Re: Helping a tourist with STI problems

On Sat, 24 May 2025 07:56:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 5/24/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2025 22:38:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 5/23/2025 1:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/23/2025 10:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/22/2025 10:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/22/2025 8:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:

I'm not big on battery vehicles which are inherently inefficient.
They outsource energy to remote power plants and outsource pollution
and other downsides to other countries...

>
There are serious technical mistakes in those sentences.

>
See https://www.motortrend.com/news/evs-more-efficient-than- internal-
combustion-engines  for example.
>

>
Nice comparison, and correct as for as it goes.
No dispute with any of that, comparing last-step efficiencies of the two
formats.

>
It's not just "last step." Read the article down to the part about
replacing gasoline with coal, or with natural gas. ""Even if the grid
were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge
EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the
total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly
half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even
better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by
gasoline-powered vehicles,"

 
 
Looks like Motor Trend has been bought and paid for by the EV folks.
It never was a magazine devoted to assisting the average automobile
owner, but it was nice to look at all the pretty pictures of supercars
while waiting your turn at the dentist office.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
Well, that's the editor's prerogative isn't it?
>
The discussion changed from 'environmental concerns' to
vehicle fuel efficiency, and Motor Trend is correct on that
point.

Of course it's the editor's prerogative, but a media devopted to
pretty pictures and paid for editorials isn't likly to have very much
valuable information.

--
C'est bon
Soloman