* https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-coal?ta...
Gas for cars is shipped to a distribution center, loaded onto trucks that are immensely heavy and require loads of fuel to haul, shipped to a local distribution center, loaded onto trucks, driven somewhere else, pumped into a station, then those trucks drive back, and people often drive out of their way for gas instead of just charging at their destination. (Nobody has a gas station at their house and few desirable stores include gas stations)
It’s entirely possible that this process ends up using more energy than just burning coal.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electr...
> So.. its switching from petrol to coal?
Switching from burning fossil fuels in tiny inefficient engine to burning them in modern power plant is already a very positive change.
> Unless they really ramp up nuclear and solar. Which they did not so far..
Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
> And dont forget, the first 100.000 kilometers of energy are already spent driving of the lot, building a new car. So fading away old cars as slow as possible is the most energy efficient strategy?
No it is not a good strategy. It is better to replace oldest cars first, because they are usually least efficient, but even if you replace new ICE car, that car does not disappear - it will probably be sold and replace old, less efficient ICE car.
Also, solar is absolutely growing in China, growing by roughly 30% in 2023: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-solar-power-capaci...
This metric could also be described as: "what percentage of the total energy content of your car's fuel tank will be converted into kinetic energy?"
What is the point of this metric?
Solar panels are less efficent at converting incident sunlight into electricity, than fossil-fueled power stations are at converting hydrocarbons into electricity. The same applies for wind turbines converting kinetic energy into electricity.
Blindly taking the "efficiency" of one tiny step in the process of converting an energy source into automotive propulsion will lead to some absurd conclusions.
China is ramping up nuclear:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
> The first 100.000 kilometers of energy are already spent driving of the lot, building a new car
China is the leader of electric 2-seater cars (Wuling Mini, Geely Panda Mini).
Comparison between a Wuling Mini and a Tesla Model 3:
- battery weight: ~100 kg vs. 500+ kg
- total weight: ~600 kg vs. 1,600+ kg
- retail price: ~5,000 EUR vs. ~50,000 EUR
I doubt it takes as much energy to break even on a Wuling Mini than it does on a Model 3.
A better question would be - why should Europeans be excluded from affordable electric Chinese cars because of the political chess between the US and China?
So.. its switching from petrol to coal? Unless they really ramp up nuclear and solar. Which they did not so far..
And dont forget, the first 100.000 kilometers of energy are already spent driving of the lot, building a new car. So fading away old cars as slow as possible is the most energy efficient strategy?