Originally Posted by SouthArk370Z

Generating the electricity is technically fairly easy to do using nuclear -

Again, I have worked in both fossil a nuclear power plants. The complexity of what is required to safely convert nuclear energy into electrical energy versus the complexity of what is required to convert fossil-fuel energy into electrical energy is astronomical. IMO, nuclear is light years from "fairly easy".

but the NIMBY crowd will probably continue to make it difficult/impossible to construct new capacity.
Transmission, on the other hand, is a big problem. Many parts of the grid - especially those parts around major metropolitan areas, were EVs would do the most good - are already operating above design capacity.


While electric heat would definitely decrease range, newer batteries have an incredible amount of storage capacity. In really cold areas, LPG (readily available, reasonably cheap, as safe to store/carry as gasoline) heating could be used.


A central plant is more efficient and cleaner than distributed generation. If for no other reason than maintenance on the pollution control systems - the plants are constantly monitored and adjustments/repairs made when needed.
I'm not exactly sure what you men by "central plant", but if you mean a nuclear or natural gas power plant right smack dab in the center of a city, or smaller plants in say every neighborhood of a large city, the political and technical problems go up substantially, especially for nuclear.

IMO, with efficiency losses in production and transmission, as well as the acknowledged need for heated vehicles, it makes good economic sense to burn the natural gas right in a vehicle's internal combustion engine, just as one can do this very day, albeit with some serious motivation. The problems with electrical transmission go bye bye, too.

But you run into the transmission problems mentioned above.

Ie, neither solution is better.


All those alternatives come at a price. Wind takes up a lot of space and produces a lot of noise. The areas where there is enough wind on a regular basis are very limited. Solar panel production is very "dirty" and disposal of panels that run their life span (or are broken) will be a problem.


As far as I can tell, the only real, long-term solution is to reduce the demand for energy in all forms. More generation is, at best, a stop-gap measure.

Agree 100%. The easiest way to accomplish this is encouraging people to have fewer children. The problem is that whatever you want to call the present economic system of very few people owning the vast majority of wealth requires a rapidly-growing population. In the present system, the problems of a stable or shrinking population are literally unsolvable (as we will once again soon see when the next president suddenly marches out in front of the cameras and declares yet another financial crisis that yet again requires unprecedented central bank actions along with the abolishment of cash).