Add to that that coal produces more considerably carbon dioxide per Kw of energy extracted than gasoline:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11
And that between 5-10% of electrical energy is lost in transmission
And more still in generation (three energy conversions: coal to heat, heat to kinetic, kinetic to electric)
and they start to look the same.
Yes, correct, but you are forgetting something,
the cost to get the oil from the ground to your car.. to produce a fuel, that is 70%wasted as heat via an exhaust pipe and engine block heating.
Coal,-- mined,---- transported------ burned---- electricity----car.
Oil, -- drilled,--- shipped,---- refined (using huge amounts of coal produced electricity)--- transported again---- stored---- pumped into car, 70% wasted as heat.
so, whats the carbon footprint comparison of both these process to get energy into a car?
so what will happen when all cars are taxed based on mileage travelled per year? and the old dinosaur powered cars are still taxed for the fuel they burn? will that be better? or will it still be unfair because, hydrocarbon burners pay even more tax?
and what about the Avgas taxes if this technology takes off..
http://hy4.org/zero-emission-air-tra...r-aircraft-hy4
but i can see where this is going, No point in reducing our carbon footprint, reducing not only greenhouse gasses, but pollution in general, cleaner air, all that greenie hippie crap, and a possible side effect of providing a reliable renewable energy source in times of energy grid fluctuations, because electric cars dont pay enough road tax via burning hydrocarbons... got it..