[DrVenture]

Does anyone rely solely on public charging? If so, who cares? Their choice.

EV detractors appear to fixate on the worst possible examples, as if anyone charges strictly at public charging and lives where it is either 110 or -10 degrees all the time. And everyone only owns one car per family.

in reality, it is based on "use case". Here it can get to 110 and -10. It happens maybe a couple weeks a year. I don't know a single family with only one car. So, the use case is that most driving isn't done in adverse weather or long haul. Nearly everyone around me has an ICE to take on road trips. And everyone has a garage to put a charger and charge overnight.

EVs had to start somewhere, and have really come a long way in a decade. In another decade the vast preponderance of complaints will have disintegrated. there was never going to be a situation where this new technology started out perfect, with 500 mile range and 5 minute charge times and no added weight. Fixating on where we are now, while ignoring what it takes to get where we need to be, is hopelessly narrow.

The most anyone can say is that we are not yet where we need to be to satisfy most/all use cases, when compared to ICE. And I have noticed that most detractors are already toning down their criticisms, knowing that things are moving pretty fast, relatively speaking. And not wanting to acquire a case of foot/mouth disease.

Disclaimer: The cost of gasoline and MPG is utterly meaningless to me. If I cared I would not have driven FI V-8s for the last few decades. Then I drove 20,000 miles annually, now only around 3000. Doesn't move the needle. And climate change? I've seen a lot of people with young kids and/or grandkids ignore that whole thing. I have neither, just watching from the sidelines. I figure if people aren't going to help their own offspring...

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by Tim_M56

I think hybrids are a good middle ground until full EV tech can improve more so the daily commuter person can have an efficient and positive replacement for going to work.

I can't imagine how getting rid of regulations will help their adoption or improve their development in the future. Climate Change is staring as us in the face, and is only getting worse for many people. The world needs to reduce its emissions output, and EVs can do that, but in conjunction with efficient and clean nuclear or other options, not putting crap in the air from the start with natual gas, coal, or other dirty options.

I'm not scared of EVs, it's the natural progression of the automobile I think. They can coexist with gas-engine cars. I can see it being a money maker into the future for BMW and other manufacturers for enthusiast projects, like the Cayenne was when it saved Porsche for the 911.

From what I have seen, the best use case for hybrids is for those who drive a lot of city miles. City miles is where the MPG of a hybrid really shines. And to offset the higher initial costs, the more miles the better. I am not sold on all the added complexity though. That can become costly. I totally agree that EV/ICE can/will coexist in a symbiosis, where lower demand for oil helps everyone. And that we are in the midst of a natural progression, with huge potential for BEV, and gains in ICE becoming more complex and incremental.

IRT other arguments, I certainly don't give a rodent's patootie about the exact point when adoption reaches a certain number, or how many people aver that they will never own an EV. Or statistical arguments that ignore specific realities. There are literally millions of people, even in low-adoption rate USA, happily finding EVs that suit their personal situation. Many post their stories here.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I don't think it is Luddism. I think it is economic realism. I think a majority of the market who do not have access to private L2 charging, are the road block.

Your math is wrong.
Historically, 2/3rs of Americans have lived in houses for the past 2-3 generations (65-70% with minor fluctuations). Everyone who owns a house can have an L2 charger plugged into 240V dryer outlet for <$350. Cheap, easy.

That means super-majority of Americans can get easy access to L2 charging at home.

Lowerst home-ownership rates are on the coasts in CA, MA, NY. Those are also the states with above-average EV ownership penetration as well, so theory of mass problems with access to chargers being an obstacle to mass EV adoption is bogus.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The cost per kW is around $0.45, which is as expensive as fueling an ICEV.

Neah.
Cost of electricity is more like $0.15, or ~1/4 the cost of driving on gasoline per mile.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

ICEV are just easier to refuel, people will pay for convenience.

And yet, ICE sales have been flat-lining for the past 5 years, with EVs providing the entire uplift in US vehicle sales.

Originally Posted by BlkGS

I will say, calling other people luddites is a great way to expose yourself as just not being as smart as you think you are.

Lud·dite
/ˈləˌdīt/
1. a person opposed to new technology or ways of working.
"a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
2. historical
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).

If the shoe fits... wear it!

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

EVs arent going to solve climate change, and really dont have much of a net benefit to climate change, so that line of thinking needs to go away if EVs are going to succeed in the short term.

Strawman argument - no-one claims that any one thing will "solve climate change".

EVs batteries may require more natural resources to manufature, but the rest of the body and drivetrain manufacturing is less resource intensive vs. ICE cars. Then it can be fueled with less carbon intensive sources of energy other than oil, to achive carbon break-even at ~15,000 miles.



https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...rs-2021-06-29/


a

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Sounds like they are catching up to Tesla.

To be clear, these are not BMW batteries. The batteries are from either BYD, CATL, or EVE Energy.

Tesla pioneered in-house 4680 cylindric NCM cell format (46 mm x 80 mm dimensions), but has been struggling to produce them with acceptbale defect-free yeild. Those are the batteries that go into CyberTruck and some Model Y's. Tesla's failure to achieve economies with 4680 cylinder packaging has handicapped CyberTruck value proposition and sales.

BYD and CATL quickly ripped off the idea and decided to go even taller with 4695 and 46120 cylinders. It's unclear how well BYD and CATL manufacturing is progressing with those formats.

Yet, it looks like BMW is betting on that form factor.
I wish them the best.

a

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

California has a ban on selling new ICE cars starting in 2035, as would any states following the CARB rules potentially. CAFE fines effectively ban them economically too (look up the fleet average mpg and tell me that's not unofficially banning them). The EU bans the sale of new ICE cars in 2035 as well.

Neither you nor I live in Cali, nor EU.
And hardly anyone takes those "bans" at face value.
Those are political aspirational goals that will be pushed out as necessary.
Either way, zero impact to you or me!

Originally Posted by BlkGS

You're right, we do live in an era of misinformation. Saying there's not regulations trying to actively ban the sale of new ICE vehicles is textbook misinformation.

There are no bans on sale of ICE vehicles in the US of A. Period.
Cali's BS is Cali's BS. Their politicians frequently say one thing and do the opposite.

Don't get your panties in a bunch for nothing.

a

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by afadeev

To be clear, these are not BMW batteries. The batteries are from either BYD, CATL, or EVE Energy.

Tesla pioneered in-house 4680 cylindric NCM cell format (46 mm x 80 mm dimensions), but has been struggling to produce them with acceptbale defect-free yeild. Those are the batteries that go into CyberTruck and some Model Y's. Tesla's failure to achieve economies with 4680 cylinder packaging has handicapped CyberTruck value proposition and sales.

BYD and CATL quickly ripped off the idea and decided to go even taller with 4695 and 46120 cylinders. It's unclear how well BYD and CATL manufacturing is progressing with those formats.

Yet, it looks like BMW is betting on that form factor.
I wish them the best.

a

What is your point? The blog is essentially a BMW-authorized news release about its battery technology it calls Gen 6. Most EV manufacturers use out-of-house battery suppliers, just as they have suppliers for transmissions, engine starting batteries, wheels, bearings, electronics, glass, steel, etc.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Your math is wrong.
Historically, 2/3rs of Americans have lived in houses for the past 2-3 generations (65-70% with minor fluctuations). Everyone who owns a house can have an L2 charger plugged into 240V dryer outlet for <$350. Cheap, easy.

That means super-majority of Americans can get easy access to L2 charging at home.

Lowest home-ownership rates are on the coasts in CA, MA, NY. Those are also the states with above-average EV ownership penetration as well, so theory of mass problems with access to chargers being an obstacle to mass EV adoption is bogus.

Cost of electricity is more like $0.15, or ~1/4 the cost of driving on gasoline per mile.

And yet, ICE sales have been flat-lining for the past 5 years, with EVs providing the entire uplift in US vehicle sales.

a

I shortened your post to save some carbon output by reducing the electrical generation needs to supply the data center where these bytes are stored...

As I stated in my earlier post, trying to ascertain the availability of L2 EVSE for the US population of households is very difficult. I found a relevant study conducted by the NREL, which is a US Government Department of Energy lab. As I posted, the study indicates just 33% of American households have vehicle parking near an electrical energy source. Its NREL's numbers, not mine, and the first of such a study I've found that I don't think is biased either towards or against EV adoption. NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, they certainly would not seem anti EV. The report was published in October 2021, well within the previous Executive Branch Administration's tenure, if you think there may be bias in the reported data.

Making it sound like there is a "super majority" of US households that can just add L2 EVSE for $350 via an accessible dryer outlet is simply a misnomer. While the NREL study states that possibly up to 75% of households could eventually have L2 EVSE.

Just to repost the report's summary conclusions:

"Historically, residential charging has been considered the foundation of the PEV charging supply at low levels of PEV adoption. In this analysis, we show that this is an accurate description of the current status; however, vehicle owner access to residential charging is likely to decrease in the future as PEV adoption spreads to different segments of the population (e.g., to vehicle owners living in a wider variety of housing types and geographic locations). According to our analysis, which is based on a novel residential parking and electrical access survey, 33% of the current LDV stock in the United States is parked close to electrical access. Further infrastructure investment and parking behavior modification both show great potential for improving home charging access; both actions combined could increase charging access to 75% of PEVs, assuming a fully electrified LDV fleet. The national residential charging access projection, which is based on a PEV adoption likelihood model using unique survey data, shows that, all things equal, as the level of PEV stock increases, the percentage of PEVs with home charging access decreases dramatically. This finding reinforces the importance of non-home charging options (e.g., workplace, public DC fast charger) as the level of PEV stock increases. In addition, this projection procedure allows us to estimate residential charging availability given a PEV fleet size in one region, which is an essential input of charging infrastructure planning. Not having ample public charging prohibits the broad adoption of PEVs, especially among those living in multi-family dwellings."

My conclusion from the report's summary findings is EV adoption is greatly tied to both private investment in home EVSE infrastructure (which may include investment in modified parking arrangements for both single family dwellings and apartment complexes, and investment in public charging infrastructure.

The number I use for public charging cost at a notional $0.45 per kW is taken from what owners report on the Mustang Mach E Forum that I frequent. As I previously clearly stated the $0.45 kW cost is not residential electrical rates, which national average is around $0.15 per kW. As TheWatchGuy aptly confirmed using the calculation, $0.45 per kW is as expensive as fueling an ICEV. This drives my point that there is no cost advantage to owning an EV when the owner must rely on the public charging infrastructure to fuel his vehicle.

Your graph of EV sales "uplifting" the entire U.S. automotive sales charts simply shows EV are approximately 6.5% of total vehicle sales in the U.S. (1/15.5). I think that reinforces the position I've presented with the data from the NREL report that EV adoption is greatly hampered by charging infrastructure and my other comments that EV are inconvenient and not cost effective to own (i.e. refuel) if not supported by at-home L2 EVSE infrastructure.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Neither you nor I live in Cali, nor EU.
And hardly anyone takes those "bans" at face value.
Those are political aspirational goals that will be pushed out as necessary.
Either way, zero impact to you or me!



There are no bans on sale of ICE vehicles in the US of A. Period.
Cali's BS is Cali's BS. Their politicians frequently say one thing and do the opposite.

Don't get your panties in a bunch for nothing.

a

While in general, I agree they'll get tossed out, they are still currently on the books. While I personally think the CARB exemption is dead in the water, and CARB will likely have all of its regulatory power stripped, it might not. Writing things off as "political posturing" is a recipe for disaster.

Regarding luddites insults... Not every new tech is good. Remember zip disks? Laser disc? HD DVD? 3d TV? Mini disc? Powerpc architecture? Auto moving seatbelts? Just because one doesn't see a new tech as "the inescapable future" doesn't make them a luddite. They may just be a realist with a background in STEM.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

While in general, I agree they'll get tossed out, they are still currently on the books. While I personally think the CARB exemption is dead in the water, and CARB will likely have all of its regulatory power stripped, it might not. Writing things off as "political posturing" is a recipe for disaster.

Regarding luddites insults... Not every new tech is good. Remember zip disks? Laser disc? HD DVD? 3d TV? Mini disc? Powerpc architecture? Auto moving seatbelts? Just because one doesn't see a new tech as "the inescapable future" doesn't make them a luddite. They may just be a realist with a background in STEM.

Thank you.

[Jodedor]

I am in Silicon Valley.

Many EV owners here are first gen, either on H1B, green card or Citizen.

They came here after college overseas and attended some college here.

I didnt say most, but I said many.

I have seen about 2/3 EV retention rate among co workers...immigrants and natural born citizens.

The 1/3 had concerns over safety or didnt like the quality, charging convenience, repair cost, etc.

I couldnt believe my ears when I was told by someone that he loved the self driving feature of his Tesla so he could check emails while commuting.

There is a market for EVs, but all the makets are not to be filled with only EVs.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Neither you nor I live in Cali, nor EU.
And hardly anyone takes those "bans" at face value.
Those are political aspirational goals that will be pushed out as necessary.
Either way, zero impact to you or me!



There are no bans on sale of ICE vehicles in the US of A. Period.
Cali's BS is Cali's BS. Their politicians frequently say one thing and do the opposite.

Don't get your panties in a bunch for nothing.

a

That is a fact! California or EU will do whatever they do. So will Alabama. This all amounts to pearl clutching, which implies a lack of argumentative foundation. I can still drive a pre-catalytic converter car on any road in the U.S.A. (including California) - fully exempt from emissions, decades later.

My view is that certain people have an axe to grind and having stated an opinion previously, cannot let it go. No matter how much the situation changes. Or how much new information comes to light. Ego defense, pure and simple.

Somewhere there is a fellow who still hates ABS and airbags and we know lots of people won't wear seatbelts. Every single change, has been met with such resistance. This is a big change. Most Americans used to absolutely hate foreign cars and look where we are posting. lol

Tom Petty - "I'm in a Japanese car that ain't gonna last"

I find it all amusing.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Your math is wrong.
Historically, 2/3rs of Americans have lived in houses for the past 2-3 generations (65-70% with minor fluctuations). Everyone who owns a hosue can have an L2 charger plugged into 240V dryer outlet for <$350. Cheap, easy.

That means super-majority of Americans can get easy access to L2 charging at home.

Lowerst home-ownership rates are on the coasts in CA, MA, NY. Those are also the states with above-average EV ownership penetration as well, so theory of mass problems with access to chargers being an obstacle to mass EV adoption is bogus.



Neah.
Cost of electricity is more like $0.15, or ~1/4 the cost of driving on gasoline per mile.



And yet, ICE sales have been flat-lining for the past 5 years, with EVs providing the entire uplift in US vehicle sales.
Attachment 3672380


Lud·dite
/ˈləˌdīt/
1. a person opposed to new technology or ways of working.
"a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
2. historical
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).

I guess we could compare that to "ICEing".

If the shoe fits... wear it!



Strawman argument - no-one claims that any one thing will "solve climate change".

EVs batteries may require more natural resources to manufature, but the rest of the body and drivetrain manufacturing is less resource intensive vs. ICE cars. Then it can be fueled with less carbon intensive sources of energy other than oil, to achive carbon break-even at ~15,000 miles.

Attachment 3672371

https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...rs-2021-06-29/


a

Nice work! Good facts. Nice presentation.

No one with the tendencies of a Luddite, ever thinks they are a Luddite. Similar to folks who are deeply pessimistic, and always call themselves 'realists".

At the risk of being repetitive, I am confident that as the technology progresses, the environmental impact will actually continue to improve. As will manufacturing costs and all things battery, from charge times to weight. A lot of effort is going into just that. Everything has to start somewhere. Both Honda and Toyota are starting pilot lines for solid state manufacturing. We shall see what comes from that.

Who thinks that lithium mining is worse for the environment than fracking?

[BlkGS]

There's also dreamers, who think they can solve the world with their own hopes and dreams and delusions of their own grandeur.

I'm fine with EVs being available. I'm not fine with new ICE vehicles not being allowed. Taking choice away from people, either directly,by financial regulations, or by "political posturing" is bad for everyone, and anyone who doesn't think so is obviously just biased by their investment portfolio.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I shortened your post to save some carbon output

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

As I stated in my earlier post, trying to ascertain the availability of L2 EVSE for the US population of households is very difficult. I found a relevant study conducted by the NREL [...] indicates just 33% of American households have vehicle parking near an electrical energy source.

I saw that, but you never linked the study.
I found this, hopefully it's the same study you are referencing: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81065.pdf

It does not support your claims of only 33% US households with access to L2 EVSE.
Here is what it does state:

• Projection results reveal that residential charging access is expected to remain high (78%–98%) while electric vehicles comprise a small share of the U.S. light-duty fleet (less than 10%)
• In a future where electric vehicles make up over 90% of the fleet, a range from as low as 35% to as high as 75% of electric vehicles are projected to have consistent residential charging access.
• Households without residential charging access may experience higher total cost of EV ownership if non-residential charging options are more costly.

I agree with all of the above, except that 90% EV penetration is unrealistic ... for the next decade at least.

US is at 8.1% EV market share of new vehicle sales in 2024. US has ~3.3 million EVs on the road out of the total of 288.5 million cars currently in operation. Or ~1.1% of total.

So, ~8% of new sales and ~1% of total cars in operation are EVs.
We are well under 10% of total as per NREL study. Or well within 78-98% of residential charging access - lets call it ~88% estimated availability on average.
That number closely matches the results of an actual at-home charging availability (86%) study I will cite later.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Making it sound like there is a "super majority" of US households that can just add L2 EVSE for $350 via an accessible dryer outlet is simply a misnomer.

2/3 of Americans own homes.
I believe 99+% of them have eletricity, and are wired for 120V for consumer appliances and 240V for high-power appliances (fridge, dryer).

Plugging an L2 EVSE into one of the 240V outlets ... is not a challenge for most humans. Minimal dexterity required, or a call to an electrician will do the trick.

I paid $650 for my L2 EVSE 12 years ago when I got my first EV. Plug-and-play installation. They are down in price to <$350 now.

An average US house (and 67% of US homeowners) may not have an L2 EVSE today, but is ~$350 away from having one.
Are we in agreement?

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

While the NREL study states that possibly up to 75% of households could eventually have L2 EVSE.

Sounds consistent with what I am saying: 2/3rds or 67% of US households have a path to easy access to L2 EVSE's at home. It sounds like NREL is bumpting that upto 75%. Close enough.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

According to our analysis, which is based on a novel residential parking and electrical access survey, 33% of the current LDV stock in the United States is parked close to electrical access.

You might be mistenterpreting the above statement.
If you read pages 19-23 of the study:

• 33% - Scenario 2 - self-reporting of study participants identifying "Existing electrical access" to 240V
• 60% - Scenario 3 - "Existing electrical access with Parking modification". In other words, they can charge if they park at a different spot around the house.
• 75% - Scenario 5 - "Enhanced Electrical Access with Parking Behavior Modification". This scenario considers residential charging to be available if a vehicle can be moved to a parking location where the respondent believes new electrical access can be installed.

60% is the right number for respondents who already have access to L2 chargers, just have to park in the right spot. This certainly describes me - I have L2 inside the two-car garage, but my other cars that are parked outside don't have ready access to EVSE. So I move them around once a week ;-).

60% becomes 75% after the other 15% figure out how to plug-and-play an L2 EVSE. Which they know they can install, but haven't yet.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The number I use for public charging cost at a notional $0.45 per kW is taken from what owners report on the Mustang Mach E Forum that I frequent. As I previously clearly stated the $0.45 kW cost is not residential electrical rates, which national average is around $0.15 per kW. As TheWatchGuy aptly confirmed using the calculation, $0.45 per kW is as expensive as fueling an ICEV. This drives my point that there is no cost advantage to owning an EV when the owner must rely on the public charging infrastructure to fuel his vehicle.

I'm sorry, but that is an illogical conclusion.
If 75% of the population you cite have (or can have) access to L2 charging at home, why are you baselining your comparison on the higher commercial charging costs that only apply to 25%?

Here is a more current study of EV owners reporting that 86% charge at home as of 2024:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...302074045.html

BTW, don't misenterpret "59.6% still use public chargers weekly". I am one of those, but my "public charger" is the one in my workplace where the cost is actually lower than my home lectricity rate: $0.06 per kWh (at work) vs. $0.138 (at home).

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

My conclusion from the report's summary findings is EV adoption is greatly tied to both private investment in home EVSE infrastructure (which may include investment in modified parking arrangements for both single family dwellings and apartment complexes, and investment in public charging infrastructure.

You treat EV ownership and charging infrastructre as chicken-and-egg problem.
It is not.
You buy an EV and you buy an L2 EVSE on the same day. For 75% of the population (per your study) or 86% (the other one I found), that solves the home charging problem and delivers 1:4 energy cost savings per mile.

For the other 14% - I don't know what they were thinking. I would not recommend owning an EV if you can't charge it at home. But someone (14% ?) clearly disagree.

Hope this clarifies,
a

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by afadeev

I saw that, but you never linked the study.
I found this, hopefully it's the same study you are referencing: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81065.pdf

It does not support your claims of only 33% US households with access to L2 EVSE.
Here is what it does state:

• Projection results reveal that residential charging access is expected to remain high (78%–98%) while electric vehicles comprise a small share of the U.S. light-duty fleet (less than 10%)
• In a future where electric vehicles make up over 90% of the fleet, a range from as low as 35% to as high as 75% of electric vehicles are projected to have consistent residential charging access.
• Households without residential charging access may experience higher total cost of EV ownership if non-residential charging options are more costly.

I agree with all of the above, except that 90% EV penetration is unrealistic ... for the next decade at least.

US is at 8.1% EV market share of new vehicle sales in 2024. US has ~3.3 million EVs on the road out of the total of 288.5 million cars currently in operation. Or ~1.1% of total.

So, ~8% of new sales and ~1% of total cars in operation are EVs.
We are well under 10% of total as per NREL study. Or well within 78-98% of residential charging access - lets call it ~88% estimated availability on average.
That number closely matches the results of an actual at-home charging availability (86%) study I will site later.



2/3 of Americans own homes.
I believe 99+% of them have eletricity, and are wired for 120V for consumer appliances and 240V for high-power appliances (fridge, dryer).

Plugging an L2 EVSE into one of the 240V outlets ... is not a challenge for most humans. Minimal dexterity required, or a call to an electrician will do the trick.

I paid $650 for my L2 EVSE 12 years ago when I got my first EV. Plug-and-play installation. They are down in price to <$350 now.

An average US house (and 67% of US homeowners) may not have an L2 EVSE today, but is ~$350 away from having one.
Are we in agreement?



Sounds consistent with what I am saying: 2/3rds or 67% of US households have a path to easy access to L2 EVSE's at home. It sounds like NREL is bumpting that upto 75%. Close enough.



You might be mistenterpreting the above statement.
If you read pages 19-23 of the study:

• 33% - Scenario 2 - self-reporting of study participants identifying "Existing electrical access" to 240V
• 60% - Scenario 3 - "Existing electrical access with Parking modification". In other words, they can charge if they park at a different spot around the house.
• 75% - Scenario 5 - "Enhanced Electrical Access with Parking Behavior Modification". This scenario considers residential charging to be available if a vehicle can be moved to a parking location where the respondent believes new electrical access can be installed.

60% is the right number for respondents who already have access to L2 chargers, just have to park in the right spot. This certainly describes me - I have L2 inside the two-car garage, but my other cars that are parked outside don't have ready access to EVSE. So I move them around once a week ;-).

60% becomes 75% after the other 15% figure out how to plug-and-play an L2 EVSE. Which they know they can install, but haven't yet.



I'm sorry, but that is an illogical conclusion.
If 75% of the population you cite have (or can have) access to L2 charging at home, why are you baselining your comparison on the higher commercial charging costs that only apply to 25%?

Here is a more current study of EV owners reporting that 86% charge at home as of 2024:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...302074045.html

BTW, don't misenterpret "59.6% still use public chargers weekly". I am one of those, but my "public charger" is the one in my workplace where the cost is actually lower than my home lectricity rate: $0.06 per kWh (at work) vs. $0.138 (at home).



You treat EV ownership and charging infrastructre as chicken-and-egg problem.
It is not.
You buy an EV and you buy an L2 EVSE on the same day. For 75% of the population (per your study) or 86% (the other one I found), that solves the home charging problem and delivers 1:4 energy cost savings per mile.

For the other 14% - I don't know what they were thinking. I would not recommend owning an EV if you can't charge it at home. But someone (14% ?) clearly disagree.

Hope this clarifies,
a

The NREL study said once the US private fleet is at 90% EV, 75% of those vehicles will be charge-at-home. The study said to get from the current 33% availability of parking near an electrical energy source to 75% will take modification to either or both the parking site and/or the electrical energy source. That is the topic of discussion, the cost of modification. You implied it's $350 and plugging into an existing 240V dryer outlet. Nope, it's not that simple.

Citing the statistic that 86% of EV are charged at home is misleading. That just means 86% of people who alreadly bought an EV charge at home, which is immaterial to the discussion. The discussion is how does the other 92% of the market adopt EV as their next vehicle purchase. The road blocks are private L2 charging availability, public charging availability and cost, and electric vehicle MSRP.

[FC4]

I’ve had an EV in the household for about 5 years collectively. I’ve never even touched a public charger.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by afadeev

I saw that, but you never linked the study.
I found this, hopefully it's the same study you are referencing: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81065.pdf

It does not support your claims of only 33% US households with access to L2 EVSE.
Here is what it does state:

• Projection results reveal that residential charging access is expected to remain high (78%–98%) while electric vehicles comprise a small share of the U.S. light-duty fleet (less than 10%)
• In a future where electric vehicles make up over 90% of the fleet, a range from as low as 35% to as high as 75% of electric vehicles are projected to have consistent residential charging access.
• Households without residential charging access may experience higher total cost of EV ownership if non-residential charging options are more costly.

I agree with all of the above, except that 90% EV penetration is unrealistic ... for the next decade at least.

US is at 8.1% EV market share of new vehicle sales in 2024. US has ~3.3 million EVs on the road out of the total of 288.5 million cars currently in operation. Or ~1.1% of total.

So, ~8% of new sales and ~1% of total cars in operation are EVs.
We are well under 10% of total as per NREL study. Or well within 78-98% of residential charging access - lets call it ~88% estimated availability on average.
That number closely matches the results of an actual at-home charging availability (86%) study I will site later.



2/3 of Americans own homes.
I believe 99+% of them have eletricity, and are wired for 120V for consumer appliances and 240V for high-power appliances (fridge, dryer).

Plugging an L2 EVSE into one of the 240V outlets ... is not a challenge for most humans. Minimal dexterity required, or a call to an electrician will do the trick.

I paid $650 for my L2 EVSE 12 years ago when I got my first EV. Plug-and-play installation. They are down in price to <$350 now.

An average US house (and 67% of US homeowners) may not have an L2 EVSE today, but is ~$350 away from having one.
Are we in agreement?



Sounds consistent with what I am saying: 2/3rds or 67% of US households have a path to easy access to L2 EVSE's at home. It sounds like NREL is bumpting that upto 75%. Close enough.



You might be mistenterpreting the above statement.
If you read pages 19-23 of the study:

• 33% - Scenario 2 - self-reporting of study participants identifying "Existing electrical access" to 240V
• 60% - Scenario 3 - "Existing electrical access with Parking modification". In other words, they can charge if they park at a different spot around the house.
• 75% - Scenario 5 - "Enhanced Electrical Access with Parking Behavior Modification". This scenario considers residential charging to be available if a vehicle can be moved to a parking location where the respondent believes new electrical access can be installed.

60% is the right number for respondents who already have access to L2 chargers, just have to park in the right spot. This certainly describes me - I have L2 inside the two-car garage, but my other cars that are parked outside don't have ready access to EVSE. So I move them around once a week ;-).

60% becomes 75% after the other 15% figure out how to plug-and-play an L2 EVSE. Which they know they can install, but haven't yet.



I'm sorry, but that is an illogical conclusion.
If 75% of the population you cite have (or can have) access to L2 charging at home, why are you baselining your comparison on the higher commercial charging costs that only apply to 25%?

Here is a more current study of EV owners reporting that 86% charge at home as of 2024:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...302074045.html

BTW, don't misenterpret "59.6% still use public chargers weekly". I am one of those, but my "public charger" is the one in my workplace where the cost is actually lower than my home lectricity rate: $0.06 per kWh (at work) vs. $0.138 (at home).



You treat EV ownership and charging infrastructre as chicken-and-egg problem.
It is not.
You buy an EV and you buy an L2 EVSE on the same day. For 75% of the population (per your study) or 86% (the other one I found), that solves the home charging problem and delivers 1:4 energy cost savings per mile.

For the other 14% - I don't know what they were thinking. I would not recommend owning an EV if you can't charge it at home. But someone (14% ?) clearly disagree.

Hope this clarifies,
a

If the charging infrastructure is not critical to EV ownership, then why is it so important for the Feds to invest $7.5B in it and private equity to invest $13B into it. Every EV'er gets on the internet and says they never or rarely use it, yet when the NEVI funding gets frozen, all the EV'ers get freaked about it?

Obviously, something is not adding up.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by afadeev

...
[*]In a future where electric vehicles make up over 90% of the fleet, a range from as low as 35% to as high as 75% of electric vehicles are projected to have consistent residential charging access.

~3.3 million EVs on the road out of the total of 288.5 million cars currently in operation[/URL]. Or ~1.1% of total.

So, ~8% of new sales and ~1% of total cars in operation are EVs.
We are well under 10% of total as per NREL study. Or well within 78-98% of residential charging access - lets call it ~88% estimated availability on average.
That number closely matches the results of an actual at-home charging availability (86%) study I will cite later.

...

Sounds consistent with what I am saying: 2/3rds or 67% of US households have a path to easy access to L2 EVSE's at home. It sounds like NREL is bumpting that upto 75%.

...

If 75% of the population you cite have (or can have) access to L2 charging at home, why are you baselining your comparison on the higher commercial charging costs that only apply to 25%?

Here is a more current study of EV owners reporting that 86% charge at home as of 2024:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...302074045.html

...

Taken together, these few points indicate a potential to move from ~1% to ~35% EVs on the road at the present time and mainly utilizing home charging.

A 35x growth rate (minimum) is a significant number. The true potential may be much, much higher.

What has been your personal experience with maintenance costs?

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

What has been your personal experience with maintenance costs?

With EVs?
It's been either a hit or a miss.

• My first BMW i3 spent ~2 months cumulative in service for various check engine lights and recalls. Happy lease return. The second i3 was absolutely perfect. 0-40 mph acceleration matched ///M3's. In retrospect, I should have kept it, even though residual was way above market value.
• My first Tesla was a maintenance hog with multiple things going wrong and repaired under warranty. The second Telsa has been perfect so far. Over time, service appointment lead time at Tesla service center grew from 3-4 days to 3-4 weeks as the number of Teslas on the road increased.
• Lexus EV has been perfect. Zero squeaks, zero rattles. I thought I saw side mirror vibrate at 80+ mph speeds. Lexus service department took two days taking everything apart, checking with Japan, and realigning everything even though they dared not to attempt to "reproduce" the problem. IS350 loaner felt like my old E36M3 did - telepathic. Handled better than F30 or G20.

< 4.0 second 0-60 capable cars do devour rear tires at an accelerated rate. Even though I don't floor the throttle regularly, “Freude am Fahren” does add up. Both the ///M3 and the Model 3 can't get rears to last more than 1 - 1.5 summer seasons, but at least on Model 3 I can rotate them.

I am 2 ICE + 2 EV family as of now.
I can see going 1 + 3 in the future, with F80 being the keeper. If something happens to F80, I'm not sure with what I would replace it, but it won't be G80.

Whomever said 0-60 times don't matter and "slow is fun" are kidding themselves. Having a fast car is always fun, even if you don't approach its limits on the street!

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If the charging infrastructure is not critical to EV ownership, then why is it so important for the Feds to invest $7.5B in it and private equity to invest $13B into it. Every EV'er gets on the internet and says they never or rarely use it, yet when the NEVI funding gets frozen, all the EV'ers get freaked about it?

Conclusion without evidence - that would be either conjecture or hasty generalization.
I haven't seen anyone commenting on NEVI funding here, or on Tesla forums. Never even heard of NEVI. Couldn't care less about its status.

Private investment follows expectations of positive ROI.
That's called Capitalism. No complaints.

HTH,
a

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Conclusion without evidence - that would be either conjecture or hasty generalization.
I haven't seen anyone commenting on NEVI funding here, or on Tesla forums. Never even heard of NEVI. Couldn't care less about its status.

Private investment follows expectations of positive ROI.
That's called Capitalism. No complaints.

HTH,
a

NEVI is the National Electrical Vehicle Infrastructure initiative funded under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which funds $7.5B for an additional 500,000 EV chargers added across the US. Go onto an EV Forum other than Tesla and there is much discussion about the current freeze on the funding. It's not about what you care about, but rather what the US automotive market cares about. If current non-Tesla EV owners care that the NEVI funding is frozen, then it may affect EV adoption of prospective EV marketplace buyers, would be my conclusion.

If private home EVSE is just a $350 proposition, what is the problem to mass adoption? Ford is actually now including free a EVSE and "standard" installation ($1,200). Perhaps it's just a messaging issue.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The NREL study said once the US private fleet is at 90% EV, 75% of those vehicles will be charge-at-home.

Indeed, they did.
Although it is a perfect example of Fallacy of Extrapolation.
90% EV market penetration is unlikely for the decades to come, as we are around 1% LDV fleet penetration today. Drawing any meaningful conclusions of what the world will look like by the time we hit 50%, never mind 90% (if ever) is a perfect example of over-extrapolation!

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The study said to get from the current 33% availability of parking near an electrical energy source to 75% will take modification to either or both the parking site and/or the electrical energy source.

You keep mischaracterizing NREL study's 33% number.
I've already documented the differences between Scenarios 2, 3, and 5 in the earlier post, so I will not repeat myself. Here is the relevant graph:


Scenario 5 (75%): Scenario considers residential charging to be available if a vehicle can be moved to a parking location where the respondent believes new electrical access can be installed.

No parking site modifications required.
Just plug-and-play L2 EVSE charger, and have a beer!
Scenario 2 (33%) means those folks have already plugged in L2 EVSE before the survey started.

Also, NREL projections are not some fancy modeling, but simply results of an online survey conducted back in 2021. 5,250 respondents were recruited, 3,772 complete responses were retained (page 12 - Methodology). That's it. Nothing too complicated.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

That is the topic of discussion, the cost of modification. You implied it's $350 and plugging into an existing 240V dryer outlet. Nope, it's not that simple.

It is that simple.
I don't know why you insist on over-complicating things, other than to fit some desired doom-and-gloom narrative?

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Citing the statistic that 86% of EV are charged at home is misleading. That just means 86% of people who alreadly bought an EV charge at home, which is immaterial to the discussion.

That is precisely the focus of the NREL study!
NREL data is a little older (2021) and the ChargeLab study is a bit more current (2024).
ChargeLab study roughly aligns with NREL's conclusions as to what happens after someone buys an EV and buys and installs an L2 charger at home, as 86% of the respondents have done.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The discussion is how does the other 92% of the market adopt EV as their next vehicle purchase. The road blocks are private L2 charging availability, public charging availability and cost, and electric vehicle MSRP.

8% of new sales are EVs, adding up to 1.1% of the total existing fleet on the roads.
The bulk of 98.9% of the existing fleet could adopt EVs the same as 1.1% of the vehicle fleet that are EVs have done today - pretty simply and cheaply.
Not everyone will choose to do so this year (typical vehicle replacement cycles, personal preference, politics, price, design, form-factor availability, etc), but they technically could if they so desired.

No drama required.
1). L2 charging access is not a problem for 86% EV owners, and the L2 EVSEs are getting cheaper every year.
2). No evidence presented that public charging is a practical road block.
3). More public chargers would be better, and competition among public chargers will drive down the costs.
4). MSRP gap between ICE vs. EVs is there, but has been shrinking faster than anyone has anticipated. The difference was around 50% in the U.S. in 2021, decreased to 33% in 2022, and 15% in 2023.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If private home EVSE is just a $350 proposition, what is the problem to mass adoption?

What makes you pre-suppose that there is a problem with mass adoption?

EV propulsion is new technology that has been growing exponentially from basically nothing 5-10 years ago to ~8% of new car sales in the US (21% if you include EV + hybride) in 2024, ~20% in Europe, and ~40% in China.

That's pretty amazing.




Despite the Ludditeness from some quarters, limited availability until very recently, and significant amount of fear and misinformation mongering by various anti-EV business interests.

a

P.S.: EV adoption by major market is below:

[BlkGS]

Regarding chargers...

I am keeping my dryer, so plugging the charger into that 240 outlet is a no go. Even if I wasn't keeping the dryer, that outlet is in my laundry room, nowhere near the driveway for the cars. Luckily I have the breaker panel in the garage, but install of charger(s) will still require new 240V lines run from the panel (which may need upgraded? I dunno would be the electrician's job to know) , and then of course there's the issue of finding a highly UV resistant and completely weatherproof charger with auto retracting charge cable, and a pleasant appearance that won't look ugly mounted on the front of the house/garage.

They may exist, haven't searched really, but most look, well, cheap. I suspect I am FAR from the only one in this situation. Garages just aren't as big as they need to be these days.