3 ms·
That's a very silly way to compare energy usage. For example, you're counting all the energy in the gasoline that gets loaded into a car, not the useful work t
by eigenspace 6mo ago
That's a very silly way to compare energy usage.
For example, you're counting all the energy in the gasoline that gets loaded into a car, not the useful work that the gasoline actually produces. Gasoline gars typically are only able to convert 20-30% of their fuel into propulsion.
Counting the energy in the fuel loaded into engines is like counting the amount of energy in the sunlight hitting a solar panel.
Similar things go for heating by the way. A modern heat pump often has a coefficient of performance of around 3x, meaning that for every joule of electricity you put into the pump, you can heat up a house with 3 joules of heat, so 3x as efficient as heating the house with combustion.
- mikewarot 6mo agoI don't see why anyone would balk at the idea of using backwards compatible fuel sources, synthesized using a sustainable process powered by solar energy. Replacing ALL of the liquid fueled devices in the world impractical, to the point of absurdity, to do. Where would we get electric versions of the Emma Mærsk[1] and her sister ships in a reasonable timeframe? Where would all the infrastructure come from to build out the grid to handle the charging load? Where are the ports with that kind of power capability coming from? What about the world's aviation? There are no viable ways to do air transport on a large scale using battery power. The world is optimized for liquid fuels, it would make far more sense to synthesize them from low cost solar power during the day, and accumulate the quantities required, rather than rip and replace every single industrial engine on the planet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk