Technology

Everything is a tradeoff. At this point there are more valuable things to be spending money on than making chargers that are as fast as possible. Not all cars can charge at 500+kWhs many cannot even do 100kWhs. IMO better to spend money upgrading all the slow 7-50kWh chargers. As well as putting in more slow charging near residents. Kerb charging for people that dont have a driveway in cities or chargers for those living in flats. That would serve people better then spending more money on something very few can actually benefit from.

BYD did a 1.5MW and Geely did a 2.2MW charging now, but they faced the one big issue with such charging speed : building a facility for it. It requires a tremendous amount of power so it cannot pull only from the grid, so it can't be deployed in most place. That's the challenge they're facing, and even Geely said the speed has peaked. Practically there's no need to have those charging speed, more charger is much more beneficial than super fast charging.

but the fast chargers do need more infrastructure that takes more space and cost, when having MORE slower, cheaper, easier to install AC chargers everywhere will help just as much

I think for my commute I would prefer a battery chemistry that needed slower charging, if it was cheaper or lasted longer or was safer, or lighter, or whatever. But I think there will always be use cases where it's worth maximizing uptime, like long-haul driving.

I wonder if trucking will evolve to do tractor swaps, where rigs coming into charge up will hand off trailers to fresh tractors. That way the cargo doesn't have to take up space in the charging lot or whatever. Or they might do battery swaps. I imagine for above some threshold of cost/minute downtime, the hardware for doing swaps will be worth the extra cost.