Debunking the Most Common Myths About Electric Vehicles

I feel compelled to write a longer article on this subject, as I keep encountering the same misconceptions about electric vehicles (EVs) — both in my social media timeline and in conversations with friends and colleagues. Instead of responding to each comment individually, I want to consolidate and address the most widespread EV myths in this post.

Myth 1: EVs Have Too Short a Range

Range anxiety is the most common reason people hesitate to switch to an electric vehicle. However, this fear is often entirely unfounded. Let’s break it down with some data:

• In Germany, the average car travels just 43 km per day.
• Across Europe, 80% of people drive less than 80 km daily.
• Cars typically sit parked for over 23 hours a day, whether at home, work, or public parking.
• Only 4% of drivers in Germany travel more than 160 km per day.

These numbers are perfectly suited to EVs! Even entry-level EVs with the smallest batteries can easily cover 43–160 km, even in winter when cold weather slightly reduces battery capacity. Similar findings are supported by studies from the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI).

The misconception arises from treating EVs like gasoline cars. People are used to driving until their tank is nearly empty, then refueling in a few minutes at a gas station. If you tried to replicate that behavior with an EV — only charging when the battery is empty — it would indeed be inconvenient due to longer charging times. Rapid charging stations can replenish 80% of a battery in 20–30 minutes, but doing this constantly can accelerate battery wear.

However, EVs offer a fundamentally different experience. Cars sit idle for hours, and if parking spots, garages, and public areas were equipped with even basic 3 kW outlets, a typical EV could recharge 100 km of range in 5 hours — enough to top up your daily driving needs. Imagine starting each morning with a fully charged vehicle, effortlessly replenishing the energy you used driving to the store while you shop.

It’s true that for long journeys, gasoline cars still hold an advantage with their 5-minute refueling times. But even here, the gap is closing. Most modern EVs offer a 400 km range or more, and with a 30-minute fast charge, they can add another 320 km of range. After 4–4.5 hours of driving, a break isn’t just reasonable — for truck drivers, it’s even mandatory! By the time you stretch your legs and grab a coffee, your car is ready for another few hours on the road.

In other words, our driving and refueling habits will change with EVs. For most people, EVs already make perfect sense for daily commuting and regional trips. The idea that EVs aren’t suitable for long trips is increasingly outdated.

Myth 2: Electric Vehicles Are High-Maintenance

This is a complete misconception. In reality, electric vehicles (EVs) have very few moving parts. Most EVs operate with a simple gearbox, a differential, and wheel suspensions. While early EV suspensions struggled with the high torque, modern designs have resolved this issue. The electronics and motors in EVs are incredibly durable, with no wear-prone or complex moving components. Even the brakes last significantly longer thanks to regenerative braking — driving up to 400,000 km on a single set of brake pads is not unheard of.

A V8 engine has around 1,200 parts… an electric motor? Just 17.

Manfred Schoch, BMW

EVs eliminate the need for many traditional car maintenance concerns: no clutch replacements, no leaking head gaskets, no timing belts to change, no failing catalytic converters, no complex fuel injection systems, fuel filters, spark plugs, exhaust systems, air filters, oil changes, or auxiliary components like starters or turbochargers. And where there are no components, there are no failures!

According to a 2012 IFA study, maintenance costs for EVs were already estimated at just two-thirds of those for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Given the technological advances since, this gap has likely widened even further in favor of EVs.

Battery longevity has also exceeded expectations. Initial estimates capped battery life at 150,000 km, even in CO₂ equivalency calculations. Yet today, Tesla fleets in the U.S. are surpassing those estimates many times over. Vehicles have reached 260,000 km with less than a 10% capacity loss — and in Germany, there’s even a Tesla with over 1 million km on the clock.

When it comes to maintenance and wear, EVs offer significant peace of mind. And let’s not forget: modern electric cars have only been on the market for a few years, yet they already outperform ICE vehicles in this regard. Give them another five to ten years, and the gap will only grow wider — a win for consumers looking for a reliable, low-maintenance option.

Myth 3: They Are Too Expensive

This one has some truth to it — for now. Compared to similarly classed vehicles, EVs can indeed be more expensive. This might seem surprising given their simpler mechanics, but the primary cost driver is the battery, which accounts for around 40% of the vehicle price. The larger the battery, the higher the cost.

However, battery prices are falling rapidly. According to McKinsey, battery costs dropped by approximately 80% between 2010 and 2016, and energy density is steadily improving. This trend suggests that small city EVs may soon become cheaper than their gasoline counterparts, while long-range EVs may remain more expensive upfront — but with lower running and maintenance costs that balance the equation over time.

The ADAC has already published cost-per-kilometer comparisons, showing that when considering total ownership costs, many EVs are already competitive with or cheaper than ICE vehicles — especially when compared to similarly equipped and powered models, not just the cheapest entry-level versions.

Myth 4: The Charging Infrastructure Is Inadequate

The section on range already covered how EVs liberate drivers from frequent refueling stops, provided there are charging options at home or work. And contrary to popular belief, charging at home doesn’t necessarily require high-voltage connections or expensive wall boxes.

For instance, a Tesla Model 3 with a real-world consumption of ~20 kWh/100 km can charge approximately 200 km of range overnight from a regular household outlet. With an 11-hour overnight idle period, the car is ready for daily commutes without ever needing a public charger — except on long road trips.

Public infrastructure is expanding rapidly, too. The German Federal Network Agency reports over 12,000 public charging stations, excluding private networks like Tesla’s Superchargers or corporate chargers. According to sources like Chargemap and Statista, Germany already has between 50,000 and 60,000 individual charging points — more than the country’s 14,000 gas stations!

Critics argue that this still won’t be enough if everyone switched to EVs overnight — and they’re right. But widespread adoption will be a gradual process, matched by market-driven growth in charging infrastructure. After all, energy providers are keen to sell their product, and the German government’s “Master Plan for Charging Infrastructure” is laying the groundwork for accelerated expansion.

Concerns about home charging in rental properties are also gradually fading. Landlords are beginning to recognize the appeal of EV-ready parking spaces for attracting high-income tenants. Just as internet infrastructure became a rental staple, charging points are likely to follow suit, especially as EVs become more common. For those without private parking, expanding public infrastructure will be essential — but again, market demand will drive this evolution.

Ultimately, range anxiety is often a relic of outdated perceptions of mobility. The car industry’s promise of boundless freedom — to drive anywhere, anytime, at any speed — has conditioned us to view EV limitations more harshly than necessary. Yet most people only need long-range capabilities a handful of times a year, and even then, a 20–30 minute charging break every 400 km is a reasonable trade-off.

The future is electric — and it’s arriving faster than many skeptics expected. With rapidly falling costs, improving infrastructure, and ongoing innovation, the arguments against EV adoption are becoming harder to justify. Let me know if you’d like me to refine any section further!

Myth 5: EVs Are Worse for the Environment Than Diesel Cars

Whether an electric vehicle (EV) is more or less environmentally friendly than a diesel car largely depends on two factors: how it’s charged (during operation) and how it’s manufactured (resources and production conditions). And of course, what you’re comparing it to. For example, a fair comparison would match an EV with a similarly equipped and powerful diesel vehicle. Plus, raw material extraction for both battery production and oil refinement needs to be considered. Spiegel has got a good article about this as well. But let’s break it down.

Production Emissions and Resource Extraction

The environmental impact of EV production comes down to two main aspects: the carbon footprint of manufacturing and the extraction of raw materials like lithium and cobalt for batteries. It’s important to acknowledge that resource extraction always carries an environmental cost, which must be weighed carefully. Simply replacing every combustion vehicle with an EV isn’t the solution — ideally, this shift should be paired with evolving mobility concepts, like increased public transport use, car sharing, and reducing the number of idle vehicles.

Critics often point to the unregulated conditions of lithium and cobalt mining, which indeed need reform. However, it’s worth noting that these materials are also used in smartphones, laptops, and countless other devices — yet the scrutiny only surged when EVs gained traction. Automakers are responding, with companies like Daimler committing to sustainable supply chains. As demand rises, regulations will tighten, and production will become more efficient and environmentally friendly. Research into alternatives to lithium is already underway, promising further improvements.

Outdated Studies and Updated Insights

One of the most frequently cited arguments against EVs comes from a 2017 IVL study, which suggested that EV batteries’ carbon footprint was so large it would take years of driving to offset. According to that study, a Mercedes C220 CDI emitted 141 grams of CO₂ per kilometer (fuel and production combined), while a Tesla Model 3 Long Range emitted 155–180 grams. But here’s the catch: that study aggregated data from as far back as 2004.

A follow-up IVL study in 2019, accounting for newer production methods and better battery durability, slashed those estimates significantly. The emissions dropped from 150–200 kg CO₂-equivalents per kilowatt-hour to just 61–106 kg. The study also highlighted the potential for further reductions through improved recycling and longer battery lifespans.

The Power of Green Energy

Newer studies consistently show that EVs already offer climate benefits even when charged with the average energy mix. When charged with predominantly renewable energy, the benefits become even more pronounced. As Volker Quaschning, Professor for Renewable Energy Systems in Berlin, puts it:

All recent studies show that electric cars that run on the normal electricity mix already have small climate protection benefits. If electric cars are predominantly run on green electricity, there are already significant climate protection benefits. So there is no longer any reason to hide behind life cycle studies in order to initiate the transport transition.

Volker Quaschning, Professor for Regenerative Energysystems, Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin

Der Spiegel even dedicated an entire article to debunking exaggerated anti-EV claims, concluding that the carbon footprint hinges heavily on the energy source used for both production and charging. In an ideal scenario — 100% renewable energy for both — the environmental balance tilts decisively in favor of EVs.

When comparing, say, a Mercedes C300 (which matches a Tesla Model 3 more closely in performance), the diesel’s emissions would climb to 176 grams of CO₂ per kilometer, widening the gap even further:

Lithium and Water Consumption

The main criticism of lithium extraction revolves around its high water consumption, especially for the method that relies on evaporating brine pools. Companies like Volkswagen have already committed to avoiding lithium from these sources, but it’s essential to put water use into perspective. According to analyses (like those from Volksverpetzer), producing one kilogram of lithium consumes around 2,000 liters of water. For a Tesla Model 3 battery, that adds up to roughly 14,000 liters.

That may sound excessive — until you realize it’s about the same amount of water needed to produce just one kilogram of beef. In other words, skipping one kilogram of imported beef could offset the water consumption of your EV battery (and that’s not even accounting for deforestation or transport emissions). Furthermore, this high water usage only applies to evaporation-based extraction; half of the world’s lithium is mined in Australia, where lithium is extracted through traditional mining, not water-intensive brine pools.

For a fair comparison, consider the water required for gasoline and diesel production. Extracting half a liter of crude oil uses around half a liter of water, with another 0.6 liters needed for refining. This adds up to about 2 liters of water per liter of gasoline. Over a vehicle’s lifetime, that equates to around 2,000 liters of water per year — a recurring consumption, not a one-time manufacturing cost.

On top of that, even tiny oil spills cause catastrophic water contamination: a single liter of oil can pollute up to one million liters of water. Every year, 150,000 tons of oil leak into the Mediterranean Sea alone, making oil extraction and transport far more damaging to water ecosystems than lithium mining could ever be.

That said, lithium extraction can and must improve. In some regions, local communities face water scarcity due to mining operations, which is unacceptable. It’s also worth noting that much of this lithium isn’t even destined for EVs but for everyday devices like smartphones and laptops. The mobility transition must also address these issues by promoting sustainable, ethically sourced materials across industries.

Cobalt and Child Labor!

The topic of cobalt production and child labor often comes up in discussions about EV batteries. And here, we have to be honest: guilty as charged. For over twenty or thirty years, some of the cobalt used in our everyday devices — especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo — has been mined under exploitative conditions, including child labor. But why is this issue so heavily emotionalized when it comes to electric vehicles in particular? One might suspect lobbying efforts from the oil industry or resistance from those clinging to the past.

Ironically, the growing demand for batteries is actually driving positive change in this area. Companies like Daimler are actively working to source cobalt exclusively from fair, sustainable mining operations. And they’re not alone — as public scrutiny intensifies, more manufacturers are committing to ethical supply chains. This growing pressure means we may soon reach a point where buying a battery produced with child labor simply isn’t possible anymore, thanks to the attention the EV transition has brought to the issue.

Another important aspect: cobalt isn’t irreplaceable! Research is already advancing towards cobalt-free battery chemistries, such as lithium iron phosphate (LFP) or sodium-ion batteries, which drastically reduce or eliminate the need for critical raw materials. In fact, as Bloomberg reported back in 2018, Tesla has been working to reduce the cobalt content in their batteries to near zero. This means the issue — as serious as it is — is resolving itself faster than many critics might have anticipated.

Ultimately, the EV revolution is not just a shift in propulsion technology — it’s an opportunity to reshape global supply chains for the better. By driving innovation and public accountability, the transition to electric mobility is accelerating solutions to long-standing human rights and environmental issues that were ignored for decades. And that, too, is a win for the planet and its people.

Golem.de writes:

In addition to nickel and manganese, cobalt in lithium-ion batteries can also be replaced by iron phosphate. Phosphorus is the eleventh most common element in the earth’s crust, and over 40 million tons of phosphate are produced as fertilizer every year. Lithium iron phosphate batteries can absorb and release energy more quickly, but weigh about twice as much for a comparable capacity.

Lithium sulfur cathodes are more promising as a replacement. Over 70 million tons of sulfur are produced annually in desulfurization plants when coal is burned or sulfur-free fuels are produced. The cathodes consist only of lithium, sulfur and carbon as an electrical conductor. In theory, they would also have a higher capacity than the variants of lithium cobalt oxide cathodes. But current designs of sulfur cathodes dissolve too easily in the battery’s electrolyte during the charging cycle and therefore do not have a high level of stability.

Source: Golem.de

Alternatives to lithium-ion batteries

Today, promising alternative battery technologies are already on the horizon. It’s essential to remember that the mass production of electric vehicles has only been around for less than a decade! One example of these innovations is the company Innolith, which has begun testing a battery filled with an inorganic electrolyte. This approach promises increased safety and longevity. Another exciting development involves the advancement of lithium-ion batteries equipped with integrated heating systems, designed to enhance durability and performance in extreme temperatures. T3N has compiled the latest breakthroughs in this field, showcasing how these technologies could enable significantly higher energy densities, faster charging times, and more cost-effective, environmentally friendly battery production in the medium term.

Beyond these improvements, researchers are actively exploring entirely new chemistries. Sodium-ion batteries, for instance, use abundant and low-cost materials, reducing the environmental impact of mining rare metals. Companies like CATL are already scaling up production, and these batteries could become a viable option for smaller EVs and energy storage systems.

Solid-state batteries are another revolutionary technology, replacing the liquid electrolyte in conventional batteries with a solid material. This change could drastically increase energy density, reduce charging times, and eliminate the risk of battery fires. Toyota and other major manufacturers are investing heavily in bringing solid-state batteries to market within the next few years.

Additionally, lithium-sulfur batteries show immense promise, potentially offering up to five times the energy density of current lithium-ion technology. While challenges around lifespan and degradation remain, ongoing research may soon overcome these hurdles, making this technology a game-changer for long-range EVs.

The rapid pace of innovation suggests that the batteries of tomorrow will be far more sustainable, efficient, and versatile than what we have today. The transition to e-mobility is just getting started, and with continuous advancements, many of the current concerns around battery production and resource consumption will likely fade away.

Operation

As we’ve learned, the production of electric vehicles consumes a significant portion of resources upfront. To make a fair comparison between electric and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, we need to calculate energy consumption and emissions across their entire lifecycle, factoring in total mileage. And here’s where things turn decisively in favor of EVs. Many comparisons follow a simple structure:

• Total mileage per year × CO₂ emissions per km × Years of operation
• CO₂ emissions from vehicle production

This formula is fundamentally correct, but it overlooks a crucial factor: gasoline and diesel don’t magically appear at the pump. They must be extracted, refined, and transported. This is called the “Well-to-Wheel” calculation, which accounts for emissions throughout the entire fuel lifecycle, not just from burning it. According to the EUCAR study, refining and transporting gasoline adds approximately 19% more emissions, while diesel adds about 20%. And this doesn’t even include environmental destruction from oil spills, pipeline leaks, or habitat loss caused by oil extraction.

To put it into perspective: a Tesla Model 3 can drive around 200 km on 42 kWh of electricity. According to Andreas Burkert from Springer Professional, producing and delivering just 6 liters of gasoline requires the same 42 kWh of energy. This accounts for oil extraction, transportation to refineries, the refining process, and delivery to the gas station. In other words, before a gasoline car even starts its engine, an EV could have already driven 200 km purely on the energy needed to make the fuel.

If we revise lifecycle calculations to include these hidden emissions and energy costs, EVs break even on their carbon footprint much faster — even accounting for the emissions-intensive battery production.

Of course, the sustainability of EVs also depends on the energy mix used to charge them. Transitioning to renewable energy is a key component of maximizing the climate benefits of electric mobility. And yes, building out renewable infrastructure requires significant upfront investments. But had we started this shift 20–30 years ago with a long-term vision, it might have been cost-neutral by now. Today, the urgency of the climate crisis leaves us no choice but to act quickly.

Image source: DW.com

And what about electricity costs? Surely coal and nuclear are cheaper, right? Actually, no. Even today, wind and solar often outcompete fossil fuels on cost, and this gap only widens when factoring in externalities like public health and environmental restoration. These hidden costs are currently subsidized through taxes — money that would be far better spent accelerating the renewable transition instead of maintaining aging coal plants, managing nuclear waste, or preventing ground collapses from abandoned coal mines.

The bottom line: not only is there no environmental argument against switching to renewables, but there’s also no economic argument either. Every step toward cleaner energy amplifies the sustainability of EVs and makes the long-term benefits even more undeniable.

Myth 6: Are a Fire risk

Who hasn’t seen them on social media? Pictures and stories of burning electric vehicles, designed to stoke fear and skepticism.

Fortunately, many of these stories turn out to be misinformation — like the widely circulated footage of an exploding car, falsely claimed to be an EV. But of course, fires do occur in electric vehicles, raising two key questions: “Do EVs catch fire more often than conventional vehicles?” and “Are EV fires more dangerous?”

Karl-Heinz Knorr, head of the Bremen Fire Department and vice president of the German Firefighters Association, reassures us in a Spiegel interview: electric vehicles are no more prone to catching fire than gasoline-powered cars. And other studies confirm this.

…the risk of fire is comparable to that of a combustion engine. High-quality batteries contain many safety systems that prevent spontaneous combustion.

Karl-Heinz Knorr

This lower fire risk is largely due to the multiple safety systems built into EV batteries, as well as the way most batteries are installed — securely placed in the underbody, they are well protected even in the event of a collision. By contrast, gasoline and other flammable fluids are concentrated in a vehicle’s front crash zone, increasing fire risk in accidents.

But what if an EV does catch fire? Wouldn’t a burning battery be extremely hazardous? Again, Knorr offers reassurance.

(A fire in an electric car; editor’s note) No more dangerous than a fire in a “normal” car. Because an electric car does not store any more energy than the full tank of a combustion engine.

Karl-Heinz Knorr

The reality is that EVs are not inherently more dangerous than gas-powered vehicles. In fact, the risk of a catastrophic explosion is lower, as EV fires tend to result from a “thermal runaway” rather than a sudden, explosive energy release.

However, extinguishing EV fires and handling wrecks does pose unique challenges. While firefighters can use water instead of foam, they need significantly larger volumes to continuously cool the battery and prevent reignition. Since EV batteries can reignite up to 24 hours after a fire, wrecked vehicles often need to be submerged in water tanks for monitoring and safety.

This process may sound complex, but it’s entirely manageable. Emergency responders and recovery teams simply need — and are already receiving — specialized training. Like any technological shift, fire safety protocols are evolving to match the realities of electric mobility.

Myth 7: Will cripple the power grid!

A common myth is that if everyone switched to electric cars, the power grid would collapse under the strain, leading to widespread blackouts.

According to EnBW, the current German grid could already support up to 13 million EVs — about a third of all vehicles. They estimate that one million EVs would only increase electricity demand by about 0.4%, based on an average consumption of 20 kWh per 100 km and 15,000 km of annual driving. Only densely populated areas might face capacity issues, and even those can be mitigated with targeted grid upgrades.

Even if the rapid growth of EV adoption continues, we’re still years away from hitting those numbers — years that utilities can use to strengthen the grid in high-demand areas. In fact, grid expansion is already a routine process to keep up with rising demand from new industrial zones and expanding cities.

E.ON shares a similar outlook, seeing no significant issue with accommodating one million EVs. They point to “smart grids” as a solution: dynamic, self-regulating systems that could schedule EV charging for times of surplus wind or solar power, or stagger charging across neighborhoods to avoid localized spikes.

McKinsey’s research aligns with this. Their projections show that by 2050, even if 40% of all vehicles in Germany are electric, they would account for just 16% of total electricity demand:

While EV charging may become the fastest-growing sector, it remains predictable and manageable. Charging patterns follow regular, repeatable cycles — making it relatively easy for utilities to plan and optimize grid loads.

The bottom line: the lights won’t go out just because we switch to EVs. Energy providers are confident, and so should we be.

Myth 8: Will destroy our jobs!

At first glance, this claim might seem to hold some truth. Recently, companies like Audi and Daimler have announced job cuts, partly to reduce costs and free up capital for investments in electric mobility. The German Association for Electric Mobility estimates that around 50,000 jobs in internal combustion engine production and development may be lost nationwide.

However, it’s important to put this into perspective. Germany is still facing a skilled labor shortage, and highly qualified, experienced workers are likely to find new opportunities quickly. Moreover, many of these reductions are happening through natural attrition rather than layoffs.

At the same time, the transition to electric mobility is creating new jobs. The German Association for Electric Mobility predicts that over the next decade, 255,000 workers will be needed to build and maintain charging infrastructure alone. Additional job growth will come from projects like Tesla’s Gigafactory in Brandenburg, which is expected to create around 7,000 jobs, and CATL’s battery cell factory in Thuringia, which will require at least 600 workers.

Germany, however, has been slow to capitalize on its potential as a leader in electric mobility. For years, the country hesitated, investing in a broad range of alternative technologies but failing to bring any of them to market dominance. While research diversity isn’t inherently bad, failing to commit to one path has left Germany lagging in the global EV race.

A relevant historical parallel is Nokia’s downfall in the early 2000s. Once a market leader, Nokia underestimated the rise of smartphones and failed to innovate in time. Today, nobody blames smartphones for Nokia’s decline—rather, it was the company’s own reluctance to adapt. Likewise, if job losses occur in the automotive sector, the real culprit will be the industry’s delayed response to electrification, not the EVs themselves.

Ultimately, while structural shifts are inevitable, the data suggests that electric mobility will generate more jobs than it displaces. The key challenge is ensuring a smooth transition through reskilling and investment in future-oriented industries.

While e-mobility is likely to be highly disruptive, significant uncertainty exists about the timing of EV adoption and how quickly, or not, that will ramp up. Regardless of which EV forecasts automakers believe and plan for, they will need to be more creative and agile in order to surmount four major challenges that hinder EV profitability today.

McKinsey

Myth 9: Hydrogen is the future

Electric cars, and especially their batteries, are far better than their reputation suggests. They are already practical for the majority of drivers—what’s actually slowing things down is industry and infrastructure. Automakers often offer only a limited range of models (either very small or very large vehicles), while charging infrastructure lags behind in many areas. According to BDEW, there are now over 100,000 public charging points in Germany (as of 2024), but expansion in rural areas and underground garages remains slow. Yet for many users, a simple household power outlet would already be sufficient for overnight charging.

Despite this, range and charging times are no longer an issue for most drivers: the average daily driving distance in Germany is around 40 km—far below the range of modern EVs. According to ADAC, even small cars like the VW ID.3, with a realistic range of 300 km, easily cover most commutes. And for longer trips, drivers benefit from a rapidly expanding fast-charging network (e.g., IONITY or Tesla Superchargers).

So why does the myth persist that hydrogen cars are the better alternative? One reason is the strong lobbying from the hydrogen and fossil fuel industries. At first glance, hydrogen seems clean and convenient—but the reality is different: the efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is only about 30%, whereas battery EVs exceed 70%. This means a hydrogen car requires more than twice the amount of renewable energy to cover the same distance.

Infrastructure is another major hurdle: Germany currently has only around 100 hydrogen fueling stations, and building new ones is expensive and time-consuming. Moreover, most of today’s hydrogen is still produced from fossil fuels (gray hydrogen). Green hydrogen, made from renewable energy, remains scarce and should be prioritized for sectors where there are no viable alternatives—such as steel production or heavy transport.

The skepticism toward EVs is less about technical limitations and more about fear of change and deliberate misinformation. Studies show that false claims and viral images on social media are often intentionally spread to sow doubt and slow down the transition. In the end, it’s not about the environment—it’s about economic interests. But the facts are clear: electric vehicles are efficient, clean, and ready for everyday use—we just need to commit to supporting them.

Conclusion

Why Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) Will Prevail

1. Environmental Footprint
   The environmental balance of an electric vehicle (EV) largely depends on the energy mix used to charge it. However, even with today’s grid, an EV pays off faster than many people think — especially when accounting for the inherent efficiency of electric motors. While internal combustion engines (ICEs) operate at around 20–30% efficiency, EVs reach over 70%. And with the accelerating shift towards renewable energy, this advantage will only grow.
   Over 98% of climate scientists agree that human-induced climate change is already causing severe consequences, with CO₂ emissions as a major driver. Individual transportation plays a critical role in reducing emissions, and switching to EVs is one of the most effective steps we can take.
2. Cleaner, Quieter Cities
   EVs will lead to significantly cleaner cities. Harmful emissions and particulate pollution from exhaust systems will gradually disappear, improving air quality and public health. At the same time, EVs reduce noise pollution, as electric motors are much quieter than gasoline or diesel engines. This means less traffic noise, lower stress levels, and a noticeable boost in quality of life for urban residents.
   For drivers, the benefits are even more immediate: no more clunky start-stop systems, no gear shifting, and no engine vibrations — just smooth, seamless acceleration.
3. Always Charged, Always Ready
   With enough charging points in garages, parking lots, and shopping centers, the need for gas stations will largely disappear. According to a study by McKinsey, over 70% of EV owners primarily charge at home or work, meaning their vehicles are nearly always ready to go. This opens new business opportunities as well: parking facilities and supermarkets can attract customers with affordable charging options, turning downtime into useful charging time.
4. Simpler, More Durable Technology
   EVs are mechanically far simpler than ICE vehicles. The core components are the motors, the battery, and the control electronics. Electric motors can last for hundreds of thousands of kilometers with minimal wear, and modern batteries already exceed expectations — Tesla drivers, for instance, report battery longevity well beyond 300,000 km.
   Additionally, EVs eliminate many failure-prone parts: no transmission, no oil circuits, no fuel filters, no exhaust systems, no timing belts, and no catalytic converters. This simplicity reduces maintenance costs and lowers the risk of unexpected breakdowns. In fact, studies show that EVs cost around 40% less to maintain than traditional cars.
5. Energy Independence & Price Stability
   Fuel prices fluctuate with geopolitical events, often causing frustration at the pump. EVs, on the other hand, run on electricity — a resource that can be produced locally and sustainably. Europe, especially countries like Norway and Germany, is rapidly increasing its renewable energy capacity. If this trend continues, we could not only decarbonize transport but also become independent from oil-exporting nations, reducing economic and political vulnerabilities.
6. Pure Driving Fun
   Finally, driving an EV is simply fun. Instant torque and seamless acceleration create a driving experience like no other — even small city cars can match the acceleration of luxury sports cars. And with the battery typically placed in the vehicle floor, EVs have a low center of gravity, resulting in exceptional stability and handling.
   As for engine sounds? Most modern cars already use artificial sound enhancement, even high-end sports cars. And if someone really can’t live without that “V8 roar,” sound modules can replicate the experience through interior speakers — without the emissions or maintenance headaches.

My Personal Conclusion

While personal behavior doesn’t determine the validity of an argument (fallacy of ad hominem), I still want to briefly share the personal choices I’ve made regarding my vehicle.

For anyone in a position to buy a new car, opting for an electric vehicle seems like the most logical choice — both financially and environmentally. Resale value is an important factor: in 5 to 10 years, who will still want to buy a used diesel car, knowing the inevitable phaseout of internal combustion engines? And for the environment, switching to electric today is a decision that pays off almost immediately, especially as renewable energy continues to expand.

The future belongs to those who prepare for it today.

Malcolm X

However, I chose to lease a hybrid vehicle instead of a full EV. There are two main reasons for this. First, my company currently doesn’t offer electric vehicles as part of its fleet policy. Second, the market still lacks affordable large electric vehicles that suit a family lifestyle and accommodate hobbies like RC car racing or scuba diving. Aside from the Tesla Model S or Model X (the latter of which somewhat defeats the purpose of sustainable transport as a massive SUV), no available EVs offer enough space — and the Tesla options remain prohibitively expensive.

My hope is that by the time my hybrid lease ends in three years, the industry will finally catch up with consumer demand, offering more spacious, affordable electric vehicles that fit diverse needs. According to BloombergNEF, global EV prices are expected to match gasoline cars by 2027, thanks to falling battery costs and scaled production — a shift that could make larger, family-friendly EVs far more accessible.

The lack of investment in EV platforms across a range of vehicle models is perpetuating a supply versus demand mismatch – a difficult cycle to break.

McKinsey

For now, I drive a Mercedes E300de, a diesel plug-in hybrid. I still believe that diesel, particularly for long distances, outperforms gasoline in efficiency — and when paired with an electric motor, it becomes an even more compelling option for highway driving.

That said

Electric vehicles won’t solve all transport problems. The future of mobility will be more diverse, with a mix of solutions. EVs will play a major role in personal transport, but technologies like biogas and green hydrogen will be essential for heavy-duty trucks, aviation, and shipping — sectors where battery technology may not yet be viable for long-haul routes. However, this future mix must exclude the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels.

Despite all the excitement and progress, it’s crucial to remember that the most sustainable forms of transport remain walking, cycling, and public transportation. Every kilometer we don’t drive is a win for both the environment and our well-being.

Do you have anything to add? Let’s discuss in the comments — but please, let’s ground our opinions in facts and credible sources.

Titele image by Vlad Tchompalov on Unsplash

---

Update February 2023: Meanwhile I own an electric car: a Tesla Model Y

Update March 2025: I undertook the article a big overhaul because I think that this topic is more important than ever. I also translated the entire article to English.