I'm starting this thread because I've been musing over the lack of input by both EV supporters as well as ICE boosters regarding effects to our environment other than how much CO2 is produced by the manufacture or use of a particular vehicle. I have read of the consideration of other tailpipe emissions - although ICEs of today exhaust far less in the way of NOX, unburned hydrocarbons, soot, CO, Pb and other nasties than they did 20 or 30 or 40 years ago - there remain some very significant contributions to atmospheric pollution; ones that no EV creates.
There are additional elements of an ICE that are bypassed with EVs. As someone who has changed many, many hundreds of gallons of engine oil, I can vouch that even careful handling of same can lead to significant environmental oopses that never will be a concern with an EV. The same is true for ATF - no such stuff needed either to be produced for or gotten rid of because of a Tesla-style powerplant. Now, I'm not sure about pumpkin oil: the S hasn't any pumpkin, but what will happen with an AWD X-car?
I do not know how one can compare coolant systems: radiator and its attendant antifreeze - with its disposal and leakage problems, on the part of ICEs, versus TM's vehicles and their battery coolants and whatever possibilities that fluid has for becoming a ground or aquifer pollutant.
I also haven't read any mention about a factor long known in the world of resource economics. It is far far easier to empart effective pollution controls on a point source of energy than it is on an equivalent amount of diffuse sources. That translates to supervising one (e.g.) electrical powerplant versus 300,000 (e.g.) tailpipe-containing ICEs.
There - I've thrown out some other possibilities to consider when one is discussing the relative environmental merits and flaws of these different technologies. Comprehensive? Not at all. Another pollutant just crossed my mind: anyone living close to a freeway bears the burden of noise pollution. How does a fleet of EVs compare to a comparable fleet of ICEs in this respect? We subjectively know the answer (very favorably, of course) but who has put together the hard data?
There are additional elements of an ICE that are bypassed with EVs. As someone who has changed many, many hundreds of gallons of engine oil, I can vouch that even careful handling of same can lead to significant environmental oopses that never will be a concern with an EV. The same is true for ATF - no such stuff needed either to be produced for or gotten rid of because of a Tesla-style powerplant. Now, I'm not sure about pumpkin oil: the S hasn't any pumpkin, but what will happen with an AWD X-car?
I do not know how one can compare coolant systems: radiator and its attendant antifreeze - with its disposal and leakage problems, on the part of ICEs, versus TM's vehicles and their battery coolants and whatever possibilities that fluid has for becoming a ground or aquifer pollutant.
I also haven't read any mention about a factor long known in the world of resource economics. It is far far easier to empart effective pollution controls on a point source of energy than it is on an equivalent amount of diffuse sources. That translates to supervising one (e.g.) electrical powerplant versus 300,000 (e.g.) tailpipe-containing ICEs.
There - I've thrown out some other possibilities to consider when one is discussing the relative environmental merits and flaws of these different technologies. Comprehensive? Not at all. Another pollutant just crossed my mind: anyone living close to a freeway bears the burden of noise pollution. How does a fleet of EVs compare to a comparable fleet of ICEs in this respect? We subjectively know the answer (very favorably, of course) but who has put together the hard data?