Electric vehicles miles per KWh

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

The fact is, many of us take that view, and it's largely only Martyn who can be *rsed to actually respond to his blunderbuss approach.

And just to be clear, and I apologise for any nuisance my responses cause, but I also can't really be *rsed. As the recent exchange demonstrated we get nowhere:

GA - Used a false example that any consumption from BEV's would be made up by increased coal generation. I pointed out that coal doesn't demand follow, that's the role of gas. He explained that 'I know nothing' and pointed out that coal 'used' to demand follow, but no longer does. ................... What did we achieve?

I hope that my posts demonstrate that the science denial arguments from GA are nothing more than trolling of the G&E board. I think we'd all concluded that many months ago. However, with Ken's attempt to defend GA on every one of these false claims and threads, plus his 'faux outrage' that we would ignore GA's opinions, I decided to read and respond to the nonsense.

Whilst this may attract the wrath of Eric - not everyone posting on here, and certainly not those just reading, will know all the background, nor all the facts (I certainly don't), and may believe some of what GA says, or fall for Ken's 'faux outrage', [but I'll stop short at anyone believing Nick's claims about VW ........ there are always limits, even at the extreme edge of absurdity. ]


TBC - I don't intend on labouring away at every post on every thread. In the case of this one, I think all the points that need to be made have been made. I'd just like each new trolling thread to have the truth posted near the start.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Watch the video. Your claims are entirely false. You can not defend VW, dieselgate was enormous and that's why they got prosecuted all over the World, and still are.

The other companies, even with their 'tricks' for testing, couldn't get close to VW as VW's operating on the road had vastly higher emissions than when tested.

Please stop apologising for VW, what they did was utterly disgusting.

Funny isn't it, all those morally indignant Americans were happy to drive locally produced vehicles that produced far more emissions than any of the VAG group vehicles in question. Many of them were probably stupid enough to swap their "dirty" golf for a Jeep!

Name me one vehicle produced (at that time) that didn't emit more emissions on the road than it did on the test cycle.....

It's all well & good you lambasting 'Big Auto' for their past indiscretions, but the EV industry is now doing exactly the same thing....with you full endorsement. The claimed ranges of EVs are nowhere near what is actually achieved, & it's a far greater divergence than a typical ICE vehicle will manage compared to the claimed figure. It's not uncommon for an EV to use double the amount of energy it's claimed to use. As for that energy, GA has made a valid point & we should consider marginal generation. In the UK that's likely to be gas at present.....so the miles/kWh do matter from an environmental perspective. How can you be so critical of Big Auto when Electric Auto is equally as culpable?

(TM3 performance claimed range 329 miles, typical range 240 miles)

Take the blinkers off Mart.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'd just like each new trolling thread to have the truth posted near the start.

So in response to the original post, what is the truth?

Are we to believe BEVs are perfectly green or was it a fair question to ask? Does the Tesla model 3 do 4.1 miles per KWh or is 2.6 miles per KWh more honest? Is there a current draw when not moving?

This post was on the Green and Ethical money saving board. It was a legitimate post about the real world cost of running a BEV (which we are all inclined to believe is a green and ethical way of money saving.)

All you want is for people to post how wonderful a Tesla is and no one must say a word against it. If anyone does point out the headline figures are not as they seem (or questions Tesla’s financial stability as I did in an earlier post) then in your view this puts them in your FFapologist AGW denying box.

Debate is good, that is what forums are about, for heaven’s sake. Provocative arguments make us think and question how we see the world. If you think they are rubbish you can challenge them or ignore them - your choice, but you can’t say don’t post that because it offends my view of the world.

If you only want to see posts confirming your view of the world then this maybe isn’t the place for you?

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

Funny isn't it, all those morally indignant Americans were happy to drive locally produced vehicles that produced far more emissions than any of the VAG group vehicles in question. Many of them were probably stupid enough to swap their "dirty" golf for a Jeep!

Name me one vehicle produced (at that time) that didn't emit more emissions on the road than it did on the test cycle.....

It's all well & good you lambasting 'Big Auto' for their past indiscretions, but the EV industry is now doing exactly the same thing....with you full endorsement. The claimed ranges of EVs are nowhere near what is actually achieved, & it's a far greater divergence than a typical ICE vehicle will manage compared to the claimed figure. It's not uncommon for an EV to use double the amount of energy it's claimed to use. As for that energy, GA has made a valid point & we should consider marginal generation. In the UK that's likely to be gas at present.....so the miles/kWh do matter from an environmental perspective. How can you be so critical of Big Auto when Electric Auto is equally as culpable?

(TM3 performance claimed range 329 miles, typical range 240 miles)

Take the blinkers off Mart.

I think the Tesla USA figures are pretty accurate however the trick and slight of hand they and other EV manufacturers use is not to point out their EVs have significant standing losses. The car is 'on' even when sat there so much so that s typical M3 user might have to spend 500 units of electricity to pay for standby. That equivalent to doing about 2,000 miles without going anywhere.

Plus they don't make it easy for an average person to know the actual electricity useage
This wouldn't be difficult to do it would literally take one of their programmers 30 mins to produce a calculator to go on their website where s user puts in their annual mileage and the charger they would use and the calculator spits out how many units of electricity they need to purchase

Currently I would wager most people just take their mileage and divide by the 4.2 miles per kWh figure. I've seen it done here

That would result in 1,666 units (for someone doing 7,000 miles a year) and most people will think that's what it's going to cost them in both money and indirect emmissions from their local gas/coal plants

But it's not true the real figure will be closer to 2,500 units at the socket (charging losses and standing losses)

So there is your EV lies or omissions of full information to their customers
That's 50% more energy and distant pollution than the customer is lead to believe (the biggest car market is China and their grid is marginal load following coal, second biggest market is USA and depending on the state it's either marginal gas or marginal coal load following charging up the EVs)

BTW I don't think this makes EVs unviable but it shows they fluff and propaganda their own mpg and emmission figures

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

TBC - I don't intend on labouring away at every post on every thread. In the case of this one, I think all the points that need to be made have been made. I'd just like each new trolling thread to have the truth posted near the start.

I'd have no problem with just one such 'correction'; this was Martyn's eighteenth post in this thread.


I believe my first post (near the start of the thread) clearly showed that my BEV has an actual power consumption approx. 15% greater than the dashboard appears to claim but is still hugely cheaper to run than an IC engine car would be.

Very few of the other contributions to this thread referred to actual ownership of a BEV so can hardly be described as authoritative !

ed110220

JKenH wrote: »

So in response to the original post, what is the truth?

Are we to believe BEVs are perfectly green or was it a fair question to ask? Does the Tesla model 3 do 4.1 miles per KWh or is 2.6 miles per KWh more honest? Is there a current draw when not moving?

This post was on the Green and Ethical money saving board. It was a legitimate post about the real world cost of running a BEV (which we are all inclined to believe is a green and ethical way of money saving.)

All you want is for people to post how wonderful a Tesla is and no one must say a word against it. If anyone does point out the headline figures are not as they seem (or questions Tesla’s financial stability as I did in an earlier post) then in your view this puts them in your FFapologist AGW denying box.

Debate is good, that is what forums are about, for heaven’s sake. Provocative arguments make us think and question how we see the world. If you think they are rubbish you can challenge them or ignore them - your choice, but you can’t say don’t post that because it offends my view of the world.

If you only want to see posts confirming your view of the world then this maybe isn’t the place for you?

The problem is when "just asking questions" is used as a means of making a baseless insinuation without evidence. It's an extremely well known trolling device. Eg I could say "Did Graham Norton steal fifty thousand pounds from a charity for Ugandan orphans?" and thereby insinuate that he did, without providing evidence and with the escape route of saying "oh, I was only asking the question!" if challenged.

A deeper problem is that almost all of the ape's positions suffer from being not even wrong. Ie his starting point is generally accepted as wrong and therefore everything that flows from it is not even wrong. Eg if I were to hold that the Earth is flat I'd be wrong, but if I went on to devise a method of launching a satellite based on the Earth being flat my launch idea would be not even wrong. If I then went onto a forum devoted to satellites, space exploration etc and pushed this idea I'd expect to be ridiculed or ignored, or ridiculed and then ignored. Same for other not even wrong ideas like pushing an idea for AIDS treatment/prevention based on HIV not causing the disease, or a method for geological prospecting based on minerals having been laid down by Noah's flood.

1961Nick

EricMears wrote: »

I'd have no problem with just one such 'correction'; this was Martyn's eighteenth post in this thread.


I believe my first post (near the start of the thread) clearly showed that my BEV has an actual power consumption approx. 15% greater than the dashboard appears to claim but is still hugely cheaper to run than an IC engine car would be.

Very few of the other contributions to this thread referred to actual ownership of a BEV so can hardly be described as authoritative !

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?

JKenH

ed110220 wrote: »

The problem is when "just asking questions" is used as a means of making a baseless insinuation without evidence. It's an extremely well known trolling device. Eg I could say "Did Graham Norton steal fifty thousand pounds from a charity for Ugandan orphans?" and thereby insinuate that he did, without providing evidence and with the escape route of saying "oh, I was only asking the question!" if challenged.

A deeper problem is that almost all of the ape's positions suffer from being not even wrong. Ie his starting point is generally accepted as wrong and therefore everything that flows from it is not even wrong. Eg if I were to hold that the Earth is flat I'd be wrong, but if I went on to devise a method of launching a satellite based on the Earth being flat my launch idea would be not even wrong. If I then went onto a forum devoted to satellites, space exploration etc and pushed this idea I'd expect to be ridiculed or ignored, or ridiculed and then ignored. Same for other not even wrong ideas like pushing an idea for AIDS treatment/prevention based on HIV not causing the disease, or a method for geological prospecting based on minerals having been laid down by Noah's flood.

None of what you say here actually applies to the starting premise of this thread.

EricMears

1961Nick wrote: »

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?

I'm really not sure what sort of figure Nissan claim for the Leaf. But whatever it is(was), I doubt it would be any more helpful than IC engined vehicle manufacturers' claims to 'typical mpg'.

I'm afraid there's no such thing as typical fuel consumption figures (whatever type of fuel you're considering). One driver tearing around at 75+mph (not strictly legal but unlikely to be prosecuted) or even faster will obviously use more fuel than the driver of a similar car pottering around at 40mph or slower. A 'typical' motorist could exhibit both types of behaviour but his/her 'average' figures would depend on what proportion of the time is spent in each mode.

I'm reasonably happy with my average fuel consumption figures over the last 18months : 3.6 miles/ kWh works out to around 2.2 pence per mile but it can be even cheaper when you bear in mind that I can top up the battery for nothing in some places ! For comparison, my Volvo 2l D has averaged 42.5mpg over the last 11 years. At 130 pence/litre that gives around 14 pence per mile (and I've not found any garages giving fuel away ! ). Some of the differences in costs can be explained by taxation policies but they're unlikely to change anytime soon and I'm not prepared to run the Volvo on 'red gas oil'.

But it's not just cost differences that favour BEVs. Emissions on the road really are zero (apart from tyre particles which are exactly the same as IC engine cars). True, generation might put out some emissions - but there's a world of difference between fumes pothering out the back of a ICE car and those treated with state of the art devices before being discharged 400 feet above the ground. And of course much of the power used by an EV may come from pollution free sources.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Funny isn't it, all those morally indignant Americans were happy to drive locally produced vehicles that produced far more emissions than any of the VAG group vehicles in question. Many of them were probably stupid enough to swap their "dirty" golf for a Jeep!

Name me one vehicle produced (at that time) that didn't emit more emissions on the road than it did on the test cycle.....

It's all well & good you lambasting 'Big Auto' for their past indiscretions, but the EV industry is now doing exactly the same thing....with you full endorsement. The claimed ranges of EVs are nowhere near what is actually achieved, & it's a far greater divergence than a typical ICE vehicle will manage compared to the claimed figure. It's not uncommon for an EV to use double the amount of energy it's claimed to use. As for that energy, GA has made a valid point & we should consider marginal generation. In the UK that's likely to be gas at present.....so the miles/kWh do matter from an environmental perspective. How can you be so critical of Big Auto when Electric Auto is equally as culpable?

(TM3 performance claimed range 329 miles, typical range 240 miles)

Take the blinkers off Mart.

Hi Nick, I thought the EV ranges were pretty accurate so long as you look at the 'right one'.

I've watched loads of vids from different channels such as Tesla Time News, Transport Evolved, E for Electric, Fully Charged and so on, and they seem to report ranges being as described when using, I think it's called the WLTP.


So Nick, I've no idea what your problem is. You want to deny what VW has done, whilst throwing shade at BEV's. What's the point, they do what they do, apparently, having followed the comments of EV'ers on the EV thread for several years now.