morons vandalise EVs

[harm_less]

EVs aren't the panacea that many believe.  They still contain significant amounts of oil within them.  They require significant amounts of mining and manufacturing all which still uses oil.  In the large majority of countries they will be charged using oil, gas or coal (we are lucky in this regard that so much of our power comes from renewable sources).

Hydrogen isn't the answer either until they can find a way to create Hydrogen in a mass way without using large amounts of electricity (more energy than can be released by the hydrogen).  Storage of Hydrogen is a major issue - you think LPG is dangerous?  The only good thing is that unlike LPG which is heavier than air Hydrogen is lighter so should dissipate quickly of there was a leak.

EVs have their place.  As round town and short trip cars they are perfect.  Long distance their benefits begin to diminish.

Just watched a video where they took 2 cars '- both BMW 7 series- 1 ICE (petrol) and 1 EV and drove from Melbourne to Sydney.  The ICE car made the entire trip on 1 tank.  The EV required 2 stops and around 2 hours of charging.  The cost?  The ICE cheaper  by $17.

So it appears you've been sucking up the EV FUD that is so prevalent currently. And I'm guessing you're still relying on fossil fuel for your vehicle's energy.

Yes EVs require minerals and hydrocarbons in their manufacture but unlike ICEVs they continue consuming mineral resources during their everyday use. The minerals contained in an EV remain as a recyclable resource unlike the fuel burnt by ICEs that is only ever going to be a single use product, with the emissions ending up in our atmosphere. In New Zealand the source of the electricity used to recharge EVs comes from a grid that is made up of >80% renewables so our country is a perfect use case for EVs as the distances we travel are comparatively small (i.e. within EV battery range) and carbon neutrality for EVs is reached in less than 20,000km. Long distance ourneys are exactly where EVs shine as their running costs are less than for ICEVs and the more they are used the greater the positive benefit of their lower emissions.

So far as your Australian example is concerned Melbourne to Sydney is a 9 hour/900km journey. Firstly this is a brave call for the BMW 7 series with a 74L fuel tank and claimed 7.9L/100km fuel consumption. Also did the BMW driver require a picnic hamper and piss bottles to be able to drive that distance without having to also stop? Not enough detail in your story to support the calculations involved in the $17 but even when RUCs are introduced in April our Polestar2 will still be less expensive to 'fuel' than the fuel costs of an equivalent ICEV even with the more expensive electricity costs of public charging, and Australia don't charge EVs any RUCs.

If you're going to start regurgitating EV criticisms you might want to find reliable sources than you have here or you will be shot down.