GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 555]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

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

Biased opinion piece.  Yawn.  Try again.

"Brent Bennett, Ph.D., is the policy director for Life:Powered, an initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation"

https://lifepowered.org/

FYI going green started way before Biden.  "An inconvenient truth" was way back in 2006.

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

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

Go back to my quotes and read.

Prove it!!!

The only report I have talked about or cited is the newer USA report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/real-world-phev-us-dec22.pdf

The report you quoted is the older European report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/real-world-phev-use-jun22.pdf

Oh and your European report says just what I said about Europe that you claimed was irrelevant:

"The average real-world electric driving share is about 45%–49% for private cars and about 11%–15% for company cars." As I said, the problem was the misaligned subsidies for company cars which are a very big part of the market in Europe and that misalignment is being fixed. 

The report also says that even with that misalignment:

"A 10-kilometer increase in equivalent all-electric range is connected to a fuel consumption reduction of about 12%–15% and increases the electric driving share by 1–7 percentage points"

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,550]

23 hours 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.

I do believe it is accusing you of being a smidge temperamental..just a thought.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I do believe it is accusing you of being a smidge temperamental..just a thought.

 

Well being listed with you will make any sane person temperamental! Then of course you will see he admits his error.

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well being listed with you will make any sane person temperamental! Then of course you will see he admits his error.

You have already admitted to an extreme bias against fossil fuels, that reduces your intellectual credibility.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,550]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well being listed with you will make any sane person temperamental! Then of course you will see he admits his error.

You do understand leading from behind can be a rather anxious postion. You might very well take note of this new world conundrum...and that is being rather polite.

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

19 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Biased opinion piece.  Yawn.  Try again.

"Brent Bennett, Ph.D., is the policy director for Life:Powered, an initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation"

https://lifepowered.org/

FYI going green started way before Biden.  "An inconvenient truth" was way back in 2006.

 

No, there is no bias in the references given to the article.

https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-10-TrueCostofEVs-BennettIsaac.pdf

This guy has a PhD in climate research so I guess he has sufficient credentials to provide this research.

There is good support for his contentions in the literature and no one is arguing his numbers.

That's another fail for you.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You have already admitted to an extreme bias against fossil fuels, that reduces your intellectual credibility.

And you have admitted to extreme bias against renewables. And you are the one who can't figure out what report he is quoting from.

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

19 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Prove it!!!

The only report I have talked about or cited is the newer USA report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/real-world-phev-us-dec22.pdf

The report you quoted is the older European report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/real-world-phev-use-jun22.pdf

Oh and your European report says just what I said about Europe that you claimed was irrelevant:

"The average real-world electric driving share is about 45%–49% for private cars and about 11%–15% for company cars." As I said, the problem was the misaligned subsidies for company cars which are a very big part of the market in Europe and that misalignment is being fixed. 

The report also says that even with that misalignment:

"A 10-kilometer increase in equivalent all-electric range is connected to a fuel consumption reduction of about 12%–15% and increases the electric driving share by 1–7 percentage points"

 

 

Jay, I quoted directly from the report.

Go back and read. I presume that you can read.

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

And you have admitted to extreme bias against renewables. And you are the one who can't figure out what report he is quoting from.

No, I have no bias against renewables, but I like to see the full picture discussed, not just wild-eyed rants from a biased source who admits to having a closed mind.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, I quoted directly from the report.

Go back and read. I presume that you can read.

Oh I read it and searched and what I said is correct.

 

Now prove your claims you dolt!!!

The only report I have talked about or cited is the newer USA report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/real-world-phev-us-dec22.pdf

The report you quoted is the older European report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/real-world-phev-use-jun22.pdf

Oh and your European report says just what I said about Europe that you claimed was irrelevant:

"The average real-world electric driving share is about 45%–49% for private cars and about 11%–15% for company cars." As I said, the problem was the misaligned subsidies for company cars which are a very big part of the market in Europe and that misalignment is being fixed. 

The report also says that even with that misalignment:

"A 10-kilometer increase in equivalent all-electric range is connected to a fuel consumption reduction of about 12%–15% and increases the electric driving share by 1–7 percentage points"

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

Oh I read it and searched and what I said is correct.

 

Now prove it you dolt!!!

The only report I have talked about or cited is the newer USA report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/real-world-phev-us-dec22.pdf

The report you quoted is the older European report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/real-world-phev-use-jun22.pdf

Oh and your European report says just what I said about Europe that you claimed was irrelevant:

"The average real-world electric driving share is about 45%–49% for private cars and about 11%–15% for company cars." As I said, the problem was the misaligned subsidies for company cars which are a very big part of the market in Europe and that misalignment is being fixed. 

The report also says that even with that misalignment:

"A 10-kilometer increase in equivalent all-electric range is connected to a fuel consumption reduction of about 12%–15% and increases the electric driving share by 1–7 percentage points"

 

No, Jay I gave you a direct quote, you are babbling your usual nonsense.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, Jay I gave you a direct quote, you are babbling your usual nonsense.

As I said, you gave a direct quote from the wrong report.

Prove that your quote is from the USA report by citing the page number.

The only report I have talked about or cited is the newer USA report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/real-world-phev-us-dec22.pdf

The report you quoted is the older European report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/real-world-phev-use-jun22.pdf

Your quotes are from page V and 23 of the wrong report.

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,550]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And you have admitted to extreme bias against renewables.

Just the abject world wide failure of Green Energy. Rumor has it the UK just doled out another billion to keep it alive.

Perhaps a bit of rebranding is in order here...aka "The Green Black Hole" building a dark future one billion at a time.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

As I said, you gave a direct quote from the wrong report.

Prove that your quote is from the USA report by citing the page number.

The only report I have talked about or cited is the newer USA report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/real-world-phev-us-dec22.pdf

The report you quoted is the older European report at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/real-world-phev-use-jun22.pdf

 

 

 

I gave a quote from the European report as I stated above. That report compares changes from 2020 to 2022 showing an increased reliance on fossil fuels in the PHEV results. A direct quote.

Can you not read? 

The trend towards fossil fuels in PHEVs was the point, in case you have trouble reading, and your stuff was not even to the point.

How could you miss the point? 

If you want to join my discussion, show us the increasing reliance on fossil fuels OVER TIME of the American PHEV market.

"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."

Edited November 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 555]

31 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

This guy has a PhD in climate research so I guess he has sufficient credentials to provide this research.

An appeal to authority logic fail; people fall for these traps this which is why he is a paid shill.

Try again - maybe don't use oilprice.com articles written by bought fossil fuel puppets.

Do you understand conflict of interest or funding source bias?  How about a lobbyist?

You are also wrong that he studied climate science.  Try again, fail again.

"Dr. Bennett has an M.S.E. and Ph.D. in materials science and engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and a B.S. in physics from the University of Tulsa. His graduate research focused on advanced chemistries for utility-scale energy storage systems. Prior to joining the Foundation, Dr. Bennett worked for a startup company selling carbon nanotubes to battery manufacturers, and he continues to provide technology consulting to energy storage companies.

As a native of Midland, Texas—the heart of the oil patch"

https://www.texaspolicy.com/about/staff/brent-bennett/

Edited November 26, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I gave a quote from the European report as I stated above. That report compares changes from 2020 to 2022 showing an increased reliance on fossil fuels in the PHEV results. A direct quote.

Can you not read? Pathetic.

The trend towards fossil fuels in PHEVs was the point, in case you have trouble reading, and your stuff was not even to the point.

How could you miss the point?

You never cited it, you just said in Europe, the USA report also references Europe. And you are mistaken about what the Europe report  is saying. It clearly points out the problem is with company car subsidies not private.

Oh and your European report says just what I said about Europe that you claimed was irrelevant:

"The average real-world electric driving share is about 45%–49% for private cars and about 11%–15% for company cars." As I said, the problem was the misaligned subsidies for company cars which are a very big part of the market in Europe and that misalignment is being fixed. 

The report also says that even with that misalignment:

"A 10-kilometer increase in equivalent all-electric range is connected to a fuel consumption reduction of about 12%–15% and increases the electric driving share by 1–7 percentage points"

The USA report does not discuss company cars because they aren't a thing here. The USA report is all about private PHEV and it shows in the data section that electric share increases right along with electric range:

The results of the study are then restated in the recommendations and conclusion sections. Your claims about the findings of the USA report 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.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

25 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You never cited it. And you are mistaken about what it is saying. It clearly points out the problem is with company car subsidies not private.

Oh and your European report says just what I said about Europe that you claimed was irrelevant:

"The average real-world electric driving share is about 45%–49% for private cars and about 11%–15% for company cars." As I said, the problem was the misaligned subsidies for company cars which are a very big part of the market in Europe and that misalignment is being fixed. 

The report also says that even with that misalignment:

"A 10-kilometer increase in equivalent all-electric range is connected to a fuel consumption reduction of about 12%–15% and increases the electric driving share by 1–7 percentage points"

The USA report does not discuss company cars because they aren't a thing here. The USA report is all about private PHEV and it shows in the data section that electric share increases right along with electric range:

The results of the study are then restated in the recommendations and conclusion sections. Your claims about the findings of the USA report 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.

 

 

Jay, that is not a time series graph. You need to show how the PHEV sector has increasingly used fossil fuels OVER TIME as new market entrants are in higher categories of fossil fuel dependence. Your graph is not on point.

https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/real-world-phev-use-jun22-1.pdf

"The analysis arrives at the following main findings:

The real-world fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is on average three to five times higher than WLTP type-approval values. The average real-world fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is 4.0–4.4 L/100 km for private vehicles and 7.6–8.4 L/100 km for company cars compared to an average of 1.6–1.7 L/100 km in WLTP type approval (Figure ES 1). These values correspond to tailpipe emissions of 90–105 g CO2/km for private vehicles and 175–195 g CO2/km for company cars compared to only 37–39 g CO2/km in WLTP type approval.

The deviation between real-world and type-approval fuel consumption is growing. For PHEVs in general, the real-world fuel consumption has been growing by a few percent on average with every new vehicle build year since 2012 when normalized for changing vehicle properties such as equivalent all-electric ranges or mass (Figure ES1). This long-term growth corresponds to an average increase of 0.1–0.2 L/100 km with every build year. The deviation from type-approval values is higher for WLTP certified cars than for NEDC vehicles as newer WLTP certified cars show slightly higher average real-world fuel consumption."

Figure 1 shows the development of the mean fuel consumption of private PHEVs over the vehicle build year. The figure shows that the real-world fuel consumption of private PHEVs generally increased over time even though a noticeable dip emerged for vehicles built around 2018, which marks the introduction of the WLTP. Note that the values shown are build year average and not annual averages. Thus, we find that newer vehicles tend to show higher mean fuel consumption than older vehicles. Private PHEVs real−world driving type approval three times higher 

. "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."

Edited November 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

31 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, that is not a time series graph. You need to show how the PHEV sector have increasingly used fossil fuels OVER TIME as new market entrants are in higher categories fossil fuel dependent. That graph is not on point.

https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/real-world-phev-use-jun22-1.pdf

"The analysis arrives at the following main findings:

The real-world fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is on average three to five times higher than WLTP type-approval values. The average real-world fuel consumption of PHEVs in Europe is 4.0–4.4 L/100 km for private vehicles and 7.6–8.4 L/100 km for company cars compared to an average of 1.6–1.7 L/100 km in WLTP type approval (Figure ES 1). These values correspond to tailpipe emissions of 90–105 g CO2/km for private vehicles and 175–195 g CO2/km for company cars compared to only 37–39 g CO2/km in WLTP type approval.

The deviation between real-world and type-approval fuel consumption is growing. For PHEVs in general, the real-world fuel consumption has been growing by a few percent on average with every new vehicle build year since 2012 when normalized for changing vehicle properties such as equivalent all-electric ranges or mass (Figure ES1). This long-term growth corresponds to an average increase of 0.1–0.2 L/100 km with every build year. The deviation from type-approval values is higher for WLTP certified cars than for NEDC vehicles as newer WLTP certified cars show slightly higher average real-world fuel consumption."

That is a European problem due to misaligned company car incentives over time. The increase is because of those wrong incentive structures. Look at your quote, the difference between private and company car fuel usage is a factor of 3x higher for company cars. This problem does not exist in the US.

Based on the findings in the Europe report it recommends in the recommendations section (oh and note this includes your first quote which you took out of context). They would not be making these recommendations if you were correct:

"Increase the required WLTP equivalent all-electric range to about 90 km. To enable users to realize high electric driving shares and low fuel consumption over larger daily driving distances, even in cold weather and at high velocities,fiscal incentives could further be limited to vehicle models with a high electric range. In addition, as we find that higher fuel consumption correlates with higher maximum system power, which is typically dominated by the combustion engine, the power of the combustion engine should be limited. This could be achieved by deciding on a minimum regulatory ratio for electric motor power to combustion engine power, typically well above 40%–50%. In parallel, this would allow purely electric driving in real-world usage conditions, including during cold weather and with higher power load."

And this also from the recommendations again points out what I said about the misaligned incentive of companies paying for company car fuel but not electricity:

"...company-car PHEV incentives should be issued only to companies that provide a sufficient workplace charging infrastructure or support employees in home or public charging...The attractiveness of charging can further be increased by PHEV models with fast charging capability and lower charging costs. Driving on fossil fuel can be disincentivized by ..., abolishing or limiting free fuel cards for company cars, or limiting the tax-deductibility of costs for fossil fuels for organizations."

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

12 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

That is a European problem due to misaligned company car incentives over time. The increase is because of those wrong incentive structures. Look at your quote, the difference between private and company car fuel usage is a factor of 3x higher for company cars. This problem does not exist in the US.

Based on the findings in the Europe report it recommends in the recommendations section (oh and note this includes your first quote which you took out of context). They would not be making these recommendations if you were correct:

"Increase the required WLTP equivalent all-electric range to about 90 km. To enable users to realize high electric driving shares and low fuel consumption over larger daily driving distances, even in cold weather and at high velocities,fiscal incentives could further be limited to vehicle models with a high electric range. In addition, as we find that higher fuel consumption correlates with higher maximum system power, which is typically dominated by the combustion engine, the power of the combustion engine should be limited. This could be achieved by deciding on a minimum regulatory ratio for electric motor power to combustion engine power, typically well above 40%–50%. In parallel, this would allow purely electric driving in real-world usage conditions, including during cold weather and with higher power load."

And this also from the recommendations again points out what I said about the misaligned incentive of companies paying for company car fuel but not electricity:

"...company-car PHEV incentives should be issued only to companies that provide a sufficient workplace charging infrastructure or support employees in home or public charging...The attractiveness of charging can further be increased by PHEV models with fast charging capability and lower charging costs. Driving on fossil fuel can be disincentivized by ..., abolishing or limiting free fuel cards for company cars, or limiting the tax-deductibility of costs for fossil fuels for organizations."

 

Recommendations are just musings not reality. These are just hopes and wishes. Worth the price of a cup of coffee. It is doubtful if rigorous measures would be politically acceptable. Dreams are not realities.

Limiting consumer choice of a powerful engine is a political loser.

If  current trends continue, more charging capability and longer range batteries would make no difference, as the new PHEVs are increasingly fossil fuel intensive.

Further, your own graph is useless, it is not a time series and fails to show the increasing reliance of newer PHEVs on fossil fuels.

Show us a time series study such as this European report. Stop running away.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Recommendations are just musings not reality. These are just hopes and wishes. It is doubtful if rigorous measures would be politically acceptable. Dreams are not realities.

Limiting consumer choice of a powerful engine is a political loser.

If  current trends continue, more charging capability and longer range batteries would make no difference, as the new PHEVs are increasingly fossil fuel intensive.

Further, your own graph is useless, it is not a time series and fails to show the increasing reliance of newer PHEVs on fossil fuels.

Germany and UK have already adopted the rigorous measures. So you are wrong.

In the US the Jeep Wrangler PHEV has a much less powerful engine than the pure ICE version and is already 42% of total Wrangler sales. So you are wrong again. 

It fails to show increasing reliance on fossil fuels because that isn't a thing in the US, only in Europe because of their recently abandoned incentive structure. Yet again you are just wrong.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Germany and UK have already adopted the rigorous measures. So you are wrong.

In the US the Jeep Wrangler PHEV has a much less powerful engine than the pure ICE version and is already 42% of total Wrangler sales. So you are wrong again. 

It fails to show increasing reliance on fossil fuels because that isn't a thing in the US, only in Europe because of their recently abandoned incentive structure. Yet again you are just wrong.

 

Show some data, Stop running away.

You avoid the point, comparing to fossil fuel cars is not it. The point is that PHEVs in the new models are increasingly fossil fuel dependent.

I guess you have nothing to say about that.

I am right, as usual, unless you can find some other study to the contrary. (Yawn.)

Edited November 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

49 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Show some data, Stop running away.

You avoid the point, comparing to fossil fuel cars is not it. The point is that PHEVs in the new models are increasingly fossil fuel dependent.

I guess you have nothing to say about that.

I am right, as usual, unless you can find some other study to the contrary.

I have shown you the data and shown the report explanations for the data, you just can't deal with being wrong.

The Europe report states:

"As newer PHEVs certified under WLTP are equipped with longer electric ranges and the deviation between real-world and type-approval fuel consumption for conventional vehicles is smaller, one could expect the deviation between type-approval and real-world fuel consumption of PHEVs to decrease with the WLTP introduction."

"The real-world fuel consumption and electric driving share correlates with certain vehicle properties. Although the real-world fuel consumption and electric driving share of PHEVs is mostly determined by usage conditions, such as charging frequency and share of long-distance driving, they are found to also correlate with certain vehicle properties. A 10-kilometer increase in equivalent all-electric range is connected to a fuel consumption reduction of about 12%–15% and increases the electric driving share by 1–7 percentage points. Similarly, an increase in system power by 50 kW is connected to 3%–8% higher fuel consumption, and an increase in vehicle curb weight of 100 kg is connected to 4%–6% higher fuel consumption."

The time series data is just showing that as we move further a wider range of heavier vehicles with insufficient electric range are being produced as PHEV AND that the policies  need to be adjusted. The reports do not say what you claim and that is clear by their recommendations and conclusions. Ten years ago PHEVs were all little tiny city cars now they include SUVs and sports cars. That is why average fuel consumption is going up over time.

This is why both the Europe and US reports state that electric only range needs to be increased for all vehicle types.

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,400]

No, you are flat out wrong. the study is clear.

 "For PHEVs in general, the real-world consumption has been growing by a few percent on average with every new vehicle build year since 2012  when normalized for changing vehicle properties such as equivalent all-electric ranges or mass (Figure ES1). This long-term growth corresponds to an average increase of 0.1–0.2 L/100 km with every build year." 

"newer vehicles tend to show higher mean fuel consumption than older vehicles".

 "an increase in system power by 50 kW is connected to 3%–8% higher fuel consumption, and an increase in vehicle curb weight of 100 kg is connected to 4%–6% higher fuel consumption."

New entrants to the PHEV sector prefer the higher fossil fuel consumption mode. As the newer vehicles become predominant in the market, the trend will continue to increase.

You need to show us a time series with the opposite result.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

50 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, you are flat out wrong. the study is clear.

 "For PHEVs in general, the real-world consumption has been growing by a few percent on average with every new vehicle build year since 2012  when normalized for changing vehicle properties such as equivalent all-electric ranges or mass (Figure ES1). This long-term growth corresponds to an average increase of 0.1–0.2 L/100 km with every build year." 

"newer vehicles tend to show higher mean fuel consumption than older vehicles".

 "an increase in system power by 50 kW is connected to 3%–8% higher fuel consumption, and an increase in vehicle curb weight of 100 kg is connected to 4%–6% higher fuel consumption."

New entrants to the PHEV sector prefer the higher fossil fuel consumption mode. As the newer vehicles become predominant in the market, the trend will continue to increase.

You need to show us a time series with the opposite result.

"For PHEVs in general" means a fleet average. "newer vehicles tend to show higher mean fuel consumption than older vehicles" So this is comparing the fleet of newer vehicles to the fleet of older vehicles.

If you have an economy city car with a low fuel use engine and it drives for 60 miles with 30 miles on gas and 30 on electricity then you will use X fuel for your fleet on average.

If you now add a big SUV with a high fuel use engine to your fleet and it drives for 60 miles with 30 miles on gas and 30 on electricity then you will use >X fuel for your fleet on average.

Ten years ago PHEV were all small city cars, now the fleet includes big SUVs and sports cars so fuel usage has gone up. That is your time series.

Newer PHEV cars include SUVs and sports cars, older PHEV do not. So mean fuel consumption for the fleet of newer cars is higher. Very simple concept.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Jay McKinsey