This video was made possible by CuriosityStream.

Watch an exclusive companion video to this on Nebula, which you can access by signing

up for the CuriosityStream/Nebula bundle deal for $15 a year at CuriosityStream.com/Wendover.

With any disruptive technology, there’s a tipping point—there is a point in time

when its path towards market dominance is a certainty.

Now, electric vehicles are almost certainly a disruptive technology—they’re almost

certainly a technology that will, with time, become dominant over their predecessor.

In this case, the predecessor is the internal combustion car that you, yourself almost certainly

use.

Chances are, though, when asked, you’d say that your next car will not be electric, and

you’re right—the average consumer, according to surveys, would not even consider purchasing

an electric vehicle, demonstrating that the technology is not yet at that tipping point

where its on a certain path towards market dominance.

But again, that path is almost certain.

EVs are not there yet—right now, they’re too expensive, too short range, and too slow

to charge—but they’re close.

In fact, research can quantify just how close they are.

It’s been shown that the “tipping point price” for EVs, the price that will lead

to mainstream adoption and eventual disruption, is $36,000.

Taking a look at the prices of the base-models of three of the world’s best selling electric

vehicles, they’re already roughly there, so we know that that’s not what’s holding

mass-market consumers back.

What also matters is range.

Consumers say they need 291 miles or 469 kilometers of it before the cars can go mass-market.

Two of those best-selling EVs, the Tesla Model 3 and Chevy Volt EV, are not far from that,

while the Nissan LEAF lags behind.

Range and cost are closely linked, and you can essentially trade one off for the other,

as the battery is the single largest cost of an EV.

That’s why the industry is so focused on innovating and scaling to lower the component

cost of EV batteries, and it’s working.

In 2013, the average price per kWh of an EV battery was $668, meaning the base-model Tesla

Model 3’s 50 kWh battery would cost $22,400—2/3rds of what the vehicle sells for.

Nowadays, the average price per kWh is all the way down to $137, meaning that same battery

pack would cost just $6,850, and this price per kWh is expected to lower to $100 by 2023.

It’s getting more and more possible for manufacturers to sell an EV for the magic

$36,000 price with the magic 291 mile range.

While EVs are not quite there yet, they’re really not far, and will be there in the next

few years.

So, range is not what’s significantly holding mass-market consumers back, and it won’t

be at all within a few years.

What is, though, is charging.

The research shows that consumers want to be able to charge their cars from empty to

full in 31 minutes, and that’s the magic number for mass-market adoption.

With this, current $36,000 EVs just aren’t yet there.

The base model Chevy Volt EV can’t even fast-charge, it doesn’t have the technology

for it, and even the upgraded, more expensive model that does allow for fast-charging can

only get to 39% state of charge in 31 minutes.

The Nissan LEAF does a little better, attaining 62% state of charge in 31 minutes, while the

base-model Tesla Model 3 does the best, with its ability to fill its battery to 83% in

the most ideal conditions using the fastest models of Tesla Superchargers, but that would

only give it 196 miles or 315 kilometers of range, again in the most ideal conditions.

In colder weather, both that charging time would be greater and that range would be less.

So, it’s currently possible to get an EV with just about what the mass-market requires

for cost and range, but reaching that charging time—that’s just a lot tougher.

What this research can lead us to conclude is that the largest barrier right now to mass-market

EV adoption is, in fact, the charging problem.

The tipping-point just will not happen without widespread fast charging, but widespread fast

charging is just difficult because of the very way our electric grid works.

You see, back in the 1880s, Thomas Edison, with his direct current electric system, battled

it out with George Westinghouse, and his alternating current system.

As the names suggest, direct current electricity flows consistently and unidirectionally, while

alternating current oscillates in magnitude and rapidly changes direction.

The exact details of how each works isn’t that important in this context, but what is

is to know that, for a variety of reasons, AC power won, it’s now the standard for

power grids, but there are certain technologies that still need DC power.

The most widespread example of that is batteries—you cannot charge a battery using AC power.

That’s why you don’t plug your smartphone directly into an outlet—you plug it into

a power brick that plugs into an outlet, and that power brick is an AC to DC inverter.

A standard iPhone charging inverter outputs 5 watts of electricity, which is plenty enough

to charge the phone’s 11 watt hour battery in a few hours.

A base-model Tesla Model 3, meanwhile, has a 50 kilowatt hour battery—4,500 times larger.

Therefore, it needs a much higher wattage power inverter to charge with any speed.

It solves this in two ways.

Onboard that Model 3, there’s a 7.7 kW inverter that can take AC power from common sources,

like a standard wall outlet, and convert it into DC power to charge the battery.

At its max rate, this can charge the car fully in under ten hours, and has the advantage

of allowing consumers to charge using regular wall plugs or by installing relatively inexpensive

chargers on existing domestic AC electric circuits.

The disadvantage, though, is that, while 7.7 kW is plenty fast enough for regular, overnight,

at-home charging, it’s not fast enough to compete with the convenience of filling up

an internal combustion car at the gas station.

It’s not fast enough if you’re on a long-distance trip and need to be able to gain hundreds

of miles of range in a matter of minutes.

So, if you need more electricity faster, you need a higher wattage inverter.

To be able to take a Tesla Model 3 from almost empty to almost full in thirty minutes, you

want between 120 and 250 kW.

The problem, though, is that a 250 kW inverter costs, at least in this case, $57,600 and

is about the size of a very large fridge—it’s not exactly practical to have this as an internal

component of the car.

So, for faster charging, one needs to offboard the inversion process.

That’s exactly what a DC-fast charger does—it supplies a huge quantity of DC power to the

car, which bypasses the onboard inverter and charges the battery directly.

Between the inverter, the charger, and all the other equipment needed for a fast-charging

station, the cost and size is not insignificant.

One of the more popular models, the Chargepoint Express 250, which can charge a single car

at a somewhat slow 62.5 kW, sells for $40,800, and that’s before installation.

Meanwhile, while it’s tough to get an exact figure, industry experts estimate it costs

Tesla about $250,000 to build an average Supercharging station with 6-8 stalls delivering 120 to

150 kW each, while its closest equivalent, the stations by Volkswagen’s Electrify America,

are estimated to cost $350,000.

But here’s something counterintuitive: using a 250 kW charger versus a 150 kW one doesn’t

really impact how fast you charge.

Batteries charge slower the more full they are, so the first 20% will pass far faster

than the last 20%.

In the context of EV charging, this means that quite quickly into the charge, the speed

is impacted not by how much power the station is putting out, but by how much electricity

the battery can accept.

So, it’s actually faster to charge to 50%, drive until empty, charge to 50%, and drive

until empty again than charging to 100% and driving to empty.

A Tesla Model 3 can go from zero to 50% charge in 15 minutes on a 250 kW charger, and 17

minutes on a 150 kW charger—giving it enough range to drive at least 100 miles or 160 kilometers—while

charging from 50% to 90% would take an additional 27 minutes in both cases.

So, combining two charges from empty to 50%, in two stops, you could effectively reach

the tipping point speed of 100% charge in 31 minutes with existing 250 kW chargers.

Therefore, what the industry needs is not faster chargers, but more chargers, which

is hugely difficult given the enormous cost of fast chargers.

The average American lives four minutes away from a gas station.

Meanwhile, the same average American lives 31 minutes away from their nearest Tesla Supercharger.

Currently, there are 976 supercharging stations in the US—each of which have anywhere between

two and 56 individual chargers.

In order to match the four-minute average of gas stations, Tesla would need to build

an additional 31,251 Supercharging stations.

At their $250,000 per station cost, that would cost the company some $7.8 billion, or roughly

ten times their total annual profits from 2020.

In addition, only some 750,000 Teslas ever have been sold in the US, meaning, to have

fast charging stations as accessible as gas stations, the company would need to install

a $250,000 Supercharging station for every 23 cars it had on the road.

Quite obviously, that’s not feasible, as the stations would never break-even with such

infrequent use, and that’s the exact problem.

You need the infrastructure to sell the cars but you can’t build the infrastructure until

you sell the cars.

It is the classic chicken and the egg problem.

There might, however, be a solution.

According to federal government data, there are some 3,845 non-Tesla DC fast-chargers

in the US—the vast majority of which could charge a Model 3 within an hour… assuming

it could connect.

Just as there was a format war in the 1880s between DC and AC power, there is now a war

of charging standards.

Take the example of Salina, Kansas—a small city off of Interstate 70 which most people

only visit to refuel or, in this case, recharge.

This Supercharger uses Tesla’s proprietary plug, this Electrify America station uses

CCS and CHAdeMO plugs, and this hotel’s charger uses a J-1772 plug.

There are four different plug types in one small city.

Now, a Tesla could use the Tesla charger and the J-1772 charger with an included adapter,

but it could only use the CHAdeMO charger with a speed-limited $540 adapter, and it

couldn’t use the CCS charger at all—as there’s no adapter for that plug-type.

Meanwhile, a Chevy Volt EV wouldn’t be able to use the Tesla or CHAdeMO chargers at all

as there are no adapters available for either to its CCS plug.

This means that, to accommodate every vehicle type, DC fast chargers need to have three

different plug types, which, overwhelmingly, they just don’t.

Especially along Interstate highways, there are the Tesla stations, and there are combo

CHAdeMO and CCS stations.

Just like Edison and Westinghouse delayed more widespread adoption of electric power

by competing against each other in the same areas with their different, incompatible AC

and DC standards, different stakeholders in the electric vehicle market are competing

against each other in the US to create redundant, largely incompatible networks.

But that’s not happening everywhere.

You see, in Europe, CCS is the standard.

The European Union has a directive which means that many member states, by law, require that

public DC fast chargers include a CCS plug.

Therefore, in the EU and neighboring countries like the UK, Norway, and Switzerland, CCS

is now the de facto or de jure charging standard.

That forced Tesla’s hand to the point that in 2018, it retrofitted all its existing Superchargers

with CCS plugs, switched its Model 3’s to CCS, and released an adapter allowing its

other models to use CCS chargers.

All told, this means that pretty much any car in Europe can use pretty much any DC fast

charger.

That, combined with Europe’s higher population density, has helped ensure that the density

and coverage of DC fast chargers is much greater than in the US, despite the fact that EV ownership

per capita is actually higher in the US than Europe as a whole—although certain European

countries far eclipse the US’ rate.

Europe is almost identical in size to the US, it has a very similar number of electric

cars overall, but it has double the number of DC-fast charging stations.

In Germany, the furthest you can seemingly get from a DC-fast charger is here, in Winterberg.

From this small ski-town, the nearest fast charger is about 30 miles or 50 kilometers

away in Marburg.

Meanwhile, in the US, if you wanted to drive directly from Dallas to Denver, two major

cities, using a base-model Tesla Model 3, you just couldn’t.

There’s a 226 mile or 363 kilometer stretch with no DC fast charger between Amarillo,

Texas and Trinidad, Colorado which, given the elevation gain, the car would not make.

While Tesla is plugging this gap soon with a new charger in Clayton, New Mexico, that

won’t solve the problem for every single other EV on the market, since the charging

systems are not compatible.

Simply put, mass market consumers are not going to buy cars that can’t drive from

Dallas to Denver.

What Europe has that the US does not is coordinated government plans.

Germany's federal government, for example, builds its own charging stations, in addition

to offering strong incentives for private companies to do so as well.

Meanwhile, the federal government in the US has done very little to incentivize fast-charger

construction, and certainly does not have a network of its own.

Certain states, such as Oklahoma or Colorado, do have strong, coordinated government programs

to build fast charging infrastructure, meaning even shorter-range EVs can drive essentially

anywhere in each state without encountering a fast-charger gap, but the problem is that

EV drivers from Colorado or Oklahoma will eventually want to drive through Kansas, or

Nebraska, or Wyoming, or other states that do not have a coordinated plan.

The US Federal Government clearly wants people to buy EVs, because it offers hefty tax credits

to those who do so, but people are not going to buy EVs without the charging infrastructure

to support it.

EVs are comparable in cost to internal combustion cars, their range is about what consumers

demand, but what’s lagging behind is that charging infrastructure.

This isn’t even an exclusively American problem.

In Australia, one can’t drive from Perth to Sydney—the country’s forth and first

most populous cities—in an EV, due to a massive charging gap, while in Russia, despite

similar incentives for EV purchases, there are a total of 24 DC-fast chargers in the

entire country.

Of course some will always debate whether governments should be incentivizing electric

vehicles at all, but regardless of that, they are—it’s tough to find a developed country

that does not have some tax or other monetary incentive for EV ownership.

The point is that they’re incentivizing the wrong way.

EVs are very, very close to reaching the tipping-point criteria for everything but charging.

Cost is not standing in the way, technology is not standing in the way, infrastructure

is, so governments are putting the cart before the horse.

Individual companies cannot reach the required scale, and even if they did, as the format

war in the US proves, it probably wouldn’t be the kind of scale that the mass-market

consumer demands.

Individual car companies can deal with making individual electric vehicles attractive to

consumers, the government doesn’t need to worry about that, but infrastructure—that’s

the government’s job.

Governments run or regulate roads, and bridges, and tunnels, and sidewalks, railways, airports,

electric grids, dams, sewers, water supply networks, and even fuel supply systems, because

they are infrastructure, and infrastructure is essential, so the only question is: why

not charging?

So, as you might have guessed by now, I own an electric vehicle, so I took it to my local

Tesla Supercharger to make a companion video to this where I give a super detailed, super

nerdy explanation of exactly how a Supercharger works from a technical perspective.

You can find that companion video exclusively on Nebula which, as you probably know by now,

is home to tons of exclusive, ad-free content from tons of your favorite educational creators.

The reason we can put companion videos like this there is because of the way Nebula works—it

doesn’t have an algorithm to punish us when we make something different from our normal

stuff, and the direct subscriptions from users help fund both these and other projects—like

our many Nebula originals.

If you’re interested in watching all this exclusive content, plus supporting loads of

independent, educational creators, you can sign up using the CuriosityStream/Nebula bundle.

Basically, you go to CuriosityStream.com/Wendover, sign up for any subscription—but I suggest

the yearly one since it’s on sale for less than $15 a year right now—and then you have

access to both streaming sites.

CuriosityStream itself has great stuff too from more established names like Richard Hammond,

of Top Gear and the Grand Tour, who made a series about how weather actually works by

going out into extreme weather.

All told, CuriosityStream is great thanks to their seemingly endless library of top-quality

stuff, and Nebula is great thanks to its exclusive, early, and ad-free videos from the educational

creators you already know and love.

CuriosityStream and Nebula together is greater than great, though, because it’s only $15

a year with the current sale at CuriosityStream.com/Wendover.