Max, this is an awesome article! This 1) is super well researched and 2) made me feel feelings for James and I hope he finds, as the French say, "je ne parle pas français". What a beautiful language :)
I will give two small gripes, which are somewhat in conflict with one another, but whatever. First, the environmental analysis you posted from WSJ and the write up in general focus solely on CO2 emissions...which like are obvious the most important in general. But, specifically in cities, we should care about NOx and particulate matter emissions, both of which are the product of combustion engines and not (at least directly, and definitely in substantially different magnitudes) from EVs. Basically the density of inefficient combustion engines in cities is one reason for air quality issues and associated human health impacts.
Second, in the age of tangible impacts from climate change, there is a real cost to not widely adopting EVs as soon as feasible as a consequence of worsening environmental conditions, and cities bare the cost of Sandy/Ida/annual 100 year storms/shifting water tables/etc. So when we talk about the increased burden on city infrastructure due to increased vehicle weight as a consequence of batteries...yeah, that's valid, but you have to compare that (not insignificant!) cost against an X% increased probability of flooding/environmental catastrophe and the associated costs from that. One is chronic, one is acute, but they both result in infrastructure costs and neither should be discounted.
Anyway, gotta get back to hanging with James. Love the analysis, happy new beers <3
Max, this is an awesome article! This 1) is super well researched and 2) made me feel feelings for James and I hope he finds, as the French say, "je ne parle pas français". What a beautiful language :)
I will give two small gripes, which are somewhat in conflict with one another, but whatever. First, the environmental analysis you posted from WSJ and the write up in general focus solely on CO2 emissions...which like are obvious the most important in general. But, specifically in cities, we should care about NOx and particulate matter emissions, both of which are the product of combustion engines and not (at least directly, and definitely in substantially different magnitudes) from EVs. Basically the density of inefficient combustion engines in cities is one reason for air quality issues and associated human health impacts.
Second, in the age of tangible impacts from climate change, there is a real cost to not widely adopting EVs as soon as feasible as a consequence of worsening environmental conditions, and cities bare the cost of Sandy/Ida/annual 100 year storms/shifting water tables/etc. So when we talk about the increased burden on city infrastructure due to increased vehicle weight as a consequence of batteries...yeah, that's valid, but you have to compare that (not insignificant!) cost against an X% increased probability of flooding/environmental catastrophe and the associated costs from that. One is chronic, one is acute, but they both result in infrastructure costs and neither should be discounted.
Anyway, gotta get back to hanging with James. Love the analysis, happy new beers <3