1.5 years to have spent less on gas compared to electricity is what I assume you're saying... YOU get paid back for getting a car marked down by government programs that make the car cost less than it should and in exchange you have a vehicle that will be last a lot less because the batteries can't be affordably replaced.
I question that assertion as most of the math that I've seen behind those equations gloss over the creation of "green" tech (battery creation is not green. megatons of windmill blades in landfills is not green. unrecyclable stuff, etc). It also glosses over the long tail problems (recycling, or to be more accurate the lack of).
I'm not buying that assertion because it's pointing at a tree and ignoring the forest of problems. Its a rosy glass tinted answer designed to ignore the greater conversation.
No, for pollution. You spend less than on gas on day one, and your car doesn’t stink to boot. Gas cars stink and cost more. You can get a Model 3 for less than a Corolla now.
>less on gas compared to electricity
I think you had a typo there, it is backwards.
Cars are recycled all the time. Nothing new there. If you’re thinking of batteries, one, they don’t need to be replaced for hundreds of thousands of miles, and two, it is affordable, and, for recycling of materials in batteries, JB Straubel who used to be an executive at Tesla has a startup that is solving that problem cold. A lithium battery is one of the richest sources of lithium out there; there’s no way they would not be recycled now that we have scale.
"its backwards" Probably but we both got the idea I was pushing - which I stand behind. The cost in electricity vs gas does tilt towards electricity but that excludes the cost creating and the lack of recycling options.
"recycling happens all the time" Sure for some stuff... but electronics are not in a good spot on recycling.
Batteries are expensive. Insurance is expensive. Getting materials is expensive (and destructive). Recycling electronics and batteries is expensive (and thus filling up landfills).
I'm sorry but at the end of the day? The "solution" of green tech is no solution so far. It's simply promises and ignoring the problems because gas "stinks".
"Shit is real" my above statement is real as are the problems with "green".
I question that assertion as most of the math that I've seen behind those equations gloss over the creation of "green" tech (battery creation is not green. megatons of windmill blades in landfills is not green. unrecyclable stuff, etc). It also glosses over the long tail problems (recycling, or to be more accurate the lack of).
I'm not buying that assertion because it's pointing at a tree and ignoring the forest of problems. Its a rosy glass tinted answer designed to ignore the greater conversation.