> Is this guy serious? The average car is driven 13.5k miles/year. So 50k is 3.7 years.
Did you read the rest of the article?
Quote: "To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."
Electric cars have a shorter effective range than "the average car" and due to charging time are less suitable for long trips (or for purchase in places where long trips are the norm) so they're likely to get driven less. And the range gets shorter as time goes on so even if they're comparable in the first year they won't be in later years.
Anyway, the article gave TWO data points. He said "IF a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime..." gave some conclusions, and then went on to talk about a better-case scenario of the car being driven 90,000 miles. Can you at least accept these as a bracket? The conclusion he reached from considering these two hypothetical data points was that electric cars might be worse than non-electrics in terms of CO2 impact or they might be better, but were unlikely to be a vast improvement and in any case the term "zero emissions" is a misnomer.
When doing a cost-benefit analysis at the end, Lomborgh used his optimistic estimate - 90,000 miles - to conclude that the government would be spending $7,500 in subsidies to save $44 (in the US) or $48 (in Europe) worth of carbon.
Did you read the rest of the article?
Quote: "To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."
Electric cars have a shorter effective range than "the average car" and due to charging time are less suitable for long trips (or for purchase in places where long trips are the norm) so they're likely to get driven less. And the range gets shorter as time goes on so even if they're comparable in the first year they won't be in later years.
Anyway, the article gave TWO data points. He said "IF a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime..." gave some conclusions, and then went on to talk about a better-case scenario of the car being driven 90,000 miles. Can you at least accept these as a bracket? The conclusion he reached from considering these two hypothetical data points was that electric cars might be worse than non-electrics in terms of CO2 impact or they might be better, but were unlikely to be a vast improvement and in any case the term "zero emissions" is a misnomer.
When doing a cost-benefit analysis at the end, Lomborgh used his optimistic estimate - 90,000 miles - to conclude that the government would be spending $7,500 in subsidies to save $44 (in the US) or $48 (in Europe) worth of carbon.