There’s a good tech connections series on this. Slow home charging has been doable for quite a while.
Which is exactly why techbros think its obvious and most regular people aren't buying.
For the ones that need upgrades, we’re talking extension-cord-level technology.
When any spots exist the electrical system would never tolerate more than a few people plugging in at once.
For instance if you picked 3 50 unit complexes you would would find that 3 cars were situated to charge out of the 200 to 300 owned.
At present like 2% of cars owned not sold are electric to get to a much higher penetration that is desirable we need better charging.
You don't live in a statistically valid sample of homes our current attachment only works now because 49 out of 50 cars run on gas.
Light poles are being tapped in the neighborhood for EV and surveillance already.
The great thing about the utility market is that they don’t need your permission to invest. They’ll do it when it becomes profitable, i.e. already.
Are you the same guy who poo-pooed digital photography in 2000? Sounds like it.
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicle-registration
CA has also invested heavily in charging with 18000 fast charging stations and still only convinced a tiny minority to go electric even with the government partially buying rich kids cars.
With decreasing subsidies, sales already fell off a cliff its way less than 1 in 3 new cars and 1 in 20 existing even in the electric car capital of the US.
We need more mass transit, more telecommuting, cheaper housing in cities, more electric cars, and more charging stations especially in apartments along with more cheap electric vehicles even if they end up being made in china. We want the same thing I am just not delusional enough to believe we've already arrived.
Really, when is the last time we overhauled our built environment and actually followed through with a comprehensive plan in the west? We couldn't even finish the interstate highway system in a time when we had seemingly great alignment towards it along with far cheaper costs. Public housing failed too. Broadband access failed. Cell service is still pretty spotty and unreliable.
Starlink satellite cellular service is available pretty much everywhere now.
I don't know about better, but it's what we've got. The problem is a shortage of housing, and the government building housing solves for that because the public market has been shown to be incompetent at that.
Why would someone build cheap houses that would net them the same profit in 10 years as building luxury houses that would in 5 years? Especially if the people on top investing the capital only deal with the accounting books and not actual customers and their desires.
If you only get allowed to build 1 house, of course you will target the best demographic.
You cant lower prices without flooding the market with competing goods.
When I talk about spotty coverage I mean, verizon says I have an LTE connection, and yet I get served with dialup tier experience. Not always, but often. This has been the case for the probably 15 years I've had a mobile data plan. I experience this nowhere near anywhere remote, in the heart of large cities even.
- Friction to evict for cause.
People are less willing to engage in action against tenants when it is difficult or expensive to evict. This is often less about well meaning protections for tenants and surprisingly more about reasonable process in county. If it takes 6 months to get on the docket to get the process started this is going to be more important than what you have to do when you get there.
- Financial cost and immediacy of impact.
Most places lose tenants at end of term and can find at least some new suckers. Turning your place into a shithole may take years to fully show its impact and in a tight housing market it may still be muffled by the sheer number of poor bastards who need somewhere to sleep.
- Incentive structure and distance from decision makers.
If throwing out the bums requires work pain and risk only from the peons who manage the place for the owners and failure to do so only hurts residents and owners then one may find that these enforcement actions never happen. A bureaucracy further increases distance between actors and decision makers.
If you consider these factors you might rightly conclude that a government project is maximally situated to fail at removing bad actors. Friction to evict those in need is going to be higher than almost anywhere else, front line workers are there for long term career trajectory, have little real power nor incentive and nobody but the residents really feels the pain. If you are running a house of last resort your vacancy rate is going to be low even if its a bad place to live.
None of this makes it impossible to run projects correctly it represents increased risk not destiny.