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.

Comments

The reason is more simple

[ArcadeMan]

Electric vehicles are expensive and most people only buy a new vehicle every X years while electric vehicles have only been (easily) available for the last few years.

Re:The reason is more simple

[kamapuaa]

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.

Re:The reason is more simple

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:The reason is more simple

[ArcadeMan]

A lof of things differ from country to country: subsidies, availability of electric cars, cost of fuel. And not everyone spends the same amount of cash on fuel per month because not everyone drives the same distance every month.

And not everyone buys new cars, so until there's a lot of used electric cars available, they're only going to be a fraction of percentage of all the cars on the road.

Re:The reason is more simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe cheap compared to new cars, but a lot of people can't afford to pay that much. Most people I know buy used, and there aren't very many used electrics (or hybrids) for sale that don't have expensive battery problems.

Re:The reason is more simple

[penix1]

Talk to me when that price point is less than $15,000 and there are charging stations in rural WV.

Re:The reason is more simple

[Grishnakh]

According to a responder here, the Leaf's price is closer to $30k. And the Leaf is butt-ugly, and looks and drives like an econobox. A comparable gas car is probably about $15k, if not less. Crappy suspension and handling, cheap interior materials, lack of features; you're not getting much for your money that way.

That's the problem with EVs now; they're much more expensive than comparable gas cars. I've driven a Tesla Model S, and it's a great car, but it also cost $108,000. I just picked up a Mazda3 that has most of the features (including things like blind-spot warnings, lane-departure warnings, collision warning and automatic emergency braking, navigation, etc.) for under $30k, less than your Leaf, plus it gets over 35mpg (39mpg EPA hwy rating) and it has great power and excellent handling, maybe not quite sports-car level, but far better than a typical econobox.

When (if) Tesla comes out with their Model 3 in the mid-$30k price range, and if it has similar range to the Model S and still has good appointments compared to gas cars in that range, then we're going to see some real changes in the auto market. Electric cars are coming, it's just taking a while because of the battery cost.

Re:The reason is more simple

[Vyse of Arcadia]

Right now I feel the problem is a range/cost issue. You can lease an egolf for $200/month because your wife has a regular gas car. As a single person who makes 100+ mile trips with some frequency, I wouldn't be able to lease an egolf. I'd have to go with a higher range car, and even, for example, the cheapest Tesla model S is $600+/month to lease. And even then, I don't have a convenient place to charge it. At an apartment complex without a garage. Sometimes I have to park quite a ways away from my apartment, too far for an extension cord from the 240V outlet inside my apartment. Also, I'd have to run the cord out my apartment door and leave my place unlocked to charge my car.

My situation isn't all that uncommon either. An analogous situation applies to pretty much every single person who can't afford a nice house in the suburbs, both rural and urban.

Re:The reason is more simple

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: The reason is more simple

[jedidiah]

I am not poor and I am no longer a student. So I don't have to drive a cheap crappy car. Thus, this car gets judged based on what I already have and have had for decades already.

It's a premium priced econobox which likely explains adoption rates.

Re:The reason is more simple

[sphealey]

So until electric or combination electric-ICE vehicles meet 101% of the needs of 100.0% of the population of the US - including the very small minority who live in isolated rural areas - they should not be popular (or even sold!) anywhere in the US including the metro areas where 85% of the population lives and commutes. Got it.

sPh

Re: The reason is more simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I don't have access to outlets either at home or at work. My apartment in the city doesn't have a power outlet for on street parking. My office certainly doesn't have power outlets. The only viable option for me would be to hit up charging stations somewhere, and there aren't any where I could leave my car overnight and feel comfortable about it. Add to that a 1 hour commute each way, and electric cars simply aren't feasible for me until they have the same range as a gas car, they take as long as gas cars to refill the power source, and charging stations are as ubiquitous as gas stations.

Re:The reason is more simple

[Todd Palin]

Electric cars aren't for everyone, yet. As your only car it might not make sense if you make more than the occasional road trip, but for a couple it might make perfect sense to have one electric, and use your gas car for your road trips. Some city folks rarely leave the city, so an electric makes sense for them. It really boils down to how you use your vehicle. For some they make total sense. For others, not so much.

I don't have an electric because it doesn't fit my lifestyle at all. I travel a lot, and it is always in a motor vehicle, usually way out in the boondocks where recharging isn't even possible. I almost always have a car full of camping gear that wouldn't fit in most electrics. I travel on remote dirt roads that often require 4WD. To the best of my knowledge there aren't any genuine 4WD vehicles. (all wheel drive isn't the same thing)

Re:The reason is more simple

[beelsebob]

Yep, I'm currently leasing an eGolf for less than $120 a month. That's less than I pay for my petrol car. That and I get the electricity free from work makes it an awesome deal.

Re:The reason is more simple

[beelsebob]

The reason you haven't heard of the eGolf is two fold:
1) It's very new. VW only started selling them about 4 months ago
2) VW deliberately went out of their way to not make it look electric - there was no fan fare about this new fancy electric thingamabob, because it looks exactly like any other Golf.

Re:The reason is more simple

[FlyHelicopters]

I leased an egolf for $200/month

No, you didn't.

You leased an eGolf for $440 a month, the taxpayers are paying $220 a month of your payment, leaving you with $200 left.

Clearly that can't happen for anything but a very small fraction of the new car buyers or that tax incentive will go away in a big hurry.

The next question is, would you have leased it if you actually had to pay the real payment of $440 a month?

Re:The reason is more simple

[sphealey]

Distribution of Vehicles and Persons per Household
Vehicles Per Household
1969 = 1.16
1977 = 1.59
1983 = 1.68
1990 = 1.77
1995 = 1.78
2001 = 1.90
2010 (unofficial) = 2.28

Persons Per Household
1969 = 3.16
1977 = 2.83
1983 = 2.69
1990 = 2.56
1995 = 2.63
2001 = 2.58

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

Re:The reason is more simple

[FlyHelicopters]

The Leaf isn't really $20k, and that is for the base model with nothing in it.

That $32,500 "average" car is larger and nicer inside than a Leaf is as well, and has no range issues.

For under $20k, you can buy very nice new cars about the same size and equipment as the Leaf, with no issues or funny tax dollars trying to make it work.

I know, you're a fan, more power to you, but the reality doesn't match the fantasy.

You want proof? EVs were 0.7% of new vehicle sales in the US in 2014. The fanboys are buying them, but pretty much no one else. That number might grow to 1 or 2 percent over the next 3 years, but it won't go mainstream until the cost comes down and the range goes up.

Re:The reason is more simple

[naughtynaughty]

"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.

Re:The reason is more simple

[kamapuaa]

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).

Re:The reason is more simple

[Ralph Spoilsport]

How about we also remove all those oil subsidies, and see how cheap that car really is? Oh, and also the cost to the environment from burning fossil fuels - let's see, how much will it cost to move everyone out of Florida? Anf how about all the carcinogenic bullshit that comes along with it - all those health costs need to be wrapped into it as well. Oh gee - look! It's actually more expensive to run fossil fuel vehicles than some flimsy govt subsidy for an electric car.

I'd call you a troll, but that would overstating the case, and it's possible you're something stupider, like a republican.

Re:The reason is more simple

[AmiMoJo]

There certainly needs to be a lot more on-street charging in residential areas. Ideally the system would allow anyone to use any charger and have the cost billed to their home electricity bill. There would be posts with simple 230v/13A charging at regular intervals.

Re: The reason is more simple

[quintus_horatius]

It might be better to say that 120 volts isn't adequate to charge an EV in a reasonable amount of time. It can take more than eight hours to charge a typical car at 120v.

Re:The reason is more simple

[beelsebob]

First, the current price is actually about $27.5k, because the gvmnt gives you $7.5k cash in hand. Second, as someone who just leased an eGolf, you can get the base price down to about $26k before you even apply the gvmnt incentives if you're half good at arguing.

Re:The reason is more simple

[FlyHelicopters]

Since you can't control the offer's existence, I understand. If you like it and want to do it, more power to you. Personally I don't like paying for other people's cars, but that's just me.

I'm simply pointing out why EVs aren't taking off. They are expensive, limited in range, and generally not very appealing to most buyers.

Sure, they'll sell a few, and they are, but that is all they'll sell. The uptake rate won't go anywhere until the price comes down $10K and the range triples.

When will that happen? Who knows, but it won't be next year. :)

---

As a side note, I'm well aware that in select limited use cases, an EV can make sense today. Someone with a 40 mile each way commute with a place to plug in at both ends, who doesn't need to drive anywhere else (second car), and high gas prices, an EV can make sense, even at today's prices, if you plan to keep it for 5+ years.

That being said, that is a rather narrow use case, most people want more flexibility and the reality is that you can go lease a Toyota Corolla or Ford Fusion for $199 a month with nothing down and have no range worries. Both cars get great gas milliage and while both might cost more over 3 years to drive than a Leaf, they won't cost THAT much more.

What is the removal of range concerns worth?

What would it cost to give the Leaf a 200 mile true range in all conditions with the AC cranked to max when the battery is 3 years old?

The problem is that a Fusion does that today, for the same monthly price and doesn't require tax payer money to make that happen.

Re:The reason is more simple

[FlyHelicopters]

How about we also remove all those oil subsidies

Sure, I'd be happy to remove them all... except, there aren't any...

The oil companies get the same tax breaks for capital investment everyone else gets, nothing new there...

Oh, and also the cost to the environment from burning fossil fuels

That is another conversation... Perhaps there should be a cost for that, however if the money goes into the general fund, then it just gets wasted...

If the money from the tax could be tagged to only going to environmental cleanup, you'd get more support for it, but it never works out that way.

let's see, how much will it cost to move everyone out of Florida?

Now who is the troll? If all the ice in the world melted Florida wouldn't be underwater. Your Democrat talking points are showing.

I'd call you a troll, but that would overstating the case, and it's possible you're something stupider, like a republican.

So... your Democrats are somehow better? Give me a break and stop drinking the Koolaid.

Re:The reason is more simple

[Technician]

Battery life and cost are big factors only following range anxiety.

Often the 10 year + life is cited for many of the hybrids such as the Prius. The long life is only obtained through battery maintenance. The state of charge is kept between 50 and 80% most of the time.

In an electric, that would severely limit range to preserve battery life.

To get maximum range, EV's often top off the battery (100% charge) which shortens the life and deep cycles them, also shortening the life. Think about other devices you deep cycle on a regular basis with the same battery technology. How long does your cell phone, laptop, tablet, etc last on a charge the first year and after 3 years of use. Do you expect an EV to get the same distance after 3 years of daily commute? Give me an EV with a guarantee of >80% capacity after 8 years or 100,000 miles and I am so on it. Making it only 60% of the way to work after 3 years is not going to cut it.

Re:The reason is more simple

[SirSlud]

Why on earth wouldn't you just consider it your own money that you gave the government in the past? You have to be pretty obtuse to turn down your own money in order to make a point about the evils of market incentives.

Re:The reason is more simple

[pmgst17]

I just bought a 2016 (seriously? 2016 model year already? yes.) Ford Fusion. I was really wanting to go with a hybrid/electric, but the reasons I didn't: 1) It will take about 6 years at even 3$/gallon of gas to recover the extra cost So yeah, that's it.

Electric vehicles are very cheap, if only because the federal government subsidizes $7,500

The tax break is **up to** 7500. For the Fusion as a plug in hybrid, the tax break is 4000$: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe... and that was on the top of the line car, Fusion Energi. When we asked the salesman about any tax breaks or refunds, he had to ask his manager and he said it was only 250$.

Re:The reason is more simple

[naughtynaughty]

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.

Re:The reason is more simple

[amiga3D]

When they get there I'll happily buy one.

Re:The reason is more simple

[amiga3D]

They're going to stick it to you anyway. If you don't take every opportunity to get all of it back you can you are just a sucker. It's the way the system is designed.

Re:The reason is more simple

[swillden]

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.

This is incorrect. Charging on 120V doesn't do any damage to the batteries, in fact it's probably a little bit better for them. The problem with level 1 charging is that it's slow. Assuming the LEAF's battery is empty it takes about 21 hours to charge it to full on the 120V adapter included with the car.

I actually charged my car regularly on 120V and it wasn't as bad as you might think -- as long as I only needed to make one trip into town per day (from my house to the city is about a 40-mile round trip). The car was almost always fully-charged by morning, but if I went somewhere in the morning and came back home, there was no possibility of making a second trip in the afternoon or evening. Not without stopping off at the level 3 charger in town, anyway. Which I did from time to time -- it's free, and recharges the car from empty in about an hour, but it means having to kill an hour, and there isn't much of interest within walking distance of the charger.

So, I installed a 220V "level 2" charger. With it, the car recharges from empty in a little under four hours. In practice, that means that when I pull into the garage and plug in, it's generally full again in a couple of hours. Most of the time the flexibility that provides doesn't matter, but sometimes it's very handy. The level 2 charger cost me about $400. Was it worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

Re:The reason is more simple

[Cyberax]

Right now I'm writing this message from a Fourseasons resort in the Yellowstone Park. I drove here from Seattle on a Tesla (85D) without ANY issues with charging. As for West Virginia there are many charging stations there, see for yourself: http://www.plugshare.com/

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

HOME ownership is key

[faway]

Think about it: If a person doesn't have the security of a home to charge a vehicle at, why would they take a risk on the unlikely chance that they can charge a vehicle when they are out and about like at Whole Foods or IKEA. Furthermore homeowners don't have to relocate to find new jobs, and if you own electric car it's a hassle to move it across country or even across the state. Finally renters don't have the sense of security that allows them to take foolish risks like owning a vehicle that is severely limited in range.

But then consider homeowners: They are strapped with debts and many of them cannot afford luxuries because they bought homes at inflated prices due to speculation in the housing market.

Re:HOME ownership is key

[Dr. Evil]

In other words, perfect as a second car for upper-middle-class suburbanites who don't drive far.

That's a small population.

Re:HOME ownership is key

[Mr D from 63]

Your point is important. Many apartment residents basically are not even a candidate to buy one, so a good chunk of the market is not even in the mix. Even houses that don't have garages, requiring outdoor chargers, make ownership less attractive.

Re:HOME ownership is key

[WindBourne]

actually, that is the majority of America and Europe. And these are not for upper-middle class, but middle class.
A leaf goes for $20K. That is affordable by anybody in the middle class.

Re:HOME ownership is key

[Lumpy]

They go for $29K. I dont know where you keep coming up with this massively low number. Not one Nissan dealer I can find has them listed at $20K.

Re:HOME ownership is key

[Derec01]

You have to be able to float that much money to wait for the rebate, correct? (I was pretty sure that car maker doesn't apply on your behalf.) Plus paperwork, and the uncertainty of a car type you are unfamiliar with.

With all that, I would choose a known quantity like a used gas car as well. It's rational to minimize expected variance of outcome when buying a potentially necessary item like a car.

Re:HOME ownership is key

[FlyHelicopters]

You're a fan, we all get it... that's fine, enjoy it if you like it...

The sales numbers do not lie, people don't want EVs today, at least not beyond the most dedicated fanboys...

That day may come, and that is fine. The price has to come way down and the range has to go way up for that to happen however. When the Leaf is $20k without rebates and has a 200 mile range, they'll start moving in more volume.

That, and when they aren't butt ugly of course. :)

Re:HOME ownership is key

[FlyHelicopters]

But that's just it... it is a terrible car for a second vehicle...

For half the price you can get a perfectly nice second car. Yes the Leaf saves on gas to drive, but power isn't free and the payback period is still way longer than most people will keep it.

Sure, using other people's money, it appears cheaper, but it really isn't and until it is, it is a terrible option.

Design Counts

[Elias Israel]

"It turns out car buyers don't want their EVs to look different from regular cars." Of course. Who wants to roll around town looking like the "before" picture in a testosterone replacement ad? You want to sell EV's? Make them perform like sports sedans with equivalent range. That's why Tesla is working and the Volt is not. And don't even get me started on the Leaf.

Re:Design Counts

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Actually the reason the Leaf looks a bit odd, is the headlights.

They're not a statement.

The headlights look like that for a good reason- it makes the car a lot quieter for the user; it deflects the air away from the side mirrors.

Because it's an electric car, it can actually be quiet, and then you actually notice these things.

Re:Design Counts

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:Design Counts

[Octorian]

Why is it that Elon Musk and Tesla seem to be the only car maker that can produce appealing electric vehicles? even though they are overpriced, I think that problem will go away as Tesla continues to get more established etc.

Probably because they're the only car maker that is fully committed, and doesn't have any other competing product lines. It is in their best interest to make the most desirable EVs they possibly can, and to do anything less would be bad for their business.

EVs are a PITA

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:EVs are a PITA

[drinkypoo]

and yet, everybody that owns EVs (real EVs, not hybrids like the volt or the I3),

You can buy the i3 as an EV. It's got piss-poor range, though.

Why? Because they are far less hassles than ICE cars.

Look, the average age of the American fleet is currently at a record high of 11 years. That means that of the people with money for new cars, most of them have still got warranties. So what are they going to buy? They're going to buy what's familiar. If you have a warranty and a decent dealer then it's not a big deal if your ICE fails. You get a loaner and they replace your motor, or whatever. Who cares?

I have argued frequently and passionately that EVs will be superior to ICEs once they get the range up around the same place as ICEs. But you can get cars with ICEs that get over 600 miles on one fill, and it's unusual for one to get less than 300 on a tank. There's lots of reasons to love EVs, but cars are about convenience and it's not convenient to have to rent another car. I bought a car so I could go places in it, not so I could rent another car when I want to go far away.

Re:EVs are a PITA

[chihowa]

Because the population of people that own EVs is drastically smaller than the population of people that don't own EVs. Current EV owners represent the self-selected group of people for which owning an EV is a better choice (and can afford to purchase a new car). That the vast majority of people haven't walked away from ICE cars should be an indicator that they are not an appropriate choice for most people. (And I say this as a satisfied EV owner. It works for me, but not for everybody.)

Your statement makes just as much sense as saying that there are people in Venice who own a boat and walked away from cars, so boats obviously present much less hassle than cars. My neighbor who started a roofing company replaced his sedan with a pickup truck and hasn't looked back; pickup trucks must present far fewer hassles than sedans. Do you understand context?

That pretty much sums it up

[WindBourne]

The fact is, that number 1 EV car, Tesla Model S, is selling all that they can produce, and they are currently selling to less than 1/5 of the world. (using google cache since site is already /.)
Why are their cars in such demand even though they do not waste money on advertisement:
1) It is a luxury car with extreme performance.
2) the constant update and electric dashboard captivates everybody that drives it.
3) the ownership issue is finally being realized and ppl are learning that the costs of the tesla is much lower on the backend.
4) the fastest superchargers are being built all over Europe, America, and parts of Asia. These allow for free charging with 150 MPC done within 20 minues and 220 MPC done within 60 minutes.
5) all of the innovation is in this car, as opposed to having little innovation.
6) most of all, ppl like the 250 MPC. The idea of only getting less than 100 MPC and not having a super fast charger around DOES bother a lot of ppl. And it should.

Chevy volt, nissan leaf, i3, etc are all pure POS in which the car sales have been going down, not up as expected. In general the leaf and i3 are too weird looking and offer equal or less performance to ICE cars BY DESIGN. Interestingly, all of the electric cars could EASILY blow away ICE cars. Why do they not? Because it would gut the sales of ICE so, none of the car companies want that. However, all can see where Tesla is headed. Basically, they will be a major car maker (as in top 5) within 10 years.

pretty simple really

[nimbius]

Price: battery powered vehicles that look like time machines or toys are still priced at the luxury vehicle level. the ones that look normal or respectable, tesla, are still commanding BMW dollars. Hell, even decent electric motorcycles start at 17k. if you want me to buy one, stop crashing the economy and start supporting a living wage.
Range: most of these cars excel in stop and go traffic, with parking garages equipped with Chademo charge stations that dont cost anything. for the rest of america outside of Los Angeles and New York, we dont have this and our commute isnt as gridlocked as you may think.

winter

[jmccue]

Believe it or not there are people living outside of Calif :) Outside of range and expense, heat on a 2 hour drive in Minnesota in January. I doubt you would get far

Re:winter

[WindBourne]

Tesla cars sell great in Norway. And they, along with others living in Mn, speak volumes about how decent the car does in winter (for starters, the weight is balanced, not over the front wheels).

Preening Progressive Prius Pricks

[smittyoneeach]

Preening Progressive Prius pricks
Verbally hurl stones & sticks
But my old diesel's paid & plucky
Does the job while economy sucky

Guess they'll have to pass a law
Prying key from cold, dead paw
Don't need green overlords smug
Bossing about as the fascist thug

Re:Preening Progressive Prius Pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Preening Progressive Prius Pricks

[drinkypoo]

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.

Range and recharging time

[reboot246]

Those are the main two. Let's take a look at my work week that starts tomorrow.

I leave home in a pickup truck and drive 267 miles to a motel. Assuming the motel has a recharging station, I guess I could recharge overnight before going to work Monday morning, but what are they going to charge to sell that electricity?

Assuming they have a recharging station and the cost is reasonable, I can work Monday through Friday as usual, putting about 100 miles per day on the vehicle.

What about Friday? After a day's work how do I recharge fast enough to make it home? Sure, I'd have some miles left after working to make a little ways up the road, but what then? Stay in another motel Friday night to recharge my vehicle? That makes it pointless to even try to make it home for the weekend.

Ideally an electric-powered work truck like mine would have at least a 300 mile range, and recharging would take 15 minutes or less. If we get the technology to that point, then my company would consider replacing our fleet.

Re:Range and recharging time

[Anonymous Coward]

Your situation isn't even remotely close to typical usage of a vehicle.

Gas, CO2, and heat pumps

[archer, the]

Until gasoline includes a fee to cleanup the CO2 released, EVs will be more expensive. But then, any environmental cleanup effort is going to cost money. I don't expect everyone to be able to afford this. I *hope* that anyone with extra cash does something to fight climate change, especially the fossil fuel industry since they've made billions (trillions?) putting us in our current situation. Otherwise, we're hosed.

That being said, I'm not sure the battery technology is good enough. It sounds as if in 3-5 years we would see significantly better batteries. Outside of that, an EV would fit my life (and 10 mile commute) fairly well.

I'm currently looking into replacing my gas furnace with a heat pump, powered by a combination of solar-, wind-, and hydro-generated electricity. This will cost less than half the price of a Volt/Prius/etc and will probably reduce my CO2 emissions by 3 tons, as opposed to the 2 tons I would save if I bought an EV. Other benefits: no battery and less CO2 released during manufacturing. The negative is that my winter heating costs will double.

Cost... and charging...

[strredwolf]

The big thing is cost (which will go down over time with improvements in battery technology), but you also have to figure out charging as well.

The Tesla Model S has a 85 kWh battery bank. The average price for power is 10 cents per kWH in Maryland (even solar). So that's $1.20 to "fill up the tank" in raw power alone. Plus, it's not a quick fill-up.

That's not economical for a gas station. A rest stop or a restaurant (even a Royal Farm)? Drop in the bucket. So you'll have to dot rest stops with charging stations, seating and a lunch counter all over the place.... instead of gas stations. Well, that's a shift in thinking. And something the gas/oil companies aren't ready for.

Outlets at work? Not yet.

[fahrbot-bot]

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)

Infrastructure or the lack thereof

[spaceyhackerlady]

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

Re:Infrastructure or the lack thereof

[PPH]

This. Exactly.

And now Seattle is going on a war against vehicles by eliminating required parking in new apartments and condos. So everyone must revert to on street parking. Good luck plugging your vehicle into an outlet if you are 200 feet down the street. It's back to gasoline for everyone.

Re:Carbon Footprint

[drinkypoo]

I suspect that switching from my petrol-powered car to an electric vehicle would actually increase the amount of greenhouse gas emissions I generate.

you would be wrong, even if 100% of your power comes from coal you'd still reduce your greenhouse gas emissions. you do however increase your radioactive isotope emissions...

Re:My concerns

[jo_ham]

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.

Re:Carbon Footprint

[jo_ham]

No, it would reduce them.

Your gas engine is 30% efficient. Your generating station is not.

Centralised energy generation is much better than lots of smaller gas engines effectively doing the same job.

Re:Road trips.

[sphealey]

= = = That, and plenty of folks live 50 or more miles out of the nearest urban center, = = =

That's one of those cherished American myths that turns out not to be the case. US population went from below 50% urban to above 50% urban around 1895 (between the 1880 and 1890 censuses) and today around 85% of all USians live and work within urban/suburban/exurban agglomerations. Not dense central cities but sufficiently dense and interlocked that they aren't really tooling through the countryside they way they believe.

sPh

Re:Dumb Design Choices

[Grishnakh]

What sort of an idiot makes a car where the battery cannot be changed at a service station?

What sort of idiot thinks it'd be a great idea for someone to exchange their brand-new but discharged $20,000 battery for an old, worn-down battery that's been recharged at that station, and is now worth about $5,000 because it's near the end of its life, or worse, has bad cells and is on the brink of outright failure?

Whose bright idea was it to force consumers to plug their cars in for charging?

Maybe someone who realized people who commute every day would rather recharge at home, which takes no extra time at all, than waste time taking a separate trip to a service station?

Re: FP!

[Grishnakh]

"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.

Biofuels? Hmm

[Viol8]

The problem with biofuels is you need to grow them somewhere and if they're normal plants (as opposed to algae) then this is going to be either on farmland so reducing the amount of food that can be grown in whatever area it is, or by clearing some sort of virgin enviroment which will probably be rainforest.

They aren't economical.

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Right now you could have the choice between a 20,000$ electric vehicle or a 11,000$ gas vehicle. Lets say the gas vehicle gets 33 mpg, and gasoline costs 3$. Then for 9,000$, you get 3000 gallons of gasoline, and at 33mpg, you get nearly 100,000 miles of free fuel. The price point where electric vehicles start to even make sense for an economical sense is somewhere around $15,000.

Sadly, gas is cheaper than electricity in CA

[Thagg]

I just bought a Ford C-Max Energi; but I bought it strictly for the green carpool-lane sticker.

In California, if you live in a big house, your marginal cost of electricity is shockingly high. For me, it's $0.33/kilowatt-hour.

My Energi goes 20 miles with a 8 kWh charge. That's $2.64 On gas, it gets about 35 mpg. If gas is $3.50 (current price) that's $2.20.

Now, during mid-day on a sunny day, I can charge it much cheaper on our solar panels (currently we are selling power back to PG&E, but at $0.11/kWh) and I do that. I also charge it at work, where it's 'free'; but I live 50 miles from work so I can't keep the car charged just at work. The 'free' power at work won't last forever, either.

You may ask "why not get a Tesla?" Good question. It turns out that there are (at my company) 3x the number of electric-ish cars as there are charging stations, so we have to swap them out after just a few hours. The Tesla would take all day to charge. Also, the Tesla is such a lumbering overpowered beast that it gets substantially less miles-per-kilowatt-hour.

Thad

Ah, the usual drivel from Ars

[Badlight]

People don't like electric cars because:

1. They are expensive.

2. They have limited range.

3. They are environmentally disastrous.

Leave it to the halfwits at Ars to completely miss the point.

Re:Range and Price

[TWX]

That's basically where I am now in a sense. My commute is so short that it's actually not economical to go electric at the moment; a good, low-miles used car with a lot of options is more cost effective than the bulk of electrics, but again, there's not really a used all-electric market yet, and those few cars that are all-electric don't really appeal to me.

My wife's commute is longer, and her tastes are different, so an electric might be more appealing to her and make more sense for range and reliability.

As for raw range itself, I want a car that can go 150 miles on a charge. The city I live in is a vast suburbia, and I want to be able to go to the other end of the city without having to charge to come back. 150 miles is basically half the range a single tank of gasoline gives most conventional cars, so I don't think this request is unreasonable.

Re:Range and Price

[naughtynaughty]

There are no "hidden costs", you lease them just like any other vehicle. You can put nothing down, you can get a lease for 10k miles/yr or 12k or 15k or 20k. WIth the subsidies in California you can be paying NET less than $100/mo for your lease, no money down, and getting the equivalent of > 100mpg (more or less depending on your cost of electricity, free for some, more expensive for others). At 1000 miles/mo and using 100mpge at $3.25/gal the cost per mile is about 13 cents. While you amortized the purchase price of your car over 200k miles you neglected repair and maintenance costs. For a new EV those are approx $0 over the 3 year 36k mile lease. The scheduled maintenance on my EV consists of rotating the tires over the first 36k miles. Over your 200k miles you will be paying for a lot of tires, oil changes, brakes, transmissions, belts, batteries, ... Add about another 10 cents/mile for those costs.

Re:Road trips.

[sphealey]

Sure. And you are an outlier:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/...

15 miles one way, 30 miles round trip is the 70th percentile. That's well within the range of a Leaf not to mention a Volt.

And there are some extreme outliers out there, but that shouldn't set either perceptions or policy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

sPh

Re:Idiotic Question! Answer: Price, Range, and ..

[naughtynaughty]

Price, cheaper to lease than ICE equivalent (Chevy Spark EV) Range, meets 95% of my needs, I rent a vehicle 3-4 times a year for the other trips Recharge time, every morning it has a full "tank" and a stop at a fast DC charger takes 10 minutes to recharge Oh, there also happen to be recharge stations all over town but 90% of the time I just plug it in when I'm home and don't bother recharging elsewhere

Re:Idiotic Question! Answer: Price, Range, and ..

[Mr D from 63]

You are working hard to explain/rationalize why the market is not doing what you think it should do. I see you are passionate about EVs. But the market is speaking, and your explanations don't reflect what the market is telling you. You seem to want to ignore/dispute those points that give explanations for the actual market behavior, but you don't offer any your self other than "they just don't get it and here's why". If your rationalizations worked for the greater market, more cars would be selling.

As the product evolves to meet the needs of larger slices of the market, it will sell more.

Re:Idiotic Question! Answer: Price, Range, and ..

[NicBenjamin]

Dude, per the original article:

The array of options can be bewildering, says the National Academy of Sciences' report. Commissioned by Congress, it examines the hurdles to adopting plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). The Academy splits PEVs into four classes: Long-range battery EV (BEV)s like the Tesla Model S, short-range BEVs like Nissan Leaf, range-extended plug-in hybrid EV (PHEV)s like the Chevrolet Volt (which drive on electric power most of the time), and minimal PHEVs like the plug-in BMW i8 (which can perform short trips on battery power alone).

I think the National Academy of Science is a pretty good source for an appeal to authority, don't you?