This Is the Most Wanted Car in America (and It’s Not Even Close).

[T. A. Gardner]

All technical issues. No doubt the Horse-and-Buggy crowd (especially those who had a lot of stock in Buggy Whips) made similar arguments about the automobile.

Actually, no. Bad analogy. ICE vehicles held a plethora of very clear advantages over horses and wagons or whatever. That was clear almost from the start. No such advantage exists with EV's. The only solid argument for them, and even that one is somewhat dubious, is they emit zero pollution. Outside of that, they really possess no significant or revolutionary advantage over an ICE vehicle. Payload, speed, reliability, utility, energy use, nada, zip point shit significant difference.

With even early ICE vehicles, the advantage over the horse was clear. ICE vehicles could work for indefinite periods of time versus horses. They could be repaired and serviced in a fraction of the time and cost a horse could. They could produce massive amounts more work than a horse or horses could. They were faster and even early on, more reliable than a horse.

This

Could be replaced by this

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Heh. Apparently you are unaware of the failure of such automated taxis in San Francisco.

And, you apparently are unaware that they are quite successful in Phoenix...

 

[Joe Capitalist]

It's absolutely true, but as I mentioned in my previous post, you can't be a scientifically illiterate moron and simultaneously understand the ramifications of thermodynamics. You obviously are one of the aforementioned scientifically illiterate morons who presently has other people doing his thinking for him. Please don't take it personally as I rake you over the coals for being a moron who thinks he's a genius.


The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that's impossible, but you say that you don't subscribe to such chicanery. OK, I get it. Let's review the merits, or lack thereof, of your position:

Your Position: The process of converting a certain quantity of chemical energy (in the form of hydrocarbons) to electrical energy via combustion engine generators (with loss H), to be transmitted over power lines to charging stations (with loss T), to charge a car (with negligible loss C) that coverts that electrical energy to kinetic energy (with loss K), thus performing the work of propelling the car ... is somehow more fuel efficient than simply converting a certain quantity of chemical energy (in the form of hydrocarbons) directly to kinetic energy via combustion engine (with loss H), thus performing the work of propelling the car.

My Position: Converting a certain quantity of chemical energy (in the form of hydrocarbons) directly to kinetic energy via combustion engine (with loss H), thus performing the work of propelling the car is clearly far more fuel efficient than the convoluted process of converting a certain quantity of chemical energy (in the form of hydrocarbons) to electrical energy via combustion engine generators (with loss H), to be transmitted over power lines to charging stations (with loss T), to charge a car (with minimal loss C) that coverts that electrical energy to kinetic energy (with loss K), thus performing the work of propelling the car.

Please, find me an actual physicist who understands thermodynamics who nonetheless disagrees with me and who agrees with you, who can explain your position, because you obviously cannot. You also have the 2nd law of thermodynamics to overcome and I don't see you getting around that anytime soon.

I'd rather listen to the experts rather than a MAGA moron on an obscure political forum.

An EV is more than 70% efficient from the moment you turn it on.
Even the best diesel engine, fully warmed up, struggles to get to 40% efficiency. In other words, a conventional ICE car wastes well over half the energy in its fuel.
An EV directly converts electricity into movement. This makes it far more efficient than a conventional car, which has to burn fuel (creating heat) and then convert that heat into motion.
Unlike a conventional car – when an EV brakes, much of its energy is recovered and put back into the battery, so it's available to help it accelerate again. In a regular car the energy is simply converted into heat by the brakes and wasted. Overall, an EV might be two to three times more efficient than an equivalent conventional car when braking.


I rest my case, IBdaMoron.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

This thread is still around, so I suppose that it's ok to respond again.

I still prefer the Bentley Flying Spur as my favorite currently produced car.

A bit out of my range, perhaps, but liking things is for free.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I'd rather listen to the experts rather than a MAGA moron on an obscure political forum.

An EV is more than 70% efficient from the moment you turn it on.
Even the best diesel engine, fully warmed up, struggles to get to 40% efficiency. In other words, a conventional ICE car wastes well over half the energy in its fuel.
An EV directly converts electricity into movement. This makes it far more efficient than a conventional car, which has to burn fuel (creating heat) and then convert that heat into motion.
Unlike a conventional car – when an EV brakes, much of its energy is recovered and put back into the battery, so it's available to help it accelerate again. In a regular car the energy is simply converted into heat by the brakes and wasted. Overall, an EV might be two to three times more efficient than an equivalent conventional car when braking.

How many times does this have to be explained to you? EV's do not create electricity. That electricity comes from somewhere. The creation and distribution of electricity is no more efficient than and ICE engine except possibly by small increments.

Thus, an EV is no more efficient than an ICE vehicle, and potentially less efficient. Regenerative braking is a tiny improvement in run time for an EV. As a thought experiment, if you were to accelerate an EV to say, 40 mph, then stop it (including using regenerative braking), and continued to repeat that sequence ad infinitum, would the battery discharge and eventually need recharging?
Of course it would, that is unless you believe in perpetual motion machines...

Overall, an EV is no more efficient than an ICE vehicle and likely less efficient given its generally greater mass.

 

[Nordberg]

Evs are far more energy efficient than ICEs. https://www.motortrend.com/news/evs-more-efficient-than-internal-combustion-engines/

 

[IBDaMann]

I'd rather listen to the experts rather than a MAGA moron on an obscure political forum.

False. You absolutely will not listen to me. Instead, you listen exclusively to the Marxist morons you allow to do your thinking for you. Who did you think you were going to fool?

An EV is more than 70% efficient from the moment you turn it on.

Once again, because of your science illiteracy and your mathematical incompetence, you did not call booooolsch't on this as you should have ... probably because this comes from one of your thought-masters who has you bent over furniture and is colon-pummeling you with disinformation as you beg for more. EV's struggle to get 21% fuel efficiency, with most of the loss already having occurred by the time the energy reaches the charging station. But forget that for the moment and just ride the reaming until you get your fix.

Even the best diesel engine, fully warmed up, struggles to get to 40% efficiency.

Correct. Combustion engines get in the thirties, EVs get in the low twenties, with most of the loss occurring in the support infrastructure. Leftists conveniently leave all that out so they can pretend that there is no loss ... and the stupid fucks of the world, you included, lick the entire lie clean off your slave-master's dick, like you don't want a single drop falling onto the floor.

In other words, a conventional ICE car wastes well over half the energy in its fuel.

Yep. Absolutely correct. So do the combustion engine electrical generators that generate the electricity for the EVs. EVs waste over half the energy in their fuel (hydrocarbons) before the electricity ever makes it to the charging station. Is this confusing you? ... I knew it would. You don't understand much of anything; you simply believe what master tells you to believe. There is no independent thinking on your end. There is no critical reasoning coming from you. There is no calling "booooooolsch't" on your owners lest they ream you more forcefully with much larger versions of disinformation.

An EV directly converts electricity into movement.

An EV very indirectly converts hydrocarbons into movement, compounding loss upon loss until fuel efficiency barely ekes above 20%. This makes it far less efficient than a conventional car, which converts the hydrocarbons directly into movement.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Evs are far more energy efficient than ICEs. https://www.motortrend.com/news/evs-more-efficient-than-internal-combustion-engines/

That idiocy IGNORES EVERYTHING I STATED. Everything. It doesn't matter if the car is a bit more energy efficient. The overall cycle it is in is far less efficient. For example, a Tesla continuously takes charge off the battery to maintain cabin temperature, battery temperature, and various electronics within the vehicle. If not on charge frequently, it will run out of power and brick the car.

 

[Lionfish]

While I understand the reasoning behind the law, I'm not sure the Texas courts will agree.

Mr. Tiny Penis, EV surcharge over and above tab fees are already in effect in some states.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

TINY DICK WAGGER
SHOWING OFF FOR MY LIL' FRIENDS
PROVING WHAT I AM​

I have no doubt they know what you are, Tiny Dick.

 

[IBDaMann]

Evs are far more energy efficient than ICEs. [Link deleted to Nordberg's stupid article that presumes electricity for EVs is created for free out of nothing]

Nordberg, Nordberg, Nordberg ... I can at least thank you for confirming the wrong answer.

You know how we ridicule those really stupid "shit for brains" losers who believe everything they read on the internet ... just because it's on the internet? Well, did you notice how we're all laughing at you, not with you? Try to put two and two together.

Pro Tip: In a discussion such as this one, in which physics holds the correct answer, you should go with physics, not with internet material you have been ordered to believe by scientifically illiterate losers who have you bent over furniture. You can bet that your political slave-masters aren't feeding the correct information on thermodynamics.

But you are still entertaining. You're as stupid as fuck, but you are entertaining. Carry on.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

Nordberg, Nordberg, Nordberg ... I can at least thank you for confirming the wrong answer.

You know how we ridicule those really stupid "shit for brains" losers who believe everything they read on the internet ... just because it's on the internet? Well, did you notice how we're all laughing at you, not with you? Try to put two and two together.

Pro Tip: In a discussion such as this one, in which physics holds the correct answer, you should go with physics, not with internet material you have been ordered to believe by scientifically illiterate losers who have you bent over furniture. You can bet that your political slave-masters aren't feeding the correct information on thermodynamics.

But you are still entertaining. You're as stupid as fuck, but you are entertaining. Carry on.

You do a lot of talking without saying much. It's pretty obvious you're not here for cogent discussions.
You're just another troll infesting this forum.

Welcome to my IGNORE list. Adios mutherfukker.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You do a lot of talking without saying much. It's pretty obvious you're not here for cogent discussions.
You're just another troll infesting this forum.

Welcome to my IGNORE list. Adios mutherfukker.

I'm curious... Are you implying that you are "Norberg?"

 

[IBDaMann]

You do a lot of talking without saying much.

Too funny. You will never glean anything from anyone to whom you aren't listening. I am giving you valuable information for free and offering to liberate you from your slave-masters, but you prefer the slavery and the reamings to the work involved in thinking for yourself. I pointed out how stupid you are, and you refused to learn anything, probably because you are like Nordberg, i.e. too stupid to learn.

So if you are going to write off all hope for yourself, that's sad, of course, but I don't see how there is anything that anyone can do about it. Nonetheless, before you try posting on science or math or logic or anything about the government, you are welcome to run it by me first to catch the glaring errors that you are nonetheless missing.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

It's pretty obvious you're not here for cogent discussions.

You're projecting your leftism. I am certainly here for cogent discussions, but leftists such as you are thoroughly undereducated and have no hope of hanging with me in any sort of debate ... specifically because any disagreement stems from me being correct and leftists OBEYING their slave-masters and regurgitating the erroneous party line that they cannot support. All they have is EVASION, pivoting, and the entire list of fallacies.

You're just another troll infesting this forum.

That would be you. You're an undereducated, leftist dullard who has nothing to offer except dishonesty and cowardice. All you need now to round-out your pathetic wasting of bandwidth is to panic like a snowflake, put me on ignore and hide under the covers like a fucking toddler who is afraid to face the monsters in the room.

Welcome to my IGNORE list. Adios mutherfukker.

Well, look! There you go. Now you are a full-fledged snowflake coward who is authorized to virtue-signal his lack of education and general fear of science, math, honesty and people who can think for themselves. Have at it. Moron.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually, no. Bad analogy. ICE vehicles held a plethora of very clear advantages over horses and wagons or whatever. That was clear almost from the start. No such advantage exists with EV's. The only solid argument for them, and even that one is somewhat dubious, is they emit zero pollution. Outside of that, they really possess no significant or revolutionary advantage over an ICE vehicle. Payload, speed, reliability, utility, energy use, nada, zip point shit significant difference.

With even early ICE vehicles, the advantage over the horse was clear. ICE vehicles could work for indefinite periods of time versus horses. They could be repaired and serviced in a fraction of the time and cost a horse could. They could produce massive amounts more work than a horse or horses could. They were faster and even early on, more reliable than a horse.

This

Could be replaced by this

They "emit zero pollution"? What "pollution" are you referring to? Why is it "pollution"?

 

[Into the Night]

And, you apparently are unaware that they are quite successful in Phoenix...

...except for the occasional hack...

 

[Lightbringer]

This thread is still around, so I suppose that it's ok to respond again.

I still prefer the Bentley Flying Spur as my favorite currently produced car.

A bit out of my range, perhaps, but liking things is for free.

You're cancelled. Report to re-education camp.

 

[Into the Night]

I'd rather listen to the experts rather than a MAGA moron on an obscure political forum.

'Expert' worship. Void reference fallacy. MAGA isn't a person or a moron. Redefinition fallacy.

B]SIZE=3]An EV is more than 70% efficient from the moment you turn it on.

Argument from randU fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.

Even the best diesel engine, fully warmed up, struggles to get to 40% efficiency. In other words, a conventional ICE car wastes well over half the energy in its fuel.
An EV directly converts electricity into movement. This makes it far more efficient than a conventional car, which has to burn fuel (creating heat) and then convert that heat into motion.
Unlike a conventional car – when an EV brakes, much of its energy is recovered and put back into the battery, so it's available to help it accelerate again. In a regular car the energy is simply converted into heat by the brakes and wasted. Overall, an EV might be two to three times more efficient than an equivalent conventional car when braking.
[/SIZE][/B]

TANSTAAFL. You have to charge the EV, Commie.

 

[Into the Night]

How many times does this have to be explained to you? EV's do not create electricity. That electricity comes from somewhere. The creation and distribution of electricity is no more efficient than and ICE engine except possibly by small increments.

Thus, an EV is no more efficient than an ICE vehicle, and potentially less efficient. Regenerative braking is a tiny improvement in run time for an EV. As a thought experiment, if you were to accelerate an EV to say, 40 mph, then stop it (including using regenerative braking), and continued to repeat that sequence ad infinitum, would the battery discharge and eventually need recharging?
Of course it would, that is unless you believe in perpetual motion machines...

Overall, an EV is no more efficient than an ICE vehicle and likely less efficient given its generally greater mass.

It is a lot less efficient. Power plant losses, transformer losses, transmission line losses, distribution line losses, and losses from the battery itself while charging it.
I think you are right. He believes in perpetual motions of the 1st order.

 

[Into the Night]

Evs are far more energy efficient than ICEs. https://www.motortrend.com/news/evs-more-efficient-than-internal-combustion-engines/

TANSTAAFL. You have to charge the EV, dumbass.