OP does not understand that he is far more enthusiastic about his Prius than the rest of the world.
Too much of this article is based on unsubstantiated, overly optimistic predictions, and the reasoning is regularly fallacious. Two examples:
1. OP lists expensive repairs for combustion vehicles, then suggests that because said parts do not exist in EVs, that EVs are cheaper to maintain. This is nonsense, first of all most of the parts listed almost never require repairs (how often do you spend >$1000 to replace a catalytic converter?) and secondly, it is (deliberately?) misleading to ignore that EVs have specialized parts of their own to repair. The fact that there are fewer parts is not enough data to suggest that an EV is cheaper automatically to maintain, or more reliable. Further, there is a risk that some people will spend more money on EV repair because they may require specialized equipment to maintain.
2. His "current estimates" sources are based on extrapolation of current tesla battery performance, which is an uncertain predictor of future performance given how little time the tested batteries have spent in use.
3. When OP leaps to self driving cars as another reason for the emergence of EVs, he also conveniently misses that there is utility and sentimental value in owning your own car.
tl;dr: Will EVs eventually supersede ICVs? Sure. But putting out an article which says with certainty, and a straight face, that no one will want oil in 8 years is just unnecessarily smug.
It's funny that you claim that "most of the parts listed almost never require repairs" when the list explicitly is the top 10 most frequent actual repairs that were performed in 2015.
Also "they may require specialized equipment to maintain" is a guess that's not true, while everything requires particular tools, repairing and maintaining electric drivetrains requires less specialized equipment than ICEs.
From that same article, the average repair cost is $387/year for a typical vehicle. Nowhere near the scary list with >$1000. You feel right into OP's literary trap, which is my problem with the whole article. Overly optimistic sensationalism. 8 years to rebuild our entire infrastructure!
I'd like to see a source for the second, I think you're making the mistake OP lead you to, in the assumption that simply because of fewer moving parts, the vehicle is necessarily easier to work on.
2. Not correct - OP is pointing to current Priuses that have exceptionally long lived batteries "Current estimates for the lifetime today’s electric vehicles are over 500,000 miles." and "But today there are anecdotal stories of Prius’s logging over 600,000 miles on a single battery."
3a. Maybe there is sentimental value to a Mustang... but that crappy car with headliner coming down? .. no..
3b. Utility as in always available, possibly. However consider just the case of a family going from 2-3 cars to a single car. (Which is what my family has done) That alone could halve the number of cars purchased.
1. Electric motors are easier to repair than bus sized diesel engines in trains- not the best comparison to motors and engines that have to be shrunk down and crammed into the family sedan. I'll bet the maintnence savings margin is smaller if not gone.
2. The point is it is too early to estimate batter life with such certainty based on current battery output. Would you buy a Prius with 300,000 miles on it today? I think its a little too early to make that bet before we have regular examples of EVs lasting that long.
3. Even your example shows that there will still be demand for fossil fuelled vehicles.
Point again: are ICVs going to go extinct? Most likely. Are we going to stop using oil to fuel vehicles in EIGHT YEARS? only if you're a smug Prius driver ;).
1. If anything, smaller electric motors have an even larger advantage. Smallest ICE v. smallest electrical motor? Small ICEs have a problem with being too cold.
2. "Would you buy a Prius with 300,000 miles on it today?" - sure if its body/frame is good shape. There is no inherit life span to a machine when its parts can be replaced.
3. "still be demand for fossil fuelled vehicles" - The doubt is about "big oil" to survive with the current cost structure. Yes I bet "little oil" will have a role as a specialized fuel. In Manhattan and San Francisco, it is harder and harder to find a gas station - the land is too valuable to waste on a toxic/dangerous land use. Electric charging stations don't have the same problem that gas stations have.
I can easily see a situation where owning a ICS vehicle in major cities means having to get personal fuel deliveries (if you are rich) or having to drive outside of the town to refuel (time consuming)
Too much of this article is based on unsubstantiated, overly optimistic predictions, and the reasoning is regularly fallacious. Two examples:
1. OP lists expensive repairs for combustion vehicles, then suggests that because said parts do not exist in EVs, that EVs are cheaper to maintain. This is nonsense, first of all most of the parts listed almost never require repairs (how often do you spend >$1000 to replace a catalytic converter?) and secondly, it is (deliberately?) misleading to ignore that EVs have specialized parts of their own to repair. The fact that there are fewer parts is not enough data to suggest that an EV is cheaper automatically to maintain, or more reliable. Further, there is a risk that some people will spend more money on EV repair because they may require specialized equipment to maintain.
2. His "current estimates" sources are based on extrapolation of current tesla battery performance, which is an uncertain predictor of future performance given how little time the tested batteries have spent in use.
3. When OP leaps to self driving cars as another reason for the emergence of EVs, he also conveniently misses that there is utility and sentimental value in owning your own car.
tl;dr: Will EVs eventually supersede ICVs? Sure. But putting out an article which says with certainty, and a straight face, that no one will want oil in 8 years is just unnecessarily smug.