The problem is obvious though, isn't it? Our current infrastructure simply cannot handle a ton of EV's all wanting to charge up all day long - as is done currently with gas stations all over the country.
It'll take decades to bring our infrastructure up to where it needs to be to support this - yet people act like we're already there. Some states still struggle just to keep the lights on during major parts of the year...
The load is spread out in a completely different way than gas, because 100% of gas cars get gas at a station, while 80% of people with EVs slow-charge at home (or work or whatever). Fast chargers are for road-trips only.
Obviously, if we're going to move to cleaner energy we will need infrastructure investment. Worrying that it's not already there makes no sense. The demand for improved electrical infrastructure will be a forcing function. There's no need to wait for it. But again, most charging isn't fast charging and likely never will be.
(Charging for apartments and stuff still has a bit of a way to go, so sometimes those people use fast chargers as part of their regular routine, but the solution to that is easy and underway: just put chargers in the apartment parking lot and/or on the streets.)
> Obviously, if we're going to move to cleaner energy
It is very unclear whether electric vehicles actually are more environmentally friendly. They sound great - but if you dig into where all the materials come from, it's shocking how externalized we've made that problem. It might be cleaner by time you get to drive it... but it's not cleaner to produce and operate, and in fact may be worse in some cases. Emissions aren't just from the tailpipe after all - yet that appears to be what most people focus on.
> Worrying that it's not already there makes no sense
It makes a lot of sense when the government (both state and federal) are pushing initiatives and incentives to force EV's into commonplace. Our infra just cannot handle it, even with trickle chargers like you've claimed. Which means it will be a net-worse experience for people, and they will resist future clean energy pushes as being disingenuous.
The major points have already been refuted by another poster. I want to just add that I can't comprehend how anyone could think taking a dump on all our lungs at every road is a good idea. In the future, people will look at it like the middle ages dumping all their human waste on the streets out their windows. In that same future, lung-related problems will nearly disappear as these toxic emissions cease to exist.
Centralizing dirty energy generation allows better regulation and control of it. It also allows converting that dirty energy to clean energy without any friction from consumers. You can power an EV using coal. You can also power it using nuclear or solar. What options to power a gasoline car do you have?
EVs also force the improvement of the power grid to be more resilient and modernized, instead of stagnant and lazy, to be sucked dry.
It is shocking how externalized the costs are with our reliance on oil -- technological stagnation, toxic fumes everywhere, literally heating of the entire planet, funding of backwards authoritarian governments, and the NOISE! Only a fool would support the continued usage of oil when EVs exist now.
> It is very unclear whether electric vehicles actually are more environmentally friendly.
No, it is extremely clear. Including manufacturing they are cleaner than gas cars. And they will get better over time as the grid greens and as batteries become made out of more recycled materials. The batteries are 99% recyclable into new batteries and so there is a point where new materials never need to come out of the ground. Also, if you only focus on the most pressing thing, greenhouse emissions, the story is even better.
> Our infra just cannot handle it
Yes it can. There have been ~zero issues with the grid as a result of EV adoption.
So previous commenters have presented some facts for you. But since human brains tend to reject facts when they don't match their world view, I am curious - have you changed your stance, or continue to believe what you said?
Majority of US homes do not have an abundance of 240v outlets - meaning your 40 hour charge is a non-starter for everyone but those in high income brackets and ability to modify their homes (ie. non-renters).
It's only the highest peaks of demand that cause problems for the grid. EV charging, on average, is one of the least time sensitive loads there is. People charge in the middle of the night when its cheap.
> People charge in the middle of the night when its cheap.
Why is it cheap in the middle of the night? Because there's near zero demand.
Fast forward 10 years and everyone has 1-2 EV's to charge each night. Is there zero demand still? No... and now it's expensive to charge at night.
People really need to be realistic about these things. Pretending these issues do not exist only harms EV adoption. People buy expensive EV's and find out it's a major PITA to keep it running, it's expensive to charge, it takes forever to charge, etc.
> People buy expensive EV's and find out it's a major PITA to keep it running, it's expensive to charge, it takes forever to charge, etc.
Very few people have done this. After people buy EVs, most of them learn how easy it is in comparison to ICE cars.
You're very optimistic if you think "everyone will have 1 or 2 EVs" in 10 years time. New ICE cars will still be available until at least 2035. Not accounting for non-new cars.
It'll take decades to bring our infrastructure up to where it needs to be to support this - yet people act like we're already there. Some states still struggle just to keep the lights on during major parts of the year...