EV owners of today and tomorrow

[wawajake]

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

If you do not know then you have missed completely what motivation is causing the push for EVs world wide......but then you seriously think the earth is flat, so you miss a lot it seems.

 

[Grumpycat]

If you do not know then you have missed completely what motivation is causing the push for EVs world wide......but then you seriously think the earth is flat, so you miss a lot it seems.

Do you absolutely know without a doubt that the only reason we have EVs today is The Evil Government and WEF?

Ignoring all the work on EVs the past 100 years? The articles in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics when those were respectable magazines? The DIY conversion kits? Or how the Tesla Roadster predated Federal tax credits? Federal tax credits did appear before more than a couple Roadsters were delivered but couldn’t have been instrumental in Tesla’s planning.

Is a crying shame some of us with an open mind simply like the way our Tesla drives. With or without a tax credit.

But world is changing. Men are sheeple to be herded and harvested by our benevolent government. We no longer do anything other than our government’s wishes. Sad because it is supposed to be the other way around.

 

[Grumpycat]

^^^^^^^^ Huge fire at Riven plant. How much pollution is this causing ?????

Good thing ICE vehicles have never burned at the side of the road! Or refineries have never caught fire! Or fuel depots! Or pipelines have never leaked! Or wells never caught fire! Or burst deep below the ocean!

Yup, it’s a good thing ICE is here to save us from evil EVs!

 

[DarkBlack]

Good thing ICE vehicles have never burned at the side of the road! Or refineries have never caught fire! Or fuel depots! Or pipelines have never leaked! Or wells never caught fire! Or burst deep below the ocean!

Yup, it’s a good thing ICE is here to save us from evil EVs!

Yes it is a good thing they survive occasional fires, since you need oil wells, refineries and pipelines to make everything from your PV panels to your EV components starting at the asphalt to your tires and up to your roof liner…
And the computer or cellphone you’re typing reading/typing on now

 

[DarkBlack]

1. Fossil fuels make up only 64% [1] on the energy used to charge an EV in this country, versus 100% in the ICE. So you can immediately discount the those loss comparisons by 1/3.

You might. I wouldn’t. That would be playing “fast and loose “ as you put it earlier.
One could state the energy efficiency of a PV panel is only 20%, so 80% of the energy source is wasted as heat and not converted to usable electricity. That waste heat isn’t as negligible as you might think. Many large light energy reflecting areas like sandy desert areas no longer reflect the energy back to the sky, but instead trap the heat energy in the black PV panels. Not good.
So in your example of counting non-fossil fuels as 100% efficient is incorrect in my view
That’s just one example.

EV’s also get an equivalent mpg statistical “free pass “from the government and the entire battery movement when it comes to daily charge losses. EV’s loose 1% charge daily. Doesn’t sound like much, but for people who have a vehicle that doesn’t get used often, that’s a big hit to actual equivalent mpg.
Drive your EV once a week, you’re losing over 6% per week. That’s significant.
Then there’s cold climate states where ICE waste heat, heats the cabin. EV’s have to use battery power for that. Again, you won’t find those comparisons statistics because it’s not in favor of EV’s

EV equivalent mpg numbers are derived using favorable conditions.
Like you said both sides play fast and loose with statistics.
Determine a message, then stir the statistics and “facts” to support it

 

[Fixastuff]

All I see here is people argue stuff they can’t possibly fully understand.

 

[DarkBlack]

......but then you seriously think the earth is flat, so you miss a lot it seems.

I’ve never actually met a FE’r for real.
Heard of them but never thought it real.
Kinda like big foot, or the Loch Ness monster.
Makes him somewhat of a celebrity here, doesn’t it?

 

[ning]

You might. I wouldn’t. That would be playing “fast and loose “ as you put it earlier.
One could state the energy efficiency of a PV panel is only 20%, so 80% of the energy source is wasted as heat and not converted to usable electricity. That waste heat isn’t as negligible as you might think. Many large light energy reflecting areas like sandy desert areas no longer reflect the energy back to the sky, but instead trap the heat energy in the black PV panels. Not good.
So in your example of counting non-fossil fuels as 100% efficient is incorrect in my view
That’s just one example.

EV’s also get an equivalent mpg statistical “free pass “from the government and the entire battery movement when it comes to daily charge losses. EV’s loose 1% charge daily. Doesn’t sound like much, but for people who have a vehicle that doesn’t get used often, that’s a big hit to actual equivalent mpg.
Drive your EV once a week, you’re losing over 6% per week. That’s significant.
Then there’s cold climate states where ICE waste heat, heats the cabin. EV’s have to use battery power for that. Again, you won’t find those comparisons statistics because it’s not in favor of EV’s

EV equivalent mpg numbers are derived using favorable conditions.
Like you said both sides play fast and loose with statistics.
Determine a message, then stir the statistics and “facts” to support it

Are you saying you need to consider "how much of the incident solar energy on the panel ends up as electricity" to count how efficient the process is?

If so, we'd better check to see what the efficiency is of the conversion of the solar energy falling on biomass 300 million years ago to energy content of the extracted crude oil.

I don't think you'll like those numbers.

Nor would you like the result, if we consider the lack of albedo of solar energy farms, we also have to consider the knock-on effects of the carbon you're taking out of the ground for the crude and putting straight into the atmosphere.....

 

[wawajake]

...........

But world is changing. Men are sheeple to be herded and harvested by our benevolent government. We no longer do anything other than our government’s wishes. Sad because it is supposed to be the other way around.

Well you are definitely doing what the Government is herding you towards. Hmmm

 

[WinterDeere]

You might. I wouldn’t. That would be playing “fast and loose “ as you put it earlier.

First, good post. You make some good points. But I think you misunderstood me on this one item.

This tangent goes back to a claim that EV's are powered by power plants, and many of them burn coal or gas. Specifically:

...the claim that an electric is a zero-emission vehicle is not true at all, because the electricity produced comes from power plants and many of them burn coal or gas.

And my point there is that only 64% of the power EV's take from the grid came from fossil fuels, whereas 100% of the power produced by ICE's comes from fossil fuels. That's not playing "fast and loose", it is accurate accounting of the inputs.

One could state the energy efficiency of a PV panel is only 20%, so 80% of the energy source is wasted as heat and not converted to usable electricity.

Useless tangent. You like EIA data, so we can use their number of 4% for the fraction of power on our grid coming from solar. Wasting attention on the accuracy of such a small slice of the pie really isn't going to nudge the numbers in any meaningful way.

So in your example of counting non-fossil fuels as 100% efficient is incorrect in my view
That’s just one example.

Agreed. That's why I called it at 41.5% efficient, not 100%. Again:

Your numbers are correct, and there are losses any time energy is converted, but this does not translate to a false narrative. It is true that conversion losses eat up about 58.5% of all energy production, before even hitting the battery charger in your garage.

[snip, just note 58.5% loss = 41.5% efficiency, as used below]

...versus the aforementioned (340 Wh/mi) / 0.415 = 819 Wh/mi for EV. Even if you argue for accuracy of some of the numbers, or heating a cooling consumption, a 2 to 1 gap in motive power is basically impossible to ever argue away.

EV’s loose 1% charge daily. Doesn’t sound like much, but for people who have a vehicle that doesn’t get used often, that’s a big hit to actual equivalent mpg.

That's an excellent point, if true.

Drive your EV once a week, you’re losing over 6% per week. That’s significant.

Even if you drive it everyday, loss rate would be the same. You're losing 3.5 full charges per year, at that loss rate, whether you drive it or not. It'd be interesting to see how various brands compare under various conditions, but I guess the number is small enough that they have bigger items for comparison.

Then there’s cold climate states where ICE waste heat, heats the cabin. EV’s have to use battery power for that. Again, you won’t find those comparisons statistics because it’s not in favor of EV’s

I think that flushes out in the net mileage, for those conditions.

EV equivalent mpg numbers are derived using favorable conditions.
Like you said both sides play fast and loose with statistics.
Determine a message, then stir the statistics and “facts” to support it

Agreed. It's what makes all of this crap so contentious. Players have big investments to protect on both sides, and both have a strong interest in creating slanted views of reality.

When it comes to fossil fuel utilization though, I don't think you can make an honest and valid argument for the ICE. For me, ICE wins on cost (low mileage driver), lack of recalls, ease of maintenance, and many other fronts. That's why I still own ICE's. But I won't pretend that I'm not using a heck of a lot more fossil fuel than an EV, which is the only point to which I was responding. I just don't care that much about energy dependence in my personal vehicles.