to keep turkish evil maids from planting files.

Sure. but what does that have to do with this thread? The point isn't about safety. The point is EV's may be heavier than a comparable ICE today but they will drop in weight. Thus if heavier == more polluting, then EV"s will evolve to pollute less. And btw, the crash data shows that more people get hurt/die in heavier vehicles than the lighter ones, especially top heavy SUV's. Light cars being dangerous is a fearmongered myth.

actually HEAVY cars polluted greatly. Singling out EV's merely to make that point is disingenuous. SUV's pollute more than sedans could easily be the headline. Yes i own an EV and it's better on so many levels of public policy. Decreasing weight will increase the EV range. So i suspect if they can cut weight, they will. Batteries may become lighter for same power density. ICE's will never not emit pollutants associated with burning carbon fuel. .EV's can if they source from renewable. And guess what, the electric market is slowly moving that way.

yes. this "science" will now be quoted by the EV haters as justification to hate them more.

Regenerative braking does NOT use the brake pads. So how can they produce more pollution? Blaming EV's for stirring up tire materials on the road put there by every vehicle is disingenuous as well.. Bad science.

The review, from the Environment America Research and Policy Center, looked at 11 previous studies of net metering’s effects on both the grid and on society as a whole, all of which found that owners of grid-connected solar arrays offered net benefits to the electricity system, including reduced environmental compliance costs, reduced costs in capital investments, and in avoided energy costs. In particular, the studies determined the median value of solar power as being “nearly 17 cents per unit,” which contrasts with the US average retail electricity rate of about 12 cents per kWh, which means that not only has solar net metering not been harmful to markets, but that utilities have actually been underpaying for the use of this solar electricity. “The solar studies reviewed in this report confirm that huge amounts of solar have already been developed without paying the full value that solar brings. Not only does that mean that solar customers have likely been subsidizing non-solar customers and the utility, but that over the long term, continued development of solar promises downward pressure on electric rates for all.” – Karl Rábago, Executive Director of the Pace Energy and Climate Center In addition to the more obvious solar benefits, such as avoided energy costs and reduced capital investment costs, the review also pointed to distributed solar as being important in grid resiliency and in helping to stabilize electricity prices by mitigating some of the fluctuation in fossil fuel prices, thereby reducing financial risks and saving money for all grid users. The review also makes a great case for the increased and widened adoption of net metering policies in order to keep up the momentum of solar growth in the US. “Net metering is a critical tool to ensure fair compensation for owners of solar energy systems and to continue to fuel the growth of solar energy. Public officials should support and strengthen net metering as sound public policy to stimulate private investment and job growth, and to encourage utilities to diversify and strengthen the grid.” – Shining Rewards The document suggests that states should “lift arbitrary caps” on net metering in fast-growing solar markets, should include environmental and societal benefits when evaluating the benefits and costs of net metering programs, “consider the simplicity of net metering” when looking at programs that will compensate customers for their solar production, and “ensure that all people can take advantage of net metering policies” with virtual net metering programs for homes that aren’t able to install solar. “While some utilities claim they’re subsidizing solar panel owners, our report shows the opposite is probably true. If anything, utilities should be paying people who go solar more, not less.” – Rob Sargent, co-author of the report, and senior program director at Environment America

The transition won't happen overnight so I think your worries if over subscription are misplaced.

guard your lane, as they say. it works. and helps drivers too. especially when entering an intersection, as a bike, ride like a car, take the middle of the land through the intersection. Don't sneak all the way up along the right when there's a light/stop sign. get in line just like every other vehicle. go through the intersection as a car, then about 50 yards afterwards, move to the right more and ride like a bike. So easy.

do you drive a car? I bet you do. I do, and i ride a bike. i bet you speed once in a while. I do. no one is perfect.

petroleum instead of coal.

i meant to say petroleum vs. coal but the argument is still valid. you can't recycle "sort of dirty" petroleum out of a tail pipe either.

what's your ultimate point? trying to be a logic professor? a language critic? a pedagogue on the proper terms for arguing? or do you have something useful to contribute to the topic. do you think mining for anything is going to be cleaner than mining for something else? who cares on actual precise apples to oranges. An assumption is good enough. the reality is you can't re-use coal. You can reuse the metals. so i'll take the dirty metal mines over the dirty coal mines. coal lifecycle can be 2 times cleaner than copper/lithium. that's erased the minute one recycles the minerals. 4 times cleaner? then recycle the material a few more times. etc. the stuff is too valuable to just throw away.

yes, the study is flawed and incomplete in many ways. i hope no one really takes it seriously, though people are. one thing that is clear without needing explicit cost modeling however is both petroleum and lithium mining are dirty. So assume they are equally dirty. (why do we need to know the precise dirtiness, which is never going to be known) Can you recycle the petroleum that has been burned? no. lithium or whatever the new batteries get made can be recycled. Yes, recycling can be dirty. but at least it's recovering some value thus bringing down the negative value of mining it. thus comparing the 2 lifecycles, batteries are "cleaner" overall.

yes. i think we are sort of in agreement. i suspect the average battery, unabused after 10 years will still be sufficient as well. at a minimum, it will be as sufficient as the worn ICE motor at least. what you have then is replacing the motor vs. replacing the battery to get a "new" car. 10 years from now motors will still likely be similar in complexity to manufacture, thus remain as costly as today. Batteries will only diminish in cost and are vastly simpler. the cost of gas vs. the cost of kilowatts to go the same distance is much more. I get approximately 5 miles to the kilowatt, a little worse in the winter and a little better in the summer. That's .03/mile at .15/KW. generally speaking ICE's are easily .10/mi. my work reimburses at .50/mile. i don't know how they compute it but obviously they are accounting for all the nitnoids you mentioned. remember we are talking averages so of course the most efficient ICE will do better. but the average ICE won't. it's also easy to compute a comparison baseline from scratch. above average 40 mpg ICE @ ~$3/gal is .075/mile, which doesn't include the maintenance that you mention. considering if the cost of petroleum goes up or down, the cost of electricity will be somewhere following that ball park too, it's one big energy market. So assuming things generally go up in cost, 10 years from now you'll still have the same low TCO for EV and higher TCO for ICE. now how much more did you spend per year in ICE vs. EV? (to keep the discussion easy) assume 10K miles driven per year. 100K miles. EV: 100K * .03 == $3K. ICE: 100K miles * .10 (which is low) == $10000. At 10 years the EV SAVED $7K to pay for that $7K battery (which likely won't cost 7k by then). The ICE has nothing to show for it and will have to pay more to get back to "new". i don't want to argue with people but we seem to be playing ourselves for chumps by parroting all of this antii-EV stuff. there really is an economic case to be made for them, today. and an environmental one. and a geo-political one. 10 years (the time it will take to make a serious turn in the transportation infrastructure) is going to go by in a flash. I hope we aren't still debating this then.

yes i skimmed the article. the difference isn't that significant. There are other articles purporting that batteries are NOT decaying at nearly the rate predicted so the 8 year warranty model is fairly risk free for the manufacturers. And you said 8k with an actual 17K cost which i don't know how that matters to my wallet.8 years from now, when the warranty for my Leaf battery runs out and i have to pay out of pocket, the cost will be less than an equivalent 2015 $7K. how much does it cost to replace a motor in an ICE today ~5-6K??? I can replace a battery and get a "new" motor just the same when the time comes. resale of a junker ICE has the same dynamics. it's really a guesstimate what will be the market dynamics 10 years from. However there's nothing that we know today that would lead one to conclude EV technology is doomed to be a much worse value than ICE. It's already pretty cost competitive and there's a huge gearing up of the electric infrastructure and industry which implies a positive outcome more than a negative outcome.