That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.That's still much too optimistic.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.
The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.
That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.That's still much too optimistic.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.
The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.And there is volumetric efficiency, all things being equal, a smaller engine has lower max possible efficiency:
For example, more of the combustion is close enough to the cylinder wall to lose energy as heat, and as the piston goes down during the power stroke, the difference just lets bigger until it’s not even fun anymore.
FYI, a 667kW per cylinder engine gets about 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, in its sweet spot and with good fuel (we adjust injection to density and other factors).
That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.That's still much too optimistic.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.
The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.And there is volumetric efficiency, all things being equal, a smaller engine has lower max possible efficiency:
For example, more of the combustion is close enough to the cylinder wall to lose energy as heat, and as the piston goes down during the power stroke, the difference just lets bigger until it’s not even fun anymore.
FYI, a 667kW per cylinder engine gets about 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, in its sweet spot and with good fuel (we adjust injection to density and other factors).
True, but when do ideal conditions exists when driving a motor vehicle. NEVER.
Also, the increase in energy consumption running the AC is identical EV or ICE, so in the context of the EV vs ICE argument, AC is a non-issue at all.6.4 kW is ~ 1/3 of the power needed to move the car, I wouldn't call it a non-issue, EVs (unlike ICEs) have an already poor range and this makes it even worse.As I keep pointing out, you are using absolutely worst case scenario numbers (again), and not real world number; nor are you considering the equivalent performance of an ICE car.
Boffin, you know very well that the heat for the cabin heater of an ICE comes from the water of the radiator, it's heat that's dumped into the cabin that would otherwise be dumped outside, and therefore means exactly zero additional kilowatts, so why you keep trying to prove otherwise is beyond me. Please stop behaving like the typical EV fanboy, you can do better I'm sure.
That’s my point, getting a 6MW generator to 40% is allready pushing thermodynamics (and combustion chemistry, the only methods to higher efficiency on these engines entail more NOX than legal) so forget about it on a small ICE engine with variable rpm and constantly varying loads...
That's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.That's still much too optimistic.
An ICE has 30-40%, but not an ICE in an ICE car.
The average efficiency of an ICE in a car is 14% (gas) to 19%(Diesel).
So yes, there are more than 80% losses, except in the few seconds of optimum load of the engine (when accelerating)
it's a rolling heater, so yes, it has an advantage in the winter.
Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency.
This thread has an amazing amount of mixing non-comparable numbers - on both sides of the aisle.
14% efficiency number for ICE is IMHO, the efficiency through the drive train, and includes parasitic loads like power steering and alternator in addition to friction losses in the transmission, drag from the brakes and also friction losses in the tires.
[...]
Let's do the math. If the efficiency of an ICE were ~ 45%, and to move a car on average you need say 18 kWh/100km, it means an ICE dumps as heat 0.55*18/0.45 = 22 kWh/100km, even 1/3 of that is plenty enough to heat the cabinThat's a little bit optimistic, considering that the fact that Toyota announced 40% efficiency for a new gasoline engine was big news (and that's the manufacturer claimed efficiency).
More like 30%, or so, with any luck.
Take a look at this. Quite an analysis they have done on the entire vehicle: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
I think the point is that the very inefficiency of the ICE engine means that the wasted energy is available
free, & using it to heat the car interior means that energy doesn't have to be found from the engine's mechanical output.
The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.
The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
Not sure I understand what your point is.
A fuel is any material that can be made to react with other substances so that it releases energy as heat energy or to be used for work. Electric energy can be used to do work.
Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency.NO! Definitely wrong. EVs are heavier than comparable ICE cars due to the batteries. Just look up the data! For example an EV with a very small battery like the e-Golf is 400kg heavier than it's ICE counterpart (and I didn't choose the model with the smallest ICE engine to compare against). A Tesla model S with the biggest batteries fitted has a weigth of around 2200kg. A BMW 3 series sits around 1600kg. The weight of an EV is a clear disadvantage!
If you look closely at the energy usage of the various Tesla's you'll see that the lighter models with less batteries have a lower energy consumption. The e-Golf has a relatively low energy consumption for an EV but at the cost of relatively small (and thus light) batteries.
The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
Not sure I understand what your point is.
A fuel is any material that can be made to react with other substances so that it releases energy as heat energy or to be used for work. Electric energy can be used to do work.But electricity has to be generated from something. Either wind/solar/coal/natural gas/geothermal.....
The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.
Things like brake and tire friction are in principal the same, but often yield an advantage for EV since these vehicles are generally smaller and lighter than the average ICE and are more heavily optimized for efficiency.NO! Definitely wrong. EVs are heavier than comparable ICE cars due to the batteries. Just look up the data! For example an EV with a very small battery like the e-Golf is 400kg heavier than it's ICE counterpart (and I didn't choose the model with the smallest ICE engine to compare against). A Tesla model S with the biggest batteries fitted has a weigth of around 2200kg. A BMW 3 series sits around 1600kg. The weight of an EV is a clear disadvantage!
If you look closely at the energy usage of the various Tesla's you'll see that the lighter models with less batteries have a lower energy consumption. The e-Golf has a relatively low energy consumption for an EV but at the cost of relatively small (and thus light) batteries.
The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.Nor do your numbers include the energy of extraction/refining/distribution of hydrocarbons; but then you have never been about comparing like for like.
I read somewhere on the interwebs that if tomorrow all the cars in the world were BEVs, global CO2 emissions would only drop by ~ 4%, so not a very big impact on GhG emissions.
The reasoning goes like this: cars (just normal cars, not including big trucks, buses, agricultural machines nor trains nor airplanes nor ships) consume only about 8% of total fossil fuels production (carbon+gas+oil), and the electricity production mix generates 50% as much CO2 per kWh as a car. 50% of 8% is 4%, so there you have it.
I say this because if you think we're going to save the planet with the Teslas, forget it.
The EPA already did all the calculations, and the conventional ICE engine cars always lose, which should be no surprise, as their efficiency is quite low.The big error in those calculations is that they don't include generation of the electricity. Electricity is a form of energy but not a energy source in itself. Fuel OTOH is a source of energy.