EV haters working with old or just plain wrong data

I read this article this morning. And I STILL can't believe how much "news" or "journalism" is just flat out wrong.

After an opening statement of sorts which is largely just subjective drivel to set the stage this line comes in:

but almost everywhere cost more across their lifetime than their gasoline counterparts

The funny part is, this would be half truth if the author dropped the "across their lifetime" bit. The sticker price of an EV is higher than a gasoline car. Today. But, the lifetime costs in most cases are higher across the board. And, as battery prices come down, each new generation makes this story true for increasingly more models. And, worse, eventually the sticker price will be lower.

This is for a very simple reason; internal combustion engines and transmission are massive, complex pieces of machinery with increasingly more technology in them. Whereas there is no transmission and no engine complexity in an EV. The battery is the cost. And this tech is growing by leaps and bounds every year.

So, my first problem with the article is that it's opening salvo is already wrong today. But, as an article whose title includes "won't get us very far" seems to allude to the future, even though the basic arguments the article makes are liable to crumble in the not so distant future.

Immediately after the previous quote is this one:

That is why large subsidies are needed. And consumers are still anxious because of the short range and long recharging times.

This is more subjective. But, I would say it is wrong. The lifetime costs are NOT why subsidies are need. The subsidies are needed because of the sticker price. Though, I can't argue with the likeliness that many customers are turned off due to "range anxiety". 

Next it talks about how 90% of sales go to the rich and most of them own an ICE vehicle which they drive more often. Again, I can't argue that primarily the wealthy or at least well to do are benefiting more. However, I would patently disagree with the claim that they are driving their ICE vehicles more.

I live in Canada and the super wealthy tend to put their non-daily drivers in storage during the winter for reasons including erosion due to road salt, traction, and increased odds of being in an accident. And yet, I see the absolutely no drop in EVs on the road. And the houses which I know have EVs, I tend to notice that it is the EV which is more often missing from the driveway.

I would love to see stats to back up these claims on which vehicles multi-vehicle owning households with EVs are using more. The anecdotal evidence doesn't support the claim. And while my evidence IS anecdotal, I am at least willing to acknowledge that. The article on the other hand cites no sources and simply makes the claim.

And again, while only anecdotal, I actually think it makes a lot of sense for both wealthy and non-wealthy people to use their EVs more than their ICE vehicles. At least, so long as you have a place at home to charge them. The wealthy benefit from not being beholden to gas stations, while the non-wealthy who can charge at home benefit from reduced costs and a vehicle which is almost perpetually at a full state of charge.

The article then goes on the criticize the tax exemptions. But, this too is short sighted. Tax exemptions can (and will) be removed. For now, they are incentive. No sane country is going to leave them in place by the time they reach a point of zero tolerance on new sales of cars.

After this, the article leads into the one of the tamest sounding claims, and yet probably the most incorrect:

Though technological innovation will eventually make electric cars economical even without subsidies, concerns over range and slow recharging will remain.

This is EXACTLY what technological advances are already addressing. We're already seeing vehicles on the horizon with 600+ mile range. This CRUSHES the typical ICE range. And Tesla's new tab-less batteries which are already present in some cars are increasing the possible rate of charge. Beyond that, some battery chemistries being touted already can fill in minutes without any degradation to the battery. 

In short, the article mentions "technical innovations" and then seems completely oblivious to the fact that the claim being made about them are ALREADY wrong.

And then it goes on to make a wholly pointless argument that battery production emits as much greenhouse gas as an ICE vehicle emits over 1/4 of it's life. In short, it flat states that there is a 75% reduction using today's processes. So, this isn't really a counter argument. And those processes are also becoming more efficient and environmentally friendly. Once again, the new Tesla battery does just that.

And THEN there is this:

... the electric car is recharged on electricity that almost everywhere is significantly fossil fuel based

Again, would love to see stats. BUT it is still irrelevant. This is a SUPER common point made which makes SEVERAL massive logical omissions; It doesn't bother to estimate mix of renewables on any particular scale, it doesn't talk about improved efficiencies at scale, and it ignore efficiency of ICE vehicles in converting gasoline into motion. 

So, that first point. While many grids are at least partially dependent on fossil fuels. Virtually all grids are also at least partially dependent upon renewables to some extent as well. This means that even if all else were equal, which is not the case as we shall see, EVs would still benefit the environment by getting its energy from a source which is at least partially clean.

Secondly, even if  the grid were 100% fossil fuel based, which it likely isn't where you live, it would STILL be cleaner to drive an EV. This is because ICE vehicles are extremely inefficient. The vast majority of the energy produced by ICE vehicles is lost as waste heat. Power plants which run on fossil fuels are MUCH more efficient in this regard. 

Basically, if ICE vehicles didn't burn the gas directly but rather got the energy as a byproduct of a power plant, that would actually make them more efficient and less impactful on the environment. And, in effect, this is exactly what an EV is if it is running off electricity generated purely by fossil fuels. Basically, the combined efficiency rate between the fossil fuel power plants is higher than the efficiency of an internal combustion engine in a car.

He then cites this report to back a claim that 130 million EVs by 2030 would have just a 0.4% impact on climate. Now, that is a BIG report. I read a lot of it and skimmed the rest. For the life of me I can't find where it suggests these results. And while I don't doubt that there is some magical way of manipulating the data to get those results, this is NOT AT ALL what the IEA article implies. In fact, what I took away was that a shift to electrified vehicles combined with a shift to renewables in the grid in compliance with the Paris climate accord would yield substantive gains in emissions reductions.

I will say however. I agree with the closing statements. Hybrids and PHEVs are being overlooked and even unfairly demonized when they should be the vanguard of this movement. Both rely on batteries and electric motors and will continue to propel the industry forward to enable that all electric future. And it is a solution which is much more affordable to much wider range of people TODAY. 

I also agree that personal transportation is only a small part of the puzzle. But, it is worth noting, in my opinion, that EVs are putting stress on grids which is forcing the adoption of more power plants. More and more of which are sustainable. And shifting the grid to more sustainable sources reduces carbon emissions for all grid use. 

EVs alone won't solve the environmental crisis. But, no single act will. And, EVs are actually a critical market in pushing the change elsewhere.