The challenge of making people buy EV's

Cost is a separate factor. And we are talking about the first car to achieve this milestone. Do you think the 10th model that can go 300 miles also will cost 90K? No.

If you are going to start these stupid threads, you could at least put some effort into understanding the arguments.

 

If its really cool like the tesla S it may If its more like a camry or accord then the price will be much lower, especially if volume goes up.

I'm more inclided to think a 70 mile AER(or what ever the approriate number is) with a flex fuel range extending ice makes more sense. That would allow people to go all electric even farther than the leaf goes since no range anxiety, but fill up fast for those long trips. We may not get many more 300 mile AER cars if people decide EVER is the way to go.

 

The Challenge of Making People Buy EV's?

That seems like simply the wrong question and the wrong answer all rolled into one.

To me it shouldn't be about the Challenge of Making people buy an EV. At least not at this point.

I still think we are early enough in this reality, that it's more a question of inevitability and evolution.

What we have here, in Leaf and in Volt, are early adopters of early available products.

I see it much like early adopters of early automobiles or horseless carriages. At first they are rare, almost oddities, and relatively exclusive. There is a limited infrastructure for support in the form of charging stations. People are hesitant and somewhat fearful of the change.

At first, even when early automobiles were available, you were much better off with a horse and carriage. That's what the environment and world around you was most adapted for, with unpaved roads, few gas stations. But things changed.

Similarly I think it inevitable evolution that things will change. I expect a improvement in the product, an improvement in the infrastructure supporting the product, and an improvement in the acceptance in the product as these aspects move forward.

I also see a tipping of the scales in the great motivator of convienence, as inevitably fossil fuels become less available and more costly.

The rate we all advance on these fronts? Who really knows? But I don't perceive the entire picture so much as a challenge, as I do simple evolution.

 

I almost never read cites. Usually, they're just not worth the time.

Something keeps tickling me about the title of this thread, which is also the title of the article, which is alarmingly enough both accurately quoted and in context.

The challenge of making people buy an EV.
I cannot believe that a member of the Association of ElectroVehicular Enthusiasts (I made that up...I don't recall the actual organization) would grant an interview for an article thusly titled.
I sure as hell wouldn't if I were in the tank for EVs!
It's going to be a loooooooong evolutionary slog for the electro-car. They might not make it all the way to predominance for personal transportation not only because of the fact that there are large technological obstacles to hurtle, but because it is going to be a long evolutionary process and you know what? The ICE has a lot of skin in the game and a hundred year head start.
We didn't leave the stone age behind because we ran out of rocks, we leapt out of it because we found better ways of doing things. Kerosene gained popularity in the beginning of the century not because people wanted to start shipping money to the Middle East all of the sudden, nor was it because of sniveling tree huggers demonstrating against whale hunting, nor was it even so much that the whales were becoming more and more scarce due to over-hunting.
It just got to be a lot cheaper (and less odorous) to burn kerosene than it was to hunt down our oppressed fellow mammals and turn them into lamp oil.
Eventually, we switched on the electric lamp because it was cheaper, cleaner, safer, and yet more economical!
Nobody had to brow beat the folks with the gas lamps to switch to the Edison bulb. Once the technology established itself, and despite a nasty AC/DC "standards" duel, folks pretty much went electric. The consumer actually sought out the newer, better technology!!
Yeah....I know. The hero of the left kicked off the REA, and there's some intellectual wiggle room to draw a parallel between the establishment of an infrastructure, and the replacement of another. Personally, I see a difference. If FDR decided in the 1930’s to replace AC transmission with DC transmission after very nearly everybody already had electricity in their homes, he might have had a tougher time of it.
Yes. That’s a daffy analogy. So is comparing the REA with whatever you decide to call forced spending to install car chargers.
YMMV.
Don’t get me wrong. I have and do support subsidizing the EV, even if it’s a 20-percent cash incentive for rich folks to buy them. I use “rich” here because I read a stat where the median income for EV drivers is deep in the 6-figure range.
YMMV.
Personally? I think that you can get an ICE to burn lots of things that you don't have to haul over from the Middle East and crack into gas or diesel, just as you can make ethanol from lots of things other than corn. There's some pretty cool work in progress with algae and other plant based hydrocarbon production that could actually result in a net carbon sink for the AGW crowd, and they're just beginning to scratch around for things other than gas, diesel, or CNG that you can fit through the injectors of an....ICE.
Ethanol FUD hawkers would have you believe that there are swollen bellied starving kids in rural America because we’re burning corn in our cars, and doing so is wrecking ICEs (which in itself should make ICE haters pretty happy! )
Uh…..yeah.
Trivia Question: Name our country’s three largest health problems. You got it! One of these has to be obesity!!! Look up HFCS and see how it contributes to this. Yes that’s right….High Fructose CORN syrup.
Now….tell me how we’re ripping food out of the mouths of starving babies to feed our cars!
There's nothing quite like 300,000,000 folks who need their tanks refilled regularly to create a huge incentive for somebody to figure out how to fill those tanks without having to throw away an entire national infrastructure and replace it with another one, especially with one that's not quite ready for prime time (yet.)
Again…I’m a fan of EV development! We’ll benefit from the technology!!!! It’s worth subsidizing!!!! Just don’t tell me that I have to roll electric to save the planet, because it’s not quiiiiiiite that simple!!!
At least get us off of coal first so that the EV bashers will stop calling the Leafy Green thing a "coal burner!"
There’s going to be an evolutionary process.
It's gonna be fun to watch!!! And....we might not get it right the first time around. Nikola Tesla was in the tank for DC generation and transmission back when he and Edison fought it out.
Now???
We spend most of our time trying to get AC back into DC to charge and run our consumer electronics. Back in the 80's there was NO DOUBT in any real gadget hawk's mind that Betamax was waaaaaaaay better than VHS.

Oops!

 

That does not make driving 36000 miles a year a good thing, and definitely not a good reason to argue why EVs don't work. You seem to be living in a micro-world model where you rationalize abusing the environment and say its its okay because they pay for your milage.
I do think this sheds lights on your irrational arguments. At lease I can see where they are coming from.

 

Have you been inside a current Versa and a Leaf? I have. The Versa's interior is a joke in terms of quality and appearance to the Leaf's. Well, the "carpet" in the Leaf isn't very good though.

Have you driven a Leaf? I have. I haven't driven a Versa though, but I can safely say lack of NVH of driving an EV like the Leaf is quite different than driving an ICEV.

 

I've read many of your posts and replies to many of them.. Look at some of your H2 threads.. Your arguments about the needs to lots of miles make sense.. you are 1 in 10,000 or so.. and not necessarily representative.

As I've said in many post, right now EVs/EREVs are only cost-effective for some people and even then only for people willing to take a longer term view to invest in the future rather than instant gratification.

Yes, I'd say driving any car 36000 miles a year is abusing the environment. Driving a prius is a tad better, but does not make it non-abuse. Of course people have to do what they have to do to survive. I don't envy your choices, which make be constrained from a long history of short-term optimizing choices.

 

so enlighten us

 

We all destroy the environment in one way or another...but then again that makes US the environment. Humans can think. We can make rational or irrational choices and that is part of the environment.

Assuming we could all agree on the definition of pollution, and if we taxed pollution, people would change behaviors.

Now back to the discussion...

 

Mass, you continue to use very poorly formed arguments. Here, you seem to imply a reader knows nothing about your life choices. But that is not true, we all know that your life choices have resulted in you driving 36,000 miles annually. This is the information you provided.

Now, that is getting off topic, but without additional information, most people would say that it is cray to spend almost 2 hours a day (not taking into account heavy traffic).

In your previous post you accused Drinnovation of 'putting words in your mouth'. Then, later in the same post you state:

.

That is a blatant straw man argument. Drinnovation did not say that you were abusing the argument by driving a Prius, he said that the abuse of the environment was due to driving 36k miles per year.

You have valid points in some of your posts. I am not sure if it is simply a matter of you misunderstanding posts, but I don't understand why you use such irrational discussion techniques.

 

I agree, that's what struck me first about the article. I think EV acceptance is evolutionary. It's not about "Making" people buy them...or accept them. Not yet at least...

 

I am amused by the fact that someone for whom today's EVs are not a good choice would start a thread like this and argue with the rest of us about it. We are all clear on the challenge to get you in particular to buy an EV, but for your circumstance, you would be among the last adopters anyway. Virtually all factors would have to align in your favor: charging availability, charging rate, significant range, high cost of gas, low cost of EV purchase.

Oh, you can do better than a Prius for your 36000 miles per year. Sell it, buy a used Gen 1 Honda Insight for 1/4 of the cost, remove the IMA battery (I will tell you how) and get 60 MPG on the highway. It terms of bang for your buck and limiting your impact, that is the best you can do right now.

 

I did, and no where did I mention cost of fuel or depreciation as a reason I wouldn't want to make the 2+ hour daily commute. My point was the time factor. Spending at least 8% of my life in a car is not something I would like to do.

Was my post confusing? Did you think the point of the critism of the commute was based on financial cost?
No sarcasm, I am honestly curious as I am trying to figure out why you keep arguing against positions I am not taking.