Quote:
Originally Posted by Two Bills
EV's are very popular in UK, and given the size of the country, quite practical.
We are never more than 70 miles from the sea, and one end to the other is just over 600 miles, which, with a bigger EV, is a one charge journey.
Plenty of public charging points.
Even our rural local supermarket has two, and they make no charge (yet!), and you very seldom see both points used at same time.
Personally I will never have one due to the exorbitant cost of purchase, plus wife and I travel a lot in UK and Europe, and could not be bothered with all the logistics of finding charging points.
It's horses for courses really.
If our world was solely TV I could see the point of one, but with the distances of city to city travel in US, I would never have anything but an ICE vehicle.
Just cannot understand the TOTV posters who are so opposed to EV's.
No one is forcing them to buy.
The majority will be long dead and gone, even if such a time comes.
Just stick with your ICE vehicle, and let those who want electric sort out any problems with them.
Sorry for monologue, but freezing and raining cats and dogs here at the moment, so a bit bored.
Probably do an essay on roundabouts tomorrow, or divulge the best cheesecake recipe in the world!  |
Interesting points.
I think one common misconception is that people here are "opposed" to EVs. That is certainly not the case: I know plenty of people who one one (or two) and are happy with them. More power to them. If an EV fits your needs, wonderful. People are certainly free to choose them. However, the statement "No one is forcing them to buy", if the administration has their way, would prove to be untrue. See below.
I think, bottom-line, that folks here are opposed to what they see as some pretty blatant social engineering, based on concepts that at best are legitimately challengeable and at worst a power-grab. The proposed EPA emissions limitations which would mandate a 13% annual emissions reduction and an overall 56% cut in fleet emissions, for example. The administration's plan to use taxpayer dollars as as grants to automakers to retrofit for purposes of manufacturing more EVs. The proposal to dramatically cut greenhouse-gas emissions by heavy-duty vehicles (trucks, buses, and the like beginning in 2027 with ever-more stringent reductions annually to 2032--an especially problematic area because America's economy runs on such vehicles, and such restrictions would inevitably mean a significant increase in the cost of domestic goods and services. Other examples exist as well.
There is, or should be, no problem with letting the market decide, and with Elon involved the market could very well swing eventually in favor of EVs regardless of government interference. But anything that smacks of social engineering is a surefire way to raise the hackles of many--probably most--Americans. That is what you're seeing here--not opposition to EVs but opposition to what is seen as arbitrary government meddling.
I don't know how things are seen in the UK regarding such matters, but I go back to a quote by former President Ronald Reagan: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Maybe the citizens of the UK don't see government in that way, but a whole lot of Americans do.