5 ms·

I can't see if you are being sarcastic or not but this is definitely wrong. Burning gasoline to move a car is much more efficient than burning gasoline to produ

I can't see if you are being sarcastic or not but this is definitely wrong. Burning gasoline to move a car is much more efficient than burning gasoline to produce electricity transported to a charger to charge a car to move a car.

jhgb 4y ago
Uh...when was the last time you checked on the difference between the efficiency of small and large heat engines? A large Diesel engine is going to be vastly more efficient than a small one, for example: > Passenger car diesel engines have energy efficiency of up to 41% but more typically 30% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency#Statistics) > Low-speed diesel engines (as used in ships and other applications where overall engine weight is relatively unimportant) can reach effective efficiencies of up to 55%. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine) Not to mention that a very large percentage of electricity for charging of vehicles is not going to come from fossil fuels in the first place, especially whenever charging can be planned (which is most of the time in Europe).
- hoseja 4y ago
  I'm thinking more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant
- bionsystem 4y ago
  Let's assume we go from 30% (low end of small engine efficiency according to first link) to 55% (high end for a Diesel engine according to the second article), so a little short of twice as efficient. What do you think is going to be the overhead of the conversion rate to electricity, electricity transportation ? Because if it is another 50% you lost all interest (but you built a plant and a float of cars and batteries in the meantime). > Not to mention that a very large percentage of electricity for charging of vehicles is not going to come from fossil fuels in the first place, especially whenever charging can be planned (which is most of the time in Europe). That's not what my parent and I are talking about. But I second that. Except I live in France and we are starting to have electricity cuts because we can't maintain our nuclear plants properly. So we are in a little bit more trouble than you might think.
  - jhgb 4y ago
    > What do you think is going to be the overhead of the conversion rate to electricity, electricity transportation ? Well, for example transformers are ~98% efficient, AC lines lose around 7% per 1000 km. So with three transformers between you and the power plant and a ~300 km distance, you lose around 8% between the power plant and you. > Because if it is another 50% you lost all interest (but you built a plant and a float of cars and batteries in the meantime). No, not really. You're still not powering your cars purely from fossil fuels, so even 50% of losses would still be a win when it comes to minimizing fossil fuel emissions caused by road transportation. You'd only have to burn enough fossil fuels to cover whatever the non-fossil-fuel generators wouldn't be able to provide at any given time. But as I pointed out above, you almost certainly won't get 50% of losses. > Except I live in France and we are starting to have electricity cuts because we can't maintain our nuclear plants properly. So we are in a little bit more trouble than you might think. Nah, not really. France is in a great position to generate fairly substantial amounts of electricity from renewables with complementing the rest from nuclear power. Not to mention that I'd expect the EPR design to finally be sorted out after the initial units built. It's not like you'll need it tomorrow -- the transition to BEVs will take a considerable time. Even if sales of ICE cars actually stop in 2035, ICE vehicles won't disappear overnight. They'll only be gradually replaced for a decade or so.
    - bionsystem 4y ago
      I can't judge on your numbers but just to point out that we were comparing gasoline plants + EV vs gasoline cars and I feel that the discussion is switching into NE plants + EV vs gasoline cars. I also think that a lot of steel+copper+lithium and others are not taken into the equation to replace cars and manufacture more plants. Steel particularly consumes a lot of energy to produce. Uranium shortages are going to become a thing too especially with new demand from China. Also I disagree with your optimism on french nuclear and renewable, having worked there and having friends working in EDF and also following various debates, political decisions, and news flow, we went from quite optimistic a few years back to more and more pessimistic about the whole thing. Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home. And the competency for nuclear has retired or seems to be going to China or elsewhere for counseling now.
Symbiote 4y ago
> Under current conditions, driving an electric car is better for the climate than conventional petrol cars in 95% of the world, the study finds. > The only exceptions are countries such as Poland, where the electricity network is still mostly based on coal-fired power generation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electric-cars-are-cleaner-even-when-the-power-comes-from-coal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electr...
hoseja 4y ago
I am not actually being sarcastic. It's unbelievable but small ICEs are really that bad.
- namlem 4y ago
  Why do you think they need such large cooling systems?
wongarsu 4y ago
Gasoline engines in road-legal cars have about 20-35% thermal efficiency. Just making the engine bigger and not caring about engine weight (like in ships or power plants) allows you to bring efficiency up to about 55%. Electric motors (as used in electric cars) are about 90% efficient. Of course you lose some charging and discharging the battery, in the charger itself and in transmission losses. But just eyeballing it it seems like the power plant should come out ahead as long as it isn't too far away.
- breadloaf 4y ago
  > Electric motors (as used in electric cars) are about 90% efficient. But where is efficiency of electricity transmission, transformation, battery charging and battery discharging?
  - namlem 4y ago
    Natural gas power plants are about 50% efficient. Transmission is about 95%. I believe transformer efficiency is also typically about 95%. Charge+discharge efficiency is also about 95%. Electric motors are about 85%. In total you end up with about 36%, which is at the upper end of the typical 25-35% efficiency of ICEs.
bwindels 4y ago
You can check the numbers yourself on https://climobil.connecting-project.lu https://climobil.connecting-project.lu, comparing the ICE and BEV version of the same car (e.g. Volkswagen e-up offers both) and choosing the country where you would charge the vehicle. Poland seems the only country where the ICE comes out ahead I think. Note that this also includes the emissions for the battery production.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  (Good link!) Also Latvia, Estonia and Malta. And Kentucky, West Virginia, Wyoming.
namlem 4y ago
One, power plants don't burn gasoline. Two, ICEs are incredibly inefficient, and burning natural gas in a powerplant and using the electricity to power an EV is absolutely more efficient.

jhgb 4y ago

Uh...when was the last time you checked on the difference between the efficiency of small and large heat engines? A large Diesel engine is going to be vastly more efficient than a small one, for example: > Passenger car diesel engines have energy efficiency of up to 41% but more typically 30% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency#Statistics) > Low-speed diesel engines (as used in ships and other applications where overall engine weight is relatively unimportant) can reach effective efficiencies of up to 55%. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine) Not to mention that a very large percentage of electricity for charging of vehicles is not going to come from fossil fuels in the first place, especially whenever charging can be planned (which is most of the time in Europe).

hoseja 4y ago
I'm thinking more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant
bionsystem 4y ago
Let's assume we go from 30% (low end of small engine efficiency according to first link) to 55% (high end for a Diesel engine according to the second article), so a little short of twice as efficient. What do you think is going to be the overhead of the conversion rate to electricity, electricity transportation ? Because if it is another 50% you lost all interest (but you built a plant and a float of cars and batteries in the meantime). > Not to mention that a very large percentage of electricity for charging of vehicles is not going to come from fossil fuels in the first place, especially whenever charging can be planned (which is most of the time in Europe). That's not what my parent and I are talking about. But I second that. Except I live in France and we are starting to have electricity cuts because we can't maintain our nuclear plants properly. So we are in a little bit more trouble than you might think.
- jhgb 4y ago
  > What do you think is going to be the overhead of the conversion rate to electricity, electricity transportation ? Well, for example transformers are ~98% efficient, AC lines lose around 7% per 1000 km. So with three transformers between you and the power plant and a ~300 km distance, you lose around 8% between the power plant and you. > Because if it is another 50% you lost all interest (but you built a plant and a float of cars and batteries in the meantime). No, not really. You're still not powering your cars purely from fossil fuels, so even 50% of losses would still be a win when it comes to minimizing fossil fuel emissions caused by road transportation. You'd only have to burn enough fossil fuels to cover whatever the non-fossil-fuel generators wouldn't be able to provide at any given time. But as I pointed out above, you almost certainly won't get 50% of losses. > Except I live in France and we are starting to have electricity cuts because we can't maintain our nuclear plants properly. So we are in a little bit more trouble than you might think. Nah, not really. France is in a great position to generate fairly substantial amounts of electricity from renewables with complementing the rest from nuclear power. Not to mention that I'd expect the EPR design to finally be sorted out after the initial units built. It's not like you'll need it tomorrow -- the transition to BEVs will take a considerable time. Even if sales of ICE cars actually stop in 2035, ICE vehicles won't disappear overnight. They'll only be gradually replaced for a decade or so.
  - bionsystem 4y ago
    I can't judge on your numbers but just to point out that we were comparing gasoline plants + EV vs gasoline cars and I feel that the discussion is switching into NE plants + EV vs gasoline cars. I also think that a lot of steel+copper+lithium and others are not taken into the equation to replace cars and manufacture more plants. Steel particularly consumes a lot of energy to produce. Uranium shortages are going to become a thing too especially with new demand from China. Also I disagree with your optimism on french nuclear and renewable, having worked there and having friends working in EDF and also following various debates, political decisions, and news flow, we went from quite optimistic a few years back to more and more pessimistic about the whole thing. Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home. And the competency for nuclear has retired or seems to be going to China or elsewhere for counseling now.

Symbiote 4y ago

> Under current conditions, driving an electric car is better for the climate than conventional petrol cars in 95% of the world, the study finds. > The only exceptions are countries such as Poland, where the electricity network is still mostly based on coal-fired power generation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electric-cars-are-cleaner-even-when-the-power-comes-from-coal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electr...

hoseja 4y ago

I am not actually being sarcastic. It's unbelievable but small ICEs are really that bad.

namlem 4y ago
Why do you think they need such large cooling systems?

wongarsu 4y ago

Gasoline engines in road-legal cars have about 20-35% thermal efficiency. Just making the engine bigger and not caring about engine weight (like in ships or power plants) allows you to bring efficiency up to about 55%. Electric motors (as used in electric cars) are about 90% efficient. Of course you lose some charging and discharging the battery, in the charger itself and in transmission losses. But just eyeballing it it seems like the power plant should come out ahead as long as it isn't too far away.

breadloaf 4y ago
> Electric motors (as used in electric cars) are about 90% efficient. But where is efficiency of electricity transmission, transformation, battery charging and battery discharging?
- namlem 4y ago
  Natural gas power plants are about 50% efficient. Transmission is about 95%. I believe transformer efficiency is also typically about 95%. Charge+discharge efficiency is also about 95%. Electric motors are about 85%. In total you end up with about 36%, which is at the upper end of the typical 25-35% efficiency of ICEs.

bwindels 4y ago

You can check the numbers yourself on https://climobil.connecting-project.lu https://climobil.connecting-project.lu, comparing the ICE and BEV version of the same car (e.g. Volkswagen e-up offers both) and choosing the country where you would charge the vehicle. Poland seems the only country where the ICE comes out ahead I think. Note that this also includes the emissions for the battery production.

Symbiote 4y ago
(Good link!) Also Latvia, Estonia and Malta. And Kentucky, West Virginia, Wyoming.

namlem 4y ago

One, power plants don't burn gasoline. Two, ICEs are incredibly inefficient, and burning natural gas in a powerplant and using the electricity to power an EV is absolutely more efficient.