If people are going to use the line EV's are chearper, energy cost per mile to power the vehicle looks like that's not true.
How many times are you going to spout this lie?
I've shown, on multiple occasions the per-mile fuel cost of EVs are less than 1/2 (and 1/8 in my locale) versus that of ICE vehicles, in various jurisdictions.
If people are going to use the line EV's are chearper, energy cost per mile to power the vehicle looks like that's not true.
How many times are you going to spout this lie?
I've shown, on multiple occasions the per-mile fuel cost of EVs are less than 1/2 (and 1/8 in my locale) versus that of ICE vehicles, in various jurisdictions.
Why do you call it a lie witout providing any calculations to prove I am incorrect. Using the Tesla 10,000 miles vidoe data I clearly demonstrated if one were living in California and am paying PG&E electricity prices and CostCo, Safeway, Shell gasoline pricies the cost of energy per mile is about the same for EV or ICE. Next year when PG&E increases electircy costs EV's will cost more per mile in electricity costs than the cost for gasoline to move an ICE a mile.
Let's do the same calcuation where you are. What are you actually paying per gallon of gasoline? And what are you actually paying per kWhr for electricty?
Let's see if what you are saying is true or not.
If people are going to use the line EV's are chearper, energy cost per mile to power the vehicle looks like that's not true.
How many times are you going to spout this lie?
I've shown, on multiple occasions the per-mile fuel cost of EVs are less than 1/2 (and 1/8 in my locale) versus that of ICE vehicles, in various jurisdictions.
Why do you call it a lie witout providing any calculations to prove I am incorrect. Using the Tesla 10,000 miles vidoe data I clearly demonstrated if one were living in California and am paying PG&E electricity prices and CostCo, Safeway, Shell gasoline pricies the cost of energy per mile is about the same for EV or ICE. Next year when PG&E increases electircy costs EV's will cost more per mile in electricity costs than the cost for gasoline to move an ICE a mile.
Let's do the same calcuation where you are. What are you actually paying per gallon of gasoline? And what are you actually paying per kWhr for electricty?
Let's see if what you are saying is true or not.
I have, multiple times.
Perhaps you should go re-read post #1834. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/when-will-electric-cars-become-mainstream/msg1833074/#msg1833074
where I lay out all of the math, along with sources of the data.
The definitive proof that you're a troll, and not here to add any useful information to this thread, is that the very next message, quoting mine, #1835 was written by you.
This is the last time I pay any attention to any of your posts, or quote your dribble. I'm hoping the other users here follow my lead, and simply stop responding to you.
I really should NOT jump in at the end of this discussion ...
First, I am a retireed automotive engineer. The only big changes in EV that have happened (or are still happening) in the past 2-30 years are cheaper/more energy dense batteries and cheaper electronics for 3 phase or BLDC motors. Still this is not enough. At least in the US, I can not foresee a time in my life, when EV will make up much more than 30% of the total light vehicle market.
1) They do not have the range most US residents want/need
2) We do not have adequate infrastructure (power generation and distribution) to charge the huge number of these vehicles
What is likely in the next 10-20 years is that maybe the top 10 cities of the world with the worst air pollution will either ban single user ICE or ICE entirely or tax the heck out of the vehicle/fuel. At most 2 or 3 of those cities might be in the US.
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-late-party-german-carmakers-tesla.html
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.
The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants. Ones that are truly "fail safe".
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.
The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants. Ones that are truly "fail safe".
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.
The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants. Ones that are truly "fail safe".I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...
burning black coal for energy is silly. How are we going to make steel without it? Polluting and a waste of a precious resource.
Burning brown coal is simply nonsense, should have never been done.
About wind, right now, there are huge tenders for private, no public money, insanely extensive wind farms in the North Sea. The scale is just mind boggling. And a few are German.
The whole sale price of electricity they can turn a profit on is nuts, like a 0 too low - tech is moving on fast in this sector!
I could go on and on about this, but this is my work and in my enthusiasm I might step over an NDA... Or two.
Lets just say, there is a reason all the big players have built or are building specialised vessels that are totally overkill for the current demand. These vessels cost something like 30 000€ a day to wait and up and over 250 000€ per day to work (I cannot be more precise, sorry).
And the same thing is starting to happen in places in Asia where I'll be sailing to next spring (say no more).
Big money is going into wind, as if it is done right the ROI can be as low as 4 years for a minimum lifespan of 25 (can't be more accurate, sorry).
So, green is going into green to make green, not to save polar bears, but that might be a consequence.
Also, I sometimes am in the offshore oil and gas, and to put it in a way that wont get me fired: I have seen things right out of Mordor, yup, that bad. It is pushing me to go electric (house, PV and car) despite my love for IC engines.
the amount spilled, burnt for giggles or wasted is beyond stupid (but it is much cleaner than before my older colleagues say - i can't even imagine).
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.
The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants. Ones that are truly "fail safe".I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...
burning black coal for energy is silly. How are we going to make steel without it? Polluting and a waste of a precious resource.
Burning brown coal is simply nonsense, should have never been done.
About wind, right now, there are huge tenders for private, no public money, insanely extensive wind farms in the North Sea. The scale is just mind boggling. And a few are German.
The whole sale price of electricity they can turn a profit on is nuts, like a 0 too low - tech is moving on fast in this sector!
I could go on and on about this, but this is my work and in my enthusiasm I might step over an NDA... Or two.
Lets just say, there is a reason all the big players have built or are building specialised vessels that are totally overkill for the current demand. These vessels cost something like 30 000€ a day to wait and up and over 250 000€ per day to work (I cannot be more precise, sorry).
And the same thing is starting to happen in places in Asia where I'll be sailing to next spring (say no more).
Big money is going into wind, as if it is done right the ROI can be as low as 4 years for a minimum lifespan of 25 (can't be more accurate, sorry).
So, green is going into green to make green, not to save polar bears, but that might be a consequence.
Also, I sometimes am in the offshore oil and gas, and to put it in a way that wont get me fired: I have seen things right out of Mordor, yup, that bad. It is pushing me to go electric (house, PV and car) despite my love for IC engines.
the amount spilled, burnt for giggles or wasted is beyond stupid (but it is much cleaner than before my older colleagues say - i can't even imagine).
Can you explain the difference between brown and back coal?
Thanks
Interesting article, thanks for posting. One has to ask how Germany plans to "fuel" all of those electric cars. As Germany is phasing out nuclear power they will be using more. Yes they have solar and wind but that's not enough, so they continue to burn more coal. As nuclear gets phased out they continue to burn more coal.All of the "green energy"/anti-nuke people seem to be missing this.
Even though Germany is trying to setup a pipe line from Russia to purchase natural gas, that still add CO and CO2 to the air.
The world need MORE and BETTER nuclear power plants. Ones that are truly "fail safe".I think nuclear is the way to go medium term. But not the arse over heels way the UK is doing it...
burning black coal for energy is silly. How are we going to make steel without it? Polluting and a waste of a precious resource.
Burning brown coal is simply nonsense, should have never been done.
About wind, right now, there are huge tenders for private, no public money, insanely extensive wind farms in the North Sea. The scale is just mind boggling. And a few are German.
The whole sale price of electricity they can turn a profit on is nuts, like a 0 too low - tech is moving on fast in this sector!
I could go on and on about this, but this is my work and in my enthusiasm I might step over an NDA... Or two.
Lets just say, there is a reason all the big players have built or are building specialised vessels that are totally overkill for the current demand. These vessels cost something like 30 000€ a day to wait and up and over 250 000€ per day to work (I cannot be more precise, sorry).
And the same thing is starting to happen in places in Asia where I'll be sailing to next spring (say no more).
Big money is going into wind, as if it is done right the ROI can be as low as 4 years for a minimum lifespan of 25 (can't be more accurate, sorry).
So, green is going into green to make green, not to save polar bears, but that might be a consequence.
Also, I sometimes am in the offshore oil and gas, and to put it in a way that wont get me fired: I have seen things right out of Mordor, yup, that bad. It is pushing me to go electric (house, PV and car) despite my love for IC engines.
the amount spilled, burnt for giggles or wasted is beyond stupid (but it is much cleaner than before my older colleagues say - i can't even imagine).
Can you explain the difference between brown and back coal?
ThanksFor my interests (steel ships), it very hard to make coke from lignite, and to have affordable steel, coke is a necessity.
For more info, use Google: https://www.gktoday.in/gk/difference-between-peat-lignite-bituminous-and-anthracite/
Can you explain the difference between brown and back coal?
... people were having berating problems.
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.
If in the end part of the solution were synthetic fuel it wouldn't surprise me. H2 from water electrolysis, C from biomass, and the required energy coming from PVs/other renewables, because li-ion batteries fall short for planes and ships: these need the good old high density liquid (hydrocarbon) fuels.[...]
Just leaves nucelar.....
But when the oil runs out Fischer–Tropsch synthetic fuels might be the solution, because we need planes and ships and planes can't fly with nuclear.
The big idea is to have way too much capacity so that even at minimum production "no wind or sun over the whole of western Europe mythical day", the reliance on co generation or batteries is kept to a minimum.
All the other days, 364 of them, the wind would produce hydrogen with the excess (otherwise lost - aka nearly free) energy and convert that to methane. Once we have methane, longer hydrocarbons are possible. But methane, of itself, is already a easy to manage fuel.
The same method could be used to keep Nuclear plants running at optimal power levels, as they don't like low loads...
But the problem is getting to methane, as the Sabatier method is a bit iffy, but serious efforts are going into this:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/510066/audi-to-make-fuel-using-solar-power/ for example.
But, to be honest, I can't even pretend to have dug into it.
Could be the next big thing or "Solar Roadways II, the CH4 connection" for all I know...
As for Audi - They need to look at the Hydrogen fuel video to see why this isn't going to work. The amount of electricity involved in electrolysis of water into H-H O and storage is enormous. But they are adding a twist by using methane. So maybe........ But highly unlikely this would work. Watch the following vidoe.