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

[wilber1]

time2roll wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

time2roll wrote:
Yes thanks for the HS chemistry lesson. All of the gasses contained in air go through the combustion cycle and a few things are created besides CO2 and water vapor due to the heat. Some of which are considered pollutants but that was not the point of the video. Gasoline contains some nasty stuff also but that is not the point either.

My point is the battery in and to itself releases the stored energy. Nothing else required. Gasoline needs to be fed oxygen from some other source to burn and release energy. My point is that all the elements to get the energy from that gasoline are not contained in that gallon jug.

Yes but from a practical point of view, an ICE vehicle getting 30 MPG requires less than 70 lbs of fuel to go the same distance as a Tesla S 85 with a 1200 lb battery. With 140 lbs of fuel, it can go twice as far.

Yes and the Tesla can go further on $100 of fuel.
Choose what you prefer.

Not much good if you can't carry it and that is why there will be no medium or long haul electric aircraft. Yes, it is a matter of choosing what best suits your needs.

[time2roll]

wilber1 wrote:

time2roll wrote:
Yes thanks for the HS chemistry lesson. All of the gasses contained in air go through the combustion cycle and a few things are created besides CO2 and water vapor due to the heat. Some of which are considered pollutants but that was not the point of the video. Gasoline contains some nasty stuff also but that is not the point either.

My point is the battery in and to itself releases the stored energy. Nothing else required. Gasoline needs to be fed oxygen from some other source to burn and release energy. My point is that all the elements to get the energy from that gasoline are not contained in that gallon jug.

Yes but from a practical point of view, an ICE vehicle getting 30 MPG requires less than 70 lbs of fuel to go the same distance as a Tesla S 85 with a 1200 lb battery. With 140 lbs of fuel, it can go twice as far.

Yes and the Tesla can go further on $100 of fuel.
Choose what you prefer.

[time2roll]

ShinerBock wrote:
The original video does not need to include oxygen being used because it does not need to store that on the vehicle in order for it to operate since it is in the air all around us.

So why even contemplate using a battery?

[Lantley]

FishOnOne wrote:

Lantley wrote:
You guys are beating a dead horse. EV's are the future like it or not.
The ICE is just too inefficient and complex by comparison.
Yes there are lots of challenges and logistics but I think Tesla has shown it can be done.
No every vehicle cannot be replaced by an EV .................yet!
But in time 90% of vehicles will be EV.
The debate at this point is not about technology but about money.
Mobil Exxon is not going down without a fight.
Global Warming is not about the environment, It's about the money,mindset and desire to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.
EV's vs.ICE. is just one front of the energy battle.
The energy revolution is upon us.

I'm an electrical engineer and design underwater data acquisition systems and acoustic sensors and we use lithium ion battery technology for our under water acquisition nodes and battery technology for the last 30 years to date has always been a challenge for packaging and operations so what I see for the auto industry is the battery technology is still the gating item.

I don't dispute that battery tech is a limiting factor.
I just believe it's a minor problem in the grand scheme of things.
Elon has effectively upset the apple cart all on his own.
Many naysayers never thought Tesla would get this far.
Finally the Big 3 and others have seen the viability of EV's and are ready to join the EV world.
GM,Ford Toyota and others will overcome the battery challenges once they focus their energies and $$$$ on the issue.
Until Elon showed the world EV could be done and was not a pipe dream from a science fiction book the old guard industries were reluctant to fully participate.
The old guard really doesn't want EV to succeed. They are content with the status quo ICE and the cash it brings to the existing iconic companies.
They don't want the apple cart upset, consequently that haven't given battery research or anything else their full commitment when it comes to EV.
The battle is more about desire than technology hence the global warming mantra was created to convince the world we need EV and renewable energy

[ShinerBock]

I am guessing the term "energy density" is lost on some people.

[Reisender]

wilber1 wrote:

time2roll wrote:
Yes thanks for the HS chemistry lesson. All of the gasses contained in air go through the combustion cycle and a few things are created besides CO2 and water vapor due to the heat. Some of which are considered pollutants but that was not the point of the video. Gasoline contains some nasty stuff also but that is not the point either.

My point is the battery in and to itself releases the stored energy. Nothing else required. Gasoline needs to be fed oxygen from some other source to burn and release energy. My point is that all the elements to get the energy from that gasoline are not contained in that gallon jug.

Yes but from a practical point of view, an ICE vehicle getting 30 MPG requires less than 70 lbs of fuel to go the same distance as a Tesla S 85 with a 1200 lb battery. With 140 lbs of fuel, it can go twice as far.

All true Wilber but to be fair a gas motor, transmission, rear end, exhaust systym and large radiator all weigh something too. (I have no idea what though, 1000 pounds maybe? Total guess).

[wilber1]

time2roll wrote:
Yes thanks for the HS chemistry lesson. All of the gasses contained in air go through the combustion cycle and a few things are created besides CO2 and water vapor due to the heat. Some of which are considered pollutants but that was not the point of the video. Gasoline contains some nasty stuff also but that is not the point either.

My point is the battery in and to itself releases the stored energy. Nothing else required. Gasoline needs to be fed oxygen from some other source to burn and release energy. My point is that all the elements to get the energy from that gasoline are not contained in that gallon jug.

Yes but from a practical point of view, an ICE vehicle getting 30 MPG requires less than 70 lbs of fuel to go the same distance as a Tesla S 85 with a 1200 lb battery. With 140 lbs of fuel, it can go twice as far.

[kellertx5er]

free radical wrote:

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

Do you REALLY believe this? You don't think that a year 2020 engine is more efficient than a 1985 engine? Spend five minutes researching vehicle mileage ratings through the years before spewing out your baseless claims.

Show me ONE auto manufacturer that has not improved the efficiency of its engines in the last few decades.

I'm guessing your real problem is that they didn't use Smoky's hot vapor engine or the Coates rotary valve engine to do it.

[ShinerBock]

time2roll wrote:
You think BMW CEO does not send a lobbyist in with the others to negotiate emissions and fuel economy requirements? The lobbyists don't ride an electric scooter to the meeting either.

Reminds me of GM flying private jets to beg congress for BK money.

They all do it.

The original video still did not include the air that is burned in the example shown.

Again, you don't get it. It is one thing to say everyone else should produce less carbon and lobby congress to make money on carbon companies make and then turn around a and produce more carbon that 99% of the people on planet earth while also emitting tons of carbon in the air with one of you companies (which is emitting form carbon fines). It is another thing not to tell others to produce less carbon and not lobbying for more carbon credit money and turning around and doing all those things. The former is being a hypocrite and the later isn't.

The original video does not need to include oxygen being used because it does not need to store that on the vehicle in order for it to operate since it is in the air all around us.

[time2roll]

Yes thanks for the HS chemistry lesson. All of the gasses contained in air go through the combustion cycle and a few things are created besides CO2 and water vapor due to the heat. Some of which are considered pollutants but that was not the point of the video. Gasoline contains some nasty stuff also but that is not the point either.

My point is the battery in and to itself releases the stored energy. Nothing else required. Gasoline needs to be fed oxygen from some other source to burn and release energy. My point is that all the elements to get the energy from that gasoline are not contained in that gallon jug.

[wilber1]

time2roll wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

time2roll wrote:
You think the CEO of BMW rides an electric scooter?

I don't think you understand what I am saying. It is not about who pollutes the least or most. It is about who is being the hypocrite.

Somone who chastises others for their carbon footprint or lobbies congress to have more carbon credits while flying hundreds of miles on a jet and using kerosene rocket fuel because the lower emissions rocket fuel is too expensive even though he can afford it is a hypocrite. Someone who doesn't chastise others for their carbon foot print and doesn't lobby congress for more carbon credit money while flying hundreds of miles on a jet and shooting kerosene rockets into the air isn't a hypocrite.

You think BMW CEO does not send a lobbyist in with the others to negotiate emissions and fuel economy requirements? The lobbyists don't ride an electric scooter to the meeting either.

Reminds me of GM flying private jets to beg congress for BK money.

They all do it.

The original video still did not include the air that is burned in the example shown.

Air isn't burned, the oxygen in it supports combustion. The same amount of "air" comes out of the engine as went in.

[time2roll]

ShinerBock wrote:

time2roll wrote:
You think the CEO of BMW rides an electric scooter?

I don't think you understand what I am saying. It is not about who pollutes the least or most. It is about who is being the hypocrite.

Somone who chastises others for their carbon footprint or lobbies congress to have more carbon credits while flying hundreds of miles on a jet and using kerosene rocket fuel because the lower emissions rocket fuel is too expensive even though he can afford it is a hypocrite. Someone who doesn't chastise others for their carbon foot print and doesn't lobby congress for more carbon credit money while flying hundreds of miles on a jet and shooting kerosene rockets into the air isn't a hypocrite.

You think BMW CEO does not send a lobbyist in with the others to negotiate emissions and fuel economy requirements? The lobbyists don't ride an electric scooter to the meeting either.

Reminds me of GM flying private jets to beg congress for BK money.

They all do it.

The original video still did not include the air that is burned in the example shown.

[FishOnOne]

Lantley wrote:
You guys are beating a dead horse. EV's are the future like it or not.
The ICE is just too inefficient and complex by comparison.
Yes there are lots of challenges and logistics but I think Tesla has shown it can be done.
No every vehicle cannot be replaced by an EV .................yet!
But in time 90% of vehicles will be EV.
The debate at this point is not about technology but about money.
Mobil Exxon is not going down without a fight.
Global Warming is not about the environment, It's about the money,mindset and desire to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.
EV's vs.ICE. is just one front of the energy battle.
The energy revolution is upon us.

I'm an electrical engineer and design underwater data acquisition systems and acoustic sensors and we use lithium ion battery technology for our under water acquisition nodes and battery technology for the last 30 years to date has always been a challenge for packaging and operations so what I see for the auto industry is the battery technology is still the gating item.

[ShinerBock]

time2roll wrote:
You think the CEO of BMW rides an electric scooter?

I don't think you understand what I am saying. It is not about who pollutes the least or most. It is about who is being the hypocrite.

Somone who chastises others for their carbon footprint or lobbies congress to have more carbon credits while flying hundreds of miles on a jet and using kerosene rocket fuel because the lower emissions rocket fuel is too expensive even though he can afford it is a hypocrite. Someone who doesn't chastise others for their carbon foot print and doesn't lobby congress for more carbon credit money while flying hundreds of miles on a jet and shooting kerosene rockets into the air isn't a hypocrite.