If there was a better and cheaper option to replace fossil fuels for transportation and energy, the transition would naturally happen. Why would anyone buy a gas car if electric was better and cheaper in every way? Maybe a few petrolhead enthusiasts but everyone would switch if it was cheaper and better and the infrastructure was in place.
But instead of doing the work (infrastructure) and making the technology better and cheaper, a strategy of carrots and sticks was employed ($ incentives and taxation) that haven’t progressed the technology.
The reason we burn gas in our cars is because it was better and cheaper than the previous fuels.
Inertia, Investment, (existing) Infrastructure, and greed.
Investment and profit to be made off of it also relate to lobbying, laws, and further investment.
Some related issues for electric vehicles are the increased load on power grid/supply, how Internal Combustion Engines provide (relatively) free heat in cold climates, and that cold snaps require vehicles with batteries to self-heat.
They're issues that have some solutions, but it's not wave a wand at things and they're fixed. The problem also reminds me of connectivity in houses, where by now we should have at least gigabit ports in every room, but increasingly consumers see houses barely suitable for wifi and cell connections.
There are things the market just won't self select despite the good involved for consumers. Maybe if we vote for non-idiots there will eventually be regulation to help.
Why is it so hard to admit or understand that the transition hasn’t happened yet at critical mass scale because the technology is more expensive and not equal or better than ICE for consumers?
When a product is better and cheaper, inertia is overcome and consumers switch!
Go look up the historical transitions of fuel sources!
By that logic also, everyone would by expensive razors and cheap razor blades because they would see that it costs less in the long term than cheap razors and expensive blades.
Maybe because it's not that simple? A new technology and a new infrastructure will be more expensive initially, until it reaches a critical mass. So, to reach that critical mass you need early adopters who take the hit, and to help sweeten the hit, you give them money under the form of incentives to buy the new EV or create the charging infrastructure. That's one of the main duties of a welfare state.
Personally for me a big thing is how finicky EVs are.
If there is no electricity you are out, if it's snowing too much you are out and so on.
I don't want to buy something that stops working when anything isn't optimal.
ICE vehicles can be finicky as well (but the technology has matured over a century) but yes, they aren’t quite totally better in every way.
They certainly work in the snow though, but there is range penalties in the cold. Gas cars stop working when they aren’t in their optimal conditions as well than includes having enough fuel.
I think requiring reliable electric infrastructure for charging cars is a good investment in the future because reliable power is good for more than just cars.
That is way too polarised. In a world just introducing ICE cars, gas stations once where rare too—without those, you’d be short of luck as well. Give it a bit of time, and you’ll have a reliable charging grid.
Additionally, much of the fear of running out of electricity has been instilled by the oil and car lobby. The problem is hugely inflated over the actual experience of driving an EV in reality.
And in terms of finickiness, there are SO many ways an ICE can break, so many replacement parts, maintenance requirements, and complexity compared to an electric engine. You’re just used to those in ICEs.
> Additionally, much of the fear of running out of electricity has been instilled by the oil and car lobby. The problem is hugely inflated over the actual experience of driving an EV in reality.
True, but i want to still be able to use my car when shit hits the fan, like in a storm or even in a war, there were photos of teslas left out in the cold in ukraine.
While with an ICE car all you need is just a gallon of gas.
> And in terms of finickiness, there are SO many ways an ICE can break, so many replacement parts, maintenance requirements, and complexity compared to an electric engine. You’re just used to those in ICEs.
The difference is for EVs they are finicky to use, while ICE vehicles are finicky mechanically, which doesn't seem to be an issue in day to day driving.
the simple solutions from clueless people are always very entertaining. They got all the fixes for the world’s problems, if only these damn politicians did their work!1!1
Yeah, the hundreds of billions of dollars that the oil economy spends every year is not what creates this distortion, sure. Let’s just wait for the market forces to fix it.
The oil lobby did not force Germany to close it's nuclear reactors and start importing Russian gas instead to power their whole country. The oil producers did not lobby the EU to add a 25% tariff on EVs from China.
Finally, the oil lobby is not responsible for the horrendous EU electricity prices which is making it literally impossible for some people to warm their homes in the winter months let alone charge and EV.
I am happy to blame the oil lobby for a lot of things but the politicians have to share this blame as well.
But instead of doing the work (infrastructure) and making the technology better and cheaper, a strategy of carrots and sticks was employed ($ incentives and taxation) that haven’t progressed the technology.
The reason we burn gas in our cars is because it was better and cheaper than the previous fuels.