RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
NMNeil said:
Looks like Germany and Italy have a fight on their hands.
https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliamen...
It's just odd that they want an exemption for Efuels that are made from captured carbon, but no practical technology exists to capture the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
This recent video gives a fair appraisal of the success of mechanical DCC (ie pretty much zero zero to date): https://youtu.be/hyVRtEPKhTYhttps://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliamen...
It's just odd that they want an exemption for Efuels that are made from captured carbon, but no practical technology exists to capture the 0.04% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Hopefully people will wake up to the deception of the likes of VW in their PR wording where like all these hydrogen related enterprises they want people to think they're actually sourcing carbon from the atmosphere.
Someone mentioned that this is tinfoilery but unfortunately it is just blatant lying from the usual corporate bandits we know and love so well.
NMNeil said:
They already went though the dog and pony show for years, with Germany and Italy agreeing to phase out ICE cars.
They were different times and very different governments. There is massive grass roots opposition to these and other changes in quite a few European countries and it’s bubbling up now. DMZ said:
They were different times and very different governments. There is massive grass roots opposition to these and other changes in quite a few European countries and it’s bubbling up now.
There is a sobriety today among the major and dominating EU states that is allowing the concerns of the vassal states to be heard. Prior to the new economic environment it was in Germany's favour to have all citizens of the EU forced to buy EVs from 2035 but the change in GDP per capita figures, higher costs of living, higher financing rates has blown those projections out of the water.
Today all 2035 will do is deliver a larger stall in vehicle sales as far more EU citizens make the economic decision to hold onto an old car than buy a new one for a longer period either side of 2035. But more critically, the ability of EU car industry to lock out the Chinese car industry has possibly been delivered a fatal blow and 2035 will be the the final blow.
The Chinese can build EVs for a fraction of the cost that France or Germany can build them within the EU and the people of the EU have going forward such a fall in purchasing power that too many need their new cars to have been built in China in order to afford that new car.
Then, when one considers the smaller vassal states, there are more than a few that have economies that are nowhere close to being able to survive a 2035 switch without all but halting new car sales. In some of these nations there is yet to be any great move to electrification let alone the predicted wealth in 2035.
And this is all before you even consider the vast amounts of legacy 20th century industry across Europe that can't ever meet any kind of net zero without either buying carbon credits that make their end product economically uncompetitive or relocating outside of the EU.
Even on PH we see a natural colonial mindset that sees us assume that we Europeans will build our energy sites in North Africa, South America and other developing nation locations and import that energy to Europe to be used in our factories. It's such a deeply ingrained mindset in us that we fail to see the reality that it is the factories that will relocate to where the cheap renewable energy as opposed to all these crazy colonial and 20th century industrial ideas to import energy via the exploitation of the third world.
You are absolutely right about the economic environment looking completely different in 2023 than in 2019. In many regards the return of money having a value completely changes the economics of meeting any of these 2035 or 2050 criteria.
However, if one believes that CO2 levels are driving a change that is toxic to humans who live in certain geographic locations and that Europe with all its sea level cities and climate defined by the jet stream and Gulf Stream as a land peninsular that juts off the western edge of the Asian continent then the only solution the mainland has is to deindustrialise as Britain did nearly 40 years ago. These legacy industries must move to where the renewable energy is they cannot economically compete using imported energy. Just looking at the history of local coal and how local energy was what defined the location of those industries in the first instance makes it abundantly clear that industry must be where the energy is and as energy switched from fossil to renewable then all these industries must relocate.
skyrover said:
Co2 is NOT toxic. Let's just establish this fact.
Hardly a 'fact' as one must consider the context. However, how does one burn methanol in air without creating NOx?Although it's simpler to be asking how those who can't afford an EV could miraculously afford a Bentley, Lambo or other high end VW to run around on methanol?
SpeckledJim said:
TheBinarySheep said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I dont know whether to feel shocked, or sorry that some are so desperate to promote EVs, they want people to ignore basic physics and just use flimflam, to try to kid people, that it takes `less' energy to move the 1200 pound weight of an EV battery, than it does to move a the 70 pound weight a (full) ICE petrol tank (including the weight of the fuel tank tank itself) for the same sized vehicles.
Even this does not take into account that the ICE vehicle will get lighter, as its fuel is consumed, whereas a battery in an EV will weigh the same, regardless of whether it is fully charged. or completely empty.
Therefore as the power runs down in an EV battery, more of the power remaining in that battery, must be used (Wasted) to haul around the deadweight of a (STILL) the same weight, but very EMPTY EV battery.
They also seem to ignore the fact that assuming the vehicles they are fitted to are identical, the energy needed to accelerate a 1200 pound EV battery to a specific speed, will be far greater than is needed to accelerate a 70 pound ICE fuel tank to the same speed.
If you assume that both are being pushed by the same power source, then yes, it takes more energy to move the battery.Even this does not take into account that the ICE vehicle will get lighter, as its fuel is consumed, whereas a battery in an EV will weigh the same, regardless of whether it is fully charged. or completely empty.
Therefore as the power runs down in an EV battery, more of the power remaining in that battery, must be used (Wasted) to haul around the deadweight of a (STILL) the same weight, but very EMPTY EV battery.
They also seem to ignore the fact that assuming the vehicles they are fitted to are identical, the energy needed to accelerate a 1200 pound EV battery to a specific speed, will be far greater than is needed to accelerate a 70 pound ICE fuel tank to the same speed.
However, in the real world, if you have a 1200kg ICE and a 2000kg EV, and you want to move them both the same distance, the EV will use less energy. That's because let's say you need 3kw to move the ICE vehicle, then because it's only 20% efficient you would actually need 15kw of energy. On the other hand, if the EV needs 6kw to move it, then you'd still only need 7kw to move it because the conversion of energy to kenetic energy is 90% efficient.
At least that's my basic understanding anyway, but happy to be corrected.
PPP, here we go.
How far does an ICE go on a litre of petrol?
A: 10 miles assuming a reasonable 45mpg. (we can assume the tank is nearly empty if that helps you?)
[quick google] a litre of petrol is 31,500,000 joules, which corresponds to 8.8kWh. [/quick google]
How far does an EV go on 8.8kWh?
A: 8.8kWh x 4 miles per kWh = 35.2 miles)
PPP, are you still with us?
Which is further? 10 miles, or 35.2 miles?
The average weight of the battery pack, for an equivalent size EV, is 1200 pounds, and it `remains' at 1200 pounds whether it is full or empty.
Do you still want to insist that accelerating, and moving a 1200 pounds battery pack to a given speed, over a given distance, is going to be less, than moving the 77 pounds of a full ICE petrol tank to the same speed and over the same distance?
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
Pan Pan Pan said:
A gallon of petrol weighs 6.1 pounds. the typical tank size for a mid size ICE car is 11 gallons or 67.1 pounds, add say 10 pounds for the weight of the empty tank, and you have the typical weight for the fuel source in an ICE vehicle. this weight reduces as the fuel in the tank is consumed.
The average weight of the battery pack, for an equivalent size EV, is 1200 pounds, and it `remains' at 1200 pounds whether it is full or empty.
Do you still want to insist that accelerating, and moving a 1200 pounds battery pack to a given speed, over a given distance, is going to be less, than moving the 77 pounds of a full ICE petrol tank to the same speed and over the same distance?
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
No one can be this dumb surely? It's got to be deliberate, ignoring the answers and just restating the false premise of his criticism.The average weight of the battery pack, for an equivalent size EV, is 1200 pounds, and it `remains' at 1200 pounds whether it is full or empty.
Do you still want to insist that accelerating, and moving a 1200 pounds battery pack to a given speed, over a given distance, is going to be less, than moving the 77 pounds of a full ICE petrol tank to the same speed and over the same distance?
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
To repeat for the nth time. Of course the force required to accelerate an object depends on its mass. But that is not what is being discussed (and I suspect you know it). However the ability of an EV powertrain to recuperate most of that kinetic energy means that the energy is not lost. Unlike an ICE power train where 100% of that kinetic energy is wasted as heat from the friction brakes.
So yes, the energy required to move a heavy object starting and finishing at rest over a set distance using en EV powertrain can easily be (significantly) less than moving a lighter object using an ICE powertrain.
It's just GCSE physics (not even A level) Even if your EV weighs 4412 Old Etruscan pounds.
Pan Pan Pan said:
SpeckledJim said:
TheBinarySheep said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I dont know whether to feel shocked, or sorry that some are so desperate to promote EVs, they want people to ignore basic physics and just use flimflam, to try to kid people, that it takes `less' energy to move the 1200 pound weight of an EV battery, than it does to move a the 70 pound weight a (full) ICE petrol tank (including the weight of the fuel tank tank itself) for the same sized vehicles.
Even this does not take into account that the ICE vehicle will get lighter, as its fuel is consumed, whereas a battery in an EV will weigh the same, regardless of whether it is fully charged. or completely empty.
Therefore as the power runs down in an EV battery, more of the power remaining in that battery, must be used (Wasted) to haul around the deadweight of a (STILL) the same weight, but very EMPTY EV battery.
They also seem to ignore the fact that assuming the vehicles they are fitted to are identical, the energy needed to accelerate a 1200 pound EV battery to a specific speed, will be far greater than is needed to accelerate a 70 pound ICE fuel tank to the same speed.
If you assume that both are being pushed by the same power source, then yes, it takes more energy to move the battery.Even this does not take into account that the ICE vehicle will get lighter, as its fuel is consumed, whereas a battery in an EV will weigh the same, regardless of whether it is fully charged. or completely empty.
Therefore as the power runs down in an EV battery, more of the power remaining in that battery, must be used (Wasted) to haul around the deadweight of a (STILL) the same weight, but very EMPTY EV battery.
They also seem to ignore the fact that assuming the vehicles they are fitted to are identical, the energy needed to accelerate a 1200 pound EV battery to a specific speed, will be far greater than is needed to accelerate a 70 pound ICE fuel tank to the same speed.
However, in the real world, if you have a 1200kg ICE and a 2000kg EV, and you want to move them both the same distance, the EV will use less energy. That's because let's say you need 3kw to move the ICE vehicle, then because it's only 20% efficient you would actually need 15kw of energy. On the other hand, if the EV needs 6kw to move it, then you'd still only need 7kw to move it because the conversion of energy to kenetic energy is 90% efficient.
At least that's my basic understanding anyway, but happy to be corrected.
PPP, here we go.
How far does an ICE go on a litre of petrol?
A: 10 miles assuming a reasonable 45mpg. (we can assume the tank is nearly empty if that helps you?)
[quick google] a litre of petrol is 31,500,000 joules, which corresponds to 8.8kWh. [/quick google]
How far does an EV go on 8.8kWh?
A: 8.8kWh x 4 miles per kWh = 35.2 miles)
PPP, are you still with us?
Which is further? 10 miles, or 35.2 miles?
The average weight of the battery pack, for an equivalent size EV, is 1200 pounds, and it `remains' at 1200 pounds whether it is full or empty.
Do you still want to insist that accelerating, and moving a 1200 pounds battery pack to a given speed, over a given distance, is going to be less, than moving the 77 pounds of a full ICE petrol tank to the same speed and over the same distance?
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
Do you dispute the 10 miles bit, or the 35.2 miles bit? Or both?
Pan Pan Pan said:
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
Electric traction is superior to IC powertrains in almost every respect.Achilles heel of BEV is energy storage: low kWh/kg, slow charging times and range limitations. However these disadvantages are fading with technological and infrastructure development.
Soon the merits of BEVs will simply overwhelm ICEVs.
Soupdragon65 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
A gallon of petrol weighs 6.1 pounds. the typical tank size for a mid size ICE car is 11 gallons or 67.1 pounds, add say 10 pounds for the weight of the empty tank, and you have the typical weight for the fuel source in an ICE vehicle. this weight reduces as the fuel in the tank is consumed.
The average weight of the battery pack, for an equivalent size EV, is 1200 pounds, and it `remains' at 1200 pounds whether it is full or empty.
Do you still want to insist that accelerating, and moving a 1200 pounds battery pack to a given speed, over a given distance, is going to be less, than moving the 77 pounds of a full ICE petrol tank to the same speed and over the same distance?
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
No one can be this dumb surely? It's got to be deliberate, ignoring the answers and just restating the false premise of his criticism.The average weight of the battery pack, for an equivalent size EV, is 1200 pounds, and it `remains' at 1200 pounds whether it is full or empty.
Do you still want to insist that accelerating, and moving a 1200 pounds battery pack to a given speed, over a given distance, is going to be less, than moving the 77 pounds of a full ICE petrol tank to the same speed and over the same distance?
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
To repeat for the nth time. Of course the force required to accelerate an object depends on its mass. But that is not what is being discussed (and I suspect you know it). However the ability of an EV powertrain to recuperate most of that kinetic energy means that the energy is not lost. Unlike an ICE power train where 100% of that kinetic energy is wasted as heat from the friction brakes.
So yes, the energy required to move a heavy object starting and finishing at rest over a set distance using en EV powertrain can easily be (significantly) less than moving a lighter object using an ICE powertrain.
It's just GCSE physics (not even A level) Even if your EV weighs 4412 Old Etruscan pounds.
You can replace the energy (fuel) in an ICE vehicle petrol tank in a matter of seconds. But you appear to be saying that despite the fact that batteries always take much longer to recharge, the regenerative system in an EV can suddenly put back energy into a battery in seconds. It cannot, and a lot of that so called reclaimed energy is still going to be wasted as heat in the brakes. Unless of course you have invented a battery that can take bake large amounts of energy in seconds.
This was what I was referring to. EV zealots trying to kid people that EVs are better than ICE vehicles, when the `overall' truth of the matter is that they really are NOT.
bigothunter said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
Electric traction is superior to IC powertrains in almost every respect.Achilles heel of BEV is energy storage: low kWh/kg, slow charging times and range limitations. However these disadvantages are fading with technological and infrastructure development.
Soon the merits of BEVs will simply overwhelm ICEVs.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Only a totally dumb person believes it is easier to move 1200 pounds (because it is in an EV) than it is to move 77 pounds because it is in an ICE vehicle.
You can replace the energy (fuel) in an ICE vehicle petrol tank in a matter of seconds. But you appear to be saying that despite the fact that batteries always take much longer to recharge, the regenerative system in an EV can suddenly put back energy into a battery in seconds. It cannot, and a lot of that so called reclaimed energy is still going to be wasted as heat in the brakes. Unless of course you have invented a battery that can take bake large amounts of energy in seconds.
This was what I was referring to. EV zealots trying to kid people that EVs are better than ICE vehicles, when the `overall' truth of the matter is that they really are NOT.
Have you driven a BEV with e-pedal? In normal driving the service (friction) brakes are almost redundant.You can replace the energy (fuel) in an ICE vehicle petrol tank in a matter of seconds. But you appear to be saying that despite the fact that batteries always take much longer to recharge, the regenerative system in an EV can suddenly put back energy into a battery in seconds. It cannot, and a lot of that so called reclaimed energy is still going to be wasted as heat in the brakes. Unless of course you have invented a battery that can take bake large amounts of energy in seconds.
This was what I was referring to. EV zealots trying to kid people that EVs are better than ICE vehicles, when the `overall' truth of the matter is that they really are NOT.
Are you suggesting that regenerative 'retardation' energy is not going back to the batteries (apart from efficiency losses)? If so, where is it going? A bank of resistors glowing in the dark perhaps?
Pan Pan Pan said:
Only a totally dumb person believes it is easier to move 1200 pounds (because it is in an EV) than it is to move 77 pounds because it is in an ICE vehicle.
You can replace the energy (fuel) in an ICE vehicle petrol tank in a matter of seconds. But you appear to be saying that despite the fact that batteries always take much longer to recharge, the regenerative system in an EV can suddenly put back energy into a battery in seconds. It cannot, and a lot of that so called reclaimed energy is still going to be wasted as heat in the brakes. Unless of course you have invented a battery that can take bake large amounts of energy in seconds.
This was what I was referring to. EV zealots trying to kid people that EVs are better than ICE vehicles, when the `overall' truth of the matter is that they really are NOT.
You are trying to apply ICE thinking to an electric drivetrain, but you have no idea how the electric drivetrain works.You can replace the energy (fuel) in an ICE vehicle petrol tank in a matter of seconds. But you appear to be saying that despite the fact that batteries always take much longer to recharge, the regenerative system in an EV can suddenly put back energy into a battery in seconds. It cannot, and a lot of that so called reclaimed energy is still going to be wasted as heat in the brakes. Unless of course you have invented a battery that can take bake large amounts of energy in seconds.
This was what I was referring to. EV zealots trying to kid people that EVs are better than ICE vehicles, when the `overall' truth of the matter is that they really are NOT.
The regenerative braking system can retrieve kinetic energy at the same rate (i.e. power) as it was added in the first place, minus some heat losses in the electric circuit. The recovered kinetic energy over an average journey is up to 75%.
Most of the time the friction brakes are not used at all.
The motor and battery are a fully-reversible power system that effectively have the same power rating in both directions............
And, once again, you also need to factor in that an ICE adds kinetic energy at something like 20% efficiency or less, compared to an electric drivetrain, which does it at 80% or above.
There is simply no comparison between the two types of car.
A diesel ICE fuel tank of 40 litres holds 400 kWh of stored energy.
A large EV battery holds about 100 kWh of stored energy.
Both will travel the same distance, approximately.
The EV uses around 4 times less energy overall to travel the same distance DESPITE being 25% heavier.
I know you will simply refuse to believe it, but those are the facts.
Pan Pan Pan said:
bigothunter said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
Electric traction is superior to IC powertrains in almost every respect.Achilles heel of BEV is energy storage: low kWh/kg, slow charging times and range limitations. However these disadvantages are fading with technological and infrastructure development.
Soon the merits of BEVs will simply overwhelm ICEVs.
bigothunter said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Only a totally dumb person believes it is easier to move 1200 pounds (because it is in an EV) than it is to move 77 pounds because it is in an ICE vehicle.
You can replace the energy (fuel) in an ICE vehicle petrol tank in a matter of seconds. But you appear to be saying that despite the fact that batteries always take much longer to recharge, the regenerative system in an EV can suddenly put back energy into a battery in seconds. It cannot, and a lot of that so called reclaimed energy is still going to be wasted as heat in the brakes. Unless of course you have invented a battery that can take bake large amounts of energy in seconds.
This was what I was referring to. EV zealots trying to kid people that EVs are better than ICE vehicles, when the `overall' truth of the matter is that they really are NOT.
Have you driven a BEV with e-pedal? In normal driving the service (friction) brakes are almost redundant.You can replace the energy (fuel) in an ICE vehicle petrol tank in a matter of seconds. But you appear to be saying that despite the fact that batteries always take much longer to recharge, the regenerative system in an EV can suddenly put back energy into a battery in seconds. It cannot, and a lot of that so called reclaimed energy is still going to be wasted as heat in the brakes. Unless of course you have invented a battery that can take bake large amounts of energy in seconds.
This was what I was referring to. EV zealots trying to kid people that EVs are better than ICE vehicles, when the `overall' truth of the matter is that they really are NOT.
Are you suggesting that regenerative 'retardation' energy is not going back to the batteries (apart from efficiency losses)? If so, where is it going? A bank of resistors glowing in the dark perhaps?
I'm guessing whatever PPP's qualifications are they are not in anyway Physics or engineering related. There is either a very deliberate or maybe unintentional misunderstanding of the EV drive train and it's operation.
skyrover said:
Co2 is NOT toxic. Let's just establish this fact.
Maybe not in the way of other poisons but it is a very effective asphixiant at certain concentrations. The major advantage of EVs particularly in built up areas is the removal of other very definitely toxic chemicals that ICEs emit. Not to mention noise pollution.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Only a totally dumb person believes it is easier to move 1200 pounds (because it is in an EV) than it is to move 77 pounds because it is in an ICE vehicle.
You can replace the energy (fuel) in an ICE vehicle petrol tank in a matter of seconds. But you appear to be saying that despite the fact that batteries always take much longer to recharge, the regenerative system in an EV can suddenly put back energy into a battery in seconds. It cannot, and a lot of that so called reclaimed energy is still going to be wasted as heat in the brakes. Unless of course you have invented a battery that can take bake large amounts of energy in seconds.
This was what I was referring to. EV zealots trying to kid people that EVs are better than ICE vehicles, when the `overall' truth of the matter is that they really are NOT.
Now we're getting somewhere.You can replace the energy (fuel) in an ICE vehicle petrol tank in a matter of seconds. But you appear to be saying that despite the fact that batteries always take much longer to recharge, the regenerative system in an EV can suddenly put back energy into a battery in seconds. It cannot, and a lot of that so called reclaimed energy is still going to be wasted as heat in the brakes. Unless of course you have invented a battery that can take bake large amounts of energy in seconds.
This was what I was referring to. EV zealots trying to kid people that EVs are better than ICE vehicles, when the `overall' truth of the matter is that they really are NOT.
EV's can regenerate instantaneously, some can literally feed >300kW into their batteries via their regenerative braking systems. The friction brakes are not used at all except in very hard braking.
It's witchcraft to you I know, but these things exist and are driving around our streets right now!
Without wishing to be rude, do you have any science qualifications at all? This is pretty basic stuff.
Edited by Soupdragon65 on Tuesday 21st March 12:19
Nomme de Plum said:
skyrover said:
Co2 is NOT toxic. Let's just establish this fact.
Maybe not in the way of other poisons but it is a very effective asphixiant at certain concentrations. The major advantage of EVs particularly in built up areas is the removal of other very definitely toxic chemicals that ICEs emit. Not to mention noise pollution.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Soupdragon65 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
A gallon of petrol weighs 6.1 pounds. the typical tank size for a mid size ICE car is 11 gallons or 67.1 pounds, add say 10 pounds for the weight of the empty tank, and you have the typical weight for the fuel source in an ICE vehicle. this weight reduces as the fuel in the tank is consumed.
The average weight of the battery pack, for an equivalent size EV, is 1200 pounds, and it `remains' at 1200 pounds whether it is full or empty.
Do you still want to insist that accelerating, and moving a 1200 pounds battery pack to a given speed, over a given distance, is going to be less, than moving the 77 pounds of a full ICE petrol tank to the same speed and over the same distance?
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
No one can be this dumb surely? It's got to be deliberate, ignoring the answers and just restating the false premise of his criticism.The average weight of the battery pack, for an equivalent size EV, is 1200 pounds, and it `remains' at 1200 pounds whether it is full or empty.
Do you still want to insist that accelerating, and moving a 1200 pounds battery pack to a given speed, over a given distance, is going to be less, than moving the 77 pounds of a full ICE petrol tank to the same speed and over the same distance?
All I am doing, is pointing out that EVs have their own set of issues, But the proponents of EVs, seem happy to big up all the advantages of EVs, whilst conveniently forgetting, or even ignoring the disadvantages of EVs, (Whilst doing exactly the opposite when it comes to taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of ICE vehicles)
To repeat for the nth time. Of course the force required to accelerate an object depends on its mass. But that is not what is being discussed (and I suspect you know it). However the ability of an EV powertrain to recuperate most of that kinetic energy means that the energy is not lost. Unlike an ICE power train where 100% of that kinetic energy is wasted as heat from the friction brakes.
So yes, the energy required to move a heavy object starting and finishing at rest over a set distance using en EV powertrain can easily be (significantly) less than moving a lighter object using an ICE powertrain.
It's just GCSE physics (not even A level) Even if your EV weighs 4412 Old Etruscan pounds.
You can replace the energy (fuel) in an ICE vehicle petrol tank in a matter of seconds. But you appear to be saying that despite the fact that batteries always take much longer to recharge, the regenerative system in an EV can suddenly put back energy into a battery in seconds. It cannot, and a lot of that so called reclaimed energy is still going to be wasted as heat in the brakes. Unless of course you have invented a battery that can take bake large amounts of energy in seconds.
This was what I was referring to. EV zealots trying to kid people that EVs are better than ICE vehicles, when the `overall' truth of the matter is that they really are NOT.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff