undefined | Better HN

0 pointsonlyrealcuzzo3y ago0 comments

What other reply? You talk about refining. There's 10% lost in refining. X% lost in extraction and Y% lost in transmission (shipping, pipes, etc).

Solar => Grid => Car Battery is less than 10% lost usually. Obviously it can vary a lot - so can oil extraction, shipping and refining...

This means Solar => Grid => Car battery is >5x as efficient as Oil in ground => Pipes => Refinery => Pipes => Gas Station => Car.

Once the energy is in the car, we know the BEV is 5x more efficient.

We also know Solar => Car is SUBSTANTIALLY more efficient at transferring BTUs into the car than the gasoline infrastructure.

In reality, it's probably closer to 10x as efficient than 2x.

0 comments

WalterBright3y ago

Solar and wind have so far not been nearly adequate to charge existing EVs, let alone what would be necessary if we all converted to EVs.

Given the reluctance to expand nuclear power, we're going to be charging EVs with fossil fuels for a long time.

CraigJPerry3y ago

>> we're going to be charging EVs with fossil fuels for a long time

Even if you never used wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. then you’d still be ahead in the BEV case.

An oil power plant has around 42% thermal efficiency. A gas one 50%+ an ICE is only up to 35% but in the US it’s significantly lower on average.

Neither of which have tailpipe emissions in populated areas unlike ICE.

But we do also use wind, solar, nuclear etc as power sources for BEV.

WalterBright3y ago

> Even if you never used wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. then you’d still be ahead in the BEV case.

Yes, but not by much.

A coal power plant averages 33% efficiency. Gas is 42%. Source: google

> Neither of which have tailpipe emissions in populated areas unlike ICE.

CO2 doesn't care where it's emitted.

> But we do also use wind, solar, nuclear etc as power sources for BEV.

And nowhere near the power needed if everyone switched to EVs.

2 more replies

aidenn03y ago

And you're going to get around 80% from your EV after round trip through a battery. EVs powered by oil power plants is not a good use of energy.

Fortunately, that's not what we are doing. I just wish EV proponents would stop pretending it is.

Is there a term for a self-inflicted straw-man?

1 more reply

onlyrealcuzzoOP3y ago

> Solar and wind have so far not been nearly adequate to charge existing EVs, let alone what would be necessary if we all converted to EVs.

This is categorically false.

We already produce >10x as much wind energy alone that all BEVs in the US consume.

We already produce orders of magnitude more hydro electricity than we need for every passenger vehicle in the US to be a BEV.

WalterBright3y ago

> This is categorically false.

Yet California urged customers to not charge their EVs during peak hours because there isn't enough electricity available. And EVs are still only a tiny percentage of cars.

> hydro

is a doomed power source, because rivers are drying up, suitable sites are rare, and no new ones will be built because of environmental concerns. Existing ones get blown up.

https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/dam-removal.htm

BTW, a lot of PNW hydro power gets sold to California, which still has to tell people not to charge their EVs.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsonlyrealcuzzo3y ago0 comments

What other reply? You talk about refining. There's 10% lost in refining. X% lost in extraction and Y% lost in transmission (shipping, pipes, etc).

Solar => Grid => Car Battery is less than 10% lost usually. Obviously it can vary a lot - so can oil extraction, shipping and refining...

This means Solar => Grid => Car battery is >5x as efficient as Oil in ground => Pipes => Refinery => Pipes => Gas Station => Car.

Once the energy is in the car, we know the BEV is 5x more efficient.

We also know Solar => Car is SUBSTANTIALLY more efficient at transferring BTUs into the car than the gasoline infrastructure.

In reality, it's probably closer to 10x as efficient than 2x.

0 comments

WalterBright3y ago

Solar and wind have so far not been nearly adequate to charge existing EVs, let alone what would be necessary if we all converted to EVs.

Given the reluctance to expand nuclear power, we're going to be charging EVs with fossil fuels for a long time.

CraigJPerry3y ago

>> we're going to be charging EVs with fossil fuels for a long time

Even if you never used wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. then you’d still be ahead in the BEV case.

An oil power plant has around 42% thermal efficiency. A gas one 50%+ an ICE is only up to 35% but in the US it’s significantly lower on average.

Neither of which have tailpipe emissions in populated areas unlike ICE.

But we do also use wind, solar, nuclear etc as power sources for BEV.

WalterBright3y ago

> Even if you never used wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. then you’d still be ahead in the BEV case.

Yes, but not by much.

A coal power plant averages 33% efficiency. Gas is 42%. Source: google

> Neither of which have tailpipe emissions in populated areas unlike ICE.

CO2 doesn't care where it's emitted.

> But we do also use wind, solar, nuclear etc as power sources for BEV.

And nowhere near the power needed if everyone switched to EVs.

2 more replies

aidenn03y ago

And you're going to get around 80% from your EV after round trip through a battery. EVs powered by oil power plants is not a good use of energy.

Fortunately, that's not what we are doing. I just wish EV proponents would stop pretending it is.

Is there a term for a self-inflicted straw-man?

1 more reply

onlyrealcuzzoOP3y ago

> Solar and wind have so far not been nearly adequate to charge existing EVs, let alone what would be necessary if we all converted to EVs.

This is categorically false.

We already produce >10x as much wind energy alone that all BEVs in the US consume.

We already produce orders of magnitude more hydro electricity than we need for every passenger vehicle in the US to be a BEV.

WalterBright3y ago

> This is categorically false.

Yet California urged customers to not charge their EVs during peak hours because there isn't enough electricity available. And EVs are still only a tiny percentage of cars.

> hydro

is a doomed power source, because rivers are drying up, suitable sites are rare, and no new ones will be built because of environmental concerns. Existing ones get blown up.

https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/dam-removal.htm

BTW, a lot of PNW hydro power gets sold to California, which still has to tell people not to charge their EVs.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse