You are comparing different efficiencies. Solar panels are 15% to 20% efficient at converting light into energy. As far as I'm aware every Efuel being developed (and every hydrocarbon fuel for that matter) has a 0% efficiency at converting light into energy but if I am mistaken please do correct me.
In a completely technical sense the hydrocarbon fuel was at one time produced from light energy (dead plants) but that's taking your point and being pedantic since the "efficiency" of the conversation is probably astronomically low when you account for the loses sustained by whatever lifeform died and became said hydrocarbons.
E-fuels are made from solar power. It is not anywhere near 0%. Also, clearly efficiency is not "the only metric that matters."
No they are made from electricity, and that electricity is made by solar panels (sometimes).
Any form of conversion means losing energy.
BEVs require conversion steps too. Not to mention the cost and energy needed to build them in the first place. They are nearly as efficient as their advocates think.
An EV's pollution is recovered after 25 000km compared to an ICE.
This is including the battery and being completely powered by coal power plants.
The conversion steps for any EV is much less then any other form of fuel, because all those fuels usually convert to electricity somewhere in the line.
You just really like bringing up debunked arguments, do you?
It's too bad we're not comparing BEVs to conventional ICE cars. The alternatives are even greener and don't have a paypack period.
Fuel cell cars literally are EVs. People like you are just regurgitating a lot of BEV propaganda. These arguments only work when the alternative is a conventional ICE car running on pure fossil fuels. Your understanding of transportation technology is basically trapped in the early 2000s. You think you know something, but in reality you're 20 years out of date.
You are comparing different efficiencies. Solar panels are 15% to 20% efficient at converting light into energy. As far as I'm aware every Efuel being developed (and every hydrocarbon fuel for that matter) has a 0% efficiency at converting light into energy but if I am mistaken please do correct me.
In a completely technical sense the hydrocarbon fuel was at one time produced from light energy (dead plants) but that's taking your point and being pedantic since the "efficiency" of the conversation is probably astronomically low when you account for the loses sustained by whatever lifeform died and became said hydrocarbons.
E-fuels are made from solar power. It is not anywhere near 0%. Also, clearly efficiency is not "the only metric that matters."
No they are made from electricity, and that electricity is made by solar panels (sometimes).
Any form of conversion means losing energy.
BEVs require conversion steps too. Not to mention the cost and energy needed to build them in the first place. They are nearly as efficient as their advocates think.
An EV's pollution is recovered after 25 000km compared to an ICE.
This is including the battery and being completely powered by coal power plants.
The conversion steps for any EV is much less then any other form of fuel, because all those fuels usually convert to electricity somewhere in the line.
You just really like bringing up debunked arguments, do you?
It's too bad we're not comparing BEVs to conventional ICE cars. The alternatives are even greener and don't have a paypack period.
Fuel cell cars literally are EVs. People like you are just regurgitating a lot of BEV propaganda. These arguments only work when the alternative is a conventional ICE car running on pure fossil fuels. Your understanding of transportation technology is basically trapped in the early 2000s. You think you know something, but in reality you're 20 years out of date.