Tangential to the main article point but…

The energy density scatter plot is physically correct but misleading and everyone makes this mistake.

From an engineering point of view you have to use work delivered at the end of the drive train not fuel raw energy content.

When you do that lithium ion batteries compare more favorably to liquid fuels. That’s because the conversion path is more than 90% efficient. For ICE engines you’re starting with only 20-40% Carnot efficiency (depending on how good and in good shape the engine is) and then losing in the transmission and then losing more because ICE cars have more other gears and moving parts. Power to wheel is pretty terrible. Most of the energy from gasoline heats the air around the car.

This is also why you get outrageous sounding but accurate things like: an EV charged on 100% coal fired electricity emits less carbon than a typical gasoline car. The fact that coal is literal pure carbon fuel is made up for by the high thermal efficiency of a giant supercritical steam turbine vs a small piston engine. Coal burns real hot too (steeper thermal gradient). So more of the energy from coal ends up doing actual work vs heating the air. (Well directly heating the air I mean.)

▲

thelastgallon 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, electricity should be the only abstraction layer to deliver energy to end user. We can extract a lot more energy from fossil fuels in large scale plants and also continuously switch out dirtier fuels with clean energy.

For example, no need to build natural gas infrastructure to every home. Use induction stoves (or electric coil -- already 67% of homes). Heat pump water heater instead of gas. And heat pump for HVAC.

If all energy bills are consolidated as electricity (instead of gas, natural gas and electricity), most people would install solar on their rooftops, buy EVs, and save ~$1000/month on energy bills.

▲

mb7733 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> We can extract a lot more energy from fossil fuels in large scale plants

This isn't true at all for natural gas. Burning it for heat in the home is much more efficient than burning it in a plant, converting it to electricity, transferring that electricity, then turning that electricity into heat.

	▲	thelastgallon an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In addition the sibling comments (COP of heat pumps is 500%), air pollution in homes is worse than air pollution outside. If you don't have natural gas and burning fuel, it helps a lot. Not only is electricity cheaper and cleaner, but also healthier.
	▲	gabrielhidasy 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Depends, if you are turning that electricity into heat using a heat-pump you might win on most situations (maybe lose if the weather is really cold outside, unless you add geothermal loops, but then its a lot more expensive to make)
	▲	maxwwwt 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The theoretical efficiency maximum for burning gas in a home is 100%. Most systems won't hit that because they need to vent waste gases, which carry some heat away. Heat pumps are significantly more efficient than 100%. They can get to 500% efficiency. So no, it's definitely not more efficient to burn gas in a home. (To say nothing of the safety of running gas lines to every house.)
	▲	idontwantthis 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		That is false. Heat pumps are more efficient than burning gas in a home even when the electricity came from burning gas.
	▲	mbreese 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		But isn't it more advantageous to have the gas -> electricity conversion in a plant from an emissions point of view? You still have losses in the system when moving natural gas around from the source to individual homes too (leaks). In theory you don't, but in practice you do.