Should EVs have efficiency standards?

[destructure00]

Why is it government's role to tell them what to produce - what is wrong with the consumer telling them?

Consumers don't care much about fuel economy unless gas prices are crazy high. Consumers do care about EV range and won't buy in significant numbers unless they are confident they have enough range to get where they need to go. As explained by @Lindamon above, range is not a problem with ICE. It is a significant hurdle with EV.


Why are you suggesting to regulate something that doesn't need to be regulated? What do you think it would accomplish?

 

[Lindamon]

Yes, different - though I was talking economy for ICE, not range. What is the same is the consumer determines what is important and the manufacturer delivers - range for EVs and economy for ICE. No need for the government to intervene in one and not the other.

Why set MPG standards and not MPGe standards?

Back to you, why do you feel any standards need to be set, when as far as I can see, all efforts of EV manufactures are already to already get the best possible MPGe they can? That’s a part of getting better range in EV’s, not so much in ICE

EV’s and ICE vehicles are very different, and regulating one like the other is ignoring those differences, for no good reason, other than saying, “well, we did it for those other vehicles, so we should do it for these too”.

I simply don’t see any reason for setting standards for efficiency, when the manufacturers are already doing the best they can to do that, whereas ICE manufacturers did not have the need to squeeze every bit of efficiency out of their vehicles, for one thing ICE vehicles are not the new guy in town trying to prove how useful they are. EV manufacturers have to convince a lot of people that their vehicles are not only as good as, but better than ICE vehicles, so there is far more incentive for them to get the best efficiency they can.

I do see some needs for government standards - Safety standards should be set by government, which they are. I’d also like to see some standards for EV charging be set, instead of the hodgepodge out there now, that seems really dumb to me, and I feel is holding things back for wider adoption of EV’s.

 

[TjckTock]

Government has it's place but there should be *no* regulations specifically for EVs. They should set the requirements (mpg/mpge, pedestrian noise level, safety) and apply to all cars equally whether ICE, EV or ???

 

[juliusa]

Back to you, why do you feel any standards need to be set,

I don't. No MPG or MPGe standards.

 

[juliusa]

Government has it's place but there should be *no* regulations specifically for EVs. They should set the requirements (mpg/mpge, pedestrian noise level, safety) and apply to all cars equally whether ICE, EV or ???

There are not MPG or MPGe requirements that apply to cars. Cars can get 2 MPG based on current regulations.

While I think there should be no government fuel efficiency requirements, as long as there are I agree EV and ICE should be treated the same. Right now as best I can tell EVs are treated as if they operate without fuel.

A fuel-efficient CT should be treated differently than a fuel-hogging F-150EV.

 

[Fredneck]

An ICE vehicle in total is 80% inefficient, 50% from the powertrain (sorry, not drivetrain).

“EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.”

All-Electric Vehicles

I won't argue your ICE numbers even if they seem a bit low compared to the numbers I've seen. It can vary depending on what you include or don't. But your comparison is not meaningful. Try calculating the efficiency of the two types of locomotion including the full process of processing and transporting the energy from it's original source. You will find the losses in the ICE are not far from the losses in the power plant that generated the electricity to charge your EV along with the losses in the transmission of that power.

If you are only going to look at the car in isolation you aren't making much of a meaningful comparison.

 

[CoyoteJim]

I won't argue your ICE numbers even if they seem a bit low compared to the numbers I've seen. It can vary depending on what you include or don't. But your comparison is not meaningful. Try calculating the efficiency of the two types of locomotion including the full process of processing and transporting the energy from it's original source. You will find the losses in the ICE are not far from the losses in the power plant that generated the electricity to charge your EV along with the losses in the transmission of that power.

If you are only going to look at the car in isolation you aren't making much of a meaningful comparison.

That’s all true but my point wasn’t ultimately how efficient are EVs over ICE with all things considered, but rather why set a government MPGe-type minimum for EVs while they are still only 1% of cars on the road, and multiple times more efficient that any ICE vehicle. When EVs reach 50% of cars then maybe we can start to be more concerned about minimum efficiency standards specific for EVs. MPG ratings certainly don’t take into account the energy it took to extract the oil, process the gas and transport it to your tank.

 

[Fredneck]

That’s all true but my point wasn’t ultimately how efficient are EVs over ICE with all things considered, but rather why set a government MPGe-type minimum for EVs while they are still only 1% of cars on the road, and multiple times more efficient that any ICE vehicle. When EVs reach 50% of cars then maybe we can start to be more concerned about minimum efficiency standards specific for EVs. MPG ratings certainly don’t take into account the energy it took to extract the oil, process the gas and transport it to your tank.

You aren't seeing it effectively. Trying to compare the 75-80% efficiency of an EV CAR to an ICE CAR is pointless in all conversations. While an EV may be more efficient than an ICE if you only look at the CAR, it is not much more efficient if you look at the full picture. So if one model EV is 20% more efficient than another, that is still 20% more efficient end to end in total energy use, not just the car. There would still be as much justification to set CAFE standards for EVs as for ICE, especially since significant amounts of electricity are made from coal and petroleum, so that driving EVs still create carbon and other pollution and in approximately the same amounts as ICE. They just don't come from the non-existent tailpipe.

 

[nativewolf]

You aren't seeing it effectively. Trying to compare the 75-80% efficiency of an EV CAR to an ICE CAR is pointless in all conversations. While an EV may be more efficient than an ICE if you only look at the CAR, it is not much more efficient if you look at the full picture. So if one model EV is 20% more efficient than another, that is still 20% more efficient end to end in total energy use, not just the car. There would still be as much justification to set CAFE standards for EVs as for ICE, especially since significant amounts of electricity are made from coal and petroleum, so that driving EVs still create carbon and other pollution and in approximately the same amounts as ICE. They just don't come from the non-existent tailpipe.

So much fail in this I don't know where to begin. So I won't, but you are completely wrong.

 

[Fredneck]

Lol, I always find it funny when someone disagrees with a post and doesn't bother to make a reply explaining why. Everything I said above is fact, indisputable fact. What is there to disagree with?

 

[Fredneck]

So much fail in this I don't know where to begin. So I won't, but you are completely wrong.

Well, I guess I posted too soon. But still, you can't even explain what it is that you disagree with. The facts are there if you care to look them up. In another forum someone once showed the efficiency numbers for a petroleum fueled power plant, the transmission lines and the conversions to charge the battery and then the EV efficiency approximately equals the efficiency of an ICE car.

 

[CoyoteJim]

You aren't seeing it effectively. Trying to compare the 75-80% efficiency of an EV CAR to an ICE CAR is pointless in all conversations. While an EV may be more efficient than an ICE if you only look at the CAR, it is not much more efficient if you look at the full picture. So if one model EV is 20% more efficient than another, that is still 20% more efficient end to end in total energy use, not just the car. There would still be as much justification to set CAFE standards for EVs as for ICE, especially since significant amounts of electricity are made from coal and petroleum, so that driving EVs still create carbon and other pollution and in approximately the same amounts as ICE. They just don't come from the non-existent tailpipe.

Ok, I provided some sources for my claims (right here and in previous post). Can you provide any (reputable) source for your claim the EVs create pollution in the same amounts as ICE vehicles when all things are factored in? Everything I have read on the subject calculates that EVs still pollute half what ICE vehicles do all things factored in. I myself specify to my utility that my electricity is sourced from clean energy sources and I pay more for that. Also, you seem to be conflating emissions standards with efficiency standards. I was only referring to efficiency standards.
Electric Car Myth Buster — Well-To-Wheel Emissions | CleanTechnica

 

[Fredneck]

Ok, I provided some sources for my claims (right here and in previous post). Can you provide any (reputable) source for your claim the EVs create pollution in the same amounts as ICE vehicles when all things are factored in? Everything I have read on the subject calculates that EVs still pollute half what ICE vehicles do all things factored in. I myself specify to my utility that my electricity is sourced from clean energy sources and I pay more for that. Also, you seem to be conflating emissions standards with efficiency standards. I was only referring to efficiency standards.
Electric Car Myth Buster — Well-To-Wheel Emissions | CleanTechnica

Great article and largely makes my point. I didn't say there wasn't some savings in carbon emissions. My main point was specifically about the efficiency of generating the power which your article doesn't go into.

As to pollution, I only said they were approximately the same, meaning in a significant manner. If you know anything about the climate problem which carbon is a major contributor to, you will know that cutting auto emissions in half will accomplish little and still does not relieve EVs from the need to be as efficient as possible. So standards are still useful with EVs.

 

[CoyoteJim]

You aren't seeing it effectively. Trying to compare the 75-80% efficiency of an EV CAR to an ICE CAR is pointless in all conversations. While an EV may be more efficient than an ICE if you only look at the CAR, it is not much more efficient if you look at the full picture. So if one model EV is 20% more efficient than another, that is still 20% more efficient end to end in total energy use, not just the car. There would still be as much justification to set CAFE standards for EVs as for ICE, especially since significant amounts of electricity are made from coal and petroleum, so that driving EVs still create carbon and other pollution and in approximately the same amounts as ICE. They just don't come from the non-existent tailpipe.

And, comparing the efficiency of an EV car to an ICE car is sort of pointless, but not for the reasons you suggest. EVs are ridiculously more efficient than ICE vehicles: a gallon of gas contains about 132,000 btu’s worth of energy, or 38kWh. So a 75kWh battery contains about the equivalent energy as two gallons of gas. An ICE vehicle with an MPG of 36 can go 72 miles on 2 gallons of gas...a Tesla Model 3 LR with 75kWh hour battery can go what - 310 miles?

 

[CoyoteJim]

Great article and largely makes my point. I didn't say there wasn't some savings in carbon emissions. My main point was specifically about the efficiency of generating the power which your article doesn't go into.

As to pollution, I only said they were approximately the same, meaning in a significant manner. If you know anything about the climate problem which carbon is a major contributor to, you will know that cutting auto emissions in half will accomplish little and still does not relieve EVs from the need to be as efficient as possible. So standards are still useful with EVs.

You’re arguing in circles, man...and still no sources.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I'm not sure what all this has to do with drag coefficient and it's been discussed to death in other threads. The proper concern trolling for this thread is to ask what this means for battery size? The Model X has Cd of 0.25. How does the frontal area compare to the Cybertruck? Even with a Cd of 0.30, which seems unlikely without major changes, the CyberTruck is going to need a monster battery.

 

[CoyoteJim]

I'm not sure what all this has to do with drag coefficient and it's been discussed to death in other threads. The proper concern trolling for this thread is to ask what this means for battery size? The Model X has Cd of 0.25. How does the frontal area compare to the Cybertruck? Even with a Cd of 0.30, which seems unlikely without major changes, the CyberTruck is going to need a monster battery.

Agreed; I apologize for feeding the troll. I have estimated the battery size to be more comparable to the Model S rather than the X, though:

Elon Musk tweeted that a solar power tonneau cover option would be available that would provide 15 miles per day. I decided to try using this estimate, given the dimensions of the tonneau cover to figure out what the battery size of the Cybertruck would be.

I measured the area of the tonneau cover at about 77 in. x 77 in. This is equivalent to 41.2 sq ft. To account for error I rounded it to 40 sq ft.

77x77 = 5929/144 = 41.2

Solar panels produce a charge at a rate of
15 Watts per sq ft per hour
1 sqft = 15 Watts/hr

At 40 sq ft the solar tonneau cover would produce 600 Watts per hour
40 sqft = 600 Watts/hr

I’m guessing that the calculation was made anticipating 8 hours of full sun.

600 Watts x 8 hrs = 4800 Watts or 4.8 kW.
4.8kW gives the model S 75kWh 15 miles
4.8kW gives the Cybertruck 15 miles

The Cybertruck battery size is very close to the model S

The Model X is a heavier vehicle so it only gets 11 miles per 4.8kwh and has a range of 237 miles for a 75kWh battery. But the Cybertruck and the Model S both gain 15 miles per 4.8kWh, so they must have similar range and weight.

However, if the cd for the Cybertruck is higher than the cd for the Model S but they both charge at the same rate, the Cybertruck must weigh less than the Model S.

So for both the Model S and the Cybertruck that would be 75kWh for 250 miles, 90kWh for 300 miles, and 150-160kWh for 500 miles.

 

[Daniel in SD]

15 Watts per sq ft per hour

Tesla is going to use the GaAs cells from the Starlink satellites, 25 Watts/sqft.

 

[CoyoteJim]

Tesla is going to use the GaAs cells from the Starlink satellites, 25 Watts/sqft.

Ok, revision:
Solar panels produce a charge at a rate of
25 Watts per sq ft per hour

1 sqft = 25 Watts/hr
40 sqft = 1000 Watts/hr
So 8000 Watts for 8 hours.

Which would be a much larger battery getting only 15 miles per 8000 Watts charge rate. But that also places it outside the stated weight range of the Cybertruck which Elon said would be the same as the F150 (4000lbs-5600lbs).

And cost; there’s an assumption here that the reason they can sell the base version for $39k is that the body assembly costs are lower AND the battery size is in the 75-85kWh range.

 

[MarcusMaximus]

Energy has an environmental/societal cost - whether it is electricity or gasoline.

That is not always true. If the car is powered entirely by electricity generated from, say, existing solar panels, there is no environmental or societal cost from using it, regardless of how much is used per mile.