3 ms·

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 contai

by 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.
    - pornel 4y ago
      Sizes of gas tanks and especially batteries vary significantly for reasons other than motor efficiency. Battery sizes can vary by a factor of two even between trims of the same EV model, so how many "gallons" fit in a "tank" depends on so many other variables that it makes any comparisons meaningless. I'm pretty sure that "cost per distance travelled" unit is directly related to cost. I know you're trolling, I'm just debunking you for the benefit of others who may stumble upon this nonsense. EV users have no reason to measure anything in an archaic USA-only unit for a dying technology. If you want to unify measurements to make them comparable, you should be converting gallons to Joules (e.g. 4GJ per tank of gas) or kWh (e.g. 1000kWh per tank of gas [this is a realistic number, BTW]). These are world-wide standard units of energy. kWh is used because appliances report their energy usage in kW, so it makes it easier for consumers to judge battery sizes and estimate energy costs when they're in kW per hour. Insisting that USA-gas-gallon-equivalent approximation is the right unit for electricity is as trollishly anachronistic as measuring gasoline in bales of hay. How many e-bales-of-hay does your tank hold? How expensive is gasoline in dollars per bale of hay? If you fill a tank with 5 trusses of hay, does it mean ICE engines are more or less efficient than horses?

by pornel 4y ago

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.
  - pornel 4y ago
    Sizes of gas tanks and especially batteries vary significantly for reasons other than motor efficiency. Battery sizes can vary by a factor of two even between trims of the same EV model, so how many "gallons" fit in a "tank" depends on so many other variables that it makes any comparisons meaningless. I'm pretty sure that "cost per distance travelled" unit is directly related to cost. I know you're trolling, I'm just debunking you for the benefit of others who may stumble upon this nonsense. EV users have no reason to measure anything in an archaic USA-only unit for a dying technology. If you want to unify measurements to make them comparable, you should be converting gallons to Joules (e.g. 4GJ per tank of gas) or kWh (e.g. 1000kWh per tank of gas [this is a realistic number, BTW]). These are world-wide standard units of energy. kWh is used because appliances report their energy usage in kW, so it makes it easier for consumers to judge battery sizes and estimate energy costs when they're in kW per hour. Insisting that USA-gas-gallon-equivalent approximation is the right unit for electricity is as trollishly anachronistic as measuring gasoline in bales of hay. How many e-bales-of-hay does your tank hold? How expensive is gasoline in dollars per bale of hay? If you fill a tank with 5 trusses of hay, does it mean ICE engines are more or less efficient than horses?