General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

remliqa
Dark Records
comments

Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Dark Records" channel.

@Flea1959MarketJordans You do know that switching to electric vehicles actual do have a positive effect on the envirmanst vs keeping using fossil fuels, right? EV are a success story while tis is an abject failure.
2
@LostShipMate The environmental impact of lithium mining is still far less than the impact of fossil fuel extraction . At least with battery, once the material have been extracted they will stay in the battery for 20-30 years before been recycled at the end of their life, whereas you need to continually extract oil for your car for the rest of your life. Furthermore multiple independent studies/research have shown that even the worse case scenario where all the electricity needed to for an EV came solely form coal burning power plants, the EV would still be less polluting than a gasoline or diesel car within their lifetime.
2
@TheEDFLegacy Hydrogen is far worse for the environment than battery and is closer to fossil fuel in their ecological impact. This is due to a the horrible efficiency of the hydrogen cycles. On top of that they are far more expensive, cost more and is harder to set up than the network for true electric car and offer less performance. Hydrogen have it place in some application like steel production and energy storage, but using them for consumer vehicle is as dumb as tyre dumping in the ocean.
1
@ChopsWildRide What EV are you driving. Tesla batteries for example last longer than the the average of a gasoline or diesel cars.
1
@JebAlert Your estimate of battery life is false. Tesla recently released the number (that was validated by third parties) for their battery life that show that the average battery degradation for their car after 250 thousand miles is around 20%.
1
@higgsbonbon I don't know any smart phones that can last for 20-25 years. That is the lifespans of an battery electric car , BTW.
1
@Bbfishman Multiple independent studies/research have shown that even the worse case scenario where all the electricity needed to for an EV came solely from coal burning power plants, the EV would still be less polluting than a gasoline or diesel car within their lifetime. The problem with the grid mean it needed upgrading and more power storage. California problem have existed longer than the current EV adoption, I remember reading about that state's energy problem in the 1990s.
1
@higgsbonbon What is? Everything I said in this thread so far are verifiable facts . Tesla recently released the number (that was validated by third parties) for their battery life that shows that the average battery degradation for their car after 250 thousand miles is around 20%.
1
@TheGuruStud Current gen EV last as long if not longer than internal combustion engine vehicles.
1
@higgsbonbon Tesla recently released the number (that was validated by third parties) for their battery life that show that the average battery degradation for their car after 250 thousand miles is around 20%.
1
@higgsbonbon While the environmental effects of lithium mining is bad, it is still less than the damage of continuous fossil fuel extraction and burning to sustain the an internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) for the rest it lifespan. At least with battery, it is a one time upfront cost. When battery in an EV finally unusable in 30-40 year (EV batteries have second life that after been used by BEV for 20 years) they can be recycled.. Everything else you said (plastic and proprietary, impossible to replace parts like the arbitrary computer systems) is also applicable to ICEV , so when EV still pulls ahead in that regards.
1
@higgsbonbon It seem you haven't been paying attention to EV news. There are many companies that have sprung up in the EV battery recycling business .For Example JB Straubel (one of Tesla's founder) have started his own an EV battery recycling company that is dealing with end of life Tesla battery and have reached out to other auto manufacturer. While Tesla is the pioneer with end of life plan for their batteries, other companies such as Ford and GM already announced their own version of such initiative. Ironically enough, because there is currently huge market for second hand EV batterie (either form old EV or totalled ones) that there isn't enough battery to recycle. This will change in the future.
1
@Gamersunite2506 Ah, the classic" the guy must be a shill because I don't like the facts he is saying and I can't refute them at all" approach . You must be popular with your teachers at school .
1
@Gamersunite2506 Firstly ,kindly quote the parts where I ever accuse anyone here of spreading propaganda? I dare you . I guess every accusation is an admission. Secondly, BEV are a suitable replacement for ICEV when it comes to environmental impact. BEV have been factually proven to be less damaging to the planet than ICEV. The only lie here the the myth that a BEV is as polluting if not worse than ICEV. Again is have been factually proven that this myth is not true. Thirdly, the so called exploit against consumer are not limited to BEV. This applies to ICEV as well, take a look of John Deere's diesel powered farm equipment . This is a common corporate greed problem , not a uniquely BEV one. Finally, instead of blindly accusing me of being a shill because you don't like the facts I'm putting out here. Why don't you try to rebut my arguments or offer counterpoints, something any person who isn't arguing in bad faith can do.
1
@Gamersunite2506 Firstly ,kindly quote the parts where I ever accuse anyone here of spreading propaganda? I dare you . I guess every accusation is an admission. Secondly, BEV IS a suitable replacement for ICEV when it comes to environmental impact. BEV have been factually proven to be less damaging to the planet than ICEV. The only lie here the the myth that a BEV is as polluting if not worse than ICEV. Again is have been factually proven that this myth is not true. Thirdly, the so called exploit against consumer are not limited to BEV. This applies to ICEV as well, take a look of John Deere's diesel powered farm equipment . This is a common corporate greed problem , not a uniquely BEV one. Finally, instead of blindly accusing me of being a shill because you don't like the facts I'm putting out here. Why don't you try to rebut my arguments or offer counterpoints, something any person who isn't arguing in bad faith can do.
1
@Gamersunite2506 Firstly ,kindly quote the parts where I ever accuse anyone here of spreading propaganda? I dare you . I guess every accusation is an admission. Secondly, BEV IS a suitable replacement for ICEV when it comes to environmental impact. BEV have been factually proven to be less damaging to the planet than ICEV. The only lie here the the myth that a BEV is as polluting if not worse than ICEV. Again is have been factually proven that this myth is not true. Thirdly, the so called exploit against consumer are not limited to BEV. This applies to ICEV as well, take a look of John Deere's diesel powered farm equipment . This is a common corporate greed problem , not a uniquely BEV one. Finally, instead of blindly accusing me of being a shill because you don't like the facts I'm putting out here. Why don't you try to rebut my arguments or offer counterpoints, something any person who isn't arguing in bad faith can do.
1
@Gamersunite2506 Firstly ,kindly quote the parts where I ever accuse anyone here of spreading propaganda? I dare you . I guess every accusation is an admission. Secondly, battery electric vehicle IS a suitable replacement for ICEV when it comes to environmental impact. BEV have been factually proven to be less damaging to the planet than ICEV. The only lie here the the myth that a BEV is as polluting if not worse than ICEV. Again is have been factually proven that this myth is not true. Thirdly, the so called exploit against consumer are not limited to BEV. This applies to ICEV as well, take a look of John Deere's diesel powered farm equipment . This is a common corporate greed problem , not a uniquely BEV one Finally, instead of blindly accusing me of being a shill because you don't like the facts I'm putting out here. Why don't you try to rebut my arguments or offer counterpoints.
1
@Gamersunite2506 Firstly ,kindly quote the parts where I ever accuse anyone here of spreading propaganda? I dare you . I guess every accusation is an admission. Secondly, Battery Electric Vehicle IS a suitable replacement for ICEV when it comes to environmental impact. BEV have been factually proven to be less damaging to the planet than ICEV. The only lie here the the myth that a BEV is as polluting if not worse than ICEV. Again is have been factually proven that this myth is not true. Thirdly, the so called exploit against consumer are not limited to BEV. This applies to ICEV as well, take a look of diesel powered farm equipment right to repair . This is a common corporate greed problem , not a uniquely BEV one. Finally, instead of blindly accusing me of being a shill because you don't like the facts I'm putting out here. Why don't you try to rebut my arguments or offer counterpoints, something any person who isn't arguing in bad faith can do.
1
@Gamersunite2506 Kindly quote the parts where I ever accuse anyone here of spreading propaganda? I dare you . I guess every accusation is an admission. Battery Electric Vehicle IS a suitable replacement for ICEV when it comes to environmental impact. BEV have been factually proven to be less damaging to the planet than ICEV. The only lie here the the myth that a BEV is as polluting if not worse than ICEV. Again is have been factually proven that this myth is not true. The so called exploit against consumer are not limited to BEV. This applies to ICEV as well, take a look of diesel powered farm equipment right to repair . This is a common corporate greed problem , not a uniquely BEV one. Finally, instead of blindly accusing me of being a shill because you don't like the facts I'm putting out here, why don't you try to rebut my arguments or offer counterpoints. This is something any person who isn't arguing in bad faith can do.
1
@Gamersunite2506 It seem rebutting your post triggered some sort of YouTube auto mod yeet feature . Lets try this again and see which part triggered that : Firstly ,kindly quote the parts where I ever accuse anyone here of spreading propaganda? I dare you . I guess every accusation is an admission.
1
@Gamersunite2506 Secondly, BEV are a suitable replacement for ICEV when it comes to environmental impact. BEV have been factually proven to be less damaging to the planet than ICEV. The only lie here the the myth that a BEV is as polluting if not worse than ICEV. Again is have been factually proven that this myth is not true.
1
@Gamersunite2506 Thirdly, the so called exploit against consumer are not limited to BEV. This applies to ICEV as well, take a look of John Deere's diesel powered farm equipment . This is a common corporate greed problem , not a uniquely BEV one
1
@Gamersunite2506 Fourth and finally, instead of blindly accusing me of being a shill because you don't like the facts I'm putting out here. Why don't you try to rebut my arguments or offer counterpoints, something any person who isn't arguing in bad faith can do.
1
@Gamersunite2506 Secondly, battery electric vehicles IS a suitable replacement for internal combustion engine when it comes to environmental impact. They have been factually proven to be less damaging to the planet than fossil fuel cars . The only lie here the the myth that they are as polluting if not worse than internal combustion engine . Again is have been factually proven that this myth is not true
1
@Max-mj4bc There' re plenty of safe way to recycles EV batteries. As I aid before multiple companies have sprung up to tackle this problem and some manufacturers such as Tesla already have solid end of life plan for their electric vehicles.
1
@Nostradumlbass Those EV batteries can last for more than 30 to 40 years before they become useless . But if you mean how long before the degradation on those batteries make them less useful for EV, then that would be around 20-25 years, pretty much the same lifespan of current gasoline and diesel cars. EV is a solution to internal combustion engine ass they are better for the environment .
1
@ikkebang7058 Firstly , cobalt is also used in the process of refining crude oil , so your average ICE car probably used more cobalt in their lifetime than an EV. Secondly , while the mining of material such as cobalt and manganese is very destructive, their overall impact is still less than the negative effects or oil extraction . Remember, you only need to mine material for the batteries once, but you need to pump oil for the rest of an ICE's life. Thirdly, manufacturers are trying to solve these problems by either sourcing their material more ethically or reducing the use of such material in their cell chemistry. Some design such as LFP (whci is already widely used in EV) and sodium batteries don't even use cobalt or manganese
1
@15thobserver Yes, fossil fuels . You know, gasoline/petrol , diesel and natural gas.
1
@CampingforCool41 We will never eliminate the want for personal vehicle like cars and motorcycles. the best we can do is replace their more polluting engine with cleaner one like EV.
1
@wannabecarguy EV is still better for the environment than gasoline or diesel powered cars.
1
@OOTurok This is just factually wrong. Firstly , multiple independent studies/research have shown that even the worse case scenario where all the electricity needed to for an EV came solely form coal burning power plants, the EV would still be less polluting than a gasoline or diesel car within their lifetime. Secondly, your calculations is wrong on so many level . For starter coal power plants have an overall efficiency of 35-38% which is is lower than natural gas powered plants. On top of the gasoline engine have an average efficiency of 25% and have a maximum theoretical efficiency of 28%, much lower than your 40% claim. Furthermore you are confusing the efficiency of power plants with the efficiency of internal combustion engine for vehicle . Foer power plant this mean how much of the energy is converted to electricity whereas as for ICE it means how much of the energy can be used to move the car. For example an electric motor for an EV have an efficiency of around 85-95%.
1
@OOTurok Your math is still wrong again .At around 8-15% at maximum transmission loss (efficiency of 85-92%) , the amount of energy lost is the grid is very, very low to the point it is insignificant .85%(worst case scenario) of 35-38% still man that 32.3 % of electricity from the coal plants reached consumer . For gas-powered plants , 85%vof 60% resulted in 51%. Not bad number at all If you want to talks about power line transmission lost, then you also must account the power cost of transporting the fuel from the refinery to your local gas station and into your gas tank. If you are smart enough to google those number than you would also be smart enough to know that because of the low efficiency of internal combustion vehicles, it is more efficient to burn gasoline or diesel in a power plant generator to power an EV than to directly burn them in your engine. There are many engineering channel on YouTube that explain why EV motor are far more efficient than ICE. Again this is a fact that is confirmed by multiple peer reviewed studies.
1
@OOTurok 5 My 85% number is based on the transmission lost that YOU agreed to be 15% (100-15), I could use the 92% grid efficiency if I used the 8% grid lost . We both know that 38% is the average efficiency for coal power plant hence the final efficiency number is 32%. Even if we go for the lower number of 35% efficiency (for coal) then the final number is still 30% and not 24% that you claim.
1
@ikkebang7058 My point is EV is still a better choice and less destructive for the environment than using gasoline and diesel power vehicles. It is not a perfect solution but still far better the thing it sought to replace.
1
@OOTurok No, you are wrong gain . The 8-15% number the totals amount of that is lost in pushing those power from plant to home. This include those lost resistance of conductor and step up and stepping down from transformers (1-2% lost here alone ) . I don't know here you pull that additional 20% lost from . Furthermore I don't understand why are you bringing as reasoning to why ICE is better than EV. Using coal efficiency is irrelevant because there is no such thing as coal powered car to compare them with
1
@OOTurok Firstly, I still don't know where you pull that 20% number as I don't see any publication ever using that figure and phrase.. Secondly, you still haven't answered as to how and why this make ICE better than EV.
1
@Nostradumlbass No , those test also includes data for EV sold and used in colder climates such as the Nordic countries and Canada. Let not forgets that the world record for longest miles (over 1.5 million km) was set by a German guy and he drove his car all over Europe. While it is true that battery loses charge easier in colder temperature , this can be somewhat mitigated with thermal regulation and adaptive driving behaviour. Earlier EV that doesn't have this feature such as the Nissan Leaf do suffer as their battery life is infamously abysmal, but newer EV all have some version of thermal regulation for their batteries.
1
@Nostradumlbass This is where you are wrong again . I'm not talking about lab testing , I'm talking about data the was gathered from real life user of EV. The German guy with the 1.5 million km Tesla was merely a Tesla user (he said he'll be switching to Lucid for his next EV) . The 20% degradation for 250 thousand miles number was data gathered form real world Tesla user. Current gen of EV have been around for more than a decade (both Model S and Leaf are over 10 years old) so we do have plenty of real world data to go around. If you look around you too will found out data about real world performance of various brand of EV in Nordic countries( countries like Norway and Iceland have the highest rate of EV adoption in the world) . You may be an automotive insider but you don't seem to be up to date with EV data and news.
1
@Nostradumlbass My point is we have enough data on cold weather performance of EV because of the high proliferation of EV in those colder Nordic states. Hence why it would be comparable for any countries with extended harsh winters . I don't see why NA would be different . As for that Tesla data (I actually misspoke , the average degradation after 250K miles is 12%, not 20% based on their released statement ), while Tesla didn't disclose the full data, other observation by independent engineers pretty much supported Tesla claim in n that 224 page report. In fact a few years ago (can't remember when but it was pre-Covid) the same prediction was made after they (not Tesla) extrapolated data gathered form Tesla users at that time. The German guy (Hansjörg Gemmingen) didn't just drove his car in Germany, he traveled all across Europe in from Sweden to Spain. That was one of the reason why he had so much mileage. There was even a picture of his Tesla completely covered in thick snow so you can't even say he never took them out in harsh winter. Your point about taking care of his car is also moot as internal combustion engine cars would also suffer short life span if not properly taken care of and exposed to extreme cold weather without protection. In fact ICE vehicle require more protection than an EV (which only required heated battery) in such condition due to the many moving parts and material (lubrications . coolants etc) . This is before accounting foe the fact that battery life is only improving. Just look at the early Leaf or EV1 and compare them to what is available today.
1
@OOTurok Firstly, your argument makes no sense in both physics and electrical engineering . We know how much energy loss from stepping up and stepping down voltage to transfer power and those number were already calculated into transmission loss . Because this have already been factored in we arrive at the 8-15% number, hence why your 20% additive loss came out of nowhere and not found in any accredited publication on electricity. Your ramble about electron in dynamos also don't make sense as those number have also been factored in the energy efficiency output of power generation (where did you think that 38% figure came from?). In other words your math is still wrong. Secondly, as I stated multiple time that multiple independent research and studies into the matter concluded that switching to EV from ICE do indeed reduce pollution even in the worst case scenario in which all energy used to power those EV came solely form coal . Those studies took into account the efficiency , emission and well as energy needed to maintain the logistic network . Therefor your arguments about EV not reducing pollution is factually proven to be incorrect . This is before we account the fact that our grid is only getting cleaner with very passing day . Finally you argument about power production of solar and wind vs filled fuel ignores why we need to switch form fossil fuel in the first place: pollution, health hazards and their contribution to climate change . It doesn't matter that you need 250 Wind Turbines, or 3,750,000 Solar Panels to match the output of 1 single Gas or Steam Turbine when they removed all the negative impact of that one gas steam turbine.
1
@moos5221 Not really, my country also fell for the whole "used tyres for corral reef" project last century.
1
@moos5221 Malaysia.
1
@billybassman21 As I repeatedly said in this thread, except for the power grid issue (which can be solved by simply upgrading the grid) , all the other problem are also presents with internal combustion engine cars. Some such as the car catching fire in the event of accident and pollution from mining is even worse for gasoline cars. EV may not be a perfect solution but it is still solution for the problem posed by ICE vehicle.
1
@OOTurok Your points fall flat based on the fact we CAN'T store energy as fossil fuel. Fossil fuel are sun's energy trapped in chemical form due to Earth's geology in the span of million of years. Human can't replicate that and every attempt we try (ethanol and artificial methane eg ) we got abysmal energy conversion/retention out of them. This is because we can't fight the laws of physics. Of all the energy storage that is available to us, battery is the most efficient . Standard Li-ion battery have a a roundtrip efficiency of 90-95%, which is higher than counterparts like flywheel (less than 90%) pump hydro (80%) or stored hydrogen (50%).Battery is so efficient t that is is more economical and efficient to burn those fossil fuel (gasoline, diesels or natural gas) in power plants to power an EV than to burn them in your engine , but that have to do with internal combustion engine terrible efficiency . Of course the biggest advantage of battery powered electric vehicle is they are far less polluting and have less negative environmental and health impact than fossil fuel (gasoline, diesels or natural gas) vehicle they sough to replace
1
@OOTurok Your are again wrong. The energy efficiency of power plants an the grid and also is based on the amount or energy produce at the plants at how much energy that finally reached and is usable by end consumer . All your mumbo jumbo is irrelevant to this and why no electrical engineer would calculate efficiency' the way you are wrongly doing it. Secondly, you're mis-defining current Climate Change. Unlike those natural Climate Change that take thousand of years to unfold , the current Anthropogenic Climate Change is speed up to just a couple of centuries (some effects seen in just few decades) , the last time that happened was during mass extinction level evet such as asteroid impacts or mega volcano eruption . Every accredited and peer reviewed studies include those done by NASA, & NOAA concluded that humans are the main contributors due to increase of greenhouse gases emission (CO2, methane etc) . Remember these are gases that have been trapped in the Earths for million of years . Planting forest won't help much if at all as long as the sources of those carbon emission are still in place. This is where EV came in: As land based transportation contributes to more than 30% or greenhouse gas emissions, removing them by switching to EV is a good head start. This also remove all the pollution and health hazard of burning petroleum based fossil fuel in your engine. Furthermore it still does not matter that Solar and wind requires more land footprint than a fossil fuel power plants as long as they can eliminate the negative environmental and health impact of those plants. I need to remind you that solar and wind can be installed in place nit suited for forest such as on rooftops, on open seas and deserts.
1
@mushyroom9569 Again, multiple independent studies/research have shown that even the worst case scenario where all the electricity needed to for an EV came solely from coal burning power plants, the EV would still be less polluting than a gasoline or diesel car within their lifetime.
1
@mushyroom9569 You can google them. I can't linked them here because for some reason outside source get blocked or auto yeeted. Their finding include the total emission from mining of material to disposing of them at the end of their lifetime.Wile battery EV produce more pollution in the production phase compared to an ICE, that is just one upfront cost compared to the the ICE still constantly polluting all their life as you need to extract and burn fossil fuel to power them forever . That is before accounting foe a fact that our grid is getting greener. For example an EV driven in place where most of their power is from cleaner source such as Norway or beat would beat their ICE counterparts in just a few years . For Norway that stage is reached before the EV crossed 10,000 km in mileage. The laws of thermodynamics actually dictate that is is better to burn fossil fuel in power plants (even gasoline and diesel ) to power an EV than using them in your engine because of how inefficient internal combustion engine is. HINT: fossil fuel plants can use better, nor efficient methods such as combined cycle rather the the abysmal ICE.
1
@OOTurok Yu obviously don't know what "storing energy" means. Explain to me: how did you convert electrical power into petroleum fuel ? HINT: YOU CAN'T .
1
@isaac6077 I dare you to elaborate on what you claim I got wrong.
1
@OOTurok I never seen anyone failed math that badly . Here is a more accurate calculation 1 liter of gasoline contains around 9kwh of energy. The average ICE have an efficiency of 12.5km per liter. This in turn means it only gets 1.3km /kwh. The more efficient diesels on the other hand can get around 1.5 to 2km/kwh In contrast an EV can get around 4-5 km /kwh for most current EV and can go to 7.45km/kwh for more efficient one like Tesla. This clearly show EV are far more efficient than gasoline or diesel powered vehicles.
1
@OOTurok The only dishonest thing is talking about weight in this manner when that have zero factor in efficiency . Efficiency is all about how much usable power or energy you can get and for how long or how far . In short how far you can get on a equivalent amount of energy. If you didn't know this then you really don't understand what efficiency means, which explains your terrible math. . It means that 82 pound of fuel in your car have the power of 474kWh in electricity and yet can only go for 635km, for a total of 1.3 km/kWh . A model 3 with 75kWh of battery can manage almost 629km with total efficiency of almost 8km/kWh or 7.9km/kWh for a Model S with 790km of range an a 100kwh battery . See how much more efficient BEV are? If you wants to talk about weight, then consider this . That 1500 pound of battery will forever be the same for the 25-30 years lifespans of the EV. Whereas that 82 pound of fuel expended per total is per trip. If you take 1000 trip per year , then you have to add 82000 pound of weight to your car annually . Now count that for the 20-30 years lifespans of a car , then you have horrible weight difference of over 2 million pounds of fuel vs that 1500 pound of battery.
1
@OOTurok At yet despite the mass , BEV are still far more than a diesel or gasoline cars based on the actual maths used for efficiency that I stated above . The fact that your car took more than 6 times as much energy as an EV to move the equal distance shows how woefully inefficient your gasoline cars is. In fact it is more efficient to burn that fuel in power plants to power an EV than use it in your car , if gasoline power plants exist . Again let me repeat the math based on the data YOU gave me. That 82 pound of fuel in your car have the power of 474kWh in electricity and yet can only go for 635km, for a total of 1.3 km/kWh . A model 3 with 75kWh of battery can manage almost 629km with total efficiency of almost 8km/kWh or 7.9km/kWh for a Model S with 790km of range an a 100kwh battery . This is despite both EV in this example are thousand of pound heavier than your gasoline here here , pretty much underlines that EV are the most energy efficient and thus the most effective at moving a given mass with the least amount of energy input . This figure will go higher as EV tech improve. No one ever said EV are self contained system , you're the only one who even suggested that . What we said is EV is far better for the environment than a fossil fuel powered cars and are far more efficient. Math and physics proved this . EDIT NOTE. I forgot to add that no one said electric semi such as the Tesla semi or The eCascadia use the same motor tha a Model Y uses. Many electric truck can pull more more than the 20 ton, the Tesli semi for example have a load of 80,000 lbs. There is reason why most diesel locomotive are actual electric locomotive that use diesel generator on board.
1
@OOTurok Read the thread .I already factored those in, power plants are more efficient than diesel and gasoline internal engine at converting potential energy in fuel to electricity. Just like how natural gas power engine are far less efficient than a combined cycle gas power plant, or how a hydrogen fuel cell is far more efficient than an internal combustion engine running on hydrogen. Why keep on repeating what I already debunked in this thread? You keep on bringing on Flat Earth level "math and science" that no engineer or scientist would ever use in due to how wrong they are. People in the automotive and power generation industry would just laugh at how wrong your arguments are .And now you want to show your lack of knowledge in biology and chemistry too by bringing photosynthese? I strongly suggest you talk to an actual auto engineer. Even the ones who hates EV will confirm everything I said here about how inefficient internal combustion engine are compared to battery electric motor. While you're at it, talk to an electrical engineer about the the grid power loss rate and power generation . Heck, even a simple google search such looking for efficiency of engine and power density will debunk your points.
1
@OOTurok No one is arguing for perpetual motion here. You're the only one who brought that . "The energy required to produce electrical power is far greater than the energy density of chemical fuels. " What you said here is impossibly false. Go ask your chemistry of physics teacher about this. I'll wait.. "You are being dishonest by only citing the energy efficiency of the electric motor... because EVs are NOT just their motors. " I already accounted for electric motor efficiency of over 95%, the battery efficiency of 90% and the electrical grid efficiency of 85-92%. That is why the round trip efficiency of 80% of EV is still better that the 25% efficiency of gasoline engine and the 40% of diesels, that is me being generous and not subtracting the efficiency of the petroleum logistic , the amount of energy use to move them from oil well to the gas pump, had I counted those the efficiency of gasoline and diesel would far even further. "The vehicle's total Mass & Energy Density of its power source are major factors in determining the energy efficiency of the machine to do work. " This is where you are wrong again. What matter is the total amount of energy in the power source and the amount of works, in the case how far it would go on the same unit of energy you can get out of that power souce . The weight of the vehicle only matter when it affects that efficiency , EV despite being heavier can go farther on the same amount of energy. Again, look at the 1.3 km/kWh of a gasoline car vs the 8km/kWh of an EV. "Bigger batteries require a greater percentage of energy to recharge than smaller batteries" The efficiency is the same. In fact bigger batteries are more efficient due to the fact that it is easier to equip power and thermal management on huge batteries. That is one of the reason why an EV battery can last 30 years while your phone batteries can barely last 5 . "Diesel-electric Locomotive do NOT have batteries. " The HAVE ELECTRIC MOTOR. There are reason why they have those instead of diesel engine for moving the train. "There is a reason we don't see all electric freight trains." I guess you are ignorant to the new battery electric train being built in Australia to transport iron ore from mine to port , huh? Of course that is not counting the facts tha passenger train , including the fastest ones in the world are all electric.
1
@OOTurok No one is arguing for perpetual motion here. You're the only one who brought that . The energy required to produce electrical power is far greater than the energy density of chemical fuels What you said here is impossibly false. Go ask your chemistry of physics teacher about this. I'll wait.. You are being dishonest by only citing the energy efficiency of the electric motor... because EVs are NOT just their motors I already accounted for electric motor efficiency of over 95%, the battery efficiency of 90% and the electrical grid efficiency of 85-92%. That is why the round trip efficiency of 80% of EV is still better that the 25% efficiency of gasoline engine and the 40% of diesels, that is me being generous and not subtracting the efficiency of the petroleum logistic , the amount of energy use to move them from oil well to the gas pump, had I counted those the efficiency of gasoline and diesel would far even further. You are being dishonest about me noiotacjsnolefsgun this despite my inclusion of them in previous post. Go read them . The vehicle's total Mass & Energy Density of its power source are major factors in determining the energy efficiency of the machine to do work This is where you are wrong again. What matter is the total amount of energy in the power source and the amount of works, in the case how far it would go on the same unit of energy you can get out of that power souce . The weight of the vehicle only matter when it affects that efficiency , EV despite being heavier can go farther on the same amount of energy. Again, look at the 1.3 km/kWh of a gasoline car vs the 8km/kWh of an EV. Bigger batteries require a greater percentage of energy to recharge than smaller batteries The efficiency is the same. In fact bigger batteries are more efficient due to the fact that it is easier to equip power and thermal management on huge batteries. That is one of the reason why an EV battery can last 30 years while your phone batteries can barely last 5 . Diesel-electric Locomotive do NOT have batteries The HAVE ELECTRIC MOTOR. There are reason why they have those instead of diesel engine for moving the train. There is a reason we don't see all electric freight trains I guess you are ignorant to the new battery electric train being built in Australia to transport iron ore from mine to port , huh? Of course that is not counting the facts tha passenger train , including the fastest ones in the world are all electric.
1
@mushyroom9569 You can easily google them, I can't provide outside links as those will get yeeted, like what happened 9 months ago, but those Studies were published in publications like Ars Technica and Scientific American , you can work from there to get the links . You still forgetting to account multiple factor that internal combustion engine are extremely inefficient at 25% for gasoline and 40% for diesel vs the much higher efficiency of power plants, the environmental cost of the logistics supply chain of fossil fuel and the lifetime environmental cost of owning those vehicles. Those factors were the reason why even in 100% coal burning grid, an EV is still better than owning an ICE. Furthermore as the energy grid goes greener, the advantage only increases.
1
@OOTurok So, so many science ,math and even English comprehension fails in your post to the point I don't think you ever went to school at all. to change a cellphone battery only requires 3 - 5 Volts. To charge an EV battery requires a minimum of 480 Volts. Now how is it, that a cellphone needs more energy to recharge than an EV? This just show how much you don't know about electricity in general. Firstly , you don't need voltage of more than 480 to charge an EV . EV charging at home or place of work uses Level 1 and Level 2 charges that use 120 Volt and up to 240Volt respectively . Sure, they take a lot more time than a superchargers ,but most of the time you don't use your car anyway, such as when you're sleeping or working. Secondly your math is wrong , AGAIN. Cellphone charger have voltage of 3-5 volt and amperage 0.5 to 2.4 amps which lead to only 1.5 -12 Watts/h whereas the slowest and lowest power Level 1 charger uses 120 volt and 12 amps to total of 1440watts/h or 1.44kW/h. In what way is 12watt more energy than 1440 watts? 1500 lbs of mass... to release the same amount of usable energy as 82 lbs of gasoline Here is where you maths failed gains. No auto engineer that works on gasoline cars would even use this Flat Earth logic of yours, that is not how they calculate. Neither of your example the same amount of power at all. Any chemist of physicists would correct you that the 82lbs gasoline contains 474kWh of energy if we uses gasoline's lowest estimated power density of 12kWh/kilo while that 100kKWh battery contain , well 100kWh. The fact that despite weighing thousand of pound more and 300kwh les power the Model S still managed to go further 790km vs 635km shows how much better an EV is. Because you said 1500lsb of mass I assume you mean 100kWh battery as the Model S battery as that battery of that power weighs at 1377lbs, so it maybe you average weight for that kind of battery. An Aptera can travel 1600km on a 100kWh pack for a whopping 16km/kWh .Talk about efficiency . Furthermore , you would still lose if you count weight of fuel per distance travelled . That 82lbs of gasoline is expended every full trip whereas the battery weigh is the same en after full discharge to 0kWh. In other word when you car travel 31750 km it would have expanded 4100lns of gasoline while a BEV traveling for 31750km would still uses the same 1500lbs of battery. Still a loss for your gasoline car in term of weight of fuel per distance . Futhermore... Electric Passenger trains do NOT run on batteries. They are linked to a power grid that energizes the tracks they run on I never said they used batteries. I said they used electric motors . Learn to read . And the Battery Powered Freight Train in Australia, you are talking about is NOT even built yet. The prototype is scheduled to be finished sometime in late 2025, & testing is to begin in early 2025 Again, learn to read . I literally said IT WAS BEING BUILT . You also obviously didn't read the white paper on that train design .The reason why it could mathematically and physically work was because the rail track from the mine to port was on slope ,and with slope and heavy cargo like iron ore , you could gain lots of power to recharge the battery just by regenerative braking. Again, the point of me bringing up the fact that practically all train are electric is to show how much better and more efficient an electric motor is. If diesel and gasoline was much better , then they would have uses them instead. The reason why car and truck need battery is because we really can't transmits energy directly from the grid to the EV, unless you want to go the unviable route of uprooting all road and place wireless power transmission on them . Again, Despite the limitation of the heavy batteries ,electric cars and trucks still blow theri ICE counterparts out of the water in terms of efficiency. Kudos on to you for spreading more lies Do you look in the mirror before doing all this projecting? The only one that is spreading lies here is you. All my figures and calculations can easily be backed up by asking any question to any science teacher or industry professional , or even basic google search, whereas none of you claim are supported by expert and scientific facts. They will just laugh at your Flat Earth level of understanding.
1
@mushyroom9569 In actually tried to provide the the link to those studies either by linking them or mentioning the publication or journal tha features them multiple time 9 months ago , but all those post got yeteed by YouTube for some reason. I guess they hated outside links or sources. The laws of thermodynamic is why it’s better for the environment to burn fossil fuels to make electricity to power EV instead of burning fossil fuels directly to power cars.Internal combustion engine are notoriously inefficient with gasoline and diesel engine having only 25% and 40% efficiency each, that is before counting for inefficiency and energy loss for the logistics of the petroleum production and distribution. Electric power plants are far more efficient at converting fossil fuel to usable energy . Of course the ecological advantages of Ev grows as the power grid goes greener too.
1
@OOTurok I am flabbergasted that every single thing you wrote here all factually false, from Level 1 and 2 charger being bad for batteries when it is the complete opposite , all EV manufacturer recommend using them rather than supercharges to tha last point about the Tesl Semi can only haul 80, 000 at the speed of speed og 5 mile are literally lies. We literally saw the Tesla Semi move 40 ton on 500mile trips. Why are you lying this badly? You do know that who can use any search engine can literally search you claims and found very single one of them are incorrect, right ? And what battery electric rockets ? Those literally don't exist and no one ever mentioned them, not Space X not Blue Origin , not ULA , Not NASA . And you also are literally lying about what I said . Your claim that larger batteries require less energy to recharge than smaller batteries... is false I NEVER make that claim, ever . You can't even quote here I ever said that if I dare you . At this point I begin to think you're truly delusional , dishonest or stupid , or even all them because you keep bringing up fake data and literal lies that can easily debunked by simple google search and arguing against points that no one ever made. I've met Flat Earther and sovereign citizen who are more honest and less delusional than you . This is my last response to you , I can't believe I tried to educate you..
1
@mushyroom9569 Weight is a factor, however the way 00 Turok calculate weight is complete BS and no one in the automotive industry would ever use his Flat Earth messed up logic. That is why I said the way he calculate weight doesn't matter at all. For real example, an Apterra with 100 kWh battery pack can go 1600km on full charge while a Model S with the same 100kWh pack can only do 790km . The former's lighter weight is one of the many reasons for this efficiency. As you can see both of them are still far more efficient than any gasoline or diesel engine powered car.
1
@mushyroom9569 The biggest misconception about Aptera is it solar powered, it is really isn't. The solar panels are merely a range extender that can add several dozen km of range daily in optimum condition . You can't drive only using solar panels for long trips as you literally have to wait for weeks if you wants to fully recharge Apterrral from emprty to full just using its solar panels. Apterra main power source is its massive battery that is charge at home or from the grid. Their test vehicle that clocked over 1000 miles or 1600km trek wasn't installed with any solar panels.
1
@OOTurok With every post you just shows your lack of science knowledge and ability . At least this post didn't consist of 100% lies like in the previous post. Watts=Joule/Seconds kWh= Watts × hrs divided by 1000 Thus 1 kWh = 3,600,000 J Therefore we know how much kWjh/kg it have based on how much J it have per kg. End Of Story
1
@OOTurok I never said your last post were wrong , I was pointing they were incomplete as you failed to show the link or crossover between energy in joules vs energy in kWh. You literally just proved my point on why BEV are far more efficient because how little range you get out of all that energy density in gasoline ,but let's correct where you're wrong first. Firstly lets get where you are grossly wrong about gasoline . The typical gasoline engine only have the efficiency of 25% not 39% , the latter figure is the efficiency of diesel . Since we're talking about gasoline, then the figure is 25%. This is just efficiency of fuel of tank to wheel , not total efficiency from oil refinery to wheel, the latter would be much lower. Your math is also wrong as 82lbs of gasoline contain 10,260MJ of energy , not 1715.34 MJ. You incorrectly multiple the gallon instead of pound . Secondly, teh 85% figure the round trip efficiency of power plant to wheel , not battery to wheel. The battery to wheel efficiency of Tesla is 97% . I don't know what the battery to wheel efficiency of an Aptera car, but I do know of its range. Furthermore , iI alway pointed that Gasoline have much higher energy density than any battery, what I have shown is gasoline powered car are fare less efficient than a BEV. Thus the correct measure of efficiency in Joule is Gasoline has an Energy Density of 46 MJ/Kg or 125.12 MJ/lb. At 6 lbs/gal, a 13.7 gallon tank holds 82.2 lbs of fuel =10,260MJ of energy. That same car can go 635 km on a full tank thus to travel 1 km= 16.12 MJ or 0.062 Km per MJ, . A mere 62 meter or 203 feet per KJ. In contrast a Tesla model Y with 100KwH have 360MJ as 1kWh=3.6 MJ That same car can go 790km on a full charge thus to travel 1 km=0.455MJ Or 2.19km per MJ. An Apterra with the same 100kWh battery can travel 1600km per full charge thus having a 0.255 MJ/km or 4.44 km per MJ. It doesn't' matter if it kWh or Joules, both will show that a BEV is far more efficient than a similar gasoline car.
1
@OOTurok You either don't know what goalpost moving means is or you are straight up lying about me again , the same way you lied about how I supposedly claim that larger batteries require less energy to recharge than smaller batteries, something I never did . My point is always that BEV is far more efficient than ICE and this efficiency is why it is far better than them, even when all the energy used to power it came from coal. There have been no goalpost moving on my part. The only goalpost moving came from you. You first tried to claim than a gasoline car is more efficient than a BEV by comparing how far 82lbs of gasoline can go vs a 1500lbs EV battery, a BS apple to orange comparison no automotive engineer worth his salt would ever endorse . You never mentioned this stupid line of thought again when I pointed how wrong you math is . The issue is the energy efficiency of the the power source & how much energy can be stored in a given amount of mass You are still confusing gasoline as energy storage the same way battery is , this is wrong . Gasoline, like uranium or solar is form of energy source , not energy storage . Unless you can convert energy from other source into gasoline, then it really isn't a form of energy storage the way a battery is. As a form of energy storage, Li-ion battery is one of the most efficient energy storage per unit of mass . As a source of of power for vehicle gasoline is pretty poor due to how inefficient ICE is at extracting usable energy , as shown by the calculation above. And now you tried to move the goalpost again by pivoting to liquid lead acid battery despite it having zero relevance to any of my arguments . Heck, no one in this thread ever mentioned lead acid, just like no one in this thread mentioned perpetual motion machine or battery powered rockets, no one but you .Were you taking acid when typing that response?
1
@OOTurok I have been consistently arguing about the efficiency of batteries to store energy And you have been consistently wrong about them . I already pointed out that Standard Li-ion battery have a a roundtrip efficiency of 90-95%, which is higher than counterparts like flywheel less than 90%, pump hydro 80% or stored hydrogen 50%. That make them one of the best in term of efficiency for storage . Comparing Lead/Acid batteries to Li-ion batteries is an example to my point about the differences in the efficiency of Energy Density, & how mass is a factor in that efficiency It not on topic because Lead acid is an obsolete tech that isn't being used in BEV or grid level storage . You don't see me bringing up steam locomotive or Ford Model T's engine to attack fossil fuel efficiency , do you ? Furthermore... gasoline is stored energy, in Chemical form.... E = mc^2 I had to facepalm so hard at this. You do realise that the formula at the end is only apply if you used antimatter to annihilate that gasoline molecule to create energy right? Tell me, which ICE in any vehicle or generator on Earth uses antimatter to annihilate any fossil fuel ? The formula we use for the amount of energy in gasoline and any fossil fuel is when we COMBUST them, you know, like in a power plant or INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE . On top of that you still can't store energy as gasoline because we don't artificially create gasoline. ALL attempt to produce synthetic fossil fuel have resulted in abysmal round trip efficiency, higher cost than fossil fuel and just as bad environmental impact . None of the other thing you wrote have any bearing to this thread or my agreements so I won't even bother with them.
1
@OOTurok *I have been consistently arguing about the efficiency of batteries to store energy* And you have been consistently wrong about them . I already pointed out that Standard Li-ion battery have a a roundtrip efficiency of 90-95%, which is higher than counterparts like flywheel less than 90%, pump hydro 80% or stored hydrogen 50%. That make them one of the best in term of efficiency for storage . Comparing Lead/Acid batteries to Li-ion batteries is an example to my point about the differences in the efficiency of Energy Density, & how mass is a factor in that efficiency It not on topic at all because Lead acid is an obsolete tech that isn't being used in BEV or grid level storage . You don't see me bringing up steam locomotive or Ford Model T's engine to attack fossil fuel efficiency , do you ? Furthermore... gasoline is stored energy, in Chemical form.... E = mc^2 I had to facepalm at this. You do realise that the formula at the end is only apply if you used antimatter to annihilate that gasoline molecule to create energy right? Tell me, which ICE in any vehicle or generator on Earth uses antimatter to annihilate any fossil fuel ? The formula we use for the amount of energy in gasoline and any fossil fuel is when we COMBUST them, you know, like in a power plant or INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE . On top of that you still can't store energy as gasoline because we don't artificially create gasoline. ALL attempt to produce synthetic fossil fuel have resulted in abysmal round trip efficiency, higher cost than fossil fuel and just as bad environmental impact. None of the other thing you wrote have any bearing to this thread or my agreements so I won't even bother with them.
1