Gasoline vs Battery Energy Density Explained

[FishOnOne]

I thought Engineering Explained did a good job of explaining energy density of both gasoline and battery capacity. This video also gives a good insight of the technical and the economics challenges Electric vehicles face and why it makes good sense to continue to improve the Internal Combustion engine.

Link

Video 2 explains the efficiency of the two different sources of energy.

Link 2

[thomas201]

Sigh! I wish to point out that many organizations have put a lot of research into batteries over the years: NASA, Submarines, and my favorite, coal miners.

My first all electric vehicle was in about 1976. It was a shuttle car used to haul coal from the mine face to the closest conveyor belt. I could run on battery or shore power on a recovering cord. We also switched batteries every shift so the new guy had a good fresh set. Took 2 guys about 15 or 20 minutes. Some old coal miners have more time in all electric (try 5 shifts a week for 40 years) than anyone else. Lots of money has been spent to make a good battery, car builders are just late to the game.

Probably even more has been spent in gas and diesel. Roll your memory back to the late 1960's. Remember the mileage? Shoot most big trucks still had big block gasoline engines. We are living in the promised land for ICE right now.

Do society a favor. Don't pick a winning technology, lets fight it out and see what truly is the best. ICE, electric, or something else? Who really knows. Let Darwin rule, winner takes all.

[ExxWhy]

free radical wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Problem with ice engine is,
NOT a single auto maker cares about improving its eficiency.


There are plenty of inventions out there but no one cares about using it

Heres one
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1009-what-ever-happened-to-smokeys-hot-vapor-engine/

Heres another
http://www.coatesengine.com/
Why doesnt anyone put those on their engines?

I tell you why,,they want drivers to burn as much gasoline as posible bc thats how they make money!

Lets face it electric motor is 99% eficient and gasoline cant ever compete.
Once EVs become affordable for everyone fosil fuel is dead.

Amazing that not one enterprising company is interested in such proven technologies. Why would they? Who wants to buy a car that uses 50% less fuel than the competition? It would be crazy to produce such a vehicle, would never sell!

BTW, where is the link to the 100 MPG carburetor?

[ShinerBock]

time2roll wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

time2roll wrote:
He fails to explain the main difference in density is due to the fact that burning gasoline is done by pulling 14.7x as much air by weight from the atmosphere and expelling pollutants for us to breathe.

That is because it is probably off set by Elon's private tens of thousands of miles flown in his private jet every year and all those kerosene rockets he shoots into the sky. Although, if one was so concerned with pollutants, they would not be driving a 2001 F150 and would strive to get a more modern vehicle that produces a lot less of those pollutants.

Yes the video also failed to mention air travel, space travel and my specific vehicles. That makes total sense :R
BTW F150 does not move but a few times a year. How many days a week do you burn petrol?
Besides having a new truck built also creates pollution.

Well mentioning that makes just as much sense as mentioning emissions in a video about power density......

Doesn't matter how much diesel I use a year, I am not the one complaining about it, you are. I tend to not listen to those who tell others to do as I say, not as I do. Telling others that they should pay for BEV vehicles yet they do not themselves kinda makes one a hypocrite.

If you are that worried about emissions, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and downsize your trailer so it can be towed with a Tesla model X? Why do you tow with a smog producing 2001 F150 that is likely producing considerably more pollution than stock because the effectiveness of cats degrade over time.

[time2roll]

ShinerBock wrote:

time2roll wrote:
He fails to explain the main difference in density is due to the fact that burning gasoline is done by pulling 14.7x as much air by weight from the atmosphere and expelling pollutants for us to breathe.

That is because it is probably off set by Elon's private tens of thousands of miles flown in his private jet every year and all those kerosene rockets he shoots into the sky. Although, if one was so concerned with pollutants, they would not be driving a 2001 F150 and would strive to get a more modern vehicle that produces a lot less of those pollutants.

Yes the video also failed to mention air travel, space travel and my specific vehicles. That makes total sense :R
BTW F150 does not move but a few times a year. How many days a week do you burn petrol?
Besides having a new truck built also creates pollution.

[free_radical]

FishOnOne wrote:
I thought Engineering Explained did a good job of explaining energy density of both gasoline and battery capacity. This video also gives a good insight of the technical and the economics challenges Electric vehicles face and why it makes good sense to continue to improve the Internal Combustion engine.

Link

Video 2 explains the efficiency of the two different sources of energy.

Link 2

Problem with ice engine is,
NOT a single auto maker cares about improving its eficiency.


There are plenty of inventions out there but no one cares about using it

Heres one
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1009-what-ever-happened-to-smokeys-hot-vapor-engine/

Heres another
http://www.coatesengine.com/
Why doesnt anyone put those on their engines?

I tell you why,,they want drivers to burn as much gasoline as posible bc thats how they make money!

Lets face it electric motor is 99% eficient and gasoline cant ever compete.
Once EVs become affordable for everyone fosil fuel is dead.

[ShinerBock]

time2roll wrote:
He fails to explain the main difference in density is due to the fact that burning gasoline is done by pulling 14.7x as much air by weight from the atmosphere and expelling pollutants for us to breathe.

That is because it is probably off set by Elon's private tens of thousands of miles flown in his private jet every year and all those kerosene rockets he shoots into the sky. Although, if one was so concerned with pollutants, they would not be driving a 2001 F150 and would strive to get a more modern vehicle that produces a lot less of those pollutants.

[time2roll]

He fails to explain the main difference in density is due to the fact that burning gasoline is done by pulling 14.7x as much air by weight from the atmosphere and expelling pollutants for us to breathe.

[FishOnOne]

TurnThePage wrote:
Ooops. There I go over reacting again. Sorry.

It's all good...

[TurnThePage]

Ooops. There I go over reacting again. Sorry.

[Lwiddis]

"Although, if you look at where the money is going with these carbon credits, it starts to become clear why the corrupt EPA made this ponzi scheme."

Congress can stop that at any time. What is your house member's position?

[mkirsch]

Lwiddis wrote:
Why would you propose to continue to improve only one?

You wouldn't. He didn't.

The proposal among "greenies" is to stop all development on internal combustion technology altogether and abandon it.

[philh]

What you don't see are the EPA projected mandated MPG numbers 10 years into the future. They are unobtanium with any version of IC engines. Nobody knows how to get there.

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Lwiddis wrote:
Why would you propose to continue to improve only one?

IMO it makes good sense to continue improvement of both.

I suspect some automakers don’t have budgets to support both. This is why some of the mergers are happening.

And this is yet another EPA mandate that ends up doing more harm than good. One of the reason why these companies do not have the budget to do both is because they are having to pay hundreds of millions for carbon credits because the EPA CAFE fuel economy regulations increased sharply at too high of a rate for the available technology. Instead of taking a little more time and money to invest in BEV's or other technology along their ICE power plants at a gradual rate, the automakers had to scramble to improve only their ICE engines or pay hefty fines leaving little money for other investments. This is on top of stricter safety regulations that also requires money.

Although, if you look at where the money is going with these carbon credits, it starts to become clear why the corrupt EPA made this ponzi scheme.

I agree.... and these auto manufacturers are passing along those costs to the customer when they can.

[ShinerBock]

FishOnOne wrote:

Lwiddis wrote:
Why would you propose to continue to improve only one?

IMO it makes good sense to continue improvement of both.

I suspect some automakers don’t have budgets to support both. This is why some of the mergers are happening.

And this is yet another EPA mandate that ends up doing more harm than good. One of the reason why these companies do not have the budget to do both is because they are having to pay hundreds of millions for carbon credits because the EPA CAFE fuel economy regulations increased sharply at too high of a rate for the available technology. Instead of taking a little more time and money to invest in BEV's or other technology along their ICE power plants at a gradual rate, the automakers had to scramble to improve only their ICE engines or pay hefty fines leaving little money for other investments. This is on top of stricter safety regulations that also requires money.

Although, if you look at where the money is going with these carbon credits, it starts to become clear why the corrupt EPA made this ponzi scheme.

[FishOnOne]

Lwiddis wrote:
Why would you propose to continue to improve only one?

IMO it makes good sense to continue improvement of both.

I suspect some automakers don’t have budgets to support both. This is why some of the mergers are happening.