[stonogo]

I think EVs are the 80% solution. They're great in cities and in suburbs. If you regularly make longer trips, they're a massive pain in the ass, primarily due to the poor-quality charging infrastructure. There are vast swaths of America where someone is already trucking gasoline and diesel to fuel stations but there's no reliable expectation of charging infrastructure of any kind, much less high-quality charging. It's really frustrating to run into, for instance, trying to drive from Bozeman to Seattle. It's currently fashionable to ignore this problem, but it's one we're going to have to solve.

[nomel]

> 80% of the solution

In the US, only 39% of emissions are from fossil fuels used for transportation [1]. Where I am, around 60% of my EV power comes from natural gas plants that run at night, where electricity is 3.5x cheaper (electricity costs more than gas during peak hours where I am).

With the lack of new nuclear, and the required 25-50% increase in our power grid, a quick (as in 20 year) change in EV adoption would almost certainly mean that more of these natural plants come online when charging happens, negating at least some of the CO2 savings.

80% seems fictitious.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=307&t=10#:~:text=C....

[stonogo]

I apologize for being insufficiently specific. I wasn't talking about a solution to climate change in general, but a 'solution' to getting rid of internal-combustion personal transport. What I was trying to say that current EVs are suitable replacements for personally-owned internal combustion vehicles for about 80% of use cases.

[tcfhgj]

EVs aren't great in cities. Cycling and public transportation is