This line of reasoning supports the original comment they reply to that you can't count on battery prices to drop. Even if costs aren't substantial enough to affect EV sales, eventually batteries will need replaced.
I like the concept of EVs, but there are still 2 problems I can't get over. The first is that the environmental impact of building the car doesn't get much coverage and focus is on the impact of running the car. Are they really good for the environment? Who knows. The second is that recharging still takes too long and so I would want some type of range extender which bring oil back into the picture.
> This line of reasoning supports the original comment they reply to that you can't count on battery prices to drop.
No, it doesn't. The cost of lithium in the batteries is such a minor expense, that changes in lithium prices cannot move the price of a battery in either direction. The batteries are getting cheaper because of reasons unrelated to lithium, and even if the price of lithium were to quadruple from present levels, these other factors would totally dominate the price of the battery.
If something is currently 1% of a price of a good, and it quadruples in price, it can at worst cause a 3% move up in the price of the good. If, at the same time, a different reason causes the price of the good to fall 40%, this 3% move up hardly registers.
«The first is that the environmental impact of building the car doesn't get much coverage and focus is on the impact of running the car.»
From what I've seen it gets far too much coverage because it seems like one on the many list of excuses why electric cars are "just as bad" as ICE cars.
The key part being that "just as bad": the vast environmental impact of building a car will always be the steel/aluminum/plastics of the frame and interiors. That doesn't really change no matter what sort of car you buy, except that obviously bigger, heavier cars have more impact than smaller ones and electric cars typically have the most incentives to be small and efficient in frame size and cabin weight, too.
Yes, batteries have a slightly different environmental impact at build time than a traditional gas engine, but they are more easily recycled too. Don't forget the environmental impacts of oils and lubricants and coolants used for all those moving parts in a traditional and randomly spilled across the pavements of a city and constantly (every few months) topped up or replaced. Operating environmental impact is hugely different, and that probably matters a lot more than the build time environmental impact.
No I haven't, I have never known a person who owns either. However, a quick search confirms my suspicions that it takes significantly longer to charge batteries than to fill a gas tank. A journey that takes more than 1 recharge would be considerably more difficult than the same trip in a gas car.
>The first is that the environmental impact of building the car doesn't get much coverage and focus is on the impact of running the car.
Here is a first order analysis: A car that travels 200,000 miles in its life @ 30 mpg (nation avg is 25.5) will burn 6667 gallons of gasoline, weighing 42,000 lbs. The weight of the gas burnt is over 14x more than the weight of the car. Those 6667 gallons produce 133,340 lbs of CO2. The average car burns its own weight in gasoline in 12,000 miles, less than a year of driving.
I like the concept of EVs, but there are still 2 problems I can't get over. The first is that the environmental impact of building the car doesn't get much coverage and focus is on the impact of running the car. Are they really good for the environment? Who knows. The second is that recharging still takes too long and so I would want some type of range extender which bring oil back into the picture.