I've seen it, but that's was a VERY EASY scenario of an isolated vehicle with nothing around, try to do the same in a more realistic scenario like a vehicle cru

I've seen it, but that's was a VERY EASY scenario of an isolated vehicle with nothing around, try to do the same in a more realistic scenario like a vehicle crushed downhill, with a bit of dry vegetation on fire around, another with some vehicles crashed, deformed and one onto another. Even if there are no people to rescue, those alive are already recovered and eventual others are dead, how do you reach such small hole, perhaps if the car is on one side or overturned? To me it's like an old movie of "theory vs reality with an oil ship with a serious fire on board and the young trainee trying to follow the protocol working on chemical extinguishers when an officer brutally push him out "IT'S DAMN TOO LATE!!! GO!!!". It's not much about the involvement but the way we design cars (and essentially anything) today, the designer mindset and usual organization. Ignore the extreme scenario: various EV brands offer V2L functionalities, ALL I know offer an adapter to the charging port for such purpose, meaning you can't have 230Vac while driving or inside the vehicle, now how damn frequent is the fictional advertised scenario of a picnic with an electric grill aside the car vs you are damn trapped in the traffic, all stopped for long and you just want your laptop powered INSIDE the vehicle or you have a fridge in the trunk, a real one with a 230V compressor? To me the reasoning behind current V2L design is "well, 99% will not use such functionality, while 20% keep curiously asking for that (for incomprehensible reasons), so we add it in the cheapest way possible". In the reality it would be not much expensive put the 230V inverter in the trunk on one side and offer 230V sockets in the trunk and in the middle/back part of front seats. It's only a matter of understanding damn realistic real life usage vs not having a clue of the real world. Another example: we have VARIOUS domestic car chargers, because well, most EV owners own a home with a garage/some space to recharge at home, since living on public chargers it's no life... Well, vast part of the inhabited world have good potential photovoltaic power, and most EV owners live in such places... Why the hell exactly ZERO vendor offer a real p.v. integration for their chargers? So far in the EV only two claim to have p.v. integration, both are p.v. inverter/battery inverter makers, one it's Fronius another is Victron, both claims are well... Questionable... The can ONLY charge in AC, meaning loosing ~30% of p.v. power in the process while at least Fronius already sell hybrid inverters with 400V batteries integration, the very same batteries of 99% of cars... Why not offer DC-tp-DC charging MUCH more effective, MUCH simpler, MUCH less risky and bi-directional by default because yes on damn all EVs you can both charge and discharge from DC at least in EU/CCS combo ports, so the car became de facto part of a home p.v. system with storage. NO DAMN VENDOR offer that. Only one USA vendor offer DC charging and bi-directional usage to power the home BUT NOT p.v. integration, it works grid connected to charge, only off grid to discharge. Heat pump vendors with DC compressors? Similarly NONE I know offer DC-direct power optional (a thing with nearly no cost to be added) to run on p.v. Long story short ALL "green new deal" projects/tools are designed by people who show to have no clue about green new deal and real world applications. That's a classic sign of managerial-driven things, where the manager know how to organize people and know economy but damn nothing else, so apply the same knowledge and ignorance to selling apples, cruises, fighter jet and computers with ridiculous results where people who seems expert in the field invest time in convincing people he/she works for a perfect future that's actually totally surrealistic...