Is CARB eliminating the category of MSEV (minimal rex serial EV)?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Interleaf

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
66
Location
Northern CA
This thread originated in "General Nissan Leaf" --> "LEAF 2 : What we know so far (2018 or later?)", and was moved here as it was off-topic.

SageBrush said:
"The point is that it was CARB who dictated that a SEV or MSEV (minimal Rex Serial EV) is a bad idea and must not receive full credit."
Spin. The car is not a BEV. That should be obvious even to you.
Lack's nuance. It is not written in the Bible that if an MSEV generates 5% of the exhaust of an ICE, then it should be disallowed. Regulating that a BEV is what the masses should get because of 0% exhaust and not an MSEV because of 5% exhaust is counter-scientific, puritanical, and a (non-theist) religious edict.

If 100 people get BEVs, then 100 ICE are eliminated. If 200 people get MSEVs, then 200 * (1-5%) = 190 ICE are eliminated. In my opinion, adoption of MSEVs would be double, triple, or quadruple the rate of BEVs in the past 6 years. But we will never know because of CARB's overzealous puritanical approach to this problem. Is it not that their mandate is to eliminate pollution? But they went for a perfectionist approach and were bigots when it came to considering an MSEV. Unfortunately, and I know something about this, all if not most government departments dealing with environmental regulations operate in the same ideological manner.

(rant on) If instead CARB had dictated that the clean air credit would be proportional to the amount of exhaust eliminated, then BMW would have discovered the happy medium of MSEV between a BEV and ICE, and there would be a lot more ICE eliminated today. But hey, CARB staffed with graduates in anthropology and women's studies from tuition-free universities wouldn't even know how to compute a 'proportional' credit. Perfection is the enemy of the good. The ideological is the enemy of the masses. (/rant off)

CARB is not distinguishing between an almost useless 35 HP REx with silly 'hold mode' at 6.5% SoC, with a 5 HP REx that can be turned on at 100% SoC. This results in the big iron automakers like BMW to offer the expensive 35 HP Rex instead of an MSEV, and Nissan dismissing the possibility of a backup power source for the Leaf.

With the availability of MSEVs, the rate of EV adoption would double or triple.

I have copied this last post to a new thread in "Non-Leaf Discussions" --> "Business / Economy and Politics". There does not seem to be a place better suited to discussing Range Extenders, as far as I can see. Please reply to the new thread.
 
Interleaf said:
This thread originated in "General Nissan Leaf" --> "LEAF 2 : What we know so far (2018 or later?)", and was moved here as it was off-topic.

SageBrush said:
"The point is that it was CARB who dictated that a SEV or MSEV (minimal Rex Serial EV) is a bad idea and must not receive full credit."
Spin. The car is not a BEV. That should be obvious even to you.
Lack's nuance..
And you and the BMW folk lack proof of how owners would use the car, which is why you all should have taken your Volt level credits and called it a day.

So what does a guy who lacks proof do ? Well, calls the other side "enviro-fascists," as if that explains everything.
I'm done wasting my time here.
 
SageBrush said:
And you and the BMW folk lack proof of how owners would use the car, which is why you all should have taken your Volt level credits and called it a day.

So what does a guy who lacks proof do ? Well, calls the other side "enviro-fascists," as if that explains everything.
I'm done wasting my time here.
Ahem, the burden of proof is on the regulator who is vested with powers. Not on the critic of the regulator or the consumer. Fact is that a policy that allotted credit in proportion to exhaust elimination would make good sense as a starting point. But the ideological enviro-fascists at CARB didn't even have a category for range-extenders. They were completely ignorant of this architecture - which turns out to be the most significant architecture with current technology, and which would have saved the EV industry from its sorry state today. So they ask BMW to design them a BEVx, category without even knowing what they should be looking for. Well, as expected, BMW threw in the heavy iron and the kitchen sink into the category, limited recharge to "6.5% hold mode" (an insult to any EV owner's intelligence) to keep the ignorant folks at CARB happy and built one helluva monster that killed the SEV category altogether. Do you really believe that BMW wishes to cannibalize their high margin luxury ICE? Why would Nissan go through the trouble of offering a Rex when it is limited to 6.5% hold mode, as opposed to 100% recharge? Are you unaware of the fact that EVs have not done relatively well in the market for the past 6 years? Is that not due to lack of range?

Sorry, but you have gotten so many things wrong in this discussion. And this last one that the burden of proof is on the feckless consumer is the most egregious. The consumer votes at the marketplace - if that is what you mean by proof. But what happens when the government shuts down the marketplace (for SEV and MSEV)? You call others that you disagree with as "alt-right". So is that a Freudian slip that you belong to the alt-left with your knee-jerk reaction in support of CARB incompetence?
 
What actually happens is that...
Before I owned an EV I drove only a 1982 diesel Suburban with 438,000 miles on it for all my tasks
After I owned an EV I always owned 2 cars eventually ending up with a volt and an Ev. My EV covers over 95% of my 5 day a week driving but the REX covers 100% of my weekend and trip driving along with errands outside my range (no real charging infrastructure locally in this area)

so the logic that a BEV or limited Rex style car stops me from traveling to places without charging infrastructure is unfounded, it just causes you to own multiple cars.

What a limited REX could do is have a bigger battery so more of my driving is EV and hopefully get better gas MPGS when it can't be.

Why does gas MPGs trump specific exhaust pollution emissions from a modern pollution controlled car like NOx besides the obvious CO2 reduction?

Read below (a bit of basic math using openly available data about the units present gives you my conclusion)

Given an ideal refinery makes about 3.5 grams of NOx per gallon of gasoline and a refinery emits thousands of times more VOC per gallon than a car, it's likely more prudent to focus on reducing fuel use since we seem to be crippled at addressing supply side pollution.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00022470.1960.10467943
(The only report of the only study ever done that measured the actual pollution out an actual refinery stack, incomplete but proven to be the only semi accurate report all others were only mathematically calculated and found to be unusable nonsense , more recent studies have found most more modern refineries emit more than this ancient study alludes to but are usually again incomplete and only used to call attention to the problem so the actual number could be 30x higher but let's go with it)
So above not including incidental NOx levels from other refinery processes, the electricity to the plant, drilling, the transportation and obviously other forms of pollution like heavy metals and VOC of which a refinery emits thousands of time more per gallon n than a car we can see that the refinery is an equal or greater contributor to all pollution types regardless of engine type.

If you want to read further there are thousands of very damning news articles even WITHIN California on how refineries are ruining the environment, in some cases emitting more pollution than the whole Bay Area.

I only know of one true observed style cradle to grave study on getting a gallon of gas to your car and it is far more damning than 3.5grams of NOx per gallon supply (sorry it's paper only and hard to locate)
it too was old data but in many ways we are much worse than it states at cleanly supplying gas to the pump, you need only look at BPs multiple incident per facility track record which emit more pollution each time than a years emissions of the same properly running facility.

That's why REDUCE has always been the most important aspect of all things be it recycling or in this case fuel use.
 
There's no reason to start a new topic, as edatoakrun has had one entitled "The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered" for almost six years now: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847

I'm a bit busy today so will reply to your last reply to me on the other thread in the above topic when I've got the time tomorrow or Sunday, and hopefully we can get a mod to move all the relevant posts from this and the other thread there.
 
Interleaf said:
SageBrush said:
And you and the BMW folk lack proof of how owners would use the car, which is why you all should have taken your Volt level credits and called it a day.

So what does a guy who lacks proof do ? Well, calls the other side "enviro-fascists," as if that explains everything.
I'm done wasting my time here.
Ahem, the burden of proof is on the regulator who is vested with powers. Not on the critic of the regulator or the consumer. Fact is that a policy that allotted credit in proportion to exhaust elimination would make good sense as a starting point. But the ideological enviro-fascists at CARB didn't even have a category for range-extenders. They were completely ignorant of this architecture - which turns out to be the most significant architecture with current technology, and which would have saved the EV industry from its sorry state today. So they ask BMW to design them a BEVx, category without even knowing what they should be looking for. Well, as expected, BMW threw in the heavy iron and the kitchen sink into the category, limited recharge to "6.5% hold mode" (an insult to any EV owner's intelligence) to keep the ignorant folks at CARB happy and built one helluva monster that killed the SEV category altogether. Do you really believe that BMW wishes to cannibalize their high margin luxury ICE? Why would Nissan go through the trouble of offering a Rex when it is limited to 6.5% hold mode, as opposed to 100% recharge? Are you unaware of the fact that EVs have not done relatively well in the market for the past 6 years? Is that not due to lack of range?

Sorry, but you have gotten so many things wrong in this discussion. And this last one that the burden of proof is on the feckless consumer is the most egregious. The consumer votes at the marketplace - if that is what you mean by proof. But what happens when the government shuts down the marketplace (for SEV and MSEV)? You call others that you disagree with as "alt-right". So is that a Freudian slip that you belong to the alt-left with your knee-jerk reaction in support of CARB incompetence?

Regulations don't _dictate_ consumer behavior. A MSEV doesn't prevent a consumer from just filling up their Rex and essentially drive on gas. Just like how volt owners can run on 95% electric or 0% (early fleet volt users), the same can happen with MSEV. CARB is right to NOT classify them as BEV. Zero-emissions should mean "0", not "close enough".
 
GRA said:
There's no reason to start a new topic, as edatoakrun has had one entitled "The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered" for almost six years now: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847

I'm a bit busy today so will reply to your last reply to me on the other thread in the above topic when I've got the time tomorrow or Sunday, and hopefully we can get a mod to move all the relevant posts from this and the other thread there.
Your good intentions are noted, but you can't expect exactly one thread for every one subject. Some people here are new or come and go and they can't track each and every thread and relate a subject to it. The mods are already overworked, so let us be relaxed about this. After all, that is what the search function is for. If there were a proper category hierarchy to browse (and I don't mean tags), with proper soft links, then I can see what you mean. But lacking categories, we are stuck with what we got. :)
 
Interleaf said:
GRA said:
There's no reason to start a new topic, as edatoakrun has had one entitled "The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered" for almost six years now: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847

I'm a bit busy today so will reply to your last reply to me on the other thread in the above topic when I've got the time tomorrow or Sunday, and hopefully we can get a mod to move all the relevant posts from this and the other thread there.
Your good intentions are noted, but you can't expect exactly one thread for every one subject. Some people here are new or come and go and they can't track each and every thread and relate a subject to it. The mods are already overworked, so let us be relaxed about this. After all, that is what the search function is for. If there were a proper category hierarchy to browse (and I don't mean tags), with proper soft links, then I can see what you mean. But lacking categories, we are stuck with what we got. :)
If the search function here worked very well I'd agree with you, but it doesn't. As it is, using 'Search', entering "BEVx" and selecting "topic titles only" brings up exactly one result, the topic I mentioned, and as it's not a very active one spreading the subject across multiple topics doesn't make sense to me. I'm still too busy to write a long reply today so will have to put it off, and it will be in that topic, not this one.
 
GRA said:
If the search function here worked very well I'd agree with you, but it doesn't. As it is, using 'Search', entering "BEVx" and selecting "topic titles only" brings up exactly one result, the topic I mentioned, and as it's not a very active one spreading the subject across multiple topics doesn't make sense to me. I'm still too busy to write a long reply today so will have to put it off, and it will be in that topic, not this one.
Would you kindly put a link here to your thread, so we can relate the two together? Problem is that people having SEV or MSEV in mind will never search for "BEVx". Maybe for REx, but that will be it. I am looking forward to your long reply.

What do you mean by "AE" in your profile? (Alt-energy?). If so, you must have a lot of experience with Li-ion battery packs? Could you help me find a discussion here (or elsewhere) on how to increase Leaf's range by an auxiliary power pack? I am building a 12 kWh pack (18650 cells), but it is not straight forward. Thanks.
 
Interleaf said:
GRA said:
If the search function here worked very well I'd agree with you, but it doesn't. As it is, using 'Search', entering "BEVx" and selecting "topic titles only" brings up exactly one result, the topic I mentioned, and as it's not a very active one spreading the subject across multiple topics doesn't make sense to me. I'm still too busy to write a long reply today so will have to put it off, and it will be in that topic, not this one.
Would you kindly put a link here to your thread, so we can relate the two together? Problem is that people having SEV or MSEV in mind will never search for "BEVx". Maybe for REx, but that will be it. I am looking forward to your long reply.

What do you mean by "AE" in your profile? (Alt-energy?). If so, you must have a lot of experience with Li-ion battery packs? Could you help me find a discussion here (or elsewhere) on how to increase Leaf's range by an auxiliary power pack? I am building a 12 kWh pack (18650 cells), but it is not straight forward. Thanks.
My reply post can be found here:http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847&p=502489#p502489
Yes, AE is alternative energy, and I give a link to someone who's made an auxiliary (fossil-fueled) range-extender power pack in that post. I haven't worked in the AE field since the early '90s and didn't work with Li-ion then (L-A/NiCad/NiFe), although I've done a fair bit of reading to get me up to speed since. But I'm not interested in devoting any time to such packs, as I feel they are unnecessary now and will always be small-scale hobbyist projects. There was a lot of interest in them early on in this forum when BEV ranges were so limited, but now that BEVs with a lot more range are available for the same price, that interest has almost completely died away.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
Regulations don't _dictate_ consumer behavior. A MSEV doesn't prevent a consumer from just filling up their Rex and essentially drive on gas. Just like how volt owners can run on 95% electric or 0% (early fleet volt users), the same can happen with MSEV. CARB is right to NOT classify them as BEV. Zero-emissions should mean "0", not "close enough".
But this is patently wrong. It is wrong to assign 100% credit to a BEV and 0% to an MSEV that generates only 5% of the exhaust of an ICE. "Zero Emission" has not been mentioned in the Bible, so it is not a sacred thing. MSEV should receive at least 95% of the credit or even more for beating the path to BEVs. There is no way to run on gas with an MSEV all day. It does not have enough power that you could cruise on the highway or keep yourself warm on a cold day. The best use of an MSEV is to find a charge station when the MSEV runs out of electrical charge.
 
LeftieBiker said:
PHEVs already get partial credit, so you not only don't have an argument, you don't understand the reality of the situation.
The argument has moved well beyond what you say. Why don't you follow the debate? Some leftie folks are saying that if you are not a BEV (0% emissions), then you should get very little credit. What is the amount of "partial credit" for a PHEV? 30%? Is it fair or is too low for a SEV/MSEV?
I contend that an MSEV (which is not a PHEV, BTW) should receive 95% credit not 30% credit. Because it produces only 5% of the emissions of an ICE. But some others are saying that we have to penalize SMEV for producing 5% and not 0%. A puritanical approach. Why? Because it does not fit the politically correct language "zero emissions". So in order to arrive at the "zero emission " nirvana, they are willing to sacrifice MSEV (with only 5% emissions) which is not only more sensible and rational, but also paves the way to early EV adoption.
 
Interleaf said:
LeftieBiker said:
PHEVs already get partial credit, so you not only don't have an argument, you don't understand the reality of the situation.
The argument has moved well beyond what you say. Why don't you follow the debate? Some leftie folks are saying that if you are not a BEV (0% emissions), then you should get very little credit. What is the amount of "partial credit" for a PHEV? 30%? Is it fair or is too low for a SEV/MSEV?
I contend that an MSEV (which is not a PHEV, BTW) should receive 95% credit not 30% credit. Because it produces only 5% of the emissions of an ICE. But some others are saying that we have to penalize SMEV for producing 5% and not 0%. A puritanical approach. Why? Because it does not fit the politically correct language "zero emissions". So in order to arrive at the "zero emission " nirvana, they are willing to sacrifice MSEV (with only 5% emissions) which is not only more sensible and rational, but also paves the way to early EV adoption.

The EV range is the best predictor of how much gas is used, most PEOPLE who buy a new phev do so to run electrically, business not as much.

Just because people's behavior sometimes doesn't make sense doesn't mean there should be no benefit for an EV capable car, my belief is registration and gas tax benefits should accompany EV range not a "one time tax rebate "

Heck around here the one leaf owners other car is a large 1ton gas pickup that is driven daily, he likely uses more gas than my comutacar and Volt do but by the logic here he should get more benefit because he owns a pure EV, even though he likely makes exponentially more pollution than I do.
 
Interleaf said:
LeftieBiker said:
PHEVs already get partial credit, so you not only don't have an argument, you don't understand the reality of the situation.
The argument has moved well beyond what you say. Why don't you follow the debate? Some leftie folks are saying that if you are not a BEV (0% emissions), then you should get very little credit. What is the amount of "partial credit" for a PHEV? 30%? Is it fair or is too low for a SEV/MSEV?
I contend that an MSEV (which is not a PHEV, BTW) should receive 95% credit not 30% credit. Because it produces only 5% of the emissions of an ICE. But some others are saying that we have to penalize SMEV for producing 5% and not 0%. A puritanical approach. Why? Because it does not fit the politically correct language "zero emissions". So in order to arrive at the "zero emission " nirvana, they are willing to sacrifice MSEV (with only 5% emissions) which is not only more sensible and rational, but also paves the way to early EV adoption.

Stop moving the goal-post. A MSEV gets emissions credit. Period. That's the usage argument. Whether or not CARB should've permitted PHEV credits to count against ZEV credits is the argument you should be having and have a good case for.

But instead, you're arguing classification. An MSEV isn't a ZEV, A ZEV vehicle guarantees ZERO tailpipe emissions, not 5%, 2%, or even 0.5%. An MSEVs can not _guarantee_ 100% ZERO emissions. We don't call an okapi a zebra, just because it has 98% of the same characteristics right down to the distinctive stripes.

We don't classify pickup trucks with a crew-cab as a hatchback, even though they'll mostly be used as commuter vehicles and can seat 5 comfortable with a useful "trunk". It has nothing to do with what the "leftie folks" are saying.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
But instead, you're arguing classification. An MSEV isn't a ZEV, A ZEV vehicle guarantees ZERO tailpipe emissions, not 5%, 2%, or even 0.5%. An MSEVs can not _guarantee_ 100% ZERO emissions. We don't call an okapi a zebra, just because it has 98% of the same characteristics right down to the distinctive stripes..

This argument is useless. It is a language based argument and not a scientific argument. The real world is analog and works by scientific principles, and not by linguistic categories (that lefties prefer) or conventions. If an MSEV generates only 1% of the emissions, then it better receive 99% of the credits, and not 30% of credits which is what PHEVs receive. Otherwise, it is called "injustice", and misallocation of resources, or simply a wrong regulation. Let's face it, such wrongful application of credits will increase pollution, GHG emissions, and the slow adoption of EVs.
 
Interleaf said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
But instead, you're arguing classification. An MSEV isn't a ZEV, A ZEV vehicle guarantees ZERO tailpipe emissions, not 5%, 2%, or even 0.5%. An MSEVs can not _guarantee_ 100% ZERO emissions. We don't call an okapi a zebra, just because it has 98% of the same characteristics right down to the distinctive stripes..

This argument is useless. It is a language based argument and not a scientific argument. The real world is analog and works by scientific principles, and not by linguistic categories (that lefties prefer) or conventions. If an MSEV generates only 1% of the emissions, then it better receive 99% of the credits, and not 30% of credits which is what PHEVs receive. Otherwise, it is called "injustice", and misallocation of resources, or simply a wrong regulation. Let's face it, such wrongful application of credits will increase pollution, GHG emissions, and the slow adoption of EVs.

Says the poster who completely ignored the okapi reference. Okapi's are NOT zebras! That's a scientific FACT. MSEV's are NOT ZEV's, that is also a scientific fact.

Using the term "scientific" in your statement does NOT make it so.

Okay mr. analog, how do you determine what "percentage" of zero emissions that MSEV generates? Can you guarantee that if your neighbor bought an i3 Rex that he/she would only consume gasoline for only 0-2% of their driven miles? How about less than 5%? You can't, not without allocating resources to some sort of monitoring/accounting system so that the classification (and its credits) doesn't get misused. This was discussed before, but you still don't seem to get it.

There is nothing "judicious" nor scientific about what you're proposing.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
[This was discussed before, but you still don't seem to get it.
He doesn't *want* to understand.

You might as well argue with a Trumple-dork about AGW
 
Back
Top