EV EPA Calculated Numbers
- Thread starter Danno
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2024
- Messages
- 6
Okay, and thanks. I don't want anyone to think I'm anti EV. I'm just anti b.s. from the EPA and DOE.
You’re pretty full of it yourself. My grandfathers gasoline heater extracts pretty close to “33.7kw” of heat energy, if a modern example of a gasoline heater existed it would come within 98% of the 33.7kw number.
I won’t take the numbers are hard argument from someone like yourself playing pretend with what generator is used,
this area gets 98% of its local power from hydro, I could care less what generation efficiency the hydro runs at as it’s irrelevant to the window sticker .
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2024
- Messages
- 6
Exactly correct on the gas heater. This is my point that we get heat from incinerating gasoline. Converting that heat to electricity is where all of the energy is lost. Usually this requires heating water into steam and using that steam to spin a steam turbine which drives the electrical generator. Massive losses occur converting heat to electricity.
You are extremely fortunate to be 98% hydro power. Hydro only represents 5% of our nations electric grid unfortunately so I'm trying to use more average numbers. I promise you I'm not full of it.
I drive my daughter to school in the Leaf and then to work and back. It is ridiculously cheap to run.I’ll throw in my two cents about the topic at hand….
I bought a first gen 2012 Nissan LEAF for wifey to drive the kids to school and back in order to avoid cold starting her GMC Acadia 3x each day just to drive the kids to school and back. I figured an electric golf car of a car would be ideal. Here’s what I learned…
EVs are a JOKE when it comes to efficiency on the road. Can’t use the AC or Heat because your range suffers. Can’t go highway speed or else your range is cut in half. You literally have to drive SUUUUUPER efficient ALL THE TIME in order to get reasonable range out of every charge. If you drive normally, keeping up with traffic, without TRYING to get the most out of the battery, it’s not efficient AT ALL and a small hybrid ICE vehicle makes WAY MORE SENSE in terms of actual transportation savings vs your average gas guzzler.
The fact that the government is trying to FORCE people into these EV cars is ridiculous because they aren’t efficient in REAL WORLD driving by NPC zombie drivers.
Btw, sitting by a charging station for 30-45 mins while you recharge is by far, the most idiotic thing associated with EVs.Why would you WILLINGLY agree to waste your precious time on this earth at a charging station is beyond my comprehension. I recharge my LEAF overnight at home for $0.08 cents per kWh during off peak energy use.
Range craters in cold weather and on the highway. I did my homework before buying - this information is all easily available publicly.
A Tesla is a different experience than a Gen1 Leaf. He is not exaggerating.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yeah, Rankine Cycle is somewhere between 30-40% efficiency with existing nuclear being on the low end and modern high temperature coal plants on the upper end.
CCGT's are higher, but then we are talking only partial RC at that point, with primary generation coming from gas turbines.
But of course not all Rankine Cycle plants are emitting. Nuclear is of course non-emitting, as is geothermal. And of course PV is even less efficient than Rankine.
Last edited:
The info I am sure is good, the ones presenting the info are skewed. Those who cant read between the lines, is all this misinformation effects, which is a lot of folks come to think of it.
All has to do with confirmation bias.
EVs get 0 mpg= bad mpg
=snowflake trigger
All has to do with confirmation bias.
EVs get 0 mpg= bad mpg
=snowflake trigger
How exactly is it confirmation bias for the people who have already purchased EVs? We are getting the real world experience that is dictated by physics, not opinions, whether it's good bad or indifferent.The info I am sure is good, the ones presenting the info are skewed. Those who cant read between the lines, is all this misinformation effects, which is a lot of folks come to think of it.
All has to do with confirmation bias.
EVs get 0 mpg= bad mpg
At least in my family's case, we knew what were getting into with range, charging, so forth, and are happy with our purchases. Has it been perfect? No, but overall it's been very good. My wife in particular loves her car and that is music to my ears.
To be clear, I am not calling anyone hear a snowflake....but, since you asked.
Everyone likes to justify their purchases. One who has bought an EV, is bias to an opinion that it is a "sound" decision, whether based off of a persons opinions, or "facts" as opposed to truth.
Truth: many purchased EVs, for purposes of "fuel economy" based on false information provided by those who want EVs to flourish,with such advertisements as:
"zero emissions" which quickly changed to "no emissions at the tail pipe" I am sure after threat of lawsuit.
"clean"
"efficient"
I am not knocking anyone for an EV purchase, for some, perhaps you, it is a great choice. Some are cool, and some are just plain ugly. But there are those who, on the wing of "going green", bought EVs to join a club, the club of righteousness so to speak.
But when the real info comes out, about their cleanliness, and zero emissions, and efficiency, those who made the choice, based on falsehoods will cling to anything, to make their choice valid, to others.....already purchased or not. I personally do not understand the need for others to accept a purchase in a vehicle. I get what I like, or what I can afford.
I would buy a Tesla, why, because they are pretty, and fast, no other reason.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm not trying to burnish my green cred by owning EVs. First and foremost I enjoy the way they drive. I enjoy the linear rush of silent acceleration that only something driven by an electrical motor can provide. And they are cheaper to run *if and only if* you charge them at home (the direct reply to the fuel economy claim above). There's less things to maintain, although they are most certainly not maintenance free as some claim. Coolant and transmission fluid changes are still a thing, and tires need to be replaced more often.To be clear, I am not calling anyone hear a snowflake....but, since you asked.
Everyone likes to justify their purchases. One who has bought an EV, is bias to an opinion that it is a "sound" decision, whether based off of a persons opinions, or "facts" as opposed to truth.
Truth: many purchased EVs, for purposes of "fuel economy" based on false information provided by those who want EVs to flourish,with such advertisements as:
"zero emissions" which quickly changed to "no emissions at the tail pipe" I am sure after threat of lawsuit.
"clean"
"efficient"
I am not knocking anyone for an EV purchase, for some, perhaps you, it is a great choice. Some are cool, and some are just plain ugly. But there are those who, on the wing of "going green", bought EVs to join a club, the club of righteousness so to speak.
But when the real info comes out, about their cleanliness, and zero emissions, and efficiency, those who made the choice, based on falsehoods will cling to anything, to make their choice valid, to others.....already purchased or not. I personally do not understand the need for others to accept a purchase in a vehicle. I get what I like, or what I can afford.
I would buy a Tesla, why, because they are pretty, and fast, no other reason.
My wife appreciates the fact that there is no engine noise. I appreciate a good sounding ICE vehicle, but I don't exactly miss the noise either in daily use of our EVs. The Mach-E actually has motor acceleraton noise that you can turn on, we've never tried it.
Another thing I have tried and didn't like is the behavior of my Lightning to roll back 3-6 inches or so upon putting it in Park, just like an ICE truck with a traditional auto rolling back on the parking pawl. If there is some way to disable this, I haven't found it in the menus of the infotainment screen. For now, I just set the brake. But I'd like to kick the Ford engineers in the nuts who decided this was a good idea to make the truck more familiar to the Bubbas of the world.
I personally don't mind the extra time taken to charge on trips, but some people don't agree and that's fine. There are politicians who want to force vehicles onto people that many believe in their present form are not as convenient and I'm of the opinion we should let people buy what they want.
Regarding road trips, I'm going to be stopping often anyway, about 2-3 hours in the car is my limit and I enjoy the extra time at stops out of the vehicle. My brother in law tells me his Ram 1500 truck can get 700 miles to a tank on the highway loaded with just people and suitcases. My arse doesn't have 700 miles of range, and even if it did, I have no desire to be an a vehicle for that period of time.
We usually fly anywhere that is more than 3-4 hours away, which is another datapoint that should indicate that I am not a hardcore greenie.
The range available on a 100% charge, and the speed at which you can recharge, is not at parity with petroleum powered vehicles in many cases. I would argue the latter is more important than the former for mass adoption, but that's my opinion. Battery technology and the cost per kWh is rapidly changing and in the next 5-10 years charging speeds may get a lot closer to gasoline/diesel fueling times.
Do I enjoy mixing it up with anti-EV forces that present false information? Absolutely I do. You may call it "triggered" I call it, calling a spade a spade. You can take your pick of many things floating around social media or various websites. People alledging that it takes 2 hours to charge at DCFC (it doesn't), that used batteries are a huge environmental hazard (they aren't - they are offered for sale at a component level to repair the in-service fleet) and so on.
Obviously we disagree about the relative cleanliness of them, you mention it several times. Anything that has to be extracted from the ground is not going to be clean, whether it's oil or lithium. I don't buy the argument that EVs are worse for the environment than ICE cars. We went out of our way to buy the LFP version of the Mach-E, as it's battery does not contain cobalt. I don't know about the Lightning, but with how many millions of cobalt containing cell phones sold every year, maybe I don't care as much as I thought I did.
It is more carbon intensive to produce an EV than to produce an ICE car, that is a known quantity. Nobody intelligent ever claimed it wasn't. But the argument as I understand it, is for a reduction in total lifecycle emissions. I gave my reasons for owning EVs already though, so at the end of the day, I'm not really that concerned whether it is or it isn't.
The anti-EV forces like to point out that much electricty is produced by fossil fuels, but they conveniently leave out the fact that power plants run at higher thermal efficiencies than any ICE vehicle that I know of and use co-generation technologies that are not practical to apply at an individual vehicle level.
Also, in my big oil producing state of Texas, the grid on a yearlong basis is around 30% powered by renewables. Obviously if you pick a point in time during any day like say 10 minutes before sunrise, contribution from renewables will be at their lowest during the day, but the anti-renewable forces like to trot out that point in time picture as representative. It isn't.
I'm an advocate for nucelar power, for whatever that's worth, but it seems shortsighted people keep shooting down nuclear projects. Long term, nuclear fission (and potentially fusion) is the closest thing to limitless energy that exists in the universe, as the Sun and stars are powered by it.
Well anyway, I think I'm out of time for this as it is NYE. Happy New Year!
Literally zero EV owners I know, myself included, care about "carbon footprint". If I lived nearer the ocean, I'd stop just short of throwing the battery in it when I was done, rofl!
I forgot that one
hmmm, that seems to be a reach, but maybe.......with cost added of course, you need a bunch of power to charge faster, more power means more power to the charger, more base energy, and lastly, the damage to the battery.
with EV, unfortunately......it is both
me too, 100%
to you aswell
The same is true of Amazon, they get the most government handouts of any non-military entity in the world and have had years where 100% of their profits are from .gov dollars on backend infrastructure and handouts and subsidies.
Amazon (and related industries) use more energy than every EV combined in the US to power internet backbone services and oddly elements of crypto infrastructure.
Taking the server backbone out and looking only at crypto itself, that industry uses 25 times more power than all the EVs in the us combined.
AI, if it continues expanding will use approximately 100x more power than every EV in the US in about 5 years.
Every gallon of gasoline uses the equivalent of 5-8 kwhrs of energy to extract, transport and refine. (Excluding tar sands which is closer to 15kwhrs)
5% of fossil fuels are lost to “spoilage “ which is usually in the form of spills both during extraction and storage.
More pollution is made extracting, producing, and transporting a gallon of gasoline than the car creates burning said gallon.
Last edited:
???
See the whole commentary about profitability, R&D, waste, “creating something “, etc.
Amazon and Tesla despite being disparate industries are both run like tech startup cash grabs, and were never created to be run like a company that makes money.
Both extract as much public funding as possible, using as many free public resources and infrastructure as possible, while Not being profitable on the core business, adding questionable “value “.
The difference is only in the personalities that run them and possibly public perception of their tax dollars at work in Amazon vrs Tesla.
I would add all fast food companies who do not provide a 40 hour week for purposes of "part time".... and walmart
Seriously though why is it a calculation for EVs? It doesn't make sense when it doesn't have a gasoline tank. I know I mentioned it before, but it's just for how CAFE calculates and it doesn't make sense any way it's looked at.EVs get 0 mpg= bad mpg
That's the limiting factor itself, the battery. Always has been, even from the early EVs 100+ years ago. Cooling, materials, power metering, etc are the factors that can improve it. How much that improves over time is all dependent on materials and technology. As a fan of EVs I'm very realistic to accept we have a lot of room to improve and I'm far from the guy that says "wait for this or that battery tech". We have what we have. I'm happy with it for my use and it's not perfect. It's not hindered me yet, but obviously my adoption of it puts me in a place of being more forgiving of it than some others would be. I'm not dumb enough to say I don't understand why some don't see it fitting their needs. I do think some are more negative about it than what we realistically have and it's better than some will admit or realize, but improvements will help quell those fears. I totally get wanting charging to be as fast as fueling. I'd love that too.
I am not scientist, but there would have to be a giant leap in technology for that to be the case.
I guess you have a Tesla. Well I know how makers of Evs can increase the fuel mileage...........stop making the cars 1000hp. I understand the allure of a 1000hp whisper quiet sleek car.......but, how about some make some options that decreases the HP so that range is increased. Torque in an electrical motor is the same at all speeds, of course, this is the secret to their brutal acceleration. Getting up to speed is HP.
I am sure the gains would not be lineal, but lets go 200hp from 1000 and see what range we get.
Same is true for power tool batteries. The more powerful the tool, the less the battery lasts, or the battery AH must be increased to achieve the same runtime....... it is just common sense.
