Electrification will only reduce CO2 emissions if the power SOURCES are also carbon free. Since wind and solar are still a VERY small amount of the grid, and are very expensive without subsidies, the only real alternative is nuclear reactors. Lots of them.

In some jurisdictions. I live in Ontario, Canada, where last year we ran on: 61% nuclear, 24% hydroelectric, 9% oil / gas, 6% wind, <1% biofuel, <1% solar. That is, about 90% of our electricity was carbon-neutral.

(Source: http://www.ieso.ca/en/power-data/supply-overview/transmissio... )

By focusing the consumer side on standardizing on electricity for power distribution and storage, instead of gasoline, it centralizes the problem. It puts the onus on governments and power generators to reduce their carbon output, instead of every individual.

To be pedantic, it's possible to reduce carbon by using more efficient electrical processes even if you use the same fossil source e.g. burning gas to heat a home can be nearly 100% efficient, but electric heat-pumps can be up to 500% efficient which is still a positive if you burn the gas to generate electricity.

Also, I'm not sure why it's a popular semi-contrarian position to support new nuclear, it's it's simply cheaper to pursue other options like wind and solar and demand response etc.

1.) In the US, all energy is subsidized by the federal government, including nuclear. Oil is the most highly subsidized, nuclear is one of the lowest, but solar, wind, and geothermal are even lower. The number quoted for 'renewable energy' subsidies is about equal with the nuclear subsidies, but per page 23 in [0] this includes:

Alcohol Fuel Credit Tax Policy of 1984

Renewable Transportation Fuels and Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Tax Policy of 2006

Ethanol subsidies which do not benefit solar and wind.

[0]: http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

2.) Burning petroleum in your car is less efficient than burning petroleum in a commercial power plant and using the power plant's output to perform mechanical work. To find the efficiency of a power plant, you divide the operating heat rate in BTUs by the BTUs in 1 kWh (3412) - so, the average petroleum plant at 10687 is 31.9% efficient (the remainder is waste heat). One gallon of gasoline = 116,090 BTUs [2], so a perfectly efficient gasoline ICE would get 34 kWh per gallon, but the EPA uses a metric of 33.7 kWh per gallon, so I will too [3]. Per the same source, the Nissan Leaf gets 99 MPGe - or, it takes it .34 kWh to travel one mile.

[1]: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html

[2]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm/index.cfm?page...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equi...

> Oil is the most highly subsidized, nuclear is one of the lowest, but solar, wind, and geothermal are even lower.

Really? How much would nuclear cost if it had to pay for insurance for the full possible cost of a nuclear accident?

I don't know, cost of disaster recovery isn't in the analyses I've read. For nuclear power the failure modes for different fuels and generations is different, so any analysis would need to take that into account. If you find something would you please post it?

Yes, I agree, and we are getting there - albeit too slowly, but a few more flooded places in the USA/China will up the ante and drive to change.

That's not really worthy of an article, that's common sense. Everyone knows that there are a hundred different ways to fix climate change, but none of them are feasible or cost effective. A few advocates love for nature doesn't make the business decisions, the love for money by the CEOs of company's behind the biggest sources of pollution do.

That's like saying "properly use indexes in SQL databases to fix performance problems" shouldn't be an article because it's obvious.

The devil (or god depending on who you ask) is in the details. We don't get into the details without a lot of discussion.

Your views on electification feasibility sound archaic and uselessly pessimistic. Try out an EV today. They accelerate & decelerate faster, usually handle better and are lower maintenance and charge/fuel cost. Today is the swan song of ICE cars.

I think its important to remember that what people with a science or technical background consider common sense, others consider domain knowledge they either don't have or might not be able to comprehend.

You have to consider your audience, and assume you need to build context from the foundation up.