No wonder people bristle at that.
What I find quite amusing is that most EV buyers don’t appear to have realised that public charging is about 3x more expensive than charging at home.
It is like city inhabitants paying 3x more for petrol; there would be a civil war if somebody tried that 
Or, at another level, it is a testament to the power of “green PR” blinding lots of people, of whom 50% are above average IQ My neighbours are well above average IQ but they didn’t know…
I cannot see a total ban in most countries
It would destroy the car mfg industry, which employs lots of people and generates lots of wealth, domestically and via export. Most people cannot ever use an EV due to not having a charging opportunity.
Peter wrote:
What I find quite amusing is that most EV buyers don’t appear to have realised that public charging is about 3x more expensive than charging at home.
What’s your data for that? (Not the 3x, which could well be correct, but for most EV buyers not realising that.)
The price of public charging or even charging at home, will indeed have an effect on BEV take up.
But this tends to be country dependent.
Silvaire seems to pay a high price per unit of electricity whereas LeSving pays next to nothing.
The UK appears to pay a large premium for fast public chargers.
IMO this is one big reason for the US not having a big take up of BEVs and why they tend to be stalling in the UK.
What’s your data for that? (Not the 3x, which could well be correct, but for most EV buyers not realising that.)
The price is not the issue with takeup; it is scarcity of (non vandalised or compatible) points and long queues for the working ones.
Vandalisation and lack of charging points might be a UK problem. Silvaire on.the other hand references the price as one reason why he would not buy a BEV.
The prices quoted for the UK and the cost Silvaire quotes per unit compared to gasoline in the USA would certainly deter me from going electric in the UK or USA. It could certainly swing me one way or another.
Silvaire you seem to have ignored the fact that the technolgies and programmed to which I referred are actually happening now.
Happening (in development) and being effective are two different things. I’ve spent my life working in energy and power related R&D and the combination of technical risk and market forces create a situation where almost everything fails. It’s part of the job, and some people can’t adapt to it. In the end a very, very labor intensive filtering of ideas through development and market competition creates a few winners that actually make people’s lives better. Disrupting that process with a legal prohibition or tax rebate campaign against technologies currently out of favor with authoritarian activists will not create a good outcome.
So what part of what I wrote is (in development) and not happening?
I was particularly careful not to go into areas of technology which have not been tested and actually on the market today. Where I entered the realm of opinion I was at pains to stress it.
Your background in R+D gives your opinion no greater value than anyone else on this forum.
Maybe an example will help make the point. Did the Rance Tidal Power Station that was built in 1966 subsequently create an expansion of tidal power as a significant source of electrical power worldwide?
Did making alcohol illegal in the US or lowering the speed limit to 55 mph result in changing people’s behavior, and were those activist motivated prohibitions against widespread societal choices ultimately successful? Did mandatory yellow headlights in France ultimately make any sense to anybody? Are we now all traveling worldwide on SSTs despite a huge and ultimately unsuccessful tax payer funded initiative that missed the real mass market?
All those things happened and they weren’t very successful in making people’s lives better. In those cases those responsible had the opportunity to change direction, and did so, but when draconian laws were involved (prohibition on alcohol involved a Constitutional change) it was hard, when easy would have been preferable. The key to developing the best solution is flexibility, because most ideas don’t work as initially conceived. Others end up only working in certain niche markets, diesel aircraft engines come to mind.
Against rigorous internal requirements, Cuberg demonstrated that its 20 Ah lithium metal cells, which have a specific energy of 405 Wh/kg, work as intended when assembled into an aviation battery module.
So they are building rechargeable lithium-metal cells, great if they can make them work better than the previous attempts 40 years ago [NB – they are probably very different in design and electrolyte, a lot has been learned since the 80s. There is no new overall chemistry to be discovered in any rechargeable battery, it is all about making them work]
Current technology which has around 280 Wh/kg, so a 30% reduction in weight. I would certainly want one of these in my car to improve range, but it is quite a bit away from what is needed for aviation.
Vandalisation and lack of charging points might be a UK problem
I think it would be very much a French problem too if they were installed in districts which one cannot discuss (in the UK but even more so in France) 
It is closely related to which strata of the population you want to have access to EVs.
