[More in the genre of: If those stoopid peasants only understood what is good for them!]
A UNIGE team shows that underestimating battery autonomy is a major psychological barrier to buying an electric car.
UNIVERSITÉ DE GENÈVE
What are the barriers to the adoption of electric cars? Although the main financial and technological obstacles have been removed, their market share still needs to increase. In a recent study, a team from the University of Geneva (UNIGE) investigated the cognitive factors that still dissuade many people from switching to electric cars. They found that car owners systematically underestimate the capacity of electric driving ranges to meet their daily needs. These results, published in Nature Energy, open up new avenues to speed up the electrification of mobility in addition to conventional policy approaches.
The increase of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere is one of the main causes of global warming. Among the GHGs is carbon dioxide – the well-known CO2 – of which the transport sector is one of the main emitters. Fossil fuel vehicles alone account for nearly 18% of global CO2 emissions. The electrification of the vehicle fleet has therefore become one of the major challenges of the energy transition.
The number of electric vehicles is increasing in many countries. However, they are still far from having the market share that would allow a significant reduction in road traffic emissions. In 2020, they represented only 1% of the global vehicle fleet, including hybrid vehicles. To meet the 2030 climate targets, this proportion needs to reach at least 12%.
It’s (almost) all in the head
Now that the main financial and technological barriers have been removed (more affordable purchase prices, financial incentives, denser network of charging stations), what factors are still blocking widespread adoption of this mode of transportation? A large part of the answer lies in the cognitive biases and shortcuts of car drivers.
“Until now, initiatives related to the energy transition generally focused on the technological and financial barriers to their realization. Psychological factors have been given very little consideration. However, many studies show that individuals do not automatically adopt the behaviors most beneficial for themselves or society, often due to a lack of access to complete information”, explains Mario Herberz, first author of the study and researcher at the Consumer Decision and Sustainable Behavior Laboratory of the Department of Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the UNIGE.
The solution: tailored information
By interviewing more than 2,000 car drivers of different backgrounds and ages in Germany and the United States, the UNIGE scientists identified the source of the cognitive biases that were holding them back from adopting an electric vehicle. “We observed that the participants systematically underestimated the compatibility of electric battery capacities available on the current market with their real needs,” says Tobias Brosch, director of the Consumer Decision and Sustainable Behavior Laboratory and last author of the research.
In other words, consumers wrongly believe that the autonomy of current batteries is not sufficient to cover their daily journeys. This underestimation is substantial, the researchers estimating it at around 30%. “To reassure people, the solution is not only to densify the network of charging stations or to increase the size of batteries, which require scarcer resources such as lithium and cobalt. It is the provision of information adapted to the concrete needs of drivers that will reduce their concern and increase their willingness to adopt an electric vehicle,” explains Mario Herberz.
250 kilometers, the ideal range
The research team found that more than 90% of car trips could be completed with vehicles with a driving range of 200 kilometers, a modest range among the currently available batteries. “The trend is to increase performance, but we have observed that a greater range, beyond 300km for example, does not increase the fit to daily needs. It would only have a minimal impact on the number of additional trips that can be completed with one electric charge. Increasing the size of the batteries is therefore not a key element in the energy transition,” says Mario Herberz.
This research, partly financed by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy, demonstrates the importance of psychological factors and access to relevant information when implementing the energy transition. It opens up new avenues for promoting the electrification of mobility with scientifically informed interventions, as a complement to conventional policy approaches.
JOURNAL
Nature Energy
DOI
METHOD OF RESEARCH
News article
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
People
ARTICLE TITLE
Counteracting electric vehicle range concern with a scalable behavioural intervention
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
19-May-2022
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Obviously none these people have tried towing a boat or caravan with an EV.
Obviously you’ve never driven a Ford F-150 Lightning that has both substantially higher towing capacity, towing torque, horsepower, and equal if not longer range than a IC powered Ford Pickup. Which is why Ford is selling hundreds of thousands of them a year despite just being introduced.
Price of a F-150 starts at $30.5K, the F-150 Lightning, $39.5K (tax credits available). Range for F-150 (23 gallon tank) at 21 mpg (combined) almost 500 miles, vs. around 300 tops for the Lightning (no air conditioning or heat on long trips though 300 mile range is not a long trip).
Sure, some will be bought, but most folks don’t want to have to worry about what restrictions they may have purshased with a new toy.
Then there’s this quote from the article: “However, many studies show that individuals do not automatically adopt the behaviors most beneficial for themselves or society, often due to a lack of access to complete information”, explains Mario Herberz.”
Well, duh. The entire automobile market is based upon people buying a dream, not a utility. That has been the case for ICE vehicles for a century. Now all of a sudden they need to be worried about charging stations and what is “most benefiticial”? Hardly.
Important omission by the researchers. The huge difference in consequences between running out of fuel and the battery going flat. One requires, at worst, a lift to the gas station and back. The other at minimum, a tow plus a 2-8 hour wait while the battery is charged. on a long trip this would also require overnight accommodation. This massive difference in consequences, one of which can be mitigated merely by carrying a can of gas. The other cannot at all, would give any thinking motorist second thoughts about committing to electric.
Of course, with the EV they could carry a couple of Jerry cans of gas and pull a 25 kw generator on long trips. Would safe having to find recharging stations.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yup. All that towing capacity is absolutely great for a trailer with a generator and some fuel.
The boat or caravan…? Optional.
This is gold.
https://youtu.be/-MJfjrgEq34
If you had an EV F-150, you could tow the Tesla and the regenerative braking would charge the batteries.
Just for the record, I sometimes run the generator in my motor home when driving down the road. The reason is powering the air conditioners on the roof.
See the problem?
The idiot in the video is going to be found dead in the desert.
That Honda in the video will charge 4 golf cart batteries but not run an A/C. I have a portable generator that will run one A/C. My motor home has a bigger Cummins generator that is too heavy to lift without a fork lift. It will run all my electrical loads.
To get it all going down the road at 65 mph, assuming no hills, requires a 300 hp Cummins diesel. A 6% grade put me in the truck lane going 35 mph going up and down.
The range of my RV is 700 miles. I can stay in the boonies for a month.
A 1/2 ton anything is not very good at towing much. It is about getting down the hill safely. Never heard of a fatality getting stuck going up.
Wrong. Of course, it depends on the trim. The ICE F-150 has a greater towing capacity, larger payload capacity and greater range on a tank of gas than the Lightning does.
EVs range drops significantly when you hook a trailer or a caravan on behind them.
And it drops further when you read the owners manual that says the battery should not be depleted below 10% nor charged above 80%. That takes away 30% of the advertised range from the git go.
but…but…but… those are just details!
Or drive in hilly terrain. Or drive into a head wind. Or drive in cold weather. Or need to run the windscreen wipers. Or need to keep slowing and accelerating because of speed bumps. Or stopping and starting for traffic lights. And don’t even mention repsonding to the antics of other drivers…
EV Trucks are like Giant Golf Carts, very useful for hauling things around in a small radius, but horrible once you leave the “course”.
I’d like to see a video of someone towing with one at full capacity on a family vacation trip, say from L.A. to Yosemite. It’s only 350 or so miles, but travels through the very hot central valley, and climbs through the Sierras up to over 5000 feet. A fairly easy day’s drive with an ICE powered truck.
I figure it would take a good two maybe three days. The first obstacle is the 4100 pass on the “Grapevine” you’d need to do with the A/C on. It’s 80+ miles from most of L.A. and almost always hot after May. If you make it over the pass, the downhill regen will get you to Bakersfield.
You’d still have 150 miles and 100 deg. f temperatures to deal with before the next climb. Sounds like a real adventure, but the ids might get board setting at the charging stations, and most of your week off will be burned up traveling.
But if the power goes out in your house you can run the house (if you spent the $2500 to get the correct setup) for a few hours, then wait for the power to come back on to recharge the truck.
My 92 F150 has a 650+ mile range. I have to admit though that the truck has twin tanks and when full holds almost 40 gallons. I guarantee it can tow more than the electric truck. I have towed a 8000lb trailer in West Virginia without any issues other than having to shift out of overdrive on the climbs.
> Obviously you’ve never driven a Ford F-150 Lightning that has both substantially higher towing capacity, towing torque, horsepower, and equal if not longer range than a IC powered Ford Pickup.
As have all but a few hundred at most drivers as the vehicle is in new limited release.
You’ve obviosly never towed anything in your life. “Greater towing capacity” means nothing when your range is reduced to 100 miles and try charging it with a 25 foot long trailer attached.
Try charging it with a 16,500#, 42′ trailer attached after driving 550 miles before looking to park for the night and then ‘tank up’ in the morning.
What’s that? Ain’t gonna happen?
I’ll stick with my Cummins Turbodiesel dually with a 50-gallon tank, thank you very much.
Oh, and if I get a little bit of range anxiety, I’ll just add an auxiliary bed tank that will extend the range another 500 or 600 miles.
And, as pointed out above, if I somehow run out of fuel before reaching my destination 1,100 or more miles away, I’ll just thumb a ride to the nearest exit and get a few gallons so I can fuel up and be on my way.
Badges?Range anxiety? I doan have no steenkin’ range anxiety.I have more range than I am willing to drive in one day.
–
–
Seriously, the EV F-150 is fine for those who understand its capabilities and for whom its capabilities suit their needs.
But the EV F-150’s capabilities don’t suit my needs. Nice try, Ford. Thanks for playing.
P.S. I’m not the only one out there. There are at least 100 other people alone in the RV park where we snowbird who would agree with me. Wanna see some cool, very bad-ass big, big pickup trucks, all makes? Just walk the RV grounds with me in the morning. (And then there are the motor homes with really big diesels and dual tanks.)
I missed this yesterday due to travel. Agree with H.R. having towed with our F150 pulling our 22ft. fifth wheel over 400 miles across northern Montana today in eight hours with stops including one very quick one for gas, No way could I do that with the EV F150.
He was quoting Duane. Not his own view.
Duane, do you have references to support the sales and range numbers?
My contacts inside Ford, in engineering, not marketing or bean counting, say they are concerned about the PR when customers live with real range performance. Their test data says that with a full load in the bed, covered with an aerodynamic cover, range is reduced by 30%. Worse, when towing near full rated towing capacity, the range is reduced by 50% (i.e. – 1/2) on flat ground, more if you’re towing in hilly terrain. The advertised, best case “marketing, not to exceed” range is 230 miles for the standard battery pack and 300 miles for the enhanced battery pack. Those seem like a concern for a work truck where payload and range are primary design goals. And of course, YMMV if you have to run with the heater or a/c on.
I’m sure the torque numbers are good with electric motors, but the horsepower for the base battery pack is less that the high output 3.5L V6.
For charging times, with the standard battery pack, Level 2 charging times of 10 hours with a Ford Charging station (240V/80A) and 14 hours with a 240V “portable” charger. The upgraded battery pack takes longer, up to 20 hours with a 240V portable charger. Those also seem like problems for a work truck where availability is also primary design goal.
Real world experience will tell, but if you have credible references and real data, please share.
Claims for the wonders of electric motor torque never compare electric torque to geared ICE torque. Something over 100 years ago, the gear box was invented to overcome the well established and well known limited torque of ICE engines. Gears are still used for the very same reason.
I’m w/you DHR, but didn’t want to confuse Duane with torque.vs.RPM curves, or gear ratios or power-train/transmission loss or other sciencey/mathy stuff.
Don’t confuse Duane with facts. He’s obviously not operating in the real world or had any classes in physics or electricity.
I’m not sure how many people understand fleet operations. Where different shifts use the same vehicle where will the charging time come from? Reduced productivity?
The F150 lightning has a fully loaded range of 100 miles. Do ot plan on pulling your RV. It could take you a hund miles to find a place to pull your RV up to charging station you can park you truck plus trailer at. Anybody here pulled anything cross country?
In the 80s I had a faulty head light switch over heat and cause a car fire in my garage. That was easy to put out. Parking a full sized truck EV in my garage. It is all in my head, right…
Hey, if your EV bursts into unquenchable flames and burns your house to the ground, I’m sure your insurance company will make you whole, right? I mean unless you’re a pile of ashes in what used to be the cellar I suppose.
My 3.5L Twin Turbo Ecoboost F150 crew cab has a 36 gallon tank. I can head to the wilderness in the high country 180-200 miles away, with a 4000lbs trailer and spend a week hunting and not worry about the return trip. The Lightening will leave me stranded, far far away from a charging station. Maybe if I bring a diesel powered generator to charge it while I’m in the forest….It is a useless vehicle for me but I’m sure it’ll be great as a grocery getter and picking up potting soil at Home Depot – in other words, not useful to someone who would use it as a real truck. Same for towing a boat to the lake.
Plus my vehicle doesn’t have slave labor and child labor involved in making the battery, so I get to drive with a clean conscience.
So no, I won’t buy it, no matter how hard the attempt to sell it.
Hundreds of thousands per year? You must be getting confused. There has been a “Lightning” model in the F-150 lineup since 1993 and they were most definitely gasoline powered. The have certainly sold hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions since then. The 2022 electric version, not so many:
“Ford says it has received more than 200,000 reservations. The company has the capacity to build 15,000 of the trucks in 2022.”
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/ford-closes-reservations-for-f-150-lightning-has-3-year-backlog/
By the end of 2024 they expect to have built around 150,000. I make that 50,000 per year.
Missed the edit.. meant to say an average of 50,000 per year.. obviously this year they will fall short.
@Right-Handed Shark – Yup. The F-150 Lightning has been a Ford SVT (Special Vehicle Team) model for years.
If you bought one back when and spent an extra $5k or so at a speed shop, you could smoke any Corvette made from a stop at a traffic light.
I wound up buying a triple-black SuperCoupe; an SVT supercharged Thunderbird, but I always ‘lusted in my heart’ for an SVT F-150 Lightning.
*ahem* Nice truck *ahem*. Vrroooomm!!!!
That people are buying a handful of them is not in doubt.
However your belief that they are using them to tow things is cute. You will believe whatever you are told to believe.
With the lack of investigative thinking demonstrated by any of the “buyers” of these trucks, it would appear (to me) to be “gotta keep up with the neighbor” type decision-making… OR… just brainwashed Libs.
Introduced on April 26 this year, about 2,000 F-150 Lightning pickups have been manufactured. So that’s a month. I appreciate your enthusiasm, and marvel at the magic of wildly speculative extrapolation into the future.
That’s a month of sales, probably 4 to 5 months of actual build. Obviously the numbers will go up as they get more experience in the plant(s).
It was just introduced so they have not sold hundreds of thousands of them a year. Ford announced that they will up production capacity to 150k units annually, but that was before the huge rise in the price of lithium. There are a lot of truck owners who do not use their pickup as a truck, but there are many that do and they will not go EV because of the diminished capacity of the vehicle when carrying a load or towing. Having a higher towing capacity than the base F-150 but sacrificing 50% of range is not a good option for most. And when towing a trailer in the winter through hilly terrain, good luck.
Is Ford intentionally heading to bankruptcy? Or will the taxpayers be expected to infuse another “too big to fail” company?
From what I could see they built an assembly area for the EV. The body is built and painted elsewhere, probably in the F-150 plant next door which could make all ICEV bodies if the EV fails. The assembly area looks like a vehicle assembly plant that could build other vehicles with the right tooling modifications, which is standard in the industry. The EV capacity has a lot to do with parts availability, not necessarily brick and mortar in the assembly plant. If sales tank they will lose some money but they will definitely not fail. Even the 150,000k sales number is only about 20% of their current F-150 sales.
The Lightning Pro, the most affordable option, has a 230 mile range. This range will be reduced substantially if towing. If I want to tow my boat 150 miles to go fishing in northern MN, what are my prospects of this being a successful trip? No charging available at the public access site. In the fall I need the truck to go deer hunting. I drive 450 miles to my destination to hunt. Then I will drive a few hundred miles while I’m at my remote hunting location. What are my charging options?
Obviously you’ve never read the specs on the Lightning, either.
You’re ignorant, DuhWayne. The range of a standard Lightning is 230 miles. Towing will reduce that range by 50% to 115 miles. However, you would only get that with a 100% full charge taken down to zero. But discharging to zero damages the battery. Also, there won’t be a fast charger exactly where you need it, so you had better be thinking about charging after 80 miles. Unfortunately, getting a full charge takes over an hour, so you’ll probably only charge to 80% in a half hour. Add that to the time it takes to pull off the highway, disconnect and reconnect the trailer (there are no pull-through chargers) and you’ve spent about an hour to get enough juice to go another ~60 miles. That’s about a minute of time related to charging for every mile.
Compare this to my own experience towing 10s of thousands of miles with a gas powered pickup. It could easily go 200 miles before range anxiety set in and fill-ups took 8 minutes.
EV pickups can only do local towing, DuhWayne. I trust that you will learn about this and stop lying.
From the Ford site: “Ford’s new plan includes a ramp to 15,000 vehicles in 2022, 55,000 in 2023, and 80,000 in 2024.”
Reservations are not car sells, and you are looking at reservations through presumably 2025.
Obviously, you have once again failed to verify your facts.
“The research team found that more than 90% of car trips could be completed with vehicles with a driving range of 200 kilometers”
Cool, so I can pay over the odds for a vehicle that only covers 90% of my needs when it’s new, and less and less as it ages? Wow! Where do I sign??
Not only that but the “study” was in Europe where driving distances are a lot shorter. 200km?! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! That’s all of 124 miles. A trip to visit one of my sisters is probably about 2x that, so much for “meeting 90% of needs.” A trip to visit my other sister would probably be 10x that.
I probably couldn’t go to my usual “day trip” photography haunts and get home without adding an eternally long recharge to the trip. Effing useless. It’s not “cognitive biases” that causes people to stick with ICE cars, it’s that ICE cars are far more useful!
In fact, it seems that Ford has achieved its stated goal of making the Lightning better than the gas-burning F-150 in pretty much every way except for outright range (especially when towing).
https://insideevs.com/news/587849/top-gear-test-ford-lightning-texas/
Kiss your Bass goodbye
Ha! I suppose you are in the pay of Big Bass Boats, Bryan? 😉
–
–
Really. Ain’t no bass pro gonna ever use one to go from tournament to tournament. I’m pretty sure it can’t be done if one expects to arrive on time at the next lake for the next tournament.
Wait up… [search on “bass pro using EV F-150 Lightning”]
Okay. Zero hits on Bing.
Or running a bus service…
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-61543634
Potters Bar: Buses catch fire at town centre transport depot
Ho hum, Zig Zag. Yet another EV bus depot fire?
It’s a “Dog Bites Man” story. That’s not news.
Let us know when “Man Bites Dog.”
How dare you own a gas guzzling boat or caravan!
Anyone else get the feeling that we are being pushed into electric cars so that it’s a privilege to drive? The poor in first world nations make more from social security than the average worker in developing countries and can’t afford heating. What chance is there that after phasing out fossil fuels that charging up a car will be cheap?
You will own nothing, and be happy…
Or else.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
There are SO-O-O many who refuse to consider this forecast…even though they have been told it hundreds of times, (or more).
And they can turn off your power and you can walk, peasant!
Not to mention fry or freeze depending on the time of the year. Not to mention walking to the store every day due to inadequate refrigeration.
But you can rest assured, Robert, that you are doing the right thing for society and increasing your social score with the government.
Electric cars do bugger all to ‘save the planet’. Net zero is a very stupid idea. Anyone who believes in this nonsense should stop breathing out, right now!
Exactly. I shake my head when these carbon life forms say we need to ” decarbonize”.
Cognitive bias related to battery range, huh? How about this: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=2447968&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1TCqBBSzbzJ7XA3Na8YAJcdVcOw99cHiZCH3DqaDyMGJZVbTjGCzQYbEk
I think if my car locked me in and spontaneously caught fire, that might have something do with my willingness to adopt EV’s moving forward.
badEnglish
People aren’t as stupid as the supposed elites think. My observation is that the effect exists at all time scales and over geography. For instance, modern scholars, who would starve if they had to farm, fish, or hunt for a living, often assume that people from other places and times are/were too stupid to do the bloody obvious.
People’s choice of vehicle is driven by many factors. The price of fuel is one such factor.
Lately, when gas has been relatively cheap, folks around here tend to drive giant pickup trucks, most of which, as far as I can tell, seldom carry cargo.
When we had arab oil embargoes, people drove tiny econoboxes.
So, what factors would keep people from driving electric cars? Could it be the price?
A while ago, I calculated that the price of gas would have to more than double before switching away from gasoline would make sense. Mind you, natural gas or propane might be a better choice than electric.
If enough people switch to electric cars, the government will lose enough gas taxes that it will slap a mileage fee on the electrics. So there’s that.
So much for rational observations.
Combined with a belief system that judges others based upon personal biases with minimal observation. e.g., “Oh look, that truck isn’t carrying anything… Bet they never use a truck’s ability…”
When you need a truck, nothing else serves as well.
The truck carries in one load what cars require multiple trips for (lower gross vehicle weight which minimize carrying capacity).
My truck has over a thousand pounds of bagged river rock and sand in the cargo bed right now.
It’s easy to unload. I just slide the bags off the tailgate and carry it to where I need it.
Broken bags? I sweep out the back into a bucket.
In a car, you’d have to lean into the car and lift the bags out of the vehicle… By the way, that type of lifting is bad for your back!
The truck tows far greater weights than what cars can safely handle.
Besides the massive wear and tear on lightweight transmissions, suspensions, axles and brakes, towing large heavy boats, trailers, RVs, etc., requires a larger heavy vehicles to safely control the towed object.
If you can only afford one vehicle, you purchase a vehicle that handles ALL of your needs! Not just a vehicle to handle weekday lightweight commuting or a few nearby errands.
No-one believes new vehicle mileage rates. Most rational people know that moving heavy objects always equates to greater fuel usage.
Those light vehicles with highly touted mpg rates promptly lose those high mileage rates when faced with carrying heavy weights or towing anything.
Towing a couple of noisy single person water craft? You certainly do not need an almost useless expensive EV to do that.
Ford F150 EV lightnings? Pfft.
They’re secondary/tertiary play vehicles for rich landowners, not hardworking vehicles ready to work 24/7/365!
So you see a truck driving empty, like most vehicles on the road; doing it’s job handling all of that owner’s needs, including errands and commuting. You do not need to immediately assume the worst of your beliefs.
Both of you are correct. There are people who have trucks that under utililze their carrying capacity. I had a truck for about 15 years and maybe carried loads that I couldn’t have carried in a SUV type vehicle maybe20 or 30 times. My neighbor hasn’t used her truck for truck like stuff since they moved in about 10 years ago. My other neighbor mostly uses his to pull his camper. Okay. I get it. Trucks are nice to have and kind of cool. Also, when you need a truck you need a truck. So I found a place in town that rents pick-up trucks. It’s a trade off between the price of gas/diesel and convenience.
In my neck of the woods, home improvement centers are not more than 10 miles away anywhere in the state. Most of them have pickups you can rent for $20 for 75 minutes. If you have a one-time need to shuffle 100 bags of mulch, you’re covered. Not to pooh-pooh truck ownership, not at all. Currently though, it’s very painful for diesel folks to fill up; we’re at $6.20/gal (US). I know the folks across the pond are laughing hysterically at that price, but it’s all about what you are used to.
I think the best solution for many would be for registration and insurance to be transferrable between vehicles such that “one registration/insurance” covers all your vehicles as long as only one is used at any one time.
Then many could actually afford to have an ICE vehicle (ie truck) for those times when you need it and an EV for the times when you’re just commuting around.
I dont know how that might be policed but it’d be a great interim step towards going electric.
I had that “one registration/insurance coverage for all your vehicles as long as only one is used at any one time” discussion with my insurance agent. And the answer was, first, all the cars have different insurance rates. Pay for the most expesive even though you don’t drive it much? Second, how do you document that only one is being driven at a time, especially if there are more than one driver in the household? Third, have an accident in one and you’re done. You can’t drive any others until you insure them first. Same goes for a whole host of issues, like collision, comprehensive, liability, whatever. How do you drop one off for maintenance/repairs without someone driving one other one, unless you get a neighbor to drop you off? The whole concept doesn’t really work, and is ripe for fraud. Not happening.
It could work if registration and insurance was applied to the individual rather than the car. But there would still need to be a way for unsafe cars to be kept off the road.
As Bob pointed out, since the cost of insuring different types of vehicles varies, there is simply no way to to attach the insurance to the person only.
Insurance is about statistics. The value of the insurance can be set independently of the vehicle if that was wanted.
Around where I live (southern Ontario) some people are getting rid of their large vehicles because of the cost of fuel. link It boils down to a question of how badly you actually need a truck or large van.
In the UK revenue from fuel duty and vehicle excise duty (commonly called road tax) brought in £37 Billion to the UK Treasury in 2019-20. EVs are currently exempt from paying both these charges.
If an EV was released onto the market with a range of 1000km it would be beneficial to almost everybody. The reason seems obvious. After driving 1000km in one day you’d need to sleep, so there would be 12+ hours of recharge time available.
Now let me think, where can I get a solar charger at night so that I am sufficiently green in my life choices……
Another way of looking at this, that range would probably require a 250kWHr battery. Ignore the cost, weight and the mining resources required for your lifestyle choice, that’s all fairy dust to the green cohort anyway.
The other option…. Just make and sell electric cars to the rich who want to show how internally green they are, the car can sit on charge all week and be driven the 10km to the coffee shop in a Saturday morning. The latte on the other hand will be manufactured from cradle to grave using fossil fuels and will in most cases fully outweigh the benefits of elite and their environmental medal.
They buy one car, once every ten years, they buy coffees everyday. I wonder where the true benefits could be found if a change was forced to be made.
Having more charging stations doesn’t impact charge time which wasn’t mentioned. Because of the longer time to charge vs. fill with gas many more charging stations will be needed. Range anxiety doesn’t disappear with more charging stations. Reduced cost doesn’t mean competitive to ICE car cost either. The least expensive EV is still over double the cost of the least expensive ICE car. EVs are a niche vehicle suited for city driving if they can be afforded and charged at home during sleep hours.
EVs also need garages. Many people living in apartments and condos don’t have sheltered parking of any sort.
Only if allowed to park in them. Some have had to park away from the house. GM advised owners to park a certain distance from the house in the past year I believe and some parking garages do not allow EV’s from what I have read.
They need something for a garage that will retain the heat of the fire when it comes.
Like a really big brick oven.
… good sustainable thinking.
You should be on your local sustainability advisory board/commission.
If you’re lucky your BEV will self-ignite when it’s cold out so you can possibly make use of the heat.
A recent article (14th May) in the UK i newspaper quoted the European Automobile Manufacturers Association as saying out of 225,000 public chargers currently available in the EU only one in nine is suitable for fast charging.
The writer of the article also noted that she has had to download 9 apps for the various charging networks encountered whilst travelling in the UK
FORD is set to build a huge new factory in Michigan just for e-cars, seems risky to me. I guess if it does not fly then it can be written off.
Their investment in Rivian seems questionable now that they are selling 8 million shares at a loss. Maybe that’s just a warmup for losses on the EV plants investment. At least they’re doing it with “their” money, and not bailout money. Yet. Another large investor was selling 15+ million shares of Rivian.
Rivian made 1000 trucks their first year. How can you not get rich with such high volumes? At least with those production numbers they can keep saying they have a waiting list.
What about the prevalence of high density living without off street parking? As with other green initiatives such as rooftop solar, home charging an EV is a luxury afforded only to those wealthy enough for a home with a large footprint.
They are getting desperate they must think the public is extremely stupid
The authorities have a well developed program to ensure the ‘education’ of individuals makes them stupid.
They are very impressed with their work so far.
Well, they appear to be correct! Have you noticed the masks?
What are the barriers to the adoption of electric cars? Although the main financial (??? Financial obstacles still exist as EV$ are minimum twice the cost of ICE equivalents) and technological obstacles have been removed, their market share still needs to increase (and where will the materials come from for this necessary increase??). In a recent study, a team from the University of Geneva (UNIGE) <UN(H)I(N)GEd investigated the cognitive factors that still dissuade many people from switching to electric cars. They found that car owners systematically underestimate the capacity of electric driving ranges to meet their daily needs. they need to allow for Worst Case Scenarios not best case These results, published in Nature Energy, open up new avenues to speed up the electrification of mobility in addition to conventional policy approaches
Just …
Increase mining DRAMATICALLY
Increase smelting DRAMATICALLY
Increase mineral processing
Increase Raw Ore (ICE diesel) Transportation Fleet
Increase Refined Mineral Transportation (ICE diesel)
Quintuple electricity generation for production and redouble for full electrification
Quadruple quantity of distribution Transformers with minimum 100KVA sizing (4 house max per)
Increase primary wire ampacity for increased load
Replace and upsize almost every distribution pole for increased weight
Build Thousands of miles of Transmission Lines/Towers to allow for remotely produced unreliable energy to be accessed where it’s needed
Quadruple shipping fleet to transport raw ore to offshore refiners
Quadruple diesel production for increased shipping
All the above may need to be doubled or redoubled depending on the timeframe for full net zero
I hereby pledge to do my part for the environment. I will never buy anything that consumes more resources than necessary.
Careful, if the Eco-Nazis get their way that will include ELECTRICITY.
Tailored information. Sounds Orwellian
These authors are just exploring new ways to brainwash people.
They are (obviously) brainwashed themselves, about climate change and associated issues, and think they are doing others a service by passing on their own brainwashing to the general public.
“tailored information” A strange way to spell “lies,” by commission and omission.
Only Approved Disinformation shall be allowed
Its the average load problem all over again.
A lot of IT failures occur because planners underestimated required capacity. Instead of using peak use, they used average use, to estimate capacity. As a result, every time usage peaks, the system goes down.
Same with EVs. EV ranges are good enough to cover most daily driving requirements. But what about the exceptions? What are you supposed to do when you need to tow a heavy load, drive in exceptionally cold weather, or drive a bit further than usual?
No problem if you have a gasoline automobile. A big problem if you own an EV.
Well Eric, you apply the same rationale that greenies do to meet the problems of night-time solar panels and calm wind days for turbines –
you just install lots more of them!
So, with an EV that doesn’t meet all your circumstances, the solution is obvious –
you just buy 4 extra EVs with different performance specs to cover all eventualities!
Simples!
Yes you can just tow a couple of extra trucks so you can make it back home. Why do you Deplorables need those nasty trucks anyway? Just get a nice high-end Tesla for $100k or so.
Why limit my virtue signaling to just one EV when I can save the planet with 4 of them?
“What are you supposed to do when you need to tow a heavy load”
U-haul or the local equivalent works extremely well. In all the years I have owned a car I have never had one with a tow bar and have also never worried about that fact.
Izaac, never, never, never use your needs, wants and experiences to extrapolate to what other people “should” do. Additionally, consider:
“Around 40.8 million used vehicles were sold in 2019 in the United States. In contrast, only 17 million new vehicles were sold in the same year. As you can see the number of used vehicles sold in the United States in 2019 was double the number of new ones and that should give you an idea of just how big is the used car market.”
Who, pray tell, will be buying used EVs?
Izaac, you have no idea what circumstances other people face. If that works well for you, good on you. But don’t expect your solutions to match everyone elses needs.
Eric,
I am not. But judging from the high percentage of cars driving around without a towbar my solution would appear to match most people’s needs.
Do you EVER take trips of 1000 – 1500 miles? How do you do that reasonably with an EV?
Strawman. Not to carry water for Izaac, but that was not the argument he was making.
Exactly! He may be making a very good point, if the amazing number of U-Haul type locations are any indication.
U-Haul doesn’t rent anything that can actually tow a “heavy” load. The biggest truck they rent has a “Towing Capacity: Up to 10,000 lbs.”
“Heavy” is relative. Based on your response, “heavy” to you is probably a big lawnmower or a few hundred pounds of mulch.
Please don’t make the assumption that just because you don’t need a truck bigger than something that you’d get at U-Haul, that nobody does.
If I read his post accurately, he was stating his own, personal decisions. Considering the number of people living in bee-hive homes nowadays, his solution could very well be applicable to large numbers of people.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics learned that the hard way a few years back with a Census.
This study misses the point entirely. Daily commutes are not the only issue one must consider when purchasing a vehicle. I can only afford one vehicle. It must serve my daily commutes AND longer trips for vacations, visiting relatives, and other duties. I can’t afford a second ICE vehicle just for these occasional uses. Neither can I afford to have overnight hotels for every recharge interval.
The only other option is to have one EV and forego longer trips that its range simply won’t support. This is as valid a reason for NOT buying an EV as for those who were interviewed but didn’t think an EV would meet their needs.
It is simple old fashioned common sense that convinces a person that electric cars are a premature and very costly solution that cater for the rich elite.
Massive EV use is not feasible within the 2030 time limits set by the alarmists.
Biden implied yesterday that high gasoline prices would drive people to get EV’s and he seemed rather pleased with that thought.
Gasoline prices this high or higher won’t cause a massive switch to EV’s (for numerous reasons) but the higher prices will do great damage to the U.S. economy.
I don’t think Biden is interested in reducing gasoline prices. He pretends he is for political reasons but I think he likes the prices where they are.
Biden is a climate change fanatic and he is going to try to force these alarmist “solutions” on us. All he will succeed in doing is tanking the U.S. economy.
The only solution to inflation and the slowing economy is to do everything the U.S. can do to pump as much oil and gas as possible as soon as possible. This will bring prices down and some relief to the “little guy” and the U.S. economy. Remember: It is estimated that when the price of gasoline goes up $0.80 per gallon, the U.S. GDP goes down one percent, and when the price goes down by $0.80 per gallon, the U.S. GDP goes up one percent. The price of gasoline was around $1.84 per gallon during Trump’s term. The price is now $4.59 per gallon. You do the math.
Unfortunately, Biden is locked into his war on oil and gas and CO2 and an all-out effort to pump as much oil as possible is completely out of the question as far as he is concerned.
Biden is a dangerous fool. He is leading our nation down the Road to Ruin over this Climate Change Hoax (among other things). Let’s hope we can stop most of this stupidity after the next election. If we don’t take political power away from the Radical Democrats, we are sunk, and our freedoms go out the window. 1984 is just around the corner. Be careful who you vote for.
“Biden is a dangerous fool. He is leading our nation down the Road to Ruin over this Climate Change Hoax (among other things). Let’s hope we can stop most of this stupidity after the next election. If we don’t take political power away from the Radical Democrats, we are sunk, and our freedoms go out the window. 1984 is just around the corner. Be careful who you vote for.”
Biden has HIS bank. Why would he care?
They are costly, but let’s not go too far and label them “premature,” which suggests they will be “needed” at any point in the future, or label them a “solution,” other than a “solution in search of a problem.”
LOL
Not so long as fossil fuels are used to generate the electricity that charges the batteries.
Yup, Rhoda. In my neck of the woods, EVs are powered mostly by coal and nuclear, with a bit of natural gas thrown in. We have some wind, but my State hasn’t gone into wind turbines that heavily… yet.
The greens and pinwheel sellers have been applying a lot of pressure to install more. So far, they have had limited success, and so far, my State hasn’t had to deal with rolling blackouts or brownouts.
Wishful thinking. There’s a lot of that on the alarmist side.
Just another imbecilic YouReekAlot! press release
“The research team found that more than 90% of car trips could be completed with vehicles with a driving range of 200 kilometers,“
The problem is that I can’t afford to buy a second car just for that last 10%. Also, of course, there are events like the Great I95 Clog Up of last year, which left EV drivers SOL.
Exactly the point. We could use an EV for “around-town” driving, a second car, along with an ICE vehicle for everything else. But what happens when the ICE vehicle has a problem, or is in an accident and the EV now has to be the primary vehicle? It CAN’T BE THE PRIMARY VEHICLE for way too many. That’s the problem. An EV can’t backup an ICE vehicle.
End of story.
> The research team found that more than 90% of car trips could be completed with vehicles with a driving range of 200 kilometers, a modest range among the currently available batteries.
200km out and back?
“Range” isn’t just about distance but also time. The time to recharge is a factor.
I may regularly drive 10 or 20 miles daily or 50 – 100 miles weekly but I often drive 300 – 600 miles. Limiting myself to 200 km or 124 mi before having to stop for hours to recharge at 120v is ludicrous
While the Tesla Quick Charger system is great, it sucks if your car isn’t a $100,000 Tesla. And while Tesla does have the $35,000 model 3, they don’t produce them and you can’t get the $45,000 model 3 for less than $50,000
Even the millions of snowbirds know better. From NY and NJ and farther north in the East, and Michigan and Ohio in the Midwest, there’s no way they want to have to worry about range anxiety going from one home to another. Sure, there’s an EV niche marketplace, but it is a niche.
Quick charge is also murder on battery life.
And you can only do it a limited number of times before being forced into slower charging. Puts you right back in “eternity” spent “charging” as opposed to “driving.” I can fill my gas tank in 5 minutes every time as long as the car lasts.
“cognitive bias” is leftarded stupid speak for “No real human being wants this shit.”. Want me to buy an electric vehicle? Simple! It will have a gasoline or LP gas engine running a generator to supply the electricity. Period. Full stop. And yes. I am the MFer who will make them eat shit and die. Try me.
You sound like a really tough scary guy. Had a chance to ride in a Ford Lightning yet? I see the reviews are pretty good. Maybe you should open that mind of yours before the tough talk. You know… be informed.
The problem is travel during long weekend is problematic because not enough charging stations. Yes car might be good for 90 pct of situations, but the 10 pct of situations are very important.
Yep. I went to Arapaho Basin to ski today and all of the charging stations (I’d guess about 10 as I just glanced) were occupied, mostly by Teslas. Mind you, these are next to a lodge so have the benefit of being a good parking spot. However, range is the number one concern, especially when one has to go over a 12,000 foot mountain pass.
Anyway, I drove my ICE, leaving this morning with a little over a half tank and returning home with a little under a quarter tank. No worries, I’ll fill up later this week.
I’m quite sure the “researchers” (overpaid bought and paid for shills) at University of Geneva were congratulated for their efforts by some morons with a vested interest in the outcome of said study. Same as all the rest of the climate studies using info which left out the real world experiences which would be required by real folks with real jobs. The EV trucks wouldn’t cut it in the real world. Sorta like all the big pickups some folks are driving these days just cuz it makes ’em look cool, or something. Its an ego thing. Same with EV trucks and cars. Useless at most everything except sucking up resources and making somebody wealthier. And giving jobs to academics with useless degrees.
I wonder if the same sort of rubbish research was undertaken in the 1920s & 30s during the transition from horsepower to Horsepower?
No research back then, just sensible common folk being left alone to make individual choices in their best interest.
Ah… where has it all gone?
Unnecessary of course.
Ford made his first self-propelled car in 1896, the second in 1898, the first T model in 1908 and by 1927 (19 years) had built 15 million units in a population of 120 million.
Tesla was founded in 2003 and by 2021 (18 years) had sold 2.3 million units, maybe 2 million in US in a population of 330 million (via Wiki).
When I was in engineering school about 1/2 century ago one of the things we learned is that electric motors are well suited to powering cars. They have a high starting torque that reduces the need for a transmission. They’re more efficient than gas engines, they are far simpler, they can use regenerative breaking to greatly reduce the loss of kinetic energy during braking. The main problem was where do you get the electricity. At that time it was thought that fuel cells would be the answer. That hasn’t materialized yet but lithium batteries seems to filling that need.
I wonder if the roads could be electrified kind of like slot car tracks. So the car can be charging while driving, at least on main roads.
Anyway even if we aren’t concerned about global warming EVs could be a good idea.
The problem would remain in ‘Brandonland’, where do you get the electricity?
Electric motors are good at low speed, however their efficiency drops as they go faster.
Many EVs have a two speed transmission for this reason.
Charging cars from the road has many problems. The biggest being, having to shut the system down every time it rains. Beyond that, why should we drastically increase the cost of roadways, just to solve a problem that never needed solving?
Bingo!
We aren’t concerned about global warming.
“I wonder if the roads could be electrified kind of like slot car tracks. So the car can be charging while driving, at least on main roads”.
That is a well developed option already, David. We call them trams. Very popular in many large towns but completely absent from any rural communities.
While it may be true that an electric motor is more efficient than an IC engine, that’s only if you completely ignore the inefficiencies in getting the power to that motor.
When you compare total efficiency for well/mine to motor/engine, the ICE ends up winning the efficiency battle.
good point!
My understanding is that electric cars efficiency is mostly in urban situations, short runs, stop start. The lack of emissions certainly helps from a pollution perspective – although modern ICEs are very good. In rural situations, the efficiency advantages largely disappear. The extra costs, material requirements, range concerns, recharging times, lack of recharging facilities etc remain.
EVs are fine to have in the mix, people free to choose. When they become a political tool forced upon people by Government intervention, they become an anathema.
Look at this contraption:
Seems legit?
Source:
https://balkangreenenergynews.com/overhead-truck-power-line-starts-three-year-trial-in-germany/
The problem is revealed in the assertion that “…the main financial and technological obstacles have been removed”. For all factors. For all people. For all uses. Anywhere. And you’re an idiot to not see this.