The US EPA Makes 40.6 equal 118 MPG or 34.4% equal. 100%

[ALS]

The EPA allows plug in vehicle makers to claim an equivalent miles per gallon (MPG) based on the electricity powering the cars motors being 100% efficient.

Lindsay Leveen - GREENEXPLORED - June 12, 2012

Don't shoot the messenger, please --Ed.

Bloom Energy claimed 60% efficiency when they actually only had 45.2% efficiency. But Bloom is not the world’s biggest fibber. That honor goes to the US EPA. Has the Green Machine lost it? Is he cozying up to Al Gore and Colin Powell? Is he just plain nuts? None of the above! The Green Machine is now exposing how the US Government can choose to create data that disobey the laws of thermodynamics so that the worthless government policy of favoring plug in vehicles over gas or diesel powered vehicles can be supported by the public. Yes the US EPA chooses to make 34.4% equal to 100%.

Is this just another way for a do good government to dictate that the least smart student in the class gets an A. The socialist inspired nincompoops at the EPA believe the plug in needs higher grades just because three Nobel Prize winners told them so. Two of the prize winners won for peace the other for physics. ... [Read More]

[NeilBlanchard]

Sigh -- does the author of this editorial think that gasoline appears out of thin air? Does the MPGe rating on diesels or E85 need to be prorated to include all the energy overhead needed before the fuel is pumped into the tank? Now that we are using bitumen from Alberta, does a gallon of gasoline only count for ~2.5 quarts?

What about all the electricity used all during the production of oil used to make gasoline? We use about 7-8kWh PER GALLON of gasoline -- that electricity *alone* would let you drive a Leaf at least 22 miles. (Never mind all the natural gas and water used in oil production...) The same overhead on that electricity and natural gas and water ALL needs to be added to each gallon of gasoline, too.

I can produce my own electricity on my rooftop -- how's that personal gasoline production going?

Neil

[Pavel4]

Mr Leveen may be overlooking the age old technique employed by every promoter who wants to advance the marketing of a product or service - the massaging of the truth through selective exaggeration. Of course, the reality of mpg equivalency is lower than stated but if it gets more people to make the mental jump to electric power in their vehicles, I'm fine with it.

The real cost of ensuring adequate petroleum supplies is far higher than the cost at the pump. How many people (adherents to this forum perhaps excluded) really expect to get the oft quoted fuel economies out of their vehicles?

A bit off topic... Mr. Leveen seems to display too much vitriol on his site, for my taste. Is this his method of promoting his brand of the truth, his "product"?

[Jay]

I always thought that the MPGe rating was an equivalent cost basis rather than an efficiency basis. That is, we're trying to figure out how much it costs the end user to fuel the vehicle in MPG terms he/she are familiar with. In that case, the EPA's rule-of-thumb of 33.7kwh = 1gal of gasoline is not far wrong if you pay ~12 cents per kwh for electrical power.

[RedylC94]

"The Green Machine is now exposing how the US Government can choose to create data that disobey the laws of thermodynamics so that the worthless government policy of favoring plug in vehicles over gas or diesel powered vehicles can be supported by the public."

Anybody wanna bet Leveen knows anything about the laws of thermodynamics?
It doesn't make any sense to debate efficiencies unless you've agreed on definitions of relevant inputs and outputs. He deliberately picks an alternate definition of input, then quarrels with the resulting different efficiency number. Mere propaganda.

[herm]

A Prius gets 50mpg, since a gallon has 33.7kW of energy then that is 1.48m/kWh.. The Leaf is rated at 3.7m/kWh or in other words the Leaf is 2.5 times as efficient as a Prius.

Stop driving that gas hog Prius!

[WriConsult]

I understand that there are generation and transmission losses with electricity, and that there are lots of cumulative inefficiencies in the production and transport of gasoline and diesel. Again, those can vary widely. So the only thing the EPA really can do is to rate how many miles the vehicle itself goes on a certain amount of energy, and ignore what happens before the energy gets to the vehicle.

Originally Posted by Jay

I always thought that the MPGe rating was an equivalent cost basis rather than an efficiency basis.

It's based strictly on the energy equivalence of the two fuels (i.e. 1 gallon containing 33.7kWh of energy). The EPA has been doing it this way ever since the last round of BEVs in the 1990s.

Gas prices fluctuate too much ($4 today, down near $1.50 at the depths of the recent financial crisis) and electricity prices vary too much from place to place (I pay about 8c/kWh, used to pay 2.2c/kWh when I lived in Seattle, some people on the east coast pay upwards of 20c/kWh) for any kind of cost equivalence to work.

[RedylC94]

Originally Posted by WriConsult

It's based strictly on the energy equivalence of the two fuels (i.e. 1 gallon containing 33.7kWh of energy).

In other words, it's comparing chemical energy in a car's fuel tank to charger input electrical energy, NOT comparing energy at the well or mine (or lake or fuel rod). Laveen illogically wants EPA to factor in the production and distribution losses for electrical energy, but not for gasoline.

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It's just the same old tired line.

We know.

We just don't care because PEV => relatively good efficiency + less urban pollution + less noise + less maintenance + largely domestic energy + fungible fuel source + fungible large potential fuel sources + better electricity grid + P(much smaller military budget).

[waltermlee]

I don't see the EPA's MPGe standard as being useful, however, I don't feel the need to get emotional unstrunged like Mr. Leveen. While I don't agree with the EPAs cut and paste approach, Mr. Leveen's analysis and approach is no better.