[skolsuper]

And maybe as the type of generation used for the marginal difference in energy required. If your country generates 90% of its electricity from hydroelectric and 10% from coal, you might still use coal for the comparison because hydroelectric power would be slow to add and the extra electricity for EVs would have to provided by coal

[derriz]

Assuming that it's more likely that marginal demand will be met by coal than by renewables makes no sense to me.

Coal is rapidly been retired as a source of electricity generation - 85% of generation capacity being retired in 2022 will be coal[1] - and there hasn't been a new large coal plant built in the US for over a decade[2]. In Europe the amount of electricity being generated by coal is half of what it was at its peak.

Meanwhile, renewables now make up about a 87% share of new electricity generation capacity in the the US[3]. Europe is similar.

Pricing the CO2 emissions cost of an EV using the dirtiest and fastest declining electricity source (coal) does not seem fair or honest to me.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50838

[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-the-u-s-ever...

[3] https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/renewables-are-87...

[skolsuper]

Still... if you plan to add 100MW of renewable this year and retire 100MW of coal, then demand goes up by 100MW, do you now add 200MW of renewable instead, or do you delay the retiring of the 100MW of coal?

[erosenbe0]

This is an important point. I live in Illinois which is over 60% carbonless mainly through aging nuclear investments. It would be naively optimistic to suggest that marginal demand will be only 40% fossil fuel since the nuclear will not be replaced.