- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: German auto club finds that EV charging wastes 13% of electricity used on average
Posted on 8/23/22 at 11:56 am to weagle99
Posted on 8/23/22 at 11:56 am to weagle99
quote:I call 'em like I see 'em.
Ah, I always thought we disagreed on this topic but remained somewhat cordial. Figured you were better than the quote above.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:05 pm to weagle99
quote:LINK
Link?
All you have to do is ask the question and look for answers instead of allowing yourself to get caught up in whatever web of propaganda you're in.
quote:This is just silly to ask. You must have no sense of scale and the rates at which EVs charge and the power consumption curve day to night.
Link to an independent study with numbers backing this up?
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:06 pm to madmaxvol
quote:
So...you can choose losing 13% charging in an EV, or 40-60% in heat and friction loss with an ICE.
If your intent is to compare final output vs fuel source, you are off a bit.
Most electricity is generated from coal. So just starting with coal, a coal fired power plant is no more than 40% efficient at best. So you lose 60%-70% right up front. Next, you lose some in transmission and distribution. It could be 10% or even 15% depending on all sorts of factors. Lets just assume 10%. Now you are at a minimum of 70% losses. Now add the 13%. all in all you are looking at 83% energy loss with EV.
Other fuel sources are better, I think NG only has around 40% waste for combined cycle. Nuclear obviously way better all around but not used enough to really matter.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:11 pm to notsince98
quote:You need to multiply rather than add the losses.
If your intent is to compare final output vs fuel source, you are off a bit.
Most electricity is generated from coal. So just starting with coal, a coal fired power plant is no more than 40% efficient at best. So you lose 60%-70% right up front. Next, you lose some in transmission and distribution. It could be 10% or even 15% depending on all sorts of factors. Lets just assume 10%. Now you are at a minimum of 70% losses. Now add the 13%. all in all you are looking at 83% energy loss with EV.
.40 * .85 * .87 = .30
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:15 pm to Korkstand
quote:
web of propaganda
Damn near every article about EV’s is pro EV propaganda
None of you true believers appear to engage in any critical thinking about the topic
This post was edited on 8/23/22 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:18 pm to Korkstand
quote:
power consumption curve day to night.
Adding a bunch of load to the system at night will change the curves. You understand that right? Or do you think off peak stays off peak after the addition of millions of vehicles charging all at once?
You and your vehicles run on hopium more than anything else. The hope that everything works exactly right and blind devotion to the cause.
But thanks for the link above.
This post was edited on 8/23/22 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:24 pm to notsince98
quote:
Most electricity is generated from coal.
Incorrect at least in the US. NG is used for twice the generation vs coal and nuclear and renewables are each essential the same percentage as coal.
quote:
Most electricity is generated from coal. So just starting with coal, a coal fired power plant is no more than 40% efficient at best. So you lose 60%-70% right up front. Next, you lose some in transmission and distribution. It could be 10% or even 15% depending on all sorts of factors. Lets just assume 10%. Now you are at a minimum of 70% losses. Now add the 13%. all in all you are looking at 83% energy loss with EV.
That is not how you add those percentages up, well because you don't add them. At least do the math correctly. Each percentage loss is not simply added up, the previous efficiency is multiplied by the next one.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:34 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It doesn't matter what subsection of well-to-wheel efficiency you want to look at, EVs win them all.
I don’t think it wins in the “miles per day” or “refuel time/miles driven” categories, to be fair, but those are somewhat specific categories that do not necessarily matter to all people.
Also, when talking about inefficiencies prior to “in the tank” energy, it’s a little unfair to talk about the inefficiencies of one vs the other as they are both built in to the prices you’re paying at the fueling stations.
It would be somewhat fair/reasonable/expected to project this inefficiency into home electricity costs, but the actual gross numbers are going to still be very small. Even with a 15% inefficiency figure (slightly higher than seen here), I think pretty much every vehicle out there today would still be far beyond the energy/mile number you can get out of any traditional ICE vehicle.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:38 pm to Korkstand
quote:
The vast majority of the grid can easily handle a majority EV fleet
The Gubment push to EVs is the whitest, supremiest thing I've ever encountered.
The grid will do just fine, because many people will not be able to afford these things for a long time.
Climate Change is a white, upper class fantasy. Watching them try to implement stuff is pretty damn funny.
This post was edited on 8/23/22 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:43 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
This boards obsession with hoping EV's fail is weird. I have no interest in an EV at this point, but I also couldn't care less what my vehicle uses for energy as long as it gets me where I want to go.
I posted a thread about the automotive equivalent to an OT 9 last week and the regular pussies STILL couldn't stop talking about EVs in that thread.
These dudes probably complain about trannies and gays in babe threads too.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:47 pm to weagle99
quote:
Figured you were better than the quote above.
True believers get very angry when their religion is attacked.
Hopefully environmentalists come around to nuclear. Its hard to take anything they say seriously, the way they've treated it.
We wouldnt be discussing climate change today had these bitches not tried to run everyone's life decades ago.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:52 pm to statman34
quote:
that's why forcing electric down people's throats before legit progress is made in technology is really dumb.
They’re forcing it up your arse…
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:55 pm to weagle99
quote:I do.
Adding a bunch of load to the system at night will change the curves. You understand that right?
quote:We can charge 250 million vehicles at night and still not reach daytime peak consumption. Easily. Additionally, a charged vehicle that is plugged in during the day can knock the peak off daytime consumption and reduce brownouts.
Or do you think off peak stays off peak after the addition of millions of vehicles charging all at once?
With proper management (time-of-use rates is my preferred method) we could almost completely level out our power consumption curve, reducing the use of expensive peaker plants and shoring up the grid at the same time.
quote:Hopium is working well so far.
You and your vehicles run on hopium more than anything else.
quote:
The hope that everything works exactly right and blind devotion to the cause.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 12:59 pm to Korkstand
quote:
We can charge 250 million vehicles at night and still not reach daytime peak consumption.
And states like texas have a fricking TON of new power generation in the works and slated to come online over the coming years/decades.
If even a quarter of the proposed projects in texas make it to the finish line, Texas will have doubled it's power generating capacity in the next 15ish years.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 1:01 pm to Hopeful Doc
quote:I was talking about energy efficiency, but yeah we can work the main EV con of charge times into various metrics.
I don’t think it wins in the “miles per day” or “refuel time/miles driven” categories
quote:Right. Energy is everything, and everything is energy. Products we buy are embodied energy. The cost of things more or less is a reflection of the cost of the energy required to produce and deliver it, and energy efficiency is built into that.
Also, when talking about inefficiencies prior to “in the tank” energy, it’s a little unfair to talk about the inefficiencies of one vs the other as they are both built in to the prices you’re paying at the fueling stations.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 1:06 pm to Korkstand
quote:
LINK
All you have to do is ask the question and look for answers instead of allowing yourself to get caught up in whatever web of propaganda you're in.
quote:
The biggest mistake the social media keyboard warriors make is the very strange assumption that all cars could be charging at once. In the UK, there are currently 32,697,408 cars according to the UK Department of Transport. The UK national grid had a capacity of 75.8GW in 2020. If all the cars in the UK were EVs and charging at the same time at 7kW (the typical home charger rate), they would need 229GW – three times the UK grid capacity. If they were all charging at 50kW (a common public DC charger rate), they would need 1.6TW – 21.5 times the UK grid capacity. That sounds unworkable, and this is usually the kind of thinking behind those who claim the grid won’t handle EVs.
Ok, let's say 1/3 were charging at the same time. That's full capacity.
This post was edited on 8/23/22 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 8/23/22 at 1:07 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:As a nation we added 20% production/consumption in the 90s. I don't know where this un-American defeatist attitude that we can't do things came from.
If even a quarter of the proposed projects in texas make it to the finish line, Texas will have doubled it's power generating capacity in the next 15ish years.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 1:07 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Uh oh, EVs are racist. Time to cancel them.
The Gubment push to EVs is the whitest, supremiest thing I've ever encountered.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 1:20 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Yes, and that kind of thinking is bunk. If every car in the UK charged at 7kw every night, they would all be charged up in about an hour and a half (<10k miles driven per year, <30/day, on average). More likely would be a 3kw charge rate for ~10 hours twice a week or so. It works out to less than half the UK's capacity half the time, or about 25% of their total consumption. That's the same as my back of the napkin math for the US.
The biggest mistake the social media keyboard warriors make is the very strange assumption that all cars could be charging at once. In the UK, there are currently 32,697,408 cars according to the UK Department of Transport. The UK national grid had a capacity of 75.8GW in 2020. If all the cars in the UK were EVs and charging at the same time at 7kW (the typical home charger rate), they would need 229GW – three times the UK grid capacity. If they were all charging at 50kW (a common public DC charger rate), they would need 1.6TW – 21.5 times the UK grid capacity. That sounds unworkable, and this is usually the kind of thinking behind those who claim the grid won’t handle EVs.
The US and the UK can charge 100% EV fleets at night right now. We have decades before the fleets are converted.
Posted on 8/23/22 at 1:30 pm to Korkstand
quote:
The US and the UK can charge 100% EV fleets at night right now. We have decades before the fleets are converted.
Ok, well, we're talking about during the day. The number of people charging at the 50kW rate will be extremely high. That's also in addition to the daytime consumption of power which is also higher than the nightly rate.
Popular
Back to top



0





