Comments on: 18 Is Enough: MPG Misleads on Fuel Efficiency

By: Electric Cars: A Shopper’s Cheat Sheet | Sightline Daily

Electric Cars: A Shopper’s Cheat Sheet | Sightline Daily — Wed, 30 May 2012 20:08:10 +0000

[...] (MPGe) in all-electric mode are actually quite small. As we’ve written a number of times, miles-per-gallon math is actually quite deceptive: differences at the low end of the MPG scale matter much more than do differences at the high end [...]

By: JESSEDZIEDZIC

JESSEDZIEDZIC — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:04:57 +0000

I dont disagree with this blog post..

By: RonMM

RonMM — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:58:50 +0000

Another thing to consider is that we MUST STOP CONFLATING oil with energy. MANDATE FLEXFUEL!!!!!!!Add a $ 100 mod to EVERY car sold in the US, new or USED. The premium pumps & the gas stations will quickly get alternate fuels instead of gas. We’ll still be burning carbon, but the foreign oil problem gets an immediate reduction. If Brazil doesn’t burn gas why should we?

By: Andy Andersson

Andy Andersson — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:46:33 +0000

Many points were made and I've only time to comment on a few:Electric vehicles: It's only a matter of energy distribution how you power a vehicle. With the existing power grid you go from a 15mpg vehicle to a ~25mpg vehicle due to more efficient energy conversion, no further. You can use renewable energy sources, but you don't have to go electric. You can use water, air, biomass to convert energy to gasoline that you can use in existing vehicles without any net carbon emissions.Minimum-milage standard: There has to be an incentive to use less gas for it to have any effect. A legal MPG limit has the opposite effect. It maximizes the fuel consumption within the legal limit since nothing drives manufacturers to improve MPG. It is only the threat of tighter standards that would drive them to do so.Miles/gallon or gallons per mile: Sure the latter is better illustrating the effect on society. But it is not illustration that is needed, it is action! Why would we like to use less carbon fuel? Because we hurt someone, ie. everybody, and we should compensate everybody for this damage. This would set a price for carbon emissions that would drive the energy consumption to sustainable levels (they exist!). And make manufacturers follow demand for better technology.

By: James

James — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:03:11 +0000

Just ending the active wars would cut military fuel comsumption by 1/3.

By: Pilgrim

Pilgrim — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:48:19 +0000

I recall reading somewhere that the US Air Force uses more fuel than any other group. Maybe focusing on military fuel efficiency would be fruitful.

By: David

David — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:53:29 +0000

This is acting with false assumptions. As shown in Gustafson’s Law if you scale the problem appropriately to all the autos in America, then you once again acheive the 2x efficiency by scaling from 50mpg to 100mpg

By: Ladyg

Ladyg — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:41:10 +0000

IF the greatest oomph is to be found in boosting the lower end, why has no one focused on finding a way to improve the performance, or convert, some of the older engines. A lot of my friends pop engines in and out of race vehicles for street legal vs racing. And I know that some would need a less eco engine for specific purposes. Since its so easy to swap an engine (yes, I have done it myself, with a friend, in my CRV and a Corolla), why don’t we have a version that could go in say the classic cars or a bigger truck so that you could have the power or performance on demand, but for other driving use the more efficient one?And it sounds as though it would not even need to be a hybrid or other transition. It could just be a modified one that that boosted mpg by a bit (say taking that 12 mpg to 20)Just wondering…

By: David Markham

David Markham — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:39:19 +0000

I agree that banning inefficient cars and SUVs is a good idea, but I wouldn’t stop at 15 or 18 mpg. Why not 25? That way, we might actually get rid of the biggest ones completely and we’d all be better off!Another point, though, is even tougher for some folks to swallow. If we don’t stop creating more and more people and, in terms of just the USA, letting more and more people in, than we will find ourselves fighting a losing battle.

By: SirKulat

SirKulat — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:18:52 +0000

Eric’s contention downplays the potential of Plug-in Hybrid vehicle technology. In order for the debate to be broadened, this potential must be elaborated upon. I wrote briefly of these benefits in the earlier, but Eric didn’t integrate them into his argument. Eric has an immature understanding about walking, bicycling, mass transit and community building, and does not (apparently) realize how the limited driving range of battery-only electric propulsion of plug-in hybrids leads toward fulfilling the goal of multimodal travel and transport: A plug-in hybrid vehicle, (which can be as small as a Prius or as large as a Ford Expedition) offers a limited battery-only driving range of 10-20 miles or so. Since the electric range is (or theoretically will remain) less expensive than any fuel, an economic incentive to drive less is created. In time, future development patterns create destinations that are accessable without having to drive. Walking and bicycling become more viable travel options, the ability to structure mass transit becomes more practical, and the local economic development of community building being sought should follow hand in hand. Just improving mileage, whether 13-to-17mpg or 50-to-500mpg, goes furthest toward achieving the higher goal via plug-in hybrid technology. Added to this complex goal, the plug-in hybrid vehicle is a perfect technological match with rooftop photovoltiac panel solar power which will prove invaluable in an emergency, grid failure or utility price gouging. And the household with this back-up power supply has an excellent means to strictly monitor other household electricity consumption and further energy conservation. It bugs me to read such nonsense as, “becoming a vegetarian reduces more greenhouse gas than driving a hybrid”, or “hybrid battery production cancels environmental gains”, and your bit about SUVs, and so forth from the progressive community. The automobile industry should and probably will develop plug-in hybrid conversion kits and issue recalls, but they will delay this eventuality based on ignorant arguments presented by psuedo-environmentalists like Eric dePlace.