Compared to the fuel feeding vehicles, we went without any emissions. But the steam in the air does not emit, even when the batteries are resuscitated? And in the long run, if billions of batteries die and what will be needed to replace? Where do you dump them or leave them? They will surely be big time contaminated. So is it really a good alternative against fuel feeding vehicles?
There is a problem with the battery, but where will we get the power to get the battery charge? Our electrical power is mainly produced from coal and it is dirty, so power consumption in electricity will require more coal consumption and possibly natural gas.
Or we could conceivably each have solar cells installed at out homes to charge our cars -- except our cars are at the office during sunlight hours, so we would have to store the solar energy to charge our car batteries in another array of batteries at home.
But even so, three bucks of coal is enough to power a Tesla for 100 miles. Clearly the cost to extract 100 miles worth of that coal is cheaper than the cost to extract, transport, and refine 100 miles worth of gas. And most of those costs are due to the use of equipment and fuel, not labor. So it sure seems like using 3 bucks of even coal is better for the environment than using 6-8 bucks of gas.
I think you’re hitting on excellent points here, although I would point to the massive increase in renewable power generation - mostly solar and wind - at the moment. I know the UK is breaking records every year for energy generated without use of coal-fired generation.As for the environmental cost of mining Lithium, that may only be a transient problem. Battery technology is improving every year and while Lithium batteries are fueling the uptake of electric vehicles, the batteries will probably be replaced with some new, greener technology before long.