A bit of a brutal take on the Mach-e and a bit on EV's in general.

[Hammered]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

1 gal ~= 33.41 KWh

Therefore, 90 KWh of usable battery is approximately equivalent to 2.69 gallons of gas.

My point is, the energy requirement of a Mach E to go 300 miles is about 5x less than the energy requirement of, say a Ford Bronco Sport in my example to go the same 300 miles.

There is a "value" to some people of a more energy efficient vehicle.

That's not quite how it works. My truck is one of the most efficient generators on the market and it converts 1 gallon of gas into just under 8kWh of electricity.

Sponsored

 

[TheSteelRider]

That's not quite how it works. My truck is one of the most efficient generators on the market and it converts 1 gallon of gas into just under 8kWh of electricity.

1 gal ~= 33.41 KWh

KWh is a unit of energy

When you put a gallon of gas into a combustion engine, the chemical energy contained therein is converted to mechanical energy (and heat). If that combustion engine is turning a generator, then the mechanical energy is then converted into electrical energy (and heat, again)

At each of these conversions, there are losses. Combustion engines typically only have an efficiency of approximately 20 - 40%. This means, if 33.41 units of energy go into a combustion engine, only 20 - 40% of that energy is converted to mechanical energy. You then take that reduced amount, and run it through a generator to convert the mechanical energy to electrical energy (which is likely a few percentage more loss) suffering even more losses.

Taking a large, car/trunk engine (even one of the most efficient ones) as an example, it is likely that you are only getting out as electricity less than 25% of the original energy available in the gallon of gas

Seems like your 8KW of electricity out of 1 gallon of gas is about right.

Here is a decent article from fueleconomy.gov about the significantly more efficient nature of an EV. You can see that, especially with regen braking, my 5x claim is likely not far off from reality.

 

[Hammered]

1 gal ~= 33.41 KWh

KWh is a unit of energy

When you put a gallon of gas into a combustion engine, the chemical energy contained therein is converted to mechanical energy (and heat). If that combustion engine is turning a generator, then the mechanical energy is then converted into electrical energy (and heat, again)

At each of these conversions, there are losses. Combustion engines typically only have an efficiency of approximately 20 - 40%. This means, if 33.41 units of energy go into a combustion engine, only 20 - 40% of that energy is converted to mechanical energy. You then take that reduced amount, and run it through a generator to convert the mechanical energy to electrical energy (which is likely a few percentage more loss) suffering even more losses.

Taking a large, car/trunk engine (even one of the most efficient ones) as an example, it is likely that you are only getting out as electricity less than 25% of the original energy available in the gallon of gas

Seems like your 8KW of electricity out of 1 gallon of gas is about right.

Here is a decent article from fueleconomy.gov about the significantly more efficient nature of an EV. You can see that, especially with regen braking, my 5x claim is likely not far off from reality.

So I decided to calculate what my MME uses in terms of coal since my power is 100% from one of the largest coal plants on this rock. Every 100 miles my MME consumes 55.86lbs coal which comes in at about 540k BTU (2.4m/kWh avg)

To compare, AWD kia sportage hybrid is about the right size for comp sake. Claimed 38 MPG, let's call it 33.3mpg for comparison to make that 100 mile range mark. Fuel used, 87 e10 gasoline, energy content of 3 gallons, 330k BTU. Let's say I'm even heavier footed and can only manage 25mpg, now we're at 440k BTU. Let's say, just to make you feel good because you seem to be looking for some validation or something, I can only manage 20mpg (which is funny because my 6200lb F150 manages to get 22-26mpg), it's consuming 551k BTU.

vs the MME at 540k btu?

What was your original argument about again? Just curious cuz math is hard.
Something about energy consumption of electric being really good, failing to account actual energy costs. I don't think either of us know what you're talking about.

(variables used, avg US coal thermal power plant efficiency, 5% transmission loss, 12% wall socket to battery charging loss)

 

[Shayne]

So I decided to calculate what my MME uses in terms of coal since my power is 100% from one of the largest coal plants on this rock. Every 100 miles my MME consumes 55.86lbs coal which comes in at about 540k BTU (2.4m/kWh avg)

To compare, AWD kia sportage hybrid is about the right size for comp sake. Claimed 38 MPG, let's call it 33.3mpg for comparison to make that 100 mile range mark. Fuel used, 87 e10 gasoline, energy content of 3 gallons, 330k BTU. Let's say I'm even heavier footed and can only manage 25mpg, now we're at 440k BTU. Let's say, just to make you feel good because you seem to be looking for some validation or something, I can only manage 20mpg (which is funny because my 6200lb F150 manages to get 22-26mpg), it's consuming 551k BTU.

vs the MME at 540k btu?

What was your original argument about again? Just curious cuz math is hard.
Something about energy consumption of electric being really good, failing to account actual energy costs. I don't think either of us know what you're talking about.

(variables used, avg US coal thermal power plant efficiency, 5% transmission loss, 12% wall socket to battery charging loss)

95% green energy here and it sounds like your argument is with your energy company not with someone on this forum that is explaining the potential energy in a gallon of gas. Electric vehicles are way more efficient than ICE vehicles. How the electricity is generated or how much it costs does not enter the equation of how much they use to get from A to B. But it costs me about $14.00 to run 250 miles in the MME costs me around $90.00 to run 250 miles in the V8 truck.

It is sad to see the amount of coal that is still used in some "developed" countries in the world to generate electricity. Appears the super powers are actually scared of the super part when for good so stock pile it for destruction.

 

[Hammered]

95% green energy here and it sounds like your argument is with your energy company not with someone on this forum that is explaining the potential energy in a gallon of gas. Electric vehicles are way more efficient than ICE vehicles. How the electricity is generated or how much it costs does not enter the equation of how much they use to get from A to B. But it costs me about $14.00 to run 250 miles in the MME costs me around $90.00 to run 250 miles in the V8 truck.

It is sad to see the amount of coal that is still used in some "developed" countries in the world to generate electricity. Appears the super powers are actually scared of the super part when for good so stock pile it for destruction.

Except that it does. In the US, 60% of all power is from coal / nat gas (20/40) and follows along the same energy variables that I described above (all thermal power plants operate the same). Picking and choosing variables in an attempt to spin a narrative has no place here. Your pricing is nuts!! To drive my F150 250 miles is $36 in fuel whereas the MME at 2.4m/kWh is $3.64. Guess that "green" energy is pretty expensive. I love the cheap coal.

The thermal ratings as I listed above are the most accurate as it's literally the energy needed to do the same work. Cost to pump an oil well / transport the fuel nor mine the coal / rail transport are variables as they wash / are marginal. Liquids go via pipeline and coal via trains. Thermal power plants are ~33% efficient just as gasoline engines are, roughly. You can't say the tailpipe energy on the gas car matters but the exhaust of a power plant doesn't. That's ignorant, disingenuous, or propaganda one.

I'm a CO2 absolutist though. Yes, we should be burning coal... and nat gas, and all petroleum products, and go hog wild with nuclear. The goal should be to make energy costs as close to zero as possible, as fast as possible, using ALL means to achieve it. Anyone who disagrees is an enemy to the citizens on this planet, hoping to keep people impoverished and malnourished. Cheap abundant energy gave birth to the Industrial Age, which dawned the Information Age, which will soon give birth to the technological singularity and the Voluntarium Aevum where work is optional as human labor becomes obsolete/redundant.

 

[MacherAWD]

Lol.

Brainwash def.
make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.

95% of the market recharges at a gas station (even you), but it's a radically different belief system for refueling cars.

Righhhhht.

Home solar, almost all my charging in 8 years is at home. And we barely drive the ICEV anymore.

 

[TheSteelRider]

So I decided to calculate what my MME uses in terms of coal since my power is 100% from one of the largest coal plants on this rock. Every 100 miles my MME consumes 55.86lbs coal which comes in at about 540k BTU (2.4m/kWh avg)

To compare, AWD kia sportage hybrid is about the right size for comp sake. Claimed 38 MPG, let's call it 33.3mpg for comparison to make that 100 mile range mark. Fuel used, 87 e10 gasoline, energy content of 3 gallons, 330k BTU. Let's say I'm even heavier footed and can only manage 25mpg, now we're at 440k BTU. Let's say, just to make you feel good because you seem to be looking for some validation or something, I can only manage 20mpg (which is funny because my 6200lb F150 manages to get 22-26mpg), it's consuming 551k BTU.

vs the MME at 540k btu?

What was your original argument about again? Just curious cuz math is hard.
Something about energy consumption of electric being really good, failing to account actual energy costs. I don't think either of us know what you're talking about.

(variables used, avg US coal thermal power plant efficiency, 5% transmission loss, 12% wall socket to battery charging loss)

My post point was that An EV uses it's fuel source more efficient than an ICE car. I'm sorry that physics upsets you.

You are responding to a different argument, being cradle-to-grave emissions. My post claimed nothing about emissions.

There have been many posts on this forum about that topic that are interesting. Here is one for example: https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...ion-than-for-other-light-duty-vehicles.15163/

 

[Hammered]

My post point was that An EV uses it's fuel source more efficient than an ICE car. I'm sorry that physics upsets you.

You are responding to a different argument, being cradle-to-grave emissions. My post claimed nothing about emissions.

There have been many posts on this forum about that topic that are interesting. Here is one for example: https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...ion-than-for-other-light-duty-vehicles.15163/

It's not an emissions thing, it's an energy thing. An ICE is creating its energy from a fuel, an EV has the power plant create its energy from its own fuel supply offsite. Apples to apples comparison is fuel to motion. Playing games with numbers in an attempt to hide the true energy costs is something someone pushing a narrative would do. It's no different than claiming ethanol is a clean fuel despite it requiring significantly more energy to produce it than it yields to the user -- it's nothing but a farm subsidy despite how it's marketed. Sorry / not sorry it's inconvenient for the truth to be known.

It costs ~13k BTUs of energy to put 1kWh into an EV which contains 3.4k btus giving the typical EV a 25% fuel to useful energy efficiency factor. Just is what it is. Hybrid ICE vehicles require less energy to do the same work. There's just no escaping that fact. One would have to be of the mind to believe that you go to the grocery store to pick up milk from a magic shelf that just replenishes it like some voodoo spell, when in-fact it comes from a cow, on a farm, down the road. Wall sockets just have magic power that comes from la la land I guess, eh? Definitely not a billion dollar gas/coal burning facility down the road.

 

[TheSteelRider]

It's not an emissions thing, it's an energy thing. An ICE is creating its energy from a fuel, an EV has the power plant create its energy from its own fuel supply offsite. Apples to apples comparison is fuel to motion. Playing games with numbers in an attempt to hide the true energy costs is something someone pushing a narrative would do. It's no different than claiming ethanol is a clean fuel despite it requiring significantly more energy to produce it than it yields to the user -- it's nothing but a farm subsidy despite how it's marketed. Sorry / not sorry it's inconvenient for the truth to be known.

It costs ~13k BTUs of energy to put 1kWh into an EV which contains 3.4k btus giving the typical EV a 25% fuel to useful energy efficiency factor. Just is what it is. Hybrid ICE vehicles require less energy to do the same work. There's just no escaping that fact. One would have to be of the mind to believe that you go to the grocery store to pick up milk from a magic shelf that just replenishes it like some voodoo spell, when in-fact it comes from a cow, on a farm, down the road. Wall sockets just have magic power that comes from la la land I guess, eh? Definitely not a billion dollar gas/coal burning facility down the road.

Please point out in my original post where I was playing games with numbers.

Also, if that's where you want to take the argument even though my post was not about that topic at all, then let's talk about the missing numbers from your post about the emissions involved in mining minerals for batteries, the missing numbers on fuel extraction, and the missing numbers for fuel transportation.

Do you have those available for us to discuss?

 

[MacherAWD]

Science fact of the day... gasoline comes from solar too, but what does your solar charging have to do with ouur discussion?

And why no electric lawn mower? I started using one in 1973.

Isnt your point that Public fueling like ICE is the answer? That 95% of people recharge at a gas station? Not sure what you were meaning?

I looked into EV mower, doesnt actually work for my needs. We have a 1/2 acre with a bunch of trees. I used my neighbors nice EV mower with 2 expensive batteries, he paid almost $1k, but it couldnt even do my whole yard in summer, and now this time of year doing leaves I need 3-4 productive hours, cant wait for charging. If I had a smaller yard then yes I would have one, but for now I have a gas mower. Also my snowblower is only 4 years old, so when I needed a new mower this summer replacing both with electric was way too pricey.

 

[MacherAWD]

No that wasn't my point. My point is that ICEV (95% of the automotive market) recharge in 5 minutes at a gas station, so there is no need for home charging an ICEV. The recharging issue is going to be the limiting factor for major market adoption of EV, regardless of how good the infrastructure gets. The realistic ownership model for EV is tied to home charging. Outside of Tesla (and it still is limited IMO), EV public charging sucks.

Gotcha, ok. Yes which is why an EV is not for everyone, but probably for much more than the current 5%. Again 8 years of driving, and my "refueling" is much easier, and cheaper than gas could ever be. I have used a public charger less than 10 times total. Many people cling to the "5min fillup" but what they dont realize is an EV might be much cheaper, and easier than they could imagine. I live in New England, it is small, we can zip all over with good infrastructure.

 

[MacherAWD]

I've done the math numerous times (since 2013). ICEV is still cheaper overall. And for any travel past 150 miles from home is just too inconvenient compared to refueling with gasoline. Which is Savage Geese's point.

Factoring in fuel savings all of my driving, maintenance and car ownership costs since 2016 is $10k. Thats it, $10k is all my mach-e and other cars have cost. In 3 more years my mach-e and other cars will be free.

 

[MacherAWD]

But that's not how you calculate total ownership cost.

What did I miss? Had I been driving similar ICE since 2016 I would be about $70k out of pocket vs $10k

 

[astronut325]

I’m really critical of the Mach-E but I think these guys are full of crap. Nonsensical comparison, undervaluing performance, tech, quality of interior, lower cost of ownership, etc.

Ford needs a swift kick in the nuts for the Mach-E. Some of their observations are accurate, but most of it is just biases showing front and center.

 

[MacherAWD]

The only way to evaluate operating cost is on a per-mile basis. That is ALL costs, not just gas and maintenance. No way the EV/ICEV delta is $60K in operating cost. I have a car driven since new at 3 miles to 420,000+ miles. Just gasoline cost alone was only $47K to 400,000 miles. I have written record of every fuel stop. Add in just maintenance and repairs the number goes to $82K... for 400,000 miles. It's a German luxury brand that uses premium fuel and averages 27 MPG. No way your ICE costs $10,000 per year to operate.

For my EVs I dont pay for fuel (home solar) and have had virtually no repairs.

For my ICE paid $40k for it, then have paid for 85k miles of fuel (about $15k), and probably $3k in maintenance.

My Leaf was bought used, and sold for what I paid.

My Bolt was bought on heavy discount, and then with the battery debacle traded in for a more expensive car.

My Mach-E cost me $5k above the total cost of the Bolt situation, so $29k after rebates.

When you factor in no maintenence, and the fuel savings of those 85k miles (I have driven about 85k miles on the EVs since 2016) it gets the cost down to $15k, and that number is falling each year I drive without paying for fuel or repair.

Yes most dont get free fuel from the sun, but I encourage people to run the numbers as they should with an EV it may work out for them. So for me I am saving tons of money with an EV, and when you factor in those savings (we would be driving something) it puts our ownership almost in the black.

Sponsored