Except when you look at those outages, almost all are talking about natural disasters that destroy the current infrastructure -- they were not caused by a lack of power generation. Even if you look at the Texas outage in February of 2021 and try to claim that was lack of "power generation," the issue isn't that they didn't have enough power generation capacity, it was caused by lack of winterization that caused the power plants to fail. So this argument has zero to do with EVs or the extra power they might need.
Instead, I'll leave a YouTube video below which addresses the amount of extra power we need for EVs. What he determines is you need about 30% more power in the grid. He also finds that, historically, we've added roughly 4% capacity to our electrical grid every year over the last 60-ish years. At that rate, it would take 6.5 years to improve the grid to generate the extra power needed for EVs. He also uses the example of Air Conditioners (AC), which use an equivalent amount (at least on the days AC is needed) to the amount of power an EV would use -- and how the US managed to build the grid out so that we had the power for the increased adoption of AC. This isn't the overwhelming issue that the anti-EV people thinks it is. And it is even less of an issue when you can use things like lower electric rates at night, which will cause many EV owners to charge at night when power usage tends to be much lower -- flatten the "power curve" if you will -- which means the actual strain on the power grid is far less than what is trying to be claimed.
Which has nothing to do with anything. Yes, there are "zealots" on both sides; kind of like your talking points here are taken from zealots of the "anti-EV" groups. What this means is we should evaluate all claims on their merits, like we do with everything else.
Except that batteries are evolving. Many of those batteries are starting to be replaced by LFP batteries, which have their own issues, but remove some of the rare minerals with iron -- so don't require the same amount of strip mining, water resources, etc.
The other issue is that ignores the issues with drilling for oil and the damage for the environment that it causes (and has caused); to include massive water pollution issues (with billions of dollars spent trying to "fix" that damage) and slave type labor.
No, we don't know that -- particularly with the particulates that come out of the exhaust pipes of ICE vehicles. Yes, it has been lowered with the various emission control systems but they do still cause various types of pollution to include particulates.
I feel compelled to point out the top selling gas vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150, which weighs as much as most any EV. Even ignoring that, the fact is that SUVs (which are built on truck chassis, so weigh more) tend to be most of the vehicles sold in the US. Yes, EVs do tend to be a bit heavier but the amount of that difference is overstated. It also ignores the brake wear, with the dust from that wear put into the air -- EVs have almost no "brake dust" since they use the electric motor to stop the car (and put power back into the battery) rather than physical brakes.
Yes, for all vehicles. I'd also note that while weight can effect the amount of wear that by far the biggest factors are still driving style (the faster and more aggressive you drive, the higher the wear) and tires being at the proper pressure.
As I keep pointing out, cold weather is an issue for all vehicles. I would note that other countries, such as Norway (highest EV adoption in the world), that have winters as cold as the US, don't have "issues" running EVs in winter.
Why do you need "charging stations" in "crowded cities?" Though, the easy answer would be to put them where gas stations are currently -- that should free up a fair amount of real estate as gas vehicles become less common. As a general rule, you don't need fast charging stations in major cities. The charging stations are largely only needed when traveling, so you can stick the bulk of them in rural and suburban areas right off of highways.
I'll agree that their is an issue in New York City (and a few others) where people don't have driveways and have to park on the street; as well as those that live in apartment buildings. With apartments, though, it will be much like air conditioning was, where owners had to install air conditioning to be able to have their apartments appeal to most renters; it will soon be the same with some type of EV charging (likely 220v) being required for people to want to rent from various apartment complexes. With New York, I assume they will add some type of 220V charging station to their on street parking stalls; which doesn't require a large amount of room (slightly larger than parking meters) and likely will have some type of payment system where they charge a bit more (for overhead and to buy and maintain the charger) for electricity than what a person would pay in their home -- and again even offering discounts for charging done overnight as opposed to peak electrical demand.
Again, only if you ignore the various environmental costs of ICE vehicles. Even counting the worst of EVs environmental damage, they still end up less harmful than ICE vehicles over the life of the vehicles. As I've pointed out previously, gas vehicles are typically only 30-40% efficient, with most of the "energy" of a gallon of gasoline being lost to heat. They also are equally inefficient in cold weather, but because they have much larger fuel tanks and the inefficiency of the vehicle, you don't notice the loss to cold weather to the same degree.
Yes, over time EVs are going to become even better -- whereas it is questionable if we can make any major improvements to gasoline cars.
I doubt any President has thought "these things," as in fully understanding all the fine details. Instead, I'm sure all Presidents have had advisors who understand the details of what it will take to improve the power grid, to add EV chargers, etc. and that advise the President on the most important details and the issues. I also know that the US often sets "goals" for improvement -- such as we've done with fuel economy standards. Occasionally they are even created as regulations, that a certain amount of improvement or required adoption of features. I also know that, when technology doesn't match what was required, the implementation of those requirements are pushed back. I'm sure, with many in Congress that not only don't understand the science of climate change but disagree with it politically will push back hard, complete with plenty of legislation, on most of these goals.
www.dailymail.co.uk
