Well done, excellent stuff as always! Amazed at some of the anti-EV comments and how detached from proven reality they can be. If we reverse this and imagine a world where we've had EV's for 100 years and now being told to buy an ICE car: 1/3rd as efficient (if that), noisy, complicated, needs annual service, forced to use specialist (dangerous / smelly) fuel from specialist outlets selling products from iffy regimes which put out poisonous fumes everywhere ... well, I wouldn't be keen tbh.
Well explained. Unfortunately a kWh Electricity costs in relation more than a kWh produced by Diesel, as Diesel is tax reduced in a lot of countries. But even with that disadvantage most BEV's are cheaper than Diesels at the end of the day.
Thanks. And indeed it's now well documented that you can save lots of money on 'fuel' with a BEV. In my case it is 2.9 times cheaper (£2620 of fuel spend avoided) despite 50% public charging. The cost of a kWh of diesel in terms of carbon emission is already higher at c 270g from the burning + another third or half for production/shipping. That compares with anywhere between say 60g and 250g in most western European countries + 10% charging losses. Sadly Germany or Poland still seem outliers on carbon intensity of their electricity.
This makes total sense. I still want an EV and hate diesel for it's particulates. Diesel in city - terrible. [edit] In Australia we are highly urban in our lives, but sometimes we need to travel long distances. So perhaps diesel pugin hybrid is the perfect solution at least for now? But I think the compromises are too great. If you purchase such a car you have bought 2 drivetrains, with greater weight and cost. The battery in your car is smaller than it might have been if you'd bought a straight EV. There are advantages of course, in that you have immediately helped clean the city air. However I think what we need are enough charging stations to make a short range EV viable even for the occasional long journey. In Australia? Well, I dont drive an EV but I dont see it getting there yet. I note that the Newcastle bypass is being worked on right now - massive earthworks etc. But as far as I'm aware, there is no massive car park, with a solar sail, and a real lot of fast chargers being planned. This is a good distance from Sydney; with such a thing, a comparitively short range EV would be a viable way to travel between the cities. But then I'm not an EV driver, maybe it already is viable...
Re- Australia, it could well be possible already. Check out Abrp, a route planner, take an ID3 and do Sydney - Melbourne, c900km. 2 stops with 40mn charge at stations with 3 or 4 connectors. Can't comment on real life but on paper it works there too.
My first reaction would be: people are idiots. Then I would probably revisit this assumption by saying: perhaps our education systems are failing us 😅 It’s not rocket science ffs! I did a similar but rather more crude analysis/prediction before getting my Ioniq28: just looked at the mpg efficiency of my petrol car and that of an even more recent petrol car, grabbed the energy density of a litre of petrol ~9.5kWh/L from a Google search and off you go: I predicted that the Hyundai Ioniq 28kWh would be around at least 4 times more efficient than my current or a newer combustion car. This supported my decision to switch, since this trickles down to lower costs too… Turns out it is around 6 times more efficient! 🥰 So we are not saying that EVs are better… but they are! 😂🙈
A number of us here care about numbers, possibly about physics principles, etc... but let's be honest, should everyone? We are all used to consuming complex products whose functioning we can't explain. Not a justification for misled statements but indeed this points more to the need for education at all ages, and the importance of trusted sources of information e.g. scientists.
There are always people that want EVs to be bad. They're gravitated towards any bad news about them, and then blow that out of proportion. I think they want confirmation bias for their personal choice and beliefs. Someone having spent like 50 grand of a fossil car will want to feel good about that choice. So they become biased. Of course, this works the other way around as well. But data is data. Facts are facts.
Confirmation bias is an interesting one. And indeed on both sides. We have to acknowledge that the change to EV - when used for longer distances - is transformational. Of course no one would notice if our economies were not already built upon fossil fuel dependence.
However one needs to factor in battery degradation, range loss due to extreme temperatures and of course 80% higher complaints with EVs compared to diesel cars. I agree from an efficiency standpoint as illustrated, EVs stand out. However quality and reliability are completely different.
@@Gregory-Masovutch The number of complaints are exaggerated. Some EVs have little degradation, like the Ioniqs, Bolt, Tesla. Oh one can find a problem or two, but that doesn't show statistics. Ask around what they think of their Tesla, and almost always it's very positive. Check out the old 1st and 2nd generation of Ioniq EV (before the Ioniq 5) and they seem excellent. Bolt people are positive about, so long as they did the battery recall thing. e-Golf, another oldie but goodie. Leaf not so much. Soul EV, not good. Niro and Kona EV seem good. There need to be more budget oriented EVs. Too much focus on luxury like SUVs. Damn thing is Americans are fat and don't fit in small cars. Thus the industry does stupid things like move from Bolt to Equinox. We need something with the format of an Accord or Camry in electric, like the Model 3, but less costly.
Stats king :) This comparison would be pointless, if that user remembered the difference of efficiencies between both drivetrains. I think a much more valuable (and difficult to make) comparison would be the impact of an EV on the environment, compared to an ICE vehicle - people never calculate the damages to the environment, when they form the price of any product, including cars. I guess this can be reduced to a comparison between the environmental damage of fuel production and burning (on the side of ICE cars) vs that of producing batteries and the pollution from power plants (on the EV side). Of course, EVs using less parts, oils and being more efficient, should also be taken into consideration.
Indeed, the googled statement at 02:49 is the big give-away. Saying this, I was keen to check what happens when speeds increase and whether in relative terms, the diesel could possibly work less hard to compensate for higher speeds. As to your second point, news.mit.edu/2016/study-finds-low-emissions-vehicles-less-expensive-overall-0927 from MIT is a take on the carbon emission over lifecycle. Not quite 'total environment damage' but one of the important factors.
Regarding the "damage to the environment" part, I always had this doubt of which one is more polluting: extraction of petroleum fuel or making of batteries? Can anyone clarify that?
@@nihaljudge5125 My take would be: 1. best is to ride the bicycle or take the train. Any car needs lots of steel and other metals in any case so you won't get sustainability awards for moving a 2t vehicle especially if you re driving alone in it, EV or ICE. 2. There is nothing clean about mining for petrol and gas, and you end up using more fuel to extract, refine and transport it. In addition you do need to mine for some of those more precious metals for refining petrol and building all that infrastructure in the first place. 3. For EVs ideally you'd minimise the size of the battery to limit further mining. But as opposed to all the mining involved in petrol you mine once and use/reuse for a very long time if not forever. Your battery Ev will become energy storage for the home and even after that raw materials will be recycled. 4. Mining in general is not exactly a new human activity, it's done in incredibly vast quantities (sand, iron, coal, copper, etc...), has major environmental implications but it does not nearly come up as often in discussion if you build a house, buy a phone, heat up your home, gift a necklace etc... as the topic of batteries and precious metals when EVs are mentioned. A good quick read on this. www.transportenvironment.org/discover/electric-car-batteries-need-far-less-raw-materials-fossil-fuel-cars-study/ "Over its lifetime, an average fossil-fuel car burns the equivalent of a stack of oil barrels, 25 storeys high. If you take into account the recycling of battery materials, only around 30kg of metals would be lost - roughly the size of a football." That sums it up nicely.
That could be the case but that means you're unlucky with local public charging options. My break-even point vs previous diesel is 58 pence/kWh. The local Tesla supercharger is below that at 49p in off peak. That's before accounting for tax and higher service/maintenance costs for petrol.
@evdabbler a lot of ev chargers are now 70+ a klw now even tesla fast charging is going up ps have you seen the depreciation on ev,s they are going through the floor plus they wear out the tires 30% faster and even in London now the price for parking a ev has gone up 1800 % , anyway sometimes it not about the price its about the time and getting to we're you want to go and a 3 minute fill to the brim is better than a 15 min charge for an extra 100 miles
Both graphs are obviously wrong! An EV does not have a flat zone from 6KM/h to 80KM/h where consumption stays the same. An EV consumption curve has a distinct exponential trend from the combination of air resistance which increases with the square of speed and rolling resistance, which grows linearly. It is so, because of an electric motor having a wider load range where efficiency is reasonable. The Diesel curve is even more insane: At low speed a diesel passenger car at 30-40km/h in 5'th gear, without touching the throttle uses around 2.5L / 100km. that is 26.7 KWh /100 km or 260Wh/km (burn value of the diesel) A diesel engined car uses less than 5L/100 at highway speed, that is 500Wh per km. So energy wise. A car with an engine uses 2-2.5 times more energy than an EV, not 3-10 times more that your graph suggests.
@@evdabbler Yes we should decrease the maximum highway speed. I drive an EV too. and my preferred way of travel is in the rear of a lorry going 90-95 KM/h. That more than doubles my range. BTW My consumption in an EV Fiat 600 are 100 Wh/km at 85-90KM/h on highway not driving behind anything (not including the charger losses). That is because it is a small EV with only a 20KWh battery, so low weight and narrow tires. However, I used to drive the gasoline version of the same car. And average summer consumption was 4L/100km, 5L/100km winter. On a summer vacation driving trip through Europe. 10,000km, in the course of a month. I averaged 3.67L/100km. That also correlates to around 2.5 times lower consumption in an EV, compared to a combustion engined car of the same make and model. However is it at all reasonable to compare Heat as an energy source to electricity? Heat is a high entropy energy source, so conversion efficiency to mechanical work will always be poor? Remember an EV does not run on electricity, it runs on wind power, and wind turbines are at best around 64% efficient, often much less in lower winds.
It's good fun both EV and diesel lovers telling me it s all wrong, when all i am doing is stating exact numbers collected painfully over time. Clue #1: these are average speeds for a leg of a trip not instantaneous. All the best...
Efficiency, does this include all the hours it takes in waiting to charge ? And the Fuel burned by the power stations to provide the Electrically, GAS,OIL,COAL, ?
Economy numbers are about energy consumed so would not show any time spent driving to/from a fuel station or letting your car charge. As for fuel consumed to produce and distribute the fuel in the first place as well as losses in generating and transmitting electricity they are relevant but not shown here. According to researcher Berners-Lee emissions from petrol/diesel cars are 50% higher than that at the exhaust due to exploration/refining/distributing. So don't assume 'losses' from fuel are better.
What fuel burned by the power stations? I live 50:50 in France and Switzerland, and virtually no electricity is produced in either country by burning any fossil fuel! Sur, it is not YET the case everywhere, but it will be within a decade or two at the most! While refining and distributing diesel add 24% to a car's consumption, and 30% if it is a gasoline model, and THAT CONSUMPTION will never go down!
EV Dabbler, you cannot directly compare a diesel car to an EV as you have done. I don't know if your base for calculation is the Kw hrs used to charge the car battery, which you should be doing. However what skews your calculations is that you haven't used the energy required to generate and supply that electricity you used to charge the battery. You may counter by saying, in that case how much energy is used to provide the diesel fuel at the pumps for the car, which is valid. However a similar story applies for the sourcing and supply of fuel for the generators that provide the electricity. Basically all you can compare is the relative apparent efficiency between electric cars but not those fuelled differently. Incidentally exactly the same reason is why heat pumps and gas boilers cannot directly be compared.
As you say first of all we can compare 'apparent' efficiency. Give the car 1kWh of energy what does it do with it. Then electricity is typically not produced with 'fuel' (not in the UK anyway) but indeed nuclear, gas, solar, wind sometimes very locally. I believe other and I have shared in other comments a sense of overhead for generation and it s not pretty for petrol. Final major point that confirms we can compare: what is the co2e of producing and transporting that 1kWh of energy in the first place. About 2.3kg/8.9kWh = 260g for petrol. About 200g for 1kWh from the electricity grid (again Uk). So similar if likely worse for petrol. Yes we can and should compare.
Evdabbler, you cannot use the electrical mix as a basis for CO2 from generation. Any extra load on the grid, which evs must be, are only met by the one dispatchable generation source the U.K. has which is gas. Renewables and nuclear have already given up what they can, and cannot respond to this extra demand. The losses from generation and transmission\distribution are significant around 66% so roughly three units of fuel to generate the one used at the device. Electricity is convenient but not efficient.
@@iareid8255 your argument can work both ways though. ie if you have solar panels and only charge from excess. Same with offpeak excess from the grid and demand response. Marginal load is only relevant if that demand is indeed additional. Much less likely when charging at night. I for one would never charge 4-7pm for instance. In the same way I don't consider my electricity to be truly always from renewable despite the tariff being 100% 'renewable' you shouldn't assume that the ev is only charged when more gas (let alone coal) plants need to be fire up. On that basis the normal blend is probably not a bad place to start.
what about having to replace the 30k battery once 10 years old? a normal car can got forever if maintained properly. would you buy a 10 year old ev? i wouldn't give you anything for it. ev's are a scam
And yet demand is strong for used EVs ;-) According to fleetnews.co.uk 8% of enquiries for used cars are for EVs whereas only 1.8% of used cars were EVs... (nov 23)
@@chrishart8548 you prepared to take that risk? my wifes mums 1987 toyota corolla she bought new is still perfect. a car should last 40 years plus. not 15. instead of buying this ev crap buy a cheap ice car and invest the rest into nvidia broadcom and AMD. over 10 years you will triple your investment 100%
i don't see the point your trying to make. the ev is less efficient in time over 500 miles anyone can make it suit there opinion you cant just pick and chose
Efficiency (fuel economy) is a measure of energy spent - not time - and the only thing I was reporting on in the previous video. Energy is precious and should be used parsimoniously especially if it contributes to global warming.
I think there is a point in discussing time-efficiency. Although one might also argue that someone who regularly has to drive 500miles has not very efficiently chosen his place of living. (Also I really love that I can charge on the wall plug at home and don't need to spend time going to the gas station each week. Huge time saver ^^ )
Err... what's factually wrong in what I presented then? Also to note there have been no subsidies in the UK for buying standard electric cars since 2022.
Burning hydrocarbns you get 50% energy back, charging battery you lose another 50% , with EV it just stinks somewhere you dont see. Ermm and hybrid solves the low piece of diesel curve.
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
Well done, excellent stuff as always!
Amazed at some of the anti-EV comments and how detached from proven reality they can be.
If we reverse this and imagine a world where we've had EV's for 100 years and now being told to buy an ICE car: 1/3rd as efficient (if that), noisy, complicated, needs annual service, forced to use specialist (dangerous / smelly) fuel from specialist outlets selling products from iffy regimes which put out poisonous fumes everywhere ... well, I wouldn't be keen tbh.
Yes the reverse scenario is a very interesting one when you try to understand why all the dogmatic fights pro/anti-EV.
Well explained. Unfortunately a kWh Electricity costs in relation more than a kWh produced by Diesel, as Diesel is tax reduced in a lot of countries. But even with that disadvantage most BEV's are cheaper than Diesels at the end of the day.
Thanks. And indeed it's now well documented that you can save lots of money on 'fuel' with a BEV. In my case it is 2.9 times cheaper (£2620 of fuel spend avoided) despite 50% public charging.
The cost of a kWh of diesel in terms of carbon emission is already higher at c 270g from the burning + another third or half for production/shipping. That compares with anywhere between say 60g and 250g in most western European countries + 10% charging losses. Sadly Germany or Poland still seem outliers on carbon intensity of their electricity.
Would have liked to see graphs with the cost as well in the video🙂
I share you opinion to 100% and maybe that's why I changed to EV three years ago.
Thank you!
This makes total sense. I still want an EV and hate diesel for it's particulates. Diesel in city - terrible.
[edit] In Australia we are highly urban in our lives, but sometimes we need to travel long distances. So perhaps diesel pugin hybrid is the perfect solution at least for now? But I think the compromises are too great. If you purchase such a car you have bought 2 drivetrains, with greater weight and cost. The battery in your car is smaller than it might have been if you'd bought a straight EV. There are advantages of course, in that you have immediately helped clean the city air. However I think what we need are enough charging stations to make a short range EV viable even for the occasional long journey. In Australia? Well, I dont drive an EV but I dont see it getting there yet. I note that the Newcastle bypass is being worked on right now - massive earthworks etc. But as far as I'm aware, there is no massive car park, with a solar sail, and a real lot of fast chargers being planned. This is a good distance from Sydney; with such a thing, a comparitively short range EV would be a viable way to travel between the cities. But then I'm not an EV driver, maybe it already is viable...
Re- Australia, it could well be possible already. Check out Abrp, a route planner, take an ID3 and do Sydney - Melbourne, c900km. 2 stops with 40mn charge at stations with 3 or 4 connectors. Can't comment on real life but on paper it works there too.
My first reaction would be: people are idiots. Then I would probably revisit this assumption by saying: perhaps our education systems are failing us 😅
It’s not rocket science ffs! I did a similar but rather more crude analysis/prediction before getting my Ioniq28: just looked at the mpg efficiency of my petrol car and that of an even more recent petrol car, grabbed the energy density of a litre of petrol ~9.5kWh/L from a Google search and off you go: I predicted that the Hyundai Ioniq 28kWh would be around at least 4 times more efficient than my current or a newer combustion car. This supported my decision to switch, since this trickles down to lower costs too…
Turns out it is around 6 times more efficient! 🥰
So we are not saying that EVs are better… but they are! 😂🙈
A number of us here care about numbers, possibly about physics principles, etc... but let's be honest, should everyone? We are all used to consuming complex products whose functioning we can't explain. Not a justification for misled statements but indeed this points more to the need for education at all ages, and the importance of trusted sources of information e.g. scientists.
There are always people that want EVs to be bad. They're gravitated towards any bad news about them, and then blow that out of proportion. I think they want confirmation bias for their personal choice and beliefs. Someone having spent like 50 grand of a fossil car will want to feel good about that choice. So they become biased. Of course, this works the other way around as well. But data is data. Facts are facts.
Confirmation bias is an interesting one. And indeed on both sides. We have to acknowledge that the change to EV - when used for longer distances - is transformational. Of course no one would notice if our economies were not already built upon fossil fuel dependence.
However one needs to factor in battery degradation, range loss due to extreme temperatures and of course 80% higher complaints with EVs compared to diesel cars. I agree from an efficiency standpoint as illustrated, EVs stand out. However quality and reliability are completely different.
@@Gregory-Masovutch source for the 80% please. I for one am not complaining at 100,000km on my Ev.
@@Gregory-Masovutch The number of complaints are exaggerated. Some EVs have little degradation, like the Ioniqs, Bolt, Tesla. Oh one can find a problem or two, but that doesn't show statistics. Ask around what they think of their Tesla, and almost always it's very positive. Check out the old 1st and 2nd generation of Ioniq EV (before the Ioniq 5) and they seem excellent.
Bolt people are positive about, so long as they did the battery recall thing.
e-Golf, another oldie but goodie.
Leaf not so much. Soul EV, not good. Niro and Kona EV seem good.
There need to be more budget oriented EVs. Too much focus on luxury like SUVs.
Damn thing is Americans are fat and don't fit in small cars. Thus the industry does stupid things like move from Bolt to Equinox. We need something with the format of an Accord or Camry in electric, like the Model 3, but less costly.
Stats king :)
This comparison would be pointless, if that user remembered the difference of efficiencies between both drivetrains.
I think a much more valuable (and difficult to make) comparison would be the impact of an EV on the environment, compared to an ICE vehicle - people never calculate the damages to the environment, when they form the price of any product, including cars.
I guess this can be reduced to a comparison between the environmental damage of fuel production and burning (on the side of ICE cars) vs that of producing batteries and the pollution from power plants (on the EV side). Of course, EVs using less parts, oils and being more efficient, should also be taken into consideration.
Indeed, the googled statement at 02:49 is the big give-away.
Saying this, I was keen to check what happens when speeds increase and whether in relative terms, the diesel could possibly work less hard to compensate for higher speeds.
As to your second point, news.mit.edu/2016/study-finds-low-emissions-vehicles-less-expensive-overall-0927 from MIT is a take on the carbon emission over lifecycle. Not quite 'total environment damage' but one of the important factors.
Regarding the "damage to the environment" part, I always had this doubt of which one is more polluting: extraction of petroleum fuel or making of batteries? Can anyone clarify that?
@@nihaljudge5125 My take would be:
1. best is to ride the bicycle or take the train. Any car needs lots of steel and other metals in any case so you won't get sustainability awards for moving a 2t vehicle especially if you re driving alone in it, EV or ICE.
2. There is nothing clean about mining for petrol and gas, and you end up using more fuel to extract, refine and transport it. In addition you do need to mine for some of those more precious metals for refining petrol and building all that infrastructure in the first place.
3. For EVs ideally you'd minimise the size of the battery to limit further mining. But as opposed to all the mining involved in petrol you mine once and use/reuse for a very long time if not forever. Your battery Ev will become energy storage for the home and even after that raw materials will be recycled.
4. Mining in general is not exactly a new human activity, it's done in incredibly vast quantities (sand, iron, coal, copper, etc...), has major environmental implications but it does not nearly come up as often in discussion if you build a house, buy a phone, heat up your home, gift a necklace etc... as the topic of batteries and precious metals when EVs are mentioned.
A good quick read on this. www.transportenvironment.org/discover/electric-car-batteries-need-far-less-raw-materials-fossil-fuel-cars-study/
"Over its lifetime, an average fossil-fuel car burns the equivalent of a stack of oil barrels, 25 storeys high. If you take into account the recycling of battery materials, only around 30kg of metals would be lost - roughly the size of a football." That sums it up nicely.
Thank you very much! This has been insightful
Ev s are more efficient but in the real world in the UK it cheaper to run a diesel on a long run than a eV with public charging
That could be the case but that means you're unlucky with local public charging options. My break-even point vs previous diesel is 58 pence/kWh. The local Tesla supercharger is below that at 49p in off peak. That's before accounting for tax and higher service/maintenance costs for petrol.
@evdabbler a lot of ev chargers are now 70+ a klw now even tesla fast charging is going up ps have you seen the depreciation on ev,s they are going through the floor plus they wear out the tires 30% faster and even in London now the price for parking a ev has gone up 1800 % , anyway sometimes it not about the price its about the time and getting to we're you want to go and a 3 minute fill to the brim is better than a 15 min charge for an extra 100 miles
Both graphs are obviously wrong! An EV does not have a flat zone from 6KM/h to 80KM/h where consumption stays the same. An EV consumption curve has a distinct exponential trend from the combination of air resistance which increases with the square of speed and rolling resistance, which grows linearly. It is so, because of an electric motor having a wider load range where efficiency is reasonable. The Diesel curve is even more insane: At low speed a diesel passenger car at 30-40km/h in 5'th gear, without touching the throttle uses around 2.5L / 100km. that is 26.7 KWh /100 km or 260Wh/km (burn value of the diesel) A diesel engined car uses less than 5L/100 at highway speed, that is 500Wh per km. So energy wise. A car with an engine uses 2-2.5 times more energy than an EV, not 3-10 times more that your graph suggests.
@@evdabbler Yes we should decrease the maximum highway speed. I drive an EV too. and my preferred way of travel is in the rear of a lorry going 90-95 KM/h. That more than doubles my range. BTW My consumption in an EV Fiat 600 are 100 Wh/km at 85-90KM/h on highway not driving behind anything (not including the charger losses). That is because it is a small EV with only a 20KWh battery, so low weight and narrow tires. However, I used to drive the gasoline version of the same car. And average summer consumption was 4L/100km, 5L/100km winter. On a summer vacation driving trip through Europe. 10,000km, in the course of a month. I averaged 3.67L/100km. That also correlates to around 2.5 times lower consumption in an EV, compared to a combustion engined car of the same make and model. However is it at all reasonable to compare Heat as an energy source to electricity? Heat is a high entropy energy source, so conversion efficiency to mechanical work will always be poor? Remember an EV does not run on electricity, it runs on wind power, and wind turbines are at best around 64% efficient, often much less in lower winds.
It's good fun both EV and diesel lovers telling me it s all wrong, when all i am doing is stating exact numbers collected painfully over time. Clue #1: these are average speeds for a leg of a trip not instantaneous. All the best...
Those are real world measurements ... the choice of words here blows my mind.
Efficiency, does this include all the hours it takes in waiting to charge ? And the Fuel burned by the power stations to provide the Electrically, GAS,OIL,COAL, ?
Economy numbers are about energy consumed so would not show any time spent driving to/from a fuel station or letting your car charge. As for fuel consumed to produce and distribute the fuel in the first place as well as losses in generating and transmitting electricity they are relevant but not shown here. According to researcher Berners-Lee emissions from petrol/diesel cars are 50% higher than that at the exhaust due to exploration/refining/distributing. So don't assume 'losses' from fuel are better.
What fuel burned by the power stations? I live 50:50 in France and Switzerland, and virtually no electricity is produced in either country by burning any fossil fuel! Sur, it is not YET the case everywhere, but it will be within a decade or two at the most!
While refining and distributing diesel add 24% to a car's consumption, and 30% if it is a gasoline model, and THAT CONSUMPTION will never go down!
EV Dabbler,
you cannot directly compare a diesel car to an EV as you have done.
I don't know if your base for calculation is the Kw hrs used to charge the car battery, which you should be doing.
However what skews your calculations is that you haven't used the energy required to generate and supply that electricity you used to charge the battery.
You may counter by saying, in that case how much energy is used to provide the diesel fuel at the pumps for the car, which is valid. However a similar story applies for the sourcing and supply of fuel for the generators that provide the electricity.
Basically all you can compare is the relative apparent efficiency between electric cars but not those fuelled differently. Incidentally exactly the same reason is why heat pumps and gas boilers cannot directly be compared.
As you say first of all we can compare 'apparent' efficiency. Give the car 1kWh of energy what does it do with it. Then electricity is typically not produced with 'fuel' (not in the UK anyway) but indeed nuclear, gas, solar, wind sometimes very locally. I believe other and I have shared in other comments a sense of overhead for generation and it s not pretty for petrol. Final major point that confirms we can compare: what is the co2e of producing and transporting that 1kWh of energy in the first place. About 2.3kg/8.9kWh = 260g for petrol. About 200g for 1kWh from the electricity grid (again Uk). So similar if likely worse for petrol. Yes we can and should compare.
Evdabbler,
you cannot use the electrical mix as a basis for CO2 from generation.
Any extra load on the grid, which evs must be, are only met by the one dispatchable generation source the U.K. has which is gas. Renewables and nuclear have already given up what they can, and cannot respond to this extra demand.
The losses from generation and transmission\distribution are significant around 66% so roughly three units of fuel to generate the one used at the device.
Electricity is convenient but not efficient.
@@iareid8255 your argument can work both ways though. ie if you have solar panels and only charge from excess. Same with offpeak excess from the grid and demand response. Marginal load is only relevant if that demand is indeed additional. Much less likely when charging at night. I for one would never charge 4-7pm for instance. In the same way I don't consider my electricity to be truly always from renewable despite the tariff being 100% 'renewable' you shouldn't assume that the ev is only charged when more gas (let alone coal) plants need to be fire up. On that basis the normal blend is probably not a bad place to start.
EVdabbler.
Your arguments are irrelevant, simply your original premise and data used for your calculations are flawed and give an incorrect answer.
what about having to replace the 30k battery once 10 years old?
a normal car can got forever if maintained properly.
would you buy a 10 year old ev?
i wouldn't give you anything for it.
ev's are a scam
And yet demand is strong for used EVs ;-) According to fleetnews.co.uk 8% of enquiries for used cars are for EVs whereas only 1.8% of used cars were EVs... (nov 23)
I think a battery will last at least 15 years if it's treated properly.
@@chrishart8548 you prepared to take that risk?
my wifes mums 1987 toyota corolla she bought new is still perfect.
a car should last 40 years plus. not 15.
instead of buying this ev crap buy a cheap ice car and invest the rest into nvidia broadcom and AMD. over 10 years you will triple your investment 100%
i don't see the point your trying to make. the ev is less efficient in time over 500 miles anyone can make it suit there opinion you cant just pick and chose
Efficiency (fuel economy) is a measure of energy spent - not time - and the only thing I was reporting on in the previous video. Energy is precious and should be used parsimoniously especially if it contributes to global warming.
I think there is a point in discussing time-efficiency.
Although one might also argue that someone who regularly has to drive 500miles has not very efficiently chosen his place of living.
(Also I really love that I can charge on the wall plug at home and don't need to spend time going to the gas station each week. Huge time saver ^^ )
Efficiency....ballocks
That's why EVs are highly subsidised...
Err... what's factually wrong in what I presented then? Also to note there have been no subsidies in the UK for buying standard electric cars since 2022.
Burning hydrocarbns you get 50% energy back, charging battery you lose another 50% , with EV it just stinks somewhere you dont see. Ermm and hybrid solves the low piece of diesel curve.
no, no, no, maybe
@@evdabbler no idea, i read physics book in 6th grade, if battery heats it loses energy, and no amount of pixie dust can stop that.