[Equilibrandt]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Equilibrandt

I suspect this is the source for the numbers, or at least close.
EVs Explained: Charging Losses
When adding energy to an EV's battery pack, more is expended than what makes it into the pack. How much varies considerably depending on the electrical output and ambient conditions.
Because the battery is more complicated than a simple container. A rough expectation is that your EV may use as much as 12 to 15 percent more energy than what you add back to the battery. Some energy is written off to what's known as "transmission loss," some is converted to heat, and some is used to keep the battery at the right temperature during charging.
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...arging-losses/

This doesn't take into account the transmission loss in the charger itself or the transmission loses in the grid. Your point about outside influences in this is quite true IMO. At the end of the day the only real comparison is the cost per mile of the EV vs the ICE. Both sides of this argument have a tendency to shade the truth or commit the sin of omission.

An interesting article. The conversion rate is quite nebulous, which is why I never bother trying to run some back-of-the-envelope math. There's no way we could faithfully estimate where in the <33% Otto cycle most cars from 1995 to now run, how much gas is spilled during transfer from a refinery to the delivery truck to the gas station itself, to the dribbles and drops every time I fill up, how much evaporates during any phase, etc. Virtually impossible; the EV math seems much easier until we talk about losses just like the above.

[beaups]

Originally Posted by Equilibrandt

Without addressing your willful cognitive dissonance, touting 15% losses is a "convenient" deflect to work into every conversation that doesn't take into account wire gauge, how long the run from the panel to the EVSE is, which EVSE is being used, and if the car itself has smart warm-up/battery conditioning settings (which more and more do).

I don't even own an EV and I know better than to quote electrical/heat/efficiency losses as fact. Unless you'd like to talk about the efficiency of your V8.

No bad intentions here, I believed that 15% was generally considered to be typical in-home loss for charging, as indicated by popular (pro)EV sites. If I was trying to slant the math to make a point, I suppose I could have cited 30% + loss when the batteries are extremely cold. I assume you do know that "smart warm-up/battery conditioning" also uses energy. My point is simply that your $14 story is incorrect. And you appear to be well informed enough that it's not only incorrect, it's disingenuous.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

On this we disagree, the calculators Achilles heel was the development of the transistor. The car industry in general is driven by technology. I concede that the EV battery issue is more one of developing supply changes and economy of scale than technology but everything else relating to the EV is all about technology from the huge screen dash's to autonomous driving and the EV owners addiction to software upgrades.

Pardon me while I yell at a couple kids on my front lawn.

You lost me on the transistor comment; I'd argue the opposite. The technology I'm discussing is not software, but rather physics and chemistry.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by murderspice

And?

Its called the march of progress.

Are you against progress?

Edit: you mean this? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/c...key-facts.html

I'd love to read the press release spin for the Administration, but the article is pay-walled. But let me guess though, the gist of the NYT diatribe, "no, the government is not taking your gas car away".

[x622]

Originally Posted by Dan B

I apologize, I said dies. When you look at the failure rate across the same die it has gone down over time. And advances in manufatruring have even improved some numbers on smaller dies.

The point is, as manufacturing improves, costs typically go down.

You picked a pretty poor example;



The only thing that's really improved is old node yields, but that's already a sunk cost. Each node continues to get more and more expensive which is why fewer and fewer companies can afford get chips made for them in that process. Leading edge stuff will almost always go to the most cutting edge node, which typically has lower yields.

If you're trying to claim that reticle sizing has anything to do with it, that's not the case. Reticle sizing has stayed pretty much the same, wafer sizing is still basically the same.

Semiwiki and semianalysis are great resources if you'd like to learn more

[SteVTEC]

Originally Posted by murderspice

Im thinking most govts are hoping for a battery breakthrough to pull us out of our current transition phase; this era of subsidies is unsustainable. Hopefully we are smart enough.

However, one only needs look at the state of automobiles at the turn of the century to appreciate how far we can bring a technology. Id take a g87 over a model T any day.

With AI helping now? Cars might fit in a backpack one day.

THEY are profiting on all of that with their sweetheart battery company investment deals, on OUR money. "They" can go F themselves.

Originally Posted by murderspice

Nobody is banning shit. If GM approached the US govt with a clean, easily sourced hybrid that required a fraction of the infrastructure and still got 100s+ mpg/range, there is absolutely no doubt our EV attitude would at least be questioned, but likely changed. There are still smart people in this country.

They're de facto banning ICE by creating such a high and oppressive regulatory burden that they become impossible to sell, including in my own state of Maryland which is banning them from being sold in the state after 2035 or whatever.

Reduce the market enough and make the regulatory burden high enough, and many companies will just say F it and stop making ICE altogether, while gubamint officials with their sweetheart back room deals for doing so will still gaslight everyone and say "wE nEvEr baNnEd AnyTHinG."

This is the stage we're in now. Various levels of government are not "helping" anybody, they're helping themselves every step of the way.

[SteVTEC]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Equilibrandt

I suspect this is the source for the numbers, or at least close.
EVs Explained: Charging Losses
When adding energy to an EV's battery pack, more is expended than what makes it into the pack. How much varies considerably depending on the electrical output and ambient conditions.
Because the battery is more complicated than a simple container. A rough expectation is that your EV may use as much as 12 to 15 percent more energy than what you add back to the battery. Some energy is written off to what's known as "transmission loss," some is converted to heat, and some is used to keep the battery at the right temperature during charging.
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...arging-losses/

This doesn't take into account the transmission loss in the charger itself or the transmission loses in the grid. Your point about outside influences in this is quite true IMO. At the end of the day the only real comparison is the cost per mile of the EV vs the ICE. Both sides of this argument have a tendency to shade the truth or commit the sin of omission.

The official government "MPGe" figures do, at least, take the charging losses into account.

Can be as good as 5% losses to as much as 15%, and depends a lot on cable length, wiring gauge, type of charger, rate, temperature, etc.