OT - Walter Rohrl not a fan of electric cars
09-22-2018, 08:16 PM
#16
Nordschleife Master
09-22-2018, 08:41 PM
#17
I’m not a caveman and I do believe that EV's have their place but I also believe that same place is likely better served by increasing mass transit as both options thrive on the same principals of short distance commuting and by keeping to a strict ( freedom-less ) schedule that restricts where and when you are able to travel.
Last edited by limegreen; 09-22-2018 at 09:28 PM.
09-22-2018, 09:33 PM
#18
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away....
Posts: 17,106
Likes: 0
Received 256 Likes
on
172 Posts
That's part of the current grey area that likely depends on where you live and the particular platform/ niche of the vehicle in question. I'm very comfortable with "around" the city here, 500+ miles per day being a non-issue, with the Tesla. My previous EV was absolutely limited to city only.
True, but have you seen modern oil operations? Do the math and the waste is staggering: 150k miles and 25 mpg means extracting, refining and transporting 45,000 lbs of tank ready fuel over a car's lifespan. If you're getting that end product from heavy crude, say with thermally enhanced oil recovery, you're lifting over 500,000 lbs of fluid ~1000 ft out of the ground as the starting point. That's says nothing of the thermal energy needed for both extraction and processing, none of which is recyclable or recoverable (unlike Lithium batteries, which are moving towards very high recycling rates). Batteries do include significant embodied energy that must be accounted for, but drill down on gasoline cars and you'll find the scale is still very heavily tilted towards EVs.
True, but have you seen modern oil operations? Do the math and the waste is staggering: 150k miles and 25 mpg means extracting, refining and transporting 45,000 lbs of tank ready fuel over a car's lifespan. If you're getting that end product from heavy crude, say with thermally enhanced oil recovery, you're lifting over 500,000 lbs of fluid ~1000 ft out of the ground as the starting point. That's says nothing of the thermal energy needed for both extraction and processing, none of which is recyclable or recoverable (unlike Lithium batteries, which are moving towards very high recycling rates). Batteries do include significant embodied energy that must be accounted for, but drill down on gasoline cars and you'll find the scale is still very heavily tilted towards EVs.
09-22-2018, 10:00 PM
#19
Nordschleife Master
Freedom is unfortunately not factored in these efficiency calculations.
I’m not a caveman and I do believe that EV's have their place but I also believe that same place is likely better served by increasing mass transit as both options thrive on the same principals of short distance commuting and by keeping to a strict ( freedom-less ) schedule that restricts where and when you are able to travel.
09-22-2018, 10:02 PM
#20
Burning Brakes
So that leaves road trips. In Teslas case, their high speed Supercharger network can quickly get you just about anywhere in the continental U.S. The high speed CCS charging infrastructure, such as Porsche will use with the Taycan, is less well developed than Teslas. But it is growing - especially with the additions that are currently being made by VWs Electrify America initiative. (Another part of the Dieselgate settlement.) Then secondarily, there are literally tens of thousands of places to charge at 'level 2' speeds. Check out plugshare for a subset of them: https://www.plugshare.com/
If someone is really uncomfortable with leaving the security of a ICE vehicle, they can consider a plug-in hybrid - the Chevy Volt for example: With a 53+ mile EV range, you'll rarely if ever use the ICE during daily commuting and errands. Yet if you suddenly need to visit your sick mother two states away, it can run as a gas-electric hybrid at 40-50 mpg. It is actually a fun car to drive too.
Davo4porsche I feel like we have had this argument before and truthfully and respectfully I don’t care to replace biased math calculations with common sense and practical approach. It takes nothing more than simple math to realize the laughable energy density of even the most advanced EV on the horizon.
It also doesn’t take a chart or any real math to realize that the lack of fuel tax in an EV world will cause a massive hike in taxes or worse cause the cost of electricity to skyrocket forcing an already burdened tax payer more strain in being forced to pay more for less.
Last edited by whiz944; 09-22-2018 at 10:28 PM.
09-22-2018, 10:08 PM
#21
I took the GT3 up to Yosemite for a weekend a couple weekends back and specifically went for nicer roads. I still passed two super-chargers in the hills (and bunches closer to civilization), plus our hotel had fast charging. I think many would be very surprised at the current state of the infrastructure in many places. True you can’t go everywhere and do everything, but neither can a Porsche. I know lots of 4x4 trails within 250 miles no Carrera would ever consider (unless we’re counting the SC/RS and the like). Or snow-covered passes in the winter (my M3D has 4wd and snow rubber)? The point is that there are degrees of freedom for everything, and modern EVs are doing very well I done areas.
09-22-2018, 10:41 PM
#22
Most of the energy that you've paid for in a gallon of gas is wasted in heat. So the ICE vehicle is at a 4:1 (or greater) disadvantage from the start. The current energy density of the battery pack in todays Model 3LR is just fine for a 300+ mile range. And the tech continues to improve...
A Tesla Model 3 battery pack weighs roughly 1,100 lbs which is needed to go that supposed maximum of 300 miles under near perfect conditions. To put into perspective how absolutely absurd the specific energy density and storage capacity of an EV is lets consider this :
If I carried that same 1,100 pounds in gasoline that would mean I had roughly 159 gallons on board (@ 6.94 lbs/ gal) and in a car aimed at efficiency that returned 40 mpg avg. that would mean I could travel nearly SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED miles before needing to refuel.
To match that staggering range figure an EV using today's technology would need over TWENTY THREE THOUSAND pounds of batteries, that's nearly 12 TONS which is almost the empty weight of a triple axle dump truck.
So you when you posses a specific energy density in gasoline that makes modern electrical energy storage look like a complete failure it really doesn't matter what the final efficiency level is and that is the difference between practical application and theoretical application.
09-22-2018, 10:44 PM
#23
Rennlist Member
Davo4porsche I feel like we have had this argument before and truthfully and respectfully I don’t care to replace biased math calculations with common sense and practical approach. It takes nothing more than simple math to realize the laughable energy density of even the most advanced EV on the horizon.
we we keep having this discussion because you keep confusing different units - and your welcome to refute the “biased” math - please feel free to suggest your alternate reality numbers about the efficiency of the modern power generation and delivery - I didn’t make the numbers up.
09-22-2018, 10:49 PM
#24
Rennlist Member
Wow - the misunderstanding continues - energy density has nothing to do with actual fuel consumption - the comparison is given one gallon of fuel how far can you drive?
1 gallon of fuel delivered to a car = 28 miles’
Same 1 gallon of fuel delivery to a power plant - enough kWh produced to drive about 60 miles - more if you deliver the original barrel of oil and skip the refining process...about 90 miles.
The efficiency of modern power plants is well documented and monitored because att their scale of operation that sort of thing matters - they are not biased numbers - they are conmerical scale businesses that demand that sort of fuel efficiency - your welcome to refute industry norms and claim power plants are not in fact 40-60% efficient - but then you have to argues there mega-watt-hours produced and delivered to the grid for fuel consumed are made up numbers.
efficiency is units of power consumed to go a distance - not how many of those units fit in a given weight/volume
1 gallon of fuel delivered to a car = 28 miles’
Same 1 gallon of fuel delivery to a power plant - enough kWh produced to drive about 60 miles - more if you deliver the original barrel of oil and skip the refining process...about 90 miles.
The efficiency of modern power plants is well documented and monitored because att their scale of operation that sort of thing matters - they are not biased numbers - they are conmerical scale businesses that demand that sort of fuel efficiency - your welcome to refute industry norms and claim power plants are not in fact 40-60% efficient - but then you have to argues there mega-watt-hours produced and delivered to the grid for fuel consumed are made up numbers.
efficiency is units of power consumed to go a distance - not how many of those units fit in a given weight/volume
09-22-2018, 11:05 PM
#25
Rennlist Member
To match that staggering range figure an EV using today's technology would need over TWENTY THREE THOUSAND pounds of batteries, that's nearly 12 TONS which is almost the empty weight of a triple axle dump truck.
answer 3 times further than the same fuel delivered to your car 24 gallons at time.
the math is neither biased nor incorrect
the same amount of fossil fuel delivered to a power plant = 3x miles driven in an EV vs. a gas car - the energy density of the battery has NOTHING to do with the efficiency of power used for distance - just how many kWh it can hold at once.
09-22-2018, 11:19 PM
#26
and if you deliver that amount of fuel to a power Plant? How many kwH’s will it produce? And then provide those kWh to an EV - how far will it drive?
answer 3 times further than the same fuel delivered to your car 24 gallons at time.
the math is neither biased nor incorrect
the same amount of fossil fuel delivered to a power plant = 3x miles driven in an EV vs. a gas car - the energy density of the battery has NOTHING to do with the efficiency of power used for distance - just how many kWh it can hold at once.
You lose me the instant that a POWER PLANT becomes part of your specific energy density calculation. I do understand , however, that without factoring it and the critical relay style network of recharging stations that serve as the only basis for EV's to exist that you would have no counter argument at all.
So with that being said why don't you double check my "alternate reality" math and tell me, but this time without your convolution and deflection techniques, how far an EV can travel, without stopping to recharge, with an 1,100 lb battery pack vs. a 40 mpg vehicle carrying that same weight in gasoline without stopping to refuel ?
I used rounded figures because the disparity was so huge it didn't really matter but please feel free to use exact figures because I understand that in order to make EV's appear viable it's necessary to grind every data point down to the nearest thousandth.
Last edited by limegreen; 09-22-2018 at 11:42 PM.
09-22-2018, 11:43 PM
#27
Burning Brakes
A Tesla Model 3 battery pack weighs roughly 1,100 lbs which is needed to go that supposed maximum of 300 miles under near perfect conditions. To put into perspective how absolutely absurd the specific energy density and storage capacity of an EV is lets consider this :
If I carried that same 1,100 pounds in gasoline that would mean I had roughly 159 gallons on board (@ 6.94 lbs/ gal) and in a car aimed at efficiency that returned 40 mpg avg. that would mean I could travel nearly SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED miles before needing to refuel.
To match that staggering range figure an EV using today's technology would need over TWENTY THREE THOUSAND pounds of batteries, that's nearly 12 TONS which is almost the empty weight of a triple axle dump truck.
So you when you posses a specific energy density in gasoline that makes modern electrical energy storage look like a complete failure it really doesn't matter what the final efficiency level is and that is the difference between practical application and theoretical application.
Tesla Model 3 weights between 3,838 - 4,072lbs
BMW 3-series weights between 3,780 - 4,010lbs
Same class of vehicle and nearly identical weight.
Yes the batteries weigh more than a fully loaded fuel tank, but EV's have lighter motors, transmissions (if they even have one), and lighter AWD systems. Simpler design.
So it essentially nets out
09-22-2018, 11:52 PM
#28
Silly comparison.
Tesla Model 3 weights between 3,838 - 4,072lbs
BMW 3-series weights between 3,780 - 4,010lbs
Same class of vehicle and nearly identical weight.
Yes the batteries weigh more than a fully loaded fuel tank, but EV's have lighter motors, transmissions (if they even have one), and lighter AWD systems. Simpler design.
So it essentially nets out
Tesla Model 3 weights between 3,838 - 4,072lbs
BMW 3-series weights between 3,780 - 4,010lbs
Same class of vehicle and nearly identical weight.
Yes the batteries weigh more than a fully loaded fuel tank, but EV's have lighter motors, transmissions (if they even have one), and lighter AWD systems. Simpler design.
So it essentially nets out
Regarding my very simple argument meant to display how terrible battery energy storage capacity is I can not even begin to see how this nets out.
Also, try not to rely too heavily on Wikipedia for your information regarding BMW 3 series curb weights, the average 3 series is much closer to 3,400 -3,500 lbs and there hasn't been one produced in history that weighs 4,000 lbs.
09-22-2018, 11:55 PM
#29
Burning Brakes
Regarding my very simple argument meant to display how terrible battery energy storage capacity is I can not even begin to see how this nets out.
Also, try not to rely too heavily on Wikipedia for your information regarding BMW 3 series curb weights, the average 3 series is much closer to 3,400 -3,500 lbs and there hasn't been one produced in history that weighs 4,000 lbs.
Also, try not to rely too heavily on Wikipedia for your information regarding BMW 3 series curb weights, the average 3 series is much closer to 3,400 -3,500 lbs and there hasn't been one produced in history that weighs 4,000 lbs.
Edit: 340i xDrive Gran Turismo weighs 4,145lbs.
09-23-2018, 12:10 AM
#30
Well I suppose based on that you got me there as I went by memory rather than fact so I apologize , by 3 series I meant more along the lines of their sport sedan offerings and wasn’t even thinking about or considering that disgusting pig of a Gran Turismo.
BMW is another car company that’s impossible to keep up with and has almost completely lost its way all the same....
BMW is another car company that’s impossible to keep up with and has almost completely lost its way all the same....