1. Subsidizer or paying their fair share. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
2. I don’t believe BEV will ever replace this group of vehicles. So they should be used to compare. You should compare Apple to Apple.
3. I don’t believe government should pick winner and loser. Just because there were past crony capitalism with the oil industry doesn’t make it OK for crony capitalism for industry you like. If the technology is good, there will be plenty of money available. Just thinking k Facebook, Uber, etc.
4. Again, you’re assuming battery is the right technology long term. I don’t believe it is. I believe fuel cell, nuclear and fusion is better long term. But that’s just MHO. Maybe 10 years from now something else even better will be discovered. We don’t know. What happened. To those battery when that new technology get discovered?
5. It would take me 6x longer than those who have 30 miles one way commute. But my point is, if you’re OK for subsidizing for EV because it will lower a person’s carbon foot print, should I get subsidy for reducing my carbon foot print by living closer to work? Should those who live in larger houses pay subsidy to those who live in smaller homes? Should people in SFR pay subsidy to those who live in condo due to their increase carbon footprint? Should those with kids pay subsidies for those who don’t have kids? Since having kids increase the total carbon footprint of our society. I’m sure you get my point.
6. I agree. However, I don’t want to be those people who drink 6 cans of diet coke a day either, just because it has less sugar. That’s similar to those who have EV but live 30 miles away from work in a 3000+ sq-ft house.
7. Agree. But which infrastructure? Which technology?
Why isn’t it sustainable and who are we to say those other poor countries can’t have a cheap and reliable source of energy? The same energy source that enable us to live in the luxurious life we enjoy and allow our economy to prosper.
