Electric cars are better for the environment, no matter the power source

I ended up getting a cheap petrol car instead. I’d still prefer to take the train, but it costs several times more than the petrol.

EV reduces really a lot of moving and maintenance heavy parts, it is a game changer on its own. Double complexity and cram both into half the space, making maintainability even worse? I'm not sure, if use case allows would always choose EV by large margin now; we can manage (mostly) everything, but all has tradeoffs, and less complexity always better from lot of perspectives.

(Totally aside, almost every manufacture has both approaches available, not?)

There a very good reasons other than environmental to free ourselves from the oil scourge.

Maybe increased density is relevant for some US cities, but European ones should definitely lower their density considerably. Most European cities are dead zones for anything but rats and pigeons, and people fare similarly badly.

There are many places in the Midwestern US where there will never be density and the people there don't want it. In those places, people drive everywhere. Shouldn't we try and make their transportation less damaging to the environment? Public transportation isn't practical there due to the size of the area and the lack of density (which won't change).

It's easier to give people better tools than it is to try and change how they live their entire lives.

We can and should do both. When density increases smaller electrical vehicles, some entirely charged by solar on their roof, become practical. They are much lighter, use a lot less resources than a standard car, travel somewhat slower and generally ameliorate car problems, while being just as practical: usable in all weather, having cargo carrying capacity. Bikes and walking will always have these sorts of limitations.

Whether you look at manufacturing, sourcing of battery materials (which get recycled), energy production needed to power the vehicles, it all boils down to EVs being far better than gas powered vehicles.

Why is that? Kwh for kwh, EVs are just far more frugal with the energy. Petrol contains lots of energy, most of that is converted into vibrations, heat, noise, etc. And a little of it propels the vehicle forward. EVs produce a bit of heat, very little noise (tire friction mostly), and convert most of their power into forward motion and can actually recover some of the energy when you slow down through regenerative breaking.

Even if you use brown coal, which is a nasty fuel, to power an electricity plant, about half of it turns into energy and most of that ends up being used for useful things by the car. It gets more miles per kwh worth of CO2 emitted relative to ice vehicles. If you add the emissions needed to produce the vehicle (which you'd also have to do for an ICE car), it boils down to any difference being eliminated by this within 1 or 2 years of the vehicle hitting the road. Even if it is a bit more co2 emissions to produce the vehicle (which is debatable), the difference is wiped out early in the life of the vehicle by it just being more efficient. After that every year the vehicle manages to not break down, which as it turns out is mostly quite long, it just gets better.

Why is this important? One of the many myths that people keep rehashing, is that EVs are more polluting than gas guzzlers. This article attempts to rectify that. Of course, there's a lot of good work being done in the EV industry to improve things further. Cheaper batteries with less exotic metals, more efficient motors without rare earths, recycled materials, using renewables to power rapid chargers, etc. But even without all that, EVs are already cleaner.

How we get there will be a combination of public transit, elecctric transportation, shared vehicles, and bicycles.

But the US has more than 278 million vehicles on the road and trucks are the most popular type of vehicle.[1]

The change to a zero-emission strategy will take more than one generational cycle.[2]

[1] _ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-s...

[2] _ https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/tailpipe-greenhouse-gas-em...

Most recent EVs have warranties of eight years or 100,000 miles. Reason: manufacturers know it is extremely unlikely for any issues to emerge with the drive train during this time. Tesla was talking about the million mile battery during battery day a few years ago. A bit over 3000 cycles would get you there. It's a very realistic target.

What that means practically is that the drive train survives the car typically.

This seems like it would be the extreme end of rural living in the US, but certainly some people live in those places. And yes obviously the EV range would not work that well for them currently...but what is the point of calling this out?

Basically, your current situation is that what you are spending on fuel and repairs to keep your old car going would probably add up to a nice second hand EV pretty quickly. Also, I hope you don't get any medical emergencies and have to rely on a 17 year old car being able to drive 200 miles (which is a big ask). And if it breaks down, it indeed can get expensive. It's a good reason to not go on long journeys with cars that old. That and the fact that the fuel efficiency is pretty terrible for such cars generally.

You should be able to get a nice second hand EV for around 15K. It won't be the latest and greatest but you might find e.g. an old Nissan Leaf or something similar for that kind of money. You might reasonably expect to spend a lot less on fuel and repairs than you currently are. Do the math, I would suggest. Don't get too hung up on the range either. If you really do that 200 mile journey a lot with your 17 year old car, you are a brave man. More likely is that you rarely do that and given that you are so cost conscience about getting something better, your time is pretty cheap too meaning that a charging stop on your rare longer journeys shouldn't be the end of the world for you either. It all boils down to how much that is worth to you.

The past 250 years of innovation are a direct consequence of not really minding about how we use our natural resources and most of the associated externalities. There's still no sign of any meaningful decoupling, fossil fuels consumption keeps increasing. We had a chance with nuclear maybe and mostly blew it.

China is now manufacturing EVs with sodium ion batteries instead of lithium ion. What is the difference between CO2 between lithium ion and sodium ion batteries?

As opposed to the not-ecological disaster of ICE cars?

The perfect is the enemy of the good: as long as we're stuck with cars (at least in short- or medium-term), let's perhaps consider the less sucky option.

1. The old batteries are ripped apart into their individual 18650 batteries, tested and then repurposed into lower capacity/charge/discharge powerwalls and other uses.

2. There is a commercial company buying the second hand batteries and racking them for grid storage.

3. The lithium is being recycled for the batteries that have lost too much or shorted because its commercially viable to do so.

Batteries are immensely valuable now and getting more so as is the material and there is a economic value in their reuse and recycling and that is happening at enormous scale.