Abusing dead horses and EVs

| 18 Nov 2022 | 02:20

    This is the anticipated retort to the “not perfect” EV advocate. It makes it very hard to have an intelligent conversation with an EV advocate if they do not seem to understand basic math. He says EV’s are 65-70 percent efficient. I feel like I am beating a dead horse and will probably not be writing another letter on this. Yes, it is a true statement that an EV makes use of 65% of the power inputted into the battery, but unfortunately it is not connected to a magical power outlet drawing power from the ether. I will try to dumb this down. The “magic math” EV guy was bragging how 18 percent of our power is renewable, which is REALLY saying 82% is non-renewable, i.e. you are burning stuff. Department of Energy states coal plants are 33% efficient. Natural gas is better at 45%. That power goes through a transformer (not the robot kind), through wires back through a transformer (no, not Optimus Prime or Bumblebee) back through wires to your magical outlet, losing power at every step the way. In fact it loses power just through your plug! You are getting 65 percent OF the 33% minus the rest (about 15%). I can’t believe I am saying this but, in math, of means multiplication, 65% means 0.65, 33% means 0.33 or about a third. Do the math yourself, if you can that is, you may use a calculator. If you can figure that out, then add up the necessary watts needed to replace the gasoline and the diesel and the fuel oil for heating currently being used on a daily basis. Why this too difficult to understand I can only speculate. This magical “green” power that is wished for does not exist. Hydroelectric and Nuclear are really the only viable options for “clean power”. There is obviously a finite number of rivers to dam up and good luck getting the necessary nuclear plants built. Yes, I know someone is going to give some long-winded lecture about wind and solar, all I have to say is..good luck with that! EV’s are nothing new and suffer from the same inherent problems that put them out of business a hundred years ago. If someone had argued EV’s are good for city driving on short trips under 10 miles, I can agree with that, as IC engine are most efficient and wear less when heated to operating temperature. If they argued hybrid vehicles are the way to go, I could get on board with that also, I am sure they can be made very efficient. If they argued gasoline is not really a great fuel and to switch to something like diesel or hydrogen or natural gas, can’t argue with that. If they said external combustion was a viable option I would put a big YES in that column, Stirling cycle engines, for example, are at least 40% efficient, and external combustion can easily be made to burn with little pollution. But no, there is no intelligent arguments being put forth, it’s almost all “So-and-so said it, so it must be true.” Such is the religious maniac, don’t believe your lying eyes, 2+2=22 and the Emperor is defiantly fully clothed. PS: Did anyone see that cargo ship that caught fire and sunk because of the EV batteries? Or maybe the EV fires in Florida during hurricane Ian? You fire departments better get ready. Also, for the record, at no point did I say gasoline engines are 100% efficient or we get 100% of our power for coal.

    Alex Wronka