There are already plans in various places to equip highways with overhead wires that will allow trucks to operate like trams for the duration.

Never mind that diesel engines, used in most heavy machinery, is not as picky about its fuel as a gasoline engine is. As long as it goes bang under pressure, a diesel engine can potentially run on it. what is not needed is to electrify anything, but that CO2 in vs CO2 out sums to zero (or a lot damn closer to it than it currently does).

Electrifying all of the highways and roads trucks drive on would basically be building an entire grid again. That doesn't really fall under the technically feasible category.

We literally did it once. That kind of proves it is feasible.

Indeed. Shipping was left out of the Paris agreement but that's a mistake see http://oecdinsights.org/2016/05/04/carbon-emissions-all-at-s... here

Interesting historial fact: the reason the USA was able to engage the Japanese relatively quick after Pearl Harbor is because the shit bunker fuel ships use doesn't burn easily at all so the ship fuel reserves were left intact.

By my accounting it comes out to 1.7-1.8% of global CO2 and even that article says it's ~3%. That's pretty negligible in the scheme of things

> There are no electric replacements...

There will be soon enough. And even if there was no way to match liquid hydrocarbon fuels for some applications then we just need to make those fuels from renewable sources.

The parent did say "That is like half."

Electrical emissions are more like 30% according to this[1]. Transportation is another 27%, electrifying half of that would get us close to like half.

We're a long way from any of that, but maybe it's technically feasible with what we have now.

1. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Trucking can easily be electrified and the majority of transport related co2 including airplanes, trains, and cargo ships is from personal light road vehicles. Cargo ships are less than 2%, trains are less than 1%. Airplanes are around 7%. Around 30% is trucking. Construction vehicles are all electric/hydraulic already but more importantly are an insignificant source of co2.

Long distance semi tractors drive 500-800 miles a day. That doesnt require a huge battery.

>Long distance semi tractors drive 500-800 miles a day. That doesnt require a huge battery.

You're joking right? Do you realize how much weight they tow compared to the weight of a Tesla? On top of that most of the Tesla weight is the battery itself.

Battery powered semis for long haul is absolutely not a solution.

see my actual math on the subject: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/4u0yci/why_i_w...

>On top of that most of the Tesla weight is the battery itself.

That is very, very wrong. According to wikipedia the Model S' battery weighs 540 kg, while the car weighs 2,200 kg.

Those wouldn't need electricity, however, if you decide to run them off of some kind of renewable bio-fuel or even just natural gas from renewable sources. The main thing is to switch them off of fossil fuels ASAP, then you can move from there to whatever future tech comes along later.

large cargo vessels can easily be powered by nuclear reactors, just like aircraft carriers and submarines already are.