Electric Cars

Anything goes here.. :) Now with Beer Garden for our smoking patrons.
Message
Author
abc
Legendary Member!
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 pm

Re: Electric Cars

#16 Post by abc » Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:37 pm

bits wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:08 pm
It has been explained.
If you know the science that disproves this explain it. I am no scientist perhaps you can school me.
However your post of F=MA seems very lacking and I lean to that you are simply still confused.
It seems you are confused with the energy spent to create the A vs the resulting output F.

EV's are not an ICE vehicle with a battery.
These 2 types of vehicles are carrying potential energy stored in different forms. How the energy is released is via different methods. How that energy is converted to torque is different.
Those differences are why one requires more energy than the other in regards to conversion of energy into torque/rotation force.

During the ICE conversion of energy to torque there are substantially higher losses to heat. The user rapidly changing rpm and needing gear ratios that can allow high torque at very short notice further increases the losses in the system.
Diesel generators with more predictable loads, slower changes in rpm, longer periods at ideal gear ratios and potential secondary capture and reuse of heat makes them more efficient.

EV is not an explosion in a box pushing piston/crank/transmission etc.
It is electricity creating magnetic fields.
EV is not ICE.

If you are still struggling perhaps consider a pot of water that you want to heat up.
You could heat it up via multiple different methods. A small wood fire, a microwave or a laser. There are so many options.
The resulting heat you put into the water can be the same, eg you heated it up 20C. That is a fixed amount of energy right?
That doesn't mean you spent the same amount of energy to get that increase. You may have burned down a forest to heat that pot of water. Maybe you only burned a house. Maybe you put it in the microwave for 15 seconds.
The energy in you spent is not directly linked to the energy out you wanted because energy was lost during the conversion to things that were not heating that particular pot of water. There are different losses.
do you know how much energy it takes to construct a battery?
do you know where the energy comes from to charge a battery?

hint: it doesn't come from free energy from the carbon neutral gods

bits
Legendary Member!
Posts: 821
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:24 pm

Re: Electric Cars

#17 Post by bits » Sat Jan 06, 2024 8:28 am

That was already talked about in this thread by me.

The guardian article I linked above said:
"A report by the Ricardo consultancy estimated that production of an average petrol car will involve emissions amounting to the equivalent of 5.6 tonnes of CO2, while for an average electric car, the figure is 8.8tonnes. Of that, nearly half is incurred in producing the battery. Despite this, the same report estimated that over its whole lifecycle, the electric car would still be responsible for 80% of the emissions of the petrol car. "


If you know something or have links to knowledge regarding what you are questioning please share it.

I don't even own an EV yet. There are many user/situation specific things to consider before buying a new car.
You asked a question and I went and found some answers.


"can someone explain to me how electric cars are more fuel efficient when they weigh more per cubic metre?"

Because ICE cars waste huge amounts of energy, in particular to heat. The energy lost to heat outweighs the energy lost due to additional weight.

abc
Legendary Member!
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 pm

Re: Electric Cars

#18 Post by abc » Sat Jan 06, 2024 6:26 pm

bits wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2024 8:28 am
That was already talked about in this thread by me.

The guardian article I linked above said:
"A report by the Ricardo consultancy estimated that production of an average petrol car will involve emissions amounting to the equivalent of 5.6 tonnes of CO2, while for an average electric car, the figure is 8.8tonnes. Of that, nearly half is incurred in producing the battery. Despite this, the same report estimated that over its whole lifecycle, the electric car would still be responsible for 80% of the emissions of the petrol car. "


If you know something or have links to knowledge regarding what you are questioning please share it.

I don't even own an EV yet. There are many user/situation specific things to consider before buying a new car.
You asked a question and I went and found some answers.


"can someone explain to me how electric cars are more fuel efficient when they weigh more per cubic metre?"

Because ICE cars waste huge amounts of energy, in particular to heat. The energy lost to heat outweighs the energy lost due to additional weight.
please..stopped reading right there

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: Electric Cars

#19 Post by rubberman » Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:17 pm

abc wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2024 6:26 pm
bits wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2024 8:28 am
That was already talked about in this thread by me.

The guardian article I linked above said:
"A report by the Ricardo consultancy estimated that production of an average petrol car will involve emissions amounting to the equivalent of 5.6 tonnes of CO2, while for an average electric car, the figure is 8.8tonnes. Of that, nearly half is incurred in producing the battery. Despite this, the same report estimated that over its whole lifecycle, the electric car would still be responsible for 80% of the emissions of the petrol car. "


If you know something or have links to knowledge regarding what you are questioning please share it.

I don't even own an EV yet. There are many user/situation specific things to consider before buying a new car.
You asked a question and I went and found some answers.


"can someone explain to me how electric cars are more fuel efficient when they weigh more per cubic metre?"

Because ICE cars waste huge amounts of energy, in particular to heat. The energy lost to heat outweighs the energy lost due to additional weight.
please..stopped reading right there
Of course. Heaven forbid you might learn something. However, in this case, you have a point. No point in reading something you have no hope of understanding. In this discussion, your F=MA statement demonstrates that your grasp of basic mechanics isn't sufficient to understand it. If you think that a simple force statement says anything about energy or efficiency, then you need to go back to school.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests