johnlocke said:
[Snip]
I too tend to drive my cars into the ground. Doesn't mean that I'd be willing to drive a 10 year old car with 150000 miles on it cross-country. Lots of people just need to get to work in the morning and home at night. A used EV might fit their needs even if it needs to to be recharged at a public station a couple of times a week.
Again, the issue isn't what car might suit someone's needs, it's whether it suits their wants. So far even new BEVs meet only a small fraction of the U.S. public's wants (and we still need to bribe most of them), and given the range loss suffered by used BEVs the value for money proposition is even lower.
johnlocke said:
Range might be down but the likelihood of a major mechanical failure would be a lot lower than an ICE.
That depends on the company, don't you think? Given Tesla's QC and lack of long-term testing, I'd be less likely to trust one of theirs than some others to hold up over time.
johnlocke said:
Your older ICE is likely to have lost 10% or more of it's original range just due to wear and tear. Not as bad as an EV but it's still there.
That hasn't been my experience. Given break-in most cars gain some range from new, so any subsequent loss is from that. Even if there is some loss it's minimal, from a value that was more than adequate, and given both the ubiquity of gas stations and the very short refueling time it makes little difference to almost everyone. The BEV DCFC infrastructure may eventually grow to eliminate the infrastructure density disadvantage, but barring a battery breakthough it seems unlikely that the charging times will ever be equal to a gas fill-up for the same range.
If battery range (and longevity) increase enough they may not have to equal the short time for a gas fill in order to satisfy most people. Alternatively, it will cease to be a problem once everyone with experience of a liquid-fueled car has died, so no one will have anything to compare battery charging times with.
johnlocke said:
A 30KWH Leaf probably won't work for them but a 60KWH Leaf+ with a 30% degraded battery might. If you are buying a 3-4 year old car, you expect more out of it than if you buy 8-10 year old car. If you buy anything older than10 years old, you're just buying a beater to get you to work or school.
As to that, the Impala was 12 years old when I got it, and I drove it everywhere, daily as well as on trips to the mountains fully loaded with scouts and their packs. Of course, it was sold to me by my dad, who kept full logbooks showing every dollar spent and maintenance ever done to the car, a practice I've continued with all my cars. The 2000 was nine years old when I bought it, and I lacked all that info prior to then, but had records of everything subsequent to that.
johnlocke said:
None of this explains your fixation on higher L2 charging rates (above 40a) or inadequate L2 charging in public spaces. Here in California, the utilities have been trying to give away L2 chargers to apartment buildings and other public areas. Not many takers. L3 chargers are proliferating fairly rapidly. EA and EVGO both are expanding urban locations. Some of this is due to Volkswagen's Deal with CARB but some is just opportunistic trying to catch an increasing EV population. EVGO in particular is after the Tesla market adding Tesla adaptors to existing stations and improving their point of sale hardware.
Here's the issue as I see it. We need both public and private L2 plus FCs, but cost-wise DCFCs are at least 10 x L2. California alone projects they'll need to add more than 1 million new chargers by 2030 if they're to be able for PEVs achieve 50% of sales by then. Regular DCing increases degradation rates, something that batteries really don't need any more of. OTOH, public L2s that can give you 2-4 days of range in a couple of hours will enhance opportunity charging, while allowing each charger to serve more cars (definitely need occupied but not chsrging fees) while reducing or for some eliminating the need to regularly FC (which should also cost more per kWh than L2).
As to landlords not being interested in installing L2s even if subsidized, of course not. It doesn't benefit them, so as I've noted most will have to be compelled to install them, just as they had to be compelled to provide off-street parking and all the other amenities I've listed that renters now expect to be universal. All of them had to be mandated. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_water_flat
I can't even imagine such a thing, yet within my lifetime there were cities in the richest country in the world where it was legal for landlords not to provide hot running water to their tenants.