4 ms·
I don't disagree (at least w.r.t electric cars), but to play devil's advocate: a factor of 50-100 is A LOT. We're talking about two orders of magnitude here, w
by Barraketh 12y ago
I don't disagree (at least w.r.t electric cars), but to play devil's advocate: a factor of 50-100 is A LOT. We're talking about two orders of magnitude here, which would require a fundamental breakthrough in battery technology to achieve parity with gasoline. Even if we make batteries twice as efficient, we're still 25-50 worse than gasoline. And breakthroughs in battery technology are hard to come by. So if Toyota wants to hitch their wagon to fuel-cell technology instead, all the power to them! Batteries are not necessarily the future of portable energy.
- MaysonL 12y agoBut of course you're not just worrying about fuel/battery energy density difference. You should look at energy deliverable to the road per pound of fuel + engine + exhaust system versus electric motors + batteries, which I would guess is nowhere near a factor of 50-100.
- revelation 12y agoIf you now consider that the only way to use that energy is through combustion, and that an combustion engine is only 1/4th as efficient as an electric one, that factor suddenly shrinks to 12.5 - 25 already. Frankly, energy density is a bit of an distraction. If we go by energy density alone, we would presumably all be cruising on Uranium, which energy density is... well off the charts. But there a plenty of good reasons we don't fuel transport with Uranium, and there are just as many good reasons why we shouldn't continue to use gasoline.