4 ms·

Yes, but their energy density has hardly changed and every gasoline tank beats your average LiIon battery by a factor of 10: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En

Yes, but their energy density has hardly changed and every gasoline tank beats your average LiIon battery by a factor of 10: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_chemical_reactions_(oxidation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_chemical_rea...

gameswithgo 5y ago
Don’t forget to account for the differences in engine and drivetrain efficiency. a gasoline engine gets way less of the gasoline's energy to the wheels. The engines of today are 30-40% efficient iirc, and then you lose more in the tranmission, differentials, etc. Electric motors are ~80-96% efficient and there is less transmission losses involved after that too. also energy density of cells and packs continues to improve and has improved a lot since 1991
- siproprio 5y ago
  Source?
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    One source on recent energy density improvements: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-ion-battery-cell-densities-have-almost-tripled-since-2010/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-io... A source on electric motor efficiency: https://insideevs.com/news/348504/tesla-improves-motor-efficiency-increase-range/ https://insideevs.com/news/348504/tesla-improves-motor-effic... A source on internal combustion engine efficiency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_combustion_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_com... As to the drivetrain losses through transmissions and differentials, I have only my own experience from working on cars, dynos (measuring the power to the wheels), and racing. It depends on drivetrain layout. front engine front wheel drive has fewer losses than front engine rear wheel drive, all wheel drive usually worst of all. You lose another 5-15% depending. Probably you will also find this video interesting, which goes into depth on the full lifecycle of different fuels and the overall efficiencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d0MPg7DxbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d0MPg7DxbY
  - DarmokJalad1701 5y ago
    Besides what the other guy posted, see how far you can drive per unit of energy. A gas car getting 26 mpg -> 26 miles from 33.41 kWh of energy -> 1285 Wh/mi A Tesla Model 3 getting 353 miles from a 75 kWh battery -> 212 Wh/mi That's a 6x advantage.
- DalasNoin 5y ago
  Additionally, electric engines and drive-trains are much lighter. You don't need a gearbox, compressor and many other components. This makes up for some of the extra weight of the battery.
plantain 5y ago
I don't think that's fair - the energy density has been improving largely how everything else in the world does, incrementally, step by step. It's unfair to expect a magic overnight revolution. https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-ion-battery-cell-densities-have-almost-tripled-since-2010/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-io...
drzaiusapelord 5y ago
Lithium-ion is something of an everyday miracle. I'm older and I remember previous rechargeable battery technologies and they were just terrible. Also, Gas and tiny portable batteries have nearly nothing in common. You're not going to be able to fit an ICE into my iphone. What's with the weird comparisons? I don't see how they are helpful. Its like when we talk about hate crimes or civilians killed in war, and other people bring out unrelated stats about car accidents or cancer. This is a common thing on the internet that almost no one questions. Its weird and frankly a dishonest rhetorical trick.
- thethethethe 5y ago
  To be fair to op, lithium ion batteries are used in cars so it's not like the comparison is totally unwarranted. Energy density is one of the key factors in the viability of electric transportation so it makes sense why op would bring it up
- anon_cow1111 5y ago
  >You're not going to be able to fit an ICE into my iphone. Someone please send this comment to Colin Furze.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
Energy density is a meaningless measure for cars. $ per mile isn't. If you have a heavier battery, you just need a bit more of it to drive the same amount of miles. It just boils down to cost in the end. You can also trade weight for mileage and have less battery. That lowers the cost and improves the mileage. Apparently Tesla has pushed internal cost per kwh of storage below 100$ now. That price is going to drop further. But lets look at actual mileage at two roughly comparable cars (same vendor and brand): Mustang Mach E 88kwh/300 mile EPA range. Or about 3.4 mile per kwh. 2021 Ford Mustang Mach 1 does 5.6 gallons per 100 miles (with the 8 cylinder engine). Or about 18 miles per gallon. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/43610.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/43610.shtml These are just official numbers, take them with a grain of salt. Also, both cars have a couple of variants obviously. Particularly the petrol mileage is likely to get a lot worse over the lifetime of the car as the engine wears out. This is less of a thing with EVs. And you probably have to drive the petrol Mustang like a nun to actually get 5.6 gallons per 100 miles. Likewise EVs have different mileage depending on driving style, temperature, etc. Lets just say they are both a little bit worse typically. But they are nice numbers to work with and they are based on real world efficiency rather than archaic notions of potential energy, energy density, etc. With these numbers, 1 gallon is roughly the equivalent of a bit over 5kwh when it comes to mileage in a gas guzzler like the Mustang. Cost for that from a super charger depends on a few factors. Likewise for a gallon of fuel (e.g. taxes). On a super charger at 28cents per kwh, it's like filling your tank for about 1.40$ per gallon , which would be a pretty good gas price that most of the world has not seen in a few decades. A super charger is probably the most expensive place to get your electricity. So, you might do better if you have cheap nightly grid rates or rooftop solar. There are lots of ways to get that number down. But 1.4$ per gallon equivalent is a lot cheaper than petrol. About 2x depending which state you live. Closer to 3x in some states. EVs are a bit heavier than petrol cars of course. But not 10x. Nowhere close to that. Maybe 1.5x or so. Half the energy cost per mile at the price of 50% extra weight is not a bad choice. That's the reason people are switching to electric. It's just cheaper. It gets better when you also consider maintenance cost. It gets better still when battery and vehicle prices continue to drop. Purchase price of EVs is currently still slightly higher than the equivalent petrol car. But not for very long apparently. Your mileage may vary but nowhere near 10x. More like 0.5x.

gameswithgo 5y ago

Don’t forget to account for the differences in engine and drivetrain efficiency. a gasoline engine gets way less of the gasoline's energy to the wheels. The engines of today are 30-40% efficient iirc, and then you lose more in the tranmission, differentials, etc. Electric motors are ~80-96% efficient and there is less transmission losses involved after that too. also energy density of cells and packs continues to improve and has improved a lot since 1991

siproprio 5y ago
Source?
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  One source on recent energy density improvements: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-ion-battery-cell-densities-have-almost-tripled-since-2010/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-io... A source on electric motor efficiency: https://insideevs.com/news/348504/tesla-improves-motor-efficiency-increase-range/ https://insideevs.com/news/348504/tesla-improves-motor-effic... A source on internal combustion engine efficiency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_combustion_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_com... As to the drivetrain losses through transmissions and differentials, I have only my own experience from working on cars, dynos (measuring the power to the wheels), and racing. It depends on drivetrain layout. front engine front wheel drive has fewer losses than front engine rear wheel drive, all wheel drive usually worst of all. You lose another 5-15% depending. Probably you will also find this video interesting, which goes into depth on the full lifecycle of different fuels and the overall efficiencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d0MPg7DxbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d0MPg7DxbY
- DarmokJalad1701 5y ago
  Besides what the other guy posted, see how far you can drive per unit of energy. A gas car getting 26 mpg -> 26 miles from 33.41 kWh of energy -> 1285 Wh/mi A Tesla Model 3 getting 353 miles from a 75 kWh battery -> 212 Wh/mi That's a 6x advantage.
DalasNoin 5y ago
Additionally, electric engines and drive-trains are much lighter. You don't need a gearbox, compressor and many other components. This makes up for some of the extra weight of the battery.

plantain 5y ago

I don't think that's fair - the energy density has been improving largely how everything else in the world does, incrementally, step by step. It's unfair to expect a magic overnight revolution. https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-ion-battery-cell-densities-have-almost-tripled-since-2010/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-io...

drzaiusapelord 5y ago

Lithium-ion is something of an everyday miracle. I'm older and I remember previous rechargeable battery technologies and they were just terrible. Also, Gas and tiny portable batteries have nearly nothing in common. You're not going to be able to fit an ICE into my iphone. What's with the weird comparisons? I don't see how they are helpful. Its like when we talk about hate crimes or civilians killed in war, and other people bring out unrelated stats about car accidents or cancer. This is a common thing on the internet that almost no one questions. Its weird and frankly a dishonest rhetorical trick.

thethethethe 5y ago
To be fair to op, lithium ion batteries are used in cars so it's not like the comparison is totally unwarranted. Energy density is one of the key factors in the viability of electric transportation so it makes sense why op would bring it up
anon_cow1111 5y ago
>You're not going to be able to fit an ICE into my iphone. Someone please send this comment to Colin Furze.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

Energy density is a meaningless measure for cars. $ per mile isn't. If you have a heavier battery, you just need a bit more of it to drive the same amount of miles. It just boils down to cost in the end. You can also trade weight for mileage and have less battery. That lowers the cost and improves the mileage. Apparently Tesla has pushed internal cost per kwh of storage below 100$ now. That price is going to drop further. But lets look at actual mileage at two roughly comparable cars (same vendor and brand): Mustang Mach E 88kwh/300 mile EPA range. Or about 3.4 mile per kwh. 2021 Ford Mustang Mach 1 does 5.6 gallons per 100 miles (with the 8 cylinder engine). Or about 18 miles per gallon. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/43610.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/43610.shtml These are just official numbers, take them with a grain of salt. Also, both cars have a couple of variants obviously. Particularly the petrol mileage is likely to get a lot worse over the lifetime of the car as the engine wears out. This is less of a thing with EVs. And you probably have to drive the petrol Mustang like a nun to actually get 5.6 gallons per 100 miles. Likewise EVs have different mileage depending on driving style, temperature, etc. Lets just say they are both a little bit worse typically. But they are nice numbers to work with and they are based on real world efficiency rather than archaic notions of potential energy, energy density, etc. With these numbers, 1 gallon is roughly the equivalent of a bit over 5kwh when it comes to mileage in a gas guzzler like the Mustang. Cost for that from a super charger depends on a few factors. Likewise for a gallon of fuel (e.g. taxes). On a super charger at 28cents per kwh, it's like filling your tank for about 1.40$ per gallon , which would be a pretty good gas price that most of the world has not seen in a few decades. A super charger is probably the most expensive place to get your electricity. So, you might do better if you have cheap nightly grid rates or rooftop solar. There are lots of ways to get that number down. But 1.4$ per gallon equivalent is a lot cheaper than petrol. About 2x depending which state you live. Closer to 3x in some states. EVs are a bit heavier than petrol cars of course. But not 10x. Nowhere close to that. Maybe 1.5x or so. Half the energy cost per mile at the price of 50% extra weight is not a bad choice. That's the reason people are switching to electric. It's just cheaper. It gets better when you also consider maintenance cost. It gets better still when battery and vehicle prices continue to drop. Purchase price of EVs is currently still slightly higher than the equivalent petrol car. But not for very long apparently. Your mileage may vary but nowhere near 10x. More like 0.5x.