Remember me
▼ Content

Electric cars vs ICE cars



Page 1 of 212>
Electric cars vs ICE cars18-01-2020 20:52
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1060)
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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
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
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(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
★★★★☆
(1060)
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.

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.


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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
Xadoman wrote:
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.


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
★★★★☆
(1060)
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
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Xadoman wrote:
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.


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
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Obviously, you can't leave your car, unattended either. Someone in a hurry, would just disconnect your car, and hook up theirs.


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
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
MarcusR wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Obviously, you can't leave your car, unattended either. Someone in a hurry, would just disconnect your car, and hook up theirs.


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.


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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
HarveyH55 wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Obviously, you can't leave your car, unattended either. Someone in a hurry, would just disconnect your car, and hook up theirs.


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.


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...


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
★★★★☆
(1060)
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
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
tmiddles wrote:
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.
WRONG. You are making up numbers again. Argument from randU fallacy. RDCF. I have already corrected you on this. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
But the main reason is that coal is much much cheaper than gasoline sold, retail.
...deleted Holy Links and Quote...

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
★★★★☆
(1060)
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
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Xadoman wrote:
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?


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
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14848)
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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
Xadoman wrote:
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?


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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
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?


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...


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
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14848)
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
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3322)
Into the Night wrote:
I drive a climate killing Subaru SUV.

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
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3322)
ShaharNamer wrote:
Yes, governments need to invest more money into electric infrastructure and we all need to keep pushing!

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:
Together we could make a better world for our children!

Shahar Namer

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".
08-10-2024 14:25
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(26)
Its funny to take up a list of posts 4-5years old - time passes by, but interesting to look at these foolish thoughts why electric car have no future, or just for short distance commuting ect...

At a brief moment i thought you realized that a EV 5y ago was 600% more efficient than ICE cars, today that is closer to 1500-2000%.

And no a normal battery today is around 300-350miles and avg commuter drive like 100miles per week, and you load EV at 30minutes every 14 days, or you simply connect it to you house and load when there is plenty of power in the grid, because thats when the power is cheap.

Today EVs have that extra benefit, that you can connect your maybe 80kw battery to your house, so your house draws power from car battery when grid is in lack of power so its more expensive. So car battery allow you to load battery when power is cheap and use yourself, or sell, when power is expensive.

And about heating of car - i dont think you need to worry. A heatpump in my house use like 12-1400watt to heat my house in wintertime, to heat car you need just a fraction to heat air plus a 20watt seat heater. To drive 30km to job will cost you 4kwh plus 0.5kwh for heat from your 80kw battery.

But your claim is that a EV is inefficient because you need to heat up cabin from the battery. With a slightly faster mind you would notice that it is the ICE car that is inefficient, because ICE car heat up everything all the time, you just use the heat during winter, rest of year it just dissapear up in the air. EVs just turn on the heat when needed.

BTW here 5 years later and alot of EVs on the streets, I still didnt hear about ANY blackouts caused by to many EVs loading same time...
10-10-2024 08:19
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1851)
Anders wrote:
Its funny to take up a list of posts 4-5years old - time passes by, but interesting to look at these foolish thoughts why electric car have no future, or just for short distance commuting ect...

At a brief moment i thought you realized that a EV 5y ago was 600% more efficient than ICE cars, today that is closer to 1500-2000%.

And no a normal battery today is around 300-350miles and avg commuter drive like 100miles per week, and you load EV at 30minutes every 14 days, or you simply connect it to you house and load when there is plenty of power in the grid, because thats when the power is cheap.

Today EVs have that extra benefit, that you can connect your maybe 80kw battery to your house, so your house draws power from car battery when grid is in lack of power so its more expensive. So car battery allow you to load battery when power is cheap and use yourself, or sell, when power is expensive.

And about heating of car - i dont think you need to worry. A heatpump in my house use like 12-1400watt to heat my house in wintertime, to heat car you need just a fraction to heat air plus a 20watt seat heater. To drive 30km to job will cost you 4kwh plus 0.5kwh for heat from your 80kw battery.

But your claim is that a EV is inefficient because you need to heat up cabin from the battery. With a slightly faster mind you would notice that it is the ICE car that is inefficient, because ICE car heat up everything all the time, you just use the heat during winter, rest of year it just dissapear up in the air. EVs just turn on the heat when needed.

BTW here 5 years later and alot of EVs on the streets, I still didnt hear about ANY blackouts caused by to many EVs loading same time...


Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce climate change.

When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity is not climate friendly.


11-10-2024 05:28
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(3038)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Anders wrote:
Its funny to take up a list of posts 4-5years old - time passes by, but interesting to look at these foolish thoughts why electric car have no future, or just for short distance commuting ect...

At a brief moment i thought you realized that a EV 5y ago was 600% more efficient than ICE cars, today that is closer to 1500-2000%.

And no a normal battery today is around 300-350miles and avg commuter drive like 100miles per week, and you load EV at 30minutes every 14 days, or you simply connect it to you house and load when there is plenty of power in the grid, because thats when the power is cheap.

Today EVs have that extra benefit, that you can connect your maybe 80kw battery to your house, so your house draws power from car battery when grid is in lack of power so its more expensive. So car battery allow you to load battery when power is cheap and use yourself, or sell, when power is expensive.

And about heating of car - i dont think you need to worry. A heatpump in my house use like 12-1400watt to heat my house in wintertime, to heat car you need just a fraction to heat air plus a 20watt seat heater. To drive 30km to job will cost you 4kwh plus 0.5kwh for heat from your 80kw battery.

But your claim is that a EV is inefficient because you need to heat up cabin from the battery. With a slightly faster mind you would notice that it is the ICE car that is inefficient, because ICE car heat up everything all the time, you just use the heat during winter, rest of year it just dissapear up in the air. EVs just turn on the heat when needed.

BTW here 5 years later and alot of EVs on the streets, I still didnt hear about ANY blackouts caused by to many EVs loading same time...


Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce climate change.

When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity is not climate friendly.

Are you seriously trying to pull a Pete Rogers on us?!


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
11-10-2024 06:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
Anders wrote:
Its funny to take up a list of posts 4-5years old - time passes by, but interesting to look at these foolish thoughts why electric car have no future, or just for short distance commuting ect...

The EV industry has already collapsed (again). Perhaps you never got the memo.
Anders wrote:
At a brief moment i thought you realized that a EV 5y ago was 600% more efficient than ICE cars, today that is closer to 1500-2000%.

Dead wrong.

First, nothing is 1500% efficient. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, known as an argument from randU fallacy.

EVs have to be charged. That means generating that power at a power plant (which usually requires fuel, often coal). Generating that power creates waste heat. The transformers that bump it up to line voltage also generate waste heat due to eddy currents. They are oil cooled for that reason. The power lines themselves generate waste heat due to current on the wire and also leak power to the surrounding environment. That's MORE lost energy. The power transformers at the substation also are oil cooled, and generate waste heat. That's lost energy. The distribution lines also generate waste heat. The local transformer on the pole generates waste heat (it's also oil cooled). The charger regulator and even the diodes generate waste heat. Then the batteries in your car generate waste heat while charging, and again while discharging. They are also liquid cooled for that reason. EVs are also heavy, which means they require more energy to move a given distance, according to Newton's law of motion.

Combined, the EV uses almost twice the energy to travel the same distance as an ICE vehicle of similar size which simply burns the fuel directly in the car.
Anders wrote:
And no a normal battery today is around 300-350miles

Only under ideal conditions. Conditions are rarely ideal. Batteries also lose range as they age.
Anders wrote:
and avg commuter drive like 100miles per week,

Another argument from randU fallacy.
Anders wrote:
and you load EV at 30minutes every 14 days, or you simply connect it to you house and load when there is plenty of power in the grid, because thats when the power is cheap.

I don't have to charge my gasoline vehicle at night...ever.
Anders wrote:
Today EVs have that extra benefit, that you can connect your maybe 80kw battery to your house, so your house draws power from car battery when grid is in lack of power so its more expensive.

Which discharges your car battery so you can't drive your car.
Anders wrote:
So car battery allow you to load battery when power is cheap and use yourself, or sell, when power is expensive.

So you want to buy an electric car to use as a ballasting system, which prevents you from driving the car!
Anders wrote:
And about heating of car - i dont think you need to worry. A heatpump in my house use like 12-1400watt to heat my house in wintertime, to heat car you need just a fraction to heat air plus a 20watt seat heater. To drive 30km to job will cost you 4kwh plus 0.5kwh for heat from your 80kw battery.

So your heated car seat sucks. A proper one will draw 150W, not 20.
Anders wrote:
But your claim is that a EV is inefficient because you need to heat up cabin from the battery.

No, I claim it is inefficient due to the waste heat generated during the charging and driving cycles and due to the extra weight.
Anders wrote:
With a slightly faster mind you would notice that it is the ICE car that is inefficient,

The ICE car uses only about half the energy of a similar sized EV going the same distance.
Anders wrote:
because ICE car heat up everything all the time,

Only when they running. I don't have to waste energy charging my ICE car.
Anders wrote:
you just use the heat during winter, rest of year it just dissapear up in the air.

Where I live, I use the heater pretty much every night, even in the summer, due to the cold temperatures that can occur at night in summers around here. My car is also air conditioned, so I have cool air during the day.
Anders wrote:
EVs just turn on the heat when needed.

Nope. The batteries generate quite a bit of waste heat when charging or discharging. They are liquid cooled. The motor also generates waste heat as well, due again do eddy currents in the windings. Motors on Teslas are oil cooled for that reason.
Anders wrote:
BTW here 5 years later and alot of EVs on the streets,

Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs.
Anders wrote:
I still didnt hear about ANY blackouts caused by to many EVs loading same time...

Because less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs.


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
11-10-2024 06:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

You can't create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

You are forgetting the weight of the coal or of the food you eat. You cannot create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity is not climate friendly.

Climate has no friends. It has no enemies.


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
11-10-2024 22:42
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1851)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

You can't create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

You are forgetting the weight of the coal or of the food you eat. You cannot create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity is not climate friendly.

Climate has no friends. It has no enemies.


The weight of O2 was already there. Plants made it.

The weight of the coal and food was not part of the atmosphere until it was burned (fueled by O2) and turned to CO2.

I thought you already knew this.

Why do I feel like explaining it to you is a waste of bandwidth?


12-10-2024 10:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

You can't create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

You are forgetting the weight of the coal or of the food you eat. You cannot create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity is not climate friendly.

Climate has no friends. It has no enemies.


The weight of O2 was already there. Plants made it.

The weight of the coal and food was not part of the atmosphere until it was burned (fueled by O2) and turned to CO2.

I thought you already knew this.

Why do I feel like explaining it to you is a waste of bandwidth?

That does not make O2 heavier than CO2, which is what you claimed.


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
12-10-2024 19:07
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1851)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

You can't create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

You are forgetting the weight of the coal or of the food you eat. You cannot create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity is not climate friendly.

Climate has no friends. It has no enemies.


The weight of O2 was already there. Plants made it.

The weight of the coal and food was not part of the atmosphere until it was burned (fueled by O2) and turned to CO2.

I thought you already knew this.

Why do I feel like explaining it to you is a waste of bandwidth?

That does not make O2 heavier than CO2, which is what you claimed.


Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce atmosphere weight

When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity, will add more weight to the atmosphere.


12-10-2024 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

You can't create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

You are forgetting the weight of the coal or of the food you eat. You cannot create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity is not climate friendly.

Climate has no friends. It has no enemies.


The weight of O2 was already there. Plants made it.

The weight of the coal and food was not part of the atmosphere until it was burned (fueled by O2) and turned to CO2.

I thought you already knew this.

Why do I feel like explaining it to you is a waste of bandwidth?

That does not make O2 heavier than CO2, which is what you claimed.


Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce atmosphere weight

O2 is not heavier than CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

O2 is not heavier than CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity, will add more weight to the atmosphere.

Are you feeling depressed?


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
12-10-2024 21:40
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1851)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

You can't create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

You are forgetting the weight of the coal or of the food you eat. You cannot create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity is not climate friendly.

Climate has no friends. It has no enemies.


The weight of O2 was already there. Plants made it.

The weight of the coal and food was not part of the atmosphere until it was burned (fueled by O2) and turned to CO2.

I thought you already knew this.

Why do I feel like explaining it to you is a waste of bandwidth?

That does not make O2 heavier than CO2, which is what you claimed.


Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce atmosphere weight

O2 is not heavier than CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

O2 is not heavier than CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity, will add more weight to the atmosphere.

Are you feeling depressed?


Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.



Edited on 12-10-2024 21:50
12-10-2024 22:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

You can't create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

You are forgetting the weight of the coal or of the food you eat. You cannot create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity is not climate friendly.

Climate has no friends. It has no enemies.


The weight of O2 was already there. Plants made it.

The weight of the coal and food was not part of the atmosphere until it was burned (fueled by O2) and turned to CO2.

I thought you already knew this.

Why do I feel like explaining it to you is a waste of bandwidth?

That does not make O2 heavier than CO2, which is what you claimed.


Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce atmosphere weight

O2 is not heavier than CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

O2 is not heavier than CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity, will add more weight to the atmosphere.

Are you feeling depressed?


Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Are you feeling depressed, carrying all this weight?
Spongy Iris wrote:
These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

You seem depressed, carrying all this weight.


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
13-10-2024 01:24
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1851)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

You can't create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

You are forgetting the weight of the coal or of the food you eat. You cannot create mass out of nothing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity is not climate friendly.

Climate has no friends. It has no enemies.


The weight of O2 was already there. Plants made it.

The weight of the coal and food was not part of the atmosphere until it was burned (fueled by O2) and turned to CO2.

I thought you already knew this.

Why do I feel like explaining it to you is a waste of bandwidth?

That does not make O2 heavier than CO2, which is what you claimed.


Burning gasoline and natural gas helps reduce atmosphere weight

O2 is not heavier than CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When these get burnt it takes more weight in oxygen out of the air than the weight added in CO2.

O2 is not heavier than CO2.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is not true for burning coal, and breathing, which adds more weight in CO2 than the weight of oxygen removed.

A lot of electricity generation relies on coal, so increasing electricity usage in areas that rely on coal for electricity, will add more weight to the atmosphere.

Are you feeling depressed?


Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Are you feeling depressed, carrying all this weight?
Spongy Iris wrote:
These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

You seem depressed, carrying all this weight.


Climate should not change, but since there are indications of slight global warming, such a change, although minor, should actually be cause for great alarm, like seeing cracks in a foundation.


13-10-2024 08:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Climate should not change,

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
but since there are indications of slight global warming,

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Spongy Iris wrote:
such a change, although minor, should actually be cause for great alarm, like seeing cracks in a foundation.

Weather is not concrete.


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
15-10-2024 07:27
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1166)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Climate should not change,

Climate cannot change.
Spongy Iris wrote:
but since there are indications of slight global warming,

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Spongy Iris wrote:
such a change, although minor, should actually be cause for great alarm, like seeing cracks in a foundation.

Weather is not concrete.



Climate CAN change.

It IS possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

You CAN weather a concrete.

Phallus fallacy.
16-10-2024 01:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
Im a BM wrote:
Climate CAN change.

What is changing?
Im a BM wrote:
It IS possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Okay, how would you do it?
Im a BM wrote:
You CAN weather a concrete.

Climate is not concrete.
Im a BM wrote:
Phallus fallacy.

LIF. Grow up.


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
17-10-2024 21:56
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(26)
Into the night
"First, nothing is 1500% efficient. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, known as an argument from randU fallacy."

That depends on situation.

Mercedes made a EV that drives 12km/kwh.

I kwh before tax will be sold around 2.5c/kwh, which make cost per km around 0.2cents.

If you buy a liter of fuel at 60cent and drive 15km you pay 4cents/km or 20 times the price of electric.

Im sorry Into the Night, it is sad that you still dont see the light, some people just want to stay in their own old world...
17-10-2024 23:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22518)
Anders wrote:
Into the night
"First, nothing is 1500% efficient. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, known as an argument from randU fallacy."

That depends on situation.

No, it doesn't. You cannot create energy out of nothing...ever.
Anders wrote:
Mercedes made a EV that drives 12km/kwh.

Kwh is not a distance or energy.
Anders wrote:
I kwh before tax will be sold around 2.5c/kwh, which make cost per km around 0.2cents.

Kwh is not distance or energy.
Anders wrote:
If you buy a liter of fuel at 60cent and drive 15km you pay 4cents/km or 20 times the price of electric.

Gasoline does not cost 60 cents per liter. You are quoting taxes, not the cost of the fuel.
Anders wrote:
Im sorry Into the Night, it is sad that you still dont see the light,

EVs are older than gasoline cars. That market collapsed when gasoline cars became available. YOU are the Luddite. The EV market has collapsed again.
Anders wrote:
some people just want to stay in their own old world...

Like you.


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
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Electric cars vs ICE cars:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The new USA electric tank, the dumbest invention in the history of warfare005-01-2024 15:27
The new President elect of Haagen Dazs, demonstrating an ice cream filled donut017-11-2023 14:07
EV Muscle Cars?4116-08-2023 15:00
WHY DO SELF DRIVING CARS KEEP CAUSING TRAFFIC JAMS?1511-05-2023 00:20
LOL the US Army just bought a new GM all electric Hummer for military use3225-07-2022 13:10
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact