Point is that all that electricity doesn’t come from unicorn farts. Unless you want to build a bunch of nuclear plants or dam every river in America it’s going to come from burning fossil fuels. Considering loss, another fourth grade topic, in all those transformers and thousands of miles of transmission lines, all those electric cars will use MORE energy than just letting the end user burn it. Originally Posted by JacuzzmeThere is loss in any static production of either electricity or gas. Non use or evaporation, or loss during transmission happens with all of them. The thing about a power grid that is interconnected, is that it's monitored hourly, by the minute etc, and production can ebb and flow as needed and there is a relatively instant response to increased demand. Gasoline that requires a lot more manipulation like refining and transport has higher costs post production but can be more portable per gas filling stations. The cost of transferring a raw resource like oil to gasoline is more expensive than either running a coal or gas fired electric turbine.
So you can pick your poison when it's comes to ease of access vs. cheaper. Energy or potential to do work as stored potential is a better comparison. I'd say gasoline has a better stores potential but for only a finite amount of time, as does a battery. So in the end, EVs will likely be a better solution as battery technology evolves & gets better n better. All new technology costs more upfront but those costs will come down eventually too. Imagine having to not rely on gasoline as a daily staple expense and not being held hostage to capitalistic markets with high elasticity in pricing. There's only one reason ppl still use gasoline for cars, -lack of new technology and ingenuity, and oil companies influence in industry.
... And as far as Europe and
