Gurps answered your EV question. This short video is worth a watch too...recently posted in the Environmental sub-forum by @limblipsI don't know much about EVs , except that I would imagine them to be unreliable. I mean what if you need a high powered vehicle to get through difficult roads, or have to travel long distances out in the middle of nowhere. But how are they not environmental? I don't know you, but I am picking your brain. I hope you don't mind...
Thanks for sharing. The student makes great points. The issues of efficient recycling of the lithium batteries and the rest of electronic waste, is something that obviously needs to be fixed in order to move forward. I appreciate the backed up sources and that it is a physics paper. I appreciate discussion points backed up. Thanks!!!!heavy metals used to make the batteries are sources of horrible pollution ....
How Green are Electric Cars?
It is mostly thought that electric vehicles (EVs) are far less harmful for the environment than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). Since EVs do not emit any greenhouse gases while they are being driven, one is easily led to think that they have no environmental footprint. This is untrue for a number of reasons. Firstly, EVs run on electricity, and in the United States most electricity is generated from the combustion of fossil fuels. According to the US Energy Information Administration, as of January 2015 fossil fuels meet 82% of US energy demand.  Secondly, the production of EVs has a significantly larger enviromental footprint than that of ICEVs. This is mainly because of their intricate lithium-based batteries (Fig. 1), which are costly to make and even more costly to dispose of. Whether these environmental drawbacks are enough to reconsider electric vehicles as "green alternatives" will be the subject of our inquiry here.
In a 2012 paper published in the Yale Journal of Industrial Ecology, a team of researchers lead by Dr. Troy Hawkins gauged the overall environmental impact of the production of EVs.  Their study centers on EVs powered by lithium iron phosphate batteries and lithium nickel cobalt manganese batteries, the latter being marginally more energy-efficient and thus environmentally-friendly. It finds that as a whole the global warming potential (GWP) of producing electric vehicles is in the region of 87-95 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kilometer, of which battery production contributes roughly 40%. It is about twice the 43 g CO2~eq/km associated with the production of ICEVs. Thus, producing the battery of an EV is about as costly to the environment as producing an entire ICEV. This is because the metals used in making the batteries- cobalt, lithium, lead, nickel- are mined mainly in South America and Australia. As such, the environmental costs associated with their extraction and transportation are very high.
Life Cycle Analysis
Hawkins et al.'s overall life cycle analysis of European EVs versus ICEVs shows that despite having twice as large a GWP in production phase, EVs typically had a lesser GWP over their entire lives. They estimate that from its production until its retirement, an EV has a GWP that is 20%-24% less than that of an equivalent gasoline powered ICEV, and 10%-14% less than that of a diesel-powered one.
These figures are contingent upon a number of important assumptions. The expected vehicle lifespan of a vehicle is 150,000 km, which is generous for an EV. The marginal benefit of EVs shrinks when this expectation is reduced to 100,000 km. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the assumed energy source for powering the EVs is average European electricity. This is another favorable assumption, as Europe is heavily invested in renewable energy, and no more dependent on coal than it is on nuclear.
As such the GWP associated with EVs' power consumption is low in Europe. In a country such as China, which relies more heavily on "dirty" energy, the use phase GWP of EVs is far more significant and may actually exceed that of ICEVs. In 2012, a study of the externalities associated with EV and ICEV usage in Shanghai showed that because of their dependency on coal-generated power, EVs in Shanghai were of greater harm to air quality than ICEVs overall. 
The Lithium batteries that power EVs are difficult to dispose of and harmful to the environment. They contain toxic metals- namely nickel, lead and copper- as well as toxic and flammable electrolytes containing LiClO4, LiBF4, and LiPF6. Exposure to these materials during the battery production phase is strictly regulated by US federal law, but the legislation on their disposal is inconsistent internationally. They present a serious human hazard, especially in areas that lack the infrastructure for solid waste collection and recycling, both in the US and abroad. There is an additional threat: even discharged EV batteries can deliver powerful shocks, or present a serious fire hazard, if mishandled. 
Recycling EV batteries is, as a whole, expensive yet feasible. There is little incentive for manufacturers to recycle EV batteries when Lithium- their "main ingredient" - costs five times more to recycle than to produce. EV manufacturers have attempted different ways to reduce costs. Toyota is shipping used American Prius batteries back to Japan, where it can recycle at lower cost; GM and Nissan have started selling used batteries to power companies for the storage of excess wind and solar energy. While these recycling methods have been successful in mitigating the damage caused by EV battery disposal, they are costly and still far from being protocol. Specialized EV battery recycling plants are appearing, but only by the graces of government subsidy. In 2011 The US department of energy funded a $9.5 million dollar EV battery recycling plant in Ohio, today managed by Toxco. Efforts in the UK are still in their experimental stages.
Electric Cars Aren’t Nearly as Green as People Think
I am assuming you are talking about me. Don't I feel special. No, but I do use a pseudonym. I am a writer that writes about alot of various topics. I believe in being informed before I stick a foot in it. I am a thirty year conservative political junkie who is over the mean spirited form of political rhetoric. Straw man and logical follicles used in political rhetoric loses me every time, but seems to be the trend now. When I don't know something and someone says something provocative enough, I ask. It's how we learn. I am a granny who is going back to school so that she can support the rest of her family. I am not an engineer, so excuse me, as I am not done learning. Thank you for not talking down to me, as I am not as smart as you. I hope I come off respectful as well! Slainte!!I still think this is some's Sock Puppet
Thanks Gilligan,Gurps answered your EV question. This short video is worth a watch too...recently posted in the Environmental sub-forum by @limblips
It's around 25% according to most sources, including ERCOT. The largest source of their electricity is from natural gas...from 51-56% depending on the source.Thanks Gilligan,
I gotta go, but I will take a look at this later. Already I have read quite a bit on the topic since you were kind enough to answer some of my questions!! I am actually interested in getting a healthy perspective on the topic for a future writing project.. Take care!
I do have a question. I am not sure you are following the thing with Texas. There seems to be some contradiction in the amount of Texas' energy that is reliant on wind? Would you know roughly what that would be? I don't know what resource to trust.