GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, bloodman33 said:

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.  

What the F are you talking about? I am not a part of that list! Maybe you should be taken down.

[bloodman33 + 22]

Regarding Jay McKinsey's denial: The lady doth protest too much,

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, bloodman33 said:

Regarding Jay McKinsey's denial: The lady doth protest too much,

 

You are an abject idiot. I do nothing but post in favor of renewables and against the fossil fuel industry. I dare you to find one of my posts to the contrary.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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.

 

No, Jay, you have misread the report, which finds that despite increased charging availability and increased battery range, the PHEV usage of fossil fuels actually increased, due to the recent customer basewho were not interested in EVs.

Read again, 

"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 [SUVs], as well as newly attained consumer 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 25, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, Jay, you have misread the report, which finds that despite increased charging availability and increased battery range, the PHEV usage of fossil fuels actually increased, due to the recent customer basewho were not interested in EVs.

Read again, 

"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.

 

All you have are your transparent lies and misinformation.

The report conclusion directly contradicts you by saying that longer electric range and more public charging (aka fast 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

 

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

All you have are your transparent lies and misinformation.

The report conclusion directly contradicts you by saying that longer electric range and more public charging (aka fast 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

 

You are trying to ignore the results of the study, Jay, but you cannot ignore them.

Read again, especially the bold print.

"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 [SUVs], as well as newly attained consumer 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 25, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You are trying to ignore the results of the study, Jay, but you cannot ignore them.

Read again, 

"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 [SUVs], as well as newly attained consumer 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.

I am quoting the results of the study, they are in the section called 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

This is the CARB rule that will require a 50 mile electric range for PHEV.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

20 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are an abject idiot. I do nothing but post in favor of renewables and against the fossil fuel industry. I dare you to find one of my posts to the contrary.

If you are so blinkered as to not consider a range of subjects, that is a form of intellectual reductionism.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

If you are so blinkered as to not consider a range of subjects, that is a form of intellectual reductionism.

You are the one ignoring and mistating the conclusion of the report you blind bugger.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I am quoting the results of the study, they are in the section called 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

Those are not the findings of the study, Jay, those are musings about future policy assuming that Green revolution is desirable.

Here are the actual findings of the study, read the bold print.

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

 

"this increase may result from larger combustion engines, higher combustion engine power, larger and heavier vehicles [SUVs], as well as newly attained consumer 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 25, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are the one ignoring and mistating the conclusion of the report you blind bugger.

No, you are ignoring the clear results of the study. The policy recommendations for the future are not the same as the actual findings of the study. 

Read, Jay, read.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

41 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, you are ignoring the clear results of the study.

The results of the study are in the recommendations and conclusion. Because the report was all about policy changes that would increase electric share in PHEV. All you can do is lie about it and spout your misinformation.

The report recommendations and conclusion directly contradict you by saying that longer electric range and more public charging (aka fast charging) would 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 » ---» Adopt maximum engine power-to-weight limits » 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

This is the CARB rule that will require a 50 mile electric range for PHEV.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[bloodman33 + 22]

Jay McKinsey my bad.  So you are going to donate to my AOC pack?  

[bloodman33 + 22]

Ecocharger donated to the AOC pack.  He sees the light.

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The results of the study are in the recommendations and conclusion. Because the report was all about policy changes that would increase electric share in PHEV. All you can do is lie about it and spout your misinformation.

The report recommendations and conclusion directly contradict you by saying that longer electric range and more public charging (aka fast charging) would 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 » ---» Adopt maximum engine power-to-weight limits » 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

This is the CARB rule that will require a 50 mile electric range for PHEV.

Jay, you seem to be confused about what constitutes the actual data of the study. The data and conclusions of the study are as follows. What you seem to think are "conclusions" are just musings about possible future policy directions, which are, of course, discretionary and depend on the government in power. 

Here are the actual findings of the study, which shows what has actually happened 2020-2022, that as PHEV distribution increases, new entrants to the market are increasingly dependent on gasoline for the SUV sector.

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

 

"this increase may result from larger combustion engines, higher combustion engine power, larger and heavier vehicles [SUVs], as well as newly attained consumer 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 25, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, you seem to be confused about what constitutes the actual data of the study. The data and conclusions of the study are as follows. What you seem to think are "conclusions" are just musings about possible future policy directions, which are, of course, discretionary and depend on the government in power. 

Here are the actual findings of the study, which shows what has actually happened 2020-2022, that as PHEV distribution increases, new entrants to the market are increasingly dependent on gasoline for the SUV sector.

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

 

"this increase may result from larger combustion engines, higher combustion engine power, larger and heavier vehicles [SUVs], as well as newly attained consumer 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.

 

The actual findings of the report are the real world data points that unequivocally show that the electric share increases directly with increased electric range and that finding is again unequivocally stated in the recommendations and conclusion in direct contradiction to your claims.

The real world data points are the circles and they unequivocally show that electric share increases with electric range available:

The results of the study are then restated in the recommendations and conclusion. Your claims about the findings of the report are not only not mentioned they are unequivocally contradicted.

The report recommendations and conclusion directly contradict you by saying that longer electric range and more public charging (aka fast charging) would increase electric share in PHEV and decrease fuel consumption.

 

 

[TailingsPond + 555]

5 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

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.  

Jay is not a climate denier.

 

[TailingsPond + 555]

46 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

 What you seem to think are "conclusions" are just musings about possible future policy directions, which are, of course, discretionary and depend on the government in power. 

 

That sums up pretty much everything you post.  No respect for data, only preconceived ideologies.

"Someday the climate change science will be overturned." 

"EV's are a dead fad."

"The ballot box will make 'them' pay."

Only slightly less deranged thought than EYO who wants a dictatorship and the end of democracy. 

Edited November 25, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

Jay is not a climate denier.

 

You and Jay are both climate deniers. The actual climate science does not support the significance of CO2 as a climate warmer.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

That sums up pretty much everything you post.  No respect for data, only preconceived ideologies.

"Someday the climate change science will be overturned." 

"EV's are a dead fad."

"The ballot box will make 'them' pay."

Only slightly less deranged thought than EYO who wants a dictatorship and the end of democracy. 

No, I look at what actually is. Climate science is fine, it does not support the looney ideology of CO2 panic.

The climate deniers are those who refuse to look at the actual science and rely on mindless agitators.

The ballot box SHOULD make the the current gang pay, whether they will or not depends on the intelligence of the American voter next year.

You seem to have a problem with words, am I surprised at that? No.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The actual findings of the report are the real world data points that unequivocally show that the electric share increases directly with increased electric range and that finding is again unequivocally stated in the recommendations and conclusion in direct contradiction to your claims.

The real world data points are the circles and they unequivocally show that electric share increases with electric range available:

The results of the study are then restated in the recommendations and conclusion. Your claims about the findings of the report are not only not mentioned they are unequivocally contradicted.

The report recommendations and conclusion directly contradict you by saying that longer electric range and more public charging (aka fast charging) would increase electric share in PHEV and decrease fuel consumption.

 

 

No, Jay, those are not "conclusions and recommendations", just a few musings about possible future policy options for Green revolutionaries. Just blowing smoke. The actual findings of the report are in the data sections, and the actual results show that there is an increasing gap between expected electric usage and actual usage as the market expands despite increased availability of charging and battery range improvements. Those are key variables in the policy makers calculations.

Here are the actual findings of the study, which shows what has actually happened 2020-2022, that as PHEV distribution increases, new entrants to the market are increasingly dependent on gasoline for the SUV sector. Those are the marginal entrants and they rely increasingly on gasoline.

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

 

"this increase may result from larger combustion engines, higher combustion engine power, larger and heavier vehicles [SUVs], as well as newly attained consumer 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 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 555]

14 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, I look at what actually is. Climate science is fine, it does not support the looney ideology of CO2 panic.

The climate deniers are those who refuse to look at the actual science and rely on mindless agitators.

The ballot box SHOULD make the the current gang pay, whether they will or not depends on the intelligence of the American voter next year.

You seem to have a problem with words, am I surprised at that? No.

 More musings about what you think will or should happen - nothing based on real data.

Keep dreaming; you, Ron, and EYO should start a club called "any day now I will be right."

Edited November 26, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

No, Jay, those are not "conclusions and recommendations", just a few musings about possible future policy options for Green revolutionaries. Just blowing smoke. The actual findings of the report are in the data sections, and the actual results show that there is an increasing gap between expected electric usage and actual usage as the market expands despite increased availability of charging and battery range improvements. Those are key variables in the policy makers calculations.

Here are the actual findings of the study, which shows what has actually happened 2020-2022, that as PHEV distribution increases, new entrants to the market are increasingly dependent on gasoline for the SUV sector. Those are the marginal entrants and they rely increasingly on gasoline.

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

 

"this increase may result from larger combustion engines, higher combustion engine power, larger and heavier vehicles [SUVs], as well as newly attained consumer 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.

 

Your quotes from the report do not exist in the report!!

You are quoting  from  an older report on European PHEVs not the newer report on USA PHEV that I originally linked and this discussion is all about. 

In the USA report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/real-world-phev-us-dec22.pdf:

The European info you cite in previous posts is literally in a section called Background and policy context, not data:

 

 'No, Jay, those are not "conclusions and recommendations"'  Then why are they in sections literally called conclusion and recommendations? 

The data section, recommendations based on that data and conclusion are in sections called:

The findings in the data section are that in the real world data electric share increases with electric range availability. 

 

All you have are your idiotic lies and misinformation. You really do like making a fool of yourself for all to laugh at.

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Your quotes from the report do not exist in the report!!

You are quoting  from  an older report on European PHEVs not the newer report on USA PHEV that I originally linked and this discussion is all about. 

In the USA report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/real-world-phev-us-dec22.pdf:

The European info you cite in previous posts is literally in a section called Background and policy context, not data:

 

 'No, Jay, those are not "conclusions and recommendations"'  Then why are they in sections literally called conclusion and recommendations? 

The data section, recommendations based on that data and conclusion are in sections called:

The findings in the data section are that in the real world data electric share increases with electric range availability. 

 

All you have are your idiotic lies and misinformation. You really do like making a fool of yourself for all to laugh at.

 

No, Jay, I gave you direct quotes from the report itself...learn to read.

Go back to my quotes and read.

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

Who is getting scammed on the Biden Green madness? The American taxpayer.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Pricey-Reality-Behind-Bidens-EV-Aspirations.html

"While EV proponents try to claim that EVs will soon be cheaper than gasoline vehicles, our new research demonstrates that EVs benefitted from hidden subsidies that total nearly $50,000 per EV."

Edited November 26, 2023 by Ecocharger