4 ms·

Using current U.S. numbers [1][2]: average electricity price is $0.162/kWh, might be cheaper off peak or with solar roof; average gas price is $3.083/gal ($0.81

by oefrha 3y ago

Using current U.S. numbers [1][2]: average electricity price is $0.162/kWh, might be cheaper off peak or with solar roof; average gas price is $3.083/gal ($0.815/L) for regular, and $3.885/gal ($1.026/L) for premium which is recommended for your Volvo. So, with regular gas: 75L + 50kWh: 75 * 0.815 + 50 * 0.162 = 69.225 75L + 10kWh: 75 * 0.815 + 10 * 0.162 = 63.525 A difference of 10.3%. With premium gas: 75L + 50kWh: 75 * 1.026 + 50 * 0.162 = 85.050 75L + 10kWh: 75 * 1.026 + 10 * 0.162 = 78.570 A difference of 8.2%. You failed to mention it's the gas part that's frigging expensive. [1] https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/ https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/ [2] https://gasprices.aaa.com/ https://gasprices.aaa.com/

gambiting 3y ago
I'm not in the US. In Europe my Volvo doesn't require premium 98 octane , regular 95 is fine. I appreciate the calculation but I don't know why you're trying so hard to escape the fact that the BYD needs 40kWh more(!!!!!) to travel the same distance(combined with 75 litres of petrol) - it's not hard to see that(as I said 70 comments ago) the BYD is a heavier and less efficient car. There isn't much to argue with here(or at least I wouldn't think so?).
- oefrha 3y ago
  Pretty sure your comment trying to paint or at least hint at the BYD being 5x inefficient is the strange one, when it's actually ~1.1x. Which would be really low down on the list of things to consider when purchasing a $150k SUV. If I were in the market for one, I would go for the option that gives me 180km electric range rather than a puny 50km so that all the day to day short range driving is comfortably covered, even if it's only 90% efficient. In addition, if we compare only the first 180km, your Volvo (using regular gas) comes out at 75 * 0.815 / (1000 - 50) * (180 - 50) + 10 * 0.162 = 9.98 which is actually more expensive. Edit: All the precise calculations are in fact quite pointless. > so the owner is definitely going to notice it on their energy bill. Highly doubt owners of $150k SUVs are sensitive to ~$600 more over 100k kilometers.
- buran77 3y ago
  Your logic is still... lacking. I don't say it lightly but it might be the worst case of obtuseness I've seen in many years of HN. You mix and match units when calculating a ratio of efficiency and it gets you meaningless conclusions. By your "logic" a Tesla M3, a leader in electric efficiency, is the worst of the bunch. It needs ~100kWh of electricity to drive the same 1000km distance. And ICE cars can do that trip with 0 electricity, many even with less fuel so they must be the best? It makes no sense other than for you to feel good about your car. But your car needs 10-11kWh to drive ideally a pathetic 30km (!) and 75l of fuel for the other 970km. Other ICE cars, or non-PHEV XC60 (the diesel) need no electricity and 50-60l of fuel for the same distance. And they're much cheaper to buy. So why did you pay anywhere between 15k-45k EUR more to have a "compliance car" hybrid that doesn't even float (/s) when this means you're just getting "less efficient"? Unless you bought the bragging rights, and now you're here to defend them. The goal of any electrified car is to drive as much as possible on electric power alone without the need to run the engine. Not only because ideally some owners can make their own electricity but also for comfort and emissions.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    Ignore the whole Volvo Vs BYD bit for a second. Car A: needs 75 litres + 10kWh of electricity to cover 1000km Car B: needs 75 litres + 50kWh of electricity to cover 1000km. Even a child could point out which car is more efficient, as it needs less energy to travel the same distance. Am I wrong about this? If yes, please tell me how, I'm genuinely listening. >>It makes no sense other than for you to feel good about your car. I was trying to make a point that another large and mostly pointless SUV can do the same distance, using the same amount of fuel, and LESS electricity. That's literally all. I could also point out how either of those cars is idiotic, because as you said, a diesel version of the same car will use less fuel and no electricity. I used my own car as an example of a car that is also a "bad" example of efficiency. I apologize if that wasn't obvious, but man, you really got hung up on this. >>So why did you pay anywhere between 15k-45k EUR more to have a "compliance car" hybrid In case you are genuinely interested and not just trolling - because in my use case I'm within the EV only range nearly every day, and my long term petrol usage average over 50kkm is 2.1L/100km. >>But your car needs 10-11kWh to drive ideally a pathetic 30km (!) It doesn't, but I don't see any point in explaining to you how my own car works, nor was it a point of my entire comment.

by oefrha 3y ago

gambiting 3y ago

I'm not in the US. In Europe my Volvo doesn't require premium 98 octane , regular 95 is fine. I appreciate the calculation but I don't know why you're trying so hard to escape the fact that the BYD needs 40kWh more(!!!!!) to travel the same distance(combined with 75 litres of petrol) - it's not hard to see that(as I said 70 comments ago) the BYD is a heavier and less efficient car. There isn't much to argue with here(or at least I wouldn't think so?).

oefrha 3y ago
Pretty sure your comment trying to paint or at least hint at the BYD being 5x inefficient is the strange one, when it's actually ~1.1x. Which would be really low down on the list of things to consider when purchasing a $150k SUV. If I were in the market for one, I would go for the option that gives me 180km electric range rather than a puny 50km so that all the day to day short range driving is comfortably covered, even if it's only 90% efficient. In addition, if we compare only the first 180km, your Volvo (using regular gas) comes out at 75 * 0.815 / (1000 - 50) * (180 - 50) + 10 * 0.162 = 9.98 which is actually more expensive. Edit: All the precise calculations are in fact quite pointless. > so the owner is definitely going to notice it on their energy bill. Highly doubt owners of $150k SUVs are sensitive to ~$600 more over 100k kilometers.
buran77 3y ago
Your logic is still... lacking. I don't say it lightly but it might be the worst case of obtuseness I've seen in many years of HN. You mix and match units when calculating a ratio of efficiency and it gets you meaningless conclusions. By your "logic" a Tesla M3, a leader in electric efficiency, is the worst of the bunch. It needs ~100kWh of electricity to drive the same 1000km distance. And ICE cars can do that trip with 0 electricity, many even with less fuel so they must be the best? It makes no sense other than for you to feel good about your car. But your car needs 10-11kWh to drive ideally a pathetic 30km (!) and 75l of fuel for the other 970km. Other ICE cars, or non-PHEV XC60 (the diesel) need no electricity and 50-60l of fuel for the same distance. And they're much cheaper to buy. So why did you pay anywhere between 15k-45k EUR more to have a "compliance car" hybrid that doesn't even float (/s) when this means you're just getting "less efficient"? Unless you bought the bragging rights, and now you're here to defend them. The goal of any electrified car is to drive as much as possible on electric power alone without the need to run the engine. Not only because ideally some owners can make their own electricity but also for comfort and emissions.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Ignore the whole Volvo Vs BYD bit for a second. Car A: needs 75 litres + 10kWh of electricity to cover 1000km Car B: needs 75 litres + 50kWh of electricity to cover 1000km. Even a child could point out which car is more efficient, as it needs less energy to travel the same distance. Am I wrong about this? If yes, please tell me how, I'm genuinely listening. >>It makes no sense other than for you to feel good about your car. I was trying to make a point that another large and mostly pointless SUV can do the same distance, using the same amount of fuel, and LESS electricity. That's literally all. I could also point out how either of those cars is idiotic, because as you said, a diesel version of the same car will use less fuel and no electricity. I used my own car as an example of a car that is also a "bad" example of efficiency. I apologize if that wasn't obvious, but man, you really got hung up on this. >>So why did you pay anywhere between 15k-45k EUR more to have a "compliance car" hybrid In case you are genuinely interested and not just trolling - because in my use case I'm within the EV only range nearly every day, and my long term petrol usage average over 50kkm is 2.1L/100km. >>But your car needs 10-11kWh to drive ideally a pathetic 30km (!) It doesn't, but I don't see any point in explaining to you how my own car works, nor was it a point of my entire comment.