"No car charging."

[move on]

Originally Posted by jharrell

"Figures from the World Coal Association, a keen advocate of HELE, show that the average efficiency of coal-fired power plants around the world today is 33 percent. Modern state-of-the-art plants can achieve rates of 45 percent, while "off-the-shelf" rates are around 40 percent. "

https://www.ge.com/power/transform/a...-or-high-water

Both your normal Atkinson gas hybrid and normal Diesel are around 40%, so basically they are the same for something built today. While an old coal plant is around the same a a normal gas engine.

So even if a coal plant is just as efficient as a diesel or hybrid ICE, you have to consider the losses in getting that power to the wheels. First there is a 5-10% loss in transmission and distribution just to get it to the plug. Then you lose another 15% in charging the battery. After that you lose another 20% from the battery through the inverter and motors to the wheels. An ICE loses only 6% from the engine through its mechanical drive train to the wheels. The ICE vehicle therefore uses less fuel than the EV connected to the coal plant. Plus, if you're worried about CO2, coal releases all CO2 while the ICE combustion of hydrocarbon fuel releases a large portion of its product as water vapor and a much smaller portion as CO2. The ICE is clearly more environmentally friendly than the EV.

[BornToWander]

Originally Posted by move on

Yes. That site has a a lot of data. One thing it shows is that the average losses in US electricity generation, transmission and distribution are 65%, before you even get it into the EV's battery. Then you lose 15% in charging the battery, and from the battery to the wheels another 20% is lost in heat. So, if you burn 100 BTU of fuel at the power plant only 23.8 makes it to the wheels. Compare that to a diesel pusher with a modern engine. Here you lose 60% in the engine and another 6% in the mechanical drive train, and 37.6 makes it to the wheels. In other words the DP creates less emissions than the EV. Then you can consider the emissions created in EV battery production, which are significant.

That 65% footnote is really misleading, I don’t blame you for misunderstanding it. It’s almost as if someone in the EIA wrote it on purpose to confuse. (Gosh, this topic wouldn’t be political, would it? ) It says electrical system losses are 65% but the fine print almost intelligibly says that that number includes losses in generating the electricity. This is much clearer if you look at the electricity flow diagram from the same site, https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data...lectricity.php — you can see that the US puts 13.68 quads (quadrillion BTUs) of generated electricity onto the grid and loses just .87 quads in transmission and distribution. Nothing like 65%.

It’s really worth noting that EV drivers usually want to charge their vehicles at night — because that’s when they’re not driving them! And the grid has LOTS of extra capacity at night.

EVs aren’t magic but they are a nifty solution to some problems. That said, driving a motor home or towing a travel trailer in wild and scenic areas is NOT one of them, at least not yet. (Now if GM would come up with a Voltec-powered (Volt engine) 3/4 ton truck, that would be a real game-changer!)

[move on]

Originally Posted by BornToWander

That 65% footnote is really misleading, I don’t blame you for misunderstanding it. It’s almost as if someone in the EIA wrote it on purpose to confuse. (Gosh, this topic wouldn’t be political, would it? ) It says electrical system losses are 65% but the fine print almost intelligibly says that that number includes losses in generating the electricity. This is much clearer if you look at the electricity flow diagram from the same site, https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data...lectricity.php — you can see that the US puts 13.68 quads (quadrillion BTUs) of generated electricity onto the grid and loses just .87 quads in transmission and distribution. Nothing like 65%.

I think you misread my post. I said exactly what the EIA is saying, namely, that 65% is lost to generation, transmission and distribution (the system losses). Most of the system losses are due to the waste heat going up the stack at the generating station. When evaluating the true efficiency of an EV you have to include those losses. Unfortunately these losses are conveniently left out when the promoters of EVs talk about efficiency. Here is an example of their deception: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml

[jharrell]

Originally Posted by move on

An ICE loses only 6% from the engine through its mechanical drive train to the wheels. The ICE vehicle therefore uses less fuel than the EV connected to the coal plant. Plus, if you're worried about CO2, coal releases all CO2 while the ICE combustion of hydrocarbon fuel releases a large portion of its product as water vapor and a much smaller portion as CO2. The ICE is clearly more environmentally friendly than the EV.

Aren't you forgetting the energy required to refine and transport the fuel? Thats about a 20% loss right there.

Yes coal produces more CO2 per unit burned that diesel or gasoline, but coal is just part of the mix and is not a long term solution.

Natural gas puts out less CO2 per unit and the power plants are up to 65% efficient and we have plenty of it here in the US.

Guess what I don't have to buy a new car if they decide change from coal to nat gas or to solar or whatever.

Every well to wheel analysis I have shows BEV's equal or superior to ICE with our current energy mix in both fuel economy and green house gas emissions. There are more other pollutants with coal that can be mitigated with "clean coal" tech if we think its worth it, probably better just to move to more nat gas and of course solar and nuclear.

Here is a great well-to-wheel analysis for heavy vehicles, which you could apply to motorhomes, for small cars the advantages of BEV really pull away, but even for long haul highway driving class 8 BEV and ICE are nearly equal for CO2 with our current energy mix:

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1755851





You can see that BEV are more efficient but green house emissions are very close at highway speeds on semis due to coal mix. PM and other emissions are higher due to "dirty" coal use which can be improved with investment or just move to better energy sources.

[Extarheel]

Originally Posted by radar

Good morning. You may have misunderstood the 250 KW reference or it’s possible that one of us used the wrong acronym (kWh which is a quantity instead of KW which is a rate.

Anyway. The 250 KW refers to the charge rate of a DC fast charger, and specifically to a Tesla V3 Supercharger. Most DC fast chargers range in rates from 50 KW to 350 KW and every where between depending on the vendor.

A typical EV battery has a capacity of about 80 KWh and can charge at a max rate of 250 kw under certain conditions at a DC fast charger or Supercharger. It is still unknown what the EV half ton pickups will have for battery sizes but speculation seems to be between 120 and 200 kWh.

EV’s also have built in chargers which are powered by AC 220 or 240 circuits at up to 48 amps but selectable by the driver. The half ton pickups coming down the line are expected to be able to charge at up to 80 amps 240. This is about 19.2 kw. But again, user selectable down to 5 amps.

Hope that helps.

Cheers.

LOL!! Does that mean I’m not going to be installing the wiring when you build your new home? Yes, I did not breakdown the figures properly. We are thinking of purchasing a hybrid or even a full electric vehicle (EV)?, to replace our towed Equinox, so I’m starting to explore both the market and convenience aspects. So, just beginning, my knowledge level is obviously needy.
Thank you for all the info and for the very diplomatic corrections. Please keep posting. We all need more facts and less bias, no matter where it points.

[move on]

Originally Posted by jharrell

Aren't you forgetting the energy required to refine and transport the fuel? Thats about a 20% loss right there.

No. I'm not forgetting it. I just figure it's a wash when comparing the refining to the mining, crushing, handling and transport of coal to the generating plant.

[WileyOne]

Originally Posted by NeilV

With the Atlantic Cycle slowing and potentially coming to a halt much faster than anticipated due to air pollution we need to really get with the program before things flip into a polar event that makes for two climate extremes with the areas closer to the poles becoming unlivable due to extreme cold and the equatorial regions unlivable due to extreme heat.

You've tossed out a few terms that mean nothing to me.

What is "the Atlantic cycle"?
What is a "polar event"?

Do you have actual evidence to support the fairy tale you're describing?
Please keep in mind that computer models are not evidence.

[jharrell]

Originally Posted by move on

No. I'm not forgetting it. I just figure it's a wash when comparing the refining to the mining, crushing, handling and transport of coal to the generating plant.

That would be equivalent to oil drilling and crude transport to refining.

Gas and diesel require much more refining from crude.

[move on]

Originally Posted by jharrell

Gas and diesel require much more refining from crude.

I wouldn't say that. Mining and bulk transport are extremely energy-consuming processes.

[jharrell]

Originally Posted by move on

I wouldn't say that. Mining and bulk transport are extremely energy-consuming processes.

drilling, pumping and bulk transport to refineries are also extremely energy consuming, especially if coming from other countries.

Refining itself is very intensive, then you must transport it to individual filling stations using trucks.

This is all taken into account in a well to wheel analysis, they always show BEV's ahead.

Not going to run your gasoline car off coal, but your BEV can run it at about the same efficiency as gas right now, even better if more investment in coal if its warranted.

Whats better running refined oil as gas or diesel with a majority coming from other countries, or nat gas, coal, solar, wind, nuke, and some unrefined oil all sourced here with better efficiency with the flexibility of changing it up at any time?

[radar]

Originally Posted by Extarheel

LOL!! Does that mean I’m not going to be installing the wiring when you build your new home? Yes, I did not breakdown the figures properly. We are thinking of purchasing a hybrid or even a full electric vehicle (EV)?, to replace our towed Equinox, so I’m starting to explore both the market and convenience aspects. So, just beginning, my knowledge level is obviously needy.
Thank you for all the info and for the very diplomatic corrections. Please keep posting. We all need more facts and less bias, no matter where it points.

My pleasure. I’m not an expert but have been driving only EV’s for 6 years. We do most of our charging at home except on road trips.

I noticed a typo I made on that post. I said 220 or 240 volt AC for the on-board charger. That was supposed to be 120 and 240 volt.

Cheers.

[WileyOne]

Originally Posted by radar

Tesla and other EV’s do. Once the battery is full you simply no longer have regen and you alter your driving habits accordingly. It just goes back to feeling like a normal car until you are down to around 95 percent.

Excellent! So, Tesla has already solved the issue of drag when they determine that it isn't needed based on battery state-of-charge. That was the hard part.

Now, we just need to find a way to disable charging when Tesla wants it but the MH driver doesn't. That seems like a easier problem to solve. We just need to find the Charge-Enable/Charge-Disable wire in the Toad, insert a relay, and give control of the relay to the MH driver. I'll bet I could do that on a Saturday afternoon for under $80 in parts.

When the Relay is closed, Tesla will think it is gliding down the longest hill on Earth. When the Relay is open, Tesla will think the battery is fully charged, so wheels-to-generator charging is suspended.

The only issue I anticipate is that Tesla will be confused when SoC suddenly jumps from 50% to 100% and back to 50%. Whistles, bells, and little red flags might be triggered.

I'm beginning to get come ideas. Anybody got an old Chevy Volt that they want to sell? My little 24-ft MH has a giant V-10. Plenty of power in reserve for as-you-go-down-the-road charging. I might not even feel when charging stops and starts.

[RM Art]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilV View Post
With the Atlantic Cycle slowing and potentially coming to a halt much faster than anticipated due to air pollution we need to really get with the program before things flip into a polar event that makes for two climate extremes with the areas closer to the poles becoming unlivable due to extreme cold and the equatorial regions unlivable due to extreme heat.
_______________________________________________

Originally Posted by WileyOne

You've tossed out a few terms that mean nothing to me.

What is "the Atlantic cycle"?
What is a "polar event"?

Do you have actual evidence to support the fairy tale you're describing?
Please keep in mind that computer models are not evidence.

Detailed Crux: Global climate/environment/ecosystem altering situations:

1. Approx 12K yrs ago the trade winds relation to oceanic currents "fell into" [i.e. through simple serendipity became] annually repeated physical trajectories that were [and still are] in compatible positions. Wherein - their annual fluctuations in repeating trajectories enabled/created similar repeat weather conditions and average temperatures around the globe. In other words: Trade winds' and oceanic currents' positions then basically locked into position one another's annual movements. This [these locked in positions] simply happened to be conducive to the natural capability of life creation and life sustainability on Earth.

2. Human life form was then able to flourish. And, oh boy, did we ever!!

3. Back to #1: A main "physical" reason [simple physics] the winds and currents became locked into repeat annual trajectories [that enabled weather-change seasons conducive to life] - was - and currently still is... the stabilization of repeat annual global temperature ranges.

4. Now - By ways and means, humanity is altering the global annual temperature range. Therefore, the 12K year locked in position trade winds and oceanic current trajectories are "naturally" altering. They will too soon [now and during near years] begin to automatically conflict with one another [i.e. overturn their "natural" 12K year "temperature controlled" physical repetitions] regarding what directions and speeds and size/scope to take. Winds and currents will experience [become] a jumble of new positions that will oust the seasonal climates which enabled humanity to flourish.

5. But - - > Although it appears we [civilization] are not going to be able to stop this now occurring global alteration of life supporting seasonal climates - all is not yet lost. There is still a glimmer of chance that human technology can curb the global warming now underway and help the winds and currents to maintain their positions required for supporting life on Earth.

We've only got a couple years to get things really underway that can help stop [correctly address/abate] global warming for hopefully being able to again stabilize the winds and currents annual, seasonal trajectories. Then, once humanity gets underway on the biggest most important endeavor in history, it will take decades of careful moves to try and make sure we can actually keep Earth a livable globe for the good of humans and millions of other living entities.

There is so much to do and so little time to do it. Tempus Fugit!!

[Mod Edit]

[move on]

Originally Posted by jharrell

drilling, pumping and bulk transport to refineries are also extremely energy consuming, especially if coming from other countries.

Refining itself is very intensive, then you must transport it to individual filling stations using trucks.

This is all taken into account in a well to wheel analysis, they always show BEV's ahead.

Not going to run your gasoline car off coal, but your BEV can run it at about the same efficiency as gas right now, even better if more investment in coal if its warranted.

Whats better running refined oil as gas or diesel with a majority coming from other countries, or nat gas, coal, solar, wind, nuke, and some unrefined oil all sourced here with better efficiency with the flexibility of changing it up at any time?

A comprehensive well/mine to wheels analysis contains a lot of assumptions. We could pick and choose which assumptions we use all day and not get anywhere. I think though that EVs are not as energy efficient as they are portrayed to be because they are dependent on the efficiency of the existing electricity supply. I'm still waiting for the promised nuclear fusion plant with an infinite supply of pristine energy. Then EVs would make a lot more sense.