It's not a bias. It's just physics. Carnot efficiency is a fundamental limit of all heat engines. Same with H2. There is a fundamental limit to how many kWh of H2 you can get from a kWh of electricity and an fundamental limit for how many kWh of electricity you can get from a kWh of H2. Realistically the limit is ~50%, kWh => H2 => kWh. If I chose Aluminum over lead for an Aircraft frame is that a 'bias' or just following the physics?
There are many corrections that I can make to your understanding of thermodynamics, but I get what I believe is the underlying point of your argument - that ICEs and FCs are less efficient than simply shuttling electrons from a generator somewhere to the motor driving the wheels of your EV with an on-board battery in between. I get that, and there's no argument of the in-use efficiency figures or the lack of tailpipe emissions per se, but you let these facts be license to gloss over the very significant INefficiencies and environmental impacts under the surface in the manufacture of those battery packs, in particular, which is the point of the OP. This does not require an understanding of physics - it requires seeing the bigger picture rather than a narrow focus.
The fact we need storage to buffer renewables is exactly WHY EVs make the most sense. An EV is a battery. Instead of investing in 1MWh of grid storage why not invest in ~150 EVs on a demand response scheme?
OK, suppose we have such a scheme in place. Will you be pleased to give the power and decision over to the electrical utility as to when or how much to charge your EV? Suppose you are looking forward to a road trip and you plug your EV to your charger at home, but because the utility determines that there is an acute shortage of electricity at the time, it delays or throttles the charging - or worse - temporarily "borrows" electrons from your batteries promising to "return" it but failing to do so in time for when you unplug and set off on your road trip, so that instead of an expected full charge, you are at a much lower SOC. Later, you stop somewhere along your trip and make an obligatory stop at a public fast charger, which you also double as a meal break. You return to your car to discover a lower SOC than expected because, again, the utility's algorithm has determined a more pressing need for the electrons elsewhere and throttled your station's charge rate or even leave it temporarily off-line (or you pay through the nose for at a variable rate for the privilege of the full charge). A small number of people might be willing to put up with this inconvenience for the conviction that they're saving the world - I assume you,
@nwdiver, can be counted in this number; God bless them and you - but I suspect the vast majority will not.
The funny thing is, I'm completely on the same page as you on most things.
- We need to transition to renewables even faster than ASAP
- I'm actually quite bullish on EVs; I believe they play an important role in transport. Where we differ is that I believe there is an equally important role for all other propulsion and energy storage technologies for the right respective use cases and where they make the most economic sense.
What I'm not OK with is the self-righteous smugness that some - not all - EVers have over other technologies. I am equally if not more disgusted by the despicable actions of ICErs and people who defeat and delete emission control systems in their ICEVs.
The bottom line is, I believe we should see everyone who's working hard to solve the big problems of our time put our heads together in a spirit of cooperation, and regard each other healthy competitors rather than bitter rivals.
I invite you to watch this Youtube video in its entirety before forming a preconceived conclusion:
https://bit.ly/gzDfEhVcF6o
In it, I come straight out to say that I think Li-ion batteries are better used in consumer electronic products and electric cars than for grid electricity storage.
