Electric Cars

The onus is not on me for anything. I said up front that it was impossible to compare the two. Yet you insisted on comparing them. They are a different method of propulsion and the matter if which is best depends on the use and the user.

 

Nitpicking all you have left?

Sad!

 

Nope. Just showing that you are wrong.

 

Thank you for establishing that you have ZERO BASIS for your position.

 

Ironic!

 

What position? I said up front that you cannot compare the efficiencies because it simply makes no sense. I also said up front that I like electric vehicles and wind and solar power.

 

The COSTS of finding, extracting, refining, etc, etc for oil are well known as are the profit margins so it is NOT rocket science to do the comparison.

However it NOT NECESSARY to do it because of the EFFICIENCY FACTOR of EV over ICE.

There is simply no way for the production costs of gas to be less than a third of the production costs of electricity.

You know that but refuse to acknowledge it!

 

Ultimately, for most people will come down to cost and utility. For example, an electric car is not practical because it would require us to buy another car because an electric car could not replace any of our vehicles.

There is no efficiency advantage unless you ignore the production of the electricity itself.

 

PROVE it!

 

I'm not talking about CNG. I'm talking about natural gas used to run power plants.

 

There is nothing to prove. But back to basics.

All energy on earth is basically derived from heat one way or another. That heat comes from the sun, fuel which is consumed or nuclear energy. Electrical energy is most comparable to mechanical energy and some have argued that it is mechanical energy because it is basically the movement of electrons. At any rate, the traditional methods of producing electricity such as generators are driven by mechanical methods such as internal combustion engines. In the creation of mechanical energy from thermal energy, there is a heat rejection. That is, not all the thermal energy can be converted. In your car, much of that is the temperature of the exhaust.

There is also the factor, that the engine is not operating in absolute zero temperature conditions and not all the energy in the fuel can be transferred to the medium producing the power. For example, if the combustion temperature is 2500 degrees Absolute and the air is already at 500 degrees absolute, that energy between zero and 500 degrees absolute is not available for use.

Typically, these engines operate at around 25 to 50% efficiency because of the basic laws of thermodynamics and friction. .

You are trying to compare only the part after that electrical power is created with the entire process in the internal combustion engine.

You can get that electrical energy from solar and wind and they have the same limitations, but they tend not to be a factor because there is virtually an unlimited supply. Some day it is likely that solar and wind will become dominant in electrical generation, but we are a long way from that point.

 

Sure there is.
The same amount of power can be generated with natural gas for 1/6 the cost of gasoline used in cars.
The electric motor is 3 time as efficient as the gasoline engine.
All the other things talked about are just noise compared to those 2 things.

 

You are ignoring the process required to create the electricity.

 

Nope, producing electricity is 30 to 50% efficient, but that is using a fuel that costs 1/6 as much per btu.

 

I have not argued one way or another about the cost of the fuel.

 

Well duh.

 

Well duh. The discussion has been strictly the efficiency.

However, when you get into cost, you have to include the entire cost. That includes the life time cost of the electric vehicle versus the life time cost of the internal combustion vehicles and the utility of the vehicles. Electric vehicles are practical for some people, but not for all. An electrical vehicle for me would have to be an additional vehicle. I could not use it to replace one of my existing vehicles because of the range and charging availability. Maybe someday, but not now.

 

Lets not belabor the point, but.

But your right. It would be perfect for me since my longest drive anymore is to the airport.
The last time I drove on a vacation my wife had to be emptied more often than the car need to be filled.

 

Sure, solar has problems, and you need lots of panels. Nobody said it would be easy transitioning from a higher density energy source to a lower density one.

However, how often does it have to be repeated, FOSSIL FUELS ARE NON-RENEWABLE. So, it doesn't matter how much you want to cling to driving your gas guzzler and how much you want to say that solar energy isn't going to work, nature will in the not too distant future make the decision for us. Me, I'd rather be prepared when that time comes. It looks like other countries will be prepared, the US not so much, due to the regressive policies of the deniers, who now have a champion in the WH who defunds CO2 research.

 

Really, then why this statement?

 

Natural gas power generation.

 

Just been over to the Metro Centre, we park in the green area near M&S. Car park holds hundreds of cars, there are several of those car parks. In the green one, there are 3 white painted parking bays at the front doors with 3 EV charging points. Car park was near full with one car in the charge bay, a black BMW. When we left about 4 hours later, there was 1 white car on charge.

Doesn't seem to be catching on at the moment!!

 

Sure that's easy, it's called math and understanding solar.

EV's utilize chargers which commonly run on 240 VAC, commonly connected to a branch circuit using a NEMA 15-50 outlet which is rated for 50 amps, as such the NEC requires it to be protected with a 2 pole 50 amp breaker or fuse.

An EV charger however commonly pulls between 35 to 40 amps, so for this example of why your statement is false we will go with 40 amps, 40 * 240 = 9.6 Kw * 1.2 (inverter ineffiency) = 11.5Kw.

Since no one offers 11.5KW solar I will round that up to 12Kw ($18K), but here's the first problem, that will require over 1100 square feet of roof space facing South, which means the home the panels will be installed on needs to be around 2100 square feet, a lot of people don't have large of a home.

The second problem is and there is no way around it is called the "solar day" which is the average amount of time per day a solar system will run at full capacity, in the deep south that is about 6 hours on a clear day.

Now that introduces a major problem for those who advocate using solar for EV charging, a depleted EV requires between 10 and 12 hours to fully charge, and that would require 2 solar days to fully charge an EV, meaning the vehicle could not be driver for 2 days, which is not very practical.

Now some might quip just use a rapid charger, which is even a more foolish statement, why?

More indisputable math.

A supercharger requires 250 Kw and that requires 18000 square feet of roof space facing south, do you know of anyone that has a home with that much roof space, probably not.

As such your statement that solar can be used to charge an EV, is neither practical, nor even possible for many other than the ultra wealthy who live in huge mansions with lots of South facing roof space.

By the way these numbers only work in the deep South go a few states North and you will need to double the solar capacity for 9 or so months out of the year and better have a grid backup for winter as solar doesn't work when the panels are iced up or snowed over.

 

So you are comparing cars that run on gasoline to generating commercial power, that's ludicrous.

 

How else do you charge your EV?

General Motors Is Going All Electric
The giant automaker will start with 20 new all-electric models by 2023.
https://www.wired.com/story/general-motors-electric-cars-plan-gm/