Slashdot Mirror
Why Electric Vehicles Aren't More Popular
An anonymous reader writes: Ars takes a look at a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences into the reasons why more people aren't driving electric vehicles. Of course infrastructure issues are a part of it — until charging stations are ubiquitous, the convenience factor for using a gas-powered car will weigh heavily on consumers's minds. (This despite the prevalence of outlets at home and work, where the vast majority of charging will be done even with better infrastructure.) But other reasons are much more tractable. Simply giving somebody experience with an EV tends to make the fog of mystery surrounding them dissipate, and the design of the car counts for a lot, too. It turns out car buyers don't want their EVs to look different from regular cars.
The problem is that the overall experience is more of a PITA than just shoving fuel in the tank. Obviously this assumes you ignore externalities, but that's the norm so it's a safe assumption. Once more of these issues are ironed out then there will be less anxiety and more purchases.
It seems like 2016 is the year of EVs with more than 200 miles of range (more than one or two of them anyway) so perhaps this will be a big uptake year, but more infrastructure will more or less "always" be required.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Electric vehicles are very cheap, if only because the federal government subsidizes $7,500, and the CA state government subsidizes $2500. Additionally, some local governments fund home charging stations.
I leased an egolf for $200/month, versus my old car where I was spending $150/month on fuel. Googling that, leasing a standard golf is the same price, but with the higher fuel/maintenance costs.
There are good reasons not to get an electric car, which basically boil down to range issues - my wife has a normal fuel car, or I wouldn't have even considered an electric car. It's great/cheap as a commuter car, but the (very common) L2 chargers take four hours to fully charge, and even the (uncommon) L3 chargers take an hour. Imagine going on a road trip where every hour and a half you stopped for an hour to charge your car.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
That's one of two major factors, and yeah, even if one is solved, the other has to be to.
My next vehicle would be an electric except:
1. Price, as you mention. New - yeah, I guess the lowest end electrics compare to mid-priced vehicles, when subsidized, but it's still a price difference measured in many, many, thousands. But used? Forget it. And I'll be honest, I'm a used car buyer. I can't afford tens of thousands of dollars for a new vehicle.
2. There's a good chance the vehicle that'll need replacing will be the minivan. There are no electric minivans.
We need both a wide range of useful vehicles, and prices to be reasonable. It's hard to believe that it's not practical to build an electric vehicle with a 100 mile range for a price comparable to a gasoline powered vehicle of similar specification.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
and yet, you would be wrong according to the report and real life experience.
The Nissan leaf is available for 20K. The average price of a new car in America is $32,500. As such, the leaf is cheap.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
My BMW X3 is quieter than a Leaf at highway speeds. and it has a 3 Liter V6.
Yes I know this is a fact. Rode in a friends leaf, they are not quiet unless they are sitting still.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This despite the prevalence of outlets at home and work, ...
I've never worked anywhere, in my 30 years in the workforce, that had any outlets (free or pay) in or even near the parking lot. Perhaps that will change over time as EVs become more prevalent, but I don't see any evidence of that now around where I live and work in Virginia Beach. (inb4: YMMV)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
A middle-of-the-road EV like a Nissan Leaf would cover 98% of my driving. I can afford one easily. I could afford a Model S if I put my mind to it. I've even looked in to buying an old banger and converting it myself.
The problem is I have nowhere to plug one in. I live in an apartment building and there is no wiring in the parkade. Nor is there any requirement (or incentive) to retrofit the building. I've talked to the building management, but we've never come up with any answers.
New buildings must have EV support. Old ones don't.
...laura
No law needed, once the government stop subsidizing oil diesel and gas vehicles will be as expensive to drive as they are in other countries and electric will start to look a lot more attractive.
Without government granting bullshit patents we'd have carbon-negative biofuels for our diesels by now. They'd still make acid rain, of course, but they wouldn't be contributing to carbon release. And you'd fill them up with bio-based crankcase lube, too — it's better when you run biofuels, because of the compatibility of the blow-by gases.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The first point has been addressed many times already - even if you're powering your electric car on 100% fossil-fuel electricity you're still doing better than burning gasoline.
A centralised generating station is much more efficient than lots of gas engines that are about 30% efficient. Obviously it would be ideal to move to renewable generation, but that will also be happening as those sources get cheaper and more effective. You also have to factor in transmission losses and charging losses, but even with these included you're still ahead.
I have an honest question for you.
Why is it when you do these calculations you seem to assume electricity is free?
My neighbor has a Nissan Leaf. He claims that it's okay for going to work, and back and doing the bit of driving around town, but really only has a 40-50 mile range, which he pretty much uses every day. Per day, the electricity costs him about $2.50 to keep charged. He also says he had to install a 240V socket it in his garage because apparently though you can charge it on 120V in a pinch, apparently it can cause damage to the batteries. That's according to Nissan.
"Don't need" is highly debatable since even bicycles have gears for the sake of efficiency.
Bicycles are not powered by electric motors, and human legs do not resemble electric motors in any way at all. Human legs have a very limited speed range, just like gasoline engines; that's why transmissions exist.
Imagine driving your ICE car on the freeway in the 3rd gear -- that's going to cause a lot of engine wear and tear due to high engine RPM and drastically reduce mileage.
Electric motors are not like ICEs. Electric motors generate peak torque at stall (that's 0 rpm in case you didn't know). ICEs produce zero torque at stall, and don't even run that way, which is why they have clutches or torque converters, to allow them to idle. ICEs produce peak torque near the top of their speed range, completely the opposite of electric motors.
How many other applications can you think of where electric motors drive something through a transmission (I mean one with multiple gears, not a single-speed gearbox)? There are none. Train locomotives don't, ships don't, they all have direct-drive from their electric motors.
And if you're worried about speed, EVs don't run their motors slower, they run them faster than road speed, using a reduction gear. Go read your own link where that's mentioned. The Roadster only used a 2-speed transmission so they could get away with a smaller (lower torque, lower current) motor, but that really isn't a great idea because the complexity and weight of the transmission negates any cost, efficiency, or space gains you get from using a smaller motor. Higher speeds in an ICE are a problem because there's so many moving parts, and a bunch of them aren't rotating, they're reciprocating (think of the con-rods). This isn't the case in an electric motor, where there's only 1 moving part (aside from the balls in the bearings) and it rotates; higher speeds aren't much of a problem here, within reason.
2.28 cars per 2.58 people. One of those cars is typically dedicated to primary breadwinner commuting. So the "expense of the 2nd car" is already there.
sPh
"Besides most electric batteries require more than 120 AC voltage to charge." Name one Every EV I'm aware of is fully capable of being charged using a 120VAC outlet.
Well, more like $280 a month, with $80 subsidized by the government.
So it's true that if everybody was getting electric cars, the subsidy would be untenable. However, if everybody was getting electric cars, the unit price would go down as well (which is a big part of the motivation behind the subsidies).
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
EV's don't deep cycle their batteries, they are very good at managing useage to meet the 10 yr/100k mile warranty requirement for the battery pack. No need to give you an 8yr/100k battery warranty because there is no good reason to purchase an EV when you can lease them at more advantageous terms right now. If you are worried about being at 60% battery capacity after 3 years, don't be. The Nissan Leaf is guaranteeing "9 bars" (presumably 90%) for 5 years and 60,000 miles.