Reality check on electric cars
- Thread starter Stringfellow Hawk
- Start date
Musk said that he cannot compete with Chinese EVs. They do not have half their people fighting the future. They will be even more ahead of us as the atavistic right keeps power. China is building an educational system. We are crippling ours. The right is damaging America bigly.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, let's see...
The average Tesla uses 34 kwh per 100 miles driven. That's .34 kwh per mile. So, to drive one 3000 miles with no recharge would require a battery storing a minimum of 1020 kwh of energy. With a margin for reserve--we wouldn't want to "brick" the car doing this--let's say 1100 kwh is required.
What matters is the watt-density of a battery (watts per kg). Right now, the best is about 500 watts / kg and that's pretty much still experimental. That means such a battery would have around 2200 kg of battery material, not including support structures, etc, of weight associated with it. Even at the most theoretical, the weight would fall to around a metric ton of battery alone.
What Is the Highest Energy Density Battery Today?
Learn which batteries have the highest energy density, the pros and cons of each type, and how they affect electric vehicles and mobile tech.
www.ufinebattery.com
You are so outdated. EVs are getting far longer range and batteries are getting better and better. https://www.motortrend.com/features/ev-battery-improvements-technology Rightys like you and Trump are taking us out of that future. We will never catch up.Well, let's see...
The average Tesla uses 34 kwh per 100 miles driven. That's .34 kwh per mile. So, to drive one 3000 miles with no recharge would require a battery storing a minimum of 1020 kwh of energy. With a margin for reserve--we wouldn't want to "brick" the car doing this--let's say 1100 kwh is required.
What matters is the watt-density of a battery (watts per kg). Right now, the best is about 500 watts / kg and that's pretty much still experimental. That means such a battery would have around 2200 kg of battery material, not including support structures, etc, of weight associated with it. Even at the most theoretical, the weight would fall to around a metric ton of battery alone.
What Is the Highest Energy Density Battery Today?
Learn which batteries have the highest energy density, the pros and cons of each type, and how they affect electric vehicles and mobile tech.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
That Motor Trash article is your counter argument? Did you read it? It reads like a freshman level liberal arts report. There wasn't anything actually quantitative or scientific in it. Until you can talk about the watt density of energy in a battery, it's capacity in watt-hours and cycle lifetime, you got nothing but propaganda going.
Batteries cannot, and never will, exceed the laws of chemistry or physics. They cannot become perpetual motion machines.
That video--by an actual engineer, not a liberal arts graduate writing an article based on bullshit--shows why EV's suck. Even if you are able to make a better battery, the weight of that better battery still is prohibitive. That's because the chemistry of batteries make them low density compared to things like gasoline.
I get it. You're a scientific illiterate that believes in ancient aliens and the power of healing crystals. You read some article by another scientific illiterate in liberal arts, and you think, "Wow! The EV battery problem is solved!" I read it and think, Oh fuck, here we go again with some 'tard that is listening to the latest snake oil salesman on how batteries suddenly are ten times more powerful than ever before...
QP!
Verified User
your data is dated as well as Tesla is no longer the main leader in this area as things are improving rapidly which is why your data is not up to current standards. EV range in the most efficient segment is now at 20-25KwH range, which PROVES things are only getting better and better in this area over time.Well, let's see...
The average Tesla uses 34 kwh per 100 miles driven. That's .34 kwh per mile. So, to drive one 3000 miles with no recharge would require a battery storing a minimum of 1020 kwh of energy. With a margin for reserve--we wouldn't want to "brick" the car doing this--let's say 1100 kwh is required.
What matters is the watt-density of a battery (watts per kg). Right now, the best is about 500 watts / kg and that's pretty much still experimental. That means such a battery would have around 2200 kg of battery material, not including support structures, etc, of weight associated with it. Even at the most theoretical, the weight would fall to around a metric ton of battery alone.
What Is the Highest Energy Density Battery Today?
Learn which batteries have the highest energy density, the pros and cons of each type, and how they affect electric vehicles and mobile tech.
QP!
Verified User
And before mocking anyone else as science literate you need to accept that label fits you more than any one else on this forum.That Motor Trash article is your counter argument? Did you read it? It reads like a freshman level liberal arts report. There wasn't anything actually quantitative or scientific in it. Until you can talk about the watt density of energy in a battery, it's capacity in watt-hours and cycle lifetime, you got nothing but propaganda going.
Batteries cannot, and never will, exceed the laws of chemistry or physics. They cannot become perpetual motion machines.
That video--by an actual engineer, not a liberal arts graduate writing an article based on bullshit--shows why EV's suck. Even if you are able to make a better battery, the weight of that better battery still is prohibitive. That's because the chemistry of batteries make them low density compared to things like gasoline.
I get it. You're a scientific illiterate that believes in ancient aliens and the power of healing crystals. You read some article by another scientific illiterate in liberal arts, and you think, "Wow! The EV battery problem is solved!" I read it and think, Oh fuck, here we go again with some 'tard that is listening to the latest snake oil salesman on how batteries suddenly are ten times more powerful than ever before...
You, Terry, hand pick biased articles based on your bias and agenda which is that you will discard anything that shows EV as positive in any way.
Here is real science for you to hand wave away since it does not fit your agenda.
-----------
Premise
The Question:The short answer is:
No — the lower energy density of batteries does not make EVs less energy-efficient overall.
EVs are much more efficient at turning stored energy into motion than combustion engines are, even though gasoline packs far more energy per kilogram.
Key Physics Comparison
| Metric | Gasoline | Lithium-ion Battery (2025 tech) |
|---|---|---|
| Energy density (specific energy) | ~12,000 Wh/kg (chemical) | ~250–300 Wh/kg (cell level) |
| Vehicle efficiency (tank-to-wheel) | ~20–25% (ICE converts most energy to heat) | ~85–90% (motor + inverter + drivetrain losses minimal) |
- Gasoline has ~50× more energy per kg,
but
- EVs use that energy 3–4× more efficiently,
and
- they can recapture braking energy, which ICEs waste entirely as heat.
Data: Efficiency Comparison
| Vehicle Type | Typical Energy Used per 100 miles | Efficiency (Tank-to-Wheel) | MPGe Equivalent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modern EV (Tesla Model 3, Ioniq 6, Lucid Air) | 24–28 kWh | ~88% | 110–130 MPGe |
| Gasoline Compact Sedan | ~3.3 gal (~115 kWh) | ~22% | 30–35 MPG |
| Hybrid (Prius) | ~2.4 gal (~84 kWh) | ~36% | 50–55 MPG |
Result: Even after accounting for battery weight and lower energy density, EVs convert energy into motion 3–4× more efficiently than ICEs.
QP!
Verified User
Supporting Studies and Agencies
- U.S. DOE (Vehicle Technologies Office): EV drivetrains are ~85–90% efficient vs ICE at ~20%; despite lower fuel energy density, the EV advantage in conversion efficiency dominates.
- ICCT (International Council on Clean Transportation, 2023): Even including upstream electricity generation losses, EVs consume 60–70% less total energy per mile than ICE vehicles.
- EPA & NREL fleet data: Average EVs achieve ~3.5–4.5 miles per kWh, which translates to ~100–120 MPGe.
Summary
| Aspect | EVs | Gasoline Vehicles |
|---|---|---|
| Energy density of “fuel” | Much lower | Much higher |
| Energy conversion efficiency | Much higher (≈90%) | Much lower (≈25%) |
| Regenerative braking | Yes | No |
| Real-world energy used per 100 miles | ~25 kWh | ~110–120 kWh (equivalent energy) |
| Net efficiency | 3–4× higher | 3–4× lower |
QP!
Verified User
You are correct and the only issue is what excuse Terry will use to hand wave away data that does not fit his agenda.
We should try and predict and bet on it, as it is certain that is what he will do next.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
So, you respond with your own cherry picked data.And before mocking anyone else as science literate you need to accept that label fits you more than any one else on this forum.
You, Terry, hand pick biased articles based on your bias and agenda which is that you will discard anything that shows EV as positive in any way.
Here is real science for you to hand wave away since it does not fit your agenda.
-----------
Premise
The Question:
The short answer is:
So:
Metric Gasoline Lithium-ion Battery (2025 tech) Energy density (specific energy) ~12,000 Wh/kg (chemical) ~250–300 Wh/kg (cell level) Vehicle efficiency (tank-to-wheel) ~20–25% (ICE converts most energy to heat) ~85–90% (motor + inverter + drivetrain losses minimal)
That means, on the road, EVs typically consume only 0.3–0.4 kWh of electricity per mile, equivalent to ~100–120 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent), whereas gasoline cars average 25–35 MPG.
- Gasoline has ~50× more energy per kg,
but
- EVs use that energy 3–4× more efficiently,
and
- they can recapture braking energy, which ICEs waste entirely as heat.
Vehicle Type Typical Energy Used per 100 miles Efficiency (Tank-to-Wheel) MPGe Equivalent Modern EV (Tesla Model 3, Ioniq 6, Lucid Air) 24–28 kWh ~88% 110–130 MPGe Gasoline Compact Sedan ~3.3 gal (~115 kWh) ~22% 30–35 MPG Hybrid (Prius) ~2.4 gal (~84 kWh) ~36% 50–55 MPG
For example, regenerative braking is only marginally effective in urban settings with stop and go traffic. It is nonexistent in highway driving long ranges. So, it's a minor add on to an EV and almost not worth the notice.
There's also the inefficiency in recharging an EV and the problem that EV 'fuel' isn't portable. EV's do convert energy more efficiently than ICE engines, but that as a factor in choosing one over the other is open to debate.
Bottomline: There are lots of pros and cons for both EV's and ICE vehicles. Where the rub comes is when government decides what you will drive and what you can buy rather than by market forces. EV's do not fit many person's lifestyles and needs when it comes to transportation. For others, an EV is perfectly fine and a great choice. People don't go out and buy say a Ferrari because it's an EV or ICE vehicle. They buy it because it's a Ferrari. They want certain things that go with that brand.
That is my biggest problem with EV's and their advocates. They want to force me into one and one way they try and do that is to do what you're doing. That is, show me cherry picked data and arguing that because of that data I should want to drive an EV.
QP!
Verified User
Ya i hear ya but the problem you have is you are wrong if you use science and data. I agree it "changes nothing" when it comes to your uninformed and ignorant view and you will keep repeating though.
The below speaks directly to the Physics and how EV's use the ENERGY MORE EFFICIENTLY than ICE vehicles. You cannot and will not try not debunk that physics and instead your reply will be 'nuh uh... i reject that and just keep restating my alternative facts which i cannot prove'.
And the chemistry and physics you CANNOT get around is ICE vehicles will ALWAYS be far more unstable and dangerous and lead to more fires and deaths, despite your attempt at propaganda to continually point out the challenges of EV's while ignoring that fact.
Key Physics Comparison
| Metric | Gasoline | Lithium-ion Battery (2025 tech) |
|---|---|---|
| Energy density (specific energy) | ~12,000 Wh/kg (chemical) | ~250–300 Wh/kg (cell level) |
| Vehicle efficiency (tank-to-wheel) | ~20–25% (ICE converts most energy to heat) | ~85–90% (motor + inverter + drivetrain losses minimal) |
- Gasoline has ~50× more energy per kg,
but
- EVs use that energy 3–4× more efficiently,
and
- they can recapture braking energy, which ICEs waste entirely as heat.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
They aren't more efficient enough in ways that count for consumers and that's why people generally aren't buying them. It's that simple. All the cherry-picked evidence you give won't change that. That was as true in 1910 as it is today. And, yes, back in 1910 EV's were a good seller in big cities in the US and nowhere else. They were done in by the ICE engine and gasoline because they simply couldn't meet what consumers wanted in a vehicle.
Last edited:
QP!
Verified User
FALSE.
Nothing i posted was cherry picked as the question i asked ?"“Because EV batteries are heavy and have much lower energy density than gasoline, does that make EVs inherently less efficient overall?”" WAS NOT BIASED TO PRODUCE AN ANSWER THAT WAS AGAINST YOUR PREMISE.
If the answer to my question was 'yes' the AI would have replied with that answer.
And if you read thru the studies indicated you will see that they are not just using highway data and are using the same blended data of Highway and city driving for both, as efficiency goes up for ICE vehicles for highway driving as opposed to city but i note you do not raise as a concern.
Bottomline is that you are a zealot for ICE and an irrational actor when it comes to EV's. You are simply incapable of seeing anything in the green energy sector in a positive light which is why you will spam images of EV fires and say 'see they are dangerous' while ignoring all the mass of data showing ICE is worse in every measurable way for over all fires and danger.
I am not buying an EV and could care less if you buy one but you NEED to tell yourself that lie and repeat it over and over to justify your irrational take. You are pathetic and sad for many reasons but in this case as you entirely deny facts, data and logic, based on your "feels" that others are trying to force you in to an EV.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
AI doesn't have all the answers, and often has a wrong answer.
The history of EV's is long. They've been tried repeatedly for over a century and every time they've come up short in the marketplace. They simply do not meet what consumers and buyers of automobiles want in one. It's that simple. All the cherry-picked evidence doesn't change that.
Efficiency is only one of a myriad of factors going into someone purchasing a vehicle. My last purchase was another pickup truck because I NEED a pickup truck. I use it to do what pickup trucks do, haul shit around in quantity to wherever. A passenger car will NOT meet my vehicle needs. And, no, I don't need a four-ton Cybertruck to meet my needs either. Too big, too cumbersome, and the payload arrangements in it suck like a Kirby vacuum cleaner.
I don't care that my truck gets maybe 21 to 24 mpg at most. It meets my needs and high milage isn't one of them.
QP!
Verified User
Wow you go back to that failed argument again. Even after i proved how stupid it was prior.
You cannot compare the 1910 EV introduction to today for many reasons but the key one was what they were replacing.
Early ICE and EV and Steam where competitors to the horse and buggy, all three with limited range when the length of people commutes was to the neighboring farms and into town to pick up supplies and get back home. Without gas stations and charging stations, cars provided only a small utility advantage to the Horse and buggy (speed) but were considered less reliable (laughed at for breaking down or running out of gas). They all had to get home, most times to fuel back up.
I want you to read this part over and over as it is one you seem incapable of understanding...
ICE DID NOT WIN OUT AS IT PROVED TO BE THE BEST FUEL SOURCE BASED ON DATA AND INSTEAD WON OUT DUE TO EASE OF TRANSPORT AND ABILITY TO POP UP GAS STATIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WAS EASY AT THAT TIME AND JUSTIFIED BY THE PROFITS THAT SELLING GAS GENERATED.
EV'S AT THAT TIME, DUE TO NO EXISTING NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT COULD SUPPORT NETWORKS OF CHARGING STATIONS FELL AWAY, LOGICALLY AS THE COMPETITION.
What that DOES NOT MEAN, (and this you will not understand), is that once the country did develop enough that a network of charging stations could be built, that you can say 'too late ICE provided it is more efficient and Oil and Gas a better fuel'. One does not follow the other. What ICE provided in 1910 was that AT THAT TIME ONLY they could meet the infrastructure demands, and so they rightly won. Now EV's can also meet the infrastructure demand it is the data i provide above showing EV's are MORE EFFICIENT, which is winning out.
QP!
Verified User
Yes AI can often be wrong and you can demonstrate by countering what it offers with facts. Something you are not doing here and instead you just hand wave the data the AI cites.
The Ai is not creating the data it cites above so if that data is wrong, show us where it is wrong. Simply saying 'Ai is often wrong' as a way to dismiss every argument you do not like is like saying 'humans are often wrong' thus i can say everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, by citing that.
You can keep repeating your lie abut EV history but what you say is stupid. Horse and buggy sales dominated the earliest car sales until something changed in society. Governments invested heavily in connected networks of roads, and gas stations arose to support them. Then car sales took off and the horse and buggy industry (a huge industry in all its component parts) pretty much died.
In other words, the ICE vehicle needed society to mature and adapt (roads and gas stations) to then thrive.
EV's are only now going thru the same type of societal evolution that is allowing them to similarly compete and thrive. Infrastructure availability build out.
Your arguments Terry are painfully stupid. As you would see roads and highways and gas stations going up you would argue 'the earliest automobiles have been around since the 1700's and it is 1910's now and they have proven they cannot compete with horse and buggy' AND IT WOULD BE TRUE at that time, before the roads and highways and gas stations initiatives that followed the 1910's.
But only a stupid person thinks like you Terry. We can all see that things changes with the infrastructure and cars dominated horse and buggy DUE TO THAT CHANGE. And yet you, Terry, would only point to the PAST prior to the change to say why Cars will fail while failing to recognize the new infrastructure that changes everything and that allowed cars to dominate horse and buggy and are allowing EV's to now dominate ICE.
So you cannot see the difference between being pro-EVs and being anti-Musk. That is no surprise. It was not just leftys fucking up Teslas. It was those who saw his cold heated nasty dismissals of the working class as repulsive. Other EVs were not attacked. Why was that? Can you figure out that much?
Jim Farley - Ford's CEO - predicted that market share of electric cars would be cut in half once the federal tax credit for clean vehicles ended on September 30. And in the first month of the post-tax-credit future for EVs, that's exactly what happened. October's EV market share plummeted to around 5% in the U.S., from a record high of over 12% in September.
The battery-powered share of sales also dropped significantly on a year-over-year basis, from over 8% in October 2024. The last time EVs made up 5% of U.S. vehicle sales was in early 2022.Why the fuck are - taxpayers - subsidising very expensive cars wen we ourseles can't afford them? Irrespective of the fact I woulnd't be caught dead in one, it makes zero sense. Face it - it's not a sustainable product. It's just a question of when everybody realizes it.
The battery-powered share of sales also dropped significantly on a year-over-year basis, from over 8% in October 2024. The last time EVs made up 5% of U.S. vehicle sales was in early 2022.Why the fuck are - taxpayers - subsidising very expensive cars wen we ourseles can't afford them? Irrespective of the fact I woulnd't be caught dead in one, it makes zero sense. Face it - it's not a sustainable product. It's just a question of when everybody realizes it.