Table four merely plucks the two figures out of the air. It doesn't derive them
or explain how it came to these figures, it just says "88%" versus "15%".

Fair comment but it is the best data I could find in a hurry. We since
have a figure of 34% for a 'Prius engine so I suspect that they have
not tried hard to present ICE in the best possible light. Still the
*efficiency* of the EV concept is similar as the losses are not large.

One of the issues I have with the comparison is it ignores things like vehicle
range and carrying capacity.

A point that cannot be argued with and the true reason that EVs are not
practical. Efficiency is not the issue. Batteries are very poor compared
to petrol and are not getting better that quickly.

You can get more from nicads, if you don't mind the fact that you are utilising
a fairly expensive and polluting metal Cadmium, you can bump this up to maybe 1
MJ

Why no NiMH? No Cadmium and a higher energy density again. Currently based
on AA size (which may not be a useful comparison for a great many reasons)
the achievable energy density seems to be something like four times that
on NiCads. Again for small batteries Li poly do much better than NiMH and
far more than twice NiCads. This doesn't tally with your data. Do you
know why? Regardless it will not get close to petrol anytime soon.

80% of my annual milage is done in stop-start slow driving with total
journey length of around 20 miles. This is achievable for an EV.
Add an engine for long trips (hybrid) and the result should be really
useful. I guess there must be snags or we would all have one since
I am sure that my requirements are not unusual.

It's an expensive, out of date concept that
is only popular among those who do not understand the situation and is intended
to solve a problem that no longer exists in any serious extent, which is the
emission of nitrous oxides and incomplete combustion products by passenger
vehicles in city environments, i.e. the reduction of smog. Modern cars in
roadworthy condition produce almost no smog even in cities.

Perhaps though it doesn't seem that was in a traffic jam.

David

--
****** David Round - EMail Tel (01248) 382416 *****
*****These are my own views, I represent nobody (Well maybe myself)*****
***********I guarantee nothing - Particularly the spelling**************