Electric cars vs ICE cars
| Electric cars vs ICE cars18-01-2020 20:52 | |
| Xadoman★★★★☆ (1035) |
Every electric car user praises how cheap is to run an electric car and how greene it is. I have heard numbers that it is even up to 6 times cheaper to run an electric car than a similar size petrol car. I do not understand how is this possible. The power plants that produce electicity from coal or oil shale have often quite low efficiency. Modern diesel engine has definately higher efficiency that a coal plant. The electricity needs to be transported via power lines and there are also quite big losses. Furthermore, when electricity is used to charge a battery there are also losses. And the biggest killer of efficiency - when the weather is cold, you have to use the energy from battery to heat up the cabin. In the petrol car the heat from cooling system is used to heat the cabin. So overall it seems to me that the electric car is not efficient at all compared to petrol car. I have a feeling that when there is going to be a mass transformation to electric car then the price of electricity is going to skyrocket. |
| 18-01-2020 21:21 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21637) |
The electric car isn't about efficiency. In most cases, it's about being smug. That said, electric cars DO have their place. They make a good commuter car. They do not handle long distance driving at all well due to the long refueling time they have. Most perform extremely well in the snow, since the drive motors are independent on each wheel and are computer controlled. Each wheel is monitored for slippage. The internal combustion engine definitely has its pluses. It takes only minutes to refuel, giving these cars the ability to travel for very long distances easily. Many don't handle the snow so well, and some really suck at it. Heating the cabin from the hot section of the engine is not a waste of energy at all. All engines require a hot section and a cold section. Using the cabin as part of the cold section does not require any additional energy from the engine (except to run the fan). An electric motor is not an engine. It is a transducer of sorts, converting electrical energy into kinetic energy. No thermal energy is involved at all, other than the usual friction, the inductive heating effects from the counter EMF in the motor, and the chemical reactions in the batteries as they discharge...all incidental, and not enough to heat the cabin. The only way to heat the cabin is to use some energy from the battery through a resistor to do it. The fan still requires the additional energy as well, reducing the range of your travel before refueling. The biggest disadvantage of the electric car is the refueling cycle, which takes hours, not minutes. Hybrids get the advantages of both, but at the cost of carrying two powerplants around with them, which reduces efficiency. These cars have somewhat less range than a similar ICE car of the same size, but at least they can be refueled in a few minutes. Electric power in vehicles is quiet....too quiet. You don't hear them at all well when they begin moving. This is a major problem for pedestrians around electric cars or electric trains. Some of them produce an artificial 'vroom vroom' noise through a speaker or make use of a horn or whistle to alert nearby pedestrians the vehicle is going to move (o o) or (o o o). Even the steam locomotives used such a whistle, since the locomotive might be far away and it affects the other end of the train where someone might be standing. Trains also take a LONG time to stop. That is why locomotives always sound their horns when approaching a public grade crossings (- - o -). Gates and lights might also be available at that crossing. Electric powered cars don't use horns in this way (they probably should, at least in parking lots), but they DO often make an artificial sound using speakers. You have to be an extra alert driver with electric cars. Pedestrians often don't even know you're there and moving! Edited on 18-01-2020 21:44 |
| 18-01-2020 21:36 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5197) |
Our electric grid needs a major upgrade, or re-do, since load balancing works from a know capacity to provide electricity. Solar only produces, when the sun is shining, and cloud cover greatly diminishes production as well, variable supply, and no capacity to predict. Wind power, also suffers from the same problem of only supply, variable output, depending how the wind blows, and no capacity to predict the output. With our current grid system, we can add and remover generators, to balance the load, based on demand. As we switch to renewable sources, we are going to add instability to the grid, which will trigger automatic shutdowns, and equipment damage. Blackouts will be very common, since shutting down, is the quickest, safest way, to protect equipment. It won't be doing you electric car's battery any favors either, with interrupting, and restarting the charge. Most people don't get a choice, about where the buy their electricity, or how much they pay. There is only one provider, and you pay what they say. When demand exceeds the supply, some people will get blacked out. I'll guaranty it's not the rich guys, who are willing and able to pay, whatever it takes, to get continuous service. Our current grid already supports primary circuits. Hospitals, EMS, police, city government, already to preferred and priority service. I bought my home, near the city center. I didn't find out a year or two later, that I was one the same priority circuit, as the city services. On the other side of the street, they aren't. When we lost power, do to a storm, my power is restored in under an hour, or fairly quick, compared to across the street. Sometimes it's a difference of several hours. |
| 18-01-2020 21:45 | |
| Xadoman★★★★☆ (1035) |
Heating the cabin from the hot section of the engine is not a waste of energy at all That was the point I wanted to make. The waste heat from engine can be used to heat the cabin. Similarily the power plants efficiency could go up if they use the heat for central heating of the town in cold weather. The biggest disadvantage of the electric car is the refueling cycle, which takes hours, not minutes. I agree. Although Tesla fans often praise their super charger that could fill up a battery in minutes. They do not realize that this is only possible for one person in million. If all people would use a super charger the grid would collapse instantly.
I have read that the efficiency comes from the fact that petrol engines are not efficient at low engine loads. The electricity takes over when the engine load is low for example in town traffic. vw uses the cylinder cut off technology for similar reasons on some of their engines. It deactivates two cylinders from 4 so that the load on those working cylinders would rise and overall efficiency would go up. Edited on 18-01-2020 21:56 |
| 18-01-2020 21:48 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21637) |
This is the other very overlooked problem with large fleets of electric cars. It will simply require more electricity to charge them all. That electricity has to come from somewhere. You can install solar panels, but then the power to charge your car is not available to heat your home or run your lights with those panels. They are also difficult to maintain and don't last very long before requiring replacement. |
| 18-01-2020 21:59 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21637) |
Xadoman wrote: Tesla's 'super charger' is a marketing gimmick. A battery can only charge so fast. All batteries have internal resistance in them. The Li-ion battery is no exception. All batteries using the same chemistry are the same. They all have the same limitations. The amount of energy (in Joules or your favorite unit), to move a car of a given size and weight a given distance does not change much. It is that energy that you have to put into the battery during refueling of an electric car. There are two ways to do it: high voltage or high current (or both!). High voltage systems are dangerous to use. Arc-over is a very real danger in handling such connections. Most electric cars use 120V or 240V to charge them for this reason. So you are left with high current. This means wire size and terminal connector size is important. If you were to ram that kind of energy into an electric car in the same few minutes it takes to refuel a gasoline car, you would need a wire so big you couldn't lift it (never mind the connector!). The batteries themselves would not accept the current either, literally leaping out of the car on fire (or just setting the whole car on fire!). So it takes hours, not minutes to refuel such a car. That will never change. A Joule is a Joule. It still will require that same number of Joules to move the car of a given weight a given distance. Lead-acid batteries are among the lowest internal resistance of any battery. They charge the quickest for this reason. You STILL can't ram that kind of current into such a battery. You will bend the plates (shorting them) and boil the electrolyte away (assuming you could lift the cable and actually connect it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-01-2020 22:14 | |
| Xadoman★★★★☆ (1035) |
I agree. Fast charging will always be a problem. Also imagine when you go to a road trip and you need to refill a car but there are already 10 other clients in the line waiting to charge. Even if you get a charger instantly it takes a many hours to completely refill the battery. All you can do is to go to the nearst coffe shop and start snacking and drinking to kill time. |
| 19-01-2020 03:44 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
Xadoman wrote: I think the scheme, is to limit electric car travel, so you don't use up the battery in a single trip. Longer trips, they want you to use mass transit. Obviously, you can't leave your car, unattended either. Someone in a hurry, would just disconnect your car, and hook up theirs. Fast charging batteries, most any chemistry, means you have to replace the pack sooner. You get nothing for free, convenience costs extra. |
| 19-01-2020 14:38 | |
MarcusR ★☆☆☆☆(111) |
HarveyH55 wrote: And as far as disconnecting, all EV's I know of have a locking to the charger that disconnects only when it is fully charged or when I unlock it with the key. |
| 19-01-2020 16:26 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
MarcusR wrote:HarveyH55 wrote: I don't know, but we were talking about public chargers. Wouldn't think you get locked into fully charging, in public. Figured they allow you to partially charge, so you could limp home. I'm in no hurry to by an electric golf cart, much too expensive. The battery cost more than I typically pay for a vehicle. Paid $1000 for my current, a 2003 Ford Explorer. Yeah, a climate killing SUV, and a damn Ford, no less... |
| 19-01-2020 19:23 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21637) |
HarveyH55 wrote:MarcusR wrote:HarveyH55 wrote: I drive a climate killing Subaru SUV. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 19-01-2020 21:01 | |
| Xadoman★★★★☆ (1035) |
I have never driven an electric car but I hear a lot of praise about its acceleration. Apparently nissan leaf is going to accelerate as fast as v8 twin turbo. I myself would never buy an electric car but I understand those who want it because of its dynamic. For me the sound of an engine is also very imortant. |
| 20-01-2020 03:13 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
Xadoman wrote:I do not understand how is this possible. The power plants that produce electicity from coal or oil shale have often quite low efficiency.A car only uses 12% of the energy gasoline generates to move the car. But the main reason is that coal is much much cheaper than gasoline sold, retail. What I think is most interesting int he electric car area is the inefficiency you mentioned. See this (link  We discussed it before here:https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-we-handle-electricity-correct-d18-e2947.php#post_48674 |
| 20-01-2020 20:33 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21637) |
tmiddles wrote:WRONG. You are making up numbers again. Argument from randU fallacy. RDCF. I have already corrected you on this. RQAA.Xadoman wrote:I do not understand how is this possible. The power plants that produce electicity from coal or oil shale have often quite low efficiency.A car only uses 12% of the energy gasoline generates to move the car. tmiddles wrote: True. However, coal is harder to power an internal combustion engine with, you see. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-03-2020 18:05 | |
| Xadoman★★★★☆ (1035) |
ITN and IBdaMann, both of you belive that coal and oil are not fossil based. How did you reach to this conclusion? I have to admit that the idea of big dinosaurs forming fuels after they die sounds indeed a little bit silly but that is what they teach in the school. Is the fossil fuel theory falsified?
Edited on 11-03-2020 18:06 |
| 11-03-2020 19:55 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
Xadoman wrote: I do know they find fossilized animals and plants mixed in with coal. Which might be part of the naming. Fossil, actually refers to something that is very old. It's one of those faith-based things, depends on which church you attend, a metaphysical mystery... |
| 11-03-2020 21:00 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14453) |
Xadoman wrote: ITN and IBdaMann, both of you belive that coal and oil are not fossil based. Correct. Coal is carbon-based while petroleum and natural gas are hydrocarbons. Coal is carbon with impurities ... but the impurities don't burn. Only the carbon burns. The non-combustible impurities might contain pieces of a fossil, who knows? Fossils don't burn, however. Hydrocarbons are formed in the earth by natural geological processes. Xadoman wrote: How did you reach to this conclusion? Let's walk you through it so you can see how obvious it is. How deep are fossils? Meters? Tens of meters? Sure, there are occasional fossils that are hundreds of meters deep but that is not typical. Also, are any fossils beneath impermeable rock? Of course not. That's not even possible. How deep are oil wells? Kilometers deep? Always beneath impermeable rock? Of course. Why? The earth forms hydrocarbons from hydrogen and carbon found in the earth through geological heat and pressure. How do we know this? We can simulate this process in labs (and it only takes hours to make, not millions of years; it's just that the process is relatively expensive). When hydrocarbons form in the earth they seep upward; however they can't pass through impermeable rock, so they accumulate when they reach it ... forming wells. Is there any reason to believe that the earth will somehow stop forming hydrocarbons? Is there any reason to believe that the earth's mantle and crust are somehow running out of carbon and hydrogen? Is there any reason to believe that geological activity will be coming to a halt anytime soon? Is there any reason to believe that the crust and mantle will run out of heat and pressure in the forseeable future? If not then we can count on the earth continuing to create mass quantities of hydrocarbons for a long while, yes? Coal, on the other hand, might very well have come from something that was previously alive, but the requirement for something to be a fossil is that it has to provide information about the thing that was alive. Carbon that simply used to be a plant or water that was the sweat of an acient primate is not a fossil. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 11-03-2020 21:12 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21637) |
Xadoman wrote: Yes. Carbon is an element. It does not come from anything. It's just simply there. Oil is a hydrocarbon. We can and do synthesize oil from carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide in some cases), hydrogen, heat, pressure, and use an iron catalyst. The result of this synthesis is sweet crude oil (sour oil contains sulfur). This process is called the Fischer-Tropsche process (modified over the years). It was originally developed in Germany during WW2. It turns out these are the same conditions that naturally exist underground. CO2, H2, heat, pressure, and the presence of iron. Essentially then, the Earth has all the conditions required for this process to run naturally. Oil and natural gas (both hydrocarbons), can be found anywhere you care to drill for them, as long as you are willing to go deep enough. Oil comes closest to the surface at the edges of tectonic plates, especially where spreading action is taking place. This is why most oil fields are built at these locations: North slopes of Alaska, the Mid-East, the Caribbean (and on up into Texas and even further), Baja, North Seas off the UK, etc. Oil has been found in the middle of Siberia (by the same Russians that drilled the Vostok ice core..they know how to drill deeper than anyone). This field is far away from any plate edge, and they had to go pretty deep for it. Oil can be found as deep as 2 miles down, far below any fossil layer. Fossils are images of animals or plants cast in stone (typically calcium carbonate and similar materials), or the images left behind by such a casting. Calcium carbonate is not a fuel, and will actually tend to put out fires. It IS used, however, in fireworks, as a coloring agent (producing a yellow color). Such use requires a very hot fuel and oxidizer, and the presence of a chlorine source to act as a donor to activate the excitation of the calcium in a visible band. In other words, fossils don't burn. They can be used as a thing to heat and go incandescent, but they themselves are not a fuel. Natural gas is just a short hydrocarbon. it is found with oil and often by itself (bacteria produce it in swamps, for example). We also produce it. We call them farts. Same bacteria (which lives in our gut and helps us to digest food). Sinclair fuel (based in Salt Lake City, UT) still uses a dinosaur (a brontosaurus) as it's logo. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-03-2020 21:13 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21637) |
HarveyH55 wrote:Xadoman wrote: Coal does indeed contain fossils. These are impurities in the coal, and must be removed either before burning (producing better coal), or after burning (where it's part of the ash and clinker). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-05-2020 19:57 | |
| ShaharNamer☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
Yes, governments need to invest more money into electric infrastructure and we all need to keep pushing! Together we could make a better world for our children! Shahar Namer |
| 15-05-2020 20:34 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14453) |
ShaharNamer wrote: Yes, governments need to invest more money into electric infrastructure and we all need to keep pushing! Nope. Not the governments. Well, that might be fine for you over in Europe, that's what you guys like to do, i.e. have your governments treat the people's wealth as though it belongs to the government. Europeans believe that it is the responsibility of governments to spend the people's money FOR them. We look at it a little differently in the US. We believe that the government should let us keep more of our own money and allow the private sector to be investing financially in innovation ... to ensure we make a better world for our children! . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 15-05-2020 22:58 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3314) |
Into the Night wrote: When I do my weekend hiking excursions, I drive around a climate killing Lincoln Town Car... Smooth and spacious ride, and there's just something special about having a V8 engine under the hood! Much more fun to drive around than my commuter Toyota SUV... |
| 15-05-2020 23:22 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
ShaharNamer wrote: No, not governments. I don't want the government sliding their filthy hands into my pocketbook. STAY. THE. HELL. OUT. OF. IT. I want the free market to handle matters such as this. ShaharNamer wrote: I do not consider a socialist hellhole to be a "better world". Luckily, if Christianity is true, then I am ultimately only "passing through" this world, as Jesus is currently preparing a place for me in his Father's house. I am not "of the world". |
Join the debate Electric cars vs ICE cars:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The new USA electric tank, the dumbest invention in the history of warfare | 0 | 05-01-2024 15:27 |
| The new President elect of Haagen Dazs, demonstrating an ice cream filled donut | 0 | 17-11-2023 14:07 |
| EV Muscle Cars? | 41 | 16-08-2023 15:00 |
| WHY DO SELF DRIVING CARS KEEP CAUSING TRAFFIC JAMS? | 15 | 11-05-2023 00:20 |
| LOL the US Army just bought a new GM all electric Hummer for military use | 32 | 25-07-2022 13:10 |