Ok. I guess I just thought you still had to charge the cars with some form of power. But I understand now this is a very dumb thing to think. Thanks for being patient with my stupidity.

"Some form of power" != oil and gasoline.

> Thanks for being patient with my stupidity.

No problem.

So, just to be clear, if you are in some random place in the united states, the energy you will use to charge your car's battery is most likely to come from renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and very unlikely to come from oil/gasoline, natural gas, or coal?

And I should, in fact, feel stupid because this is an extremely apparent/obvious fact to actually smart people?

> So, just to be clear, if you are in some random place in the united states, the energy you will use to charge your car's battery is most likely to come from renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and very unlikely to come from oil/gasoline, natural gas, or coal?

Nobody in this chain of comments was concerned with most of this, so it hardly matters (to the discussion at hand) what I answer, or cite, or whatever. That's much of the problem with what you've been posting. All that was originally claimed was that broader EV deployment will tend to reduce petroleum use, so may be viewed as a threat by petroleum industry, which... I mean, yes, that's obvious. I would certainly find evidence to the contrary quite surprising.

> And I should, in fact, feel stupid because this is an extremely apparent/obvious fact to actually smart people?

No—because you keep trying to argue against the proposition you want to argue against, instead of the one that was actually advanced, which is why I've twice tried to redirect you back to the actual topic. The "but much electricity comes from burning fossil fuels!" observation isn't terribly interesting even when it isn't a non-sequitur, but given the topic at hand, which was narrowly about effects of EV deployment on the petroleum industry in particular, it's also being mis-applied.

We could get 100% of our electricity from coal, for instance, and the original claim might still be true. Technically, we could even get 100% of our electricity from petroleum, and it might still be true—though in that case I'd certainly allow that it wouldn't be obviously-true.

Ah! I see, I guess I read the original comment wrong. I read "oil and gas" too broadly, and as such I was off topic in my reply. I knew, that e.g., natural gas is used for energy extensively in the U.S., but I guess that wasn't the "gas" they were talking about. And either way, like you say, I would be wrong.

And further to your point (or maybe, reading between the lines of your point): its not like there is just one or two big nonrenewable energy companies that do petroleum, and coal, and natural gas, etc. We must understand how those are all competing for profits! And that while EVs might use coal, it doesn't mean their existence wont hurt the petroleum companies. Got it, and thank you :)