The EV battery discussion thread (bogus breakthroughs)

[OVERKILL]

Google says that one 10g pellet of produces about the same energy as 150 gallons of gas. In a 50 MPG hybrid example, that might be about 7500 miles.

Even if not really accurate, it brings up the point that EV's should be charged with nuclear power and not coal.

CNL puts out this little guy. This is of course for CANDU plants, it is higher for US ones, as Dave and I discussed.

Here's a US one:

350 cubic meters of gas is 12,360 cubic feet. Per my earlier statement, you get more electricity out of an LEU pellet (which weighs 6 grams) than an NU one.

You can actually order the US card (with simulated pellet, like my example) from the ANS:
https://www.ans.org/store/item-750027/

 

[4WD]

Love the natural gas train cars … guess they haul it at atmospheric pressure, LoL

 

[blingo]

The 410 litres of oil or 350 m³ of natural gas are the equivalent of 66,000,000,000 kg of wind @15m/s I guess. (Or did I not divide by 225?)
Citoyens here becoming limited partners to get a mill in their backyard and 5% a year must be buying quite a lot of cool air for their ride either way.

 

[UncleDave]

I disagree. It's pretty clear that natural gas, coal and oil (yes we still have some oil fired power plants) have EROI (energy return on investment) numbers that closely mirror gasoline. That's why "Oil and Gas" EROI numbers are considered ONE AND THE SAME.

My point remains, the BTU's consumed at the power plant really does matter and is more or less directly comparable to the liquid fuels used in transportation.

UD, it's good to recognize that EROI is in essence, energy wasted producing the fuel, and with oil and gas, it's about 5% worldwide. Coal is not far off. The numbers are too small to matter.

What matters is how much fuel is burned to go a mile in each type of vehicle. I maintain that an EV, powered by a fuel burning power plant is not as efficient as a modern hybrid.

Put another way, the power plant in a hybrid is 41% efficient, and directly drives the wheels.

Im not at all debating there aren't losses in power generation, I totally get and understand that.
Fossil EROI peaked in the 30s' and has been on a downward trend since. Crude isnt exactly fungible has varying costs to process and refine and as the mix of shale grows EROI continues to diminish. I'm curious to read more on it and welcome anything you can contribute link wise.

EROI is itself a construct that's highly variable, here's one article on that.

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/...56520C37430890540D4ED1328BEFEEFFEE9DDE5653F21

The cost for liquid fuel delivery has tremendous losses/ costs, subsidies, and military cost implications aren't part of EROI making the true number nearly impossible to glean - but it's a real cost nonetheless.

The consumer of the product is shielded from that true cost on both sides - and only has to deal with the price per unit delivered to the vehicle.

The grid all over the North America is a blend of multiple sources so one computation for loss or EROI simply isn't good enough.
To your point of charging with a fuel burning plant - what if only 3/4 of a charge comes from a fossil plant?
How about 1/2 and the rest other? Californias fossil burn (nat gas) is about 50% of its total delivery MWH.
This % of fossil burn is sliding down all over the grid in the US continuously.

I do agree that an electrics greenness directly relate to the power source, but Im separating green from efficiency in this discussion.

If the formula you present for loss on the electric side were universally applicable I would expect the EPA to include this conversion in MPGe but they dont. Im not saying that MPGe is a completely accurate construct but when efficiencies are computed by the metric of the unit delivered to the vehicle - the EV is vastly more efficient which mirrors the MPGE on a hybrid vs a model 3.

Again Im not saying that makes the EV cheaper to drive - only that it does a better job of creating forward's movement per BTU of energy it has onboard.

I enjoy our dialogs and thank you for your gentlemanly discussion.

 

[UncleDave]

Love the natural gas train cars … guess they haul it at atmospheric pressure, LoL

I know right? Seems a bit off to me volumetrically.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

If the formula you present for loss on the electric side were universally applicable I would expect the EPA to include this conversion in MPGe but they dont. Im not saying that MPGe is a completely accurate construct but when efficiencies are computed by the metric of the unit delivered to the vehicle - the EV is vastly more efficient which mirrors the MPGE on a hybrid vs a model 3.

But UD, here is an example of a totally false and misleading ( deliberately?) metric

There is no such thing as a "gallon" of electricity so its a false comparison at conception

Then it becomes a 3 part equation ( assuming we are comparing an electric motor to an ICE) and then again it would have to be weighed against PTO work, rear tire work, or payload work. ( 3 different consumption scenarios to serve as a baseline both for actual consumption as well as loss/efficiency)

 

[UncleDave]

I agree there is no gallon of electricity - but thats why they use the term "equivalent."
I pretty much question its accuracy as well in my statement.

I believe in this case the miles driven per unit consumed would be the rear tire work.

Without trying to resort to our own computations which we know are incomplete as well -
What other printed standard of efficiency comparison measurement exists outside of MPGe?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

but thats why they use the term "equivalent."

I notice they use it but in a deceptive manner because there is no "equivalent" in any meaningful way

I believe in this case the miles driven per unit consumed would be the rear tire work.

That needs to be decided upfront because mile is a unit of distance but "work" has a load factor to be considered over that distance ( say HP per lb. to move "X" amount of gross weight) and then velocity comes in as well because there is more resistive loading on the road than on a dyno. Depends on which way and to what depth the calculation is to be but it must be uniform for both whichever way its designed.

Without trying to resort to our own computations which we know are incomplete as well -
What other printed standard of efficiency comparison measurement exists outside of MPGe?

Personally, I do not know of even one comparison measurement currently in use that actually is accurate and equally measures both against a true standard. I don't believe any exist.

I would think that "if" such equal comparisons did exist then the facts would be what they were, we would all know them and these questions would already be resolved.

I personally think these "false metrics" are deliberately constructed to take advantage of the ignorance of people and to sell false points to promote agendas- I cant prove that but I make custom metrics all the time and millions of other professionals do too.

It aint complex and I could design a legitimate metric to compare a camel (the animal) to a Volvo in terms of grass eaten per mile versus diesel consumed both pulling the same cart and so can every other engineer, mathematician, statistician. The fact that they CAN do this and deliberately don't is what I find telling.

 

[UncleDave]

If a gallon of gasoline can be described in BTU, and a kilowatt hour the same way then we have at least some basis for comparison no?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

If a gallon of gasoline can be described in BTU, and a kilowatt hour the same way then we have at least some basis for comparison no?

It depends on what specific point ( or points) you are comparing against. That's the key to designing a custom metric is the lowest common denominator RELATIVE to the COMPARISON CRITERIA.

A BTU is a measurement of heat to raise water to a degree.

A kwh is a measurement of consumption ( thousand watts per hour)

So to compare the 2 you have to define the mechanisms of consumption to where the Custom unit of "X" ( however you define it) is equally the same for both a watt ( smallest unit of the kw) and BTU against the clock ( the hour)

ETA- then you have to have the areas and scales both are to be measured by such as... Consumption with a #10,000 resistive load, Consumption of same at velocity "Z" and so forth.

So, bridges would have to be build as well as correlation factors to make a valid comparison.

 

[UncleDave]

You dont believe the current printed metric today is meaningful then?

I'm ready to buy into another formula than MPGe but no one has presented a more viable option.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

You dont believe the current printed metric today is meaningful then?

It would have to be literally on a case by case basis for every metric in question and both the validity of the given metric would have to be established and validated and then the basis of comparison would as well.

I'm only 99.999999999_% certain the current printed green metrics are 100% deliberately false and misleading by design so there is some doubt in my mind.

Lets pick one as a thread exercise and see if it passes the acid test on its validity as a metric first then lets see if its being used to create a legitimate comparison.

 

[UncleDave]

Fun exercise....plays right into my GenX distrust of authority figures.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

ok, what exactly is the definition of MPGe?

Those miles on a flat plane or incline? What type of wind resistance? What vehicle geometry? What Speed? What vehicle efficiency? Tire Size/inflation?

Gallon of what? Gas( grade and mixture), Diesel, Bio fuel, Moonshine?

All those ( and more) have to be answered and held uniform otherwise the MPGe is just another bogus metric made up to deliberately sell a falsehood by people who know better in the first place and realize you wouldn't "buy" the real truth if they told you. ( which is why they constructed the made up metric in the first place)

 

[UncleDave]

As a consumer I dont think they ever had MPG computed right, much less MPGe. You cant trust the latter if you don't trust the former.

Never seen a concise description of either.

I dont really trust the electric or the fossil side equations, but that leaves me with nothing at all to work with.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

As a consumer I dont think they ever had MPG computed right, much less MPGe. You cant trust the latter if you don't trust the former.

Never seen a concise description of either.

They don't and that's deliberate. Just like guns with undercut test barrels are used for pressures and velocities.

That's why the boiler plate disclaimer "actual results may vary" is on everything.

When its validated by the NIST and weights/measures and covered under law as well as a customary unit- its most likely legit.

If its a made up metric by an agency or industry then you can almost bet its deliberately manipulated for any number of agendas.

This is why when we forensically examine a claim or report- the first thing we zero in on are the metrics.

I dont really trust the electric or the fossil side equations, but that leaves me with nothing at all to work with.

You shouldn't and an "honest zero" is better than a false number. I make no claim that dino numbers are any more ( or less) deliberately constructed to be used in misleading manners so don't think I am sticking up for the ICE over the EV- I'm not.

If they were legit there would be a testing standard ( like ISO for filtering) and all things would be measured against the same criteria to get a valid comparison.

There is a deliberate reason there don't and that's because these numbers are used to INFLUENCE, not to measure.

You see it on even this thread when these false metrics are not only challenged in technical terms but even requested at times just to be equally used- people get emotional and its like "blasphemy" because a "number" says so and they don't even understand the number is worthless in the first place.

 

[UncleDave]

The only credit I gave the rating agencies is that they likely applied the (bogus) metric equally.

Sadly the metric problem is everywhere. Bogus standards is how rating agencies gave sub prime packages AAA status.

I hate everyone.

 

[ZeeOSix]

MPGe

Have fun ...

 

[ZeeOSix]

As a consumer I dont think they ever had MPG computed right, much less MPGe. You cant trust the latter if you don't trust the former.

Most of my later model vehicles have pretty much gotten (on average) the EPA rated MPG. I've even gotten better MPG on the highway than they were rated at.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

MPGe

Have fun ...

And for all the link readers out there, lets tell the rest of the story ( and point out the truth and fatal errors from the links)

Vetting from the article

Information and research in this article verified by ASE-certified Master Technician Duane Sayaloune of YourMechanic.com.

A car mechanic

Now for the rest (Don't tell Z I posted a link. shhhhhhhh)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent

. The equivalence of this unit to energy in a gallon of gasoline is true if and only if the heat engine, generating equipment, and power delivery to the car battery are 100% efficient. Actual heat engines differ vastly from this assumption.

In short, the entire metric (MPGe and MPG) is a deliberately manufactured non entity that has enough ambiguity built into it to where it can be easily manipulated or disguised by another multiple layer of equally useless numbers.

The end result is to make people believe in "the number" because those who do this know beyond any doubt that people will internalize it, believe it and use it for their own purposes and after a while it will become "truth".

Same thing was said by an author of a program that if people knew what it really meant they never would have allowed it. This is no different.

That's not counting all the uncontrolled variables between an ICE and the vehicle carrying it and an EV that make comparisons useless and invalid out of the gate with this "metric". ( that's the reason there aren't any)