Read on Twitter
Instead of picking on Tesla, I will now pick on Mercedes. Big boys can handle it, right?
EVs are a JOKE is the conclusion. But why? Devils revealed in the details.
Compare to @New_engine_type
Go to link and see the "real energy consumptions"
... https://ev-database.org/car/1315/Mercedes-EQV-300-Extra-Long
EVs are a JOKE is the conclusion. But why? Devils revealed in the details.
Compare to @New_engine_type
Go to link and see the "real energy consumptions"
... https://ev-database.org/car/1315/Mercedes-EQV-300-Extra-Long
Here is the data in wh/km:
cold - mild cold/mild ratio
city 261 - 189 > 1.38
HWY 383 - 310 > 1.24
Comb 316 - 247 > 1.28
Converted to MPG for USA:
cold - mild
city 80.2 - 110.7
HWY 54.6 - 67.5
Comb 66.2 - 84.7
Notice cold/mild ratios.
cold - mild cold/mild ratio
city 261 - 189 > 1.38
HWY 383 - 310 > 1.24
Comb 316 - 247 > 1.28
Converted to MPG for USA:
cold - mild
city 80.2 - 110.7
HWY 54.6 - 67.5
Comb 66.2 - 84.7
Notice cold/mild ratios.
A Chevy Venture van gets in MPG - wh/km, 3838 lb:
MPG - wh/km
City 17 - 1231
Hwy 24 - 871
Com 20 - 1046
@New_engine_type in Venture van estimated 3438 lbs:
MPG - wh/km >>Ratio New/Old
City 138 - 151 >> 8.1
Hwy 91 - 230 >> 3.8
Com 120 - 174 >> 6.0
MPG - wh/km
City 17 - 1231
Hwy 24 - 871
Com 20 - 1046
@New_engine_type in Venture van estimated 3438 lbs:
MPG - wh/km >>Ratio New/Old
City 138 - 151 >> 8.1
Hwy 91 - 230 >> 3.8
Com 120 - 174 >> 6.0
@New_engine_type (NET) VS EQV:
Cold:
Net - EQV > Ratios
City 138 - 80.2 > 1.72
Hwy 91 - 54.6 > 1.66
com 120 - 66.2 > 1.81
Mild:
Net - EQV > Ratios
City 138 - 110.7 > 1.25
Hwy 91 - 67.5 > 1.35
com 120 - 84.7 > 1.41
(1.81+1.41)/2=1.61 Key
Cold:
Net - EQV > Ratios
City 138 - 80.2 > 1.72
Hwy 91 - 54.6 > 1.66
com 120 - 66.2 > 1.81
Mild:
Net - EQV > Ratios
City 138 - 110.7 > 1.25
Hwy 91 - 67.5 > 1.35
com 120 - 84.7 > 1.41
(1.81+1.41)/2=1.61 Key
The average is cold + mild or what you will see over 1 years.
The 1.81 cold ratio shows why EVs stink.
The 1.41 shows that brake recovery and low power efficiency is poor for EV compared to NET.
Range?
Venture, 28 gal tank x 120=3360 miles
EQV is 330 km =205 miles
16:1
The 1.81 cold ratio shows why EVs stink.
The 1.41 shows that brake recovery and low power efficiency is poor for EV compared to NET.
Range?
Venture, 28 gal tank x 120=3360 miles
EQV is 330 km =205 miles
16:1
Remember, the Venture uses the old gas tank at 28 gallons (I own one, and that is what the tank holds...I tested it to empty).
This assumes only an engine swap of old IC six cylinder for @New_engine_type with ONLY open gasoline cycle.
This is first step to improved MPG...
This assumes only an engine swap of old IC six cylinder for @New_engine_type with ONLY open gasoline cycle.
This is first step to improved MPG...
The next step is to remove old tanks and install 6 inch round 3600 PSI tanks and new engine. This allow CLOSED Cycle and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) from home at 80 cents/GGE.
Ranges at 120 mpg in miles:
Gasoline 42 gal = 5040
CNG open cycle 12 GGE = 1440
CNG CLOSE 6 GGE = 720
Ranges at 120 mpg in miles:
Gasoline 42 gal = 5040
CNG open cycle 12 GGE = 1440
CNG CLOSE 6 GGE = 720
720 mile range with ZERO emissions...no exhaust...NONE, just like an EV.
Unload the compressed exhaust and recycle via fuel maker and Solar thermal + @New_engine_type engine at house.
720 miles = ~17 days of driving if 15,000/year.
This give system 17 days to make fuel.
Unload the compressed exhaust and recycle via fuel maker and Solar thermal + @New_engine_type engine at house.
720 miles = ~17 days of driving if 15,000/year.
This give system 17 days to make fuel.
CO2 comparison:
Grid 550 g CO2/kw USA
gasoline 264
CNG 184
CNG zero emission 20
Do the math with combined ratios from above:
Average ratio 1.61:
550/264 x 1.61 = 3.35
550/184 x 1.61 =4.8
550/20 x 161 = 44.2
Cold ratio 1.81?
3.77
5.41
49.7
mild ratio 1.41?
2.94
4.21
38.8
Grid 550 g CO2/kw USA
gasoline 264
CNG 184
CNG zero emission 20
Do the math with combined ratios from above:
Average ratio 1.61:
550/264 x 1.61 = 3.35
550/184 x 1.61 =4.8
550/20 x 161 = 44.2
Cold ratio 1.81?
3.77
5.41
49.7
mild ratio 1.41?
2.94
4.21
38.8
To be fair to @New_engine_type we need to add in the CO2 for battery. Assume CNG = battery use = 184 gCO2/kw.
Do the math with 1.61... 550+184=734 g CO2/kw and gasoline at 264 and CNG at 184.
734/264 x 1.61=4.5
734/184 x 1.61=6.4
734/20 x 1.61 =59
This is close to reality.
Do the math with 1.61... 550+184=734 g CO2/kw and gasoline at 264 and CNG at 184.
734/264 x 1.61=4.5
734/184 x 1.61=6.4
734/20 x 1.61 =59
This is close to reality.
@New_engine_type / old IC CO2 ratios are the MPG ratios.
EV
734 gCO2/kw for EV.
1.49 city,
1.5 HWY,
1.61 com
MPG:
New-old >Old/NET EV/NET w gasoline
City 138-17 > 8.1 4.1
Hwy 91-24 > 3.8 4.17
Com 120-20 > 6.0 4.47
Notice Old IC is LESS than EV!
EV
734 gCO2/kw for EV.
1.49 city,
1.5 HWY,
1.61 com
MPG:
New-old >Old/NET EV/NET w gasoline
City 138-17 > 8.1 4.1
Hwy 91-24 > 3.8 4.17
Com 120-20 > 6.0 4.47
Notice Old IC is LESS than EV!
Notice the CO2 ratios on average are 4.1 to 4.47 for combined, which is the ultimate average of averages, if you follow...the bottom line...
EV/NET CO2 ratio is =4.5 more CO2.
Old IC/EV = 6/4.47=1.34 ...= ~75% of the CO2 ON AVERAGE.
Trillions for 25% reductions? INSANE!
EV/NET CO2 ratio is =4.5 more CO2.
Old IC/EV = 6/4.47=1.34 ...= ~75% of the CO2 ON AVERAGE.
Trillions for 25% reductions? INSANE!
Discussion:
@New_engine_type compared to Old IC is 6:1 less CO2 with gasoline = 83.3% less CO2. With CNG, the ratio is 8.6x (264/184 x 6=8.6x)...= 88.4% less CO2.
@New_engine_type compared to EV is 4.5:1 less CO2 with gasoline. With CNG, the ratio is 6.46x ...=84.5% less CO2.
@New_engine_type compared to Old IC is 6:1 less CO2 with gasoline = 83.3% less CO2. With CNG, the ratio is 8.6x (264/184 x 6=8.6x)...= 88.4% less CO2.
@New_engine_type compared to EV is 4.5:1 less CO2 with gasoline. With CNG, the ratio is 6.46x ...=84.5% less CO2.
The ONLY technology that ACTUALLY REDUCES CO2 is...
@New_engine_type
And this does NOT even include Renewable Energy!
Add in Solar RE with CO2 close cycle capture and fuel making?
@New_engine_type is 59 times less CO2 than an EV... = 98.3% of CO2 GONE. (734/20 x 1.61 = 59)
@New_engine_type
And this does NOT even include Renewable Energy!
Add in Solar RE with CO2 close cycle capture and fuel making?
@New_engine_type is 59 times less CO2 than an EV... = 98.3% of CO2 GONE. (734/20 x 1.61 = 59)
Notice that 83.3% of the CO2 is gone with gasoline compared to old IC engines just by switching out the engines. Then by using CNG it is 88.4% gone.
That leaves 12% of the CO2 to be removed.
You can cut 1/2 or 6% by new designs...
NO RE needed for 94% of the CO2 gone...!
That leaves 12% of the CO2 to be removed.
You can cut 1/2 or 6% by new designs...
NO RE needed for 94% of the CO2 gone...!
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if gasoline is 10% ethanol, and we only need 6% with new design, then the entire car fleet could be run on Ethanol (no gasoline mixed in), for crying out loud.
These people are dumber than a box of rocks! DC=stupidville.
These people are dumber than a box of rocks! DC=stupidville.
Then if we actually turned the brain on, we could use Hemp to grow bio fuels and be Net ZER CO2 with just hemp and @New_engine_type in each car.
No fuel station changes.
No charging stations
No RE wind/solar PV/battery/EV junk
If CO2 is your issue, then @New_engine_type is it.
No fuel station changes.
No charging stations
No RE wind/solar PV/battery/EV junk
If CO2 is your issue, then @New_engine_type is it.
If low cost transit is your thing, the @New_engine_type is your only option.
Try CNG from house at 80 cents/GGE... and 120 mpg for a van, 150-200 mpg car a car...to start...
All I can say is the auto industry will collapse if they keep it up. EVs are their doom...
Try CNG from house at 80 cents/GGE... and 120 mpg for a van, 150-200 mpg car a car...to start...
All I can say is the auto industry will collapse if they keep it up. EVs are their doom...
More comments...
Notice fast charge 33->264 km 47 min of total 330 km.
330-264=66 ... +33=99 km. 99/330 =0.3 or 30%. 10% low end and 20% high end or 70% total.
90 kwh x 70%= 63 kwh normal charge =1.87 GGE...
66.2-84.7 mpge =124-158 mile range. Joke https://ev-database.org/car/1315/Mercedes-EQV-300-Extra-Long
Notice fast charge 33->264 km 47 min of total 330 km.
330-264=66 ... +33=99 km. 99/330 =0.3 or 30%. 10% low end and 20% high end or 70% total.
90 kwh x 70%= 63 kwh normal charge =1.87 GGE...
66.2-84.7 mpge =124-158 mile range. Joke https://ev-database.org/car/1315/Mercedes-EQV-300-Extra-Long
If you compare EQV to a Tesla Model 3 at 310 miles (500 km), you see a ratio of 500/330=1.5.
90 x 1.5 =135 kwh battery is needed.
Assume Tesla weight of 1050 lbs/85 kwh. 12.35 lbs/kwh.
135-90=45 kwh... x 12.35 lbs =556 lbs.
Car should be 1000 lb (454 kg) more. 2660+454=3114
90 x 1.5 =135 kwh battery is needed.
Assume Tesla weight of 1050 lbs/85 kwh. 12.35 lbs/kwh.
135-90=45 kwh... x 12.35 lbs =556 lbs.
Car should be 1000 lb (454 kg) more. 2660+454=3114
At 3114 kg (6850 lbs) that baby is over 3000 lbs more than a Venture van (3838 lbs), and 3400 lbs more than Venture with @New_engine_type in it... or about 2x weight.
Add in 400 lbs of people, run numbers again.
Remember, the NET gives range of:
2400 miles on 20 gal gasoline.
Add in 400 lbs of people, run numbers again.
Remember, the NET gives range of:
2400 miles on 20 gal gasoline.
With a new Venture (in theory) it would have 42 gallons of CNG tanks on floor and be around 3400 lbs or 1/2 the 135 kwh version of the EQV by Mercedes.
Range = 42x120 mpg=5040 on gasoline.
NG tanks are 3.5 gal/GGE.
42/3.5=12 GGE, 6 closed cycle.
6-12 GGE = 720-1440 miles
Range = 42x120 mpg=5040 on gasoline.
NG tanks are 3.5 gal/GGE.
42/3.5=12 GGE, 6 closed cycle.
6-12 GGE = 720-1440 miles
The battery = the CO2 of CNG. Using CNG = same CO2 as using Battery once.
CNG 1440 mile range compares to 124 cold mile-158 mild mile range of EQV with 90 kwh x 1.5 for 135 kwh battery = 186-237 miles
1440/186=7.74
1440/237=6.08
At 330kmx1.5=500km=310.5 miles
1440/310.5=4.63
CNG 1440 mile range compares to 124 cold mile-158 mild mile range of EQV with 90 kwh x 1.5 for 135 kwh battery = 186-237 miles
1440/186=7.74
1440/237=6.08
At 330kmx1.5=500km=310.5 miles
1440/310.5=4.63
In other words, you would make the SAME CO2 running your car on Solar panels (assuming zero CO2, which they clearly are NOT!) as you would driving with CNG from house (both charged from house), and have 4.63 times LESS range.
9 gal CNG tank = 135 kwh battery, 1575 lb (716kg).
9 gal CNG tank = 135 kwh battery, 1575 lb (716kg).
A 9 gallon tank at 6 inches diameter would be around 74-80 inches depending on end shape.
5 tanks = 45 gallons and 30+ inches wide.
You could have 8 tanks or 72 gallons in 48 inch wide "raft" of tanks to clear wheels for 48 inch internal for plywood.
72 x 120=8,640 miles.
5 tanks = 45 gallons and 30+ inches wide.
You could have 8 tanks or 72 gallons in 48 inch wide "raft" of tanks to clear wheels for 48 inch internal for plywood.
72 x 120=8,640 miles.
BTW, the sun is 864,000 miles in diameter...shedding some light on the subject here for those esoteric types...
With 72 gal tanks, travel 1/100th the diameter of the sun...
Fill up 2x/year in 7.2 minutes at 10 gal/minute.
Or 36-46 times with 135 kwh bat at 70 min/.
With 72 gal tanks, travel 1/100th the diameter of the sun...
Fill up 2x/year in 7.2 minutes at 10 gal/minute.
Or 36-46 times with 135 kwh bat at 70 min/.
Gasoline at 10 gallons/minute is =~ 20,220 kw
Compared to 110 kw max for EQV, you have a ratio:
20,220/110=184:1. When you consider credit card 36-46 times, finding the station, hassle, delays... It is easy 200-400 times longer.
Many chargers are 50 kw max. 20,220/50=404
Compared to 110 kw max for EQV, you have a ratio:
20,220/110=184:1. When you consider credit card 36-46 times, finding the station, hassle, delays... It is easy 200-400 times longer.
Many chargers are 50 kw max. 20,220/50=404
With a 72 gallon tank, easily fitting in a mini van in the floor, the CNG range would be 3.5x less.
8640/3.5=2468 miles on CNG at 80 cents/GGE!!!
Closed cycle would be 1/2 at 2468/2=1234 miles...nice number...
ZERO CO2 >1234 mile range = ~1 month of driving, $8.22 CNG house.
8640/3.5=2468 miles on CNG at 80 cents/GGE!!!
Closed cycle would be 1/2 at 2468/2=1234 miles...nice number...
ZERO CO2 >1234 mile range = ~1 month of driving, $8.22 CNG house.
15,000 miles / 120 mpg = 125 GGE...
at 80 cents/GGE from house = $100
for 1 year of driving at 15,000 miles/year.
The EQV would be 75 mpge average. ((84.7 mild+66.2 cold)/2=75)
15,000/75=200 GGE = 6740 kwh
6740 x $0.12/kwh (house)=$808
7640 x $0.28/kwh (super Charger) =$1887
at 80 cents/GGE from house = $100
for 1 year of driving at 15,000 miles/year.
The EQV would be 75 mpge average. ((84.7 mild+66.2 cold)/2=75)
15,000/75=200 GGE = 6740 kwh
6740 x $0.12/kwh (house)=$808
7640 x $0.28/kwh (super Charger) =$1887
Cost of driving EV vs @New_engine_type would be:
8 to 18 times more for EV than @New_engine_type on CNG or fuel (CH4) made from solar at house at 80 Cents/GGE with CO2 capture.
If you don't have Natural Gas, you capture the CO2 to make fuel (CH4) again because it is CHEAP....
8 to 18 times more for EV than @New_engine_type on CNG or fuel (CH4) made from solar at house at 80 Cents/GGE with CO2 capture.
If you don't have Natural Gas, you capture the CO2 to make fuel (CH4) again because it is CHEAP....
You can get the CO2 from Ethanol, Methanol, bio fuel and sources other than oil if you want to be a purist as a CO2 hater.
This CO2 is recycled over and over in the Mini van with a range of 1234 miles or ~ 1 month of driving.
Takes 5 minutes to fill and dump CO2 to house.
This CO2 is recycled over and over in the Mini van with a range of 1234 miles or ~ 1 month of driving.
Takes 5 minutes to fill and dump CO2 to house.
If you towed a 5000 lb trailer at 10 ft H x 8 ft W and Cd =.6 (draggy, worst case) you would go from 91 mpg at 65 mph to 23.75 mpg.
Range in miles would be:
72 x 23.75= 1710 gasoline
72/3.5 x 23.75= 488 CNG
72/3.5 x 1/2 x 23.75= 244 CNG/closed cycle
Add CNG to trailer!
Range in miles would be:
72 x 23.75= 1710 gasoline
72/3.5 x 23.75= 488 CNG
72/3.5 x 1/2 x 23.75= 244 CNG/closed cycle
Add CNG to trailer!
A van and trailer each with 72 Gallon volume CNG could have 488 x 2 =976 miles at 65 mph.
Combined MPG would 34.6 mpg. Combined range would be 72 x 34.6=711 miles/1422.
55 mph, 31.63 mpg x 72=650 miles/1300.
1300 miles is valid for CNG without filling up most trips.
Combined MPG would 34.6 mpg. Combined range would be 72 x 34.6=711 miles/1422.
55 mph, 31.63 mpg x 72=650 miles/1300.
1300 miles is valid for CNG without filling up most trips.
In theory, a large 20-24 ft camper trailer, 5000 lb, could have two sets of 72 gallons for 144 gallon volume, plus the 72 in the van for 1950 mile range on CNG at 55 mph.
At 65 mph 23.75 mpg, on gasoline, range in miles is:
72 gal > 1710
144 gal > 3420
216 gal > 5130
EV = joke
At 65 mph 23.75 mpg, on gasoline, range in miles is:
72 gal > 1710
144 gal > 3420
216 gal > 5130
EV = joke
Reality is 65 mpg loaded up 5000 lb trailer 10 H x 8 W x 20 ft long. Folds out to 400 sq ft...Nice camping space, two sides for separate spaces...Keeps the peace.
23.75 mpg on CNG would be in miles:
72 gal (20.57 GGE) > 488
144 gal (41.14 GGE) > 977
216 gal (61.71 GGE) > 1466
23.75 mpg on CNG would be in miles:
72 gal (20.57 GGE) > 488
144 gal (41.14 GGE) > 977
216 gal (61.71 GGE) > 1466
Speaking of trailers...
The ideal trailer would be 72 wide, 20 long (24 on road) that folds out to 400 sq ft or 20 ft x 20 ft. The Cd = 0.32, not 0.6 for box.
MPG = 48 mpg at 65 MPH.
CNG
72 gal tank > 987
144 > 1974
216 > 2962
Gasoline
72 > 3456
144 > 6912
216 > 10368
The ideal trailer would be 72 wide, 20 long (24 on road) that folds out to 400 sq ft or 20 ft x 20 ft. The Cd = 0.32, not 0.6 for box.
MPG = 48 mpg at 65 MPH.
CNG
72 gal tank > 987
144 > 1974
216 > 2962
Gasoline
72 > 3456
144 > 6912
216 > 10368
By having the @New_engine_type trailer in tow, the van would have plenty of range to go from the house where the CH4 is made to up to 3000 miles at 65 mph.
If you have a liquid C8 or C10 fuel maker instead of the simpler CH4 one, the range would be like the gasoline range.
If you have a liquid C8 or C10 fuel maker instead of the simpler CH4 one, the range would be like the gasoline range.
What would be range of the EQV EV van with:
5000 lb trailer, 10 H x 8 W x 20 ft with, Cd 0.6 like a box?
90 kw battery=2.67 GGE 100%. 1.87 at 70%.
Was 67.5 mpge at 65 mph, no trailer.
Would be 19.61 mpge at 65 mph with trailer.
19.61 x 2.67 = 52 miles.
19.61 x 1.87 = 37
5000 lb trailer, 10 H x 8 W x 20 ft with, Cd 0.6 like a box?
90 kw battery=2.67 GGE 100%. 1.87 at 70%.
Was 67.5 mpge at 65 mph, no trailer.
Would be 19.61 mpge at 65 mph with trailer.
19.61 x 2.67 = 52 miles.
19.61 x 1.87 = 37
Clearly an EV would NOT be able to tow anything much at all.
52 miles vs 987 miles on CNG, which has the SAME CO2 output as the EV due to battery CO2 during manufacture.
987/52=19 x further...
Houston, we have a giga problem with EVs... This is not mega, but giga....
52 miles vs 987 miles on CNG, which has the SAME CO2 output as the EV due to battery CO2 during manufacture.
987/52=19 x further...
Houston, we have a giga problem with EVs... This is not mega, but giga....
If you added 1.5 times more battery, as I calculated above, or a 135 kwh battery to match the 500 km range of a Tesla, the added weight (1000 lbs with structure) would cut MPGE by from 19.61 to 19.28.
19.28x2.66x1.5=77 miles
19.28x1.87x1.5= 54 miles
More batteries don't help...
19.28x2.66x1.5=77 miles
19.28x1.87x1.5= 54 miles
More batteries don't help...
One last note, the ideal fuels might be propane and NH3 as the tanks are 300 PSI and not 3600 PSI or 12 times less strong.
If CH4 from Natural Gas could be made into propane, then fuel can be gotten from house feed.
Fuel maker would make Propane from solar.
Gas and liquid.
If CH4 from Natural Gas could be made into propane, then fuel can be gotten from house feed.
Fuel maker would make Propane from solar.
Gas and liquid.
The nice thing about propane is it can be liquid and gaseous. Under pressure of ~100 psi (liquid) it is 74% of the energy of gasoline/volume, as compared to 28.5% for CNG/volume, or 2.6 times more dense than CH4.
Propane tanks are common and cheap.
Cook or heat with the flame.
Propane tanks are common and cheap.
Cook or heat with the flame.
Propane would also be ideal for airplanes as it could allow NH3 or propane with the same tank hardware. The transfer pumps could pump liquid instead of gas which is much easier.
The key is: Can a fuel maker be made that can make propane from CO2, water and electricity? hmmm.
The key is: Can a fuel maker be made that can make propane from CO2, water and electricity? hmmm.
