on the topic of that nasty nasty cobalt, the biggest user of it is the petro chemical industry
Interesting claim, one not supported by any evidence. The USGS says this: " On a global basis, the leading use of cobalt is in rechargeable battery electrodes."
It is used as a catalyst to remove sulphur from fuels, but is only consumed at a very low rate (of the order of one pound of cobalt per millions of gallons of fuel).
this isn't because it isn't possible its because we don't yet have sufficient quantities of them to create a viable recycling market!
It is not viable, because EV battery packs take a huge amount of time and effort to strip down into component parts. It's currently much cheaper to use virgin mineral resources. Once those start running out (predictions vary, but it doesn't look good), it may become financially viable to recover lithium from old EV packs. However, this is only because the value of lithium has increased, which means that EV battery packs will become more expensive.
The recyclable content of the thousands of gallons of fuel used over an ICE car's lifetime is exactly 0%!
This is a ridiculous mis-direction. You are conflating the materials used to manufacture a car, with the fuel used to power it The recyclable content of the gas-fired power stations that recharge your EV is 0%. Solar panel recycling is problematic, and dominated by the "recyclability" of the front glass panel, which makes up the bulk of the weight and leads to claims like "90% of solar panel material can be recycled!". The rest of the solar panel, made up of silicon doped with all sorts of nasty elements (just like any other semiconductor), is as recyclable as any other piece of electronics. That is, not at all.
A considerable amount of electricity is required to pump crude out of the ground, to and from refineries often over very considerable distances and then as part of the refinement process (along with lots of heat energy).
No, it isn't. Oil provides its own energy source! Yes, it is non-renewable, but your claims are factually inaccurate. Even those few wells that are powered by electric pumps, don't need much energy. Most wells are either powered by geologic forces (ie, the oil just squirts out by itself), or it is "mined" using energy provided by that very oil (ie, shale sands, etc etc).
It may surprise you to find that electric cars use little more electricity (and in some use cases less) than ICE vehicles.
I would be very very surprised to discover that, as it is demonstrably false.
A considerable amount of energy is needed to manufacture an EV battery pack, of the order of 60kWh per 1 kWh of final pack capacity. That means a 100kWh Tesla battery pack took 6MWh to manufacture.
Where does that power come from? If we dedicated all of the UK's 60GWh annual wind generation to manufacturing "sustainable" EV battery packs, we could make 10,000 per year (and, obviously, not have any wind power for anything else). It would only take 3,000 years to make an EV for every adult in the UK!
Obviously, the only way we can consume such an enormous amount of energy to manufacture things we "need" is to burn a load of fossil fuels to do so, which is exactly what happens.
I'm also pretty sure its not electric cars that are responsible for giving me black snot after walking round London
Sounds like the solution is to encourage more people to walk or cycle (which is what I do).