TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably

64 点作者 kumarski24 天前

36 条评论

MostlyStable24 天前
Just going off the tweet about electric scooters being a scam: Nothing in that tweet is convincing.<p>Let&#x27;s just take at face value the assertion that a KWh of energy in an electric scooter costs $5 (as an EV owner: I&#x27;m skeptical).<p>I&#x27;m going to use Lime (an SF based scooter rental company, chosen at random) as an example. I tried finding exact battery specs, and couldn&#x27;t, but based on the range and some general scooter efficiency metrics I found, I doubt it has even a full KWh capacity, but let&#x27;s round up, and assume that when fully charged, it has $5 worth of electricity in it.<p>Lime is charging $1.00 to unlock and $0.50&#x2F;minute of use (somewhat cheaper with the subscription).<p>The claimed top speed is ~15 mph with a range of 20-30 miles. Let&#x27;s the take the lower range value there. So assuming that the scooter is doing nothing but driving at it&#x27;s full top speed for the entire rental period, it would use up the battery in ~1.3 hours. That&#x27;s a total rental fee of ~$39. Doing nothing but driving it full speed seems like an unlikely use case, so I think this represents a close to worst-case scenario for rental fee paid to electricity used.<p>Now, I don&#x27;t know what the rest of the overhead is. So I&#x27;m not going to claim that this is an obviously profitable business model, but the <i>electricity</i> costs in this equation are not the reason why it&#x27;s going to fail.<p>If the author thinks that this tweet is a slam dunk, I&#x27;m not going to bother reading the rest of the article. I too am skeptical of batteries utility in flight especially, but there are probably better sources to get those analyses from.
评论 #43732519 未加载
评论 #43733214 未加载
评论 #43732001 未加载
testing2232124 天前
“Gasoline’s dirty secret: it’s toxic, expensive and using it kills the planet.”<p>This type of framing is utterly pointless, and tries to make out like electric propulsion shouldn’t be used for anything because it’s not ideal for everything.<p>Even if we never get to everyday electric planes (debatable), that has zero bearing on the fact electric cars are already excellent for many uses.
评论 #43732801 未加载
jmward0124 天前
This appears to ignore the new technology that electric brings in: Reduced maintenance, (for aircraft) reduced weight in other parts of an aircraft, new propulsion capabilities that increase efficiency of the energy used, new performance envelopes (like flying much higher because the physics are totally different), etc etc. Sure. Take an existing vehicle optimized for burning things and just swap that small part and things look bad but start optimizing for the new way of doing things and the equation totally changes. Additionally, that 60x claim is getting old by the minute. We are getting to 300+ with advancements coming in so fast they are hard to keep track of. That 60x could drop to 10x or lower in just a few years and that, again, doesn&#x27;t count the reduction in weight that could come from removing a literal explosion maker from an aircraft can achieve.
评论 #43732690 未加载
评论 #43731883 未加载
评论 #43733469 未加载
评论 #43732419 未加载
评论 #43734417 未加载
zik24 天前
His estimate the LCoE of an electric vehicle with lithium batteries is off by a factor of ten. My back-of-the-napkin calculations make it to be $0.22–0.25 per kWh.<p>Let&#x27;s compare two vehicles - an EV car vs an ICE car - in terms of their energy costs per mile, including energy storage. Using the above numbers the EV comes out to around $0.07 per mile including the lifetime costs of the battery, and the ICE comes out to around $0.125 per mile.<p>In short - his numbers are completely wrong and when calculated correctly prove the opposite of what he&#x27;s trying to say.
评论 #43734471 未加载
评论 #43733751 未加载
toast024 天前
I suspect that there&#x27;s niches where battery electric boats and maybe planes do make sense.<p>My state&#x27;s ferry system is investing in electrifying, because they project it reduce operating costs. The &#x27;easy&#x27; part is moving towards hybrid systems that can move with diesel or battery; this is projected to save fuel even without shore charging. The hard part will be making shore charging work. Our grid is mostly hydro, so switching from diesel to electric should be better for emissions and the operating budget.<p>If the routes were longer, shore charging wouldn&#x27;t be very relevant, but they&#x27;re short enough that many routes could work without diesel most of the time.
评论 #43732366 未加载
评论 #43732435 未加载
评论 #43732326 未加载
评论 #43732131 未加载
londons_explore24 天前
For the marine uses specifically, the use of hydrofoils promises to dramatically reduce the amount of energy needed for movement at any decent speed.<p>Previously hydrofoils weren&#x27;t used because they rely on complex feedback mechanisms to maintain ride height despite waves etc.<p>Sure, someone <i>could</i> pair hydrofoils with gasoline engines, but I suspect they won&#x27;t, and that means hydrofoil+electric will win out over conventional hull+hydrocarbon fuels for a bunch of use cases.
评论 #43732642 未加载
评论 #43733273 未加载
chris1232124 天前
I recently read The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson, and one of the ideas in it that I thought was very good was replacing our cargo ships with wind-powered ships, basically giant sailing ships. In the book, they were incredibly slow, with shipments taking months to complete, but if supply lines were set up correctly, that wouldn&#x27;t matter for a lot of cargo. Cargo ships are a massive CO2 contributor, and it was interesting that a solution could be to return to sailing ships.<p>I know there are probably huge engineering problems preventing this from happening, so feel free to tell me why it&#x27;s impossible.
评论 #43731720 未加载
评论 #43731930 未加载
评论 #43731877 未加载
评论 #43731767 未加载
评论 #43734001 未加载
评论 #43733292 未加载
评论 #43731685 未加载
评论 #43731709 未加载
cagenut24 天前
this post is a fake argument with no one? the typical internet outrage pattern of using overly dramatized language like &quot;dirty secret&quot; to describe something thats... common knowledge? not a secret at all? openly talked about at any and every relevant industries conferences and trade shows?<p>everybody who isn&#x27;t just reading clickbait and comments sections is well aware that the wh&#x2F;kg for li-ion will never cross the atlantic much less the pacific, via air or sea. thats why the aviation industry went in on SAF&#x2F;eFuels, thats why the shipping industry is playing with hydrogen and ammonia. everybody knows the litany of challenges there (please spare us yet another internet commenters thoughts on hydrogen), but the very fact that they&#x27;re trying is in and of itself a clear admission of the understanding that li-ion doesn&#x27;t get you there.<p>so like, who is this guy even talking to?
评论 #43731790 未加载
评论 #43731785 未加载
baq24 天前
You don’t need to rant when it’s enough to show that a few dozen airliners consume a day’s worth of a nuclear reactor power production (for some size of an airplane and a nuclear reactor; we should be accurate within an order of magnitude). Imagine every single airport needing its own huge ass power plant and you get your point across in an HN comment.<p>Not sure what’s the point in attacking physicists, either. They should be the first ones pointing this out and I can’t imagine one not nodding in agreement.
评论 #43731950 未加载
评论 #43732024 未加载
wkat424224 天前
The profitability will come when we factor in the environmental damage in the prices.<p>However the elephant in the room at least for aviation is that the energy per kg is about 50 higher for kerosene than for lithium batteries. A very large part of an airliner is fuel already. 50 as much? Not gonna happen. This will remain a really short range thing unless a really amazing breakthrough happens.
评论 #43732594 未加载
m46324 天前
The same thing could have been said years ago about solar power in california.<p>But with PG&amp;E&#x27;s regulatory capture and people paying 50c&#x2F;kwh for electricity, solar is economically practical. Even with batteries! (and wholesale electricity is still 3-4c&#x2F;kwh)<p>My point is that the math could change in a moment due to regulation and&#x2F;or energy repricing.<p>(example: disallow non-electric planes at certain airports or certain distances; allow in-city electric flight; wholesale electric rate for electric aviation&#x2F;shipping; etc)<p>(that said, writer is probably right about this moment in time)
评论 #43732310 未加载
xnx24 天前
&gt; Electric scooter companies by definition can never be profitable<p>Lost me right at the start by being proud(?) of this wrong understanding.
decimalenough24 天前
I can buy these arguments for airplanes. I&#x27;m more intrigued by the throwaway tweet claiming &quot;electric scooter companies can never be profitable&quot;, because I don&#x27;t see why this should be the case, unless &quot;scooter&quot; here is referring specifically to Ola style light motorcycles that compete directly with ICE equivalents, and not Lime style electric kick scooters that don&#x27;t?
评论 #43732457 未加载
refulgentis24 天前
This is a really nice article, in that its long and provides a good example of knowing everything yet nothing.<p>Setting aside individual problems with it, this is because it suffers from a broad and blindingly obvious problem: investment is occurring in this area b&#x2F;c it will be absolutely politically unpalatable in 20 years to still be emitting CO2.<p>A long analysis showing lithium is more expensive than just using gas is unnecessary, and not even wrong when its used to prove VCs are dumb or whatever.<p>Things are going to get that bad. Mark my words. It&#x27;s like how it was obvious COVID was going to be a pandemic after January 2020. You could derive it from basic #s.<p>They&#x27;re not looking to be cheaper-than.
评论 #43732470 未加载
评论 #43732417 未加载
MiguelHudnandez24 天前
I appreciate by default any attempt to make a full accounting of the costs involved in energy transmission and storage. Many of these grid &amp; battery costs are abstracted away from consumers and great effort must be made to understand them fully.<p>That said, have you done a similar analysis involving the costs of removing finite organics from the ground, burning those, and releasing the byproducts into the atmosphere? Even if one is better in the short term we should still be working toward better options.
评论 #43732459 未加载
trhway24 天前
Current lithium batteries Tesla - 270+Wh&#x2F;kg, cheap AliBaba - 250+Wh&#x2F;kg. Gasoline&#x2F;jet fuel - 12KWh&#x2F;kg, with 30% thermodynamic efficiency - 3.6KWh&#x2F;kg. If one takes into account piston engines weight and their expensive maintenance or how expensive jet engines overall, the electric seems to have a very good niche of short range planes, and for multi-rotor VTOL it is unbeatable.
评论 #43732571 未加载
api24 天前
I remember seeing loads and loads of analyses like this back in the 2000s on a site called The Oil Drum about why electric cars would never work at scale. (Spoiler: My family has two EVs.) They always assume that the technology will never get better, that industrial economies of scale don&#x27;t exist and therefore that prices don&#x27;t decrease with scale, that currently developed reserves of resources like lithium equal total reserves, etc.<p>I do think it will be a while before electrification of long haul aviation is practical. Aviation -- all of it -- accounts for only 7% of global oil consumption as of 2024. We could cut oil consumption by more than 80% without touching aviation. Most oil is burned in cars and trucks and those can be electrified today, so we should focus our energy on that and on replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation and take the win there.<p>Related tangent:<p>The popularity of toxic dogmatic pessimism on the political left is really problematic. It stops people from offering positive, expansive visions of the future. It&#x27;s one reason the fascists are winning by default. They don&#x27;t buy this shit, so they tell stories about the future that aren&#x27;t &quot;and then we all die in a great Malthusian catastrophe, the end.&quot; The fascist vision of the future sucks, but it&#x27;s better than that, so it wins hearts and minds.<p>Ask yourself: what if our civilization <i>doesn&#x27;t</i> collapse? Then what? The assumption that it will collapse prevents people from thinking about the future. Malthusianism is a thought stopping cliche.
评论 #43732311 未加载
评论 #43731945 未加载
评论 #43732588 未加载
Panzer0424 天前
Pretty classic arguing a point no one makes.<p>Sea and air electric travel is and has always been the final frontier of transport electrification, and no one expects it to come easily. As tech currently exists I don&#x27;t see a path for battery technology to supercede existing fossil-fueld solutions. That could change though if newer, more advanced battery tech comes out but for now it&#x27;s just not really commercially feasible.<p>I wouldn&#x27;t trust a thing this guy says about it though, because he appears to know essentially nothing about the topic he is talking about. I&#x27;m glad he includes that tweet at the start because it demonstrates his own lack of knowledge instantly. It&#x27;s hilarious that he actually is off by a factor of ten :D
metalman24 天前
lithium is most definitly profitable in thousands of applications including boats, and light aircraft, now. The intercontinental heavy aircraft, and marine segment is not there yet, but there is a lot of progress bieng made every day, and every single major player in the transpotation sector is watching closely, as the chance of a disruptive battery technology de-stealthing is significant
评论 #43731708 未加载
scythe24 天前
But they can do the ground effect pretty well, because the <i>motors</i> become lighter:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.regentcraft.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;regent-begins-sea-trials-of-first-passenger-carrying-seaglider">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.regentcraft.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;regent-begins-sea-trials-of...</a>
kjkjadksj24 天前
Aren’t airlines investing into zero carbon biofuels? Seems like that is not a bad route to go because you use the same paradigm of airliner but the fuel is carbon neutral and not contributing to greenhouse. Although it does continue to affect air quality downwind of the airport.
kkfx23 天前
Allow me to add a suggestion: how much roads costs? Because one point in eVTOL is in a not so near future ditching roads. Crafting a &quot;light&quot; society who could keep up without roads or at least with much less of them.
Workaccount224 天前
Your being a bit disingenuous by not comparing the relative efficiencies of electric vs gas propulsion. Electric motors are ~3x as efficient. They also can recharge by capturing energy during use.<p>In a car for example, you need about 9 gallons of gas in a 33mpg car to get 300 miles. This is equivalent to a 75kWh EV.<p>On paper though, with the conveniently leaving out details math this guy is using (or maybe it&#x27;s too physics for him) you only need 2.2 gallons.
评论 #43732490 未加载
评论 #43747895 未加载
floxy24 天前
Why do lithium battery prices keep going down? Because the Chinese are subsidizing everything for us? Or that battery production is getting more efficient over time? I guess my spidey sense gets a little tingly when sourcing data from papers published in 2021 and 2022. A.) Covid, B.) 4 year old papers are based on data that is even older, and it seems like things are changing fast with respect to batteries. Not to say that battery-electric planes are coming anytime soon.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.visualcapitalist.com&#x2F;charted-lithium-ion-batteries-keep-getting-cheaper&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.visualcapitalist.com&#x2F;charted-lithium-ion-batteri...</a>
AndrewDucker24 天前
If you used floating wind&#x2F;solar farms as recharging points across the ocean, how much space would they take up?
评论 #43732520 未加载
lucidguppy24 天前
Flight is a luxury of the current times that will likely not last another 100 years except for the very rich.
评论 #43731855 未加载
评论 #43731789 未加载
评论 #43731691 未加载
评论 #43731762 未加载
评论 #43731632 未加载
评论 #43732528 未加载
评论 #43731639 未加载
tag210324 天前
I&#x27;m not sure he brings anything new to the argument, well except a disdain for physicists.
评论 #43732522 未加载
salsicha22 天前
This is exactly what the CTO at Supernal told me on my first day of work
econ24 天前
I would use the aircraft to ship batteries and win the puzzle.
johnea24 天前
I&#x27;m not so sure about this assessment.<p>But one thing I would agree with is that Li ion is not the ultimate battery chemistry.<p>Several others with greater density, increased cycle counts, and more readily available minerals are in development.<p>Of course there&#x27;s BYD, which was a battery company before an EV maker:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;engineerine.com&#x2F;byd-blade-battery&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;engineerine.com&#x2F;byd-blade-battery&#x2F;</a><p>And a survey of upcoming chemistries and technologies:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thecalculatedchemist.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-future-of-energy-storage-exploring-advanced-battery-chemistry-and-material-innovations" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thecalculatedchemist.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-future-of-en...</a><p>Just another indication of why we should have started emphasizing battery electric power, and the chemical research into possible solutions, 50 to 75 years ago when the problem of CO2 altering the atmosphere became scientifically indisputable.
0xbadcafebee24 天前
I came to the comments hoping for lots of electric apologists not reading the article and I was not disappointed<p>As a recap (for those who don&#x27;t like to read)<p>- 70% of EV cost comes before the vehicle ever moves and must be recouped over the life of the vehicle (and takes much longer than traditional fuels)<p>- the energy density &amp; cost of certain fuels is the only reason certain vehicles are able to be profitably operated in the first place<p>- the only way to create enough energy to match said fuels&#x2F;demand with electrics (at present) would be to hook up coal or nuclear plants to airports, and even then it&#x27;d be expensive as shit<p>- we basically need a 5x improvement in battery energy density <i>at minimum</i> to even think about profitability, and that&#x27;s only one of the things that would need to be addressed before it&#x27;s practically feasible
评论 #43732986 未加载
mangecoeur24 天前
Finance bro decides tweets are better evidence than physics… nothing to see here
评论 #43732556 未加载
ZeroGravitas24 天前
Only got to the subhead so far but mention of &quot;energy return on investment&quot; suggests this is going to be bullshit.<p>edit: after reading, it was worse than I expected.
retrocryptid24 天前
i would have given this guy credit if he compared cost of production for petro fuels when talking about energy debt.<p>also conflates power with energy, but fine.<p>if you talk about cost (dollar or kilowatt hour) per joule delivered to a vehicle and then compared the total cost of electric vs. the total cost of petro, i would listen. but he ignored the fact that petro fuels cost money, energy and water to produce.<p>and there some things electric motors can do that ice can&#x27;t. an electric ekranoplan isn&#x27;t too infeasible, but we know from soviet studies you can&#x27;t keep salt water out of an aspirated motor when you&#x27;re that close to the water&#x27;s surface. turns out electric motors can be sealed against water.<p>and dissing physicists? wtf? makes me think he failed out of an engineering physics degree cause he didn&#x27;t understand math. as we used to say, the limit of a bs or be as gpa approaches zero is bba.
评论 #43732599 未加载
评论 #43747899 未加载
ggreer24 天前
This post seems to either be misinterpreting facts or deliberately skewing them to argue for a specific conclusion. For example, it claims that &quot;According to Gruber et al. (2021), a single ton of lithium extraction guzzles about 500,000 gallons of water.&quot; But the source link[1] is an abstract to a different paper titled <i>Oil import portfolio risk and spillover volatility</i>, which has no author named Gruber. So I have no idea if the claim is true or not. What I do know is that lithium is extracted from brine that is pumped out of the ground, then evaporated. It isn&#x27;t useful for anything else, as it&#x27;s far too salty for irrigation or drinking. And there are plenty of other ways to get lithium. Brines are just the most economically feasible option right now.<p>Another claim is, &quot;The International Energy Agency documents that producing battery-grade lithium compounds demands 50-70 kWh of energy input per kilogram.&quot; but again, if I follow the link[2], I can&#x27;t find that information anywhere. Maybe he&#x27;s deriving the figure from some graph in one of the sections of the report. But assuming it&#x27;s true, a typical 80kWh battery contains around 10kg of lithium, which would be 500-700kWh of electricity. If we pessimistically assume retail consumer prices, that&#x27;s $50-100 worth of electricity embodied in the lithium. This is a tiny fraction of the total cost of the battery. It&#x27;s 5-10 charge cycles out of the &gt;1,000 that is expected of an EV battery.<p>And both of these claims neglect the fact that lithium in batteries is not destroyed over the life of the battery. It can be recycled once the battery has failed or degraded.<p>After that he says, &quot;Here&#x27;s the uncomfortable truth from EPA&#x27;s eGRID database: the carbon intensity of our electrical grid varies by a factor of 4× depending on where you are.&quot; and links to the EPA&#x27;s Emissions &amp; Generation Resource Integrated Database.[3] Again, the link is to a general site and not the specific information he&#x27;s referencing. I did find CO2 emissions per megawatt hour in the data explorer.[4] The most carbon-intense subregion I could find in the continental US was SRMW, which corresponds to most of Illinois and Missouri. Its CO2 emissions are 1,238lbs&#x2F;MWh, which is 562g&#x2F;kWh. Typical EV efficiency is around 250 watt-hours per mile, but let&#x27;s assume 300 watt-hours per mile to account for losses in transmission, charging efficiency, etc. In that case, traveling one mile will have used electricity that emitted 168 grams of CO2. Burning a gallon of gasoline emits 8.9kg of CO2, so a gas car would need to get over 52mpg to emit less than 168 grams of CO2 per mile. Again, that&#x27;s in the most coal-heavy subregion on the EPA map. I don&#x27;t know where he gets the &quot;carbon break even point&quot; from, as it would require incredibly inefficient EVs or incredibly efficient gas cars.<p>There&#x27;s also a claim that 70% of the energy consumption of EVs happens before they ever move. This claim is both misleading and false. To understand why it&#x27;s misleading, consider a steam powered vehicle. Compared to a gas vehicle, it requires much less energy to construct than to run. But that&#x27;s because steam powered vehicles are incredibly inefficient and need many times more energy to travel the same distance as a gas vehicle. EVs do require more energy to construct than gas vehicles, but they quickly make up for that by being more efficient to run. Battery production uses approximately 30-35kWh per kWh of battery capacity.[5] So an 80kWh battery will require 2,400-2,800kWh to produce. If the battery is used for 100,000 miles and then thrown away (not recycled so some of the embodied energy can be recovered), then at 300 watt-hours per mile, the battery will have stored and discharged 30,000kWh over its life. Even using these pessimistic assumptions, the battery&#x27;s embodied energy is less than 10% of the energy used by the vehicle over its lifetime.<p>In summary, the whole post is poorly reasoned and based on information that is either misinterpreted or nonexistent. If its conclusions are correct about anything, it&#x27;s by accident.<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedirect.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;article&#x2F;abs&#x2F;pii&#x2F;S0301420720310047" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedirect.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;article&#x2F;abs&#x2F;pii&#x2F;S03014...</a><p>2. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.iea.org&#x2F;reports&#x2F;the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.iea.org&#x2F;reports&#x2F;the-role-of-critical-minerals-in...</a><p>3. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;egrid" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;egrid</a><p>4. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;egrid&#x2F;data-explorer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;egrid&#x2F;data-explorer</a><p>5. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mdpi.com&#x2F;2076-3298&#x2F;12&#x2F;1&#x2F;24" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mdpi.com&#x2F;2076-3298&#x2F;12&#x2F;1&#x2F;24</a>
kumarski22 天前
Don&#x27;t have time to reply to everyone. Clearly triggered a lot of programmers here, so I&#x27;ll try to go point by point.<p>Electric motors are ~3× more efficient, but the crushing 18:1 energy density disadvantage (170-180 Wh&#x2F;kg usable vs. 3,200 Wh&#x2F;kg for jet fuel) creates a physics trap no engineer can escape [1].<p>A staggering 70.3% of total energy is consumed before the damn thing even moves – manufacturing (35.2%), extraction (19.8%), and processing (15.3%) create an energy debt that makes the whole proposition a joke[2]<p>Grids: Carbon intensity varies wildly (200-840g CO₂e&#x2F;kWh), meaning your &quot;clean&quot; electric plane is often dirtier than conventional systems – that&#x27;s not an opinion, it&#x27;s EPA data [3].<p>Real-world performance nightmare is quantified: cold weather operations see a brutal 33% range reduction vs. just 6% for conventional, charging wastes 22.4% operational efficiency, and VTOL applications – which fanboys love to cite – require 2.5-3× more energy per mile than normal flight [4].<p>We&#x27;ve seen improvements (2.7× EV range increase since 2010), but we&#x27;re still butting against fundamental chemistry limitations – lithium-ion cathodes achieve only 25-30% of theoretical capacity, and that&#x27;s a brick wall no amount of startup capital can break through [5].<p>Synthetic fuels? Give me a break – 10-15% round-trip efficiency means you need 6.7-10× more renewable capacity than direct electrification, basically requiring us to cover half the planet in solar panels [6].<p>I explicitly acknowledge where electric makes sense (short-haul ferries under 50 miles, puddle-jumper aircraft), while demonstrating why crossing oceans remains physically impossible without a battery chemistry revolution [7].<p>lithium propulsion systems cost $245-380&#x2F;kWh delivered vs. $75-110&#x2F;kWh for conventional systems – that&#x27;s 3.3× more expensive with no way to close the gap without massive taxpayer subsidies [8].<p>If this technology truly made economic and environmental sense, why isn&#x27;t China – which manufactures most of the world&#x27;s batteries and has the densest transportation networks requiring efficiency – adopting it at scale for their own infrastructure? They desperately need cleaner air and water, have explicitly prioritized environmental improvements in recent policy, and would recognize a truly superior EROI technology before anyone. Their purchase behavior speaks very loud.<p>[1] Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper 2024-01-0873, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sae.org&#x2F;publications&#x2F;technical-papers&#x2F;content&#x2F;2024-01-0873" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sae.org&#x2F;publications&#x2F;technical-papers&#x2F;content&#x2F;20...</a><p>[2] Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(1), 120-132, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;onlinelibrary.wiley.com&#x2F;journal&#x2F;15309290" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;onlinelibrary.wiley.com&#x2F;journal&#x2F;15309290</a><p>[3] EPA eGRID 2023, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;egrid" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;egrid</a><p>[4] IEEE Transportation Electrification, 10(2), 1582-1593, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ieeexplore.ieee.org&#x2F;xpl&#x2F;RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6687316" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ieeexplore.ieee.org&#x2F;xpl&#x2F;RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=668...</a><p>[5] Nature Energy, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41560-022-01060-5" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41560-022-01060-5</a><p>[6] International Energy Agency, &quot;The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions&quot;, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.iea.org&#x2F;reports&#x2F;the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.iea.org&#x2F;reports&#x2F;the-role-of-critical-minerals-in...</a><p>[7] Maritime Economics &amp; Logistics, 26(2), 112-128, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;link.springer.com&#x2F;journal&#x2F;41278" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;link.springer.com&#x2F;journal&#x2F;41278</a><p>[8] Journal of Transport Economics, 58(2), 234-248, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.journals.elsevier.com&#x2F;journal-of-transport-economics-and-policy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.journals.elsevier.com&#x2F;journal-of-transport-econo...</a>