Rules to boost fuel economy for vehicles will do more good than harm, new study shows

December 6, 2018, University of Southern California
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Scholars from USC and other leading universities conclude that rules on the books to increase fuel economy for passenger vehicles will do more good than harm, contradicting claims by the Trump administration as it seeks to roll back fuel economy standards.

In a research paper that scrutinizes the cost-benefit methods used by to justify rolling back the regulations, the researchers conclude the government analysis is flawed and that it departs from accepted protocols. They found the analysis overlooked 6 million used cars, wiping out benefits estimated at least $112 billion.

The , which are reported in Science today and will be presented to automakers and policymakers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris this week, are significant because they reflect identified by leading, independent economists and engineers. The findings are also consistent with previous assessments showing that benefits for fuel-efficient vehicles outweigh costs. And the benefits accrue as blue skies, better health and fewer greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing to global warming.

Antonio Bento, a professor of public policy and economics at the USC Price School of Public Policy and director of the nascent USC Center for Sustainability Solutions, said the study represents a "rapid assessment policy response" to the controversial regulatory proposal, which is undergoing federal rulemaking.

"It appears federal officials cherry-picked data to support a predetermined conclusion that the clean-car standards will lead to too many highway deaths," said Bento, the study's lead author. "We do not support that conclusion and the data does not support that conclusion."

The Trump administration's attempt to freeze standards for cars and light-duty trucks has sparked conflict with California and other states. Critics say the regulatory freeze is difficult to justify on economic, legal or environmental grounds.

But the new study goes a step further, suggesting the shortcomings in the government's economic analysis are so egregious they seem like a deliberate attempt to manipulate statistics and mislead people.

Ironically, Bento occupies a special position in the controversy: He is the economist most often cited in the documents the EPA used to make its case for the regulatory relaxation. He is among a group of interdisciplinary scholars from leading universities who participated in the study, including experts from USC, Carnegie Mellon, Yale, the University of California and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, among others.

In 2007, Congress adopted laws to require corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) to increase to 35 mpg by 2020. The CAFE standards govern fuel economy across the U.S. fleet of passenger cars and light trucks. The U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) set fuel economy gains between 27 mpg and 55 mpg between 2012 and 2025. A midterm review conducted in 2016 affirmed the benefits exceeded the costs and the measures would be technologically feasible.

But this year under the Trump administration, the federal agencies reversed course, proposing rules to freeze CAFE standards at 2021 levels through 2025. Federal officials argue that forcing automakers to achieve an average of 54 mpg in seven years would lead to cars that are too expensive, thus forcing people to keep too many old vehicles that are less safe.

The federal government also seeks to revoke California's long-standing authority to set its own, more stringent tailpipe standards and limit other states from following suit. Gov. Jerry Brown has vowed to fight the proposed rollback.

But the researchers were puzzled by the policy reversal, prompting them to conduct an independent assessment of the government's economic analysis used to justify the change. The authors are among the world's top experts in environmental economics and climate change, including the study of .

Their study describes a pattern of selective fact-picking and distortion throughout the government's analysis. It finds that the 2018 analysis contains adjustments to a prior review of 2016, but nonetheless it is "our conclusion that the 2018 [federal] analysis has fundamental flaws and inconsistencies and is at odds with basic economic theory and empirical studies ... our summary judgment is that the changes in the 2018 NPRM [notice of proposed rulemaking] are on balance misleading."

Specifically, the study cited two key changes in the 2018 document that deviate from standard cost-benefit protocols.

First, the scientists say the economic analysis mistakenly concludes that relaxation of the rule will shrink the vehicle fleet by 6 million cars by 2029, which greatly skews the bottom line. It also flies in the face of economic principles because, the economists argue, only more stringent standards—not fewer—would increase costs for cleaner, new vehicles, and as prices for new and used vehicles increase, fleet size would diminish—not the other way around. The revision "is simply inconsistent with basic economic theory," the study finds.

By miscalculating the size of the auto fleet, the researchers say the report underestimates vehicle miles traveled, gasoline consumption, GHG emissions and traffic fatalities. A correct estimate of fatalities alone represents a $90.7 billion savings, which the federal proposal omits.

Second, the researchers applied the generally accepted global—rather than domestic—social cost of carbon as a criterion to value GHG emissions reductions. That change, plus the revision for the number of vehicles, closes 63 percent of the difference between negative costs and the break-even point for the CAFE standards—a positive net gain of at least $112 billion dollars, the study shows. Costs can also be reduced by technology innovation, including improvements to internal combustion engines, automotive materials and design and wider use of zero-emissions vehicles, the study finds.

Finally, the researchers describe how the government deviated from "preferred protocol" developed in another study that Bento published in the American Economic Review in 2009, and commonly used in cost-benefit analyses, including externalities such as energy security, air pollution, gasoline prices, GHG emissions and traffic congestion. Failing to account for those variables overestimates the cost of the regulation while underestimating benefits, the researchers found.

"It's doubtful these miscalculations were inadvertent," Bento said. "These are not mistakes, rather these are deliberate downsizing of benefits and inflating costs."

The study represents an important precedent for the emerging USC Center for Sustainability Solutions, said Bento, who has a courtesy faculty appointment at the USC Dornsife School of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

"Rapid assessment exercises like this one, as well as direct dialogue with stakeholders, will become signature activities of our new USC Center for Sustainability Solutions," Bento said. He added the study will help promote dialogue when he presents it to the OECD meeting this week.

Explore further: Fuel economy standards cheaper, more beneficial than previously believed

More information: A.M. Bento at University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA el al., "Flawed analyses of U.S. auto fuel economy standards," Science (2018). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aav1458

Related Stories

Questions and answers about US fuel economy standards

July 19, 2016

The U.S. government has issued a report on fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for U.S. cars and trucks that were first established in 2012. The report Monday kicked off a two-year review process leading to a government ...

Recommended for you

Machine learning-detected signal predicts time to earthquake

December 18, 2018

Machine-learning research published in two related papers today in Nature Geoscience reports the detection of seismic signals accurately predicting the Cascadia fault's slow slippage, a type of failure observed to precede ...

51 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

V4Vendicar
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2018
Trump's gut knows more than any university and it's commie professors.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2018
Trump's gut knows . . .


It sure can't be that thing he calls a brain, because that is dedicated to fabricating a constant stream of falsehoods.
Anonym518498
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2018
bolshevik academics lie
Mark Thomas
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2018
oil companies lie
JamesG
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2018
Like everything else Democrats try to do, they were overly draconian. Dems don't care who they hurt as long as they get their pet project put into law.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2018
This is extremely reminiscent of the oil industry's fight against the ban on leaded gasoline. They keep punching themselves in the nose.
V4Vendicar
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2018
"Beautiful Kleeeeeeeen Coaaaaaaaaaaalllll" - Donald Trump

MAGA Trump 2020
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2018
Efficiency and power are related. An SUV getting 45 mpg is anemic. It has insufficient power to be safely driven on the roads.

There are limits to engineering. We have seen diesel car manufacturers cheat to meet standards and many have simply stopped making diesel cars.

To reach the increasing standards, America is going to have to eliminate trucks, SUVs and most sedans. This is foolish. Automobiles need acceleration characteristics which allow safe driving and vehicles which don't stall when going up hill.
Shakescene21
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2018
Physorg often carries some junk-quality Economics articles, but this one is a credit to my profession. Furthermore, the source article in Science magazine is not paywalled and supplementary material is also available for the concerned public.
A great article, worthy of an important issue.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2018
It has insufficient power to be safely driven on the roads.


It's usually the ability to stop, not the ability to speed up even more that governs the safety of a vehicle, since most car accidents are about loss of control, where stepping on the gas pedal simply causes further loss of control.

But the point about fuel economy and power, and car size is valid. Engines can't be made arbitrarily efficient and energy use is governed by the mass and frontal area of the vehicle, so the only way to follow the standards is to force people to buy smaller slower cars.

If you want to draw a safety issue out of it, the question becomes whether a smart car is as safe as a SUV in a collision. Not all SUVs are built to great standards, and not all smart cars are unsafe, but as a general comparison you're more likely to experience hard accelerations and getting thrown around more violently in a small car, which leads to greater injuries.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2018
It has insufficient power to be safely driven on the roads.


It's usually the ability to stop, not the ability to speed up even more that governs the safety of a vehicle, since most car accidents are about loss of control, where stepping on the gas pedal simply causes further loss of control.

But the point about fuel economy and power, and car size is valid. Engines can't be made arbitrarily efficient and energy use is governed by the mass and frontal area of the vehicle, so the only way to follow the standards is to force people to buy smaller slower cars.

If you want to draw a safety issue out of it, the question becomes whether a smart car is as safe as a SUV in a collision. Not all SUVs are built to great standards, and not all smart cars are unsafe, but as a general comparison you're more likely to experience hard accelerations and getting thrown around more violently in a small car, which leads to greater injuries.
dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2018
Eikka,
It's usually the ability to stop, not the ability to speed up even more that governs the safety of a vehicle, since most car accidents are about loss of control, where stepping on the gas pedal simply causes further loss of control.


You need sufficient acceleration to accelerate out of a pending accident. For example, you begin to cross an intersection when you see a vehicle about to run the traffic light and hit you. Stopping means you will certainly be hit. If you have good acceleration, you can escape the accident by leaving the intersection before the red light runner hits you. Anemic cars are very dangerous.
Mark Thomas
4 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2018
To reach the increasing standards, America is going to have to eliminate trucks, SUVs and most sedans.


Wrong, wrong and wrong! One word answer . . . Tesla.

For example, the Tesla Model 3 AWD, long range battery version that I drive can meet any current or proposed fuel and emissions standard while outperforming most sports cars. Tremendously fun to drive, very inexpensive to operate by charging at home, and no emissions whatsoever.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 07, 2018
@Mark Thomas
For example, the Tesla Model 3 AWD, long range battery version that I drive
just curious - honest question: how does that sucker do off-road?

Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2018
For example, you begin to cross an intersection when you see a vehicle about to run the traffic light and hit you.


That's a very far-fetched example. It's nearly impossible to judge the speed of a vehicle coming right at you, especially in your peripherial vision, so you're very unlikely to even recognize that you're about to be hit.

Secondly, a speeding car at 60 mph travels 90 feet a second. By the time you notice it didn't stop where it was supposed to, it's already too late to accelerate out of the way.

Thirdly, unless you're driving a lightweight supercar, it just doesn't pick up and go that fast. The average car takes a couple seconds before the engine revs up enough to give any appreciable power.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
@eikka
For example, you begin to cross an intersection when you see a vehicle about to run the traffic light and hit you
That's a very far-fetched example
erm... no, it's not
in point of fact, it's actually a very common situation exceeded only by read-end collisions

"Nationally, 40% of all crashes involve intersections, the second largest category of accidents, led only by rear-end collisions.

50% of serious collisions happen in intersections and some 20% of fatal collisions occur there.

An estimated 165,000 accidents occur annually in intersections caused by red-light runners. Fatalities caused by red light runners run from 700-800 a year. - autoaccident.com

https://mcs.nhtsa...egory=28

By the time you notice it didn't stop where it was supposed to
the fact that it's still moving while other traffic is stopped is enough to elicit a response
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2018
One word answer . . . Tesla.


Tesla is making $3000 net loss for each base model car they're selling at $35k in a market where the average car sold costs $20k or $25k if counting cars and SUVs.

The difference in price, plus the fact that the Tesla battery only lasts <10 years in use (12 years max calendar life), makes the total cost of ownership greater than regular economy cars.

Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2018
it's actually a very common situation exceeded only by read-end collisions


That's a different argument, and irrelevant to the question. Side impacts may be common, but that's exactly because they're hard to avoid.

the fact that it's still moving while other traffic is stopped is enough to elicit a response


It's very difficult to spot a car that's going to hit you on the side because it's coming in from your periphery and the vehicle isn't moving sideways in your field of vision so it's nearly impossible to tell whether it's stopped or moving.

And even if you did notice that it's going to ram you, you don't have the reaction time to accelerate out of the way even if you did have the power. Most cars don't have the sort of acceleration.

And then you accelerate into someone.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2018
@eikka
That's a different argument, and irrelevant to the question
no, it's not
I quoted you and him both

I am very specifically stating that the example quoted here
you begin to cross an intersection when you see a vehicle about to run the traffic light and hit you
is verifiably not, per your claims, a
very far-fetched example
that was all I stated

it's common
It's very difficult to spot a car that's going to hit you on the side because
your reasoning above is why the intersection accident is so blasted common

I didn't state it wasn't difficult, nor am I advocating that one can easily avoid the collision

.

I simply clarified that the intersection was a common accident location (verified by NHTSA / NCSA) and that just seeing motion can elicit a response

period

full stop
snoosebaum
not rated yet Dec 07, 2018
stump says,

''just curious - honest question: how does that sucker do off-road? ''

not a problem ,the postmodern neomarxist will not drive off road , bad for the enviro u know ?

Even better in the future travel should be limited to cities using ' safe space' robot cars .
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2018
no, it's not


Yes it is. Arguing that cars need to be more powerful to get away from T-bone collisions is a far fetched example, and the frequency of side-impact collisions is an irrelevant point to the argument.

The misunderstanding here seems to be what "far fetched" means. It means the same as scraping the bottom of the barrel for support - a weak argument.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
just seeing motion can elicit a response


That's true. Seeing that car depends on where you are in the intersection.

Suppose you're looking straight ahead. You're most likely to notice motion if the other car is at less than 45 degrees from you because you're seeing the side of the car. That means you haven't advanced far enough into the intersection, and you should attempt to stop - not accelerate into the way of the car.

If you're already in the intersection and the other car is at more than 45 degrees, you're unlikely to notice that it's moving because you're seeing the car more or less from head on in your peripheral vision. You could in theory accelerate out of the way, but you probably won't be able to react in time.

If you're far enough that the oncoming car is at 90 degrees or more, you won't see it.

In other words, in the most likely event, if you notice that someone's about to t-bone you, you should slam the brakes, not the accelerator
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 07, 2018
@eikka
Yes it is
please show where I argued that "cars need to be more powerful to get away from T-bone collisions"

moreover, the comment has a period in it, so for clarity, because you missed my point, I will break it down
You need sufficient acceleration to accelerate out of a pending accident
this is mostly true as a stand-alone sentence - braking is also required as well as vigilance and a few other things
For example, you begin to cross an intersection when you see a vehicle about to run the traffic light and hit you
as a stand-alone sentence, this is a legitimate example as intersection accidents are common (see also: above)

I am commenting on its validity as a stand-alone sentence only, not defending the delusional aspects of the claim

the rest of his comment is mixed and based upon his perception of abilities that are demonstrably outside the typical American driver

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 07, 2018
@eikka
The misunderstanding here seems to be what "far fetched" means. It means the same as scraping the bottom of the barrel for support - a weak argument
no
the misunderstanding is because you think I'm supporting his argument while negating your own

there is a very high chance of intersection accidents *happening* for various reasons from visibility to inattention, so the example is not "far fetched" [sic], as demonstrated by the links to the NHTSA / NCSA

I'm not arguing about "stopping means you will certainly be hit", nor am I arguing "If you have good acceleration, you can escape the accident" as this is bullsh*t

I simply stated that the example is not "far fetched" [sic]

moreover, the rest of that post past the period in the sentence I quoted (that you also quoted) is how said poster delusionally thinks about said example - it's not based in reality, so it's indefensible except as opinion or belief

Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2018
you think I'm supporting his argument while negating your own


That's exactly what you're doing, even if unwittingly:

I simply stated that the example is not "far fetched" [sic]


Notice that we're still caught in argument about the semantics of what "far fetched" means, just as I stated earlier. I think it means "unlikely or unrealistic", regarding the specific argument of accelerating yourself out of accidents, and you think it means that I'm saying the side-strike accidents are rare.

What I'm really saying is, you're unlikely to accelerate yourself out of being t-boned, that he's going to far out there to be realistic, in other words, the example is far-fetched.

You're simply arguing past my point, and this debate is unnecessary.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 07, 2018
@eikka
even if unwittingly
not even whittingly
Notice that we're still caught in argument about the semantics of what "far fetched" means
no - you're arguing that point, not I

the argument is:

you clarify that your "far fetched" [sic] comment is in regard to "accelerating yourself out of accidents"

however, my statement was directly in relation to the quote of "For example, you begin to cross an intersection when you see a vehicle about to run the traffic light and hit you", which is what *you* quoted

please show me anywhere in that quote that talks about acceleration. thanks
What I'm really saying is
thanks for clarifying
You're simply arguing past my point
it's the other way around - you're making assumptions about what I meant

Had you simply quoted the additional relevant material we would not be having this discussion

and yes, the debate is unnecessary
Bert_Halls
4 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2018
@JamesG

Democrats want to avoid mass deprivation and disaster by mitigating climate change due to global warming. You call this draconian.

Republicans want to electroshock teenagers because they're attracted to the "wrong" sex. This you're OK with.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2018
and yes, the debate is unnecessary


Then let's not waste any more time on it.

Democrats want to avoid mass deprivation and disaster by mitigating climate change due to global warming. You call this draconian.


You can frame the question in multiple ways. The clever fox also wanted to save Chicken Little and all the farm animals from being crushed by the sky falling, by inviting all into his den underground, where he subsequently ate them.

Part of the left is genuinely concerned about the future of mankind.

The other part just wants to exaggerate the issue and minimize any alternative point of view to exclude anyone else from power. The issue is that the part that is genuinely concerned views a little exaggeration as necessary to get the message across, i.e a "white lie", which enables the other half to pull off a political coup and drive whatever power politics they wish.
granville583762
not rated yet Dec 07, 2018
Combustion Efficiency
There are ways to manufacture pistons and their cylinders to raise the combustion pressure
enabling petrol reaching higher compression ratios before pre ignition
there are ways of increasing the air flow into the cylinders to achieve over filling the cylinders by 130%
larger valve area is required to meet the higher air flow
with direct injection even higher compression pressure is possible before the petrol pre ignites
the design of the piston head is crucial in containing the flame as it spreads though the compressed gas
the longer it takes the lower the cylinder pressure the lower the HP devoleped
then there is the 30% lost through the exhaust
adding extra cylinders of larger diameter extracts some of this and turns it into HP
having each piston separated on its crankshaft enables two pistons running the car at their optimum efficiency
Just the simple addition of a turbo charger increases cylinder pressure reducing fuel consumption
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
just curious - honest question: how does that sucker do off-road?


I took it to a pretty remote winery (with a Tesla Charger) that required traversing some steep dirt and gravel roads with no problem at all. At some point clearance will become an issue, but in terms of handling, it did extremely well.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
MT,, there ain't no chargers at lonesome lake
dogbert
not rated yet Dec 07, 2018
Eikka,
The T-Bone/Intersection problem I posed is real and you really can take action to survive it. A year or so ago, a Google car entered an intersection when a truck carrying batteries ran the red light. The Google software stopped the car and the car was T-Boned. The backup driver was trying to accelerate out of the accident when the Google software stopped the car so that the back up driver was prevented from escaping.

Here is another scenario which I have been in on more than one occasion. In heavy traffic, multiple lanes when the car on the left or right pulls into you. You can't move over because there is another car in the other lane. You can't brake hard because there is another car right behind you. But there is some room in front and you can accelerate away from the accident by going forward quickly. You can't do that with an anemic car, but you can with a powerful car. I have done that.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2018
@Mark Thomas
just curious - honest question: how does that sucker do off-road?


I took it to a pretty remote winery (with a Tesla Charger) that required traversing some steep dirt and gravel roads with no problem at all. At some point clearance will become an issue, but in terms of handling, it did extremely well.
thanks for the feedback!

Clearance might be a problem here so I would have to see one in person. the pics make it look like it's been dropped like da hoopties in da' hood down Miami way LOL
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2018
Captain Stumpy, you are welcome. I think part of the reason photographs of the Model 3 make it appear so low is that they lowered the suspension for the Performance version which appears in many of the photographs. I got the non-performance AWD, but with upgraded 19 inch wheels, so I feel I have good clearance for a sedan-type vehicle. However, let me say for the record, this vehicle accelerates very, very well.

There is a nice chart on Wikipedia that explains all the different versions if you are interested:

https://en.wikipe..._Model_3

If you decide to purchase and order with my code below you get six months free of supercharging:

https://ts.la/mark20299

If I get two referrals I am going to order a kiddie electric Tesla for a small friend! :-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2018
@Mark Thomas
There is a nice chart on Wikipedia that explains all the different versions if you are interested:
reading it - nothing on clearance, so I put in a request for information
However, let me say for the record, this vehicle accelerates very, very well
I'm more interested in range, handling and the ability to tow... does your vehicle have a tow package?
https://electrek....apacity/

If you decide to purchase and order with my code below you get six months free of supercharging
I won't be able to purchase now
we're talking June of 2019 at the earliest

Thanks for the link though - I'll save it
If I get two referrals I am going to order a kiddie electric Tesla for a small friend!
is that a short joke aimed at me?
LMFAO

zeevk
5 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2018
i wrote my grad school thesis on CAFE rule history. the whole thing is a giant fraud. almost everything you know or think you know about CAFE is a lie.

at this point, laws prohibiting direct mechanical power transmission of expanded gases on ALL cars and trucks would push technology forwards by leaps and bounds. there's enough cars on the road to grandfather them in. no more cash for clunkers frauds. keep the fleet we have, focus on pushing technology directly , not on regulating fake efficiency benchmarks.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2018
Captain Stumpy, I see a number of folks saying 5.5 inches and that seems about right looking under the vehicle, except the parts just in front of the wheels may be a 1/4 inch lower than that. As best as I can tell, the 310 mile range figure is slightly conservative. Handling, including cornering, with AWD and 19 inch wheels is fantastic. I have no idea about the towing aspect

If you live in a hilly/mountainous area, you will appreciate the regenerative braking, a lot. Also, no drop off in power with altitude like an ICE car, which may help with your towing.

No joke about the small friend.

https://youtu.be/TGom8Y5wAow
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2018
Hilarious watching the altright faairytails whining that the All Powerful Great Oz of Leftism is going to spoil the rightists playtime.

Driving too fast & recklessly for road conditions. While spewing those vitamin-enriched lead-gas fumes all around.

The denialists & other reactionaries pretend to be conservatives. But only if they are allowed to commit unfettered waste & pollution.

Conservative is an action not a illegitimate political slogan.

It is a conservative activity to design & build more efficient machinery. That cost less to power & maintain.

It is a conservative action to enhance the ability of technology to do more with less resources.

Instead you all demand an unearned entitlement to extravagantly waste this world's resources.
& "liberally" abuse those trying to rescue you from your own folly!

All your hypocritical bombast is no proof of your patriotism or any ability to look beyond your own nose.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2018
rrwillsj, as used in politics today, the conservative/liberal labels are largely a false dichotomy and a huge smokescreen. For example, wouldn't it be more "conservative" to conserve natural resources by addressing global warming now because every reputable scientist has concluded we are facing a very serious problem?
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2018
Yes Mark, you restated my opinions cogently. And, as usual for your postings? A lot more politely than my rabid rants!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2018
The issue is that the part that is genuinely concerned views a little exaggeration as necessary to get the message across, i.e a "white lie", which enables the other half to pull off a political coup and drive whatever power politics they wish.
There's no exaggeration; this isn't a statement by "the left," it's science. The fact you don't get that is your obvious glaring farting politically driven blindness.

Give it up. It's science. And they ain't gonna get rich from it. You're buying the fairy tales about "teh climut sienstis is getting teh rich."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2018
rrwillsj, as used in politics today, the conservative/liberal labels are largely a false dichotomy and a huge smokescreen. For example, wouldn't it be more "conservative" to conserve natural resources by addressing global warming now because every reputable scientist has concluded we are facing a very serious problem?
My father called them "destroyatives." I think he's right.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2018
Oh, and @Eikka, why are you always against new technology? Scare you?

Just askin'.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2018
The difference in price, plus the fact that the Tesla battery only lasts <10 years in use (12 years max calendar life), makes the total cost of ownership greater than regular economy cars.


This is completely wrong. We just a little bit of care, e.g., usually charging between 80-90% and avoiding extreme temperatures, the battery will last for decades and hundreds of thousands of miles. Heck the warranty for the long range battery is 8 years and 120,000 miles! This is a huge strength of Tesla and once people start to become more comfortable with this idea, it will be the beginning of the end of ICE vehicles. Total cost of ownership is much LESS, not more. I am saving a ton of money, having a blast and being responsible to the environment all at the same time!

In all honesty, I feel like the 21st century I had hoped for is finally beginning because Tesla is using advanced technology to sidestep 20th century problems.
dogbert
not rated yet Dec 11, 2018
Mark Thomas,
I just did some research and correct me if I am wrong, but the 8 year 125,000 mile warranty (whichever comes first) will replace the battery with a refurbished battery of similar life. I read this to say that if you are six years in and the battery fails, you will receive a replacement with an expected life of two years.

After the warranty, replacement of the battery system with a new battery is about $30,000.00 .

For comparison, my car, a Toyota with 130,000 miles on it is running fine. I expect to get at least another 70,000 miles on it before it needs major work. If I had to spend 30,000 on it today, I would junk it as I would a Tesla if I had one and had to spend $30,000.00 to fix it.

The cost of battery replacement is prohibitive and that limits the life of the vehicle.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2018
Model 3 with Long Range Battery - 8 years or 120,000 miles (192,000 km), whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity* over the warranty period.


https://www.tesla...A_en.pdf

https://electrek....arantee/

https://insideevs...arantee/

I usually charge between 80-90% and I don't plan to replace the battery, EVER. A minimally cared for Tesla will go for many hundreds of thousands of miles with only modest degradation in battery range, e.g., maybe 5-15%.

So what would happen if the Tesla Model 3 lasts say 500,000 miles? The fuel savings ALONE would make the Tesla free. Not to mention the fact that you would probably need 2-4 Toyota vehicles to reach the same distance. As people start to realize what a bargain this is, ICE vehicles are going to melt away (pun intended).
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2018
Take at look at Figure 6 from this website:

https://batteryun...atteries

Looking at the 75%-45% curve, even after about 6,700 charge cycles, 30% discharge each cycle, or 93 miles for each cycle (623,100 miles total), the battery is still at about 88% capacity and the curve is getting flatter, not steeper. The Tesla Model 3 batteries probably do even better than this.

I would guess the typical American drives a million miles or less in their lifetime. All things considered, a Tesla could be the only vehicle you ever need, assuming you take care of it and don't wreck it.
Mark Thomas
not rated yet Dec 12, 2018
If your Toyota is so great, why is Toyota planning to build and sell 10 million electric vehicles?

https://cleantech...e-plans/
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2018
I got the non-performance AWD, but with upgraded 19 inch wheels

Dammit, i want mine, now.

My current car's motor packed it in this week so it's bus and rail for the next few months.
They aren't starting delivery over here until Febuary (and I don't even know where in line I am - even though I orderd early this year)....very vexing.

The argument about price is something I don't get. I don't pay the purchasing price. I pay TOC (total cost of ownership) - or does anyone's ICE car run on air without any repairs/service/maintenance?

If you do the TOC calcs on an EV it easily beats an ICE car 2/3rds the purchasing price.
Mark Thomas
not rated yet Dec 12, 2018
I don't pay the purchasing price. I pay TOC (total cost of ownership)


That's it, you got it! The amazing thing is so many can justify buying a Tesla Model 3 based on TOC ALONE.

For me, I also got two further things that are very important to me personally:

1. I am helping drive positive change in the world to begin to address global warming.

2. I got a high performance vehicle that accelerates and corners like a bat out of hell! My trade-in was sports car too. Call me what you want, but I love a car with power! A close relative was a fighter jet pilot, so this "need for speed" gene appears to run in the family. :-)
Mark Thomas
not rated yet Dec 12, 2018
Tesla will be shipping 3k Model 3 to Europe every week by Feb 2019: report


https://www.tesla...-report/

If this holds up it sounds like a good start.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.