And you think a pro-EV website is going to provide accurate numbers?
Nope. Wrong again.
Japan Automobile Research Institute (JARI) is a general incorporated foundation dedicated to automotive testing and research activities.
Petrolheads. They say the same exact thing.
Using science.
As I said, you can't defeat basic thermodynamics.
Many have tried, none have ever succeeded.
I don't need a research instute which says what it is paid to say. I showed you the actual (very simple) math many times already.
Nope. You didn't show anything useful.
That's, for BEVs, 0.9e6/3600= 250 Wh/km, or 25 kWh/100km, or 40.2 kWh/100 miles, 402 Wh/mile.
Electric grid losses are about 6.5%
Thermal power plant efficiency is between 33 and 48%
Charger+Battery round trip efficiency is ~= 85%
The figures in the chart would mean that a BEV can run a hundred kilometers with 25*0.4*0.935*0.85= 7.9 kWh, or a hundred miles with 12.7 kWh
Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.
Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.
So everyone is lying except your saintly self?
That explains everything...
Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.
So everyone is lying except your saintly self?
That explains everything...
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.
So everyone is lying except your saintly self?
That explains everything...
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
Is he an engineer or does he just play one on the internet?
Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.
So everyone is lying except your saintly self?
That explains everything...
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
I never claimed that! Please show the quote! You most probably misread or misunderstood.
Indeed it is an excellent example on how statistics can be made to lie and how research institutes just go for the money while throwing professional ethics out of the window.
So everyone is lying except your saintly self?
No, but as Doug already showed some critical thinking alone shows the errors in the graph. Hint: electricity isn't a primary energy source. I used to work at a research institute for a short while and one of the topics of discussion was to how ethical it was to try and proof things with questions steering towards a certain conclusing asked by the customer. If you read a scientific report you always need to figure out who is paying for it. For example a report paid for by the tabacco industry isn't going to claim smoking will kill you for sure. You can't trust scientific reports at face value.
If you read a scientific report you always need to figure out who is paying for it. For example a report paid for by the tabacco industry isn't going to claim smoking will kill you for sure. You can't trust scientific reports at face value.
Yeah, reminds me of all the studies a few years ago saying it was healthy to eat more fat and protein, and that saturated fat wasn't bad at all... turns out all the research was paid for by the meat and dairy industry.
Besides, most published single studies are wrong, even if they do everything right, for purely statistical reasons. That dosen't mean science isn't worthwhile, it's still the best option we have, but in general you need to look at meta studies that evaluate the findings from many different studies.
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
Who? When? Where?
Here, where he claimed that additional forces of drag that cause an EV's range to drop, wouldn't have the same affect on a ICE car.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452
Ah. You are forgetting about turning the heater on, having the airconditioning on and/or driving in very cold weather. So you are conveniently twisting things out of contex. Ofcourse I don't dignify such obvious trolling with a response.
BTW I was just repeating what your fellow e-Golf owner has stated in his write up of his experiences with the car. He is the one pitching concerns about head wind. Did anyone ever consider the impact of head wind on the range of a normal car? Then why all the sudden does it matter for an EV?
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
Who? When? Where?
Here, where he claimed that additional forces of drag that cause an EV's range to drop, wouldn't have the same affect on a ICE car.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452
Ah. You are forgetting about turning the heater on, having the airconditioning on and/or driving in very cold weather. So you are conveniently twisting things out of contex. Ofcourse I don't dignify such obvious trolling with a response.
BTW I was just repeating what your fellow e-Golf owner has stated in his write up of his experiences with the car. He is the one pitching concerns about head wind. Did anyone ever consider the impact of head wind on the range of a normal car? Then why all the sudden does it matter for an EV?
Again, are you claiming the energy required to drive the AC on an ICE car takes no energy?
Taking 2hp off the motor, vs having a 2hp [electric] compressor draws 2 horsepower, no matter what fuel it's powered by.
Just some FYI, I don't pay much attention to "gas mileage". Last week, going on a relatively long ride (to the HRO candy store in NH) in my wife's Tesla S I noticed the mielage was around 270 watthours/mile. Usually it is 300-350. Just to be safe, stopped by a supercharger, and it said good for home in less than 10 minutes, but we were still waiting to be served at a carnivorerium. It was charging at 300 mi/hr vs our home 220 13 amp which is 10 mi/hour.
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
Who? When? Where?
Here, where he claimed that additional forces of drag that cause an EV's range to drop, wouldn't have the same affect on a ICE car.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452
Ah. You are forgetting about turning the heater on, having the airconditioning on and/or driving in very cold weather. So you are conveniently twisting things out of contex. Ofcourse I don't dignify such obvious trolling with a response.
BTW I was just repeating what your fellow e-Golf owner has stated in his write up of his experiences with the car. He is the one pitching concerns about head wind. Did anyone ever consider the impact of head wind on the range of a normal car? Then why all the sudden does it matter for an EV?
Again, are you claiming the energy required to drive the AC on an ICE car takes no energy?
Taking 2hp off the motor, vs having a 2hp [electric] compressor draws 2 horsepower, no matter what fuel it's powered by.
Ofcourse not. Stop reading what isn't there! It is very simple: on an ICE car the impact on the range is much less because an ICE car brings way more energy along. Your 2kW AC motor (hp is not an SI unit) draws 5% of charge from a 40kWh battery in one hour while on an ICE (with a 50 litre tank) it draws around 1% in one hour.
Remember, this is the same guy that claimed that the additional energy required to travel at 130km/h into a headwind vs 100km/h without a headwind was magically more for EVs than it was for ICE powered vehicles.
Who? When? Where?
Here, where he claimed that additional forces of drag that cause an EV's range to drop, wouldn't have the same affect on a ICE car.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1965452/#msg1965452
Ah. You are forgetting about turning the heater on, having the airconditioning on and/or driving in very cold weather. So you are conveniently twisting things out of contex. Ofcourse I don't dignify such obvious trolling with a response.
BTW I was just repeating what your fellow e-Golf owner has stated in his write up of his experiences with the car. He is the one pitching concerns about head wind. Did anyone ever consider the impact of head wind on the range of a normal car? Then why all the sudden does it matter for an EV?
Again, are you claiming the energy required to drive the AC on an ICE car takes no energy?
Taking 2hp off the motor, vs having a 2hp [electric] compressor draws 2 horsepower, no matter what fuel it's powered by.
Ofcourse not. Stop reading what isn't there! It is very simple: on an ICE car the impact on the range is much less because an ICE car brings way more energy along. Your 2kW AC motor (hp is not an SI unit) draws 5% of charge from a 40kWh battery in one hour while on an ICE (with a 50 litre tank) it draws around 1% in one hour.
No one has argued against the fact that ICE vehicles have longer ranges, because they carry more energy.
And, running into a headwind at higher speed, with the AC on, will reduce your maximum range; no one argued that either.
What you don't seem to grasp is that it reduces your maximum range by the same percentage no matter if your vehicle is EV or ICE. If driving at 100km/h requires 25hp (18½kW) to overcome the frictional forces, and driving at 130km/h into a 30km/h headwind with the AC on requires 50hp (37kW), it's a 100% increase in energy consumption, ICE or EV. That could be electricity flowing from the battery, or liquid hydrocarbons flowing from a tank. Fuel consumption (once into the power band) of most ICE engines is relative linear in terms of kg of fuel per hp per hour.
It's not the same for heating though, since with an ICE you can use waste heat from the engine to heat the passenger compartment. I think I read somewhere about a BEV which had an optional kerosene heter.
Agreed to all points in the previous post. I have definitely observed the range differences in my ICE vehicles. The range of what I typically drive on long trips can vary from just over 300 miles (480 km) under adverse conditions (high speed, headwind and rain) to over 450 miles (720km) under optimum conditions (speed just above the transition from the friction dominated regime to the drag dominated regime with a tailwind).
What is different between ICE and EV is the range margin to other limits like time between comfort breaks etc.
The best EV have little or no range margin to a wide variety of users in long range driving. (Agree that EV have lots of range margin for the daily short range drives that constitute most trips.)
The majority of ICE have significant range margin.
There can be a lot of discussion as to what that long range definition is, and to how much range margin is required. Most would agree that the desired range is somewhere in the 200 to 350 mile (300 to 600 km) ballpark. Many EV have negative margin to these distances. The best electric car (a Tesla which claims 335 mi range) has somewhere between a small negative margin to 70% margin to the desired range, depending on your definition. There are a very few ICE vehicles that do not have range margin to the shortest range figure, while some have 100% margin to the long end of the desirable range. If you are operating with only a few percent margin you have to worry about wind and air conditioning. ICE vehicles are less likely to be operating in that few percent margin case, no matter how you define range requirements.
For me the desired long range segment is about 325 miles (520 km). So under very adverse conditions I end up with very little or even negative range margin in the ICE vehicle mentioned above. Which is why I have my gas gauge well calibrated and know all of the many options for refueling on that route segment. I can tell from the gas gauge if driving conditions have negatively affected range, and can select an earlier stop if necessary.
It's not the same for heating though, since with an ICE you can use waste heat from the engine to heat the passenger compartment. I think I read somewhere about a BEV which had an optional kerosene heter.
In fact, at the typical efficiency (or lack of it) of an ICE, it's more accurate to say that it's a heating device than an engine
It's not the same for heating though, since with an ICE you can use waste heat from the engine to heat the passenger compartment. I think I read somewhere about a BEV which had an optional kerosene heter.
Not true. You can use the waste heat from the battery's liquid cooling radiator to warm the interior in the exact same way you use the waste heat from an ICE's liquid cooling radiator.
That battery pack's heat is generated and passed through it's radiator when driving the car whether you heat the interior, or not. It is the choice of the car's designers whether they use or waste this heat in the winter. Yes, the battery starts out much cooler and you will need a hybrid system to warm the cabin, but, the batteries do waste a ton of heat and once warmed up, their cooling radiator's output in the winter can mostly be directed to warming the cabin switching off the resistive element or heatpump heater.
It's not the same for heating though, since with an ICE you can use waste heat from the engine to heat the passenger compartment. I think I read somewhere about a BEV which had an optional kerosene heter.
ICE cars sold in northern climates also have kerosene or gasoline burners on the options list. Its not for normal operation. Its for times when a breakdown or accident leaves you stranded without the engine able to stop you freezing to death.