[Equilibrandt]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Equilibrandt

I suspect this is the source for the numbers, or at least close.
EVs Explained: Charging Losses
When adding energy to an EV's battery pack, more is expended than what makes it into the pack. How much varies considerably depending on the electrical output and ambient conditions.
Because the battery is more complicated than a simple container. A rough expectation is that your EV may use as much as 12 to 15 percent more energy than what you add back to the battery. Some energy is written off to what's known as "transmission loss," some is converted to heat, and some is used to keep the battery at the right temperature during charging.
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...arging-losses/

This doesn't take into account the transmission loss in the charger itself or the transmission loses in the grid. Your point about outside influences in this is quite true IMO. At the end of the day the only real comparison is the cost per mile of the EV vs the ICE. Both sides of this argument have a tendency to shade the truth or commit the sin of omission.

An interesting article. The conversion rate is quite nebulous, which is why I never bother trying to run some back-of-the-envelope math. There's no way we could faithfully estimate where in the <33% Otto cycle most cars from 1995 to now run, how much gas is spilled during transfer from a refinery to the delivery truck to the gas station itself, to the dribbles and drops every time I fill up, how much evaporates during any phase, etc. Virtually impossible; the EV math seems much easier until we talk about losses just like the above.

[beaups]

Originally Posted by Equilibrandt

Without addressing your willful cognitive dissonance, touting 15% losses is a "convenient" deflect to work into every conversation that doesn't take into account wire gauge, how long the run from the panel to the EVSE is, which EVSE is being used, and if the car itself has smart warm-up/battery conditioning settings (which more and more do).

I don't even own an EV and I know better than to quote electrical/heat/efficiency losses as fact. Unless you'd like to talk about the efficiency of your V8.

No bad intentions here, I believed that 15% was generally considered to be typical in-home loss for charging, as indicated by popular (pro)EV sites. If I was trying to slant the math to make a point, I suppose I could have cited 30% + loss when the batteries are extremely cold. I assume you do know that "smart warm-up/battery conditioning" also uses energy. My point is simply that your $14 story is incorrect. And you appear to be well informed enough that it's not only incorrect, it's disingenuous.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

On this we disagree, the calculators Achilles heel was the development of the transistor. The car industry in general is driven by technology. I concede that the EV battery issue is more one of developing supply changes and economy of scale than technology but everything else relating to the EV is all about technology from the huge screen dash's to autonomous driving and the EV owners addiction to software upgrades.

Pardon me while I yell at a couple kids on my front lawn.

You lost me on the transistor comment; I'd argue the opposite. The technology I'm discussing is not software, but rather physics and chemistry.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by murderspice

And?

Its called the march of progress.

Are you against progress?

Edit: you mean this? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/c...key-facts.html

I'd love to read the press release spin for the Administration, but the article is pay-walled. But let me guess though, the gist of the NYT diatribe, "no, the government is not taking your gas car away".

[x622]

Originally Posted by Dan B

I apologize, I said dies. When you look at the failure rate across the same die it has gone down over time. And advances in manufatruring have even improved some numbers on smaller dies.

The point is, as manufacturing improves, costs typically go down.

You picked a pretty poor example;



The only thing that's really improved is old node yields, but that's already a sunk cost. Each node continues to get more and more expensive which is why fewer and fewer companies can afford get chips made for them in that process. Leading edge stuff will almost always go to the most cutting edge node, which typically has lower yields.

If you're trying to claim that reticle sizing has anything to do with it, that's not the case. Reticle sizing has stayed pretty much the same, wafer sizing is still basically the same.

Semiwiki and semianalysis are great resources if you'd like to learn more

[SteVTEC]

Originally Posted by murderspice

Im thinking most govts are hoping for a battery breakthrough to pull us out of our current transition phase; this era of subsidies is unsustainable. Hopefully we are smart enough.

However, one only needs look at the state of automobiles at the turn of the century to appreciate how far we can bring a technology. Id take a g87 over a model T any day.

With AI helping now? Cars might fit in a backpack one day.

THEY are profiting on all of that with their sweetheart battery company investment deals, on OUR money. "They" can go F themselves.

Originally Posted by murderspice

Nobody is banning shit. If GM approached the US govt with a clean, easily sourced hybrid that required a fraction of the infrastructure and still got 100s+ mpg/range, there is absolutely no doubt our EV attitude would at least be questioned, but likely changed. There are still smart people in this country.

They're de facto banning ICE by creating such a high and oppressive regulatory burden that they become impossible to sell, including in my own state of Maryland which is banning them from being sold in the state after 2035 or whatever.

Reduce the market enough and make the regulatory burden high enough, and many companies will just say F it and stop making ICE altogether, while gubamint officials with their sweetheart back room deals for doing so will still gaslight everyone and say "wE nEvEr baNnEd AnyTHinG."

This is the stage we're in now. Various levels of government are not "helping" anybody, they're helping themselves every step of the way.

[SteVTEC]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Equilibrandt

I suspect this is the source for the numbers, or at least close.
EVs Explained: Charging Losses
When adding energy to an EV's battery pack, more is expended than what makes it into the pack. How much varies considerably depending on the electrical output and ambient conditions.
Because the battery is more complicated than a simple container. A rough expectation is that your EV may use as much as 12 to 15 percent more energy than what you add back to the battery. Some energy is written off to what's known as "transmission loss," some is converted to heat, and some is used to keep the battery at the right temperature during charging.
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...arging-losses/

This doesn't take into account the transmission loss in the charger itself or the transmission loses in the grid. Your point about outside influences in this is quite true IMO. At the end of the day the only real comparison is the cost per mile of the EV vs the ICE. Both sides of this argument have a tendency to shade the truth or commit the sin of omission.

The official government "MPGe" figures do, at least, take the charging losses into account.

Can be as good as 5% losses to as much as 15%, and depends a lot on cable length, wiring gauge, type of charger, rate, temperature, etc.

[Dan B]

Originally Posted by x622

You picked a pretty poor example;



The only thing that's really improved is old node yields, but that's already a sunk cost. Each node continues to get more and more expensive which is why fewer and fewer companies can afford get chips made for them in that process. Leading edge stuff will almost always go to the most cutting edge node, which typically has lower yields.

If you're trying to claim that reticle sizing has anything to do with it, that's not the case. Reticle sizing has stayed pretty much the same, wafer sizing is still basically the same.

Semiwiki and semianalysis are great resources if you'd like to learn more

I should have been clearer. As manufacturing matures, cost typically go down for the consumer.

[Dan B]

If people want to talk about how much energy is wasted when charging, refining crude is not an energy free operation either. As a start, about 24% of a standard 42 gallon barrel of crude is lost during refining. There are other energy costs like drilling, shipping, shipping the gasoline, electricity to pump the gasoline etc..

This is not to say it is more or less efficient. But if you want to point out energy loss when charging, you need to look at the energy expended to pump gas.

It becomes a pretty complicated endeavor, so MPG and MPGe are used.

[gonzo]

All the effort to answer questions only to have that person vanish regarding their own questions being answered.
I once put this effort in on here. No more, personally.
I've learned that changing people's minds is past difficult.
Years of being called a nutter because I don't tow the popular, OFFICIAL, opinion.
Welp, how'd all that turn out?
I'll tell ya how...I was right.
If you think about the word "useful" do you really want a personal attachment?

So now I just shite post 97.2% of the time.

But please carry on. Good info.

[KRS_SN]

Boom!
https://www.ft.com/content/352b38a7-...2-f4cc1b17444b

JPMorgan warns of need for ‘reality check’ on phasing out fossil fuels

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Boom!
https://www.ft.com/content/352b38a7-...2-f4cc1b17444b

JPMorgan warns of need for ‘reality check’ on phasing out fossil fuels

Good piece, the pressure is growing on the madmen by the river.

[murderspice]

Originally Posted by gonzo

All the effort to answer questions only to have that person vanish regarding their own questions being answered.
I once put this effort in on here. No more, personally.
I've learned that changing people's minds is past difficult.
Years of being called a nutter because I don't tow the popular, OFFICIAL, opinion.
Welp, how'd all that turn out?
I'll tell ya how...I was right.
If you think about the word "useful" do you really want a personal attachment?

So now I just shite post 97.2% of the time.

But please carry on. Good info.

Everything needed to showcase the lack of intellectual vigor has already been said. Wrestling with pigs is only fun for a short while.

[SteVTEC]

Originally Posted by Dan B

If people want to talk about how much energy is wasted when charging, refining crude is not an energy free operation either. As a start, about 24% of a standard 42 gallon barrel of crude is lost during refining. There are other energy costs like drilling, shipping, shipping the gasoline, electricity to pump the gasoline etc..

This is not to say it is more or less efficient. But if you want to point out energy loss when charging, you need to look at the energy expended to pump gas.

It becomes a pretty complicated endeavor, so MPG and MPGe are used.

What drives me up the wall about MPG vs MPGe is that for ICE cars, the inherent inefficiency of the engines are baked into the MPG number that you get. But when it comes to MPGe, you completely ignore the fact that the grid is about only 40% efficient at best? It's nonsensical and just makes EV's look far more efficient than they are.

Basic physics. Heavier vehicles consume more energy, and that comes out in calculations such as these when you run through the math. The reason for the dishonesty is because then EV's wouldn't sell at all, and they wouldn't be able to gaslight people about how they're saving the environment when they're really not. To charge a 100 kWh battery, the grid itself has to consume 250-300 kWh worth of energy to produce that, and they pretend that's not the case with the MPGe number and hope you don't notice.

ICE/hybrids are the most energy efficient vehicles on the road due to both the hybrid engines which are typically Atkinson cycle and hitting 40% peak thermal efficiency which matches the what the grid delivers, while not lugging around extremely heavy 1000+ lb battery packs everywhere they go.

What you say about fuel production is true, and similar costs apply to battery production through mining hundreds of thousands of pounds of earth per battery, transporting that, refining it, processing it, etc. It's getting into the weeds and becomes impossible to calculate. Insiders who truly know the costs probably aren't allowed to tell.

[Dan B]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

Green Insanity hocus pocus math attempts to obscure the reality that there is no free lunch moving thousands of pounds down the road. The inputs and outputs get moved around and in the case of EV's the sum total game is often much worse than ICE. Save Gaia and Stop Oil are based on emotional fantasy that is being made into national policy that will have disastrous consequences for many. As always, the poor's will take it up the rear.

My god, watch any Biden environmental official testifying before any house or senate committee, they are completely clueless on anything related to facts or numbers! They parrot rote Green Insanity talking points issued by various Green Insanity groups. People keep thinking the adults will show up when the Green nut jobs are the only ones in the room! They don't give two shits for regular Joes or how much of his money they blow!

Originally Posted by SteVTEC

What drives me up the wall about MPG vs MPGe is that for ICE cars, the inherent inefficiency of the engines are baked into the MPG number that you get. But when it comes to MPGe, you completely ignore the fact that the grid is about only 40% efficient at best? It's nonsensical and just makes EV's look far more efficient than they are.

Basic physics. Heavier vehicles consume more energy, and that comes out in calculations such as these when you run through the math. The reason for the dishonesty is because then EV's wouldn't sell at all, and they wouldn't be able to gaslight people about how they're saving the environment when they're really not. To charge a 100 kWh battery, the grid itself has to consume 250-300 kWh worth of energy to produce that, and they pretend that's not the case with the MPGe number and hope you don't notice.

ICE/hybrids are the most energy efficient vehicles on the road due to both the hybrid engines which are typically Atkinson cycle and hitting 40% peak thermal efficiency which matches the what the grid delivers, while not lugging around extremely heavy 1000+ lb battery packs everywhere they go.

What you say about fuel production is true, and similar costs apply to battery production through mining hundreds of thousands of pounds of earth per battery, transporting that, refining it, processing it, etc. It's getting into the weeds and becomes impossible to calculate. Insiders who truly know the costs probably aren't allowed to tell.

Just to be clear, I am not endorsing EV or bashing ICE. Just pointing out that people are using energy loss as an argument against EVs and ignoring the energy loss for ICE, and why the complicated calculations for true energy usage necessitate MPG and MPGe as the benchmarks.

IMO, EV is a great concept and one day it will make sense for all forms of road transportation. But in the near term, there are some significant growing pains.

Lastly, both the rabid EV and ICE proponents obfuscate, manipulate statistics, and flat out lie. Then there are the people in the middle, like us, who have to live with the decisions.

p.s. EVs will never replace the visceral feeling of a big boar V8, or a high revving V12, at WOT.

[Dan B]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

ICE is not advocating for the wholesale gutting of the grid while at the same time mandating EV adoption. There is ZERO equality in the positions taken by ICE versus Green Insanity. You only have to read what the Green Insanity puts out openly, they are not shy about it.

I did not say anything like that. I said..

"Originally Posted by Dan B
Lastly, both the rabid EV and ICE proponents obfuscate, manipulate statistics, and flat out lie. Then there are the people in the middle, like us, who have to live with the decisions."

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Dan B

I did not say anything like that. I said..

"Originally Posted by Dan B
Lastly, both the rabid EV and ICE proponents obfuscate, manipulate statistics, and flat out lie. Then there are the people in the middle, like us, who have to live with the decisions."

I'm with you on this. I think this is very reasonable.

[beaups]

Originally Posted by Dan B

If people want to talk about how much energy is wasted when charging, refining crude is not an energy free operation either. As a start, about 24% of a standard 42 gallon barrel of crude is lost during refining. There are other energy costs like drilling, shipping, shipping the gasoline, electricity to pump the gasoline etc..

This is not to say it is more or less efficient. But if you want to point out energy loss when charging, you need to look at the energy expended to pump gas.

It becomes a pretty complicated endeavor, so MPG and MPGe are used.

People weren’t talking about how much energy is lost. I simply pointed out the $14 story isn’t true. But now that we are talking about energy losses, over 60% of energy is lost just during electrical generation. For the math-challenged that’s significantly more than 24%. And doesn’t include the losses in transmission, in the home, etc.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by gonzo

All the effort to answer questions only to have that person vanish regarding their own questions being answered.
I once put this effort in on here. No more, personally.
I've learned that changing people's minds is past difficult.
Years of being called a nutter because I don't tow the popular, OFFICIAL, opinion.
Welp, how'd all that turn out?
I'll tell ya how...I was right.
If you think about the word "useful" do you really want a personal attachment?

So now I just shite post 97.2% of the time.

But please carry on. Good info.

You don't think it was your bonkers Right Wing and conspiracy theory-laden posts of the past that may have been the reasons why you're not overly convincing?

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

You don't think it was your bonkers Right Wing and conspiracy theory-laden posts of the past that may have been the reasons why you're not overly convincing?

It could also be seen as method in the madness.

[Dan B]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

And that statement is wrong. It is factually wrong to imply there is equivalency between the lefts EV mandates that are made hand in glove with destroying the grid and Just Stop Oil and people saying ICE with current emission controls will destroy the planet.

"US" have to live with broken grids and EV mandates because people ARN'T CALLING OUT THE GREEN INSANITY for what it is! Insanity! You're giving credence to something that is completely despicable in its actions and what it hopes to accomplish.

I never said or implied anything like that. I stated both rabid groups exhibit the same behavior, but nowhere do I imply equivalency.

Originally Posted by Weather Man

"US" have to live with broken grids and EV mandates because people ARN'T CALLING OUT THE GREEN INSANITY for what it is! Insanity! You're giving credence to something that is completely despicable in its actions and what it hopes to accomplish.

Where do I endorse the radical left? Never have and never will. I think radicals on both sides are wrong. Period. I hate the stop oil movement. I think they are pretentious cancer and cause harm. Now, if there was a reasonable person with the same viewpoint as them, without the radicalization, I would love to debate them.

Lastly, putting works in someone's mouth, yelling (yeah I know it is words but you get my point), and basically reducing the discussion to attacking/defending, is the reason people no longer have polite debates.

So, well done, you have successfully driven me away from this conversation. You can continue to yell your opinion into a self reinforcing vacuum.

[Ugly Kar]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

Green Insanity hocus pocus math attempts to obscure the reality that there is no free lunch moving thousands of pounds down the road. The inputs and outputs get moved around and in the case of EV's the sum total game is often much worse than ICE. Save Gaia and Stop Oil are based on emotional fantasy that is being made into national policy that will have disastrous consequences for many. As always, the poor's will take it up the rear.

My god, watch any Biden environmental official testifying before any house or senate committee, they are completely clueless on anything related to facts or numbers! They parrot rote Green Insanity talking points issued by various Green Insanity groups. People keep thinking the adults will show up when the Green nut jobs are the only ones in the room! They don't give two shits for regular Joes or how much of his money they blow!

It's not the Green Insanity groups that scare me, it's the deep state. If a MSM journalist has a contrary opinion, they get fired. If they work somewhere else they get put on a list, or a visit, or both. Herr Goebbles and Pravda are proud.