Connect with us

Published

on

Plug-in hybrids use far more gasoline in the real world than regulatory agencies account for, according to a new analysis of data by the International Council on Clean Transportation, the research group that broke the Volkswagen dieselgate scandal.

The ICCT analyzed data both from Fuelly, an app which helps drivers track their fuel efficiency, and from the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR). It then compared this data to regulatory agency estimates and found that PHEVs are not driving on electric power nearly as often as the EPA had assumed they are.

This could have significant implications for the way plug-in hybrid cars are regulated since they seem to produce more emissions and use more gasoline in practice than previously thought.

The data showed that PHEVs spend 26-56% less time in all-electric drive mode (this is called the “utility factor”), and therefore consume 42-67% more fuel than EPA labeling suggests.

Further, the unbiased data from BAR looked worse than the self-reporting data from Fuelly:

Researchers think this is because self-reported MPG data will skew towards drivers who pay more attention to efficiency, and thus are more likely to drive in a more efficient manner and remember to plug in their cars. But the data from BAR doesn’t include this bias, so in reality, PHEV shortcomings probably skew on the high end of these percentage estimates.

The ICCT had even more drastic results in an earlier study in Europe. In that study, fuel usage and emissions for PHEVs were 3-5 times higher than WLTP estimates suggested. Part of this was due to company cars where a company would pay for fuel, but not electricity, and thus were never plugged in, but were purchased by the company in order to get PHEV incentives. But even for non-company cars, the disparity between WLTP and real-world estimates was even larger than in the US.

Research lead Aaron Isenstadt showed us a table of the best- and worst-performing PHEV models, and pointed out that, as expected, “range-extended” models (like the i3 and Volt) which focus on using the engine as a backup generator for an ample battery tended to have higher electric usage. Whereas PHEVs with vestigial batteries like the original Plug-in Prius, or where the target customer was less environmentally-minded like the Range Rover and Panamera, were barely ever plugged in.

BestEDS BAR data (MY19+, automatic collection) Electric drive share Fuelly data (MY11+, user-reported) Electric drive share
1st 2019 Chevrolet Volt 0.623 2014 BMW i3 REX 0.900
2nd 2019 Volvo S60 AWD 0.548 2016 BMW I3 REX 0.875
3rd 2022 BMW 530e Sedan 0.499 2017 BMW i3 REX 0.864
4th 2021 BMW 330e xDrive 0.486 2015 BMW I3 REX 0.824
5th 2019 Volvo XC60 AWD 0.442 2016 Cadillac ELR 0.807
WorstEDS BAR data (MY19+, automatic collection) Electric drive share Fuelly data (MY11+, user-reported) Electric drive share
5th 2020 BMW 530E 0.116 2014 Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid 0.115
4th 2022 Volvo XC90 T8 AWD Recharge 0.080 2013 Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid 0.113
3rd 2020 Land Rover Range Rover PHEV 0.062 2014 Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid 0.082
2nd 2022 Hyundai Tucson Plug-in Hybrid 0.054 2014 Honda Accord Plug-in Hybrid 0.045
1st 2022 Kia Niro Plug-in Hybrid 0.051 *** 0.000
*** 5 models showed higher overall fuel consumption than their label CS fuel consumption, resulting in presumed/default 0% EDS

Isenstadt said that the only model he would consider a high-achiever is the BMW i3 REX. Other models fell far short of expected EPA numbers. The EPA generally expects PHEVs to use electric drive 80% of the time or more (though this scales up and down based on battery size), and only the i3 crossed the EPA’s bar.

The i3 was notable for its large (~100 mile) battery and small, optional engine (with a corresponding very small gas tank). This resulted in it being treated more like an electric car with occasional gas capability, as opposed to many of today’s PHEVs which operate in blended mode.

We also spoke with Stephanie Searle, the study’s project manager, about the results. She wanted to highlight just how large the disparity was between regulatory and real-world numbers – not just a few percent, but more than 50%.

Searle noted that the BAR numbers were the first time ICCT had used unbiased, non-self-reported numbers in its analysis, and the fact that they were worse than the self-reported numbers means that the problem is perhaps worse than previous research indicates. She considers the BAR numbers to be more robust, but also noted that even the self-reported numbers from Fuelly, where you would expect efficiency-conscious drivers to live, showed a massive disparity.

Policy recommendations

The ICCT hopes that its research will influence policy around PHEVs by providing regulators with more data about the actual carbon reductions (or relative lack thereof) achieve by PHEV deployment.

The ICCT issued five specific recommendations to the EPA:

  • Adjust the regulatory utility factor downwards for PHEVs to reflect current real- world performance.
  • Require in-use data reporting for specific PHEV models to receive a higher utility factor reflective of said in-use data
  • Adopt minimum electric driving range requirements, similar to California’s range requirements for zero-emission vehicle crediting in its Advanced Clean Cars II regulation
  • Adopt maximum engine power-to-weight limits
  • Establish a higher utility factor corresponding to the purchase of PHEV by drivers with demonstrated home chargers or manufacturer assistance with charging access

It also recommended that manufacturers could incentivize regular charging by assisting with home charger installation and by actively reporting cost of driving to users, and that tax administrators could incentivize PHEV purchases by restricting tax credits to PHEV models which display high utility factors. The US government recently expanded EV tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, allowing even small-battery (>7kWh) PHEVs access to the full $7,500 credit, a contrast to ICCT’s recommendations.

Will EPA follow California?

Further, the EPA is currently considering new emissions rules for 2027 and later model year vehicles. It’s expected to announce them this coming spring.

Searle hoped that these coming rules would be heavily influenced by California’s recent “Advanced Clean Cars II” standard. When that standard was unveiled, we at Electrek said it could be better, but part of California’s reason for making easier rules was because it wanted to set a standard that could be applied to other states in the country where EV sales aren’t as high as in CA.

If the EPA decides to align its rules with California’s, as previously happened under President Obama, this could reduce light-duty transport emissions by about 75% nationwide compared to current levels, said Searle (light-duty emissions make up 57% of transport emissions). The ICCT recently posted a blog showing that targets roughly in line with California’s are necessary to meet President Biden’s goal to align US policy with the Paris Agreement.

The new California rules ban the sale of new gas cars after 2035, but allow up to 20% of new vehicles to be PHEVs. These PHEVs do need to meet minimum range requirements, in the hopes that cars with larger batteries will be more likely to be plugged in.

These findings show that even those California rules might overestimate the emissions reductions from PHEVs, and more consideration should be put into how to maximize the percentage of time people spend on electric drive, rather than using gasoline.

Do PHEVs matter?

All that said, this grousing over PHEVs may not matter much in the long run. ICCT says production costs are dropping faster for BEVs than PHEVs, which means all this may be a moot point in the future. Since PHEVs are basically two cars in one, falling battery prices may make BEVs an even clearer better choice for both buyers and manufacturers. PHEVs are currently rather popular in Europe, with similar market share as BEVs (partially due to the company car effect mentioned above), but have lagged far behind BEVs in the US, and it doesn’t look like they’re going to catch up.

But as long as we are in the current battery-constrained production scenario we are in, the ICCT’s new data will help regulators understand the relative carbon reduction potential of PHEVs as compared to BEVs, and that the benefit of PHEVs may be smaller than previously expected.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump tariffs push Asian trade partners to weigh investing in massive Alaska energy project

Published

on

By

Trump tariffs push Asian trade partners to weigh investing in massive Alaska energy project

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are considering investing in a massive natural gas project in Alaska in an attempt to reach trade deals that would both satisfy demands from President Donald Trump and avoid high U.S. tariffs on their exports.

Alaska has long sought to build an 800-mile pipeline crossing the state from the North Slope in the Arctic Circle to the Cook Inlet in the south, where gas would be cooled into liquid for export to Asia. The project, with a staggering price tag topping $40 billion, has been stuck on the drawing board for years.

Alaska LNG, as the project is known, is showing new signs of life — with Trump touting the project as a national priority. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that the liquified natural gas (LNG) project could play an important role in trade negotiations with South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.

“We are thinking about a big LNG project in Alaska that South Korea, Japan [and] Taiwan are interested in financing and taking a substantial portion of the offtake,” Bessent told reporters on April 9, saying such an agreement would help meet Trump’s goal of reducing the U.S. trade deficit.

Taiwan’s state oil and gas company CPC Corp. signed a letter of intent in March to purchase six million metric tons of gas from Alaska LNG, said Brendan Duval, CEO and founder of Glenfarne Group, the project’s lead developer.

“You can imagine the geopolitical enhancements whether it’s for tariff or military reasons — Taiwan is really, really focused on getting that signed up,” Duval told CNBC in an interview. CPC has also offered to invest directly in Alaska LNG and supply equipment, Duval said.

March trade mission

Duval and Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy traveled to South Korea and Japan on a trade mission in March, meeting with high-ranking officials in government and industry. Japanese and South Korean companies have asked whether their development banks can help finance Alaska LNG, Duval said.

“Lately, there has been quite a lot of inquiries from India, so there’s a fourth horse that’s entered the race,” Duval said. Thailand and other Asian countries have also shown interest, he said.

The Alaska LNG project has three major pieces: The pipeline, a gas processing plant on the North Slope and a plant to liquify the gas for export at Nikiski, Alaska. These facilities are estimated to cost roughly $12 billion, $10 billion, and $20 billion respectively, Dunleavy said at an energy conference in Houston in March.

The permits for Alaska LNG are already in place, the CEO said. Glenfarne expects to reach a final investment decision in the next six to 12 months on the first phase of the project, a pipeline from the North Slope to Anchorage that will supply gas for domestic consumption in Alaska, Duval said.

Construction on the LNG plant is expected to begin in late 2026, the CEO said. The goal is to complete construction on the entire Alaska LNG project in four and a half years with full commercial operations starting in 2031, he said.

Alaska LNG plans to produce 20 million metric tons of LNG per year, equal to about 23% of the 87 million tons of LNG that the U.S. exported last year, according to data from Kpler, a commodity researcher.

‘Unleashing’ Alaska’s resources

Alaska plays a central role in Trump’s goal to boost production and exports of U.S. oil and gas, part of the White House’s agenda for U.S. “energy dominance.” The president issued an executive order on his first day in office seeking to tap Alaska’s “extraordinary resource potential,” prioritizing the development of LNG in the state.

“We’ll have that framed on our walls in Alaska for decades,” Gov. Dunleavy said at the Houston conference last month, referring to the executive order.

Once a net importer, the U.S. has rapidly become the largest exporter of LNG in the world, playing an increasingly vital role in fueling power plants in Asia and Europe for allies with limited domestic energy resources. Japan and South Korea, for example, each took about 8% of U.S. LNG exports last year, according to Kpler data.

The Trump administration views Alaska LNG as “an important strategic project,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said at the Houston energy conference. LNG exports from Alaska would reach Japan in about eight days rather than having to pass through the congested Panama Canal from terminals on the Gulf Coast, Dunleavy said at the same conference.

“They can have the opportunity to get delivered to them the most efficient LNG from an allied partner,” while avoiding chokepoints, Duval said. “This is the only LNG the U.S. can supply that has a direct route, and they are very cognizant about that in today’s environment.”

North Pacific talks

Trump told reporters during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba in February that the two countries were discussing the pipeline and the possibility of a joint venture to exploit Alaska oil and gas. Trump said he discussed the “large scale purchase of U.S. LNG” in an April 8 phone call with South Korea’s acting President Han Duck-Soo, and Korea’s participation in a “joint venture in an Alaska pipeline.”

Japan wants to maintain its security agreement with the U.S. against a rising China and avoid tariffs, officials at the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority told the Alaska Senate finance committee during a February presentation. “We are now in a completely ‘transactional’ trade world,” the executives said. Tokyo must invest more in the U.S., buy more LNG and enter a joint venture linked to Alaska oil and gas, they said.

The project would likely be a structured as a loose joint venture, with Asian partners signing contracts for large volumes of LNG, Duval said, and won’t necessarily translate into Japan, Taiwan and South Korea holding direct equity stakes in Alaska LNG, though Glenfarne is open to the possibility, he said.

Glenfarne’s goal is to be the long-term owner and operator of Alaska LNG with partners, Duval said. Glenfarne is a privately-held developer, owner and operator of energy infrastructure based in New York City and Houston. The company assumed a 75% stake in Alaska LNG from the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation in March, with AGDC keeping 25%.

Roadblocks and commercial viability

The Trump administration is clearly pressuring Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to invest in Alaska LNG, said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy and former energy advisor to President George W. Bush. Although Japan wants to both placate Trump and diversify its LNG supplies, Tokyo may yet hesitate to invest in Alaska LNG due to the project’s cost, complexity and risk, McNally said.

Another roadblock is that Democrats could return to power in 2028 and try to stop the project from advancing, citing environmental effects, McNally said. President Joe Biden, after all, paused permits for new LNG exports to countries including Japan that don’t have free trade agreements with the U.S. But Trump reversed Biden’s suspension as part of a torrent of executive orders tied to energy on his first day in office in January.

In addition to political risk, Alaska LNG “doesn’t have a clear cut commercial logic,” said Alex Munton, head of global gas and LNG research at Rapidan. “If it did, it would have had a lot more support than it has thus far, and this project has been on the planning board for literally decades,” Munton said. There are more attractive, existing LNG options for Asian customers on the Gulf Coast, he said.

The project is expensive even by the standards of an LNG industry that builds some of the costliest infrastructure in the energy sector, Munton said. The price tag of more than $40 billion likely needs to be revised upwards given that it is two years old, the analyst said.

“You have to assume that the costs are going to be much higher than the publicly quoted figures,” Munton said. Alaska LNG will likely need “public policy or a public commitment of funds to bring it to life,” the analyst said.

Duval said Alaska LNG will be competitive with no government subsidy. “It is a naturally competitive source of LNG, independent of the geopolitical benefits, independent of the tariff discussions,” he said.

“We have the support of the president of the United States,” Dunleavy said in Houston. “We have Asian allies that need gas. Geopolitical alliances are changing. Tariff questions are coming up. When we really look at it in that context, it’s a very viable project.”

Continue Reading

Environment

Can an electric bike really do 100 miles on a single charge?

Published

on

By

Can an electric bike really do 100 miles on a single charge?

When it comes to electric bikes, range anxiety is real — but it might be less of a concern than you think. In a recent real-world endurance test, Priority Bicycles’ Will Maurillo and Connor Swegle set out to answer a simple but ambitious question: Can a Current Plus e-bike hit 100 miles (160 km) on a single charge?

The test was part of the ongoing series Will Will Do It?, where Priority Bicycles’ Will Maurillo attempts new feats on bikes to see if he can pull them off.

The Priority Current Plus was upgraded late last year with a new 720Wh battery, or around 40% larger than the previous version. The bike is rated for up to 75 miles (121 km) on a single charge, and Will outfitted a stock Priority Current Plus with the company’s range extender battery to add another 500 Wh of battery as a reserve. Considering the bike is rated for 75 miles of range, that reserve battery was likely good planning.

It may seem like attempting a century, or a 100 mile (160 km) ride, would be problematic on a bike rated for just three-quarters of that distance. But that’s where real-world riding clashes with spec-sheet numbers. While the spec sheet can give riders an idea of an e-bike’s range on a single charge, the same e-bike can achieve drastically different ranges when ridden in different power modes.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

You’ll have to forgive the quick math here, but to put it simply, many e-bikes can achieve as little as 5-8 Wh/mile in the lowest power pedal assist mode. For comparison, an average electric car uses around 30-50x as much energy to travel the same distance. So, for a 720 Wh battery, 100 miles on a charge would require just 7.2 Wh/mile. That’s on the extreme end of efficiency for a commuter e-bike, but not totally impossible.

Will started his journey in upstate New York, setting out from Poughkeepsie and attempting to make it to Manhattan, nearly 90 miles (145 km) away. Taking what looks like bicycle trails most of the way, he and Connor rolled along on a cold morning with sights set on the distant downtown NYC.

Things started out well and after an impressive 57 miles (92 km), Will still had 40% charge remaining on the main downtube battery. After some playful shenanigans, including a quick stop at a trailside skatepark, he cruised on and finally made it to Manhattan, where he began a new battle against urban traffic, stoplights, and the general everyday tribulations of riding through big cities.

By mile 91.8 though, the main battery finally tapped out. At that point, he switched over to the range extender battery to finish up the last few miles and hit his goal of 100 miles (160 km). So while he technically went the distance, the last few miles did require the bike’s optional reserve battery.

This kind of real-world, long-distance ride is rare for most e-bike owners, but it’s a fascinating look at what’s becoming possible in the latest generation of electric bikes. While most riders won’t need to cover 100 miles in a single day, the demonstration speaks volumes about how far e-bikes have come.

For most commuters, even a 10 to 20 mile (16 to 32 km) daily round trip is well within the capability of even basic e-bikes today. But rides like Will’s show that e-bikes aren’t just limited to short hops across town. They’re becoming viable tools for longer-distance adventures, weekend exploration, or just eliminating range anxiety entirely.

And for those wondering how far the bike could have gone without such a fit rider using the lowest power pedal assist mode, I may be able to help. I actually own the same Current Plus e-bike and use it for my regular commuter/recreational bike. I only charge every few rides and often get a range of somewhere between 40-50 miles (64 to 80 km) when I’m using medium power pedal assist with occasional throttle usage.

Between the big battery and the low-maintenance components like the Gates belt drive, internally geared rear hub, and 140 Nm mid-drive motor, there’s a lot to like about the bike. I don’t push mine anywhere as far as Will did, and I’m certainly not as fit of a cyclist, but I can vouch for the Current Plus being the one bike I grab when I want a long and smooth ride that mixes fitness with recreational riding. I’d be lying if I said I never use the throttle when I’m tired, but the smooth torque sensor pedal assist definitely encourages me to pedal more than I do on my other e-bikes!

If you want to see my type of riding, check out my review video of the Current Plus, below.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

What’s happening with Tesla’s solar roof?

Published

on

By

What's happening with Tesla's solar roof?

The Tesla Solar Roof tiles are still alive, but the product is on the back burner at Tesla as it failed to achieve its promises.

When launching the solar roof in 2016, CEO Elon Musk presented it as a critical product to accelerate solar power deployment, as it opens up the market to people who want to go solar but also need to replace their roof soon.

He said that he aimed for Tesla to produce 1,000 new solar roofs per week by the end of 2019. 

However, Tesla didn’t reach volume production of the solar roof tiles until 2020, and even then, it was at a fraction of the deployment it was aiming for.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

In 2022, Electrek reported that Tesla installed solar roofs for the first time and confirmed that the Company deployed 2.5 MW of solar roofs during the second quarter of 2022, equivalent to approximately 23 roofs per week, which is far short of its goal.

Since then, Tesla has even further pulled back its solar effort – and even stopped reporting its solar deployment.

Many people are asking what it means for the solar roof, which Musk touted as a revolutionary product.

In 2023, we reported that Tesla began phasing out its solar business, particularly its in-house installations.

Tesla shifted its focus on deploying Powerwalls and solar inverters through third-party installers.

The same thing is happening with Tesla’s solar roof tiles. The company appears to be giving up on installing them itself, but some installations are still happening with third-party certified installers.

Tesla doesn’t even give online quotes on its solar roof anymore and has people submit requests for quotes through third-party installers:

“In order to receive pricing and product information, Tesla will share your contact information with a Tesla Certified Installer.”

We are hearing less about solar roof installations lately, as Tesla has gone virtually silent on the program; however, some ongoing installations are still being carried out by third-party installers.

Weddle and Sons Roofing just posted about a new 20 kW Tesla Solar Roof installation in Topeka, Kansas:

It’s challenging to determine the exact deployment rate of the solar roof, but based on our checks with a few installers, it doesn’t appear to have increased since 2022.

Tesla-certified installers are even convincing potential buyers to opt for a regular roof with solar panels instead of a solar roof. Potential buyer Jeff Betty shared this text from an unnamed installer:

This is not entirely surprising, as the primary issue with the Tesla Solar Roof tiles is their pricing. Tesla aimed for the solution to be competitive with higher-end roofing options, but it remains expensive and much less affordable than many durable roof options, plus solar panels.

Electrek’s Take

In short, the Tesla Solar Roof is still alive, but it’s nowhere near the revolutionary product Tesla claimed it would be.

Instead, it has become a very niche higher-end roofing product that Tesla deploys in very low volume through third-party installers.

It’s not in any way a significant part of Tesla’s energy business, which is now almost entirely Megapacks and Powerwalls.

While Tesla’s solar roof is not for everyone, now is a great time to go solar with rooftop solar panels.

If you want to make sure you’re finding a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage. EnergySage is a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar – whether you’re a homeowner or renter. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20 to 30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending