Slashdot Mirror
EPA Proposes Grading System For Car Fuel Economy
suraj.sun writes with this snippet from CNET:
"The EPA and Department of Transportation on Monday proposed a fuel economy label overhaul to reflect how electric and alternative fuel vehicles stack up against gasoline passenger vehicles. ... The changed label, mandated by the 2007 energy law, includes the same information on city and highway miles per gallon and estimated driving costs based on 15,000 miles a year now available. But the new labels add more comparative information, rating cars on mileage, greenhouse gas contribution, and other air pollutants from tailpipe emissions. That means that consumers can look at a label to see how one vehicle compares to all available vehicles, rather than only cars in a specific class. One label proposes grades, ranging from an A-plus to a D. There are no failing grades, since vehicles need to comply with the Clean Air Act."
I sometimes feel bad for the guys in charge, it's apparently impossible to please people. We're normally clamouring for more information, operate our markets with the assumption of perfectly informed agents, run democracies that were conceived presuming some degree of voter knowledge, and heap disdain on the apparently ignorant. But a government agency tries to help consumers make decent choices by undermining the ability of companies to easily obscure certain basic information and they're told people want less info of a specific type. We’re a capricious lot.
I had a look at the two proposed sheets and thought they were nicely thorough, explained the basic assumptions, and presented the info in an easily comparable fashion. Guess it takes all sorts.
The CO2 emission numbers would be misleading for battery electric and plug-in hybrids because it only states the tailpipe emissions.
Example... A battery-electric vehicle may use 34 KW/h of electricity per 100 miles. According to official data, in the USA, about 0.6 Kg of CO2 is emitted for every KW/h of electricity consumed. So for every 100 miles, about 20 Kg of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. So the data should state that 200g of CO2 is emitted per mile, not the 0g it currently states.
Ignoring other sources of CO2 emission and only looking at tailpipe emissions are misleading for technology which does not have a tailpipe. For example, a battery electric vehicle which uses 40 KW/h of electricity per 100 miles would release more CO2 into the atmosphere than many small gasoline vehicles.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
Honest question here. Why is gallons/100 miles preferable? It's always seemed backwards and clumsy to me.
With gal/100mi, it's more complicated to figure out how much gas you need to go X miles (with miles/gallon, it's simply X/mileage), and it also provides a more useful number when comparing cars. Sure, Car A might need 2.5 gallons/100mi and Car B needs 3 gallons/100mi, but that tells you less about the actual mileage (40 vs. 33.33).
If you can't convince them, convict them.
battery-electric vehicle may use 34 KW/h of electricity
That IS bad. After only 3 years of engine-time, you'll need a full Nuke plant to power just *one* of those.
per 100 miles
Criminey! Assuming it averages about 50mph, that means it'll only take 23 hours to require a 1GW dedicated power plant, and it only gets worse from there!
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I submitted a comment to the EPA suggesting that the "Gallons / 100 Miles" number be more prominent relative to MPG. (Converting to metric is a lost cause, unfortunately.)
I also suggested that they add "Gallons SAVED per 100 miles" relative to an average car in its class. This statistic can be surprising: switching from a 33mpg Corolla to a 50mpg Prius saves one gallon per 100 miles, but switching from a 10mpg Hummer to a 14mpg Land Rover saves three gallons per 100 miles driven.
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
Most people argue GPM is better for exactly those reasons - it's easier to compare. For example, you have two cars - one that gets 10 mpg and one that gets 33 mpg. You can replace the 10 mpg with one that gets 11 mpg, or replace the 33 mpg car with one that gets 45 mpg. Quick, which saves more gas?:
A) replace the 10 mpg with 11 mpg
B) replace the 33 mpg with 45 mpg
The answer is A. The first changes from 10 gallons per 100 miles to 9 gallons per 100 miles - 1 gallon saved every hundred miles. Option B changes from 3 gallons per 100 miles to 2.2 gallons per 100 miles - less than a gallon saved (per 100 miles). It's completely non-intuitive if you use the backwards "mpg" measurement.
If we just used consumption instead of MPG, we wouldn't have this problem.
With gallons/mile, fuel efficiency is linear instead of inverse-linear.
If a car performs really well, it might get an A...
But then a few years down the road, improved technology could make that A rating in 2010 look like a C- or D in 2015, and other "A" rated cars come out that perform far better. Yet the 2010 car still has the "A" rating... so it isn't fairly compared to newer cars.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
However, the mere fact that a coffee machine or a breadmaker is safe doesn't actually make it any use for making coffee or baking bread - in fact, in the UK, makers of nonfunctioning "water treatment" products market them as WRAS approved - which is purely safety testing.
Any commercially sponsored test is flawed. Did you ever see a car magazine give a BMW a bad review? Usually they give critical reviews of second tier manufacturers or small cars, which have near-zero "marketing" budgets, and criticise very expensive cars (that their readers can't afford and whose makers don't advertise with them). I'm happy to pay taxes to an organisation that won't go out of business by telling the truth.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I sometimes feel bad for the guys in charge, it's apparently impossible to please people. We're normally clamouring for more information, operate our markets with the assumption of perfectly informed agents, run democracies that were conceived presuming some degree of voter knowledge, and heap disdain on the apparently ignorant. But a government agency tries to help consumers make decent choices by undermining the ability of companies to easily obscure certain basic information and they're told people want less info of a specific type. We’re a capricious lot.
I had a look at the two proposed sheets and thought they were nicely thorough, explained the basic assumptions, and presented the info in an easily comparable fashion. Guess it takes all sorts.
I wish I could mod that reply higher than +5.
The problem with people is exactly that: those who disagree will always shout the loudest... too little info, and the smart kids demand more. Too much info, all the lazy bastards complain that it's too complicated.
And our poor politicians listen to those who shout. Try to please those who shout (especially when it comes to insignificant things that can get a lot of media attention)... Although we've never been wealthier, never been healthier, politicians must think the average citizen in a Western country is deeply unhappy.
Anyway, the easy way out of this is: Include a very short and simple "executive summary" for the lazy and the dumb. Then add the extended list of facts below that for those who are interested.
The sticker says "over five years, this vehicle saves $6,900 compared to average". The small print says that's based on 15000 miles/year, and an average of 20-23 mi/gal (21.5mi/gal = 4.65 gal/100mi).
Presumably, your Ford Ranger would have had a sticker like "over five years, this vehicle costs $5,200 more than average" (based on your 14mi/gal (7.14gal/100mi) figure, and $2.78/gal). Would that have influenced your decision? You can rent something that hauls heavy loads many times for $5,200, for example. (And presumably insurance, parts etc cost more on the bigger and more powerful car).
(FWIW, with fuel costs here the $5,200 would become $12,306. You could buy a small car with the saving... and since that one uses 47mi/gal (2.12gal/100mi) you'd save $5300 (or $12500 here) compared to average [I know US gallons are different to the Imperial gallons given on that page, I converted them for you.]).