4 ms·

> turning electricity into fuel comes with a lot of losses. This is true, but when generating fuel, the end goal is usually to move a vehicle X miles. Now that

> turning electricity into fuel comes with a lot of losses. This is true, but when generating fuel, the end goal is usually to move a vehicle X miles. Now that electric cars are nominally competitive with ICE vehicles, the metric should be something more like “land required to drive a truck X miles/year” - and assume the best of either electric vehicle efficiency or ICE efficiency, not force an arbitrary electrical->chemical conversion for the metric’s sake. Biofuels probably wouldn’t look like as much of an outlier as they do here, but I would still wager that they’re among the least efficient options.

pfdietz 4y ago
Biofuels would be focused on applications where electrical vehicles would suck, such as aircraft.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  Tran-oceanic shipping and long haul airplanes are the 2 places where biofuel theoretically has some merit, but it still has the problem that it is about 25% worse than just using fossil fuels.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    That 25% argument was addressed elsewhere in the comments.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      It would be helpful to include a link.
cbsmith 4y ago
> Biofuels probably wouldn’t look like as much of an outlier as they do here, but I would still wager that they’re among the least efficient options. I wouldn't wager because it's not a simple yes or no type question. There's a lot of ambiguities even in the analysis behind the graph presented in the article, but when it comes to fuels vs. batteries, it gets even more insane. Fuels have a weight advantage over batteries that gets magnified as the weight and range of the vehicle increases... and there's a lot of variance within fuels too. So, while an electric bicycle is going to be a no-brainer over a motorcycle for pretty much any scenario, it can be quite the opposite for something like a commercial truck. I keep coming back to the economist argument that if we just captured the externalities related to climate change, we avoid having these discussions and simply look at the price of things... but of course, that's the hard part in all these discussions.

pfdietz 4y ago

Biofuels would be focused on applications where electrical vehicles would suck, such as aircraft.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
Tran-oceanic shipping and long haul airplanes are the 2 places where biofuel theoretically has some merit, but it still has the problem that it is about 25% worse than just using fossil fuels.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  That 25% argument was addressed elsewhere in the comments.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    It would be helpful to include a link.

cbsmith 4y ago

> Biofuels probably wouldn’t look like as much of an outlier as they do here, but I would still wager that they’re among the least efficient options. I wouldn't wager because it's not a simple yes or no type question. There's a lot of ambiguities even in the analysis behind the graph presented in the article, but when it comes to fuels vs. batteries, it gets even more insane. Fuels have a weight advantage over batteries that gets magnified as the weight and range of the vehicle increases... and there's a lot of variance within fuels too. So, while an electric bicycle is going to be a no-brainer over a motorcycle for pretty much any scenario, it can be quite the opposite for something like a commercial truck. I keep coming back to the economist argument that if we just captured the externalities related to climate change, we avoid having these discussions and simply look at the price of things... but of course, that's the hard part in all these discussions.