[sbaiddn]

"EVs are by far the best solution for those vehicles."

Thats not obvious to me. Why is that the case?

What are the assumptions in your assertion?

are you assuming continuous innovations in mtls science?

Are you assuming a certain electrical grid and generstion mix that may or may not exist?

For example, large ships certainly fall under "commercial" vehicles, but any electrical energy storage (even inexistent ones) would be hard pressed to compete on CO2 emissions with our current grid make up. 50% thermal efficiency is really good!

Well the same can be said about tractor trailers. Their engines aren't 50% efficient, but they're pretty darned good! Id be surprised if an EV drivetrain can beat them on CO2 emissions.

And if ships and trucks diesel engines are made to run NG (LNG tankers already do) Forget it. EV's are a CO2 environmental disaster by comparison.

So, again, what are your assumptions?

[ZeroGravitas]

Cargo ships can use batteries.

See: Rapid battery cost declines accelerate the prospects of all-electric interregional container shipping

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01065-y

> Modeling 5 to 10 GWh electrified containerships, researchers find that 40% of routes today could be electrified in an economically viable manner, before considering environmental costs.

Electric Semi trucks are already happening.

[sbaiddn]

I never argued that some researcher hasnt tried it out. I argued that electric ships and semis are not good solutions. Certainly not with the current grid.

The reason is straightforward, the grid has a certain thermal efficiency, one that ships basically match and semis approach.

[ZeroGravitas]

I'm not sure what specific grid you are talking about, but yeah, we should decarbonise our grids too. That's happening.

Almost certainly already better in most of the world, and anyway if you're building ship charging stations you can buy new renewable PPAs at the same time to supply power.

[adrianN]

The obvious assumption in an all-ev-future is that the grid is carbon neutral.

[sbaiddn]

Is that assumption viable?

[adrianN]

Of course it is.

[sbaiddn]

"Obvious assumption"

"Of course it is"

"Of course it is" is not science. It might pass muster in CS, but in engineering with heavy objects "of course it <>" is the mother of all f-ups.

[adrianN]

HN is not Science or Nature. There is no need to provide in-depth citations to counter shallow dismissals. The best I can offer is a "most experts agree that carbon neutral grids are both feasible and desirable".

[sbaiddn]

Funny thing about HN - until 6 months ago, I was working alongside them at the DOE and had been since 2008 or 2013 (depending if you include grad grants or not) developing electrochemical cells to significantly curtail CO2 emissions from the grid. I have said experts personal cell phone numbers.