MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.
You say it's not accurate? Ok explain why you think that.
The EPA has been a corrupt corporate shill since they went with catalytic converters in 1974.
The MPGe rating says nothing about things like how far your charging station is from the power plant, and how much energy is lost by that transmission. The reality is that is likely about 20%. And there are many more factors like that the EPA ignores. Just like no car actually gets the EPA mileage figures. It should be obvious that when you add 1000 lbs of batteries to a car, it will require more energy, not less. And it also ignores the fact the major source of electricity in the US and the rest of the world is and will remain coal, which is the dirtiest. Those claiming electric power is going away from coal are lying because we have 10 times as much coal as we oil or gas, and fracking emits far more pollution than burning coal even.
I'm not sure if they are a corporate corporate shill... but I think they are doing the best that ignorant government bureaucrats can do, when they absolutely nothing about the auto industry, or how anything works.
When cars were required to have catalytic converters in 1974, almost all the mechanics in the shop came down with respiratory problems. We had to greatly increase the ventilation system to remove all the new toxins that catalytic converters were generating.
I saw the EPA targeting air cooled cars like VW and Porsche, and diesels. They were using NOx as their means to do this, because US makers did not make air cooled or small diesels. But yet clearly air cooled and diesels are far cleaner and safer. So the EPA was deliberately trying to cut foreign competition, while increasing emissions. We see that by all the low mpg SUVs US makers are selling now. If the EPA was even half honest, no one would be selling any SUVs because the EPA would not be allowing them. SUVs clearly use twice as much fuel. That has to be corruption. Way too obvious.
So, I spent 3 years in school, going through automotive tech.
It's true that NOx was what killed off most air cooled cars, and the tiny diesels. NOx is tied directly to smog and acid rain.
Diesels that run hotter (because they are smaller), are specifically problematic in producing NOx because of the air ratio to fuel.
Air cooled cars have the same problem because the cylinder walls are in fact too hot, which results in NOx emissions.
So the factual results that you pointed to, are dead on accurate. The question I have is whether this was an intentionally targeting of import cars, or just an over-zealous regulation to combat smog and acid rain.
Do you have any actual evidence to support the idea that it was a deliberate targeting? Or is it possible it was just over zealous regulation, that resulting in collateral damage?
While NOx can contribute to what is known as the phototropic effect if there is high humidity in the air, that is only in coastal areas, and is not at all toxic.
But diesels do not run hotter.
That would imply they generate more heat.
They product much higher temperatures, from more intense explosions upon compression combustion, but the duration is far shorter, so the total heat is far less.
And it is these higher temperatures that do encourage more NOx then lower combustion temperature.
NOx is just a product of heat, and not part of the fuel or explosion.
But the key to reducing carbon emissions it the highest temperature possible.
A slower burn produces far less power, so you press more on the gas pedal, and consume far more fuel and produce far more emissions.
The reality is that no one has ever shown and negatives from diesel NOx.
NOx is produced by gas appliances, industry, agriculture, jet planes, etc., which dwarf diesel cars into insignificance.
If NOx really were a problem, then they would go after these large producers first.
