3 ms·

> 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 effectivene

> 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)
    - rektide 4y ago
      I'm not conflating. I'm arguing that what we put into our car is energy & we should measure that & make that clear & make what we pay for it clear. If we also include work in what we show consumers, consumers have minimal ability to assess & understand the comparative advantage of their vehicle. It's an implicit factor. > which would you choose? I mean, the choice is obvious, you'll get three times as much plowing done with the motor. And it should be clear to consumers to. But it's not, because we use different unit-scales for EV's & gas & consumers never get to understand how obviously much better EVs are. There's a lot of people who wouldn't know what to pick. They wouldn't understand the relative energy consumption of the two picks. Trying to make that clear, trying to establish a clear frame of reference is exactly why I'm arguing for using "gallons" of electricity: to make the efficiency clear & obvious to everyone, not just us two geeks. And because we should understand what the market delivers, and learn to set expectations for the grid. If people understood what $0.63/kWh electricity was really asking, I think we'd been more likely to demand & drive green energy investment. Your scenario feels like a clear case of why we need to do exactly what I'm saying, & find common, portable frames of reference we can use to talk about what we put into our cars. Not just what we get out. This idea has a lot of resistance, so I want to re-emphasize the other part: most EV drivers would also quickly see their vehicle has <3 "gallons" of energy in it, and it'd be much clearer just how much less energy it uses.

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)
  - rektide 4y ago
    I'm not conflating. I'm arguing that what we put into our car is energy & we should measure that & make that clear & make what we pay for it clear. If we also include work in what we show consumers, consumers have minimal ability to assess & understand the comparative advantage of their vehicle. It's an implicit factor. > which would you choose? I mean, the choice is obvious, you'll get three times as much plowing done with the motor. And it should be clear to consumers to. But it's not, because we use different unit-scales for EV's & gas & consumers never get to understand how obviously much better EVs are. There's a lot of people who wouldn't know what to pick. They wouldn't understand the relative energy consumption of the two picks. Trying to make that clear, trying to establish a clear frame of reference is exactly why I'm arguing for using "gallons" of electricity: to make the efficiency clear & obvious to everyone, not just us two geeks. And because we should understand what the market delivers, and learn to set expectations for the grid. If people understood what $0.63/kWh electricity was really asking, I think we'd been more likely to demand & drive green energy investment. Your scenario feels like a clear case of why we need to do exactly what I'm saying, & find common, portable frames of reference we can use to talk about what we put into our cars. Not just what we get out. This idea has a lot of resistance, so I want to re-emphasize the other part: most EV drivers would also quickly see their vehicle has <3 "gallons" of energy in it, and it'd be much clearer just how much less energy it uses.