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.