[kublikhan]

Oh you are right! Your points have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with limits to growth! How silly of me!

[ralfy]

Oh you are right! Your points have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with limits to growth! How silly of me!

The main reasons for using EVs is that they lead to lower carbon emissions. But they don't because they need a lot of fossil fuels for manufacturing, and so do the infrastructure needed to use them, and they need minerals which are also affected in the same way as fossil fuels.

Why's that? Because of diminishing returns: increasing amounts of energy needed to obtain decreasing amounts of fossil fuels and minerals and of lower quality, which are both needed to make EVs and infrastructure to use them.

There are additional problems: EV manufacturers are for-profit and in competition with each other. That means they have to produce increasing numbers of EVs and expect people to buy increasing numbers of them. In short, overproduction and overconsumption. With that, carbon emissions will increase further, as manufacturers expect not only continuous economic growth but increasing growth rate each time.

[kublikhan]

So I guess all those life cycle analysis studies that studied this issue in depth got it wrong eh Ralfy? Good think you are here to set the record straight!

Electric vehicles produce less carbon dioxide than petrol cars across the vast majority of the globe – contrary to the claims of some detractors, who have alleged that the CO2 emitted in the production of electricity and their manufacture outweighs the benefits.

Some individuals and governments question whether these technologies are worth expanding. The study, published on Monday in the journal Nature Sustainability, produced a decisive yes. Scientists from the universities of Exeter, Nijmegen and Cambridge conducted lifecycle assessments that showed that even where electricity generation still involves substantial amounts of fossil fuel, there was a CO2 saving over conventional cars.

Electric cars produce less CO2 than petrol vehicles, study confirms

Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher (shown in orange below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.

EPA: Electric Vehicle Myths

[AdamB]

Oh you are right! Your points have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with limits to growth! How silly of me!

The main reasons for using EVs is that they lead to lower carbon emissions.

Says you. I began buying them because fools claimed that peak oil was coming!!! And then, as it turns out, their running costs are amazingy low, so I bought more than one.

But they don't because they need a lot of fossil fuels for manufacturing, and so do the infrastructure needed to use them, and they need minerals which are also affected in the same way as fossil fuels.

And lifetime CO2 emissions are lower. The references have already been provided. And everything currently needs a lot of fosil fuels, and are needing less with every step forward by renewables, nukes, etc etc.

Why's that? Because of diminishing returns: increasing amounts of energy needed to obtain decreasing amounts of fossil fuels and minerals and of lower quality, which are both needed to make EVs and infrastructure to use them.

Is this a back handed way to pretend that eroei matters all of sudden? And you don't know the math to explain it that way, so are just using words? And getting them wrong?

[Plantagenet]

That figure is highly misleading as there is no single CO2 emission number for all EVs....every EV would have different CO2 emissions depending on the amount of coal vs. NG vs. nuclear vs. hydro vs. renewables in the particular power grid that powers it.

AND, even worse, None of the numbers for the EV in that figure are real data, you know.

All the comparisons between EVs and Ice vehicles you are citing are the results of MODELS where the investigators assume and set all the parameters and then crunch the numbers through.

We're beyond that now.....we're now putting EVs out into the world and it's time to start comparing real world data rather then relying on models.

And there are often surprises when models are tested in the real world

What happens in the real world can differ substantially from what models seem to predict.

For instance.....already I can see there is a HUGE flaw in all the EV carbon emission models. Please allow me to explain the problem to you.....

One of the assumed parameters in all of these model runs is that all of the EVs produced will have a normal vehicle life comparable to all ICE vehicles, i.e. the EVs will be on the road long enough for the lower tailpipe emissions to make up for the much greater carbon footprints that EVs have relative to ICE vehicles when they come off the assembly line.

But we already know that assumption is false.

Insurance companies are now refusing to insure any EV that have been in a minor accident over fears that it might make the LI battery system spontaneously combust. That means that some number of EVs will be taken off the road long before comparable ICE vehicles.

Let's just do a thought experiment to see how this might work. Let's imagine an EV has a minor accident only a month after its purchased, its insurance is cancelled, and its taken off the road. Another ICE vehicle has a similar minor crash, but it gets repaired and keeps its insurance and keeps going down the road. That EV will NEVER catch up.....it will actually have GREATER emissions than the ICE vehicle during the time period both were on the road. And it gets worse for the EVs.....suppose the poor EV owner whose car was just taken off the road after a minor accident goes out and buys another EV --- now he is responsible for TWICE the original carbon footprint to make up. The numbers predicted in all the models for carbon emission of EVs would be way way way off for that driver because he's actually had to buy two EVs while the comparable ICE driver has only had to buy one car to drive for the same period of time.

So how many EV cars might get into minor accidents and would have to be taken off the road? We'll have to wait for the real world data, but we already know that for the existing US auto fleet a really really high percentage of them get in minor accidents. About 40% of all US cars on the road right now have unrepaired damage.....then there must be another .... what.... ca. 40% I guess that have their damage repaired? And then there are some that have really serious damage and get totalled?

If EVs have accidents at the same rates as ICE vehicles, it's possible a high percentage ( ca. 40-75%?) of all EVs will be removed from the roads years earlier then the models assume due to inability to get insurance after being in minor accidents .....and that would play hell with all of the models that claim to show how much carbon will be produced by EVs, because absolutely none of them take this significant problem into account.


I sure hope that space shuttle doesn't have a minor accident because it will blow up the numerical model (amoung other things).

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

Real world numbers do not come close to jiving with your thought experiment:

Between 2013 and 2022, 6.6 percent of electric vehicles in operation were scrapped. During that same time, just 5.2 percent of combustion vehicles met their maker.

The Cars, Trucks on the Road Are Older Than Ever

[AdamB]

If EVs have accidents at the same rates as ICE vehicles, it's possible a high percentage ( ca. 40-75%?) of all EVs will be removed from the roads years earlier then the models assume due to inability to get insurance after being in minor accidents .....and that would play hell with all of the models that claim to show how much carbon will be produced by EVs, because absolutely none of them take this significant problem into account.

We already know that EVs don't burst into flames near as much as ICE machines, and PARTICULARLY aren't as dangerous as hybrids like yours, so we can scratch that. Info has already been provided demonstrating that EVs are safer at large, and have fewer accidents to begin with, and are generally driven in a safer manner.

So why would someone assume they are removed earlier because of accidents or bursting into flames when they are less likely to have either happen? Except for hybrids of course, they burst into flames far more often than other types. And while small repairs MIGHT not be happily covered by insurance companies, their response in the past to such things isn't to NOT cover the cars, but to charge more is all. And the good news in all these trends is those of us with REAL EVs can continue happily motoring (360k km and counting here!) across nearly a decade now, wity insurance rates that are cheaper than my ICE machines, the only accidents they have suffered in the hands of an experienced driver is...none....they cost half of the ICE machines to drive around....and their insurance is cheaper than the other similar ICE machines I've got.

Maybe these silly things NON-EV drivers like you worry about Plant mostly happen in Alaska? No one has ever claimed that folks confusing "scientifically accurate" with being ignorant of the most basic operations of a morgue or jail bondsman drive very well, don't ram a moose on a regular basis, EV or not, and that their insurance companies charge accordingly for backwater hobunkel backwater behavior. And for hybrids that burst into flame far more often than EVs. Good thing yours hasn't yet! Have you got that dumpster of water waiting out in your yard for when it does? And how in the heck do you keep it liquid water in the winter? Isn't it expensive in winter to keep it heated up to save your neighborhood when your hybrid bursts into flames?

[Newfie]

I am confused, I thought the quote supported the argument that EV’s were more prone to failure. Maybe not a lot, and maybe it will improve as the industry matures, but for now they fail at a higher rate.

Did I miss something?

That’s happening despite the fact that a higher percentage of electric vehicles are leaving the population when compared to combustion powered vehicles. Between 2013 and 2022, 6.6 percent of electric vehicles in operation were scrapped. During that same time, just 5.2 percent of combustion vehicles met their maker. So, on the whole, if you got the feeling electric vehicles are a bit more disposable than ICE vehicles, you’re not technically wrong.

[kublikhan]

I am confused, I thought the quote supported the argument that EV’s were more prone to failure. Maybe not a lot, and maybe it will improve as the industry matures, but for now they fail at a higher rate.

Did I miss something?

You got it right. EVs are scrapped at a higher rate than ICE. EVs tend to have higher repair bills after an accident. If the repair bill is too high, the insurance company will be more inclined to total the car rather than authorized repairs. But the scrappage numbers are an order of magnitude smaller than Plantagenet was making them out to be. There was less than a 2% difference between EVs and ICE. Plantagenet's thought experiment was throwing around numbers like a 40%-75% difference.

Insurance companies are not stupid. If they see certain models with consistently high repair costs and/or high scrappage rates, they compensate for that by raising rates on those models. Musk was unhappy to see Teslas 'unfairly' getting higher insurance rates. He wanted his customers to get affordable insurance. Possibly open up a new profit center as well. So he started his own insurance company for Teslas and offered them low insurance rates. Before, Tesla's high repair costs were eaten by other insurance companies and more or less hidden from Tesla. But now Tesla had to eat it's own dog food. Their own insurance division now had to pay those higher repair bills. Musk and company finally realized Teslas were not being unfairly targeted. Teslas really did have repair costs that were too high. So Tesla began making changes to lower repair costs in the future. Software tweaks, new bumper design, more spare parts, etc. These changes started to lower Tesla's high repair costs.

In 2015, the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) first published insurance loss results comparing electric vehicles with their conventional counterparts (HLDI, 2015). That research found collision, property damage liability, and comprehensive claim frequencies for electric vehicles with gasoline powered variants and the Nissan Leaf to be lower than their comparison vehicles. The results for Tesla differed.

Under collision and PDL coverages, the studied electric vehicles with exact conventional counterparts had lower claim frequencies, higher claim severities, and lower overall losses than their comparison vehicles. In comparison, the Tesla Model S always had higher claim frequencies, claim severities, and overall losses than large luxury cars. When mileage was considered, claim frequencies grew even larger for the Tesla. The higher claim severity for the Tesla Model S may possibly be attributed to the battery replacement cost of approximately $16,000.

Insurance losses – comparison of electric vehicles and their conventional counterparts

2017 - AAA is raising insurance premiums for the Tesla Model S and Model X based on data indicating higher claim frequencies and higher average costs for claims, according to Automotive News. Premiums for Tesla electric cars could increase by up to 30 percent, the insurer said. AAA made its decision after noticing abnormally-high costs for Teslas in its own data.

AAA Raises Tesla Insurance Premiums, Citing ‘Higher-Than-Average’ Claim Rates

2023 - Tesla CEO Elon Musk said earlier this week during the company’s 2022 Q4 earnings call that Teslas are beginning to have cheaper collision repairs and are now less expensive to purchase. Lower repair costs come from Tesla offering auto insurance and adjusting the design of its cars and their software, Musk said. When discussing repairs, Musk said, “First, the best repair is no repair, avoid the accident entirely, which since every Tesla comes with the most advanced active safety in the world, whether or not you buy Full Self-Driving, you still get the intelligence of Full Self-Driving for active safety, active collision prevention. “Most accidents are actually small. They’re like a broken fender or scratched side of the car… But we’re actually solving how to get somebody’s car repaired very quickly and efficiently and back in their hands. …those improvements actually apply then to old cars.”

“…by Tesla operating insurance for our cars at a competitive rate, that makes the other car insurance companies offer better rates for Teslas so it has a bigger effect than you think because it improves total cost, or insurance costs, even when they don’t use Tesla Insurance because now the GEICOs of the world have to compete with Tesla and cannot charge outrageous insurance for Teslas.” Musk added that small changes in bumper design are “improving the logistics of providing spare parts needed for collision repair” and bringing costs down.

Musk says Tesla repair costs are down

[Plantagenet]

I am confused, I thought the quote supported the argument that EV’s were more prone to failure. Maybe not a lot, and maybe it will improve as the industry matures, but for now they fail at a higher rate.

Did I miss something?

You got it right. EVs are scrapped at a higher rate than ICE. EVs tend to have higher repair bills after an accident. If the repair bill is too high, the insurance company will be more inclined to total the car rather than authorized repairs. But the scrappage numbers are an order of magnitude smaller than Plantagenet was making them out to be.

There was less than a 2% difference between EVs and ICE. Plantagenet's thought experiment was throwing around numbers like a 40%-75% difference.

Whoa there, Kubliklan.

You are completely misrepresenting what I said.

I've posted several times before about the new insurance issue affecting EVs in the US several times before, complete with links to news stories about this new issue.

Perhaps you didn't actually read my posts or understand what they said?

Here...let me repeat this for the third time using simpler words and all caps for emphasis.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PAST SCRAPPAGE RATES

THERE IS A NEW PROBLEM AFFECTING EVs IN THE USA.

INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE RECENTLY CHANGED THEIR POLICIES.

INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE NOW ROUTINELY REFUSING TO INSURE EVS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN IN MINOR ACCIDENTS BECAUSE OF CONCERNS THIS WILL MAKE THEM MORE LIKELY TO SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUST.

THIS IS NEW.

THE OLD DATA ON SCRAPPAGE YOU ARE QUOTING DOESN"T INCLUDE ANY EFFECTS OF THIS NEW CHANGE IN INSURANCE POLICIES.

HOW MANY EVs WILL BE SCRAPPED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET INSURANCE AFTER MINOR ACCIDENTS?

WE DON"T KNOW YET....THIS IS A NEW PROBLEM.

BUT THE NUMBER IS POTENTIALLY VERY LARGE BECAUSE MANY MANY CARS ARE INVOLVED IN MINOR ACCIDENTS.

FOR ICE VEHICLES ITS NOT A BIG DEAL....THE DAMAGE IS REPAIRED AND THE CAR CONTINUES IN SERVICE.

BUT IF INSURANCE COMPANIES WON"T INSURE EVS AFTER MINOR ACCIDENTS, A GOOD NUMBER OF THEM WILL BE SCRAPPED YEARS EARLIER THEN COMPARABLE ICE VEHICLES.

SO FAR THIS IS ONLY OCCURING IN THE USA, BUT I WOULDN"T BE SURPRISED TO SEE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN OTHER COUNTRIES ADOPT THE SAME POLICY

DO YOU GET IT NOW?


But its only a minor accident.....what do you mean you're cancelling my insurance because my car is an EV???!!?!?!

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

Planty I already rebutted this point the last time you tried it. There is no "new change in insurance company policy" to start strapping EVs. You just made that up. I read the articles talking about the issue of higher scrap rates of EVs because of battery damage. But this is not a new issue nor a new change in policy. This is a long know issue that is simply getting media coverage because of the Reuters article reporting on the issue and everyone else piggybacking on the story. However this has long been an issue:

2015 - The higher claim severity for the Tesla Model S may possibly be attributed to the battery replacement cost of approximately $16,000.

Insurance losses – comparison of electric vehicles and their conventional counterparts

2017 - AAA is raising insurance premiums for the Tesla Model S and Model X based on data indicating higher claim frequencies and higher average costs for claims, according to Automotive News. Premiums for Tesla electric cars could increase by up to 30 percent, the insurer said. AAA made its decision after noticing abnormally-high costs for Teslas in its own data.

AAA Raises Tesla Insurance Premiums, Citing ‘Higher-Than-Average’ Claim Rates

If anything, the higher repair costs of the past have been coming down and EV battery packs have been getting easier to repair:

2020 - The current study is an update of previous Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) studies on insurance losses for electric vehicles in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The current study expands on the prior studies by looking at injury coverages for the first time and exploring the differences and changes in claim severities in more detail. The prior study (HLDI, 2017) found collision and property damage liability (PDL) claim frequencies for electric vehicles to be significantly lower than their conventional counterparts, while claim severity tended to be higher. However, the higher claim severity associated with electric vehicles from the earlier studies (HLDI, 2015; 2016) has attenuated over time.

The results of the current study (shown below) are consistent with the findings of the prior research. Electric vehicles continue to show significantly lower collision and PDL claim frequencies compared with their conventional counterparts. The increases in collision and PDL claim severity associated with electric vehicles have continued to attenuate, with the collision result no longer statistically significant. Electric vehicles were also associated with lower claim frequencies under all three injury coverages.

Insurance losses of electric vehicles and their conventional counterparts

2023 - Tesla CEO Elon Musk said earlier this week that Teslas are beginning to have cheaper collision repairs and are now less expensive to purchase. Lower repair costs come from Tesla offering auto insurance and adjusting the design of its cars and their software.

Musk says Tesla repair costs are down

2023 - Ford Motor Co (F.N) said it has simplified its battery module repair process and developed an easy way to replace the battery pack tray if the outside is damaged.

General Motors Co (GM.N) said its new Ultium batteries are designed to be repaired at the module level, which is "significantly less expensive than replacing the entire battery pack." It also allows third-party access to battery data.

Nissan Motor Co (7201.T) said individual modules in its EVs can be replaced.

[Plantagenet]

There is no "new change in insurance company policy" to start strapping EVs.

Not strapping...SCRAPPING.


NO NO NO....Not strapping...SCRAPPING.

The EVs aren't being strapped to something else. What strange ideas you have.

What is happening is that EVs are being taken off the roads and scrapped (i.e. destroyed) because insurance companies in the US won't insure them after minor accidents due to concerns about an increased risk of spontaneous combustion after minor accidents.

Your claim I "made this up" is an absurd lie.

There are a large number of news reports concerning this issue. Are all these news agencies reporting on this making it up too?

Obviously, in spite of your absurd claim, this story isn't made up....it's actually happening. Thats why multiple new agencies are reporting that it's happening.

Here's another link with another news report on this issue:

ev-batteries-lack-repairability-leading-insurers-junk-whole-cars-minor-collisions

And here's a direct quote from this news report

Matthew Avery, research director at automotive risk intelligence company Thatcham Research, said the goal of electric vehicles was sustainability, but the inability to be repaired is creating a whole new problem.

"We're buying electric cars for sustainability reasons," Avery said, Reuters reported. "But an EV isn't very sustainable if you've got to throw the battery away after a minor collision."

A whole new problem says Mathew Avery, who specializes in doing automotive risk assessments for the automotive industry.

But you say it's not new and its all made up.

Gosh....who should I trust here....a man who is a RISK DIRECTOR at an AUTOMOTIVE RISK INTELLIGENCE AGENCY who says this is a new and serious problem? OR Kublaiklan who says it's all made up......Hmmm...

kubie....normally I enjoy your posts and I have frequently complimented on you on the way you use references and links to back up your points. But I must say you are being a jerk not to acknowledge the reality of this issue after I posted about it multiple times and supported my posts with references and links.

For heavens sakes, face reality.

If EVs are going to be scrapped after minor accidents then this puts a dent in the claim that EVs are "sustainable" and result in low carbon emissions, just as Mr. Avery points out in my quote above.

AND How big a dent? We don't know yet.... but it's always better to face reality instead of pretending problems are "all made up".

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

I said your claim that insurance companies have made a recent change to their policies to start SCRAPPING EVs with damaged batteries was made up. And I stand by that. On the other hand, I already acknowledged that it is a problem if an entire car is scrapped because of minor battery pack damage. Initially EVs were a small percentage of vehicles in operation. So even though this was a longstanding issue, it wasn't much of a problem in the grand scheme of things because of EVs small numbers. However now that EVs are growing in numbers, the issue is starting to become a problem. So from that perspective it could be considered a new problem. But the article says nothing about any recent policy level change from insurance companies.

And you have a problem with my posts planty? I have a problem with yours:
1. Hybrids have more fires than EVs. But you sing the praises of hybrids while posting alot of 'concern' about EV fires.
2. Fuel cell vehicles cost more than EVs. Yet you sing praises about fuel cell vehicles while posting 'concerns' about the high cost of EVs.
3. Fuel cell vehicles require more expensive infrastructure than EVs. But once again you show alot of 'concern' about the high cost of EV infrastructure while singing the praises of fuel cell vehicles while ignoring their even higher costs.
4. Real world data is more important. Unless it says something you don't like, then thought experiments are more important.
5. You rant about a typo I made.
6. Your post silly pictures and huge fonts like some immature child waiving their hands around trying to get attention.
And more.

It seems to me you would prefer to spread FUD about EVs then engage constructively on the issue.

[theluckycountry]

The EV will reach its market saturation and continue to be popular, until fossil fuel depletion makes them uneconomic to build. The big lie is that they will replace the ICE fleets because they don't burn oil. They need mountains of oil and coal, even after they leave the showroom floor. They are like Bitcoin in that respect. Bitcoin looks simple and economic, until you see how much electricity it uses for each transaction.

[AdamB]

The EV will reach its market saturation and continue to be popular, until fossil fuel depletion makes them uneconomic to build.

Or makes them the only game in town.

The big lie is that they will replace the ICE fleets because they don't burn oil.

The big lie is that people who have zero experience with EVs pretend they understand why others buy them. It is all quite strange. Sort of like..people falling for peak oil(s), without a shred of understanding about geology, the oil and gas industry at large, the particulars of oil and gas development, resource economics, etc etc. Just slap that bell shaped curve on some data and yee hah! DOOM!

They need mountains of oil and coal, even after they leave the showroom floor. They are like Bitcoin in that respect. Bitcoin looks simple and economic, until you see how much electricity it uses for each transaction.

I do pretty well with the solar panels without needing mountains of anything much different than what it takes to build some outdated ICE antique. Certainly can't charge both EVs at once though, could use more panels I suppose.

[ralfy]

So I guess all those life cycle analysis studies that studied this issue in depth got it wrong eh Ralfy? Good think you are here to set the record straight!

Electric vehicles produce less carbon dioxide than petrol cars across the vast majority of the globe – contrary to the claims of some detractors, who have alleged that the CO2 emitted in the production of electricity and their manufacture outweighs the benefits.

Some individuals and governments question whether these technologies are worth expanding. The study, published on Monday in the journal Nature Sustainability, produced a decisive yes. Scientists from the universities of Exeter, Nijmegen and Cambridge conducted lifecycle assessments that showed that even where electricity generation still involves substantial amounts of fossil fuel, there was a CO2 saving over conventional cars.

Electric cars produce less CO2 than petrol vehicles, study confirms

Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher (shown in orange below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.

EPA: Electric Vehicle Myths

That's because LCAs don't consider overproduction, overconsumption, the use of oil for mining, manufacturing, and shipping, and diminishing returns.

That's clearly seen in your sources.

[AdamB]

That's because LCAs don't consider overproduction, overconsumption, the use of oil for mining, manufacturing, and shipping, and diminishing returns.
That's clearly seen in your sources.

Clearly seen by who? Overproduction and overconsumption aren't part of EV manufacturing, normal production (to build said EV) and normal consumption (in buying said EV) are. And the cost for all the components, such as oil for mining, is incorporated in the LCA of EVs as well by default.

Diminishing returns are as irrelevant to this point as it was peak oil. Just as wiki and this website's definition of peak oil demonstrates.

[theluckycountry]

That's because LCAs don't consider overproduction, overconsumption, the use of oil for mining, manufacturing, and shipping, and diminishing returns.

That's clearly seen in your sources.

They swallow the same lies that they use to make solar panels green. They take the total $ value of the electricity output by a solar array over its (exaggerated) lifespan and then equate that to how much the solar array cost in $. Trouble is the array was built with cheap coal and diesel fuel, mining and smelting and transport. Try to rebuild those panels with only solar power and they are a hopeless energy sink.

The pure EV has spawned a religion alright and the faithful have all the corrupt scriptures to back up their version of heaven. If the EV was a winner they wouldn't be manufacturing hybrids.

[AdamB]

If the EV was a winner they wouldn't be manufacturing hybrids.

Having owned hyrbids as well as multiple EVs, I ask again, what do you know about it? Nothing. Some people prefer hybrids. Plant prefers a hybrid, but there was that issue pretending it was an EV for awhile that was disconcerting. Virtue signaling perhaps? Doesn't matter, there isn't anything wrong with hybrids, and they do have the advantage, and disadvantage, of carrying an entirely separate means of motivation along. Nothing wrong with a little backup in that regard.

[ralfy]

Real world numbers do not come close to jiving with your thought experiment:

Between 2013 and 2022, 6.6 percent of electric vehicles in operation were scrapped. During that same time, just 5.2 percent of combustion vehicles met their maker.

The Cars, Trucks on the Road Are Older Than Ever

According to the article, the main reason this is taking place is because of "high interest rates and inflation".

It's worse in most parts of the world, which consist of developing economies. Vehicles are used even if they're decades old because of poverty, and many are even made from parts that are discarded in developed economies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeepney

They emit higher levels of pollution and are less safe.

To recap, you need oil and fossil fuels in general for EVs as well as minerals. You need them for infrastructure, too, as much of the world involves unpaved roads and even lack of an electrical grid, not to mention lack of power.

Both of those face diminishing returns because the world is a limited biosphere and because of gravity. That means you will need increasing amounts of energy to extract decreasing amounts of fossil fuels and minerals, and they will be of decreasing quality.

The ones who manufacture not only EVs but most goods in general want overproduction and overconsumption to maximize profits. That means the intention is not to conserve energy and material resources but to exploit them.

The ones who are expected to buy them will do so to replace ICEs, which means all of that infrastructure will have to be in place for them to do so, and there are businesses eager to do the same for profit, too. Based on ecological footprint, the amount of energy and material resources needed to meet that will be up to four times the biocapacity of the earth.

Thus, unless EVs are made and used magically, then we should expect carbon emissions to continue rising while the effects of diminishing returns be seen in the form of inflation, financial crashes, shortages, etc. While, as article puts it, people struggle to maintain vehicles because they can't afford to buy new ones, vehicle manufacturers will struggle trying to make them buy more vehicles because their profits start getting cut and their investors complain.