it would take 50,000 charging stations just to populate the West Coast states alone.
No, it takes electricity from a socket to charge EVs. There are billions of them already. The average driver only drives 40 miles a day and can recharge from 120V AC for their regular driving. Public charging stations are for long road trips, and for people who don't have access to a plug at home or work. There are millions of happy EV drivers already with the current infrastructure, more chargers will support more drivers.
Also, stopping to charge means you're done travelling for that day.
You're laughably ignorant. Pull up to a DC fast charger in a decent recent EV, get 200 miles of range in less than 25 minutes.
The critical issue that no one is talking about with pure electric cars is that Li Ion gel battery packs are a hazardous material (HazMat)!
You know what's far more hazardous than lithium-ion?
Gasoline. Building a 1/2-ton battery to reduce the literally TONS of fossil fuel that a gasser burns through is definitely a win for the environment. You know what else is more hazardous than lithium-ion? The lead-
ACID battery in every conventional car. Yet we manage to recycle 95+% of those. A dozen companies have started up to recycle EV batteries: American Battery Technology, Battery Resource, Brunp Recycling, Green Li-ion, Li-Cycle, Primobius, Redwood Materials, ReLIB, SMCC Recycling, Umicore, ... Their biggest problem is they can't scale up yet because the batteries are lasting longer than expected.
If the U.S. and certain state governments weren't subsidizing these endeavors, there would not be any more EVs than 20 years ago because no auto manufacturer would build them. Pure electric cars just don't work well enough yet despite the nonsense proffered by this article!
Again, millions of happy owners laugh at your assertions, and the long waiting list for every decent EV indicate demand is increasing. The federal tax credit to the buyer of an EV has run out for Tesla and GM, yet they still sell lots of EVs.
There is a genuine answer to the EV dilemma! The answer is Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology. If the rare earth catalyst problem can be solved, then we simply change fuel sources from Gasoline/Diesel to Hydrogen. Gas stations would change from Gas to Hydrogen, and everything could run exactly as before with the improved performance characteristics of electric with the clean output as desired.
Hydrogen fuel cell cars
have failed. Even after California spent $100M building 40 H2 stations, sales of HFCVs are less than 1% of BEVs. Honda discontinued its Clarity Fuel Cell after abysmal sales; Hyundai and Toyota are both still selling a few thousand Nexos and Mirais, but both are spending far more on BEVs. Since the second-generation Mirai,
no new hydrogen fuel cell car has been announced for production, while even Toyota is going to launch 30 BEVs by 2035 and transition Lexus to pure BEVs.
We should put more money into subsidizing the Hydrogen Fuel Cell problem rather than crippling everyone with cars that exist today.
No state is going to join California in blowing money on public refueling stations for exactly two car models. It's dead, Jim. And that is
good for the environment, because it unavoidably takes 2.5 times as many solar panels and wind turbines to take the inefficient detour through green hydrogen than to put the renewable electricity straight into into an efficient recyclable battery.
Also, global warming is NOT the controversy! What its' causation is! Since all the existing mathematical models used to project runaway warming have proved to be false,
More utter garbage. The models in the early 1980s predicted warming, and we have undeniably observed the Earth's average temperature increasing about 0.15 - 0.20°C per decade since then. It is the deniers who have been WRONG for 40 years, blathering that "the heating is temporary" due to solar cycles, upper-atmoshpere heating, urban heat islands, volcanoes, etc.
Human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels, have undeniably increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, in the atmosphere. Basic high-school physics explains why they're called greenhouse gases: increase their concentration, and the atmosphere traps more of the infra-red radiation that Earth re-radiates when sunlight hits it, and therefore it warms.
NOTHING ELSE explains the current warming. If any climate scientist had any other credible theory, the the trillion-dollar fossil fuel industries would be flying her all over the world to conferences explaining it.