That site has been playing with my head all day... Using the ground to tailpipe example of the gasoline car, it's 168MJ cradle to grave, the extraction and distribution cost of 26, is therefore 15.5% of the total. Applying that to the EV, 15.5% of the total energy used, is 15.5% of 112MJ, or 17.4MJ....netting that off the "getting the energy to the car" leaves 56.6MJ for the generation and distribution of the energy. 56.6MJ of 94.6MJ in total of the energy to create the power (they state it's oil fired) and drive the car...that's 40% efficiency for the generation and distribution system...so taking transmission losses, and with industry experience on how to get the level of efficiency, they have cherry picked CCGT running on oil as their comparator...that's nonsensical, as OCGT are run oil oil for peakers, CCGT on oil is ridiculous (but that's OK, it's a paper argument anyway, based on an EV running on oil). Ducking back to their Gasoline engined vehicle, and only using the energy in the tank , and the claimed 142MJ per 100km. Gasoline contains 34.2MJ per litre on average. So they are claiming 4,15L/100km - it's all in 2020. And that Nuclear for an EV is just as bad for GHG as running a car on petrol (155 versus 169). The linked article makes little sense...and when compared to ZERO GHG from CARB for the Ca power supply, there some serious cognative bias going on in both the authors of the article, CARB, and the starry eyed truth seekers in the "everything is possible because I can imagine it" brigade.
Originally Posted By: JeffKeryk