New Poll: Americans Shun Electrics

Cheap shot -1

 

Not sure. With annual avg 15,000mi we are talking 300gal a year in 50MPG Prius, which translates to 200$ a month at $8/gal. With electric you'd be saving $100-150/mo at most.

The range and most importantly charge time are Achilles heal of electric.

 

You are so right!
Some people are paying more on gas per month than the car note. I recently had a conversation with an owner of a Lexus LS 460. He mentioned that besides commuting for work, he had to think twice about unnecessary weekend errands. He does not just go for a drive anymore.

 

Let me clearer, I'd have to go for the $8.00/gal because right now I have no way to plug in a vehicle. If there was tech to swap batteries in a way like gas stations I'd be on board for an EV.

 

No infrastructure, no electric car for me. A car that I can only fuel up at home for 70 miles is not ready for my driving habits. When range, charge times, prices and ubiquity of charge stations are equivalent to a filling up my tank with gas, I'll have a look. Till then, HSD is the best option for me.

Does anyone honestly think fillimg up with amps at an amp station is going to be any cheaper per mile that gas? Once amp stations proliferate they will charge what the market will bear i.e. about the same per mile as gas. So after all is said and done, the choice will be oil or coal. What's the point.

 

Despite $8 gas, according to one prior post, EV's at true cost are extremely expensive in Europe. The implication is here in US we have deep discounts from auto makers and upwards of $12K tax breaks (Fed +State). So I say go for it (I'm pro-choice on vehicle propulsion). The pro-EV argument is largely prospective, that it will be better, cheaper, cleaner, and save the planet, but that's wishful thinking, the skeptics will say. The "cleaner" part of the prospective pro-EV argument already took a blow with the nuke catastrophe in Japan.

 

fewer coal miners blow up planes?

 

I feel pushing ev will push infrastructure which will push cleaner energy sources and grid innovation.

If we don't force the issue it just doesn't happen...hence the dependence on gas for the last century.

 

I just wrote a post in another thread that said the American media does not deal in facts--it deals in profits. Democracies suffer when the public does not get the facts. The problem in our society is facts too often clash with profits. And profits win.

 

Too funny.

 

I agree with this post above and others about the automobile IQ of the public. But, seriously, I would like to know what is so difficult about hybrids, plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles for the public to understand. We live in an era where people acquire their knowledge from watching television. I think there was a poll out last year where up to 51% of Americans still believed that the Prius has to be plugged in(OMG). I can not make excuses for people, it's really not that difficult!

People may not be aware of the fact that the US has 3% of the oil reserve and is currently using 25%, and some leaders say "Drill Baby Drill". I am not a math genius, but something tells me that I am not going to be able to drill the 25% needed for daily use out of 3% reserve in a sustainable fashion. Others may have already forgotten the oil spill in the Gulf. Current bad weather/tornadoes maybe a result of climate change.

 

The public is really smart actually. You have to be really dumb and retarded to buy a electric vehicle with a range of 70 mi and 3-4 hours of charging times, and have a 2nd car for longer runs, and pay insurance and taxes on 2 cars. Yes a plug-in hybrid is a brilliant idea, but not a 100% electric car.
If you believe in global warming you should buy an electric vehicle, and also not heat or cool your house to save the planet.

 

+1...kinda. At first I agreed with 2k1 but then I thought about it. However, here is the problem:

"Anti-electric sentiment" as the article mentioned and "shunning electrics" as the OP posted, is not the same thing as "being willing to wait." This is where I have concern about our people's intelligence.

 

That's great if you are a single car household. We used to be when we worked in the same place, it was nice and I miss it...but, that ship has sailed and we need 2 cars now. If we both happen to only use one of these cars for that pathetic little range then it seems "dumb and retarded" to use gas doing it.

 

I'd rather see oil spills in the Arabian desert than coal ash and methane in our drinking water. And of course we'll need a home for more of those spent uranium fuel rods.

 

Yes and no. Dumb as primary or travel vehicle, or if you daily miles routinely exceed or close to max range. Not as dumb as a commuter for 2-3 car family. It is kinda a niche appeal.

 

Tell it to the people of Gulf coast

 

I love how it just has to be coal or gas...expand your horizons people, it is only those two because we haven't been challenged to do better.

 

doesn't have to.. you can make gasoline out of coal too.

Fischer Tropsch process was created in 1923, extensively used during WWII by 3rd Reich.. presently used in many countries and some US states (WV, MT, etc)

 

No amount of stupid gets an incorrect fact into someone's head. If people believe something which just isn't so, someone got rich telling it to them. Simple as that.