GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Please try and learn how to read a graph. This is not about policy or dumb government estimates but the real world usage. The real world is absolutely crystal clear:

The average daily drive in the US is 37 miles so if people are maximizing their battery use then we should see cars with 37 mile electric range at 50% power share. And surprise surprise that is exactly what we see!!!

Until just recently most PHEV were in the 15-25 mile range now they are moving into the 30-40 mile range. They will be 50+ in a few years as the California ICE ban begins to take effect. It requires a minimum 50 mile electric range.

I'm sure this will have to be explained to you over and over and over...

 

Jay, you misread the results of that article (am I surprised?).

Hybrids have been shown to become increasingly dependent on fossil fuels as the curve proceeds with electrification. See above.

"For PHEVs owned by private individuals, the real-world fuel consumption is on average three times higher than the official WLTP values, while for company car PHEVs the fuel consumption is on average five times higher. Moreover, despite an increasing electric range and more public charging infrastructure, the deviation between real-world and official fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is observed to be GROWING."

So just as I claimed above, as we get more range to electric vehicles and increased public recharging, the consumption of fossil fuels by PHEVs actually increases relative to the expected projection. That is the reality.

Again, my thanks to Jay for finding this article and drawing our attention to it.

 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

They are fossil fuel cars, and increasingly so going forward.

No, you are misunderstanding that.

They already use less fuel than fossil cars and they will continue to use less as battery tech improves.

At least you are noticing that the range and number of charging stations are increasing.

"as we get more range to electric vehicles and increased public recharging."

They are getting a bit more ICE like as people realize they can now take their PHEV on long trips.

Edited November 24, 2023 by TailingsPond

[notsonice + 1,255]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

They are fossil fuel cars, and increasingly so going forward.

Clunkers are doomed........enjoy the Transition

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

No, you are misunderstanding that.

They already use less fuel than fossil cars and they will continue to use less as battery tech improves.

At least you are noticing that the range and number of charging stations are increasing.

"as we get more range to electric vehicles and increased public recharging."

They are getting a bit more ICE like as people realize they can now take their PHEV on long trips.

As the hybrid range and public charging increase, they become increasingly dependent on fossil fuels. Thank you for that observation.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, you misread the results of that article (am I surprised?).

Hybrids have been shown to become increasingly dependent on fossil fuels as the curve proceeds with electrification. See above.

"For PHEVs owned by private individuals, the real-world fuel consumption is on average three times higher than the official WLTP values, while for company car PHEVs the fuel consumption is on average five times higher. Moreover, despite an increasing electric range and more public charging infrastructure, the deviation between real-world and official fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is observed to be GROWING."

So just as I claimed above, as we get more range to electric vehicles and increased public recharging, the consumption of fossil fuels by PHEVs actually increases relative to the expected projection. That is the reality.

Again, my thanks to Jay for finding this article and drawing our attention to it.

 

Real world usage being lower than a dumb government estimate is irrelevant.  The real world data just shows that the government is making stupid estimates. In the real world the more electric range the more miles driving on electricity. The government estimate is the black line and is irrelevant. The real world data points are the blue and orange dots, they show exactly what you would expect based on average daily driving distance and battery size:

The average daily drive in the US is 37 miles so if people are maximizing their battery use then we should see cars with 37 mile electric range at 50% power share. And surprise surprise that is exactly what we see!!!

Until just recently most PHEV were in the 15-25 mile range now they are moving into the 30-40 mile range. They will be 50+ in a few years as the California ICE ban begins to take effect. It requires a minimum 50 mile electric range.

I'm sure this will have to be explained to you over and over and over...

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 minutes ago, notsonice said:

Clunkers are doomed........enjoy the Transition

Well, with all of your clunker posts, I can believe that.

By the way, how are you enjoying your EV these days?

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Real world usage being higher than a dumb government estimate is irrelevant.  The real world data just shows that the government is making stupid estimates. In the real world the more electric range the more miles driving on electricity. The government estimate is the black line and is irrelevant. The real world data points are the blue and orange dots, they show exactly what you would expect based on average daily driving distance and battery size:

The average daily drive in the US is 37 miles so if people are maximizing their battery use then we should see cars with 37 mile electric range at 50% power share. And surprise surprise that is exactly what we see!!!

Until just recently most PHEV were in the 15-25 mile range now they are moving into the 30-40 mile range. They will be 50+ in a few years as the California ICE ban begins to take effect. It requires a minimum 50 mile electric range.

I'm sure this will have to be explained to you over and over and over...

 

Jay, you are ignoring the findings of the article (am I surprised?). I guess I will have to help you again.

Hybrids have been shown to become increasingly dependent on fossil fuels as the curve proceeds with electrification. See above.

"For PHEVs owned by private individuals, the real-world fuel consumption is on average three times higher than the official WLTP values, while for company car PHEVs the fuel consumption is on average five times higher.

Moreover, despite an increasing electric range and more public charging infrastructure, the deviation between real-world and official fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is observed to be GROWING."

So just as I claimed above, as we get more range to electric vehicles and increased public recharging, the consumption of fossil fuels by PHEVs actually increases relative to the expected projection. That is the reality.

Again, my thanks to Jay for finding this article and drawing our attention to it.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,255]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Well, with all of your clunker posts, I can believe that.

By the way, how are you enjoying your EV these days?

super......no more gas stations................and thanks for the tax credits

I enjoy the fact that you donated to my new lifestyle

 

once again the graph that will warm your heart this Xmas

Edited November 24, 2023 by notsonice

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

As the hybrid range and public charging increase, they become increasingly dependent on fossil fuels. Thank you for that observation.

Only for long trips.

They still use less total fuel.  Your ICE cars are entirely dependent on fossil fuels and use more gas. 

Edited November 24, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Only for long trips.

They still use less total fuel.  Your ICE cars are entirely dependent on fossil fuels and use more gas. 

No, that is not there. Over time the use of fossil fuels increases relative to projections.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Jay, you are ignoring the findings of the article (am I surprised?). I guess I will have to help you again.

Hybrids have been shown to become increasingly dependent on fossil fuels as the curve proceeds with electrification. See above.

"For PHEVs owned by private individuals, the real-world fuel consumption is on average three times higher than the official WLTP values, while for company car PHEVs the fuel consumption is on average five times higher. Moreover, despite an increasing electric range and more public charging infrastructure, the deviation between real-world and official fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is observed to be GROWING."

So just as I claimed above, as we get more range to electric vehicles and increased public recharging, the consumption of fossil fuels by PHEVs actually increases relative to the expected projection. That is the reality.

Again, my thanks to Jay for finding this article and drawing our attention to it.

The only findings of the article are that government estimate are very very wrong. At no point does the article say what you claim. It says that the government estimates get worse faster than what can realistically be expected due to electric range. 

The government estimate is the black line and is irrelevant. The real world data points are the blue and orange dots, they show exactly what you would expect based on average daily driving distance and battery size:

It does not say that electric usage goes down with range. Look at the graph!

The average daily drive in the US is 37 miles so if people are maximizing their battery use then we should see cars with 37 mile electric range at 50% power share. And surprise surprise that is exactly what we see!!!

Until just recently most PHEV were in the 15-25 mile range now they are moving into the 30-40 mile range. They will be 50+ in a few years as the California ICE ban begins to take effect. It requires a minimum 50 mile electric range.

I'm sure this will have to be explained to you over and over and over...

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, that is not there. Over time the use of fossil fuels increases relative to projections.

Ah you used the magic word "projections", the data I am presenting are not projections but real world data points, the blue and orange dots!!!!!

The government estimate is the black line and is irrelevant. The real world data points are the blue and orange dots, they show exactly what you would expect based on average daily driving distance and battery size. More battery equals more electric driving and it is exactly what should be seen for maximum electric usage based on average daily drives.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[notsonice + 1,255]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, that is not there. Over time the use of fossil fuels increases relative to projections.

not it in the good ole USA

enjoy the read

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61003

November 22, 2023

U.S. gasoline prices decline amid lower gasoline demand and falling crude oil prices

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

---

On November 20, 2023, the Monday before Thanksgiving, the retail price of regular gasoline averaged $3.29 per gallon (gal) across the United States, 10% less than the same time last year. After adjusting for inflation (real terms), retail gasoline prices this Thanksgiving weekend are 13% lower than last year, but they remain higher than pre-pandemic levels for the third year. This Thanksgiving, the American Automotive Association (AAA) forecasts 55 million people will travel 50 miles or more for the Thanksgiving holiday, a 2% increase compared with 2022.

Typically, U.S. retail gasoline prices follow a seasonal trend: prices increase in late summer when people drive more frequently and then decline going into the winter. Less gasoline demand than usual this fall and an early transition to winter-blend gasoline in California helped accelerate the decline in prices. Regulations on gasoline vapor pressure allow refiners to switch to less expensive components to produce gasoline in the fall, which tends to reduce gasoline prices.

Despite crude oil production cuts by OPEC+ members over the last year, concerns about slowing economic growth reducing world oil demand have continued to push crude oil prices down. The Brent crude oil price declined 15% from its most recent peak of $96.55 per barrel (b) on September 27 to $82.32/b on November 20, reaching its lowest level since July. Crude oil prices are the primary driver of U.S. gasoline prices, making up 55% of the total cost to produce a gallon of gasoline.

U.S. gasoline prices vary regionally, reflecting local supply and demand conditions, different fuel specifications required by state laws, and taxes. Regional gasoline prices are usually highest on the West Coast because of the region’s limited connections with other major refining centers, tight local supply and demand conditions, and gasoline specifications that make it more costly to manufacture. West Coast prices as of November 20 averaged $4.42/gal, down 8% since the same time last year.

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

---

The Rocky Mountain region faces similar logistical constraints as the West Coast, although overall the region has both less supply and demand. Rocky Mountain gasoline retail prices averaged $3.20/gal on November 20, down 12% from 2022.

Gasoline prices are usually the lowest on the Gulf Coast, which holds about half of U.S. refining capacity and produces more gasoline than it consumes. On November 20, the average retail gasoline price on the Gulf Coast was $2.79/gal, down 8% from the same time last year.

On the East Coast, which has the most gasoline demand of the five regions, retail gasoline prices averaged $3.17/gal, down 11% from 2022. In the Midwest, prices decreased 11% from this time last year to average $3.12/gal on the Monday before Thanksgiving.

Principal contributor: Alexander de Keyserling

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ah you used the magic word "projections", the data I am presenting are not projections but real world data points, the blue and orange dots!!!!!

The government estimate is the black line and is irrelevant. The real world data points are the blue and orange dots, they show exactly what you would expect based on average daily driving distance and battery size.

No, the projections are guiding public policy, whereas your own musings have no official status.

And, no, Jay, the real world experience is not what you would expect.

"Moreover, despite an increasing electric range and more public charging infrastructure, the deviation between real-world and official fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is observed to be GROWING."

So just as I claimed above, as we get more range to electric vehicles and increased public recharging, the consumption of fossil fuels by PHEVs actually increases relative to the expected projection. That is the reality.

So, whatever error is embodied in the official projections, the increased use of fossil fuels by PHEVs takes place in spite of progress in PHEV range and public charging capability. If the error factor is netted out, you still have that growth in use of fossil fuels over time for PHEVs.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

So, whatever error is embodied in the official projections, the increased use of fossil fuels by PHEVs takes place in spite of progress in PHEV range and public charging capability.

 

Increased but still less than ICE. 

Moot anyways as the future is fully electric.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Increased but still less than ICE. 

Moot anyways as the future is fully electric.

The issue under discussion is the use of fossil fuels by PHEVs. Sorry for bringing you back to the discussion.

The future will never be fully electric, that is just a wild dream.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

12 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, the projections are guiding public policy, whereas your own musings have no official status.

And, no, Jay, the real world experience is not what you would expect.

"Moreover, despite an increasing electric range and more public charging infrastructure, the deviation between real-world and official fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is observed to be GROWING."

So just as I claimed above, as we get more range to electric vehicles and increased public recharging, the consumption of fossil fuels by PHEVs actually increases relative to the expected projection. That is the reality.

 

No you are confusing Europe and the US. Europe had screwed up subsidies for PHEV which allowed very small batteries and did not account for the fact that most were sold as company cars where the company covers the cost of gasoline but not home charging. These have now been fixed but haven't shown up in the data yet.

The UK was the fist to fix the problem a few years ago by removing all subsidies which caused a drop in PHEV sales. Sales are again climbing fast because of new longer electric range models.

UK: October’s combined plugin market share of 24.9% comprised 15.6% full battery electrics (BEVs), and 9.3% plugin hybrids (PHEVs). These compare to August 2022 figures of 21.5% combined, with 14.8% BEV, and 6.6% PHEV. The PHEV category has evidently seen a recovery, not due to generous incentives, but due to the new generation of improved PHEVs which offer 50+ miles of electric range. BEVs saw rather marginal YoY growth in share in October. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/06/evs-take-24-9-of-the-uk-bmw-top-brand/

US real world data is clear, in the US electric range is used to the maximum that can be expected based on average driving distance. Clearly the government estimates are just whack and that is the point of the report.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No you are confusing Europe and the US. Europe had screwed up subsidies for PHEV which allowed very small batteries and did not account for the fact that most were sold as company cars where the company covers the cost of gasoline but not home charging. These have now been fixed but haven't shown up in the data yet.

The UK was the fist to fix the problem a few years ago by removing all subsidies which caused a drop in PHEV sales. Sales are again climbing fast because of new longer electric range models.

October’s combined plugin market share of 24.9% comprised 15.6% full battery electrics (BEVs), and 9.3% plugin hybrids (PHEVs). These compare to August 2022 figures of 21.5% combined, with 14.8% BEV, and 6.6% PHEV. The PHEV category has evidently seen a recovery, not due to generous incentives, but due to the new generation of improved PHEVs which offer 50+ miles of electric range. BEVs saw rather marginal YoY growth in share in October. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/06/evs-take-24-9-of-the-uk-bmw-top-brand/

Jay, that is all irrelevant to our discussion, which was how the range improvements and increased public charging actually increase fossil fuel use for PHEVs. Sorry to bring you back to the discussion.

Let me refresh your memory.

https://electrek.co/2022/12/22/plug-in-hybrids-use-more-gas-than-estimated-dieselgate-whistleblower-says/

Edited November 24, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, that is all irrelevant to our discussion, which was how the range improvements and increased public charging actually increase fossil fuel use for PHEVs. Sorry to bring you back to the discussion.

No it is completely relevant to your talking about Europe. 

The real world data shows that in the US electric range is used to the fullest based on average daily driving distance. The more electric range the more miles driven on electricity and thus less gas is used. You are just wrong as usual

The government estimate is the black line and is irrelevant. The real world data points are the blue and orange dots, they show exactly what you would expect based on average daily driving distance and battery size. More battery equals more electric driving and it is exactly what should be seen for maximum electric usage based on average daily drives.

The graph clearly shows that more electric range equates to more miles driven on electricity.

Edited just now by Jay McKinsey

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No it is completely relevant to your talking about Europe. 

The real world data shows that in the US electric range is used to the fullest based on average daily driving distance. The more electric range the more miles driven on electricity and thus less gas is used. You are just wrong as usual

The government estimate is the black line and is irrelevant. The real world data points are the blue and orange dots, they show exactly what you would expect based on average daily driving distance and battery size. More battery equals more electric driving and it is exactly what should be seen for maximum electric usage based on average daily drives.

Edited just now by Jay McKinsey

No Jay, that is not what you would expect. Read again, 

Refresh your memory.

https://electrek.co/2022/12/22/plug-in-hybrids-use-more-gas-than-estimated-dieselgate-whistleblower-says/

"PHEVs are not driving on electric power nearly as often as the EPA had assumed they are."

"Moreover, despite an increasing electric range and more public charging infrastructure, the deviation between real-world and official fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is observed to be GROWING."

So just as I claimed above, as we get more range to electric vehicles and increased public recharging, the consumption of fossil fuels by PHEVs actually increases relative to the expected projection. That is the reality.

So, whatever error is embodied in the official projections, the increased use of fossil fuels by PHEVs takes place in spite of progress in PHEV range and public charging capability. If the error factor is netted out, you still have that growth in use of fossil fuels over time for PHEVs.

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

54 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No Jay, that is not what you would expect. Read again, 

Refresh your memory.

https://electrek.co/2022/12/22/plug-in-hybrids-use-more-gas-than-estimated-dieselgate-whistleblower-says/

"Moreover, despite an increasing electric range and more public charging infrastructure, the deviation between real-world and official fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is observed to be GROWING."

So just as I claimed above, as we get more range to electric vehicles and increased public recharging, the consumption of fossil fuels by PHEVs actually increases relative to the expected projection. That is the reality.

So, whatever error is embodied in the official projections, the increased use of fossil fuels by PHEVs takes place in spite of progress in PHEV range and public charging capability. If the error factor is netted out, you still have that growth in use of fossil fuels over time for PHEVs.

 

As I keep telling you the government economists are morons. They do bad economics. That  is all this report is saying. I agree that the deviation from what the government expects grows. I am doing my own economic analysis based on average daily driving distance, typical charging behavior and real world data. Apparently the government did not include these factors. Most likely because of fossil fuel company lobbying as they are the ones who benefit from the deception.

Real economics based on the average daily driving distance and real world usage show that distance driven on electricity is directly correlated to battery size and is exactly what you would expect to see from max electric usage.

I though you were trained in econometrics. Apparently you can't read the graph or do the basic economics.

The average daily drive in the US is 37 miles so if people are maximizing their battery use then we should see cars with 37 mile electric range at 50% power share. And surprise surprise that is exactly what we see!!!

Until just recently most PHEV were in the 15-25 mile range now they are moving into the 30-40 mile range. They will be 50+ in a few years as the California ICE ban begins to take effect. It requires a minimum 50 mile electric range.

I'm sure this will have to be explained to you over and over and over...

 

 

Oh and you are conveniently overlooking the conclusion of the report (p.16) where they say longer range batteries should be required to increase electric only usage. This directly contradicts your claims about what the report says:

"There are many potential policy tools available to increase the electric drive share of PHEVs. As a regulator, EPA could implement the following: --- » Adopt minimum electric driving range requirements, similar to California’s range requirements for zero-emission vehicle crediting in its Advanced Clean Cars II regulation ...."

So the report concludes with the exact policy I have been talking about and a clear resolution that PHEV battery sizes need to increase to meet policy objectives.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

As I keep telling you the government economists are morons. They do bad economics. That  is all this report is saying. I agree that the deviation from what the government expects grows. I am doing my own economic analysis based on average daily driving distance, typical charging behavior and real world data. Apparently the government did not include these factors. Most likely because of fossil fuel company lobbying as they are the ones who benefit from the deception.

Real economics based on the average daily driving distance and real world usage show that distance driven on electricity is directly correlated to battery size and is exactly what you would expect to see from max electric usage.

I though you were trained in econometrics. Apparently you can't read the graph or do the basic economics.

The average daily drive in the US is 37 miles so if people are maximizing their battery use then we should see cars with 37 mile electric range at 50% power share. And surprise surprise that is exactly what we see!!!

Until just recently most PHEV were in the 15-25 mile range now they are moving into the 30-40 mile range. They will be 50+ in a few years as the California ICE ban begins to take effect. It requires a minimum 50 mile electric range.

I'm sure this will have to be explained to you over and over and over...

 

 

Oh and you are conveniently overlooking the conclusion of the report (p.16) where they say longer range batteries should be required to increase electric only usage. This directly contradicts your claims about what the report says:

"There are many potential policy tools available to increase the electric drive share of PHEVs. As a regulator, EPA could implement the following: --- » Adopt minimum electric driving range requirements, similar to California’s range requirements for zero-emission vehicle crediting in its Advanced Clean Cars II regulation ...."

So the report concludes with the exact policy I have been talking about and a clear resolution that PHEV battery sizes need to increase to meet policy objectives.

 

 

No, Jay, your private analysis is contradicted by the facts.

The actual results are that with increasing battery range and increasing recharging capabilities, the use of fossil fuels for PHEVs increases, not decreases as you predict.

You seem to be reluctant to accept the results of the studies.

Here is the basis of the PHEV issue showing that at any future availability point, fossil fuel usage will be more attractive than electric,

one of the findings of the study was that

"higher fuel consumption correlates with higher maximum system power, which is typically dominated by the combustion engine,"

and this is not something which can be overcome within reasonable price ranges of comparison.

The study found that PHEV fossil fuel use increased over time in spite of increased availability of European charging stations and improved electrical range, so that will continue to be the case going forward.

"Overall, latest results are consistent with findings from the 2020 study (Plötz et al., 2020). For private PHEVs, an increased deviation of the real-world from type-approval fuel consumption values is noticeable. The (sample size-weighted) deviation for private, NEDC type-approved vehicles reported in 2020 was 135%–235% and has increased to 240%–260% for NEDC and 270%–310% for WLTP certified PHEVs. The deviation was 340%–410% for NEDC type-approved company cars in the 2020 study and is now 420%–460% for NEDC and 455%-520% for WLTP certified vehicles. This increase may result from larger combustion engines, higher combustion engine power, larger and heavier vehicles, as well as newly attained customer groups during the progressive PHEV market diffusion. The latter may be supported by fiscal incentives, including PHEV purchase subsidies and reduced tax rates. Compared to earlier adopters, consumers who make use of these financial incentives may be less motivated by environmental concern, which might further be associated with less frequent charging or other user behavior changes. Overall, we observe an increase of the deviation but cannot attribute it to specific reasons."

In other words, there is "buyer resistance" to the goals of Green agitation, already apparent at this early stage of EV production. The natural boundaries of the EV market are already being reached and further growth of a consumer base can only be attained with drastic government edict.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

No, Jay, your private analysis is contradicted by the facts.

The actual results are that with increasing battery range and increasing recharging capabilities, the use of fossil fuels for PHEVs increases, not decreases as you predict.

You seem to be reluctant to accept the results of the studies.

Here is the basis of the PHEV issue showing that at any future availability point, fossil fuel usage will be more attractive than electric,

one of the findings of the study was that

"higher fuel consumption correlates with higher maximum system power, which is typically dominated by the combustion engine,"

and this is not something which can be overcome within reasonable price ranges of comparison.

The study found that PHEV fossil fuel use increased over time in spite of increased availability of European charging stations and improved electrical range, so that will continue to be the case going forward.

"Overall, latest results are consistent with findings from the 2020 study (Plötz et al., 2020). For private PHEVs, an increased deviation of the real-world from type-approval fuel consumption values is noticeable. The (sample size-weighted) deviation for private, NEDC type-approved vehicles reported in 2020 was 135%–235% and has increased to 240%–260% for NEDC and 270%–310% for WLTP certified PHEVs. The deviation was 340%–410% for NEDC type-approved company cars in the 2020 study and is now 420%–460% for NEDC and 455%-520% for WLTP certified vehicles. This increase may result from larger combustion engines, higher combustion engine power, larger and heavier vehicles, as well as newly attained customer groups during the progressive PHEV market diffusion. The latter may be supported by fiscal incentives, including PHEV purchase subsidies and reduced tax rates. Compared to earlier adopters, consumers who make use of these financial incentives may be less motivated by environmental concern, which might further be associated with less frequent charging or other user behavior changes. Overall, we observe an increase of the deviation but cannot attribute it to specific reasons."

Once again all you are doing is pointing out that government expectations are wrong. I completely agree and that is the point of the report.

Everyone but you can read the real world data points on the graph and  note how real world electric share increases with electric range. It is unequivocal. You are just telling your usual lies.

The study absolutely did not find what you claim. You are just making up your claim "The study found that PHEV fossil fuel use increased over time in spite of increased availability of European charging stations and improved electrical range, so that will continue to be the case going forward."

What the report did find is clearly stated in the conclusion:

The report conclusion directly contradicts you by saying that longer electric range and more public charging is needed to increase electric share in PHEV and decrease fuel consumption. 

p.14:

"There are many potential policy tools available to increase the electric drive share of PHEVs. ...» Adopt minimum electric driving range requirements, similar to California’s range requirements for zero-emission vehicle crediting in its Advanced Clean Cars II regulation » --- » Establish a higher utility factor corresponding to the purchase of PHEV by drivers with demonstrated home chargers or manufacturer assistance with charging access " p.16

So the report concludes with the exact policy I have been talking about and a clear resolution that PHEV battery sizes need to increase to meet policy objectives.

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

The Jeep Wrangler 4xe remains the best-selling plug-in hybrid model with 17,662 units sold in Q3. This number represents 42 percent of total Jeep Wrangler sales.Oct 10, 2023

 

 

Jeep 4xe PHEV is far more powerful with electric drive train than without and makes up 42% of total Jeep Wrangler sales. 

"higher fuel consumption correlates with higher maximum system power, which is typically dominated by the combustion engine,"

and this is not something which can be overcome within reasonable price ranges of comparison." So it is something that is easily overcome. 

2023 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon
Engine:	3.6L V6
Horsepower:	285
Hybrid System Net Power Output (hp):	N/A
Torque:	260 lb-ft
Transmission:	6-speed manual
EPA Est. MPG (city/hwy):	17/231
Range:	408 miles
Towing Capacity:	2,000 lbs3

 

2023 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 4xe
Engine:	2.0L Inline 4-cylinder
Horsepower:	270
Hybrid System Net Power Output (hp):	375
Torque:	470 lb-ft
Transmission:	8-speed automatic
EPA Est. MPG (city/hwy):	49 MPGe1
Range:	370 miles2
Towing Capacity:	3,500 lbs3

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[bloodman33 + 22]

Some of the Clowns of oilprice.com.  Who are they: Ecocharger, Jay McKinsey, Eyes Wide Open, are a few.  All deny that the oil and coal industry are killing us with C02 and global warming.  They are likely paid by the these industries.. It is too bad so many members are a paid clique. That said it is not unexpected.  This blog should be taken down along with the oil and coal industry.