"The federal government wants 20 per cent of all vehicles sold to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2026. That target rises to 60 per cent by 2030, and 100 per cent by 2035."
China is running the us government? Interestingwho is behind it? china of course,
You do not know a half of it.China is running the us government? Interesting
Please elaborate and share all your conspiratorial informationYou do not know a half of it.
i'll see what i can do about thatPlease elaborate and share all your conspiratorial information
Some of what you're saying I do agree with. Except the plant instead of the tailpipe. While in a way you are correct, even a dirty coal plant is much, much cleaner per unit of fuel to energy out, as any ice engine. Engines are very bad for polluting. There are other issues with evs, like the metals required. But power generating is much more eco friendly than burning fuel in each vehicleZero emissions my foot -- they're just shifting the exhaust from the tailpipe to the powerplant's smoke stack.
Most EVs are charged at night when wind and solar power are nil. Pumped storage is a joke. 1x 55 gallon drum of water has about as much potential energy as an AA battery. It's coal, oil, gas that really powers the EVs unless you're near hydro, and hydro has its own environmental impact.
Then there's the issue of the electrical grids and power plants. 2035 is ~10 years away. It takes at least 10 years to get the permitting to actually build a plant. In my area, no new plants are scheduled to be built. Then you have to upgrade the grid and that infrastructure as well. More amps = more wires and thicker wires needed. Larger transformers needed, etc.
While there's a place for EVs, they're not the holy grail they're touted as being.
I spent close to a year doing detailed research before buying my current car. Ultimately, buying my luxo-barge gas-powered car was FAR more environmentally-friendly than EVs would have been, cradle-to-grave, including the fuel it used. The real irony was having the US' own EPA tell me I couldn't get the car with a powertrain that got a legitimate 85MPG (not eMPG, real MPG) and insisted I get one with 28MPG, and the bureaucrat told me with a straight face that 28MPG was better(!) for the environment.
Also, a coal or natural gas plant converts a much higher percentage of the energy in the fuel into useful work. A typical gas engine is at best ~25% efficient but that's only running at an optimal speed/power output. Over the entire driving cycle, it's much lower, like 15%. Power plants are much better. Even coal averages about 33%, while natural gas is around 45%. The most modern plants are >50% efficient.Some of what you're saying I do agree with. Except the plant instead of the tailpipe. While I'm a way you are correct, even a dirty coal plant is much, much cleaner per unit of fuel to energy out, as any ice engine. Engines are very bad for polluting. There are other issues with evs, like the metals required. But power generating is much more eco friendly than burning fuel in each vehicle
You forgot to include all of the losses of electrical transmission and conversion. Then there's the EV in and of itself. Charging losses, storage losses, and then conversion losses back to motion.Also, a coal or natural gas plant converts a much higher percentage of the energy in the fuel into useful work. A typical gas engine is at best ~25% efficient but that's only running at an optimal speed/power output. Over the entire driving cycle, it's much lower, like 15%. Power plants are much better. Even coal averages about 33%, while natural gas is around 45%. The most modern plants are >50% efficient.
I edited my post to include those before I even saw this post. I knew someone would bring that up. Also note that we're starting to use GaN in electronic power supplies. That's going to increase overall efficiency of EV charging/conversion by a few percent.You forgot to include all of the losses of electrical transmission and conversion. Then there's the EV in and of itself. Charging losses, storage losses, and then conversion losses back to motion.
This too. It's away from where all the people are. There's a reason industrial land isn't zoned for residential housing anymore like it used to be. But all that exhaust is right where we live and work. I also forgot to include the efficiencies in my first post but that's been covered now. I'm not saying electrical is the only way now, but there is a lot of politics getting in the way of what science is telling us. If you don't want an electric vehicle, don't get one.I edited my post to include those before I even saw this post. I knew someone would bring that up. Also note that we're starting to use GaN in electronic power supplies. That's going to increase overall efficiency of EV charging/conversion by a few percent.
The main point though is shifting emissions from the tailpipe to a coal or natural gas plant has two advantages. One is the much better pollution controls already mentioned by vicv. The other is the fact the emissions are moved away from population centers where large numbers of vehicles tend to drive.