I'm not sure I see your point, the only way to get to a world with L2 chargers at apartment buildings and such is to have demand for it or legislation supporting it, the best way to get that is to champion EVs.
Who are you blaming? People who have access to overnight charging and therefore are enthusiastic about EV ownership? The government? I'm confused. Are you saying that it's not okay to advocate for EV adoption without disclaiming every statement with "but only when we've figured out how to get grid access extended to everybody's parking spot?"
The grid already exists everywhere. Getting it out to the parking spots is mostly a tedious exercise in construction, not even much of an engineering problem. Yes let's encourage this construction. Incentivize it, even.
To repeat again (see me earlier reply to you), I'm questioning the tone and implied assumptions of those conveying the idea this is an acceptable solution for the majority of the population of even developed countries.
Agreed, particularly in the states, we seem to be charging into electric cars by mandate when the infrastructure just doesnt exist for it. It doesnt have to be this way, we can mandate building the infrastructure too, or just outright pay for it - like 35% of americans live in apartments, they must be reasonably accommodated to help them with the transition. This doesnt even begin to touch on the issues rural places have with the electric revolution - again, all solvable problems that.. I think we're just assuming will solve themselves.
My largest frustration is, we're charging into electric cars in such a way that will leave the poor behind, and create a larger wealth gap. I genuinely worry that the poor will be priced out of automobile access in the states, and before anyone says "well, they shouldnt need a car" - the realistic truth is.. they do and there is a massive amount of capex and opex that must be spent to make it not so. In America, we have structured our world around personal transportation, and while we can change that, it will take a concerted effort and lots of money to do so.
The earliest mandate is California's, which takes effect 12 years from now and only applies to new cars sold. The poor generally do not buy new cars.
Other than the possibility of fuel price increases as time goes on (which, as a net exporter, the US has some amount of control over), how are electric vehicles making the wealth gap larger?
The poor are certainly priced out, but considering EVs currently have constraints and are expensive, what benefits would they bring outside of reducing externalities to the environment?
In an ideal world, I probably would be tying a phase out of ICE cars to charging access.
I'd then also mandate charging access in every apartment with two or more units and put together a government fund to help fund building it out. You also offer a rebate to homeowners (with the rebate covering up to 100% of reasonable costs the lower income they are) so they can do the needed electrical work (which might involve a whole new load center and service to the house - think 10-15k in work).
Once say, better than 90% apartment and condo dwellers have access to electric charging and there is an ongoing program in place to ensure that everyone else has access, then its pretty safe to mandate a ban ICE vehicles.
I bought a brand new car two years ago. I expect it to last twenty more, and 200k miles or more. Nobody is going to put a gun to my head and make me replace it with an electric anything, ever.
Meanwhile the used car market will be full of ICE vehicles forever.
In some countries or cities, you may be prevented from driving into those countries or cities.
Several European cities have low- or zero-pollution zones, and these are likely to increase once the disruption to normal people is limited. Currently, it's generally old diesel trucks and buses that are banned or restricted.
