• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

The DOE-Approved EV-Mileage Cheating Scandal

by Michael Buschbacher and James Conde
January 17, 2024, 2:20 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 2 mins read
A A
9

ev manufacturingIt’s hard to think of a worse environmental scandal in recent years than Volkswagen’s 2015 diesel emissions cheating.

The German automaker was rightly pursued by regulators, enforcement agencies, and class-action lawyers.

The scandal ended up costing Volkswagen an estimated $33 billion in fines and financial settlements—and revealed that diesel emissions cheating was endemic. [emphasis, links added]

In 2020 Daimler AG made a $1.5 billion settlement over emissions cheating in Mercedes-Benz diesel vehicles. (One of us helped secure that settlement.) Last year engine maker Cummins agreed to pay $1.7 billion to settle claims that it skirted diesel-emissions standards.

In all of these cases, regulators punished carmakers that had cut corners and misled the public.

But when it comes to electric cars, the government has a cheating scandal of its own. That scandal, grabbing far fewer headlines, is buried deep in the Federal Register—on page 36,987 of volume 65.

When carmakers test gasoline-powered vehicles for compliance with the Transportation Department’s fuel-efficiency rules, they must use real values measured in a laboratory.

By contrast, under an Energy Department rule, carmakers can arbitrarily multiply the efficiency of electric cars by 6.67.

This means that although a 2022 Tesla Model Y tests at the equivalent of about 65 miles per gallon in a laboratory (roughly the same as a hybrid), it is counted as having an absurdly high compliance value of 430 mpg.

That number has no basis in reality or law.

For exaggerating electric car efficiency, the government rewards carmakers with compliance credits they can trade for cash.

Economists estimate these credits could be worth billions: a vast cross-subsidy invented by bureaucrats and paid for by every person who buys a new gasoline-powered car.

Until recently, this subsidy was a Washington secret. Carmakers and regulators liked it that way.

Regulators could announce what sounded like stringent targets, and carmakers would nod along, knowing they could comply by making electric cars with arbitrarily boosted compliance values. Consumers would unknowingly foot the bill.

The secret is out.

After environmental groups pointed out the illegality of this charade, the Energy Department proposed eliminating the 6.67 multiplier for electric cars, recognizing that the number “lacks legal support” and has “no basis.”

Carmakers have panicked and asked the Biden administration to delay any return to legal or engineering reality. That is understandable.

Without the multiplier, the Transportation Department’s proposed rules are completely unattainable. But workable rules don’t require government-created cheat codes. Carmakers should confront that problem head-on.

Read more at WSJ

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 9

  1. efb press says:
    2 years ago

    Τhis is a gгeat tiρ partіcularly to those new tⲟ the blogosphere.
    Bгief but vvery accurate infߋrmation… Thanks for sharing thіѕ one.
    A muѕt read post!

    Ⅿy site :: efb press

  2. Penggantian Sparepart EFB PRESS MBL says:
    2 years ago

    Hі therе, јust ѡanted to tеll you, І enjoyed thіѕ post.
    It wаѕ funny. Keep on posting!

    Heere іs my site :: Penggantian Sparepart EFB PRESS MBL

  3. autodoprava says:
    2 years ago

    We stumbled over here by a different web
    address and thought I might as well check things out.

    I like what I see so i am just following you. Look forward to going
    over your web page repeatedly.

  4. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
    2 years ago

    Or TL;DR:

    “EVs are specifically manufactured for and marketed to people who are too stupid to do the simple math to determine that EVs are specifically manufactured for and marketed to people who are too stupid to do simple math.”

    LOL

  5. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
    2 years ago

    Getting desperate, he then claimed that his Tesla was just way cheaper to own, operate and maintain.

    Again, diametrically opposite to reality… remember that this was years ago… with the increased cost of electricity relative to gasoline, the situation is even worse for EVs now.

    Let’s talk economics! (Now updated to reflect actual average electricity price in Illinois, and a gasoline price above current average price)

    Assumptions:
    – A gas vehicle with 17 km L-1 fuel mileage

    An EV with 88.9891 Wh/km/1000 kg consumption and 2107 kg vehicle + 85 kg driver = 2192 kg total weight, for 195.0641072 Wh km-1 total consumption.
    482803.2 km driven
    $1 L-1 for gasoline (~$3.785/gallon)
    $0.1332 kWh-1 for electricity
    The battery efficiency alone (power delivered to the battery vs. the power delivered by the battery) for Lithium batteries tops out at 90% for newer or highly-expensive batteries, and can be as low as 80% for older or consumer-grade batteries:
    http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/sun1/
    The Tesla charger has a 92% efficiency for 240V at 24A, and 94% efficiency for 240V at 40A/80A:
    https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/18017/charging-efficiency
    So, given that you have a used vehicle, we’ll be generous and assume 85% battery efficiency, and we’ll assume you’re charging at 24A:
    100 * 0.85 * 0.92 = 78.2% “wall to battery” efficiency

    Gas vehicle:
    ((482803.2 km / 17 km L-1) * $1 L-1) = $28,400.19

    Electric vehicle:
    ((((482803.2 km * 195.0641072 Wh km-1) / 1000) / 0.782 efficiency) * $0.1332 kWh-1) = $16,041.50 + $13,000 battery replacement = $29041.50

    Remember, that $13,000 battery replacement is a low-end quote… if can range up to $20,000, depending upon labor costs and complications.

    $29041.50 > $28,400.19

    I save $641.31 driving my ICE-powered vehicle 300,000 miles vs. your toy electric clowncar, even with gasoline price higher than it actually is. Gasoline prices are inflated in the US due to libtard politics… as of July 2021, the worldwide average price for gasoline was a mere $1.56 / gallon, making EVs an even worse choice outside the US.

  6. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
    2 years ago

    He then went on to claim that while his rolling flaming deathmobile might burn more fuel per mile than a middling ICE vehicle, it emitted less… again, diametrically opposite to reality…

    Let’s talk emissions!

    According to the DOE EV Emission Calculator, an EV in Illinois driving 12,000 miles per year will emit 2389 pounds of CO2 equivalent.

    The Tesla 100 kWh battery requires ~30,600 pounds of CO2 to produce. We’ll assume both gasoline and EV vehicle production requires 30,000 pounds of CO2 emission.

    A gasoline-fueled vehicle with 40 MPG fuel efficiency will emit 5,960 pounds CO2 per year at 12,000 miles/yr, per EPA.

    Production + (Annual * T_gas) = Production + (Annual * T_EV)
    30,000 + (5,960 * T_gas) = 30,000 + 30,600 + (2389 * T_EV)

    Solving for T (years required for EV to offset emissions) gives a breakeven point of 8.569029 years and 102,828.348 miles. Before that breakeven point, the EV has emitted more CO2 than the gasoline-powered vehicle.

  7. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
    2 years ago

    Michael Buschbacher wrote:
    “This means that although a 2022 Tesla Model Y tests at the equivalent of about 65 miles per gallon in a laboratory (roughly the same as a hybrid), it is counted as having an absurdly high compliance value of 430 mpg.”

    And it’s considered 65 MPG is one only considers the “battery to wheels” efficiency. To compare ‘apples to apples’, one must consider the “fuel to wheels” efficiency for both EVs and ICE vehicles.

    This is from years ago, when ‘RenewableGuy’ claimed his Tesla got way better efficiency and was way cheaper than an ICE vehicle… he claimed his years-old bought-used Tesla with an aging battery only consumed 250 Wh mile-1 (which is better than factory-stated efficiency).

    250 Wh mile-1… let’s put that into a better context.

    For your 50 MPH, that means you’re consuming 12,500 Watts every hour. Or 12.5 kWh.

    That’s enough to run twelve 1000-watt room heaters for an hour, with enough left over to light five 100-watt lights.

    That’s not ‘efficiency’, that’s wasteful. If someone told you to plug in twelve 1000-watt room heaters and five 100-watt lights and run them for an hour, you’d scoff at them.

    Let’s say you drive for an hour and consume that 12.5 kWh. You’ve now got to put that energy back into the battery.

    The battery efficiency alone (power delivered to the battery vs. the power delivered by the battery) for Lithium batteries tops out at 90% for newer or highly-expensive batteries, and can be as low as 80% for older or consumer-grade batteries:
    http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/sun1/
    We’ll assume 85% efficiency for your aged battery.
    The Tesla charger has a 92% efficiency for 240V at 24A, and 94% efficiency for 240V at 40A/80A:
    https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/18017/charging-efficiency

    ((12500 Wh / 0.85)/0.92) = 15984.6547 Wh

    That’s how much you actually used, just from your wall plug to your battery.

    Now, the grid itself is, per Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and DOE, only 34.831460674157303370786516853933% efficient.

    So in actuality, you’re burning:
    15984.6547 / 0.34831460674157303370786516853933 = 45,891.428 Wh worth of fuel… in a single hour.

    So you’ve just wasted 33391.428 Wh worth of energy. In an hour.

    That’s enough to run thirty-three 1000-watt room heaters, with enough left over to run three 100-watt lights.

    And that’s just the amount of power you wasted.

    All told, to drive a mere 50 miles, you used 45,891.428 Wh worth of fuel, for a ‘fuel to wheels’ consumption of 917.82856 Wh mile-1.

    That’s far less efficient that even a gas-guzzling ICE vehicle.

    My vehicle regularly gets 40 mpg (0.05880375 L/km).

    A liter of gasoline has 45 MJ/kg, and 0.05880375 L weighs 0.04436029434375 kg and has 1.99621324546875 MJ of energy.

    That’s 892.3872 Wh mile-1. That’s less than what you claim your glorified golfcart consumes. LOL

    892.3872 Wh mile-1 < 917.82856 Wh mile-1

    But your rolling flaming deathwish toy electric clowncar doesn’t consume a mere 250 Wh mile-1… that’s even better than the factory rating for your vehicle, and your old decrepit vehicle certainly can’t surpass the efficiency of a factory-fresh vehicle.

    No, your rolling flaming EV deathmobile consumes ~88.9891 Wh / km / 1000 kg, as you admit.

    Model S = 2107 kg + 85 kg driver (2192 kg)

    That’s 313.92525 Wh mile-1, as you have admitted to.

    That’s 15696.262523 Wh at 50 MPH.

    (((15696.262526883839232515547485488 / 0.85)/0.92) / 0.34831460674157303370786516853933) = 57,625.91225 Wh worth of fuel burned.

    And that’s 1,152.51825 Wh worth of fuel burned for every mile.

    892.3872 Wh mile-1 < 1,152.51825 Wh mile-1

    My vehicle only consumes 77.429% of the fuel yours does. Which means your vehicle gets the equivalent to 30.97 MPG.

  8. SPURWING PLOVER says:
    2 years ago

    The Eco-Freaks want to force us into Mas Transit and overcrowded cities and Beehive Apartments the Nit-Wits want to Control our everyday lives just like the UN wants to do

  9. Sonnyhill says:
    2 years ago

    Volkswagen Jetta’s were popular with buyers because of their performance and fuel efficiency, so the greens decided to kill them. They deliberately set the emissions standards for diesels impossible to reach without turning them into dogs. When VWs met the standards, the greens knew that the diesels were “trick”.
    The same greens discouraged consumers from buying plug in hybrids because they had a fuel tank. I say that EVs are the cheaters because they exist only by skirting free market rules. Everything about them is subsidized. Ask the victim-owners.
    By going public with their EV experience, they’re doing us all a favour. Subsidies don’t get you home.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • EU's Ursula Von Der Leyen and TrumpUS Pressures Europe To Roll Back Climate Mandates, Targets Net Zero Policies
    Oct 27, 2025
    The Trump administration urges EU to weaken rules on emissions and sustainability, citing risks to trade and energy reliability. […]
  • aoc dollarClimate Tightwads: Most Americans Reject $1 Monthly Carbon Fee, Poll Shows
    Oct 27, 2025
    Most Americans won’t pay $1 a month to fight the so-called threat of human-caused climate change, new AP-NORC/EPIC poll shows. […]
  • Surface miningTrump Moves To Break Communist China’s Grip On Rare Earth Minerals
    Oct 27, 2025
    Trump moves to break Communist China’s control over rare earth minerals critical to U.S. technology and defense. […]
  • COP30 Amazon17 Republican AGs Urge Trump Admin To Skip COP30 Over Green Energy Policies
    Oct 24, 2025
    The attorneys general say attending COP30 would back costly, unreliable wind and solar and risk U.S. energy security. […]
  • severe storm over cityClimate Expert Reveals Latest Scandal Tied To Billion-Dollar Disasters
    Oct 24, 2025
    Climate Central takes over the Billion-Dollar Disasters tabulation, sparking fresh controversy over its methods and motives. […]
  • ocean sun cloudsNew Study Finds 75% Of Rising Ocean Heat Likely Natural, CO2 Not A Factor
    Oct 24, 2025
    Study shows ocean warming driven mostly by natural cycles, not greenhouse gas emissions, challenging mainstream global warming narratives. […]
  • LNG terminal in germanyU.S. And Qatar Push Back On EU’s Climate Mandates That Threaten LNG Exports
    Oct 24, 2025
    U.S. and Qatari officials warn that the EU’s latest climate regulations under CSDDD could endanger Europe’s access to affordable natural gas. […]
  • marines trainingCrazy Hill Op-Ed Demands Generals Respond To Climate Change ‘National Security’ Threat
    Oct 23, 2025
    The Hill warns of climate Armageddon unless U.S. generals join the fight against ‘Mother Nature,’ now deemed a national security threat. […]
  • Shipping port near power plantEurope’s Energy Crisis Shows Net Zero Dogma Comes At A Cost
    Oct 23, 2025
    While China’s rare earth threat exposes U.S. supply chain risks, Europe’s energy crisis shows how net zero policies backfired spectacularly. […]
  • wind farm climate outDemocrats Ditch Climate Messaging As Rising Utility Costs Hit Voters
    Oct 23, 2025
    As Democrats struggle with climate messaging, voters feel the pinch from rising utility bills and the party's costly green energy policies. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky