Challenging the opinion

[GerryAZ]

Personally, I would never recommend an EV to someone who could not routinely charge at home. The Anderson Group report is wrong in its use of unrealistically low gasoline cost for comparison to charging cost regardless of charging location. Even the high Tier 2 residential rates that Cwerdna quoted are not any higher than gasoline costs for similar vehicles at the present time.

To put public charging needs in perspective, I have over 70,000 miles on my 2019 LEAF SL Plus with only 26 DCQC sessions. 1 of those charge counts was at the factory or dealer and at least 3 counts were from charger errors. I don't remember ever using public L2 charging stations with the 2019, although I used them as needed with the 2011 and 2015 due to range limitations. At 493 L1/L2 and 26 DCQC charge counts for 70,056 miles (4 years of use), the average is 134.98 miles per charge.

 

[MikeinPA]

State by state fuel savings for EVs: https://energyinnovation.org/2023/07/27/ev-fill-up-savings/

I would definitely have to see the actual data Anderson is working from to calculate various costs before even giving their analysis a look. There is no way to actually do the calculations they are doing without a solid set of inputs, and once you have the inputs, the calculations will fit in a single tab of a spreadsheet. Where are they actually getting the data on how much time people spend charging at home versus off-site? How do they know EV drivers are not charging a off peak rates, or how many households are using one L2 install for two EVs? How do they know how much dead heading gasoline fueled vehicles are doing? Collecting this data across the really broad demographics of the US and doing so in a representative manner is a gigantic undertaking. In the meantime, all available data indicates fueling an EV is half or less than the cost of a gasser, maintenance is less, and past the first 20,000 or so miles, the emission are less.

Here is some real data based on my community. Where I live there are lots of EVs and sparse public chargers. Plenty of Teslas, Rivians, Mach-E, Ioniq, Leafs, more Teslas, Bolts, etc, even saw a Hummer yesterday. What public chargers we have are almost always empty. Many of the chargers are free and they are still empty. So, here in an upper income percentile region, everyone with EVs are either deadheading out of the area, or charging at home, probably at off peak rates of less than 10 cents/kwh. The local electricians would charge about $500 to run a new outlet, plus say $600 for a station. $1100 spread over ten or more years, and probably two EVs at some point. That is real data.

 

[WetEV]

EV and fuel taxes were included. Subsidies and rebates for EVSES/installation vary by income as well as location, making any such calc outside of a restricted area and without knowledge of income impossible.

Exactly. Use the highest case taxes and the lowest case rebates. Oh yea, balanced view. Right.

As I pointed out, rebates and subsidies are usually dependent on both area and income, while fuel taxes and EV licensing fees are universal at the state level.

You don't see how not counting the charging rebates is overstating the average or median cost?

Or just happy that it does?

 

[WetEV]

How do they know how much dead heading gasoline fueled vehicles are doing?

How do they know how much deadheading EVs are doing?

I mostly use public L2 at places I'm going to be staying for an hour or more. No deadheading involved at all.

 

[knightmb]

When I reverse calculated what they claim the EVs were paying for charging and it was double or triple the most expensive state (Hawaii) that tainted the rest of the report for me and trying to debunk everything in it wasn't necessary. The report might have some good summaries in it somewhere and even some summaries that can actually be backed up by the data they used, but the report just doesn't pass the smell test for me. :lol:

 

[GerryAZ]

When I reverse calculated what they claim the EVs were paying for charging and it was double or triple the most expensive state (Hawaii) that tainted the rest of the report for me and trying to debunk everything in it wasn't necessary. The report might have some good summaries in it somewhere and even some summaries that can actually be backed up by the data they used, but the report just doesn't pass the smell test for me. :lol:

Well said!

 

[GRA]

Personally, I would never recommend an EV to someone who could not routinely charge at home.

Which is a point the report makes quite clearly (bar free or at least subsidized workplace charging), by showing that anyone who has to rely on commercial charging is almost certainly going to pay more than buying gas.

The Anderson Group report is wrong in its use of unrealistically low gasoline cost for comparison to charging cost regardless of charging location. Even the high Tier 2 residential rates that Cwerdna quoted are not any higher than gasoline costs for similar vehicles at the present time.

To put public charging needs in perspective, I have over 70,000 miles on my 2019 LEAF SL Plus with only 26 DCQC sessions. 1 of those charge counts was at the factory or dealer and at least 3 counts were from charger errors. I don't remember ever using public L2 charging stations with the 2019, although I used them as needed with the 2011 and 2015 due to range limitations. At 493 L1/L2 and 26 DCQC charge counts for 70,056 miles (4 years of use), the average is 134.98 miles per charge.

Which is fine for your usage. BTW, do you have another car for road trips, just use the LEAF, rent or just don't take road trips? And how many kWh did your average of total L1/L2 charging sessions take, vs. your average or total DCFCs?

Now, anyone who cares about the relative fuel cost of gas vs. electricity for a new car will be comparing a fuel-efficient hybrid to a comparable BEV. For the sake of argument, let's say a 50 mpg EPA HEV vs. a 4 mi./kWh (from the wall) BEV. The station where I normally buy gas is a 6 block round-trip (although I usually get gas on my way to/from somewhere else, so most of the time there's no deadhead distance at all), and the price went up a few days ago to $4.80/gal. during the current price spike, so I'd be looking at 9.6 cents/mi. for a 50 mpg. hybrid at current high gas prices. For the BEV, if I use the only L2s in walking distance (that are accessible when I need to use them) overnight, I'd be paying $0.49/kWh, so 12.25 cents/mile; even if the less expensive L2s in walking distance were accessible during the hours I'd need to use them, they're still $0.42/kWh, so 10.5 cents/mile.

Or, I could drive 4.4 or 5 round-trip deadhead miles and waste 1/2-1 hour of my time twiddling my thumbs at a DCFC (assuming of course that there was one both working and available there so I didn't have to drive to a different one, which hasn't always been the case even with my sporadic usage charging BEV rentals), paying (currently, at least until individual EA sites locally start setting their own rates) $0.36/kWh + $4/month (increasing to $7/month on the next bill); ignoring the monthly fee I'm still paying 9 cents/mile. Assuming I'm an average American driver (I'm not) I'd be driving about 1,200 miles/month, so I'd be buying 300kWh/month x $0.36 = $108 + $4 = $112 / 1,200 miles = 9.33 cents/mile, or 9.58333 cents/mile after the $3/month fee increase (Note, I'm simplifying by assuming I'm doing ALL charging locally, since a significant portion of the average U.S. driver's annual miles are on trips where prices of both gas and electricity may vary considerably from local prices. For California, the places where I go in-state prices are usually higher; if out of state they may be lower).

So, for right now given the currently elevated gas prices, provided I'd be willing to value my time at zero and waste several hours a month driving to/from and sitting at a DCFC, I can save myself a whole .27 cents/mile, or $3.24/month; next month after the fee hike it's essentially break-even with the hybrid (someone please check my math, as it's late). Of course, gas prices are far more volatile than electricity, so once they decrease again the advantage will go the other way. With gas at $4.25/gal., as it was about 6 weeks ago if memory serves, I'd be looking at 8.5 cents/mile. Local prices for public chargers have either been static or rose over a much longer time frame, so any price drop for electricity isn't in the cards, at least until there's as much competition among charging stations as there is for gas stations.

Realistically, there's no way in hell I'd be willing to drive to and sit at DCFCs as a matter of routine local use. I do it now because I'm renting BEVs occasionally for trips and want to start them at a standard 90% SoC, as I record range/energy data for each different model, and then at the end of the trip I have to return the car with a certain minimum SoC, typically 70 or 80%, or pay an extra fee.

 

[GRA]

Exactly. Use the highest case taxes and the lowest case rebates. Oh yea, balanced view. Right.

As I pointed out, rebates and subsidies are usually dependent on both area and income, while fuel taxes and EV licensing fees are universal at the state level.

You don't see how not counting the charging rebates is overstating the average or median cost?

Or just happy that it does?

What I see is that the number of possible subsidies and rebates varies so much that it's almost impossible to include them in such a study, which is why I'm concerned only with taxes and fees that apply to everyone in a given area.

Why do you think I'd be happy? I've assisted and encouraged several friends through the process of choosing and then purchasing PEV and EVSEs and their installation, providing them with links to all the available federal/state/local/manufacturer/utility credits/rebates, and none of them have qualified for all of them. Some have qualified for a lot, some far less, but with differing income and tax status, cars, zipcodes, the same utility (PG&E) but w/wo CCAs, there's little overlap among them.

 

[MikeinPA]

To get back on topic, and also address some of the assumptions being used in calculating per mile fuel costs between comparable ICE and EV vehicles, there are the following questions to answer: 1) where are people charging; 2) what is the vehicle make up of the household otherwise and 3) how realistic are EV buyers about the possibility of running out of charge?

If the answer to the first question is "almost always at home L2", and the second is "one or more ICEs are available for long trips", then there is little rational reason for most households to care about the DCFC flavor. People buy and use the EV as part of their vehicle mix, and charge almost always at home according to this study: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/68118/dot_68118_DS1.pdf. Real data! And this also points to a very low fuel cost per mile for EVs versus ICE, with savings in the range of $1000 per year over 15 years https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/202...l-benefit-from-driving-electric-vehicles.html

The answer to the third question will tell us how much emphasis the EV buyer/owner is placing on a perceived weakness of EV--limited range and by extension the availability of DCFC for their vehicle. Apparently far more than is warranted: https://escalent.co/blog/range-anxiety-in-the-rearview-mirror-for-majority-of-ev-owners . So based on consumer anxiety, it does seem very likely that having the most universal DCFC port will drive vehicle purchases. This is either CCS (and carry a NACS adapter) or vice versa. (sorry chademo).

 

[GRA]

To get back on topic, and also address some of the assumptions being used in calculating per mile fuel costs between comparable ICE and EV vehicles, there are the following questions to answer: 1) where are people charging; 2) what is the vehicle make up of the household otherwise and 3) how realistic are EV buyers about the possibility of running out of charge?

If the answer to the first question is "almost always at home L2", and the second is "one or more ICEs are available for long trips", then there is little rational reason for most households to care about the DCFC flavor. People buy and use the EV as part of their vehicle mix, and charge almost always at home according to this study: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/68118/dot_68118_DS1.pdf. Real data! And this also points to a very low fuel cost per mile for EVs versus ICE, with savings in the range of $1000 per year over 15 years https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/202...l-benefit-from-driving-electric-vehicles.html

That's a perfect example of self-selection - people who've bought PEVs did so because they work for them (and because they can afford them). For everyone where that isn't the case, they don't.

The answer to the third question will tell us how much emphasis the EV buyer/owner is placing on a perceived weakness of EV--limited range and by extension the availability of DCFC for their vehicle. Apparently far more than is warranted: https://escalent.co/blog/range-anxiety-in-the-rearview-mirror-for-majority-of-ev-owners . So based on consumer anxiety, it does seem very likely that having the most universal DCFC port will drive vehicle purchases. This is either CCS (and carry a NACS adapter) or vice versa. (sorry chademo).

I don't think it's the port per se that matters, it's having convenient, reliable charging. At the moment, the network that provides that happens to use a specific connector. That many of us feel that connector is technically superior and more elegant is of much less importance than its ease of use and high likelihood of being able to find an available, working charger.

 

[MikeinPA]

That's a perfect example of self-selection - people who've bought PEVs did so because they work for them (and because they can afford them). For everyone where that isn't the case, they don't.

Self-selection? Aren't we are all going to buy vehicles we think will work for us? If I need an F350 pickup, I would get one. And the cost per mile would be way higher. When people buy BEVs, they are more than likely thinking "local commuter, errands, charge at home" . They are now charging at home and not "deadheading" out to nowhere to sit in a parking lot. Their "fill up" costs are dramatically lower than getting gas, and way more convenient. For people with longer commutes and no time to spend charging--they won't buy a BEV. Am I missing something here?

It occurs to me that the charging networks probably have most of this information directly or through inference. They know the home base of the vehicle, and can see how often it pops up on their network.

 

[GRA]

That's a perfect example of self-selection - people who've bought PEVs did so because they work for them (and because they can afford them). For everyone where that isn't the case, they don't.

Self-selection? Aren't we are all going to buy vehicles we think will work for us? If I need an F350 pickup, I would get one. And the cost per mile would be way higher. When people buy BEVs, they are more than likely thinking "local commuter, errands, charge at home" . They are now charging at home and not "deadheading" out to nowhere to sit in a parking lot. Their "fill up" costs are dramatically lower than getting gas, and way more convenient. For people with longer commutes and no time to spend charging--they won't buy a BEV. Am I missing something here?

Since the issue is for what % of the population a PEV (esp. a BEV) is practical, quoting surveys of people who've already bought them isn't useful; it's the total population and the factors preventing the people who haven't gotten one from doing so that's concerning us here. For example, via GCR:

Report: EVs now top 5% of new vehicle sales in 23 countries

. . . The U.S. reached the 5% threshold in 2021, fairly late for a country with so much spending power. EV adoption varies by region in the U.S., lagging in the heartland but surging in a handful of states, led by California. EV sales cracked 15% of the vehicle market in California last year.

In the U.S., cost is a critical barrier—especially as EVs continue to go upmarket and with larger battery packs and longer range. Any sales growth also requires an exponentially larger growth in public charging, due to a number of factors. As Bloomberg notes, the Biden administration has targeted EV adoption with funding for charging infrastructure and a rebooted EV tax credit, but those efforts likely won't be sustained by a potential future Republican administration.

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...ow-top-5-of-new-vehicle-sales-in-23-countries

Standardizing on a single connector (any connector), can only make it easier to find compatible charging, will reduce costs and simplify the transition for newbies. Fortuitously, it looks like we're standardizing on the best connector, but the fact that we're only doing this now and we'll have another decade + of confusion/incompatibility isn't ideal.

It occurs to me that the charging networks probably have most of this information directly or through inference. They know the home base of the vehicle, and can see how often it pops up on their network.

For the people who are members, maybe. For non-members who just pay by credit card, but who haven't supplied the other info that networks typically ask for, it would be a lot more work. Doable, but tedious and maybe not worth the effort.

 

[knightmb]

Self-selection? Aren't we are all going to buy vehicles we think will work for us? If I need an F350 pickup, I would get one. And the cost per mile would be way higher. When people buy BEVs, they are more than likely thinking "local commuter, errands, charge at home" . They are now charging at home and not "deadheading" out to nowhere to sit in a parking lot. Their "fill up" costs are dramatically lower than getting gas, and way more convenient. For people with longer commutes and no time to spend charging--they won't buy a BEV. Am I missing something here?

I agree with this, that's why it's a little beyond frustrating to see studies come out with "Ideal ICE Vehicle vs. Expensive EV with no support" trying to conclude that one type of vehicle is better or more cost effective than the other. If I produced a study where the data came from a single town with no gas stations and the nearest gas station was the next town over 35 miles away, I could write a very good summary on why EVs are superior to ICE along with cost savings, etc. But the report would also be just as disingenuous because I wanted to make a good summary for EVs and just found the "conditions" to make it happen on paper.

 

[WetEV]

That's a perfect example of self-selection - people who've bought PEVs did so because they work for them (and because they can afford them). For everyone where that isn't the case, they don't.

Self-selection? Aren't we are all going to buy vehicles we think will work for us? If I need an F350 pickup, I would get one. And the cost per mile would be way higher. When people buy BEVs, they are more than likely thinking "local commuter, errands, charge at home" . They are now charging at home and not "deadheading" out to nowhere to sit in a parking lot. Their "fill up" costs are dramatically lower than getting gas, and way more convenient. For people with longer commutes and no time to spend charging--they won't buy a BEV. Am I missing something here?

Since the issue is for what % of the population a PEV (esp. a BEV) is practical, quoting surveys of people who've already bought them isn't useful; it's the total population and the factors preventing the people who haven't gotten one from doing so that's concerning us here.

Except the fraction that will select isn't constant. The total population's opinions are not interesting as well, as the factors will change over time.

When 1% of population is driving EVs, the only opinion that matters is the next 1% that is going to double the number of EVs. When 2% and so on. Where GRA's concern trolling fails is that focusing on the last 10% doesn't change anything until adoption gets near to 90%.


Someone that drives to remote places will find the BEV infrastructure lacking, even if ideally placed for the majority of BEV drivers. The majority of drivers that don't go to remote places.

Price of a BEV is likely to fall over time. Sure, didn't during the pandemic, lots of special factors, but the decline has resumed.

In the U.S., cost is a critical barrier—especially as EVs continue to go upmarket and with larger battery packs and longer range. Any sales growth also requires an exponentially larger growth in public charging, due to a number of factors.

Someone else doesn't understand exponential growth. Oh well.

Yet there is a grain of truth there. Exponential growth of BEVs will not require any public charging for some number of cars. Exponential growth beyond that will require faster than exponential growth in charging stations. Not any growth, exponential growth.

Standardizing on a single connector (any connector), can only make it easier to find compatible charging, will reduce costs and simplify the transition for newbies. Fortuitously, it looks like we're standardizing on the best connector, but the fact that we're only doing this now and we'll have another decade + of confusion/incompatibility isn't ideal.

Standardizing on any single connector is a good thing, but it isn't the "best connector". Both connector designs have issues. Notice that this was a decision made by management, not by engineers.

 

[GRA]

Self-selection? Aren't we are all going to buy vehicles we think will work for us? If I need an F350 pickup, I would get one. And the cost per mile would be way higher. When people buy BEVs, they are more than likely thinking "local commuter, errands, charge at home" . They are now charging at home and not "deadheading" out to nowhere to sit in a parking lot. Their "fill up" costs are dramatically lower than getting gas, and way more convenient. For people with longer commutes and no time to spend charging--they won't buy a BEV. Am I missing something here?

Since the issue is for what % of the population a PEV (esp. a BEV) is practical, quoting surveys of people who've already bought them isn't useful; it's the total population and the factors preventing the people who haven't gotten one from doing so that's concerning us here.

Except the fraction that will select isn't constant. The total population's opinions are not interesting as well, as the factors will change over time.

Yet the factors have stayed remarkably stable over time. Price, range, charging speed, access to charging, and battery longevity have rated important in every survey; only their order shifts around slightly from one survey to the next.

When 1% of population is driving EVs, the only opinion that matters is the next 1% that is going to double the number of EVs. When 2% and so on. Where GRA's concern trolling fails is that focusing on the last 10% doesn't change anything until adoption gets near to 90%.

What 90%? The report mentioned up-topic suggested about 50% have or could have home charging. A Plug-in America survey some years back, which has previously been discussed at MNL, put it at 56%. That spread is probably within the margin of error, but whichever number's closer to the actual %, it's nowhere near 90%. And as I've mentioned, here in the Bay Area PEVs reached about 40% of new car sales in Q2, and given sky-high housing costs we've probably got a higher % of people renting (or moving out into the central valley to buy a home, giving them much longer commutes) than in many areas.

Someone that drives to remote places will find the BEV infrastructure lacking, even if ideally placed for the majority of BEV drivers. The majority of drivers that don't go to remote places.[/quote]

Remote areas?? I gave personal examples of how inconvenient and/or expensive public charging is locally, in the CMSA with the highest PEV sales rate in the country, and with massive government support for installing charging infrastructure at the federal, state, and local levels.

These Are The Most And Least EV-Friendly Places To Live In America
Living in St Louis, MO, and thinking about an EV? Maybe don’t bother

Electric vehicles still only account for a small percentage of overall vehicle sales in the U.S. but their market share is growing rapidly and has increased from 2.7 percent to more than 6 percent in the past two years.

But one factor that might be persuading some buyers to make the switch, and others to stick to ICE power, is the availability of charging stations in their city and state. No one buys a gasoline-engined car and worries where they’ll be able to fill it up, but some regions in the U.S. are far better covered for EV charging than others.

ISeeCars analyzed America’s charging infrastructure to work out which cities and states offer the best access to charging points, and also which came off worst. The team looked at both snail-pace Level 2 chargers and fast Level 3 DC chargers as well as separating Tesla and non-Tesla networks. Tesla has announced it will open up its network to drivers of other cars, but it’s only offering access to a small portion of its charging infrastructure.

Some of the results proved entirely unsurprising: looking at the charging stats including Tesla and non-Tesla chargers, five of the top 10 EV-friendly cities are located in California, and the most EV-friendly metro area was San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, which has a total of 14,083 chargers, equating to one for every 465 residents. But Denver, CO, which came fourth with one charger for every 992 residents and sixth-placed Kansas City (one charger per 1,063 residents) both massively outperformed the national average of 2,280 residents per charger.

But we pity anyone in St Louis, MO, who buys an EV with a short range and doesn’t have a charging socket at home. There are only 473 chargers in the entire city, meaning each charger is shared by 5,787 residents. Birmingham, AL, has even fewer chargers – just 296 – but its residents-per-charger ratio isn’t quite as bad at 5,691.

Comparing the figures for chargers (including Tesla chargers) at a state level shows that California has 44,287 chargers to Vermont’s laughable 920, but the Green Mountain State’s tiny population means it has one charger per 703 residents while 881 Californians have to share each plug. At the other end of the scale Mississippi has only 317 chargers, each shared by 9,275 inhabitants.

The numbers are slightly different if you switch the focus to fast chargers, California switching places with Vermont, and Kentucky propping up the states tables, while last-placed metro area, Louisville, KY, offers one charger for every 35,648 residents compared with one per 2,444 in first-placed Fresno-Visalia, CA.

But these figures all include Tesla chargers, remember. Cut them out of the equation and the picture is pretty stark away from the west coast. Louisville has just eight non-Tesla fast chargers, or one per 196,063 residents, although Oklahoma City, OK, does buck the west-coast-centric picture, topping the metro table with one fast charger for every 5,962 residents.

https://www.carscoops.com/2023/03/t...-least-ev-friendly-places-to-live-in-america/

I live 3 blocks from the main downtown entertainment district in my city, and 5 blocks from City hall. The block around the corner from me is all detached single-family homes with garages (most of which, as in most of the country, are used wholly or partly as an additional room or for storing 'stuff' other than cars), bar one small apartment building with its own parking lot, yet every night both sides of the street are lined with parked cars. Remote areas, my ass.

Price of a BEV is likely to fall over time. Sure, didn't during the pandemic, lots of special factors, but the decline has resumed.

Sure, as with any industrial process, but unless they're practical to use, which requires building charging infrastructure, both public and private (MUDs etc.), it doesn't matter. You're limiting sales to only those who own single-family homes or who have reliable workplace (or convenient other) charging.

In the U.S., cost is a critical barrier—especially as EVs continue to go upmarket and with larger battery packs and longer range. Any sales growth also requires an exponentially larger growth in public charging, due to a number of factors.

Someone else doesn't understand exponential growth. Oh well.

Yet there is a grain of truth there. Exponential growth of BEVs will not require any public charging for some number of cars. Exponential growth beyond that will require faster than exponential growth in charging stations. Not any growth, exponential growth.

Since we're now at or very close to the point where the growth curve is at the tipping point, charging infrastructure growth has to be exponential to keep up, else sales will inevitably stagnate at rates far below where they could (and where we want them to grow to) be.

Standardizing on a single connector (any connector), can only make it easier to find compatible charging, will reduce costs and simplify the transition for newbies. Fortuitously, it looks like we're standardizing on the best connector, but the fact that we're only doing this now and we'll have another decade + of confusion/incompatibility isn't ideal.

Standardizing on any single connector is a good thing, but it isn't the "best connector". Both connector designs have issues. Notice that this was a decision made by management, not by engineers.

Would you agree that NACS is the better of the two, and taking everything into consideration, is the best between CCS-1, CHAdeMO and GB/T? That doesn't imply that it doesn't have its own problems, but the fact that it does both AC and DC in one connector, saving both space and wire on the car while lacking CCS' latch that is a possible failure point, and is smaller and thus more handy than all the others are advantages? CCS-2 handles 3-phase which IIRR (please correct me if wrong) NACS doesn't, but it like CCS-1 it has similar size/weight disadvantages. Tesla at least certainly needs to install longer cables on their SCs, but that's not limited by the connector.

 

[WetEV]

When 1% of population is driving EVs, the only opinion that matters is the next 1% that is going to double the number of EVs. When 2% and so on. Where GRA's concern trolling fails is that focusing on the last 10% doesn't change anything until adoption gets near to 90%.

You're limiting sales to only those own single-family homes or who have reliable workplace charging.

Sure. Which is well over 50%. No where close to that yet.

 

[GRA]

When 1% of population is driving EVs, the only opinion that matters is the next 1% that is going to double the number of EVs. When 2% and so on. Where GRA's concern trolling fails is that focusing on the last 10% doesn't change anything until adoption gets near to 90%.

You're limiting sales to only those own single-family homes or who have reliable workplace charging.

Sure. Which is well over 50%. No where close to that yet.

I've edited my previous post to include public charging info by metro area. And as I mentioned, here in the Bay Area we're at 40% or a bit more PEV new car sales % NOW (Q2), and that's a hell of a lot closer to 50% than 90%. California as a whole was at 25.6% (another source says 25.4%) for Q2, up from 21.1% for Q1. The Bay Area's the canary in the coal mine. Assuming the current growth rate continues we may well hit 50% by year's end. The Saudis say they're going to maintain their 1 million bbl/day production cut at least through the end of the year so gas prices may not drop much (bar the usual drop when changing from summer to winter blend) at least until then, so PEVs should have relatively good 'fuel' costs vs. ICEs at least while that's the case. But if people don't have convenient charging, sales will stagnate. San Francisco's something of an extreme case, as 65% of households are renters owing to sky high prices, but housing prices are very high in most of the Bay Area.

 

[MikeinPA]

The entire premise of using a hypothetical per mile fuel cost as a guide for deciding on ICE versus EV is a strawman. The top reason people buy EVs are to reduce their climate footprint, not shave 20 cents off a 100 mile trip. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/13/how-americans-view-electric-vehicles/ The home charger comes with that--it is a lifestyle choice, not a per mile cost. You probably wouldn't accept a study that shows its cheaper to eat out than at home because if you spread out all the cost of having a kitchen (taxes, appliances, electricity, purchase cost of that square footage) a sandwich costs more at home than at a restaurant.

 

[GRA]

The entire premise of using a hypothetical per mile fuel cost as a guide for deciding on ICE versus EV is a strawman. The top reason people buy EVs are to reduce their climate footprint, not shave 20 cents off a 100 mile trip. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/13/how-americans-view-electric-vehicles/ The home charger comes with that--it is a lifestyle choice, not a per mile cost. You probably wouldn't accept a study that shows its cheaper to eat out than at home because if you spread out all the cost of having a kitchen (taxes, appliances, electricity, purchase cost of that square footage) a sandwich costs more at home than at a restaurant.

As one of the people who wants to switch to a ZEV to reduce my climate footprint (more than I already do by having commuted and done almost all of my errands by foot or bike for the past 23 years and living in a small, well-insulated place), cost and practicality are both very important to me. Initial prices are higher for PEVs (unless you qualify for lots of subsidies), batteries won't last the life of the car which eliminates much if not all of the advantage of less money spent on routine maintenance, and as I've shown, fuel/electricity price advantage is highly dependent on both housing/work situation as well as location. Which brings us back to practicality/convenience of public charging, and that's got to improve immensely before PEVs can grow at the rates needed so we can avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Now, I've been renting BEVs for most of my out-of town trips for the past year or so because the inconvenience of charging them is intermittent, and now that they're becoming more available via Turo and especially Hertz, given current high gas prices renting is either break-even or close to it compared to driving my 20 year-old ICE (and cheaper than leasing a new BEV, especially when insurance costs are factored in. Buying simply doesn't pass my value for money test at the moment, owing to both a BEV battery pack's short useful lifespan and the lack of any current BEV that meets my major requirements). But if I had to drive a car on a daily basis as most owners do, a BEV remains both impractical, owing to the time suck of public charging, and more expensive for me for the reasons I've shown, in the metro area with the highest number of public chargers per resident in the country. If that's true here, it's even more true for the majority of renters in the rest of the U.S. who don't have home or workplace charging, and who don't and usually can't afford to buy a car as a 'lifestyle choice'.

 

[WetEV]

When 1% of population is driving EVs, the only opinion that matters is the next 1% that is going to double the number of EVs. When 2% and so on. Where GRA's concern trolling fails is that focusing on the last 10% doesn't change anything until adoption gets near to 90%.

You're limiting sales to only those own single-family homes or who have reliable workplace charging.

Sure. Which is well over 50%. No where close to that yet.

I've edited my previous post to include public charging info by metro area. And as I mentioned, here in the Bay Area we're at 40% or a bit more PEV new car sales % NOW (Q2), and that's a hell of a lot closer to 50% than 90%. California as a whole was at 25.6% (another source says 25.4%) for Q2, up from 21.1% for Q1. The Bay Area's the canary in the coal mine. Assuming the current growth rate continues we may well hit 50% by year's end. The Saudis say they're going to maintain their 1 million bbl/day production cut at least through the end of the year so gas prices may not drop much (bar the usual drop when changing from summer to winter blend) at least until then, so PEVs should have relatively good 'fuel' costs vs. ICEs at least while that's the case. But if people don't have convenient charging, sales will stagnate. San Francisco's something of an extreme case, as 65% of households are renters owing to sky high prices, but housing prices are very high in most of the Bay Area.

Isn't the canary Norway? What's Norway's BEV sales percentage?


Also you need to consider not the whole population, but the subgroup that buys new cars. Renters are far more likely to buy used cars. Home owners are far more likely to buy new cars. The renter crunch is later, 3 to 8 years delayed or when ever the used BEVs start filling up the used auto sales lots. As used BEVs are likely to be cheaper, there will be a real economic incentive to find/develop/build charging.


Landlords will find they can charge higher rent, get better tenants and retain tenants longer; by investing in charging.

Employers will find they can get happier and more stable employees by investing in charging.


San Fransisco has a lot of renters (43.19%) that are car free. I doubt if they are likely to buy a BEV.

https://transpomaps.org/san-francisco/ca/car-ownership