Where is the comparison to the solar panel? I'm comparing methods of propelling, you are comparing solar panels and?
If you can use the energy more efficiently and choose not to it's not sustainable (or at least not very smart)
Because it is solar power ultimately powering it all. If you don't care about the efficiency of that step, you don't really care about all of the later steps. It is still green energy and still cheap.
The problem with BEVs is that while it is efficient in one respect, it is insanely wasteful in others. As a result, it is an unsustainable idea and functionally just greenwashing.
So it's the same if you have to build 5 times as many solar panels to do the same thing? It's just not.
Now we're in the "pro-BEV bullshit" zone. Batteries won't magically solve all transportation needs, nor solve the energy storage requirements of the grid. Alternatives still have to exist anyways, and the total lifecycle efficiency of BEVs isn't that special. In a lot of cases, avoiding excessive use of batteries will save you energy. So pursuing alternatives will not need radically more solar panels.
Where did I say batteries were perfect?
If you can admit that, you can admit there can be superior options to BEVs.
Admit what? That they aren't perfect? Yeah sure, nothing is. But where is the better option?
E-fuels or hydrogen made from green energy. With the latter you won't even give up on the future being EVs. They are the actually sustainable forms of transportation that everyone can accept.
... But they are way more inefficient then batteries, which is what I've been saying all this time.
Which doesn’t matter, something I’ve been saying all this time.
And the efficiency of batteries has been massively exaggerated too.
energy prices are far from stable and efficiency plays a huge role in the feasibility of a technology.
The efficiency of e fuels is far below hydrogen and hydrogen is still a lot worse than battery.
The advantages of a chemical fuel is that you make them when costs are very low and save them for when you need them. Even months later if need be. Not doable with batteries. Even the ICCT is admitting that electricity used to make hydrogen is going to much cheaper than electricity used to charge BEVs. It will likely be cheaper to operate a hydrogen car due to that fact.
At least with e-fuels, there's an argument to be made that there are too many unnecessary steps and that costs will be high. But with hydrogen, that argument doesn't really hold water. Fuel cell cars are also EVs. The gap between BEVs FCEVs on efficiency is small and shrinking. When the full lifecycle factors are included, it is likely the FCEV is the more efficient idea even now.
Hm, maybe, but using it in a vehicle doesn't sound too enticing. Although everything we talk about here is developing technologies, maybe the next breakthrough might change everything.
Where is the comparison to the solar panel? I'm comparing methods of propelling, you are comparing solar panels and?
If you can use the energy more efficiently and choose not to it's not sustainable (or at least not very smart)
Because it is solar power ultimately powering it all. If you don't care about the efficiency of that step, you don't really care about all of the later steps. It is still green energy and still cheap.
The problem with BEVs is that while it is efficient in one respect, it is insanely wasteful in others. As a result, it is an unsustainable idea and functionally just greenwashing.
So it's the same if you have to build 5 times as many solar panels to do the same thing? It's just not.
Now we're in the "pro-BEV bullshit" zone. Batteries won't magically solve all transportation needs, nor solve the energy storage requirements of the grid. Alternatives still have to exist anyways, and the total lifecycle efficiency of BEVs isn't that special. In a lot of cases, avoiding excessive use of batteries will save you energy. So pursuing alternatives will not need radically more solar panels.
Where did I say batteries were perfect?
If you can admit that, you can admit there can be superior options to BEVs.
Admit what? That they aren't perfect? Yeah sure, nothing is. But where is the better option?
E-fuels or hydrogen made from green energy. With the latter you won't even give up on the future being EVs. They are the actually sustainable forms of transportation that everyone can accept.
... But they are way more inefficient then batteries, which is what I've been saying all this time.
Which doesn’t matter, something I’ve been saying all this time.
And the efficiency of batteries has been massively exaggerated too.
energy prices are far from stable and efficiency plays a huge role in the feasibility of a technology.
The efficiency of e fuels is far below hydrogen and hydrogen is still a lot worse than battery.
The advantages of a chemical fuel is that you make them when costs are very low and save them for when you need them. Even months later if need be. Not doable with batteries. Even the ICCT is admitting that electricity used to make hydrogen is going to much cheaper than electricity used to charge BEVs. It will likely be cheaper to operate a hydrogen car due to that fact.
At least with e-fuels, there's an argument to be made that there are too many unnecessary steps and that costs will be high. But with hydrogen, that argument doesn't really hold water. Fuel cell cars are also EVs. The gap between BEVs FCEVs on efficiency is small and shrinking. When the full lifecycle factors are included, it is likely the FCEV is the more efficient idea even now.
Hm, maybe, but using it in a vehicle doesn't sound too enticing. Although everything we talk about here is developing technologies, maybe the next breakthrough might change everything.