4 ms·

Just the same as all these others also being wrong, that doesn't matter. Why should you a consumer think in any other terms? Why are gas users getting energy a

Just the same as all these others also being wrong, that doesn't matter. Why should you a consumer think in any other terms? Why are gas users getting energy at 1/3rd the price you are? It's wrong-headed to factor in your own efficient usage against yourself. It's idiotic in extreme. There's a physical real truth about the price of energy you are getting: spinning any other yarn to consumer is just that: fakery & deception. People need to stop proposing anti-truthfulness.

ajross 4y ago
> Why should you a consumer think in any other terms? Why are gas users getting energy at 1/3rd the price you are? What is "energy" then? Are you trying to compare effectiveness of EVs vs. combustion engines as... building heat? No engine exists under the laws of physics to deliver useful work with that "energy" you're getting cheaply in gasoline. That's a ridiculous point. You buy gas, just like you buy electricity, to move your car. So measure the motion, not the heat.
- rektide 4y ago
  > What is "energy" then? Do we really need to regress to 7th grade science class? Go read wikipedia if you need to[1]. > Are you trying to compare effectiveness of EVs vs. combustion engines as I'm trying to prevent energy-efficiency from being bundled into the cost of energy. I'm trying to make the price of energy explicit & directly comparable, because it is & it should be, & is a ground truth provided by physics and science that is directly comparable. By doing so, I'm hoping consumers realize just how remarkably efficient EVs are > No engine exists under the laws of physics to deliver useful work with that "energy" you're getting cheaply in gasoline. This truth does nothing to convince me that we should remain oblivious to the comparative efficiencies of our systems. Knowing how much energy we put in, and seeing how far it gets us: that is the real truth, that is how we understand our impact in the world. It also is useful for helping us assess & appraise the energy we get: knowing the price/kWh is directly comparable, tells us how comparatively & competitively well our energy delivery pipelines are doing, which is yet more important & vital information to understand. Trying to bundle all the factors together breeds naught but stupidity & ignorance. Highly dislike. No one learns anything without shared frames of reference. Energy is the common frame physics provide. Science lets us celebrate & appreciate the gains (& let's us also understand weaknesses we ought improve on too). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
  - ajross 4y ago
    So... just to clarify: the point was that you were the one applying bad science here. You're confusing energy (the conserved quantity) with work (energy transfer used to do "something" useful). You don't measure cars in "energy transfer", you measure them in work: the rated brake horsepower of an engine isn't the number of joules of chemical potential energy that it consumes, it's the amount of energy transfer it can effect by turning its shaft. If you did, the numbers would be much higher and more efficient vehicles would oddly look "less powerful". No one does that. So why do it here? That's not a useful number, and I suspect you know that.
    - rektide 4y ago
      Measuring work is like comparing salaries after tax. We should have some idea what our base salaries really are. We should understand our inputs. Comparing only output hides how efficient ev's are. And consumers should be aware of the price of energy, in a comparable way. Not in terms of work, but directly comparably in terms of how many kWh they get per $. This is the simple, actual, material truth. Your snark is tiring. I dont know what your agenda is (unlike you who claim I specifically am up to something?) but you are sabotaging & undermining this discussion in manipulative ways. Play it straight, & disagree, but dont connive against me so rudely, please.
      - ajross 4y ago
        > And consumers should be aware of the price of energy, in a comparable way. You're still misunderstanding, and I don't get why you're interpreting snark in my genuine attempts to explain this. "Work" and "Energy" are terms of art, you learn them in school, they have wikipedia pages[1]. Telling you that you're conflating the two (which you are) is a point of logic, not snark. So I'll try once more: If you have a task to do (plow a field, maybe) and you have two motive engines: an electric motor and a piston engine, and I offer you "100 kWH of energy" with the choice of getting it over a 240V AC cable or in a 3 gallon bucket of gasoline, which would you choose? I mean, the choice is obvious, you'll get three times as much plowing done with the motor. And that's the point. And that's why comparing energy outside of context is wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)

ajross 4y ago

> Why should you a consumer think in any other terms? Why are gas users getting energy at 1/3rd the price you are? What is "energy" then? Are you trying to compare effectiveness of EVs vs. combustion engines as... building heat? No engine exists under the laws of physics to deliver useful work with that "energy" you're getting cheaply in gasoline. That's a ridiculous point. You buy gas, just like you buy electricity, to move your car. So measure the motion, not the heat.

rektide 4y ago
> What is "energy" then? Do we really need to regress to 7th grade science class? Go read wikipedia if you need to[1]. > Are you trying to compare effectiveness of EVs vs. combustion engines as I'm trying to prevent energy-efficiency from being bundled into the cost of energy. I'm trying to make the price of energy explicit & directly comparable, because it is & it should be, & is a ground truth provided by physics and science that is directly comparable. By doing so, I'm hoping consumers realize just how remarkably efficient EVs are > No engine exists under the laws of physics to deliver useful work with that "energy" you're getting cheaply in gasoline. This truth does nothing to convince me that we should remain oblivious to the comparative efficiencies of our systems. Knowing how much energy we put in, and seeing how far it gets us: that is the real truth, that is how we understand our impact in the world. It also is useful for helping us assess & appraise the energy we get: knowing the price/kWh is directly comparable, tells us how comparatively & competitively well our energy delivery pipelines are doing, which is yet more important & vital information to understand. Trying to bundle all the factors together breeds naught but stupidity & ignorance. Highly dislike. No one learns anything without shared frames of reference. Energy is the common frame physics provide. Science lets us celebrate & appreciate the gains (& let's us also understand weaknesses we ought improve on too). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
- ajross 4y ago
  So... just to clarify: the point was that you were the one applying bad science here. You're confusing energy (the conserved quantity) with work (energy transfer used to do "something" useful). You don't measure cars in "energy transfer", you measure them in work: the rated brake horsepower of an engine isn't the number of joules of chemical potential energy that it consumes, it's the amount of energy transfer it can effect by turning its shaft. If you did, the numbers would be much higher and more efficient vehicles would oddly look "less powerful". No one does that. So why do it here? That's not a useful number, and I suspect you know that.
  - rektide 4y ago
    Measuring work is like comparing salaries after tax. We should have some idea what our base salaries really are. We should understand our inputs. Comparing only output hides how efficient ev's are. And consumers should be aware of the price of energy, in a comparable way. Not in terms of work, but directly comparably in terms of how many kWh they get per $. This is the simple, actual, material truth. Your snark is tiring. I dont know what your agenda is (unlike you who claim I specifically am up to something?) but you are sabotaging & undermining this discussion in manipulative ways. Play it straight, & disagree, but dont connive against me so rudely, please.
    - ajross 4y ago
      > And consumers should be aware of the price of energy, in a comparable way. You're still misunderstanding, and I don't get why you're interpreting snark in my genuine attempts to explain this. "Work" and "Energy" are terms of art, you learn them in school, they have wikipedia pages[1]. Telling you that you're conflating the two (which you are) is a point of logic, not snark. So I'll try once more: If you have a task to do (plow a field, maybe) and you have two motive engines: an electric motor and a piston engine, and I offer you "100 kWH of energy" with the choice of getting it over a 240V AC cable or in a 3 gallon bucket of gasoline, which would you choose? I mean, the choice is obvious, you'll get three times as much plowing done with the motor. And that's the point. And that's why comparing energy outside of context is wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)