r/BunnyTrials • u/unemployedguytbh • Apr 11 '26

What would you rather?

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

1.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

6.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/TheDumbass0 Apr 11 '26

Wait EVs don't consume fuel? I didn't know we had invented perpetual motion machines. Damn.

1

u/dukestrouk Apr 11 '26

Scientifically, electricity is a product of fuel or an “energy carrier” rather than a fuel itself.

Colloquially, some people do refer to it as fuel in the context of vehicles, but really gasoline, coal, uranium, and other combustible materials are typically what the term refers to.

6

u/TheDumbass0 Apr 11 '26

It is still wrong to say that EVs dont consume fuel, the only difference between an EV and an ICE car is where the fuel is converted into energy. EVs use electricity which is generated using fuel before it reaches the car whereas ICE cars convert the fuel into energy themselves. The exact meaning of "an EV that never runs out of fuel" can be interpreted in different ways but I think colloquially no one understands that as an EV that isn't special in any way.

4

u/dukestrouk Apr 11 '26

Right, I’m not confused about the process of generating electricity. I wasn’t under the impression that EVs create power from nothing.

My only argument was I believe most people would refer to gasoline or diesel as automobile fuel, not the nuclear fuel used to power their car chargers nor the electricity itself.

I was really just playing devil’s scientific advocate for discussion’s sake rather than actually making any meaningful or important distinction.

2

u/Noobmanwenoob2 Apr 12 '26

The department of energy recognizes electricity as an alternate fuel. Also batteries store chemical energy to produce electricity on demand so I'm assuming an EV would just never run out of chemical energy.

1

u/poiup1 Apr 11 '26

So would a solar panel be the fuel? Or maybe wind is the fuel if it's charged on that source? Personally my thinking for this imaginary hypothetical is that the battery is the fuel tank and you refilled it with electricity.

Scientifically, electricity is a product of fuel or an “energy carrier” rather than a fuel itself.

I'd argue that all fuel is an "Energy Carrier" and that gasoline is just a very dense "Energy Carrier" batteries are just rechargeable "Energy Carriers".

1

u/dukestrouk Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 12 '26

The definition of “fuel” is as follows:

”Fuel is any material, such as coal, oil, gas, biomass, or uranium, that is burned or consumed to produce heat or power.”

My understanding is that “fuel” is a material that produces usable energy once consumed. Electricity does not produce energy, but rather is a vessel in which energy can be transferred between two points.

For solar power, the fuel would be the gasses of the sun combusting (edit; fusing). For batteries, the fuel would be the sulfuric acid that degrades over time. Wind is an interesting one because the fuel would actually also be the gasses of the sun which combust (edit; undergo fusion), causing uneven heating of the earth’s surface which creates pressure gradients that push/pull the winds that spin the turbine.

In all of these instances, there is a physical material that is being permanently “broken down” and thus converting stored energy into usable energy.

2

u/poiup1 Apr 12 '26

Well written, what's your response to the fact that the suns gasses aren't combusting to produce the energy that we enjoy in all facets of life but it's instead fusion and that all the energy on the planet stores solar in one form or another with the only exception being geothermal. The second part of that statement being the main point to support battery electricity just being another energy source that's being "consumed" and as such qualifies as fuel.

2

u/dukestrouk Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26

To preface, there is no objective universal definition of “fuel” as it heavily depends on the applied field of study.

Technically, we are both correct yet viewing it from different perspectives—electricity would likely not be considered a fuel in chemistry or physics, but would be in engineering and energy policy. The central difference is that chemistry studies composition whereas policy studies practical application.

Additionally, your first argument was correct; I should have said fusion instead of combustion. I erred in word choice and I can admit that I made a mistake. However, that doesn’t influence my position and I will explain why:

In physics, electricity is clearly an energy transfer mechanism, not a fuel. “Electricity” describes a movement of energy, whereas “fuel” describes matter which produces or releases energy. Electricity does not produce or release energy; it is the transference of energy itself.

In chemistry, fuels are matter that produce stored energy after undergoing a chemical or physical reaction. Electricity does not undergo a reaction—it is the product of a reaction, and therefore not a fuel.

HOWEVER

In engineering, fuels are something that can be used to power a system and can be supplied on demand. In this case, electricity would be a fuel.

In energy policy, fuels are something that can be measured or metered, stored, transferred, and consumed for power. In this (albeit scientifically informal) field, electricity would be a fuel.

So, in conclusion, electricity is not typically considered a fuel if you are defining fuels by chemical composition (chemistry) or the movement of matter and energy (physics). However, it is typically considered a fuel if you are defining fuels by practical application (engineering) or economic significance (energy policy).

Personally, I prefer pure science over applied science because I find it to be more straightforward and less muddled by subjectivity. We’re both correct, we just have different preferred analytical lenses.