What If Electric Vehicles Were Adopted Earlier?

The Actual History

The story of electric vehicles (EVs) is one of early promise, prolonged dormancy, and recent revival. Contrary to popular belief, electric cars actually preceded gasoline-powered vehicles in development and, for a brief period, dominated the early automotive landscape. The first practical electric vehicle was built in the 1830s by Scottish inventor Robert Anderson, who created a crude electric carriage. By the late 1800s, electric vehicles were gaining significant traction. In 1897, the first commercial electric vehicle fleet was established in New York City as taxis. By 1900, electric cars accounted for around one-third of all vehicles on American roads.

These early electric vehicles were popular particularly among urban residents and women drivers, as they were clean, quiet, and didn't require the physical effort of hand-cranking that gasoline vehicles demanded. At their peak around 1912, there were approximately 34,000 electric vehicles registered in the United States. Notable manufacturers included Detroit Electric, Baker Electric, and Columbia Electric. The vehicles typically achieved speeds of 15-20 mph and ranges of 40-50 miles on a single charge—sufficient for urban use in an era when roads between cities were poor.

However, several developments quickly eroded the electric vehicle's market position. In 1912, Charles Kettering invented the electric starter, eliminating the need for the hand-crank in gasoline cars. Henry Ford's mass production techniques dramatically reduced the cost of gasoline vehicles; by 1915, a Ford Model T cost around $440, while an electric roadster sold for approximately $1,750. The discovery of large petroleum reserves in Texas, Oklahoma, and California made gasoline affordable and readily available. Additionally, the rapid improvement of road infrastructure created demand for vehicles with greater range.

By the 1920s, electric vehicles had all but disappeared from the mainstream market. The oil crisis of the 1970s briefly revived interest in electric vehicles, but battery technology limitations prevented meaningful adoption. General Motors' EV1, produced from 1996 to 1999, represented the first modern attempt at a mass-produced electric vehicle, but only about 1,100 were manufactured before GM controversially terminated the program.

The true revival began in the early 2000s. The Toyota Prius hybrid, launched globally in 2000, demonstrated the market viability of alternative powertrains. Tesla Motors, founded in 2003, released the Roadster in 2008, proving electric vehicles could be high-performance and desirable, though expensive. The 2010 introduction of the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt represented the first modern mass-market electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Since then, EV adoption has accelerated significantly. Global electric car stock grew from about 17,000 in 2010 to over 16 million by 2023. Major automakers have committed billions to electrification, with companies like Volkswagen, GM, and Ford announcing plans to phase out internal combustion engines entirely between 2030-2040. However, as of 2025, electric vehicles still represent only about 14% of new vehicle sales globally, with adoption rates varying dramatically by region. The transition to electric mobility, while now seemingly inevitable, remains in its early stages over a century after electric cars first appeared.

The Point of Divergence

What if electric vehicles had maintained their early market position and become the dominant transportation technology of the 20th century? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where a series of different decisions and technological developments in the 1910s created a world where the electric car, rather than the gasoline-powered vehicle, became the standard mode of personal transportation.

The most plausible point of divergence centers on the critical period between 1910 and 1920, when electric vehicles were losing ground to gasoline-powered cars. Several different factors could have altered this trajectory:

First, technological breakthrough could have played a decisive role. In our timeline, Thomas Edison worked on developing better batteries for electric vehicles between 1909 and 1914, but ultimately abandoned the project. What if Edison had persevered and achieved his breakthrough? His nickel-iron battery showed promise, but suffered from poor performance in cold weather and high self-discharge rates. If Edison had solved these problems—perhaps by discovering different electrolyte compositions or cell structures—he might have created a battery with double the energy density of contemporary lead-acid designs, dramatically improving EV range and performance.

Alternatively, the divergence could have been business-driven. In 1914, Henry Ford and Thomas Edison discussed collaborating on an affordable electric car, but the project never materialized. If this partnership had proceeded—combining Ford's manufacturing expertise with Edison's electrical engineering prowess—they might have succeeded in developing an electric vehicle priced competitively with the Model T, fundamentally altering the market dynamics.

A third possibility involves government policy. During World War I, fuel rationing was implemented in various countries. In our timeline, these measures were temporary. But what if the U.S. government, concerned about petroleum security and influenced by early conservationists, had implemented more permanent policies favoring electric vehicles? Tax incentives for electric vehicles, coupled with taxes on gasoline to fund road development, could have tilted the economic equation toward electric propulsion.

In this alternate timeline, we'll explore the consequences of all three factors converging: Edison perfects his nickel-iron battery by 1915, providing 100 miles of range; Ford and Edison successfully launch the Model E electric car in 1916 at a price point only 30% higher than the Model T; and the U.S. government, prompted by wartime fuel shortages, implements policies favoring electric transportation infrastructure.

Immediate Aftermath

Automotive Industry Transformation

The immediate impact of these developments would have been most apparent in the automotive industry itself. With the Ford-Edison Model E hitting the market in 1916 as an affordable electric car with reasonable range, the industry's trajectory shifted dramatically. Priced at $600 (compared to the Model T's $440), the Model E quickly captured significant market share, particularly in urban areas where its 100-mile range proved sufficient.

By 1920, in this alternate timeline, electric vehicles represented approximately 60% of new car sales in the United States, up from less than 15% in 1915. Major manufacturers quickly realigned their product strategies. General Motors, seeing the market shift, acquired Detroit Electric in 1918 (instead of falling into bankruptcy as it did in our timeline) and focused on developing premium electric vehicles under the Cadillac brand. Studebaker and Packard similarly pivoted toward electric powertrains.

The availability of affordable electric vehicles significantly accelerated adoption of personal automobiles, particularly among women and urban dwellers who appreciated their cleanliness, simplicity, and lack of hand-cranking. By 1925, automobile ownership in the United States reached 30 million vehicles (compared to approximately 20 million in our timeline), with electric vehicles accounting for roughly 65% of all vehicles on American roads.

However, gasoline vehicles didn't disappear entirely. They maintained popularity in rural areas where charging infrastructure was limited and longer ranges were required. Companies like Chrysler and Hudson specialized in these "country cars," while most major manufacturers offered both electric and gasoline options.

Infrastructure Development

The rapid adoption of electric vehicles necessitated a parallel development of charging infrastructure. Edison Electric and other utility companies saw an enormous business opportunity and began installing public charging stations in urban centers as early as 1917. By 1920, most American cities had extensive networks of public charging facilities, often located at trolley stops, department stores, and other commercial centers.

The "Electrified Highways Act of 1921" allocated federal funding to establish charging infrastructure along major intercity routes. These early "electric filling stations" employed standardized battery-swapping technology (a concept Edison and Ford had pioneered), allowing longer distance travel. A driver could pull into a station, have depleted batteries quickly exchanged for charged ones, and continue their journey in less than 10 minutes.

This expansion of electrical infrastructure had side benefits beyond transportation. Rural electrification accelerated as utility companies, incentivized by potential automotive charging revenue, extended their networks to previously unserved areas. By 1930, approximately 75% of American farms had electrical service, compared to only 10% in our timeline at that point.

Energy and Industrial Impacts

The petroleum industry, which in our timeline grew explosively during this period, followed a markedly different trajectory. While gasoline demand still increased substantially from 1915-1930, it did so at a much slower rate than in our timeline. Major oil companies like Standard Oil diversified earlier, with many investing in electrical generation and battery technology.

The reduced demand for gasoline led to lower petroleum prices globally, which had significant geopolitical implications. In the Middle East, oil exploration and development proceeded more slowly, altering the economic development of countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Domestically, states like Texas and Oklahoma saw more modest oil booms, though their economies benefited somewhat from increased demand for lead, nickel, and iron for battery production.

Battery manufacturing emerged as a major industry, centered primarily in New Jersey and Michigan. By 1925, the "Battery Belt" employed over 100,000 workers and had become a significant economic force. Edison's battery company grew to become one of America's largest industrial enterprises, eventually merging with General Electric in 1923 to create an integrated electrical technology giant.

Social Changes

The earlier and more widespread adoption of electric vehicles subtly altered American social patterns. With charging primarily occurring overnight at home, the ritual of visiting gas stations became less central to American life. Urban areas became noticeably quieter and less polluted, contributing to the continued desirability of city living and potentially slowing suburban expansion.

The electric vehicle's simplicity—fewer parts, less maintenance—changed the relationship between Americans and their automobiles. While a culture of automotive tinkering still developed, it focused more on electrical systems and customization rather than mechanical modifications. Technical schools adjusted their curricula to emphasize electrical engineering alongside mechanical training.

Women's early adoption of electric vehicles accelerated their mobility and independence. Contemporary accounts noted that women drove more frequently and for longer distances in this timeline than in ours, potentially accelerating social changes regarding women's participation in public and commercial life.

Long-term Impact

Automotive Technology Evolution (1930s-1960s)

As electric vehicles became the dominant transportation mode, battery technology continued advancing through sustained research and investment. By the late 1930s, nickel-zinc batteries increased range to approximately 150 miles per charge. The post-World War II period saw the introduction of more advanced lead-acid configurations and early research into alkaline and lithium technologies.

Vehicle design evolved distinctively compared to our timeline. Without the need to accommodate bulky internal combustion engines, automobile architecture developed around flat "skateboard" platforms with batteries distributed along the vehicle floor—a configuration remarkably similar to modern EVs in our timeline, but achieved decades earlier. This enabled more spacious interiors and innovative body designs. By the 1950s, regenerative braking systems became standard, improving efficiency and range.

Interestingly, hybrid technology emerged in reverse sequence compared to our timeline. By the 1940s, manufacturers began offering "range-extended" electric vehicles with small gasoline generators for rural customers and long-distance travelers—essentially creating plug-in hybrids decades before our timeline's Chevrolet Volt or Toyota Prius.

The Big Three American automakers in this timeline—Ford-Edison, General Electric Motors (the merged entity of GE and GM), and Electric Chrysler—dominated global markets until the 1960s, when European and Japanese manufacturers began introducing smaller, more efficient electric models that gained traction in their home markets and eventually in America.

Energy Infrastructure and Power Generation (1940s-1980s)

The electrical grid evolved substantially differently than in our timeline. The higher electrical demand for transportation accelerated investment in generating capacity and grid resilience. By 1940, electrical production in the United States was approximately double that of our timeline. This necessitated more power plants and more robust transmission networks.

Initially, this increased electricity demand was met primarily through expanded coal and hydroelectric production. The Tennessee Valley Authority and similar projects received even greater investment, and additional dam projects were completed throughout the country. While this accelerated electrification reduced direct vehicle emissions in cities, it increased coal usage for power generation, creating different environmental challenges than in our timeline.

Nuclear power received earlier and more substantial investment beginning in the late 1940s. The "Atomic Energy for Transportation Act of 1951" directed significant funding toward developing nuclear generating capacity specifically to meet growing electricity demand from transportation. By 1970, nuclear power provided approximately 35% of U.S. electricity, compared to less than 10% in our timeline.

The energy crises of the 1970s played out very differently. When the OPEC oil embargo occurred in 1973, its impact was significantly blunted in countries with predominantly electric transportation systems. However, concerns about resource limitations did emerge around materials needed for batteries—particularly nickel, cobalt, and later lithium. This sparked international competition for access to these resources, creating new geopolitical dynamics centered on battery material supply chains rather than petroleum.

Urban Development and Planning (1930s-2000s)

The dominance of electric vehicles profoundly influenced how American cities developed. Without the noise and local pollution of internal combustion engines, urban density remained more desirable than in our timeline. The "flight to the suburbs" that characterized post-war America was somewhat moderated, with city centers remaining more vibrant and populated.

Parking infrastructure evolved differently. Since electric vehicles needed charging access, urban parking facilities were designed with electrical infrastructure from the beginning. By the 1960s, most urban workplaces offered charging facilities, reinforcing the practicality of electric commuting. "Charging-oriented development" became a planning concept analogous to transit-oriented development in our timeline.

The reduced range of early electric vehicles encouraged more regionalized, compact development patterns. While interstate highways were still built, they featured frequent charging plazas rather than gas stations. This infrastructure pattern subtly encouraged more clustered development around charging nodes rather than the more diffuse sprawl of our timeline.

Public transportation systems received continued investment, often integrated with electric vehicle infrastructure. By the 1970s, many cities had implemented "transportation hubs" where personal electric vehicles could be parked and charged while commuters completed their journeys via electric buses or rail systems.

Environmental and Climate Outcomes (1950s-2025)

The environmental impact of this transportation revolution had complex dimensions. Urban air quality improved dramatically earlier than in our timeline. Los Angeles, which became notorious for smog in our 1950s, maintained much cleaner air in this alternate timeline, significantly reducing respiratory illnesses and related healthcare costs.

However, the increased electricity demand led to more coal power plants until nuclear and, later, renewable options expanded. This created regional air pollution around power generation facilities and mining operations, though these impacts were more geographically concentrated than the distributed pollution from millions of internal combustion engines.

The climate implications became most significant over the long term. The transportation sector, which accounts for approximately 25% of greenhouse gas emissions in our timeline, produced substantially fewer direct emissions in this alternate world. As electricity generation gradually shifted toward nuclear and, beginning in the 1990s, solar and wind, the overall carbon intensity of transportation decreased dramatically.

By 2025 in this alternate timeline, global CO2 concentrations would likely be approximately 25-30% lower than current levels in our reality—perhaps around 350ppm instead of 420ppm. Global temperature increases would be more moderate, perhaps 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels rather than 1.2°C. While climate change would still be occurring, its progression would be slower, providing more time for adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Global Economic and Political Realignment (1950s-2025)

The reduced strategic importance of oil dramatically altered global geopolitics throughout the 20th century. Middle Eastern countries developed along significantly different trajectories, with less oil wealth but potentially more diversified economies. Without the massive petrodollar flows of our timeline, Saudi Arabia remained a more modest regional power. Iran's development took a different path without the same level of oil-driven modernization and subsequent revolution.

Russia, with its economy less centered on fossil fuel exports, potentially evolved with greater economic diversification. However, it likely leveraged its substantial nickel and other mineral resources to maintain international influence in battery supply chains.

The United States never developed the same level of oil import dependency that characterized much of the late 20th century in our timeline. Without the need to secure Middle Eastern oil supplies, American foreign policy priorities shifted, potentially leading to lower military involvement in the region. However, new strategic concerns emerged around securing battery materials, leading to different international alignments and tension points.

By 2025 in this alternate timeline, the global economy would be structured around fundamentally different energy value chains. Battery technology companies and electrical infrastructure firms would occupy the economic positions held by oil majors in our timeline. Countries with abundant renewable energy potential and battery material resources would enjoy geopolitical advantages similar to those held by oil-producing nations in our reality.

China might still emerge as a manufacturing powerhouse, but with its development more focused on electrical technologies rather than becoming the world's factory across all sectors. African nations with substantial cobalt, nickel, and lithium deposits, particularly the Democratic Republic of Congo, would have been integrated into global supply chains earlier and potentially under different terms than in our timeline.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Vanessa Chen, Professor of Sustainable Transportation Systems at MIT, offers this perspective: "The early adoption scenario represents one of the greatest 'what-ifs' in technological history. Had electric vehicles maintained their early market position, we would have built a fundamentally different energy infrastructure optimized for electricity rather than liquid fuels. The most fascinating aspect is that we would have faced different but equally significant challenges—instead of oil dependency, we would have grappled with grid capacity and battery material supply chains decades earlier. Either path presented trade-offs, but the early electrification timeline would likely have given us a substantial head start on addressing climate change."

Colonel James Harrison, Senior Fellow at the Strategic Resources Institute, notes: "The geopolitical implications of an electrified transportation sector emerging in the 1920s rather than the 2020s would have been profound. The 20th century's resource wars and strategic competitions would have centered around different materials and regions. The Middle East would not have achieved the same strategic importance, while areas rich in battery materials like Central Africa and South America would have become focal points much earlier. U.S. foreign policy would have developed without the imperative to secure oil shipping lanes and Middle Eastern alliances, potentially leading to a completely different global security architecture. However, I suspect new dependencies and vulnerabilities would have emerged around the electrical supply chain."

Dr. Lisa Montgomery, Environmental Historian at University College London, explains: "We should be careful not to assume that an earlier transition to electric vehicles would have been an unmitigated environmental positive. While it would have dramatically reduced urban pollution and likely slowed climate change, the early to mid-20th century had far fewer environmental protections around mining and manufacturing. The extraction of battery materials without modern safeguards could have created serious localized environmental disasters. Additionally, without the clean air legislation spurred by visible urban pollution in the 1960s and 1970s, regulatory frameworks for other pollutants might have developed more slowly. That said, the net climate benefit would have been substantial, potentially giving us decades more to address carbon emissions before reaching current critical thresholds."