Advanced BioFuels USA

by Robert Kozak* (Advanced Biofuels USA)  I think the recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Are Electric Vehicles Really Better for the Climate? Yes. Here’s Why,” is very misleading for the following reasons:

 1) it misuses the concept of “national average” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electrical production to lower the projected greenhouse gas emissions effects of electrical vehicles, and

2) it does not include biofuels, which are as available as electric vehicles, as an option for reducing motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead, EV emission values that take into account the differences between both regional electric vehicle populations and electrical production GHGs in those regions should be used.  This approach is based on vehicle emission inventory calculations required by the Environmental Protection Agency for State Implementation Plans (SIP) submitted to verify compliance with Clean Air Act provisions.

National Electrical Production GHG (Greenhouse Gas) Average Used in Report Significantly Discounts Most US EV GHG Emissions 

By using a national average GHG emission number that considers all regions as equal in terms of amount of electricity used by EVs, the report significantly understates the actual GHG emissions of most EVs currently registered in the US. For instance, while the UCS uses emission values from such places as the upper New York state/Vermont region, which receives most of its electricity from the large hydro dams of Quebec Hydro, to lower the US electrical production average GHG value, it does not accurately weigh the effect that varying amounts of EV electricity used in each region have on a national average. 

While the relatively few EVs in upper New York State benefit from the low GHG electricity produced from hydropower, the great many more EVs registered in the Washington DC and Atlanta regions that have much higher electrical production GHG numbers do not benefit. Therefore, using a much lower electrical production GHG average that is not based on where EV electricity is used will significantly underestimate the GHG effects of most EVs registered in the US.

The following two sets of calculations will show how this happens and offers a recommended approach to correct this potential GHG emission under-calculation. GHG and vehicle population numbers have been simplified but they do represent the relative values of the regions being considered. 

Average GHG Calculation #1: Comparison of Electrical GHG Emissions Without EV Registrations

This calculation is basically the type used to determine the national average electrical production GHG value used in the report.

Inputs

• 1: Upper New York state electrical production GHG emissions value (renewable hydro with long distance, 600+ miles, transmission); represents very low GHGs
• 5: DC/Atlanta electrical production GHG emissions (mixed coal/natural gas/nuclear primary production with minimal wind/solar); represents medium GHGs

By this calculation the effect of upper NYS GHG emissions would be very important. The average of 1 and 5 would be 3. This would be a 40% reduction of the DC/Atlanta number. If this average number of 3 were applied to DC and Atlanta vehicles it would have the effect of leaving out 40% of the GHG emissions. This is because those vehicles would still be emitting GHGs from electrical production sources with GHG values of 5.

Average Calculation #2: Comparison of Electrical GHG Emissions with EV Registrations

In this calculation, the effect of relative vehicle populations are included.

1: Upper NYS EV vehicle population (very low number influenced by cold weather range issues and high vehicle prices)

20: DC & Atlanta EV vehicle population (medium high number influenced by state tax benefits, higher incomes, and mild weather higher ranges)

1: Upper NYS EV emissions — vehicle emissions (1) x vehicle population (1) 

100:  DC & Atlanta EV emissions — vehicle emissions (5) x vehicle population (20)

Average Upper NYS EV emissions:1 (1/1)

Average DC& Atlanta EV emissions: 5  = (100/20)

Average EV emissions Upper NYS & DC/Atlanta: 4.8 = 101/21 (3.8% reduction)

By including EV vehicle populations, the effect of the Upper NYS emissions on the average would be greatly reduced. Instead of a 40% reduction, only a 3.8% reduction would be seen. Therefore, use of either the actual DC & Atlanta electrical GHG emissions or the Vehicle Weighted Average GHG emissions would produce values (+3.8%) within the range of current GHG data collection practices.

Recommended EV GHG Approach

Therefore, to produce realistic EV GHG numbers for EVs registered in the US, a non-weighted average value should not be used.

Instead, the UCS and others calculating EV GHG emissions should at a minimum used a Vehicle Weighted Average (VWA) based on the electrical production GHGs and vehicle populations of each US region. While the VWA would be an acceptable minimum, the approach that would provide vehicle owners and air quality regulators in all regions with accurate assessments, would be to calculate electrical production GHG values for each region and to provide them on a publicly accessed spreadsheet. 

While this process may seem complex it is the standard approach required by EPA for calculating motor vehicle emission inventories that are a key component of all State Implementation Plans (SIPs) required to demonstrate air quality compliance.

Absence of Analyzing Increased Biofuel Blends as GHG Reduction Option Implies That Only Two Motor Vehicle GHG Reduction Options Are Available 

While increased biofuel blends such as E15, E30, and E85 (E stands for ethanol and the number indicates the percent of ethanol in gasoline) do not get the media coverage that electric vehicles receive, they do exist and are currently available. In fact, UCS recently reported (“Five Reasons Midwestern States Need a Clean Fuel Standard”) on their benefits.  Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that they were not included as an option in this report.

By not including renewable fuels, UCS makes it appear that only two fuel options are available to reduce motor vehicle GHGs: gasoline or electricity.

This is unfortunate since UCS information on the GHG reductions from fuels such as E30 or E85 would be very useful to consumers, especially fleet operators, who are trying to make informed decisions on the cost/benefits of GHG reduction options available to them now.

It would be very interesting to see how biofuel life-cycle GHG emissions (UCS, EPA, or national laboratory numbers) compare to EV life-cycle GHG numbers based on vehicle weighted calculations. It would seem that a three-way comparison: gasoline, renewable fuel, electricity, would be the objective way to make the best cost-effective GHG reduction decision possible. 

 *Robert Kozak is the founder and President of Atlantic Biomass, LLC, and a co-founder of Advanced Biofuels USA. Having worked for about 40 years in the transportation, energy, environmental, and government relations industries and in enzyme development, he serves as a fuels/engines and policy expert for Advanced Biofuels USA.  He can be reached at atlanticbiomass @ aol.com