How EV sales are losing momentum with US buyers

[Fuzzy1975]

dudly you CANNOT get more energy out than you put in.

No one said you did, except you.....lol

So, talking about how electric motors have a "better energy curve" is just more of your inane twaddle.

Electric motors have instant torque bozo, where as internal combustion engines don't,seethe difference,see where the energy savings comes from??

To get an electric car you have to burn fossil fuels. That results in a loss of energy (through waste heat).

No you don't,you can charge them on solar/wind, or use hydro electric or nuclear. Fuck your arguments have more holes in them than a set of fishnet stockings.

That means you're ALREADY behind the curve because you've already lost at least 60% of the energy. Going on about how electric motors are more efficient than gas engines after those losses is just bullshitting yourself.

Where do you get 60% loses from???

You absolutely cannot have "more efficient" anything after at least a 60% loss of the available energy in the conversion from fuel to electricity.

Again no one is saying you get something for nothing. BSL motors are 98% efficient. That means you get 98% out for the 100% you put in.

 

[Chernosoth]

Buying an EV can be virtue signalling or wealth signalling, since the price is higher for something generally less useful. The one advantage of an EV is in a daily commute of crawling stop and go traffic, unless the driver needs electronic comforts and distractions that drain the battery before arrival, especially the heater in winter. But in that situation, there are better options, such as bike, commuter rail, or change the home or job to spend less of a life miserably siting in traffic. Daily doses of suppressed road rage would explain the anger and rudeness expressed frequently in the PB.

 

[AlexBailey]

Your post is bullshit from soup to nuts.

You cannot be "more energy efficient" after 60% loss of energy from conversion from oil to electricity. Thinking you can be is where you and the rest of the green nutjobs fuck up.

Next time, don't sit in the back of the class and sleep and then proclaim you're smarter than everyone else.

What factors are at play when a car manufacturer lists different MPGs for Highway vs. in-town driving? It's the same distance, right? So do you think this violates the laws of thermodynamics or is there something to be said for varying efficiency over the operating power curve?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Do you know why aircraft don't measure the fuel they carry in gallons?

Actually they do, ask any pilot.

Because "gallon" is irrelevant and nonsensical. What's important is the amount of energy they have onboard. That is calculated in pounds not miles traveled.

lol aircraft use weight because it takes energy to move mass. So it's how many pounds of fuel to the mile because on an airplane weight matters.

The same formula for computing the energy available for aircraft vis a vis distance over ground can be applied to electric cars. When you do the math, the result is that electric cars are much less efficient no matter what speed the motor is turning for the miles traveled.

Really,you use kilowatts to the mile on an airplane ??? Not from what you just said above. You said it's pounds to the mile.

This is because of that 60% conversion loss I keep pointing out to you but which you refuse to acknowledge because it defeats your entire argument.

Where do you get 60% from? I'll have to dig through your nonsensical posting shit to see that. Oh now I see it, you're stating using oil to run a boiler to make electricity has a 60% energy loss. Well when you look at it through BTU's your actually not far off. Totally irrelevant to the comparison of the efficiency of an electric motor to an ICE on any scale.

Basically, you're a numbskull who thinks he's stumbled onto the secret for perpetual motion.

Again, no one here is saying you get something for nothing. You claim to be a pilot, which is more fuel efficient flying with your landing gear down, or up? Why? Drag eh dumbass. Electric motors are more efficient than gas ones, otherwise we'd still be using traction motors in industry.....

 

[AlexBailey]

Your post is bullshit from soup to nuts.

You cannot be "more energy efficient" after 60% loss of energy from conversion from oil to electricity. Thinking you can be is where you and the rest of the green nutjobs fuck up.

Next time, don't sit in the back of the class and sleep and then proclaim you're smarter than everyone else.

Also, go educate yourself. Modern utility scale petroleum fired electrical generators use methods to harvest energy from exhaust heat - something an automobile can't do very well simply because of scale. Oops! There goes that 60% hard limit.

Really, go read.

 

[Rightguide]

What incentives would industry have had to decrease emissions over that last several decades without government regulation?

The market place. If enough people thought it was a real problem there would be great demand for it be produced. The fearful fantasies of the bedwetters on the left, an angry scowling child in Europe, and the greed of the elites for more power over individual choice aren't enough to fool the most educated population in history.

 

[Rightguide]

Also, go educate yourself. Modern utility scale petroleum fired electrical generators use methods to harvest energy from exhaust heat - something an automobile can't do very well simply because of scale. Oops! There goes that 60% hard limit.

Really, go read.

You've been run through and you don't even know it.

 

[AlexBailey]

The market place. If enough people thought it was a real problem there would be great demand for it be produced. The fearful fantasies of the bedwetters on the left, an angry scowling child in Europe, and the greed of the elites for more power over individual choice aren't enough to fool the most educated population in history.

Oh, so consumers would have been willing to pay more for optional 'clean emissions' packages starting in 1965? And everyone would have simply switched to the more expensive no-lead gas?

 

[AlexBailey]

You've been run through and you don't even know it.

Explain how I'm wrong. How well do you understand science when it's so obviously in your political interest to not understand it?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

What factors are at play when a car manufacturer lists different MPGs for Highway vs. in-town driving? It's the same distance, right? So do you think this violates the laws of thermodynamics or is there something to be said for varying efficiency over the operating power curve?

Arpy's getting lost in the science he doesn't understand.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Explain how I'm wrong. How well do you understand science when it's so obviously in your political interest to not understand it?

wrongway understanding science, too fucking funny!!

Thanks for the laughs Alex,

 

[AlexBailey]

Arpy's getting lost in the science he doesn't understand.

I'm still laughing about how he thinks an airplane uses the same amount of energy for a payload.

Among other things it shows how he doesn't understand the relationship between energy and acceleration.


Homework for @HisArpy :

* explain why a car traveling at 80 mph will use more fuel than the same vehicle traveling at 30 mph.
* explain why a modern 30 Gw utility scale generator will produce more kwh of electricity per BTU of fuel consumed than a portable 6000 watt gas generator.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I'm still laughing about how he thinks an airplane uses the same amount of energy for a payload.

Among other things it shows how he doesn't understand the relationship between energy and acceleration.

Oh hell I wish it was only that Alex, I truly do...but anything under the heading of Science ( Carbon based water for example) he can't fathom.

Him claiming that because 60% of the heat from burning oil is lost, and doesn't go towards boiling the water to steam in a steam turbine, means the efficiency of the generator is only 40%, shit I laughed so hard at that.....

 

[HisArpy]

Also, go educate yourself. Modern utility scale petroleum fired electrical generators use methods to harvest energy from exhaust heat - something an automobile can't do very well simply because of scale. Oops! There goes that 60% hard limit.

Really, go read.

You CANNOT be "more efficient" when you start that far back. Talking about 1 or 2 percentage points change because of technology improvements is FUCKING STUPID.

And yet here you are pounding away on the same dead horse and thinking you're a genius because you found a stick in the woods.

 

[HisArpy]

What factors are at play when a car manufacturer lists different MPGs for Highway vs. in-town driving? It's the same distance, right? So do you think this violates the laws of thermodynamics or is there something to be said for varying efficiency over the operating power curve?

This post illustrates how poorly you understand what you're talking about.

You dis ICE in favor of EV because you don't understand physics. Not even obvious and in your face types of physics which impact all of us every day.

This doesn't even mention the other associated environmental issues which go along with the insanity you preach to the crazies who, like you, do not understand anything. Things like; in order to generate and transmit that electricity you're going to need copper (and iron). Copper is already in short supply. That means you're going to need to mine for more of it. You know, strip mine the planet with huge mining equipment, smelt the ore with fossil fuels because you're not going to do that any other way, transport the materials on ships and rails with fossil fuels, and then turn the bulk materials into more power generating equipment and transmission lines with even more fossil fuels.

In the end, if you count up all the losses, I'm willing to say that at their best EV's are probably as efficient as solar panels in the 35% range. And that's if you completely ignore the irreversible environmental damage to the planet.


What's funny is that I'm wondering when you're going to discover Peltier tiles and then start thinking you can power a car by sitting in it if the seat was made up of tiles.

 

[HisArpy]

I'm still laughing about how he thinks an airplane uses the same amount of energy for a payload.

Among other things it shows how he doesn't understand the relationship between energy and acceleration.


Homework for @HisArpy :

* explain why a car traveling at 80 mph will use more fuel than the same vehicle traveling at 30 mph.
* explain why a modern 30 Gw utility scale generator will produce more kwh of electricity per BTU of fuel consumed than a portable 6000 watt gas generator.

You're the guy who sits in the back of the class thinking he's God's gift to the world right up to the point where he gets called on to actually do something besides fart.

You know the guy. He sits there preening himself until the pressure hits and everyone starts looking at him for the answer. At that point he makes some cutting remark about something stupid, high fives his bros for being witty in public, and goes back to preening while thinking he's God's gift to the world.

Meanwhile the rest of the world rolls its collective eyes and dismisses him as a loser.

That's you in case you couldn't figure out the analogy.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You CANNOT be "more efficient" when you start that far back. Talking about 1 or 2 percentage points change because of technology improvements is FUCKING STUPID.

And yet here you are pounding away on the same dead horse and thinking you're a genius because you found a stick in the woods.

This post illustrates you poorly you understand what you're talking about.

You dis ICE in favor of EV because you don't understand physics. Not even obvious and in your face types of physics which impact all of us every day.

This doesn't even mention the other associated environmental issues which go along with the insanity you preach to the crazies who, like you, do not understand anything. Things like; in order to generate and transmit that electricity you're going to need copper (and iron). Copper is already in short supply. That means you're going to need to mine for more of it. You know, strip mine the planet with huge mining equipment, smelt the ore with fossil fuels because you're not going to do that any other way, transport the materials on ships and rails with fossil fuels, and then turn the bull materials into more power generating equipment and transmission lines with even more fossil fuels.

In the end, if you count up all the losses, I'm willing to say that at their best EV's are probably as efficient as solar panels in the 35% range. And that's if you completely ignore the irreversible environmental damage to the planet.


What's funny is that I'm wondering when you're going to discover Peltier tiles and then start thinking you can power a car by sitting in it if the seat was made up of tiles.

You're the guy who sits in the back of the class thinking he's God's gift to the world right up to the point where he gets called on to actually do something besides fart.

You know the guy. He sits there preening himself until the pressure hits and everyone starts looking at him for the answer. At that point he makes some cutting remark about something stupid, high fives his bros for being witty in public, and goes back to preening while thinking he's God's gift to the world.

Meanwhile the rest of the world rolls its collective eyes and dismisses him as a loser.

That's you in case you couldn't figure out the analogy.

This,coming from a guy who spent 3 days and 5 pages of a thread claiming water is Carbon based.

That says everything anyone needs to know about Arpy's grasp of the sciences.

 

[coati]

Like most Deplorables, Harpy has a very difficult time dealing with change. He was very upset when his nursing home substituted lemon Jello for lime last night.

 

[HisArpy]

Like most Deplorables, Harpy has a very difficult time dealing with change. He was very upset when his nursing home substituted lemon Jello for lime last night.

And there's the HIGH FIVE!

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Derpy meltdowns and doubling down on stupid are a Lit staple.

 

[ishtat]

The main reason EV sales may have slowed to US buyers is that despite the massive government welfare the big 3 US car manufacturers have received from US taxpayers, their EV product is very poor compared with the biggest producers, Tesla and BYD. Essentially they have tried to put an EV power unit into a vehicle designed to carry a gas/diesel engine. Tesla and BYD have both produced new machines from the ground up. US made EV's are also way too expensive to be considered. BYD's three smaller cars which are well made and well specced are now selling for US 12,000, 20000, and 28,000. It is only the 27% import tax costs which is keeping the Chinese product out of the US. Ford has made some enquiries about producing BYD vehicles under licence, but anti China politicians in the US will make that route very difficult difficult.

CATL and BYD were both originally battery makers from China. Between them they make about 52 to 55% of all the EV batteries used in EV's world wide. These are not necessarily the most tecnically advanced batteries but they are the most technically advanced and commercially viable (ie cheap).

Tesla and BYD are on track to produce about 3.5 million pure EV's in 2023. Japanese and European car sales in the worlds biggest car market (China, with about 27%) have collapsed.

It is ironic that China which cut out government financial support to the EV industry in 2019 is making a better fist of Capitalism in this industry that the USA and Europe which rely on Socialist public welfare funding for survival.

 

[AlexBailey]

This post illustrates how poorly you understand what you're talking about.

You dis ICE in favor of EV because you don't understand physics. Not even obvious and in your face types of physics which impact all of us every day.

This doesn't even mention the other associated environmental issues which go along with the insanity you preach to the crazies who, like you, do not understand anything. Things like; in order to generate and transmit that electricity you're going to need copper (and iron). Copper is already in short supply. That means you're going to need to mine for more of it. You know, strip mine the planet with huge mining equipment, smelt the ore with fossil fuels because you're not going to do that any other way, transport the materials on ships and rails with fossil fuels, and then turn the bulk materials into more power generating equipment and transmission lines with even more fossil fuels.

In the end, if you count up all the losses, I'm willing to say that at their best EV's are probably as efficient as solar panels in the 35% range. And that's if you completely ignore the irreversible environmental damage to the planet.


What's funny is that I'm wondering when you're going to discover Peltier tiles and then start thinking you can power a car by sitting in it if the seat was made up of tiles.

OMG, you’re a blithering idiot.

Unless and until we come up with some truly groundbreaking new technology that allows us to transmit energy without physical infrastructure we’re going to need to improve on our existing utility grid.

Copper and iron will continue to be used to expand infrastructure regardless of what currently known source of energy we’re using, I’m talking about ways to make the best use of it.


You talk like I’m telling you about a magic new pill that instantly makes everything clean and cheap when I’m talking about ways to implement new technology to help with real world problems. You just keep digging deeper into your ignorance.

Finding ways to save a few percent here and there has huge payoff when you look at our total energy consumption.


Your entire post here is a non sequitur bullshit rant. You don’t even address my question.

You don’t understand how highway MPG is different from in town MPG but you can’t admit it.




BTW, the difference between in town and highway MPG in personal ICE vehicles is typically 15-25% That efficiency is captured by electric vehicles, No Newtonian laws broken, counselor.

 

[AlexBailey]

You're the guy who sits in the back of the class thinking he's God's gift to the world right up to the point where he gets called on to actually do something besides fart.

You know the guy. He sits there preening himself until the pressure hits and everyone starts looking at him for the answer. At that point he makes some cutting remark about something stupid, high fives his bros for being witty in public, and goes back to preening while thinking he's God's gift to the world.

Meanwhile the rest of the world rolls its collective eyes and dismisses him as a loser.

That's you in case you couldn't figure out the analogy.

No, I get hired as an expert in this subject because I know what I’m doing and my knowledge is provable in the real world in practical applications, not just theory.

Your weak minded emotional ranting can’t refute reality.

 

[AlexBailey]

You CANNOT be "more efficient" when you start that far back. Talking about 1 or 2 percentage points change because of technology improvements is FUCKING STUPID.

And yet here you are pounding away on the same dead horse and thinking you're a genius because you found a stick in the woods.

You didn’t do your homework, did you?



Dude, there are power systems in the field that prove what a fool you are.

Look up “co-generation” - efficiency in the 70-80% range.


Even morons who share your politics can understand when the bottom line saves money, but not you. What is wrong with your brain?

 

[HisArpy]

More bullshit ending with ... No Newtonian laws broken, counselor.

This is a flat out lie.

You even reference in another post about "co-generation efficiency" which is 70-80%.

The first law of thermodynamics would say that the missing 20-30% proves you to be a liar. The conversion losses even from co-generation reduce the efficiency of EV's below that of ICE. Your attempt to factor in city vs highway is more of the same sort of misdirection based on bullshit that you keep slinging.

Even if EV's were 100% efficient on the charge (They aren't. They have energy loss as the windings in the motors and the batteries heat up from use reducing the theoretical efficiency ratings even further.) that means that they're, at best, only 80% of fossil fuels because of the losses in "co-generation." The fact that we're not go-generating all of our electrical power only shows that you're spewing data which doesn't match the reality of the power sources available. In essence, you're cherry picking the best possible scenario that is not much better than a pipe dream. And all of that only works if you don't factor in the transmission losses and the losses from the charging system itself. Even in your fantasy electrical world those transmission losses kill the efficiency rating.

So again, you're just bullshitting everyone. Worse, calling in your supposed "expertise" in this field only shows that you KNOW you're bullshitting everyone. Especially when there are ACTUAL EXPERTS in the field of electrical engineering and power generation as well as ACTUAL EXPERTS in EV's who are saying that EV's aren't a viable solution based on our current power grids and power supply capabilities.

And finally most of what you keep bullshitting everyone about doesn't exist yet. At best it's still experimental tech. At worst it's not even off the drawing board.

EV's are not the future. Future transportation will be based on energy tech that's not available yet because we don't have the math and science to make it work. Eventually we will, but right now we don't. Until then EV's are second rate to fossil fuels and actually cause more pollution and harm to the environment that fossil fuels.

ANYONE who says otherwise is a liar or is personally invested in the scam. You know, like you are.