3 ms·

While your statement is true your graph is misleading for two reasons. 1) comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it

While your statement is true your graph is misleading for two reasons. 1) comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this 2) the graph is global, we have seen energy consumption go down in the developed world. E.g. the EU now uses less electricity than 20 years ago.

philipallstar 6mo ago
> comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this Yes but there are losses in generating electricity, and in transmitting it as well. If you only measure from energy in your car's battery to motion you're right, but I don't think that's a useful measure.
- triceratops 6mo ago
  Then you also have to account for losses in drilling oil, shipping it to a refinery, refining it into gasoline or diesel, shipping it to a distribution hub, then to a gas station. And all the electricity consumed in doing that. And the navy and coast guard ships that need to patrol all the oceans to keep the oil tankers safe. And...
  - philipallstar 6mo ago
    Yes, and the same for building and fuelling the power station I suppose. That's why I'm saying you need to pick a sensible point to compare efficiency at.
    - triceratops 6mo ago
      Building power stations is a one-time cost. If the power station is solar or wind, same thing, only no fuel. Not the case for fossil fuels. Solar panels or windmills are like oil drills. They aren't oil.
    - locallost 6mo ago
      There are no losses in generating from solar which is the topic of the article. There is no loss since there is no fuel. There is a loss in transmission but not enough to offset the roughly 4x reduction in energy use. As the other person also pointed out, there is the same loss in transmission for e.g. combustion engines. You don't pour the gasoline that came out of your back yard. It's extracted and processed for most of the world somewhere very far away and then transported. If anything, the losses in electricity are less than the energy required to transport these huge amounts of fossil fuels.
gregwebs 6mo ago
I think 2) is a lot more complicated to the point statements like that are misleading. Take a look Graph of energy consumption of China which is about double the US: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china The energy consumption of the United States has flat lined: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states One can argue that the US and Europe have maintained a low energy consumption by de-indusrializing and having China produce all the energy (largely with coal!) to manufacture their goods instead of manufacturing it themselves. 1) Is a lot more complicated as well. A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery.
- triceratops 6mo ago
  > A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery Does it take into account the "massive energy cost" of manufacturing the ICE vehicle then?
  - ahhhhnoooo 6mo ago
    Or the gasoline generation efficiency and transmission losses? Or the economic impacts of oil pollution? Getting oil from the ground to the pump isn't free either.
    - triceratops 6mo ago
      100 percent
    - leonidasrup 6mo ago
      The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths, used for permanent magnets in EV motors or in electric generators - wind turbines, is quite large. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389425033205 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#... Because of ecology, refining of U.S. mined rare earths was outsourced for a very long time to China. Outsourcing of ecological damage... https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-stops-china-bound-rare-earth-shipments-over-tariffs-2025-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-sto...

philipallstar 6mo ago

> comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this Yes but there are losses in generating electricity, and in transmitting it as well. If you only measure from energy in your car's battery to motion you're right, but I don't think that's a useful measure.

triceratops 6mo ago
Then you also have to account for losses in drilling oil, shipping it to a refinery, refining it into gasoline or diesel, shipping it to a distribution hub, then to a gas station. And all the electricity consumed in doing that. And the navy and coast guard ships that need to patrol all the oceans to keep the oil tankers safe. And...
- philipallstar 6mo ago
  Yes, and the same for building and fuelling the power station I suppose. That's why I'm saying you need to pick a sensible point to compare efficiency at.
  - triceratops 6mo ago
    Building power stations is a one-time cost. If the power station is solar or wind, same thing, only no fuel. Not the case for fossil fuels. Solar panels or windmills are like oil drills. They aren't oil.
  - locallost 6mo ago
    There are no losses in generating from solar which is the topic of the article. There is no loss since there is no fuel. There is a loss in transmission but not enough to offset the roughly 4x reduction in energy use. As the other person also pointed out, there is the same loss in transmission for e.g. combustion engines. You don't pour the gasoline that came out of your back yard. It's extracted and processed for most of the world somewhere very far away and then transported. If anything, the losses in electricity are less than the energy required to transport these huge amounts of fossil fuels.

gregwebs 6mo ago

I think 2) is a lot more complicated to the point statements like that are misleading. Take a look Graph of energy consumption of China which is about double the US: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china The energy consumption of the United States has flat lined: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states One can argue that the US and Europe have maintained a low energy consumption by de-indusrializing and having China produce all the energy (largely with coal!) to manufacture their goods instead of manufacturing it themselves. 1) Is a lot more complicated as well. A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery.

triceratops 6mo ago
> A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery Does it take into account the "massive energy cost" of manufacturing the ICE vehicle then?
- ahhhhnoooo 6mo ago
  Or the gasoline generation efficiency and transmission losses? Or the economic impacts of oil pollution? Getting oil from the ground to the pump isn't free either.
  - triceratops 6mo ago
    100 percent
  - leonidasrup 6mo ago
    The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths, used for permanent magnets in EV motors or in electric generators - wind turbines, is quite large. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389425033205 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#... Because of ecology, refining of U.S. mined rare earths was outsourced for a very long time to China. Outsourcing of ecological damage... https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-stops-china-bound-rare-earth-shipments-over-tariffs-2025-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-sto...