It's certainly improving but I'm thinking more in the 6+ age category, and what the impact an increasing awareness of the price of replacement batteries might have there. Right now, €10k will buy you a 7 year old BMW 3 Series, would you buy a 7 year old EV privately with no guarantee on range knowing that a dud battery will set you back €30k?
I guess I'm saying that I don't think reality matches perception here. Dud batteries are extremely rare - Leafs have been on the road for 10+ years now and are often voted the most reliable cars by owners - what is more real is the battery degrading over time. As above this degradation is much slower than it used to be, people keeping cars to 200-300,000km and then having to buy a new battery are absolute edge cases. Average people doing 15000 a year are exceptionally unlikely to ever experience the need to replace a battery - the Leaf comes with an 8 year battery warranty, after 8 years a Leaf is likely to be worth maybe €5-6k, it would make no financial sense for anybody to spend €30k repairing a car of this value, in the same way nobody spends €20-30k replacing engines in 6-7 year old BMW diesels that are toast after timing chain failures (and who doesn't know at least one person to have experienced this?).
No doubt, but a few of the counter arguments to Mazda's statement that I've read seem to be assuming that EV users are almost exclusively using renewable energy. We're hoping to hit 55% by 2030, and we know what our record with targets is like. They're also assuming some pretty optimistic numbers for batter manufacturing. Long range batteries add hundreds of kilos to the weight of a car, carrying that weight for short journeys is inefficient, even with regenerative braking.
This summary and the full report seem fairly convincing to me, their conclusions are that EVs are cleaner even in US states that still rely heavily on coal for electricity generation -
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave. The UCS seem like a credible independent source to me - it was created by a group of scientists/students from MIT - though of course I'm open to correction on that.
Transport accounts for 43% of national energy demand, and private cars account for ~40% of that (the SEAI include aviation in the transport figures), EVs won't suit public transport or freight uses, so the target is more realistically some fraction of that 40%.
Sorry I was primarily thinking of NOx and particulate matter here. Both are extremely localised, as in a few meters from a road they drop right down, so transport is responsible for virtually all of this. So particularly in cities if you could take 30/40/50% of petrol/diesel cars off the roads it would bring the levels down well below WHO recommended limits. 100% agree with your point that replacing personal cars is not the whole story when it comes to the likes of CO2/SOx emissions which have wider impact areas.
Look EVs have plenty of flaws, but for the good of consumers thinking of buying cars in the coming years I'd just love if we could discuss the real ones and not the ones that I feel are mostly FUD spread by car dealers/manufacturers/oil-industry/mis-informed media etc. The real issues in my view are things like the poor public charging network in Ireland, range issues if you are a road warrior, the lack of a people carrier that average families can afford, the lack of <€20k models, the issue of how to charge if you don't have a driveway, misinformation (Toyota self-charging perpetual motion machines
) , high secondhand values from lack of supply, lack of supply of new vehicles, the high price-point of most EVs, how the national grid will adapt to increased demand from EVs/datacentres/electric-home-heating all at once etc.