Some people might have overestimated, others might have underestimated, others pushed misinformation, some changed their minds, others never bothered to make a numerical prediction. Saying "than first thought" without saying who "thought" is very meaningless.
Electric Vehicles
Overview:
Electric Vehicles are a key part of our tomorrow and how we get there. If we can get all the fossil fuel vehicles off our roads, out of our seas and out of our skies, we'll have a much better environment. This community is where we discuss the various different vehicles and news stories regarding electric transportation.
Related communities:
- !automotive@discuss.tchncs.de
- !avs@futurology.today
- !byd@lemmy.world
- !ebike@lemm.ee
- !energy@slrpnk.net
- !geely@lemmy.world
- !micromobility@lemmy.world
- !polestar@lemmy.ca
- !rivian@lemmy.zip
- !teslamotors@lemmy.zip
- !xiaomi@lemdro.id
Seems the article implies that no one really thought about it:
And, surprisingly, there wasn’t existing research-based guidance.
Which is just not true. Here are a few that I looked up quickly: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
Right. We never needed a genius making numerical predictions to KNOW that EVs would be beneficial emission-wise. This became real to me when I first saw a Honda Insight in year 2000 and started taking EVs seriously. We didn't just "think", we KNEW.
They couldn't provide a graph showing CO2 emissions over time, including the embedded energy in making the car and the point at which a new EV starts to have a lower impact than keeping a combustion engine car running? I swear I've seen that kind of graph before in studies/aricles on this topic and it's a great at-a-glance way to visualise it.
I have seen that as well in a norwegian car magazine.
Iirc it was a little under a year. 8 ish months? But ofcourse the graph would vary wildly baded on monthly km driven. And i do not remeber what km/month they used.
A longer commute would recoup the difference much faster then a short one.