The problem with many EV proponents (not referring to you), is that they like to exaggerate the improvement, usually using qualitative reasoning instead of providing quantitative figures. Also, intentionally make inaccurate or incomplete comparison.
.
OT: Renewables. I am not sure that renewables are better for environments because wind and solar farms disrupt the nature. Blocking wind? Heating solar cells instead of the ground? I doubt scientists have fully understood the long term implication on climate
.
Finally, wasn’t picking on you. Merely want to understand all these talks on climate change, renewables and EV.
Line loss with electricity is another 7% or so.
And if we go with solar and wind (will never happen on a large scale but let’s just speculate for entertainment sake) we’ll need massive battery banks for storage. More loss.
ChatGPT told you ICE car efficiency is between 20 and 30%. So you cherry picked the maximum, 30%.
It then told you EV efficiency is more than 80%. Again you cherry picked the minimum, 80%.
After torturing the statistics to fit your agenda, your calculation still shows EV “slightly better”.
That’s what’s called “motivated reasoning”. You start with your foregone conclusion, then look for data to try work backward for support.
And drilling for oil and burning hydrocarbons doesn’t disrupt nature? Why is renewables held up to this unrealistic ideal that it should not even “disrupt nature”?
Every source of energy comes with their own environmental costs. The goal is the minimize the costs. It can never be exactly zero.
Why is the efficiency even relevant?
If an energy source is dense enough who cares?
If it’s so low density you need to cover thousands of square miles with panels or windmills plus it’s intermittent and you can’t economically store excesses who cares how efficient it is
The whole metric is off anyway. An Aptera is more than twice as efficient as a Tesla. How is that possible if a Tesla is already supposed to be 80% efficient?
Most EV’s weigh more than 1000 pounds more than a comparable ICE car so they require more energy to get down the road in the first place.
In reality even if all of the US went solar and EV, CO2 emissions worldwide would only go down by less than 1%
Over time, decaying leaves release carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. In fact, the natural decay of organic carbon contributes more than 90 percent of the yearly carbon dioxide released into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.Oct
MIT… Climate change mantra is about global political power…Nothing to do with science… remember “Do you believe in global warming?”
It’s a religion of hatred of capitalism, America and Western civilization…Probably not a concern for most the third world that has to forage for firewood water and basic food stuffs…
Don’t know where the 2x efficiency number comes from. Perhaps because Aptera gets its power from its own solar panels, it is looking at the entire life cycle of power generation?
So it is indeed possible to be 2x as efficient as a Tesla.
They haven’t built one yet. Don’t underestimate the nimbyies and environmentalists to fight everyone tooth and nail. Driving costs into the stratosphere and making it a self fulfilling prophecy that they are too expensive to build…
I have been saying this for a while. There is a realignment happening in the left. The old tree-hugging NIMBY’s on one side, and YIMBY pro-nuclear urbanists on the other. The former tends to be older, like those aging hippies in Berkeley. The latter is a lot younger, like the techies in SF.
The YIMBY’s are winning. But it will take many years to move the needle. Just keep pushing.
Nothing to do with whether the Aptera gets its power from its solar panels or an electrical outlet. It runs 2.5 times as far as a Tesla on the same number of electrons. Half the weight; half the coefficient of drag.
If you want to get into technical details, that 89% number in the article I quoted is the amount of energy input that got converted into motion.
Now how far a car goes with the same amount of energy for motion? That depends on air drag, on the car’s weight etc. The efficiency number I quoted doesn’t go that far.
In general, efficiency calculation has to start somewhere and end somewhere. Be mindful of where it starts and where it ends.
Better than what? 
Since you complain, add “also” before disrupt.
