Hello,
it's an interesting approach ... with a sensitive bias. I am surprised at the few reactions that this follows:
I will come back later but already 2/3 remarks
-80% progress on engine consumption thanks to technical progress: spraying, better lubrication, etc ... it is very optimistic if not utopian.
If he was talking about weight reduction and speed, I would believe it more.
-His analysis on heat pumps: we all understood, at least here, that it was only a means of storing and transporting energy. And so the pollution is done elsewhere, with a low yield which he emphasizes and which makes him discard this solution.
But it is exactly the same for electricity, the yields are low for thermal power plants, as for nuclear power plants. Unless you produce this electricity from the sun, the sea or the wind, there is bound to be some pollution.
- finally its calculation of 20kwH / 100km average seems weak to me: I think that it is the mechanical watt, those which arrive at the wheel of the car therefore the it is rather 25kwh to store in the batteries, and 30kwh to leave the meter edf to charge the batteries (see
http://sfp.in2p3.fr/Debat/debat_energie ... -elect.htm)
His figures are not completely wrong but by grading 20% here, 20% there, we transform them and we make them say what we want.
Believing in significant technical progress is the talk we get out at every auto show. it's DANGEROUS because it pushes us to stand still, to wait for the solution from the manufacturers, without changing our way of life. Progress exists but it is slow ... and even if it lowers consumption by 2% per year per vehicle, it does not compensate, but not at all, the increase in users!
While sharing your car tomorrow with your colleague means immediate savings of 50% ... and taking your bike or a ride is 95 to 100%!
