The following link is on today’s AP wire documenting a reduced rate for EV purchases that is leaving vehicle makers in a quandary.
Automakers, dealers and shoppers dawdle on EVs despite strong year in US sales growth – Netscape Money & Business
Even beyond vehicle cost, until there is an enormous effort to provide sufficient charging capacity for the EV’s, they will not be adopted at the rates required. A slide from the presentation PowerPoint documenting the issues is below. You mighty be able to overcome the obstacles to adoption if you can eliminate 2 of the 3 issues and show how EV’s have hidden savings that help to offset the initial cost. More chargers eliminate the 77% objection and reduce the worry of the 73% that are concerned about range. I have always been an early adopter and having driven an EV for over six years. I can drive for four hours without charging but I still have to figure out charging locations and alter trips to account for available chargers. Most consumers want the same convenience that they currently have with an internal combustion vehicle. Despite all of Ford’s efforts to mass produce cars, if Rockefeller hadn’t built the service stations to fuel them, people would have kept their horses.
Plus, there has been a minimal effort on the part of the policy makers to explain the poor efficiencies of the internal combustion engines or the savings on maintenance and “fuel” that come with EV ownership. The utilities make you sign a document every time that you do anything with the gas service telling you that you are destroying the planet. In reality, the policies that they are promoting are doing more to holistically damage the environment than the existing equipment and will double peoples heating costs. Nowhere do you see any type of information about the relative benefits of EV’s. In six years, I have replaced tires, wiper blades and washer fluid. There was a computer recall and a piece of trim that needed replacing, along with replacing some wires that a squirrel ate. All told, aside from issues that could also occur with gasoline powered cars, I have spent about $120 on maintenance in over six years for EV related issues. There have been no oil changes, tune ups, spark plug changes, corroded tail pipes, stolen catalytic converters, or anything related to a gas powered engine. There is a reduced cost for inspections because there is no emissions test and also greatly reduced wear on brake shoes because of regenerative braking. I rarely even step on the brakes until the car is going about 5 mph.
However, if you are going to get stuck halfway through your trip, that is enough to scare off purchasers.
EV’s will provide enormous advantages in energy savings and reduced emissions in population centers where they will yield huge health benefits. If charged from energy generated at a combined cycle plant at a minimum, the energy savings would be approximately 18%. 0.54 (54%) delivered utility energy efficiency x 0.75 (75%) EV efficency = 40% net efficiency versus a 22% efficiency of an internal combustion engine plus EV’s have much lower emissions of NOX and other chemicals if powered from Combined Cycle plants. It is also far easier to put pollution controls on a few power plants as opposed to 10 million vehicles.
NY State squandering resources on heat pumps that will provide nowhere near that level of environmental improvement is an impediment to vehicle adoption. That math also does not work if the energy has to come from 33% efficient peaker plants that the state is being forced to keep open because the ideologues have the belief that intermittent sources of generation are going to be able to support the system, thus precluding the ability to build energy centers that will actually work.
In areas like the Northeastern states with shorter driving distances and dense population centers, EV’s could go a long way to solving the energy problems. In more rural areas where the driving distances are longer, such as in upstate NY or the Southwest US, Plug in Hybrids with a range of 125 miles on electric power and a gas engine for longer trips would eliminate range anxiety. Smaller 125 mile batteries would reduce vehicle cost and cover 99% of vehicle trips. The batteries woud also eliminate energy lost through braking on those cars, as well as reduce particulate issues from wearing brake pads.
None of this will occur if the State doesn’t make a major effort to add the transmission and charging stations, along with sufficient 60% efficient generation. The added load from EV’s will be nearly the equivalent of the existing fossil fuel generation. NY State isn’t going to meet either its 2030 or 2040 renewable goals or even come close to them even without adding vehicle load, despite the overly optimistic assessments of the promoters of the policy. The 2040 20 Gigawatts of dispatchable carbon free generation has been referred to as “Unicorn Generation” by knowledgable engineers. As such, you are far more likely to see it on an episode of “My Little Pony” than at any time on the NY State utility system.
The state has to drop the charade of the CLCPA if any realistic carbon reduction plans are going to work.