SEARCH
WSJ: The Electric-Vehicle Cheating Scandal
Related: climate science, diesel fuel, dumb energy, electric vehicle, The Wall Street Journal, virtue signaling, woke psychopathology
re: WSJ
re: climate change
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
WOW. Am I missing something here, or is this as bad as it looks?
BTW, EVs are major safety hazard for those not driving them; like hitting a dumptruck. Any of my daughters driving a 2900 lb VW Jetta or similar would be annhilated by many of the EVs on the road today and badly mashed even by a 4900 lb Tesla. And Tesla Cyber Truck weighs over 6843 pounds, 1000 ponds more than a Sprinter cargo van.
See also: Net-Zero Is Pulling the Plug on America’s Electrical ‘Life Support System,’ New Documentary Says
WSJ: The Six Months That Short-Circuited the Electric-Vehicle Revolution
See also, climate change portion of Woke Religion Taxonomy.
WSJ: The Electric-Vehicle Cheating Scandal
2024-01-16
A government rule makes them look nearly seven times as efficient as they are.
It’s hard to think of a worse environmental scandal in recent years than Volkswagen’s 2015 diesel-emissions cheating. The German automaker was rightly pursued by regulators, enforcement agencies and class-action lawyers.
The scandal ended up costing Volkswagen an estimated $33 billion in fines... regulators punished carmakers that had cut corners and misled the public. But when it comes to electric cars, the government has a cheating scandal of its own. That scandal, grabbing far fewer headlines, is buried deep in the Federal Register—on page 36,987 of volume 65.
...under an Energy Department rule, carmakers can arbitrarily multiply the efficiency of electric cars by 6.67. This means that although a 2022 Tesla Model Y tests at the equivalent of about 65 miles per gallon in a laboratory (roughly the same as a hybrid), it is counted as having an absurdly high compliance value of 430 mpg. That number has no basis in reality or law.
...After environmental groups pointed out the illegality of this charade, the Energy Department proposed eliminating the 6.67 multiplier for electric cars, recognizing that the number “lacks legal support” and has “no basis.” Carmakers have panicked and asked the Biden administration to delay any return to legal or engineering reality....
WIND: electric vehicles are an environmental disaster when mine-to-EOL plus actual operating costs are all considered, but one that no one talks about: many times more resource-intensive to build, with nasty environmental damage from raw material extraction exported abroad out-of-sight and out-of-mind. And not even break-even on energy until 70K miles using the most friendly estimates (most likely total bullshit), etc. A Tesla CyberTruck? A grenade of environmental carnage.
EVs are a virtue signalling charade and farce that rich people engage in, subsidized by those who can least afford it at purchase (tax credits) and more (subsidized charging, infrastructure, etc). Classic grifting.
As for cold winters, EVs are the most asinine and downright dangerous technology ever yet foisted on the public. So the efficiency ratings, already a scam, account for the fact that waste heat from an internal combusion engine is a huge boon in the cold, but a huge drain with an EV when it’s cold?
Meanwhile, gasoline engines in small cards these days sip gas at ~40 mpg or better with vastly lower resource inputs to build them. And they won’t need a resource-intensive battery pack replacement that costa half as much as the car did every 6 or 7 years.
Meanwhile, there is an eSprinter now, the world’s stupidest vehicle (at least for travelers), has about 1/10 the necessary battery pack size to be viable vs my diesel powered Sprinter. And as a frequent traveler in very cold conditions, the waste heat of a diesel can never be delivered by an eSprinter.
Since the WSJ did such a shit job on citing sources, I went and found one.
Federal Register: Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation
A Proposed Rule by the Energy Department on 04/11/2023
...
Comments of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
...The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) supports granting the petition to update the PEF for electric vehicles. ACEEE believes the inclusion of the fuel-content factor (6.67 multiplier—or 1.0/0.15) in the PEF is unacceptable...
DOE Response
DOE is proposing to consider updated values for the lifecycle energy consumption of both electricity and petroleum and is proposing an updated value for the PEF that does not include a fuel-content factor of 6.67. Moreover, DOE's proposed methodology considers renewable energy generation as 100 percent efficient, while also utilizing a grid projection scenario that better accounts for the likely increase in renewable generation placed on the grid due to recent policy changes such as the Inflation Reduction Act. DOE also notes that the national average electrical generation and transmission efficiencies is a factor specified in section 32904. 42 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(ii). While DOE acknowledges that charging times of EVs may impact the grid mix in a given region, DOE has used national grid mix projections based on the factor in section 32904. Therefore, DOE has not incorporated carbon intensity or effects on energy sourcing based on the time of day during which EVs are likely to be charged. DOE believes such considerations may introduce complexity into the PEF methodology that could create confusion and uncertainty for stakeholders, particularly during DOE's annual review process.
... Comments of the American Petroleum Institute
...American Petroleum Institute suggests that the calculation of the PEF should not include a fuel content factor and should be updated with a well-to-wheels lifecycle analysis, considering both the energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of electric and conventional vehicles.
WIND: the 6.67 factor (aka divisor of 0.15) looks real. The ACEEE is an organization that allegedly wants “equity” while simultaneously moving to a massively electrified economy, so it’s not clear what their game is (insanity?).
Meanwhile, the DOE continues with irrational policies of ignoring actual efficiency, see bold stuff above.
The only sane and rational suggestion is from the American Petroleum Institute: “should be updated with a well-to-wheels lifecycle analysis”. Anything evading this factual approach is propaganda and fantasy, just as I’ve alluded to above.
See also: WSJ: The Six Months That Short-Circuited the Electric-Vehicle Revolution
