Electric - It shouldn't need my 12 year old to tell you..
Discussion
It's surprising how these self confessed experts, telling us that EV's won't work, it's all a Government conspiracy, or EV's are more polluting that ICE's, or whatever form of blinkered claptrap they have come up with, can't even get their units right, and don't know the difference between power and energy..........
Max_Torque said:
It's surprising how these self confessed experts, telling us that EV's won't work, it's all a Government conspiracy, or EV's are more polluting that ICE's, or whatever form of blinkered claptrap they have come up with, can't even get their units right, and don't know the difference between power and energy..........
I sit here looking at my utilities bill. There is a reason why my electricity is billed nearer 5 times the price of my gas. Billed at 0.14p per KWh and my gas sits at 0.03p per KWh . By my Maths precisely 4.6 times more expensive. This tells its own story.You can all bang on about wonderous advances in cells and the motors, and how we no longer use plain simple lead-acid and NiCads all day. How the new Messiah has reinvented the battery etc etc
It all may be true, so for the sake of unreasonable debate, we’ll assume you’re right. And besides, you might be.
But… making the power to generate it, then generating it, moving the stuff, and storing it, only to convert it into motive power will always to be the most wasteful and convoluted way to run a car. With each step the environmental damage in its wake has to be vast. There is a reason why my electricity is billed at 0.14p per KWh and my gas a mere 0.03p. All that costs money too.
Of course an ICE car has similar losses, however KW for KW, well to the miles travelled, electricity has to less efficient. The goo d thing about my utilities bill is that the real market cost of power is not masked by fuel-duty, taxation, the cost of one car over another etc etc, it’s in black and white. There it is, in utilities bills.
For many things there is no alternative, we’ve not mastered the gas powered TV yet, but generally speaking, electricity is a lousy way to use energy. few are worse.
Even off-peak it’s still 0.07p a Kw/h. So, you can throw all the wizardry you like at this, put your wondrous battery tech where the sun don’t shine, and still the numbers won’t be going away.
Now a gallon of petrol holds 43 kWh, and to get those 43kWh into you tank by the time it was refined, moved and pumped puts the total kWh to get it there far higher. While I have no figures, common-sense would say that 43KWh in the from of electricity, or to use the American GGE (gas gallon equiv.) measure, has the cost of putting 43kWh into your battery at infinitely more. Even if when you’ve finally got your 43kWh into your cells and can make more efficient use of it, in terms of miles covered, what it costs to get it there, means, all told, it can’t be efficient.
EV only looks efficient when you hide the back-story. Something EVs are very good at doing. Look at your own bills.
These wonderous cells I love. The problems really have been solved. So I ask, why is electricity so pricey?
Last night i pumped my car with CNG, and as I trundled down the road, in I might add, a proper car, much as I’ve been doing for the last 18 years, I pondered you lot.
I smiled.
However I will lose this argument. Because it will never be a raw engineeing or fuel-cost debate. Or even an environmental one. Whatever the vailidity of my argument or yorus, your facts, mine? It'll be trashed, decided and beaten by taxation, and that skews it to EV by a big margin. It will screw the environment just the same. So get your EV, and avoid some taxation whilst it lasts.
The argument is both lost and won, it simply depends on which end of the telescope you happen ot be looking.
Edited by OldDuffer on Saturday 16th September 08:11
t???)People who bang on about how electric cars aren't efficient, or are actually bad for the environment, are like the people who comment about mpg when you drive something thirsty with a V8, and the answer is the same: Don't care, that's not why I bought it.
It's like people who give all the reasons why an electric car won't work for them because they don't have a driveway, or always do long journeys, or whatever. Don't care, buy something else, it doesn't magically make those issues affect me.
It's like people who give all the reasons why an electric car won't work for them because they don't have a driveway, or always do long journeys, or whatever. Don't care, buy something else, it doesn't magically make those issues affect me.
OldDuffer said:
Max_Torque said:
It's surprising how these self confessed experts, telling us that EV's won't work, it's all a Government conspiracy, or EV's are more polluting that ICE's, or whatever form of blinkered claptrap they have come up with, can't even get their units right, and don't know the difference between power and energy..........
I sit here looking at my utilities bill. There is a reason why my electricity is billed nearer 5 times the price of my gas. Billed at 0.14p per KWh and my gas sits at 0.03p per KWh . By my Maths precisely 4.6 times more expensive. This tells its own story.You can all bang on about wonderous advances in cells and the motors, and how we no longer use plain simple lead-acid and NiCads all day. How the new Messiah has reinvented the battery etc etc
It all may be true, so for the sake of unreasonable debate, we’ll assume you’re right. And besides, you might be.
But… making the power to generate it, then generating it, moving the stuff, and storing it, only to convert it into motive power will always to be the most wasteful and convoluted way to run a car. With each step the environmental damage in its wake has to be vast. There is a reason why my electricity is billed at 0.14p per KWh and my gas a mere 0.03p. All that costs money too.
Of course an ICE car has similar losses, however KW for KW, well to the miles travelled, electricity has to less efficient. The goo d thing about my utilities bill is that the real market cost of power is not masked by fuel-duty, taxation, the cost of one car over another etc etc, it’s in black and white. There it is, in utilities bills.
For many things there is no alternative, we’ve not mastered the gas powered TV yet, but generally speaking, electricity is a lousy way to use energy. few are worse.
Even off-peak it’s still 0.07p a Kw/h. So, you can throw all the wizardry you like at this, put your wondrous battery tech where the sun don’t shine, and still the numbers won’t be going away.
Now a gallon of petrol holds 43 kWh, and to get those 43kWh into you tank by the time it was refined, moved and pumped puts the total kWh to get it there far higher. While I have no figures, common-sense would say that 43KWh in the from of electricity, or to use the American GGE (gas gallon equiv.) measure, has the cost of putting 43kWh into your battery at infinitely more. Even if when you’ve finally got your 43kWh into your cells and can make more efficient use of it, in terms of miles covered, what it costs to get it there, means, all told, it can’t be efficient.
EV only looks efficient when you hide the back-story. Something EVs are very good at doing. Look at your own bills.
These wonderous cells I love. The problems really have been solved. So I ask, why is electricity so pricey?
Last night i pumped my car with CNG, and as I trundled down the road, in I might add, a proper car, much as I’ve been doing for the last 18 years, I pondered you lot.
I smiled.
However I will lose this argument. Because it will never be a raw engineeing or fuel-cost debate. Or even an environmental one. Whatever the vailidity of my argument or yorus, your facts, mine? It'll be trashed, decided and beaten by taxation, and that skews it to EV by a big margin. It will screw the environment just the same. So get your EV, and avoid some taxation whilst it lasts.
The argument is both lost and won, it simply depends on which end of the telescope you happen ot be looking.
Edited by OldDuffer on Saturday 16th September 08:11
Surely an oversight for a qualified engineer such as yourself?
Please correct me on my cells and battery errors. I'm interested. I assume again batteries are different in cars. It seems, in a car batteries are not made-up from grouped secondary cells, known as a battery of 'cells', then I truly have it all wrong. May I ask? What is the battery made up with? Mayhaps, Digestive biscuits?
Er, your numbers don't factor your high set-up cost.
New, you're at least £20,000 over me. Worse, you can't do the miles to recoup your costs. Real world range for a Leaf is 100, at best 120. My range on a good day is 230, at worst 180. On that bad day, at 181 I flick to petrol. Whereas, 80 miles before me, you just stop.
I pay £3.20 for my range, which agreed is more than you, but I fill in just over 3 hours, and my set-up was only about £1200 more than the price you'll pay for a battery.
Where you might be getting near me is that the Leaf seems to depreciate faster than almost any other car on the road, so if yours is a used example, you may get nearer my set-up costs. Then, you start cooking... only you can't do the miles. And, buying new seems like suicide?
Question? My car is an old classic, it owes me £1500. If anything it has appreciated in my ownership, but because basically it was never worth much in the first place, depreciation is not really a factor. I use an old scuba compressor to fill, that was £1200. But average Joe would need to pay more than that.
Why do these Nissans depreciate so much? a Nissan Leaf loses more in a year of ownership than twice the cost of my whole set-up! I confess, EV is vastly simpler than my arrangement, so what frightens the market for a used one?
Er, your numbers don't factor your high set-up cost.
New, you're at least £20,000 over me. Worse, you can't do the miles to recoup your costs. Real world range for a Leaf is 100, at best 120. My range on a good day is 230, at worst 180. On that bad day, at 181 I flick to petrol. Whereas, 80 miles before me, you just stop.
I pay £3.20 for my range, which agreed is more than you, but I fill in just over 3 hours, and my set-up was only about £1200 more than the price you'll pay for a battery.
Where you might be getting near me is that the Leaf seems to depreciate faster than almost any other car on the road, so if yours is a used example, you may get nearer my set-up costs. Then, you start cooking... only you can't do the miles. And, buying new seems like suicide?
Question? My car is an old classic, it owes me £1500. If anything it has appreciated in my ownership, but because basically it was never worth much in the first place, depreciation is not really a factor. I use an old scuba compressor to fill, that was £1200. But average Joe would need to pay more than that.
Why do these Nissans depreciate so much? a Nissan Leaf loses more in a year of ownership than twice the cost of my whole set-up! I confess, EV is vastly simpler than my arrangement, so what frightens the market for a used one?
AW111 said:
OD : not everyone wants to drive a second hand banger. Comparing one to anything new is meaningless in this discussion.
Agreed and fair. Only you'll not easily buy a new NG car, and you can buy a used EV, so to get to like-for-like, I made that leap. And I thought it enables the EV lobby to have level playing field. Especially as a used EV is also worth sod all. This keeps the point purely about the fuel.I'm not sure where I've been dishonest either. Are EVs worth a alot used? Is it range? I confess range for me works like this. On hot days I get less range because NG is very dependent on temperature for its volume, hence after a fill, if I drive way immediatly rather than let the filled gas cool in my tank, I'lll have less gas, masked by higher pressure in my tank. Thus if I'm knowingly about to drive on or over the limit of my range I am better to do a top-up fill just before I set out to get that last bit of gas in my tank. This now the main body of gas has cooled and has reduced the pressure in my tank. If I don't go for that second top-up fill, I can lose 25 miles in range very easily. Especially on a hot day. NG will have 10% more volume at only marginally higher temperatures and compression makes it lots warmer, hence the above. Most tiimes I don't bother, only when I need it, but on those occassions, I let it cool and then work as above. On a cold Feb day, 230 miles is usual. On an Aug day, more likely 190. Then its petrol. My usuage pattern means I seldom use petrol. Not so different to LPG, they are very similar.
As for my fill-time, that is wholly dependent on the grunt of my compressor, and for that I've no toy. It's the proper job. Compressors are cheap enough, why would I buy a toy? And I don't have to slow-fill, with the right amount of grunt, there's places I can go (Crewe CNG & DIRFT) and have seen it happen. My car was filled in 10 secs. They do large vans in about 30secs, 7 tonners in under a minute. However there are comprssors that require 6-7 hours to fill my same tank. Only why you'd have one, beats me.
As for the ranges quoted for a Leaf, I understand this too is dependent on temperature and spurious other stuff. But 120ish is the outer limit ? I understand, you don't flick a switch to carry on, you get the bus. Your usuage pattern must be narrowly defined.
Please also define how i am confused (and dishonest) by batteries in EV cars that are not made up of cells and where I am off kilter?
I can see, I am off kiler on one point, EV will happen, is happening, because taxation is behind it. Without taxation support it is not appreciably superior to any other, but it does have support. Hence my origianl point, my approach is leftfield and made extemely difficult for all but a finite few, whereas by default rahter than any real merit, EV wins. At one time this taxation position was given solely to LPG, then in part to Die-sel, now its EVs' turn.
Edited by OldDuffer on Monday 18th September 10:55
OldDuffer said:
Please also define tell how i am confused (and dishonest) by batteries in EV cars that are not made up of cells and where I am off kilter?
I think the point is you're referring to "batteries" as a single thing. Batteries are a way of chemically storing electrical energy. As an analogy an engine is a device for converting chemical energy in to kinetic energy. Stephenson's Rocket and an A380 are both powered by engines, but they have very different characteristics and limitations, just as a lead acid battery has significantly different performance to a modern Li-Ion.RizzoTheRat said:
I think the point is you're referring to "batteries" as a single thing. Batteries are a way of chemically storing electrical energy. As an analogy an engine is a device for converting chemical energy in to kinetic energy. Stephenson's Rocket and an A380 are both powered by engines, but they have very different characteristics and limitations, just as a lead acid battery has significantly different performance to a modern Li-Ion.
Eh, I was accused of confusing cells and batteries. Not the materials they contain? Correct?In my mind, and when I went to school a battery was 'effectively' the plural of cell. Or to put it another way, we can say a car has 'cells' or it has a battery. Or in some cases a car may have more than one battery, hence it has 'batteries'... in the plural? Hence it has two or more sets of cells. A 'battery' is already the plural. The collective.
So, and I quote "a lead acid battery has significantly different performance to a modern Li-Ion." may be true, but what has, along with Stephenson's Rocket got to do with the definition of a cell over a battery? Or indeed 'cells' or 'batteries'?
Hence when i refer to a car's 'cells' I am accurate, because it has grouped-cells in a battery. Whereas if I refer to its battery, it may have several batteries. To be pedantic I would be incorect. So simply referring to the car's 'cells' I can't be wrong.
Incidentally if it's 1.5V or under it is NOT a battery. That is impossible. There are morons out there that would call it othewise.
Is it me, or has no other heard the term 'gun battery'. A group of guns?
Others went to school. Someone help me here?
Edited by OldDuffer on Monday 18th September 11:37
OldDuffer said:
Eh, I accused of confusing cells and batteries, correct? Not the materails they contain?
No, you were accused of that, too, but you're choosing to focus on what is effectively grammatical minutiae in order to avoid confronting fundamental things you don't understand, yet have based your arguments on.Also, the taxation thing: Engineering is not just a purely technical endeavour. You also have to take into account, and optimise for, things like legislation and taxation policies.
InitialDave said:
No, you were accused of that, too, but you're choosing to focus on what is effectively grammatical minutiae in order to avoid confronting fundamental things you don't understand, yet have based your arguments on.
Also, the taxation thing: Engineering is not just a purely technical endeavour. You also have to take into account, and optimise for, things like legislation and taxation policies.
Ah, I finally understand... the taxation thing: Engineering is not just a purely technical endeavour.Also, the taxation thing: Engineering is not just a purely technical endeavour. You also have to take into account, and optimise for, things like legislation and taxation policies.
Exactly my point. It has to use flawed thinking to skew for it.
And the following is a lie. Because I've misunderstood the amazing new cell technology, (sorry battery tech) and I'm the fool here, and a Nissan really, really does do 530 miles on a charge, and takes seconds to charge, not 45 mins or 8/10 hours at home:
===========================
And finally, not only will a CNG van go far further between fill ups than an electric model – the Caddy claims a 390-mile range (530 miles if it’s a long-wheelbase Caddy Maxi), while the longest-lasting electric small van, the 2017 Renault Kangoo ZE 33, is officially rated to just 170 miles – it takes only a few minutes to top up the tanks.
===========================
http://www.parkers.co.uk/vans/news-and-advice/2017...
I lay prostrate at your feet. You'll have to read it to see how, but the new Renault Kangoo ZE 33 has a 530 mile range, with its fabled battery tech. EV wins.
BTW my brother owns a UK RHD Caddy (short body) CNG and beinga 2007 model, he gets about 310 (on a cold day) out of his.
I propose a bet. Money-where-mouth is. Any of you battery tech advocates want to take me on?
A 'range-over-time-taken to cover it contest. First one to do 700 miles, on EV or CNG in one vehilcle. £5000 to the winner?
You in a Leaf or any other EV. Me in my old wreck or using my brother's Caddy. We can pass charging points if you like. Legal speeds. Two passengers from opposing sides to assure fair play.
Come on, no mouth and trousers, money-where-mouth is? You've wonderous battery tech and my complete misunderstanding of it on your side. I'm the idiot here.
All that Mush bull, you're going to have me for breakfast. Serious about your tech against mine? We can lodge stakes with a solicitor or similar. Serious? I am. Completely.
Come now, take me on.
A 'range-over-time-taken to cover it contest. First one to do 700 miles, on EV or CNG in one vehilcle. £5000 to the winner?
You in a Leaf or any other EV. Me in my old wreck or using my brother's Caddy. We can pass charging points if you like. Legal speeds. Two passengers from opposing sides to assure fair play.
Come on, no mouth and trousers, money-where-mouth is? You've wonderous battery tech and my complete misunderstanding of it on your side. I'm the idiot here.
All that Mush bull, you're going to have me for breakfast. Serious about your tech against mine? We can lodge stakes with a solicitor or similar. Serious? I am. Completely.
Come now, take me on.
Edited by OldDuffer on Monday 18th September 15:57
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff