ELECTRIC CAR: IT'S A SCAM WAKE UP!

This is the title of one of the latest videos in vogue on the net, popularized by many detractors of electric mobility and in general taken for granted by most since, being words spoken by an engineer, it becomes a reliable source regardless.

I won't name names because I don't want to give further visibility and free credit, but, although I'm not an engineer, I have studied something and, generally, I like to do what is called a "fact check" starting from data that is as reliable as possible.

So I try to have my say, my point of view, on some statements I've heard, ready to retract my point of view if contradicted by reliable sources and data of course.

• It would seem that "of all the oil extracted only 35% becomes fuel and of this 35% only 7-8% becomes fuel for cars". From the data I found on the net, always with the benefit of the doubt, it appears to me that about 60% of all extracted oil becomes automotive fuel for cars and light vehicles. So I would say that the disproportion is quite clear. Still to give the numbers, about 36 billion barrels are extracted every year. Each barrel contains about 159 litres, therefore about 5724 billion liters of crude oil. About 159 liters of petrol come out of a 76-litre barrel, which means that it has an "energy transfer ratio" in the first phase of 47%. It means that from the annual processing of 5724 billion liters of oil about 2690 billion liters of petrol are obtained. So I would say that the statement should at least be recalibrated in numbers.
• In contextualizing the first statement, the electrification of heavy vehicles, planes and ships, which according to him are the main source of "eating oil", is "ridiculed" as an impossible, meaningless and useless thing, arguing as a supporting example that “the batteries that a truck has to carry around weigh as much as half of its useful capacity” . “But do we really electrify them? That is, someone really thought…” Maybe it goes unnoticed that all manufacturers of heavy vehicles already have the electric versions of their vehicles in their catalogue. How perhaps it escapes that the orientation of the designers is all in that direction as the first element, and then towards hydrogen for some applications. But evidently the builders didn't have the foresight to talk to him before committing certain gross mistakes. Patience. Between a modern "thermal" semi-trailer tractor and the electric equivalent in the most extreme configuration with all the batteries available, it has an indicative overweight (therefore less theoretical capacity) of about 2 tons which are compensated by law almost everywhere in Europe (except here where bureaucracy has slowed down the process) for which it is not even remotely 50% less in scope but from nothing to a maximum of 4,5% in the worst case scenario, i.e. that Italy would even reverse what it has already foreseen , which I would say impossible. So even this statement I would say that it is totally out of touch with reality. I'm talking about BEVs, but even if they were fuel cells, as could be advantageous for planes and ships, we always talk about the reduction (or elimination) of atmospheric pollutants as a reason for switching to alternative fuels. The engineer already likes hydrogen better, but he hasn't treated it except superficially, see the following points.
• Still on the subject of electrification of trucks: “Does anyone know what are called energy volumetric yields, i.e. how many kWh can you put into a cubic metre? The best volumetric efficiency in the world do you know what it is? The gas!" I tried to find the definition on the net, but the only answer I found similar to your explanation of the cubic meter was given by chatgpt. I quote : The volumetric energy efficiency of petrol and diesel refers to the amount of energy released by burning one liter of fuel. This value is expressed in energy units such as megajoules (MJ) or kilocalories (kcal) per liter of fuel. Specific values ​​may vary depending on the exact composition of the fuel and the measurement method used. Approximate volumetric energy efficiency values ​​for petrol and diesel are given below:

1. Gasoline: About 32-34 MJ/litre or 8-9 kcal/litre
2. Diesel: About 35-38 MJ/litre or 8,5-9,2 kcal/litre

To convert the volumetric energy efficiency values ​​of petrol and diesel from MJ/litre to kWh/litre, we can use the following conversion ratio:

1 MJ ≈ 0,27778 kWh

Then, we can multiply the values ​​in MJ/litre by 0,27778 to get the corresponding values ​​in kWh/litre:

Gasoline: 32-34 MJ/litre * 0,27778 ≈ 8,9-9,4 kWh/litre

Diesel: 35-38 MJ/litre * 0,27778 ≈ 9,7-10,6 kWh/litre

So, approximately:

Gasoline has a volumetric energy efficiency of approximately 8,9-9,4 kWh per litre.

Diesel has a volumetric energy efficiency of approximately 9,7-10,6 kWh per litre.

According to this reasoning, admitted and not granted that he understood what he meant, diesel fuel would be better off while remaining in the automotive world. But oh well, let's take petrol, one litre, and with its 9,6 kWh we travel approximately 20 km/l. Do we want to make 25? All right. With the electric car of the same segment with 9,6 kWh I would drive about 56 km. Now if we want to compare the cubic meters of gasoline and batteries ok. But I think the yardstick is energy efficiency since this is what we're talking about. Honestly, I don't quite understand this step, maybe help me.

• “let's not talk about weight, let's not talk about CO₂ made to build them, let's not talk about the real impact that is not CO₂, the poisons that must be made to get to make them…..” I'll stop here, which then goes into reliability and cycles... In any case: thousands of studies speak of LCA to the total advantage of batteries, but given that the problem is poisons, and given that petroleum is needed to make thermal cars go, from refining in gasoline etc etc, I did a research on how many cars there are in the world today. There are about 1 billion cars on the road, of which 413 million in Europe understood geographically, second only to Asia with 543 million. Assuming that all of the billion and a half are euro 6 and that they all reach 25 km/l with an average annual journey of 10000 km, shall we do the math on how many pollutants come out of the mufflers? Without taking into account the pollution that exists from extraction to the fuel pump because otherwise we will never finish (data deliberately omitted by the expert who focuses only on electricity). Well, calculating the Euro 6 limit values ​​(which exist in Europe but not all over the world so the bill is definitely underestimated) every year they would come out of the mufflers of internal combustion vehicles (not counting hybrids) assuming they all run on petrol, since they like it both in order the following TONS of:
  150. CO000.000
  151. HC 500.000
  152. NOX 000
  153. PM 000
  154. CO₂          404.000.000

Of course they are estimates, and for the PM I used the data for diesel as a reference in the euro & given that the PM for petrol is not regulated. All pollutants, the poisons that are the real impact every year on our roads and that NO BEV or fuel cell vehicle would emit IN THE EXHAUST.

• The interviewer shyly tries to argue about heavy vehicles by saying: "But excuse me for a second: because you talk about it in such a way as if it were practically impossible and yet we sometimes read it in newspaper articles when you take them in the morning at the bar .... (punctuation resumes the dialogue, but the meaning is understood)" the immediate answer is: “Osama Bin Laden brought down the twin towers right? …. And JFK killed him Oswald right? And the war in Iraq was waged because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. True?…. Can we close it here? Have mercy on me…"  I can't comment on this, I have no arguments.
• Now let's talk about Energy and Impact by pulling out an original example. “If I'm in a wonderful Tesla that's great, I have order, energy and impact… The electric motor that has an efficiency of 99%, fantastic, it's the only thing that works… First I have batteries. To deliver the amount of energy needed to cover the famous 12 km (I think it refers to some speech cut in the video) must let in one and a half times (should mean that to deliver 2 kWh to travel 12 km(my example) it must store 3. So I lose 1 every 2 in delivery, and not in the engine given its yield) because the charge yield of current batteries works like this. In fact, the cell phone in our pocket heats up and that heat is energy thrown away. And it's not just the battery that throws heat (I gave meaning to his sentence) but also the rectifier that stands before. Wish it was a transformer, it's a rectifier which is much worse, because this (the battery shaking the phone) wants continuous energy, distributed energy is alternating energy.” Then speaking of the two losses we have, he wraps himself up saying that the energy in the battery is much less than that which goes to the wheels (he meant the opposite I think) and then the second, very bad, of the rectifier which “with cabbage that sends the same energy it receives”much less comes out. So far Not from numbers, not from percentages and while sharing the principle that heat is a waste, I don't see where in the heat engine this principle is overturned since it wastes 75% of the energy "that enters". But it's not over. Now let's talk about MW arriving at the "distributor". How does it get there? Demolishing Italy by gutting it to fill it with millions of tons of copper and make the columns. In fact, petrol stations are less invasive and dangerous. And then the gem at the point below.
• “Have you seen what's happening today? That people plan trips, arrive at the columns and there's a queue of 40 people and wait 2 hours to charge and they're fine with it because whoever bought an electric car was excessively naive" He wanted to say more but held back, how nice. Now I think he's referring to that video (there will be a couple on the net perhaps) where you see a line of waiting Teslas. Event already "debunked" so I send you to do your research on the matter. Anyone who uses electric knows that it is almost impossible to wait 2 hours to recharge. Those who say so have not driven electric, so they are worth as much as a bricklayer who talks about astrophysics, with all due respect to the category of course. To those who spread the theories of the bar I recommend my book, it can be useful to remove at least the stupidest preconceptions.
• We don't want to mention that "the energy to be distributed is obtained by burning heavy oil with transformation yields into electrical energy that are equal if not lower than what diesel would have had to drive the wheels?" Why diesel to make the wheels go with? Ah yes, the energy of perpetual motion is free and for everyone cit.
• In order not to cry, now let's make it short: "made 100 the initial energy, a barrel of oil, becomes energy now, in my diesel car 5 euros because there is the FAP which is a scam (NDR argues that it should be removed to pollute less and make more money but then redeem himself with the classic disclaimer for not having trouble, but he's convinced, do it, he'll tell you) ….. done 100 the barrel turns into let's take into account 30 liters of diesel which turn into 12 km of travel (WTF??) no, 30 much more, 30×12 … let's make 12, 15 even 20 ( again WTF???)” Have you seen any films from the Amici Miei series? Because it really seems a little confusing to me. Anyway, assuming I understand, 30% profit to the tank given 100 the start from the barrel, I think he meant this, but it's not clear if net of heat losses or what... But be careful, now comes the fun part
• "Get the energy on energy ratios, chemical potential energy of the barrel at the beginning and the energy that ended up at my wheels as torque x speed (as a mechanical engineer ....) today as we are around today, considering all the falls etc .. around, let's exaggerate, 16-17% due to problems of thermodynamics, dispersions etc” that is, at the end of the whole tirade I seem to understand that the thermal engine, the thermal car better, reaches a finished yield of 17%, today. But hadn't he said 30? I'm lost you see. Go on.
• “Do you know if we do the tour with the electric one how much we are in the final yield given 100 at the start up to the wheels? Brace yourselves: we are below 5% That is, we lose about 85% now and after 95” Of course we are a nation of idiots. We use electricity that yields 5% (or 15 according to the moment in which he speaks) for everything in life, including cars, and above all we produce fuel with such an expenditure of energy that, if we could absurdly "turn off" the oil chain from extraction to the pump we could power the vehicles circulating in the world more than 5 times each year for 10 km each. We're really suckers, wake up! (I'm sarcastically ironic if you hadn't understood!). Fortunately I understand that the losses from the "start" to the column rarely exceed 10%. Otherwise I would really feel "excessively naive". But I'm not an engineer.
• It therefore makes 3 times less. "Someone come here to prove me wrong let's laugh, let's start doing the calculations, that I'm good with calculations...... let's see the energy transfer ratio" Does anyone offer? I've already wasted too much time 🙂 she is the icing on the cake, but evidently unaware that there are specific testing regulations on the matter, she carries the safety of hydrogen tanks in the palm of her hand to the detriment of the car battery. Now no one denies that there is a potential danger in the batteries, a much lower danger than conventional fuel tanks statistically speaking, but if an accident must necessarily occur such that the fire starts, I don't know if a 700 bar cylinder is safer hydrogen or a lithium battery. There is certainly a long way to go, but it must be done by eliminating fake news artfully created to confuse the lazy people who prefer to get information at the bar rather than read and study. Enjoy the reading!