2 ms·

That's a weird way to calculate it. From an EV perspective it sounds like calculating fuel cost in bales of hay :) In the UK such comparisons are typically don

by pornel 4y ago

That's a weird way to calculate it. From an EV perspective it sounds like calculating fuel cost in bales of hay :) In the UK such comparisons are typically done in pence per mile. EV efficiency varies, but it's typically somewhere between 3-4mi/kWh. At 57p per kWh (the current InstaVolt rate) DC fast charging is 14p-19p per mile. At UK's current 170p/l petrol price, to pay 14p-19p per mile, you need an ICE car with 34-46mpg. Home charging is about 20p per kWh, which is roughly 6p per mile. An ICE car with equivalent per-mile cost would need to have over 100mpg. People who are lucky to have a fixed-price tariff with off-peak rates can still get 2.5p/mile.

rektide 4y ago
Why would you factor your own efficiency against yourself? Why would you voluntarily ignore the fact that you are paying 4x more than the person filling up in petrol? > That's a weird way to calculate it. Why? Why would you ignore that you are paying 4x as much for the same energy? Why would you count your own energy-efficiency against yourself at the pump? EV owners should be proud. They should take pride that their vehicle goes so far on 2 "gallons" of electricity. But the world should also face that gas prices are absurdly stupidly cheap, and that we are bad at electricity still, that electricity coming from the grid & through a charger is preposterously expensive. We should optimize & work on this, but right now we can't even see what a glaring absurdity it is that charging prices are so absurdly stupid high. Having a uniform way to compare energy usage makes all the sense.
- pornel 4y ago
  EV puts almost all of its energy into moving the car, while ICE loses majority of the energy to heat. ICE is simply incapable of using most of the energy contained in gasoline (you'd need to have a steam turbine or such). The efficiency difference is so dramatic, that it makes up for the price difference. A unit of energy for an EV may be much more expensive, but it also makes it go farther. Utility of cars is in movement, not in being an energy sink, so it makes more sense comparing directly based on utility rather than the energy they burn.
  - rektide 4y ago
    What you're arguing, to me, sound like a way to make people ignorant of how effective their cars are. Comparing only dollars doesn't make sense. People should understand that they're using vastly less energy than ICE. They should know they're using far far less energy. Which is why we should measure "gallons" of electricity an EV uses.
    - pornel 4y ago
      Engine energy efficiency is unrelated to money, so dollar-per-neo-archaic-gallon is an invalid unit for this. I don't see how it would educate anyone about the EV vs ICE efficiency difference, but I can easily see how an impractical unit of imaginary electric gallon can be used to mislead people used to buying gasoline gallons about true costs of running an EV. TFA is about cost, and "cost per distance travelled" unit is the most appropriate one to answer relevant questions like "how much a 1000-mile road trip costs in an EV vs ICE". Car engine energy efficiency needs to be compared using other units, like kWh/100km (J/m), or percentage of input energy converted to force, or something more comprehensive like well-to-wheel ratio that includes losses to production and transportation. EV owners definitely know their car's efficiency very well, because it determines car's range, and is typically prominently displayed in the car.
      - rektide 4y ago
        > Engine energy efficiency is unrelated to money, so dollar-per-neo-archaic-gallon is an invalid unit for this. Someone filling up their EV and seeing their 75kWh car filled up with 2.2gallons of gas could not be a more obvious, honest, simple way of making the efficiency of their vehicle obvious, in the most direct & clear parallel way possible. Using terms & expressions & scales already well known makes it clear. > TFA is about cost, The article is about cost & I'm proposing we be able to compare costs. And you: > and "cost per distance travelled" unit is the most appropriate one to answer relevant questions like "how much a 1000-mile road trip costs in an EV vs ICE".* Are making up complete nonsense unrelated to cost that expresses only your own biases about how you want things to be displayed. And you're doing so in a way that hides & makes us unable to directly compare gas vs EV. This insistence that consumers have completely different ways of viewing the energy inputs- kWh versus gallons- is fragging bizarre. The EPA themselves provides a factor to convert between the two, it's not fake, & it tells a very real story. And it should make everyone feel really good knowing their EVs sip energy, which would be more apparent if we could see how few a "gallons" we fill up with.

by pornel 4y ago

rektide 4y ago

Why would you factor your own efficiency against yourself? Why would you voluntarily ignore the fact that you are paying 4x more than the person filling up in petrol? > That's a weird way to calculate it. Why? Why would you ignore that you are paying 4x as much for the same energy? Why would you count your own energy-efficiency against yourself at the pump? EV owners should be proud. They should take pride that their vehicle goes so far on 2 "gallons" of electricity. But the world should also face that gas prices are absurdly stupidly cheap, and that we are bad at electricity still, that electricity coming from the grid & through a charger is preposterously expensive. We should optimize & work on this, but right now we can't even see what a glaring absurdity it is that charging prices are so absurdly stupid high. Having a uniform way to compare energy usage makes all the sense.

pornel 4y ago
EV puts almost all of its energy into moving the car, while ICE loses majority of the energy to heat. ICE is simply incapable of using most of the energy contained in gasoline (you'd need to have a steam turbine or such). The efficiency difference is so dramatic, that it makes up for the price difference. A unit of energy for an EV may be much more expensive, but it also makes it go farther. Utility of cars is in movement, not in being an energy sink, so it makes more sense comparing directly based on utility rather than the energy they burn.
- rektide 4y ago
  What you're arguing, to me, sound like a way to make people ignorant of how effective their cars are. Comparing only dollars doesn't make sense. People should understand that they're using vastly less energy than ICE. They should know they're using far far less energy. Which is why we should measure "gallons" of electricity an EV uses.
  - pornel 4y ago
    Engine energy efficiency is unrelated to money, so dollar-per-neo-archaic-gallon is an invalid unit for this. I don't see how it would educate anyone about the EV vs ICE efficiency difference, but I can easily see how an impractical unit of imaginary electric gallon can be used to mislead people used to buying gasoline gallons about true costs of running an EV. TFA is about cost, and "cost per distance travelled" unit is the most appropriate one to answer relevant questions like "how much a 1000-mile road trip costs in an EV vs ICE". Car engine energy efficiency needs to be compared using other units, like kWh/100km (J/m), or percentage of input energy converted to force, or something more comprehensive like well-to-wheel ratio that includes losses to production and transportation. EV owners definitely know their car's efficiency very well, because it determines car's range, and is typically prominently displayed in the car.
    - rektide 4y ago
      > Engine energy efficiency is unrelated to money, so dollar-per-neo-archaic-gallon is an invalid unit for this. Someone filling up their EV and seeing their 75kWh car filled up with 2.2gallons of gas could not be a more obvious, honest, simple way of making the efficiency of their vehicle obvious, in the most direct & clear parallel way possible. Using terms & expressions & scales already well known makes it clear. > TFA is about cost, The article is about cost & I'm proposing we be able to compare costs. And you: > and "cost per distance travelled" unit is the most appropriate one to answer relevant questions like "how much a 1000-mile road trip costs in an EV vs ICE".* Are making up complete nonsense unrelated to cost that expresses only your own biases about how you want things to be displayed. And you're doing so in a way that hides & makes us unable to directly compare gas vs EV. This insistence that consumers have completely different ways of viewing the energy inputs- kWh versus gallons- is fragging bizarre. The EPA themselves provides a factor to convert between the two, it's not fake, & it tells a very real story. And it should make everyone feel really good knowing their EVs sip energy, which would be more apparent if we could see how few a "gallons" we fill up with.