That's great advice .... as long as pie-in-the-sky politicians don't mandate away our ability to purchase an ICE vehicle. Would you be as flippant if the shoe was on the other foot?
Canada to go to all zero emission passenger vehicles by 2035
- Thread starter xxo
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
- Status
That's great advice .... as long as pie-in-the-sky politicians don't mandate away our ability to purchase an ICE vehicle. Would you be as flippant if the shoe was on the other foot?
They won't. You can still buy a 69 chevelle that gets like 4mpg if you want. And sometimes government mandates are good. Some guys can't handle what they consider their freedom removed, but it happens sometimes. And it can be a good thing. Government mandated that companies couldn't kill their workers say in mines. It wouldn't have happened without that regulation. Something needs to be done about pollution. I know even if we go to all
Electric that won't be anything close to the pollution being put out in other countries like China and Indian. But it's a start. And will give us cleaner cities to live in. Some things are more important than your ability to do whatever you want. That's what a society is
jtr1962
Flashaholic
The shoe was on the other foot. For literally decades. I mentioned earlier I never owned a car or had a driver's license. Many things factored into that decision, but not having electric cars available was on the list. ICE cars were just too much fuss for my tastes with the need for oil changes, tuneups, transmission fluid, plus the inevitable repairs. Knowing what I did about how infrequently electric trains broke down, I figured an electric car would be much less hassle. Yes, the batteries in the 1980s sucked compared to now, but I never would have wanted to take a car on long trips anyway. For many who had similar travel patterns, electrics would have worked, even with the tech of 40 year ago. But they weren't made. By anyone.
Actually China seems to be going green in a big way:
When you have over one billion people it's going to make a huge difference. It also removes the excuse some have given that no matter what their country does, it makes little difference if China and India both stay dirty. Doubtless the efficiencies of scale they'll need to develop will make going green easier for the entire world.
I'd like to see somewhere that true power losses from the grid (powerplant to home outlet) are only 5%. 8-20% is more reasonable.
When you're doing electrical work, you factor each conversion as a 2% loss minimum.
Also, batteries/EVs self-discharge. I remember a car magazine was losing about 4-5kWh per night with their test Tesla Model 3 sitting outside in moderate-low (40s) temperatures unplugged. That's substantial. 5kWh*365 nights = 1,825 kWh/year PER CAR. That's enough to power my current home for almost 5 months. In fairness, that's not standard temperature, and I don't have the discharge curve for the Tesla nor its batteries, so let's give them 50% of that back for warmer temps... still 912kWh/year PER CAR in battery losses, enough to power my home for 2-3 months... and this place is poorly-built, barely any insulation, leaky windows (curtains sway in the breeze), etc.
When you're doing electrical work, you factor each conversion as a 2% loss minimum.
Also, batteries/EVs self-discharge. I remember a car magazine was losing about 4-5kWh per night with their test Tesla Model 3 sitting outside in moderate-low (40s) temperatures unplugged. That's substantial. 5kWh*365 nights = 1,825 kWh/year PER CAR. That's enough to power my current home for almost 5 months. In fairness, that's not standard temperature, and I don't have the discharge curve for the Tesla nor its batteries, so let's give them 50% of that back for warmer temps... still 912kWh/year PER CAR in battery losses, enough to power my home for 2-3 months... and this place is poorly-built, barely any insulation, leaky windows (curtains sway in the breeze), etc.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
If an average EV (~200 W-hr/mi) is driven 15,000 miles a year, it uses 3,000 kW-hr annually. The self-discharge figures you gave would have it using 1/3 to 2/3rds more. More realistically, you're looking at a few tens of kW-hrs annually due to self-discharge, meaning you're using maybe 50 kW-hr more annually.
Lithium batteries self-discharge at roughly 5% per month. That should equate to around 0.1 kW-hr/day for a typical EV battery. Even if we're heating the batteries, we don't have much enclosed volume to keep warm. With decent insulation and a heat pump, it should only require a few tens of watts but only when the vehicle is in below freezing temperatures. No need to heat the battery at all if it's warmer than that.
I read that transmission efficiency overall falls into the 5% to 15% band. If we assume worst case, then you end up with an overall efficiency of 21% for coal, and 29% for natural gas. Accounting for self-discharge lowers those numbers only a few tenths of a percent. Still better than ICE.
Just found this. Similar numbers to mine:
www.energycouncil.com.au
Lithium batteries self-discharge at roughly 5% per month. That should equate to around 0.1 kW-hr/day for a typical EV battery. Even if we're heating the batteries, we don't have much enclosed volume to keep warm. With decent insulation and a heat pump, it should only require a few tens of watts but only when the vehicle is in below freezing temperatures. No need to heat the battery at all if it's warmer than that.
I read that transmission efficiency overall falls into the 5% to 15% band. If we assume worst case, then you end up with an overall efficiency of 21% for coal, and 29% for natural gas. Accounting for self-discharge lowers those numbers only a few tenths of a percent. Still better than ICE.
Just found this. Similar numbers to mine:
EVs: Are they really more efficient?
They have been hailed as a new breed of vehicle that could surpass petrol-driven cars on safety, running costs, performance and design.
www.energycouncil.com.au
Last edited:
Sorry, those are being phased out with more efficient camels.
alpg88
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,396
More efficient and more politically correct, lol
You guys all have it wrong. The most efficient steed, and the ones Mounties use most, are the Canadian swamp donkey. A.k.a. the moose. Everyone knows that Canadian Mounties ride mooses
Last edited:
Height requirement was lowered. Canadian Government refuses to approve federal spending for step-ladders. Camels are easier to mount.
Ah. This is new news to me. I don't pay a lot of attention to pachyderm politicsHeight requirement was lowered. Canadian Government refuses to approve federal spending for step-ladders. Camels are easier to mount.
Are you not paying attention?
Are you not aware the price for a 69 big block Chevelle is already 50 to 70k?
There's no telling how much they'll be in 2035. 🙀Yes, and sometimes a broken clock is good, but only twice a day for a second. 🕰️
Some guys = Manly Men, and they know exactly what their freedoms are.
That's called tyranny.
Nope!
What were you attempting to convey? 
Granted. There was a time when manpower was cheap. Didn't that cease to be the case about 125 years ago?
Yes, of course, but don't you think it's foolish to weaken the economies of the cleanest countries in the world? L@@King at the statistics of the most polluted countries the USA and Canada aren't even on the list. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1135356/most-polluted-countries-in-the-world/
Going all-electric is not possible. There isn't a supply for that much demand. You're correct about the amount of pollution in other countries.
Cities are no friend to electric cars. Too many charging cables - not enough charging ports. Supply and demand.
And some things are more important than your ability to feel good about yourself. See? I can play that silly game too.
People who speak out about the issues concerning EVs are not doing so because they're selfish. They're just following the science.
The auto magazine, which I believe was Car and Driver, lost 5% PER NIGHT, measured, in a real car. Not batteries on a workbench, in a lab. Theoretical numbers are nice, but people operate in the real world.
This reminds me of dealing with aircraft performance numbers. The performance numbers you get in your POH/OM are unattainable in the real world, whether it be a lowly Cessna 172 or brand new Boeing 787. Sure, a test pilot, using a brand new aircraft, optimized by engineers between flights, under ideal conditions, managed to squeak out something resembling those numbers... plus some "corrections" the marketing, er, engineering teams make, and I can assure you these "corrections" aren't towards the side of reality. Every pilot and dispatchers knows this and plans accordingly.
I was about 95% ready to buy an EV when I chose my current car. I liked the features, liked the torque, liked the simplicity of the mechanical components. But the real-world implications weren't adding up.
The mounties or the horses?
If you could phase the mounties out with a useful police force you could save billions each year that could be put towards green energy research.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
So you're basing things on one article about one particular car? If EVs really lost 5% of their charge just sitting overnight, don't you think it would have made the news? Or the many EV forums? Also explain why the same battery chemistry would self-discharge only a few percent a month sitting in a flashlight but 5% overnight in an EV? Real world is I've had lithium batteries which still had a charge after sitting for years. Another forum member mentioned taking out some 15 year old lithium batteries and finding they still had some charge.
I'm glad you were all in on EVs. Maybe you should have gotten one anyway for some real-world experience. If the self-discharge numbers were really that bad, you always could have returned it.
Is it your contention that pie-in-the-sky politicians mandated EVs not be produced? That would be the other foot.
DUDE! Ad nauseam ad infinitium.
Do you realize what you're attempting to do there?
When is an excuse, not an excuse? When it's a well-thought-out reason.
Many find such dismissiveness disingenuous, pompous, and just downright lazy.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
It was a combination of politicians, big oil, and big auto. Ever watch Who Killed The Electric Car?
Even now, those with a vested interest in the status quo keep spreading the same FUD. You can kill something without passing a mandate.
As for ICEs, if even a third of the country goes EV by 2035, good luck finding a place to refuel. Gas stations are often marginal businesses. A loss of a third of their customers will send many over the edge. But I'm sure if a lot of gas stations close for purely economic reasons we'll be hearing how that's yet another government conspiracy to push people into EVs.
And yeah, I'll readily acknowledge a fair number of problems still need to be solved before we can switch over to mostly EVs. Only a fool thinks we're readily to switch completely right now. I also think we'll solve most or all of the problems by 2035.
Except it's not a well-thought out reason. It's like saying if all my neighbors are murderers why shouldn't I kill someone also because it won't affect the murder rate all that much? Real reasons are when something is technically or economically unfeasible. Yes, we need to get off fossil fuels, but not in such a manner that we totally crash the economy, or have people freezing to death in the winter.
There's a thing called leading by example. The US used to be great at it. Sometimes we were the only country doing something. We didn't say we're not going to do x because it won't make much of a difference as nobody else is. We just did it because it was the right thing to do. Eventually some (not all) countries followed our lead.
Give credit where it's due. For a long time China was rolling out excuses why it couldn't clean up its act. Now it finally is. I won't even begin to speculate on their motivations. I'm just glad it's happening.
Last edited:
Speaking of politicians - You remind me of them. Whenever you're asked a direct question, or someone points out something you've posted is incorrect, you ignore them and try to post your way away from the subject at hand. Lord knows I try, but trying to engage you in an honest conversation is akin to
alpg88
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,396
Tesla had a lawsuit for their first roadster, it would permanently kill battery if left without being plugged in for more than few weeks. EV batteries are always being drained, even if service switch is off, BMS build into the battery always drains power.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Difference is I don't intentionally do that like politicians do.Speaking of politicians - You remind me of them. Whenever you're asked a direct question, or someone points out something you've posted is incorrect, you ignore them and try to post your way away from the subject at hand. Lord knows I try, but trying to engage you in an honest conversation is akin to
If you want to engage me in an honest conversation stick to numbers. They don't lie. If someone points out my numbers on something are wrong, along with evidence, I won't debate it.
You seem to have a different philosophy than me where you feel government has no right to restrict your freedoms, even when exercising those freedoms might negatively affect others. I don't even know how to respond to that. Maybe this is the reason you find you can't have an honest conversation with me.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Yes, but that problem has been corrected. Tesla entirely deserved the lawsuit.
I'm aware vehicles always put a parasitic drain on the battery. This might increase the rate the battery drains slightly over the theoretical self-discharge rate. It won't be anywhere near 5% overnight. More like a few percent extra per month.
- Status
