The worst and most stupid bit is this:
Speaking to crowds on Wednesday, vice president JD Vance said US allies are “suffering from this, frankly, more than we are.”
He claimed this was because they had “focused on a lot of green energy scams and they’re hurting a lot more than we are.”
Vance continued:"As much as we’ve got to focus on getting these gas prices down, the reality is overseas they’re feeling it far worse than we did because we’ve taken the steps to protect our energy economy.
Ironically investing in renewable energy and EVs is how Europe can increase its energy independence. It’s not like they can pump that oil from their ground.
I imagine this war will speed up this conversion even more.
One of the biggest advantages to EVs is that they can can get their power from anywhere. And even if the current power generation is from fossil fuels, as that changes so does the overall carbon “usage” of the vehicles.
The difference is also striking when you just look at energy conversion from the fuel source in the vehicle. That EV is around 85% efficient overall at turning that electricity from the wall to movement. For a gas car, you’re looking at between 12-30% of the energy in the fuel tank being converted.
Exactly this. Thanks for mentioning it, i was listing it for exactly that reason, but I guess most people probably still think the only benefit is being environment friendly when it is also let to energy independence.
This is great video explaining common misconceptions: https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM
The main difference is that a modern battery has an energy density of about 0.7 MJ/kg or 700 kJ/kg, whereas gasoline has an energy density of about 45.7 MJ/kg. So, you need to pack in a lot more batteries to allow an electric car to go a meaningful distance. And, you’re hauling around all that extra weight all the time, even when the batteries are nearly empty.
The weight of the fuel tank is dwarfed by the weight of the engine, which can go from 100 (petrol kei car) to 300 (diesel) kg. The battery packs on modern EVs are still heavier, usually in the 200 - 400 kg range, but the difference isn’t as stark as fuel density alone might suggest.
Apparently an average fuel tank can hold somewhere between 40 and 80 litres. So, that’s up to (0.75 * 80 = 60) 60 kg of fuel, which can supply 2.74 GJ of energy. If you wanted 2.74 GJ of batteries in your car, it would weigh about 4000 kg. That’s double the weight of an F150, or basically the weight of a F350, engine, fuel tank, wheels, etc. included.
Now, of course, nobody puts that much battery capacity into a car or truck.
The point is, it’s not an apples to oranges comparison when you talk about the energy efficiency of an EV vs. a ICE car. ICE cars are inefficient, but carry around a very energy dense fuel source and can go hundreds, sometimes thousands of km without needing to stop. EVs have much more efficient engines, but have to drag around really heavy batteries that aren’t very energy dense. Their range is very constrained because if you wanted to match the range of an ICE car you’d have to almost double the weight of the car in batteries alone.
Personally, I like mass transit and bikes. But, if I had to own a car I’d get an electric one. Still, I know that the major drawback to electric cars is that battery energy density sucks compared to gasoline.
Energy efficiency does matter because even if you are burning diesel to generate electricity, you can make power stations a lot more efficient than car engines. So shifting from ICE cars to EVs would reduce fuel use even in the absence of green electricity.
This is true, but like I said, the difference isn’t huge. An ICE car’s fuel + engine would be in the 100 - 400kg range, while an EV’s batteries + motor would be in the 200 - 500kg range. An additional 10% or so of weight is bad, but is outweighed by the at least fourfold increase in efficiency.
‘Contain’, not ‘can supply’ 2.74 GJ of energy. At 20% efficiency, you’d need a 800kg battery to match.
This is what I’ve been saying as well. For ages now. However I was listening to pre election political debate with parties on TV and everybody just kept talking about oil, oil and oil. Nobody even mentioned alternatives or anything else at all. And we even have a prime minister coming straight from electric energy distributor. So I’m not putting too much fate here.
This is very good video to send to anyone who fell for it https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM
It addresses pretty much every argument thrown.
It’s not ironic at all.
I was referring to what he said. He said that Europe has those problems because it prioritized renewable energy and EVs instead (what he implied) pumping oil (or that snake actually meant Europe getting its security by purchasing oil from Russia, which is the complete opposite of security)