• Kindness is Punk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Sorry, to be more exact I should have said efficiency.

    I was taking into account energy lost due to conversion at the engine where an ICE is between 20 and 25% efficient, or wheel to wheel efficiency if you will, I thought that would have been self-explanatory.

    • Chronographs@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Even accounting for that pretty sure it’s still wrong, that’s why ICE vehicles usually have better range despite not stuffing gas tanks into every available space.

      • Kindness is Punk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        You know what that’s fair, I was speaking in a informal tense for which I should have avoided using technical terms to dissuade ambiguity

        • leagman1@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Imo it was clear what you mean if you apply any benefit of the doubt. But we’re on reddit, so they didn’t. (I know it’s not reddit, das de joke.)

      • Left as Center@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s correct though.

        ICE efficiency in a car ~ 20% for a car, gas to wheels.

        Worst case scenario :

        • diesel running to generate electricity (the engine stays at its efficient point): 45-50%
        • battery efficiency to charge 85%
        • battery to movement efficiency ~85%

        Electric cycle efficiency : ~33%

        You need to add ~15% overweight for EV, making a conservative 28% total cycle efficiency.

        It is definitely the energy density which makes the difference.