4 ms·
True, but this overlooks transmission inefficiencies. Inherent in moving power over distances is power loss (without superconductors). In that sense, local powe
by KingMob 11y ago
True, but this overlooks transmission inefficiencies. Inherent in moving power over distances is power loss (without superconductors). In that sense, local power generation is superior.
However, my understanding of the overall picture is that car engines (both diesel and gas) are so much less efficient than a power plant, that even with transmission, it's cleaner to switch to centralized power generation.
- jerven 11y agoGasoline also has large transportation inefficiencies. Unlike solar, every garden a refinery and oil well is impossible while every roof a solar pv is possible, even if 100% unlikely.
- ptaipale 11y agoAre those inefficiencies actually so large? As they say, liquid hydrocarbons are a remarkably efficient method for keeping large amounts of disposable energy in a vehicle, currently difficult to match with e.g. batteries. And conversion of other energy forms to electricity involves some significant losses as well.
- jerven 11y agoLine loss in US in 2007 was estimated to be 5% in 2013 (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3) For gasoline the number is supper tricky to determine. So here comes a back of napkin number A fuel truck transports about 30,000 gallons (20,000-40,000). On average they achieve about 4-7.5 miles per gallon). So they use about 1% of their tankage for every 60 miles traveled. This suggest to me that transportation loses for gasoline are in the same ball park number. Distribution and marketing is often claimed to be about 5% of the total, but I don't know where that number comes from. All in all the difference is probably not that large, and I suspect the electricity one will drop faster than the gasoline one due to interconnect upgrades.