> This claim you've just made, however, is different and broader - and disclaimed in an article here
There are some numbers in there that I agree would be fair to use in favor of the EV, but on the whole this is cherrypicking in favor of the EV.
In particular, just because Tesla uses renewables (for which they likely got a nice tax break and/or subsidy) to produce some batteries, we should all be using their numbers to represent the CO2 emissions for batteries? First of all, Tesla may have the single biggest battery factory, but they're not the biggest producers, or at least they won't be:
The amount of cars they are able to produce is also very small, though in terms of demand for EVs, they certainly have a big market share. This is unlikely to stay true if EVs really go mainstream in Germany, because the EU will likely be favoring European carmakers with subsidies.
> I could get into a demonstrative calculation of how a solely coal-powered electric car is still better than the US-average ICE car in terms of CO2-per-km, but that's been done before
What does the "average ICE car" have to do with anything? EVs aren't "average cars" and even Diesels aren't "average cars" in the US. To quote that abstract:
"The calculated fuel-economy-equivalent values for individual countries vary greatly, depending on the mix of fuels used to generate electricity within each country. [...] The corresponding value for the United States is 55.4 MPGghg (4.2 L/100 km)"
You can certainly get a Diesel that beats 55MPG. It just won't be as fancy as a Tesla.
> What does the "average ICE car" have to do with anything?
Unless you can provide some source that is comparing overhead-electric-powered trucks to diesel-powered-trucks, it's all academic and off-topic anyway. I am just using the sources that are available (those that compare battery electric cars to ICE cars) to show that your claim (electricity in Germany isn't CO2 neutral, so it can't be claimed that electric vehicles will reduce CO2) is not correct.
There are some numbers in there that I agree would be fair to use in favor of the EV, but on the whole this is cherrypicking in favor of the EV.
In particular, just because Tesla uses renewables (for which they likely got a nice tax break and/or subsidy) to produce some batteries, we should all be using their numbers to represent the CO2 emissions for batteries? First of all, Tesla may have the single biggest battery factory, but they're not the biggest producers, or at least they won't be:
https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/companies/catl-cars-germa...
The amount of cars they are able to produce is also very small, though in terms of demand for EVs, they certainly have a big market share. This is unlikely to stay true if EVs really go mainstream in Germany, because the EU will likely be favoring European carmakers with subsidies.
> I could get into a demonstrative calculation of how a solely coal-powered electric car is still better than the US-average ICE car in terms of CO2-per-km, but that's been done before
What does the "average ICE car" have to do with anything? EVs aren't "average cars" and even Diesels aren't "average cars" in the US. To quote that abstract:
"The calculated fuel-economy-equivalent values for individual countries vary greatly, depending on the mix of fuels used to generate electricity within each country. [...] The corresponding value for the United States is 55.4 MPGghg (4.2 L/100 km)"
You can certainly get a Diesel that beats 55MPG. It just won't be as fancy as a Tesla.