Serious Discussion

>Veeky Forums answer
>real answer
they're going to dominate the industry once enough of them crack that 300 mile range 30k price point. they're the ultimate car for normies, and they're a lot less dirty over their lifetime than a gas car even including lithium mining, especially if your local grid isn't HEAVILY coal

>tfw seriously considering getting the I.D buzz or the honda urban ev concept when they become real. the buzz would be a fucking great daily

>Manufacturing a Prius is as much pollution as driving a shitbox for 25 years.

First of all what pollution are we talking about? Soil, water, air?

Air pollution isn't permanent. It's better to have centralized energy producers that pollute than to have millions of little inefficient engines riding around in the vicinity and living spaces of man, because the air pollution from energy plants is often much further away, and the further the distance the more of it will be caught in rain, dust, and soil, and eventually be turned back into the elements. Meanwhile, the pollution from ICE cars, first has to be blown OUT of the city before it can do so, while in the process everyone breathes that shit.

Now soil and water pollution from the production of the materials needed to build electric cars can be minimized, and it's also centralized, unlike the millions of ICE vehicles that continuously leak oil everywhere, not to mention the millions of idiots that don't give a shit dumping old oil in nature. The companies can be regulated and prevented- the individual car owner cannot really be regulated or prevented..

>especially if your local grid isn't HEAVILY coal
So 65% of the states

>Hydrogen
Already possible. Bush pushed hard for adoption and research in the early 00s
It was one of the first things Obama slashed.
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/george-w-bushs-favorite-green-car-is-making-a-comeback/452646/

actually no, the precentage of coal power needed for EVS to be dirtier than gas cars is enormously high, like 90%, you only that in parts of new jersey and i forget where else...

even a little bit of natual gas power, which is what a ton of coal fire plants are converting to, slashes carbon and particulate emissions

But what if I use E85 in my shitbox?

Then you're using even more resources than with gasoline.
E85 has a lower energy density, you have to dump shitloads of fuel to get the same power.

For now, yes. Infrastructure has a lot to do with it, because for most people, owning an electric car is very inconvenient. Ranges are somewhat limited, charging takes forever, and stations are few, so they're really only useful for people who have the funds/ability to install a home charging station and whose commute is short enough that range won't be an issue. For the most part, that makes them a novelty for upper-class urban yuppies and tech workers. When it actually makes sense for the working class to own them, electric cars will get huge, because they have tons of benefits for average drivers.

>funds/ability to install a home charging station
most states will refund you the cost of it, and getting it installed is like 2 grand at most.
and that's a 240v fast charger too, the kind that'll fully charge you in 4 hours

dead meme, energy density of E85 is about 80% of that of regular gasoline

But unlike regular gasoline, worldwide supplies are not expected to dry out within a few decades

also more boost

It's not something most people that rent, live in an apartment, or might be barred from installing a charging station for some reason (like an HOA or something) can do.

Bush's hydrogen push was a hand out to oil and gas buddies. Since hydrogen is made from steam reformation of natural gas.

Practical mass adoption of hydrogen would require trillions in infrastructure spending. Even then you are left with an inferior energy storage medium. That consumes far more energy in its creation. Than you get in actual work.