In general, I think there's a relatively healthy balance, albeit, with a fair bit of animosity between the sides.

The thing about "outdated technologies" is - they work. It's really easy to see in the software world, where I will choose a battle-tested technology any day, over the new flashy thing that everybody's buzzing about that is in theory or with many iterations will be great. So why would other industries be different? Surely there will be a drag from people whose wealth depends on the technology/approach being used, but that's just how it works. If I put a lot of effort into developing a thing, I will defend the thing as much as I can, and it's the job of the newcomers to push me over with big enough arguments.

Nuclear plants were shutdown by the conservatives. They decided this in 2011, when Fukushima happened, and executed it over the following decade while they were simultaneous derailing the switch to EV. A notable part here was that just months before Fukushima, they had already stopped the shutdown that previously was decided on.

Only the remaining three(?) plants were shutdown by the acting administration, because there was nothing to continue anyway. The previous administration had to renew the technical checks and order new nuclear rods for the plants to continue, which they obviously did not.

Overall, the whole act was a big clusterfuck of competing interests, but this wasn't the progressives fault, because they never had the power to fail this in the first place.

> In general, I think there's a relatively healthy balance, albeit, with a fair bit of animosity between the sides.

There is no healthy balance when you make up nonsensical lies to sabotage an ongoing process, which is even for the benefit of your own country.

And the BS about a "disaster" never happened. There were no blackouts, and even the prices went down. All the problems of the money driven fearmongers never manifested, yet they continue to spread lies about the greens doing harm and the all so great (money wasting) atomic plants...

And neither is the EV charging infrastructure already there to support the same use cases. And since there's no sign we'll be there in 10 years, then a lot of voters will be pissed that they'll be priced out of car ownership when the future they were promised didn't pan out.

I'm already betting the deadline will be extended past 2035 as we get closer to it.

So no, I don’t think range is a huge issue, and fast charging infra is a lot better in EU than US in my experience.

Price though - it’s a tall order to expect everyone to buy EVs when the low cost options are so much higher than the low cost gasoline options. I can see how that would make politicians nervous

100%. Honestly, I hope that we use this opportunity to improve public transit in Europe a lot more than it already is done.

Both:

1. Better bike lanes, everywhere, well maintained throughout seasons with good government subsidies on ebikes.

2. Public transit density and focus on lowering wait on connections. Basically, look at what Switzerland has done and try to copy it.

And I hope for all wars and world famine to end and all employers to let me WFH so I won't need a car and to raise my salary by at least inflation every year. The thing is we rarely get what we wish for, and in the EU countries I've been it's not really improving at the rate needed for people to give up on cars. The reality is the public transportation infra develops much slower than the demand shifts on the ground, hence why cars will always be with us.

The challenge, certainly in the UK, is that only half the population has the potential to charge their car "off-street" and the roll out of on street charging is slow and the costs mean it could cost more than conventional car - which given it's also more expensive makes it a challenge to justify.

Alas, I believe the poor in rentals will just end up with shitty rent seeking app-driven spyware chargers.

For a lot of people yeah. The cars isn't just for trips to work and the supermarket (which sometimes can be done by foot, public transport or bicycle), but that same car is used for vacation trips in summer and winter with the whole family.

You can call it an edge case, but edge cases matter to car owners if they can only afford one car per household. Also, a lot of people in the EU work in one country but have family in another and commute by care quite often. Charging speed and infra density isn't there to suport these cases.

Right, and the charging network isn't _that_ bad, is it? Like, I've now done 4 cross country trips in the US (PA <-> FL <-> WA) in both summer, and winter. With the pre-heat-pump-for-heating Tesla Model 3. I basically had to charge one to two times a day, for about 20-30 minutes each time. This was genuinely a good way to force me to stop and take a break too.

I don't really consider these cars a limitation for long distance trips either?

And most don't have (and can't afford) Teslas here. Maybe in Norway and Switzerland, but not all Europe is like that.

A lot of non-supercharger infra here is non-existent or slow charging meaning long distance trips are gonna be much longer and less predictable, hence why those who rent cars for long distance trips never rent EVs.

>and the charging network isn't _that_ bad, is it?

You've never interacted with non-supercharger chargers have you? Like broken ones with issues, or crap payment systems that don't work. It's the kind of things giving people major anxiety.

And EVs are marketed more towards the high end because mostly rich Europeans have a single family home with a charger at home where the EVs slot in. Most ICE car owners don't have chargers at home or in the vicinity meaning mostly the rich can quickly dump their ICES and replace them with an EV without loosing UX.

EU car manufacturers are just following the local market/demographics. Cheap EVs exist here, like the Dacia spring, but that's kinda crap and the charring infra issue still remains.

It's easier for a country where this doesn't matter as much to pass such legislation.