[Donatello.]

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 cite 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

About 65% own a home.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The 86% isn't an argument, it's the question, i.e. of the homes not yet supporting an EV with EVSE, what percentage can support at-home charging at a reasonable installation cost tolerable to the occupant. My contention is, it is not another 86%.

You know the answer to your own question - it's within your favorite NREL study. I see no point in repeating the same answer over and over again.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The NREL study is clear on the point that as EV needs to penetrate the lower income segment of the market to gain market share, lower-income potential buyers will be more reluctant to invest in electrical and parking upgrades to accommodate at home charging due to affordability concerns.

That's a circular argument - if someone doesn't have enough money to invest into an EVSE, they most definitely don't have the money to buy a new car. Any new car: EV or ICE.

The colarary also holds: if you have a money for a new car, you likely can spend a few hundred dollars more on an EVSE. Or make it a round $1K, since that is the max amount eligible for a 30% Federal tax rebate. Your state likely has additional incentives on top of that, if you can't afford to charge (pun intended) an EVSE on your credit card and rock on!

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

All good, but what if the potential low-income EV buyer does not own his dwelling and only rents (which is probably the majority scenario)?

Why are you so focused on corner cases where EV might not be ideal?
What if a homeless person wants an EV, where will he charge?
What if an enlisted sailor wants an EV, where will he plug it in while on deployment?
What if an aborigines hunter gatherer wants an EV and his hut doesn't have electricity?

In short - it doesn't matter. All these corner cases (and I'm sure there are more) fall into the "not 75% of the US households who can easily charge EVs at home" category. US EV penetration is at ~1% of total fleet, lets assume similar number of households. That still leaves 74% of the US households who can get an EV and and EVSE and plug one into the other without too much trouble. Not everyone will want to buy an EV, but 3/4 of the US population could charge one at home.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I think it's also a catch 22 situation at the public infrastructure level. Build it and they will come vs. Buy it and it will be built...

Not really. This had been solved 5+ years ago.
There is enough public charging infrastructure to cross the country up and down, left and right. As well as diagonally.
More would be welcome, as additional competition will drive down the prices at the public L3 DC chargers. But there is more than enough out there already to allow you to drive an EV anywhere, at any time.

That is, unless, you are just looking for an excuse not to.
In which case, please see my post #112 for more excuses.

a

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by afadeev

You know the answer to your own question - it's within your favorite NREL study. I see no point in repeating the same answer over and over again.



That's a circular argument - if someone doesn't have enough money to invest into an EVSE, they most definitely don't have the money to buy a new car. Any new car: EV or ICE.

The colarary also holds: if you have a money for a new car, you likely can spend a few hundred dollars more on an EVSE. Or make it a round $1K, since that is the max amount eligible for a 30% Federal tax rebate. Your state likely has additional incentives on top of that, if you can't afford to charge (pun intended) an EVSE on your credit card and rock on!



Why are you so focused on corner cases where EV might not be ideal?
What if a homeless person wants an EV, where will he charge?
What if an enlisted sailor wants an EV, where will he plug it in while on deployment?
What if an aborigines hunter gatherer wants an EV and his hut doesn't have electricity?

In short - it doesn't matter. All these corner cases (and I'm sure there are more) fall into the "not 75% of the US households who can easily charge EVs at home" category. US EV penetration is at ~1% of total fleet, lets assume similar number of households. That still leaves 74% of the US households who can get an EV and and EVSE and plug one into the other without too much trouble. Not everyone will want to buy an EV, but 3/4 of the US population could charge one at home.



Not really. This had been solved 5+ years ago.
There is enough public charging infrastructure to cross the country up and down, left and right. As well as diagonally.
More would be welcome, as additional competition will drive down the prices at the public L3 DC chargers. But there is more than enough out there already to allow you to drive an EV anywhere, at any time.

That is, unless, you are just looking for an excuse not to.
In which case, please see my post #112 for more excuses.

a

Perhaps you don't understand the US automotive market as well as you think you do. If the public infrastructure is right now expansive enough to drive across country every which way directionally then why did the IRA of 2022 invest for an additional 500,000 charge points? Just a few posts ago you admitted you didn't even know what NEVI is. And you said you didn't care to know what NEVI is because of the Tesla network (even though Tesla got NEVI money).

The automotive market is not behaving the in way it should based on the attributes you think exist regarding EV cost of ownership, EV range, EV charge times, and EVSE availability both public and private. You keep thinking I'm anti-EV, which I'm not. I don't think a battery is the best device to store electricity for mobile vehicles. I do think gasoline, diesel, and other synthetic fuels are better mobile energy storage medium than batteries for EV use.

[No one]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

About 65% own a home.

The rest don't deserve owning a car - the environmental solution in its essence.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Perhaps you don't understand the US automotive market as well as you think you do.

He doesn't really have to: he is a government sycophant trying to stick to the winners. Prove they aren't and he'll "change his boots" instantly, just don't blink.

[dreamingat30fps]

Ya'll still at this? Jeeeezus!

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Perhaps you don't understand the US automotive market as well as you think you do. If the public infrastructure is right now expansive enough to drive across country every which way directionally then why did the IRA of 2022 invest for an additional 500,000 charge points?

Why does the Federal government provide tax credits for Intangible Drilling Costs deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263) or Clean Coal Investments (Internal Revenue Code §48A) ?
Is it because we are running out of oil and coal?
Is it because someone likes oxymorons ("clean coal")?

Not likely.
It's because the lobbyists did their job.

To answer your question - looks like the charge points lobbyists had figured out how to play that game as well!

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Just a few posts ago you admitted you didn't even know what NEVI is. And you said you didn't care to know what NEVI is because of the Tesla network (even though Tesla got NEVI money).

Yep.
I'm not a government funding expert, connoisseur, or recipient. I don't give two sh*ts about Federal government funding games.

Why do you?

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You keep thinking I'm anti-EV, which I'm not.

Well, you do repeatedly post anti-EV arguments to all EV-themed threads.
In this one you had based your argument on the NREL study that undermines your own claims.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I don't think a battery is the best device to store electricity for mobile vehicles. I do think gasoline, diesel, and other synthetic fuels are better mobile energy storage medium than batteries for EV use.

Well, you went from NOT being anti-EV to being anti batteries. How is that different?


What anyone "thinks" or "feels" is not a basis for an intelligent debate.
If you have some verifiable facts to share, please do so and we can discuss them.

Otherwise, it devolves into a meaningless preference debate of "I like purple, you like blue, boo on you".

a

[Equilibrandt]

This is quickly becoming the same forum karma-farming thread that the previous Still Want an EV? (NO POLITICS) was. Can't believe the Mods are allowing it all over again, with very little in this thread actually containing substance worth debating.

Just people repeatedly "Appreciating" their buddies' posts to farm forum rep.

[DrVenture]

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a6...d%20Last%2030D

Interesting.
A claimed 186 miles of range in 10 minutes.
Up to 670 HP.
Up to 369 miles range.

The improvements keep coming.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by Equilibrandt

This is quickly becoming the same forum karma-farming thread that the previous Still Want an EV? (NO POLITICS) was. Can't believe the Mods are allowing it all over again, with very little in this thread actually containing substance worth debating.

I have seen a lot of good information in this thread. However certain folks do appear to resort to baiting in every thread debating EVs. This on a car forum for an automaker that makes EVs. As well as circular argumentation about things they have already beenexpressed countless times by them specifically. While never acknowledging valid counterpoints. Just rotating to new objections. They should not be allowed to achieve their goals of getting every EV thread eliminated. Maybe the folks who keep resorting to political narratives or picking political squabbles should be sanctioned though.

But, if you mean that the counter-arguments against EV adoption, for large swaths of the public, are fading fast, I do agree with that. The times, they are a-changing, to quote the poet Dylan.

Having a few of the worst offenders on ignore, helps a lot though. I figured out who doesn't debate in good faith and cut them from my forum experience. People whose raison d'être appears to be getting in the last word versus a thoughtful exchange of ideas.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by Equilibrandt

This is quickly becoming the same forum karma-farming thread that the previous Still Want an EV? (NO POLITICS) was. Can't believe the Mods are allowing it all over again, with very little in this thread actually containing substance worth debating.

Somewhat agree.
We did get to dig up, share, and discuss some interesting research and got facts and realities documented for anyone else who might be interested in the subject matter.

There were a few flame thrower contributors, but fewer then usual, and no 4Chan/8Chan "Sh*t posting" memes, yet.

a

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Why does the Federal government provide tax credits for Intangible Drilling Costs deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263) or Clean Coal Investments (Internal Revenue Code §48A) ?
Is it because we are running out of oil and coal?
Is it because someone likes oxymorons ("clean coal")?

Not likely.
It's because the lobbyists did their job.

To answer your question - looks like the charge points lobbyists had figured out how to play that game as well!



Yep.
I'm not a government funding expert, connoisseur, or recipient. I don't give two sh*ts about Federal government funding games.

Why do you?



Well, you do repeatedly post anti-EV arguments to all EV-themed threads.
In this one you had based your argument on the NREL study that undermines your own claims.



Well, you went from NOT being anti-EV to being anti batteries. How is that different?


What anyone "thinks" or "feels" is not a basis for an intelligent debate.
If you have some verifiable facts to share, please do so and we can discuss them.

Otherwise, it devolves into a meaningless preference debate of "I like purple, you like blue, boo on you".

a

The reason I think gasoline and diesel make better mobile fuels is because of their approx. 100x energy density as compared to current Li-ion EV batteries. Yup, the conversion of ICE is about 40% efficient. The intelligent discussion and use of funding should have been how to increase the efficiency of heat loss using those fuels to power EVs. But sadly, combustion scares people because they fear the climate (despite climate change made them exist in the first place). I'm willing to have that intelligent discussion.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Somewhat agree.
We did get to dig up, share, and discuss some interesting research and got facts and realities documented for anyone else who might be interested in the subject matter.

There were a few flame thrower contributors, but fewer then usual, and no 4Chan/8Chan "Sh*t posting" memes, yet.

a

I agree. And using detractors as foils to correct the record is quite effective in my experience. Kudos!

To that point, and for the record:

"The efficiency of extracting usable energy from gasoline, meaning the percentage of the fuel's energy that can be converted into motion, is roughly 20-35% in a modern car." This doesn't take into account all the energy needed to extract refine and deliver the gasoline to the vehicles gas tank.

"Electric vehicles (EVs) powered by batteries are significantly more energy efficient than gasoline-powered cars, converting a much larger portion of their energy source into motion, with EVs potentially using 87-91% of their energy". Again not taking into account initial resource extraction, manufacturing cost, energy source and energy delivery to the battery in the vehicle.

And it is important to note that the battery is only manufactured once and the energy source could be renewable (solar) or even nuclear. One could easily surmise that this being early days, those efficiencies will likely improve.

[BlkGS]

You're making massive assumptions about efficiency, and ignoring what it takes to make the energy to charge. A typical natural gas plant is 20-60% efficient. For easy math, we'll say it's 50% efficient. Then let say we have a 95% efficient transmission and distribution system for the energy. Don't forget a 90% efficient charger. And now the 90% efficient car itself.

That's .5*.9*.9*.9=.36, so barely more efficient than the gas car. If you're dealing with an older power plant that's only 35% efficient, you're at 25% efficient, so possibly even less efficient than just burning gas yourself. Coal and oil power plants are even less efficient than natural gas as well.

IMO, BEVs are a cart before the horse thing. As a country, we should have spent all the money we spent on EV subsidies and tax breaks on funding the construction of a bunch of new nuke plants around the country and had cheap, clean, reliable energy. But instead we tried to force a market into existence, and the only real benefit was a small number of people got rich off it all and energy prices nationwide are soaring.