New Ford Fusion pushes 100 mpg mark

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The EPA uses 33.7 khw per gallon based on a gallon producing 115000 BTUs. 1 kWh is the energy equivalent of 3412.3 BTUs

The formula assumes near perfect energy transfer from oil to steam to turbine to electricity, through at least 6 inductive voltage transfers, and over miles of transmission lines. Can't possibly be anything but subsidized mathmatics.

A gasoline engine has far less energy transfers and far less loss since the fuel is the SOURCE of power, electricity is not a source of energy, it is a product of energy.

What they are NOT telling you is how much "stuff" has to be burned to charge the batteries. We KNOW the amp/hr ratings of the batteries, we KNOW the voltage output of the batteries so we KNOW the Kwh that must be used to charge the batteries. The utility can tell us how much fuel it takes to produce that much electricity and deliver it to the batteries. Unlike the utility RATES for usage the amount of fuel used is going to fluctuate very little (relative to fuel used) They COULD list exactly how many pounds of coal, gallons of fuel oil, cubic feet of gas, pounds of trees, cubic feet of water etc, it takes to charge the batteries ONE time.

They CAN say "If you drive this car for 100 miles, you will burn 1/3 of one tree to do so plus the fuel oil needed to transport the tree, chip it, dry it, transport the chips, deliver them to the boiler, etc. I wonder why they do not tell you how many trees you burned to drive to the store. Any idea?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The formula assumes near perfect energy transfer from oil to steam to turbine to electricity, through at least 6 inductive voltage transfers, and over miles of transmission lines. Can't possibly be anything but subsidized mathmatics.

A gasoline engine has far less energy transfers and far less loss since the fuel is the SOURCE of power, electricity is not a source of energy, it is a product of energy.

What they are NOT telling you is how much "stuff" has to be burned to charge the batteries. We KNOW the amp/hr ratings of the batteries, we KNOW the voltage output of the batteries so we KNOW the Kwh that must be used to charge the batteries. The utility can tell us how much fuel it takes to produce that much electricity and deliver it to the batteries. Unlike the utility RATES for usage the amount of fuel used is going to fluctuate very little (relative to fuel used) They COULD list exactly how many pounds of coal, gallons of fuel oil, cubic feet of gas, pounds of trees, cubic feet of water etc, it takes to charge the batteries ONE time.

They CAN say "If you drive this car for 100 miles, you will burn 1/3 of one tree to do so plus the fuel oil needed to transport the tree, chip it, dry it, transport the chips, deliver them to the boiler, etc. I wonder why they do not tell you how many trees you burned to drive to the store. Any idea?

A vehicular internal combustion engine is not as efficient as a coal power station even when considering a 5-7% loss in transmission.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[slim 1,530]

So where are we on this?

What's the actual power usage? 100 mpg. How much electric does that use too and what's the cost of that electric?

It's mind blowing that the government doesn't publish those numbers along with that super stat of 100 mpg. You'd think they'd be all happy about it and really want the American people to know.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So where are we on this?

What's the actual power usage? 100 mpg. How much electric does that use too and what's the cost of that electric?

It's mind blowing that the government doesn't publish those numbers along with that super stat of 100 mpg. You'd think they'd be all happy about it and really want the American people to know.

We won't know until its independently tested. The 100mpg figure could be greatly exaggerated by Ford - its only their claim at the moment.

[james&olya 1,121]

Nope. In my mind we should quit living 35 miles from our jobs and driving to the convenience store.

I don't like any tax credit for purchasing something. The federal government should not be playing favorites. They should be taxing the minimum amount across the board to pay for constitutional services. That's it.

Part of the problem is our government does stuff like this. And the above. There should be no tax breaks because taxes shouldn't be that complicated.

Maybe part of the solution would be getting rid of all the tax-payer funded subsidies to the oil, gas, and coal industries. This needs to include all the indirect subsidies such as the enormous costs for our military operations required to protect the access to our oil that just happens to be under their soil, the health-care and loss of life costs due to hydrocarbon based pollution, as well as any other form of indirect subsidy. If a true accounting were made of all these costs it might suddenly make more sense to some of the skeptics here why alternative enegy sources and electric vehicle research makes sense as a tax-payer investment!

[slim 1,530]

Maybe part of the solution would be getting rid of all the tax-payer funded subsidies to the oil, gas, and coal industries. This needs to include all the indirect subsidies such as the enormous costs for our military operations required to protect the access to our oil that just happens to be under their soil, the health-care and loss of life costs due to hydrocarbon based pollution, as well as any other form of indirect subsidy. If a true accounting were made of all these costs it might suddenly make more sense to some of the skeptics here why alternative enegy sources and electric vehicle research makes sense as a tax-payer investment!

So we subsidize oil and gas.... and electric cars?

I think we've found our problem!