A craptastic NPR story on electric cars

[Drivesolo]

Is this the Carlos Ghosn interview on NPR?:

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/21/142609004/test-driving-the-nissan-leaf

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

Nice interview with Carlos!

 

[jcodeglia]

Not to mention they said the LEAF gets an "average" of 60 miles. Another gem was that it can take "12 hours to charge, depending on the type of outlet used." - which is true, but this report tended to highlight the worst-case numbers on this car. Barely any focus on the benefits such as low noise, cheaper fuel, thrill to drive, low maintenance, etc.

I love how they declared "people aren't buying them" and then failed to interview anyone who owns and loves them. UGH!

 

[smkettner]

I love how they declared "people aren't buying them" and then failed to interview anyone who owns and loves them. UGH!

Yes I think if they went down to a dealer and took a picture they could judge better with an inventory count. But that might take some actual legwork. Or check number of days inventory held by dealers.

Of course they are are probably trying to compare to the introduction of the Mustang where a million were sold in the first 18 months. As if anything less is a flop. Those days are gone for any vehicle introduction. I believe LEAF is actually outselling more than a few established vehicle models.

But they are the experts on this :roll: :lol:

 

[solardude]

here's one that was on Oregon Public Broadcasting tonight:

http://news.opb.org/article/electric_car_drivers_eschew_public_charging_stations_so_far/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[cwerdna]

I agree with a number of the posters - I also like and respect NPR when they broadcast stories that support my points of view, and dislike NPR when they broadcast stories that are counter to my points of view.

I agree. It's human nature to do this, regardless of the source.

I agree that the story was very slanted w/mostly negatives being reported and a fair amount of misinformation. I think we all know that most general/mass media journalists are not area experts in the field they're reporting on. I've seen so much misreporting on technology and cars by mainstream media. Clearly this reporter wasn't aware of this test: http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/05/2011-nissan-leaf-driving-it-to-the-bitter-end.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

The other thing that bothers me about this story (but this is true of all mass media) is the reporting of the "54.5 mpg" or "55 mpg" CAFE mileage standard which are based on unfudged/unadjusted EPA dyno numbers. I suspect most people don't realize that this translates into somewhere around 36-38 mpg combined on the Monroney sticker. I've been very annoyed about this. See http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-hybrid-ev-alt-fuel-news/100196-epa-dot-require-54-5-mpg-2025-a.html#post1419740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-hybrid-ev-alt-fuel-news/100196-epa-dot-require-54-5-mpg-2025-a.html#post1420249" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I've posted some example mileage for CAFE purposes at http://priuschat.com/forums/other-cars/80511-americans-strongly-favor-raising-fuel-economy-standards-50-mpg-poll-finds.html#post1125402" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. 2010+ Prius already counts for ">70 mpg" for CAFE purposes and 2nd gens (04-09) count as having "~65.8 mpg" for CAFE purposes.

 

[gascant]

Would be great if some of you posted your emails to NPR here.

 

[lpickup]

The other thing that bothers me about this story (but this is true of all mass media) is the reporting of the "54.5 mpg" or "55 mpg" CAFE mileage standard which are based on unfudged/unadjusted EPA dyno numbers.

I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with anyone that starts spouting "MPG" stats, particularly high "MPG". Here's why: I recently read an article about the new inclusion of consumption-based fuel economy stats (such as gallons / 100 miles or for EV owners, kWH / 100 miles) rather than EFFICIENCY based stats such as MPG or miles/kWH.

At first glance you probably ask what's the big deal? You can calculate one from the other. However, by stating fuel economy in terms of MPG, you can play games with the stats and make it look fabulous, when in fact there are diminishing returns at work (and actually this applies to both ICE and EV figures).

The consumption-based figures (gallons / 100 miles) give you as direct an indication of how much money you will have to spend to drive your car. If for example your car states that it uses 3 gallons / 100 miles, and you know gas is running $3.50 / gallon, it's easy to see that to drive 100 miles it's going to cost you $10.50 to travel that 100 miles. If that's your daily/weekly distance you travel, you can easily estimate your costs (similar to the EnergyGuide stats on appliances that quote energy costs per year). It's also easy to directly compare the difference in fuel costs between a car that gets 3 gallons / 100 miles and 4 gallons / 100 miles ($3.50 / 100 miles at $3.50 a gallon). You can't really do this easily when stats are quoted in MPG (33 MPG vs 25 MPG). You just know that 30 is better than 25, but without doing math, it's hard for you to translate that to your wallet.

Still that's not too bad, but here's where it gets crazy! Once you start getting up into the high MPG range, diminishing returns start to kick in! I'm sure a LOT of effort (and cost) is spent trying to improve a car's engine to get from say 25 MPG to say 50 MPG. But you might be tempted to think that it would be worth it because you've DOUBLED the fuel efficiency of the car! Well, let's see how much you're actually saving when you make that jump: 25 MPG equates to 4.0 gal / 100 miles, whereas 50 MPG equates to 2.0 gal / 100 miles. As expected, it will cost you half as much for that 100 mile journey. At $3.50/gal, you'll save $7 / 100 miles. But let's say we want to squeeze another 25 MPG out of that engine. For that same 25 MPG, will we save another $7 / 100 miles? Nope! That would be 75 MPG which equates to 1.33 gal / 100 miles. That only saves us another 0.67 gallons for that trip which is only $2.35 in savings!

The higher these MPG figures get, the less ACTUAL savings you're going to get out of each additional MPG you add. In fact, the actual savings between a 10MPG vehicle and an 11MPG vehicle is exactly the same as between a 50MPG and a 100MPG! (1 gallon / mile) And I'm going to speculate that after 100 years of R&D on ICE's that it's getting harder and harder (and more expensive) to squeeze out additional efficiency in a vehicle scale engine. I.e. it's a lot easier to get from 25 MPG to 50 MPG than it would be to get from 50 MPG to 75 MPG.

So I've decided that I'm going to be very skeptical of the feasibility and true cost savings of these high MPG vehicles and focus my attention on the consumption-based economy statements instead.

 

[Yodrak]

I agree, I liked that interview.

Nice interview with Carlos!

 

[cwerdna]

Lpickup's argument is basically the same as the one below. To quote from the article I linked to at http://priuschat.com/forums/other-cars/95536-car-driver-mileage-no-its-your-gallonage-really-counts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

There's a sneaky illusion in mpg numbers. Consider: If your pickup rated at 10 mpg gets only 9, you shrug and say it's off only 1 mpg. But if you drive a hybrid labeled 50 mpg and it drops the same 10 percent to 45, you complain of lousy mileage.

The illusion tricks you once again when you think of mpg instead of the fuel you actually burn. Hybrids are chosen by people who think saving gas is right up there on the list of American virtues with motherhood and voting. But when the hybrid gets 45 mpg instead of the expected 50, a 100-mile trip consumes less than a quarter of a gallon more than expected. Compare that with the pickup that gets 9 mpg instead of 10; its 100-mile trip burns 1.1 extra gallons.

The loss of 10 percent on the pickup's mileage actually burns five times the extra gas used by the 10-percent shortfall in the hybrid...

Example calculation:
100 miles / 50 mpg = 2 gallons used
100 miles / 45 mpg = 2.22 gallons used

100 miles / 20 mpg =5 gallons used
100 miles / 18 mpg =5.56 gallons used

The ones who really should be trying to conserve by hypermiling, getting low rolling resistance tires, being diligent about proper tire inflation, cutting out all useless idling, etc. should be the ones who drive monstrosity class (full-sized and beyond) SUVs and pickups and other grossly inefficient vehicles. Unfortunately, due to their choice of vehicle, it's not likely they bother, assuming they even calculate or track their mileage at all.

 

[Herm]

NPR always has a whiny liberal tone to me, but I still listen to it. Sometimes it gets unbearable but the alternatives are worse

The old joke: comet to destroy the earth, women and children to suffer the most.. or something like that.

 

[klapauzius]

NPR always has a whiny liberal tone to me, but I still listen to it. Sometimes it gets unbearable but the alternatives are worse

The old joke: comet to destroy the earth, women and children to suffer the most.. or something like that.

Not sure what you mean by "whiny liberal"?
I think most of the time their tone is quite reasonable.
As a non-American I have been quite puzzled by the use of the world "liberal" by conservatives in this country, and I did not had the opportunity to ask what "liberal" actually means to them. It seems to be some kind of dirty word, but I cant figure out why? Especially since liberty, on the other hand, seems to be the big thing here.

 

[davewill]

Not sure what you mean by "whiny liberal"?
I think most of the time their tone is quite reasonable.
As a non-American I have been quite puzzled by the use of the world "liberal" by conservatives in this country, and I did not had the opportunity to ask what "liberal" actually means to them. It seems to be some kind of dirty word, but I cant figure out why? Especially since liberty, on the other hand, seems to be the big thing here.

Like to hear this one myself (not really, I've had a belly full).

A Liberal here is someone who believes that we should exercise compassion and toleration for our fellow man as a matter of public policy. There's been a concerted propaganda effort to remake liberal into a dirty word equating it with Communism, "dirty f'ing hippies", and mindless "dogoodism" (aka, the "bleeding heart" liberal). It goes hand in hand with the demonization of academics and science. So much so, that many liberals have given up the term...but I wear it proudly. Because NPR dares to report stories about people who aren't rich or popular, they get slandered. This despite generally doing a rather professional job, and largely avoiding the kind of sensationalism that modern news coverage seems to have fallen prey to. Indeed my ire at this story is that it stems from the "let's do our research by reading all the other news stories" feel of it, instead of doing even a modicum of real research...Something NPR used to do better at.

 

[ENIAC]

NPR always has a whiny liberal tone to me, but I still listen to it. Sometimes it gets unbearable but the alternatives are worse

The old joke: comet to destroy the earth, women and children to suffer the most.. or something like that.

Not sure what you mean by "whiny liberal"?
I think most of the time their tone is quite reasonable.
As a non-American I have been quite puzzled by the use of the world "liberal" by conservatives in this country, and I did not had the opportunity to ask what "liberal" actually means to them. It seems to be some kind of dirty word, but I cant figure out why? Especially since liberty, on the other hand, seems to be the big thing here.

The vast majority of American's don't realize that to be "liberal" means to be "pro freedom". The U.S. was founded on liberalism. You'll often hear, "are you a liberal or a conservative?" That's a silly question because the opposite of conservative is actually progressive whereas the opposite of liberal is authoritarian.

 

[klapauzius]

The vast majority of American's don't realize that to be "liberal" means to be "pro freedom". The U.S. was founded on liberalism. You'll often hear, "are you a liberal or a conservative?" That's a silly question because the opposite of conservative is actually progressive whereas the opposite of liberal is authoritarian.

Which would beg the question why anyone would want to be non-progressive = conservative....I guess that would imply that some former era in the history/evolution of mankind would be more desirable than today (or tomorrow)..?
And if the past was better, which era? 1950? 1850? 1750? 1 A.D?

or 6 000 000 BC ?

At this point we were all mere monkeys, so if all the monkeys had been true conservatives (i.e. no progress/evolution) back then, they would still be monkeys today...

 

[Electric4Me]

At this point we were all mere monkeys, so if all the monkeys had been true conservatives (i.e. no progress/evolution) back then, they would still be monkeys today...

Exactly why many conservatives refuse to believe in evolution! They feel they haven't evolved!

 

[TEG]

...That's a silly question because the opposite of conservative is actually progressive whereas the opposite of liberal is authoritarian...

So if 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' what is the opposite of progress?

 

[occ]

...That's a silly question because the opposite of conservative is actually progressive whereas the opposite of liberal is authoritarian...

So if 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' what is the opposite of progress?

LOL thats a good one...how apt for the times.

 

[thankyouOB]

liberals believe this to be accurate and preferred:
My vision of economic morality is more or less Rawlsian: we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be.

 

[Herm]

I know, "whiny liberal" is redundant

Every country has a different definition of Liberal, look it up in wikipedia.

Funny that someone brought up "progressive".. was reading a book about WWII era Molotov and Stalin, they sprinkle that word around a lot when talking about their political system (meanwhile having people "liquidated" left and right, or exiled to a work camp in Siberia).. and lately the liberals in the US have switched to calling themselves progressives in an attempt at public relations. Liberalism has bad connotations in the US psyche.

I guess it all started with the Puritans and Protestants (and their work ethic) that set the tone for the country at the beginning. The Yankee tradition of letting the devil take care of the hindmost probably accounts for some of that too.