Jump to content

US proposes to slash EV mileage ratings to meet fuel economy rules


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Easy-auto makers won’t make them because they won’t be able to make CAFE using them. 

 

But we're talking about adjusting BEV numbers downward.

 

18 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

The PEF calculation methodologies used for CAFE substantially overstate the true energy efficiency of BEV (and to a lesser extent, hybrids as well). This allows automakers to meet CAFE standards by selling only a very small number of BEV, and thereby get away with vehicle lineups that favor relatively inefficient models, particularly ICE powered pickup trucks and SUVs.

 

As such, the proposal mentioned in the original post would encourage automakers to sell more BEV in order to comply with CAFE. 

 

The petition to Department of Energy mentioned the following.

 

So they lied and inflated the numbers to make them look better to pass.  Who'd have thought gov't would do that....lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Havelock said:

Please look at what is actually available for low prices.  A large Ford dealership having different locations near me has almost 1,500 new Ford's listed on their website.  Only 2 were under 30k.  Three more were under 35k.  They were 2022 Escapes with large discounts.  Affordable vehicles are gone.  5/1,500 are under $35k.


I didn’t say anything about Ford.  I’m talking about the entire market.  The imports have tons of vehicles under $30k.  Stock can be skewed - cheaper ones usually sell faster.   Toyota has sub $30k corollas and camrys.    You can buy Nissan Sentra and Versas for sub $25K all day long.  Same for the Koreans.

 

To say the sub $30k market is not significant is silly.  That’s all a lot of people can afford,  And they’re not buying $35k BEVs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

So they lied and inflated the numbers to make them look better to pass.

 

PEF calculations are done in accordance with the regulatory approach in 49 U.S.C. 32905. Federal Register :: Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation

 

PEF = Eg * 1/0.15 * AF * DPF

where

Eg = Gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity factor

1/0.15 = “Fuel content” factor (also called Section 32905 multiplier)

AF = Petroleum-fueled accessory factor

DPF = Driving pattern factor

 

The main issue with this calculation is the "Fuel content" factor bolded above. This is the primary driver of the wildly inflated CAFE values for BEV. Example from the proposal mentioned in the original post.

In practical terms, the EV fuel economy used for CAFE compliance is seven-fold higher due to the inclusion of the Section 32905 multiplier. So, for example, for the bestselling 2021 Tesla Model Y (Standard Range RWD) measured at 260 Wh/mile, the CAFE value under DOE's current treatment of the Section 32904 factors alone would be 51 mpg, but with the multiplier the same vehicle is imputed a 315 mpg value for CAFE compliance purposes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

Both numbers where artificially inflated due to the way they where calculated. 

 

Correct. The biggest issue with the artificially inflated CAFE numbers for BEV is that it's a disincentive for incumbent automakers make the transition to 100% electric vehicle lineups as quickly as possible, because it gives those automakers the ability to sell a large number of inefficient gasoline and diesel powered vehicles and still comply with CAFE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Correct. The biggest issue with the artificially inflated CAFE numbers for BEV is that it's a disincentive for incumbent automakers make the transition to 100% electric vehicle lineups as quickly as possible, because it gives those automakers the ability to sell a large number of inefficient gasoline and diesel powered vehicles and still comply with CAFE.


While their focus may very well be on promoting BEV sales, it is also just as possible that the Department Of Energy may be trying to encourage more fuel-efficient “conventional models”.  If we were to look at this issue objectively rather than politically or emotionally, we can accomplish more and faster by first reducing ICE fuel consumption; and with far less pain.

 

 

¨The U.S. Energy Department (DOE) on Monday proposed reducing electric vehicles' (EV) mileage ratings to meet government fuel economy requirements, a move that could force automakers to sell more low-emissions cars or improve conventional models

 

 

I just got back from a 2,400-mile round trip, mostly Interstate roads, and only noticed 1 Tesla BEV the entire trip; a Model Y doing 80 MPH.  I’m sure there were many others that I didn’t see, but my point is that adoption rate may not be as fast as it appears.  I expect  energy experts (DOE) should know that significant ICE fuel economy improvements will accomplish as much or more than simply switching from ICE to BEV.  I know many Americans don’t want compact fuel-efficient vehicles, but many don’t want or can afford BEV either, at least for now, so getting auto industry to offer higher MPG choices makes a lot of sense to me.

 

DOE may also know that without huge investments in electric power generation, storage, and distribution, there is no realistic way that the grid can handle peak charging by 2030.  The study showing California alone will be short the equivalent of 4 to 5 large nuclear power plant’s worth of power in a few years (different thread) suggest that a broader solution is needed to handle the transition.  This new DOE BEV rating may just be a safety net in case BEV adoption or grid improvements take longer than some would like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

I just got back from a 2,400-mile round trip, mostly Interstate roads, and only noticed 1 Tesla BEV the entire trip; a Model Y doing 80 MPH.  I’m sure there were many others that I didn’t see, but my point is that adoption rate may not be as fast as it appears.  I expect  energy experts (DOE) should know that significant ICE fuel economy improvements will accomplish as much or more than simply switching from ICE to BEV.  I know many Americans don’t want compact fuel-efficient vehicles, but many don’t want or can afford BEV either, at least for now, so getting auto industry to offer higher MPG choices makes a lot of sense to me.

I think you just made a valid argument for  HEV/PHEVs as a great interim solution that will help transition us to BEVs. I have an Escape PHEV on order and I will use little to no gas while driving around my home area (the majority of our driving). For our longer road trips I will still have the convenience of a very efficient hybrid.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the blame for the distorted rules has to go back to the EPA getting its car fuel economy limits so wrong, they virtually drove cars out of existence with “impossible” targets while letting Manufacturers completely off the hook with utilities classed as “trucks” when most are replacements for glorified station wagons or minivans. It just goes to show how much behind the scenes lobbying and influencing goes on….

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I expect  energy experts (DOE) should know that significant ICE fuel economy improvements will accomplish as much or more than simply switching from ICE to BEV.  

 

I hate to tell you this, but there is no great miracle that is going to save ICE....because of one simple fact-the reduction of Co2 emissions are the primary driving factor behind this. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I hate to tell you this, but there is no great miracle that is going to save ICE....because of one simple fact-the reduction of Co2 emissions are the primary driving factor behind this. 


And there is no great miracle that will make BEVs affordable or viable for all situations for at least a couple of decades.  Ignoring improvements to ICE that can reduce CO2 in the meantime is silly.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, akirby said:

And there is no great miracle that will make BEVs affordable or viable for all situations for at least a couple of decades.  Ignoring improvements to ICE that can reduce CO2 in the meantime is silly.

 

What can exactly be improved? Co2 is a result of burning gas, outside of forcing everyone to drive a Focus, there really isn't going to be much in the way of improvements. 

Just using the Escape HEV as an example, from 2010 to 2023, there was an improvement of roughly .9 ton in lesser Co2 emissions a year. The Mach E cuts the amount of Co2 from the Escape HEV by 1/3, using my states electrical generation percentages. 

 

Outside of Medium and Heavy Duty trucks, BEVs can more or less replace everything in the next 20 years. But we are focusing on light duty vehicles that would fall under this-changes to Medium and Heavy duty vehicles is coming down the road. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entering this circular debate again.  Just remember all my previous statements about lack of range in cold weather, high Bev prices, lack of home charging and lack of public chargers and slow public charging times.  We don’t know how quickly these barriers will be overcome.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I hate to tell you this, but there is no great miracle that is going to save ICE....because of one simple fact-the reduction of Co2 emissions are the primary driving factor behind this. 

 

 

 

 


Do you realize that a full-size BEV pickup truck used for commuting produces more CO2 than an efficient compact hybrid?

 

I’m not suggesting we stop BEV conversion, just that we promote downsizing and ICE fuel efficiency at the same time which is cost positive, not cost negative.  If a pickup truck or large SUV owner can be influenced to drive a 50 MPG car today, we can reduce GHGs as much or more than if he trades that pickup or large SUV for a BEV version of same size vehicle.

 

I don’t believe buyer incentives should be used at all, but “if” we were to use them, why shouldn’t a poor family get as much assistance towards buying a Toyota Corolla Hybrid as a middle- to upper-class family gets toward an F-150 Lightning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Do you realize that a full-size BEV pickup truck used for commuting produces more CO2 than an efficient compact hybrid?

 

Your completely wrong there

using worst case scenario, a zip code from West Virginia, a Lightning  would produce about 240g/mi of Co2, where as some place like where I live would generate 170.

 

An Escape Hybrid produces 220 tailpile and another 41 upstream (from powerplants)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rick73 said:

While their focus may very well be on promoting BEV sales, it is also just as possible that the Department Of Energy may be trying to encourage more fuel-efficient “conventional models”. 

 

13 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

I hate to tell you this, but there is no great miracle that is going to save ICE

 

Even if DOE may be trying to encourage more fuel-efficient "conventional models", automakers and suppliers know that capital investment in such initiatives is a dead end nowadays as the global automotive industry pursues an all-electric future.

 

Alliance for Automotive Innovation said the following.

Every dollar invested in internal combustion technology is a dollar not spent on zero carbon technology. And vice versa.

Automakers and battery partners have already committed $110 billion in the U.S. to electrify products. Requiring large investments for incremental gains from gas-powered engines comes at the expense of where our collective focus ought to be: electrification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Your completely wrong there


I can be wrong, but not on this.  TODAY (not in the future when electricity is carbon-free), driving a Lightning produces more CO2 than a Prius when Lightning is charged from “average” America’s grid.  Data below from very short article shows why.  You should read it.

 

If you disagree, please show why it’s wrong.  I have open mind and will consider most things as long as they don’t include stupidity like 300 MPG-equivalent cars.

 

 

C3F1B78C-6236-4CDC-A908-67ABAEF3EA78.png.c5185892494bd08979d15ad3fb765444.png
 

https://iee.psu.edu/news/blog/will-buying-new-electric-ford-f-150-lightning-help-save-world-climate-change

 

 

For what it’s worth, I believe issue is worse than suggested above when total net effect is considered.

Edited by Rick73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One huge thing not being mentioned is the amount of carbon emitted during the manufacturing of the vehicle.  I don't recall the numbers, but a TED Talks had a gentleman showing the actual graphs of carbon emissions when you factor in how much more carbon is emitted in the making of batteries vs. an ICE vehicle.

Those graphs look good above.  But that' totally ignoring how much more in the hole you start with on a EV vs. an ICE.

 

I think this was the one.  Guy looks familiar.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2023 at 9:15 AM, silvrsvt said:

 

Your completely wrong there

using worst case scenario, a zip code from West Virginia, a Lightning  would produce about 240g/mi of Co2, where as some place like where I live would generate 170.

 

An Escape Hybrid produces 220 tailpile and another 41 upstream (from powerplants)

The thing that bugs me about these kind of comparisons is that (however the relevant carbon emissions shake out) it is comparing two very different vehicles being used for a purpose for which only one of them is optimized. Instead of assuming that we are using both vehicles entirely for daily commutes, let's assume that both vehicles are being used entirely by a local contractor for hauling stuff and job site use. The amount of running around the Prius would have to do every day to shuttle stuff back and forth to the job site, and the need to rent a job site generator makes the carbon emissions of the Prius much greater. These two different vehicles are each great for their own intended use. Just don't try to use the Prius as a pickup truck. 

Edited by Gurgeh
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2023 at 4:55 PM, 92merc said:

One huge thing not being mentioned is the amount of carbon emitted during the manufacturing of the vehicle.  I don't recall the numbers, but a TED Talks had a gentleman showing the actual graphs of carbon emissions when you factor in how much more carbon is emitted in the making of batteries vs. an ICE vehicle.

Those graphs look good above.  But that' totally ignoring how much more in the hole you start with on a EV vs. an ICE.

 

There is more upfront with an EV but due to an ICE needing to burn fuel and creating CO2 over its lifetime, the ICE creates more

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

The thing that bugs me about these kind of comparisons is that (however the relevant carbon emissions shake out) it is comparing two very different vehicles being used for a purpose for which only one of them is optimized. 

 

I wasn't the one to compare a full-sized pickup to a compact vehicle-that was part of the original post and your totally correct. But there are several issues at hand to do an apples to apples comparison of vehicles-like establishing a testing procedure for vehicles that tow to figure out their gas mileage/range. What it boils down to is pickups are used as passenger vehicles 95% of the time in personal use. 

 

But also just for shits and giggles, I looked at the F-150 HEV vs the Escape HEV and the difference in CO2 emissions isn't all that great either

 

image.thumb.png.0327b185c0230823ae073f0f2681980e.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

But also just for shits and giggles, I looked at the F-150 HEV vs the Escape HEV and the difference in CO2 emissions isn't all that great either


Reduction of GHGs from 5.3 to 3.4 metric tons seems like a significant improvement to me, but I don’t expect numbers near zero, so it’s all relative to what is expected.

 

I was curious on same comparison between 2023 Prius versus F-150 with 2.7L EcoBoost versus Lightning.  The Prius starts at 188 grams per mile, with F-150 EB at 510 grams per mile, and Lightning at +/- 200 grams per mile on average.  In South Florida it is rated 210 grams per mile.  I don’t live there but Florida Power & Light has significant nuclear and solar generation.

 

For additional comparison, a Tesla Model 3 is rated 110 grams per mile, confirming that downsizing is critical whether ICE or BEV.

 

 

D6FC2A48-3A97-40E8-A5BA-AE4F338BA1E0.thumb.jpeg.718580eeeee827ad248377fa22161f40.jpeg616DD87F-81DD-42F1-9235-FC2750AF470B.thumb.jpeg.ce2a524cbc2f13a95635ec2b4c92820b.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Reduction of GHGs from 5.3 to 3.4 metric tons seems like a significant improvement to me, but I don’t expect numbers near zero, so it’s all relative to what is expected.

 

But that is the "issue"...they want to go close to zero as possible plus the necking down of pollution to power plants where it is easier to control vs thousands/millions of little ICE engines on the road. 

 

Using the cheapest 2023 F-150 as a standard, a 2.7L F-150 RWD puts out about 431 grams of Co2, while the 2013 with the 3.7L puts out 471



 

Edited by silvrsvt
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But that is the "issue"...they want to go close to zero as possible plus the necking down of pollution to power plants where it is easier to control vs thousands/millions of little ICE engines on the road. 

 

Using the cheapest 2023 F-150 as a standard, a 2.7L F-150 RWD puts out about 431 grams of Co2, while the 2013 with the 3.7L puts out 471



 


In my opinion we are spinning our wheels and getting nowhere fast, and if governments can’t get their act together, we are doomed.  Too many politicians and environmentalist have good intentions, but lack technical knowledge to make the right choices.  The number of power plants isn’t the primary issue at all.  

 

Numbers don’t lie.  If we take a BEV pickup that only gets 2 miles per kWh of battery capacity, it will produce approximately 600~650 grams per mile of CO2 when fueled by coal-generated electricity.  In time when coal is eliminated, that BEV pickup powered by natural-gas-generated electricity will produce +/- 270 grams per mile.  That’s using government data and estimating only energy to power vehicle, and doesn’t include energy to manufacture batteries.  Net CO2 is even greater.

 

People claim we will eliminate coal soon (let’s hope that’s correct), but natural gas will be around for a very long time.  In the mean time, as long as grid isn’t truly green, driving large inefficient BEVs is actually worse than driving efficient hybrids.  So yeah, a BEV pickup driven for personal use 95% of time per your estimate above (which I agree) will generate more GHGs for decades than compact hybrids.

 

If we are going the BEV route, vehicles need to be at least as efficient as a Tesla Model 3 that can do up to 5 miles per kWh in city driving; and that will reduce CO2 to about 110 grams per mile.  We need to at least break even, otherwise why bother if making matters worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...