Quote:
Originally Posted by aerostealth
I believe you are wrong about your concerns, which were addressed in the article. For some reason you want to include electrical generating and transmission loses in your calculations but seem to have no similar concerns for the well to wheel cost for fossil fuels at all? Why is that?
In the article I pointed out that for cost analysis charging loses should be included but no more. For the efficiency of the drive train we did not include them anymore then you would factor in the energy cost for delivering the gasoline to the gas station. This is not the way to evaluate a engine from a thermodynamic point of view.
Better still with 5.1 KW of grid tie solar I would have no transmission loses if charging in the daytime. My export tariff is 8 cents per KWh so that would be my effective cost. The best GM could do was 100 MPG at 50 MPH with their 1992 Ultralight 2 cycle 3 cylinder engine. The 2017 Bolt can routinely pull over 100 MPGe at 62 MPH.
Energy in to work out electric engines are a real winner when compared to any IC Engine. The batteries has been the weak link up until recently. It looks like the technology is now poised to take off in the market place and the reason it is doing so are becoming readily apparent.
|
You're trying to invalidate my concerns based on a side remark. I did not factor-in several variables which are more or less important. Yes. There were some studies on the topic that were far more detailed than the basic fact that I noted (quick search:
1,
2) which show the difference to be far smaller than 3x.
But this is still a side note. MPG is used for ICE cars, MPGe for electric ones. By conflating the two you make the reader expect something you don't deliver and this is my main concern.