It's completely unsurprising that this commenter didn't successfully spell Hochul's name once.

> as if people who are worried about crimes perceive deaths by accidents with a rural equipment as the same as a deaths by a random subway shoving.

I guarantee you the victims of these events percieve them the same way.

Power plants have been around even longer, and the fact that they don't have to be built to be mobile, lightweight, and cheap enough for an individual to buy means that all the effort went into improving efficiency and cost per watt. If you don't need to worry about the weigh of hauling around water, you can use your gas turbine's waste heat to run a steam turbine. And you can run at much higher temperatures than if you were running in a car, since you're now water cooled, and investing more into a single turbine.

In the dirtiest case -- a combined-cycle power plant. Those gets between 50% and 60% of the available chemical energy in the fuel, which gets reasonably close to the peak theoretical efficiency of the Carnot cycle.

The average internal combustion engine gets less than half that. High efficiency diesel gets close, but still falls short.

So, in the best case for gas vehicles, on the highway, an electric vehicle uses fossil fuels somewhere about twice as efficiently as a gas car. On top of that, an electric vehicle recharges its batteries when it brakes, and spends no energy when idling, which is important for city traffic, and (for buses) when stopping frequently at stops.

Counting the full life cycle of an electric vehicle, including recycling the batteries, they're between 30% and 50% more efficient.

On top of that, a power plant has room for larger and more effective air scrubbers, and ejects whatever pollution those miss relatively far away from major population centers, improving air quality.

And, now that it's becoming cheaper to build new solar plants than to keep existing coal plants running, electric vehicles get cleaner with no additional work over time, while gas keeps spewing fumes near the places that people live.

They've got a 300 to 500k mile life expectancy, which is about the lifetime of the whole car.

They last significantly longer than a tank of gas, and can recycle pretty effectively (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/recycled-lithium-ion-batteries-can-perform-better-than-new-ones/). Over the lifetime of the battery, it's a net win.

At charging stations, and we'll save money over fuel costs.

Sure.

So, first off, you're familiar with the concept of a heat engine?

Power plants running on steam turbines and internal combustion engines are both heat engines. A power plant running on fossil fuel is typically running on a combined cycle, which runs the combustion gasses through a Brayton Cycle. The exhaust heats water, and runs the steam through a Rankine cycle as the bottoming cycle. This reclaims energy that would be wasted from the Brayton cycle's exhaust. The efficiency of the Brayton cycle is related to the pressure ratios at the inlet and outlet of the turbine, and the efficiency of the Rankine cycle is related to the heat flow across the turbine.

An internal combustion is running on the Otto cycle. The efficiency of the Otto cycle is related to the compression ratio of the engine.

A single stationary large turbine can not only be constructed strongly enough to handle much higher pressures at the inlet than would be practical in a moving vehicle, and handle much higher temperatures and pressures of superheated steam. It's possible to effectively put two engines together teaming up on the same power source if space and weight is less of a constraint. Furthermore, fuel can be burned in larger, more efficient furnaces outside the engine, with fewer moving parts, and at higher temperatures. That also allows bumping up the variables that control the efficiency of the two processes. Because the engines aren't moving, there's no concern about the weight of the water used for the steam which powers the Rankine cycle or boosting the efficiency of the Brayton cycle by reducing the exhaust temperature, and thus pressure, at the output.

Combined together, these two cycles get pretty close to the maximum theoretical efficiency you'd get from a Carnot cycle.

At compression ratios that are practical to engineer, an internal combustion engine simply can't compete.

A modern high temperature combined-cycle power plant gets between 50% and 60% of the available chemical energy in the fuel. An electric motor is about 90% efficient in its typical operating regime.

The average internal combustion engine gets less than half that. High efficiency diesel gets close, but still falls short.

This means that even on dirty energy, a large scale power plant charging an electric vehicle is more effective at extracting energy from fossil fuels.

That's in the ideal case, on the highway. On top of that, an electric vehicle recharges its batteries when it brakes, and spends no energy when idling, which is important for city traffic, and (for buses) when stopping frequently at stops.

And unlike diesel, as we reduce the reliance on fossil fuels for power generation, the amount of pollution in the air reduces with electric vehicles, air quality increases for everyone, and quality of life increases.

> How will the electricity generated to power these electric school busses?

Even a coal or oil plant is much more efficient at producing energy to charge batteries than small engines on busses, due to economies of scale (and thermodynamics).