End of EV Subsidies?

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Feeble, very feeble. You asked your wife yet how she does her job?

 

No change it has been my point all along something you have desperately tried to move from.

Do you understand the difference between laboratory test and field test?

You claim to be an engineer so you should be able to work out why a test run on a rolling road in a vehicle preheated for 24 hours, and with minimal electrics on might be different to that of starting a car cold and driving it through rain, wind, with the lights, heater etc all on.

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, Auson said:

Its not normal but it is real. I have just quoted 3000 mpg ! that is a illustration that arguing over 50-69 mpg is still a lot lower than what is possible. 

(1)370 mpg nearly 60 years ago ! and the best you can come up with is driving down the side of a mountain. 

(2)Do you think the fuel economy competitons are all down hill ? 

In 40 degree heat with wife and 1 year old child in the car I had to balance my desire to beat the world record MPG test against dying of heat stroke or going off the side. In any case 99.9MPG was as high as the computer went to it may have been higher.

Nope - however try doing your daily commute or trip to the supermarket in the fashion of a hypermiler.

[jaycee + 348]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Do you understand the difference between laboratory test and field test?

You claim to be an engineer so you should be able to work out why a test run on a rolling road in a vehicle preheated for 24 hours, and with minimal electrics on might be different to that of starting a car cold and driving it through rain, wind, with the lights, heater etc all on.

I use verified data that is what an engineer does, I took the figures from the manufacturer, as you have to take them from somewhere. The fact you dislike them is not my problem. 

What is your function in life anyway apart from pushing a green agenda on an oil an gas site.

[NickW + 2,714]

11 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Feeble, very feeble. You asked your wife yet how she does her job?

 

No change it has been my point all along something you have desperately tried to move from.

If the manufacturers test specification is comparable to that of the environment an industrial boiler is to be installed in then the manufacturers specs are a reasonable guide. If not they then calculate in sufficient redundancy to cover any uncertainty or estimated shortfall.

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, jaycee said:

I use verified data that is what an engineer does, I took the figures from the manufacturer, as you have to take them from somewhere. The fact you dislike them is not my problem. 

What is your function in life anyway apart from pushing a green agenda on an oil an gas site.

This is the R.E.N.E.W.A.B.L.E.S section

I guess the forum owner is content for discuss about renewables in this part of the forum.

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, jaycee said:

I use verified data that is what an engineer does, I took the figures from the manufacturer, as you have to take them from somewhere. The fact you dislike them is not my problem. 

What is your function in life anyway apart from pushing a green agenda on an oil an gas site.

Are you a Bot on auto repeat?

Seriously - even the manufacturers put out clear disclaimers that their MPG figures are indicative only and may not reflect fuel consumption in real scenarios.

[Auson + 123]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Are you a Bot on auto repeat?

Seriously - even the manufacturers put out clear disclaimers that their MPG figures are indicative only and may not reflect fuel consumption in real scenarios.

They do the same for the wildly inaccurate on board MPG computer but you've just quoted those figures !

[NickW + 2,714]

An AA article which sums up the issue with manufacturers tests

om/driving-advice/fuels-environment/official-fuel-consumption-figures

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Auson said:

They do the same for the wildly inaccurate on board MPG computer but you've just quoted those figures !

I think they generally over estimate MPG so the picture of ICE fuel economy is even worse.

I know my Toyota Hybrids computer reads fuel economy at about 5% higher than in reality. I have measured it several times by tank fills.

[NickW + 2,714]

17 minutes ago, jaycee said:

I use verified data that is what an engineer does, I took the figures from the manufacturer, as you have to take them from somewhere. The fact you dislike them is not my problem. 

What is your function in life anyway apart from pushing a green agenda on an oil an gas site.

We have an Auris Hybrid. Manufacturers spec is 69mpg.

Its mostly used for my wifes commute from Essex to kent each day.

In real life she gets about 53 mpg (summer) and 48 mpg (winter). I get about 55-56mpg on longer runs and occasionally nudge into the low 60's. However nowhere near manufacturers specs.

previous cars recently owned - Qashqai 2 litre petrol (in Oz) 34mpg, Toyota Yaris (OZ) 46mpg both of which were well below manufacturers spec in a climate where warm up costs are going to be much lower.

[NickW + 2,714]

28 minutes ago, jaycee said:

I use verified data that is what an engineer does, I took the figures from the manufacturer, as you have to take them from somewhere. The fact you dislike them is not my problem. 

What is your function in life anyway apart from pushing a green agenda on an oil an gas site.

So having effectively lost the argument you now resort to a rather feeble attempt at calling into question whether I should be commenting on threads on this site, notwithstanding the point this is the renewables sections on a thread about EV's

 

[jaycee + 348]

31 minutes ago, NickW said:

If the manufacturers test specification is comparable to that of the environment an industrial boiler is to be installed in then the manufacturers specs are a reasonable guide. If not they then calculate in sufficient redundancy to cover any uncertainty or estimated shortfall.

Pardon? You are sticking in random words by the look of it, just like a bot as it happens.

If I am speccing equipment I check it will work in the enviiroment it will work in simple. If its -45C in winter I make sure the spec says it operates  at that temp, if not and I still want it I put it in a heated enclosure no idea what redundancy you are on about. I do the control system that operate the boiler not the boiler. Your wife works out the size of the boiler for me and she tells me what temperature to control it between.

[jaycee + 348]

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

So having effectively lost the argument you now resort to a rather feeble attempt at calling into question whether I should be commenting on threads on this site, notwithstanding the point this is the renewables sections on a thread about EV's

I am bored with talking to an idiot to be honest

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, jaycee said:

I am bored with talking to an idiot to be honest

Feeble

I made a fair comparison between a Nissan Leaf and Pulsar. Similar sized cars. The maths was in the correct ball park. Clearly the energy requirements of the Leaf were much lower than the petrol equivalent taking into account losses.

You then introduce:

the Peugeot 108 Golf Buggy as a comparison

Insisted the manufacturers test data is a reliable guide for real life fuel economy

Reference the Edinburgh Tram debacle which has nothing to do with this

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

11 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Pardon? You are sticking in random words by the look of it, just like a bot as it happens.

If I am speccing equipment I check it will work in the enviiroment it will work in simple. If its -45C in winter I make sure the spec says it operates  at that temp, if not and I still want it I put it in a heated enclosure no idea what redundancy you are on about. I do the control system that operate the boiler not the boiler. Your wife works out the size of the boiler for me and she tells me what temperature to control it between.

You are so technically  illiterate you cannot even differentiate between a lab test and field test. I wouldn't employ you to build lego toys to entertain children.

Here is a summary of the main issues with manufacturers testing as a reference to what fuel economy you would get in the field.I have highlighted the key points to assist (probably a waste of time) you in seeing the main reasons for the key difference between manufacturers spec and real life.

Issues with the current test

The basic test cycle was developed in the 1970s and doesn’t properly represent modern driving patterns or vehicle performance.

• The cycle’s only short in duration and dominated by periods of idling and low engine load.
• The test car only briefly reaches motorway speed.
• Air-conditioning, lights and other electrical loads are all switched off for the test.
• Flexibilities in the test procedure can be exploited to achieve a lower overall fuel consumption
• The test is run in a room temperature between 20 and 30 C – much higher than the average outside temperature.
• The way that the rolling resistance of the rollers is set in discreet steps means that a small reduction in vehicle weight may be enough to get a more significant reduction in rolling resistance.
• Fuel consumption can be optimised for the test conditions.
• The test can give a distorted view of the benefits of new technologies – stop/start systems work well in the test because it contains a lot of idling: about 10% of the NEDC.
• The test doesn’t take account of passengers or other loads

 

[NickW + 2,714]

18 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Pardon? You are sticking in random words by the look of it, just like a bot as it happens.

If I am speccing equipment I check it will work in the enviiroment it will work in simple. If its -45C in winter I make sure the spec says it operates  at that temp, if not and I still want it I put it in a heated enclosure no idea what redundancy you are on about. I do the control system that operate the boiler not the boiler. Your wife works out the size of the boiler for me and she tells me what temperature to control it between.

You have missed the key point of course. Sure it will work, but in different environments its thermal efficiency may vary considerably. Sound familiar

[jaycee + 348]

4 minutes ago, NickW said:

You have missed the key point of course. Sure it will work, but in different environments its thermal efficiency may vary considerably. Sound familiar

What's thermal efficency got to do with it  jeeze you talk nonsense. The equipment I am talking about to avoid futher rubbish is controls equipment, eg temperature tranmitters

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, jaycee said:

What's thermal efficency got to do with it  jeeze you talk nonsense. The equipment I am talking about to avoid futher rubbish is controls equipment, eg temperature tranmitters

Its got everything to do with it. Clearly Physics passed you by.

Lets stick to cars to avoid confusing this matter.

If you start an engine with an optimal operating temperature of lets say 120 degrees C its going to take a lot more energy (and time) to get it from 5 degrees than it will from  25 degrees to 120. That extra energy and time taken to get there will reduce the fuel efficiency of the vehicle.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

39 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Pardon? You are sticking in random words by the look of it, just like a bot as it happens.

If I am speccing equipment I check it will work in the enviiroment it will work in simple. If its -45C in winter I make sure the spec says it operates  at that temp, if not and I still want it I put it in a heated enclosure no idea what redundancy you are on about. I do the control system that operate the boiler not the boiler. Your wife works out the size of the boiler for me and she tells me what temperature to control it between.

Are you able to do this with your car when you drive it from A to B?

[jaycee + 348]

28 minutes ago, NickW said:

Its got everything to do with it. Clearly Physics passed you by.

Lets stick to cars to avoid confusing this matter.

If you start an engine with an optimal operating temperature of lets say 120 degrees C its going to take a lot more energy (and time) to get it from 5 degrees than it will from  25 degrees to 120. That extra energy and time taken to get there will reduce the fuel efficiency of the vehicle.

 

so why the hell were you gibbering on about boilers?

My point is and remains I use manufacturers spec to design a control system what you are on about is irrelevant and off the point , as usual. 

[Auson + 123]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Its got everything to do with it. Clearly Physics passed you by.

Lets stick to cars to avoid confusing this matter.

If you start an engine with an optimal operating temperature of lets say 120 degrees C its going to take a lot more energy (and time) to get it from 5 degrees than it will from  25 degrees to 120. That extra energy and time taken to get there will reduce the fuel efficiency of the vehicle.

 

NickW,

I'm not an engineer but its clear you don't know what your talking about. 120 degrees C ? Engine oil starts to work properly ( ie become fully efficient ) at 50 degrees C

Synthetic engine oils are now really good even below 50 degrees C so the extra fuel used until warm up ( 5- 10 mins ) is really quite small. I would estimate 5-7 mpg for the 5 to 10 mins required to warm up. Its nothing in the grand scheme of things.

If it bothers you that much there are plug in heaters like they use in Scandinavia which keep the coolant warm.

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, jaycee said:

so why the hell were you gibbering on about boilers?

My point is and remains I use manufacturers spec to design a control system what you are on about is irrelevant and off the point , as usual. 

Can you not understand that for C&I the manufacturer's specs is the real world, but in vehicles a lab test specification is merely a guide?

Having tried to follow this through, Blind Freddy knows that comparing a 108 with a Leaf is a nonsense. I liken it in Australia to comparing a ute with flat top truck.

Except for economy, where is your evidence supporting claims that ICE will always be cheaper than EVs?  This links to a useful study: Production costs

It is a simple mechanical engineering fact that producing an EV is far simpler than an ICE.  It is presently also an undeniable fact that the battery component of EVs tips the costs in favour of ICE.  Given the incredible annual declines in EV battery costs/kwh that disparity will likely reverse within 10 years if not much sooner: Getting cheaper

Edited December 10, 2018 by Red
Added the missing link

[Auson + 123]

15 minutes ago, Red said:

Can you not understand that for C&I the manufacturer's specs is the real world, but in vehicles a lab test specification is merely a guide?

Having tried to follow this through, Blind Freddy knows that comparing a 108 with a Leaf is a nonsense. It liken it in Australia to comparing a ute with flat top truck.

Except for economy, where is your evidence supporting claims that ICE will always be cheaper than EVs?  I will link later to a decent study.  

It is a simple mechanical engineering fact that producing an EV is far simpler than an ICE.  It is presently also an undeniable fact that the battery component of EVs tips the costs in favour of ICE.  Given the incredible annual declines in EV battery costs/kwh that disparity will likely reverse within 10 years if not much sooner: Getting cheaper

Red,

Yes I agree its all about the batteries. The ones used in EV packs are very old tech and are literally a load of 3v cells like in a drill battery soldered together.

We are going to change the world 3 volts at a time ! Soon they will be powering ships and jet airliners ! 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, jaycee said:

so why the hell were you gibbering on about boilers?

My point is and remains I use manufacturers spec to design a control system what you are on about is irrelevant and off the point , as usual. 

How many times............

Manufacturers test data, as far as real life MPG on cars goes is grossly unrealistic. 

Look if you want to work with manufacturers specs fair enough. The manufacturers test data for a 24 kwh NIssan Leaf is 124 miles (199.5 KM) which would put the fuel economy at 8.31Km/kwh or 1.023 MJ/Km

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Auson said:

NickW,

I'm not an engineer but its clear you don't know what your talking about. 120 degrees C ? Engine oil starts to work properly ( ie become fully efficient ) at 50 degrees C

Synthetic engine oils are now really good even below 50 degrees C so the extra fuel used until warm up ( 5- 10 mins ) is really quite small. I would estimate 5-7 mpg for the 5 to 10 mins required to warm up. Its nothing in the grand scheme of things.

If it bothers you that much there are plug in heaters like they use in Scandinavia which keep the coolant warm.

For gods sake - do you lot all patch in from the local Aspergers support centre?  I just plucked that figure out of the air. Notice the bit where I put 'lets say' 

Out of curiosity this states 195 - 220 degrees F which is 90-105 degrees C so I wasn't that far out. 

https://www.cars.com/articles/should-i-worry-about-how-hot-my-engine-is-running-1420680334271/

 

Cold weather conditions make a significant difference to fuel economy in real life travel. My wife travels 35 miles a day and summer fuel economy is about 7 mpg better than winter. I know butane / propane content of fuel is also a factor but it is the cold that predominates that difference. 

Those plug in heaters are perpetual energy machines then?