• werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Believe me when I say that there are smart people working out the details to minimize losses. Like. Arguing here doesn’t make the cars more or less efficient. It’s a thing you can buy already and it’s appeal is that it saves fuel. So like unless it were to not actually save fuel, I would say that someone actually did their homework and figured out how to deal with any of theoretical problems such as this one.

    • tankplanker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      What you are describing, for it to be of actual benefit, is at its minimum a perpetual motion device, as that’s what a zero loss system would be. Only people working on that also sell snake oil.

      Anything less than 100% is a loss, which is going to be larger the heavier the car is due to friction (aero, drive train, and rolling) and extra energy to accelerate, that’s basic physics.

      Very large batteries, 100kwh or over, solve what should be a medium term problem, they are an expensive dead end as they are often around half the cost of the car’s production cost and add . What I really don’t like is stupidly large bricks of cars that struggle to even do 3 miles per kwh and then use a massive battery to get around their comically small range, which further lowers their efficency.