- Joined
- Jul 1, 2024
- Messages
- 4,425
- Likes
- 23,022

The idea is to prevent FOREX outgo & curtail dependencies to the extent possible . We're entering extremely uncertain times.So, if the goal is to move away from fossil fuel, having to build new energy infrastructure based on fossil fuel to handle the new enormous load due to EV switch seems counter productive, especially since they'll be temporary. I don't think govts will go for it.
Why should the switch be temporary ?
No there are various classifications of hydrogen mfg not all of them equally polluting or expensive. Besides mfg of green hydrogen in an economic manner is being pursued with the cost dropping rapidly.Current production methods of hydrogen at scale require fossil fuels.
I began my previous post with the sentence - it's a trade off , between the various choices we have . We're already aiming for > 20 % ethanol blending when it is said to ruin a car's insides. That's the kind of mentality the present administration is exhibiting.
No I don't think those time scales are applicable. I'd go so far as to say by 2047 we should be > 90% EV as far as ALL kinds of automobiles go , if not 100% .I agree with you about the challenges not being insurmountable. I'm only disagreeing with the timeline. I give it 50-60 years more to relevancy of fossil fuel.