fuel source impacts on greenhouse gas emission reduction by … source impacts on... · 2019/4/22...
TRANSCRIPT
1
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
William G. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
ChBE 4764 - Process Design & Development
Instructors: Dr. David Tomasko, Dr. Mandar Kathe
Teaching Assistants: Kayane Dingilian, Kalyani Jangam
Sponsor: Bud Braughton, Senior Project Manager at SmartColumbus
Fuel Source Impacts on Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction by Electric Vehicles
Group 6916-15
Lexi Fye
Mikaela Keller
Gina Santi
Ryan Heckman
Due Date: April 22, 2019
Submitted: April 22, 2019
2
Letter of Transmittal
To: Dr. David Tomasko, Dr. Mandar Kathe
CC: Bud Braughton, Kayane Dingilian, Kalyani Jangam
From: Group 6916-15
Date: April 18, 2019
Subject: Fuel Source Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction by EVs
Dr. Tomasko and Dr. Kathe,
The accompanying document is presented in response to your request for a written report
regarding the performance of electric vehicles in the city of Columbus, OH. Enclosed are the
final results and conclusions of Group 6916-15 to aid SmartColumbus in assessing the future for
electric vehicles in the area, specifically in their partnership with Columbus Yellow Cab. The
work studied includes the effect on greenhouse gas emissions if taxi cabs in the Columbus area
were to be transitioned to electric vehicles. Through the collection and analysis of fleet data as
well as emission calculations, these results were compared to the current annual greenhouse gas
emissions of the current Columbus Yellow Cab fleet. A safety hazard study and economic
analysis were also completed to thoroughly round out the project studies. The results, described
within the report, are encouraging. If you have any further questions or requests, feel free to
contact us.
Respectfully,
Gina Santi Mikaela Keller
Technical, Literature, and Safety Operations Economic Analysis & Impact
Lexi Fye Ryan Heckman
Process Simulation & Modeling Environmental Analysis & Impact
3
Project Close-out Form
Note that the project close-out form is unnecessary for this project since materials / space were
not borrowed from SmartColumbus or Columbus Yellow Cab. This was confirmed and
acknowledged by Dr. Tomasko.
4
Project Charter
Project Name - Fuel Source Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction by Electrical
Vehicles
Project Champion - Dr. Jeffrey Chalmers, Mr. Norman Braughton, Dr. David Tomasko
Project Leaders - Mikaela Keller (Economic Analysis), Ryan Heckman (Environmental Impact),
Lexi Fye (Process Simulation / Modeling), Gina Santi (Technical)
Project Scope - Investigate potential benefits and drawbacks of Columbus adopting EVs for
Columbus Yellow Cab fleet and compare to current vehicles.
1. Deliverables - Environmental impact
a. How much is this change projected to reduce GHG emissions?
b. How does each car in CYC fleet compare to each other?
c. Are there any other environmental benefits?
d. Regarding well-to-wheel emissions, how does Columbus generate electricity for
charging EVs?
2. Deliverables - Economical analysis
a. What are the forecasted gas prices? What are the forecasted electricity prices?
b. What are the forecasted MSRPs to purchase EVs?
c. What is the price to purchase and install EV chargers?
d. What is the fuel range of the current market EVs?
e. What are the maintenance costs of EVs versus gas-powered vehicles?
3. Deliverables- Safety analysis
a. What are the major safety hazards associated with EVs?
b. What safeguards are in place to prevent these hazards?
4. Out of scope:
a. Creating or using new electric vehicle technology
b. Studying the creation or placement of charging stations
c. Researching how or if society will completely transfer to EVs
d. Cost to implement all the necessary public charging stations
e. Impact of the installation of charging stations on the community
5. Timeline:
a. Information gathered and presented to shareholders by April 23rd, 2019
5
Project Description
Introduction
With increased awareness of humanity’s harm to the environment, it is SmartColumbus’ motivation
to reduce the carbon footprint of the metro-Columbus area.1 With transportation contributing 28% of
all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the conversion from gas-powered vehicles to electric vehicles
(EVs) is essential in reducing these emissions.2 To advance this effort, SmartColumbus recently
partnered with Columbus Yellow Cab (CYC) to deploy EVs into their fleet with hopes of reducing
GHG emissions in Columbus, OH. Following positive results of an initial study in reducing GHG
emissions by cabs in the area, further studies were performed to determine the potential future
benefits if CYC were to convert and deploy more EVs in place of their current fully combustion
vehicles. The scope of this project was to study the conversion from combustion vehicles to EVs
from an environmental standpoint with GHG emissions. Further, an economic analysis was
completed to determine the feasibility of the investment for CYC to fund a transition to EVs.
Process, Product, and Technology Description
As previously stated, the purpose of this project was to analyze the impacts of green technology,
specifically in the case of taxi cabs utilized by CYC. Through collaboration with this Columbus-
based company, the team obtained data on the number and types (make / model) as well as the
monthly mileage of the vehicles in CYC’s fleet. Knowing that the company has already purchased 10
Chevy Bolts, the team analyzed the impacts if CYC were to purchase more EVs for the fleet.3 Note
that only sedans were considered for this project since EV technology is not common for vans or
larger vehicles yet. In order to draw direct comparisons between an investment in green technology
or not, the team studied two cases. The first case was if CYC were to invest in EVs and thus purchase
10 Chevy Bolts per quarter; the latter case was if CYC were to instead buy more Toyota Priuses (10
per quarter). The team projected and analyzed data multiple years into the future to give CYC an idea
of the expected benefits and drawbacks of an investment in a fleet of EVs during upcoming years.
First, the environmental impact was quantified by evaluating the difference in GHG emitted on a
yearly basis if CYC were to invest in green technology. It is important to note that the source of
electricity was considered and therefore these emissions included well-to-wheel analyses. Next, the
economic study entailed collecting data for the operating, capital, and maintenance costs of EVs
compared to internal combustion (ICE) vehicles. Taking into account the depletion of vehicles as
well as rebates available when purchasing an EV, annual expenses were calculated for purchasing
6
and operating either an ICE or EV fleet. Figure 1 depicts the experimental design that was followed
to achieve the goals of this project.
Figure 1: Flowsheet of Experimental Design in Chronological Order of Completion
A notable out-of-scope activity is the investigation of locations and infrastructure of public EV
chargers. Since numerous EVs cannot be fully functional without an ample and widespread amount
of chargers, this is a vital part of CYC’s investment. However, since this project aims to solely
analyze an investment by CYC into green technology, the only factor considered is the assumption
that CYC will install 2 private DC fast chargers per 10 EVs. This presumption originates from the
team’s learning that 2 Level 3 chargers are already purchased for the 10 Chevy Bolts that CYC
currently operates. Further, this project will not investigate new green technology. Instead, the team
aims to explore the deployment of pre-existing technology.
Conceptually, the largest challenge that the team encountered was the large amount of assumptions
that were necessary to compute expected GHG emissions and operating costs of EVs. Data is limited
since this technology is relatively new compared to ICE vehicles. The team was careful to be
conservative in making and thoroughly documenting all assumptions made during calculations to be
transparent to the stakeholders.
7
The main safety hazards involved with the use of EVs are related to the electrical equipment in the
vehicle. Through the use of a What-If Analysis, these safety risks are subsequently explained in more
depth in the Results and Discussion section of this report,
Comparison to Other Related Processes
There are multiple benefits and drawbacks to operating an EV. First, it costs significantly less to
drive an EV, as there are free public charging stations. Even if a user opts to install an at-home
charger, the cost to charge an EV for one mile costs about half the price of a mile driven powered by
gas.4 Another advantage to driving an electric vehicle is that there are no tailpipe GHG emissions.
However, depending on an area’s source of electricity, this process may produce a small to large
amount of GHG emissions. One drawback is that EVs currently cost more than gas vehicles;
however, a recent study showed that the upfront cost of EVs will become competitive starting in
2024.5 Finally, popular EVs take 7 to 9 hours to charge using the most common charger (Level 2),
which is significantly more time compared to fueling an ICE vehicle.6 However, one advantage with
charging is that the user can do so at home, whereas to refuel an ICE, he/she would have to go to a
gas station. Nonetheless, there are significantly more gas stations than EV charging stations, which
can be a concern for consumers without a home charger. However, as the EV market grows in
upcoming years, the infrastructure of chargers will follow. These comparisons between EVs and ICE
vehicles are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1: Electric Vehicle Comparison to ICE Car
Electric Vehicle (EV) Gas Vehicle
Less O&M costs ($485/yr average in US) More O&M costs ($1,117/yr average in US)
Zero tailpipe GHG emissions Emits direct GHG emissions from tailpipe
Higher initial investment Lower upfront cost
Takes 7-9 hours to recharge - home charging Able to refuel in minutes - station fueling
8
Project Impact
The main impact focused on during the progression of this project is the environmental impact of
humans, specifically in terms of transportation. The push to transition the CYC fleet to EVs would
reduce the amount of ozone-producing tailpipe emissions. However, it should be noted that 85% of
electricity produced in Columbus to charge EVs comes from burning non-renewable energy such as
natural gas, oil, and coal.7 Therefore, a well-to-wheel emissions analysis is required to determine
which option has the least overall environmental impact.
Regarding the economic impact of this project, the purchase and adoption of the EVs requires a large
capital investment. However, the main benefit of EVs to consumers is that EVs cost about half as
much to operate than ICEs.4 Moreover, the maintenance expenses are significantly less since EVs
contain many less moving parts than an ICEs. Therefore, these benefits will help to promote
consumer transition to EVs. Furthermore, the adoption of EVs will lessen the domestic demand of
gasoline. This decreased dependence on imported fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal will
ultimately benefit the U.S. economy.
On SmartColumbus’ website, they explain that “most of this work is rooted in preparing for and
incorporating electric vehicles and the necessary infrastructure.”8 One of SmartColumbus’ main
objectives is to raise and spread awareness of GHG emissions and the solution of EVs; thus, the
global impact of this project is the next priority. Since Columbus is one of the first cities in the
Midwest to have multiple EV initiatives, the testing of this transition and societal adoption of EVs
will be a great indicator on how the rest of the region could adopt EVs. With encouraging results,
humanity’s overall environmental impact could be reduced in the future.
Finally, the societal impact of this project involves humanity’s increasing attention on preserving the
environment as climate change becomes a more alarming issue. Since the motivation for this project
is already understood by the majority of society, this report and SmartColumbus provide a solution
that individuals can utilize to help the environment. Through spreading awareness of the benefits of
EVs, hopefully more citizens will consider green technology and ultimately minimize their personal
GHG emissions.
Investigational Protocol
As this project does not lend itself necessarily to an experimental procedure, the team’s plan of action
is depicted below. For the team’s Gantt chart, refer to Figures 12 and 13 in Appendix A.
1. Collect data on the number and type as well as the mileage of vehicles used by CYC.
9
2. Solve simultaneously for both environmental and economic impacts:
a. Environmental analysis:
i. Analyze well-to-wheel GHG emissions for ICE vehicles as well as EVs.
ii. Investigate the source of electricity that Columbus uses for charging EVs.
iii. Calculate differences in emissions between ICEs and EVs in CYC fleet.
b. Economic analysis:
i. Collect cost data for initial purchase of EV and ICE vehicle.
ii. Find the electricity cost for EV chargers and gas cost for ICEs.
iii. Calculate maintenance costs of both types of vehicles.
3. Modeling - Create graphs / charts that depict data years into the future. Draw conclusions.
4. Safety Analysis - Complete a what-if analysis on the potential hazards of EVs.
5. Make recommendations to the shareholders, CYC and SmartColumbus.
Results and Discussion
Safety Analysis
The primary safety hazards involved with EVs are related to the electrical equipment in the vehicle.
This includes risks while charging batteries as well as the maintenance and operation of the vehicle.
The battery of the EV poses dangers of explosion and electrical, mechanical, and chemical hazards to
the operator of the vehicle.
A What-If Analysis, seen in Table 2 below, depicts potential hazards resulting from personal
maintenance on an EV battery as well as usage of the vehicle. This can be applied to CYC
mechanics, those at home who want to personally repair their car, and anyone driving an EV on a
regular basis.
10
Table 2: What if Analysis of EVs9
What if… Cause Safeguard Action Required
Electrical
Electric shock Contact with charging
wire
Electricity only
flows when
connected to car,
insulation of wire
No further action required
Short circuit Unintentional direct
contact
Carefully designed
house for battery No further action required
Mechanical Instability of
vehicle
Heavy weight of
battery
Weight limited and
known
Attempt to lighten battery in
future design
Chemical
Explosion Emitting hydrogen at
end of charge
Not having
flammables nearby
Making risk known to all
consumers
Explosion
Minor accident
allowing coolant to
enter battery housing
Battery housing,
coolant tank
Ensure both pieces of equipment
are checked after all accidents.
Build stronger, more secure
battery housing
Fire
Vehicle hit metal object
on road, penetrated
floor of vehicle and
caused damage to
battery
Battery housing Build stronger, more secure
battery housing
Environmental Analysis
The aim of the the environmental study was to assess the emissions associated with transitioning EVs
into CYC’s existing fleet. For this analysis, openLCA software was used to determine the impact
associated with producing and utilizing 1 kWh of electricity in an EV using the electricity source
distribution shown below in Figure 2. It was assumed that roughly 7.8% of the electricity produced at
power plants is lost through the electric grid,10 and that the charging efficiency of charging stations is
93%.11 These values were taken into account when determining the overall emissions per vehicle. A
life cycle analysis on 1 gallon of gas was also completed to determine the impact of producing and
11
using gas. Each car was then analyzed to determine the overall electricity and/or gas usage emissions
for an entire year driving 55,000 miles.12
Figure 2: Electricity Generation in Ohio7
The first aspect of the impact analysis includes a comparison of the 9 different types of cars CYC has
in their current fleet. Multiple emission types were analyzed and can be found in Appendix B. A
midpoint and endpoint analysis were completed in order to determine the most environmentally-
friendly car for use in the CYC fleet based on total emissions. The endpoint analysis is shown below
in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Endpoint Analysis on CYC Car Types
The above endpoint analysis weighs each midpoint factor, or each emission type shown in the legend
above, based on a typical emissions scale. The car that has the least overall emissions is the Chevy
Bolt, which is encouraging because it is the vehicle CYC has already invested in. Global Warming
Potential (GWP), which measures the emission of greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4, N2O, and CFCs,
contributed most to the overall emissions above; therefore, it was used as a priority emission type for
12
analysis. Photochemical ozone formation is also significantly decreased when transitioning to Chevy
Bolts, which will reduce the potential for ground-level ozone to form during the summer in the
Columbus area.
The second aspect of the environmental analysis includes a projection of emissions if CYC were to
transition their fleet at a rate of 10 EVs per quarter, which Morgan Kauffman, CEO of CYC, hopes to
accomplish.LF4 In order to quantify this, it was assumed that CYC will substitute 10 ICE vehicles per
quarter with Chevy Bolts. Once there are no ICEs left, it was assumed that CYC will substitute their
hybrid vehicles with Chevy Bolts until their entire fleet is composed of EVs. Reductions in emissions
were calculated per quarter to project the impact of EV implementation over the next four years. The
results of these calculations are shown in Figure 4 below. Other emission types can be seen in Figure
15 located in Appendix B.
Figure 4: GWP Projections for CYC Fleet Transition
The results are encouraging, as it shows that by transitioning more EVs into the fleet by replacing
ICEs, the global warming potential of the fleet dramatically decreases by about 65%. Regardless of
the strategy with which CYC transitions their fleet, the results show that having a fleet of only EVs
will dramatically decrease the overall GWP emissions and, therefore, decrease the overall emissions
in the Columbus area. This also satisfies SmartColumbus’ main goal.
Economic and Market Analysis
In order to compare the total expenses for owning and operating EVs versus ICEs, the current spread
of vehicles was obtained from CYC. Currently, the company operates 10 Chevy Bolts, 40 Toyota
Priuses, and approximately 80 Crown Victorias. The first study involved investigating the impacts if
10 Chevy Bolts were purchased each quarter until all the Crown Victorias were replaced. On the
13
other hand, the opposing study involved looking into if CYC continued to invest in Priuses and
instead purchased 10 of these per quarter.12
To calculate operating expenses, both gas and electricity prices were projected into the future using
historical data. Figures 5 and 6 are depicted below with the trendlines that were used to calculate
future operating expenses. Due to the nature of oscillation in historical unleaded gas prices, the
trendline begins in 2016.
Figure 5: Historical Weekly Unleaded Gas Prices in the USA13
Figure 6: Historical Commercial Electricity Prices in the USA14
14
Per CYC guidance, it was assumed that each vehicle drives approximately 55,000 miles per year.12
Knowing that the city mileage of the Crown Victoria is 16 mpg, the Prius’ mileage is 50 mpg, and
that an EV uses about 0.3 kWh per mile, operating costs could be calculated.14,15
Regarding capital expenses, an important aspect to consider is the expected decrease in the price of
EVs, such as the Chevy Bolt. With the technology being relatively new, the price to manufacture EV
lithium-ion batteries is expensive and therefore these vehicles are pricier than similar-sized ICEs.
However, these battery prices have already decreased an estimated 80% since 2010 and will fall
another 45% by 2021.16 Knowing that battery costs currently compose half the price of an EV, view
Figure 7 to see the estimated MSRP of the Chevy Bolt as time progresses.
Figure 7: Expected Drop in MSRP of Chevy Bolt Over Time
Next, depreciation of the 2011 Crown Victoria was calculated to determine the value that CYC could
recover through resale of these vehicles. With an original MSRP of $26,950, straight-line
depreciation was employed with an expected vehicle life of 10 years. After this, the salvage value for
the Crown Victoria is $300.17, 18 View Figure 8 below to see this depreciation over time.
Figure 8: Depreciation and Resale Amount of 2011 Crown Victoria Over Time
15
Moreover, it was also considered in the economic analysis that currently, CYC is eligible for a
$3,000 rebate per EV purchased.1 Further, it was presumed that CYC will continue to obtain 2 DC
fast chargers (Level 3) per 10 EVs purchased. These chargers can range in value depending on the
parts and labor, but for this analysis, it was assumed that each L3 charger is ~$23,000.19
Lastly, maintenance costs were considered with the Crown Victoria being the most expensive at $928
per year and the Prius costing about $428 per year.20 Since EVs contain 17 moving parts as opposed
to the 500 or more parts in ICEs, EV maintenance is 15% the cost of Prius maintenance.21 Even
though the most expensive aspect of EVs is battery replacement, many car manufacturers currently
offer a 8-10 year warranty on these batteries. The total operating and maintenance costs of
investment into an EV versus ICE fleet is shown in Figure 9. Note the time scale is shown in half
years; for example, “2H19” represents the latter half of 2019.
Figure 9: Projected Maintenance and Operating Expenses of Gas Vehicle vs EV Investment
At first, the difference is minimal in the above figure since there are not many EVs in the fleet.
However, as time goes on and more EVs are purchased, maintaining gas vehicles (even efficient ones
like the Prius) is increasingly more expensive. Once all of the Crown Victorias are replaced, the
savings in M&O costs for green technology vs ICEs is about $50,000 per year for CYC.
16
However, when capital costs are considered, the economic impact looks less favorable. Figure 16 in
Appendix B shows the comparison of these capital investments. Figure 10 shows the total sum of the
capital, maintenance, and operating expenses over time.
Figure 10: Projected Total Expenses of Gas Vehicle vs EV Investment
Note that from 2019 to 2021, capital costs make up a majority of the expenses since the Crown
Victorias are being replaced. Since purchasing EVs includes both the vehicle and the charger, this
large upfront investment is the main drawback of this green technology. However, as time passes and
less money is made from the resale of Crown Victorias, the capital expenses for the ICEs and EVs
approach each other. This indicates that in the near future, the investment expenses may be equal and
therefore it would no longer be unfavorable to purchase a green fleet.
The main takeaway from viewing the total projected expenses is that while EVs look initially
unfavorable, CYC would save money on maintenance and operating costs in later years. If funds are
available to afford the initial investment of an EV fleet, it is recommended that CYC purchases these
vehicles instead of more ICEs. With this decision, CYC would be able to make their money back in
future years. View Appendix C for recommendations for future work.
17
Works Cited
1. Smart Columbus. p 5. Undated Draft. (accessed Feb. 21, 2019).
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Published Online: October 9, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/
sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed Feb. 20, 2019).
3. Government Technology: State & Local Government News Articles. Columbus, Ohio,
Tries to Jump-Start the Local EV Market. Published Online: June 20, 2018.
www.govtech.com/fs/transportation/Columbus-Ohio-Tries-to-Jump-Start-the-Local-EV-
Market.html (accessed Feb. 21, 2019).
4. Michael Sivak; Brandon Schoettle. 2018, p 3. Department of Energy. EGallon: Compare
the Costs of Driving with Electricity. www.energy.gov/maps/egallon (accessed Feb. 21,
2019).
5. Bloomberg Energy Finance. Electric Vehicle Outlook 2018.
https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/ (accessed Feb. 21 2019)
6 EnergySage. How Much Do Electric Cars Cost? Published Online: January 20, 2019.
www.energysage.com/electric-vehicles/costs-and-benefits-evs/electric-car-cost/
(accessed Feb. 21, 2019).
7. U.S. Department of Energy. Emissions from Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles.
afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html (accessed Feb. 21 2019).
8. SmartColumbus. “Projects.” 2018. https://smart.columbus.gov/projects/.
9. Kjosevski, S.; Kochov, A.; Kostikj, A. Risks and Safety Issues Related to Use of Electric
and Hybrid Vehicles. Scientific Proceedings XIV International Congress. [Online] 2017,
2, 169-172 http://mtmcongress.com/proceedngs/2017/Winter/2/25.RISKS%20AND%
20SAFETY%20ISSUES%20RELATED%20TO%20USE%20OF%20ELECTRIC%
20AND%20HYBRID%20VEHICLES.pdf (accessed April 12, 2019).
10. Inside Energy. Lost in Transmission: How Much Electricity Disappears Between a Power
Plant and Your Plug? Published Online: November 6, 2015. http://insideenergy.org/
2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant
-and-your-plug/ (accessed April 8, 2019).
11. Genovese, A.; Ortenzi, F.; Villante, C. On the Energy Efficiency of Quick DC Vehicle
Battery Charging. World Electric Vehicle Journal. [Online] 2015, 7, 1-7
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274316538_On_the_energy_efficiency_of_quic
k_DC_vehicle_battery_charging (accessed April 8, 2019).
18
12. Morgan Kaufman, CEO of Columbus Yellow Cab [Telephone interview]. (Mar. 26,
2019).
13. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Weekly U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail
Gasoline Prices. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_
EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W (accessed March 15, 2019).
14. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Average retail price of electricity United States
monthly. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=2 (Accessed March
15, 2019).
15. Opsitnik, Liz. U.S. News & World Report. Goodbye, Crown Victoria. Published Online:
September 16, 2011. https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/best-cars-blog/2011/09/
goodbye-ford-crown-victoria (Accessed April 8, 2019).
16. Myers, Amanda. Forbes. 4 U.S. Electric Vehicle Trends to Watch in 2019. Published
Online: January 2, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2019/01/02/
4-u-s-electric-vehicle-trends-to-watch-in-2019/#6e41424d5a3c (Accessed April 8, 2019).
17. Autotrader. 2011 Ford Crown Victoria. https://www.autotrader.com/Ford/
Crown+Victoria/2011 (Accessed April 8, 2019).
18. Peddle. Car Resale Prices. https://www.peddle.com/ (Accessed April 8, 2019).
19. Smith, Margaret; Castellano, Jonathan. U.S. Department of Energy. Costs Associated
with Non-Residential Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment. Published: November 2015.
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/evse_cost_report_2015.pdf (Accessed April 8,
2019).
20. Repair Pal. Repair & Maintenance Estimates. https://repairpal.com/ (Accessed April 8,
2019).
21. Hovis, Mark. InsideEVs. EV vs ICE Maintenance. Published Online: March 9, 2013.
https://insideevs.com/ev-vs-ice-maintenance-the-first-100000-miles/ (Accessed April 8,
2019).
19
Appendix A: Detailed Project Schedule
A detailed Gantt chart for this project is below in two forms: close-up and holistically. The Excel
file is also submitted. Colors signify who was assigned certain responsibilities.
20
21
Figure 12: Project Gantt Chart (Close-Up)
22
Figure 13: Project Gantt Chart (Holistic)
23
Appendix B: Referenced Tables and Figures
Table 3: Car Emission Comparison for CYC Fleet
Figure 14: Car Emission Comparison for CYC Fleet
24
Table 4: Projections Strategy for CYC Fleet Transition
Table 5: Projection Emissions for CYC Fleet Transition
25
Figure 15: Projections Emissions for CYC Fleet Transition
Figure 16: Projected Capital Expenses of Gas Vehicle vs EV Investment
26
Appendix C: Recommendation for Future Work
For future consideration, it is recommended that CYC incorporates their profits into an economic
cash flow analysis. This report discussed solely expenses, but if profit was made available, a
more detailed analysis could be conducted. Taking into account how much income CYC receives
would enable a more informed recommendation through performance variables such as return on
investment, investor’s rate of return, net present value, etc.
Further, for the convenience of both SmartColumbus and CYC, the team created a user-friendly
Excel file for commercial transportation companies to use. The first tab allows the user to input
the make and model distribution of a theoretical fleet. As a result, this automatically populates
the second page which shows the total emissions of the entire fleet. This can then be used to
compare the environmental impact of a fleet based off the team’s calculations shown above. The
third tab has the direct comparison of the cars CYC already has and allows the users to visually
see how each car impacts the environment. The final tab is a reference for the projections the
team for each emission type. This file is submitted with this report or can be accessed via the
link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-
KBytrlVLJKpVUVZ6ojRXKRVWtP8uWJXdoyKfIYE1dw/edit?usp=sharing.