. .
Don't bet on it. The only thing the government is less likely let go of once they have it in their hands, than power, is money.
. .
Let's be very clear on this: Money IS Power.
This is not a figure of speech. Exactly what is money? You can define it by what it looks like and what we use it for but that dances around the simple truth:
Money is numerical denomination of power.
If I have two simoleons I can convince someone to give me twice as much of something then if I have just offer just one. That "something" may be physical goods, time, or labor.
Money is a physical representation of power.
Swapping batteries is technically possible but that doesn't make it less dumb. EVs of the last few years can do an 80% quick charge in half an hour. The only way to make charging an EV take 12 hours would be to try to do a full charge on a high-capacity model from a 110v socket.
But what makes it dumb most of all is that it requires long-term planning and sacrifice to solve a very short-term problem. Batteries are already good enough for most uses, and as capacity goes up the swappable battery infrastructure makes less and less sense. In 20 years it will seem as silly as having an F1-like quick tire change setup on every car and a pit crew with pre-heated tires in every gas station.
So your "obvious" solution is to queue up cars to wait their turn (for god knows how long) so they can sit in a place that they don't want to be for half an hour? You must not have anything you do with your time. Let's just ignore the part about repeated fast charging damaging the battery and voiding the warrenty.
You have no reason to charge the CAR. You only have a reason to charge the BATTERY. Keeping the car there is silly. Even more naive is to give the requirement for "long-term planning and sacrifice" as a reason it shouldn't be done. ALL energy infrastructure requires long term planning. The current gasoline distribution infrastructure takes an amazing quantity of planning that is quite detailed for more then a decade into the future.
As far as sacrifice... Does it really have to be spelled out for you? What do you think you are paying for? If it is really hard and requires "sacrifice" you get to charge a price for it. Whole industries have risen on the idea that a company can do the difficult work so the consumer has to do none. (Really the "sacrifice" comment is the dumbest thing you have said. Don't advertise stupidity.)
BTW - I did notice that you ignored that fact that battery swaps have already been embraced by one manufacturer because the consumer public needs the service.
About the power companies, isn't that supply and demand thing supposed to work? When the power cuts out the power companies aren't making money.
Well it hasn't solved the current problem where the grid can't handle the seasonal highs that are expected every year. So why hasn't your "obvious" solution panned out every year? (Maybe the problem is that it requires "long-term planning and sacrifice" to build and improve an electric grid.)
A simple look at what consumers are willing to put up with will tell you that you have less then 5 minutes to get the vehicle full of energy. You can pump it in as gasoline, you can pump it in as hydrogen, you can get it in as charged batteries. If the person has to wait more then 5 minutes they will never go for it. That leaves you with a choice of gasoline power, fuel cell power, or swappable batteries.
I am going to be driving over 2000 miles in the next week. I will enjoy the fact that I WILL NOT be sitting for 10+ hours during that time doing 20+ "fast charges". I will also enjoy the fact that you have no part in the long term planning and sacrifice of our nation's energy infrastructure.
Yes I deliberately used a term that was just as charged as the common "anti-choice" term that you've heard so much on news media and in pop political-culture, you're immune to the fact that it's an equally charged term.
The phrase "Pro Choice" is not descriptive. (Pro choice about what? iPod vs Android, Republican vs Democrat?, Beans vs Carrots?) Nor does the phrase "Pro Choice" accurately describe the plight of women in places where abortion is not only permissible, it is mandatory. It also ignores the fact that there are pro-abortion individuals (abusive boyfriends/husbands/parents) who are decidedly against giving a woman the choice to let her unborn child live.
So if we describe God as "Anti Life" because he made sure EVERYTHING dies, that is just being descriptive?
If you have an axe to grind just be up front about it.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
