0
1

[–] Germ22 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Power plants need fuel to burn as well that need to be mined and depending on the fuel refined. And power plants are not much more efficiant.
Typical thermal efficiency for utility-scale electrical generators is around 33% for coal and oil-fired plants, and 56 – 60% (LEV) for combined-cycle gas-fired plants. Plants designed to achieve peak efficiency while operating at capacity will be less efficient when operating off-design (i.e. temperatures too low.) source
Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25% to 50% when used to power a car. source
Over all electric vehicles just shift the fossil fuel consumption from one place to another.

0
1

[–] Womb_Raider 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

This argument neglects the non-burning methods of harvesting electricity: hydro and aero-powered kinetic turbines. In theory, with enough of them, we could stop relying on oil and coal. But the infrastructure cost would be incredible, and wind turbines would be littering the view everywhere. But in theory, we could do it.

0
0

[–] Germ22 ago 

Wind power is not a good alternative. Every wind turbine needs some sort of back up power plant for when there is to much or to little wind. and conventional power plants can't just turn on and off, even at low idle, a fuel burning powerplant burns almost the same amount of fuel as if under full power.
Also wind turbines don't produce enough energy in their life time to make enough power to refine the metals needed for their production. The tower itself is something like 200 tons of steel. It's been a while since i did the research on it, but i think a modern wind turbine needs to run for 50 years to produce enough energy to make up the energy it took to built. But their life span is usually only rated at around 25 years.
hydro dams are great.
Nuclear power plants in my opinion are the best way foreward. No need to use uranium as fuel, there are other options.