> to the coal fired power plant that generates the electricity.
Aah yes, this old canard- it's just not true.
EV's are well over twice as energy efficient as ICE cars. So what that means is that, to travel the same distance with an equavalent mass car - even on coal an EV will produce about HALF as much CO2 as the ICE car does.
Maybe I have been watching too much DS9?
Have you been doing that a lot since you became very laid back?
Hey now, be fair to the Canadians. They all have at least 3 beavers too.
So once every 2 month ?
It would make more economic sense then to drive an EV for day-to-day stuff and rent an ICE car for those bimonthly trips.
Is your car a De'Lorean ? If so, is it powered by plutonium ?
All that's doing is making the market actually free. A gas powered vehicle imposes huge costs on your neighbours, and the next town over, and the next country over and ultimately - the country on other side of the world.
Letting 7 billion people subsidize the bulk of the cost of your decision to drive one distorts the market and makes the gas car look far cheaper than it really is. What these things do is to internalize these formerly externalised costs - so if you make that choice, you have to pay a price commensurate with the real cost.
The EV's then tend to win is simply proof that they have, in fact, been cheaper all along.
You can't complain that the loss of a subsidy (especially one as unplanned and unintentional as an externality) is a distortion of the market. Correcting for externalities makes the market MORE free.
Quebec electrons only speak French and will flat-out refuse to enter an English-labelled battery.
Good luck doing that with president pussy-grabber and the austerity cowboys setting the budget. In fact, hope and pray that it isn't attempted until the next one takes office - the LAST thing you want is moonlanding attempt being directed by somebody who couldn't figure out how to make money out of a casino !
And convenient ignorance of time-dilation.
A ship that can travel at half the speed of light can reach Proxima Century in just 8 years. But for the guy piloting it - it would take what ? About 3 months ?
Why should near-light-speed NOT be good enough for colonization ? I can see the complaint about it for a small craft with a few people. Nobody wants to go visit somewhere and come back to find everyone they knew has been dead for thousands of years, empires have risen and fallen and there is no recognizable "home" to come to. Especially when, for them, just a few years have passed.
But for a colony - why not ? You are taking people with you, you're taking your family, you aren't planning to ever come back. Who cares if ten-thousand years pass on earth during your 20 year journey ?
Your code should be more efficient!