I’ll wait for the affordable 500 mile EV range car. And an entire network of FAST chargers country wide in every town and burg in TX.
Those scoring at home, take note: I agree with telegraph.
An EV would be fine for my putzing around town. But I take day trips in the summer. Muskegon is a 372 mile round trip. Auburn is 306 miles. South Bend is 370. Add in current drain for a/c, stereo, and, on the return leg if in September, headlights for the last 2 hours of the return trip.
If they could invent an EV that could recharge as fast as I can throw gas in the car, I would be fine. If each destination in those cities had charges, so I could recharge while exploring the destination, that would help, but none have chargers at present.
We have explored this issue several times. The problem is that liquid hydrocarbons are so well suited to transportation applications: energy dense and easily handled. Decreeing transportation as the first field to be made carbon free doesn’t make sense to me, because that is the hardest transition to make. It’s almost as if the program to reduce carbon emissions is being set up to fail.
I think I have offered before, if the objective is to reduce carbon emissions, they should convert the stationary sources first. Commercial and residential heating produces 13% of GHG emissions, industry contributes 24%, power generation contributes 25% and agriculture contributes 11%. Address power generation, and commercial and residential heating, and you reduce GHG emissions more than you would by eliminating all transportation sources, which account for 27%, and the conversion could leverage available, mature, technologies.
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis…
Steve