Featured Barriers to EV adoption

I'd own one now, but I live in an apartment so an EV will never be in my future. As for charging stations away from home/work - I'm not quite sure there is one in the entire state of Indiana, and if there was, it's powered by Coal.

 

i'll own one when there are more models to choose from. or maybe a used leaf for the right price in the near future, depending on the size compared to the prius. i only need 50-60 mile range.

 

I got a kick out of the hydrogen car and Jeremy Clarkson comments.

 

Lucid???
Faraday???
those 2 very high powered "Tesla killer" concepts will likely never come to be, based on how much tech trouble they're having. In fact, when they tried to clone the Model X features of auto door open &/or self park at one of the conventions .... well .... let's just say, "crickets".

Yea, that had to be embarrassing.

.

 

LOL, where do i sign up?

 

Hmm Wisconsin 0-0.5% plug in adoption.

so it’s been the same for at least 4 years.

F- grade to Wisconsin’s tax and incentive policies along with F- to plug in infrastructure

 

My guess is you could buy a first gen Leaf for $4-6k with that range or more. Heck, our 150 mile range Leaf is already valued about $13k after less than 20k miles. Tesla's are killing resale value for any other BEV. But they are holding their value very nicely, even the older shorter range ones.

 

i don't think the hatch is big enough. and what would i gain over 90% ev in the pip, and the ability to drive 600 miles without stopping?

 

I see the barriers as being similar to what they were in 1997. 1) Technology 2) embedded infrastructure 3) Not "just like my car" 4) widespread misinformation

I could not afford a BEV until 1999. Faced with owning only one car, it had to be as capable as a typical ICE. Then the Hybrids arrived. In 1990, the California Air Resources Board adopted a regulation requiring that 2% of new car sales by 1998, 5% by 2001 and 10% of all large automobiles sold from 2003 onward be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV's). This is the law that spawned GM's EV1 and Ford's Ranger EV along with the Rav4 EV. They were limited range but good examples of what could be done.

The hybrids fit the niche in that they could do everything any ICE compact could do, and then some. But there was a problem with acceptance. Toyota trained ONE person at each dealer, and only that one person could talk to you about the car. While that was a good way to avoid the spreading of rumors, the other salesmen tended to deflect any questions with vague answers, then they'd tell you why the cars that they could sell were such a good buy.

Common misinformation usually revolved around the traction battery cost and lifetime. People with no information at all were claiming 30,000 mile lifetime and $10,000 cost to replace the battery. Toyota did not help with this, because they had not publish a cost for a replacement battery. They had not needed to sell one. California stepped in with a requirement that the battery be covered to either 100K miles or 150K miles, depending on date of sale. That was enough to assuage the concerns among many prospective buyers.

Of course, the advertising has been atrocious. I suspect that goes back to #2 above. Embedded infrastructure. If they pushed the hybrids early on it would have eaten into sales of their other lines.

Even today, most people don't understand that there are many different hybrid designs. For 17 years I explained to people that the Prius never needed to be plugged it. Now that I have the Prime I have to explain to people that it's best to plug it in, but that it will work properly even if you don't.

Many of the barriers are still there. None of the BEVs are capable of doing everything a similar ICE vehicle does, but they have reached a level of sophistication that lets them outshine the old guard in many areas. It's up to the car companies to start pushing them.

Dan

 

I wonder if over a hundred years ago someone wrote about the barriers to automobile adoption

.

 

Haven't seen examples of such myself, but seen at least one over the concern of CO2 release from burning coal.

 

No because that was free market adoption of new tech.
What is happening now is the suggestion free market destroying human life, so we have to mandate BEV above and beyond the market demand. As if BEV somehow solves the overall sustainability of 10-billion on the planet.prob.

 

There were lots of articles on the subject. There were even various laws passed. Keep in mind that gasoline driven cars were very noisy and smelly. They scared horses. They started fires. They caused infertility in women. They could not go where most horses could, such as steep climbs.

The laws enacted in the 1800s were sometimes innovative, sometimes silly. Virginia had a law prohibiting women drivers from driving up main street unless a her husband walked ahead with a red flag.

Interestingly, the question of infrastructure was a big one in the early 1900s. Gasoline was a hazardous waste byproduct of refining oil to make kerosene for lamps. Roads were seldom paved. The horses didn't mind. The Automobile Associations were first founded to support the creation and maintenance of public roads.

The specifics are different, but the general idea is still there. New tech will disturb the established way of doing things. Someone, somewhere will either make laws or build the infrastructure themselves.

 

Lucid has opened a store in a local mall. (I guess the mall rent isn't real high right now)

Mike

 

It’s going to be survival of the fittest or deepest pockets. Looks like Chrysler may disappear, as the only two vehicles Chrysler is offering at this time is the 300 and Town Country Minivan. PSA (Peugeot) will more than likely be absorbing Fiat/Chrysler and be cutting out a lot of the similar vehicles and start providing them both with Hybrid and Electric technology that Fiat/Chrysler so desperately need to survive.