicles 6,84-6 semi-trailers 77,549 motorcycles 43,785 mobile homes 19,535
*refers to commercial vehicles required to stay within ten miles of the metro area
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION DATA
The following table from a study by the Federal Highway Administration describes passenger vehicle trips for Americans in 1969 by trip length.1 ^ It is useful not only to get a handle on the distribution of trip lengths but also to demonstrate the typical amount of time a driver spends in a car at one time.
Trip length (miles) % of annual trips % of annual miles
under 5 54.1 11.1
5-9 19.6 13.8
10-15 13.8 18.7
16-20 4.3 9.1
21-30 4.0 11.8
31-40 1.6 6.6
41-50 0.8 4.3
51-99 1.0 7.6
100 and over 0.8 17.0
More useful for looking at vehicle usage hy households is
another 1969 Federal Highway Administration report. It should be noted that these figures are for household driving and not listed on a per-vehicle basis. The figures pertain to incorporated places with populations of 100,000 to 999,999:
Purpose Daily Vehicle Miles per Household
Darning a living
To work 8.3
Belated business 2.1
Medical and dental 0.2
Other family business 2.4
Educational, civic, religious 1.2
Social and recreational
Visit friends and relatives 3.4
Pleasure rides 1.0
Other and unknown 0.2
All purposes 25.8
Earning a living 10.4
Not earning a living 15.4
Finally, a 1972 Census Bureau report shows the average daily
mileage of cars in one, two, and three or more car households:
One car household 29.8 miles
Two car household 32.9 miles
Three car households 35.1 miles
It should he emphasized that, unlike the previous table, the
above mileage figures refer to miles traveled by a vehicle in
each household category, not the number of vehicle miles in the
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND SUMMARY
The 1972 Census report jutt quoted lists daily vehicle averages at 29.8, 32.9, and 35.1 miles per vehicle for one, two, and three vehicle households. These figures are fairly well in line with those used by Schwartz in his daily usefulness simulation. He based his simulation on a 27.9 national figure and a 28.2 Los Angeles figure, the same ones used as starting points for Hamilton's study. Local figures of average veh-icleuse were not available, however the 1978 Census report on Denver area commuting distances shows them to be in line with national*averages. If commuting patterns are taken to be reliable indications of total driving patterns then both the Schwartz and Hamilton studies, which are derived from national, Washington, and Los Angeles travel data, are reasonable indicators for Denver. Both these studies are recent (1978 and 1980) and have similar results. The middle category used by Hamilton,
single driver households, corresponds to the 95% usefulness in Schwartz's simulation at 90 miles range. Based on the facts that these two studies are in line with each other, that they are Both recent, that no available local data provides a reason to doubt that local simulations would be similar, and that local data necessary to provide simulations as accurate as these is not available, the Hamilton and Schwartz studies will be used here as a basis for developing local estimates.
Using Schwartz's usefulness curve and our 1980 range estimate of 35 miles, we find an estimate of 75% usefulness. This 35 mile range ; :* exceeds the average daily mileage and thus accounts for the estimated 75% of all driving days. This means that roughly half of all vehicles are used for less than 35 miles on 75% of all days, while roughly half are used for less than 35 miles on fewer than 75% of all days. With the assumption that 75% usefulness is too low for switching to an EV without significant adjustments in driving habits, we see that well under half of all vehicles could be substituted for
by EV's at 35 mile range.
Hamilton's stratified study identifies secondary vehicles in multi-vehicle households as the group needing the least range.
Since he uses 95% effectiveness as his constant with EV range as the variable, his report does not provide an effectiveness figure for a range of 35 miles. This study identifies 45 miles as the range necessary to satisfy 95% of all driving days in the secondary vehicle category. This indicates that roughly half of all vehicles in this secondary category would have 95% of their
driving days satisfied "by a 45 mile range. A 35 mile range would "be 95% effective for much less than half of the vehicles in this category.
Using the usefulness curve from Schwartz's study with our 1985 range estimate of 75 miles we find that a figure of 95% usefulness corresponds. Hamilton's ranges for 95% effectiveness for secondary, only, and primary vehicles once again ar*45, 90, and 132 miles.
This indicates that most of the secondary vehicles could "be replaced with our sample 1985 EV range, while a minority of only vehicles arid a smaller minority of primary vehicles could "be replaced at 95% effectiveness.
For the purpose of further analysis with regard to electrical requirements and to impacts it is useful to arrive at a ballpark figure for numbers of vehicles that could be replaced by EV's with only moderate adjustments in vehicle use. These estimates should not be strictly regarded as conclusions of this chapter but instead as a reasonable basis for some further analysis.
This chapter is aimed at presenting the best data that is available for getting at EV demand, pointing out the data that would be useful for more accurate estimates, and bringing up some of the transportation demand issues that are crucial to discussing IV demand.
In 1980 with EV's having effective ranges of 35 miles an estimated 25% of all secondary vehicles, 10% of only vehicles and 5% of primary vehicles could be substituted for by EV's. This would be about 101,000 vehicles or 14% of all vehicles.
In 1985 with EV's having an effective range of 75 miles an
estimated 90% of all secondary vehicles, 40% of all only vehicles, and 10% of all primary vehicles could be substituted for by EV's. This would be about 355,000 vehicles or 49% of all vehicles.
OTHER TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Since EV's presently and probably well into the future will be undersized compared to some of the more accustomed passenger vehicles and passenger capacity may be viewed as a factor in IV purchases, vehicle occupancy figures may be worthwhile to look at. It should be borne in mind that these figures do not say anything about cargo space needed in passenger vehicles or about people's perception of their space needs. According to a 1979 study by the Colorado Highway Department the mean occupancy for vehicles during peak hours is 1.24, during non-peak hours is 1.51 and combined is 1.32 for the City of DenverJ^This would indicate that the infrequency of trips with 5 or 6 passengers is great. This, combined with the trend toward smaller cars exhibited in recent years, allow for a moderated view of the size of EV's as a factor in EV demand.
Another transportation issue which is important as it relates to comments which will be made in Chapter^on peak and non-peak electrical use is the hours of the day at which travel occurs. Based on a 1972 analysis by the U.S Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Commission of a sample of eight cities across the U.S., the percent of total travel
occuring during daily time periods is as follower 1 ^
12 p.m. 5 a.m 5-9 a.m.
9 a.m. 2 p.m.
2-8 p.m. 8-12 p.m.
Adding the evening and early morning percentages together, there is a nine hour period between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m. during which between 10 and 14% of all travel occurs. This indicates that a large majority of potential SY users would want to charge their cars during these hours, which we will see coincides with non-peak hours for electrical use.
The final two transportation issues to be dealt with relate to the early spread of EV's and EV demand. The first point is one that is often brought up in reference to purchase of new and developing products. In the early stages of the diffusion of new products it is important that there be pioneers who, due to various motivations, use the product. These pioneers are a key part of the cycle of increasing market demand creating increasing research and production creating an increased market, etc. One obstacle for these pioneers is often the expectation that on early purchase of the product is unwise when the choice is waiting until the product is perfected further. In the case of EV purchases potential pioneers may feel that the range of presently available EV's would restrict their utility, whereas if they waited a few years an improved battery could improve the
range. This is where EV's differ from such other products as color television, calculators, and solar devices for which thiB argument has been put forth. The batteries being predominantly the area in which EV improvement will take place, and the batteries being replacable, and in fact needing replacement every few years, lead to the conclusion that investment in EV's
is unlikely to be wasted in a comparable way to the other products
mentioned for pioneers.
The final point here deals with who the early purchasers and users of EV's can be. For a number of reasons, logical early users are some of the larger public and private transportation
fleets in the area. The first reason is that large organizations
can more easily make^-the large initial investment and more easily - absorb a possible monetary loss associated with a new technology.
Second is that a fleet is likely to have the ability to be flexible enough to fix certain routes that will be suited to limited range vehicles. Thirdly there is the ability of fleets to monitor the early use of EV's to provide valuable information for producers and future users. For many fleets much of the monitoring system that would be helpful, such as maintenance, fuel consumption, life-cycle costing, and so on, is already in place. Also in the early stages of EV use it is desirable to have several EV's in use in the same place to help establish the necessary maintenance infrastructure. Fleets also in many cases have advantages in utilizing government assistance programs. Lastly, vehicles that are part of a delivery or maintenance fleet, whether with a public or private organization, are likely to be more visible to the [ public than personally owned vehicles.
Nationally, the U.S. Post Office has reported that 29% of
its routes could he handled hy present technology EV's and
56% could he handled if IV capabilities were doubled. A
local postal official reports that these figures are also
reasonable for Denver area routes. AT&T has reported that
20,000 of its 180,000 vehicles nationally could be substituted
for with present technology EV's and another 20,000 could be
added with only modest improvements/* 9 in the metro area, Mountain
Bell reports that 7 to 8% of its fleet could be served by 20
present EV's. Most other fleets contacted feel that a significant portion of their fleets could be served by present EV's
IV ELECTRIC UTILITIES
This chapter deals with the ability of electric power producers to supply electricity for EV's. Electric power producers see a consistent pattern of daily peak demands occurring during daytime hours and lesser demand being exhibited during evening hours. Since most EV' s would be plugged in and charged at night, EV's would not affect the peak electrical demand nearly as much as they would close the gap between peak and non-peak demand.
PSC PEAK AND NON-PEAK DEMAND, CAPACITY
Public Service Company of Colorado's state-wide electrical production capacity is 2,619,000Kw. The typical differential between the daily peak demand and the evening non-peak demand is between 200,000 and 400,000Kw. Of this capacity about
1,600,000Kw is used in the Denver area. A proportional peak-non-peak differential in the Denver area is 120,000-240,OOOKw. Since PSC capacity is based on peak demand for the year, the
120-240Kw differential would be the minimum amount of excess
capacity for the nightly non-peak demand.
Using our figure of 1Kwh per EV mile and assuming an eight hour charging period and an average daily mileage of 24 miles, a typical EV would use 3Kw while charging. With a 120,000 to 240,OOOKw excess capacity, 40,000-80,000 vehicles could be charged at 3Kw each without expanding the systenls capacity.
Our 1985 estimate is also 1Kwh per EV mile and an eight hour
charging period is still used. PSC projects a 3-5% yearly increase in electrical demand and a similar increase in capacity, so that excess capacity should not he changed radically hy 1985^ The greater EV range assumed for 1985 would increase the mileage figures for the typical EV, hut the doubled range would surely not result in a doubled usage per vehicle. It seems likely that EV mileage, even with a 75 mile range, would not exceed the average daily vehicle mileage for all vehicles. This average is presently about 30 miles and should not change significantly by 1985. Using 30 miles as average EV usage, and keeping Excess electrical capacity constant, the number of vehicles that could be charged with excess capacity in 1985 would be reduced to 32,000-64-,000.
A brief explanation is in order of what producing this excess capa city electricity means for PSC facilities. PSC estimates that the cost differential of supplying a Kwh during a daily non-peak versus a daily peak is 20?Â£p The main reason for the greater cost of producing a non-peak Kwh is that power plant's fixed costs are being used to produce less Kws.
The plant itself, labor, administrative costs, and other fixed costs would not change appreciably were non-peak production to increase. In addition, power plants operate more efficiently near full capacity. Due to different operating temperatures, a plant at full load is estimated to require 11,000BTU's to supply a Kwh of electricity, while 14,000BTU's is needed to supply a Kwh at half load?^ The ratio between the amount of raw material
(whether coal, gas, oil or hydro-electric power) and ETU's remains constant, so that more Kwh's are produced by a given unit of raw material at full load than at less than full load.
PSC charges an average of 4-50 per Kwh. Residential customers presently pay $1.97 a month for the first 30 Kwh's, 5.10 each for the next 70 Kwh's and 4.20 for the next 900 Kwh's. Commercial customers have one of two rate schemes. Most of the smaller electricity users operate under a similar system where each succeeding Kwh costs less, ranging from 6.20 to 3.40. The larger commercial customers may opt for a scheme which charges them less for each Kwh but which has an added charge for that customer's peak demand in that month. There is a 1.50 charge per Kwh and $6.99 per Kw peak demand.
For customers in each of the above categories the cost of the electricity for charging EV's would tend to be less than the overall system average of 4-50. Most customers in the peak demand commercial category would not be expected to increase their demand proportionally to their Kwh usage with EV's being charged at night, so that their total electrical costs would not increase proportionally. This means that their costs per Kwh for charging EV's would be less than their present per Kwh cost. For the other categories of commercial and residential customers, Kwh costs for EV charging would also be
less than present per Kwh costs since the rate structures are designed for each succeeding Kwh to cost less than the previous one.
Several electric companies across the U.S. have in effect time-of-day electricity rates, where meters are designed to count off peak Kwh's seperately and a lower charge is placed on non-peak electricity, PSC has no plans presently to offer time-of-day rates because the cost of new meters to accomplish this would be too high to be justified by the benefits gained by the off-peak incentive. It should be noted that several other electric companies have much larger peak-non-peak differentials than PSC (Southern California's is 16% compared to less than 10% for PSC)?5 Only one utility company, Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) in Washington, D.C., has introduced a special rate schedule for EY users. A special metering device is installed which measures electricity at the point of service for EV's. The charge for this rate is 20 per Kwh plus a $3.00 monthly service charge.
The only cost-benefit analysis available from the point of view of the electric company was done by Consolidated Edison of New York?^ They determined that 250,000 EV's being charged in their system would result in a net increase in revenues to them so that the last increase in rate could have been 6.2% rather than the actual 6.5% increase for all customers. This is the case despite the fact that Con Ed has a time-of-day rate structure, meaning that EV customers would be paying lower rates
for nighttime charging.
Two cautions should "be added to this utility analysis.
First is that it is predicated on the assumption that EV's will be charged at night. Chapter three provided a demonstration of the small amount of travel at night and early morning, but there will still be a minority of EV users who would charge their vehicles during daytime hours. Time-of-day rates would act as a further incentive to charge EV's during non-peak hours.
The second caution is that as home solar heating increases, nighttime peaks may tend to close in on daytime peaks due to conventional back-up heating requirements at night on occasions. The same would be true in the farther future were home photo-voltaics to be used. In this case back-up electricity from the utility would be required more frequently at night.
OTHER ELECTRICITY ISSUES
The remaining factor determining the ability of someone to use an EV is the availablility of an outlet to it into.
There have been no studies done which determine the number of households which have an outdoor outlet or an indoor outlet which could be used to plug in an EV' The 1976 Census Department Survey of Housing for the Denver SMSA provides the best information which can be used to guess at the availability of outlets. This survey breaks down the 54-9*000 housing units by number of units in the building:
1 unit, detached 318,700
1 unit, attached 30,400
2 to 4 unite 44,200
5 or more unite 139000
mobile homes 12,500
Certainly a majority, estimated here to he 85% of the single family detached homes should have an outlet and a place to park a charging EV. Perhaps 25% of all others would have charging facilities. This is an estimate based on many duplexes and triplexes having one or more such available spots, some mobile homes having such a usable outlet, and an occasional larger apartment building having indoor parking facilities with some available outlets.
The best available indication of which of these categories is more likely to fit the transportation demand categories for EV's is from the same census report. This report separates owner occupied and renter occupied housing units, and looks at the distance traveled to work of the head-of-household :
Travel distance % of owner occupied % of renter occupied
0-1 mile 4 13
1-4 ipiles 26 34
5-9 miles 24 22
10-29 miles 444 29
30+ miles 2
It is not known what percentages of the above categories drive to work or use public transportation, and of course the table says nothing about non-commuter travel. The 47% figure among owner occupied households versus 31% among renter occupied in the categories above 10 miles does indicate that owner occupied households are probably less likely to be in transportation demand situations favorable to EV use. Much, if not all, of this discrepancy may be made up for by a greater likelihood of owner occupied homes having second and third vehicles. We will treat these two factors, greater commuter distances and greater likelihood to have more than one vehicle, as counterbalancing factors. That leaves the estimates made on page 44 for units by building size as best estimates. These estimates add up to 60% of all households having available outlets for plugging in EV's.
Based on our transportation demand estimates, 14% of all vehicles in 1980 and 49% in 1985 could be EV's. If 60% of the car owners had access to an outlet, as we estimated in chapter IV, then 8% in 1980 and 29% in 1985 of all vehicles could be replaced by EV's. Based on informatinAon excess non-peak electrical output, 8% in 1980 and 7% in 1985 of all vehicles could be charged EV's without increasing the electrical production capacity. These EV use estimates leave three sample EV use amounts: 8% in 1980 for both the transportation demand estimate and the excess electricity estimate, 29% for the tranportation demand estimate in 1985, and 7% for the excess electricity estimate in 1985.
This chapter looks at the impacts of electric vehicles on the Denver region in seven areas: air pollution, noise, cost to consumers, energy efficiency, energy conservation, renewable versus non-renewable resources, and general environmental impacts. The examination of these impacts ranges from the very specific air pollution analysis, which quantifies the specific impacts of the three EV usage estimates listed above, to the more general and long range impacts in renewable versus non-renewable resources and general environmental issues.
Quantifying air pollution from EV's versus gas vehicles can be done in two ways. A micro-analysis can be done comparing
emissions per vehicle-mile based on the entire processes from power generation through vehicle emissions. A macro-analysis can be done which assumes a given level of area-wide EV use and predicts new power plant emissions and vehicular emissions.
The following micro-analysis is frmmSouthern California Edison Co.^The EV emissions, which are due almost entirely to emissions at power plants, are based on the Southern California mix of power plants. This mix differs somewhat from Denver's in that Southern California uses more petrdeum and less coal.
Pollutant EV Gas, veh. EV % reduction
KC .135 1.40 90%
CO .026 9.01 99%
no2 .757 1.90 60%
S02 .950 .840 -13%
Part .090 .22 59%
In all cases but sulfur dioxide, EV's represent a significant reduction. It should further be noted that sulfur dioxide is the only one of these pollutants for which the Denver area is not in violation of federal guidelines.
The pollution effect from EV's is further mitigated by three factors. First is the 'high stack factor', referring to the fact that emissions out of high smoke stacks from power plants have a far lesser effect on the air we breath than do ground emissions from vehicles. The second factor is that a majority of the vehicular emissions are during the day when air is generally at its worst, whereas power plant emissions from EV use
would occur mostly at night. Finally, it is argued that pollution from a few large contributors is and will he easier to monitor than the dispersed pollution from vehicles.
For a macro-analysis it is necessary first to look at present pollution sources, specifically vehicles and power plants.
Below is a Colorado Department of Health summary of pollutants
by source. Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides,and particulates are listed, while sulfur dioxide unfortunately is not. The reason for this omission is that sulfur dioxide is not in violation of federal standards in the metro area and the Colorado Health Department does not foresee its coming into violation in the near future. This study was done in 1978 and includes projections for 1982 and 1987. Power plants were not listed as a seperate category, but were included in the larger category of large point contributors'. The figures presented here for power plants are based on separate listings by theHealth Department, in the same study, of each large contributor. The percent contributions of power plants as a part of the category of large point contributors is by necessity assumed to remain the same for future projections.
1) carbon monoxide
1978 1982 1987
tons % tons % tons %
vehicles 2425 93% 1690 89% 740 77%
power plants 5 0% 5 0% 5 1%
1978 1982 1987
tons % tons % tons %
vehicles 210 85% 130 ,77% 740 70%
power plants 1 0% 1 1% 1 1%
1978 1982 1987
tons % tons % tons %
vehicles 25,200 37% 26,600 37% 24,090 34%
power pi. 31,800 47% 34,200 46% 34,200 47%
1978 1982 1987
tons % tons % tons %
vehicles* 4300 7% 4050 6% 4100 6%
power plants 1725 3% 1810 3% 1900 3%
reflects only exhaust emissions, not pollution from
vehicles kicking up particles on roads Figure 5
Based on our transportation demand estimates and excess electricity estimates, once again, the EV use estimates are 8% for 1980 and 29% and 7% for 1985. The pollution impact table on page 50 can now be constructed using three assumptions. First, pollution per vehicle mile is assumed to be a constant, which is to say that a given percent reduction in gas-powered vehicle miles produces that same percent reduction in gas-powered vehicle emissions. Secondly, power plant emissions are likewise assumed to be proportional to Kwhs produced. Finally, the 1980 estimates
are used in conjunction with the most recent emissions data and the 1985 estimates are used in conjunction with a 1985 emissions projection based on the Health Department's 1982 and 1987 estimates.
POLLUTION IMPACT TABLE
1980 1985 1985
(for both transp. (transp. (excess
demand and elec. demand elec.
capacity estimates) estim) ei stim.)
% of vehicles converted 8% . 29% 7%
% increase in power plant emissions 3.6% 13% 3.2%
% decrease in vehicle emissions 7% 29% 7%
%change in CO -7% -25% "7%
% change in HC -6% -21% -6%
% .change in N0X -1% -4% -1%
% change in part. 0% -1% 0%
This table shows that automobiles are such dominant contributors of carban monoxide and hydrocarbons that a given percent substitution of EV's for conventional vehicles causes very nearly that same percent reduction in these pollutants. The effects in nitrous oxides and particulates of EV substitutions is positive but small.
Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, then, would be the pollutants most positively affected by EV's. Carbon monoxide is now Denver's
most serious pollution problem. On the average between 1975 and 1977, Denver's most polluted monitoring station had six days in violation of federal one hour carbon monoxide standards and 84 days in violation of federal eight hour standards.^ A composite of Denver area monitoring stations shows the second worst day of the year, over the same year average, to have exceeded the federal standard by 21% for the one hour standard and 143% for the eight hour standard. An EV substitution of 20% would have brought this second worst day into compliance for the one hour standard. A 66% substitution would have been required to bring this day into eight hour standard compliance.
There are three main components to the noise created by automobiles: tire noise, combustion and exhaust. EV's produce normal levels of tire noise but produce almost no combustion or engine noise. Unfortunately there are no comparisons available of the comparative magnitudes of these three components of automotive noise, therefore no way to quantify the reduction in automotive noise by EV's. Two ways for the reader to get a feel for this reduction are to listen to an EV that may be found on the road or to listen to traffic in the snow where tire noise is muted but engine noise is less muted.
The illustration on the next page entitled "Typical Outdoor
Sound Keasured on a Quiet Suburban Street" provides a useful
perspective on automotive noise as a part of outdoor noise.
Typical Outdoor Sound Measured on a Quiet Suburban Street
Federal regulations are expected to control noise "by trucks, "busses and motorcycles "but automobiles have not yet been regulated for noise.
COST TO CONSUMERS
We have already seen that purchase costs of TV's Are considerably highr than for comparable gas-powered vehicles.
This is likely to remain the case until such a time as mass-nroduction is applied to EV1s. Maintenance costs may be greater in the near future for EV users until a good maintenance infrastructure is in place. Most observors agree that if this occurs, maintenance of EV's will ultimately be considerably cheaper than for gas-powered vehicles due to the greater simplicity of EV's.
Energy costs show a saving for EV users. At a present price of 40 per Kwh for an average customer and 1 Kwh per mile energy consumption, EV fuel costs are 40 per mile. At present gasoline
prices of roughly $1.20 per gallon and using 20 mpg's, which CAFE standards are now approaching, energy costs for a gas-powered car are 60 per mile. If a vehicle were to he driven 9000 miles a year (approximately the same 24 miles a day estimate used in the previous chapter) for 5 years the energy costs for the EV would he $18,000 while gasoline costs for the gas-powered car would he $27,000 in present dollars. In this case the purchaser could spend $9000 more in purchase and maintenance costs for the EV and break even in his life-cycle cost.
It will not he predicted here whether the price of gasoline or electricity will increase faster hy 1985 and heyond. It can he predicted, however, that the cost of hoth forms of energy will rise faster than purchase prices and maintenance prices.
This rise means that fuel costs will continue to increase as a percentage of a vehicle's life-cycle costs. This, in turn, means that the vehicle with the lower per mile fuel cost, the EV, will become relatively cheaper. CAFE standards for 1985 are presently set at 27 mpg's, which at present prices would decrease the five year gasoline cost to $20,000 from $27,000 in our example. EV producers likewise hope to incresse their energy efficiency hut there is no federal standard to meet and no solid reason to predict such an increase. Obviously any political event that would cause a dramatic increase in gasoline prices would change this analysis to the advantage of EV's.
Temporary gasoline shortages or electrical black-outs or brown-outs would also alter the anaj:sis.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN CONVERSION
It fir6t will be useful to see where present Denver area electricity is coming from. There are seven power plants that PSC reports are substantially contributing to Denvers electricity. Adding up the fuels that power these plants, the Kw capacity by source is:31
Coal 1,117,000 Kw
Natural gas 72,000 Kw
Oil or gas 14-6,000 Kw
Hydroelectric 320,000 Kw
There are several different versions of comparisons between overall energy efficiency of ga^powered cars and EV's, tracing the resource from the ground to mileage travelled. Based on research that went into the Senate Bill calling for use of EV's in CAFE standards, the efficiency of a barrel of oil, whether it goes into gasoline to power a car or is burned in a power plant and powers an EV is 12%?2 The remaining 88% is
lost in the processes. William Hamilton came up with similar
results on the subject. He reports that energy efficiency if petroleum is used for electricity is roughly equivalent for EV's as for gasoline powered vehicles. He found, however, that if coal is the fuel for ehctricity that EV's become somewhat more efficient than gasoline powered cars.
Another way to approach this analysis is to compare the BTU values of fuels from the ground with the mileage these fuels
eventually produce. The U.S. Post Office performed such an analysis, and they use a figure of 11,813 BTU of energy in a mine or well to produce 1 Kwh. They also use a figure of 154,325 BTU as the equivalent of one gai^on of gasoline from a well?^ Based on their experience with postal jeeps, for electric jeeps, they used 1.52 Kwh/mile meaning the EV used 23,383 BTU/mile. Gas postal vehicles averaged 6.6 mpg meaning they used 23,383 BTU/milf By this analysis the primary energy saving of EV's is 23.2%.
If, however, we plug in our assumptions of 1 Kwh/mile and 20 mpg, the result is that the EV is only 65% as efficient in using primary energy as gasoline. The input for the postal analysis favors EV's probably because EV's use less energy while idling and for frequent turning on and off, so that for more normal day to.day driving conditions the computation with our assumptions would seem to be more accurate. Primary energy efficiency, then, by a percent conversion ana^sis is roughly equivalent and by a primary BTU analysis is better for gas powered vehicles than EV's.
The next and final three impact areas are more general and long range in nature. They relate to what may be considered the three most essential problems with American energy use, namely that we use too much, we depend primarily upon non-renewable resources, and energy production is often harmful to the environment.
It can be argued that EV's are energy conservative by their
very nature. Those aspects of EV's that are seen as drawbacks when competing with gas powered vehicles are exactly those that can be interpreted as energy conservative. The limited range of IV's encourages careful trip planning, combining of trips and making the shortest trips possible for such purposes as shopping and recreation. The limited speeds necessitated by the EV's speed limitations and also by the desire to maximize range are energy conservative. Limited speeds increase the cost of trips in time-costs. Further, there is a long range progressive (in the economic sense of the word) element to EV's. We have seen that energy costs per mile, in other words dollar costs per milÂ§, are less for the EV user than for the conventional car user.
Since lower income people have proportionally more time than money at their disposal, there is a good chance that EV's induced energy conservation will create a good share of conservation among higher income groups.
Further down the road, If EV's were to become prevalent, the limited ranges and speeds could have positive effects on energy conservative land use patterns. EV users with limited range would tend to seek jobs, commercial facilities and amenities closer to where they live, and conversely seek homes closer to these other activities. Returning to the argument presented in Chapter I, American land use patterns, and certainly Denver's, are designed based on the assumption of cheap energy. As a result, land uses are more spread out than need be and automobile use is considered to be essential while mass transportation is generally inadequate. Two conclusions can be drawn about EV's
if thiB statement is reasonable. First, EV's can have a positive effect on future land use patterns, perhaps more so than gradual and incremental increases in gasoline prices. Second, given the existing land use patterns and the partially resulting American addiction to individual automobiles, there is a need for an alternative form of individual transportation. This is not to say that improved mass transit will not play a vital role in the future, but only that there is a need for other energy conservative alternatives.
RENEWABLE AND NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES
The shorter term effect of a shift from conventional vehicles to EV's is a switch from one non-renewable resource to others.
The next, longer term possibility is a switch from non-renewable to renewable resources. Both are positive. As the focus of electrical production shifts from petroleum to coal and synthetic fuels, EV's mean more and more transportation fuel can be produced from resources which are more abundant in the U.S. Whether they are more abundant in the world is an important question which is beyond the scope of this study. Nuclear fission may or may not be on the increase for electrical production and arguments for or against it also are not within the scope here. It is sufficient to say that electricity is presently being produced with nuclear fission as a comparatively small contributor and that many electricity projections show a future of meeting electrical needs without increasing nuclear fission.
A longer term goal to many is a gradual shift to renewable resources for all energy including transportation. This obviously cannot be accomplished by fas powered vehicles. Possibilities exist for using renewable resources as major contributors to electrical production and thus for EV's.
A recent Denver Post article reported on plans for using renewable resources in southern California:^
"Southern California Edison Co. Friday became the first major electric utility in the nation to commit itself to large scale development of unconventional, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. The shift in policy, which was praised by environmentalists, could eventually lead to a decision to cancel one or both of Edison's proposed coal projects, which the company had previously been counting on to supply most of its new electrical power in the late 80's. By 1990, according to information supplied by the company, about 30% of the anticipated 6 million kilowatts of additional electricity it needs will be met by unconventional sources such as wind, geothermal, solar, fuel cells, hydro-electric and cogeneration."
In the shorter term a previous section demonstrates that the environmental effects of EV use are generally positive.
In the longer term, it will be easier to control pollution if, it comes from a few sources than thousands or millions of dispersed sources, although great improvements are hoped for
with new gas powered vehicles and new inspection plans. Once again the environmental concerns associated with nuclear fission, to the extent that utilities choose to go that route, is up to question. In the longer term still, to the extent that electricity can be produced by renewable resources it can be nearly pollutior free.
EV effective ranges at the present time are roughly 35 miles per charge and are likely to be roughly 75 miles in 1985.
Federal and state governments have begun to provide incentives for EV production and use, but assistance is at a fairly low level at this point.
Public and private fleets have been and are likely to be among the first to use EV's extensively. Early individual use will likely be as second and third family cars.
EV technology is presently available to produce vehicles which can serve the needs of substantial numbers of drivers, are able to travel on most roads, and are determined by federal standards to be highway safe.
EV's will probably not be able to compete with gas powered vehicles in some uses, such as long vacation trips and mountain driving.
EVs are, and probably will continue to be, more expensive
than their gas-powered counterparts until such a time as mass-production techniques are applied to EV's. Cheaper energy costs and maintenance costs, however, put life cycle costs of EV's in line with conventional automobiles.
Estimates for the Denver Metro Area based on EV ranges are that 14% of all vehicles could be EV's in 1980 and 49% in 1985 given current transportation demand factors.
A significant minority, perhaps 40%, of Denver area households do not have access to an outlet with which to charge an EV.
There is a decided cost advantage to both the utility company and to individual customers for EV use. PSC would be using its facilities more efficiently, during off-peak hours.
Customers would be paying less for their marginal Kwh usage.
*40,000-80,000 EV's could be powered with .excess electrical
production capabilities in the metro area. More TV's would require additional utility production capacity or else a decentralized electricity source.
Energy efficiency for EV's and for gas powered vehicles, from raw materials to the powering of a vehicle are generally thought to be roughly equivalent. Specific energy, or energy per unit of weight of gasoline, is greater than specific energy of batteries produced now and well inot the future, accounting for lesser ranges and speeds of EV's.
EV's would provide a significant improvement in noise and air pollution levels. Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons would be significantly reduced and particulates and nitrous oxide levels would be slightly reduced. Sodium dioxide levels would be increased but this pollutant is not in violation of federal standards in this area. The pollution effect of EV's would be further mitigated because it would come from high smoke stacks, a more managable *. number of sources and be emitted largely at night.
Certain infrastructure additions and changes would be required to support great EV use, includingmaintenance ability and electric outlets. Far more necessary infrastructure for EV's is already in place, including existing outlets, adaptable maintenance shops and streets and highways.
A major long range advantage of EV's is that they provide an opportunity for transportation energy to be provided for by renewable resources.
This study set out to argue two main points. The first was that EV's could substitute for a significant amount of Denver area travel. This is certainly the case, even based on conservative assumptions about future EV capabilities, availability of hook-ups and flexibility of travel demand. These assumptions could prove unduly conservative, first if there is a revolutionary battery breakthrough, which would be made more likely by a major gasoline shortfall, unanticipated major interest in EV's by one or more major automobile manufacturer, or increased government support. Second, assumptions made here could prove conservative if extreme gasoline shortages trigger unforeseen changes in transportation demand. Third, assumptions made here do not include a possible momentum of EV use which, once begun, would mean a huge industry with the resources to tackle seemingly large obstacles quickly.
On the other hand, there is a great inertia associated with the huge oil and automobile corporations, though they may seem somewhat troubled at present, and an economy based so largely on the internal combustion engine.. Without one or more of the above-named events, this inertia creates an extremely effecive obstacle to widespread EV use. In the balance, though, we must concluse that the potential of EV use is great.
The other main argument presented was that the impacts of EV use would be, in sv^positive. This is certainly true. Environmentally the impacts are without a doubt positive now.
We have Been that EV's have the further asset of using a power source which has associated with it more renewable options than conventional vehicles, and most importantly for the long run, includes renewable, pollution-free options.
Large scale EV use, it must be remembered though, would increase the importance of electric utilities. Excess off-peak capacity provides power for many EV's but additional capacity would be necessary to support higher EV use. The ability of utility decision makers to make wise resource choices would determine the nature of EV impacts.
1. U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Senate Hearings: Role of Electric Vehicles in U.S. Transportation.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C., 1979, p. 288.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Selected Characteristics of Travel to Work in 20 Metro Areas:1976t U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C., 1978.
3. U.S. Department of Energy, The Electric Adventure, p.5.
f 4. U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations, p. 51.
i 5. Ibid, p. 401.
6. Sources for matrix information: LILCO, Post Office, DOE, TVA, DOE Contractors, Chrysler-GE are from U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations, pps. 62, 149, 176, 326, 399.
[ Lucas, Unique Mobility, EVA, Sears, Extran, Lucas are from manufacturers brochures and pamphlets.
[ Gulf-Western is from Rocky Mountain News, June 4, 1980, G.M. is from N.Y. Times, Sept. 26. 1979. P. D1.
[ 7. U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations, p. 202.
[ 8. Ibid, p.272.
L 9. Ibid, p. 202.
L 10. Ernest Wakefield, The Consumer's Electric Car, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, 1977, p.7.
11. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1976 Survey of Housing, Denver SMSA. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C., 1978
12. Systems Management Contractor, Economic Analysis Report for RTD,
13. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Dept.,
. Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, issued 1972,
16. Colorado Dept, of Highways, Automobile Occupancy Study,
17. U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Dept.,
An Analysis of Urban Area Travel by Time of Day, Wa&. D.C.,
18. U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations, p.33.
19. Ibid, p.85.
20. Phil Warner, Mountain Bell Denver Area Fleet Manager, June 1980.
21. Ivan Smith, Public Service of Colorado, Lookout Center, June 1980,
23. Bill Sutherland, Public Service of Colorado, Lookout Center,
25. U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropiations, p.276.
26. Ibid, p.299.
27. Ibid, p.327
28. Colorado Department of Health, SIP Revision- Model Analysis of Existing and Future Air Quality Levels In the Denver Metropolitan Area, 1978, appendix B.
29. Ibid, appendix A.
30. Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality, 10th Annual Report. Superintendent of Documents, Wash. D.C.,
31. Ivan Smith, June 1980.
32. U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropiations, p.6.
33. Ibid, p.203.
35. Denver Post. Sept. 26, 1980, p.22.
Colorado Energy Research Institute, Colorado and the Electric Car, Golden, Colorado.
Colorado Department of Highways, Automobile Occupancy Study,
Colorado Department of Health, SIP Revision- Model Analysis of Existing and Future Air Quality Levels in the Denver Metropolitan Area. Denver, 1978.
Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality, 10th Annual Report. Superintendient of Documents, Wash. D.C., 1979.
Shacket, Sheldon, The Complete Book of Electric Vehicles, Domus Books, Northbrook, 111., 1979.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Selected Characteristics of Travel to Work in 20 Metro Areas:1976,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C., 1978.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1976 Survey of Housing, Denver SMSA, Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C.,
U.S. Department of Energy, The Electric Adventure.
U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Dept., Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, Wash. D.C., 1972.
U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Dept.,
An Analysis of Urban Area Travel by Time of Day, Wash. D.C., 1972.
U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Senate Hearings: Role of Electric Vehicles in U.S. Transportation, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C., 1979.
Wakefield, Jrnest, The Consumer's P.lectrlc Car Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, 1977.