Teslas have consistently been rated among the safest vehicles on the road, more safe than any SUV or Truck, because their low center of gravity reduces the likelihood of a rollover event and their weight being comparable to an SUV or truck.

aggiehawg said:

---

The reason why is The Hubs has a hard time keeping the lake house golf cart charged, all of his tools charged.

We have multiple 200 amps drops on the ranch. But keeping that many things charged even on a trickle cell does not work forever. They die.

Until battery tech makes a HUGE advancement, EVs are futile.

Now, tell me why I am wrong.

---

Im no fan of electric vehicles and see their many flaws (how the batteries are produced, electricity pollutes, can't tow really, etc).

That being said, comparing a Tesla to a golf cart? Lol…

If and when it makes fiscal and practical sense for my family, I'll pull the trigger on an EV. Not sure I'll see that day...

My fully electric car has almost 500 hp and 600 lb/ft of torque. Dual motor. All wheel drive. Faster to 60 than my Porsche. It gets me to work and back all week and fully charges overnight in one night on a 220 volt outlet. If you guys don't want to participate in the fun that's fine, but pretending they are analogous to a golf cart trickle charging all day is ridiculous.

hph6203 said:

---

Teslas have consistently been rated among the safest vehicles on the road, more safe than any SUV or Truck, because their low center of gravity reduces the likelihood of a rollover event and their weight being comparable to an SUV or truck.

---

How they are they rated when broad sided by a lifted F250? That is the more likely scenario here.

Malibu2 said:

---

Honest question for the physics nerds. An ICE burns gas. An EV recharged by a grid also runs on fossil fuels, albeit burnt by the the power company.

I know different fuel types blah blah. But let's say that an ICE tank holds 10 gallons and runs 30 MPG and goes 300 miles. What is the equivalent amount of gas used by the power company to power an EV that also goes 300 miles? I understand this answer is going to have a lot of variability, feel free to use reasonable approximations.

---

Electric vehicles are 90+% efficient at converting grid energy to propulsion (from power plant to wheels). Combustion vehicles are 20-35% efficient at doing the same thing. Coal plants are around 33% efficient, natural gas plants are 45+% efficient.

Electric vehicles are more efficient than your average gas vehicles, even on coal, and far more efficient than any energy production method that's more efficient than coal (natural gas, nuclear, wind, hydro, or solar).

Anyone making an argument about gas vehicles being better from an emissions standpoint has to frame it in a way where they use the worst case scenario for electric vehicles and the best case scenario for combustion vehicles. The worst case for electric vehicles represents 20% of the countries energy production and that percentage is falling as it's a more expensive way to produce electricity than any other energy production method (other than nuclear, depending on your time window of analysis).


You'll see people post pictures of lithium mines in a worst case hard rock lithium mine from Australia, but they won't show you the excess mining efforts to build a combustion engine and all of its components. They'll post a list of materials that includes copper wiring for electric vehicles, but they won't tell you that combustion vehicles also have a shocking, and comparable, amount of wiring in them.


Electric vehicle proponents do the same thing. It's kind of like a magicians trick where they say look over here, not over there, and try to frame the argument in their favor.


For transparency, I believe that electric vehicles are the future for the vast majority of people, including the people in this thread who say never ever, because they don't anticipate the changes that will occur. They are not the present for the vast majority of people for a variety of reasons.

WBBQ74 said:

---

You are correct. A golf cart works for the golf course. It gets to charge up all night and putter around for a couple of hours on a 7200 YD or about 4 mile pathway. A $75K EV is not much better than a glorified golf cart and just doesn't work for most folks in Texas. Unless you are only going to drive it a few miles to work and back each day, and have a place in the garage to charge it up every night. Just because the Green Fairy says it is so does not make it such. Only the heavy hand of government can 'make' EVs attractive financially, at least somewhat. The market is not ready and the electric power grid damn sure ain't ready for millions of EVs sucking up the Kw's.

---

Add to this, its a lot easier to control the power to charge the batteries. The batteries have a limited range which means you are less mobile. Another way government will control you.

slaughtr said:

---

My fully electric car has almost 500 hp and 600 lb/ft of torque. Dual motor. All wheel drive. Faster to 60 than my Porsche. It gets me to work and back all week and fully charges overnight in one night on a 220 volt outlet. If you guys don't want to participate in the fun that's fine, but pretending they are analogous to a golf cart trickle charging all day is ridiculous.

---

This is the equivalent of a vegan, or crossfitter, or starbucks addict etc., who insists their habits/practices etc. are so great, but...again, the issue isn't what you drive, but the impact and abject apathy for what is required to transition much/most/all of us to those vehicles.

The last mile of infrastructure (power grid), and metals/mining/political impacts of doing so are tremendous. IOW, you are entirely missing the point.

You think it's easier to control electricity to an electric vehicle than it is to control the oil and gas production in the United States? Better stop blaming Joe Biden for gas prices.

If you want unlimited ability to drive a vehicle you can get an electric vehicle, a charger in your garage, and solar panels on your roof, live out in the boonies and the government won't have a damn thing to say about it. That's not the cheapest option in life, but if your concern is government rationing it's a very simple way to throw a middle finger back at them.

You have zero say in gas production.

nortex97 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

My fully electric car has almost 500 hp and 600 lb/ft of torque. Dual motor. All wheel drive. Faster to 60 than my Porsche. It gets me to work and back all week and fully charges overnight in one night on a 220 volt outlet. If you guys don't want to participate in the fun that's fine, but pretending they are analogous to a golf cart trickle charging all day is ridiculous.

---

This is the equivalent of a vegan, or crossfitter, or starbucks addict etc., who insists their habits/practices etc. are so great, but...again, the issue isn't what you drive, but the impact and abject apathy for what is required to transition much/most/all of us to those vehicles.

The last mile of infrastructure (power grid), and metals/mining/political impacts of doing so are tremendous. IOW, you are entirely missing the point.

---

I have no idea what you are saying. My fully electric car is badass. I enjoy it. The same way I enjoy my normally aspirated manual transmission Porsche. I'm not a "vegan" or "crossfitter" addicted to only one way of living. But it sure sounds like you are. Get an electric car or don't, I don't give a crap, but just pretending they are glorified golf carts is idiotic.

hph6203 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Honest question for the physics nerds. An ICE burns gas. An EV recharged by a grid also runs on fossil fuels, albeit burnt by the the power company.

I know different fuel types blah blah. But let's say that an ICE tank holds 10 gallons and runs 30 MPG and goes 300 miles. What is the equivalent amount of gas used by the power company to power an EV that also goes 300 miles? I understand this answer is going to have a lot of variability, feel free to use reasonable approximations.

---

Electric vehicles are 90+% efficient at converting grid energy to propulsion (from power plant to wheels). Combustion vehicles are 20-35% efficient at doing the same thing. Coal plants are around 33% efficient, natural gas plants are 45+% efficient.

Electric vehicles are more efficient than your average gas vehicles, even on coal, and far more efficient than any energy production method that's more efficient than coal (natural gas, nuclear, wind, hydro, or solar).

Anyone making an argument about gas vehicles being better from an emissions standpoint has to frame it in a way where they use the worst case scenario for electric vehicles and the best case scenario for combustion vehicles. The worst case for electric vehicles represents 20% of the countries energy production and that percentage is falling as it's a more expensive way to produce electricity than any other energy production method (other than nuclear, depending on your time window of analysis).


You'll see people post pictures of lithium mines in a worst case hard rock lithium mine from Australia, but they won't show you the excess mining efforts to build a combustion engine and all of its components. They'll post a list of materials that includes copper wiring for electric vehicles, but they won't tell you that combustion vehicles also have a shocking, and comparable, amount of wiring in them.


Electric vehicle proponents do the same thing. It's kind of like a magicians trick where they say look over here, not over there, and try to frame the argument in their favor.


For transparency, I believe that electric vehicles are the future for the vast majority of people, including the people in this thread who say never ever, because they don't anticipate the changes that will occur. They are not the present for the vast majority of people for a variety of reasons.

---

Battery technology is not ready to spur the transition from gas to electric. The proof of that is the subsidies
that are now necessary.

Let the market decide when that time is not some idiot government. Let the government fund research into batteries, let markets decide when battery technology is ready.

Hint: It will be obvious to everyone when that time is.

All we are doing now is weakening ourselves and strengthening our enemy china!

hph6203 said:

---

You think it's easier to control electricity to an electric vehicle than it is to control the oil and gas production in the United States? Better stop blaming Joe Biden for gas prices.

If you want unlimited ability to drive a vehicle you can get an electric vehicle, a charger in your garage, and solar panels on your roof, live out in the boonies and the government won't have a damn thing to say about it. That's not the cheapest option in life, but if your concern is government rationing it's a very simple way to throw a middle finger back at them.

You have zero say in gas production.

---

Ok drive your 125 miles away from home and then what? How do you get home with about a 200 mile range so you can charge up?

Secondly, Biden's policies had more of an impact on price of fuel than anything else. Day 1, he signaled that the US was moving away from fossil fuels. He shut down a pipeline, cancelled leases, and has through policy made it super difficult to do business. Now he's screaming at oil companies that they are not drilling and threatening to find them for not drilling. The Democrats act like the society and the world is like some classroom exercise where if we only do this, people will do this. Its ****ing nuts!!! It doesn't make any sense to drill if you are not allowed to construct the infrastructure necessary to get the oil out of the ground to the refinery. You think these pipelines are already in place at every lease? It takes time, money to acquire the right of way to construct these collector pipeline to connect to a larger pipeline to transport to the refinery.

Quote:

---

Hint: It will be obvious to everyone when that time is.


All we are doing now is weakening ourselves and strengthening our enemy china!

---

If that time comes while I am still able to drive, I might change my mind. Not holding my breath, though. Battery technology has been a subject of mostly such limitations my whole life. NASA could land a man on the moon and even then they had to work around battery limitations.

Sgt. Schultz said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You think it's easier to control electricity to an electric vehicle than it is to control the oil and gas production in the United States? Better stop blaming Joe Biden for gas prices.

If you want unlimited ability to drive a vehicle you can get an electric vehicle, a charger in your garage, and solar panels on your roof, live out in the boonies and the government won't have a damn thing to say about it. That's not the cheapest option in life, but if your concern is government rationing it's a very simple way to throw a middle finger back at them.

You have zero say in gas production.

---

Ok drive your 125 miles away from home and then what? How do you get home with about a 200 mile range so you can charge up?

---

EV ranges floor at 250 miles for most models. The longer range models have upwards of 400 miles. Do the same in a gas vehicle in this draconian future where the government doesn't want you driving. Find that gas pump with gas in it. I didn't live through the Carter era, but my parents can tell you that your sense of security in gas supply is overinflated. So a gas vehicle makes it 50 miles further down the road with the ability to get back home, but once you get back you have a giant paper weight.

My point isn't that EVs are better for this reason, it's that in that unlikely environment, where the government doesn't want people driving at all, they are better. It's just a tinfoil hat argument.

We'll see where the technology gets over the next 10 years. 10 years ago, electric cars were a joke and an extreme oddity on the road. Now, I see a Tesla at every light.

I won't buy one until they are worth the cost but I think we see exponential growth in their usage over the next 15 years.

Hybrid vehicles are the way.

Large enough batteries to cover most driving when charged at home.

Takes gas so you don't need to redo infrastructure everywhere or wait to recharge in long trips.

More affordable than fully electric.

Often more power than ICE only.

Until the government decides that electricity is dirty and shuts down coal fired power plants. Oh. Wait.

New vehicles sold in the United States will have to travel an average of at least 40 miles per gallon of gasoline in 2026 under new rules unveiled Friday by the government.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said its fuel economy requirements will undo a rollback of standards enacted under President Donald Trump. The new requirements increase gas mileage by 8% per year for model years 2024 and 2025 and 10% in the 2026 model year.

Need energy production to make gas. Not a valid argument. Not much of the country runs off coal and it's an ever decreasing percentage as it's dirtier and more expensive.

There are no direct subsidies on the most popular EV on the market other than penalty payments from other auto makers for fleet emission violations. Those represent a small and shrinking proportion of Tesla's revenue (they had 7.6 billion in profit in 2021, 1.4 billion in ZEV credits, in Q4 2021 it was 2.9 billion vs 386 million). Elon Musk is on record saying that they don't need a renewal/expansion of EV tax credits (theirs completely expired 3 years ago, they are far more profitable today than when they had the credits available).

Their gross margins are growing, because the demand is so strong and their production is temporarily constrained, due to lack of factory floor space, that they are increasing prices to reduce wait times. They just opened two new 500,000+ vehicle per year production facilities in the last month and have announced they will be naming the location of their next facility before the end of the year. When production catches up to demand you'll start to see prices drop.


I'm all for the market deciding, and the market is currently saying I'll pay a sticker premium over a combustion vehicle to gain the day to day benefits on long term cost reductions of a Tesla (I would not say the same for other model vehicles, Teslas are the proof of concept, everyone else has to catch up).

I don't argue that anyone should buy an EV, but most of the people that argue against them as a technology can conceptualize the problems, but they don't conceptualize the advantages.

jefe95 said:

---

Until the government decides that electricity is dirty and shuts down coal fired power plants. Oh. Wait.

---

Exactly.

How do you think the lithium used for batteries gets out of the ground. It ain't electric equipment doing the mining!!!

When electric vehicles make sense, the market will switch over on its own. Capitalism is a great thing as there is ALWAYS someone trying to build a better mousetrap.

hph6203 said:

---

Sgt. Schultz said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You think it's easier to control electricity to an electric vehicle than it is to control the oil and gas production in the United States? Better stop blaming Joe Biden for gas prices.

If you want unlimited ability to drive a vehicle you can get an electric vehicle, a charger in your garage, and solar panels on your roof, live out in the boonies and the government won't have a damn thing to say about it. That's not the cheapest option in life, but if your concern is government rationing it's a very simple way to throw a middle finger back at them.

You have zero say in gas production.

---

Ok drive your 125 miles away from home and then what? How do you get home with about a 200 mile range so you can charge up?

---

EV ranges floor at 250 miles for most models. The longer range models have upwards of 400 miles. Do the same in a gas vehicle in this draconian future where the government doesn't want you driving. Find that gas pump with gas in it. I didn't live through the Carter era, but my parents can tell you that your sense of security in gas supply is overinflated. So a gas vehicle makes it 50 miles further down the road with the ability to get back home, but once you get back you have a giant paper weight.

My point isn't that EVs are better for this reason, it's that in that unlikely environment, where the government doesn't want people driving at all, they are better. It's just a tinfoil hat argument.

---

If you are going to invest in the technology so you can charge your vehicle, am I allowed to invest in the technology to make my own alcohol based or biodiesel fuel???

Find enough material to run your vehicle on it and by god you can! I think you're going to be spending way more and ending up with way more headache to go the same distances.

My issue isn't that people are buying BEVs. 90% of my miles will work with an EV, I can afford to rent an ICE for the times an EV would be a problem (long road trips or pulling stuff), and I suspect I'll end up buying an electric vehicle in the next five years.

What I object to is that the argument "no one is making you buy an electric car" isn't exactly true, and it's getting less true every day.

First is removing alternatives; a forced choice is no choice at all. The government is encouraging financial attacks on O&G. A large ~minority of congresspeople are trying to take money away from the industry when times are good and leave it to swing when times are bad. State and national government utilize the tools of an overgrown regulatory state to block infrastructure and production at every step of the value chain. All this conspires to artificially increase the TCO of ICE vehicles.

Second is the direct removal of the choice. In its least intrusive form, this is the gradual increase in fuel mileage standards enacted on car makers. More severe market interventions include production quotas enacted by governments around the world along with laws to ban ICE vehicles entirely. Those are being put in place at the state level and proposed nationally.

hph6203 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Honest question for the physics nerds. An ICE burns gas. An EV recharged by a grid also runs on fossil fuels, albeit burnt by the the power company.

I know different fuel types blah blah. But let's say that an ICE tank holds 10 gallons and runs 30 MPG and goes 300 miles. What is the equivalent amount of gas used by the power company to power an EV that also goes 300 miles? I understand this answer is going to have a lot of variability, feel free to use reasonable approximations.

---

Electric vehicles are 90+% efficient at converting grid energy to propulsion (from power plant to wheels). Combustion vehicles are 20-35% efficient at doing the same thing. Coal plants are around 33% efficient, natural gas plants are 45+% efficient.

Electric vehicles are more efficient than your average gas vehicles, even on coal, and far more efficient than any energy production method that's more efficient than coal (natural gas, nuclear, wind, hydro, or solar).

Anyone making an argument about gas vehicles being better from an emissions standpoint has to frame it in a way where they use the worst case scenario for electric vehicles and the best case scenario for combustion vehicles. The worst case for electric vehicles represents 20% of the countries energy production and that percentage is falling as it's a more expensive way to produce electricity than any other energy production method (other than nuclear, depending on your time window of analysis).


You'll see people post pictures of lithium mines in a worst case hard rock lithium mine from Australia, but they won't show you the excess mining efforts to build a combustion engine and all of its components. They'll post a list of materials that includes copper wiring for electric vehicles, but they won't tell you that combustion vehicles also have a shocking, and comparable, amount of wiring in them.


Electric vehicle proponents do the same thing. It's kind of like a magicians trick where they say look over here, not over there, and try to frame the argument in their favor.


For transparency, I believe that electric vehicles are the future for the vast majority of people, including the people in this thread who say never ever, because they don't anticipate the changes that will occur. They are not the present for the vast majority of people for a variety of reasons.

---

Not sure where you are getting your first paragraph, but from what I read, you get about 10% of the energy from natural gas into motion energy with EVs.
With gasoline, yeah, you get about 30%. For a gallon of LNG versus gallon of gasoline, how many BTUs? You have to convert twice when using electricity, from hydrocarbon to electricity then to mechanical. You have loss in spinning the turbines. You have loss over the wires. You have loss at the step down transformers. You have loss when charging the EV battery. I have a hard time believing that EV raw hydrocarbon to motion is more efficient with electric.

Yes. Quick quiz (in real life): what major auto manufacturer is planning to be selling ICE vehicles beyond 2030? 2035?

Hint: not many. I think it is less than 20 percent of the 'big' mfg's.

This is one of two reasons why we cant glibly dismiss objections as irrelevant edge cases.

The regulators and public thought leaders who guide or control so many aspects of our lives tend to live very similar lives in a very specific environment that is conducive to electric vehicles. They live in large, dense cities; many of them have drivers to handle the charging and private jets to travel long distances even when there isn't a major airport at each end. They can also grant themselves waivers if the laws are inconvenient for them. For those of us without those advantages the ICE is a component, often a critical one, of living the life we choose to live. It's important to keep that front and center and make sure we're all represented as these laws are being written.

Second is that our electrical infrastructure is nowhere close to being able to replace the gas infrastructure. It's a massive investment that the market isn't really calling for, but as adoption rates are forced higher we are going to outgrow the existing infrastructure and there will be a period of time where EVs get worse than they are now, and the additional draw on the grid impacts the availability of reliable heat and air conditioning, endangering lives in some parts of the country.

nortex97 said:

---

Yes. Quick quiz (in real life): what major auto manufacturer is planning to be selling ICE vehicles beyond 2030? 2035?

Hint: not many. I think it is less than 20 percent of the 'big' mfg's.

---

They will be selling hybrids. It will be more expensive but they will get 40 mpg and also have more power than their ICE counter parts that were getting 30 mpg.

Look at Honda CRV and Toyota RAV4 hybrids.

I think they are about 2-3k more than the non-hybrids, but honestly pay for themselves with high gas prices.

It is. Transmission loss is minimal, conversion from electrical to mechanical is minimal over the whole system. The greatest source of loss is in the conversion from hydrocarbon to electrical, and that process is more efficient at the plant, coal or natural gas, than the vast majority of combustion vehicles. Scale matters.

bmks270 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Yes. Quick quiz (in real life): what major auto manufacturer is planning to be selling ICE vehicles beyond 2030? 2035?

Hint: not many. I think it is less than 20 percent of the 'big' mfg's.

---

They will be selling hybrids. It will be more expensive but they will get 40 mpg and also have more power than their ICE counter parts that were getting 30 mpg.

Look at Honda CRV and Toyota RAV4 hybrids.

I think they are about 2-3k more than the non-hybrids, but honestly pay for themselves with high gas prices.

---

Long term ownership value is still an unknown.

YouBet said:

---

We live in the city. I would consider owning 1 EV while keeping 1 ICEV. I only drove about 5k miles per year so I have a use case for ownership.

It would come down to TCO for me over a 10 yr period as that is typically how long I drive a car. I'm due for a new vehicle in about four years.

One advantage for EVs is not paying for gas but that is going away so that will negate a major cost savings with EV. Just a matter of when they pass the new mileage usage fee. That could greatly impact my decision.

---

You stop with that logical middle ground approach! This is F16 and the extreme positions have been taken, so get in line!

They need to pipe in the sound of a M8, or something. Tesla does have the feel of a glorified golf cart.

Gunny456 said:

---

My BIL bought a hybrid. Pretty cool at first. Then the engine started running hot. It has been at the dealership for 8 months and $2300 later it still has issues. They told him that being that it is a hybrid he now just needs a new engine at a cost of $10,000.
Their reason to him for the issues is because it is a hybrid and they " don't know about all the bugs in them yet".
He has talked to some other customers with similar issues. I just feel bad for him as he really was hyped on getting the hybrid. Hope they all are not like his experience.

---

Everyone has nightmare stories, I have a similar story about a Jeep I bought years ago, but that isn't indicative of all Jeeps. We were already on the market for a mini van with the new kids at the house and then the price of gas sky rocketed which made us look at the hybrid. We have to take the kids to visitation with their bio parents, at least when they aren't in jail, we also take them to visit with their extended family so they don't lose that connection. That's a lot miles on weekly basis and the state's reimbursement doesn't come close to covering that cost. I did a lot of research into the various options and this one seems to have pretty good reviews. My cousin and his wife have the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid and have had absolutely no issues and for them the 85 miles to the gallon holds true. Hopefully the same happens for us.

aggiehawg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

You are wrong because battery tech has already advanced significantly from the stuff you mentioned. But the good news is no one is forcing you to buy an EV.

You mentioned a ranch so it may not be a great fit for you. For people that live in cities (most people) EV's offer significant advantages over ICE vehicles

---

Name them. TIA.

---

• The life of a battery in an electric car is limited and the cost to replace is high.
• As the EV battery ages it loses the ability to charge to its peak when new, so range becomes very limited rather quickly.
• In cold climates the battery loses efficiency.
• In Texas most electricity is generated by natural gas not by wind or solar. Kind of defeats the purpose of electric cars.
• Currently the battery technology relies on minerals mined in countries using close to slave labor and no regard to the environmental pollution caused, let alone the untold deaths from working conditions.
• ??…,,,#/$&@

Oh wait, nevemind, you asked for significant advantages for EV in an urban environment.

• Makes people feel good about their choice.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Like I said before, we have a plug in hybrid and over 40 solar panels. PG&E in my area during peak hours is over 45 cents per kwh. So when we did the math for the plug in prius, gas was cheaper. So we only charge during solar is kicking.

We also have another prius for daughter.

I won't buy an EV. Not now. **** no.

---

The thing is, you are probably (based on your username) very good at math, and consideration/analyses of possible side effects etc. The BEV objective is to make everyone who isn't strong at that accept/embrace them, and only then/when it is too late lament that 'this isn't really a good thing for me/my country/family.'

---

Actually, PG&E peak rate is about $0.50 per kwh. What's it take to fully charge a large capacity Tesla battery? 80 kwh?

It will cost $40 to charge one at my house.

---

I have to wonder about someone who would charge an electric vehicle during peak rates... The idea is to charge the vehicle during off-peak times. The PG&E EV off-peak rate is half that. That's $20 for a full charge. Of course, the idea is also not to wait until the battery is fully discharged, but to charge daily during off-peak times (between midnight and 7 am) to keep you fully charged. Of course, for people who only pay $0.12 per KWh, that's $10 for a full charge.

That 80 KWh charge will get you 300+ mile range. For a ICE car at an average 20 mpg (lets talk real-life fuel efficiency, not EPA ratings), that's going to be 15 gallons of gas. At $6/gallon (California prices), that's $90 for 300 miles in an ICE vehicle vs. $20 for a Telsa. For Texas prices ($0.12/KWh; $4/gal) its $60 vs $10.

As has been mentioned, nobody is forcing anyone to buy an EV. Those who think that is happening are fighting a straw man. Providing for more options is not reducing anybody's choices.

The current EV state-of-the-art is not an attractive replacement for the ICE for many people. For others, however, it makes sense. Improvements in infrastructure (needed regardless) and battery life and capacity, and charging ability will only increase the number of people that will find the EV solution attractive.