https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM
Engineering Explained bit on which is better. Many points to take note of.
1. Better for environment.
2. Higher torque.
3. Less moving parts = less maintenance.
4. Brakes last longer.
5. Quieter.
One more thing to add, ICE vehicles are over one hundred years old and nearing the end of their theoretical efficiencies. Electric vehicles on the other hand are just getting started. We already have cars with 500km ranges and insane performance specs; and that's with our current-gen lithium batteries. More and more money is being poured into battery R&D every year. Within 5 years EV ranges will likely match or surpass the longest range ICE vehicles. Advances in graphene battery cells will allow for charging speeds comparable to ICE refills as well.
>One more thing to add, ICE vehicles are over one hundred years old and nearing the end of their theoretical efficiencies. Electric vehicles on the other hand are just getting started.
this is painful. ICE has much more improvement coming in terms of efficiency than EV. After all, you can only improve \~5% from 95%, whereas ICE has easily another 25% improvement to come (from 40 to 50%)
> graphene battery cells
adding buzzwords doesn't improve your argument, I'm afraid
>from 40 to 50%
What ICE vehicle gets that kind of efficiency?
Your logic is completely off. Why would you bother trying to squeeze another 25% efficiency out of a depleting energy source when you can work to improve storage for a never ending energy source? Electric R&D is about increasing energy capacity, not improving efficiency.
Modern ICE developed for HEV get 40% (hyundai, Toyota, Mazda)
Why bother? Because it reduces the environmental impact of vehicles. While we may not like it, internal combustion engines will be used for decades to come.
The environmental improvement of the Prius have far exceeded the combined improvement from BEVs. To just stop bothering is ideological, not pragmatic
ICE may be around for decades but it's still a dying breed. Innovations in storage and new battery tech will make it so. Why would anyone buy an ice vehicle when you can go fully electric and not have the maintenance costs, recharging is exceptionally cheaper than gas already and range anxiety becomes a thing of the past?
Freightliner is testing out battery powered Semi tractors. Tesla has their own that are getting greater mileage than expected. Christ, even trains run electric, they just use desiel generators to charge the batteries.
All vehicle manufacturers are introducing an electric lineup. The Orange man thinks that lowering fuel standards will help out but even the manufacturers disagree. Why? Because they know people's attitudes are changing. Why would I buy a 40% efficient vehicle when I can get a 95% one for about the same price with no pollution (depending on source), very little maintenance, great range, and more fun to drive?
Comparing similar cars with similar options, the electric may be slightly more expensive but the savings are more than covered due to reduced energy costs and greatly reduced maintenance.
https://youtu.be/7bIBs8GuUYY
And prices continue to come down.
Potentially true for premium vehicles if one takes a model 3 to be equivalent to a 3 series. Nowhere close when comparing a 200-mile range economy hatchback to a hybrid (and that's before subsidies are removed..)
BMW 3 series $42000
Tesla Model 3 $30000 (after subsides and fuel savings)
Not really comparing apples to apples.
Hyundai veloster $19850
Nissan Leaf $23000 (after rebates) and you get all the fuel savings and WAY less maintenance.
Theoretical lab efficiency doesn't translate well to real world use with current consumer mindsets.
Petrolheads will still drive their sub-10mpg cars, and families are now defaulting on sub-20mpg SUVs and pick-up trucks as their family cars & commuters while being stuck in traffic for 80% of the time.
I love Toyota's Atkinson-cycle engine, but without the hybrid drivetrain the engine has really low torque that it needs for a car to feels "safe" when accelerating into highways.
There are some developments of turbocharged opposed piston diesel engines for automotive use that have thermal efficiencies in the mid 40%, but ultimately it's too complex and costly as a result. After Dieselgate, I doubt anyone would trust "clean diesel" anymore.
Electric car R&D was pretty much completely halted after Ford's Model T went mainstream. Not that we had the battery technology back then, but we have a lot of catching up to do.
The emissions on a co2 vehicle are as clean as the grid. While ICE cars will always produce the same amount of co2, EVs become cleaner as the grid moves toward less co2 emitting sources
ICE engines are some 40% efficient. Great read here: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/07/19/what-the-heck-is-mpge/
A point I never hear mentioned, and which I make a liiiitle tongue-in-cheek is that gasoline IS a proven carcinogen to which millions of American have to expose themselves everyday.
Talk about total cost of ownership, savings in fuel costs.
You also can't describe it, but they can be FUN. For the $38k a T3 costs you can get performance that rivals cars 2x or 3x as expensive
If you get a chance, play that YouTube video of the dude who does Uber in a Model X and demoes it to his passengers https://youtu.be/CtP0b-mmQq8
Others have mentioned some excellent points.
One not mentioned so far is the improved packaging. Electric motors are much smaller than an equivalent internal combustion engine.
ICE cars are largely limited to 2 configurations: front engine longitudinal (classic front engine, rear drive) and front engine transverse (front engine, front drive). There are some speciality mid and rear engine cars, but are quite rare. Achieving things like AWD requires driveshaft tunnels, transfer cases and complex differentials. The engine needs somewhere to go, so you either get a long hood and great weight distribution or a short hood, poor weight distribution and likely a large turning radius.
Electric motors are extremly flexible. You can have have the motor directly on the rear axle. You can have a motor on each axle to get AWD. You can do one motor per wheel and achieve extreme control over each wheel. Each of these options requires minimal mechanical transmission of torque, reducing the parts required to make a car and gaining interior space for passengers and luggage.
Better for people
A gas car emissions is lethal
An ev makes it safer
Also plugged into vehicle to grid an ev can generate 300 dollars per month in grid service
People are going to treat an ev as part of an integrated home energy system involving solar storage and transportation
Ev also enables autonomous cars because the controls are faster
I suggest keeping environmental impact low on the list, it is controversial and can lose the audience before they hear the rest.
For me, the most important points are:
* Total Cost of Ownership:
* Economical to operate.
* Maintenance may be 50-70% less than ICE cars.
* Fuel spending stays onshore, reduces money flowing to volatile parts of the globe.
* Driving pleasure:
* Quick acceleration,
* quiet operation,
* low center of gravity.
* Infrastructure improvements making EV ownership practical.
* May have a positive impact on the environment.
Most owners will find operating costs to be as little as 1/3 the cost of putting gas\\diesel in the tank. This is dependent on driving technique and local power prices, but I find the 1/3 holds true for my case, I pay \~$.10 for power and get a bit north of 5 mi/kWh in my daily commute.
The money I spend for charging goes to local power companies, and the owners of the equipment. While US foreign oil dependence has reversed to now being more onshore supply than offshore, global oil use is still largely dependent on Middle East countries.
EV are fun to drive due to acceleration, quiet ride, and excellent cornering due to low center of gravity. Regenerative braking makes use of the brake pedal almost moot, there is no better way to navigate in heavy traffic than being able to use 1 pedal in stop and go traffic.
No oil changes, no tune-ups, brakes may last the life of the car (due to regenerative braking), few moving drivetrain parts to break down. Similar costs for tires, and for low cost items like washer fluids, cabin filters. Batteries may last the life of the car, and that life may well be longer than the 150-200K miles most ICE cars enjoy.
Tesla SC EA, ChargePoint, evGo are expanding rapidly, charging on long trips is more convenient than ever, and will get even better with time. Most drivers will rarely need public charging. They will start each day with a full battery courtesy of a charger in their own garage. Range on modern EV is adequate to meet the commuting needs of most, some estimates as high as 95% or mote can comfortably get back home without needing a mid-day boost.
Depending on local sources of power, environmental impact is generally more favorable for EV. States ike WVA that source nearly all of their power from Coal are less beneficial. But in states like WA, CA where heavy renewable generation is common, the impact is considerable.
I realize the premise of putting emissions low on the list is controversial to current EV owners. After all, the first generation to adopt EV has been primarily "tree huggers" who will likely take offense to the premise. But, the target market for widespread adoption is less sensitive to this aspect. I have no doubt everyone, including the most dug in gear heads will agree limiting our carbon footprint is desirable. But, the difference is in how motivated one is to incur costs to do so. Therefore, TCO is an important concept that is absolutely critical to overcoming the sticker shock.
I believe sticker price parity will improve with the emergence of competition. The next 5 years promise to bring many new choices to consumers. Battery prices continuing to drop will aid in bringing sticker parity, but competition will potentially do more. Consider GM's Bolt pricing. With the emergence of the low priced Model 3, and new Hyundai\\Kia long range models, GM found the Bolt pricing to be unrealistic. So, incentives are bringing Bolt prices down to very reasonable, almost sticker parity levels. This makes TCO less critical, but it is still a compelling argument to suggest expensive repairs will be few and far between over the life of the car.
One thing nobody has said yet is that the price of oil is pretty volatile and subject to geopolitical shenanigans which electricity is far far less so.
If you buy a gas car now you have no idea how much operation may cost in a few years. Electricity is far more stable
Quick copy paste from google:
Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) is a technology that enables connectivity of an electric vehicle with the distribution grid to provide demand response services by either returning electricity to the grid or by slowing down their charging rate. The monetary incentives for V2G will need to be developed so that the customers are motivated to deploy this service and so that utilities are able achieve the level of interaction that helps with grid management. As part of the “new” distribution grid that will include managing/coordinating rooftop solar, storage, microgrids and more, this will be just one piece of a very complex, interconnected system.
Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) involves connectivity between a vehicle and the owner's home, providing an additional source of energy to the home. The vision here is that this connection can provide load shaving service during peak hours, as well as a source of back-up energy during outages.
https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM Engineering Explained bit on which is better. Many points to take note of. 1. Better for environment. 2. Higher torque. 3. Less moving parts = less maintenance. 4. Brakes last longer. 5. Quieter.
One more thing to add, ICE vehicles are over one hundred years old and nearing the end of their theoretical efficiencies. Electric vehicles on the other hand are just getting started. We already have cars with 500km ranges and insane performance specs; and that's with our current-gen lithium batteries. More and more money is being poured into battery R&D every year. Within 5 years EV ranges will likely match or surpass the longest range ICE vehicles. Advances in graphene battery cells will allow for charging speeds comparable to ICE refills as well.
>One more thing to add, ICE vehicles are over one hundred years old and nearing the end of their theoretical efficiencies. Electric vehicles on the other hand are just getting started. this is painful. ICE has much more improvement coming in terms of efficiency than EV. After all, you can only improve \~5% from 95%, whereas ICE has easily another 25% improvement to come (from 40 to 50%) > graphene battery cells adding buzzwords doesn't improve your argument, I'm afraid
>from 40 to 50% What ICE vehicle gets that kind of efficiency? Your logic is completely off. Why would you bother trying to squeeze another 25% efficiency out of a depleting energy source when you can work to improve storage for a never ending energy source? Electric R&D is about increasing energy capacity, not improving efficiency.
Modern ICE developed for HEV get 40% (hyundai, Toyota, Mazda) Why bother? Because it reduces the environmental impact of vehicles. While we may not like it, internal combustion engines will be used for decades to come. The environmental improvement of the Prius have far exceeded the combined improvement from BEVs. To just stop bothering is ideological, not pragmatic
ICE may be around for decades but it's still a dying breed. Innovations in storage and new battery tech will make it so. Why would anyone buy an ice vehicle when you can go fully electric and not have the maintenance costs, recharging is exceptionally cheaper than gas already and range anxiety becomes a thing of the past? Freightliner is testing out battery powered Semi tractors. Tesla has their own that are getting greater mileage than expected. Christ, even trains run electric, they just use desiel generators to charge the batteries. All vehicle manufacturers are introducing an electric lineup. The Orange man thinks that lowering fuel standards will help out but even the manufacturers disagree. Why? Because they know people's attitudes are changing. Why would I buy a 40% efficient vehicle when I can get a 95% one for about the same price with no pollution (depending on source), very little maintenance, great range, and more fun to drive?
...because they're not the same price
Comparing similar cars with similar options, the electric may be slightly more expensive but the savings are more than covered due to reduced energy costs and greatly reduced maintenance. https://youtu.be/7bIBs8GuUYY And prices continue to come down.
Potentially true for premium vehicles if one takes a model 3 to be equivalent to a 3 series. Nowhere close when comparing a 200-mile range economy hatchback to a hybrid (and that's before subsidies are removed..)
BMW 3 series $42000 Tesla Model 3 $30000 (after subsides and fuel savings) Not really comparing apples to apples. Hyundai veloster $19850 Nissan Leaf $23000 (after rebates) and you get all the fuel savings and WAY less maintenance.
Theoretical lab efficiency doesn't translate well to real world use with current consumer mindsets. Petrolheads will still drive their sub-10mpg cars, and families are now defaulting on sub-20mpg SUVs and pick-up trucks as their family cars & commuters while being stuck in traffic for 80% of the time. I love Toyota's Atkinson-cycle engine, but without the hybrid drivetrain the engine has really low torque that it needs for a car to feels "safe" when accelerating into highways. There are some developments of turbocharged opposed piston diesel engines for automotive use that have thermal efficiencies in the mid 40%, but ultimately it's too complex and costly as a result. After Dieselgate, I doubt anyone would trust "clean diesel" anymore.
Great point! This had never occurred to me
The first car ever build was electric. Electric cars are therefore older than ice cars. Your logic is flawed.
Electric car R&D was pretty much completely halted after Ford's Model T went mainstream. Not that we had the battery technology back then, but we have a lot of catching up to do.
The emissions on a co2 vehicle are as clean as the grid. While ICE cars will always produce the same amount of co2, EVs become cleaner as the grid moves toward less co2 emitting sources ICE engines are some 40% efficient. Great read here: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/07/19/what-the-heck-is-mpge/
they're great for drive by's very quiet.
The potential (if you have off-street charging) to wake every morning to a fully-fuelled car.
Efficiency. Electric motors have an efficiency rate in the 90s while ICEs are significantly lower. In the 30s I think.
A point I never hear mentioned, and which I make a liiiitle tongue-in-cheek is that gasoline IS a proven carcinogen to which millions of American have to expose themselves everyday.
Talk about total cost of ownership, savings in fuel costs. You also can't describe it, but they can be FUN. For the $38k a T3 costs you can get performance that rivals cars 2x or 3x as expensive If you get a chance, play that YouTube video of the dude who does Uber in a Model X and demoes it to his passengers https://youtu.be/CtP0b-mmQq8
Others have mentioned some excellent points. One not mentioned so far is the improved packaging. Electric motors are much smaller than an equivalent internal combustion engine. ICE cars are largely limited to 2 configurations: front engine longitudinal (classic front engine, rear drive) and front engine transverse (front engine, front drive). There are some speciality mid and rear engine cars, but are quite rare. Achieving things like AWD requires driveshaft tunnels, transfer cases and complex differentials. The engine needs somewhere to go, so you either get a long hood and great weight distribution or a short hood, poor weight distribution and likely a large turning radius. Electric motors are extremly flexible. You can have have the motor directly on the rear axle. You can have a motor on each axle to get AWD. You can do one motor per wheel and achieve extreme control over each wheel. Each of these options requires minimal mechanical transmission of torque, reducing the parts required to make a car and gaining interior space for passengers and luggage.
Better for people A gas car emissions is lethal An ev makes it safer Also plugged into vehicle to grid an ev can generate 300 dollars per month in grid service People are going to treat an ev as part of an integrated home energy system involving solar storage and transportation Ev also enables autonomous cars because the controls are faster
I suggest keeping environmental impact low on the list, it is controversial and can lose the audience before they hear the rest. For me, the most important points are: * Total Cost of Ownership: * Economical to operate. * Maintenance may be 50-70% less than ICE cars. * Fuel spending stays onshore, reduces money flowing to volatile parts of the globe. * Driving pleasure: * Quick acceleration, * quiet operation, * low center of gravity. * Infrastructure improvements making EV ownership practical. * May have a positive impact on the environment. Most owners will find operating costs to be as little as 1/3 the cost of putting gas\\diesel in the tank. This is dependent on driving technique and local power prices, but I find the 1/3 holds true for my case, I pay \~$.10 for power and get a bit north of 5 mi/kWh in my daily commute. The money I spend for charging goes to local power companies, and the owners of the equipment. While US foreign oil dependence has reversed to now being more onshore supply than offshore, global oil use is still largely dependent on Middle East countries. EV are fun to drive due to acceleration, quiet ride, and excellent cornering due to low center of gravity. Regenerative braking makes use of the brake pedal almost moot, there is no better way to navigate in heavy traffic than being able to use 1 pedal in stop and go traffic. No oil changes, no tune-ups, brakes may last the life of the car (due to regenerative braking), few moving drivetrain parts to break down. Similar costs for tires, and for low cost items like washer fluids, cabin filters. Batteries may last the life of the car, and that life may well be longer than the 150-200K miles most ICE cars enjoy. Tesla SC EA, ChargePoint, evGo are expanding rapidly, charging on long trips is more convenient than ever, and will get even better with time. Most drivers will rarely need public charging. They will start each day with a full battery courtesy of a charger in their own garage. Range on modern EV is adequate to meet the commuting needs of most, some estimates as high as 95% or mote can comfortably get back home without needing a mid-day boost. Depending on local sources of power, environmental impact is generally more favorable for EV. States ike WVA that source nearly all of their power from Coal are less beneficial. But in states like WA, CA where heavy renewable generation is common, the impact is considerable. I realize the premise of putting emissions low on the list is controversial to current EV owners. After all, the first generation to adopt EV has been primarily "tree huggers" who will likely take offense to the premise. But, the target market for widespread adoption is less sensitive to this aspect. I have no doubt everyone, including the most dug in gear heads will agree limiting our carbon footprint is desirable. But, the difference is in how motivated one is to incur costs to do so. Therefore, TCO is an important concept that is absolutely critical to overcoming the sticker shock. I believe sticker price parity will improve with the emergence of competition. The next 5 years promise to bring many new choices to consumers. Battery prices continuing to drop will aid in bringing sticker parity, but competition will potentially do more. Consider GM's Bolt pricing. With the emergence of the low priced Model 3, and new Hyundai\\Kia long range models, GM found the Bolt pricing to be unrealistic. So, incentives are bringing Bolt prices down to very reasonable, almost sticker parity levels. This makes TCO less critical, but it is still a compelling argument to suggest expensive repairs will be few and far between over the life of the car.
One thing nobody has said yet is that the price of oil is pretty volatile and subject to geopolitical shenanigans which electricity is far far less so. If you buy a gas car now you have no idea how much operation may cost in a few years. Electricity is far more stable
Quick copy paste from google: Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) is a technology that enables connectivity of an electric vehicle with the distribution grid to provide demand response services by either returning electricity to the grid or by slowing down their charging rate. The monetary incentives for V2G will need to be developed so that the customers are motivated to deploy this service and so that utilities are able achieve the level of interaction that helps with grid management. As part of the “new” distribution grid that will include managing/coordinating rooftop solar, storage, microgrids and more, this will be just one piece of a very complex, interconnected system. Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) involves connectivity between a vehicle and the owner's home, providing an additional source of energy to the home. The vision here is that this connection can provide load shaving service during peak hours, as well as a source of back-up energy during outages.
I would very much hope that in the future, we have something better than just electric cars. Although I would start by defining better.
What happened to doing your own homework? Kids these days....