As we all know, cars used gasoline or diesel as fuel to provide power, and now they are generally referred to as traditional cars. For cars that use unconventional vehicle fuels as a power source, such as electric vehicles now, they are called new energy vehicles.
However, a few days ago, I saw a video, the author called "Beijing writer fat pig full circle", he said in the video, for the current electric car called new energy vehicles, he is quite complaining, he believes that the tram "non-new energy", that is, can not be called new energy vehicles.
What is his logic? It is estimated that some people can guess, that is, he believes that the power source of electric vehicles - electricity, cannot be regarded as a new energy, because the current electricity mainly comes from thermal power generation, hydropower generation, etc., especially thermal power generation accounts for a large proportion.
The author said some figures, apparently looking up relevant information. He focused on thermal power. He said that thermal power in our country accounts for 72% of the total power generation, and thermal power generation is mainly coal-burning, although there is no pollution in electricity, but coal burning is polluting, so electric vehicles can not be called new energy vehicles.
The author does not even recognize nuclear power as a new energy source, saying that compared with thermal power, hydropower, and nuclear power, wind power and solar power generation are called new energy. His meaning is obvious, and he also said so, the so-called new energy, refers to "not the current mass application".
At this point, we can clearly see that his logical starting point is that what was previously available and used is not called new. In his logic, the electricity used in trams mainly comes from media, water, and nuclear energy, and these have been available for a long time, so electric vehicles cannot be called new energy vehicles.
In my opinion, his statement is one-sided. The so-called new energy vehicles are actually relative to traditional oil vehicles. As a non-renewable energy source, oil will be depleted the more it is used, so alternative energy sources need to be found. These alternative energy sources are called new energy sources.
Although most of the electricity now comes from thermal power, it does not mean that it will always be the case. Coal, which is also a non-renewable energy source, will eventually be depleted. So there is a need to develop new sources of electricity. Hydropower, wind power, solar power, nuclear power, these are all new energy sources.
So, watching his video, I couldn't help but leave a message to put forward different opinions, pointing out that his understanding is one-sided, according to his logic, in fact, even solar energy cannot be called new energy, because ancient people have long used solar energy. He retorted to me, "Your family has been using solar energy since ancient times?" and I replied to him: "Didn't you dry grain in ancient times?"
I am actually inspiring him that the so-called new energy is a new way of utilization, not whether there was anything before. In the past, there was electricity, but it was not used in cars, at least not on a large scale, so electric vehicles can be called new energy vehicles. The ancients also used solar energy, but it was not used to generate electricity, so it is said that solar energy is a new energy source.
But if according to his logic, some of them could not be called new energy in the past, then solar energy was also used in ancient times, and solar power generation could not be called new energy? However, what I didn't expect was that my reply was ridiculed by many people. They all scoffed at what I said, "In ancient times, solar energy was used" and "solar energy was used to dry grain".
Look at the above three, the first obviously thinks that drying food is not called using solar energy, and says "there can be three slots at the moment", the second asks what energy conversion is in the middle of drying food, the third is that I am too "stupid", and the fourth and the second actually mean the same.
These people obviously have a misconception of what solar energy is, thinking that only electricity is called solar energy, but they forget that there is something called "solar water heater". Isn't the drying of grain and solar water heaters all using the light and heat energy of the sun?
Like the above people, they don't understand what solar energy is, they belong to the type of thinking solidification, and they don't understand it, but they say that I am strong and reasonable, and what I say is nonsense. In fact, it is not difficult to know if what I said is right, just search the Internet and there will be an answer, but these people are overconfident.
They also don't want to think about it, if "drying grain is not called using solar energy," then how likely are others to make such a low-level mistake? Of course, they can also understand that the first reaction to a statement that is obviously biased from the inherent perception is to deny it, rather than to verify it, which is probably a common problem of most people.
Everything grows on the sun. Solar energy is inexhaustible for human beings. Not only is today's electricity generation called the use of solar energy, but the use of the sun to dry food and clothes is also rightfully called the use of solar energy.
Similarly, ancient people have long used wind and water energy. Water transportation, water wheels, this is all the use of water energy. In ancient times, there were also windmills, as well as kite flying, which also used wind energy. Zhuge Liang also borrowed the east wind.
However, of course, these are not called new energy. The "newness" of new energy does not lie in whether there was such a thing before, but whether there is a way to use it. It is in this sense that electric vehicles are called new energy vehicles.