![]() |
| MAX |
So it is great that several cars now claim to have over 100 mpg
combined miles per gallon equivalents - but there are a few caveats to this
news. These are all electric vehicles,
and thus benefit from the conversion factor set out by the EPA for equivalent “fuel” costs of
electricity. This is the “black box”
number. Aside from the immediate pocketbook concerns,
there is an underlying concern with fuel consumption and the related reduction
in C02 output. So there is no way to
average electric power, since regional sources will greatly affect this C02
count – from hydroelectric to coal, for example. There is also an issue of the batteries,
which not only are costly, but represent related CO2 costs in production. I’m not against electric cars, but would
like to see true comparisons – for example, life cycle costs for the vehicle
over 100,000 miles.
The other factor is a problem of mathematical
representation. In the US, we present
miles per gallon (distance per fuel quantity) – whereas in Europe, the
variables are reversed and are presented as liters per 1,000 kilometers (i.e. fuel
per a set distance). Why does this matter?
Because the gallons savings are a diminishing curve to the increase in
miles per gallon. For example, say you have
a 20 mpg car, which takes 50 gallons per 1,000 miles and you want to
upgrade. Increasing mpg by 10 to 30 mpg
car brings you down to 33 gallons – a 34% improvement. Another 10 to 40 mpg is 25
gallons, but only a 24% improvement, and another 10 to 20 gallons, a 20%
improvement. It is a diminishing
return. Of course, all reductions in fuel consumption are good, but
this type of accounting is increasing less relevant as we get into higher fuel
efficiency vehicles.
Instead, a more transparent metric is the net quantity of
fuel per a stated distance of miles. In
the previous example, the choice would be a 33, 25, or 20. This is much more straightforward and easier
to understand the relative improvement in fuel consumption. The chart of diminishing return also makes it
clear that the “Cash for Clunkers” program was a very effective way of reducing
CO2 output related to vehicles miles. Even if this program moved people from 10 mpg
to 30 mpg, it saved 2/3 of the fuel costs for that vehicle, or 65 gallons per
1000 miles. It is a better measure of
what we really are concerned with right now – which is fossil fuel related CO2
output.

So MAX was able to cover 1000 miles with 10 gallons of
fuel. McCornack chose to use a diesel
engine, both for the fuel efficiency and the versatility of fuel types, including
biodiesel from fast-food cooking oil. And this is the real gem. It changes the economic dynamics of small
scale biofuel production. The average miles driven by a car in the US is 15,000
(Federal standard) – of 150 gallons, or 10 – 15 gallons per month. Hmm… there is this Chinese place down the
street that uses Soy Oil that they throw away every few days…..





1 comment:
Hello Max...!! The car looks nice. Nice creation...
Kubota engine parts
Post a Comment