3 ms·

You're just changing the point you measure the conversion losses at. Yes, electric motors are commonly 90%+ or 95%+. Even really bad ones hit that number. When

You're just changing the point you measure the conversion losses at. Yes, electric motors are commonly 90%+ or 95%+. Even really bad ones hit that number. When an EV is being charged by a natural gas turbine hooked into the electric grid, the efficiency is about the same. Basically imagine if instead of having an transmission in my regular truck I just coupled my engine to an enormous alternator. Then used the electrical energy to run electric motors driving the wheels. It is in no way more efficient.

_ph_ 4y ago
No, if we are talking about decarbonization, we are not using a natural gas turbine to charge the electric car but solar, wind, water.
MagnumOpus 4y ago
Even if you generate energy using oil or natural gas, it helps that the combustion happens in a 55-60% efficient combined cycle power plant rather than a 20-30% efficient car engine. And of course it enables power generation that is not bound to inefficient combustion - be it hydro, solar PV, wind etc.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Absolutely, it is a step in the right direction. But the small jump in efficiency from say 40% to 55% doesn't really do anything. You've still got a carbon footprint that is non-zero. Unless you convince society to build zero-carbon electrical generation it's the equivalent of the British calling the American Revolutionary War a victory on their part. The difference is purely political, societal, and cultural. None of which can change the laws of physics. My observation is United States society simply doesn't want or care about zero carbon electrical generation. Nuclear fission was figured out a long time ago & we basically never built any significant capacity in that regard. Fossil fuels are cheap, which means cheap energy.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
You can explore this question in depth here: https://evtool.ucsusa.org/ https://evtool.ucsusa.org/ Basically, even if you assume that the grid will not decarbonise, the least efficient EV beats the most efficient ICE everywhere in the US. The average is 4x better. With today's grid. Once you accept the reality that the grid is getting greener, it's no contest.
- _hcuq 4y ago
  No contest, yes. But can the world afford EVs even with the improved efficiency?

_ph_ 4y ago

No, if we are talking about decarbonization, we are not using a natural gas turbine to charge the electric car but solar, wind, water.

MagnumOpus 4y ago

Even if you generate energy using oil or natural gas, it helps that the combustion happens in a 55-60% efficient combined cycle power plant rather than a 20-30% efficient car engine. And of course it enables power generation that is not bound to inefficient combustion - be it hydro, solar PV, wind etc.

sidewndr46 4y ago
Absolutely, it is a step in the right direction. But the small jump in efficiency from say 40% to 55% doesn't really do anything. You've still got a carbon footprint that is non-zero. Unless you convince society to build zero-carbon electrical generation it's the equivalent of the British calling the American Revolutionary War a victory on their part. The difference is purely political, societal, and cultural. None of which can change the laws of physics. My observation is United States society simply doesn't want or care about zero carbon electrical generation. Nuclear fission was figured out a long time ago & we basically never built any significant capacity in that regard. Fossil fuels are cheap, which means cheap energy.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

You can explore this question in depth here: https://evtool.ucsusa.org/ https://evtool.ucsusa.org/ Basically, even if you assume that the grid will not decarbonise, the least efficient EV beats the most efficient ICE everywhere in the US. The average is 4x better. With today's grid. Once you accept the reality that the grid is getting greener, it's no contest.

_hcuq 4y ago
No contest, yes. But can the world afford EVs even with the improved efficiency?