An EV is much heavier, thus you need more energy to move it. But I think in total it should still be a net win for EVs.

But the real problem is that we move 2000+ kgs around to move a human of 80 kgs around. EVs don't fix that. EVs are mostly to save the car industry, the solution is to drive less by creating a society where people don't need to own a car and drive everywhere.

> An EV is much heavier

The most popular EVs in the US are roughly 0-10% heavier than the comparable ICEV. Yes, some EVs are much heavier.

US already have insanely big cars, though. So very different than in other markets.

what vehicles are you using for this comparison? I was surprised to see that a base model 3 weighs in the same ballpark as a 330i. however, a model s weighs >500 lbs more than a 540i, and there doesn't seem to be anything in the corolla size class that's even close to 3000 lbs.

I suspect that if this is true, it's only because the most popular cars in the US are so large that the battery weight doesn't matter as much.

> But the real problem is that we move 2000+ kgs around to move a human of 80 kgs around.

Why is that a problem? If I want to visit my friend who lives 200 miles away, I'm not going to hop on a bike, or walk, or find a horse and buggie to take me there. Vehicles are not inherently evil. In fact they're a great enabler. Even if we take your example at face value and assume nobody travels beyond their city. How is that person who needs a wheelchair to get from point A to point B going to go a mile or two to the grocery store and get their groceries home?

The problem with cars is their carbon footprint, and EVs go a long way to solving that.

How often do you travel those 200 miles? Why can't you use a car share service for that one occasion? I'm not assuming people never travels beyond their city.

Why do car enablers always use people needing a wheelchair to push their agenda? If you're so concerned with their well being, wouldn't it be better if they got the roads for themselves and didn't get stuck in traffic and could always find parking close?

Or if they didn't need a car to travel miles to a grocery store but it was next door instead?

And no, the problems with cars are much greater than their carbon footprint. What about their area footprint for parking? The insane land used for roads? All the deaths? The pollution and micro plastics from their wheels? How children can't play outside in streets? How the streets instead of a nice neighborhood is just traffic? The noise?

And no, EVs doesn't solve much about the carbon footprint, not unless the energy is all green. It just moves it around.

Funnily enough cars suck for people with wheelchairs compared to a specialty designed EV. Mostly due to the doors, lack of a ramp, misplaced steering column and an unnecessary chair.

Turning a wheelchair into a speedy electric vehicle is quite easy if not cheap. It's one wheel removed from an electric recumbent trike.

Exactly!

As can probably be gleaned from my posts here, I'm an activist working for better cycling and human transportation in how we do urban planning.

And one thing I often see, at least locally, is how those using a wheelchair or other amenities want better pedestrian infrastructure (or cycling infrastructure). Not car infrastructure. Many don't have the ability to drive, or the money for a special car. But a motorized tricycle, or an electric wheelchair using bicycle ramps works great.

the wheelchair argument is bs, I agree. every family does not need to have a car for the small fraction of wheelchair users to get to the store.

however, you are not going to connect with your audience when you say things like this:

> How often do you travel those 200 miles? Why can't you use a car share service for that one occasion? I'm not assuming people never travels beyond their city.

cars are not fungible. the driver's seat in my car is always in the right position for me, I'm familiar with all of its controls and weird quirks, and I don't need to reserve it. it's always ready for me in my garage at a moment's notice.

my point is: the only real advantage to your proposal is cost, and I would be willing to pay a lot more than I currently do to keep my car. it would take something more like Japan's train network for me to actually be enthusiastic about giving up my car.

But that is kinda my point, with how society is right now of course people want to keep their cars. I'm not talking about banning them. I want society to move in a direction where it's easier to not own a car, so people voluntarily prefer not to have their own.

I agree will all of the above points but the last is not really true, there is a concerted and clear agenda across the board to transition everything to electric and then use mostly wind and solar to power the grid (with already available solutions for energy storage due to fluctuations in wind/sun).

I don't see a lot of people really pushing for others to fundamentally change their habits and lifestyle (even getting people to eat less red meat is incredibly hard) and I think that's just because it's fundamentally harder to convince a large number of people to change their habits vs. a small number of dedicated people working towards green energy.

We should strive for both of these things together and share the same goal.

2000kg+ EVs still have substantial lifecycle carbon footprints even if their local emissions are much lower than a gasoline car. They are certainly useful for 200 mile trips, especially with a group of people, with well-developed road networks & underdeveloped transit networks, but the relative development/utility of different transport networks is a political choice. And 200 mile trips are a small percentage of trips — most are short & local (with the specific radius of local generally depending on a locale's land use regulations).

EV lifecycle carbon footprints are much lower than a gasoline car's.

And even if it were (I suppose a very clean natural gas car vs the worst coal plant ever made) the electric still has the advantage of regenerating braking.

Driving overland will not recover much breaking energy. That is only an advantage of EVs under town traffic conditions, where cheap efficient public transportation is the better solution.

It's not, GP is wrong and making a deceptive argument.

The energy grid is already lower carbon than gasoline powered ICE vehicles, especially with natural gas taking over a lot of the energy production. But it's only going to get even better as more and more renewables come online.

It's easier for your giant utility company to have the capital to build out a solar farm to power your car/house/etc than it is for you and I to have the capital to build personal solar production to do the same thing. Even more so, some things only make sense at scale, like large scale wind energy. Placing a giant turbine in my backyard, even if the HOA and city allowed it, would work for me, but not my neighbor, and if they built one too we'd be competing with each other. Better to do it on farms leased or ran by utilities.

Besides, how is the renter going to de carbonize their electric car unless the grid does it?

I'm not trying to make a deceptive argument. I may be wrong, but I stated what I thought was an important point: you need generators to decarbonize, not merely a switch to electric cars. Electric cars are an enabler for decarbonization, agreed, but focusing only enabling technology is not enough. It must be coupled with changes in energy generation to achieve a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. I fear the emphasis on half the problem will leave the problem unsolved.

The article "Factcheck: How electric vehicles help to tackle climate change" <https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-...> seems to make the same point (if that's a bad source let me know):

* "EVs are responsible for considerably lower emissions over their lifetime than conventional (internal combustion engine) vehicles across Europe as a whole.

* In countries with coal-intensive electricity generation, the benefits of EVs are smaller and they can have similar lifetime emissions to the most efficient conventional vehicles – such as hybrid-electric models."

Which is my point: we need to decarbonize the generators. The article even goes on to state this: "However, as countries decarbonise electricity generation to meet their climate targets, driving emissions will fall for existing EVs and manufacturing emissions will fall for new EVs." Note the requirement to decarbonize the generators. This is a real issue, for example, in 2021, coal-fired electric power plants accounted for 91% of West Virginia's total electricity net generation <https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WV>. There's an assumption by many that utilities' electricity generators will over time produce less carbon dioxide, but I'm not convinced that it will "just happen". Such a change will require continued emphasis over time.

Why do you focus on a state that has one of the dirtiest electricity production and one of the lowest rates of EV sales in the US?

If we focus instead on electricity production by source in the USA between 2011 and 2021: Electricity produced...

with oil: 42TWh => 35TW (-16%)

with coal: 1730TWh => 900TWh (-48%)

with gas: 1010TWh => 1580TWh (+55%)

with solar: 2TWh => 164TWh (+8900%)

with wind: 120TWh => 378TWh (+215%)

with nuclear: 790TWh => 780TWh (-2%)

with hydro: 310TWh => 250TWh (-20%)

So not only was 600TWh of dirty coal replaced by cleaner gas, the amount of electricity produced with fossil fuels dropped by more than 200TWh. Meanwhile, electricity production by renewables significantly increased.

Or in other words, if you had bought an EV in 2011 and driven it until now, it would have gotten cleaner every year, which is not going to happen with an ICE.

Source: our world in data, numbers slightly adjusted for readability.