> Think about things like "wildlife disruption from a car-centric culture with lots of roads,"
But now you're making a context-specific argument. It's not about the car, it's about where you put the roads. And then you have to weigh that against alternatives. If you replace cars with buses, you still need roads. Trains need tracks etc.
> "microplastics from tires," etc.
But this isn't any worse than ICE cars. Making some things better and some things the same is a net improvement.
And you could conceivably address this by making tires out of something else regardless of what kind of powertrain you're using.
> One may reasonably argue that these are less important impacts than CO2 emissions, and make one's arguments (I think quite reasonably so), but to round all these to zero for renewables is dishonest, at best.
It doesn't have to be zero if it's less than the cost of oil exploration, production, refining and distribution, which is the status quo.
> The same goes for the amount of mining required for the raw uranium to be refined into nuclear fuel - quite a bit of earth has to be extracted and processed to get the fuel quantity. Again, I think it's lower impact than fossil fuels, but it's certainly not zero - by quite a large amount.
The difference between the energy content per kg of burning oil and fissioning uranium is literally more than a factor of a million. The amount of uranium you need by comparison is basically zero.
> "Because the cars weigh about the same, they have the same production impact," when one has a thousand pounds of lithium ion battery pack.
Lithium battery packs are only a single digit percentage lithium by weight. The lithium isn't a large proportion of the mass of the vehicle. The largest component of the mass of the battery is typically graphite, followed by aluminum.