3 ms·
The Electric-Vehicle Cheating Scandal
- nixass 3y agohttps://archive.is/oiJAK https://archive.is/oiJAK
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoThe WSJ Opinion pages are pure climate denial propaganda. Even the WSJ's actual journalists think so.
- thsksbd 3y agoThey maybe denying climate change but, as a matter of fact, did the admin add an arbitrary multiplier to the numbers? The article gives very specific details about the fraud
- thsksbd 3y agoAre teslas and other EVs rated at 430 mpg equivalent? Because Ive worked at the DOE, as a scientist, researching green, sustainable, fuels. I know my thermo and my grid. I guarantee you that that number is BS
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoWhy don't you explain exactly what you think this article is insinuating, so we can compare that with the reality and demonstrate how you've been misled? You said: > The article gives very specific details about the fraud So it shouldn't be hard.
- thsksbd 3y agoIt isn't. They literally gave you the document and the string to search. I'm not your BA, do your own homework.
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoThat's fine I can continue believing that despite your claimed credentials, you got totally suckered by a WSJ editorial (!) into thinking that EVs had their mpge figures boosted 6x by "fraud". Just try not to be such an easy mark in future.
- BGreer 3y agoAfter reading these comments I read (and partly skimmed) the proposed rule. The article has the facts largely correct, though it’s important to understand exactly what the 6.67 is used for. Not for the MPGe on the label for instance. But for calculating CAFE averages for a manufacturer. Somebody not already familiar with CAFE rules may have had difficulty grasping the implications from the article.
- thsksbd 3y agoI didnt know EV the size and performance of a tesla had a 430 mpg. If I did it was obvious someone was lying. Anyone with any knowledge of thermo knew that was utter BS.
- wcoenen 3y agoThe article is not very clear what the 6.67 multiplier is used for. It gives more weight to electric vehicles, when calculating the overall average efficiency of all vehicles produced by a manufacturer. As a result, a manufacturer can produce less electric vehicles, and more traditional vehicles, and still meet the required "average efficiency". https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/cafe-compliance-will-be-harder-with-doe-proposed-rule-change/ https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/cafe-co... I am not sure the author of the WSJ opinion piece understands this. They make it sound like the multiplier was an unfair advantage for EVs. It is the opposite.
- ch_sm 3y agoEven if that’s true, the rhetorics of this article are sensationalist and extremely outrage-bait-ish. Also, these numbers seem completely meaningless. If we’re being pedantic for a second: - EVs have infinite MPG, because they don’t use any gallons of gas. - The number that matters is CO2 emissions per mile travelled + CO2 emissions for new vehicle production. - For EVs, both those numbers depend completely and entirely on the emissions of the grid and industrial processes (which to a large degree also depends on the emissions of the grid). So yeah, very weird article discussing a slightly weird policy.
- BGreer 3y agoIt’s interesting to read the rule update document that I linked to. It describes how all of these factors are taken into account, accounting for the current average grid sources, and some fudge factors for scarcity or differences in use.
- kwertyoowiyop 3y agoIs there anything more predictable than a WSJ article on electric vehicles?
- BGreer 3y agoFrom a description in the proposed rule update: “ The calculation procedure converts the measured electrical energy consumption of an electric vehicle into a raw gasoline-equivalent fuel economy value, and then divides this value by 0.15 to arrive at a final petroleum-equivalent fuel economy value which may then be included in the calculation of the manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy.” https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/11/2023-06869/petroleum-equivalent-fuel-economy-calculation https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/11/2023-06...