[redpoint5]

You're at the heart of why EVs are not suitable alternatives for ICE; the sucky batteries.

EVs as suitable alternatives relies completely on the assumption that we'll develop battery technology sufficiently, which isn't the sure thing that many people assume it is.

With taxpayers subsidizing EVs at $7,500-$10,000 they have accounted for 2% of vehicle sales in the US. As I often mention, the batteries need to deliver at least $7,500 more value than they currently do to merely make up for loss of subsidies, let alone surpass ICE in sales.

EVs are the value proposition for those whose commutes are very long, but within the range of the vehicle. Not so for those who put in few miles or have commutes beyond the range of the vehicle.

I suspect batteries will overcome their many enormous challenges, but that might just be my hope and optimism speaking. Hope and optimism aren't sufficient for making policy that affects taxpayers and benefits the wealthy, which is why betting on EVs almost exclusively at the expense of all other incentives and disincentives to reduce oil dependency is a fools errand.