You're wrong on the environmental front. Yes, EVs require energy to build. Guess what? Ice is the same way. Cast, forged and stamped parts all require power hungry machinery to refine the raw materials and make them into useful parts. All of that has a carbon cost. The difference is that with an EV there is a payback period, whereas for ice there is never a payback period, and thanks to oil changes and gas fill ups, there's an ongoing environmental cost for the life of the product.But what you're forgetting is that tailpipe CO2 is baby food compared to the environmental damage done to mine precious metals for the battery packs, provide power to the factories that build them, deal with the waste from factories that build them, etc. and we haven't even started to talk about the issue of how to dispose of EVs at the end of useful life. I have a family member who is the Commissioner of our state Waste Management agency and he says that topic is a large can of worms. In the grand scheme of things, EVs have no environmental benefit, and may actually prove to be a greater detriment.
I'll give you the elimination of basic maintenance, but again if a guy spends $100k on an EV truck when he could have purchased an ICE truck with the exact same features for $50k is he really getting a benefit from no maintenance?
What this all boils down to is personal finances, and that's why I say the RST version of this truck is a total waste of time. Pointless.
Go look up redwood materials and educate yourself about lithium battery recycling. Upwards of 90% of the material is recoverable and reusable. Redwood is already making a profit on the refining of the material, they are burning cash due to scaling their operations.
Plenty of people spend outrageous money on gas trucks. I live in the Dallas area - this place is loaded with f150 platinums and f250 super dutys owned by people who have no reason to drive such a vehicle. Luxury vehicles are a thing. EVs do not cost 100k. Bolt is now 26k. This argument sucks.