Lots of surveys show one of the primary barriers to EV adoption is range anxiety. I’ve seen people trying to “educate” potential customers out of this anxiety, but it’s pissing into the wind. You’re not going to convince most people to downgrade their current ICE experience while paying the same or usually even more. I think the inflection point is above real world range for ICE. For example my 2016 Honda Civic can get about 7-800km of range on a single tank, and stops are as quick as a few minutes. This provides a lot of flexibility about where and when one stops. The range needs to account for:
The 20-40 minute charge vs five minutes for gas.
The lack of chargers relative to gas stations.
The 30% drop in range in the cold.
Our annual Austria ski trip takes about 30% longer in our Model Y than the Civic. That’s hours extra on an already very long drive, and the Y costs a lot more. That’s a big downgrade in experience. An appalling experience with a family. We won’t be buying another EV until affordable range is above 1,000km (620 miles). I know many current, former, and non-EV owners who feel the same.
There is a market for commuter cars with poor range, but primarily in rich places where owning 2-3 cars is common. These rich places have already bought EVs as they are. Most of the world relies on just one car, if they own one at all. That one car needs to perform well in all conditions.
"Save the planet? Sure, but only if it doesn't slightly inconvenience my leisure activities or make me wait a bit longer." This mindset perfectly encapsulates why we're in such a mess: an astounding commitment to personal comfort at the expense of the planet's future. It's like saying, "I'll help fight climate change, but only if it's on my terms and doesn't affect my ski trips." Because, obviously, ensuring our convenience is far more critical than addressing a global crisis. It’s this precise “me first, planet later” attitude that’s steering us towards an ecological disaster, yet here we are....
Sorry, but if your argument is “here’s a shit product. It’s also more expensive, but you should still buy it because it’s marginally better for the planet,” it’s going to fail to achieve mass adoption. I care very much about environmental sustainability, but I’ve been around the sun enough times to know that the way to achieve that is with better and cheaper products. We should use technology to reduce environmental impact and improve our lives. It’s not one or the other.
So.... if the technology isn't improving your life you continue to use the one that's making everyone else's life worse? Even if you have the means to switch to the marginally less damaging one, that's marginally more annoying? Sounds like serious entitlement to me. The idea that no downgrade is acceptable is niave AF.
So.... if the technology isn't improving your life you continue to use the one that's making everyone else's life worse?
It depends on the cost/benefit analysis. It was part of my decision to buy a Tesla but I am deeply disappointed with the experience. It’s so bad that I want to sell it and buy another ICE. Most people aren’t willing to pay more for a significant downgrade. That’s just reality.
i guess this a pertinent example of why we've got basically zero chance of stopping climate collapse. I've no doubt your position is very much the norm. We're all required to make massive sacrifice to solve this, but very few are willing to make even small concessions)like less convenient driving practices).
Oh well it's gunna be exciting to watch the ship sink at the very least.
At least you acknowledge your shitty position. it's more than most seem to do.
I’m much more optimistic. I think battery technology will progress quickly, and as it improves, more and more people will buy EVs. I think the path forward is not to try to convince people to live worse lives. That’s a losing proposition. We should instead make our lives better and cleaner through technology.
Or, better yet, they could provide the same range in smaller, lighter vehicles with less resource use.
Lots of surveys show one of the primary barriers to EV adoption is range anxiety. I’ve seen people trying to “educate” potential customers out of this anxiety, but it’s pissing into the wind. You’re not going to convince most people to downgrade their current ICE experience while paying the same or usually even more. I think the inflection point is above real world range for ICE. For example my 2016 Honda Civic can get about 7-800km of range on a single tank, and stops are as quick as a few minutes. This provides a lot of flexibility about where and when one stops. The range needs to account for:
The 20-40 minute charge vs five minutes for gas.
The lack of chargers relative to gas stations.
The 30% drop in range in the cold.
Our annual Austria ski trip takes about 30% longer in our Model Y than the Civic. That’s hours extra on an already very long drive, and the Y costs a lot more. That’s a big downgrade in experience. An appalling experience with a family. We won’t be buying another EV until affordable range is above 1,000km (620 miles). I know many current, former, and non-EV owners who feel the same.
There is a market for commuter cars with poor range, but primarily in rich places where owning 2-3 cars is common. These rich places have already bought EVs as they are. Most of the world relies on just one car, if they own one at all. That one car needs to perform well in all conditions.
"Save the planet? Sure, but only if it doesn't slightly inconvenience my leisure activities or make me wait a bit longer." This mindset perfectly encapsulates why we're in such a mess: an astounding commitment to personal comfort at the expense of the planet's future. It's like saying, "I'll help fight climate change, but only if it's on my terms and doesn't affect my ski trips." Because, obviously, ensuring our convenience is far more critical than addressing a global crisis. It’s this precise “me first, planet later” attitude that’s steering us towards an ecological disaster, yet here we are....
Sorry, but if your argument is “here’s a shit product. It’s also more expensive, but you should still buy it because it’s marginally better for the planet,” it’s going to fail to achieve mass adoption. I care very much about environmental sustainability, but I’ve been around the sun enough times to know that the way to achieve that is with better and cheaper products. We should use technology to reduce environmental impact and improve our lives. It’s not one or the other.
So.... if the technology isn't improving your life you continue to use the one that's making everyone else's life worse? Even if you have the means to switch to the marginally less damaging one, that's marginally more annoying? Sounds like serious entitlement to me. The idea that no downgrade is acceptable is niave AF.
It depends on the cost/benefit analysis. It was part of my decision to buy a Tesla but I am deeply disappointed with the experience. It’s so bad that I want to sell it and buy another ICE. Most people aren’t willing to pay more for a significant downgrade. That’s just reality.
i guess this a pertinent example of why we've got basically zero chance of stopping climate collapse. I've no doubt your position is very much the norm. We're all required to make massive sacrifice to solve this, but very few are willing to make even small concessions)like less convenient driving practices).
Oh well it's gunna be exciting to watch the ship sink at the very least.
At least you acknowledge your shitty position. it's more than most seem to do.
I’m much more optimistic. I think battery technology will progress quickly, and as it improves, more and more people will buy EVs. I think the path forward is not to try to convince people to live worse lives. That’s a losing proposition. We should instead make our lives better and cleaner through technology.