The Great Powertrain Robbery

[Mr. Dazzle]

Why do you think engineers have been chasing a better type of engine for years

Ooo... let me guess... electric?

Efficiency around 80% conversion of electrical energy into mechanical energy in a car. Possibly higher.

Loads higher than 80.

[Cousin Jack]

Why do you think engineers have been chasing a better type of engine for years

Ooo... let me guess... electric?

Efficiency around 80% conversion of electrical energy into mechanical energy in a car. Possibly higher.

Loads higher than 80.

However the overall efficiency, from primary fuel to car mechanical energy is a LOT less.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Ooo... let me guess... electric?

Efficiency around 80% conversion of electrical energy into mechanical energy in a car. Possibly higher.

Loads higher than 80.

However the overall efficiency, from primary fuel to car mechanical energy is a LOT less.

Don't believe it is. If referring to fossil fuelled power stations they're still more energy efficient over all. Power stations are miles more efficient than ICE engines* so even with all the transmission losses EVs are still 'up'.

*Assuming you're referring to a reasonably modern one like you'll find here

[JackyJoll]

It's the main way modern engines make more power than old ones, reducing internal friction and reduction of the mass of moving components

Modern pistons, rings and oil help, but credit must be due to the fluid dynamics of modern intakes, combustion chambers and exhausts. Then there’s fuel mixture control and super duper ignitions.

[Cousin Jack]

Loads higher than 80.

However the overall efficiency, from primary fuel to car mechanical energy is a LOT less.

Don't believe it is. If referring to fossil fuelled power stations they're still more energy efficient over all. Power stations are miles more efficient than ICE engines* so even with all the transmission losses EVs are still 'up'.

*Assuming you're referring to a reasonably modern one like you'll find here

I am not saying that ICE engines are more efficient (IIRC they are about 30% or so), just that the overall electric efficiency is a lot less than 80%.

[Mr. Dazzle]

It's about 60-80% "grid to wheel" depending on a number of factors. ICE is about 15-30% "nozzls to wheel" for comparison.

[The Spin Doctor]

Loads higher than 80.

I've seen figures nudging 90% but was being pessimistic... just in case someone produced an article saying "loads lower... only 85%"

[The Spin Doctor]

I am not saying that ICE engines are more efficient (IIRC they are about 30% or so), just that the overall electric efficiency is a lot less than 80%.

But that is comparing eggs with chickens.

You can compare ICE vehicles with equivalent electric...

OR

You can compare the entire efficiency costs of producing the energy sources that shoves your standard vehicle 1 kilometre...

People keep saying "oh, you lose loads of energy in the transmission of electricity and the charging", whilst completely ignoring the costs of shipping refined fuel products to the pump. That's going to be one of the issues with hydrogen as an alternative.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Loads higher than 80.

I've seen figures nudging 90% but was being pessimistic... just in case someone produced an article saying "loads lower... only 85%"

I see the figures from the horses mouth. I don't care what articles anyone cares to produce i can be confident my info is more accurate

[The Spin Doctor]

I see the figures from the horses mouth. I don't care what articles anyone cares to produce i can be confident my info is more accurate

And I am very happy to be impressed

[Cousin Jack]

I am not saying that ICE engines are more efficient (IIRC they are about 30% or so), just that the overall electric efficiency is a lot less than 80%.

But that is comparing eggs with chickens.

You can compare ICE vehicles with equivalent electric...

OR

You can compare the entire efficiency costs of producing the energy sources that shoves your standard vehicle 1 kilometre...

People keep saying "oh, you lose loads of energy in the transmission of electricity and the charging", whilst completely ignoring the costs of shipping refined fuel products to the pump. That's going to be one of the issues with hydrogen as an alternative.

If we want to be absolutely pedantic we should compare

the costs of finding oil, extracting it, shipping it, refining it, transporting it to the pump and then burning it in an ICE, using an established infrastructure.

with

the cost of building massive additional generation capacity (green of course), together with the increased capacity grid to transport it, and the chargers to charge the new, very efficient cars.

We should also be clear that there will be advantages to the new clean cars (massively lower air pollution in UK cities) but also environmental costs (massive increase in lithium mining somewhere, not necessarily in the UK. And that overall, the contribution to saving the planet, will be less than 5%. Probably a lot less. China, India, Brazil, Russia and the good old US of A are all rather larger sources of pollution and emitter of carbon dioxide.

[Mr. Dazzle]

the cost of building massive additional generation capacity (green of course), together with the increased capacity grid to transport it, and the chargers to charge the new, very efficient cars.

Even if everyone in the UK switched to an EV tomorrow grid demand would be less than it was in 2002.

You can thank LED lightbulbs

[cheb]

That environmental impact may be a closer to home, I read an article recently about the Corns mining again, but lithium this time.

It's on the BBC so it must be true. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65184600

[Mr. Dazzle]

I do enjoy the lithium thing.

Where do fossil fuels come from, if not the ground? You have to dig up Lithium to make Lithium Ion batteries yes...but you also have to dig up oil/gas/coal which you only get to use once.

[MingtheMerciless]

the cost of building massive additional generation capacity (green of course), together with the increased capacity grid to transport it, and the chargers to charge the new, very efficient cars.

Even if everyone in the UK switched to an EV tomorrow grid demand would be less than it was in 2002.

You can thank LED lightbulbs

What source please as I'd love to quote that at some of my more luddite work colleagues.

And I'd love lithium mining in the UK, get some proper industry and employment back into one of the most deprived areas of the country (Cornwall)

On a side note I used to work for a company in the 1980's that built and maintained about the only lithium refining transformer/thyristor rectifier electrolysis plant in the UK (on the shores of the Mersey, opposite Liverpool). That was before lithium was a cool metal and used mainly for medicine and niche engineering. That was VERY energy intensive and quite spectacular to watch, especially when the very expensive carbon anodes (I think) got wet with the mix after the transformer tripped. Even in the 80's they were 6K a pop and had to be binned if they got to "wet".

It was a hilarious place to visit as the scouser operators would constantly be ripping the piss out of you but you only got one word in 3 and they really disliked the yanks who'd taken over the company but had absolutely no idea they were being run down by the operators.

[Mr. Dazzle]

What source please as I'd love to quote that at some of my more luddite work colleagues.

National Grid.

This is just a website, but ISTR there's a much more detailed white paper on teh subject.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/jo ... onceptions

[The Spin Doctor]

If we want to be absolutely pedantic...

Not pedantic, just saying 'let's compare like with like'.

[Screwdriver]

What source please as I'd love to quote that at some of my more luddite work colleagues.

National Grid.

This is just a website, but ISTR there's a much more detailed white paper on teh subject.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/jo ... onceptions

I started reading that but when the article regarding renewables (linked within) refused to even mention nuclear, I see it for what it is. Advertising.

That's the kindest word I could find for it.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Bit harsh...Nuclear is mentioned in the first section and then is not lumped in with fossil fuels in the "non renewable" section.

Nuclear isn't renewable even though it's zero emission.

[MingtheMerciless]

What source please as I'd love to quote that at some of my more luddite work colleagues.

National Grid.

This is just a website, but ISTR there's a much more detailed white paper on teh subject.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/jo ... onceptions

I started reading that but when the article regarding renewables (linked within) refused to even mention nuclear, I see it for what it is. Advertising.

That's the kindest word I could find for it.

Nuclear is more recyclable than renewable.