As I said, it's just a point of comparison that I could get good numbers on. Power plant operators are very tight lipped about fuel/kwh generated, but, people selling very large, industrial gensets happily offer those numbers, and they're seemingly honest about it from what I could tell.
Generally, combined cycle plants are ~50% efficient in terms of fuel to power, energy density of bunker C is 40Mj/kg, transmission losses are variable, but figure them at 10% so it's ballpark and easy, EV chargers are about 80% efficient, car extracts 80% of the energy it draws from the battery in normal use (remember the motor isn't all that's being powered).
So there's alot of loss along the way. Some of that is solvable, some of that is improvable, but ultimately the solution is clean, cheap power so the losses don't matter.
Until we've got that, hybrid drivetrains are a good solution, provided they're implemented well.
I know you're being an asshole with the whole tires comment, but, it would be a fun bit of math to do.
To my knowledge EV chargers are close to 90% efficient from wall to tire. So about 5% loss going to the battery and 5% loss going from battery to drive the tires. This should get a little bit better as higher voltage harnesses appear in EV's.
Generally, combined cycle plants are ~50% efficient in terms of fuel to power, energy density of bunker C is 40Mj/kg, transmission losses are variable, but figure them at 10% so it's ballpark and easy, EV chargers are about 80% efficient, car extracts 80% of the energy it draws from the battery in normal use (remember the motor isn't all that's being powered).
So there's alot of loss along the way. Some of that is solvable, some of that is improvable, but ultimately the solution is clean, cheap power so the losses don't matter.
Until we've got that, hybrid drivetrains are a good solution, provided they're implemented well.
I know you're being an asshole with the whole tires comment, but, it would be a fun bit of math to do.