That's an awful lot of doom and gloom about something that the
evidence suggests is unlikely to happen.
In the UK only.
Have you considered that the articles saying things along the lines of 'blackouts will leave EVs stranded' and 'EVs will cause blackouts' are also propaganda by people who don't want to upset the status quo? There are an awful lot of people who gain by a slower adoption of electric vehicles.
I'm aware of their existence, but not bothered to research them as they are likely propaganda as you suggest. Out of interest, who gains through slower adoption?
Your last sentence also rather contradicts your original post. You wont believe government predictions that EVs are a viable future transport option that could have environmental benefits but will believe the Austrian Defence Ministry's prediction blackouts will occur. Is that the faint whiff of confirmation bias?
I didn't say I believed the Austrian MoD, I used the article to highlight the risk of blackouts in order to provide another angle to the debate, I think I've achieved this.
No confirmation bias, I own and operate a small electric outboard on a boat (6HP petrol equivalent). Not for the purposes of reducing CO2, not even with the intention of saving money although break-even is around 3-4 years depending on use, but for the purposes of reducing pollution and noise and having finer control for creek crawling and sneaking up on wildlife, that's my use case. My livelihood doesn't depend on an electric boat motor and speaking to other boat owners alot will be unable to afford the currently massive cost of converting to meet their use cases, so the market is rather restricted unless the prices drops significantly
In principle I am in favour of EVs for some of the same reasons as the boat motor for specific use cases, but because cars are more essential than boat motors then the risks of denial of use are correspondingly higher which is the area I am highlighting.
My view is that EVs, as for electric boat engines, are not currently financially viable for most people mostly based on high cost and range
at this stage, this may improve, but as long as people are aware of the risks associated with adopting EVs at this stage, then it's your money your choice. All the hype is intended to make adoption faster without highlighting the risks.
I wonder if anyone is switching back to ICE after using EVs.
I see HMRC and the corporates currently incentivising employees to adopt EVs, I'm sure many will take the option of electric over ICE with lower tax (as long as use case allows). However not all corporates are providing this incentive as list prices for EVs are starting at approx £40K. They are probably doing this as Mark Carney threatened to bankrupt any company not falling into line with the Green agenda and non-incentivised drivers are not splashing out on £40K plus EVs, therefore the market is sluggish as a result. We already see the creeping imposition of the climate agenda restrictions for non-EV cars, eventually all will pay, all the incentives to adopt EV will evaporate once governments hit arbitrary targets as we've seen with other incentives for solar and insulation for example.
As an employee, unless you are fully onboard with the green agenda and perceive that you are saving the planet (or whatever the latest buzz is), then it is likely that you are still better off with a 2nd hand premium diesel/petrol and take the cash equivalent.
I would suggest that if anything the confirmation bias is from the green side where people are fully embedded in the green agenda and will happily pay the required high price to assuade their own moral guilt related to the subject (assuming that this cohort are not hypocritical about their green credentials, which is where our politicians appear to be). In my experience most people base their purchasing decisions on cost and need, 'saving the planet' is not high on their list of priorities.