upvote
> its basic physics

Could you ELI5 these basic physics? I've heard many people make claims like this but there's never any physics that actually follows. I've had most of an undergraduate curriculum of physics, so if it's beyond basic, then don't be afraid to refer to those physical ideas.

> meanwhile ICE has gotten ridiculously clean and efficient over the years it is more efficient at the shaft does not settle total-system efficiency, cost, weight, resource use, grid losses, battery production, or suitability for every operating env

Is 30% "ridiculously clean and efficient"? 35%? I'm not sure I can agree with that at all.

Battery production? That's ridiculously efficient. For a very small amount weight, there's an insane amount of Wh that get shuttled through that material, which can then be recycled into even more kWh of storage than went into the recycling process, due to the continual improvement in battery production efficiency.

Meanwhile, every single gallon of gas results in 20 pounds of CO2 emissions. Fracking oil requires disposing of 2-10 gallons of dirty waste water for every gallon of gas. That's a massive amount of waste for only 20-50 vehicle miles.

reply
The latest battery chemistries perform incredibly well in cold and hot climates.

Internal combustion is not clean, and is inherently significantly less efficient than an electric motor.

Also, LFP chemistries are incredibly safe compared to NMC, which is what you're concerned about in terms of thermal runaway.

ICE is mostly stagnant tech. Meanwhile EV tech is rapidly improving!

reply
> The latest battery chemistries perform incredibly well in cold and hot climates.

Depends on your definition of cold. California cold sure. Wisconsin cold you are looking at losing 40%-60% range.

reply