Cycling has more benefits than replacing cars. It connects us with joyful movement. And the infrastructure is cheaper to build and extend compared to railways.
Ideally we'd return back to the 1890s-1910s with public transport consisting of fixed line trolleys or light rail covering distances larger than five or six blocks while walking or bicycling covers distances less than that. That's where EV technology would be ideal because you could run a combination of overhead, third rail, and battery power depending on available infrastructure and space, all using the same cars city or town wide.
Cobalt isn't necessary to build li-ion batteries, considering that there are mainstream chemistries like LFP which eschew cobalt entirely.
People don't necessarily want to live in a big city, go only where the buses and trains go, and never have the chance to go on road trips or vacations to the mountains or the beach. Better for the climate to do this via battery power and not fossil fuels, because it's going to happen.
If nothing else, I'd think the "red-blooded" crowd would love the speed that EVs give you.
Few Ford dealer workers I know have been Talking about the buildup of stock of f150 lightning and mache at dealerships.
People are turning down the purchases from preorder due to issues with battery or otherwise that is plaguing their full electric.
6 months ago you had to be on a long waiting list, now you can find one at alot of lots.
Is this actually doable? I thought in modern EVs, the battery takes up half the chassis. In a "retrofitted" EV, you'll have lots of space (and therefore battery capacity) taken up by mechanical systems which are essential for a central motor, but relatively useless if you could just use multiple electric motors.
IMO, we're going to need a lot of different approaches to solve climate. EVs, PHEVs, reduction of use of single-occupant vehicles, more transit, more biking, more e-bikes, blah blah blah.
