Jon wrote:
Ha ha... that actually sounds quite sensible! But then when you realise that of course losses will be involved converting the energy to electricity before converting it to motion, you realise how daft the whole green thing is, because ALL the electricity for electric cars has to be generated first, mainly by one of the forms the greenies are against.
That is the INCONVENIENT TRUTH that the greenies and the political class will not accept or acknowledge.
Any energy conversion achieving 80% efficiency is doing very well indeed. Every electrical/mechanical/chemical conversion creates heat, and the heat represents inefficiency. There is no such thing as 100% efficiency in this world. The first law of thermodynamics; "work is heat, and heat is work". Work produces heat, and the heat represents inefficiency of conversion. Any device/machine with ventilation holes, fans, heat sinks, water cooling, etc. is an admission that there is a less than 100% conversion efficiency.
I realise that Jon and Kemmen understand what I' saying in this reply to Jon. But this needs telling as frequently as possible these days because too many people out there do not understand the basic facts that the so-called green agenda is deceitfully hiding.
Even 'wasteful' filament bulbs that get very hot in use are not as wasteful as the green politicos make out they are; the heat produced by the bulb in use is added to the heating of the building/home/work place, etc. and offsets the gas heating required to heat a building.
All those electric cars that are planned by the insane green agenda will be wasting huge quantities of heat energy when being charged. The vast majority of vehicle charging will take place outdoors, where the heat produced will 100% wasted.