Sometimes I wonder if people with your opinion are purposefully ignoring the fact that the grid's power composition is easier to change than the car fleet's. Isn't it obvious to you that decoupling the cars from direct fossil fuel usage is a necessary step, even though the grid might not yet be perfect?

What makes you think the GP doesn't fully understand this?

Put another way, the GP comment is a pretty damning comment about the failure of lawmakers to pass laws modernizing the electric grid. It doesn't really matter much if the fuel used to produce all of this electric energy happens to be worse and more destructive to the environment than gasoline.

When people refuse to have intellectually honest conversations about this, it dramatically undermines the stated objective and gives detractors legitimate evidence of bad faith dialog.

Electrification is a necessary condition to overall improvement. Without electrification of most all sectors, it's the same as having an economy without money, only barter.

Improving the grid's mix is also very important, of course, but it's something that can be done in parallel or lagging of electrification. Improvements to the grid are amplified by electrification. When everything is electric, there's only one thing to focus on and it becomes electricity generation. But without this, improvements to the grid are much less impactful.

Also it's to be noted that grid scale non-renewable power plants are orders of magnitude more efficient than the same power sources at household scale.

That somewhere some government replaced wind with coal doesn't change this.

The article posted above can also be seen via a proxy here: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Feuobserver.com%2Fgreen... - the point being, there is a throwback in the quality of energy production, in fact right the anedoctal example is a wind farming taking damage in order to expand the dirtiest type of coal (Lignite contains 25%–35% carbon and has the lowest energy content of all coal ranks.)

The most outraging piece to me, is the that in large part the push against modern safer nuclear energy production (that could have mitigated this situation) comes from the Green Party. All mentioned so far comes off political nature, so if your point is the grid is easier to change... i haven't seen a single fact pointing in that way.

There is also the engineering appreciation for reducing energy loss vs. pollution it creates; which low quality coal -> high voltage transmission -> EV is an insanely ineffective method all along. Any EV being charged by coal is a pathetic attempt of green wash.

That is a valid point, but is there a reason to not change the grid first? As it stands the EV campaign slogan of "environmentally friendly" is missing a "... eventually".

Better to charge where the fossil fuel is consumed at higher efficiency than an ICE