95% Of All Trips Could Be Made In Electric Cars, Says Study

My roof?

 

That's over-simplistic. Ignoring the fact that the EPA rates the Volt for 35 miles all-electric, range depends on many other factors. The Volt would have burned a fair amount of gas yesterday when we went 38.6 miles (via a pizza place) to visit friends with the temperature at 8F.

According to my fuel log, our main car averages 56.19 miles per day. We live in a small city in a rural state. The numbers makes sense to me.

5% of trips could mean 10% of my trips and 0% of your trips. What matters more is the distribution of the 5% of longer trips, the nature and length of those trips.

In addition, in the USA the group of people who have second cars is quite significant. In 2008 it was found that over 60% of households have 2 or more cars.

Combining the multi-car household with variable trip distribution there is a lot of opportunity to reduce the number of ICEs in use.

For us, a BEV would be a secondary vehicle, due to the number of long trips we do. But not by much, since our commutes make up a good chunk of our miles. Compared to two Priuses it would certainly cut gasoline consumption by a lot more than 1/3. A BEV would cover either of our commutes, a few inefficient local errands, shorter trips out and trips to our friends' houses. Then, replacing the Prius with a PHEV or EREV would have diminished returns due to CS mode efficiency losses. (In the case of the Volt specifically the relative inefficiency of CS mode would make Volt+LEAF lower gasoline consumption by much less than 1/6 compared to Prius+LEAF).

The point of the study is showing that range itself is not a key obstacle to widespread ownership of electric vehicles. It's about battery cost, energy density (and it's effects on utility and efficiency) and the ability to charge the vehicle. Despite all the talk about range anxiety, range is really a long-term issue related to elimination of gasoline consumption.

That's another perception problem. A good set of snows tires meets the needs of many people and costs less.

 

Somewhat simplistic but not overly simple.
For your example if a there and back trip, a Volt would probably have used .14 to .23 gallons accounting for starts due to temp and range (depending on your driving style and use of heating).

Today I did 38miles EV miles (well really 36+2 remaining). Temp was 28. Previous days when it was much colder (5-10F) same trip has been .14 and .20. I've been waiting on the GM fix for "engine starting due to temp" but soon I'll just hack the car to not start for temp.

Then a BEV100 + your other ICE may be better for you.

Yep, the distribution matters. The average american takes 7K in "long trips", but YMMV. Clearly someone taking no long trips should not go for an EREV, but they would probably know that about themselves.

Yep and most the most common configuration of the 2 car households had a truck or SUV as one (or both) of them. Not likely they will trade a truck or SUV for the current generation BEV, so even for many of them a EREV may be a better choice, so they can use it for long trips as well.

Agreed a Prius + Leaf could be better than Volt + Leaf, depending on the milage.

Actually the key obstacle is perception problems, cost is just a perception issue. The average price of a new car sold in America is 31K, car on their new car purchase. With the tax credits they can already afford a BEV or EREV. The 5 year TCO of a leaf or Volt is lower than a Cruze. And for many scenarios they are cheaper TCO then a 10 year old civic! See A free calculator for Economy, Hybrid and Electric Cars for a calculator.

Americans just have to understand both the reality of range and the reality of costs.

 

Which is why GM went EREV instead of BEV. An EV would work for many people, but they won't consider it because of the range anxiety perception.

Toyota could have easily mated the HSD in the Highlander to a 4 cylinder. They partially went with the V6 to dispell the perception of hybrids being weak. Just as Honda made the first Accord hybrid to dispel them being slow.

 

Most of the "80%-95% of all trips" studies I've seen have been done regarding U.S. populations. I don't know about your country though. The study quoted by the OP was done by Columia Graduate students, so it kind of follows they're referencing the U.S.

I don't know about NJ, but in So Cal, a lot of the apartment/condo dwellings have either attached or detached garages, and/or car ports, that already have 120V. So the 26% non-single family resident statistic has no bearing, really. But ... I'd hate to detract from all the hand wringing, so, carry on about how it'll never work.

 

I think that there has to be a distinction made. The article mentions 95% of all trips, not 95% of all drivers. Having lived and worked in NYC for most of my life I've always been sceptical of the feasibility of plug-in technology in high population density locales and also high crime areas.

At present plug-ins are best suited to areas with secure charging opportunities on a private basis. No others need apply. There are huge numbers of drivers in NY, Philly, Boston, Chicago, LA, SF and other major cities who simply have no opportunity now to charge their vehicles securely even if their trips do fall within the 95% which could use electric vehicles regularly.

Now in 20-30 yrs when a charging infrastructure is extended to major cities, apartment complexes, parking garages, etc this might all change. I'd like to see most major cities ban all ICE's within their center city limits. If one wanted to drive downtown it would have to be done in a CNG-powered or electric-powered vehicle. This includes all delivery and maintenence type vehicles.

 

Been there, done that. I've lived all over NYC and NJ. The answer to your question is NONE or next to NONE of the apartment complexes offer any type of secure charging opportunities. Even in the Jersey and LI suburbs the answer is NONE.

In the really high-populated areas like Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and several Jersey cities even parking within a couple of blocks of where you live is unusual. At present for these drivers plugins are a 'NO GO'.

 

Better yet, as we increasingly urbanize, most trips can be done by walking or bicycle, then electric light rail.

 

Hehe. I have solar... it is awesome. Now, how many Americans need second car but don't have one? Really? Virtually EVERY american family has two cars, if not 3 or 4. To drive around a hunking gas guzzling SUV because 1% of the time, someone takes more than 3 people in a car and now they "NEED the room." That's the American way. AWD, which does nothing to help you stop yourself in bad weather (the important thing), you need probably less than 5% of drives. And if you REALLY need it, you should probably stay home. Tell someone to buy snow tires, which actually help stopping, steering and turning, well, that's just silly.

If electric is more efficient, saves you money, and is capable 80% of the time, it makes sense to have one, and have a second hybrid or gas car for the 20% of the time, since you probably will have two cars for a family anyway.

 

It's not just about range anxiety...or high buy-in cost...or lack of charging facilities....or the fact that my Harley has a higher tow rating than most (if not all) EV's. It's not styling, or size either for most folks.....
For me it's a little of all of the above.
Well, maybe except for the styling. I actually don't mind most of the EVs that I've been close enough to put fingerprints on where styling is concerned---but I'm an old fart.

When EVs make more sense for personal transportation, then they'll stop being a cult cause celeb for the well heeled Eco-Chic, and more of us 99-percenters will plunk down for one.

Until then...they'll have to manufacture more studies like the one cited above.

 

No. In 2008, it was 31% 2. About 63% 2+.

 

95% of my trips are under 60mi and can be made in EV. Unfortunately, we average about 5-6 trips a day, with total daily miles in 100-200mi range.

make charging stations as common as gas stations, reduce charge time to 5min and I'll consider.

 

NO GO, eh?
Kinda makes you wonder how there can be any members in Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and several Jersey cities then. And yet . . . if you go to mynissanleaf .com into the "local groups" subfourm ... lo and behold ... there they are ... they're all represented.
It also kinda makes one wonder why there are so many chargers in the areas, too ... because if there's nobody there to use 'em ... it'd be a waste ... and yet plugshare .com shows the chargers are there too.



Maybe they never got the memo that it'll never work work for them. Ssshhhhh don't tell them.

No one's arguing that 5 minutes to refuel with liquid toxic carcinogenic explosives is more convenient than refueling with electrons manufactured entirely at home. That said, Quick Charging it not THAT inconvenient. I've gone from 35% charge to 85% in 12 minutes. Most folks can handle that much inconvenience. It's certainly not as nasty an inconvenience as potentially being impacted by peak oil issues some time down the road. Some folks would rather simply wait for hard(er) times before searching for less convenient alternatives. But right now, the alternatives? They is what they is.

.

 

That's about the time it takes to drink a cup of coffee... So free charge with a cup would make for a nice business model

But seriously: I think quick-charging severely shortens battery life. Any details on this? Or has reality caught up with this assumption?

 

electrons manufactured entirely at home??
not sure what RU smoking, but I'll take 2.

carcinogenic? so are the the plastics your EV is made from. And common household chemicals.. and let's not get started on "clean" coal plants and mercury.

 

I think we're getting closer and closer to the point where EV is a realistic solution for more people.

Tesla, with 450 miles of range and fast charging, beats most gas cars for range. Once battery costs fall 50%, it's game over for the internal combustion engine.

 

I guess that we are some of the of the average Joes and Janes;
95% of our trips, daily commuting and weekend errands, can be done
with ~30 EV range… But 95% of the number of trips only accounts for
~80% of our 17K annual mileage.

I've been closely monitoring the availability of EVs for about 3 years
now. I am a member of both LEAF and i(MIev) forums to get real life
info from actual users, not reviewers and researchers. In the latter
case, you have to be careful. As this string well illustrates, numbers
based on the "average (potential) user" don't necessarily apply to
individual (potential) users. An example: availability of public chargers
would not be a major issue for us, but that's only us. It is a
wonderment to me that there is a public L2 charger within 1/4 mile of
where I work. It is one of only eight public chargers now in the city of
Baltimore. Funny thing though, it is in a parking garage and you have
to pay for parking to get access to it… grrr. But, its there if I were to
need an expensive mid-day charge.

I am both mildly excited and dismayed by what I've learned about the
day-to-day operation of EVs as reported by actual users. Excited to
learn that they are reliable even down to -40ºF. Reliable in the
mechanical sense. But here is also where my dismay originates. At
even 0ºF, range can be reduced to half or more of the makers range
estimates. There are other considerations as well, but this is the major
one.

I know that an EV can work for us and we could buy one right now,
cash on the barrel head. But we wait and discuss what it would mean.
We have driven a LEAF and are on a waiting list to test drive a
Mitsubushi i(MIev) when a test car is available, supposedly in late
February. Personally, I can handle the special considerations,
expectation modifications, and adaptations of routines to make the
jump. But other household users are so willing or perhaps capable…
at least at this time.

I can accept that based on statistical averages up to 95% of the
average vehicle trips could be made in an EV. I can also accept that --
speaking for us, and I suspect many others -- at this time at least 95%
of potential EV users are not yet ready to make the leap. The whole
thing is iffy, and there's a whole lot of education and "I'll believe it
when I see it" and drive it authentic experience necessary before I and
we are convinced...

Isaac Newton would understand; items at rest will remain so unless
acted upon by an outside force sufficient to overcome its resting
momentum, such as the local price of gas going above $4/gal.

 

First to the APP. Many if not most of the icons are outside NYC and it's densley populated environs. These suburbs are some of the wealthiest in the world. I specifically noted that owners would need secure private charging access. Obviously those in the very wealthy suburbs around NYC can afford anything they want.

In NYC, there too one can certainly find the uber-wealthy who can also afford anything they want, heck they can afford to charge an EV in one of their spare rooms and have the butler and his staff carry it out to the curb . True there aren't many like this in relation to the total population but I certainly think that there are enough to fill up a small map on an APP like the one above. But this thread was about the total population and 95% of the trips that could benefit from the use of an EV. That simply is not possible now in NYC, Chicago, Philly, Boston and other densely populated areas that don't have secure charging available.

I'll go along with the statement that 95% of the trips would benefit from an EV.....if the owners had access to secure charging facilities. In NYC they don't....except in rare instances.

 

This post and a few others point out why it isn't quite as easy as saying 95% of trips are short.

The better question probably is what percentage of driving is done on short (i.e., within EV range) trips?

Another question to be asked--also suggested by some of these posts is whether the extra expense, monetarily and environmentally, of having different cars for those trips, or arranging other forms of alternative transport, is worth it.

Would be nice if at some point the answer is yes.

 

...I think you are correct we are talking about two things here: (1) what an EV can do, and (2) what life style changes are needed to reduce energy consumption (eg; go to a model where people do not own big cars, but rent when needed). Right now EV's are best for those who can fit it into their life style, or early adopters with interest, or places like CA that have smog issues, or those who favor one fuel over another for personal convictions.