Electric Vehicles on Salt Spring Island
2018 Data and Information
Prepared by John Newton
Summary
The second report of this study presents 2018 data from 31 EV owners (BEV and Plug-in) of the estimated 131 EVs on Salt Spring as of January 1, 2018 (a 24% sample). Each EV owner provided operational data to the SSI EV Statistics Project undertaken by the EV Group of Transitions Salt Spring (TSS). The annual average distance driven was 9,527 km. Annual maintenance costs ranged from $0 to $2,487, with an average of $267.94, an increase in 2018 of 25%. The average annual energy efficiency reported over the two years (2017 & 2018) remained at 6.3 km/kWh with values ranging from 4.5 to 8.2 km/kWh. With a small sample and battery health heavily dependant on the overall distance travelled data provided is still only anecdotal of how current batteries are performing though there is a strong year to year similarity. The two year statistics project has yielded sufficient data to meet its stated purpose. As new battery technologies, charging options and EVs with greater range influence owner usage a project update will be considered in 4-5 years.
Background
Since about 2015, the number of electric vehicles (EVs) on Salt Spring has grown rapidly to an estimated 190 on January 1, 2019. The impact of so many people switching to both battery EVs (BEV) and Plug-in EVs has a growing influence on gasoline usage and thus greenhouse gasses (GHG). With a desire to better understand this situation an EV Statistics Project was initiated in the summer of 2016. TSS can now say with greater confidence what that influence is, celebrate our collective impact, inform SSI residents, and influence EV policy. Moreover, the collected data confirms that switching from an ICE (internal combustion engine) to an EV vehicle is the single largest impact most households can have on their greenhouse gas emissions.
Project Structure
To collect this data, in December of the preceding year all known owners of EVs on Salt Spring Island were invited to join the SSI EV Statistics Project. In 2017 28 EV owners participated while in 2018 31 EV owners (of which 68% participated for two years) submitted the following data for their EV:
The odometer reading (km) as of January 1st;
Participants were asked to submit their data as of January 1st, reflecting a full year of operation. While all participants submitted odometer readings and most their maintenance costs, the ease of measuring battery health and energy economy varied by vehicle type. Based on the data received for 2018 this brief report was prepared.Project Sample Profile
For 2018 the project sample included 31 EVs made up of two BMW, 22 Leafs, three Smarts, one Soul, one Fiat, one Volt, and one Tesla. The large number of Leafs participating reflects the current predominance of Leafs in the EV population on the island. The vehicle type year to year in the samples is very similar.
The distribution by model year (where provided) for each of the data years is as follows:
2017 Data: 2018-0, 2017-0, 2016-3, 2015-4, 2014-2, 2013-9, 2012-4, 2011-5
2018 Data: 2018-1, 2017-1, 2016-2, 2015-5, 2014-5, 2013-9, 2012-3, 2011-4
In addition to the continued dominance of off-lease vehicles (3 years old), mostly from the northwest USA, more new vehicles participated in 2018. The Leaf is still the most common vehicle type, though the scope of vehicle type is increasing.
Annual Distance Travelled
For calculating the impact on GHG of EVs replacing gas/diesel vehicles the most important data are the overall distance vehicles travel in a year. In 2017 28 vehicles reported travelling 279,719 km, an average of 9,990 km. In 2018 31 vehicles reported travelling 280,955 an average of 9,063 km. The two year average is 9,527 km. The range was from a low of 2,959 km to a high of 23,870 km with the distribution shown in the interactive chart below (click on either end of the bar at bottom for different years).
For both years likely factors that influence the distance travelled include time away when the EV is not used, off-island (often longer trip) travel, and on-island travel patterns that could be influenced by proximity to Ganges or daily work/school requirements. As well, some households have both EV and ICE vehicles, so vehicle choice for a trip can influence total EV distance, as could a move closer to Ganges.
Moreover, while the project sample is a significant proportion of EVs on the island the absolute number is still not very large and thus averages are susceptible to changes in the number of EVs that are heavily or lightly used during any given year. Thus the shifts from 2017 to 2018 in the chart on page two that show a decrease from 2 to 0 EVs travelling more than 20,000 km and an increase from 2 to 4 EVs travelling less than 5,000 km influenced the reduction in average distance travelled of 927 km.
Annual Maintenance Costs
Annual maintenance costs incurred during 2017 and 2018 were reported by 24 and 27 EV owners respectively with values ranging from $0 to a high of $2,487. The overall two year average is $267.94, however over the two years 18 EVs had no maintenance costs which skews this value. For EV owners reporting costs the two year average is $422.20.
In addition to basic maintenance costs incurred directly by owners, some warranty work was reported but no specifics were provided. The larger costs reported were for a door, rims, new/winter tires, or sensors. Where mentioned other costs related to work such as annual maintenance checks, tire changes, replacement of brake pads or wiper blades.
In general the EVs in the research sample were still too new and often under warranty to give a helpful indication of the true annual maintenance costs of an EV.
Annual Energy Efficiency
Most EVs track the operation of the vehicle and provide an indication of the efficiency, usually measured in km/kWh. Research participants were asked to reset their EV energy efficiency recorder on January 1st and then report the reading at the end of the year. Over the two years energy efficiency data was reported for 44 EV. The average annual value was 6.3 km/kWh with values ranging from 5.0 to 8.2 km/kWh.
Some of the factors that account for the variation in the conversion of battery energy into distance travelled are:
Battery Health
Each EV manufacturer measures the condition (i.e. health) of the main battery and provides some form of feedback. For example, the Nissan Leaf displays 12 bars (10 white and 2 red) to indicate the capacity of the battery to accept a full charge. Over time with repeated charging cycles the battery capacity will reduce and be shown through a drop in the number of bars displayed below the maximum of 12 bars. Of the 2018 research sample 23 EV owners (21 Leafs & one Tesla) provided data displayed below.
Given that the use of EVs is very recent, perhaps only 10 years since the first production all-electric models were available, definitive evidence of the degradation of EV batteries over their anticipated lifespan is not yet available. As with many innovations, today’s EV owners are implicitly part of the experiment that is the transition from fossil fuelled vehicles to vehicles powered by alternative energy sources, including electricity. Consequently, the battery health data provided through this research, while hopefully indicative, can only be considered anecdotal, of how current batteries are performing.
With every year, advances in battery technology are yielding higher energy densities and improved charging regimes that make historical comparisons difficult, and to some degree meaningless. Nonetheless, it appears that from the data gathered from EVs owners on Salt Spring their vehicles loose perhaps only 5-10% of their full battery charging capacity (11-12 bars) over 5-7 years. Only recently, after seven years of operation are we seeing the charging capacity of some EVs drop to 10 bars, which is still above the Leaf battery warranty of 9 bars after five years for 24kWh batteries.
Next Steps
The EV Statistics Project results will be made available to the participants, other EV owners on Salt Spring, Transitions Salt Spring, and to the general public through media and public events. When used, attribution would be appreciated but is not required, as no claims are made as to the accuracy of the data collected, as it was acquired through voluntary contribution without means of verification. Data collected over two years is deemed sufficient for the project purposes. A update will be considered in 4-5 years.
2018 Data and Information
Prepared by John Newton
Summary
The second report of this study presents 2018 data from 31 EV owners (BEV and Plug-in) of the estimated 131 EVs on Salt Spring as of January 1, 2018 (a 24% sample). Each EV owner provided operational data to the SSI EV Statistics Project undertaken by the EV Group of Transitions Salt Spring (TSS). The annual average distance driven was 9,527 km. Annual maintenance costs ranged from $0 to $2,487, with an average of $267.94, an increase in 2018 of 25%. The average annual energy efficiency reported over the two years (2017 & 2018) remained at 6.3 km/kWh with values ranging from 4.5 to 8.2 km/kWh. With a small sample and battery health heavily dependant on the overall distance travelled data provided is still only anecdotal of how current batteries are performing though there is a strong year to year similarity. The two year statistics project has yielded sufficient data to meet its stated purpose. As new battery technologies, charging options and EVs with greater range influence owner usage a project update will be considered in 4-5 years.
Background
Since about 2015, the number of electric vehicles (EVs) on Salt Spring has grown rapidly to an estimated 190 on January 1, 2019. The impact of so many people switching to both battery EVs (BEV) and Plug-in EVs has a growing influence on gasoline usage and thus greenhouse gasses (GHG). With a desire to better understand this situation an EV Statistics Project was initiated in the summer of 2016. TSS can now say with greater confidence what that influence is, celebrate our collective impact, inform SSI residents, and influence EV policy. Moreover, the collected data confirms that switching from an ICE (internal combustion engine) to an EV vehicle is the single largest impact most households can have on their greenhouse gas emissions.
Project Structure
To collect this data, in December of the preceding year all known owners of EVs on Salt Spring Island were invited to join the SSI EV Statistics Project. In 2017 28 EV owners participated while in 2018 31 EV owners (of which 68% participated for two years) submitted the following data for their EV:
The odometer reading (km) as of January 1st;
- Maintenance costs incurred during the calendar year;
- Battery Health: the number of “bars” or % of original capacity at year end; and,
- The annual energy economy value - km/kWh - (if equipped) on January 1st.
Participants were asked to submit their data as of January 1st, reflecting a full year of operation. While all participants submitted odometer readings and most their maintenance costs, the ease of measuring battery health and energy economy varied by vehicle type. Based on the data received for 2018 this brief report was prepared.Project Sample Profile
For 2018 the project sample included 31 EVs made up of two BMW, 22 Leafs, three Smarts, one Soul, one Fiat, one Volt, and one Tesla. The large number of Leafs participating reflects the current predominance of Leafs in the EV population on the island. The vehicle type year to year in the samples is very similar.
The distribution by model year (where provided) for each of the data years is as follows:
2017 Data: 2018-0, 2017-0, 2016-3, 2015-4, 2014-2, 2013-9, 2012-4, 2011-5
2018 Data: 2018-1, 2017-1, 2016-2, 2015-5, 2014-5, 2013-9, 2012-3, 2011-4
In addition to the continued dominance of off-lease vehicles (3 years old), mostly from the northwest USA, more new vehicles participated in 2018. The Leaf is still the most common vehicle type, though the scope of vehicle type is increasing.
Annual Distance Travelled
For calculating the impact on GHG of EVs replacing gas/diesel vehicles the most important data are the overall distance vehicles travel in a year. In 2017 28 vehicles reported travelling 279,719 km, an average of 9,990 km. In 2018 31 vehicles reported travelling 280,955 an average of 9,063 km. The two year average is 9,527 km. The range was from a low of 2,959 km to a high of 23,870 km with the distribution shown in the interactive chart below (click on either end of the bar at bottom for different years).
For both years likely factors that influence the distance travelled include time away when the EV is not used, off-island (often longer trip) travel, and on-island travel patterns that could be influenced by proximity to Ganges or daily work/school requirements. As well, some households have both EV and ICE vehicles, so vehicle choice for a trip can influence total EV distance, as could a move closer to Ganges.
Moreover, while the project sample is a significant proportion of EVs on the island the absolute number is still not very large and thus averages are susceptible to changes in the number of EVs that are heavily or lightly used during any given year. Thus the shifts from 2017 to 2018 in the chart on page two that show a decrease from 2 to 0 EVs travelling more than 20,000 km and an increase from 2 to 4 EVs travelling less than 5,000 km influenced the reduction in average distance travelled of 927 km.
Annual Maintenance Costs
Annual maintenance costs incurred during 2017 and 2018 were reported by 24 and 27 EV owners respectively with values ranging from $0 to a high of $2,487. The overall two year average is $267.94, however over the two years 18 EVs had no maintenance costs which skews this value. For EV owners reporting costs the two year average is $422.20.
In addition to basic maintenance costs incurred directly by owners, some warranty work was reported but no specifics were provided. The larger costs reported were for a door, rims, new/winter tires, or sensors. Where mentioned other costs related to work such as annual maintenance checks, tire changes, replacement of brake pads or wiper blades.
In general the EVs in the research sample were still too new and often under warranty to give a helpful indication of the true annual maintenance costs of an EV.
Annual Energy Efficiency
Most EVs track the operation of the vehicle and provide an indication of the efficiency, usually measured in km/kWh. Research participants were asked to reset their EV energy efficiency recorder on January 1st and then report the reading at the end of the year. Over the two years energy efficiency data was reported for 44 EV. The average annual value was 6.3 km/kWh with values ranging from 5.0 to 8.2 km/kWh.
Some of the factors that account for the variation in the conversion of battery energy into distance travelled are:
- use of ECO mode or equivalent;
- level of regeneration capacity employed;
- type of terrain regularly travelled, e.g. hilly vs. level;
- ambient temperature conditions; and,
- driving style, e.g. quick vs. sedate acceleration.
Battery Health
Each EV manufacturer measures the condition (i.e. health) of the main battery and provides some form of feedback. For example, the Nissan Leaf displays 12 bars (10 white and 2 red) to indicate the capacity of the battery to accept a full charge. Over time with repeated charging cycles the battery capacity will reduce and be shown through a drop in the number of bars displayed below the maximum of 12 bars. Of the 2018 research sample 23 EV owners (21 Leafs & one Tesla) provided data displayed below.
Given that the use of EVs is very recent, perhaps only 10 years since the first production all-electric models were available, definitive evidence of the degradation of EV batteries over their anticipated lifespan is not yet available. As with many innovations, today’s EV owners are implicitly part of the experiment that is the transition from fossil fuelled vehicles to vehicles powered by alternative energy sources, including electricity. Consequently, the battery health data provided through this research, while hopefully indicative, can only be considered anecdotal, of how current batteries are performing.
With every year, advances in battery technology are yielding higher energy densities and improved charging regimes that make historical comparisons difficult, and to some degree meaningless. Nonetheless, it appears that from the data gathered from EVs owners on Salt Spring their vehicles loose perhaps only 5-10% of their full battery charging capacity (11-12 bars) over 5-7 years. Only recently, after seven years of operation are we seeing the charging capacity of some EVs drop to 10 bars, which is still above the Leaf battery warranty of 9 bars after five years for 24kWh batteries.
Next Steps
The EV Statistics Project results will be made available to the participants, other EV owners on Salt Spring, Transitions Salt Spring, and to the general public through media and public events. When used, attribution would be appreciated but is not required, as no claims are made as to the accuracy of the data collected, as it was acquired through voluntary contribution without means of verification. Data collected over two years is deemed sufficient for the project purposes. A update will be considered in 4-5 years.