Electric vehicles miles per KWh

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Neither myself, nor anyone else (Team GA aside) on this board is asking to be paid to act. We are celebrating the advances in RE and BEV's, and are passionate that national and international policies are absolutely essential to tackling the problem.

Sorry, but I don't think that's absolutely true.

If I'd felt really strongly about solar panels, I would have fitted them when I built the house 20 years ago. However, a set fitted then would have taken 400 (NOT a typo it really was four hundred) years for payback so I shelved the project. Only when the FIT scheme was launched did I consider it appropriate to fit SPs. Really happy with having achieved payback in 7 years and even happier that I will continue to benefit at an equivalent annual rate of 16% for another 17 years.

I did decide to collect rainwater for toilet flushing. Mainly because I hate the idea of treating water to drinking standards then flushing it away, but a significant spur was installing the system for a couple of hundred pounds and saving £50 every year on reduced water charges.

We're also running a BEV. Quite happy at the idea that nothing comes out of the exhaust pipe and that 'our share' of the emissions are via state of the particle arrestment equipment discharged through a very tall chimney. Even happier at the idea that my fuel costs per mile have dropped from 15p down to 2p.

I may or may not be considered 'green' but am certainly a money saving fan

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't think that's absolutely true.

If I'd felt really strongly about solar panels, I would have fitted them when I built the house 20 years ago. However, a set fitted then would have taken 400 (NOT a typo it really was four hundred) years for payback so I shelved the project. Only when the FIT scheme was launched did I consider it appropriate to fit SPs. Really happy with having achieved payback in 7 years and even happier that I will continue to benefit at an equivalent annual rate of 16% for another 17 years.

I did decide to collect rainwater for toilet flushing. Mainly because I hate the idea of treating water to drinking standards then flushing it away, but a significant spur was installing the system for a couple of hundred pounds and saving £50 every year on reduced water charges.

We're also running a BEV. Quite happy at the idea that nothing comes out of the exhaust pipe and that 'our share' of the emissions are via state of the particle arrestment equipment discharged through a very tall chimney. Even happier at the idea that my fuel costs per mile have dropped from 15p down to 2p.

I may or may not be considered 'green' but am certainly a money saving fan

That's fair Eric, I didn't make it very clear. The accusation that we have to be paid to act is unfair, but what I meant is that given free choice I think all of us (on here) would go with the cleaner greener solution. What we need is national and international policies that make that choice possible, and that means big bad economics.

I'm happy for energy bills to be higher to give us cleaner generation, but accept that for global acceptance we need to have cost effective solutions, but I believe those are now possible and getting better every day.

We are winning, and much faster than I thought possible, what I am amazed at though is the pushback from vested interests and many governments - I'd have thought (clearly naive) that as the economics side triumphed, policies would change rapidly in line. Oh well.


PS - Actually your last sentence is key 'to it all':

I may or may not be considered 'green' but am certainly a money saving fan

for me, victory is only really attainable with the support of economics, no matter how hard some greens work, and for economics to win (and they have now I believe) we need(ed) national and international policies to drive change. So we should all shout out for policies, regardless of our actual or defined green'ness.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Actually he's been quite open about his denial of AGW, and also his denial of the health impacts from FF pollution.

This is not true
I tried to stay away but you are posting lies about me

I believe humanity has impacted the planet in many ways including more likely than not the addition of carbon dioxide causing a mild warming.

What I disagree is the notion that this will lead to huge disasters
It's farm more likely to be a negligible move in the positive or negative direction


Also the question itself is somewhat difficult to answer because is global warming good or bad depends on the location and species.

Was the meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs good or bad?
Were super volcano eruptions that destroyed many species good or bad?
Where previous ice ages good or bad?
Where previous massive changes in Ocean or atmosphere composition good or bad?

The answer is...they were fantastic not only were they fantastic they were necessary for our existence today. Of course if you are a dino they were not so great. So the question if they were good or bad makes no sense because they were both good and bad


When you ask the question more accurately I think most people would change the question to something along the lines of.... Is global warming a net positive or negative to the sun of humanity and how big big an impact will it be

When I ask myself that question the answer I come up with is simple, humanity progresss so rapidly that global warming will be trivial negligible problem. I mean of all the problems in the near medium and long term future I can imagine global warming is very trivial

Here is a small list off the top of my head

1: AI
2: AI
3: AI
999: AI
1000: Wars
1001: nuclear weapons
1002: biological weapons
1003: Earthquakes
1004: Genetic Engineering gone wrong
1005: Communism
1006: Slow down in economic development

999,999: Burt's bees stop manufacturing their lip balms
1,000,000th: Global warming
1,000,001: Ben and jerries goes bankrupt

Am I trivialising global warming. No I'm not trivialising it...it IS trivial

Just to be clear this doesn't mean stop deploying wind farms or nuclear power stations
It means do it for other reasons like security of supply or just wanting to make the net exporters poorer

mmmmikey

GreatApe wrote: »

This is not true
I tried to stay away but you are posting lies about me

I believe humanity has impacted the planet in many ways including more likely than not the addition of carbon dioxide causing a mild warming.

What I disagree is the notion that this will lead to huge disasters
It's farm more likely to be a negligible move in the positive or negative direction


Also the question itself is somewhat difficult to answer because is global warming good or bad depends on the location and species.

Was the meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs good or bad?
Were super volcano eruptions that destroyed many species good or bad?
Where previous ice ages good or bad?
Where previous massive changes in Ocean or atmosphere composition good or bad?

The answer is...they were fantastic not only were they fantastic they were necessary for our existence today. Of course if you are a dino they were not so great. So the question if they were good or bad makes no sense because they were both good and bad


When you ask the question more accurately I think most people would change the question to something along the lines of.... Is global warming a net positive or negative to the sun of humanity and how big big an impact will it be

When I ask myself that question the answer I come up with is simple, humanity progresss so rapidly that global warming will be trivial negligible problem. I mean of all the problems in the near medium and long term future I can imagine global warming is very trivial

Here is a small list off the top of my head

1: AI
2: AI
3: AI
999: AI
1000: Wars
1001: nuclear weapons
1002: biological weapons
1003: Earthquakes
1004: Genetic Engineering gone wrong
1005: Communism
1006: Slow down in economic development

999,999: Burt's bees stop manufacturing their lip balms
1,000,000th: Global warming
1,000,001: Ben and jerries goes bankrupt

Am I trivialising global warming. No I'm not trivialising it...it IS trivial

Just to be clear this doesn't mean stop deploying wind farms or nuclear power stations
It means do it for other reasons like security of supply or just wanting to make the net exporters poorer

I think there's a typo here. You have AI as 1, 2 and 3. Shouldn't this be:

1. Zombie apocalypse
2. Invasion of little green men from Mars
3. AI

As a point of interest, I'm assuming the first thing the zombies/Martians/AI robots will do is switch off the power. So I don't have to rely on the freezer, I've been making jam and dehydrating squirrels today so I have something to eat while I'm in my bunker wearing my tinfoil hat radiation protector. In your experience, are these appropriate precautions?

Thanks, Mike

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

This is not true
I tried to stay away but you are posting lies about me

I believe humanity has impacted the planet in many ways including more likely than not the addition of carbon dioxide causing a mild warming.

What I disagree is the notion that this will lead to huge disasters
It's farm more likely to be a negligible move in the positive or negative direction

..........

Am I trivialising global warming. No I'm not trivialising it...it IS trivial

So, as I said, you are an AGW denier, as you deny the science.

You can't deny AGW and then when called an AGW denier say that that is a lie ........ or deny it.

Would you prefer I call you an AGW denier denier then?

Just because you claim to be a fizzycyst, doesn't mean the solid science on AGW can be denied - has it occurred to you that if everyone else is mad, and only you are sane, then there may be an alternative diagnosis?

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So, as I said, you are an AGW denier, as you deny the science.

You can't deny AGW and then when called an AGW denier say that that is a lie ........ or deny it.

Would you prefer I call you an AGW denier denier then?

Just because you claim to be a fizzycyst, doesn't mean the solid science on AGW can be denied - has it occurred to you that if everyone else is mad, and only you are sane, then there may be an alternative diagnosis?

Stop spamming my thread , you class A [STRIKE]troll[/STRIKE] human

markin

Oh the model X only gets 6 miles per gallon. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5QA8C3S5k

almillar

(sorry I was away for a while so going back quite far in this thread...)

Anyway my main point of this thread is that headline figures for EVs are misleading
They use a lot of energy while stationary

No, they don't. They run the air con, radio etc. Zero energy to the powertrain. Even a stop/start diesel will be idling plenty when stationary.

All of the losses added up EVs are around 17-25% efficient which isn't much better than petrol/diesel.

You're counting all of the distribution and charging losses, and phantom draw of an EV. You need to also count then, every kW spent drilling, refining, transporting and filling up a diesel car, in your analysis.

As a matter of interest & also getting back on topic, how does your actual power consumption compare to the manufacturer's test cycle figure? 3.6kWh appears to be pretty close?

They don't quote it like that, it varies by country (litres per 100 kilometres in Europe seems popular) and using the new NEDC/WLTP measurement has vastly improved it. Even then, anyone that owns an EV knows that range varies greatly depending on temperature, and of course, how you drive it. The range in Spain, in different from the range in Scotland! It's a big variable for people to fight over, and they need to accept variation. It's similar to people thinking they've been mis-sold an ICE, when they're told a car can do 'up to' 65 MPG, (Extra Urban Cycle), and they drive round in a city (closer to Urban Cycle) and only get 35MPG. They haven't accepted the variability. You will go two thirds, to three quarters, as far in winter, as you do in summer, in an EV in this country. That's my opinion after 3 years in 2 EVs.

I'm reasonably happy with my average fuel consumption figures over the last 18months : 3.6 miles/ kWh

Something like 3.7M/kWh for my Zoe over 2 years, and my SoulEV is running at 3.8. For GreatApe's benefit, this is from my own spreadsheet, calculated based on the battery percentage. It won't take account of charging losses, or anything 'up' from there, but would certainly include 'phantom' loss and anything used whilst stationary. Car manufacturers aren't responsible for the distribution of the power!

Interested to know whether you get much difference in mikes per kWh if you do vary your driving style. I was thinking that as long as you stay off the brakes it wouldn’t vary as much as an ICE. Obviously high speed equals high drag but assuming you keep to speed limits does the actual rate of acceleration have much bearing?
Edit: how does town driving compare with open road for economy?

It really does. Accelerating hard, driving at high speed does reduce economy. It's just more noticable in EVs currently because ~50% of the energy isn't being thrown away, and because of the relatively smaller range of most of them, versus a fuel tank. If you don't get up to a high speed for short bursts, think about hills, and generally just anticipate well, you'll save fuel, no matter what the car. EVs have the advantage of regenerating some energy too, but I would call than a cherry on the cake, rather than anything huge you should count on.
Town driving in an EV is more efficient than a motorway, whereas it's the other way round in an ICE. It's the ideal car to be stuck in traffic in!

Useful as regenerative braking is, it really isn't 100% efficient (or probably even 50% !)

I seem to have 80-90% in my head, depending on model of course. It's just an electric motor becoming a generator.

Afraid one of my 'niggles' with the Leaf is that some misguided programmer has decreed that the car will always apply regenerative braking as soon as I stop accelerating. As a result where I would lift my foot off the accelerator pedal when driving an IC engine vehicle and let speed build up a bit going downhill then let gravity do its work by slowing it down gradually going up the next hill before applying acceleration halfway up it, doing that in a Leaf results in the car applying regenerative braking going down the hill and maybe even continuing to do so when going uphill. Really not helpful to economy

Ah, you're a coaster. Yes, with all this one pedal driving stuff, I'd like a notch, or a big spot where you could use zero energy, but it's difficult to do, so I just knock the car into neutral a lot. This guarantees that you're neither pumping energy in, nor slowing the car down unnecessarily.

BEVs will be charged per mile so how does having solar panels help avoid that?

Utter, pure speculation, stated as fact. Unless you have a crystal ball we don't know about.

Sure their batteries drain too but they don't have much of a battery to drain

I'm not sure whether you know this or not, so I'll say it anyway. You've chosen Tesla as an example, and I've already stated here that they're the highest drain. This is because they do most. You can have Sentry Mode, for example, which is basically a CCTV system. Any other EV I know of simply runs off the little 12V battery, and should be compared to an ICE for phantom drain. Now, they don't have to crank an engine and weight is a sensitive issue, so they might be lower spec, but is your entire argument around phantom drain based around one car that has much higher drain (via features that can be turned off?) than other EVs? Do EVs just phantom drain roungly the same as an ICE, then recharging via a DC-DC converter, rather than an inefficient alternator?!

And I countered this argument saying sure there are energy costs in making diesel or petrol but there are also energy costs in making and transporting gas and coal to a power station to make the power to charge the EV

But, are they the SAME costs, or are they different by a factor of 10? 100? 1000?! I don't know, do you?

Fossil fuels are 'free'
They are just there

Bingo. Here's the difference to solar - I've got news for you GreatApe - they're running out, and they're getting harder and harder to dig out of the ground. Some people have resorted to spraying water into the earth at high pressure, sometimes causing small earthquakes, to find fossil fuels, whilst a solar panel just sits there. But sure, free. What happens when they run out?

joefizz

Nothing really to add to this thread except to say I got a run out in a UK model 3 just over a week ago.
I think my kidneys are still on the back seat somewhere.


They really are the future...

silverwhistle

almillar wrote: »

"Fossil fuels are 'free'
They are just there"

Did the person you are replying to actually say that? I don't usually use other than mild language, but whoever originally said that is an idiot.


Anyway, thanks for your long reply from the knowledgeable perspective of a user..