I feel like I've read something about the effects of reducing sulfur production already: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/feed/unintended-warmin...
I’m pro EV by the way, I just want to understand your point better. Being able to go all the way to transportation using clean energy is an obvious benefit of EVs. The “dirty electricity” angle is less obvious to me.
In an ICE engine about 30% of the energy becomes motion. About 70% is heat.[2]
In other words electric motors are about 3 times more efficient than ICE.
[1] an interesting side effect of this is that in cold climates you can't just harvest waste heat to heat the cabin (or batteries. ) So you end up using some battery energy if you need heat.
[2] ICE motors vary in effeciency a lot. 20-30% is typical. The Carnot formula comes into play here.
[3] because there is so little heat generated, the cooling systems (EVs still have them) are much smaller. And simpler (for example, no fan, 'cause there's no heat when standing still.)
If you charge at home it gets less. If you have solar at home it approaches zero.
Yes, the cost of the car itself is a factor, but even there prices are dropping all the time.
>> when you can only take 10% as much fuel
effeciency makes all the difference when we discuss % of fuel. 90% of 100 mj is the same as 30% of 300 mj. So already the "fuel" can be 66% less. Generally though the raw amount of mj isn't a very important number. A better measure (which takes effeciency, and tank size into account) is "range". But even that is somewhat meaningless. At some point range is "enough". For daily commutes that may be 50 miles. For long-distance it might be 500 miles.
In only a very few cases would a pickup with 2000 mile range be more useful than one with 1000 mile range.
Plus you can also factor in maintenance costs. The cost of ownership of an ev, from a service and maintenance point of view is a lot lower.
[1] ymmv somewhat. Although electricity prices vary a lot, so do gas prices. The 50% saving (at worst) is a pretty good rule of thumb though.
If there is such a marketing, then people relate to it because EVs are not suited for handling unpredictable situation. You got stuck in a ditch in the middle of nowhere at night, you loss all of your battery getting out of it, and now you are stuck. So you can't take it to unforgiving places.
EVs are great for boring commute that is it. I don't see it changing any time soon.
The bio-fuel people at least make some kind of sense compared to fossil fuel "survivalists" - but again they're portrayed as just tree huggers!
Based on these average values I used, EVs fared slightly worse.
This was not factoring in costs of purchase or repairs etc. And all averages were taken off the internet so everything had to be taken with more than a grain of salt. But the outcome was nowhere near your statement of EV energy costing about half of the cost of gas for the driver.
I pay around $.12/kw and get 4 miles per kw. So my "energy" costs are $.03/mile. I have a Mazda cx50 as well, it gets about 20-22mpg, with the gas prices here in Seattle that's around $.30/mile. Even where gas is cheaper that's still $.20/mile. Literally 10x the cost to run a gas car vs an EV.
I'm honestly shocked at how many people have EVs and rely on charging stations. I mean, I think it's a low number, but the fact that it's more than zero is shocking to me.
Well there's your problem. Try doing the same calculation with the average residential electricity cost. Most car use is for commutes after all, so most people can just charge their EV in their driveway every night.
Destination charging and rapid charging are notoriously expensive. It's a luxury product intended for a once-a-year road trip. It is not even remotely representative of your average charging cost. Street-side charging is slightly less excessive, but you're still paying a serious premium.
That does presume that those "most people" have a driveway where they can do charging. I.e., all apartment dwellers with cars in parking lots/garages (excluding those few that may have installed electrical plugs at each parking spot) are cut off, as are city dwellers without driveways who park on the street (or in another garage, again without electric hookups for charging).
Yes, eventually those garages and parking lots will likely include some form of "car charging" infrastructure, but until that happens, "most" is not as big of a percentage as that word makes it appear.
There are some other parameters to consider too. Stopping for fuel is not something I enjoyed. I can charge at home. You won’t have to stop to refuel in an EV unless you’re going a long way. If you’re going a long way the stop will be longer. Much worse.
You won’t service an EV much, that’s nice.
The silence is bliss.
Filling the wagon today would cost me like 170 euro. Filling my xpeng happens overnight and is about 7-9 euro depending on grid pricing.
Negative externalities like pollution and climate change are not even priced in. Even if they were priced in, there are non-monetary factors that we could consider once in a while, but the conversation tends back to dollars.
Assuming you think price as a signal is the solution to dealing with those externalities, it doesn't matter what caused the price to be high.
Not everyone is you.
You have conversion losses to generate motion but these are again substantially less than the conversion of chemical energy to motion that occurs inside a combustion engine. Powerplants+electric motors will have conversion efficiencies around 30%; internal combustion engines will have conversion efficiencies around 10%.
With the exception of some remote locations or emergency situations with backup generators, you are almost certainly not consuming a fuel that requires refining to generate electricity. If you're burning coal or gas, it's coming from much closer, and it's being transported in bulk to the powerplant. Trucks taking fuels to the local distribution centers and ultimately gas stations are by far the largest transportation energy expense for petrol.
In Australia power prices are often negative in the day due to solar and there's various variable rate plans you can get to take advantage (Australia dwarfs all other nations in per capita solar; even China is nowhere close per capita). I know workplaces that will actively encourage you to charge your car at work.
Power prices due to the excess solar keep falling - eg. 10% fall nationwide in July (middle of winter in Aus so not even near peak solar). https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/may/26/power...
For all the talk of 'solar can't replace fossil fuels' or 'electricity isn't green' Australia's gone and created a nation wide energy market that encourages rooftop solar and it's found itself with excess daytime energy at a time when the world has an energy crisis in Iran and the datacenters going up everywhere.
It can be a good example though of how you overproduce during the day and use that to charge car batteries for example
Compare to for example Denmark at 149 persons per square kilometre. Denmark needs about 35 TWh per year in electricity, so about 1,7% of their land area would need to to covered with panels to supply that.
(This is obviously napkin math and just a thought exercise)
If they were to convert their sheep pastures to dual-use like this (https://www.americangrassfed.org/solar-grazing-with-sheep-a-...) Denmark would be almost 40% solar powered without giving up any additional land area.
Denmark obviously has a lot of wind power and should not convert to a majority solar power for their grid, but I want to illustrate that the land area use may not necessarily be such a strong argument against significantly increasing solar power in more densely populated countries.
A power plant typically gets about 60% of energy from a fossil source. A car does about 30%. So even if the electricity comes from say coal, it's still more efficient than buying gas in a car engine.
Of course, these days, it's likely that a substantial portion (up to 100% in some cases) is not "fossil electricity" but rather comes from solar, wind, hydro etc. Ie "clean" electricity.
In the worst-case scenario, accounting for the ~90% efficiency of the electric motors... Well, Xunmin et al. (2005) estimates 3–36%, so lifecycle emissions could be reduced by as little as 3% if you power it 100% by coal, which would be less than the what you'd get from a hybrid, but... You're not really going to find a power grid that is powered 100% by coal these days, even in China. Really the biggest advantage of a BEV, and any other electrification, is that if there are future investments in the grid (and there will be since generators don't last forever) you don't have to replace the engine of your car for it to automatically reduce emissions. The efficiency gains are just a cherry on top.
[Xunmin]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S17505...
Charging Lithium, and converting to motive force in motors are both pretty efficient. (Both >90%).
An ICE vehicle has an upper limit on efficiency that is lower than what a modern fossil fuel plant can reach, and the ICE is less likely to sit at peak efficiency all the time. The world record, set this year was 48%. Previously, it was 41%.
Power plants are much more likely to be kept at or near their peak efficiency and have the space for systems like heat recovery (to recapture waste heat) and emissions controls. For a gas turbine plant, I think the record is ~64% sustained.
The important driving factor is that generation becomes more efficient when you can use natural gas to turn turbines directly and then capture the waste heat to boil water and turn turbines with steam. This is called combined cycle if you want to google it to learn more.
Another thought exercise, if generating electricity with fossil fuels wasn’t more efficient at scale, why would we bother building a grid in the first place? Every house would just have a gas generator.
It's all projections, too. They don't even have a line to show where they are going from actuals to guesses.
I’m misunderstanding something. Planes use twice as much fuel while road uses 20x more?