Talk:Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger proposal

This article's contents discuss the same topic as those discussed in Miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent. The titles of the two articles only differ by the one word "of" as well. As this is the newer article, I propose that it be merged into the other article. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the other article discussing MPGe, I feel as though it may be more useful to merge some of the points made in that article into this one. The first reason for this is that I believe, as I see as few others have pointed out on the MPGe talk page, that the use of mpgge has been established as an industry standard when quoting the efficiencies of alternative fuel vehicles. The use of mpgge allows a third party to recognize that the quoted number is not for the native fuel of the vehicle, but that the number has been converted to an equivalent efficiency based on one U.S. gallon of gasoline. MPGe,by dropping the second g, does not imply and explicit relation to the reference unit of one U.S. gallon of gasoline. (This is the same reason I made the change to mpgge on the Tesla roadster page) Secondly, I believe the MPGe article is overly complicated and does not provide clear examples of how a vehicles efficiency may be converted to mpgge. This seems to be the same point discussed in the A simple concept made very confusing. section of the MPGe article.Something Original (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated the merge request header in both articles to suggest a merger of equals. The discussion of which acronym to use may best be left as an exercise to be undertaken after the merger. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the merger is overdue. 164.67.237.80 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

These two articles should be merged for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.53.197 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A different tack

Instead of miles per gallon why not energy per hundred miles. If memory servers this is how the EU does their ratings for gasoline powered vehicles. Of course it's actuall litters per 100 kilometers. Either way it seems more informative. There could also be a dollars per mile for a give fuel price.

50 mpg = 2 gallons per 100 miles @ USD 2.50 gives USD 5 per 100 miles.

20 Kilowatt Hrs per 100 miles @ USD 0.15 gives USD 3 per 100 miles.

The 50 mpg is approx a Toyota Prius and the 20 Kwh is approx an old GM EV1. Which is why the range extened Chevy Volt would be a good car to do the comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjr1007 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

All good points.

Should have read "is a measure that is becoming obsolete, in part because of this very problem"

Should have read "Miles Per Gallon"

So the obvious question becomes, why not edit instead of delete? This is obviously a different point of view, without it the article is not balanced.

Please make any and all edits you deem appropriate, short of delete.

Thank you

mjr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjr1007 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Video

Do we really need a long promo video to explain this? A video clip has to be the least efficient way to explain almost anythign that doesn't involve moving parts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing

Someone wants to put the following in the article:

- ===Criticism===

MPG is an obsolete measurement. One merely has to look at the MPG page to realize this. Therefore MPGGE is also obsolete. Instead of miles per gallon, energy per hundred miles is a better measure. There could also be a dollars per mile for a give fuel price.

50 mpg is 2 gals per 100 miles.

2 gals per 100 miles @ USD 2.50 gives USD 5 per 100 miles, 20 Kwh per 100 miles @ USD 0.15 gives USD 3 per 100 miles

The 50 mpg is approx a Toyota Prius and the 20 Kwh is approx an old GM EV1. Dual powered vehciles such as the range extened Chevy Volt or the Plug in Toyota Prius would be good cars for this comparison.

The well to wheel section does not include renewable energy, particularly locally generated renewable energy. Even the heat engine conversion does not mention dual cycle plants.

Wrong. It's a unit used every day and so not obsolete. Probably meant to say Miles per gallon page. Energy per hundred miles is just as arbitrary. The encyclopedia is not the place to teach arithmetic. There's no need to factor in the wildly-varying cost of a gallon of gas into the fuel economoy rating; anyone who's mastered Grade 4 arithmetic can work it out when needed. An article on a unit is no place to get into a discussion of energy conversion and energy policy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Added "Controversy" section to explain falacy of MPGe that doesn't account for fuel burned in generating the electrical power. Please do not delete. If it's too wordy, please help edit. Some jerk deleted the entire section and I had to retype. Uncool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake1960 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Recent edits by a relatively new Wikipedia editor have been disruptive, replacing well-referenced calculations and language with OR and unreferenced claims that seem to be in conflict with WP:NPOV. The calculations in this article are supported by the references and by editor consensus to date. I suggest, humbly but strongly, that new editors present their plans to radically rewrite this article on this talk page before editing the main article. That way, we can come to a consensus before proceeding, and we can avoid edit wars similar to the ones that have occurred in recent days. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've taken a look at your last reversion. the edits that Blake1960 made that you have taken out look to me like a violation of WP:SOAPBOX, maintaining a neutral point of view and likely original research. I agree that these issues should be resolved on the talk page, and will protect the article if necessary. Blake1960 will have to provide reliable sources to support this material, and write in the neutral tone that is required for an encyclopedia article. Ground Zero | t 21:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Points taken. However, having someone repeatedly delete my contributions wholesale no matter what changes were made to address the concerns only to find that he (Ebike) is employed by the electric recharging industry is too much. I'm a highly respected degreed professional engineer/analyst, have been for decades. I have no dog in this fight. Just a desire for truth and honesty.Blake1960 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you questioning? Reliable sources for what? That power-plants require fuel or some type of energy in order to create electricity? Really??? I've provided links in my contribution to other wiki articles, namely on power plant efficiency. What exactly are you saying I need to source, algebra? The definition of the concept of "total energy of all fuels consumed"? Blake1960 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC) The article itself near the top states the following:

Depending on the purpose, overall energy consumption for the vehicle may also need to include the energy used in the production of whatever energy carrier is used for the vehicle and the energy used in filling the "tank". For example, with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of all energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug. Blake1960 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• • The math is simple. The EPA formulas blatantly violate the governing equation sited in this very article. It's a matter of simple math and physics. There is not much room for debate. What else is there to know? The governing equation requires accounting of the "total energy of all fuels consumed". You don't get electricity from nothing. Most comes from burning fuel, which like gasoline has energy. I referenced another wiki entry for the powerplant efficiency to substantiate the factor for coal and oil fired electrical generating plants. It is further supported by this article itself in the "well-to-wheel" factor for electrical generation (0.303). Deleting the entire contribution is out of line, uncalled for and very DISRUPTIVE. Make a suggestion. Just deleting all and claiming it is POV is lame. I sense an agenda at play by some here. If my tone of writing seems non-neutral, then fix it so it isn't, but don't delete hours of work. That is just rude and inconsiderate and yes DISRUPTIVE. The article as it stands is VERY misleading due to lack of technical integrity. What a shame. Blake1960 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

21-year-old?! HA! I had my SECOND 21st birthday (42) many years ago. Does my writing seem especially youthful to you? If so, "Thanks!" (I think) ;) The bottom line is that I too am "a highly respected degreed professional engineer/analyst, have been for decades." Ebikeguy (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. How about you address the technical points! Like the fact that this very article states that "with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of all energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug."Blake1960 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Further... The way the EPA calculates MPGe, I could power a vehicle using compressed air and it wouldn't use any energy. I just pull up to the air hose, fill it up and off I go. I didn't put any fuel or even electricity into the vehicle. The fallacy of only accounting for the electricity is no different; it is an entirely incomplete accounting of the fuel cycle. Since we're referencing a gallon of gasoline, we go to the equivalent, the fuel after it has been mined and processed and readied for the power plant. Simple. Blake1960 (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Another way to look at it is to compare the Well-to-wheel factors and account for that versus the desired baseline of a gallon of gasoline. That type of comparison is partly documented in the article in the section entitled "Well-to-Wheel", but it doesn't baseline a factor for electricity wrt gasoline. It shows a factor of 0.83 for gasoline and 0.303 for electricity on average. Factoring out the 0.83 in order to rate electricity wrt a gallon of gas at the pump would yield 0.303/0.83=0.365 on average for ALL American electric power generation relative to a gasoline. It would likely be significantly lower for just coal and oil generation. I used 0.33. Seems very reasonable. It might be better to use the 0.365 in order to represent a true average over all. I'd agree to that.Blake1960 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to take a step back here, to avoid another edit war. Clearly, Blake1960 thinks I am being unreasonable, so I will let other editors try to convince him not to publish original research and statements that do not represent a neutral point of view. I wish everyone the best! Ebikeguy (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no original research, just simple math, the governing equation from the very article, and the statement from the article that "with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of all energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug." Thank you Ebike for stepping back. I will add proper balance (truth) to the article. I trust you will not again inconsiderately delete it wholesale. Blake1960 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Efficiency

Efficiency is dimensionless - energy out vs energy in at some conversion process. What this unit is for is measuring energy *consumption* per unit distance travelled in terms familiar to US consumers. This consumption must have units attached (reducing to mass times length per square time, if anyone thinks that's a useful way to look at it....I don't).

It's also a *little* beside the point worrying about the efficiency of burning coal to make electricity. No-one makes a coal-powerered (or wind-, solar-, or fission-powered) automobile, so the practical efficiency is incommensurable with the physical efficiency since the primary fuels cannot be easily substituted. Once you get rid of the heat-engine paradigm, comparisions with burning gasoline are at best misleading; the only reason electric vehicles are even discussed for vehicle propulsion is that IC engines throw away 3/4 of the heat energy in their fuels. You can't make the article on a unit of energy consumption carry the whole weight of a discussion of energy policy - it's off-topic here and needlessly clouds the issue. A zero-order hack if you're looking at, say, CO2 emissions is that it doesn't matter if you burn carbon at a central heat engine, or in a whole bunch of distributed heat engines...the mass of CO2 emitted per unit distance travelled with be of the same order, and only individual efficiencies will make a difference. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so much there Wtshymanski

$MPGe={\frac {total~miles~driven}{\left[{\frac {total~energy~of~all~fuels~consumed}{energy~of~one~gallon~of~gasoline}}\right]}}$

That is the defining equation for MPGe, yes?

Notice the "total energy of all fuels consumed"

That is in the equation defining the whole idea of MPGe. Now you want to ignore it? Then you need to remove that equation then and just tell folks that "we just make up stuff".

The fuel burned to create the electricity is obviously a part of the "total energy of all fuels consumed" in order to power the car.

In terms of an electric car, the power plant is just a really large off-site fuel tank, the fuel being most often coal. That coal has an energy value and produces carbon emissions. Reduced carbon emissions are the one major attraction of electric cars among the green enthusiast community. They like to imagine that their cars are zero emission and ultra efficient, when in fact they require power plants that, similar to what you say about IC engines, throw away 2/3rds of the heat energy of their fuels. People deserve to understand this.

Further, if the EPA is going to rate electrics based on the energy equivalent of a gallon of gas, but only 1/4th of the energy from a gallon of gasoline is ever useful, then shouldn't they not take that into account? I am generous is using the better efficiency of the power-plants instead of the 25% of the gasoline engines. The truth is that there is only about 29 KWH available per gallon of gasoline. The EPA is saying that all 115 KWH are available for conversion to energy. It is a damn lie

Bottom line is that the article's founding equation references "total energy burned to power the car", but then refuses to follow that declared equation for determining fuel efficiency. So my comments are NOT off topic and they are science fact. They is accurate. There is no reason to delete my contribution other than you are trying to push your own agenda to mislead people into believing that their electric car is a lot more efficient or a zero emitting means of transport for the energy required to drive it than anything else around. Conventional hybrids are by far the most efficient. Well, unless your power grid happens to be supplied by hydro-electric or nuclear or wind or solar, but 70% are not. Cost may be another issue. You should discuss it. Blake1960 (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Blake1960, please read WP:OR and WP:RS. You need to provide reliable sources otherwise it is considered original research. Also due to your edits here and in Chevrolet Volt you could be block for reversing more than 3 times (see WP:Edit warring).--Mariordo (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I will *never* understand the hysteria seemingly innocuous topics attract here on the Wikipedia. You'd think I was coming to take his guns away, or that Tesla was a Serb or Baird was Scottish. Arguing about the definition of MPGe here is like arguing about Canadian vs US football rules in the definition of yard. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

TWsshymanski, there is no hysteria, just a very frustrated contributor trying to add some truth and balance to an article that concerns a major undertaking by Big Brother. Truth should be important. Else why are we here contributing to the encyclopedia of the internet? The definition of MPGe is provided in this very article, but then ignored when showing the EPA form, which are in all truth blatantly dishonest. What was really offputting ws having my contributions deleted wholesale time and again absent and thoughtful input. That is just wrong, inconsiderate and incredibly arrogant.Blake1960 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• What are you questioning? Reliable sources for what? That power-plants require fuel or some type of energy in order to create electricity? Really??? I've provided links in my contribution to other wiki articles, namely on power plant efficiency. What exactly are you saying I need to source, algebra? The definition of the concept of "total energy of all fuels consumed"? The article itself near the top states the following:

• • Depending on the purpose, overall energy consumption for the vehicle may also need to include the energy used in the production of whatever energy carrier is used for the vehicle and the energy used in filling the "tank". For example, with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of all energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug. Blake1960 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if you read the references, you will see that these losses are already considered in coming up with the MPGE numbers as published in the current article. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • That is mistaken. The MPGe equations that that are being used by the EPA as detailed here only account for the electricity itself; they are plug-to-wheel which ignores the power generation fuel and efficiency, this is even stated elsewhere in the article under the "Tank-to-Wheel" section. There is no efficiency factor in the equation anywhere. If there is, then show it to me. Your credibility is going down the toilet. Seems you just make stuff up and don't even bother to read the entire article. Blake1960 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Renewable Energy

MPGe is a difficult subject. While including well to wheel analysis is appropriate for electricity generated from fossil fuels, it seems less useful for renewable energy.

To begin with plug in hybrids or range extended hybrids seem like the ideal candidates for an initial comparison. This is true because the same car can run on both electricity and fossil fuel. The cost per mile would be very enlightening for these vehicles. These are also the vehicles which can be an important part of the smart grid, being able to store energy from the grid in times of surplus and supply energy to the grid in times of deficits. That, of course, is for a different article.

The conversion factor is also of some concern in the well to wheel analysis. While there are some combine cycle plants which can get in the 60% range for power, no such vehicles are available. So this alone could be a game changer for electric vehicles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjr1007 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently those high efficiency power-plants employ natural gas as fuel and they are a small minority of power generation plants. The majority are coal, oil or nuclear. Even better is hydro-electric, which use hardly any fuel at all, deriving their power from naturally occurring water pressure.Blake1960 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Anon editor

An anon editor inserted:

- Of course, electrical energy stored in a battery is a very different kind of energy from the energy that can be obtained from burning fuel in a gasoline tank. The huge discrepancy in results when a full accounting is done below illustrates this. Even though heat from fuel can be measured in kWhr like electricity, this does not mean there is any validity to a direct comparison between these kinds of energy. Apparently it sounds like a lecture or "preachy" to explain this. However, this mistaken belief in equivalence has profound world-wide implications. National policy in the USA is promoting plug-in electric cars as if they will have a positive environmental effect. They will in fact result in more CO2 in the atmosphere compared to cars that are simply left as hybrids. Reference: EPRI-NRDC study showing effect of plug-ins on CO2 emissions compared with simple hybrids.

There's no need to discuss all of energy policy in this article. The article contains adequate notice that the "energy efficiency" of a system depends on the boundaries you put around the system. It is an inconvenient truth that an internal combustion engine throws away four-fifths of the heat value of its fuel; this is why electric vehicles are even considered, because the incredibly high energy density of petrolum fuel is offset by the incredibly low efficiency of using it. ( If you want to see an example of incredibly low energy density coupled with incredibly low efficiency, look at the articles on liquid nitrogen vehicle and Ocean thermal energy conversion.) It's equally valid measure specific energy consumption in joules/metre, miles per gallon or light years per megatonne - there's no need to attach all the baggage of energy policy to an article about a unit.

You could argue that burning carbon to make mechanical energy, to a first approximation, has the same efficiency in a vehicle as at a central power plant. However, there's considerable difference in efficiency between a modern combined-cycle plant (many of which are in the 7000 BTU/kwh heat rate, around 50% efficiency (kwh electrcity to grid vs kwh low heating value of fuel in), and an internal combusion engine in a car which is lucky to put even 20% of the heat value of fuel to the wheels. That's where the win is, in terms of using fewer tons of fuel per million miles travelled and putting out fewr tons of CO2 per million miles travelled. There's also a political and economic advantage for the United States to use domestic coal resources to make electricity which can then be used to power vehicles, as opposed to subsidizing incredibly anti-democratic governments to supply imported motor fuel. It also helps the nuclear business by bulking up the night time load, when presumably all those EVs can be recharging off-peak. So there's many reasons to consider plug-in electrics. None of this discussion is on-point for a discussion of the unit. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That I agree with.

However it is only honest to include the entire fuel cycle of the electrics. Failing to account for fossil fuel powered generating plants is dishonest. Period. Blake1960 (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Note also that the 50% efficient combined cycle power plants to which you refer constitute a small minority of our electrical power generating capacity. Most electrical power is generated by coal or oil fired plants having about 33% efficiency. Add to that the inefficiencies of electric power transmission and you end up with the average well to wheel electrical grid efficiency of just 30.3%. That is an average and so includes all the hydro-electric, nuclear and wind as well as the high cycle plants you reference. There is no free lunch. Using fossil fuel generated electricity to run battery powered vehicles is INCREDIBLY inefficient. The advantage in BEVs is the ability to use other than oil to power our vehicles and thus ween ourselves from oil as much as possible. Blake1960 (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Article protected against edit warring

I have protected this article against further editting. The dispute should be resolved here on the talk page instead of through endless reversions and editting. In particular, Blake must review WP:RS and provide references to reliable third party sources (Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself). I am not a subject matter expert, so it would not be useful for me to try to wade through the arguments here. This can only be resolved through reference to reliable third party sources provided here on the talk page. When the parties involved in the dispute come to an agreement, then the edits can be made. Ground Zero | t 21:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A critical balanced view based on prior statements and mathematical equations in this very article must provide references, yet none are required for the bulk eof thexisting article and they are not deleted wholesale. Please explain that double standard for editorial integrity! If you are not a subject expert, how may you judge what is reliable third party sources? I provided a third party source from Forbes magazine, yet that too was deleted. Please explain. There appears to be no avenue for agreement here as no discussion is possible. One side is defending fraudulent mathematics by claiming that exposing it is a POV. Math is not a point of view, it is truth. Either the BEV and PHEV account for all energy of fuel

The POV of the current article is NOT neutral. It is defending the fraudulent POV of the EPA in their very misleading definition of MPGe for electric vehicles. They do not as required by the governing equation stated account for the "total energy of all fuel" nor do they abide by the articles clarification of that equation as stated...

with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of all energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug.

This article is not neutral, is highly POV in support of the EPA definition of MPGe, and desperately needs balance.Blake1960 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Context

It seems perfectly within the realm of this article to add some context. The context should include different types of energy generation. This would include coal, petroleum, natural gas (both Rankine and combined cycle), nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and anything else that might make a contribution.

mjr1007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjr1007 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, any more than a discussion of the yard should discuss the distance between the goals in American vs Canadian rules football. There are articles to talk about alternative energy, vehicle energy consumption, environmental impacts of energy sources, etc. - this isn't the place for that discussion. This is just a discussion of a unit of measure. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The basis and context of the "unit of measure" (your words) being discussed in part of the article, namely the EPA's "MPGe", is in fact not a unit of measure but a means of comparing the efficiency of two different forms of vehicular drive/power. In that light it is proper to provide full disclosure as to the context and relation of that invented means of comparison. Thus calling attention to and showing the effects of the EPA's decision/policy to ignore the energy required to generate electricity is vital to providing balance and vital context to this article. Without it, people reading the article are led to believe that an electric vehicle rated at 99 MPGe uses one third of the energy per mile compared to a gasoline powered vehicle rated at 33 MPG. That is a mistaken impression. The truth is that on average in America where most energy is generated by burning fossil fuels, they are almost equivalent in energy being burned to power the car.

A new MPGe standard, "fuel-to-wheel", that would account for the fuel at the power plant would help to resolve this issue. Blake1960 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How many examples do we need?

You either understand the grade-school arithmetic, or you do not. Additional examples don't clarify. Once you've conveyed the idea that you're only calculating the equivalent energy of gasoline used in each mile, further examples just belabor the point. You don't need to show it for ever single different kind of non-gasoline vehicle.

I know it's terribly important to plug an external website to show us how to do arirthmetic, but it's not a goal of Wikipedia to provide links to promote websites. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your self-description as an "uncivil editor" may be appropriate, but your assumption that I am motivated by a desire to plug an external website is presumptuous, needlessly disrespectful, and unfounded. While I agree that a plethora of examples does not necessarily add value, I disagree in this case because the PHEV is such an important special case. It is rapidly becoming more important than the "Electric Example", and already much more important than the "Hydrogen example with GGE". Perhaps those sections should be deleted.

There is a great deal of misinformation and controversy about what is the best to evaluate PHEV efficiency. MPGE is not the only valuable figure of merit, but it's certainly one of them, and having this section in a Wikipedia article is an appropriate way to provide the information as it shows exactly how to compute MPGe for PHEVs. As for the external reference, those readers interested in MPGe for PHEVs will appreciate the link to examples.

You are much more experienced and prolific wrt Wikipedia than I am, and I do not know how best to proceed. Given that I have explained my position above, I will redo my edits and hope that you agree. If not, please let me know the appropriate procedure for resolving disputes. Thank you. Noborg (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)noborg

See above. We're not teaching grade 5 arithmetic here, one example is sufficient; it doesn't matter what trendy label you stick on the car, the principle is the same. Most of my experience and "production" here on the Wikipedia consists of reverting spam edits. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I have come to agree that too many examples are not needed, but I continue to believe that PHEVs are so important as to deserve specific mention. Thus, my solution is to delete the "Electrical Example" and replace it with a general example that covers both BEVs (the previous example) and PHEVs. Also, specific estimates of Wh/m are highly unreliable so far (especially those published by manufacturers), which is why I did not include them and instead explained the challenges of measuring Wh/mi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noborg (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The examples referenced in the tank-to-wheel section were missing, so I edited accordingly and provided actual examples. They are pertinent to the article and vital to understanding the principle of well-to-wheel as relates to the current definition of MPGe by the EPA. Blake1960 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Boundaries

We need to distinguish "miles travelled per unit that the consumer has purchased" vs. " miles travelled per total energy consumed to produce the unit that the consumer purchases". MPGe is for the first, as a guide to consumers. The latter gets into energy policy - do we include the fuel consumed by the 6th Fleet in the Persian Gulf as part of the overhead of gasoline use? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. We need to compare apples to apples here. Since MPGe ignores all the energy required to get gasoline to the pump in the station, it also must ignore all the energy required to get electricity to the plug in the driver's garage. I would suggest the the EROEI article would be a more appropriate place for discussions on "miles traveled per total energy consumed to produce the unit that the consumer purchases." Ebikeguy (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That is nonsense. Comparing apples to apples would include adhering to the govering equation for MPGe which clearly includes in the denominator the term for...

total energy of all fuels consumed.

That is in the governing mathematical definition of MPGe!!! Blake1960 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Electricity is not a fuel, it is a type of energy. The proper way to relate an electric vehicle to a petrol powered vehicle energy efficiency is to rate it wrt the fuel used to create the energy that propels the vehicle. That includes coal. To say that we should ignore the energy used to create and transport electrical energy to the plug since we ignore the energy required to produce and transport gasoline to the pump is mistaken logic. You may ignore the energy required to produce, process and transport the fuel to the power station, THAT would be analagous to ignoring the energy for gasoline production and delivery. Blake1960 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, by what logic do you justify the notion that:

"We need to distinguish "miles traveled per unit that the consumer has purchased" vs. " miles traveled per total energy consumed to produce the unit that the consumer purchases"."

I see no convincing basis for that contention. If you'd like to present a miles per dollar of energy, that would be perfectly logical. Or if you want to simply present miles per KWH, that too is perfectly honest and logical. But to equate KWH to gallons of gasoline without including the fuel used to create the electricity is flat out misleading and dishonest from a scientific view.Blake1960 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are you afraid to present all the facts on this issue? Seems to be a cover-up and contrary to wikipedia rules for balance, truth and accuracy. Blake1960 (talk)

Your opinion is in direct contradiction to editor consensus on this article, as is evidenced by the fact that your related edits have been reverted by several different editors at this point. Please stop editing the article against consensus, or your actions will be brought before Wikipedia administrators, such as the one who already blocked you once for disruptive editing, personal attacks, etc. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When consensus is subverting truth and balance, and refuses to acknowledge simple mathematical fact, basic physics and scientific integrity, then the only alternative is review by impartial party. Apparently there are a number of folks here committed to towing the line for the EPA. How sad.Blake1960 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple degreed engineers have disagreed with your conclusions on this matter. Apparently, your version of "truth" differs from that of the other technically-knowledgeable editors who contribute to this article. We have repeatedly attempted to reason with you and show you how we back up our position, but you have refused to work with us. Instead, you have continuously inserted edits based on your version of "truth." If you continue along this path, your actions will be reported to administrators. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are turning the discussion to ad hominem. Either address the issue or hush. I'm happy to have an administrator review this article and my contributions. I dispute your assertions that "Your opinion is in direct contradiction to editor consensus on this article" and that "Multiple degreed engineers have disagreed with your conclusions on this matter" I'm not contributing opinion, or conclusions. I'm contributing factually to a wikipedia article. I've only ADDED TO the article, not sought to DELETE entire contributions. Suggest you try to do the same, ADD TO the article. Truth is truth. You've failed to back up your position with anything but rhetoric. Show me the math and science. You have none on your side, only political agenda it seems. Blake1960 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the article, does anyone have a reference giving the MPGe for gasoline, then? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify. There is no MPGe for gasoline unless you are talking about the well-to-pump factor (0.83). That is from the Department of Energy...

2. Gasoline-Equivalent Energy Content of Electricity Factor

When comparing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles, it is essential to consider the efficiency of the respective ‘‘upstream’’ processes in the two fuel cycles. A full description of the differences in the processes is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but the critical difference is that a gasoline vehicle burns its fuel on-board the vehicle, and an electric vehicle burns its fuel (the majority of electricity in the U.S. is generated at fossil fuel burning powerplants) off-board the vehicle. In both cases, the burning of fuels to produce work is the least efficient step of the respective energy cycles. Therefore, the PEF includes a term for expressing the relative energy efficiency of the full energy cycles of gasoline and electricity. This term, the gasoline equivalent energy content of electricity factor, abbreviated as Eg, is defined as:

Eg = gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity = (Tg * Tt * C) Tp

where:

Tg = U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation efficiency = 0.328

Tt = U.S. average electricity transmission efficiency = 0.924

Tp = Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency = 0.830

C = Watt-hours of energy per gallon of gasoline conversion factor = 33,705 Wh/gal

Eg = (0.328 * 0.924 * 33705)/0.830 = 12,307 Wh/gal

The above is from

Part V

Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 474

Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research,

Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel

Economy Calculation; Final Rule

Seems pretty clear.Blake1960 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are confused, this article is about the fuel economy equivalence between gasoline-powered vehicles and alternative fuel & advanced technology vehicles, NOT about energy efficiency, as already has been explain to you but continue to ignore. See [1] and follow the links in the article to see the difference. That green classification is about overall energy efficiency not MPG or MPGe, this article deals with the values estimated by EPA and shown in the Monroney label affixed to every new car sold in the U.S. The article already has the appropriate section explaining that caveat and there is no need to say it in every section (I will clean up the edits you did regarding this point). Please go to the appropriate article to expand on energy efficiency, here is not the proper place.--Mariordo (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems that you are confused. "Fuel economy" would be concerned with relative economic cost of fuel consumption. That would involve dollar values. That is not addressed in this article. The efficiency factors noted above relate directly to the comparison of electric energy equivalence to gasoline fuel use in comparing the performance of two such vehicles. Also, MPGe is a measure of fuel or energy efficiency, how efficiently a vehicle uses energy to propel itself down the road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake1960 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, contrary to your assertion that "this article deals with the values estimated by EPA and shown in the Monroney label affixed to every new car sold in the U.S. The article already has the appropriate section explaining that caveat and there is no need to say it in every section (I will clean up the edits you did regarding this point)" the article is about the concept of miles per gallon equivalent, not just the EPA's bogus formulation of it. As such it is vitally important to call attention to that fact whenever any EPA-based MPGe is discussed. The EPA formula for MPGe disagrees with established precedent and policy published by the United States Department of Energy. That would seem to be a noteworthy bit of information. In other documentation it is made clear that the EPA in adopting their formula for MPGe is aiming to create social change. Their own documentation states that.

A group of individuals with demonstrated experience in changing social norms was recruited to participate in a daylong consultation. Panel members came from a variety of fields in advertising, national educational campaigns and product introduction. Feedback received from this group was critical because of their unique history of creating dramatic shifts in social change and influencing product preference over short periods of time. In addition to providing feedback on prototype label designs as constructed following the three phases of focus groups, panelists were asked to provide guidance on increasing the value of and preference for more efficient vehicles.

If the above doesn't concern wikipedia, then I don't know what should. The EPA is using their bogus MPGe ratings to try to effect "social change". This is outrageous. The EPA is supposed to protect our environment, not enact social change!!! Are you wanting to help them deceive Americans? I prefer to provide truth, and each section should be able to stand on its own. Blake1960 (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI Related to Recent Personal Attacks, Edit Warring, Etc.

All,

I have created an ANI notice regarding Blake1960's behavior in editing this article. Please feel free to contribute if you like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blake1960_engaging_in_personal_attacks.2C_repeated_OR_and_NPOV_violations_and_refusing_to_seek_consensus

Ebikeguy (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Why are you afraid to present all the facts on this issue? Seems to be a cover-up and contrary to wikipedia rules for balance, truth and accuracy. Why do you ignore the inequality in the EPA equation versus the governing equation for MPGe? How do you reconcile that one requires total energy of all fuels consumed, further clarified by the statement that

with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of total energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity (the energy of the fuel used to generate and transmit electricity) and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug.

Seriously, how can you argue for not reporting that massive discrepancy in the two DIFFERENT formulations of the equation for MPGe? Blake1960 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks against me and other editors, as you have done in the comment, above. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WHAT personal attack???Blake1960 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WHAT personal attack???

WHAT personal attack???

WHAT personal attack??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake1960 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Why are you afraid..." "Why do you ignore..." In asking invalid questions like this, the presumptions behind which are entirely false, you are attacking me personally, my editing, my courage and my intelligence. Please stop. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that's one way to interpret it. You claim in your edit note that I've called you "stupid". I've done no such thing. I've asked why you oppose my contributions. "Afraid" is mildly confrontational. I'll not offend you now that I know such language bothers you. "Why do you ignore" seems 100% relevant. You were deleting factual information that had citation and reference but claimed to do so because of POV. Unwilling to answer my question, you claim I am attacking you. Okay. Please don't delete my entire contributions, I perceive that as an insult and a personal attack. Got it? Blake1960 (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC) You show me respect, I will absolutely reciprocate. Otherwise let's both man up.Blake1960 (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Then go start a blog or write a Wikibook on the EPA. This isn't the place. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How about you stop blocking my contributions that offer vital information on the subject of MPGe and how it ought to be calculated per the Uited States Department of Energy? I am contributing solid referenced information, cited and well-documented. Please stop deleting my entire contributions. It sure seems like those opposed to my contributions are trying to protect the EPA viewpoint as almost all the recent edits by you and others are pushing their view of the issue. That is unfortunate. This issue needs to be resolved by an impartial authority. MPGe is NOT only "tank-to-wheel", THAT is the EPA position. The DOE position is that MPGe is only valid if accounting for all energy consumed in the fuel/energy cycle of a vehicle. And plug-to-wheel is not equal to tank-to-wheel. As the DOE explains, the "tank" for electrical vehicles is at the power plant. Electricity is not fuel, it is energy. Blake1960 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is original research and also WP:SYNTHESIS because your are putting together pieces from RS and drawing your own conclusions pushing your point of view. One more time read the policies, this is not a blog where you can push your POV.-00:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither is it a blog where you can push YOUR POV. I am presenting factual information from cited sources. Please show me where I have contributed ANY original research or POV to the article. Not one of you reverters has provided a shred of help in identifying what you claim is OR or POV or the like. You just delete the entire contribution. That is unacceptable! I've pulled everything from the cited references and I've drawn no conclusions that are not stated or obvious/elementary. May we state that 2+2 is not equal to 3?Blake1960 (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, please read carefully WP:SYNTHESIS first.-Mariordo (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Table off-topic

The operating costs table is off-topic for this article. It conflates the cost of energy with the energy usage - this is an extra complication. The table belongs in an article that talks about all the operating costs of an automobile; if the table numbers had any validity, no-one would be using gasoline for motor fuel any more. The most significant costs aren't reflected in this table,so it is misleading. It's also irrelevant, this article is about miles per gallon, not miles per dollar. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

To me, this table seems on topic. It is primarily interested in demonstrating MPGe for available vehicles, which gives real-world grounding to the general topic of the article. The financial data presented is both unobtrusive and informative. It ties MPGe in with real-world financial concerns. I see know reason to remove the table. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, I decided to introduce operating cost values to address Blake1960 concern raised in the Boundaries section above, where he said, and I quote: "Fuel economy" would be concerned with relative economic cost of fuel consumption. That would involve dollar values. That is not addressed in this article...." Since the above discussion has to do with Blake1960 claim that EPA MPGe is bogus, when you bring price into the equation it makes clear that MPGe estimates based on tank-to-wheel are not biased, as the energy and other resources spent upstream are reflected by the price paid by consumers, whether is $ per gallon at the pump or $ per kw-h at the plug. If you think that two columns showing operating costs is too much, may be we can live just fine with one. My preference would be for cost to drive 25 miles. I do not understand why you think these costs are not valid or why you believe the most significant cost are not reflected. MPGe relates directly only to out-of-pocket expenses as the text clearly explains. Would you show also the purchase price? --Mariordo (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: Please also read the new Background section, and particularly check this ref, which explains why fuel cost is also an important metric that goes together with fuel economy.--Mariordo (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

See? If we didn't have gas prices mixed up with everything else, we wouldn't have to worry about the price of premium gas. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't get it. The Chevy Volt uses more expensive gasoline, as noted by EPA in the citation, I just missed it, but keep wondering why EPA used two different prices, but now is fixed. What is the problem? Also I can update prices from the source as they vary. I usually do this with most of the articles where I am a main contributor (on average every six months).--Mariordo (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Criticisms" Section?

All,

I suggest we allow the creation of a "Criticisms" section in which editors be allowed to present well-referenced, valid criticisms of the process used to calculate MPGe. To my way of thinking, this section should be kept short and to-the-point, with no rambling or OR. Links to other Wikepedia articles that study the concepts behind the criticism would be allowed. Thoughts? Ebikeguy (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that's inappropriate. We're not debating the defnition here. If someone wants to calculate the whole life cycle of automotive fuels, this is not the place to do those calculations. No-one has told me what the MPGe of gasoline itself is, according to the all-inclusive defintions that some want to use. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe any editor needs permission or support from the regular editors to create here or elsewhere a controversy or criticism section. As I explained to Blake1960 here, if such controversy exist he should have produced reliable sources to support it. The problem such controversy does not exist, he and the guy who wrote the editorial he tried to use as RS believe there is a problem and EPA is lying. After that he blatantly did WP:SYNTHESIS to make up an inexistent controversy between EPA and US DoE. If you read the definition of synthesis, Blake1960's latest edits are a perfect fit. There can be no controversy in the point he is pushing because there is no way you compared Tank-to-wheels with Well-to-wheels, it is just like comparing apples and avocados. This article is about fuel economy in automobiles, not energy efficiency. The only related controversy I am aware of is referenced here, between EPA and the Federal Trade Commission, but it relates to how the range for the Nissan Leaf was estimated. So if there is a real controversy supported by reliable sources, Blake1960 or anyone else is welcome to introduce such section.

In the spirit of being constructive and considering that this article lacks citations, has outdated info and does not present a decent definition of MPGe I decided to work on it and improve it. I already completed the basic research of the sources I will use, but my Wiki time is constraint so I will add content and clean it up piecemeal during this long US weekend. I believe that an upgraded and updated content will help clarify Blake1960 confusion. Nevertheless, because I will work bit by bit, I respectfully request, particularly to Blake1960 to hold major edits (of course copyedits are welcome) until I am finished (until about Tuesday, 22nd, I will let you guys know here if I complete the overhaul earlier). Then we can reopen the discussion if he still wants to. Please pay attention to the comparison table I will include from US DoE using EPA estimates (proof that there is no contradiction or controversy), which shows that despite any upstream energy losses, EVs and PHEVs have much lower operating costs per mile than gasoline-powered vehicles, and this is the bottom line, this fact depends only of MPGe and the rate of electricity paid at the plug vs regular MPG and the price of gasoline at the pump (because the internal efficiency of gasoline only vehicles is very low, just about 15 to 20% of the energy stored in the fuel tank). There is no cover up here.--Mariordo (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed most of the content in the well-to-wheels section because the content was not supported by the DoE reference provided. Someone, in blatant OR, mixed the formulas for MPGe (current) with the transmission and generation efficiency factors established by DoE in 2000. These factors are applied to gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity expressed in Watts-hour/gal, and in the old section were applied directly to miles per gallon equivalent. I will search some more to see if there is an update of this DoE ruling because if the formula is applied to the Nissan Leaf or the Chevy Volt it would result in much higher mpg-e as published by EPA in 2010, so I suspect the methodology has changed. As we go deeper it seems that the alleged controversy is indeed non existent. Nevertheless I will add soon a new section with the criticism from RS of EPA's choice of MPG-e instead of kW-hrs per 100 miles (as technical people would have expected be from a scientific/engineering POV)--Mariordo (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The DOE reference is cited concerning the calculation and value of Eg, used both by DOE and the EPA. It is 100% valid. You appear to be doing OR and editing according to a personal POV.Blake1960 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I found confirmation, the 2000 DoE effectively overstatimates MPGe (contrary to Blake1960 claim). That one is the formula GM used to claim the Volt had a 367 MPGe. See here. I will use this source to complete the history section (ratings of the first modern EVs leased in California) and the criticism of DoE's 2000 methodology.--Mariordo (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the basic content, I am finished. Still need to convert the equations to math format, and bring back the equations for battery-to-wheel fuel economy, full cycle fuel economy, and CAFE fuel economy (all for mpg-e). Also the criticism section is pending, but this is minor, just complaints of why MPG-e was used instead of KWh/100 miles. Please make suggestions.--Mariordo (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing the PEF, with Eg. The reference is wrt to the value of Eg used by both the EPA and DOE. You appear to be doing OR and editing according to a personal POV.Blake1960 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ebike! I appreciate this point that you have raised. Blake1960 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This page reads to me like an advertisement for electric cars. It shouldn't. I did finally receive some thoughtful guidance from GoogolplexForce. I agree with it. See his comments in the above "Controversy" section. Blake1960 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My responses to the points raised above by Mariordo, repeated herein in small print for clarity's sake...

I do not believe any editor needs permission or support from the regular editors to create here or elsewhere a controversy or criticism section. As I explained to Blake1960 here, if such controversy exist he should have produced reliable sources to support it.

I did. Per the DOE Final Report entitled "Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule, and dated June 12, 2000:

When comparing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles, it is essential to consider the efficiency of the respective ‘‘upstream’’ processes in the two fuel cycles. ... the critical difference is that a gasoline vehicle burns its fuel on-board the vehicle, and an electric vehicle burns its fuel (the majority of electricity in the U.S. is generated at fossil fuel burning power-plants) off-board the vehicle. In both cases, the burning of fuels to produce work is the least efficient step of the respective energy cycles.

"essential" would seem to convey an important meaning to the issue. EPA ignores it.

The problem such controversy does not exist, he and the guy who wrote the editorial he tried to use as RS believe there is a problem and EPA is lying.

Please see above quote from DOE on the issue. No editorial was used as primary RS. However, credible journalism is a valid reference. Forbes is credible, yes?

After that he blatantly did WP:SYNTHESIS to make up an inexistent controversy between EPA and US DoE.

No synthesis intended, just a quote. See above DOE Report.

If you read the definition of synthesis, Blake1960's latest edits are a perfect fit. There can be no controversy in the point he is pushing because there is no way you compared Tank-to-wheels with Well-to-wheels, it is just like comparing apples and avocados.

1. A battery is not a tank. Is is incorrect to pretend that it is a tank. It is a device. It is a device for storing electrical energy, just like a thermos is a device for storing heat energy. It is not a tank that holds fuel. When referring to electric vehicle operation, the proper term for what you are calling "tank-to-wheel" is "plug-to=wheel." For electric operation, the "tank" is at the power generating plant. To quote the DOE report again: "an electric vehicle burns its fuel off-board the vehicle." Note the term "fuel." Therefore your assertion that the EPA is using a tank-to-wheel method for calculating MPGe is inaccurate, at least according to the DOE.

2. The DOE explains exactly how to compare electric vehicle fuel economy to that of conventional vehicles. It does so according to its published statement, I quote again, that "When comparing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles, it is essential to consider the efficiency of the respective ‘‘upstream’’ processes in the two fuel cycles." Note the word "essential." The DOE is saying that it is "essential" to use a well-to-wheel approach when comparing the fuel economy of an electric to a conventional gasoline powered vehicle. Yes?

This article is about fuel economy in automobiles, not energy efficiency.

I've been thinking on that actually. I've concluded that the two terms are largely synonymous. Not sure it matters. We do know that the article topic is MPGe, not $/mile or monetary cost per mile. To be frank, this article is about the equivalent fuel economy calculation for non-gasoline powered vehicles employing a unit of one gallon of gasoline as the reference baseline measure for that fuel efficiency. It is NOT specifically about the EPA's preferred formulation of gasoline-equivalent fuel economy. However, when noting the EPA's prefered approach to calculating the gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of electric vehicles, it is reasonable--I would say vital--to present the DOE policy on the matter as it indeed does disagree sharply with that of the EPA, and for very good reason, especially if the production of greenhouse gasses (GG) is any concern. A Prius produces far less GG than do the coal fired power-plants in providing the electricity to power a Volt or Leaf an equal distance. Thus the valid basis recognized by the DOE for using WTW in such a comparison. The Plug-to-wheel basis would have people believing that their electric vehicle produces no GG. For 70% of Americans, and that neglects nukes, they absolutely do produce GG. That would seem relevant to form of MPGe equation chosen, no?

The only related controversy I am aware of is referenced here, between EPA and the Federal Trade Commission, but it relates to how the range for the Nissan Leaf was estimated. So if there is a real controversy supported by reliable sources, Blake1960 or anyone else is welcome to introduce such section.

I am ignorant of that.

In the spirit of being constructive and considering that this article lacks citations, has outdated info and does not present a decent definition of MPGe I decided to work on it and improve it.

You seem to me to be unqualified to do so and your pro-EPA POV is ruining this article in my view, presenting a grossly biased view of the meaning and use of miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent. It reads like a commercial for an electric vehicle. That's exactly what the EPA intended with their new fraudulent MPGe stickers. They admit it in their final report on the sticker development. I quote:

A group of individuals with demonstrated experience in changing social norms was recruited to participate in a daylong consultation. Panel members came from a variety of fields in advertising, national educational campaigns and product introduction. Feedback received from this group was critical because of their unique history of creating dramatic shifts in social change and influencing product preference over short periods of time. In addition to providing feedback on prototype label designs as constructed following the three phases of focus groups, panelists were asked to provide guidance on increasing the value of and preference for more efficient vehicles. http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/420r10909.pdf

"changing social norms" and "creating dramatic shifts in social change and influencing product preference" is the compulsion driving the formulation of MPGe? Ya think folks might be interested to know about that? That would seem to be pertinent to the article if we insist on saturating it with parroted the EPA propaganda. No? If "no", please explain why not.

I already completed the basic research of the sources I will use, but my Wiki time is constraint so I will add content and clean it up piecemeal during this long US weekend. I believe that an upgraded and updated content will help clarify Blake1960 confusion. Nevertheless, because I will work bit by bit, I respectfully request, particularly to Blake1960 to hold major edits (of course copyedits are welcome) until I am finished (until about Tuesday, 22nd, I will let you guys know here if I complete the overhaul earlier).

You showed me no such courtesy. I request that you present your intended edits here before publishing them to the article. Compose then in a text editor and save them for an all at once upload. Then we can talk. I already see a LOT of edits that are problematic, expressing a staunch pro-EPA POV and significant independent authorship, or whatever you call it.

Please pay attention to the comparison table I will include from US DoE using EPA estimates (proof that there is no contradiction or controversy),

"Proof that there is no contradiction or controversey"? Huh? It's obvious that you are misunderstanding what I am finding contradictory between DEO and EPA. The equation for calculating MPGe.

which shows that despite any upstream energy losses, EVs and PHEVs have much lower operating costs per mile than gasoline-powered vehicles

What about life cycle costs? Versus a Prius? Not sure how you could say that about a PHEV, the fuel usage of which you cannot know for certain. You'd have to make assumptions about how much it would operate on gasoline or diesel versus electricity.

But regardless, what you are now proposing is not about fuel or energy economy. I think you are now talking about $/mile, the monetary cost of operation. I think that may be worth including, and I agree that it is important information for anyone considering the issue, but let's be clear, that is not about MPGe or fuel economy, the topic of the article. If you can find an explanation for a formulation of MPGe that states that it accounts for the different cost in providing energy for the vehicles to operate, then you have a slam dunk. Otherwise, your synthesizing, is that the word? But I say go ahead and include it. Especially a nice concise table, lots of info in a small space. We engineers dig it.  :) If it's true, I'm all for it! :)

and this is the bottom line, this fact depends only of MPGe and the rate of electricity paid at the plug vs regular MPG and the price of gasoline at the pump (because the internal efficiency of gasoline only vehicles is very low, just about 20 to 25% of the energy stored in the fuel tank).

The efficiency of coal fired and oil fired electric generating plants is also very low, then add the lost efficiency in transmission and you are right down there with the gasoline engine. By the way, new high efficiency (40%) direct injection gasoline engines are on the horizon.

There is no cover up here.

Then let me post the facts from the DOE report and the statement from the EPA report. And make the language neutral, neither supportive nor antagonistic to any of the facts. And let's leave out the synthesis. But certainly if we see 2+2 being equated to 3, then we should feel okay calling attention to it, yes? I agree with the suggestion from GoogolplexForce. Okay? Blake1960 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy about EPA form of MPGe - A Cover-Up in Progress

The article reads like a commercial for electric cars. It includes falsehood and very misleading commentary and a load of uncited information.

I've been trying to add balance and integrity to the article, invested a lot of time to do so, but have been rudely denied that privilege by a number of overzealous, and in my view VERY inconsiderate editors who just delete my contributions wholesale with little to no thoughtful reasoning. I present a simple mathematical comparison and am told I need a citation. How about 7th grade algebra? I provide citations and links to supporting documentation. The formula that I am citing is the governing equation cited by the article itself. My contribution is deleted again.

I cite the formula "derived" from it which is used by the EPA, also from the article itself, which by the way has no citation of any kind, and I cite the statement by the article itself that...

Depending on the purpose, overall energy consumption for the vehicle may also need to include the energy used in the production of whatever energy carrier is used for the vehicle and the energy used in filling the "tank". For example, with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of all energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug.

Then I compare and show that the EPA formulas do not equate to the governing equation in that they fail the above quoted requirment, entirely.

The EPA formulas have no citation, are not equivalent mathematically to the governing equation cited. Yet with no citation, they are allowed to stand???

I put a "needs citation" note next to the EPA formula. It was removed.

I provided the requested citation on the error of the EPA formulas; that too was deleted.

I need some help here. Someone with integrity and someone who understands some basic math and science.

The standards being demanded of my contributions are in no way exhibited by most of the rest of the article.

This is outrageous behavior. My respect for wikipedia is waning.Blake1960 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

First you need to read carefully Wikipedia policies, beginning with WP:Civility and WP:3RR, and particularly WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. This has been recommended to you before but you continue doing blatant original research, which will be reverted because you have to use reliable sources to support your edits (not editorial opinions nor info from blogs) and particularly because you are making a dubious claim (but citations from RS can prove me and the others wrong). Once you do you homework regarding the rules, if you can produce RS to support the alleged EPA mistake then the proper thing to do is to create a new section entitled "Criticism" or "Controversy" which to keep a neutral point of view must have both sides of the issue. This section should include not only the sources questioning or criticizing the methodology but also EPA's reply or a rebuttal from any other reliable sources. I already tag all the key sections and some other paragraphs that are lacking citations. Finally, I am a professional in the field too, I recommend you read carefully the difference between tank-to-wheels (or battery-to-wheels) and well-to-tank estimates (whether they are used for fuel economy or carbon footprint) you seem to be confusing them, comparisons have to be apples to apples, and the Monroney label is not well-to-wheels, that is why there is a separate section explaining so. Also see this section in the PHEV article and other one in the PEV article. They provide good examples of how the content/discussion of the topic you are proposing should look like.--Mariordo (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There is not a single citation for the "Electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles" section of the article or the forumulas presented there. So what is the rule here, whoever posts first is the governing author, and any truths revealed by simple math, logic, and basic sceince are disallowed? Simple basic math and truth isn't research, it is simply honesty and truth. By deleting an entire critical contribution offering balance, people are helping to perpetrate fraud. Shame on them.

Integrity demands that others help find a way to include truth rather than opposing it by locking editing and deleting entire contributions. Help me find the needed citations, or edit my contributions to better word them if you think they present a POV argument.

I'm perfectly familiar with well-to-wheel and tank-to-wheel and battery-to-wheel. None of them are equivalent. For electrics, the tank-to-wheel begins at the power-plant. For electrics, the well-to-wheel begins at the coal mine, or the oil well, or the natural gas well, or the nuclear fuel mine. So if you want to compare electrics to conventional in a tank to wheel scenario, the only honest way to do so is to include the fuel from the power-plant. THE ARTICLE STATES EXACTLY THAT!

You are are arguing against your own article where it states clearly the following wrt the stated governing equation:

with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of all energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug.

Please help me provide an honest reporting on this issue Blake1960 (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please identify what is POV, what is OR, or whatever else you are claiming about the following:

The above formulas employed by the EPA for calculating their reported MPGe do not account for any fuel or energy consumed during the creation or transmission of electrical power, which is required to charge BEVs and PHEVs. This EPA form of calculating the gasoline equivalent energy content of electricity disagrees with established Department of Energy policy stating specifically that:

When comparing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles, it is essential to consider the efficiency of the respective ‘‘upstream’’ processes in the two fuel cycles. ...the critical difference is that a gasoline vehicle burns its fuel on-board the vehicle, and an electric vehicle burns its fuel (the majority of electricity in the U.S. is generated at fossil fuel burning power-plants) off-board the vehicle. In both cases, the burning of fuels to produce work is the least efficient step of the respective energy cycles.

Per the Department of Energy, the gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity (E_g) is calculated as follows:

E_g = (T_g * T_t * C)/T_p

Eg = (0.328 * 0.924 * 33705)/0.830 = 12,307 Wh/gal

where:

T_g = U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation efficiency = 0.328

T_t = U.S. average electricity transmission efficiency = 0.924

T_p = Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency = 0.830

C = Watt-hours of energy per gallon of gasoline conversion factor = 33,705 Wh/gal

See the section entitled Well-to-Wheel below for more information on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake1960 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OR(WP:OR) stands for original research. POV(WP:NPOV) stands for point of view. Don't take this the wrong way, please, but read the referenced articles first. Also, you don't reinsert the contested material, then discuss - discussion happens first. The reason people don't like it is that it seems a little bit biased (or at least, that was what the original complaint was.), and that the sources aren't good enough. There's a bunch of notifications on your talk page, too. You're also edit warring, when you should be discussing here. Your previous attempts at discussion came across the wrong way, probably because of not following the links (3RR = Three revert rule, reverting more than three times is against the rules(WP:3RR)). I'll let more experienced editors like Ebikeguy help you any more, because I don't know enough to really help. Thanks for discussing, and would you please temporarily revert the edit that includes the segment in the article, so we can reach consensus? Also thanks for slogging through all of that. GoogolplexForce (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Note:I've reverted it because you've been blocked, and as such can't undo it yourself. GoogolplexForce (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait... by POV I think they meant it reads like an ad, and is to oriented towards the consumers. (This link might help, I think: WP:NOT) GoogolplexForce (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, putting my name larger so it's easier read.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoogolplexForce (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And please also read carefully WP:SYNTHESIS (see my more extended comment below).-Mariordo (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Really, only the small text and most of the first paragraph seem off to me, so:

The EPA form of calculating the gasoline equivalent energy content of electricity is different than established Department of Energy policy stating specifically that:

When comparing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles, it is essential to consider the efficiency of the respective ‘‘upstream’’ processes in the two fuel cycles. ...the critical difference is that a gasoline vehicle burns its fuel on-board the vehicle, and an electric vehicle burns its fuel (the majority of electricity in the U.S. is generated at fossil fuel burning power-plants) off-board the vehicle. In both cases, the burning of fuels to produce work is the least efficient step of the respective energy cycles.

Per the Department of Energy, the gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity (E_g) is calculated as follows:

E_g = (T_g * T_t * C)/T_p

Eg = (0.328 * 0.924 * 33705)/0.830 = 12,307 Wh/gal

where:

T_g = U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation efficiency = 0.328

T_t = U.S. average electricity transmission efficiency = 0.924

T_p = Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency = 0.830

C = Watt-hours of energy per gallon of gasoline conversion factor = 33,705 Wh/gal

Fixes it up nicely, I think. GoogolplexForce (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Though, the second paragraph could use some work GoogolplexForce (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GoogolplexForce!  :) I sure do appreciate your time and thoughtful suggestion, and I agree with it. Blake1960 (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

References

PEF is NOT a Well-to-Wheels value

The PEF values and discussion to the well-to-wheels section are in the wrong place and have nothing to do with MPGe. The DOE reference pertains to the calculation of Eg and its value versus the value employed by the EPA. Either this entire article abides by the one single governing mathematical equation defining MPGe or it is junk. Someone deleted the examples in well-to-wheel too. What the heck? This article reads like a slobbering advertisement for electric cars. It is sorely lacking in integrity and balance. Really shameful to put it online as a source of information.

I'll be reworking the well-to-wheel section to correct it and offer pertinent examples. Blake1960 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

All the section is properly sourced from a reliable source, US DoE, and the equations follow the same exact order than in the official ruling. By now I hope you understand that examples made up by you are considered OR, so you better be prepared to produce RS to support your edits.--Mariordo (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Having a source does not make the information relevant to the topic. PEF is not a measure of well-to-wheel fuel efficiency. Period. It has no business whatsoever in the well-to-wheel section.

My source is perfect for the value of Eg employed by the DOE. There is no OR, just using the published value of Eg in the governing equation (the one listed in this very article) for MPGe. You know Eg, "the gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity." You may not like it, but that is what the DOE report states. The PEF on the other hand is, per the DOE, an inflated value intended to give preference to electric and alternative fuels to incentivize manufacturers to build them. It is NOT a measure of well-to-wheel fuel efficiency. It has no business in this section. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake1960 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ebike, there is no concensus that PEF belongs on the page, let alone in the "well-to-wheels" section. It is not a measure of well-to-wheel fuel efficiency and does not belong there. Eg as developed by the DOE is the well-to-wheel equivalent for comparing gasoline to electric powered vehicles. Read the source please. Please discuss here. There is certainly no consensus on the issue. It has yet to be discussed. Blake1960 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to create a NEW section if you think PEF deserves mention here. Frankly I don't, as it was never intended to be a factor for consumer consideration like MPGe is.Blake1960 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Blake1960, MPGe, whether battery-to-wheel or well-to-wheel, is just a mathematical artifact, because as you know energy equivalents in science and engineering are made in Btu or MJ, and as such, its notability depends on how MPGe is used for. As now fully documented and properly sourced in the article, at first EPA used KWh per mile to state the fuel economy of EVs, and based on their studies/focus groups with consumers (also mentioned in the article), EPA recently decided to make MPGe the most prominent comparison metric with regular gasoline vehicles (for purposes of the content of the window sticker). This comparison is made tank-to-wheel and battery-to-wheel because the Monroney label is about fuel economy not energy efficiency, and the bottom line is that the cost per mile for an EV is much lower than a gasoline car (as now illustrated in the comparison table - of course the purchase price of the EV is much higher, and that is why several government are providing purchase subsidies or tax credits, and all the discussion regarding the pay off period). So well-to-wheel estimates have nothing to do with fuel economy, as the price at the pump or the plug reflects all upstream costs, inefficiencies, etc.

2. Now as for MPGe in terms of well-to-wheels, the only practical use I am aware of is to estimte PEF for purposes of compliance with the CAFE mandate, and that is what the article reflects. So your deletion of this context is biasing the content and even worst, your made up examples are your original research. The example provided comes directly from DoE ruling, which shows both formulas together. If any reader is interested in the WTW MPGe alone, the formula is there. Your edit leaves WTW MPGe without context.

3. The real relevance of well-to-wheel energy consumption in EVs and PHEVs is for purposes of their carbon footprint, which in the US varies a lot by region (see the corresponding section in the plug-in hybrid article), and for the average mix results in EVs having more CO2 emissions than gasoline fuel vehicles. As you can see in the latest EPA/NHTSA ruling regarding the new CAFE standards for 2010-2016 and EPA new regulations for CO2 emissions (see here - pp. 25434-25436) this fact is recognized by the involved agencies, and their decision for fleet estimates was to ignore upstream CO2 emissions as an incentive for the manufacturing of more EVs and PHEVs.

4. As you were warned after being blocked, you have to discuss the changes (dialogue not assertions, and waiting for a reply, none of us is online all the time). So please address here any disagreement with the three points I made above. The comments made by GoogolplexForce in your page were made before the article was revamped and the proper context of MPGe was established.--Mariordo (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: For a good summary about the new 2012-2016 CAFE standards read here. Since the standards are now based on both CO2 emissions and MPG, I believe that such content belongs to other articles, but probably a short mention of the nature of these new standards is justified for the sake of providing a complete context.--Mariordo (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

PEF is not well-to-wheel. The section was there before I started contributing to the article and it was honest at that time. I added the examples, that's it. There is a gross double standard happening here thanks to a mob mentality.

Mariordo,

Point by point rebuttal to your assertions that PEF should be included in the well-to-wheels section and other.

Blake1960, MPGe, whether battery-to-wheel or well-to-wheel, is just a mathematical artifact,

It is a mathematical scientifically based equivalence. The defining scientific equation is presented in the beginning of the article. Unfortunately it is ignored through the most of the rest of it.

because as you know energy equivalents in science and engineering are made in Btu or MJ, and as such, its notability depends on how MPGe is used for.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. "its notability depends on how MPGe is used for"? MPGe is a measure of fuel efficiency, not energy. That said energy may be expressed in many forms, contrary to your assertion.

As now fully documented and properly sourced in the article, at first EPA used KWh per mile to state the fuel economy of EVs, and based on their studies/focus groups with consumers (also mentioned in the article),

Fully documented? Properly sourced? Where is the source for the EPA equations used? I don't see it!

EPA recently decided to make MPGe the most prominent comparison metric with regular gasoline vehicles (for purposes of the content of the window sticker).

Then they should follow the governing scientific/mathematical definition and include the total energy of all fuel consumed in their ratings.

This comparison is made tank-to-wheel and battery-to-wheel because the Monroney label is about fuel economy not energy efficiency,

An electric vehicle doesn't have any fuel. It stores energy that has been generated in most cases by burning fuel. That fuel, according to the governing scientific/mathematical definition of MPGe must be accounted for. Read the DOE report where it says that it is essential to do so.

and the bottom line is that the cost per mile for an EV is much lower than a gasoline car (as now illustrated in the comparison table

That is not at issue, and you may note that I support your inclusion of the price comparision table. We are talking about the aplicability of PEF in the well-to-wheel section of the ariticle. PEF has no business being mentioned there.

- of course the purchase price of the EV is much higher, and that is why several government are providing purchase subsidies or tax credits, and all the discussion regarding the pay off period). So well-to-wheel estimates have nothing to do with fuel economy, as the price at the pump or the plug reflects all upstream costs, inefficiencies, etc.

Well-to-wheel by definition is the total amount of fuel energy required per mile, that's it. It has NOTHING to do with dollars or type of fuel, just the total fuel energy. Does that sound familiar? "Total energy of all fuel consumed" It's in the governing defining equation for MPGe atop this article. Tough to ignore. You may want to delete it as it is troublesome to your point of view.

2. Now as for MPGe in terms of well-to-wheels, the only practical use I am aware of is to estimte PEF for purposes of compliance with the CAFE mandate, and that is what the article reflects.

Well, you are wrong. The practical use is to determine the correct value of Eg per the DOE. The well-to-wheel accounting also informs truth, the big picture, that electric vehicles don't run on magic, that they in most cases require the burning of fossil fuels to recieve power. Why are you trying to hide that fact? The well-to-wheel measure informs as to how much fuel energy is required relative to conventional or other modes of transport. It is also used to arrive at the proper value of Eg. Read the DOE report. I've quoted it countless times here. Again...

:Gasoline-Equivalent Energy Content of Electricity Factor

When comparing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles, it is essential to consider the efficiency of the respective ‘‘upstream’’ processes in the two fuel cycles. A full description of the differences in the processes is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but the critical difference is that a gasoline vehicle burns its fuel on-board the vehicle, and an electric vehicle burns its fuel (the majority of electricity in the U.S. is generated at fossil fuel burning powerplants) off-board the vehicle. In both cases, the burning of fuels to produce work is the least efficient step of the respective energy cycles. Therefore, the PEF includes a term for expressing the relative energy efficiency of the full energy cycles of gasoline and electricity. This term, the gasolineequivalent energy content of electricity factor, abbreviated as Eg, is defined as:

Eg = gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity = (Tg * Tt * C) Tp

where:

Tg = U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation efficiency = 0.328

Tt = U.S. average electricity transmission efficiency = 0.924

Tp = Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency = 0.830

C = Watt-hours of energy per gallon of gasoline conversion factor = 33,705 Wh/gal

Eg = (0.328 * 0.924 * 33705)/0.830 = 12,307 Wh/gal

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 474

Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel

Economy Calculation; Final Rule, June 12, 2000

The PEF is a regulatory contrivance. Per the DOE report... "The PEF is based on the existing regulatory approach at 49 U.S.C. 32905..." It is not a scientific quantification of anything. It is not scientific, it is a legislative formula to give preference to alternative fueled vehicles. Again I quote the report...

The 1/0.15 factor used in the (PEF) equation

... does result in a very substantial adjustment to the raw calculated energy efficiency of electric vehicles. It is included to reward electric vehicles’ benefits to the Nation relative to petroleum-fueled vehicles, in a manner consistent with the regulatory treatment of other types of alternative fueled vehicles and the authorizing legislation.

The above is straight from the DOE report.

PEF is not a measure of well-to-wheel fuel energy consumption. It is a regulatory contrivance aiming, again I quote the DOE, "to reward electric vehicles’ benefits to the Nation relative to petroleum-fueled vehicles".

So your deletion of this context is biasing the content and even worst, your made up examples are your original research. The example provided comes directly from DoE ruling, which shows both formulas together. If any reader is interested in the WTW MPGe alone, the formula is there. Your edit leaves WTW MPGe without context.

My additions bias the content??? LOL! My contributions are the only light of balance in the article that I can see. The thing reads like an advertisement trying to sell electric cars. My examples were not OR, they were examples of plugging actual real world numbers into the governing equation for MPGe using the DOE values for well-to-wheel fuel efficiency. That is not research, that is what is known as an example. An example is not research. Seems like anything that doesn't fit your point of view gets classed as OR. Baloney. PEF has NOTHING to do with the concept of well-to-wheel fuel efficiency. The reference to the DOE report provides all the context anyone might want. The concept is incredibly simple. It doesn't need much context. Well-to-wheel acounts for the total energy of all fuel consumed including production, refining, distribution, generation, transportation. Pretty darn simple.

3. The real relevance of well-to-wheel energy consumption in EVs and PHEVs is for purposes of their carbon footprint, which in the US varies a lot by region (see the corresponding section in the plug-in hybrid article), and for the average mix results in EVs having more CO2 emissions than gasoline fuel vehicles. As you can see in the latest EPA/NHTSA ruling regarding the new CAFE standards for 2010-2016 and EPA new regulations for CO2 emissions (see here - pp. 25434-25436) this fact is recognized by the involved agencies, and their decision for fleet estimates was to ignore upstream CO2 emissions as an incentive for the manufacturing of more EVs and PHEVs.

The relevance is not for you to decide. Doing so constitutes OR and extreme POV. We are tasked with reporting on MPGe, not what you may or may not think is relevant. The well-to-wheel is 100% relevant to anyone who would like to learn truth about how much fuel is being consumed in order to power an electric vehicle, the equivalent amount of fuel; again please see the defining equation for MPGe. How can that NOT be relevant?

4. As you were warned after being blocked, you have to discuss the changes (dialogue not assertions, and waiting for a reply, none of us is online all the time). So please address here any disagreement with the three points I made above. The comments made by GoogolplexForce in your page were made before the article was revamped and the proper context of MPGe was established.--Mariordo (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny thing, when you are the one doing the revising, you sure as heck haven't shown the same courtesy. Double standard, mob rule. No balance. As I've stated, the article as you intend it reads like a slobbering advertisement for electric vehicles. It sorely needs balance. You have my comments. As PEF has no business in a discussion of the well-to-wheels accounting of fuel efficiency, it needs to be removed from that section. The examples need to be put back in to demonstrate the fallacy of the EPA fraud and to communicate the truth concerning well-to-wheels fuel efficiency of electric vehicles when running on fossil fuel generated power. An example is not OR. It is plugging real world numbers into the governing equation of the article.

PS: For a good summary about the new 2012-2016 CAFE standards read here. Since the standards are now based on both CO2 emissions and MPG, I believe that such content belongs to other articles, but probably a short mention of the nature of these new standards is justified for the sake of providing a complete context.--Mariordo (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in CAFE standards, yet another legislative contrivance to direct social change. At least the DOE is honest about the legislative fudge factor employed (1/0.15). Blake1960 (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Blake1960, as the official DoE ruling says, PED is base on WTW Eg, I just made explicit this fact: "methodology for calculating the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of electric vehicles based on the well-to-wheel (WTW) gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity (Eg)."

• Before engaging in another reversal, please explain here which part of this statement do you think is not truth?
• Second, please provide a RS for the two examples you are including.
• Third, other than PED, can you produce real life examples where Eg is used? As I already explained several times to you, WTW analysis is commonly used for establishing the carbon footprint.
• Finally, you need to seek consensus here before editing, you make assertions, do not wait for a reply, and go ahead with your unsupported edits. The admins that blocked you explain the rules to you. And please, try to provide short answers, your long comments do not help (our personal opinions are irrelevant too, only encyclopedic material is relevant).--Mariordo (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Before engaging in another reversal, please explain here which part of this statement do you think is not truth?"

Gee, that'd be nice wouldn't it? Sure would be nice if that concept was a two way street. But the mob rules, so I must comply or be blocked again. I guess I should go hunt up some wikipedia "friends" to help add some truth and balance to this article.

It's pretty simple. A parameter that is "based on" well-to-wheels (WTW) is not a well-to-wheels value. In effect you are arguing that we can multiply a well-to-wheels value by any factor we like and still call it WTW. Silly, yes? It's that simple. PEF is not well-to-wheels. Is a factored up value "based on" well-to-wheels. It doesn't belong in the section. Period. Nothing with a bogus legislative factor (in this case 1/0.15=6.67) applied to it is a well-to-wheels accounting of fuel cycle. Well-to-wheels is an actual scientific accounting of overall fuel efficiency, not an EPA sticker value or a legislative factor. It is a real honest objective scientific quantity, a measure of total fuel consumed per mile for the entire fuel cycle of a vehicle. PEF is not.

The well-to-wheels examples are real world numbers applied to the governing equation cited by this article. The value of the well-to-wheels efficiencies are taken from the DOE document. You are asking me to provide a referencing source showing that 2+2=4. I put it to you to show that what I've presented is not accurate and not a perfect reflection of well-to-wheels, DOE findings, or the article's governing cited equation for MPGe. There is a plethora of information on well-to-wheels via google. I suggest you find it and try adding honestly to the article rather than pushing your own personal POV.

Eg is also from the DOE document and is described there as being essential for comparing electric vehicles to gasoline vehicles.Blake1960 (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source for the math, slightly different than the examples I posted, same general result... Is the analysis by a professor and director of the Fuel Cell Center in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute an acceptable source? Blake1960 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Less Lecturing & Dictating, More Discussion

It seems that there has developed a double standard in the editing of this article. One POV enjoys near dictatorial control while others are held to much higher near impossible standards, are told to discuss before editing, and most recently admonished to "please, try to provide short answers, your long comments do not help (our personal opinions are irrelevant too, only encyclopedic material is relevant).} If a point by point rebuttal is not welcome, what exactly is the point of discussion? My point by point rebuttal was provided as thoughtful discussion of the issues being discussed and intended to improve the article. I don't appreciate at all being lectured, especially when my comments were in response to a lengthy paragraphs-long commentary.

This article reads like a slobbering advertisement for electric cars and has fallen almost entirely off the track of honest comprehensive encyclopedic reporting on MPGe. The article is supposed to be about MPGe, not just the EPA's version of MPGe, but the concept of "miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent" in general. The article does a good job of showing the governing scientific equation which defines the measure, but then proceeds to ignore it and even fraudulently states that it is used by the EPA for their version of MPGe, which it absolutely, provably is not. This article as it stands is fraudulent and misleading filled with extreme bias and POV and OR. Pertinent well-sourced accurate information that has been painstakingly added has been repeatedly deleted by a small group of editors sharing and promoting their common point of view. As bad as that, information not applicable to the article topic has been added in its place.

Please stop the dictating and lecturing. Please discuss the point of the article. No personal comments are appropriate. These are the Wikipedia rules, yes? How about following those rules? Blake1960 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you feel anyone has broken specific Wikipedia rules, I encourage you to bring the matter up with administrators. Otherwise, I encourage you to stick to discussing points pertinent to the article. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to figure out the convoluted nightmare of wikipedia governance procedure. That and I pretty much despise tattling. I'd encourage you to apply the same exact scrutiny to others in this thread. Note my comment above "Please stop the dictating and lecturing. Please discuss the point of the article. No personal comments are appropriate. These are the Wikipedia rules, yes? How about following those rules?" 206.255.26.94 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Blake1960, you just go on circles with your arguments and continue to ignore key WP policies, call to your attention by me, Ebikeguy and a couple of admins that blocked you. Until you read and understand WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, and act according to WP:AGF and WP:Civil we are not going anywhere. Wikipedia is not a blog to expose our view of the truth or alleged plots. If you want to add content to Wikipedia you have to follow the rules, sorry you do not have time for doing the basic homework.--Mariordo (talk)

Yet more personal commentary and lecturing, devoid of any thoughtful discussion. So much for the "discussion" page. Blake1960 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Where does the power go?

I have read several articles on the wiki that suggest the fuel-to-wheel efficiency of a typical gasoline drivetrain is around 5% +/- 2% or so. Other articles suggest that the efficiency of a typical traction motor is somewhere in the vicinity of 90% +/- 5%. Yet on an energy equivalent measure, as in the case of MPGe, these cars are getting about 3x what the average car gets now. That suggests that the battery-to-wheel efficiency of the electric drivetrain is somewhere about 15%.

You've been misinformed. The Fuel to wheel efficiency of a typical modern gasoline drivetrain run on the order of between 20% to 30%, not 3% to 7%, a quite ludicrous assertion. If wikipedia states that, it's yet another glaringly erroneous factoid of the site. The new direct injection engines are at the high end as they are able to run leaner. The motor fuel is the coal or oil or natural gas or nuclear or wind, but mostly coal, that is used to generate the electricity, so it in truth is not any more efficient than some of the higher efficiency gasoline systems. One just carries the fossil fuel on board, the other burns it at the power plant. So if you look at fuel to wheel, you come out about the same, not even as good as the 3 factor sneakily promulgated by the EPA. The EPA is lying. The most energy efficient system is the conventional hybrid vehicles. The only advantage of the all electric plug-ins are that they avoid using oil, the income producer of islamists. Blake1960

So, if the motor is 90%, where does all the power go before it hits the wheel? I think this is definitely something that should be covered. I would suspect that the average reader, like me, would expect the value would be much higher.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You asked several good questions and the subject is complex indeed. Nevertheless, this article only deals with the metric to make comparisons against gasoline fuel economy, considering the energy stored in the vehicle and how long you can go with that, regardless of energy efficiencies or energy spent upstream. Gasoline or diesel engine vehicles indeed only use 20 to 30% of the energy stored in the fuel tank to provide propulsion, the rest is wasted in heat, friction, breaking, etc., but oil stores so much energy and it is relatively cheap that its use is widespread regardless of these losses. See Fuel efficiency and Fuel efficiency in transportation for more details, and you can follow from there, but I do not believe such detail belongs to this article.--Mariordo (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You conveniently neglect to inform that coal-fired electric power generating plants suffer similar inefficiencies as gasoline motors and they are the most common power plant in America today. Even the most advanced natural gas fueled power plants are only 50% efficient. Then you have transmission line and batter/charging/discharging efficiencies. The motor is fantastic at 90%, but the rest of the electrical supply system not so much. You also conveniently neglect to mention that conventional hybrids, becoming more popular every day, increase efficiency around town with their regenerative braking systems, so that 50 MPG on gasoline is easily achievable. Blake1960 (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I took a good look at both of these articles. Neither of them talks about the issue, nor does either seem to be the right place (in the midst of an article that has trains, for instance). Is there another article you might suggest that would be more on-topic? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Electric Car is the place to go. There's already a section there, but not so useful yet. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, I actually tried several months ago to do it, but the article has too many editors with opposite views, and I was reversed/frequently correctly so I stopped trying. However, the explanation is not a short one, it has too many details, and people with or against a green view will fight it. There is too many advocating in that article, that is why it not in good shape.--Mariordo (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have good materials on this, I'd be happy to work with you on this. My rep should be good enough to help with any pettiness. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Systematic bias in methodology

It should be more clearly explained, that there is a systematic bias in the comparison between the assessment of value for the gasoline powered and electically powered car. The consumer doesn't pay for the energy in the "tank"(battery), they pay for the energy that they put into the tank from the petrol pump or electric outlet.

Assuming the gasoline pump is accurate, energy is transfered from the gas pump to the car tank with 0% loss ( if you don't spill any on the ground ). However, with an electric car, to put 20 kWh of extractable energy into the battery, you have to take at least 24 kWh from the outlet because of the efficiency of the battery charger and the chemical behavior of the battery charging process. AND YOU HAVE TO PAY THE POWER COMPANY for that 24 kWh ( not just for 20 kWh ).

In terms of what the vehicle user actually has to pay, the MPGe calculated using the power in the battery is overstating the frugality of the vehicle by at least 15 percent. 122.106.205.74 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Metric unit conversion needed

We need to consider metric equivalents for MPGe, like L/100 km equiv (Litres per 100 kilometres gas equivalent) or km/Le (kilometres per litre equivilent)

A metric consumption for fuel cell vehicles would be km/kg or kg/100 km and a metric consumption for electric vehicles would be km/kWh or Wh/km.... I think in countries using the metric system like Canada, L/100 km equiv or km/L equiv would be used for alternative fuel-powered cars, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

ELITE 3000 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but we need a volunteer to developed a {{Convert|... template specific for this equivalent unit. Using the conventional existing templates leaves out the "equivalet" part. Just check any of the articles where MPG-e is used. Any takers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If we could make a template smart enough to figure out what someone means by "muiles per gallon equivalent", we wouldn't need any more human editors on Wikipedia. Starting from trying to guess which "gallon" is meant, it's not a conversion that can be entrusted to robots. We must quote sources if we want numbers in other systems - this article is about "miles per gallons", not energy consumption of vehicles generally. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

2 new cars, MiEV and Fit EV

Will be adding 2 new cars, resources are http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/imiev/12/showroom/performance.do and http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/08/honda-fit-ev-rated-at-118-mpge/ Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

US Consumers

" The research showed that participants did not understand the concept of a kilowatt hour as a measure of electric energy use in spite of the fact that this is the metric used in their monthly electric bills. "

That is the most hilarious thing I've read all day.

Thank you Wikipedia. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.25.133 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Those wacky Americans sure love inventing new and confusing units of measurement. I propose that we start measuring fuel economy in football fields per food labelling ounce of Jim Beam. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposing a new efficiency unit for vehicles using electricity: MP$

The vehicle efficiency measures that are related to energy are very important for policy makers. However, consumers in their everyday lives are more concerned about how much they pay for their trips, especially for commuting. The MPG measure was a good general indicator for that, until plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles arrived in the market; hardly anywhere you can find information pertaining to the cost of the charging, translated to the miles driven. I realize the differences in local prices of electricity, which can even change depending on the time of the day, but we still need some measure for that. I am proposing introduction of a new unit: Miles Per Dollar (MP$), with local varieties e.g. MP$-LA, MP$-NY, etc. , standardized and averaged. They will keep changing of course, but they will be still useful in comparing vehicles using electricity. -- Montvert (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

US vs imperial gallon

The article should make clear that it is referring to US gallons as opposed to imperial gallons. Imperial gallons are used in Britain, Ireland, Canada and in other former Uk colonies. A US gallon is 83% of an imperial gallon, therefore the difference is substantial and can lead to significant errors if not specified. Please use gal(us) or gal(imp) to avoid errors and confusion. Fuel has for many years been sold in litres in UK, Ireland, Canada etc, but for fuel economy we generally talk about MPG, which is MPG(imp). Cars display fuel economy in MPG(imp) Nick Hill (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The "gallon equivalent" is a made-up unit that does not bear any direct relationship to the amount of useful energy that can be extracted from a gallon of petrol. So I don't think it's at all useful to talk about what kind of gallon it is, that would just make it even more confusing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Misleading MPGe

I edited the page to point out that the EPA MPGe equivalentfor electric vehicles is grossly misleading, and Dmacks accused me of disrupting editing because I did not cite a reliable source. I am new here and did not know I needed to cite sources, since many parts of the page do not have cited sources. Here is one source: "State of CHARGE Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across the United States" by Don Anair and Amine Mahmassani, June 2012, Union of Concerned Scientists. This source states 11,200 grams CO2e/gallon of gasoline, and from simply weighting the carbon production per kWh in Figure 1.2 by the percentage of each source in Figure 1.1, an approximate US average of 649.5 grams of CO2e/kWh can be calculated. Since the Tesla Model S is rated by the EPA at 237.5 Wh/km, or 382.2 Wh/mile, that works out to 248.2 grams of CO2e/mile. That is the amount of CO2e/mile produced by a gasoline-powered car that gets 45.1 MPG. This is simple arithmatic. Therefor the EPA MPGe is effectively off by a factor of 2, which is extremely misleading, and in my opinion tantamount to fraud, from a global warming point of view. And these numbers ignore the massively higher price of the Model S compared to a car like the Toyota Prius, which really gets 50+ MPG. That higher price further reduces the MPGe of the Tesla. I think this is important information because consumers who want to buy a car with a small carbon footprint would do better to buy a Prius than a Model S, even though the EPA MPGe numbers seem to show the opposite. If you care about global warming, you should honestly and accurately inform consumers so they can spend their money on products that will actually help the environment. Anti.greenwash 06:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs)

Anti.greenwash, thanks for your concerns. First the rules. Wikipedia is not a blog, so you have to support your edits with WP:Reliable sources, with a WP:NPOV, and avoid WP:Original research. You disregarded all of these policies and as a result, your contribution was subject to speedy deletion. Secondly, about the content. This article is about MPG-e as defined by the EPA as a means to express energy comsuption is a simpler way for the general public to understand, and to compare with conventional cars. It is NOT about emissions. The CO₂ footprint of a plug-in electric car depends mainly of how clean is the power generation upstream. This fact does not belongs here, but instead it is already dealt with in detail in the proper articles, with a more comprehensive coverage that the point you raised, including the impact during production:

• Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in plug-in electric vehicles - including a detailed summary based on research by the Union of Concerned Scientists
• Air pollution and carbon emissions in electric cars
• Greenhouse gas emissions in plug-in hybrids

As supported by the reliable sources provided overtheres, you can see that some of your claims are incorrect. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

45 mpg would be extremely high for the real-world consumption of a gasoline car in America. The mpg-e values tend to be closer to the actual figures than the manufacturer figures are for fossil fuel cars. The CO2 intensity of real-world electric cars is handled here: Electric_car#Air_pollution_and_carbon_emissions. On average in America, electric cars produce less CO2 per mile, but it does depend on the source of the electricity; in other countries electric cars produce considerably less CO2 per mile. Over time grids seem to be greening up with greater use of wind power and solar; as they do so, electric cars improve also.GliderMaven (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note also that a Prius gets its better fuel consumption from its electric drive train and that electric drive trains seem to be capable of achieving enormously lower CO2 emissions than gasoline cars ever could in real world use.GliderMaven (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent Units / Stupid Government

The article mentions, under the section "2010–2011: Miles per gallon equivalent", that the EPA conducted focus-group studies and found confusion from the members; "The research also concluded that the kW-hrs per 100 miles metric was more confusing to focus group participants compared to a miles per kW-hr. Based on these results, EPA decided to use the following fuel economy and fuel consumption metrics on the redesigned labels: MPG ... [and] Gallons per 100 miles..."

I hope we agree that MPG (miles per gallon) and Gallons per 100 miles are, essentially, reciprocal units (technically, they also differ by a factor of 100). My point is, one unit (efficiency) is the reciprocal of the other (consumption)... calculating the reciprocal of a quantity is not something the average joe (or even an experienced hacker) can easily do in their head. It is, thus, really no surprise to me (perhaps you agree?) that members of their focus group were confused. It's like comparing apples and oranges, or rather apples and reciprocated apples!!

I don't want to get all political, but I think that only a bureaucracy (like government) would be stupid enough to even ATTEMPT to present these two ideas together as a form of comparison. Because we can't change the government in the short-term, shouldn't the article point out the fact that these two units/measures used with MPGe are totally un-equivalent (or rather, reciprocally equivalent)?

It's hard for me describe, so I didn't edit the page. Perhaps others have noticed this blunder too, but can't think of a good way to fix the article? Anyway, I was thinking about adding a paragraph (or a new section) that brought this issue to the reader. Any suggestions or objections? Hydradix (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree but we can't put in any kind of explanation without a reliable source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed a reliable source is required to avoid WP:original research. But at least, Hydradix, you might tried a Google search to find criticism to the EPA unit, whether or not related to your point.--Mariordo (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. I found a brochure from the EPA that explains the "fuel economy sticker", and it points out that MPG(e) is a measure of fuel economy (efficiency), while Gal/100mi is a measure of fuel consumption. They include the two measures to make fuel-cost comparisons easier for consumers (they seem to realize that calculating reciprocals in your head isn't easy). The problem, in my opinion, is that the actual sticker does not use the term "fuel consumption" anywhere, and sticks the Gal/100mi value in the section labeled "fuel economy"; in fact it is immediately below the MPG(e) value. I see how somebody may think they are the same thing in different units (like miles versus kilometers). Although the EPA document is a reliable source, it is primary not secondary. Research continues... Hydradix (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hydradix, this qualifies as one of the cases in which it is 100% valid to use a primary source, it is a government agency setting rules and standards. I do not see any problem using the brochure as a reliable source.--Mariordo (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Understanding energy costs

I'm not clear upon reading the article and the ratings how the electricity costs actually compare to burning hydrocarbon fuel in a vehicle. For example, the Hyundai Ioniq Electric on the chart currently is rated at 136 mpg-e and with the givens of $0.13/kWh etc the chart lists traveling 25 miles costing $.81 with the givens of the kWh and pump gasoline cost.

Yet if a combustion engine vehicle had the same fuel efficiency, (136 mpg), the cost of fuel would only be $0.37. And if you were to have a vehicle with 64 mpg (25 miles ÷ 64 mpg = .39 gallon. Then .39 x $2.06/gallon = about $.80), it would cost the same in fuel expenses as the 136 mpg-e vehicle cost.

Is this because the energy cost of electricity delivery to the consumer at these rates is about double that of gasoline? Is this part of the "mpg illusion" alluded to in the article? Because it doesn't seem clear to me and I'd like to address it. thanks. MartinezMD (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right this aritcle is very hard to understand, given its basically simple ideas. Anyway:

• 1 gallon of gasoline is $2.06 (out of date, but ignore that)
• 1 gallon has energy of 33.7 kWh , at $0.13/kWh ( varies locally, but ignore that) costs $4.38

But electric vehicle is more efficient in energy use, might waste only 10%, gasoline car wastes 60%, citation needed, I don't have citation at my fingertips. So electric car is less wasteful of energy, but energy more expensive per energy unit. Is that clearer? GangofOne (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand how wasteful a combustion engine is - you lose ~70% as heat directly radiated and also out the exhaust. Confirming what I suspected with the numbers makes me suspect about 99% of people out there looking at electric vehicles will not know this value comparison however. Imagine buying an electric car with an mpg-e of 40 and it costs you double to operate compared to your existing commuter! Shouldn't this be mentioned (with a few sources of course) in the article, maybe including a criticism or two?MartinezMD (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Improvements welcome. But you hypothesize electric car with 40 mpg-e. In the list the worst is 61 mpg-e, others are much better. So your warning seems overexcited. I think the article tries to make clear the cost tradeoffs, but does a poor job in clarity. Part of the problem that could be improved is use of terms "efficiency", "economy", and "consumption". Efficency is used to mean mpg, and "economy" is used as a synonym, with nothing to do with costs, $/mile, say. Consumption is just reciprocal of efficency, as used here and in US gov. articles. It could all be clearer. GangofOne (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm just illustrating that mpg and mpg-e are not good equivalents for consumers (because that's the point of having the EPA ratings, no?) because although the energy expenditure may be the same, the cost of that energy is not. Looking now I find commentary about it, but no acceptable sources for the article. I'll keep looking and was hoping bringing up the topic may prompt other editors that may know some references.MartinezMD (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/mpg-for-electric-cars/
• https://www.mpgecost.com/about
• https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2011/1225/Electric-cars-101-What-does-MPGe-mean-exactly
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/11/24/the-epas-electric-vehicle-mileage-fraud/#44a5db442aa2
• https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-06-12/pdf/00-14446.pdf

You seem to want to add the influence of electricity pricing to the measure. How would that work given that the cost of electricity varies over time and is different in different places?

Rather, the primary intended use of the measure is for comparing cars, and that ranking doesn't vary.GliderMaven (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that instead of using standard units for measuring energy, the EPA has decided to invent a new unit, the gallon gasoline equivalent, that invites comparison between MPG_e and MPG, when that comparison is not really valid. The new unit was intended to prevent confusion but has had the opposite effect. People compare vehicle efficiencies for several different reasons including cost of operation and carbon footprint. No single number will work for both of these comparisons. I have yet to see a RS that fully explores this problem but if we can find one I think this information would make a good addition to the article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The mpge rating works fine when comparing electric cars to each other, and perhaps in the future will be the only rating used if combustion vehicles disappear from use, but you are correct that it invites comparison to mpg. The choice of naming it similarly is unfortunate imo. Electricity transmission losses to the vehicle are also not taken into consideration in the rating, but that is another point. I think the sources I found are reasonable enough to start a simple paragraph in the article, no?

To Glidermaven, I don't want to add prices specifically, because of course the relative costs will change depending what happens to the oil markets versus electricity prices generated by whatever means. I do, however, want to make it clearer, eg the person looking to buy a car that a rating of 80 mpge may not (likely won't) get them twice the mileage per dollar. Clearly prices vary, so different locations, such as Iceland (electricity is ~$0.05/kWh and gasoline $7.50/gallon) vs Hawaii ($0.33/kWh and gasoline $3/gallon) or even Venezuela ($0.03/kWh, $0.04/gallon), and government subsidy policies, would have a major effect on financial considerations. MartinezMD (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You can use MPGe to compare electric to electric, and MPG to compare fossil to fossil, but you can't compare electric to fossil by comparing the MPGe rating against the MPG rating. We can't say this without a source, but surely someone has published something on this topic? Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The links above discuss some of that, or at least bring up the price issues, and could be used as sources, although it looks like 2 of them just had their certificates expire in the past couple of days since I first posted them. I'm sure we can find others. MartinezMD (talk)

That is why EPA solved the problem by including in the Monroe sticker the price to run a car 25 miles and the annual total cost, plus the savings or extra cost in fuel costs over 5 years compared to the average new vehicle for the current MY. Pricing for electricity and gasoline are updated as new models are released, so with the wide variations of oil inevitable the window sticker gets dated. That is why the web address of the fueleconomy.gov website is provide, to compare based on current prices (the website update prices every week). There is no way around the problem of varying prices. The relative operating costs of electrified cars and conventional ICE cars always vary. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Comparison electric car efficiency deletion discussion

Please see Templates for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 5#Template:Comparison electric car efficiency. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719230137/http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/chvs10.pdf to http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/chvs10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

good work , bothead. But this reference is from 1997. Maybe there is a better, newer one? GangofOne (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)