What Does One Use To Charge An Electric Vehicle?
(files.catbox.moe)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (32)
sorted by:
Eh, any above average crazed leftist could easily argue that even tough the energy is coming from burning coal, it's better to use something that's being burned anyway (since electric is used for a variety of purposes) than to create additional pollution by burning fossil fuels at the same time.
I myself don't think electric vehicles are an inherently bad thing, they can have uses, but for absolutely sure getting rid of fossil fuels is not at all needed or advised, they're there to be used.
From a technical standpoint, a powerplant is more efficient at turning heat into electricity. An electric motor is more efficient at turning energy into rotational motion.
The internal combustion engine sounds wonderful, has a soul… but is very inefficient.
Even if it is inefficient, a full tank will get you get you considerably farther than full batteries even in the best tesla you can get, as far as I can gather anyway, plus of course you have the ease of filling that tank up, takes minutes, not hours like the batteries take to charge.
I pretty much understand jack shit about any of this, but I always though like 2 or 3 alternators would make so one full charge would make an electric car have quite a bit of range, but it seems that's not the case.
At least I do imagine they make use of alternators, I mean, why the hell not
Some context if it helps. gas has an energy potential of ~9kWh/L. I think diesel is 12. If we could get 100% of the stored energy in fuel and convert it to electricity… energy crisis solved.
1994 Infiniti Q45 4.5L V8 ~12.5L/100km = ~115kWh/100km.
2008 Ford Focus ~7L /100km = ~65kWh/100km.
2018 Nissan Leaf = 18kWh/100km.
The internal combustion engine is at most 40% efficient when fuelled with diesel.
You make valid arguments in terms of resources to build the ev. However in the right use cases (like mine, 50,000km/year) it is massively cost effective.
You are absolutely correct that liquid fuels are the most energy dense fuels we have available to us short of nuclear.
If you want to argue about mining and resources, we have strip mines and gaping holes in the Earth for just about every other modern convenience. Thus, this argument is moot.
In 180,000km my ev completely paid for itself in fuel savings compared to the car it replaced (1994 Q45, 4.5L v8).
The economic argument is very narrow, there shouldn’t be tax payer subsidy on them, and they are a terrible choice for low mileage use cases. Battery life is tied to how much it gets used and if it’s properly charged or not.
All that said, I still prefer driving my turbo diesel when I can justify it.
Toyota has developed an engine capable of 40% combustion efficiency out of petrol. The Drive's Article Which I believe is the highest efficiency for a soon to be commercially available combustion engine.
EV batteries are my main concern for myself to get one, Electric motors are definitely gonna be a contender for the replacement of combustion engines in the future; until some new engine/motor technology is developed. The battery technology is what's holding EV back. In my opinion, the technology isn't ready to mass replace and kill off combustion based vehicles, it's something that should happen naturally, not be forced upon society. Everyone didn't sell their horses and wagons to by a car in the late 1800s, early 1900s.
Additionally, I don't think there's a company that has an EV semi truck (Volvo and Tesla were developing some) or locomotive available for commercial consumers, so that's another thing that seems to be over looked by people who say "the world needs to be EV NOW." (Not saying that's you)
Lithium fires are insane, is every fire department equipped to handle a potential for a serious fire at car crash? Or all car crashes if every vehicle is EV?