EVs can't work, and are just stepping stones to banning all personal transportation

[CaptUSA]

What's the transmission loss of a gallon of crude?

Ok - stopping this disingenuous farce after this post.

You're talking about the loss prior to the conversion into useful energy. When calculating those losses, you also have to calculate the loss of energy sources being "transmitted" to the power plants. There will always be losses of energy, but you will never get to the point where the losses will be lower with electric vehicles than with internal combustion - unless your car is powered entirely with nuclear energy. But even in that case, the regulatory costs are so immense that it can even make that look less economically efficient.

But here's the thing. You are talking to an expert in the field and throwing up internet links as "proof". The very same type of internet links that show how masks and lockdowns work and mRNA vaccines can stop pandemics (as long as you get enough of other people's money). This is what happens when you start with ideology instead of data. You make all sorts of mistakes in your assumptions.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Ok - stopping this disingenuous farce after this post.

You're talking about the loss prior to the conversion into useful energy. When calculating those losses, you also have to calculate the loss of energy sources being "transmitted" to the power plants. There will always be losses of energy, but you will never get to the point where the losses will be lower with electric vehicles than with internal combustion - unless your car is powered entirely with nuclear energy. But even in that case, the regulatory costs are so immense that it can even make that look less economically efficient.

But here's the thing. You are talking to an expert in the field and throwing up internet links as "proof". The very same type of internet links that show how masks and lockdowns work and mRNA vaccines can stop pandemics (as long as you get enough of other people's money). This is what happens when you start with ideology instead of data. You make all sorts of mistakes in your assumptions.

I do not want to put into question your credentials at all and I definitely do agree that it gets very detailed and difficult to calculate accurately what the full 'footprint' of an electric car is VS ICE. But I do think it's fair to include a number of things that go beyond the operation of a vehicle. In my own line of work I make similar calculations related to energy and I know you can always add more detail to illustrate a point or even to change the outcome of a calculation.

I think the production of fuel should be included. With "green energy" you have for instance the manufacturing cost of the windmill, it's average output over a year, lifespan etc. Whereas drilling gas, distilling, transport etc. also have a factor in this. Transport of fuels is probably a lower loss than transporting electricity long distance... I don't know the numbers exactly.

I do disagree with this statement;

There will always be losses of energy, but you will never get to the point where the losses will be lower with electric vehicles than with internal combustion

ICE's are in the range of 25% efficiency or so, electric motors are much higher than that, much higher. I don't understand the statement maybe ?

 

[acptulsa]

Let me say it another way.

For a given amount of energy in either battery or fuel, the ICE wastes more of that energy doing non-productive things.

The funny thing is, you're talking about moving pistons and valves, pumping oil and such. You're not even talking about hauling a hundred pounds of gasoline around. If you did, you'd have to talk about hauling ten times that weight in batteries--mass that is not reduced as the charge peters out.

And that is how we all know you're picking and choosing your data for propaganda purposes, and don't give a tinker's dam about the truth. Even before you go back to reinforcing by repetition the lie that...

Science™ is linked throughout.

...has anything whatsoever to do with the scientific method.

As for arrogance, I respond in the same tone that's directed toward me.

Everyone does. That's why you are always sure to start out posting something arrogant directed at no one in particular. It gives you an excuse to simultaneously escalate, and play victim too.

 

[ClaytonB]

Ok - stopping this disingenuous farce after this post.

You're talking about the loss prior to the conversion into useful energy. When calculating those losses, you also have to calculate the loss of energy sources being "transmitted" to the power plants. There will always be losses of energy, but you will never get to the point where the losses will be lower with electric vehicles than with internal combustion - unless your car is powered entirely with nuclear energy. But even in that case, the regulatory costs are so immense that it can even make that look less economically efficient.

The best "one number" measurement of the efficiency of an energy source is the dollar-cost of inputs versus the dollar-price of the saleable good. The higher the profit margin, the more energy-efficient that source. Of course, this is ignoring the effects of subsidy and other market controls that may distort input and output prices. If those effects are negligible, however, this is a great measure of the physical efficiency of an energy source, globally. Oil, natural gas, etc. are peerless in this regard. We rely on them so heavily precisely because they are the most physically efficient and, thus, economically efficient, sources of energy.

Also, as a purely apples-to-apples comparison of transmission-efficiency, oil distribution is pretty damn efficient. If we measure the refinery-to-fuel-pump cost, it is the ratio of the fuel burnt during shipping to the amount of fuel shipped. This is some incredibly tiny percentage, well under 1%, just consider the size of a tanker trunk's tanks versus its own fuel tanks. Electrical transmission lines operating over the same distances (500 miles-ish) are nowhere near as low as 1% losses. Of course, specific lines will each have their own loss based on many, many factors, but the point is that these are not even close to "negligible". 3+% losses on long AC power-lines adds up fast, "According to the Department of Energy, California lost about 19.7 x 10^9 kWh of electrical energy through transmission/distribution in 2008." That's nearly 20 billion kilowatt hours. Think about how much gasoline or diesel you'd to burn in a generator to generate that much power, and how much fuel could be transported with that amount of fuel.

 

[acptulsa]

ICE's are in the range of 25% efficiency or so, electric motors are much higher than that, much higher. I don't understand the statement maybe ?

It's a good thing motors are efficient, as batteries are a very heavy burden to bear.

Consider how much more often batteries have to be replaced than engines. Consider how much energy it takes to produce batteries. You said it yourself; which details you add or omit changes the outcome. There are so many variables it's almost a fool's errand to do the math. Even hot or cold weather changes everything--heat encourages gas to evaporate, lack of it saps a battery's charge.

All I can tell you for certain is that CaptUSA has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has a better handle on all the variables from sources of the fuels and materials to the beep when the doors lock at your destination. All TheCount really has is an agenda and a lot of bombast.

This is some incredibly tiny percentage, well under 1%, just consider the size of a tanker trunk's tanks versus its own fuel tanks.

Trucks?

Pipelines, Clayton. This isn't coal we're talking about. Trucks don't come into play on the distribution side until the fuel is as close to the gas station as the big transformers in the electric substation are--at least, not around here.

 

[CaptUSA]

ICE's are in the range of 25% efficiency or so, electric motors are much higher than that, much higher. I don't understand the statement maybe ?

Go back up in the thread to read the explanation. The electric motors are very efficient; it's the electric vehicles that are not. It's because in an EV, the energy to turn the motor has already been generated at another location and just stored in a heavy battery, whereas in an ICE vehicle, the engine is generating the power, then using it to turn the motor directly. So, an ICE is performing two functions. When you combine the 2 functions, electric vehicles lose out in the efficiency game (except nuclear). But you highlight the misleading propaganda. They can say something that is technically accurate, but is a complete lie when you try to compare apples to apples.

I try to educate on the comparable footprint of vehicles. From fuel to motion. We can certainly go further upstream to determine how different fuels are gathered and processed, but the math doesn't get much better. And that's because in either case, you still need to gather and process the fuel somehow, but with EV's, you also need to store it for later use in a system that makes the vehicle heavier to move - requiring more energy. You get economies of scale by generating large amounts of energy at a power plant, but it's difficult to overcome the rest of the inefficiencies unique to EV's. My teams have run these numbers as well, but the data is HEAVILY influenced by the study's assumptions and those assumptions about what to include or exclude are usually decided by the ideology governing the studies. Just know that there are trade-offs and EV's almost always lose (unless you're looking at pure nuclear generation - but if your assumptions include the regulatory costs of nuclear generation, those numbers start to lose their luster as well.)

Electric vehicles serve a purpose and with predictable duty cycles, they can be cleaner and cheaper to operate over the life of the vehicle. But things like unpredictable duty cycles, unoptimized charging, weather, and vehicle downtime can eat away at the savings. They are also cleaner to operate as they don't have tailpipe emissions. (that's another rabbit hole in which the trade-offs get murkier the more you analyze them) But this discussion was about energy efficiency and these vehicles are not a more efficient use of energy.

 

[ClaytonB]

ICE's are in the range of 25% efficiency or so, electric motors are much higher than that, much higher. I don't understand the statement maybe ?

You're mixing different definitions of efficiency. The loss of an electric motor is just resistance (which manifests as mechanical heat), nothing else. The loss of an ICE is relative to an ideal Carnot engine. Given the conditions on the surface of earth, the properties of typical ICEs, and the chemistry of gasoline, the maximum attainable thermodynamic efficiency of an ICE is around 50% per this StackExchange thread. That sounds "bad", as though "you're only using half the available energy" but it must be kept in mind that the Carnot limit is a purely theoretical limit, kind of like the speed-of-light. No real engine could ever achieve 100% efficiency anyway, so we can ignore the Carnot limit and look at the maximum attainable efficiency under realistic conditions. And if I'm reading the numbers right, modern F1 engines are achieving right around the maximum possible thermodynamic efficiency given the aforementioned constraints (temperature on Earth's surface, engine properties, fuel properties).

The point is that efficiency in the thermodynamics sense (Carnot limit) is not related to efficiency in the electrical sense (losses to resistance/heat), you're not comparing apples-to-apples. As mentioned by CaptUSA, in order to compare them, you have to look at "end-to-end" efficiency, meaning, you have to compare the inputs and losses of the entire electrical supply, with the inputs and losses of the ICE supply-chain, versus the total Newton-meters (or pound-feet) of work that can be performed.

 

[ClaytonB]

Go back up in the thread to read the explanation. The electric motors are very efficient; it's the electric vehicles that are not. It's because in an EV, the energy to turn the motor has already been generated at another location and just stored in a heavy battery, whereas in an ICE vehicle, the engine is generating the power, then using it to turn the motor directly. So, an ICE is performing two functions. When you combine the 2 functions, electric vehicles lose out in the efficiency game (except nuclear). But you highlight the misleading propaganda. They can say something that is technically accurate, but is a complete lie when you try to compare apples to apples.

I try to educate on the comparable footprint of vehicles. From fuel to motion. We can certainly go further upstream to determine how different fuels are gathered and processed, but the math doesn't get much better. And that's because in either case, you still need to gather and process the fuel somehow, but with EV's, you also need to store it for later use in a system that makes the vehicle heavier to move - requiring more energy. You get economies of scale by generating large amounts of energy at a power plant, but it's difficult to overcome the rest of the inefficiencies unique to EV's. My teams have run these numbers as well, but the data is HEAVILY influenced by the study's assumptions and those assumptions about what to include or exclude are usually decided by the ideology governing the studies. Just know that there are trade-offs and EV's almost always lose (unless you're looking at pure nuclear generation - but if your assumptions include the regulatory costs of nuclear generation, those numbers start to lose their luster as well.)

Electric vehicles serve a purpose and with predictable duty cycles, they can be cleaner and cheaper to operate over the life of the vehicle. But things like unpredictable duty cycles, unoptimized charging, weather, and vehicle downtime can eat away at the savings. They are also cleaner to operate as they don't have tailpipe emissions. (that's another rabbit hole in which the trade-offs get murkier the more you analyze them) But this discussion was about energy efficiency and these vehicles are not a more efficient use of energy.

Here's a diagram to help the lurkers:

P stands for "power" -- think Watts.

I've used electrical symbols because they're familiar but the conceptual relationships apply to any dynamical system. The meaning of "efficiency" that matters to EV vs. ICE debate is shown in the diagram -- P_load / P_supply. If you generate 100 watts of power, but you are only able to use 80 watts of that power (the rest being lost as P_loss), then your system is 80% efficient. In the case of oils, there is no simple way to directly calculate P_supply because it depends on so many variables. But we already know P_load (the amount of mechanical power we generate with ICEs) and we can calculate P_loss by adding up the energy that goes into extracting, refining and transporting oil. What we are comparing is that entire supply-chain versus the entire load/loss efficiency of EVs, back to the power source. If you burn coal to generate electricity and then use that electricity in an EV, the coal is part of the P_supply for that EV and all the losses in generating and transporting that electrical energy are part of P_loss for that EV.

 

[ClaytonB]

Trucks?

Pipelines, Clayton. This isn't coal we're talking about. Trucks don't come into play on the distribution side until the fuel is as close to the gas station as the big transformers in the electric substation are--at least, not around here.

I get it, but the final step of distribution (trucks to fuel-stations) is the highest-loss, and the point is that the least-efficient step in the oil supply-chain is way more efficient than the most efficient aspect of electrical supply (AC supply lines), over comparable distances. The efficiency of an oil pipeline is practically 100% since the ratio of the power required to pump the oil versus the amount of power that can be generated by that oil is approximately zero.

 

[acptulsa]

Given the conditions on the surface of earth, the properties of typical ICEs, and the chemistry of gasoline, the maximum attainable thermodynamic efficiency of an ICE is around 50% per this StackExchange thread.

Meh. The thing about an engine is it's there to cause air to expand. Doesn't matter if it's piston, Wankel, turbine or whatever. Even a steam locomotive is there to cause water vapor to expand. The expansion causes the torque. That's why comparing an engine to an electric motor as TheCount was doing is completely disingenuous. The electric motor only does half the job. It converts energy to torque. But an engine converts the chemical energy, the potential energy of the fuel to torque. It isn't the motor, it's the generator.

This basic concept is essential. The engine in a car, locomotive, boat or plane has a disadvantage--it has to be portable. There may be room in a ship to include the devices that can recapture excess heat, maybe. But even in a power plant, it's extremely difficult to capture and use all the energy chemically created by burning a fuel. The air or water is heated and it expands. The expansion is harnessed as torque and turns something--wheels, props, an alternator, something. And the air or steam is still hot. It has expanded all it's going to expand, and is still hot. That's true even in an electric powerplant. Efficiency is how much of that heat is utilized, and the thing TheCount downplays and CaptUSA emphasizes is, you have to go right back to when electricity is generated to get a realistic sense of it.

I know you have the general sense of that. But I think it's important to understand specifically that an electric motor only does half of the job an ICE does, so please permit me to use you as a sounding-board. Consider the diesel-electric locomotive; it illustrates well why an engine and a motor are not comparable at all, because it uses both. A car has an engine, a transmission, and a differential. Differentials are separate from transmissions, though many vehicles have transaxles that combine the two in one case. A diesel-electric replaces the transmission with a generator or alternator. The big wires replace the driveshaft, and the motors replace the differential. Not the diesel. The differential. It doesn't extract energy from fuel. It only turns a pair of wheels.

The efficiency of the power plant has everything to do with the efficiency of an electric car, even though it's a hundred miles away, did its thing the night before, and Tesla didn't design it.

People constantly tout the great efficiency of electric motors. It's a chimera. Motors don't tap chemical energy, they just turn wheels, like a differential. And every differential ever built is more efficient than the best electric motor.

Well, [MENTION=58229]TheCount[/MENTION]? Do you not get that? Or does that fact merely not serve your propaganda purposes?

 

[TheCount]

You're talking about the loss prior to the conversion into useful energy. When calculating those losses, you also have to calculate the loss of energy sources being "transmitted" to the power plants.

I think that talking about that loss is necessary for an apples to apples comparison. When talking about EVs, you want to talk about all of the losses involved in the system, but when you talk about ICEs, you leave out much of the process. As I said before, if we consider the loss of electrical transmission between power plant and charging station, why do we not also consider about the loss of gasoline transmission to the gas station?

Second, and somewhat tangential, transmission to hundreds of power plants is clearly going to be less lossy than transmission to hundreds of thousands of gas stations. Would you agree?

But here's the thing. You are talking to an expert in the field and throwing up internet links as "proof".

That's how I know you didn't click them.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Second, and somewhat tangential, transmission to hundreds of power plants is clearly going to be less lossy than transmission to hundreds of thousands of gas stations. Would you agree?

I wouldn't say that so easily. Just on the face of it, as a % of what a fuel truck carries, how much fuel does it burn to deliver? Do you have an idea of the losses that can occur in power distribution ? (power distribution losses can be higher than you might think)

 

[TheCount]

Efficiency is how much of that heat is utilized, and the thing TheCount downplays and CaptUSA emphasizes is, you have to go right back to when electricity is generated to get a realistic sense of it.

I've talked about that since my very first post on the topic. In fact, I focused on that step of the process first as it's the original topic of the thread. The efficiency of the vehicle itself only came up later.


It seems like you're having a conversation in your head with someone else. Maybe just talk to them instead of me.

 

[CaptUSA]

I think that talking about that loss is necessary for an apples to apples comparison. When talking about EVs, you want to talk about all of the losses involved in the system, but when you talk about ICEs, you leave out much of the process. As I said before, if we consider the loss of electrical transmission between power plant and charging station, why do we not also consider about the loss of gasoline transmission to the gas station?

I know I said I was done with you, but this is retarded. Because the gas station does not generate the power - the internal combustion engine does. And as I have said, if you want to include the fuel loss prior to ICE generation, you'll also have to include that for all fuel losses prior to electricity generation PLUS the energy to produce the batteries that will eventually store the power. We've done that analysis, too, but it is besides the point of efficiency of the vehicle. Dumbass.

Oh, and your links are to articles that link to other articles that link to other articles that eventually rely on the same tired studies I've read dozens of times. And those studies began with an ideology and stacked their assumptions to justify their ideology. Then, the "reporters" get it and mislead the gullible morons.

 

[acptulsa]

I think that talking about that loss is necessary for an apples to apples comparison. When talking about EVs, you want to talk about all of the losses involved in the system, but when you talk about ICEs, you leave out much of the process. As I said before, if we consider the loss of electrical transmission between power plant and charging station, why do we not also consider about the loss of gasoline transmission to the gas station?.

You're still at it. I just explained in detail why this line is completely illogical and disingenuous, and here you are insulting every poster's and every reader's intelligence by doubling down on it.

The loss between the power plant and the car's batteries is analogous to the loss in the transmission torque converter in a gas powered vehicle. It's the same thing. It happens after the fuel is burned. You want to follow the fuel back? Fine. Let's also figure in the energy used to refine gasoline, and create the additives. But we also have to follow the coal that generates the electricity back to the mine, because the moment you decide this fuel counts and that fuel doesn't, you're putting your thumb on the scale. And the coal doesn't travel in a pipeline.

By trying to compare moving gasoline to moving electricity, you're creating a lie. It's a propaganda tool. A powerplant isn't analogous to a refinery at all, it's analogous to the ICE in the car. It does the same damned thing. The electric transmission lines aren't analogous to the gasoline distribution system at all, they're analogous to the car's driveshaft. They accomplish the same damned task. And I'll tell you something, whether or not you want to know it. A driveshaft is very, very nearly 100% more efficient than high tension electric lines. The friction losses in those two u-joints aren't even measurable.

I've talked about that since my very first post on the topic. .

You pay lip service to it, but only to obscure your tactics. Post a link to where you consider the cost of shipping fuel to an electric power plant, I dare you.

 

[TheCount]

I wouldn't say that so easily. Just on the face of it, as a % of what a fuel truck carries, how much fuel does it burn to deliver? Do you have an idea of the losses that can occur in power distribution ? (power distribution losses can be higher than you might think)

In both cases I'm talking about transmission of fuel to either power plants or gas stations. Supply of fuel to one power plant is less lossy than supply of fuel to thousands of gas stations.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

I know I said I was done with you, but this is retarded. Because the gas station does not generate the power - the internal combustion engine does. And as I have said, if you want to include the fuel loss prior to ICE generation, you'll also have to include that for all fuel losses prior to electricity generation PLUS the energy to produce the batteries that will eventually store the power.

Maybe I'm just confused on what we're actually discussing...

Your quote from earlier;

The electric motors are very efficient; it's the electric vehicles that are not. It's because in an EV, the energy to turn the motor has already been generated at another location and just stored in a heavy battery, whereas in an ICE vehicle, the engine is generating the power, then using it to turn the motor directly.

We've done that analysis, too, but it is besides the point of efficiency of the vehicle. Dumbass.

If its the - everything included - calculation, then that's what I think we need to look at.

Total [average] joules consumed per km.

 

[acptulsa]

In both cases I'm talking about transmission of fuel to either power plants or gas stations. Supply of fuel to one power plant is less lossy than supply of fuel to thousands of gas stations.

If it's coal, that differential shrinks. And still the losses shipping power after it has been generated to various outlets and storing it in batteries create big losses all along the line. ICE vehicles use driveshafts for that step--so close to 100% efficient that the losses can't even be measured.

Even when you concede points you're trying to spin these things. For ICE powered vehicles, the fuel gets distributed, for electrics it's the power generated from the fuel. Distribution causes losses, but distribution happens in a completely different part of the process. Power plants have efficiencies of scale, but comparable electric vehicles weigh half again more.

And you keep trying to put your thumb on the scale. You aren't getting away with it.

If its the - everything included - calculation, then that's what I think we need to look at.

Total [average] joules consumed per km.

Good luck with that. Nobody reports back to the station how many miles they drove. Houses don't even measure how much electricity goes specifically to that garage outlet.

 

[ClaytonB]

Meh. The thing about an engine is it's there to cause air to expand. Doesn't matter if it's piston, Wankel, turbine or whatever. Even a steam locomotive is there to cause water vapor to expand. The expansion causes the torque. That's why comparing an engine to an electric motor as TheCount was doing is completely disingenuous. The electric motor only does half the job. It converts energy to torque. But an engine converts the chemical energy, the potential energy of the fuel to torque. It isn't the motor, it's the generator.

Yes, I understand, see my above posts. Directly comparing the "efficiency" of an ICE and an EV (ignoring how the batteries got charged) is absurd, it's not even apples and oranges, more like apples and orangutans.

and CaptUSA emphasizes is, you have to go right back to when electricity is generated to get a realistic sense of it.

Correct, see the diagram I posted above. To calculate the efficiency of EVs versus ICEs, you have to consider the entire energy circuit. Both EVs and ICEs convert stored energy into kinetic energy but that's where the similarity ends. There are two kinds of efficiency... ICE vs. ICE efficiency (which gas engine is more efficient at converting gas into mechanical power), and then there is EV vs. EV efficiency (which EV is more efficient at converting battery potential into mechanical power). But you cannot directly compare ICE and EV, as the Marxist greenies want to do. It's patently idiotic.

I know you have the general sense of that. But I think it's important to understand specifically that an electric motor only does half of the job an ICE does, so please permit me to use you as a sounding-board. Consider the diesel-electric locomotive; it illustrates well why an engine and a motor are not comparable at all, because it uses both. A car has an engine, a transmission, and a differential. Differentials are separate from transmissions, though many vehicles have transaxles that combine the two in one case. A diesel-electric replaces the transmission with a generator or alternator. The big wires replace the driveshaft, and the motors replace the differential. Not the diesel. The differential. It doesn't extract energy from fuel. It only turns a pair of wheels.

They are comparable in a very abstract sense. Suppose you had to expend 200 Watts of power to mine enough coal to generate 100 Watts of power. Obviously, this is a losing proposition and you wouldn't be able to sustain an energy economy using this fuel-source. Fortunately, the real world is the reverse of this -- the amount of Watts of power which must be expended to harvest 100 Watts of coal (at the crankshaft, all losses counted) is some absolutely minuscule number, far less than 1 Watt. So, we can say that coal is more than 99% efficient in that sense. The amount of mechanical power which you must invest to get 100 Watts of mechanical power from burning coal is tiny.

We can apply this same reasoning to the electrical infrastructure. And it turns out that electric is actually pretty lossy because you are pushing electrons down these metal wires that don't like their electrons being pushed around (resistance), not to mention the losses inherent in the generators themselves. If the generator is fired by coal, oil or natural gas, the energy costs of those fuels add on to this. So, the only types of electric which stand any chance of beating oil (even in principle) are solar, wind and hydro. Hydro is king because the energy costs of harvesting it are practically zero, so the losses on the electrical lines are effectively zero when amortized over the lifetime of a hydroelectric dam. The same goes for those sea-tides generators that are used in Holland (or Denmark or wherever, somewhere in Europe). But every energy source comes with its inherent limitations. If hydro was the be-all, end-all of energy sources, then the Pacific Northwest would be powering the entire continental US. But it turns out that pumping that electricity over power-lines eventually becomes so lossy that you can only send it a certain distance before you have to upgrade to high-voltage DC lines like the Pacific DC Intertie. And even that has its limitations. In short, the success-stories of electric power are a cautionary tale in the limitations of electric versus oil. There are practical reasons for why oil is so universally used, and why electric has so many limitations. No matter what the Woke Left believes, it's not a Big Oil conspiracy, it's just physics. But good luck explaining that to any of our resident NPCs.

The efficiency of the power plant has everything to do with the efficiency of an electric car, even though it's a hundred miles away, did its thing the night before, and Tesla didn't design it.

Exactly. Its losses are part of P_loss in the diagram I posted above. You don't get to ignore those losses when calculating the efficiency of electric as an energy technology.

People constantly tout the great efficiency of electric motors. It's a chimera. Motors don't tap chemical energy, they just turn wheels, like a differential. And every differential ever built is more efficient than the best electric motor.

Yeah, it's a complete red herring to compare the efficiency of an EV motor and the efficiency of an ICE. They are totally unrelated concepts of efficiency.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Oh, I don't want to sound like an asshole, but a battery is chemical energy.

The analog of the power plant for gasoline is the sun, producing plants etc. which have turned to oil.

(Actually I just like to see the response)