More answers to add to the others already given...
2. Mass evacuations by car are inherently inefficient, we should use public transport.
2. or... petrol supply requires transportation whereas electrical supply does not, the former does not seem inherently better than the latter.
2. or... it's as impractical for everyone to fill up their cars in an emergency as it is for everyone to charge their cars.
Honestly, I don't think petrol is any better here – we've just got more cases of this mostly working with petrol cars, and no examples either way yet for electric cars.
3. Oil refinement for an amount of petrol takes roughly as much energy as an electric car takes to go that distance, so we aren't just shifting oil -> electricity, we're actually doing (oil + electricity) -> electricity. This gives us an immediate and significant win on overall fossil fuel emissions even if electricity is entirely generated with fossil fuels.
3. Coal burning infrastructure is not in any way inextricably linked to the power to charge electric vehicles. Coal burning happens to be how much of the US/China gets its electricity for powering electric cars but the fact that solar power can be fed into the grid with no changes to anything else shows that the "inextricably" is false.
3. Coal burning happens to be used in some countries but in others, green energy production is far more available and there electric cars are much better for the environment.
> We need to realize that the motivation to deploy EVs too early is driven by profit rather than by motives in environmental protection and conservation of resources, then the really productive conversations can occur.
Companies are driven by profit, yes, however there are vast, immediate, benefits to the use of electric cars, as well as significant future benefits that can be realised as we transition off fossil fuels. Saying that EVs cannot be motivated by environmental benefits is disingenuous.
2. Mass evacuations by car are inherently inefficient, we should use public transport.
2. or... petrol supply requires transportation whereas electrical supply does not, the former does not seem inherently better than the latter.
2. or... it's as impractical for everyone to fill up their cars in an emergency as it is for everyone to charge their cars.
Honestly, I don't think petrol is any better here – we've just got more cases of this mostly working with petrol cars, and no examples either way yet for electric cars.
3. Oil refinement for an amount of petrol takes roughly as much energy as an electric car takes to go that distance, so we aren't just shifting oil -> electricity, we're actually doing (oil + electricity) -> electricity. This gives us an immediate and significant win on overall fossil fuel emissions even if electricity is entirely generated with fossil fuels.
3. Coal burning infrastructure is not in any way inextricably linked to the power to charge electric vehicles. Coal burning happens to be how much of the US/China gets its electricity for powering electric cars but the fact that solar power can be fed into the grid with no changes to anything else shows that the "inextricably" is false.
3. Coal burning happens to be used in some countries but in others, green energy production is far more available and there electric cars are much better for the environment.
> We need to realize that the motivation to deploy EVs too early is driven by profit rather than by motives in environmental protection and conservation of resources, then the really productive conversations can occur.
Companies are driven by profit, yes, however there are vast, immediate, benefits to the use of electric cars, as well as significant future benefits that can be realised as we transition off fossil fuels. Saying that EVs cannot be motivated by environmental benefits is disingenuous.