Hypx

BEVs are still cars and create massive traffic problems. Cars are not guaranteed to be faster. We cannot all use cars for all of our transportation needs anyways, so alternatives need to exist regardless.

Humans burns calories all the time, even when resting. And you still need to exercise. Might as well power a real bike instead of a stationary bike. So this is a totally silly thing to worry about.

A cargo bike can go anywhere a normal car can go. An e-bike is many times more efficient than a car. The argument used in favor of EVs over ICEVs also applies to e-bikes over EVs.

I understand that it is a matter of degree. But that means accepting that the BEV is a compromise no matter what their boosters claim otherwise. And there is room for another level of compromise, where people get out of their cars and into something even greener. If people are to stay in their cars, then we might as well stop pretending to care about efficiency.

Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can't further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes.

Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them.

Millions, sure. But that's still a niche.

It's important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don't want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don't need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can't show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can't do things like crossing the Outback.

I did not say you can't have battery cars. It is just a limited technology and would likely shrink to a niche market without subsidies.

Round-trip efficiency is not that important. If it really was as important as claimed, we wouldn't be talking about cars at all. It would all be about bikes, buses, trains, walkable neighborhoods, etc., instead. But in the real world, we will need to accept less-than-perfect solutions. So as long as the idea is green, it should be tolerated.

We also have far more renewable energy available to us than we could ever hope to use. It is orders of magnitude more plentiful than fossil fuel energy. As a result, there will be an overabundance of green energy in the long run. It is fine to use that excess of energy to make stuff e-fuels or hydrogen.

Most of your claims are just climate change denial arguments. Many of them were directly made up by the fossil fuel industry.

Electricity has gotten dramatically more expensive too. It is no panacea. In all likelihood, most of transportation will shift over to either green fuels (e-fuels) or hydrogen. Those are one-to-one replacements for fossil fuels.

They are failing at basic editorial controls. This is not a "pretty good fucking job." It is a sign of real decline.

It's one of the stages of enshittification. Unless we see hard changes to avoid further decay, Ars will inevitably get worse and and worse until it does become an "internet rot site."

It is a huge greenwashing exercise in reality.

It will be cheaper than fossil fuels at some point in the future. The benefit of not being a finite resource. We can speed this process up if we scale up sooner rather than later.