Most things we manufacture/consume have embedded costs that the user doesn't think about. I don't disagree with anything in the article, but it misses the point.
The EV obsession is driven by one thing: a belief that by burning fossil fuels we are raising global carbon dioxide levels which will so heat up the planet as to drive the human race to extinction. That theory may, or may not, be proven, but until then society is driven to cut CO2 emissions, almost at any cost. Only in that context do EVs make sense.
The theory is proven and can easily be confirmed in the lab. CO2 in air affects heat transfer rates and since the earth as a whole has to maintain thermal equilibrium, anything that alters the inflow of UV from the sun and the outflow of infra red from the earth affects that equilibrium. The correlation of historic CO2 levels and average termperatures is high.
I bought an EV because it is a very cheap to run performance car. It costs about 15% per mile when compared with the car it replaced, a Mercedes AMG C63.
Whilst it is cheap and quick it also offends me, because it carries a 500kg battery pack at all times, so a part of the energy used to move the vehicle is consumed simply to move the mass of the battery.
I hope that hydrogen fuel cells replace battery EVs, but I'd also be quite happy if hydrogen fueled ICE engines appeared.
Another route is green gasoline, made from carbon dioxide extracted from the air and hydrogen from seawater, but it needs a lot of cheap energy. Fusion reactors, anyone?
There is considerable embedded CO2 in every car and more in an EV than in an ICE but to be fair, the real way to save CO2 emissions is to seriously prolongue the life of existing cars. Maybe the government should insist that cars are made evelasting - stainless bodies, chrome bored engines, every single part replaceable and repairable and owners allowe done car for their lives.
P.S. The early comment about Einstein is simply BS
