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

@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