GetOffYourGas wrote: GRA wrote:
I agree that if GM met all of these, that the Bolt would be much more widely desirable. Hopefully one of the several BEVs they are about to introduce will meet the length requirement and the faster QC requirement. The infrastructure is growing despite GM, mostly due to the push by Nissan and BMW. Soon Electrify America (aka VW) will add to that as well.
I'll add that if they really want to get my attention, the car needs to be considerably cheaper, have AWD and greater range. Not expecting any of that before 2020 at the earliest. Oh, and assuming I'm still living where I can't charge at home, convenient public L2 charging that's less expensive than gas - the closest Blinks are reasonably convenient (4.5 blocks), but $0.49 from the wall ($0.54-$0.56 into the battery) is no encouragement to switch to a BEV as long as my 2003 Forester costs less per mile to fuel.
Guy, with those kinds of requirements, it seems clear that you have no interest in environmental benefits or energy security. It seems like you will only switch to EV when it benefits you significantly over the alternative, without having to incur any decrease in the benefits of your current ICEV.
All that said, there is nothing wrong with that per se. But why not just come out and say it?
What I have said, repeatedly, is that any car I buy must meet my transportation needs at a price I can afford - it does not require that "it benefits me significantly over the alternative", only that it provides similar transportation capabilities at a similar price. None of that implies that "I have no interest in environmental benefits or energy security", only that all choices are compromises.
Like many Californians my age I've been interested/involved in environmental issues since the Santa Barbara blowout in 1969, and energy security since Desert Shield, which was when I got seriously involved in designing and selling off-grid (PV/Wind/microhydro) systems. If I weren't interested in environmental or energy security issues, do you think I'd have done that or be:
Living in a small (ca. 325 sq. ft.) downtown studio within walking distance of my routine errands and do my local travel by bicycle and regional by electrified mass transit, or years ago decided to put off taking any more out of state road trips or flying anywhere until I can do so in a ZEV or at least using sustainably produced biofuels, instead of:
living in a large multi-bedroom house filled with lots of energy-sucking appliances and crap I don't need, having kids and driving everywhere, and flying frequently?
BTDT (excepting the kids), long ago decided I wasn't going to live that high consumption lifestyle.
But, like anyone I have limits on what I'm willing to put up with given other options, and I evaluate any vehicle as a transportation tool. If it can't take me where I want to go with adequate convenience and flexibility at a reasonable price, it's unacceptable. While I'm well out of the American mainstream in my lifestyle choices, I do think that my attitude towards transportation is much more representative of mainstream views than is typical of early adopters, which is why I consider limited-AER (20-30 mile) PHEVs as the only near-term option for mainstream car buyers due to their lower price and almost painless conversion. Unfortunately, no PHEV using its AER for short trips will benefit me, the environment or energy security: it's no advantage in any of the above areas of concern for me to travel solo in a 2 ton vehicle however powered, instead of riding a 30 lb. bike powered by me or on an electrified train with hundreds of people on board, which is what I do now. If the added weight/drag of the battery pack also reduces its Hwy mpg and increases its fossil-fuel usage below some other choice for the trip distances I actually drive, and costs more to buy as well, there's no advantage for those uses either.
Not to mention that a PHEV is an interim, transitional technology, and I don't buy cars for the short term - someone like Tony Williams has bought more than twice as many cars in the 6+ years I've been on MNL as I've owned in 40+ years of driving, so we obviously have different standards for the usable lifetimes we require of our cars. If I needed to buy a replacement car at this time that met my needs with the lowest environmental and energy impacts it would be an HEV or PHEV. Subaru's upcoming AWD PHEV (will be on either the Crosstrek or Forester platform, but which isn't known yet) with Prius Prime battery etc. would be an option in that case, assuming it drives like a Subie and not a Prius. But as long as I don't need to replace my current car, I can afford to wait until a ZEV meets my needs.
I use a car primarily for road trips to backcountry trailheads with limited (usually non-existent) electric infrastructure enroute and (especially) at the destination, often in inclement weather. Any car that can't get me to them and back with reasonable convenience and comfort is useless to me, regardless of any other positives the technology might have.