Consumer Reports "The mpg gap"

Since you are paying extra for clean energy, you are looking at the LONG view.

Buying a BEV or PHEV will save money by the time the car is junked (unless it is in a crash, etc.) So what is the difference. Why insist on a 5 year payback, for example? There is no payback on paying extra for distant wind energy (you are actually wasting more in transmission losses) Unless you are looking at the long view which is what current EV and PHEV cars are doing.

Mike

 

If I bought my electricity from Pepco (95% dirty 5% clean) I would be buying it under their residential "R" rates at 8.789 cents per kwh and paying 0.605 cents per kwh transmitted [1] So if I bought dirty electricity my
cost differential for power+transmission would be

Pepco exclusively = 08.789 + 0.60500 = 09.39400 cents/kwh
Clean Current via Pepco = 10.100 + 3.63949 = 13.73949 cents/kwh
cost differential = = 04.34549 cents/kwh

The other fees and taxes are either flat or based on the kwh charged by CC (metered current used) so those values do not change. Hence, the only thing that changes is the above Given that I used 319 kwh that billing period, my electric bill would have been $13.86 less had I opted for the local dirty electricity...


[1] http://www.pepco.com/_res/documents/MDRatesR.pdf

 

Yep, this looks right.

AMAZINGLY inexpensive for clean energy ... at least for people like you who have made the effort to not waste in the first place. Just this week I signed up for clean energy from my utility PNM in Albuquerque. They changed the terms so that now I might actually be adding clean energy to the grid for my extra money, unlike the scam they had going on until now. I pay 1.7 cents a kWh extra, less than $2 a month more to my bill.

My wife mentioned today that a friend of hers views vegetarianism as a lifestyle that only the money privileged can afford -- yet she spends about $200 a month on her tobacco addiction.

 

The extra money is to encourage people to the long view ... not sure if its working though...

 

You have a fairly young car, a 2010 like mine. Plug-ins are changing rather rapidly. bmw and mercedes will both add one next year, toyota will upgrade their phv in less than 2. Tesla may have its X in 1.5 years, and its 3rd generation in 2017. The volt and energis will get second generations. You seem to know your rates, when the time comes to get rid of your current car, take some test drives and I'm sure you will make an informed choice. 14 cents a kwh is about 3 cents more than a new wind customer in texas would pay, but transmission line upgrades are shared with all rate payers. It cost my utility about 6 cents to build and they charge 11, but you get to lock in the wind price for 5 years.

 

What Promises, What Estimates?


I do not understand why CR (Consumer Reports) thinks that the EPA mpg numbers are estimates or promises of what mpg CR or any other driver will achieve regardless of the time place and manner in which they happen to drive a car. The EPA website goes to some trouble to explain that this is not the case.

The EPA mpg numbers are test results based on a consistent test procedure and adjusted to account for some other significant factors. Their value is that they are verifiable by others and provide a fair comparison of the relative fuel consumption of different vehicles under the same defined conditions. There is also the opportunity to get a rough sense of how your current mpg might change in a different vehicle by comparing the ratings of the two vehicles and with your current mpg and usage.

CR and many critics seem offended that the EPA mpg numbers and test procedures do not match their perception of the "real world", apparently thinking that their own mpg and vehicle usage is typical of all vehicle usage and mpg. The real world I see is one where "normal" city or highway driving for one place or driver can be radically different from that of another place and one, two or three mpg numbers cannot come close to covering the variations.

A more useful article would have been one that discussed misunderstanding, and constructive use of, the EPA mpg numbers and tools such as the EPA mpg calculator.

 

CR fails to live up to your expectations. Mine too.

I however compare CR to alternatives like 'Motor Trend' and 'Car & Driver' and decide that while CR often annoys me, they at least recognize the utility of objective studies.

 

Their reply was to claim it is repeatable without offering any proof.

 

i suspect the internet has done them in. rightly or wrongly, most youngsters feel they have all the info they need at their fingertips.

 

The young adults in my life use CR. It does have on-line version.
The fact they quote 33 MPG for Prius City is still nuts and they need to re-calibrate their auto thinking.

 

Maybe the reason foro not publishing details on their test regime is the EPA got their tests gamed, CR didn't that we know of.

I happened to be cleaning up the other day and found a years worth of CR from 2014. I had not renewed my subscription. I felt at the time I made that choice I could get substantially the same results from the web. And I still receive 6 mags so it isn't like I'm opposed to the print format and I do get Motor Trend so I do have one source of auto reviews.

With most of the comparative reviews, I have a major problem. Their lack of an economic adjustment factor. Best car at $100k and more than good enough at $50k and they pick the expensive one every time. Compare a car at $35k and one at $28 and there is no adjustment for the 25% additional cost. Add that most of the cars aren't equipped like I'd order them and the reviews get less valuable. At least CR gives a "best buy" to reflect that 10% better at 100% more cost doesn't make much sense usually.

 

CU rated products that I loved for their usefulness and utility, and economy, so many times, I began to understand they didn't really know what they were talking about. Whether they were rating computers, cars, or vacuum cleaners, I reviewed their tested results against mine if I had switched from one of their favored products.

Their testing tended to be conservative, but in many cases, flawed. They got by for years primarily because of a dearth of competition. Sadly, the lack of competition for the testing they do is still sadly lacking.