Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
>>???<<
I was responding to the original article / post and the title asserting that BEVs would be 50% or more of sales.
It doesn't matter that Big Detroit is investing in electrical cars and batteries, it's like investing in buggy whips in the 1890s.
When you add in inflation, debauched currency, growing population, higher taxes, insufficient generation capacity and so on, the dictates of the bankrupt government will not save us, but precipitate a crash as "the system" collapses.
. . . .
Railroad References:
Efficiency comparisons using passenger-miles per gallon http://www.builditsolar.com/Referenc...strickland.htm
[] Max efficiency:
Mode . . . . . . . . . Passenger-miles per gallon Rail . . . . . . . . . . . 2000
Trolleybus . . . . . . .750 Tesla Roadster . . . .328 <= electric automobile (BEV)
Diesel bus. . . . . . . 280
Toyota Prius . . . . . 240
Scooter cycle . . . . .150 Ford Explorer . . . . 100
[] Typical efficiency:
Mode . . . . . . . . . .Passenger-miles per gallon Rail . . . . . . . . . . . 600
Trolleybus . . . . . . 290 Tesla Roadster . . . 246
Diesel bus. . . . . . . . 78
Scooter cycle. . . . . 75
Toyota Prius . . . . . .72 Ford Explorer. . . . . 21
*This comparison is strictly limited to converting all the fuel / energy sources to a single reference. HOWEVER, it doesn't take into account the other inefficiencies involved - such as petroleum or natural gas electricity generation - that should degrade the passenger-miles per gallon for BEVs.
A gallon of gasoline can be used to fuel an internal combustion engine, at 40% efficiency.
OR
A gallon of gasoline can generate electricity, at 38% efficiency, to power a battery electric vehicle at 77% efficiency, resulting in 29% efficiency overall.
A gallon of diesel can generate electricity at 38% efficiency, powering a BEV (77%), for 29% overall versus 45% for a diesel engine.
ONLY Hydropower + BEV will have a higher efficiency overall than ICE.
Even if figures are off by a few percentages, don't forget to factor in the escalating cost for LITHIUM (batteries) and POWER GENERATION.
A transportation system that relies on subsidies to encourage the most wasteful forms is not sensible.
In terms of resources, such as fuel / energy, surface area, and in terms of pollution, safety and long term durability, electric powered steel wheel on steel rail is the champion.
Any political system that penalizes rail (via taxes and ridiculous regulations) and subsidizes its more wasteful competition (automobiles, buses, trucks, and aircraft) is doing a disservice to its people.
If you zero out all taxes and all subsidies, I think you will find that to move the most cargo / passengers for the least amount of resources, safely and with minimal pollution, electric powered rail is the solution.
Until there's something better and cheaper... that is.
Recall your earlier posts. You understand that your logic for how you estimated the necessary electrical generation for a 1:1 replacement of gas road vehicle miles for EV road vehicle miles was off by a lot, right? You used the energy density of gasoline and number of road miles traveled per year, but then also used ICE vehicle efficiencies to estimate how much energy was needed for electric road vehicles which have a dramatically different and much higher efficiency. So there's something wrong by a very large proportion in terms of estimated energy needed. On top of that though, you also mentioned great difficulty in generating that additional electricity, but you miss the part about whether that additional electricity generated really needs to come with that commensurate level of additional generating capacity or distribution capacity which is unlikely to be true. These and a few other numbers and arguments you made about BEVs (though not rail) were wrong.
You unfortunately still have your numbers wrong here. That 40% efficiency is basically the *most* efficient ICE vehicle in production that is perating under perfect circumstances which is extremely rare. The actual efficiency is closer to the 15% to 25% range. You also with that get a 100% loss of that efficiency every time you brake in an ICE vehicle as all that energy is dissipated into heat. So in reality, that reasonable 77% average efficiency for a BEV though now generally higher ends up even better in practice due to regenerative braking.
You have to remember--there is no idea disagreement here that rail is by far the better solution in efficiency. I don't know how much more I can emphasize that to you. You're preaching to the choir here. That rolling resistance advantage is great, the ability to easily convoy and have subsequent traincars reap aerodynamic advantages is great, and the great geometric space efficiency of set tracks with known dimensions is great. There is no one contending this. However, no rail vehicle is going to be part of the calculation whether numerator or denominator in a metric that's about new consumer road vehicle sales. As much as I am a fan of rail, it simply is not a road vehicle and therefore doesn't factor into what this topic discusses. I'm a fan of rail and talking about rail as are you, but I think in the process of doing such, you made quite a few erroneous statements in regards to electric road vehicles. The rail parts are right as are the general gist of market distortions allowing for fairly inefficient systems to be popular.
I also think with your fandom of rail, it's odd that you're missing the massive opportunity that battery improvements can offer to rail in very quickly expanding their reach and efficiency. Have you been keeping track of any of the interesting battery electric rail developments over the last few years?
The question is simple: do you believe that energy consumption per capita will go UP or DOWN by switching to BEVs.
Do you think the cost to buy and operate a BEV will be HIGHER or LOWER than ICE vehicles.
AND
Do you think that it is advisable to shift to electric traction rail and reduce energy consumption per capita?
Recall your earlier posts. You understand that your logic for how you estimated the necessary electrical generation for a 1:1 replacement of gas road vehicle miles for EV road vehicle miles was off by a lot, right? You used the energy density of gasoline and number of road miles traveled per year, but then also used ICE vehicle efficiencies to estimate how much energy was needed for electric road vehicles which have a dramatically different and much higher efficiency. So there's something wrong by a very large proportion in terms of estimated energy needed. On top of that though, you also mentioned great difficulty in generating that additional electricity, but you miss the part about whether that additional electricity generated really needs to come with that commensurate level of additional generating capacity or distribution capacity which is unlikely to be true. These and a few other numbers and arguments you made about BEVs (though not rail) were wrong.
You unfortunately still have your numbers wrong here. That 40% efficiency is basically the *most* efficient ICE vehicle in production that is perating under perfect circumstances which is extremely rare. The actual efficiency is closer to the 15% to 25% range. You also with that get a 100% loss of that efficiency every time you brake in an ICE vehicle as all that energy is dissipated into heat. So in reality, that reasonable 77% average efficiency for a BEV though now generally higher ends up even better in practice due to regenerative braking.
You have to remember--there is no idea disagreement here that rail is by far the better solution in efficiency. I don't know how much more I can emphasize that to you. You're preaching to the choir here. That rolling resistance advantage is great, the ability to easily convoy and have subsequent traincars reap aerodynamic advantages is great, and the great geometric space efficiency of set tracks with known dimensions is great. There is no one contending this. However, no rail vehicle is going to be part of the calculation whether numerator or denominator in a metric that's about new consumer road vehicle sales. As much as I am a fan of rail, it simply is not a road vehicle and therefore doesn't factor into what this topic discusses. I'm a fan of rail and talking about rail as are you, but I think in the process of doing such, you made quite a few erroneous statements in regards to electric road vehicles. The rail parts are right as are the general gist of market distortions allowing for fairly inefficient systems to be popular.
I also think with your fandom of rail, it's odd that you're missing the massive opportunity that battery improvements can offer to rail in very quickly expanding their reach and efficiency. Have you been keeping track of any of the interesting battery electric rail developments over the last few years?
Any battery powered vehicle will be less efficient than a grid powered vehicle, since carrying the dead weight of discharged batteries will reduce capacity. ( Ditto for diesel-electric locomotives versus electric locomotives)
So a train with a catenary or other power delivery system will trump a battery powered train.
(In "Super Mario Brothers", the police used catenary powered prowlers... LOL)
Of course, if we factored in the ability to drive 400-500 miles a day with four passengers, BEVs can't compete at all.
And when we factor in heating or air conditioning, the trip length shrinks even more.
In a Tesla Model S, the batteries are the car's heaviest component. The 85 kWh battery pack weighs 1,200 lb (540 kg). That’s the equivalent of hauling four 300 lb passengers. Range 249-259 miles. Best results used hypermiling techniques such as front motor only, low speed 24 mph (39 km/h), no air conditioning and minimal use of the brakes.
I suspect that as the "real" cost for BEVs goes up and up, new sales will be limited to those who are subsidized by their job (or government). Which does not bode well for the taxpayers.
One BEV that I think has a great future is the electric unicycle (EUC). It's lightweight, compact, easily fits in mass transit, doesn't become a nuisance to wheel around when dismounted, and requires far less resources and electrical power.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 03-11-2022 at 06:41 PM..
There is no ability to have a fuel pump for every tenant and to save money while doing so. It's going to cost you a lot more money to have that kind of convenience. You simply do not have any reasonable ability to make that happen in a way where that convenience costs you *less* to refuel. That's essentially what home charging with EVs provide.
If your building doesn't have dedicated parking, then you'll have to charge in the other methods mention. Where that's still net more convenient is if there were places you frequented where there is charging at the parking for those places (a category that could include workplace parking) because you will have parked the vehicle anyways. Where it is less convenient is if there is no place you frequent where there is charging at the parking lot so you have to make a dedicated trip to a recharging station just as an ICE vehicle has to go to make a dedicated trip to a refueling station though with the current disadvantage for EVs that this trip will be somewhat longer though this won't necessarily hold for new EVs in 2030.
That is true about gas stations at a parking lots. There is no economical sense to have them there, nor can they be there because of the EPA and DEC rules. Also there are city codes relating to not having pump stations in the neighborhoods, but can be business-dedicated areas by the neighborhoods (as they are now). However, the same rules do not apply the location of charging stations, nor to electrical outlets people can use to charge their EV's.
I am certain that there are apartments for the rich that have all the amenities the tenants want, including private and secure parking, high capacity electrical outlets, and so on.
Another reason why ICE automobile drivers don't need pumps at the parking lot is because fuel is very dense, so a couple of gallons in the tank (the "reserve") is enough for you to start the engine, warm the cab-in the middle of the winter, and drive it to a gas station a few miles away. But in the middle of the winter, I doubt that NYC EV drivers are going to park their EV's on the streets for the two or three days it takes for the snow removal to take place. Well, I am assuming that this is the case, since I not longer live in NYC, nor do I have an EV.
The question is simple: do you believe that energy consumption per capita will go UP or DOWN by switching to BEVs.
Do you think the cost to buy and operate a BEV will be HIGHER or LOWER than ICE vehicles.
AND
Do you think that it is advisable to shift to electric traction rail and reduce energy consumption per capita?
If it's a 1:1 switch from gas road vehicle to electric road vehicle, it will consume less energy per mile and per capita. It is advisable to switch away from ICE road vehicles which are extremely inefficient, but the switch has a different amount of benefit depending on what was switched to. A switch to fairly walkable, urban environment where rail mass transit, walking, and biking can be done and that effect is enormous. A lesser effect would be a switch to BEVs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Any battery powered vehicle will be less efficient than a grid powered vehicle, since carrying the dead weight of discharged batteries will reduce capacity. ( Ditto for diesel-electric locomotives versus electric locomotives)
So a train with a catenary or other power delivery system will trump a battery powered train.
(In "Super Mario Brothers", the police used catenary powered prowlers... LOL)
Of course, if we factored in the ability to drive 400-500 miles a day with four passengers, BEVs can't compete at all.
And when we factor in heating or air conditioning, the trip length shrinks even more.
In a Tesla Model S, the batteries are the car's heaviest component. The 85 kWh battery pack weighs 1,200 lb (540 kg). That’s the equivalent of hauling four 300 lb passengers. Range 249-259 miles. Best results used hypermiling techniques such as front motor only, low speed 24 mph (39 km/h), no air conditioning and minimal use of the brakes.
I suspect that as the "real" cost for BEVs goes up and up, new sales will be limited to those who are subsidized by their job (or government). Which does not bode well for the taxpayers.
One BEV that I think has a great future is the electric unicycle (EUC). It's lightweight, compact, easily fits in mass transit, doesn't become a nuisance to wheel around when dismounted, and requires far less resources and electrical power.
Yes, battery powered vehicle will generally be less efficient than a grid powered vehicle, but the benefit is great for battery powered trains while the cost is minimal compared to the equivalent for road vehicles. You're missing a lot of detail here. You understand that catenary, third rail, and other power systems can and do run into issues both in construction and operation, right? In more urban environments, there are NIMBYs and safety issues that may be costly and time-consuming to otherwise address. In trains passing through remote environments, the cost of maintenance and operation of lines that go down for something like an adverse weather conditions or some other issue can be extremely high and result in a lot of opportunity cost for time lost in trying to rewire. You as a railfan also probably understand that there was and is a lot of mixed-use rail tracks that might not be suitable for catenary and a lot of rail infrastructure was put in place long ago oftentimes without electrification and with tunnels and bridge overhangs that might make putting in electric power delivery systems quite difficult. These are all bottlenecks to greater rail usage and these can be avoided by having battery onboard which can be *complementary* to power delivery along rail segments. Remember, having even a two mile segment without power along a 500 mile pathway that does means it screws it up for an electric train without power onboard and batteries are a fantastic way to bridge such gaps or even longer gaps.
Not only that, but this also allows for you to quickly trial extensions of grid-compatible train services to existing tracks without electrification before committing to the most costly endeavor of capital construction costs of full electrification and let's you do so without people complaining about exhaust fumes and can generally be worked in pretty easily into train consists. Oh, and it's also nice to have a bit of backup as well in case there is a grid issue and you want to get your train in transit to a good place for passengers to exit or to allow for other trains to pass or to at least complete delivery or to get to another segment of track where the power isn't down. Japan, which as you know has a great train network, has been fitting trains with some batteries as well as some stationary batteries at certain grid segments as backups.
Meanwhile, the cost to those benefits are plummeting in terms of cost per kWh and your talk about dead weight of batteries when not in use, while an important negative factor for road vehicles, is barely a blip for rail vehicles because rail has an incredibly low rolling resistance so adding weight does little to change the efficiency. Even more incredible is that for the sake of traction, it's not uncommon for locomotive designs to *purposefully* be weighted down which in a battery electric locomotive can simply be the battery.
And no, BEVs as road vehicles do not compete well with electric rail vehicles in efficiency. That's never been in contention. That's simply the physics of it. However, the topic is percent of new vehicle sales for *road* vehicles not all vehicles of any possible kind whether it's aircraft, boats, trains, or pogosticks. In no part of a percentage of road vehicles which is a *ratio* of one kind of road vehicle over the broader category of road vehicles, do trains which are rail vehicles factor in.
BEVs are better than their ICE road vehicle counterparts though and by a lot. You unfortunately have outdated information about the Model S which isn't the standard-bearer for range anymore as it was back when there was a 85 kWh pack in production. The current Model S packs have about 100 kWh capacity now and of a different chemistry and design such that they're lighter as the latest revision shed quite a bit of weight. Unsurprisingly, the current Model S has substantially more range and even greater efficiency with the larger capacity battery pack than the best 85 kWh Model S did while also having greater performance and more features (though less steering wheel). The current Model S is about the same weight as its closest ICE competitors and with similar or better range. It also has a faster charge rate. It also has a heat pump now which means that unless you're in the depths of a Fairbanks, AK winter, the drain from cold is pretty small (some electric train rolling stock also incorporate heat pumps!). 400-500 miles a day with four passengers is really easy with a Model S. Unlike with its closest ICE equivalent, the Model S starts with a full tank on your drive since you have it plugged in. You at some point with four passengers driving 400-500 miles a day will need to take at least one bathroom and possibly one meal break which you'd want to do while the car is parked at a fast charger and enough to make the trip. That's it. If you thought that was going to be harder for a Model S today than its gas equivalents, then it's pretty likely you haven't kept up with how quickly BEVs are improving as with your citing of a 85 kWh Model S which has *not* been in production for about seven years which is funny since the topic about new BEV sales seven years *in the future*. If you have outdated notions of a BEV road vehicle at least seven years old and with an industry that's moving really quickly, then it's possible you haven't kept up with how battery electric trains have improved either.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-12-2022 at 08:38 AM..
[1] If it's a 1:1 switch from gas road vehicle to electric road vehicle, it will consume less energy per mile and per capita.
[2] It is advisable to switch away from ICE road vehicles which are extremely inefficient, but the switch has a different amount of benefit depending on what was switched to. A switch to fairly walkable, urban environment where rail mass transit, walking, and biking can be done and that effect is enormous. A lesser effect would be a switch to BEVs.
[1] If you disregard the SOURCE of that electric power, YES.
A 77% efficient electric vehicle is more efficient than a 35-50% ICE.
BUT
Once you add in the source of that power, the overall efficiency is changed.
The U.S. grid loses about 5 percent of all the electricity generated through transmission and distribution. https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-effici...ts-complicated
Depending on factors like the ambient-air temperature, how empty the battery is when you start charging, and the supply voltage to your EV's charging unit, the efficiency of charging can vary between 70 percent and 90 percent.
Each stage imposes its own (in)efficiency, which degrades the output.
Ultimately, NO, the BEV is not going to be more efficient until the SOURCE is more efficient.
[2] I concur that pneumatic tire on pavement vehicles are inefficient, by virtue of the coefficient of rolling resistance. And BEVs are not more efficient OVERALL, unless the power source is somehow more direct / more efficient (hydropower, solar photovoltaics on the rooftop, or catenary distribution).
. . .
In short, BEVs are not the remedy.
[1] If you disregard the SOURCE of that electric power, YES.
A 77% efficient electric vehicle is more efficient than a 35-50% ICE.
BUT
Once you add in the source of that power, the overall efficiency is changed.
The U.S. grid loses about 5 percent of all the electricity generated through transmission and distribution. https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-effici...ts-complicated
Depending on factors like the ambient-air temperature, how empty the battery is when you start charging, and the supply voltage to your EV's charging unit, the efficiency of charging can vary between 70 percent and 90 percent.
Each stage imposes its own (in)efficiency, which degrades the output.
Ultimately, NO, the BEV is not going to be more efficient until the SOURCE is more efficient.
[2] I concur that pneumatic tire on pavement vehicles are inefficient, by virtue of the coefficient of rolling resistance. And BEVs are not more efficient OVERALL, unless the power source is somehow more direct / more efficient (hydropower, solar photovoltaics on the rooftop, or catenary distribution).
. . .
In short, BEVs are not the remedy.
1)
Regardless of the source, your errors are still there. That very rare peak thermal efficiency for the most efficient ICE engines operating in the most optimal conditions possible is being put against average (actually somewhat below average) efficiency for EVs. That makes absolutely no sense. Instead, the operating efficiency of ICE vehicles are more like 15-25% band. If you want to make the count simple for you, then it's about 20% efficiency for the ICE vehicle and about 80% efficiency for the EV. Then on top of that, the EV can recover kinetic energy via regenerative braking with for an ICE vehicle would be a total loss (realistically, even worse due to brake wear). So you're talking about on average a quarter of the efficiency in real life.
No one is saying that there aren't losses at point of conversion from a source to electricity, from transmission, from distribution, and from inverter losses. If you were using petroleum as a utility scale generator which is only really common in Hawaii among US states, then you'd most likely be using a diesel combined cycle generator whose efficiency is probably in the 45-55% range. Let's say 50% then. Your charging loss is greater than what it is usually for modern EVs, but I'll stick with it. So the math would be for conversion, then transmission/distribution, then inverter loss, then powertrain efficiency gets (0.5)(0.95)(0.8)(0.8) = 0.304 or 30.4% or still better than your 20% average for ICE vehicles *and* this still doesn't take into consideration regenerative braking. Nor does it take into account the rather large operating loss that comes from having to distribute all that gasoline into fuel stations in many, many different points. So even without these large losses, somehow, ICE vehicles are still so incredibly inefficient that they are still even worse than their BEVs even when starting from the same fuel source that's most optimal for the ICE vehicle. What happens when you start with a less optimal fuel source then? What do you reckon is the insanely bad efficiency that would come from trying to convert the output of a nuclear power plant into something usable for your standard gasoline or diesel ICE vehicle? How about hydroelectricity? Even the process of turning coal or natural into something that your standard gasoline or diesel ICE vehicle can use is an insanely inefficient process.
In every single consumer vehicle scenario for every power source we know except for very long distance hauling without stops or extended and extreme cold, battery electric road vehicles are going to be more efficient than their closest ICE counterpart. There is no way around this and I don't know why you think you can argue your way out of engineering and physics. This is absurd given how much you know of how these efficiencies work with rail and yet seem incapable of applying the same rigor to road vehicle comparison. You have made many basic errors, and it's puzzling why you continue to do so.
2) Battery electric road vehicles are not more efficient than battery electric or catenary/power delivery rail. They are more efficient in virtually every scenario than internal combustion engine road vehicles. They are even more efficient than those vehicles when going from that internal combustion engine's fuels of choice (be it diesel, gasoline, or natural gas) and they are a hell of a lot more efficient than those if the comparison is from another energy source like coal, hydro, solar, or wind. I am not saying battery electric road vehicles are a panacea for energy efficiency. They are not. They are significantly better than the ICE road vehicle as those are terribly inefficient and that is an extremely low bar.
I suspect given how you've uused outdated stats, though unfortunately that doesn't pardon some of the faulty logic used, ranging from charging losses to Model S stats, it's likely you also haven't kept up with how battery electric *rail* vehicles are faring and the kind of advantages they've had in recent years. You know that Japan has really good train systems, but it doesn't seem like you've kept abreast of what's been happening as many of the trains including the notable Shinkansen have been incorporating traction batteries into their rolling stock. One thing you might find interesting in that the nearest limiting factor for high-speed conventional rail isn't the motors or the power or the track itself. None of that. The nearest limiting factor is the tension on the power delivery system as calculated during record hitting speed tests by SNCF. That power delivery system already needs to be kept at extremely high tension and strongly anchored and that's what seems to be the first thing that'll collapse if using conventional rail technologies and trying to increase speed. With onboard stored power that can discharge at high rates though, it's quite possible that that constraint is no longer applicable. These battery improvements are looking mighty good for rail in a lot of situations.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-13-2022 at 08:54 PM..
The question is simple: do you believe that energy consumption per capita will go UP or DOWN by switching to BEVs.
Do you think the cost to buy and operate a BEV will be HIGHER or LOWER than ICE vehicles.
AND
Do you think that it is advisable to shift to electric traction rail and reduce energy consumption per capita?
Well moving commuting over to electricity it just removes diversity in the way we use energy. It'll put more strain on the infrastructure that is taxed to the extreme already. It's not using less energy in fact I think it would require more to build up all the necessary infrastructure to prove and deliver it.
Well moving commuting over to electricity it just removes diversity in the way we use energy. It'll put more strain on the infrastructure that is taxed to the extreme already. It's not using less energy in fact I think it would require more to build up all the necessary infrastructure to prove and deliver it.
Woof, wrong answers from snout to tail there. You have tried and true methods whether at a small scale or a utility scale for converting gasoline or diesel into electricity. You have extremely limited ability to go the other way around. You can't even put gasoline into a diesel vehicle without screwing it up or vice versa. There are some pathways to converting natural gas into something a gasoline ICE vehicle can use, but it's an incredibly energy and feedstock expensive process as is similar for coal. The route from nuclear reactors to gasoline or diesel is even more incredibly difficult and requires so much additional feedstock in the process that it's pretty much useless to characterize that as an actual derivation of ICE-compatible fuel from nuclear energy. Same goes with hydro, solar, or wind energy resources being turned into gasoline or diesel. On top of that, it's a lot more efficient to use BEVs than ICE road vehicles even with diesel as the starting point for both.
You also somehow completely misunderstood jetgraphics point which is to get rid of road vehicles entirely--including gas and diesel road vehicles. He wants them replaced with trains and more similar to how Japan's infrastructure works which is why he bold'd it. And those trains are almost exclusively *electric* trains to boot which has a lot to do with Japan have limited energy resources so they want to use what is most efficient and also has the broadest (most diverse) energy source possible which would be things that run on electricity since there are many, many energy sources including diesel and gasoline that have tried-and-true economically sound pathways for converting to electricity.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-13-2022 at 09:34 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
