https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/08/ca...
Almost 25% of vehicles sold in California are electrified in some way, and California offers rebates to low-income drivers:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2024-05/zero-emission-vehicle...
High gas taxes and financial incentives to electrify are exactly how you motivate people to stop using gasoline cars.
this part is not about California. Electricity cost increased significantly in California lately: https://blog.citadelrs.com/hs-fs/hubfs/CRS-blog-Sept2023-PG%... and that graph doesn't include several last hikes.
High capital cost with a long delay before it starts paying back. Worse the capital cost of overhead lines is higher than batteries.
What's happened to a lot of alternative ideas is they no longer pencil out because solar and batteries have gotten so cheap. Like solar thermal, doesn't pencil out. Wind and solar, plus batteries is cheaper than coal.
Is that really true? My understanding is that the bus systems that use overheads lines do so because it is overall cheaper. And it won’t have the negative issues of batteries (mining, recycling, geopolitics). Yes there is cost to equipping vehicles but it is a small number of larger vehicles which might make the problem easier. I would think the cost of the actual overhead lines is low (it is usually a small part of the costs for building rail for example).
The cost of a 250 kwh battery is then about the same as 200 feet of overhead lines.
Is there less tracking in new gas cars?
If it were only the lack of nuclear plants.
You can't just wave your hands about the climate and then hope to create a new market overnight.
In any case, point still stands, you're more than "one smart decision" away from having electrified the American fleet of vehicles.
Investing in nuclear power would stall the entire electrical revolution that is on going.