Efficiency Fakery for Electricity
Quacks are using contrived efficiency claims to get impossible results for renewable energy in contempt for laws of physics.
There is no measured relationship between electrical energy and kinetic energy, because physicists don't know how to measure it. So they guess at/contrive the relationship, and green propagandists say electricity is more efficient than petroleum based machines like autos.
Electricity is very inefficient, because electrons need to be surrounded by a lot of metal which dilutes the energy. Then the energy must move into and out of the space medium through inductance, which loses a lot more energy.
Motor windings must push through high amperage to concentrate the energy, which results in resistance loss. If 20-30% resistance loss is not built in, the energy is diluted and spread out to a point of nonfunctionality. Therefore, claims of high efficiency defy laws of physics. Transformers can replace high amperage with high voltage and get more efficiency, but motors cannot due to space problems.
Electricity can be followed through its complex paths, with known amounts of loss each step of the way, and at least 60% is lost, often 90%, getting from source to use. Not the least reason is because two transformation steps are needed, where usually there is one. The first transformation is in generating the electricity. The second is in using the electricity. Transformers are de-facto transformations which lose a lot more than green activists claim.
For these reasons, electricity is so inefficient and expensive that it is only practical as a specialty product. Sometimes, large amounts are needed for special purposes, but for general commercial purposes, it is not a practical substitute for other forms of energy.
So to promote the green agenda, propagandists say the opposite. Corrupters characteristically counter their critics by starting at the desired end point and rationalizing garbage to get there. They are doing that with electricity in claiming it is the answer to everything in replacing other forms of energy.
There are two major lines of corruption in such claims. One is false claims of efficiency in transformations and use, such as electric motors getting 98% efficiency. The second is skipping over (ignoring and lying about) the known losses in numerous steps of handling electricity.
Recently, a study claimed that 100% renewable energy can be produced by the year 2050, because electricity is more efficient that other types of energy. As I explain elsewhere, electricity is about 6 to 10 times less efficient than petroleum based machines due to loss that occurs every time electricity is touched.
But there is a new line of propaganda which says electric motors are about 98% efficient. This stuff comes out of government bureaucracies which now days require minimum efficiency standards for electric motors. The propagandists pretend to be pushing the margins from 98% efficiency to 98.2%, as if there were something real going on. Whatever that garbage means is irrelevant.
I have wound a lot of copper wire around metal for various purposes creating inductors and forces including physics experiments in evaluating the misdefinition of energy. What I found, and all engineers find, is that you start with about 30% loss of electrical energy due to heat caused by resistance in the wire. This means you use a small diameter wire and put a lot of current through it until it produces some heat. Otherwise, the electrical energy is not being concentrated as much as it can be. If the energy is not concentrated to its maximum, more wire is needed, which takes up more space and spreads out the energy reducing the functionality and resulting in more inductive loss.
To use 2% resistive loss in the wires instead of 30% would require 15 times as much wire. Instead of an electric motor being 10 inches in diameter, it would be 3 feet in diameter. The ability to produce force would reduce to negligible. It wouldn't be possible.
Engineers have dealt with this problem for centuries, and no bureaucrats are going to change the nature of the problem. So whatever they mean by 98% efficiency is garbage.
Engineers used to subtract the various types of loss to get efficiency. The recent method is to divide electrical energy by kinetic energy, and abracadabra, efficiency jumps up to 98%. Doesn't it say there is something wrong with energy assumptions?
This means the maximum efficiency of wire-wound motors is about 70% from the start. Then more energy will be lost due to inductive effects. The net effect is that the maximum efficiency is around 60% under ideal laboratory conditions, and commercial motors get a maximum of 40% efficiency under optimum conditions.
Of course, there are numerous other things wrong in the claim that society can produce 100% renewable energy as electricity, such as the fact that the low hanging fruit is already gone, and energy cannot be extracted from slow wind or cloudy skies. Moving numbers around disappears such facts.
This is why Europeans are producing new coal plants and nuclear generators after getting about 15% of their electricity from solar and wind. They hit a wall of impracticality at about 15% of electricity from solar and wind.