Yes, but a gas engine is so inefficient that it loses more than half of that energy to waste heat. But almost all of the electricity is converted into useful power in an EV. A 600hp Cybertruck will go 13 miles on $1 of electricity, but a 400hp F-150 can only go 4.5 miles for $1 of gas. 50% more power at 1/3rd the fuel cost is a pretty significant benefit.
replyNot a Cybertruck fan myself, but unless you are going to tow or take many long road trips, an EV truck will work great for anyone who can charge at home. And most people don't tow, or take long road trips, with their trucks.
And this matters why? It still fits in a garage and powered someone’s home for a week, while also being their vehicle. Stationary batteries couldn’t have driven themselves to the supercharger.
replyI am not a fan of the truck, but let’s make some sense here
No, but a stationary generator powered off a small volume of gasoline could have powered the house for the same amount of time, and then a gasoline powered car could've driven to the gas station to refill jerry cans. Both of which would cost substantially less than a cybertruck.
replyYea but then you have to deal with gas which is nasty and stinky and noisy and polluting while having way less efficiency. A cybertruck charged with solar power is much more elegant and civilized.
replyProducing that enormous battery pack is nasty and stinky and noisy and polluting. It's just a cost that's paid upfront and the pollution is done in someone else's backyard.
replyA generator to power your house costs <$1k. A car that runs on gas costs <$5k, or if you want something that "matches" a cybertruck, ~$50k new. You can buy a lot of gasoline for those things before you get close to what a cybertruck costs. I don't care how "elegant" solar panels and a cybertruck might be if you're throwing money away to achieve it. (Ignoring that you can't both drive your truck and have your house powered from it simultaneously, and I don't think anyone in history has considered the cybertruck to be "elegant" - at least no one with eyes.)
reply