I have a tough time reading something so clearly biased.
The campaign by the Western elite in the U.S. and Europe
Sorry - what? I don't feel like I'm elite. I feel like I commute 50 miles round trip a day plus some weekend travel and I'm dropping $60+ a week on gas. All of which goes away if I go electric. So, $33,000 for a new EV (out the door) is well worth it. Call it a drop to $20 a week. Maybe less if I can charge at work. That's a $2,000 savings annually on fuel. More importantly, I won't ever go to a gas station. My wife has a gas SUV, so I guess we are 'elite' because we each own a car? Seriously, that type of terminology just shows ignorance of why people are actually buying EVs right now.
Saying that manufacturers are making EVs due to government demands ignores that most dealers don't have a single EV in stock and they are on constant backorder for almost all dealers. This seems to indicate that there actually is a demand... and not just a little bit of it. It's a false narrative to say that consumers don't want them. It IS accurate to say there aren't a ton on the road yet. But, considering that 7% of ALL vehicles sold are EVs... in a nation that isn't at all geared up yet for powering them, is something that the article uses to push it's own point of 'never electric'. It's just a false argument.
Their second reason literally points to an article that says that by 2050, 60% of all vehicles on the road will be electric. Huh? That directly goes against what their key argument in the article leads with. When 60% of all vehicles are electric, then the majority of vehicles will be electric. Math is apparently hard for this writer.
The final argument is valid about battery production being a major issue. It is, and it is hard to believe that some slumbugger like him doesn't see the capitalistic approach to what lithium demand will actually do in the world. It will just drive nations to mine the crap out of the product. It is exactly what this nation has done very well for many, many years... meet the demand and make some profit.
Strangely, not one mention of the electrical infrastructure that needs vast improvement. Or the lack of EV charging stations for so many out there (renters especially) in this nation.
The terminology used in the article is very much directed to generate emotion over actually giving valid reasons. It uses contradictory statements in a very poor manner. It ignores real hurdles in favor of fantasy.
It also ignores that technology will progress, but likely at a very slow rate. Battery charging hasn't drastically improved in the last 20 years. That's a major hurdle for those who take long trips and need to charge up.
Battery storage is a major issue. 300 miles is nice, but for those who regularly make long trips... it's not enough.
Battery price/replacement is huge as well. Batteries deteriorate, and we haven't figured out a fairly inexpensive way to swap battery packs on cars yet.
Cost of cars I think is artificially high on some models still. But, right now, the entry point for many EVs is far higher than most can afford. Maybe that's why he considers those buying EVs 'elites'. But, I'm not sure how much that will be the case in another decade when EV production ramps way up.
The article was just too tough to read because of the incredible bias of the author, which is fully supported by the website itself. It is a Fox News level of bias from page one and ignores science in favor of opinion, which just makes it really a gross misrepresentation of what is really going on.
What does the author say in 2050 when 60% of the vehicles on the road actually are EVs? Will he say "See! That's what I quoted!!!" - Or will he admit that the headline was just BS, before he gets in his EV and drives away?
