MIT Study Finds That Existing EVs Could Meet 90% Of Driver’s Needs

OCT 24 2016 BY MARK KANE 67

Researchers at MIT completed a four year long, comprehensive study, searching for the answer about whether or not existing electric cars on the road today could replace conventional cars.

As it turns out, according to MIT, even the first generation models – such as the Nissan LEAF and Ford Focus Electric (with sub 100-mile ranges) are capable to replace nearly 90% of cars, and at a similar overall cost of ownership.

Ford Focus Electric

Ford Focus Electric

Emissions from transportation (including up-river power plants) would be then reduced by about 30% (or more, with power plants continual journey to decarbonization over time).

One of the main findings suggests “the vast majority of cars on the road consume no more energy in a day than the battery energy capacity in affordable EVs available today”. Of course EVs would need to be charged overnight at home or at work.

We should note at this point, that setting up the kind of infrastructure to accommodate a 90% usage rate of sub 100 mile EVs would be expensive, would take many years to build…and would be demographically obsolete when completed – given the rapid expansion of the tech that is already producing more affordable 200+ mile options.

We must also remember that regardless of an EV’s ability to go from point A to B, there is a strong driver need of security and an additional reserve of energy for those “what if I need to go XXX miles today” thoughts.  In other words, we will reach only a fraction of that 90% share far later than when the cars themselves are physically capable of doing the job.

“The study, which found that a wholesale replacement of conventional vehicles with electric ones is possible today and could play a significant role in meeting climate change mitigation goals, was published today in the journal Nature Energy by Jessika Trancik, the Atlantic Richfield Career Development Associate Professor in Energy Studies at MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS), along with graduate student Zachary Needell, postdoc James McNerney, and recent graduate Michael Chang SM ’15.”

Jessika Trancik said:

“Roughly 90 percent of the personal vehicles on the road daily could be replaced by a low-cost electric vehicle available on the market today, even if the cars can only charge overnight, which would more than meet near-term U.S. climate targets for personal vehicle travel.”

More about the conclusions:

“The team spent four years on the project, which included developing a way of integrating two huge datasets: one highly detailed set of second-by-second driving behavior based on GPS data, and another broader, more comprehensive set of national data based on travel surveys. Together, the two datasets encompass millions of trips made by drivers all around the country.

The detailed GPS data was collected by state agencies in Texas, Georgia, and California, using special data loggers installed in cars to assess statewide driving patterns. The more comprehensive, but less detailed, nationwide data came from a national household transportation survey, which studied households across the country to learn about how and where people actually do their driving. The researchers needed to understand “the distances and timing of trips, the different driving behaviors, and the ambient weather conditions,” Needell says.

By working out formulas to integrate the different sets of information and thereby track one-second-resolution drive cycles, the MIT researchers were able to demonstrate that the daily energy requirements of some 90 percent of personal cars on the road in the U.S. could be met by today’s EVs, with their current ranges, at an overall cost to their owners — including both purchase and operating costs — that would be no greater than that of conventional internal-combustion vehicles. The team looked at once-daily charging, at home or at work, in order to study the adoption potential given today’s charging infrastructure.

What’s more, such a large-scale replacement would be sufficient to meet the nation’s stated near-term emissions-reduction targets for personal vehicles’ share of the transportation sector — a sector that accounts for about a third of the nation’s overall greenhouse gas emissions, with a majority of emissions from privately owned, light-duty vehicles.

While EVs have many devotees, they also have a large number of critics, who cite range anxiety as a barrier to transportation electrification. “This is an issue where common sense can lead to strongly opposing views,” Trancik says. “Many seem to feel strongly that the potential is small, and the rest are convinced that is it large.”

“Developing the concepts and mathematical models required for a testable, quantitative analysis is helpful in these situations, where so much is at stake,” she adds.

Those who feel the potential is small cite the premium prices of many EVs available today, such as the highly rated but expensive Tesla models, and the still-limited distance that lower-cost EVs can drive on a single charge, compared to the range of a gasoline car on one tank of gas. The lack of available charging infrastructure in many places, and the much greater amount of time required to recharge a car compared to simply filling a gas tank have also been cited as drawbacks.

But the team found that the vast majority of cars on the road consume no more energy in a day than the battery energy capacity in affordable EVs available today. These numbers represent a scenario in which people would do most of their recharging overnight at home, or during the day at work, so for such trips the lack of infrastructure was not really a concern. Vehicles such as the Ford Focus Electric or the Nissan Leaf — whose sticker prices are still higher than those of conventional cars, but whose overall lifetime costs end up being comparable because of lower maintenance and operating costs — would be adequate to meet the needs of the vast majority of U.S. drivers.

The study cautions that for EV ownership to rise to high levels, the needs of drivers have to be met on all days. For days on which energy consumption is higher, such as for vacations, or days when an intensive need for heating or cooling would sharply curb the EV’s distance range, driving needs could be met by using a different car (in a two-car home), or by renting, or using a car-sharing service.

The study highlights the important role that car sharing of internal combustion engine vehicles could play in driving electrification. Car sharing should be very convenient for this to work, Trancik says, and requires further business model innovation. Additionally, the days on which alternatives are needed should be known to drivers in advance —information that the team’s model “TripEnergy” is able to provide.

Even as batteries improve, there will continue to be a small number of high-energy days that exceed the range provided by electric vehicles. For these days, other powertrain technologies will likely be needed. The study helps policy-makers to quantify the “returns” to improving batteries through investing in research, for example, and the gap that will need to be filled by other kinds of cars, such as those fueled by low-emissions biofuels or hydrogen, to reach very low emissions levels for the transportation sector.

Another important finding from the study was that the potential for shifting to EVs is fairly uniform for different parts of the country. “The adoption potential of electric vehicles is remarkably similar across cities,” Trancik says, “from dense urban areas like New York, to sprawling cities like Houston. This goes against the view that electric vehicles — at least affordable ones, which have limited range — only really work in dense urban centers.”

Jeremy J. Michalek, a professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University who was not involved in this study, says the MIT team’s integration of the GPS and national survey data is a new approach “highlighting the novel idea that regional differences in range requirements are minor for most vehicle-day trips but increase as we move into higher-range trips.” The study, he says, is both “interesting and useful.”

The work was supported by the New England University Transportation Center at MIT, the MIT Leading Technology and Policy Initiative, the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology, the Charles E. Reed Faculty Initiatives Fund, and the MIT Energy Initiative.”

source: MIT

Categories: General


Leave a Reply

67 Comments on "MIT Study Finds That Existing EVs Could Meet 90% Of Driver’s Needs"

newest oldest most voted

Well ya, I would believe this. It’s just that the remaining 10% is a problem. Although with a 2 car household it’s much less of a problem!

Also, like they say the charging network could be built out but then you’d be left with “obsolete” tech in a few years. It’s kind of like how the US had high speed internet before a lot of countries but these days a lot of countries that we don’t think are “on par” with us have better internet access than we do now. It’s because they didn’t install it as much until later on. So what do you do? Be the pioneer and then scrap and rebuild and waste a lot of $ in the process or do you wait awhile and then build?

Personally I think there are already enough options to charge for the early adopter crowd. Give it a few more years for higher charging to be developed and then build out a more future “proof” network.

DJ said: “… Give it a few more years for higher charging to be developed and then build out a more future “proof” network…”

In the mean time Tesla is building out an extensive Supercharger network…

Good for Tesla. I don’t personally care as I don’t really think I’ll get a Tesla. Hate their forced regen (single pedal driving), ridiculous options prices, stupid falcon wing doors, huge ridiculous front windows, etc.. To each their own though! Plus the only SC around me always has lines for people to charge at. Their “Super”charging network will also be old news in a few years with the supposed 350kW(+) coming out. Tesla is doing what they needed to do as a business model to sell their high price cars. What this is about is putting something out there that the masses can use. I’m not willing to plop down $2k to have SC access for something that I may use a handful of times over the life of my car. I would however be willing to pay per use a DCFC should the need arise. Realistically no way in hell would my wife ever be willing to wait 30 mins even for a full charge of 200+ miles. She can fill up the Prius and get 400+ miles in a couple minutes. They’re going to need a lot quicker charging for the masses to be willing to adopt an… Read more »

You can turn the regen down, their options are just that, optional and no more expensive than what other offer, if you don’t like the features of the Model X get a Model S instead. Long lines are rare outside of specific stations in California. For a long trip that is generally a once or twice a year thing and extra 30 minutes is not going to kill you.

Ya, tried that 🙁

Those specific stations in CA are the ones I would need to use for the most part. And yes while 30 mins is ok for you and me it isn’t for “the masses”.

You don’t own a Tesla, yet you tried their Supercharger stations?

DJ said: “…no way in hell would my wife ever be willing to wait 30 mins even for a full charge of 200+ miles. She can fill up the Prius and get 400+ miles in a couple minutes…”

For most Tesla owners over 90% of charging is done at home so when factoring in no gas station visits/waits for all those charge times against the occasional long distance trip requiring a supercharger stop…well you do the math. Also, most of those long distance charge stops are done when stopping anyway for food/bathroom break. If every charge was needed to be done at a supercharger station then I’d agree with your wife. Its nice walking out each morning to a fully charged car.

Let me rephrase. On my wife’s semi-frequent trips from Southern California up to Northern California no way in hell would she be willing to wait 30 mins to get an extra 200 miles. You’ve also then got to deal with destination charging. We charge every night but the masses and especially the misses need a better charging product before it’s widely adopted not just more places to charge. Again 90% of the time home charging is fine.

On a side note is it bad to charge your EV outside while it’s thundering and lightening? I thought we were all done and now I’m wondering if I should go unplug but don’t want to be a lightening rod!

She does not eat or drink? Or text / Facebook Stalk / chat with friends on the phone (she shouldn’t do this while driving, btw)? Does she not go to the bathroom or “freshen up”? She does not get out and walk around, maybe even window shop for bit, to prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis?

How extraordinary. I can easily burn thru a half hour or more, without feeling it crimping my lifestyle. 😉

Is she a robot?

Stopping, filling up gas, taking a leak and grabbing a bite to eat takes what 5-10 mins? Again fine for me and you but not the masses…

Actually 13 to 25, if you wash your hands.

You’re doing it wrong then…

Rick (no, not that Rick)

Anon…ridiculing the masses is not a good way to talk them into anything.

Safety isn’t a concern. Well for the plugging I mean, because lighting can strike you without being close to any car.
To unplug, you wait until the charge is over or shut it off with the stop button anyway to unplug a DCFC.
And no need to worry to plug it in, there is no voltage applied before its plug and connect to the inboard charger.

Safety isn’t a concern. Well for the plugging I mean, because litghning can strike you without being close to any car.
To unplug, you wait until the charge is over or shut it off with the stop button anyway to unplug a DCFC.
And no need to worry to plug it in, there is no voltage applied before its plug and connect to the inboard charger.

If you were grounding yourself while charging, I would say that might be an issue, but while charging you are not doing anything you don’t normally do. The bolt might hit equipment, but its more likely to hit the grounded metal enclosure than anything else.

Your comments are interesting in that they show how resistant we all are to change. Obviously you and your wife are not good candidates for an all electric vehicle given your driving habits and expectations. I find flaws in all of your arguments but I am not you. Most people after driving 200 miles or so need at least 15 or 20 minutes to get out walk around, refuel, get something to eat. Long distance truck drivers can drive for hundreds of miles and urinate in a jar. Would most people drive this way? No. Your un willingness to wait 5 or 10 minutes longer to get a full charge on a trip seems ridiculous. Those of us that are passionate about leaving the technology of ICE behind are willing to make these adjustments. Personally I want to distance myself as quickly as possible from the manipulation and impact of the fossil fuel industry in our society. Obviously this is not as important to you as losing 10 minutes of your time. I would take a long look in the mirror if I were you. I have a Ford Focus Electric that only gets 75 miles of range. I rarely… Read more »

People do resist change, but they REALLY resist giving up freedom.

The best approach is wired highways (mini-pantograph or perhaps inductive). It’d only cost a few months worth of oil imports and would solve problems with long distances, towing, freight, battery costs. It’d also be more efficient, make autonomous freeway driving trivial and generally make EVs superior to gascars in every way except a few extreme niche applications.

Apart from long range driving, it is a paradigm shift in the way you think about charging. Every single night, if you remember to plug in, you have a full charge every single day. Even in my low range Leaf I rarely have to charge during a normal day. Paradigm shift, when you park down the street to do shopping, put some money in the Meter and plug in for a charge. Do that all through the day and you are rarely going to run out. If wireless charging becomes a reality, it will just happen when you park. SC should be for distance driving. People using AC in local driving situation will/should change that habit as the paradigm shifts. Why would you want to sit at an SC of you don’t have to? I think at the moment it is because it is free. When you have to pay for it, then I think you will find this behaviour will change. Old idea of gas cars and going to the gas station you have to throw out with an EV. Obviously there are many situations, but if chargers become ubiquitous then it will be a game changer, and that… Read more »

A pure EV works for over 95% of my driving needs, but the Volt has saved the day a couple of times when there just weren’t any good options (e.g., renting a car after hours and on short notice).

Now a Tesla is a different story. I can’t think of when 250 mile range and a fast charger wouldn’t have worked.

MIT Researchers said: “…Even as batteries improve, there will continue to be a small number of high-energy days that exceed the range provided by electric vehicles. For these days, other powertrain technologies will likely be needed…”

Why is it that only Tesla seems to get it that wide adoption of EV’s requires providing access to a convenient & reliable Supercharger network?

Because Tesla’s Main Mission, is to do everything possible to support and encourage sustainable transport while minimizing any downsides in the technology. If they have to innovate to improve something, they will. For Example: The SuperCharger Network directly addresses the long range / time charging issues. That said, it is a work in progress and evolving.

Everyone else, is busy trying to maintain the status quo, for whatever short-sighted reasons.


This. Which is exactly why we don’t “ooh and ahh” at every press release a major OEM drops about their half-assed attempts to enter the EV Arena 4-5 years down the road.

[quote] Everyone else, is busy trying to maintain the status quo, for whatever short-sighted reasons.[/quote]

… are following/reacting to what *we* consumers are buying. I would suggest to us to make different choices…

90% of use cases may not be enough for most people to switch. A 200 mile range EV would probably hit 99% of use cases. These are hitting the streets soon and will replace 99% of new vehicles within the next 15 years.

How many of those MIT people are running out to buy EVs?

90% of use is really poor if you drive only one car. That means you have to rent a car more than every other week.

A EV that could meet the needs of 90% of drivers would be far better.

The big flaw here is this statement: “replace nearly 90% of cars”. I believe it should be “replace nearly 90% of trips”, which is far less than 90% of cars, since it doesn’t include any car that needs to be taken on an occasional longer trip.

Now that longer range EVs are slowly becoming available, it’s been rather pleasant that the usual chorus of “everybody would be happy with EVs if they weren’t so stupid!” arguments have died out. Now all of the people who used to make that argument are waiting eagerly for their Model 3 or Bolt to be delivered. Now that’s progress on multiple fronts!

90% of trips might be correct without DCFC. But I suspect MIT had DCFC in mind, which means 90% of cars is correct statement with DCFC seeing how someone traveled 650 miles in 16 hours with SparkEV. Most gas car drivers won’t drive 650 miles in a day even for fairly long trips due to fatigue.

I agree, 90% of trips is completely different from 90% of cars. MIT wasted their time replicating a well-known statistic. The real objection people keep raising about EVs is not being able to take the proverbial “road trip”. I’d rather see a study that determined what percentage of vehicles ever really go on road trips over, say 500 miles in a year, 5 year or 10 year period.

John Hansen said: “The big flaw here is this statement: ‘replace nearly 90% of cars’. I believe it should be “replace nearly 90% of trips”, which is far less than 90% of cars, since it doesn’t include any car that needs to be taken on an occasional longer trip.” Yup. That is indeed the rather glaring fallacy in this study. And you can see in other comments here that most interpreted it as “90% of trips”, altho that’s not what the article actually says. Unfortunately, we see far too many overly enthusiastic EV supporters making that same flawed argument: That a typical driver can replace 90% or 95% of his gas-powered trips with trips in a BEV. Unfortunately, people seldom buy cars that they expect to only meet 90% or 95% of their needs. If that wasn’t true, then we’d already see a lot more than 1-2% of market penetration by PEVs (Plug-in EVs). I’d like to see a lot more public discussion of the advantages of driving a PEV. But personally, I’d never try to persuade someone to buy one who was resistant to the idea. People have different needs and wants in cars, and we shouldn’t try to… Read more »

“…..and would be demographically obsolete when completed…”

I disagree with this comment, the charging infrastructure would be obsolete for those who originally did 100% of their driving with a “100 mile” BEV once they upgrade to a 200 mile BEV. The infrastructure would be in exactly the right place for the new 200 mile BEV owner who previously couldn’t live with a “100 mile” BEV. There are plenty of times where you need a few extra miles.

The other issue with that comment is that the “100 mile” BEV owner might be quite happy with 100 miles of range and not want to pay extra for 200 miles of range that they very seldom need.

People charge what they use, not what they own. The MIT study showed that 90% of the trips used less than 30kWh. That is true whether you own a 30, 60 or 90 kWh battery pack. Level 2 charging at home, work, condo, apartment or on street will still be useful for a long time no matter how big and efficient the battery packs become.

Indeed, and thanks for pointing that out. The claim in this article that charging infrastructure would be obsolete by the time it’s built out is an accurate criticism of public EV chargers, but certainly not the far larger number of slow charge points needed where people park their cars; L1 or L2 charging.

As you say, Michael, most drivers will find L2 charging perfectly adequate for daily needs. That will be just as true 20 or 30 years from now as it is today, assuming people are still using ground transportation (i.e., not flying) for daily travel.

Now, what I think will make almost all current EV chargers obsolete is a move to wireless charging. I think that is almost inevitable; the added convenience and protection from vandalism/theft (of EV charging cables) will make that quite attractive.

Even 99.99% isn’t good enough…There are three major scenarios that need to be solved; rentals and flying are solutions yet aren’t perfect…

1. Evacuations, such as from natural disasters…
2. Life events change, think family emergency or long distant work relocation…
3. Long trips…

The evacuation from Fort MacMurray was hindered by long slow moving lines of traffic and abandoned vehicles because some gas stations had run dry. A Tesla in bio-weapon defense mode could have comfortably escaped the wildfires to the Lac la Biche evacuation centres 300 km to the south.

You have a point, but every evacuation is different…Some you can plan for (hurricane) and others you can’t (earthquake)…

Rick (no, not that Rick)

Even a Tesla cannot go any faster than slow moving traffic.

Bacardi said:

“Even 99.99% isn’t good enough…”

On the contrary, even 99% won’t be necessary. People don’t buy one vehicle that can literally do everything. If they did, then everybody would be driving an all-wheel-drive moving van equipped with a 250 gallon gas tank, and a snorkel so it could drive through deep water.

It’s a fallacy to claim that PEVs (Plug-in EVs) need to do absolutely everything just as well as a gasmobile and do some things a lot better. Buyers consider the overall usefulness (and attractiveness) of a car. Very few hold out for a car that will do that last little 0.01% (or less) of anything they might ever imagine wanting it to do.

EVs, including the Bolt EV, are referred to as “urban” vehicles…While every single urban city is different, they usually share two issues…#1 Single family homes are not as affordable as complex’s and affordable complex’s often have extremely limited parking…#2 Parking anywhere in a city can also be extremely limited meaning if you can’t park a second car at home, you may also be hard pressed to find a reliable second parking space…

Miami, while huge, has it’s more popular neighbors, Brickell for example would the description above where you’re living in a complex and may not find an affordable second parking space…If there’s a hurricane coming and you need to evacuate, you probably have to drive at least 300 miles (most likely with the A/C on full blast) to reach safety…

My job recently became threatened and some of the alternate scenarios that I had to consider included living more than 250 miles away from home. In my case I was sure glad I bought a Volt not a Leaf 3 years ago.
Long range BEVs or 30+ miles PHEVs in every market segment are required to see large scale adoption.

SparkEV-Fiat500-Leased - M3 Reserved - Bolt- TBD

99.99% if good enough for 99% of the population. There’s always a chance of nuclear war, so don’t buy a house without a bomb shelter, okay?

10% is too high. We are a two EV car family that does get 90%+ of our needs, but we’ve put about 8000k miles combined on our ICE vehicles this year (more because of size/family hauls than actual distance factors).

The 200 mile cars like Bolt will completely eliminate any local range anxiety issues and the fast charge will handle the distance driving concerns.

The one unknown remains –light cargo hauling/dog friendly. Looking forward to turning the Fiat+CR-V in for that.

You put 8000k miles on the cars? Lets have a look at the math to reach 8000k miles

Each car did around 4.000k miles a year. If you drive 24/7 for a year with 80 mph you get to 700.8k miles in a year. I think your numbers are wrong! To get to 4000k miles a year your car is driving at a speed of 456.6 mph or more if it’s not driven continous. A i get it, your “car” is a postal delivery plane 😀

I hate being a victim of statistics. Yes, 90% of the time I can manage with my hobbled (60$) Leaf, but there are places I cannot go, emergency runs I cannot help with and once a fair way have to decline turning back for anything. I could also do with only two seats for 90% of journeys, maybe even headlights, but so what!

Seriously? 4 years to figure this out? The MIT guys couldn’t find the Captain Obvious hat?

They’re MIT students. They’re not stupid. I am sure there was funding for this research. Why rush it 🙂

Ed Begley Jr. said this same thing in a 10 year old movie (Who Killed Electric Car). Where has MIT been?

Yeah, it is puzzling to see MIT going where so many people have gone before.

I disagree with the notion of an obsolete charging infrastructure. I would imagine if we covered the whole USA with charging infrastructure of J1772 (for Level 2) and CCS / Chademo combo units… Almost every vehicle made 10 or even 20 years from now would still be able to charge with those. In fact, having the larger existing infrastructure almost guarantees that future EVs would be built to support it.

While it is true that newer chargers and cars may be able to charge at a faster rate, there is no reason the older stations wouldn’t still work just fine the way they were designed.

But would there still be L2s? Despite the high equipment costs for DCFC, it would appear that the company that owned a L2 would become more profitable converting to DCFC…Assuming we do get to 200KW or even 300+KW speeds, not only can you charge a premium for the convience but you service more vehicles…

I agree, even if every car had a 40-60 kWh battery pack people will still use L2 3kW charging stations. Same goes for low power DCFC stations, 25kW isn’t enough for a comfortable road trip (if that’s your thing) but if you only need a 50 mile top up to get to your destination a half hour walk isn’t the end of the world after driving for 180 miles.

In some ways the smaller charging stations are already by default in the right place, closely packed near popular destinations.

This is news? This is about the 20th “study” I’ve seen like this.

GM had discovered this the first year the volt rolled out, and reinforced and have had two updates to the engine module that I know of in gen 1 volt and gen 2 has a bigger regenerator capacity in gen two and battery not that much bigger and gen volt two jumps from 38 to 53 and what I find interesting is the bolt has less 3.5 the size 18 vs 60kw and bolt achieves 238 mi.

That’s because the Volt doesn’t use anywhere near the 18 while I suspect the Bolt uses % wise much more of the 60kW.

Works for me after 3 years I have zero complaints.

I just wish my sportscar was electric.

How a non-ev-enthusiast reads this title: “existing EVs leave you on foot once out of ten”

In my circumstances I have found the 80 mile 2014 BEV i3 is all that is needed for my personel transportation needs. I took the 3 day test drive and then purchased my first 2014 BMW i3, and now after two years of ownership and 14K miles I picked up my second 2014 BEV i3 at for $14K less than the first cost..If I need more than the 80 miles I’ll rent, call a cab, or do the Supershuttle…but that 200+ mile $14K premium (or more if I’d wait for the Mod 3) is not sitting idle in my garage and deprecating each and every the day as it goes unused. It is an incredible bargain to purchase a fully loaded certified pre-owned 2014 BEV i3…I know the car and the second i3 is like brand new with 14K miles on it. Of course I know it works for me cause I have easy access to an affordable electric energy supply, and my community has excellent roads with many HOV lanes that max out my performance; yes my circumstances are perfect for that first wave of BEVs. But attitudes are hard to change..half the homes in my communiy have “Sun… Read more »

90% still isn’t good enough. I don’t want to spend $30k or more on a car that doesn’t do what I want when I can spend $15k on another car that will do it. The Bolt is where we need to be right now, or the model 3, the next gen LEAF, the VW IDS and more. While still more expensive than gas cars at least they are not severely limited as vehicles.

Another Euro point of view

IMO When:

1/ 200 miles range EV’s will cost around $25K


2/ 350kw fast charging stations will be found every 30 miles.

Then only EV’s will be mass adopted, so not in a too distant future I believe (5 to 10 years max IMO). In Europe many people live in apartments & so can’t charge home. About charging time, I often found myself in a situation where I am sipping the last miles out of my fuel tank because I did not find the time to stop 3 min. to refuel so 30 minutes charging time I would need to learn yoga to build enough patience to wait that time or maybe go to early retirement and learn to relax.

“1/ 200 miles range EV’s will cost around $25K
2/ 350kw fast charging stations will be found every 30 miles.

Then only EV’s will be mass adopted, so not in a too distant future I believe (5 to 10 years max IMO). In Europe many people live in apartments & so can’t charge home.”

The problem here is that it is much cheaper/easier to install chargers at apartments than it is to create 200-mile $25K EVs and 350KW chargers every 30 miles.

Installing L2 chargers is not rocket science . . . it is apprentice level electrician work. We just need the proper incentives.

The existing EV’s meet more than 90% of my trips now. But, I keep my cars for a decade or more {I have 26, 13 & 6 year old vehicles}. The issue for me is battery degradation, such that in 5 or 6 years, it may not make my dail commute in the winter months when I need the range, plus heat, ilghts and wipers. (Im)patiently waiting a 200 mile BEV to buy. It’ll be a while since AL isn’t an EV compliance state.

I had a Leaf, and have the Bolt on order. With 3 years of leaf commuting, I am probably better aware of what 75 mile limits do than these researchers.

The Leaf indeed would do my 30 minute commute both ways and also run a short errand. That “both ways” thing is important. We have workplace charging, but it is a hassle. The chargers are always full, and half of them are just sitting without charging. My company has made it clear that they are not interested in enforcing charging.

Thus for anything more interesting than a short errand during lunch, it becomes a fight to get a charge. Typically it means either a 1 hour charge when the others leave at about 4:00, or if I forget, a trip to the local supercharger.

What I expect the Bolt to provide is worry free days and then real actual local trips around the bay, which were an unbelievable hassle with the leaf.

As I’ve said many times, if you have a toilet that meets 95% of your needs, it means you need another toilet.

This study essentially confirms that EVs (BEVs?) are not viable as the only car for most households. This is why I’ve said that PHEVs are the best solution to curtail our petroleum usage in the short term: reduce, then eliminate.

I understand that that way: They ignored the facts that (maybe only concerning the situation in Germany):
– many people don’t want to buy a car that looses the quite small range quite fast (IIRC e.g. 200Mm?).
– some people are driving longer routes at the weekend (e.g. working far away from home).
– that people know that it will be hard to impossible to find a rental car with ICE for the summer vacations then (why should that companies buy cars that will be only used a very few weeks per year?).
– charging is too slow especially if you can’t charge at home (most rented flats, many people are living in rented flats in Germany, even some who are house owner -> working far away from from etc.). BTW: If charging would be fast like buying gas today, the charging infrastructure could be much cheaper.
– buying two cars if you actually only need one is bad for the environment even when you’re using the environmentally worse car -> production! (beside of the costs)


90% isn’t high enough. It needs to be more like 95% to 97%. The remaining trips can be handled with borrowing a car, not going on such trips, ZIPcar, renting a car, or doing it with the EV and a large number of stops.

But the truth is that a Model 3 can nearly 100% and that is what they need to shoot for.