I would be curious of how much coal is burned for each mile one of these cars drive, and how much CO2 is produced by the coal burned per mile driven.
It’s got to be way more than gasoline being burned directly inside the engine.
Anyone have an idea on these figures?
As a rule of thumb the most honest figure is the price. If the total cost of ownership of product A is higher than comparable product B, one way or another product A consumes more resources and emits more pollution. Other figures are hopelessly tainted by political agendas.
I don't have figures, but generally:
A big loss of efficiency is burning coal to produce steam and a lot of the energy goes up the stack.
Another loss is that most of the energy from burning gasoline in the cylinder is wasted as heat that goes out the tailpipe and radiator. The electricity in the battery of the electric car that drives the wheels is close to total efficiency.
Also from a cost point of view, coal and natural gas have lower capital costs but higher operating costs from the cost of the coal and nat gas. Wind and solar have much higher capital costs and much lower operating costs because the sunlight and wind cost nothing except for the royalty or rent to the land owner. Which is why the subsidies on wind and solar are timed to match the depreciation schedule.
The fallacy of this article is that no one is trying to convert the US fleet to electric. The manufacturers are trying to sell enough of them to pay for the R&D costs and stay up with new technology so that in 2035 or 2050 when the CAFE stds start getting up there they have the technology. In the meantime they can sell these electric cars as a form of "conspicuous consumption" or as a way of selling batteries.
Like wise, when we get to 2035 and 2050, coal fired generating capacity will be much lower(15%-20%?)than today