Giving control away. . . the countries with the energy sources are the ones who have the most control over their own destiny.Natural gas generation is 44% efficient, coal is 32%. Worldwide use of coal is 36%, world wide use of natural gas is 23% of electricity production. (US is 20% coal and 40% natural gas)
So currently a weighted average in the US is 40% efficiency on generation of electricity, which comprises 60% of the electricity generated. Due to the lower efficiency of coal, the fossil fuel generation is not more efficient at the powerplant than in your car. Much worse on a world wide basis.
Of course, the non carbon sources for electricity generation mean lower carbon emissions for an electric vehicle. In the US, 60% is still fossil fuel, and 18% is nuclear. Only 22% is 'green' renewables.
So all this R&D, and push to spend more money on the purchase price of electric cars is to save 36% on carbon emissions. (40% less the 10% loss from all electric transmission, storage and motor losses) The US contributes 14% of worldwide carbon emissions. In the US, transportation accounts for 28% of carbon emissions. Of all the transportation sources, cars contribute 45%. So on a worldwide basis, by transitioning to electric vs ICE engines we will be reducing worldwide carbon by 36% of 45% of 28% of 14%. Thats going to be a small number.
US transportation carbon emissions: ...28%
Of that cars are 45%..................................12.6%
Of that, electric cars reduce by 36% ...4.5%
By transitioning all of our US cars to electric, (not going to happen) we would save 0.63% of worldwide carbon emissions. Compare that to worldwide savings by reducing coal, using more natural gas, and more nuclear. Spending time and capital on electric cars doesn't seem that rewarding.
Some fun facts:
Looks like South America - or whomever has control and influence of said country's- has a future.
No one still has answered the base question - where is all this electricity coming from?
Epoch News - behind a paywall, has Lindzen and Happer. both emeritus MIT and Princeton, respectively - so they can speak freely not concerned for their jobs or where federal money for 'studies' are coming from claim it is all a hoax.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is water vapor and a lot of other GHG's. Except we exhale it, and plants use it.
Concept of 'saturation' is that 400 PPM today to 800PPM ( we will never get there) has a highly reduced effect of radiation ( Happer specialty- previous to Princeton he was head of energy research at the Dept of Energy. his quote ' I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that these models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.')
From article it would increase radiation to space by 1%.
William Happer and Richard Lindzen argue the EPA regulations on cutting CO2 will be disastrous for the US