The linked report compares BEVs with ICE and Hybrid. Hybrid beats both because of the smaller battery.
BEVs have a very large upfront footprint due to the battery that needs to be paid off overtime by driving from a renewable source. However in US only 14% of energy comes from renewable sources, so it'll be a very long pay off.
Hybrids are the best way to go until we make significant strides in batteries (20-30 years off?). You rely on your charged battery for most of your trips, and the highly optimized gas engine kicks in when you need the extra range/juice.
I didn't. He is talking about the footprint of the fuel (electricity vs gasoline). The report addresses that as well. It looks at OVERALL footprint of the three different types, and includes upfront cost (i.e. production which includes battery) and on-going.
Larger battery means a much larger up-front carbon footprint. Unfortunately on an on-going basis due to profile of electricity production in US you are burning a ton of coal [1] to generate that electricity. Coal is far, far worse than gas in the carbon impact as well as extraction footprint.
Because of the much larger initial hole you've dug (due to a very, very large battery) you're not going to crawl your way out of this deficit for a long time.
The logical solution is to minimize the battery to a degree that it would cover most weekday commutes (which isn't 300 some-odd miles). You would have a much smaller, optimized, gas based generator to recharge that battery for the odd time the person needs the longer range.
It gives you the best of both worlds. You would get far greater savings. This is the reason why other manufacturers are making hybrids or if they do make pure EV it has a much smaller battery than Tesla.
