Some more ammo to use against the learning impaired.
Yeah, I read it earlier today and sent it out to a couple of my friends.
There is some good data backing it up. It's also worth noticing and reminding people that the rate of change in the greening of the electrical grid is also faster than the improvements to the auto fleet's average fuel economy.
Kind of a 'duh' one would think.
It is a good article. Not sure about it being the number one issue on my mind.
3) Charging speed
4) Battery reliability
The vast majority of power here is non-CO2 producing. Never gave it a thought.
Any idea of the numbers if you have solar and power your car for free? I live in one of the worst states, KS, which could power the entire us with wind power...but politics. I am taking matters into my own hands and buying solar even if we get no state help. So, EV powered by solar roof should beat 95 mpg?
The fossil fuel interests don't consider electricity to make gasoline, transportation of fuel or the efficiency of an ICE burning the fuel and transfer to the wheels, the Green House warming, ICE engine maintenance or life span among other factors.
" So, EV powered by solar roof should beat 95 mpg?"
Yes, By a rough order of magnitude, Solar is better than the average grid by about 10 times. So 950 MPG.
Thank you kindly.
@Topher, I never never seen numbers as high as 950 mpg (e) from solar (or hydro)... where is that number from? Can you post me the paper or reference?
Union of Concerned Scientists: EVs Are Cleaner Than Ever Before in U.S. | Transport Evolved
[ YouTube -- oLWIzdTrGBw ]
New Numbers Are In and EVs Are Cleaner Than Ever | Union of Concerned Scientists
In other news: water is wet
"Can you post me the paper or reference?"
Nope. I just did the math. For my electric company, the grid mix produces 221 lbs CO2 per MBTU, while solar panels produce 26. Our grid is pretty clean, so about 10 times worse than solar seems reasonable more broadly.
MPGe is a bogus efficiency metric. It presumes that a gallon of gas has the latent energy equivalent to about 33.7kwh. So take the kWh used to thavel a distance, divide that by 33kWh/gallon and that's the equivalent virtual gas used. Then divide the miles driven by the "gas" used to get MPGe.
It does not take into account anything about pollution or GHG. It also tries to diminish the benefits of electric by giving the layperson the idea that a single number like that is completely equivalent to a gas engine economy rating.
When you look at pollution, then taking the source of the electricity can make a huge difference, but as others have said, they usually don't add in the energy costs to acquire and transport the oil, refine it, transport it to gas stations.
I always enjoy your posts. Well stated with real numbers in actual situations.
I just heard that EM is going to get all Superchargers on Battery/Solar and disconnect from the grid. That may take some time but a great goal.
johnse: Correct. MPGe is entirely bogus. It is supposedly a calculation that has everything to do with energy, but in application it appears to be instead about economy. It is designed to increase the perceived efficiency of ICE vehicles, as noted by Wikipedia...
"When all factors are considered in DoE's formula, the energy efficiency or equivalent fuel economy of electric vehicles increases from 33,705 Wh/gallon (plug-to-wheel) to 82,049 Wh/gallon (well-to-wheel)." 
 "Why are the VOLT and LEAF EVs measured in Miles Per Gallon". Electric Vehicle News. 2009-08-15. Retrieved 2011-02-21.
electric-vehicles-cars-bikes.blogspot DOT com/2009/08/why-are-volt-and-leaf-evs-measured-in.html#
Yes mpge is bogus. But it is just trying to give a comparative number and though incomplete is better than nothing.
The way I figure it, if the Tesla Model S 85 had an 85 kWh battery pack, that is the equivalent amount of stored energy as 2.5 gallons of gasoline, so with a 265 mile rated range, that car should have had an MPGe of 106. But instead, the Model S 85 was given a combined MPGe of 89.
Here's why that peeved me so much... The BMW i3 BEV had a range of 81 miles, but a 124 MPGe rating. The Honda FIT EV had a range of 82 miles, but a 118 MPGe rating. The Fiat 500e had a range of 87 miles, but a 116 MPGe rating. See the pattern? The higher the actual range of an electric vehicle, the lower its MPGe rating would be. Further, vehicles that couldn't even reach 100 miles of range on a single charge were given an MPGe rating up to 39% higher than a Tesla that could go over 200 miles on a single charge.
What the Everlasting [FLOCK]...?
"The higher the actual range of an electric vehicle, the lower its MPGe rating would be."
That makes sense, why would you expect anything else? Lower range means fewer batteries, and generally those are smaller cars, means lower weight, and higher efficiency. There may be shenanigans going on, but the results are reasonable in general.
topher: I had an incredulous response planned, because I misunderstood your meaning. But in the midst of writing out my argument, I figured out what you meant. OK. I still don't like it though. It seems a bit unfair to me to call the Model S a comparative 'gas guzzler' compared to Fiat 500e simply because it has a larger 'fuel tank'. Plus, rating those short range vehicles as having a greater 'equivalent' to gasoline than their range can actually achieve seems entirely bogus. Further, if you are going to handicap long range vehicles that way, then you should similarly gimp the results for plug-in hybrid vehicles, instead of giving them nearly the same efficiency rating as the long range fully electric cars. That's all.
Here is a comparative example of what irks me so much:
Fiat 500e, Ford Fusion Energi, Chrysler Pacifica Plug-In Hybrid, Tesla Model S 75http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37798&id=37470&id=3...
It just seems really fishy to me the way the MPGe ratings are shown, relative to their actual fully electric range.
Yup, welcome to the world where single numbers don't adequately express complicated decisions.
Look at the kWh/100 Mile metric. Fiat 500 = 30. Model S = 34. So a Model S costs $0.64 (for me) more per 100 miles. Or $640 more over 100,000 miles.
Thank you kindly
WoW !!! So an EV with just a single cell (6502...AA size) wouldn't go far, but it's MPGe rating would be astronomical.
Ok. I'm convinced. I want one of those!!
topher: Yes. It seems that the EPA's priority is on the least possible amount of energy being expended to 'fill up'. Thus, their obsession with applying penalties for higher capacity due to presumed induction losses while charging. Which leads to their insistence that an electric vehicle must be as wimpy as possible to be considered truly efficient. As well as their conclusion that electric drive components are best used to improve the relatively non-existent efficiency of wimpy ICE vehicles converted to hybrid plug-ins. That said, I do find it interesting that the Hyundai Ioniq Electric seems to be the longest range wimpmobile under the sun, achieving a 124 mile EPA rated range with only a 28 kWh battery pack... But a world leading 136 MPGe...
Hyundai Ioniq Electric Specificationswww.hyundainews DOT com/us/en/models/ioniq-electric/2017/specifications
Hyundai Ioniq Electric, Fiat 500e, Chevrolet VOLT, Chevrolet BOLTwww.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=38431&id=37798&id=37309&id...
Hyundai Ioniq Electric First Drive Review | Car and Driverwww.caranddriver DOT com/reviews/2017-hyundai-ioniq-electric-first-drive-review
thank you kindly?