That's a fallacy. The supporters of alternatives to oil are not arguing for an overnight elimination. Rather it's to start finding alternatives and to support them. It's the same fallacy EV naysayers use, that the grid won't support an 100% move to EVs today and the supply of battery materials is not enough yet, so we shouldn't even try. However, that isn't what is happening (or can possibly happen), rather the move is gradual, given plenty of time for those issues to be addressed.
While I don't fully disagree with the basis of this response to the naysayers, the issue I'm facing is that in my area, those issues are not being addressed and will not be addressed before it becomes a major issue. The naysayers are correct.
Given the success of the Model Y, one could argue we are getting really close to a tipping point for EV ownership. And my country has 'no more ICE vehicle sales' legislation that is just over a decade away. Yet, 40% of households do not live in a place that supports charging. And the response in the building code is that newly built high rises must include an L2 charging station.
I live in a building that is 55 years old. I 'won' as an early adopter because for some reason my landlord miraculously allowed me to pay to install a 110v outlet in my underground garage parking spot (I bought the car before having a way to charge it because, at the time, I didn't understand an EV was not like an ICE and that quick charging would be hard on the battery life and a huge pain in the ass. I got the last available circuit on the basement electrical panel. The new owners of the building have 'grandfathered' in my use of my outlet (after all, I paid the equivalent of a year's worth of gas to install it.) But no-one else can install any form of charging and there is no plan to add shared L2 or L3 chargers. To do so would require new power lines being brought in to the property.
A new building is going to be added to this complex and it will have two L2 chargers. Those will serve the 200+ apartments in the new tower, along with the 650 apartments in the existing tower. Obviously, the only solution to high rise living and EV ownership is L3s on the property, not L2s. If, after the new building is built, only 10% of our units have EVs that need to charge 500km worth a week (which is only 300km range, or roughly 25 MILEs a day in winter), we'd need to be connected to that L2 for 1190 hours a week. Yet there are only 168 hours in a week. So we'd need significantly more than the TWO L2s required by zoning. And that assumes everyone is comfortable with starting or ending charging sessions in the middle of the night or on a regular fixed schedule to provide access for everyone.
The city has also started a pilot project to put in L2 chargers for street parking. As I live in a granola eating neighbourhood, it was chosen for the pilot, but that charger is 800M away from my home and has a 3 hour parking limit. It is also unavailable during snow clearing events (we usually get 5 of these a year.) The nearest L3s are a 15 minute drive away (at a library or an auto supply store, those ones being used at night by a government fleet of cars that plug in there at 6 each evening and get picked up at 7 each morning, blocking the use by the general public) and the nearest supercharger (and currently only one in this city that isn't inside a paid parking lot), is 20 minutes away with no useful activity that could be added to that weekly errand if I didn't have home charging.
The province of Quebec, in highly populated areas has promoted the installation of L3s at grocery stores. It means access to washrooms can be limited if you are road tripping at night, but for the local renters, they can drive to the grocery store, doing their weekly shopping while charging for 30 - 40 minutes and the "Always be charging" mantra of EV owners is nicely settled. Montreal have also installed L2 chargers at the end of light rail lines so that EV owners without home charging who live outside of the city limits can drive to the LRT station, plug in, and return back after work downtown to a fully charged vehicle. (Quebec also has the largest government incentives for EV ownership and has the highest concentration of EV ownership as a result of these measures.) There is a way of doing things 'better' but the most populous province in Canada has refused to plan ahead.
Charging at home even at L1 is almost a requirement for EV ownership here, especially once EVs are not rare but the norm. Yet nothing is being done to change the situation for renters. In my case, it is not possible to retrofit the building. Given the age of this building most of the
apartments are underpowered for today's lifestyles, my apartment has fuses and my overloaded circuits require creative management in order to avoid blowing fuses all the time. The problem isn't choices (all parts of the building is underpowered), it is expanding the supply to the building which is a prohibitive cost unless one is building new and able to recover that cost through higher rents.
Obviously there are solutions that could be implemented but it doesn't appear that any government is taking the situation seriously when they 'take action'. Look at power generation capacity in my province: 34% nuclear, 28% gas/oil, 23% hydro, 13% wind, 1% solar and under 1% biofuel. Our three nuclear reactors are ancient, opening between 1971 and 1993. Additional reactors are being
considered. The argument the grid won't support EVs is not a strawman. Expansion isn't in the works. In fact, failure of the grid due to lack of maintenance is a common problem. Storms aren't the only threat, squirrels have the power to do so as well.
Homeowners and businesses are being encouraged to produce
further electricity demand by switching from gas/oil heating. Our homes, in general are very energy efficient (we aren't stupid, heat is expensive so we've been focused on decent windows and insulation for decades and bonus - it makes the hotter summers easier to cope with as well) but that doesn't help the grid any, people still are switching from carbon taxed oil to electricity. Home solar installation is expensive and given our latitude, not enough to support a household without an EV over the year. Ground source heat pumps would be the best alternative but they aren't legislated for new construction of multiple unit residential and heating plants for commercial areas and subdivisions (something Europe has offered over the years) is not a 'thing' here, aside from a few high-profile projects.
So, I don't see any serious use of the "time to prepare" actually happening as far as the electrical grid goes, or as far as serious policies to reduce individual green house gas emissions. Our government recently rescinded the tax on heating oil because too many rural homeowners were affected negatively by that 'encouragement' to switch to electricity, ignoring that our rural electricity grid is precarious due to decades of reduced maintenance, and increases in storm events attributable to climate change. Even our 23% of electrical capacity coming from hydro is at risk due to changing weather patterns affecting the watersheds.
When I was a homeowner, I owned a heavily insulated home, added a steel roof to reduce the number of new roofs needed and that oil requirement and put in a ground source heat pump for heating, cooling, and hot water. We also added a generator that could keep the house livable in all seasons, since we were rural and two major, lengthy, power failures made the need for backup power obvious (and rather than install a propane furnace, we chose ground source heat pump which could by run from the generator when needed.) We also became a single, hybrid, vehicle family.
When the kids were obviously gone for good, we downsized and moved to the city where we could use our feet and transit for a lot of our errands, living in a high rise to reduce our energy use for heating (and with old school hot water radiators which still provide heat from the gas fired boiler due to a generator), and bought an EV since we still needed a car to be part of our children and grandchildren's lives.
But I have observed that my response to climate change and the experts' advise is not typical. There is time to plan for the coming changes but populations are not doing so, either through regulation or personal changes in the numbers required. Even the majority of tesla owners don't seem to drive the car to reduce emissions but because the cars are cool and FAST and they get annoyed when asked to travel the speed limit despite that being an easy way to reduce one's emissions (after all, most power grids are not emission-free so tesla owners generate emissions, just not from a tailpipe.)
So while I strongly dislike the naysayers and don't engage with them, they are coming from a kernel of truth, and there is little evidence that the time to plan for the switch is being used at all. (And note, I haven't even addressed the question of battery production and end of life questions.)
