Thứ Tư, 1 tháng 2, 2017

Greenercars.org still hates Tesla part 1

  • Jul 25, 2014
    chickensevil
    I know this has been brought up before, but I want to mention this again, since this continues to be a sore place for me because my building is LEED certified, and they base their parking off of this list. As in... I cannot get a parking pass unless my vehicle is on this list or I become some very important person to rate my own special spot.

    Here is their website: greenercars.org | the most comprehensive and scientific environmental vehicle ratings resource
    Here is the download for the list of cars that score at least a 40: http://greenercars.org/LEED2014.zip

    So every time we get a new employee it is always asked what the parking situation is like. And the question gets asked if they have a green car then they can get parking much easier here. Normally the guys I work with drive like a Passat TDI, a Prius, a Volt, or some such other car that would generally be considered pretty high on the "green" scale. But now I found out that one of our guys got a pass for his Hyundai Veloster... and I have to ask myself, why? This thing scores a 45 on their scale, which isn't just "passing" but considered pretty high. So I started digging through the list, and find cars like this:
    YearMakeModelCityHwyScore
    2014PorcheBoxster213040
    2012FordMustang193140
    2014Chrysler200203140
    2011LotusElise202640
    2014AcuraTSX212940


    How in the world does this even remotely make sense? None of these cars are what I would ever consider "fuel efficient". Anyway, I sent them a nasty gram email complaining to them yet again about this. Especially when they claim: "independent, nonprofit research group dedicated to advancing energy efficiency... blah blah blah"...

    if you want to express your anger over this I would greatly appreciate it... please send all hate mail to:
    American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
    529 14th St, N.W. Suite 600
    Washington, DC 20045
    Phone: (202) 507-4000
    Fax: (202) 429-2248
    Email: [email�protected]
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    liuping
    Did the ACEEE test the Tesla and reject it, or have they just not gotten around to verifying it should be on the list?

    If they have not tested it, I would request a waver from you company to get a spot until the list is updated.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    JST

    I don't see any Teslas in the database. The Leaf is, and scores a 55, and their methodology talks about how they measure electric cars, so the oversight seems pretty bizarre.

    EDIT: Thought this is pretty funny.

    201203_COMCHEVROLETVOLT Electric (Li-ion bat.)Bin 43353
    201203_COMCHEVROLETVOLT 1.4L 4, auto [P]Bin 4354 044
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    yobigd20

    here was my email to them:

    How is it possible that the following cars that all average ~20mpg make the green LEED CERTIFIED VEHICLES list?

    • Various Porsche Models
    • Range Rover Evoque
    • Various Mercedes Models
    • Various Jeeps
    • etc
    Meanwhile, the most greenest car of them all, the Tesla Model S, which

    • achieves >89eMPG fully electric,
    • won the 2013 World Green Car of the Year award,
    • tops the 2014 AAA Green Car #1 spot,
    • won 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year,
    • won the 2014 The International Engine of the Year Award in Green Engine category,
    • won Automobile Magazine's 2013 Car of the Year,
    • won Time Magazine Best 25 Inventions of the Year 2012 award,
    • Consumer Reports' top-scoring car ever,
    • won the prestigious Consumer Reports Best Overall car for 2014,
    • Consumer Reports highest Owner score ever,
    • named the top model in perceived quality by Strategic Vision's Total Quality index,
    • achieved the best safety rating of any car ever tested,
    • is manufactured by Tesla Motors which received the Environmental Leadership Award from Global Green USA,
    • and was the first electric car to top the monthly new car sales ranking in any country

    ...yet the Tesla Model S doesn't even show up on your radar even though you list other electric cars like the Leaf, FitEV,500E,Spark,Focus, and you also list the Rav4EV and Smart Fortwo Electric both of which use TESLA POWERTRAINS.....

    Please explain.

    BAFFLED AND CONFUSED,
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    Gizmotoy
    Kind of sounds like they simply haven't tested one. Looks like they're in DC. Perhaps a kind East Coast owner can donate their car for a day of testing?

    Edit: And I certainly wouldn't call the Model S "the greenest car of them all." Certainly that should go to the Leaf or one of the other small electrics. Our MPGe is on the low side for electrics because the car is giant in multiple ways.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    JST

    They are almost literally around the corner from the Tesla DC store.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    Gizmotoy
    Baffling, then.

    Also, it's not fair for your building to exclude parking based on a list that's incomplete. There has to be some kind of waiver process. If some 3rd party company doesn't test your car you're SOL? That's terrible.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    JST
    It's worse than that, I think, because it sounds like their full ratings guide is not available without a subscription. The material online is apparently only their "Greenest" and "Meanest" listing, though how a BEV wouldn't meet the "Greenest" criteria is a head-scratcher.

    But it is particularly ridiculous for a private building to use a proprietary third party set of rankings that are not publicly available for things like parking decisions.

    greenercars.org | ACEEE's Green Book

    EDIT: And from what I can understand about their methodology, it doesn't sound like there is any real testing involved--just mathematical analysis.

    greenercars.org | how we rate the vehicles
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    donv
    Obviously these guys are morons... in my office building, they have a "drive green" parking discount. Interestingly, Tesla wasn't on their list (maybe they get it from the same guys?) but when I emailed the parking people, they instantly responded with "Of course the Tesla qualifies" and gave me the discount.

    Maybe Tesla didn't pay (er... "contribute to") this organization to do the testing?
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    chickensevil
    Sadly it is worse than that. So back in 2008 - 2012 (maybe 2013?) the excuse for both the roadster first, and then the Model S was that they didn't test the car because it was a "low volume" car. To which I questioned that they "tested" and continue to have the EV1 which wasn't even available outside of CA and there are none privately owned anymore (I heard recently that there was actually 1 EV1 that was still functional in located at a school). Anyway, in 2013 someone complained that enough was enough, and you couldn't consider the car a low volume car anymore given that they were churning out full speed ahead. So when they published their 2014 list they tested the Model S... it scored a 38 if I am not mistaken. Which is 2 points too low to be considered "green". They supposedly test every car, and then only publish the "green" ones publicly, the rest are subscription restricted.

    This is all in conjuction with LEED certification. Most LEED certified buildings have incentives for "green" car use, and default to this list. In the case of my building, getting a carpool pass or green car pass is like a 1 week turn around... getting a "general" pass is a 2+ year wait (and then if you are someone special or important or whatever, you of course can get a pass too). I am not familiar with any other LEED buildings and their operations... this is the first LEED building I have worked out of.

    Hope that helps clear it up. Also, my email was far more... harsh... so I won't post it here.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    Gizmotoy
    Sounds like they mucked something up, then, or their calculations are such that they are unusually biased against the Model S. Hard to say without giving them money, which I'm not about to do. Perhaps your building can provide the full report to see what is going on, there?

    My guess is that BEVs are crippled in their ratings based on some poor recycling number, and the bigger the battery the worse you do. For example, note the Leaf and the Prius get the exact same score. The Leaf has a 115MPGe while the Prius gets ~50MPG. The Volt is nowhere to be found. Of the "Greenest" cars, only 2 EVs make the list, and both are small.

    And you're right, cars with MPGs as low as 22MPG, from what I can tell, are on the list. Very unusual calculations, here.

    Edit: According to articles I found online, weight is actually a major factor in their formula. The Model S is heavy, so it's hampered significantly, despite getting good MPGe.
    ACEEE Green Car Ratings: No Respect for Weighty Tesla | PluginCars.com
    Sounds like a flawed formula to me. Weight is a factor in efficiency, but certainly that is reflected in the vehicles overall MPG. There's no reason to punish it further for the sole fact that it is heavy, especially if it achieves good MPG despite its weight.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2014
    JST
    God, that's stupid.
    �
  • Jul 26, 2014
    robatbeach
    Unfortunately, I know lots of designers like this. They fall in love with their equation, algorithm, theory, whatever and deny any facts and data that obviously refute its validity; they then defend their faulty equation, algorithm and theory to the death until overwhelmed by real data to the contrary. It's pretty obvious that this equation they use doesn't work. Everyone should take the opportunity to point this out where possible. It is so ridiculous to have some of those cars on their list and not the Tesla that at some point, they just won't be able to continue to stand by it with a straight, not embarrassed and ridiculed face.
    �
  • Jul 26, 2014
    CatB
    Maybe we need to write LEED and question their choice of even using ACEEE instead of stating a simple, reasonable standard like carbon output and mpg for ICE/hybrid (standard changing year by year) or being BEV.
    �
  • Jul 29, 2014
    Red Sage
    I believe the problem is that the people who did this probably came from the traditional automotive industry. So they have always had their own biases, which were based upon what they personally perceive as a 'car'. That point of view led them to create a formula that effectively discounted the very possibility of a car such as the Tesla Model S coming into existence, because no one else had ever made one, and no one was expected to ever do so. The same thing happens with automotive journalists who have always claimed that electric cars are not fun, not desirable, not affordable, cannot be used for road trips, are completely inconvenient, and essentially a complete waste of time. They simply refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary when presented with the Tesla Model S, and the accomplishments of the company that made it. They don't accept the validity of owners' statements about how they go on road trips all the time, never run out of charge, have no 'range anxiety' whatsoever, and wake up to 'a full tank' every morning. This is the true essence of a 'reality distortion field' in action.

    "I don't believe it. Prove it to me, and I still won't believe it." -- Ford Prefect, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'
    �
  • Jul 29, 2014
    jamieb
    I love this quote. So applicable in so many contexts. Consider it borrowed.
    �
  • Jul 29, 2014
    Red Sage
    [ASIDE] In Douglas Adams' books, the term used is 'SEP Field', instead of 'Reality Distortion Field'... You can read about it HERE. [/ASIDE]
    �
  • Jul 29, 2014
    chickensevil
    Well, still no response to my email... I live close enough, I am inclined to make trip into DC and give them a piece of my mind...
    �
  • Jul 30, 2014
    scott jones
    Do it chickensevil!
    �
  • Jul 30, 2014
    evme
    Probably want to write to LEED, also to Tesla about the issue.
    �
  • Jul 30, 2014
    chickensevil
    I could use some help tracking down WHO to contact at LEED that would have any direction in this. Not really Tesla's ball, since I don't know what they can do about it. The only play they have would be that they are likely to try to LEED certify their battery factory.

    I also need to remember to try to reach back out to my parking office to try to figure out who my complaint needs to be directed to in that front. The regular office workers have been of little help regarding this since their impression is that they just follow the list and "sometimes new cars just aren't on their list" which sounds like an uninformed, canned response while trying to be polite about it.
    �
  • Jul 30, 2014
    evme
    LEED does have contact us:

    Contact | U.S. Green Building Council

    And I think it is important that Tesla is aware of this issue, you never know what connections they have to get something done.


    Ok, I found their methodology. They are using GREET 2.7.
    �
  • Jul 31, 2014
    artsci
    Shruti Vaidyanathan is the person who does the analysis. Here's some background information on her:

    Shruti Vaidyanathan is the principal analyst for ACEEE�s Green Book Online, a comprehensive environmental ranking of consumer vehicles. Her recent work has also focused on transportation policy at the state and regional level, including the analysis of policy options for the states of New Mexico and North Carolina. She joined ACEEE in 2007.
    Shruti earned a Bachelor of Arts in Economics with a minor in Environmental Studies from Grinnell College and a Master of Science in Public Policy and Management from Carnegie Mellon University.

    These hardly seem like proper credentials and experience for this kind of technical analysis. I was expecting an engineer or physicist. Instead what we have is a public policy guru. I would argue that people like this are the reason that so much of our public policy is completely FUBAR and why this rating of cars is just crap (like so much public policy:))
    �
  • Jul 31, 2014
    Gizmotoy
    It sounds like the rating is basically looking up a bunch of values, plugging them into an algorithm, and getting a number spat out. Probably just about anyone can handle that. It may be that the algorithm was developed originally by someone with the proper credentials, and Vaidyanathan just maintains it. Could also explain why we're in this predicament: the algorithm used to produce realistic numbers, but new and outside-the-norm data like an unusually heavy car produces an unexpectedly poor outcome, and the organization doesn't have the knowledge (or care) to appropriately update the algorithm to handle this new situation.

    Pessimistically, though, you're probably right.
    �
  • Jul 31, 2014
    Red Sage
    This is why I'm happy the National Points Shaving League (NCAA) is finally moving to a playoff system for their football championships...

    ;-)
    �
  • Aug 1, 2014
    chickensevil
    Well, I sent a rather lengthy email to [email�protected] and CC'd [email�protected] and [email�protected]

    I figured it was only fair to cc the people I am complaining about and then also that will make Tesla aware as suggested. For kicks here is what I sent:

    �
  • Sep 7, 2014
    bollar
    Model S is in the database now: greenercars.org

    TESLA MODEL S (85 kWh) (ZEV / Bin 1)
    This model is ranked Below Average in the 'Small Wagons' class. With a Green Score of 37, this vehicle has an Above Average score relative to all cars and trucks for the model year.

    Make/Model:TESLA MODEL S (85 kWh)
    Model Year:2014
    Emission Standard:ZEV / Bin 1
    Green Score:37
    Vehicle Class:Small Wagons
    Class Ranking:Below Average
    Engine:1.0 Liter 1-Cylinder
    Drivetrain:Automatic, Rwd
    Fuel Type:Battery Electric
    City Mileage:3 MPG
    Highway Mileage:3 MPG
    Fuel Cost:$ 620 per year
    Health Cost:$ 170 per year
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions:6 tons/year (Tons of CO[SUB][SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE][/SUB] and other greenhouse gases emitted)
    Environmental Damage Index:2.04 �/mile
    �
  • Sep 7, 2014
    flashflood
    Wow.

    They listed the Model S as a 1-liter engine that gets 3 MPG with an automatic transmission.

    Their website barely works and looks like something designed by a 12-year-old in 1998.

    With that one page alone, they've proven themselves incompetent in multiple dimensions.

    Why would anyone care what these idiots think? They're a bad joke. Just ignore them.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2014
    techmaven
    I would bet they way over-estimated the production GHG emissions. There have been a number of bogus research publications lately that have grossly over-estimated the cost of lithium ion and EV power train production GHG emissions. Tesla should really put out a proper environmental impact statement.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2014
    richkae
    The Nissan Leaf is rated at 114 MPGe by the EPA, and the Tesla Model S is 95 - a difference of 20%.
    The greenercars.org people say that the Tesla uses 30% more electricity and generates 50% more CO2 per year, what the Tesla uses dirtier electricity?
    Somehow the Leaf gets a score of 55 and the Model S gets a 37.

    How about other similar size cars that beat the Model S on their green score?
    The BMW 535 XDRIVE which they say emits 9 tons of CO2 per year ( 50% more than they claim for the Model S ) gets a 40
    The A7 quattro which they say also emits 9 tons of CO2 per year gets a 40
    Land Rover Range Rover Evoque also emits 9 tons of CO2 per year gets a 40
    The Audi A8L 3L 6cyl ( 9 tons per year ) gets a 38

    Lastly, the Panamera S Hybrid does not beat the Model S score of 37, it only gets a 36, but they claim it only emits 4 tons of CO2 per year.
    There is no possible way that the Panamera produces less CO2 than the Tesla Model S, when it uses 520 wh/mile on electricity and 25mpg when running on gasoline ( EPA ).

    They are totally broken.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2014
    flashflood
  • Sep 8, 2014
    Mayhemm
    Did you even read the purpose for this thread?

    It's not just so we can goggle and say "look how ^&**ed up these tools are!". chickenisevil's building uses these fools' ratings to grant parking access.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    chickensevil
    +1 I wouldn't care at all if it didn't actually impact anything... Unfortunately *someone* takes them seriously, which makes me very sad :(

    After sending my emails to LEED and Greener Cars they have both gone unanswered. I am not really sure how to take it to the next level at this point. Since the people who manage assigning the parking aren't paid enough to care how accurate or inaccurate the list is and I can't seem to make any serious headway with it. It would help if I had more pull where I work, but I am a very low man on the totem pole...
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    bollar
    I would think a good place to start would be understanding GREET. GREET 2.7 is from 2010 and has been superseded. GREET 2 2012 rev1 is current: Argonne GREET Model
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    dsm363
    Their website is broken but finally found a number to call. Ask for Greencars.org
    (202) 507-4000
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    What the hell?
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    Gizmotoy
    Basically the only field on that page that is 100% accurate is the name of the car. :biggrin:
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    richkae
    They don't have a way to list an electric motor in their database. It is not necessarily a fatal flaw. Their page for the Leaf:

    NISSAN LEAF (ZEV / Bin 1)
    This model is ranked Superior in the 'Midsize Cars' class. With a Green Score of 55, this vehicle has an Above Average score relative to all cars and trucks for the model year.

    Make/Model: NISSAN LEAF
    Model Year: 2014
    Emission Standard:� ZEV / Bin 1
    Green Score:� 55
    Vehicle Class: Midsize Cars
    Class Ranking:� Superior
    Engine: 1.0 Liter 1-Cylinder
    Drivetrain: Automatic, Fwd
    Fuel Type: Battery Electric
    City Mileage: 4 MPG
    Highway Mileage: 3 MPG
    Fuel Cost: $ 480 per year
    Health Cost: $ 80 per year
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 4 tons/year (Tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted)
    Environmental Damage Index: 1.19 �/mile

    Read my previous post. It lists multiple cars that they give a better score than the Tesla Model S, but can not possibly be more green.
    I think their data or methodology is flawed and this is proof -from their page for the Panamera, which inexplicably gets the same score as the Model S:

    PORSCHE PANAMERA S E-HYBRID (ULEV II)
    This model is ranked Average in the 'Large Cars' class. With a Green Score of 37, this vehicle has an Above Average score relative to all cars and trucks for the model year.

    Make/Model: PORSCHE PANAMERA S E-HYBRID
    Model Year: 2014
    Emission Standard:� ULEV II
    Green Score:� 37
    Vehicle Class: Large Cars
    Class Ranking:� Average
    Engine: 3.0 Liter 6-Cylinder
    Drivetrain: Automatic, Rwd
    Fuel Type: Battery Electric
    City Mileage: 40 MPG
    Highway Mileage: 56 MPG
    Fuel Cost: $ 330 per year
    Health Cost: $ 100 per year
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 4 tons/year (Tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted)
    Environmental Damage Index: 2.09 �/mile

    Keep looking for obviously broken data like that and then challenge them on it.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    chickensevil
    I tried challenging them on their data previously. I pointed out a bunch of flawed cars on their list which scored a 40 but got gas mileage on the order of less than 20MPG. Which made absolutely no sense to me. I have yet to receive a response to my emails. I don't know that having more flawed data will really help anything.

    But I do appreciate you all pointing out the other flaws in their data because this is really, really, bad.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    Gizmotoy
    It cracks me up the Leaf is a midsize and the Model S is a small wagon.

    I see its MPG is messed up too, so that makes sense. They need to work on their DB.

    I feel bad for chicken that anyone is using this garbage.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    bollar
    I knew someone would enjoy that part...
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    Skotty
    Comparing it to the Nissan 370Z is eyebrow raising as well.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    BlueTan85
  • Sep 8, 2014
    timf
    I found the following posting when searching on the issue that may be relevant to you. It claims that according to the LEED New Construction 2009 Guide (which may have been updated since then): �For the purposes of this credit, low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles are defined as vehicles that are either classified as Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) by the California Air Resources Board or have achieved a minimum green score of 40 on the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) annual vehicle rating guide�.

    In other words, any car that would be eligible for the white sticker in California would also qualify. This means both the Model S and Roadster would qualify, along with any other pure EV, despite not being ranked high enough on the ACEEE list.

    Source: Green Cars: Does My Hybrid Vehicle Qualify for Preferred Parking for LEED? | Green-Buildings.com
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    chickensevil
    Oh, wow! thank you so much! I will fire this over to my parking office and see what happens.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    jacobp
    The US Green Building Council is a tenant in the same office building in DC as my law firm. The garage has one charger and no parking spaces that are designated or set aside for green cars. Ironic?
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    chickensevil
    So I have typed up a very long winded letter to explain my case, which I will be submitting tomorrow, but would appreciate any feedback, because I don't want to come across as a total jerk in the letter, since it seems like my office just made a simple oversight on the requirements. Innocent until proven guilty and all that... so here it is:

    Also if anyone else finds themselves stuck in this predicament, feel free to plagiarize my letter to send to their parking office. While this doesn't fix the issue with ACEEE it should at the very least fix your parking office when dealing with a Tesla.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh, and thank you for this, I can't believe they have every employee, what their job function is, their email, AND their phone number all listed plain as day on the website... The Cyber Security guy in me is screaming that this was a bad idea for them haha! Talk about opening yourself up to phishing and social engineering campaigns...

    Anyway, once I get through fighting with my parking office I will likely pursue these contacts to help fix the root of the problem, which is their flawed scoring system.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    Endodoc
    Please do keep us updated. I am now emotionally attached to this thread and the suspense is killing me! I hope and believe that this will be resolved in your favor. Best of luck!
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    TexasEV
    Is there any data showing benefit from encouraging preferred parking for certain cars? Or benefit greater than the cost of the backlash against "green" cars and those who drive them?
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    chickensevil
    Well given that getting parking in my building if you DON'T drive a green car is nigh impossible... I would say that it works quite well. But that is just my building (albeit the entire complex has probably something on the order of 6-8k people working out of it... so it is a pretty large facility...) If it does something to other areas I couldn't tell you. For us it is the difference between being forced to pay for parking in a distant garage (100$ a month or 25$ a day) and you have to still walk about 1/2 mile to get from the distant parking, or getting a garage that is attached to the building that takes all of 5 minutes to go from your car to inside. I don't know anyone who wasn't happy that they didn't drive a green car and was able to get free and close parking.

    Since they don't have enough parking spaces in that garage to service but like 1/3 of the building population (if that), getting a non-marked space is pretty much not going to happen, unless you are a high ranking person in the building... like a director or some such.

    Plus, at least in my area, there are just as many Prius on the road as there are anything else.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    renim
    Actually their data is quite good, it all references back to government grade sources and is akin to a real world carbon tax legislation.
    Its very defensible.

    defensible doesn't equate to reality.

    for instance, the car category is taken from EPA classification which are based upon interior volumes and door types etc, so the Tesla becomes a small wagon and the Nissan LEAF is a midsize vehicle. Technically they are correct, but that is not reflective of the market which is more subjective.

    They have modelled the LCA according to GREET, again that is the government grade standard, but still is full of massive assumptions, for instance, how is CO2 apportioned for LiCO3 production, a spodumene LiCO3 plant is effectively a sodium silicate production facility with LiCO3 as a by product, in much of the world sodium silicate is a waste, but in China its a commodity of value due to their textile industry. (ratio by mass might be 20:1) Similar issues for Nickel production. etc
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    chickensevil
    I don't think they are using the latest GREET calculations, and that isn't fair to Tesla anyway, since they go out of their way to ensure environmentally friendly car and battery production through the whole chain.

    And the example cars that been listed here really shows how flawed their calculations must be when we know how most of these cars are made and what their stats are. This is probably why a carbon tax has never been put in place because the second they did, they would end up incorrectly classifying some cars as "not green" and would make the same terrible assumptions about non-green cars and call them "green".
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    JST
    I still don't understand the small wagon reference. The EPA portion of my window sticker compares the MPGe rating of the Tesla to other "large cars," which is in line with how I'd expect it to be classified.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    wart
    This is why the correct way to do a carbon tax is to just tax extraction of carbon from the earth as close to the point of extraction as possible. Then the cost of the tax automatically gets baked into any products which use that carbon.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2014
    Hodginator
    Keep us up to date on your progress chickensevil. Reading this thread increased my blood pressure substantially.
    �
  • Sep 9, 2014
    flashflood
    +1. Policy debate aside, if you support a carbon tax of some kind, taxing at the source is far simpler than cap and trade, which would require the entire rest of the economy to start measuring and reporting and certifying and buying credits -- and dealing with carbon audits of political enemies by an EPA/IRS hybrid Frankenstein monster.
    �
  • Sep 9, 2014
    Skotty
    I can believe that they are using metrics and data sourced from the government. Government sources have been skewed by anti-EV powers that regularly spew misinformation, dishonest research, and FUD about EVs. The evidence lays right here before us, when a high utility Tesla Model S BEV scores the same or less than a low utility 19/26 MPG Nissan 370Z. Anyone who can't see that is obviously wrong has been drinking far too much EV Haterade.
    �
  • Sep 9, 2014
    chickensevil
    In fairness, GREET comes from Argonne National Laboratory, which is known for being a pretty decent place of science... just saying...

    But yeah, something just seems fishy in the way they are pulling metrics...
    �
  • Sep 9, 2014
    chickensevil
    Well, the email has been sent... hopefully I don't end up ruffling the wrong feathers and someone gets upset because I am "challenging" them... it would be just my luck...
    �
  • Sep 10, 2014
    karmamule
    They have no reason for ruffled feathers. Your response was polite, well-reasoned, and fact-based. No histrionics or ad-hominem attacks. If they do have ruffled feathers it's due to their personality rather than your approach. Well done!
    �
  • Sep 10, 2014
    chickensevil
    Thanks I appreciate the reassurance. I have a tendency to come across harsh/abrasive/whatever so I do try my best to word things as non-jerkish as possible... Even if I am a little upset about this whole thing.

    The person I emailed it to (which I actually ended up pretexting the email with something along the lines: "I don't know if this is the right person to send this to.... but") got in touch with me yesterday to get clarification on what my issue was, stated that they indeed were not the ones to handle it, they are just the middle man, and would attempt to find out who this needed to get forwarded on to in order to resolve my issue.

    So now I get to play the run around game until I find out who this specifically needs to be addressed to... This is what happens when your organization is just a tenant of the building, I suppose, and I will just have to keep pressing until it gets to the right person.
    �
  • Sep 10, 2014
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    Well, I can accept a lot the stuff is mis-displaying values. For example the "3 MPG" is actually a mis-display of a rounded 3mi/kWh. But "small wagon" is just insane. The Model S is somewhere between a Prius v and Jetta wagon for cargo space.

    Misclassifying the Model S as a small wagon could be the source of a lower score.
    �
  • Sep 11, 2014
    Red Sage
    The EPA calls the Model S a 'Large' car...
    �
  • Sep 11, 2014
    KenN
    Love it! Thanks for the new addition to my vocabulary!
    �
  • May 6, 2015
    chickensevil
    Been quite a while since I provided an update... I guess this is mostly because I have all but given up trying to explain to low level people how to do their jobs and RTFM... And I never seemed to get contacts high enough to the right people who could actually fix the issue. I think a lot of this came down to me not being willing to be persistent/annoying enough to them that they fix it as I already have parking in the building through other means and was just fighting this out of principle.

    That said, Greenercars.org has *FINALLY* come around on their 2015 list and included Tesla!

    Here is their 2015 stat:
    Year| GBClass| Make| Model| M/M/Specs| EmisStd| City| Hiwy| Green Score
    2015 | 04_WGS| TESLA | MODEL S 60 kWh | Electric (Li-ion bat.) | ZEV / Bin 1 | 2.80 | 2.87 | 47
    2015 | 04_WGS | TESLA | MODEL S 85 kWh | Electric (Li-ion bat.) | ZEV / Bin 1 | 2.61 | 2.68 | 46
    Of course no distinction between Performance and Standard... No 70D... No Dual Motor at all... *sigh*

    Oh and of course the other years are still not there... which means, I bet if I were to try to reapply the stupid people in the parking office would say mine is a 2014 and therefore didn't qualify, even though there is no material difference between an S85 made today and an S85 made in 2014 as far as "greenness" is concerned... but whatever... at least new owners, hopefully, can get a pass.
    �
  • May 6, 2015
    MsElectric
    Just tell the parking people your Model S is the one on the list. I doubt they'd really want to see your window sticker from the car.

    Since this nonsense is some LEED requirement I would start calling LEED about what a miserable job this "non profit"is doing ranking the Model S.
    �
  • May 7, 2015
    Haggy
    It's a moot point as far as the OP goes, and nobody could tell if it's a 2014 or 2015 by looking at it. Unfortunately, mine is called a 2014 even though it has the 2015 features, reviewers called it a 2015, and all other car companies were selling 2015 cars when Tesla came out with the autopilot and D. I ever wanted to sell the car, I'd have a hard time convincing some people. But as people here know, it's the same car.
    �
  • May 8, 2015
    chickensevil
    I think this is why Tesla set up their website for CPO the way they did by listing the ending of the VIN number. This let's people know what they are getting built-in feature wise without having to spell it out.

    I think in your case, when you sell the car, it will be just telling people it has the Auto-pilot stuff and it won't matter otherwise. Now as for greenercars.org... yeah, they think you have a terribly inefficient car, because you have "2014" on your window sticker. (Seriously, if I am not mistaken they rate the Model S, before the 2015 posting) as like a 38 or some such, which means you can't get LEED Green Vehicle Parking... I don't know how in the world a date on the car makes it more efficient... but apparently it does).
    �
  • May 8, 2015
    Gizmotoy
    At least the ratings are slightly less dumb than they used to be. Faint praise, to be sure.
    �
  • May 9, 2015
    dandelot
    I had not heard of greenercars.org so I took a look today.
    For 2015 Tesla *is not listed at all* AFAICT.

    Somebody at that .org has an axe to grind.

    - - - Updated - - -

    greenercars.org, took another look. A hybrid is shown at 44 mpg. Tesla rated at 2.61 mpg if you go to the 'greenercars ratings' and search
    for Tesla. A natural gas car rated 27 mpg. Fiat 500e rated under 4mpg. This website is deranged.
    Reading it one feels a bit like K. in Kafka's "The Castle".
    �
  • May 9, 2015
    chickensevil
    I think it is actually supposed to be mi/kWh or some such. Not an MPG rating. Could be wrong... Either way, you would only care and discover this site if you work in a LEED certified building.
    �
  • May 9, 2015
    Shawn Snider
    Wow............. Just.... Wow........

    http://greenercars.org/greenercars-ratings?shs_term_node_tid_depth=3898&field_class_tid=All&field_year_tid=All&field_transmission_type_tid[]=4&field_transmission_type_tid[]=5&field_emission_classification_tid[]=43&field_emission_classification_tid[]=44&field_emission_classification_tid[]=45&field_emission_classification_tid[]=40&field_emission_classification_tid[]=42&field_emission_classification_tid[]=41&field_class_ranking_tid[]=24&field_class_ranking_tid[]=25&field_class_ranking_tid[]=26&field_class_ranking_tid[]=52&field_class_ranking_tid[]=53

    All the Model S listings, How did they get the '2.8 MPG City' '2.87 MPG Highway'??? going full retard and looking in the mirror?
    �
  • May 9, 2015
    GaryREM
    As chickensevil explained, the mpg column for EVs is miles per kwh.

    On that basis, the numbers make sense. Unfortunately, this 'fact' is not easy to find.
    �
  • May 9, 2015
    KenN
    Scroll down that page to the notes at the bottom. It's quite clearly stated;

    �
  • May 9, 2015
    jerry33
    I wonder how many people actually scroll down?

    And isn't 2.8 a bit low? Shouldn't it be more like 3.5 to 4 mi/kWh?
    �
  • May 9, 2015
    Hodginator
    Yes their estimate seems a bit high on energy usage. I believe that's about 357Wh per mile which I only get in the dead of winter and heavy on the accelerator.
    �
  • May 9, 2015
    yobigd20
    Heh my avg after 68k miles is 374 so I'd say that's pretty close to accurate.
    �
  • May 9, 2015
    oneday
    This is an interesting article for them about why Tesla doesn't score in the top ten.
    BMW i3 Achieves New Green Score High (But Where's Tesla?) | Greener Cars

    It's really hard for me to believe that any vehicle that caries around an engine, with all those moveable/wearable parts and requiring frequent oil changes burning substances that must be extracted from deep under ground and shipped around the world resulting in millions of barrels of spills and then must be refined and then driven to the million gas stations could ever rank higher than a Tesla blows my mind.
    �
  • May 10, 2015
    brianman
    I can forgive the, um, "rounding up" of the weight from 4,600 to 5,000. But describing a "65 kW model" which doesn't exist because (A) the units are wrong (any Model S delivering kW max feels worse than the slowest ICE I've ever driven) and (B) there is no 65 kWh Tesla vehicle of any kind. If you can get these basics right, nothing else in your rating methodology -- which necessarily must deal with numeric values and units -- will hold my interest.
    �
  • May 10, 2015
    Ben W
    Their methodology is whacked. I suspect that they may not be amortizing the manufacturing-related emissions over the vehicle�s entire lifetime, but rather over just one year. Otherwise I can�t see how they come up with these numbers. The fact that they inexplicably list both the 60kWh and 85kWh models at the same inaccurate (5000lb) curb weight, whereas in reality the 60kWh model is 200lbs lighter than 85kWh, is further evidence that they�re just making stuff up. I say we sic Elon on this. After what he did to Broder, I�d love to see his takedown of these guys.
    �
  • May 10, 2015
    chriSharek
    The other curious facts in their table is that the 2014 85 scores a 37 and the 2015 scores a 46. Now, to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong here folks) there is NO difference in the size of the batteries, the size/weight of the overall vehicle or anything! Why the big jump in scoring - or moreover - why any difference?

    And they list both the 60 and the 85 as a 5,000 pound vehicle. I don't think this is correct either . . .
    �
  • May 10, 2015
    traxila
    Elon's got more important things to do. I suspect we all do. It would prob be their wet dream for Elon to put them in the press. Let them fester in the corner.
    �
  • May 10, 2015
    chickensevil
    Well, I wrote to them again, I kinda took some of your guys comments in my response (hope you don't mind) it just annoys me that they continue to have a serious hate for Tesla...

    - - - Updated - - -

    I would agree, except the LEED program uses these guys as their "standard" for what is green and what isn't. And this program is used across the whole country. Heck, even the gigafactory is being built with a target of scoring a LEED platinum rating... So this little company isn't just some crazy tabloid that you can just ignore and hope it goes away.
    �
  • May 11, 2015
    Gizmotoy
    You probably shouldn't. Earlier in the thread I posted that according to articles online vehicle weight is a primary component of their algorithm. If one of their main metrics is weight, and they're adding another 400 lbs for the hell of it, clearly something is up. That's above the fact that weight itself should *not* be a major part of a "Green Car" algorithm on its own. You can have an efficient heavy car despite its weight, or an inefficient light car.

    A quote directly from GreenerCars' analyst in January, 2014:
    The link from last year, if anyone's interested: ACEEE Green Car Ratings: No Respect for Weighty Tesla | PluginCars.com
    �
  • Feb 17, 2016
    jvonbokel
    Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I found 2 spots in my new employer's parking lot reserved for cars with a minimum "green score" of 40, and thought for sure the Ford Escape parked there was in violation. Sadly, not only is it allowed to park there, but apparently my 2012 Model S is not (though I doubt anyone would guess that if I did). While I'm here I might as well respond to some old posts about the "MPG" they're using.

    As with all the other data, this comes from the EPA. The EPA measures energy consumption from the wall, which includes charging loss, so they're at 38kWh/100mi, or about 380Wh/mi, which checks out, because 89MPGe equates to 378.7Wh/mi. If you use the kWh/100mi metric, you'd get 37.87, which rounds to 38kWh. To get to the ~300Wh/mi for the "Rated" miles, you have to assume about 80% charging efficiency. I think the Model S is a little better than that (maybe 85-90%), but it's minor enough to not complain about.

    It's also worth noting that the EPA city/hwy rating on the 2016 Model S70 is 88/90, and those MPGe values translate to 2.61kWh/mi and 2.67kWh/mi, which is exactly what greenercars reports for 2016 S70.
    �
  • Feb 17, 2016
    chickensevil
    Yeah they secretly have raised the Model S levels to above 40 even though you can find a 2015 S85 as "green" but a 2014 or earlier isn't good enough... Even though they are the SAME CAR.

    When I found out about this I yet again pestered them with emails... No response... Not that I'm surprised. This has continued to be an annoyance for me.
    �
  • Feb 17, 2016
    Roamer
    Good for you. Keep pounding on them. Pure stupidity deserves all the pain you can inflict.
    �
  • Feb 18, 2016
    chickensevil
    In light of this thread getting resurrected again, it got me to finally break down and find an email address for LEED/USGBC. So I sent them the following:

    You will note in my email, that I reference a re-certification requirement. I didn't realize this was a thing, but since it is, that actually makes me hopeful that LEED will actually respond to this. Also note that while I don't include the building address in the body of the message, my address is in my signature block which I removed from the above posting.

    I don't want them to pull the certification for the building, I just want someone to actually apply the rules correctly... it really does annoy me.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh and the new 2016 numbers were posted, so they appear to hate Tesla even less, yet they won't go back and correct historical numbers! So check this out.

    2016 07_LRG TESLA MODEL S (70 kWh) Electric (Li-ion bat.) Tier 2 Bin 1 / LEV II ZEV 2.6 2.7 53
    2016 07_LRG TESLA MODEL S (85 kWh) Electric (Li-ion bat.) Tier 2 Bin 1 / LEV II ZEV 2.6 2.7 53
    2016 12_UTS TESLA MODEL X AWD (90 kWh) Electric (Li-ion bat.) Tier 2 Bin 1 / LEV II ZEV 2.7 2.8 51
    2016 12_UTS TESLA MODEL X AWD (90 kWh) Electric (Li-ion bat.) Tier 2 Bin 1 / LEV II ZEV 2.6 2.7 50
    2015 04_WGS TESLA MODEL S 60 kWh Electric (Li-ion bat.) ZEV / Bin 1 2.80 2.87 47
    2015 04_WGS TESLA MODEL S 85 kWh Electric (Li-ion bat.) ZEV / Bin 1 2.61 2.68 46
    Not only have the scored 2016s much higher than the 2015s (which themselves were higher than the off the list 2014s that got like 38 or something), the one common denominator is the Model S 85 which is *the same car* that was released in 2012, for all intents and purposes...

    Explain to me how that car magically went from not being rated at all (2012/2013) to getting rated but scoring just under the bar (2014 - 38), to making the list and getting a 46 (2015) which is actually a pretty decent score, to blowing through the 50s and getting a 53 (2016)!

    Also, I love how the X which is now rated, starts off with a 50/51... according to their testing methods, heavier vehicles get negative impacts, which was their whole stated reason for it scoring as low as it did in 2014. The Model S was a "heavy vehicle" which made it get a 38... yet here we are, magically, a car that ways an extra 1000 to 2000 pounds getting a 50!!! I just don't get it... This whole thing smells something awful the longer I track them.
    �
  • Feb 18, 2016
    FlasherZ
    Re-apply, call your car a 2015. :)
    �
  • Feb 18, 2016
    GoTslaGo
    Maybe it's time for a new non-profit Green car rating organization. Seems to me the collective smarts and wisdom of what I've read in this thread could probably create an appropriate one.:wink:
    �
  • Feb 19, 2016
    Peter_M
    How about this for a green car rating scheme for any hybrid, PHEV or BEV:
    • Battery smaller than 15 kWh: 0 points
    • Battery from 15 to 60 kWh: 1 point
    • Battery bigger than 60 kWh: 2 points
    This gives cars that can shift typical day-to-day city driving to electric one point and cars that can shift long trip driving to electric another point. It's simple and it meets the goal of getting people to shift to non-fuel-burning cars. All this other stuff about sales volume, vehicle weight, number of seats, drive train technology, etc. just complicates things and they aren't good measures of GHG reduction. Of course, there would need to be a few conditions to avoid loopholes (e.g. you can't just carry around a battery in a gas car), but I think a rating scheme could be almost as simple as this.

    Privileges (e.g. parking, HOV lanes), purchase incentives and tax breaks could all be based on a scheme like this.
    �
  • Feb 19, 2016
    Cyclone
    We noticed that at work. Thankfully, the head of our program that manages that is a Tesla enthusiast. When he saw that and heard the logic "this is meant to reduce the emissions, so why is a car with no emissions not permitted?", he got the policy rewritten to be GreenScore over 40 OR BEV zero-emission car as defined by CAARB standards or something like that. So when I'm not charging, I'm free to park in one of our "green" spaces. Basically, what you put in your email to LEED (we are a Gold site I believe).
    �
  • Feb 20, 2016
    chickensevil
    By the way if you look in the large car category on their site for the greenest cars, the Model S 2016 is now number one on their list. I was studying through trying to figure out what they classified the Model X as since their score is decently high and I'm not seeing it. It's funny how they went from two years ago saying that the Model S wasn't a great car (go read there blog post defending their terrible score) to now secretly admitting it is the best in its category. I say secretly only because they still haven't put it in like their top 10 overall list... A list that includes the Prius Hybrid, not even a BEV...
    �
  • Feb 20, 2016
    GoTslaGo
    Congrats on your new 2016 Model S! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge...:wink:
    �
  • Feb 21, 2016
    Speight
    My guess is that they used different information about the environmental impacts from the battery manufacturing (and possibly the aluminum body as well) for each year. So according to their data, it is now "greener" to produce the Tesla battery packs than it used to be a few years ago despite the actual car being identical. It's likely that most of the changes in these values are actually due to the old data being inaccurate or based on incorrect assumptions, rather than a major change in the actual impacts of battery production, but I guess they don't have data that separates the two factors, or just have a policy against re-rating older vehicles to take into account updated model parameters.
    �
  • Feb 21, 2016
    chickensevil
    Well they didn't have any issue revoking all the Deasel cars after the VW scandle and new information was presented... Why can't they do the same when the situation was reversed.

    Also, I still have questions for why they adimately defended their position in 2014 and then quietly changed their stance... If only they would ever actually respond to emails or phone calls...
    �
  • Feb 22, 2016
    Shaggy
    It is interesting to note that they (correctly) ding EV cars for the impact of their fuel generation (coal, natural gas, solar, wind, etc) but oddly not ICE vehicles. They only count those cars' exhaust and not what it took to get the the gas to the tank (like they do for EVs' batteries). They do not consider the energy or pollution involved in drilling, transport, refining into gas, or transport of said gas to a station in its report; it's especially egregious when you consider how a barrel of middle eastern oil to to a refinery in the US...
    �
  • Feb 22, 2016
    GoTslaGo
    Don't forget Tar Sands. Sorry to our Canadian friends, but you guys are really destroying your own country for this crap.

    Oil sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    �
  • Feb 23, 2016
    chickensevil
    Actually got a response from GBCI on this, at least that's something! They referenced the same lines as I had found previously, but I think this time at least I can take their email and send it to the parking office should there be any further discussions about that, as I have not just the regulation, but someone from them stating that is how the regulation works.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh, by the way, I made sure to respond back to them thanking them for actually replying to my inquiry. It's amazing how simple such a thing is, and it was greatly appreciated (especially given lack of response from other organizations...)
    �
  • Feb 23, 2016
    S'toon
    We know. Unfortunately the oil industry has regulatory capture of Canadian governments. All the parties, even the used to be social democratic NDP kowtow to them.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)