(07-28-2017 12:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  goes down a bunch

"A bunch" being the made up unit that you pulled from your rear end. Noted

Actually no. It has been well documented. Add in the need for an electric heater, lights, etc. and battery performance is greatly decreased.

(07-28-2017 12:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Fine, there are a couple cars sold in the US whose product of top end MPG and tank size is greater than or equal to 600mi ... not that you'll ever get that range in the real world.

Proves nothing

That is my real world range. Our Jetta TDI did even better.

(07-28-2017 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Takes 60 seconds to fill a tank... How long to charge a tesla

2040

So *TODAY* I can drive 600 miles in my car with maybe one 60 second pitstop (call it an 11 hour trip). Today in a Tesla it would take about two stops or 29 hours.

Of all the Engineering fields I am familiar with Electrical is near the top (probably #2). Getting batteries to both charge quickly *and* hold a charge is beyond just a little difficult. The best bet would be carbon nanotubes and some system to use hydrogen oxygen reactions to power the vehicle.

The problem here is *1* hydrogen is an extremely unsafe fuel source. It make petrol look positively benign and *2* the power needed to generate hydrogen is always going to be more, a lot more, than you will get on the other end.

(07-28-2017 12:24 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  About the only major Engineering discipline I'm not 4 or fewer 400 level classes away from completing was Chemical Engineering. There I would need to take maybe three or four semester worth of courses.

Then you know full well that your ridiculous claim in #72 that zero new techniques were required to reduce weight and change surfaces in automobiles is absurd.

(07-28-2017 12:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Add in the need for an electric heater, lights, etc. and battery performance is greatly decreased.

A battery doesn't lose performance just because more current is being drawn from it, anymore than a gas tank loses performance because more gas is pumped out of it.

(07-28-2017 12:25 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  That is my real world range. Our Jetta TDI did even better.

Not that you actually need such a range.

Whoopity doo - you 0.1% who claim to want/need such a range don't justify allowing gas only cars to continue to be sold

(07-28-2017 12:28 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Of all the Engineering fields I am familiar with Electrical is near the top (probably #2).

Funny thing about that -- batteries are chemical. And you just admitted that is your worst subject.

(07-28-2017 12:28 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Getting batteries to both charge quickly *and* hold a charge is beyond just a little difficult.

I have no doubt that the challenge will be bested

(07-28-2017 12:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  goes down a bunch

"A bunch" being the made up unit that you pulled from your rear end. Noted

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania looked at data from drivers of the 2012 and 2013 Nissan Leaf and weather information in their area to learn how extreme hot or extreme cold days affect electric vehicles' performance.

"What we were interested in this study was the factors that can affect the efficiency of the vehicle, which include the climate or the temperature, how that would affect the range efficiency and emissions of that vehicle," said Jeremy Michalek, a mechanical engineer at Carnegie Mellon.

What did they find?

"Electric vehicles on average consume about 15 percent more energy per mile when they're driven in an extreme weather region like Phoenix or Minneapolis … that means if they're consuming more energy that they will have a lower range," explained Michalek.

It gets worse.

"In fact, during peak days where the temperature is at its extreme, the range could drop by 40 percent or more," said Michalek.

Basically what that means is "a vehicle that normally gets a hundred-mile range, it would only get 60 miles on this extreme weather day," he said.

https://www.insidescience.org/video/extr...cars-range

Noted.

(07-28-2017 12:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:28 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Getting batteries to both charge quickly *and* hold a charge is beyond just a little difficult.

I have no doubt that the challenge will be bested

So you think that basing policy on vaporware is a good idea?

(07-28-2017 12:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Basically what that means is "a vehicle that normally gets a hundred-mile range, it would only get 60 miles on this extreme weather day," he said.

AC decreases the range of a gas vehicle, too. So what?

You rate the range as an average of realistic driving conditions, and go from there, knowing the possible effects relevant to your area.

(07-28-2017 12:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you think that basing policy on vaporware is a good idea?

2040

(07-28-2017 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Make it 6xx miles and I'd buy it.

BS - what gas only passenger vehicles are 6xx mile range?

My VW Passat, for instance. Educate yourself.

My VW Jetta--43 mpg on highway x 14 gallons = 602.
My BMW 528i--34 mpg on highway x 17 gallons = 578.

One other thing. Those mileages hold up pretty well if you are playing radio/stereo and even if you are using the AC. All-electric performance goes down a bunch since they are drawing on the same source of electricity as the engine.

honestly if you are going to drive 9-10 hours without a break power to you. but that's unrealistic for 99.9% of people so you are just adding an arbitrary standard to bash electric cars.

(07-28-2017 12:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:24 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  About the only major Engineering discipline I'm not 4 or fewer 400 level classes away from completing was Chemical Engineering. There I would need to take maybe three or four semester worth of courses.

Then you know full well that your ridiculous claim in #72 that zero new techniques were required to reduce weight and change surfaces in automobiles is absurd.

I question your reading comprehension. My claim in #72 was that between 1970 (12mpg) and 1983 (25mpg) no new techniques were required to reduce the weight and shapes of cars. This is demonstrated that cars were produced in the 1930 which the weight and shape to get 36 mpg.

But I'm trying to give you a chance here... Name *1* technology introduced, which was new to the world, in that time period that made the difference in fuel efficiency.

Quote:

(07-28-2017 12:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Add in the need for an electric heater, lights, etc. and battery performance is greatly decreased.

A battery doesn't lose performance just because more current is being drawn from it, anymore than a gas tank loses performance because more gas is pumped out of it.

Yes... It does. Batteries have a fixed internal electrical potential, the "die" when the resistance goes up during usage. Higher current draw effects this change in a non-linear fasion. e.g. Draw more current and decrease the life of the battery by a proportional (but not linear) amount.

The chemical reactions of a fuel tank power the vehicle in a linear fashion. e.g. draw more current for electrical systems and decease the fuel efficiency at a proportional and linear rate.

Quote:

(07-28-2017 12:25 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  That is my real world range. Our Jetta TDI did even better.

Not that you actually need such a range.

Many people do, and it's not your business.

Quote:Whoopity doo - you 0.1% who claim to want/need such a range don't justify allowing gas only cars to continue to be sold

Citation..

Quote:

(07-28-2017 12:28 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Of all the Engineering fields I am familiar with Electrical is near the top (probably #2).

Funny thing about that -- batteries are chemical. And you just admitted that is your worst subject.

Funny thing the Chemisty classes I did take were relevant to electrical batteries *performance characteristics* , the ones that I did not were process courses. And for the record I took the honors version of those courses (to sit next to a pretty girl) and aced them.

(07-28-2017 12:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  honestly if you are going to drive 9-10 hours without a break power to you. but that's unrealistic for 99.9% of people so you are just adding an arbitrary standard to bash electric cars.

It's not about driving without stopping. But in a gas car, even my Explorer, I can make 600 miles with one 15 minute potty the kids, grab some grub, fill the tank. In a tesla that's a 9 hour recharge.

And this says nothing of trying to cram all my kids into a tesla...

(07-28-2017 12:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Basically what that means is "a vehicle that normally gets a hundred-mile range, it would only get 60 miles on this extreme weather day," he said.

AC decreases the range of a gas vehicle, too. So what?

Not 40%, or even 15%.

Quote:2040

How about when it works? That might be 2040, it might be later, it might be sooner. I'm all for sooner if it works by then. But I'm not for imposing an arbitrary standard without regard to whether or not it is reasonably doable.

(07-28-2017 12:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I question your reading comprehension. My claim in #72 was that between 1970 (12mpg) and 1983 (25mpg) no new techniques were required to reduce the weight and shapes of cars.

By definition, they were. The new designs had to be manufactured, which required new manufacturing processes.

That's technology, by definition.

(07-28-2017 12:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Draw more current and decrease the life of the battery by a proportional (but not linear) amount.

The chemical reactions of a fuel tank power the vehicle in a linear fashion.

Now I must question your engineering credentials, because otherwise you would know that no real system follows linear dynamics over any non-zero width interval of parameters.

Tanks don't, either. If I start trying pump 17gal/sec out of a 17 gal tank, there will be a non-linear curve too!

But that's what you're saying for the batteries .... the different between the current being drawn to power the cruising speed of the vehicle and the current being drawn to do that AND run the AC or the heater, is insignificant relative to the capacity and size of those batteries.

(07-28-2017 12:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Many people do

I said 500 and he said only if it were 600.

How many people would not be able to do their jobs with a 500, but would with a 600? Zero, to be quite honest, but otherwise functionally equivalent to zero.

(07-28-2017 12:50 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  In a tesla that's a 9 hour recharge.

Not going to take the time to look it up, but pretty sure the supercharging stations around the country (which you get for free if you buy one) are far less than 9 hours

(07-28-2017 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not 40%, or even 15%.

But you're talking in percents now ... that's only relevant because the range of the battery is mis-rated too high.

(07-28-2017 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But I'm not for imposing an arbitrary standard without regard to whether or not it is reasonably doable.

It is reasonably doable. You just don't want that to be the case, because of your personal ideology against climate change.

(07-28-2017 12:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Whoopity doo - you 0.1% who claim to want/need such a range don't justify allowing gas only cars to continue to be sold.

Citation..

Won't give one because can't give one because none exists.

Nobody said anything about allowing gas only cars to be sold forever. All that is being said is don't cut them off before you have a viable alternative. Don't pick a fixed date that may come before a viable alternative exists.

I don't have a problem saying that when electric cars can reliably reach certain performance standards, we will discontinue selling gasoline powered cars. What may be more reasonable is some kind of policy to adopt hybrids on a widespread scale when they meet certain standards.

By the way, the common meme is that JFK created the space program by picking the moon before the end of the decade as the goal. That's pretty blatantly untrue. We had NASA, we had 7 astronauts, and we had put satellites into space before JFK was even elected. By the time he gave his "Why does Rice play Texas?" speech, we had already sent astronauts into space. We were behind the Russians for a while, but by the time he gave that speech, we were pretty much neck and neck. We actually had two competing US space programs at that point. One was started by the Navy and one by the Army. The Navy program had been the official program that was initially surpassed by the Russians, and the Army program was a skunk works effort that had pretty much led the catch-up effort. They had differing concepts of how to go forward. The Army wanted to launch a space station first, and go to the moon from the space station. The Navy wanted to bypass the space station and go directly to the moon. The Army program was expecting to get to the moon by about 1975. Since the Navy program bypassed the space station, it expected to get to the moon sooner. The Russians were focused on a space station, for its military value, which was also a component of the Army approach. What JFK did with his challenge to go to the moon within the decade was to select the Navy approach--which became NASA's approach.

At the time, I had cousins who worked at Redstone (the center of the Army program) and they felt that JFK had made a mistake by ignoring the military value of a space station at the height of the Cold War. That actually ended up working okay. Russia was getting by through stealing a lot of our ideas (and in some cases rushing them into implementation sooner). Since they didn't care about going to the moon, they really didn't have much interest in stealing ideas from NASA. Without the ability to steal our research and knowledge, their space program slowed down significantly. They really didn't do much from the mid-60s until the international space station.

(07-28-2017 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All that is being said is don't cut them off before you have a viable alternative.

There will be by then

(07-28-2017 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not 40%, or even 15%.

But you're talking in percents now ... that's only relevant because the range of the battery is mis-rated too high.

Hmmm, if the range is mis-rated too high, that means that it is not as comparable to gasoline or diesel powered cars as you want to suggest. That also means it probably will need to be rated 600 in order to give me 500 or even 400. So I'll stick with my 600.

Quote:

(07-28-2017 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But I'm not for imposing an arbitrary standard without regard to whether or not it is reasonably doable.

It is reasonably doable. You just don't want that to be the case, because of your personal ideology against climate change.

Now you are just blatantly lying. I've made it pretty clear that I want it to work. I'm just saying it's idiotic to impose arbitrary standards at any point in time, unless and until the technology to achieve it is there.

If you're simply going to misrepresent my comments in order to be able to argue against the resulting straw men, then this conversation is over.

(07-28-2017 01:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All that is being said is don't cut them off before you have a viable alternative.

There will be by then

What if there isn't?

(07-28-2017 12:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:24 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Add in the need for an electric heater, lights, etc. and battery performance is greatly decreased.

A battery doesn't lose performance just because more current is being drawn from it, anymore than a gas tank loses performance because more gas is pumped out of it.

You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. A battery that goes 100 miles on a charge with no load, other than the motor, goes only 80 miles when headlamps, wipers and the electric heater are used.

MplsBison Wrote:

(07-28-2017 12:25 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  That is my real world range. Our Jetta TDI did even better.

Not that you actually need such a range.

Whoopity doo - you 0.1% who claim to want/need such a range don't justify allowing gas only cars to continue to be sold

Who are you to decide what range I need?

I guess you don't understand that if I have a battery car that only goes 100 miles on a charge, I have to stop five times to recharge it to go the same distance my current gas vehicles go. Given the essential non-existence of charging stations, much less fast charge technology, yes, it matters greatly.

Plus, you just moved the goal posts to counter your being wrong. Nicely done.

(07-28-2017 12:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Make it 6xx miles and I'd buy it.

BS - what gas only passenger vehicles are 6xx mile range?

My VW Passat, for instance. Educate yourself.

My VW Jetta--43 mpg on highway x 14 gallons = 602.
My BMW 528i--34 mpg on highway x 17 gallons = 578.

One other thing. Those mileages hold up pretty well if you are playing radio/stereo and even if you are using the AC. All-electric performance goes down a bunch since they are drawing on the same source of electricity as the engine.

honestly if you are going to drive 9-10 hours without a break power to you. but that's unrealistic for 99.9% of people so you are just adding an arbitrary standard to bash electric cars.

The point is how many times the electric car has to "refuel" compared to the equivalent gas vehicle. My car refuels in less than five minutes, with gas stations everywhere. There is nothing comparable, technology or with respect to accessibility for electric cars.