Obama's Ministry of Propoganda (EPA) Puts out New Electric Car Mileage Stickers

Where to begin?

99 MPGe…now, to the uninformed, this implies that the Leaf will cost 1/3 as much to run compared to a car getting 33 MPG….makes sense….But this is the EPA remember. They are not here to inform, they are here to control. The MPGe number is a comparison of ENERGY use. What this 99MPGe means is that the electric care uses energy at a rate that IF it were a gasoline car, it would get 99 MPG, using the same amount of ENERGY that is in gasoline. It is a MEANINGLESS number to the consumer since the cost of energy is not the same, gas compared to electricity. Essentially the EPA is declaring that an electric motor is more thermodynamically efficient than a gasoline engine….duhhhhhhh !

But below that they state that you COST will be $600. This is quite cheap compared to a gas car. The kicker is the EPA used the AVERAGE cost per KWhr in America (about 12 cents). Electric cars do not make sense in the wide open heartland of America where you must drive 50 miles to a store. The vast majority of these cars will be purchased for big city use where the cost of power is MUCH higher. Electricity in San Fran cost 22 cents. So scratch the $600 and write in $1100.
Also the costs all assume you NEVER turn on the heater or AC (if equipped). Using the heater in an all electric car destroys range and mileage, since there is no waste heat to use. Essentially you turn on a giant toaster powered by your battery. So wear warm clothes for that commute.

Next we have the grand claim of saving $9600 in five years. Again they compare this to an AVERAGE vehicle, that gets 22 MPG combined. You can get a MUCH larger car than a Leaf for 22 MPG combined…even a small SUV. If the EPA were interested in honesty they would compare this to a 30+ MPG gas car.....apples to apples. Also they don't tell you about the new battery (several thousand) you will need by then.

Finally, they tell you that the LEAF will emit ZERO CO2 and pollution……ZERO???? Of course if you use a magnifying glass you will see their note “tailpipe emissions only”. (for those of you on the extreme left, whenever you plug in your Leaf, the coal fired power plant down the road emits another puff of smoke…shocked?? You should not have believed the EPA) Now, a consumer who cares about his emissions wants the TRUTH…. where ever the emissions come from. So once again, the consumer is deliberately misled…….
The fact is, honest studies have shown that concerning CO2, an all electric car is comparable to a high mileage (35 mpg) gasoline vehicle.

Tell a lie, tell a big lie, tell it often enough, and the people will come to believe. (and buy electric cars like Obama says)
EPA Director of Information,……… Joseph Goebbels

 

I bought an electric because it was quiet, runs like a scalded ape around town on those big electric motors, allows me to commute without stopping in at those pesky "give us all your money for imported fuel" stations, and is quite comfortable, has a nice stereo, etc etc.

Not a lie in sight, but I must admit that I didn't pay much attention to the "fuel efficiency" sticker, considering I knew already that the type of fuel I use was more important than the amount.

 

And that is great for you. There is definitely a niche for electric vehicles, even today. But it is a small niche.

I knew already that the type of fuel I use was more important than the amount.
Good for you too. If using electricity over gas is important to you for a mater of principle, that is your right. However, how many are influenced to adopt that principle by these misdirections...like you are actually emitting zero pollution, when in fact you have just traded foreign oil for US coal.....

 

It's obviously a transition metric utilizing something that is already known to the public.

Everybody knows that the laboratory determined MPG isn't going to be exactly the same for ANY car.

Then the "Heartland" should stick with their trucks. I mean, with all that gas being freed up by electric vehicles, gas prices will drop, right? Supply and demand? Lol...suuuure.

And how much is a gallon of gas in San Francisco compared to other parts of the nation?

Worst case scenario: 62 miles with climate control.
Best case scenario: 138 miles with ideal environment.

That's why they use averages.

Again, that's why they use averages.

As far as battery replacement. The Leaf doesn't use just one batter as you imply. It uses individual battery modules that can be replaced if they dip below a threshold. It is unlikely that all the modules will need replaced at once and the cost of the individual modules isn't much more than the cost of a regular car battery.

Plus, the interest in EVs is sparking research into electric storage. In the next few yeas, we'll probably, based on some interesting research and results, be seeing cars that can go 400 miles on one charge using cheaper, lighter battery technology that will be passed down to many other devices that crave power.

Talk about deliberately misleading? You accuse the EPA of being misleading but you seem perfectly willing to engage in blatantly misrepresenting the situation?

So extracting oil from the ground doesn't require energy? It doesn't cause any pollution?
Transporting the oil from the extraction site to storage/refining doesn't require energy? It doesn't cause pollution?
Refining the oil doesn't require energy? It doesn't cause pollution?
Transporting the finished product doesn't require energy? It doesn't cause pollution?

How about the fact that, in many areas, solar and wind power are viable options to powering cars?
Why are you only telling 1/2 the truth? Are you expecting readers to be 1/2 wits and not think this out?
The fact is, honest studies have shown that concerning CO2, an all electric car is comparable to a high mileage (35 mpg) gasoline vehicle.

Thanks, that explains why there are so many of these threads about how bad EVs are. The Big Oil sycophants have learned the "Tell a lie, tell a big lie, tell it often enough, and the people will come to believe," from decades of experience.

So what's your excuse?

 

It's obviously a transition metric utilizing something that is already known to the public.

Everybody knows that the laboratory determined MPG isn't going to be exactly the same for ANY car.

Then the "Heartland" should stick with their trucks. I mean, with all that gas being freed up by electric vehicles, gas prices will drop, right? Supply and demand? Lol...suuuure.

And how much is a gallon of gas in San Francisco compared to other parts of the nation?

Worst case scenario: 62 miles with climate control.
Best case scenario: 138 miles with ideal environment.

That's why they use averages.

Again, that's why they use averages.

As far as battery replacement. The Leaf doesn't use just one batter as you imply. It uses individual battery modules that can be replaced if they dip below a threshold. It is unlikely that all the modules will need replaced at once and the cost of the individual modules isn't much more than the cost of a regular car battery.

Plus, the interest in EVs is sparking research into electric storage. In the next few yeas, we'll probably, based on some interesting research and results, be seeing cars that can go 400 miles on one charge using cheaper, lighter battery technology that will be passed down to many other devices that crave power.

Talk about deliberately misleading? You accuse the EPA of being misleading but you seem perfectly willing to engage in blatantly misrepresenting the situation?

So extracting oil from the ground doesn't require energy? It doesn't cause any pollution?
Transporting the oil from the extraction site to storage/refining doesn't require energy? It doesn't cause pollution?
Refining the oil doesn't require energy? It doesn't cause pollution?
Transporting the finished product doesn't require energy? It doesn't cause pollution?

How about the fact that, in many areas, solar and wind power are viable options to powering cars?
Why are you only telling 1/2 the truth? Are you expecting readers to be 1/2 wits and not think this out?
The fact is, honest studies have shown that concerning CO2, an all electric car is comparable to a high mileage (35 mpg) gasoline vehicle.

Thanks, that explains why there are so many of these threads about how bad EVs are. The Big Oil sycophants have learned the "Tell a lie, tell a big lie, tell it often enough, and the people will come to believe," from decades of experience.

So what's your excuse?

 

A niche that is going mainstream.



It's a pretty easy decision. If you don't want one or if it doesn't fit your driving needs, then don't buy one.

But you should get used to the idea of the EV. Once other sources of power (Big Coal for one) realize that this could be a saving grace for them, you can expect to see even more pushes to put EVs on the road.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...of-pacific-coast-electric-car-charge-stations

Oregon Joins Long Trail Of Pacific Coast Electric Car Charge Stations

It may not be long before electric car owners on America's Pacific coast can drive all the way from Canada to Mexico--using quick-charge stations.

Thanks to Oregon's new 'electric highway', it's now possible to charge an electric car every 25 miles down a 200-mile stretch of Interstate 5.

That, says NBC News, makes it the longest stretch of electric highway in the country.

It's set to improve even further, as the state has funding for another 35 quick-charge stations. That'll make things pretty easy for the state's current 1,200 electric cars, and means that even if one station is occupied, you won't have to search too long to find another.

The Oregon stations join a long string already in place in California, and a number of level 2 and fast charge stations in Washington, too.

It's all part of a larger plan to create the West Coast Electric Highway--allowing electric vehicle drivers to travel the length of Interstate 5 from Canada through Washington, Oregon and California, right to the Mexican border.

 

Electric cars should be mandatory for city and suburb dwellers. Each house should have a solar powered recharge station. Depending on your geographical location and the power needs of your car battery, it may not necessarily be enough to recharge without using electricity from the grid, but it's much much better than just using grid electricity all the time. This would cut down a great deal on the amount of harmful emissions in and around urban areas.

Obviously electric cars aren't going to work for people who have certain professions that require bigger transportation. If you can show you need a bigger gas powered vehicle for a real reason, you can get a pass. Otherwise, why we continue to KNOW that fossil fuels are dangerous and limited but do nothing about it is beyond me.

It's like being stuck right in the middle of a railroad track with a train coming and turning to the person in the passenger seat and saying "don't worry, the train won't hit us, it'll hit the guy next to us".

 

You mean that there aren't millions of Americans who commute less than 40 miles a day like me? If I recall the stats, 75% of Americans commute less than 40 miles a day, but obviously all of them don't have garages to charge their cars in, so that leaves how many tens of millions remaining? I would think income would be tougher filter for electrics than garages or whatever some bureaucrat says that the "energy" used might be.

Which is an excellent trade! Throw in those solar panels on the roof, maybe some micro generation from natural gas, and PRESTO, I am in command of the fuel for my car, and still could care less what some bureaucrat says it will use, energy wise. But you do appear to be stretching the point a bit, because certainly the same consumer isn't hemming and hawing over which EV to buy because of some silly government sticker, it's the government, everyone knows they lie when the truth would serve. Your point is only valid is someone is DUMB enough to believe the government in the first place, which Americans all know is sheer folly.

 

There is definitely a niche for electric vehicles. That niche is circumscribed by the question: "How far will it go with the heater or A/C running?"

 

1) I am not commenting on you previous double post since it was long on words and very short on actually addressing my points and in some cases you obviously do not understand
2) re your graph above, very hard to comment when you do not say what it is a graph of??????
3) as to your points about Oregon, good for them. I am not against electric cars, I am against Obama deceiving people about them.

 

You mean that there aren't millions of Americans who commute less than 40 miles a day like me? If I recall the stats, 75% of Americans commute less than 40 miles a day, but obviously all of them don't have garages to charge their cars in, so that leaves how many tens of millions remaining? I would think income would be tougher filter for electrics than garages or whatever some bureaucrat says that the "energy" used might be.

40 miles is pushing it if you have not charger at work. Still your point is valid. You must also consider that the niche is not solely defined by who COULD use the car, but who WANTS to. I have a 10 mile commute. But (1) I could not fit in these cars, and I would still have to have a second vehicle to tow the boat and to make long trips. And finally, I just like big cars....

So the Leaf and the others have carve through the "want to" to form their niche. My post is about the gov't trying to deceive me into buying one.

 

Its telling how the totalitarians here argue that it is okay for the EPA to use the general average when the industry standard is to make comparisons by class of car.

 

Why would anyone care if someone else buys an electric car?

Is it because they may actually have a place?

 

Far enough to get me to work. Back to the house for lunch. Back to work. Off to the post office, drop off the kid at tennis practice, collect the other after orchestra, and still have charge left over to make a late night burger run for the wife.

 

Not yet. But when we get it this fall (I think) the fuel will then be free!! Hard to beat that one!

Nothing wrong with buying whatever you'd like, certainly I do. But you must be a MONSTER to not fit in something like the Volt, like most modern cars it will swallow almost anyone in the front seats (but the backs do leave something to be desired).

Only if you are ignorant on the topic and believe government nonsense. Most people I have ever met know better, and there are even cliches to prove it! "I'm from the government, and I am here to help you." being a good one!

 

LOL....Peak you make good points again...I am a monster..... 6'7" 320. Still I bet I could fit in the front seat, as you say. I just couldn't stand the feeling that I weight half as much as my car.

Besides the trucks I drive (as my gas sipper) a 05 Mercury Grand Marquis. 25 highway is great compared to the pickup. Plus it is medium grey and Iput a black grill on it so it looks just like an Alabama State Police car. People get out of the way on the interstate when they see me coming...lol Very handy

 

Well, that is a size not designed into the consideration of most cars, I'll grant you that. And to be honest, while I use my Volt, scooter and econo box for "normal" use, I do keep a nice, lightweight, high powered, rotary powered, horrendously gas guzzling street legal go kart (Mazda RX around for fun. "Fun" being defined as the exact opposite of what I use the Volt and econobox for.

 

Aaaaah Ha !! So we all have skeletons in the closet.....

You know, I have always wanted a scooter or small motorcycle, just for short trips and they look like fun. Wife won't let me though........
Can you see my big *** on an 18 hp scooter????.......

 

electric cars are the future, but I will stand on the sidelines and wait for better batteries

 

and I agree with every word, (fossil fuel cannot last forever).....my point is we cannot rely on the gov't (the current one anyway) to tell us when they are ready

 

I pay $0.35 a KWH, not suitable for an electric car (and it is 30 miles round trip to the nearest grocery store). Others pay $0.06, and live in the city - where it is a great choice. Some communities allow using golf carts.

The point is the EPA sticker is reasonable for helping the consumer compare gas powered cars (where the cost of gas is the same), is next to useless comparing costs between gas and electric.

Batteries may be able to be replaced as modules, except, batteries tend to wear out at the same time.

Solar panels, mounted on your home, would need to charge another set of batteries, that you charge your car from when you get home. Another cost, and wearout mechanism. The only solution is to work at night, install the panels at work.

Then, there is the additional draw on the power grid. Will people approve adding, or increasing the size of existing coal fired plants? Add a nuclear plant (in less than 20 years). Who pays to increase the grid wiring and transformers?

 

I pay $0.35 a KWH

Holy crap that is outrageous. You must have to really watch your electricity use.....

 

I have both. Been motorcycling for 30+ years now. Last summer, wife decided she wanted a scooter. Bought her one this spring. After 3 days, she wouldn't let me ride it anymore, so I went and bought another one for myself. And I ain't no small youngster anymore, and my scooter only makes 5HP. Haven't ridden the motorcycle all summer.

 

The ones they happen to be making now appear to work just fine.

100 million miles and climbing.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11616022/1/100-million-miles-in-the-chevrolet-volt.html

 

Do you not agree that the EPA should at least follow the industry standard and compare the volt to the class of car it is in instead of comparing it to the average. No one compares the fuel economy of an F350 to a prius.