Everyone knows that electric vehicles are supposed to be better for the planet than gas cars. That’s the driving reason behind a global effort to transition toward batteries.
But what about the harms caused by mining for battery minerals? And coal-fired power plants for the electricity to charge the cars? And battery waste? Is it really true that EVs are better?
The answer is yes. But Americans are growing less convinced.
The net benefits of EVs have been frequently fact-checked, including by NPR. "No technology is perfect, but the electric vehicles are going to offer a significant benefit as compared to the internal combustion engine vehicles," Jessika Trancik, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told NPR this spring.
It’s important to ask these questions about EVs’ hidden costs, Trancik says. But they have been answered “exhaustively” — her word — and a widerange of organizations have confirmed that EVs still beat gas.
I’ve been wondering… Those batteries are really heavy and I’ve already had to explain to multiple customers that their ~1000kg heavier and ~100kw stronger engine (to get similar acceleration in a comparable model to the gas vehicle) is going to eat up tires twice as fast. If you were burning through a set of tires a year you better budget for two sets and the extra time to come in and have them changed every 6 months. And all those extra tires have to come from something. And shipped from somewhere. And then the roads need repaving more often because of both the extra weight and higher power output. 1000’s of km of road that will have repaving works going on twice as often. On top of reduced traffic throughput while roadworks are ongoing, is any of that taken into account when comparing environmental impact? How will the increase in airborne particles and toxic runoff from the roads affect the environment?
The vehicles weight a little more, but the move to solid state batteries will decrease weight by 30-50%. So that issue is already being addressed. Batteries will get better as we start to use them as competitive markers drive fixing such. We aren’t improving gas powered vehicles much anymore, they still kill people with their exhaust daily. Anyone going against the movement is for killing people and the environment. Dead stop.
People can be against EVs and still be for the environment. EVs still need massive amounts of parking and lanes, our zoning laws often mean we keep destroying natural land to pave these spaces. The EV will also prolong the suburban experiment which is massively worse for the environment compared to desner housing options. Some people view EVs as delaying some of the more pressing issuses related to tranportation and city development in our urban areas.
Personally I think EVs are better than ICE but i dont think just swapping them out is doing enough for the environment or to reduce our overall energy demands.
“they still kill people with their exhaust daily”
Exactly my point. The pollution from road and tires kills more people than exhausts on a modern vehicle. And now that we are moving to heavier vehicles that need to compensate with higher power we will have even more pollution and carcinogens killing us. I’m a car mechanic and take the bus+subway to work but on the rare occasion I bring my car to get some work done I get lectured by customers, about how I should buy an ev for 5x the cost of my current car while they trot around in their 4 ton beasts every day. I’ve used my current set of tires for 6 years. Many of my EV customers need new tires every 6-12 months. People need to change their habits before buying en EV unless all they want to do is virtue signal.
A Chevy Bolt weighs the same as a Toyota Camry. Why why would it need new tires every 6-12 months?
Also… Still before they eventually move to lower weight batteries over time as I originally stated.
The cost is also no where near 5x as much, I believe they are both ~30. Costs also come down with mass production of parts
The bolt is a subcompact, the Camry is a midsize.
The Camry is three feet longer, has two more doors and weighs 200lbs less.
A better comparison would be to the Yaris, Toyotas subcompact gas hatchback which weighs between 900 and 1400lbs less depending on options.
Genuine question - are EVs better for the environment if the main source of electricity of my country is coal based? Most of the coal plants are pretty old too…
Yes. That’s the entire point here. The answer is yes.
Yes, whether your electric plant is coal, natural gas, or honestly even if it was diesel. Larger engines are more efficient than smaller ones. It’s been a long time since I broke down the math over 10 years so my information is probably wildly out of date but even 10 years ago when you broke down the math charging an EV from a fossil fuel plant of any kind was still ultimately more efficient than a gas car in the long term.
Couple that with the ability of many EV now to also act as a battery for your house and that just goes wildly into the EVs favor if you utilize that for peak demand offset. Which many people could do easily even if it meant not having their battery fully charged in the morning when they go to leave for work because let’s face it very few people drive more than 60 miles full round trip in a day so even with their battery at say half they would have more than enough for their whole day plus extra.
Do we actually have hard data to determine if coal power delivering your electricity is indeed cleaner than what an ICE emits?
Yes you can get the emissions per equivalent kilowatt hour of both. Especially since there are many electric generators that are just using a car engine. And it’s a known fact that at least in terms of energy generation larger motors a better conversion rate of fuel to electricity and power plant Motors are quite a bit larger than most cars. Unfortunately I only really have my phone available to me at the moment and I’m a little busy so I don’t have time for much more than these quick replies but over the next couple days if I get a moment I will come reply to this again after finding the actual figures if you haven’t already found them yourself which please do reply to this with them if you find them
It’s pretty simple really if you look at commuter traffic. Each stopped electric vehicle does nothing while stopped.
Aside from heating or cooling the occupants, that is.
Yes the MIT link covers coal. At worst it’s on par with gas cars. They get better as the energy source mix does but they aren’t worse than gas powered cars.
The “break even” point is still somewhere around 150k miles for big batteries (above 75 kWh). And while there are many EVs that have 200k on their first battery, that isn’t necessarily the status quo for most of them. A simple lump of Aluminum or Cast Iron takes a lot less energy to make and can even be produced completely renewable If you factor in synthetic fuels, things look even more grey - especially with algae, there can be huge benefits growing algae in sea water (see the Arctic Algal Boom and the connected pytho plankton growth). BEVs are not “THE” answer, they are one answer to specific questions.
Not only that, the issus (environmental, child labour, etc) with rare earth elements are still not solved and the environmental damages through lithium mining are not something to just sweep under the rug.
So something a swappable and universal battery design would solve that would allow lithium to be phased out by sodium batteries and would allow the usage of only the amount of batteries you’d actually need. So why are you against that as well? Or just BEVs in general?
Who said i’m against that? But with that argument, phasing out fossile fuels would solve a lot more issues than a few EVs.
Or maybe 13,500 miles. But what’s a few zeros between friends?
Argonne assumes the batteries are produced with renewables AND they assume EVs are going to be charged over the day, when most of the renewable energy is “present”. Most BEVs are charged over night, where only Hydro or Geothermal makes power. Meaning, the Co2 footprint grows exponentially, because at night most of the power is made with fossile fuels - a kWh easily can have a rucksack of over 700 gr/kWh of Co2. But hey, what’s a few assumptions here or there in favour of either side, huh? Oh and go talk to China about them producing the batteries “environment friendly”. Just because something uses less Co2 doesn’t mean it’s cleaner. A few ppm more Co2 in the Atmosphere is bad for the Climate, sure, but a few ppm more Mercury in natural habitats, rivers and lakes? Pff, who cares!
“Most BEVs are charged over night, where only Hydro or Geothermal makes power”
Maybe in Iceland; anywhere with wind and nuclear power, this really is not the case.
And in most areas, how much share have nuclear and wind? Somewhere around 30-40% combined on average
About 30% in Europe/US; half that in China.
Electricity consumption drops sharply during the night - when wind power typically peaks. There are power companies that offer substantially cheaper rates at night for charging EVs for this very reason.
67% of GOP voters believe the Haitians (((n*****s))) are eating pets in Springfield, OH.
So, no surprise.
Put them in a sealed room with a gas engine running and you’ll see how fast they realize that they’re cleaner
Fair, but the first rebuttal is going to be “go into a sealed room with a coal fire burning”
… how is that an argument?
The argument is that all you’re doing is moving the carbon emissions from the car directly in your vicinity to the coal-fired power plant a long distance away. Move that same coal-fired power plant into the sealed room, and suddenly it’s no longer far away, and the “unclean” nature of the electric car, so the thought process goes, becomes obvious.
That’s the thought process if you just stop thinking when you get to a point that reaffirms one’s biases. If you continue down that train of thought you’d realize it’s a lot easier to regulate and monitor the emissions of a coal power plant than it is every single car on the road. Plus you don’t need to use coal to make electricity.
I’d happily hang out in a sealed room with a nuclear reactor.
Isn’t the whole point that the gas engine equivalent is just in somebody else’s room though?
In any case, I’ll take whatever partial climate wins we can get.
Solar, wind, and nuclear energy: are we a joke to you?
Even if we assume all the electricity is coming from carbon sources (there’s no need for any of it to be carbon sources) it’s still more efficient because power plants are way better at turning that chemical energy into electricity. Even with the losses in the lines, charging, and in your motors, electric cars are still significantly more efficient on a mile per kg CO2 basis than gas cars. Throw some solar panels on your roof and they become essentially carbonless.
It’s really easy to understand why too. You completely waste most of the heat energy you produce in IC engines. They’re incredibly inefficient and always will be.
Yeah, what is it, 70% energy lost to heat in an ICE?
can you really blame us?
let me run through the last 8 years of American history with four words, “we were lied to”. doesn’t matter from whom, doesn’t matter what. we’re constantly being lied to. truth is, it’s been true for longer than 8 years, but the last 8 have been especially transparent.
we’re learning that the upper echelon only trusts the American public to do three things; consume, produce, and die. if you can’t even do that for them, you’re removed as an undesirable.
so yeah, trust in the system is broken. it’s going to take at least a generation or two just to repair it ** if they work on it**.
I can’t fault anyone who’s untrusting of a system that continuously covers lie after lie with more lies.
Lololol, what a fucking worthless right wing rant
lulz jokes on you.
Fuck Trump, fuck republicans.
8 Years?
How long did fossil fuel companies know about climate change?
How long did the fuel industry know about the effects of leaded petrol?
How long did cigarette companies know about links to cancer?
How long did pharma companies know about opioid addiction risk?
How long did social networking companies know about psychological manipulation?
How long did the sugar lobby know about their links to diabetes and obesity?
How long did the manufacturing companies know about PFAS and microplastics?I would say you have always been lied to.
Your forgot that plastic manufacturing knew it wasn’t recycled or recyclable.
I can’t fault anyone who’s untrusting of a system that continuously covers lie after lie with more lies
I can and will. Learn some basic critical thinking skills and apply them. Throwing your hands up and ranting about how “the system is broken” is mopey teenager shit.
Things are far more complicated than your whiny rant. They world is shades of gray rather than the simplistic “bad guy in black / good guy in white” situation that you characterize it as.
You overestimate the general populations intelligence.
A venn diagram of Trumpers and people who believe gas cars are cleaner is a circle
I believe it, but I don’t give a shit. I buy a car/truck because of how capable it is, and how easy repairs are to do myself, not because of how many smug Californian’s circlejerk over it.
Hell yeah brother! Witness me.
Having just pulled repaired and put an engine back in one of my cars. No ICE cars are much harder to repair. Range will probably be an issue for a while. What I’m really excited for is hybrid light duty vehicles like a 1 ton hybrid would be great.
IMO, I still think there’s not enough infrastructure to support charging EVs. Don’t get me wrong I’ve seen some. Just… Not a lot. Until charging is as prevalent as gas its just not worth it. Or if you have a house I guess.
In some areas I hear it’s good. But in my area there’s only 1 set of charging stations at a Wawa that I know of. And that Wawa is an hour drive away. Plus I’m at a rental complex that mows the lawns regularly and having a cable run from my house to the car is not allowed.
My current gas operated vehicle has about 160000 miles on it. I’m hopeful that my vehicle will last a long time. And then when my vehicle dies, I’ll look at the infrastructure again and see if it’s beneficial for me to switch to an EV. I’m going to continue to wait until it’s beneficial for me to buy a new car.
We’ll see how it goes.
Well, gas stations don’t really want electric because it would cut into their main source of revenue so I think I may have spotted the bottleneck.
The only way charging stations will become prevalent is if municipalities start setting them up. Either that or grocery stores. Though Answers with Joe made an interesting case for Buccees adopting charging stations as a method of generating revenue through increased tourism at their locations.
Gas stations actually make almost all of their money on things other than gas that people buy while they are at the gas station. It’s true that people wouldn’t come to existing gas stations nearly as much if they weren’t buying gas but they could make as much or more from users charging.
The real problem from their perspective is how infrequently users may need such especially if they charge at home and the cost of charging infra which is always in addition to gas not instead of
I was always under the impression that the source of the electricity to charge electric vehicles matters greatly. Some areas use coal burning to generate power while others use hydroelectric.
Not the case, they still get 100mpge + so they’re always better
While true, it’s way better better for a power source to be inefficient than all consumers using inefficient/dirty appliances.
Once the aging coal plant is decommissioned in favor of a new nuclear reactor in a state like Wyoming, anyone using stuff like electric water heaters, heatpumps or electric bikes/buses/cars/scooters is instantly using 100% renewable power.
Even in screwed up states like Texas, there is so much load on the grid (and the fact they cannot buy power from other states) means that cheap solar panels, battery storage and wind are way faster to put up than expensive methane/natural gas generators.
I don’t consider nuclear as renewable, but they do reduce CO2 production.
If you got the most ridiculous EV (the Hummer) and drove it primarily in West Virginia (86% coal generated electricity), it would have worse lifetime CO2 emissions than an ICE.
Literally any other combination, and it’s better.
And it would still be worlds better than the worst ICE cars, it would only be worse than average.
Definitely better to charge an EV with clean energy. But it’s probably better to charge an EV with dirty electricity than it is to keep using a combustion vehicle.
IIRC a gas vehicle is something like 20% thermally efficient, whereas a coal/oil power plant can be up to 60%. So even if my EV is charging off oil or coal, I’m getting 3x the energy per unit of emissions compared to a gas vehicle (though who knows how that translates to miles of range).
I want to see data. Coal emissions also aren’t the same as gasoline emissions. Mile for mile, calorie for calorie, do we know how efficient an EV battery needs to be if it was powered by coal electricity in order for it to match the same total emissions as an ICE? I’m all on board for electric, but I’m not gonna shell out double the cost for an EV that an ICE car would cost if the difference is negligible. I’d rather just not drive.
It does matter in terms of how much less polluting it would be. Even in case of coal plant bonansa it reaches a point where it becomes less poluting than gasoline car . Alghtough much slower. Its also not realy important since renewables became so cheap that there is practicly no country that dosent have a fairly significant renewable share ( and by that i mean > 10 % ).
https://www.iso-ne.com/ Looking at my own region of New England, renewables are only at about 8% right now. And that includes burning wood, refuse, and landfill gas as renewable sources.
EVs have a lot of advantages over ICEs. It’s good that things are evolving finally to make EVs more than a niche. It however doesn’t remove the problem that they are still a car with all of those negatives, even if they pollute much less. In some ways providing an individual solution could harm efforts to reduce the number of cars on the road. It’s not a final solution, only a step to fix a few of the most obvious problems while retaining others.
Most US metro areas are just too spread out to have mass transit be a worthwhile solution for most people. The only solution to significantly reducing cars in the US is telecommuting; unfortunately businesses generally don’t like it, so we need to find a way for this to be encouraged by the government with subsidies or something.
Even if you live in an area where busses are, they’re slow and limited routes. Times are often inconvenient to work schedules. 1h 30m by bus, 50m biking, 3h 10m walk. A drive to work takes me 15 mins on average.
If you can drive to work in 15 minutes. Properly funded and prioritized transit can get you there in 10. Hourly bus service is not good transit.
Absofuckinglutely not
Those 15 minutes usually are on low traffic roads, getting you straight from the point you depart to the point you need to go. A bus route on its own would be at least 20 minutes if it has almost no stops. And that is without counting the travelling beyond the bus stops, because it is impossible to have a stop at every single building.
Those buses aren’t going to be driving faster than cars are allowed either.
A tram could go faster and have signal prioirty at intersectuons. Buses are the lowest tier and lowest quality of transit.
Absofuckinglutely not
Looooool.
Hybrids actually have the best longevity and repair scores, however.
The longevity of the vehicle actually does count towards its ecological impact, because if you have to replace it sooner, you’re creating a bigger ecological impact of creating a short-term use device before more energy has to be used to recycle parts of it.
So, at the moment hybrids win that battle. I think its simply because hybrids have been around longer, not because they’re special. Give it about 10-15 more years and I think you’ll see a flip to EVs taking over that spot from hybrids.
EDIT: Also, the bad build quality of Teslas and the early adopters of EVs mostly being Tesla owners also means that the sample of hybrids having better longevity and repair scores is impacted by Tesla specifically being so bad. If you cut out Teslas from the equation, I bet EVs and hybrids would probably have similar longevity and repair scores.
I’m skeptical that hybrids with ICEs and transmissions at their heart really do have more longevity than BEVs and electric motors. ICE and especially hybrids are inherently more complex than BEVs, and have many more moving mechanical parts to wear out over time. So while BEVs may technically be “harder to repair”, there’s actually much less to repair in the first place. not to mention less maintenance like dozens of oil changes over the life of the car.
I’d like to see a source that says hybrids, with two separate engines plus the mechanical linkages between them plus the transmission, have better repair scores than a pure EV with no transmission, no mechanical engine, and a simpler drivetrain.
Where did you get that info about the hybrid longevity, an episode of Comedy Bang Bang? Could it be due to hybrids not running the gas engines full-time (less wear hours of usage per mile) ?
The only hybrid I’ve driven tends to run the engine more as a power generator than to drive the wheels, and often uses no gas engine. I could see how the engine would be less worn from that kind of usage vs driving the wheels all the time.
They all suck in their own unique ways. Automotive tires are a leading source of microplastics so EVs aren’t exactly a darling angel, but getting to work has become a 500 billion a year industry in America and framed in such a way that people are debating which car is better for the environment when they’re all horrible compared to mass transit. Because capitalism thrives on frivolity and consumption. That’s the real crux
it’s not just capitalism, the US is a very spread out place compared to most other countries. if you want everyone to use mass transit you’re asking them to either 1) move into the city for similar commute times, or 2) spend an inordinate amount of time riding busses around the suburbs for the same distance commute. Neither are good solutions.
And also we have solved the “getting to work” debate with teleconferencing. why should we need cars or an even bigger mass transit system when most people can simply work from home?
Eh there are plenty of places that have less population density than the US but they do just fine with transit. It might be true that most US cities are poorly designed for transit, but the density isn’t a the reason.
Someone has to see Not Just Bikes. Capitalism was the driver to the sub-urbanization process made after WW2 in the US, as a national economic policy to orient growth around building detached houses, private cars and suburban infrastructure (and secondary security considerations of reducing losses and damage in case of nuclear bombs in cities). The US was not a '‘very spread out’ place before WW2 (i.e. for the vast majority of its history), in fact cities like San Francisco were world leaders in mass transit, and trains were the axis of transportation of both people and goods (even existing suburbs were connected to trains, in whatever shape and size they come). The us cities spent and spend an enormous amount of money and debt to pay for all the road infrastructure, that even neoliberals say it’s not economically sustainable, and that money can also be better used paying for higher quality mass transit, not the tertiary thought they give it now (horrible buses that stay in traffic with the cars for the poor people that can not afford a car). Most people do not work remote all the time, even flexible / hybrid workers need to transport themselves some trips per week. Not to mention that full remote work may over time trickle to foreign countries that do the service cheaper, and the work remaining onshore is work that the owners need-want at least hybrid or on site workers.
The US was not a '‘very spread out’ place before WW2
no kidding, the population was also like a third of what it is now.
in fact cities like San Francisco were world leaders in mass transit, and trains were the axis of transportation of both people and goods (even existing suburbs were connected to trains, in whatever shape and size they come). The us cities spent and spend an enormous amount of money and debt to pay for all the road infrastructure,
yeah, mass transit within cities is a great idea and should be used as much as possible. I am not shitting on the general idea of mass transit. what I’m saying is, in the context of a practical daily commute, mass transit only works to a point, and a LOT of people live beyond that point.
Most people do not work remote all the time, even flexible / hybrid workers need to transport themselves some trips per week.
again, I’m not saying mass transit should never be used. what is the cost:benefit for the infrastructure to cover out to the suburbs? how much time is added to very long trips, and are people willing to deal with that?
if you want everyone to use mass transit
That’s the point, nobody wants to move people in the middle of nowhere to buses. Everyone wants these people to move to buses:
That’s like a half-full train’s worth of people if they single-seat, which they do, or 5-10 buses.
Imagine how cooler the place would be if that 16 lane road would be a 2 lane train track.
By insisting on perfect, you are preventing incremental change.
Incremental change would have been fine in the 1970s when the world should have instituted it, including incrementally reducing industry to absolute necessities like medical products, and individual developed world quality of life, to find homesotasis with our only habitat.
Now it’s smash the factories today, and accept the hundreds of millions dead breaking those poisonous supply chains, including possibly ourselves, for humanity to have any non-nightmarish future on a planet we terraformed to be hostile towards Human life for the next couple million yers.
But having absolutely failed to institute incremental change half a century ago despite warning, and absolutely failing take drastic action now that we are just beginning to feel our irreversible fine work, our species clearly and resolutely chooses no future/nightmare susbsistance future, or at the very least there wouldn’t be a pop figure/pointless plastic crap factory left standing in the world. 🔥🤷♂️🔥
What I find the most ridiculous is what we’re doing: resolutely choosing death by actions, while still strangely preaching hope for a future. WuT a weird fucking species we were.
You can buy an EV and have a country invest in transit. These do not need to be exclusive things
Sure. Or I can drive my old car very little and be pissed my country subsidizes a clearly inferior solution just to save the car industry instead of subsidizing way more efficient and environmentally friendly mass transit.
Edit- I think we’re agreeing now that I look at your other comments but I’ll leave this.
Automotive tires are a leading source of microplastics so EVs aren’t exactly a darling angel
Could we not just make tires out of a different material?
Yes and no.
Yes it’s possible. No it’s not scalable or affordable.
Synthetic plastics (all plastics for the purposes of this conversation) are byproducts of the petroleum industry. They’re making gas out of oil and are left over with plastic precursors so those get made into something and everyone wins* because the materials are basically free.
Last I looked we were creeping up on two billion tires a year.
Over the longterm, and they also require a lot less maintenance because they don’t have to deal with mini-explosions from combustion generating excess heat and stress. The problem is in the battery, and the industry hasn’t even scratched the surface for solutions.
I see trucks carrying butane tanks all the time, where are the trucks carrying EV battery replacements? There aren’t because the industry wants to charge extra for fixed installation ones depending on capacity and charging capacity and there is absolutely no profit incentive that offsets other losses to standardize battery systems in a way they can be easily extensible or replaceable.
I see trucks carrying butane tanks all the time
That’s not the equivalent to battery replacements but to the power grid, which of course is yet another win for EV (since clearly distributing the energy source for vehicles over the power grid is safer and more environmentally friendly than needing huge trucks to carry it).
(I’d say battery replacements are closest to motor replacements in gas cars in terms of costs and effort. What about the environmental impact? -> That’s why it’s so costly. To mitigate environmental impact.)
Battery replacements really are not difficult, I’d seriously recommend not imagining obstacles where there are not.
Without special installations, charging takes several hours instead of a quicker battery swap (which you could take with you as extra weight). DC chargers cannot even be installed at how home due to their requirement. Swappable batteries are possible and would make EV cars adaptable to new and different battery technology, they are just not designed that way.
Some, like the XBus, talked about allowing it, and it is perfectly possible, it just isn’t going to come out of traditional car manufacturers who had to be dragged to develop anything EV or manufacturers like Tesla who want to make range a subscription feature. Let’s not even go into EV range extension trailer systems, which would be as effortless as swapping trailers.
So, just so you know, the average EV battery weighs 1000lbs, and some all the way up to 2000lbs in something like the EV hummer. (Unnecessary I know). The cost to have a battery in an EV replaced currently sits around $5000 to $15000 off of warranty. So there are definitely obstacles. Along with letting the general public fry themselves trying to hook up a 400v battery. You’re not dealing with AA batteries. Battery technology is far away from something able to swap out yourself with the ease you may be thinking of.
So, just so you know, you can purchase 96V batteries that weigh less than 30 kg and can be connected in series to provide well over 400V, and if you want more range you can install bigger ones. EV ones weight that much because of the range, which is less of a factor if they can be swapped. They are made up of cells which are individually far below 400v, and there are standardized Anderson connectors that can safely connect and disconnect +600V and are used all the time. The cost of a battery is a non-factor is you are just renting them like you are sort of expected to do with butane tanks. 50V is the limit where you usually begin receiving a shock at, but 400V is not really considered high voltage and can be easily handled with the proper connectors and failsafes, like not swapping with a load.
It’s better than letting the general public fry themselves trying to fuel their cars with an ignitable combustible.You are not dealing with rubbing alcohol. /wildscaremongering
Battery technology is something I’m constantly swapping out for myself with ease, but that’s because I don’t make my own mental blocks. So do owners who retrofit gas cars to EVs. My goal is to retrofit an older EV car so that I don’t have to pay around $5000 to $15000 of overpriced proprietary batteries. It is a long-term goal, but be happy, it is not one that could be shared because the only way to do so would be in a society open to it.
Please let me know how that goes for you and when I can purchase one that allows me to travel 500 kilometres in -25°C without disabling the vehicle mid trip in that mentioned temperature.
You mean for your highly specialized need that the majority of potential EV drivers currently turned off by the step costs don’t need? Sure, let me just make a note, since the solution is scalable, even working in the energy demand of a heater.
Ah yes, I am the only person on the planet who has a need to travel occasionally to a larger city during a normal winter. Got it!
This is already the present; we have power tools that already swap batteries on the fly. The problem is more complex as you add batteries and charge, but not insurmountable. I see the first application in truck fleets.
The problem is that in those cases it is still a proprietary market.
Where are the trucks carrying the replacement petrol tanks for ICE cars?
You can get them at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gas+tank
You aren’t making a point if you are trying to equate the distribution network for gas, which is so ubiquitous that there is no need for the sort of trucks that distribute butane tanks to EV batteries, which require specialized facilities for fast charging, which also deteriorates batteries faster, or otherwise take half a day of charging. EV battery swapping bans already exist for things like scooter rentals.
Because we Americans are easily swayed by propaganda, unfortunately.
zombie engineer voice “traiiiiiins”
