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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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).

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)

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.

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: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.

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: 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.

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