|
|
|
|
|
by 486sx33
435 days ago
|
|
You’re missing a state of change.
California uses coal, natural gas, and nuclear primarily.
Nuclear efficiency is low at 33%.
Best case you‘re charging your car from a new natural gas plant that is a combined cycle design which can potentially have up to 60% efficacy. So 60% efficiency, minus 9.2% transmission loss, Minus charging losses and then electric motor efficiency loses… verses directly consuming fuel and putting the power to the wheels. Electric cars are much less efficient if you consider the entire stream. If you want to use the argument that the gasoline needs to be refined and transported. Well so does natural gas. Or coal, or nuclear fuel rods, or bio mass, etc etc. I’m not saying electric cars aren’t good. But we should really force people to charge them with solar if we want peak efficiency to save the planet. Generating plant efficiency source - https://www.pcienergysolutions.com/2023/04/17/power-plant-ef... Electrical distribution loss in California 9.2% source - https://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how... |
|
But then, starting from the position that 10% loss on a 60% directly efficient ‘fuel’ is worse than a minimum 83% loss of efficiency on another fuel isn’t much of a genuine position in the first place.