frontrangeleaf
Well-known member
In my view, what we're really talking about is "agency".
What do people want in their car? They want the ability to get into their car on any given day, drive to wherever, change their plans in the moment, add a destination, etc, and still be able to arrive at wherever they end up wanting to go that day with a minimum of fuss or delay, in reasonable safety and comfort, at an affordable price. That's "agency".
All the talk about range, charging networks/points, time to charge, cold weather effects, etc, etc, is ultimately about proxies for agency. To the extent that PHEVs can address the agency concerns more effectively than BEVs for enough people's use case(s), we may see them hang on for quite a while. It's not a "range" or a "fill-in-the-blank" question. It's an agency question.
Agency is also context dependent. It depends on what you want to do.
Can you drive today's BEVs across the country? Yes, but you're going to work harder at it (and it will take longer) than you do (or would need) with an ICE vehicle. Even with a Tesla, the current gold standard. That's just cold hard facts. Most people will not look past that.
How about towing? Same answer for qualified BEVs.
How about go off-road? Same answer for qualified BEVs.
You see where I'm going here...
Agency is also the main reason why many people wouldn't be caught dead using public transportation. What you hear is "It's too inconvenient" (or some politically motivated proxy I suppose...) What they mean is "I can't just do what I want to do in the moment." It's also why raising gas taxes is political suicide.
I've spent a lot of time in the last 2 years trying to figure out how to talk to non-EV people about driving an EV. It's been frustrating. Even friends who work for NREL are not open to EVs (!). You end up not having a rational conversation.
It's dawning on me that I need to speak to agency and cost of operation. Those are the concerns that move the needle. Since I've started to cast the discussion in those terms, I'm getting somewhere. Much better conversations anyway, lol. Otherwise, you're just talking past the real issues.
The discussion of PHEVs is similar, or at least related. Until BEVs can resolve the agency concerns that normal (mostly first-world) mortals have re their transportation needs, there will be a perceived role for alternatives.
All that said, no, I'm not a fan of hydrogen. There are too many other alternatives that will be far easier to stand up, including PHEVs based on ICE engines burning typical fuels. I've heard hydrogen pitched by numerous engineering types, and again, I think they're missing the point. Few people care about the engineering perspective, outside of the engineering community.
Personally, I'm coming to experience the hydrogen pitch mostly as a thinly veiled attempt to somehow extend the business model of the currently entrenched oil and gas industries. Who will not go away without a fight. We need to give them something better to do besides hydrogen. (How about they invest in artificial photosynthesis, and begin extracting carbon from the air instead of extremely ancient, long-sequestered deposits?)
My 2 cents...
What do people want in their car? They want the ability to get into their car on any given day, drive to wherever, change their plans in the moment, add a destination, etc, and still be able to arrive at wherever they end up wanting to go that day with a minimum of fuss or delay, in reasonable safety and comfort, at an affordable price. That's "agency".
All the talk about range, charging networks/points, time to charge, cold weather effects, etc, etc, is ultimately about proxies for agency. To the extent that PHEVs can address the agency concerns more effectively than BEVs for enough people's use case(s), we may see them hang on for quite a while. It's not a "range" or a "fill-in-the-blank" question. It's an agency question.
Agency is also context dependent. It depends on what you want to do.
Can you drive today's BEVs across the country? Yes, but you're going to work harder at it (and it will take longer) than you do (or would need) with an ICE vehicle. Even with a Tesla, the current gold standard. That's just cold hard facts. Most people will not look past that.
How about towing? Same answer for qualified BEVs.
How about go off-road? Same answer for qualified BEVs.
You see where I'm going here...
Agency is also the main reason why many people wouldn't be caught dead using public transportation. What you hear is "It's too inconvenient" (or some politically motivated proxy I suppose...) What they mean is "I can't just do what I want to do in the moment." It's also why raising gas taxes is political suicide.
I've spent a lot of time in the last 2 years trying to figure out how to talk to non-EV people about driving an EV. It's been frustrating. Even friends who work for NREL are not open to EVs (!). You end up not having a rational conversation.
It's dawning on me that I need to speak to agency and cost of operation. Those are the concerns that move the needle. Since I've started to cast the discussion in those terms, I'm getting somewhere. Much better conversations anyway, lol. Otherwise, you're just talking past the real issues.
The discussion of PHEVs is similar, or at least related. Until BEVs can resolve the agency concerns that normal (mostly first-world) mortals have re their transportation needs, there will be a perceived role for alternatives.
All that said, no, I'm not a fan of hydrogen. There are too many other alternatives that will be far easier to stand up, including PHEVs based on ICE engines burning typical fuels. I've heard hydrogen pitched by numerous engineering types, and again, I think they're missing the point. Few people care about the engineering perspective, outside of the engineering community.
Personally, I'm coming to experience the hydrogen pitch mostly as a thinly veiled attempt to somehow extend the business model of the currently entrenched oil and gas industries. Who will not go away without a fight. We need to give them something better to do besides hydrogen. (How about they invest in artificial photosynthesis, and begin extracting carbon from the air instead of extremely ancient, long-sequestered deposits?)
My 2 cents...