Electric - It shouldn't need my 12 year old to tell you..
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Consider a VW golf diesel vs an BMW i3 (similar size, similar performance (i3 is actually quicker) driven over the NEDC cycle (which is best case for an ICE, being a nice warm 25degC start, and having a very gentle road load profile).
The Golf returns 109 g/km and 59mpg, so over that 11.023Km drive cycle the Golf uses 18.89 MJ of energy
The i3, does 12.6 kWh/100km over the same cycle, so uses just 5.0 MJ of energy
That's 3.8 times less energy to drive exactly the same distance and speed
There really needs to be simple way to convey this comparison to the average car driver as to why BEVs are the only viable long term option for the future.The Golf returns 109 g/km and 59mpg, so over that 11.023Km drive cycle the Golf uses 18.89 MJ of energy
The i3, does 12.6 kWh/100km over the same cycle, so uses just 5.0 MJ of energy
That's 3.8 times less energy to drive exactly the same distance and speed
As an aside, I think you should do a similar energy balance comparison between hydrogen produced from electrolysis and BEVs on the other thread.
For Simon's benefit of course!
Evanivitch said:
Heres Johnny said:
But as the heating is coming directly from the mains we can completely ignore it from the efficiency calculations? Thats not the point. You're in danger of sounding like a phev driver who can get 80 mpg out of their car over 15 miles but they've ignored the fact they've also depleted their battery of £1 of charge.
EVs are still way better than ICE, they are just even more efficient in summer than they are in winter.
We weren't discussing efficiency, we were discussing cold weather performance of EVs.EVs are still way better than ICE, they are just even more efficient in summer than they are in winter.
Edited by Heres Johnny on Thursday 28th September 15:48
Not really sure what you're accusing me of sounding like. Especially as the Ampera isn't a soft hybrid, it operates through its full performance envelope on EV if required.
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Eh?I own an EV . 30k miles a yearin it. Max_torque made a statement which was wrong in a practical sense, I corrected it.
If people are going to justify EVs based on incorrect info then people on the edge will either know they’re wrong and then walk away, or buy, have a bad experience and tell everyone. It’s like those who say they can easily drive 270 miles in a Tesla 75D. You can do that range on a nice warm day, starting full, rolling in as the last electron liberates itself and having done a steady 50 mph. In the real world you have a working range of 190 to 200.
And I’m not aware of any EV where you can turn the heated steering wheel on remotely while in bed.
In other words, just tell the truth
The irony is that we have all become so used to the gargantuan waste of energy in our ICEs that we see EVs as having a 'problem' that their consumption increases when they are cold!
(ignoring the fact that your ICE due to it's falling efficiency actually increases it's consumption by a greater margin, but that is lost in the huge waste that is occurring ALL the time)
Consider your kitchen sink at home. Say you have a leaking tap, that drips water down the drain 24/7. Which of the following would you consider to be 'better'
1) Fix the leaking tap, when you want a drink, put a glass under non-leaking tap, turn it on to fill glass
or
2) Put a glass under the leaking tap, and catch a tiny bit of that leaking water for your drink occasionally
On an EV, when you want to use energy for a "USE" ie keeping the occupants warm, then the energy consumption of that vehicle increases.
On an ICE, every time it runs, it's squandering energy at an immense rate, energy that is lost to the vehicle and is not used for any useful "USE" most of the time.
We have got so used to being able to simply fill our cars with a frankly wondrous amount of cheap energy
(a typical fuel tank is 60l, which is 2.04 GJ, or on a human scale, the amount of energy a man on bike could generate by pedaling, absolutely flat out for 118 days continuously . I suspect most people reading this would want to be paid more than £80 to pedal a bike flat out for 4 months....)
Unfortunately, as we are now finding out, that profligate consumption and waste is likely to have impacted our very planet, and it is increasingly clear that we cannot allow it to continue if we want to safe guard the future of our both our species, and every living thing on the one planet we rely on to survive........
(ignoring the fact that your ICE due to it's falling efficiency actually increases it's consumption by a greater margin, but that is lost in the huge waste that is occurring ALL the time)
Consider your kitchen sink at home. Say you have a leaking tap, that drips water down the drain 24/7. Which of the following would you consider to be 'better'
1) Fix the leaking tap, when you want a drink, put a glass under non-leaking tap, turn it on to fill glass
or
2) Put a glass under the leaking tap, and catch a tiny bit of that leaking water for your drink occasionally
On an EV, when you want to use energy for a "USE" ie keeping the occupants warm, then the energy consumption of that vehicle increases.
On an ICE, every time it runs, it's squandering energy at an immense rate, energy that is lost to the vehicle and is not used for any useful "USE" most of the time.
We have got so used to being able to simply fill our cars with a frankly wondrous amount of cheap energy
(a typical fuel tank is 60l, which is 2.04 GJ, or on a human scale, the amount of energy a man on bike could generate by pedaling, absolutely flat out for 118 days continuously . I suspect most people reading this would want to be paid more than £80 to pedal a bike flat out for 4 months....)
Unfortunately, as we are now finding out, that profligate consumption and waste is likely to have impacted our very planet, and it is increasingly clear that we cannot allow it to continue if we want to safe guard the future of our both our species, and every living thing on the one planet we rely on to survive........
Heres Johnny said:
Max_torque made a statement which was wrong in a practical sense, I corrected it.
I think you'll find it was me "telling the Truth"! Seriously, go read the bull you wrote about an EV "Suffering" in the cold (what ever that means).The simply fact is that an ICE "suffers" more in the cold than an EV does, but because it's so incredibly wasteful ALL THE TIME the average owner doesn't notice that much.
IME, a typical ICE drops around 2 to 4 mpg between summer and winter use for a year round average of lets say 40mpg.
2 mpg out of 40 is 5%. 5% of 60 litres of fuel in the tank is 102 MJ of energy. 102 MILLION JOULES! Or to use the Man-on-a-bike example, he'd need to pedal, flat out for 6.5 days to make that much energy!
That much energy would propel an EV for something like 140 miles, just the extra energy your ICE wastes because the weather gets colder!
Knock_knock said:
According to www.mygridgb.co.uk, over the last twelve months "low carbon" power sources have contributed 45.9% of supply.
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/
Also, to deal with another point raised a few pages ago about the environmental cost of producing EV's over conventional ICE, the Union of Concerned Scientists put the excess at 16% for a Nissan Leaf type vehicle, and that overall EV's generate half the emissions of the average comparable ICE car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing and disposal is incuded.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehi...
Yes, I've seen that, so thank you for the link. Now you are going to say that I'm arguing for the sake of it, BUT, they are comparing EV with a typical US car, that does 29 mpg. My point compared an EV to a small modern diesel - which does what? 65 mpg? So if your average EV does 68 MPG, it 'aint that brilliant. (and I know it'll do 68 around town, where the IC engine won't etc etc) So, like I said,there is a small Co2 benefit (as I see it, and I remain open minded). Oh, and just to mention, Co2 manufacturing excess for a Leaf is 15%, and a Tesla 68%http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/
Also, to deal with another point raised a few pages ago about the environmental cost of producing EV's over conventional ICE, the Union of Concerned Scientists put the excess at 16% for a Nissan Leaf type vehicle, and that overall EV's generate half the emissions of the average comparable ICE car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing and disposal is incuded.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehi...
But for everything said above, that ev's overall use less energy to get from A to B, they still have the Achilles heel of range and charging time.
For most journeys that's not a problem at all, but quite.a few households will need an ICE to support the EV for the near future.
Drove from Lancaster to monte casino this year, could not have done that in an EV as easily, even if there were charging points everywhere.
going to be interesting how this is resolved.
For most journeys that's not a problem at all, but quite.a few households will need an ICE to support the EV for the near future.
Drove from Lancaster to monte casino this year, could not have done that in an EV as easily, even if there were charging points everywhere.
going to be interesting how this is resolved.
Gary C said:
But for everything said above, that ev's overall use less energy to get from A to B, they still have the Achilles heel of range and charging time.
For most journeys that's not a problem at all, but quite.a few households will need an ICE to support the EV for the near future.
Drove from Lancaster to monte casino this year, could not have done that in an EV as easily, even if there were charging points everywhere.
going to be interesting how this is resolved.
Do you buy your cars based on a journey you do once (maybe more) a year?For most journeys that's not a problem at all, but quite.a few households will need an ICE to support the EV for the near future.
Drove from Lancaster to monte casino this year, could not have done that in an EV as easily, even if there were charging points everywhere.
going to be interesting how this is resolved.
I know some people do, but it seems a strange compromise if you could be benefiting the other 51 weeks of the year.
Gary C said:
But for everything said above, that ev's overall use less energy to get from A to B, they still have the Achilles heel of range and charging time.
For most journeys that's not a problem at all, but quite.a few households will need an ICE to support the EV for the near future.
Drove from Lancaster to monte casino this year, could not have done that in an EV as easily, even if there were charging points everywhere.
going to be interesting how this is resolved.
Some manufacturers do a deal where you can get a free ICE hire car a few times a year for longer journeys which makes quite a bit of sense in a fair few circumstances, probably not when you're going off for a few weeks holiday though.For most journeys that's not a problem at all, but quite.a few households will need an ICE to support the EV for the near future.
Drove from Lancaster to monte casino this year, could not have done that in an EV as easily, even if there were charging points everywhere.
going to be interesting how this is resolved.
There's another thread on here somewhere with a Tesla owner saying about doing a lot of European travelling, and reckons stopping every couple of hundred miles for a fast charge doesn't actually add much to his overall journey time, and is well worth it on the grounds that the superchargers are free. IMO you need a couple of hundred mile range to do that though which at the moment is only really Teslas I think, plus free charging will become rarer as EV's get more popular.
I'll probably go PHEV for my next car, 20-30 mile electric range would cover a big proportion of my journeys, with an ICE for the longer distance trips. Not as efficient as either an EV or an ICE for the right type of journeys, but a decent compromise IMO.
message for Pro-EV people:
Give it up - you are never going to win an emotional argument based on fact.
It seems that the majority of Metathesiophobia sufferers require an EV to tick every motoring requirement of every person in every possible type of scenario before they'll even think about listening to anyone who is already benefiting from one.
Message for Anti-EV people:
Give it up - no one said they are the perfect answer to every question. They are however, the right answer for some people, right now. why can't you see that?
funny - we don't hear anyone commenting on a new MX-5 owner saying.."yeh thats absolute s
t, what happens if you wanna take the inlaws in the back?" or "i have 16 children, they'll never fit in that - it'll never catch on..'
For the person with no inlaws or children, the MX5 might be ideal.... just be happy for them, even though its not for you?
Give it up - you are never going to win an emotional argument based on fact.
It seems that the majority of Metathesiophobia sufferers require an EV to tick every motoring requirement of every person in every possible type of scenario before they'll even think about listening to anyone who is already benefiting from one.
Message for Anti-EV people:
Give it up - no one said they are the perfect answer to every question. They are however, the right answer for some people, right now. why can't you see that?
funny - we don't hear anyone commenting on a new MX-5 owner saying.."yeh thats absolute s
t, what happens if you wanna take the inlaws in the back?" or "i have 16 children, they'll never fit in that - it'll never catch on..'For the person with no inlaws or children, the MX5 might be ideal.... just be happy for them, even though its not for you?
Thing is Pixel, i have no issue with someone not wanting to buy an EV, simply because they don't want one. That's fine, it's personal choice.
However, what these threads show is that a lot of people have "decided" they don't want an EV for various reasons that are total rubbish.
Take the "EV's aren't any greener than ICEs" statement. You see it time, and time, and time again on this thread. it's not true, in fact, it's demonstrably untrue, and 2 mins of basic science shows you that it's not true.
Today, with "Information" at our finger tips, people make decisions based on false, poorly presented and most often, misunderstood, information. They don't think "hmm, i wonder if that statement is true" they don't sit down, and work out from themselves the likely hood of it being true, and in this age of instant gratification, chances are they don't even make any attempt to validate that information from more than one source.
So, if you don't want an EV, that's great, don't buy one.
But for FFS, don't hate them because you have erroneously decided they have no benefits (to individuals or society)
However, what these threads show is that a lot of people have "decided" they don't want an EV for various reasons that are total rubbish.
Take the "EV's aren't any greener than ICEs" statement. You see it time, and time, and time again on this thread. it's not true, in fact, it's demonstrably untrue, and 2 mins of basic science shows you that it's not true.
Today, with "Information" at our finger tips, people make decisions based on false, poorly presented and most often, misunderstood, information. They don't think "hmm, i wonder if that statement is true" they don't sit down, and work out from themselves the likely hood of it being true, and in this age of instant gratification, chances are they don't even make any attempt to validate that information from more than one source.
So, if you don't want an EV, that's great, don't buy one.
But for FFS, don't hate them because you have erroneously decided they have no benefits (to individuals or society)
Max_Torque said:
Today, with "Information" at our finger tips, people make decisions based on false, poorly presented and most often, misunderstood, information. They don't think "hmm, i wonder if that statement is true" they don't sit down, and work out from themselves the likely hood of it being true, and in this age of instant gratification, chances are they don't even make any attempt to validate that information from more than one source.
This.Opinions are fine, but the biggest cause of contempt in this thread and similar has been the proliferation of false information.
bearman68 said:
Yes, I've seen that, so thank you for the link. Now you are going to say that I'm arguing for the sake of it, BUT, they are comparing EV with a typical US car, that does 29 mpg. My point compared an EV to a small modern diesel - which does what? 65 mpg? So if your average EV does 68 MPG, it 'aint that brilliant. (and I know it'll do 68 around town, where the IC engine won't etc etc) So, like I said,there is a small Co2 benefit (as I see it, and I remain open minded). Oh, and just to mention, Co2 manufacturing excess for a Leaf is 15%, and a Tesla 68%
Not going to suggest you're arguing for the sake of it at all.But, let's be careful with our metrics here!
For a starters, the 29mpg gasoline example vehicle and 68mpge EV equivalent are both using those "little" American gallons. If we upsize them you get 34.8mpg gasoline and 81.6mpge for electric.
Then consider that these figures are (as I understand it) national averages from 2015 for USA. If you were getting your electricity in one of the cleaner states such as California the EV average rises to around 102mpg (85mpg American). Each year the American grid is getting cleaner, as is ours. I haven't tried to work out which state we're closest too, on the grounds of finding better things to do with my evening (!).
Also, despite the CO2 excess figures, they reckon the Leaf gets back to parity after 6 months, and the Tesla after 16 months, so still a significant benefit over the lifetime of the vehicle. UCoS put the lifetime figure for EV's at half of a gasoline equivalent.
Also probably relevant to raise the issue of real world consumption (which looks to have been addressed by UoCS for their figures) as while your small diesel example sounds good at 65mpg, I'm noting that the Ford Focus (2014 on) 2.0 TDCi 150 claims 70.6mpg but only gets 51.3mpg.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/focus-20...
And I shan't start about the point pollution generated by diesel, or to a lesser extent petrol engines, compared to the pollution which a small number of power stations produce in this fashion, or in the case of green energy don't.
Knock_knock said:
Not going to suggest you're arguing for the sake of it at all.
But, let's be careful with our metrics here!
For a starters, the 29mpg gasoline example vehicle and 68mpge EV equivalent are both using those "little" American gallons. If we upsize them you get 34.8mpg gasoline and 81.6mpge for electric.
Then consider that these figures are (as I understand it) national averages from 2015 for USA. If you were getting your electricity in one of the cleaner states such as California the EV average rises to around 102mpg (85mpg American). Each year the American grid is getting cleaner, as is ours. I haven't tried to work out which state we're closest too, on the grounds of finding better things to do with my evening (!).
Also, despite the CO2 excess figures, they reckon the Leaf gets back to parity after 6 months, and the Tesla after 16 months, so still a significant benefit over the lifetime of the vehicle. UCoS put the lifetime figure for EV's at half of a gasoline equivalent.
Also probably relevant to raise the issue of real world consumption (which looks to have been addressed by UoCS for their figures) as while your small diesel example sounds good at 65mpg, I'm noting that the Ford Focus (2014 on) 2.0 TDCi 150 claims 70.6mpg but only gets 51.3mpg.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/focus-20...
And I shan't start about the point pollution generated by diesel, or to a lesser extent petrol engines, compared to the pollution which a small number of power stations produce in this fashion, or in the case of green energy don't.
Thanks for the post. I can see some data shows EV's are better from a Co2 perspective - and they are likely to become more betterer as time goes by. They don't emit tailpipe pollutants, and they no doubt make the flowers grow prettier everywhere they go. That's not really in dispute. (Though some of the data tends to be conflicting, even from respected organisations)But, let's be careful with our metrics here!
For a starters, the 29mpg gasoline example vehicle and 68mpge EV equivalent are both using those "little" American gallons. If we upsize them you get 34.8mpg gasoline and 81.6mpge for electric.
Then consider that these figures are (as I understand it) national averages from 2015 for USA. If you were getting your electricity in one of the cleaner states such as California the EV average rises to around 102mpg (85mpg American). Each year the American grid is getting cleaner, as is ours. I haven't tried to work out which state we're closest too, on the grounds of finding better things to do with my evening (!).
Also, despite the CO2 excess figures, they reckon the Leaf gets back to parity after 6 months, and the Tesla after 16 months, so still a significant benefit over the lifetime of the vehicle. UCoS put the lifetime figure for EV's at half of a gasoline equivalent.
Also probably relevant to raise the issue of real world consumption (which looks to have been addressed by UoCS for their figures) as while your small diesel example sounds good at 65mpg, I'm noting that the Ford Focus (2014 on) 2.0 TDCi 150 claims 70.6mpg but only gets 51.3mpg.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/focus-20...
And I shan't start about the point pollution generated by diesel, or to a lesser extent petrol engines, compared to the pollution which a small number of power stations produce in this fashion, or in the case of green energy don't.
All really I'm saying is in there here and now, in many (some / few, take your pick), they are not as Co2 friendly as is often shouted about. That's it.
Some research also suggests EV's actually increase Co2 output due to peoples behavior in using them -but that's another argument and prob not for here.
If we were to take a non emotional view on Co2 reduction, I suspect the widespread use of EV's v ICE is not the one to give the greatest benefit. (Be better to make everyone vegan for example).
Evanivitch said:
Gary C said:
But for everything said above, that ev's overall use less energy to get from A to B, they still have the Achilles heel of range and charging time.
For most journeys that's not a problem at all, but quite.a few households will need an ICE to support the EV for the near future.
Drove from Lancaster to monte casino this year, could not have done that in an EV as easily, even if there were charging points everywhere.
going to be interesting how this is resolved.
Do you buy your cars based on a journey you do once (maybe more) a year?For most journeys that's not a problem at all, but quite.a few households will need an ICE to support the EV for the near future.
Drove from Lancaster to monte casino this year, could not have done that in an EV as easily, even if there were charging points everywhere.
going to be interesting how this is resolved.
I know some people do, but it seems a strange compromise if you could be benefiting the other 51 weeks of the year.
My wife also does 20k a year for her work and an affordable ev won't cut it yet.
As I said, interesting times as we either change our expectations or ev tech improves
Or a bit of both.
Gary C said:
My wife also does 20k a year for her work and an affordable ev won't cut it yet.
As I said, interesting times as we either change our expectations or ev tech improves
Or a bit of both.
Fortunately we have EV charging at work (13-22A posts), but it does mean that myself (Ampera PHEV), a Leaf and (recently) a Tesla S are all able to do our 18,000-22,000 mile commutes purely on Electricity.As I said, interesting times as we either change our expectations or ev tech improves
Or a bit of both.
The tech is there, and the investment required to install is relatively small (and grants available).
Evanivitch said:
Gary C said:
My wife also does 20k a year for her work and an affordable ev won't cut it yet.
As I said, interesting times as we either change our expectations or ev tech improves
Or a bit of both.
Fortunately we have EV charging at work (13-22A posts), but it does mean that myself (Ampera PHEV), a Leaf and (recently) a Tesla S are all able to do our 18,000-22,000 mile commutes purely on Electricity.As I said, interesting times as we either change our expectations or ev tech improves
Or a bit of both.
The tech is there, and the investment required to install is relatively small (and grants available).
My commute would suit a leaf perfectly. 7 miles to work, 7 miles home.
However, environment aside, at the moment I can buy a car that's generally cheaper than an ev that does everything an ev does and more. The only positive would be cost of energy and at the moment that's not a real benefit for my commute and won't work for the wife (at the moment)
So to get mass uptake, the ev's have a bit to go, but 10 years ago, who would have thought we would be this close.
Gary C said:
The only positive would be cost of energy
I disagree. One of the really good things about EVs is how quiet and smooth they are, very pleasant for an uninteresting commute compared to the equivalent small hatchback, plus the way they just work immediately without a need for warming up. That is the stuff that was a big selling point for me.I don't really care about running costs, or how dolphin friendly they are. I bought one because it's actually really nice to use for the kind of driving I mostly do, and I wanted to try one.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff