In CA that rule already exists. A vehicle must have a minimum of 7500 miles on it to be able to register it in CA.
Yes but this not capitalist but government mandated. The video example you used was caused by technology improvements not government mandates. Now on the technical side ev's are not zero emission no matter if all electric came from nuclear power sources there will still be emissions involved at some point in the process. Ev's still require plastics rubber and lubrication all of which come from petroleum. Hydrogen power would be a much better way to go from a technical stand point. I know we don't want this to be political so I won't say no more other than this whole ev business is political at it's very core.
But where does the power come from for all these charging stations? The big problem is the cart is being put before the horse. All the ev's in the world are no good without power sources.
Yes but those batteries are useless without a power source to charge them infrastructure has to be developed first.That prediction is based on your own personal assumption about the efficiency of battery technology 20 years from now.
For comparison, I bought some Makita cordless tools in 2003 (19 years ago). Their 18V battery pack, which was cutting edge at the time, is Nickle Metal Hydride (Ni-MH) technology, and the output is 2.6 Ah.
I just bought some Milwaukee cordless tools this year. Their 18V battery pack is Lithium-Ion (Li-ion) technology (a much better technology than Ni-MH), and the output is 5.0 Ah, in a smaller form factor.
This is a real world example of the improvement in battery technology in 20 years time.
You mean as long as we're creating energy, there's heat?!? Get out of here! lol
OK, then. A better example would be digital television broadcasting.
You’re missing the point about economics by focusing purely on current politics and assuming naively that technology development remains static. Technology improvements over the next 13 years will affect supply and demand in 2035, because the more efficient the batteries become, the lower the demand per vehicle and the lower the projected supply needed from the power infrastructure.
You're seem to be assuming we have all the power capacity that's possible. Each and every proposed power generating plant/system proposed is a financial decision based on cost vs demand. More capacity is coming on line on a regular basis.
No one's going to build additional capacity unless there's sufficient demand. So you have to build the cars first.
I would expect a gas tax in the 100% range to start, and getting worse when people still don’t make the change to an EV.
It's not magic. EV's are getting longer range because they are getting bigger batteries. Bigger batteries mean more manufacturing and transportation of rare earth minerals and plenty of other things to make the batteries. And we don't have a real recycle program for all of that precious metals and materials yet. EV's have the draw that they have because the mostly misinformed public think EV's are solving a problem, a problem that doesn't exist. Sustainability is the real issue, not climate change and carbon emissions. While fossil fuel is not going to run out anytime soon (we have centuries worth of the stuff), it won't last forever. But, neither will the materials needed to make all of the high performance batteries that would be needed to convert everything to EV's. And, those pushing the agenda are speaking out of both sides of their mouth, pushing EV's and resisting nuclear. They are closing down millions of acres of desert to multi-use, we can't drive in 85% of the areas in CA that we could drive through in 1976, and yet it's OK to fill up huge tracks of desert with solar panels. The push to EV's is based on a misinformed idealism and is not based in reality of the situation. As many have said, the grid is not there to sustain it, and the power generation capacity is not there to support. Oh, but it sure makes a lot of people feel good.
