Airinsight has just published seat miles per gallon for the US, I am not sure I am reading well but seems the neos are performing very well though the numbers seem a lot

https://twitter.com/airinsight/status/1 ... ZZ2hA&s=19

Sent from my SM-J415F using Tapatalk

Keep in mind the following which are skewing the numbers:

- most of the A320/A321 are operated by LCCs/ULCCs which cram 10-20% more seats in compared to the big 3. Therefore, they fundamentally have higher seat miles per gallon.
- stage length and airport mix skew these numbers.

On balance, they’re exceptionally close in fuel efficiency at average stage length for a common seating density. A321 is the most efficient per seat on long stages. MAX8 generally beats 320 up to about 1000 miles.

Further, LEAP B has maintenance cost advantages over LEAP A (two few turbine stages being the biggest contributor)

I wonder what the numbers are for the PW powered NEOs

Without the assumptions made to get them, those numbers are totally meaningless.

Okcflyer wrote:

Keep in mind the following which are skewing the numbers:

- most of the A320/A321 are operated by LCCs/ULCCs which cram 10-20% more seats in compared to the big 3. Therefore, they fundamentally have higher seat miles per gallon.
- stage length and airport mix skew these numbers.

On balance, they’re exceptionally close in fuel efficiency at average stage length for a common seating density. A321 is the most efficient per seat on long stages. MAX8 generally beats 320 up to about 1000 miles.

Further, LEAP B has maintenance cost advantages over LEAP A (two few turbine stages being the biggest contributor)

Indeed, A320N are exclusively operated by ULCCs (nk&f9). The A321N is mostly operated by AA which has about 60 vs B6s 20 or so. AA also has the max but its the 8 so you cant really compare that. I think when/(if) delta gets the max10 comparing the data of the A321N with the max10 might be the closest comparison we can get.

Allow me to put this (103) number in another context. Assume i am traveling with my family of three (3 seats) then the 103 smpg number becomes 34.33 mpg for us (divide by seat to get rid of it in the numerator). This is comparable to our vehicles mpg and in line with what most SUVs get on the highway these days. That is to say that flying with these engines and driving are now equally efficient (for the given conditions), who knew!

N47 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Keep in mind the following which are skewing the numbers:

- most of the A320/A321 are operated by LCCs/ULCCs which cram 10-20% more seats in compared to the big 3. Therefore, they fundamentally have higher seat miles per gallon.
- stage length and airport mix skew these numbers.

On balance, they’re exceptionally close in fuel efficiency at average stage length for a common seating density. A321 is the most efficient per seat on long stages. MAX8 generally beats 320 up to about 1000 miles.

Further, LEAP B has maintenance cost advantages over LEAP A (two few turbine stages being the biggest contributor)

Indeed, A320N are exclusively operated by ULCCs (nk&f9). The A321N is mostly operated by AA which has about 60 vs B6s 20 or so. AA also has the max but its the 8 so you cant really compare that. I think when/(if) delta gets the max10 comparing the data of the A321N with the max10 might be the closest comparison we can get.

B6 wouldn’t be included as theirs are PW powered. For the A321 it’s just AA plus AS’s 10. The A320 would just be F9, which is why it’s number is so ridiculously high compared to all the others.

I don’t understand the Max 9 numbers, specifically 2021 vs 2022. It’s not like the number of Max 9s in service has increased enough in 2022 to drop that number in half. Something is funky with the 2021 number.

N47 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Keep in mind the following which are skewing the numbers:

- most of the A320/A321 are operated by LCCs/ULCCs which cram 10-20% more seats in compared to the big 3. Therefore, they fundamentally have higher seat miles per gallon.
- stage length and airport mix skew these numbers.

On balance, they’re exceptionally close in fuel efficiency at average stage length for a common seating density. A321 is the most efficient per seat on long stages. MAX8 generally beats 320 up to about 1000 miles.

Further, LEAP B has maintenance cost advantages over LEAP A (two few turbine stages being the biggest contributor)

Indeed, A320N are exclusively operated by ULCCs (nk&f9). The A321N is mostly operated by AA which has about 60 vs B6s 20 or so. AA also has the max but its the 8 so you cant really compare that. I think when/(if) delta gets the max10 comparing the data of the A321N with the max10 might be the closest comparison we can get.

Allow me to put this (103) number in another context. Assume i am traveling with my family of three (3 seats) then the 103 smpg number becomes 34.33 mpg for us (divide by seat to get rid of it in the numerator). This is comparable to our vehicles mpg and in line with what most SUVs get on the highway these days. That is to say that flying with these engines and driving are now equally efficient (for the given conditions), who knew!

Yes, but is vastly less efficient then a EV. So, in 10 years time planes will be one of the biggest pollutants. Probably still after cruise ships, but efficiency compared to cars will be a losing battle…

IADFCO wrote:

Without the assumptions made to get them, those numbers are totally meaningless.

I will guess that they're just pulling numbers reported to the DOT. These data cover a big number of flights over a long period of time, but, no, seating configs aren't standardized nor are trip lengths standardized. One can't compare these aircraft to each other, nor to anything else.

It seems nobody in editorial control at AirInsights got a proper business finance education, nor engineering education, nor economics education such that they might have taken two college stats courses (and remembered something!). This is how consultants trash the reputation of the firm in a single tweet.

I do truly wish they had the stage-length adjusted figures. From everything I've heard the 7M8 beats the 320N solidly until about 1200-1500nm depending on config and the 7M9 is equal to the 321N until about 1000 miles (after which the 321N has a beyond solid advantage)

As with stats, if you cant come up with stats to prove your counter point, it is meaningless

JonesNL wrote:

Yes, but is vastly less efficient then a EV. So, in 10 years time planes will be one of the biggest pollutants. Probably still after cruise ships, but efficiency compared to cars will be a losing battle…

I simply don’t agree with those comments, when looking at the the true costs of running cars and EVs which includes the building and upkeep of infrastructure (roads, bridges, street lights, traffic control), and in the case of EVs, that energy still needs to be produced and transmitted to the point of charge (which insures something like 60% transmission losses).

Also this negates one of the areas where aircraft are more efficient, that being they don’t start stop all the time like cars do and they fly near direct routes, you simple cannot say a a trip for example that may take 2 hours in an aircraft could be driven in the same distance as roads are far more indirect, and you cannot get the average cruise speed of an aircraft divide it by 10 and say that is how many hours it would take to drive as cars have to start/stop due to congestion and limitations in the road networks.

JonesNL wrote:

N47 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Keep in mind the following which are skewing the numbers:

- most of the A320/A321 are operated by LCCs/ULCCs which cram 10-20% more seats in compared to the big 3. Therefore, they fundamentally have higher seat miles per gallon.
- stage length and airport mix skew these numbers.

On balance, they’re exceptionally close in fuel efficiency at average stage length for a common seating density. A321 is the most efficient per seat on long stages. MAX8 generally beats 320 up to about 1000 miles.

Further, LEAP B has maintenance cost advantages over LEAP A (two few turbine stages being the biggest contributor)

Indeed, A320N are exclusively operated by ULCCs (nk&f9). The A321N is mostly operated by AA which has about 60 vs B6s 20 or so. AA also has the max but its the 8 so you cant really compare that. I think when/(if) delta gets the max10 comparing the data of the A321N with the max10 might be the closest comparison we can get.

Allow me to put this (103) number in another context. Assume i am traveling with my family of three (3 seats) then the 103 smpg number becomes 34.33 mpg for us (divide by seat to get rid of it in the numerator). This is comparable to our vehicles mpg and in line with what most SUVs get on the highway these days. That is to say that flying with these engines and driving are now equally efficient (for the given conditions), who knew!

Yes, but is vastly less efficient then a EV. So, in 10 years time planes will be one of the biggest pollutants. Probably still after cruise ships, but efficiency compared to cars will be a losing battle…

Again, without assumptions this is a meaningless statement. Some believe EV overall are more polluting than ICE. And yes, this belief is not without merit.

zeke wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Yes, but is vastly less efficient then a EV. So, in 10 years time planes will be one of the biggest pollutants. Probably still after cruise ships, but efficiency compared to cars will be a losing battle…

I simply don’t agree with those comments, when looking at the the true costs of running cars and EVs which includes the building and upkeep of infrastructure (roads, bridges, street lights, traffic control), and in the case of EVs, that energy still needs to be produced and transmitted to the point of charge (which insures something like 60% transmission losses).

Also this negates one of the areas where aircraft are more efficient, that being they don’t start stop all the time like cars do and they fly near direct routes, you simple cannot say a a trip for example that may take 2 hours in an aircraft could be driven in the same distance as roads are far more indirect, and you cannot get the average cruise speed of an aircraft divide it by 10 and say that is how many hours it would take to drive as cars have to start/stop due to congestion and limitations in the road networks.

Let's spell out conditions.
Can we compare A321N and Tesla on a JFK-SYD trip?

zeke wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Yes, but is vastly less efficient then a EV. So, in 10 years time planes will be one of the biggest pollutants. Probably still after cruise ships, but efficiency compared to cars will be a losing battle…

I simply don’t agree with those comments, when looking at the the true costs of running cars and EVs which includes the building and upkeep of infrastructure (roads, bridges, street lights, traffic control), and in the case of EVs, that energy still needs to be produced and transmitted to the point of charge (which insures something like 60% transmission losses).

Also this negates one of the areas where aircraft are more efficient, that being they don’t start stop all the time like cars do and they fly near direct routes, you simple cannot say a a trip for example that may take 2 hours in an aircraft could be driven in the same distance as roads are far more indirect, and you cannot get the average cruise speed of an aircraft divide it by 10 and say that is how many hours it would take to drive as cars have to start/stop due to congestion and limitations in the road networks.

I agree this is a simplistisch view without takıng infrastructuren into consideration. But this will be the view that the public and policy makers will; EV's don't producer gassen, planes do...

kalvado wrote:

Let's spell out conditions.
Can we compare A321N and Tesla on a JFK-SYD trip?

That is quite an edgecase. Are you suggesting that planes can only compete with EV'S on those edgecase?

JonesNL wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Let's spell out conditions.
Can we compare A321N and Tesla on a JFK-SYD trip?

That is quite an edgecase. Are you suggesting that planes can only compete with EV'S on those edgecase?

I am suggesting than EVs are in distinct different niche from planes, and their admirers tend to wear thick rose glasses.
But that goes too far away from original spreadsheet (seemingly someone was struggling with arithmetic while compiling it anyway)

JonesNL wrote:

I agree this is a simplistisch view without takıng infrastructuren into consideration. But this will be the view that the public and policy makers will; EV's don't producer gassen, planes do...

EVs do generate pollution, it is just the pollution is distant from the vehicle. A teslta with a 100 kWh battery, will take something like 140 kWh to be produced somewhere, in the US, electricity generation is around 12.86 kWh/gallon, equivalent to 10.9 gallons for that 100 kWh charge, and that will give you a range of around 300 miles, equivalent to 3.62 gallons per 100 miles.

If the energy to charge the vehicles is coming from wind or solar, those sources have limited life spans and then end up in abandoned or in land fill.

EVs dont run on free pollution free energy.

zeke wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I agree this is a simplistisch view without takıng infrastructuren into consideration. But this will be the view that the public and policy makers will; EV's don't producer gassen, planes do...

EVs do generate pollution, it is just the pollution is distant from the vehicle. A teslta with a 100 kWh battery, will take something like 140 kWh to be produced somewhere, in the US, electricity generation is around 12.86 kWh/gallon, equivalent to 10.9 gallons for that 100 kWh charge, and that will give you a range of around 300 miles, equivalent to 3.62 gallons per 100 miles.

If the energy to charge the vehicles is coming from wind or solar, those sources have limited life spans and then end up in abandoned or in land fill.

EVs dont run on free pollution free energy.

Where do you get the 40% transferloss from. Sources I found are talking about 8-15% to consumer and even less for industrial connections.
I agree that EV’s don't run polution free, but the polution is going to get less and less over time. Wind and Solar are already cheaper then gas, coal, nuclear and hydro plants. And they have recently introduced recyclable variants to prevent the landfill issues.
Same with batteries, they are using less and less resources to build them and are recyclable from design.
The point is that the public will see the pollution part being solved for cars and will demand changes in the airline industry. And to be honest, the changes are already being demanded…

JonesNL wrote:

Where do you get the 40% transferloss from. Sources I found are talking about 8-15% to consumer and even less for industrial connections.

You're both talking different % here.

I won't go into %, as it's different across the world. I'll just point out to what others said before, with some data (not all, for sure), that needs to be in equation to be true. I will also consider TCO, as this is probably the only true comparison one can do.

First, battery production. You need to build and install batteries. The cost vs simple (relatively) tank needs to be considered, both in terms of energy, and materials. Make sure to include all the waste created, and cost of its neutralisation.

Then, the usage comes. Since batteries turned out to be quite well designed, we don't change batteries (at least not usually). But energy, it is in most cases created outside of your house, by big powerplants. Most of them will use some sort of fuel (coal, fossils, gas), some will use more or less clean (solar, wind, nuclear). Let's not forget they needed to be built, so energy/materials, and maintenance costs apply. Waste included. Plus they're better than usual fossil run, thermal engines (in both the efficiency and pollution reduction), but nowhere near 100% efficiency.

Plus in most cases, you need to add a few percent here and there for energy transformation. Cite above (about 8-15%) is this cost, but does not include energy generation efficiency. Both together would be at Zeke's level (around 60% effective, country and/or technology dependant).

Then comes the energy loss every battery has. Mostly a time dependant, and will be probably be a minor effect, but still.

And once your car is not needed anymore, you need to dissolve all those batteries. Again, a polluting and energy consuming process.

So, when calculating how EVs excel, don't forget the TCO. There are no shiny, new and best-in-the-class batteries and powerplants, unless you are ready to build them, and dissolve at the EOL.

Same applies ICE (or any other powerplant), but comparing these on fuel costs (or pollution-wise) only with energy used, seems so much wrong...

Cheers,
Adam

gloom wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Where do you get the 40% transferloss from. Sources I found are talking about 8-15% to consumer and even less for industrial connections.

You're both talking different % here.

I won't go into %, as it's different across the world. I'll just point out to what others said before, with some data (not all, for sure), that needs to be in equation to be true. I will also consider TCO, as this is probably the only true comparison one can do.

First, battery production. You need to build and install batteries. The cost vs simple (relatively) tank needs to be considered, both in terms of energy, and materials. Make sure to include all the waste created, and cost of its neutralisation.

Then, the usage comes. Since batteries turned out to be quite well designed, we don't change batteries (at least not usually). But energy, it is in most cases created outside of your house, by big powerplants. Most of them will use some sort of fuel (coal, fossils, gas), some will use more or less clean (solar, wind, nuclear). Let's not forget they needed to be built, so energy/materials, and maintenance costs apply. Waste included. Plus they're better than usual fossil run, thermal engines (in both the efficiency and pollution reduction), but nowhere near 100% efficiency.

Plus in most cases, you need to add a few percent here and there for energy transformation. Cite above (about 8-15%) is this cost, but does not include energy generation efficiency. Both together would be at Zeke's level (around 60% effective, country and/or technology dependant).

Then comes the energy loss every battery has. Mostly a time dependant, and will be probably be a minor effect, but still.

And once your car is not needed anymore, you need to dissolve all those batteries. Again, a polluting and energy consuming process.

So, when calculating how EVs excel, don't forget the TCO. There are no shiny, new and best-in-the-class batteries and powerplants, unless you are ready to build them, and dissolve at the EOL.

Same applies ICE (or any other powerplant), but comparing these on fuel costs (or pollution-wise) only with energy used, seems so much wrong...

Cheers,
Adam

Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with your analysis that the equation should be cradle to cradle for the clear picture. But those analyses have been done and concluded there is a disparity in favour of EV’s. And this disparity will grow as green energy and battery tech are still improving at a high pace of 5-6% per year. Combustion engines are much more mature tech and every % of imprisonment requires billions of dollars in investment. There is a similar story in aviation as turbine engines are insanely efficient and a new generation cost billions upon billions to introduce…

That belief is absolutely 100% without merit.
It is off topic for this thread, but useful enough since it signalise with 100% accuracy which posters not to trust regarding technical matters.

kalvado wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

N47 wrote:

Indeed, A320N are exclusively operated by ULCCs (nk&f9). The A321N is mostly operated by AA which has about 60 vs B6s 20 or so. AA also has the max but its the 8 so you cant really compare that. I think when/(if) delta gets the max10 comparing the data of the A321N with the max10 might be the closest comparison we can get.

Allow me to put this (103) number in another context. Assume i am traveling with my family of three (3 seats) then the 103 smpg number becomes 34.33 mpg for us (divide by seat to get rid of it in the numerator). This is comparable to our vehicles mpg and in line with what most SUVs get on the highway these days. That is to say that flying with these engines and driving are now equally efficient (for the given conditions), who knew!

Yes, but is vastly less efficient then a EV. So, in 10 years time planes will be one of the biggest pollutants. Probably still after cruise ships, but efficiency compared to cars will be a losing battle…

Again, without assumptions this is a meaningless statement. Some believe EV overall are more polluting than ICE. And yes, this belief is not without merit.

This is an attack-angle that was well known 5-10 years ago from the fossil lobby.
Nothing is pollution free but EVs are a giant step forward from fossil vehicles.
While EVs are slightly more, as of now, pollutant in production, the difference is made up for within the first few thousand kilometers. A number getting smaller everyday, btw.
It takes 1.3kWh of electricity just to refine a litre of petrol, btw.
How many of tour

zeke wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I agree this is a simplistisch view without takıng infrastructuren into consideration. But this will be the view that the public and policy makers will; EV's don't producer gassen, planes do...

EVs do generate pollution, it is just the pollution is distant from the vehicle. A teslta with a 100 kWh battery, will take something like 140 kWh to be produced somewhere, in the US, electricity generation is around 12.86 kWh/gallon, equivalent to 10.9 gallons for that 100 kWh charge, and that will give you a range of around 300 miles, equivalent to 3.62 gallons per 100 miles.

If the energy to charge the vehicles is coming from wind or solar, those sources have limited life spans and then end up in abandoned or in land fill.

EVs dont run on free pollution free energy.

M564038 wrote:

It takes 1.3kWh of electricity just to refine a litre of petrol, btw.

This isn’t actually true, refineries generally use oil based products like waste fuel gas in an on site combined heat and power (cogeneration) facility, refineries are often nett electricity exporters. What people are doing are looking at the nett loss of fuel from when it is extracted, to when it gets to the car, which has a cost, and then converting that energy loss expressed as Joules into electrical energy in terms of kW.

EVs propulsive energy is from the onboard battery, however still a lot of the components on the vehicle are derived from oil based products.

M564038 wrote:

That belief is absolutely 100% without merit.
It is off topic for this thread, but useful enough since it signalise with 100% accuracy which posters not to trust regarding technical matters.

kalvado wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Yes, but is vastly less efficient then a EV. So, in 10 years time planes will be one of the biggest pollutants. Probably still after cruise ships, but efficiency compared to cars will be a losing battle…

Again, without assumptions this is a meaningless statement. Some believe EV overall are more polluting than ICE. And yes, this belief is not without merit.

I am not sure if this is any reason to argue in tech-ops with someone trying to go personal, but we may talk in a separate thread about acid leeching and effects of fluorine on mental development or sulfur and mercury capture techniques.
Please note, term "pollution" used in the original post is not commonly associated with carbon dioxide but rather with the broad spectrum of other compounds.
For now, would you, or @JonesNL, post some sources for your statements. Please be aware that I do not consider source credible for such questions until there is a doi number associated with it.

Do you wanna go that route? Are you comparing the amount of health problems stemming from renewables and EV batteries with fossile fuels? Do you think it is within even one, two or three orders of magnitude?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

kalvado wrote:

M564038 wrote:

That belief is absolutely 100% without merit.
It is off topic for this thread, but useful enough since it signalise with 100% accuracy which posters not to trust regarding technical matters.

kalvado wrote:

Again, without assumptions this is a meaningless statement. Some believe EV overall are more polluting than ICE. And yes, this belief is not without merit.

I am not sure if this is any reason to argue in tech-ops with someone trying to go personal, but we may talk in a separate thread about acid leeching and effects of fluorine on mental development or sulfur and mercury capture techniques.
Please note, term "pollution" used in the original post is not commonly associated with carbon dioxide but rather with the broad spectrum of other compounds.
For now, would you, or @JonesNL, post some sources for your statements. Please be aware that I do not consider source credible for such questions until there is a doi number associated with it.

M564038 wrote:

Do you wanna go that route? Are you comparing the amount of health problems stemming from renewables and EV batteries with fossile fuels? Do you think it is within even one, two or three orders of magnitude?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

kalvado wrote:

M564038 wrote:

That belief is absolutely 100% without merit.
It is off topic for this thread, but useful enough since it signalise with 100% accuracy which posters not to trust regarding technical matters.

I am not sure if this is any reason to argue in tech-ops with someone trying to go personal, but we may talk in a separate thread about acid leeching and effects of fluorine on mental development or sulfur and mercury capture techniques.
Please note, term "pollution" used in the original post is not commonly associated with carbon dioxide but rather with the broad spectrum of other compounds.
For now, would you, or @JonesNL, post some sources for your statements. Please be aware that I do not consider source credible for such questions until there is a doi number associated with it.

Well, they basically say that 1 out of 4 deaths are caused by fine particles. My bullshit meter goes out of scale here. I specifically love the fact that they consider reduction of overall mortality due to particulates emissions possible by looking at their numbers.
But, taking those numbers at face value - good thing you realize that they basically say it is not ICE cars, it is manufacturing - and EV naturally require more of manufacturing due to higher weight - that are the problem here.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of the population wants clean air, clean water, less pollutants, etc. It is common sense. Most want more efficient ways to travel, air, land and sea. So most of us can agree that more efficient Max and Neo (and all other) aircraft is a good thing.

That being said, EV technology has come a long way but still has a long way to go. Just because one plugs in t charge up vs inserting a fuel hose does not mean there are no downsides. That power one is plugging into to charge said vehicle is coming from local wires/transmission wires and a power plant somewhere. Maybe coal maybe natural gas.

There are issues on both the pre and post life of the EV batteries. Take a look at where the rare earth materials come from (cobalt mines) and where these batteries go after their useful life is used or they become damaged. The recycling/disposal process is pretty ugly as well.

No flat earth and/or no water isn't wet conspiracies...just some basics to think about.

But those things already well thought out, and it all turns out to overwhelmingly favour EVs.

To get on the aircraft topic. I firmly believe aerospace is on the negative emission side. What has been learned from aerospace im terms of material-science, efficiency, aerodynamics, turbines, time-before-maintenance etc. transferable to other modes of transportation and power production, more than make up for the emissions from aerospace itself.
No one has a stronger driver to burn as little fuel as possible than aerospace.

n92r03 wrote:

I believe that the overwhelming majority of the population wants clean air, clean water, less pollutants, etc. It is common sense. Most want more efficient ways to travel, air, land and sea. So most of us can agree that more efficient Max and Neo (and all other) aircraft is a good thing.

That being said, EV technology has come a long way but still has a long way to go. Just because one plugs in t charge up vs inserting a fuel hose does not mean there are no downsides. That power one is plugging into to charge said vehicle is coming from local wires/transmission wires and a power plant somewhere. Maybe coal maybe natural gas.

There are issues on both the pre and post life of the EV batteries. Take a look at where the rare earth materials come from (cobalt mines) and where these batteries go after their useful life is used or they become damaged. The recycling/disposal process is pretty ugly as well.

No flat earth and/or no water isn't wet conspiracies...just some basics to think about.

M564038 wrote:

But those things already well thought out, and it all turns out to overwhelmingly favour EVs.

To get on the aircraft topic. I firmly believe aerospace is on the negative emission side. What has been learned from aerospace im terms of material-science, efficiency, aerodynamics, turbines, time-before-maintenance etc. transferable to other modes of transportation and power production, more than make up for the emissions from aerospace itself.
No one has a stronger driver to burn as little fuel as possible than aerospace.

n92r03 wrote:

I believe that the overwhelming majority of the population wants clean air, clean water, less pollutants, etc. It is common sense. Most want more efficient ways to travel, air, land and sea. So most of us can agree that more efficient Max and Neo (and all other) aircraft is a good thing.

That being said, EV technology has come a long way but still has a long way to go. Just because one plugs in t charge up vs inserting a fuel hose does not mean there are no downsides. That power one is plugging into to charge said vehicle is coming from local wires/transmission wires and a power plant somewhere. Maybe coal maybe natural gas.

There are issues on both the pre and post life of the EV batteries. Take a look at where the rare earth materials come from (cobalt mines) and where these batteries go after their useful life is used or they become damaged. The recycling/disposal process is pretty ugly as well.

No flat earth and/or no water isn't wet conspiracies...just some basics to think about.

Indeed, it is actually quite crazy how humanity has managed to fly in the air at such speed and still managed to it at this efficiency level. Yet the public sees these marvels of engineering as polluting...

M564038 wrote:

But those things already well thought out, and it all turns out to overwhelmingly favour EVs.

Still not convinced, just did a plan on with a standard 2022 Tesla Model Y from JFK to LAX, it would take around 52 hrs, bit over 7 hours of that is spend at one of the 24 charging stations.

ABRP Plan
https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_u ... e0fb6aa51b
Waypoint
Arrival SoC
Depart SoC
Cost
Charge duration
Distance
Drive duration
Arrival
Departure
Notes
John F Kennedy Int'l Airport, Van Wyck Expy, Jamaica, NY 11430, United States 90% 280 km 2 h 55 min 08:24
Bloomsburg Supercharger [Tesla] 11% 79% $13 26 min 220 km 2 h 4 min 11:19 11:45
Falls Creek Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 61% $11 16 min 173 km
1 h 39 min
13:50 14:06
Girard, OH Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 80% $19 27 min 241 km
2 h 15 min
15:46 16:12
Genoa, OH (NB) Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 61% $14 16 min 174 km
1 h 39 min
18:28 18:44
Howe, IN - Ernie Pyle Travel Plaza - WB Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 58% $11 15 min 167 km
1 h 35 min
20:23 20:38
Portage, IN - John T. McCutcheon Travel Plaza Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 56% $10 14 min 172 km
1 h 48 min
21:14 21:27
Peru, IL Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 75% $17 24 min 223 km 2 h 7 min 23:16 23:39
Iowa City, IA Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 63% $13 17 min 181 km
1 h 44 min
01:47 02:04
Des Moines, IA Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 59% $12 15 min 162 km
1 h 33 min
03:48 04:03
Shelby, IA Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 52% $10 12 min 142 km
1 h 23 min
05:37 05:49
Lincoln, NE Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 58% $10 15 min 152 km
1 h 25 min
07:12 07:27
Grand Island Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 62% $11 17 min 163 km
1 h 28 min
08:53 09:10
Gothenburg Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 55% $10 13 min 138 km
1 h 16 min
10:38 10:51
Ogallala Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 74% $14 23 min 196 km
1 h 44 min
11:08 11:31
Brush Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 76% $18 24 min 192 km
1 h 47 min
13:15 13:39
Idaho Springs, CO Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 47% $10 10 min 125 km
1 h 19 min
15:26 15:37
Edwards, CO Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 73% $17 22 min 223 km 2 h 7 min 16:56 17:18
Grand Junction, CO Supercharger [Tesla] 11% 61% $14 16 min 157 km
1 h 23 min
19:25 19:41
Green River, UT Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 82% $16 28 min 198 km
1 h 43 min
21:04 21:33
Richfield, UT Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 47% $8 10 min 104 km 56 min 23:16 23:26
Beaver, UT - 525 W Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 75% $14 23 min 229 km 2 h 1 min 00:22 00:45
Mesquite, NV Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 72% $15 21 min 195 km
1 h 48 min
01:47 02:08
Primm, NV Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 67% $14 19 min 191 km
1 h 50 min
03:57 04:16
Barstow, CA - Tanger Way Supercharger [Tesla] 10% 63% $16 17 min 204 km
1 h 59 min
06:07 06:24
Los Angeles Int'l Airport, 1 World Way, Los Angeles, CA 90045, United States 10% 08:23
50 h 59 min $317
7 h 20 min
4599 km
43 h 38 min

OT but since others bring this up. The US EPA used to have a calculator ,which I can no longer find, that showed how much the "average" EV, hybrid , ICE vehicle CO2 emitted by state depending on that states source of electricity. Interestingly ( I was deciding between buying an EV and a PHEV then). In some states where most electricity was renewable like pacific northwest with lots hydro, there was a huge difference between EVs and the others, in some like my home state of Illinois where 1/2 is nuclear but 1/3 still coal, there was still some advantage to EV/hybrids. You live in a coal state like West Viriginia where something like 95% of the electricity is coal generated, unless you have your own solar roof or wind mill your EV isnt doing a whole lot better than the other types of car!.

That calculator was bonkers. And famous for it. The reality is much more favourable to EVs, but some entities has been fighting them haard;-)

trex8 wrote:

OT but since others bring this up. The US EPA used to have a calculator ,which I can no longer find, that showed how much the "average" EV, hybrid , ICE vehicle CO2 emitted by state depending on that states source of electricity. Interestingly ( I was deciding between buying an EV and a PHEV then). In some states where most electricity was renewable like pacific northwest with lots hydro, there was a huge difference between EVs and the others, in some like my home state of Illinois where 1/2 is nuclear but 1/3 still coal, there was still some advantage to EV/hybrids. You live in a coal state like West Viriginia where something like 95% of the electricity is coal generated, unless you have your own solar roof or wind mill your EV isnt doing a whole lot better than the other types of car!.

Thread has drifted off topic and is now locked