22 ms·

Any calculation on cars that does not factor in commercial trucks is flawed. Over the past two decades, we have seen an enormous increase in commercial freight

Any calculation on cars that does not factor in commercial trucks is flawed. Over the past two decades, we have seen an enormous increase in commercial freight traffic. The last numbers I remember from [1] estimated that cars account for 40% of tailpipe emissions, whereas trucks account for ~60%, and this was estimate from before the pandemic. I am certain the ratio is more skewed in favour of trucks now. To the point: 73% of what exactly? 80% of total emissions? 40%? 10%? Given the externalities, it may mean the difference between worthwhile or irrelevant. [1] Sustainable Energy: Without The Hot Air: https://www.withouthotair.com/ https://www.withouthotair.com/

wuliwong 3y ago
How is it flawed? I state that I am doing the calculation for cars. How can not including trucks be a flaw in calculating the value for cars? >To the point: 73% of what exactly? 80% of total emissions? 40%? 10%? I do not understand what you are asking. What are all these percentages? The number I calculated was an estimate of the decrease in carbon emissions if you replaced all gas cars with EVs in the US.
ars 3y ago
This analysis is deeply flawed because of that. They include vans and light trucks in the car numbers, but the electric vehicle are all passenger. To do this correctly they simply need to use the average MPG for a passenger car. That's it - from just that you can do all the math, you don't need the total fuel consumption in the US.
- wuliwong 3y ago
  I do that calculation in the article. >We can also use 24.2 mpg as the average fuel economy for a gas powered vehicle in the U.S. [10] to expand on our approach, slightly. Using this value we find a slightly largely value for total gallons of gasoline burned per year of 163 billion. That is a good point about passenger EVs vs vans and light trucks. I'm not sure if it makes the analysis "deeply flawed" as it would proceed the same way just possibly switching the actual number used in one place.

wuliwong 3y ago

How is it flawed? I state that I am doing the calculation for cars. How can not including trucks be a flaw in calculating the value for cars? >To the point: 73% of what exactly? 80% of total emissions? 40%? 10%? I do not understand what you are asking. What are all these percentages? The number I calculated was an estimate of the decrease in carbon emissions if you replaced all gas cars with EVs in the US.

ars 3y ago

This analysis is deeply flawed because of that. They include vans and light trucks in the car numbers, but the electric vehicle are all passenger. To do this correctly they simply need to use the average MPG for a passenger car. That's it - from just that you can do all the math, you don't need the total fuel consumption in the US.

wuliwong 3y ago
I do that calculation in the article. >We can also use 24.2 mpg as the average fuel economy for a gas powered vehicle in the U.S. [10] to expand on our approach, slightly. Using this value we find a slightly largely value for total gallons of gasoline burned per year of 163 billion. That is a good point about passenger EVs vs vans and light trucks. I'm not sure if it makes the analysis "deeply flawed" as it would proceed the same way just possibly switching the actual number used in one place.