The USA is a net exporter of oil, but we have very little of the metals needed for battery production…which happen to be in Africa and China. A move to EV is not providing energy independence at all.
As has been repeatedly documented earlier in this thread, personal use cars and trucks make up approximately 8% of global manmade CO2. Factoring in the CO2 impact of making the vehicle, an EV has the potential to reduce lifetime CO2 versus an ICE vehicle by 50% depending on the source of recharging. So if every vehicle on earth were immediately replaced with an EV, we would reduce manmade CO2 emissions by approximately 3%, leaving the other 97% of emissions. But a transition to EV will take decades and may never occur elsewhere in the world where electricity generation is limited and the cost of EV is too high. So the 3% reduction in CO2 is a complete pipe dream. The actual reduction in global CO2 we will see from EV’s is a rounding error in human emissions.
The reason cars and trucks are only 8% of emissions is that they spend most of their life sitting in driveways, and are only used a fraction of the time. Versus heating and AC for buildings, powering steel mills, etc, or busses that run all day. Focusing on electric cars is an absurd place to focus if the intent is emission reduction. But emissions reduction isn’t the intent, it is virtue signaling. Politicians buy votes by pandering to their base about green energy, without EVER projecting what the net reduction in CO2 will be, whether it is cost effective, or whether something else (such as nuclear energy) would be a more effective way to reduce emissions.
China has adopted EV for national security reasons…they have no oil and don’t want to be dependent on imports. But they are recharging their EV’s from coal, which they have a lot of. There is little emission reduction in China from EV’s at all.
Last edited:
. Really. ? 
