I'm not really sure what you mean. What information from what sources? What is dubious? I didn't quote anything and simply stated my understanding. I am not aware of the 6-24 month cross over point being so-called "FUD". I don't think I have read this report directly before, but I just found Volvo's 50 page report (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-assets/int...). On page 6, it effectively confirms what I just stated. With wind power recharging batteries, EVs cross over ICE at 49,000km. With EU-28 mix at 77,000km. With standard global electricity mixed power sources at 110,000km. Given I've had my car since 2015 and barely have 50,000 miles on it, that means that I would need to drive an EV for at least ten years before it crosses over an ICE car for CO2 emissions, according to Volvo's data. Now, I realize that my driving mileage is probably well under average, but it is my personal usage. (Of course, the data has +/- components depending on various specifics, but the idea is there.)
So that effectively confirms (and is actually worse than) what I stated above. Everything else I am merely asking about because I haven't seen the data that says one way or the other. You and the other commenter claim there's the magic data out there if I "just search for it", while everything I've stated is just oil propaganda. It's just dumb that if you even ask for data regarding EVs, you get labeled an oil person, when such a claim, for myself, could not be further from the truth.
The Volvo report seems pretty good, so I guess I'll read it while missing out on your and the other commenters' magic data unless you decide to materialize it. Although, it goes without saying that Volvo stands to make money from this, so there is a conflict of interest for sure, at least for this particular report. But it seems relatively accurate to my read so far.
My unwillingness to spend an hour giving you sources to counter your nonsense "points" is only evidence of my disdain at your half worked out half baked thesis of "electric cars aren't as perfect as some people think". You aren't making any concrete claims and you aren't giving any concrete arguments, you are just vaguely saying electric cars are worse than some hypothetical person thinks they are, but you don't say what that person actually believes or what constitutes 'good'. Its just sloppy thinking with all the hallmarks of someone who has been consuming propoganda, your opinion about what the policy conclusion should be is extreme and is so much more strongly held than any other part of your thinking. You also present, with no support whatsoever, that everyone elses views are shaped by unnamed mining interests who want to sell raw materials for batteries (but you are completely unconcerned about the likely source of your own opinions, big oil interests who will lose 100% of their gasoline profits).
I don't know what point you are making with your CO2 numbers. Say the actual thing you think you are demonstrating. Are you saying electric cars won't reduce CO2 emissions? That the average person over estumates how much CO2 emissions will be reduced? Say that then? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
My advice is to sit and actually decide before you research it what constitutes "good" and "improvement" for this topic. Then go see if you can decide whether those things are delivered, potentially. Then write down a list of specific "problems" and try to verify, feom credible sources, if they are really significant problems. Otherwise no matter what is presented you will just keep saying "yea but" and bringing up new unrelated "facts". This is the sort of emotional argument used by talk radio charletans.
That means not just saying "infrastructure" as though that is an actual argument. Keep in mind any argument that could equally well be used against current technologies as well is not a valid argument against electric cars.
For example, in 1915 I could claim that adoption of gasoline cars is impossible because of a lack of infrastructure. You would have to build a gas station on every corner in the city! This is not a valid argument because they did easily build all those gas stations, as well as a vast network of pipelines to deliver fuel to them, millions of workers to sell the gas, hundreds of refineries, etc. So when you make vague claims about infrastructure, you need to state what infrastructure and why its not reasonable for it to be built, and in fact you have to show its not even possible for it to be built. The market for cars is vast, the amount of resources available is enormous.
> I don't know what point you are making with your CO2 numbers. Say the actual thing you think you are demonstrating. Are you saying electric cars won't reduce CO2 emissions? That the average person over estumates how much CO2 emissions will be reduced? Say that then? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I don't know why you are claiming my data is FUD when I meed to explain this basic fact about EVs. It's also explained in the report I linked.
The point, which is very well known at this point, is that manufacturing EVs actually causes much higher emissions than ICE cars. In other words, at time of purchase, buying an EV is worse for the environment than buying an ICE car.
Since EVs are cleaner to drive but not manufacturer, it takes time for EVs to emit less emissions overall. That's what I have mentioned and the chart in page 6 mentions. It takes tens of thousands of miles of use for EVs to have less cumulative emissions than ICE cars.
So this is just one component that shows EVs are not strictly better. My overall point is that such estimations do not take into account the rest of the EV ecosystem which can only worsen the numbers for the EV case.
Given people usually buy new cars fairly frequently, it's very possible that EVs are a wash in terms of environmental impact and that it might take several decades, if ever, for them to actually be better. This is important to understand, to question, and to investigate.
> The point, which is very well known at this point, is that manufacturing EVs actually causes much higher emissions than ICE cars. In other words, at time of purchase, buying an EV is worse for the environment than buying an ICE car.
At the point of purchase, buying a reusable water bottle is worse for the environment than buying a disposable water bottle. This is not a complete argument.
> Since EVs are cleaner to drive but not manufacturer, it takes time for EVs to emit less emissions overall. That's what I have mentioned and the chart in page 6 mentions. It takes tens of thousands of miles of use for EVs to have less cumulative emissions than ICE cars.
Vehicles last about 12 years on the road (on average in the USA). Average miles per year is over 12,000. It seems like your argument implies that EVs very very easily save emissions over their life, and probably massively since they will pay for their own emissions 4 or 5 times over their life. This assumes that EVs don't have a longer life on the road than gas vehicles, but it is reasonable to think they could last longer.
> So this is just one component that shows EVs are not strictly better.
No, it absolutely does not show that. It shows that you can arbitrarily pick a moment in time where an individual EV is behind in terms of emissions, but that over the average life they are STRICTLY BETTER. If on average they are strictly better, then net they are strictly better (this is how averages work).
> Given people usually buy new cars fairly frequently, it's very possible that EVs are a wash in terms of environmental impact
This is a very stupid thing for you to say. You don't get to just make up nonsense and draw conclusions from it. This isn't something you get to just say 'people like buying cars, therefore they won't drive them enough to save emissions'. You have to look at data and extrapolate from the data, and the data says you are just being ridiculous. The data is very clear, and you aren't even remotely close to being correct. It's extremely easy to check this. You don't care though, because you want to try to get to the conclusion that EVs are bad, rather than try to figure it out.
