I tried to explain once that the "zero emission" label on the Nissan Leaf is misleading because building a car makes emissions.
I do think electric car are a good solution where developing public transports would have a higher (environmental) cost, but building cars pollutes.
I don't know why anyone would ever think the "zero emissions" label applies to the manufacture of the car. *obviously" it only means the car doesn't emit anything when moving, that's what it's about.
When it snows, do you notice that slush turns black? Much of that is shredded tires; that ends up polluting our waterways or (hopefully) burdening water purification plants.
If something has zero emissions, but it's not a BEV, then maybe you should say what and why the correct definition excludes BEVs.
- partial zero emissions vehicles
- transitional zero emissions vehicles (plug-in hybrids)
- advanced technology partial zero emissions vehicles
All of these have tailpipes!
To the extent that "zero emissions" does mean "no tailpipe" it's pretty straightforward and reasonable.
Yes, that's the ideal: don't claim that you've achieved the impossible. I don't want to see folks marketing "perpetual motion" machines for the same reason.
For a detailed comparison:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhau...
Seems fair to call these vehicles "zero exhaust." Electric rail vehicles have extremely low emissions -- if the rails and wheels are carbon steel without added heavy metals, then the direct emissions are relatively benign. Maglev vehicles are even better -- but even so, there's friction with air, moving parts such as doors and lynch pins. Still not zero.
But I stand by my previous comment - you can't treat a phrase or term as meaningless just because you refuse to acknowledge the context.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents...
So in my opinion, this is where the context is being misapplied - you want the CARB terminology to match the EPA. Neither one was handed down on stone tablets though.
Teslas even if they are designed with the best intentions will have these problems. And there's always the possibility they won't last near as long, because they're basically expensive iPhones and sold to people are simply not the sort who drive Corollas.
Also, it's likely that the batteries will get a second life as home energy storage when no one would want to keep the car running anymore.
I bet that with a Tesla, because it's electric and there's no dividing line in everyone's minds between systems, that it will fail according to the usual pattern with electronics, and the motor and batteries won't be isolated from that.
And assuming that BEVs are not the most environmental vehicles on the market doesn't mean that a gas guzzler truck is better.
My gut reaction (or prejudice, but I like mine better than yours) is that currently hybrids, plug-in or not, have the lowest total CO2 emissions. But we should all remember how often people claimed that cars like the Prius were worse for the environment and surely in this era of them being taxicabs, you have to retreat on that.
The simplest rule of thumb is, in my opinion, whether something is cheaper, unsubsidized. There may be externalities, but if you are unbiased, you cannot use special pleading to say thing A has externalities as if thing B doesn't (unless or until you have specific justification).
I'm also really sick of hearing that the Leaf or whatever is coal powered. I live in one of the largest states in the US, and virtually none of the electricity comes from coal. And everywhere, coal power is in a major decline due to market forces.
Just be honest.
About the hybrids, I personally think the same than Carlos Tavares, president of PSA, who said to the French government that hybrids are only a temporary solution because two motors systems is one too many for cost reasons, when batteries will become cheaper.
A BEV that meets essentially all of your needs in terms of range has to have a battery ten times the size (give or take) of a PHEV that runs on electricity for 80-90% of your travel.
No matter how good batteries get, ten times will always be ten times - the expense, the environmental impact, the weight, the charging time.
Think about ICE cars - at least in the US, people want tons of power that they rarely use - you can get a car with 300 hp, but most of the time you're not using 30 hp.
It is never going to be optimal to have a battery enough for all your travel any more than an ICE for the maximum performance you might want.
The rational transportation device of the future has a small battery, a small ICE, and a big electric motor.
But the point I am going to keep making until I hear a good counterargument is that this is independent of foreseeable technology advances in batteries. It doesn't matter how you get your kWh or what it costs, it's not good for anyone or anything to utilize ten times the amount.