Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons

jeffyscott

I think it's actually about $90-100K...but, yeah...you're right about that.

reddroverr

You are correct to be skeptical. The vast majority of these things fall by the wayside.

The tanks in the prototype are standard fiberglass gas tanks.

We can either assume that it is overhyped or that the mileage stated is up to the point where the car becomes noticably less powerfull. Even if it overstated by 20%, that is still pretty good consdering the projected cost of the vehicle.

It may not be able to produce as much energy from the electricity as a battery car would, but as we speak we don't really have a viable battery car. Hopefully we will..but it doesn't appear a slam dunk..but the only hurdle now seems to be battery cost.

I think the chances are probably far less than 50% that this aircar will pan out, but who knows? No possible ill effects from EMF with this mode.

But what do you think? Should we allow some high mileage or alt fuel vehicles in the country and just designate them ad adult only vehicles?

reddroverr

http://www.cyber-media.com/aircar/images/newsweek.jpg

tpe

But what do you think? Should we allow some high mileage or alt fuel vehicles in the country and just designate them ad adult only vehicles?

I don't know about adult only vehicles but I agree with your position. Can't an adult ride a motorcycle with a minor on the back? I've seen people riding bicycles that are towing a little carrier with their child onboard. I have no problem with this. The individual should be allowed to decide for themselves what an acceptable level of safety is, and parents are allowed to make this decision for their children. The only requirement that should be placed on the manufacturer is to provide accurate information regarding the risks. I think this should apply to all vehicles. The only vehicles that should be regulated are those that pose an additional risk to the rest of the motorists on the highway that didn't have any say in accepting this risk. A policy like this would place restrictions on unnecessarily large vehicles, not small EVs.

Mr_Shiftright

Did you know that before the electric self-starter, many automobiles were started with compressed air starters? The principle of CA as a motivator isn't new of course, but it's also been the source of some pretty wacky "inventions" that didn't pan out very well.

MrShiftright
Visiting Host

reddroverr

You are a student of the automobile far more than I. Until the last few years, I've taken the ICE for granted.

"An earlier version of the car that we drove was noisy and slow, and a tiny bit cumbersome.

The latest vehicle is said to have come on leaps and bounds from the early model we drove.

It is said to be much quieter, a top speed of 110 km/h (65 mph), and a range of around 200 km before you need to fill the tanks up with air. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2281011.stm

This thing is about the size of a smart. If it does what they say, and is reliable, I don't see why it can't find it's nich. At $8-10k why not?

Of course as I said, it is more likely not to pan out.

jeffyscott

But what do you think? Should we allow some high mileage or alt fuel vehicles in the country and just designate them ad adult only vehicles?

I take a Libertarian position on most things, so I would say people should be able to buy and drive whatever they wish to, provided it does me no harm. Making goverment vehicle safety standards optional across the board would be fine with me. Just require disclosure to the buyer with something like: "THIS VEHICLE DOES NOT MEET NHTSA RECOMMENDED MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS".

I'd rather see required safety standards be aimed at preventing harm to me by someone else's vehicle choice. I'd like to see some requirements related preventing trucks and SUVs from killing and maiming the rest of us. Perhaps a require any vehicle over 4000 pounds to be crashed into some sort of "standard" 3000 pound car and meet some sort of safety standard related to the harm to the simulated occupants of the 3000 pound car.

If you want to drive a glorified golf cart that's great (as long as I can not be sued for harming you due to your choice of an "unsafe" vehicle).

tpe

If you want to drive a glorified golf cart that's great (as long as I can not be sued for harming you due to your choice of an "unsafe" vehicle).

Well if the accident is your fault I don't think the victim's choice of vehicle should be a mitigating factor. If you hit a bicyclist or motorcyclist could you argue that he wouldn't have been as injured had he been in an automobile? I guess you could argue that but I doubt it would carry much weight with a jury.

jeffyscott

A bicycle can not, I think, legally be driven in traffic as if it were a car...just as a golf cart can not. I know they are not allowed on the freeway. You make a good point with the motorcycle, though.

tpe

Well my point is that if a golf cart could go fast enough, stop, turn fast enough and have the signalling equipment to not represent a hazard to other motorists then it should be allowed in traffic. Whether or not it can withstand some impact test should not be a factor. Let the driver make that decision. If you made these "golf carts" two person vehicles I see no logic in requiring them to be any safer than a motorcycle than can legally have a passenger on the back.

Mr_Shiftright

Every traffic accident potentially does you harm; deaths due to unsafe vehicles may result in stricter rules than will affect you, may result in injured parties becoming wards of the state, and higher insurance costs. Anarchy really doesn't work in situations like high speed machinery I don't think. Much better for personal choices that can't affect anyone, like fighting against dress codes, etc.

I think EVs should meet all safety standards *relative* to their speed and capabilities----like say what they do with mopeds---you can have some restrictions in exchange for lack of certain safety equipment or certain capabilities.

But you need regulation and standards of some kind IMO.

Besides, EVs aren't going to sell unless they become "real" cars, and real cars have safety features.

MrShiftright
Visiting Host

gagrice

I don't believe the EV-1 or RAV4-EV were ever crash tested. The first Prius was given a wink on safety. All the safety stuff is no substitute for defensive driving. Just more junk to go wrong with a car. Plus it raises our insurance rates.

larsb

The EV-1 was crash tested:

Media Advisory:
NHTSA Releases Crash Test Results
For Three Notable Cars

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today released crash test results for three notable cars. The release, NHTSA 62-98, shows frontal crash test results for the 1998 General Motors EV1 electric two-door car, 1998 Audi A8 four-door, and the 1999 Ford Taurus four-door. Side-impact tests results also are included for the Ford Taurus four-door.

See info here too:

EV-1 crash results

Still looking for RAV4 EV and 1999 Prius

larsb

SoCalEd still has four Toyota RAV-4 EV’s with over 400k miles on the original NiMH battery pack by Panasonic.

jeffyscott

Prius was crash tested in 2001. It looks like that was its first year.

The Honda Insight was crash tested in 2000, BTW.

This reminds me of an important point, it is actually easier for lighter vehicles to pass these tests. This is because there is less energy to absorb, the lighter the vehicle is.

Unfortunatly, crash tests do not tell you much of anything about what the results of a collision with a heavier vehicle will be. They simulate a single vehicle collision with a fixed object or a collision with a vehicle of similar weight.

cbveritech

I can agree with you there. A friend of mine worked for an injury lawyer and a lot of people don't know these larger and heavier vehicles are not always going to protect you as much as you might think. There are even some vans and suv's that are more prone to leave the driver or passenger paralyzed or cause severe injury to your lower bocy. The manufacture is not going to volunteer this information but there are a lot of out of court settlements from car makers because of this stuff. So this notion that people have of feeling safer in a bigger and heavier vehicle is not always true. Even if the vehicle is smaller there have been instances where the passengers in the larger vehicle have suffered more traumatic injuries.
I have to say that the info you guys are posting is helping me shop for a vehicle. I am looking for a car with good gas mileage and I did not know the safety standards were so low on these cars. Thanks .... going to do more research on this stuff before I make my choice ....

reddroverr

A123 is collaborating with Continental AG to make the battery pack system which will meet GM’s requirements. Continental will put a large number of A123’s cells into a plastic case designed to handle the “abuse of the vehicular environment” and develop computerized cooling and battery management electronics that will examine each cell insuring that it does not come out of its ideal cycle of operation. There will clearly be a give and take between the two companies.

An important fact, Dr. Riley also noted that cooling the cells is important not for safety reasons, but because it is a “life issue” as he calls it. GM wants the batteries to last for at least 15 years of use and temperature variability can reduce battery life and must be avoided.

Hmm, I didn't know cooling was an issue.

Compared to Altair Nano’s system, he states that A123’s has higher energy density. Altair Nano uses a different anode, and winds up with 1/2 voltage and twice the weight per cell.

Wow

http://www.gm-volt.com/

tpe

I was aware of this and the strength of Altairnano's battery is not in the pure EV application where you want maximum energy density. I actually think their battery is more suited for the Chevy Volt, plug-in hybrid where lifespan is the primary concern. What I mean is that when you are only trying to achieve 30-40 miles all EV range this won't require a huge battery pack. Granted the A123 solution would probably be 100 lbs lighter but in this situation what's more important is the lifespan in terms of cycles and years. From what I've read the advantage here goes to the Altairnano battery.

I get the sense that Altairnano is starting to come to this realization because some of their collaborating partners have recently announced plans to develop plug-in hybrids.

reddroverr

Interesting. I confess that I assumed that altair and A123's products would be very similar. 100lbs is nothing in the overall weight of the car. I wonder what kind of a cooling solution the Volters will come up with?

michael2003

I believe the Altair batteries would also not require a cooling system. So, I wonder whether how much weight difference this would result in, especially considering that it would also allow the packaging to be much more flexible.

tpe

Hopefully we'll be seeing some working prototypes within a year and a lot of these questions will start getting answered.

Altainano's battery still seems very expensive. I don't know what they plan on doing to address this. Right now they will be putting their battery packs in vehicles that will be getting enormous tax credits, which makes their use viable. This is an artificial situation that probably wont exist indefinetly. Altairnano will probably need to find partners that can provide large scale manufacturing assistance.

Some of the press releases out of GM's battery partners sound confident that they can overcome this cost issue by 2010, the proposed production date.

michael2003

I have a feeling (should we call it a prediction?) that whichever battery tech that GM does choose will be the one that gets the money to build the mass production facilities.

reddroverr

Unless I am mistaken, GM is pretty much locked in to developing the Volt with A123 batteries.

michael2003

I've read that GM has given awards to two other combinations of companies with the goal to pick the best solution provided in around a years time.

reddroverr

Looks like you are right. However, at least from the releases I saw, Altair isn't one of them.

"One went to Compact Power Inc (CPI) who will use batteries created by LG Chem. The other went to Continental Automotive Systems who will use A123 batteries"

Mr_Shiftright

I just hope GM hits the right price point and correct endurance standards for this to sell. If they could even just meet the 2002 RAV4 specs, that would work....100 miles, freeway speeds, 4 hour recharge...and BEAT the RAV4 price point, which was way too high at $42,000.

reddroverr

What they are shooting for with the Volt is very practical in terms of functionality and price. 40 all electric miles that then becomes a standard hybrid type vehicle with a 50 mpg for under 30k I believe. They just need to hit those marks..which is easier said than done.

Mr_Shiftright

Indeed...there is so much BS in the electric car market that I instinctively reach for my shovel when I see the latest brochure. Every kind of promise imaginable and then when the real car rolls out, it meets "some" of the promises but then sandbags either on range or price or performance. Sometimes the specs were for "ideal" situations which no one can match in the real world, and sometimes the companies just outright lie about it...oh, excuse me...their "projections" in the stockholders pamphlet don't pan out.

But ONE OF THESE DAYS I'll be proven wrong...I can hardly wait, because then what I REALLY wanted will come true.

It seems that the American love of conspiracies always rises to the surface when yet another electric car bites the dust, but the explanations are often far simpler than that---not enough people wanted to buy it to make it profitable to build.

Show me the company that purposely withdraws the hottest product of the 21st century so that they can sell fewer units of their old product? Yeah, right...let's just keep making 1985 Corollas and forget the Prius!

reddroverr

It is probably a combination of factors that have slowed the progrees of the EVs. Some of which have changed a bit. Gas has climbed in price 100% or 200% more, depending on when you start the clock. With demand exploding, it seems a good bet that we won't see it under $2 for quite some time. Agree or not, Al Gore has got a lot of folks concerned about carbon emissions, thus fueling demand. Then there are guys like me who want to not export another dollar to the oil despots. Next we do have to concede that battery technology has improved quite a bit. It is price on that front that seems to be the limiter now. Computer chips and tech have improved to make complicated governing systems easier to incoportate into designs. The serial hybrid makes a lot of sense for the current state of technology. The driving experience is similar to a standard car, but you get the option of plugging in for most of the average daily mileage for most people. Makes the cost of the battery less of a factor since it is not the sole power supply. Let's hope GM or someone can nail this down.

FWIW, you can view Who Killed the Electric Car's suspects and verdicts, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?

In the meantime, can't Toyota import me a #$%&@*% diesel Yaris??! That fact that I can't get one might be linked to the success of the Pius..a more expensive car with similar mileage.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't think Americans are all that hot on diesel cars...it's a niche market and probably will remain so. Why? Because gas cars are really good and getting better. The advantage of diesel over gas is neither clear enough nor significant enough for a big market shift IMO.

Who Killed the Electric Car -- forget blaming everyone else. It's the consumers fault. Corporations are like sharks, if they see blood (money) they will sell you over the counter cyanide if it was legal, profitable, not quite lethal (you can't go killing your customer base, just ask Cadillac) and they could make it sound like fun.

Of course I'm being glib, but really time and time again we've seen products that come out and are such a hit that the manufacturer has to re-tool, gear up and change their own internal plans to feed the market.

When consumers will pay over MSRP for an EV the way they do for MINIs or Ferraris, well then, the EV will capture a large market--but the consumer was not willing to do that in the past. A few sniffed around, a smaller few bought them, and that wasn't enough to compel a corporation to take the bait.

Besides ALL THAT, new tech has to prove itself. We now know that Prius's do run for many miles without battery replacement, and that they don't break down a lot. We didn't know that in the first few months.

1stpik

I test drove an EV-1 back in '96. It was cool -- lots of torque, and it sounded like the Millenium Falcon making the jump to hyperspace.

Gasoline was $1 a gallon, so there was no pressing reason for an electric car, but I still liked that EV-1 enough to buy it ..... except it only went 80 miles between charges. I couldn't take it anywhere out of town, so I'd have to have a whole other car for road trips. That was the deal breaker right off the bat.

Also, owners had to install a 220 V outlet in their garages to recharge the EV-1. But the worst part was that GM would only lease (not sell) the cars. The lease was $425/mo., which was way too much for such impractical technology.

Of course, if GM produced the EV-1 today, they'd have a waiting list a mile long. Yet they don't, nor do they even attempt to build a hybrid.

Instead, they hype the Volt, but say that it's six years away. Six years -- total B.S.! Think about this; six years ago, muslim terrorists has succesfully infiltrated our country, were traveling freely from state to state, and were taking flight lessons to prepare them to fly hijacked planes into buildings.

If GM, or any other U.S. automaker, was serious about alternative fuel vehicles, they would have dusted off their already-finished designs for them on September 12, 2001, and we'd be DRIVING them today!

Whatever GM finally produces under the name "Volt" will be years late, will use primitive technology, and offer dubious practicality -- kind of like today's Saturn Aura Green Line. They'll only produce the thing to meet the new 35 mpg CAFE requirements, because the 22 years that CAFE stayed at 27 mpg just wasn't long enough.

How many millions of dollars in bribes -- oops, I mean campaign contributions -- did it take to keep that 27 mpg requirement stagnant for two decades? I don't know, but it's okay, because now Congress allows a $2,000 tax credit for hybrids ..... while they allow $100,000 accelerated depreciation on Hummers. Gee, go figure!

In case you haven't caught the drift yet, GM, Ford and Chrysler are just like the U.S. Congress -- anything they say is a lie, anything they do is a scam.

Expect to see a practical electric car from Detroit right after you see peace in the Middle East.

tpe

Expect to see a practical electric car from Detroit right after you see peace in the Middle East.


There's a big difference between the climate that created the EV-1 and what exists today. Back then the automakers were being forced to produce a number of EVs if they wanted to do business in CA. They fought this mandate from day one and finally defeated it. The companies now pursuing EVs are not doing so as the result of any mandate but because they actually believe EVs have a future, in fact, they may be the future.

As we all know GM is losing billions of dollars. Yet they are clearly investing significantly in the development of the Chevy Volt. Why would they do this? GM is not stating that the Volt is 6 years off. The tentative date they are giving is 2010 but this is totally contingent upon the right battery being available. In the meantime they are going ahead with development of all the other components, which will definitely be in place by 2010 waiting for the battery. Whether or not the battery exists by then will not be something that GM can lie about because there are other fringe players that will have fielded EVs and PHEVs and we will all know for a fact what modern batteries are capable of.

BTW, Mitsubishi is already field testing a small fleet of EVs in Japan. If all goes well we may see these by 2009.

If GM, or any other U.S. automaker, was serious about alternative fuel vehicles, they would have dusted off their already-finished designs for them on September 12, 2001, and we'd be DRIVING them today!


Why do you single out US automakers? The Toyota RAV4 EV was probably the closest of all the EVs to being ready for primetime yet Toyota is showing no inclination towards re-introducing an EV. GM's EV-1 did not meet crash test standards when it was discontinued. It also had a 1,000 lb battery pack that would even today cost over $20k. I'm not sure that it really is a matter of simply dusting off existing technology.

gagrice

I might add to your post. If not for the GM EV-1 and its development of the NiMH battery, Toyota would not have any hybrids to sell. That is still the battery of choice until a better one comes along.

1stpik

"NiMH battery technology was developed at the end of the 1980s and commercialised first by the Matsushita Company"

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni-MH

And, of course, the first EV1s used only lead acid batteries. So GM is hardly responsible for improvements in battery technology. And they're certainly not responsible for Toyota's Prius, which first went on sale in 1997 -- the SAME TIME as the EV1.

"Why do you single out US automakers?"

Because they're the ones doing NOTHING to improve auto propulsion technology. They're the ones who were first in the game 80 years ago, but got too fat, lazy and corrupt to care about innovation. They're the ones who shout "BUY AMERICAN," while they move their factories to other countries.

Believe me, I'd LOVE to be driving some exciting new products from Detroit. I'd love to advise people to avoid the cheap, antiquated products from Japanese car makers. I'd love to take pride in automobiles built in my own country.

And I expect to do so right after I see peace in the Middle East.

tpe

And, of course, the first EV1s used only lead acid batteries. So GM is hardly responsible for improvements in battery technology. And they're certainly not responsible for Toyota's Prius, which first went on sale in 1997 -- the SAME TIME as the EV1

That's not completely true. The first generation of EV1s used lead acid. The last EV1s used NiMH batteries developed by Cobasys, which GM largely owned back then. Matsushita did develop NiMH batteries but the world court determined that they were infringing on Cobasys patents and Matsushita had to pay a fairly hefty fine and stop producing these large format NiMH batteries.

Mr_Shiftright

The differences between GM and Toyota with their EVs was this: 1) Toyota relented and let all leasees purchase their EVs and agreed to service them under warranty---GM crushed theirs; 2) Toyota admitted right out front that they didn't see enough of a market for the RAV4 in 2002. I think they only had orders for 1500 or so in the end. So if you ask Toyota today they'd put those 1500 orders on the table and say "Well would you build it for this market?"

Of course, Toyota is being a bit sly here....there's also the fact that it may be to no advantage for a company to sell a less profitable product to their customers who would have bought their more profitable one anyway. So if you sell 50,000 EVs and don't sell 50,000 gas cars, what have you gained?

gagrice

Yes, ECD Ovonics which is owned now by Cobasys was first with the NiMH battery in 1982. First EV with NiMH batteries was the 1992 Chrysler TE van. The 2000 RAV4 EV used NiMH batteries 2 years after the 1998 EV-1 switched to Ovonics NiMH batteries.

Each hybrid vehicle built using NiMH batteries pays a royalty to Cobasys. It pays to file patents.

tpe

So if you sell 50,000 EVs and don't sell 50,000 gas cars, what have you gained?


That's an interesting question. My understanding is that Toyota actually lost money on the Prius until just a couple of years ago. So somewhat the same question could have been asked there.

Mr_Shiftright

Sure that's a good question to ask. One would have to know how many Prius buyers were "conquests" and how many were former Toyota owners.

But if these former Toyota owners went from a Yaris to a fully optioned Prius, that's probably okay as that double the MSRP.

Also Toyota got huge brownie points in the global environmental scene.

My two cents is that in 2007, anyone putting out an innovative, workable, new technology gains immeasurable future wealth simply by owning the reputation for being a leader in "green tech".

I think Toyota pulled off a real coup with the Prius in a way that it couldn't with the small volume, under-publicized RAV-EV.

But if Toyota came out tomorrow with a 150 mile range, pure electric Prius for $25,000, it will not only sell, it would garner much praise I think. But it can't cost $42K like the RAV did.

reddroverr

The Prius started a new technology, and amortization of the R&D, new tooling and such probably accounted for a decent amount of that loss. Now they have the tooling and tech to use on other models for nice profits as well. I have little doubt that if gas had stayed below $1.50 a gallon, sales would not be anywhere near what they are and the Prius may have remained a marginal product for them.

michael2003

Yeh, it's too bad that Altair didn't get in on this since they already have a battery that can be recharged often enough to reach the lifecycle that GM says they need, but their current price point is too high.

michael2003

But if Toyota came out tomorrow with a 150 mile range, pure electric Prius for $25,000, it will not only sell, it would garner much praise I think.

I agree that Toyota would probably sell quite a few, however I don't see the EV market really taking off until vehicles have a range of at least 400-500 miles on a single charge. Until then, we'll have to compromise with vehicle designs like a PHEV.

tpe

I don't see the EV market really taking off until vehicles have a range of at least 400-500 miles on a single charge

Why? I'm assuming because that's what a typical ICE is capable of. Well this typical ICE is probably going to cost you $50 to fill up with gas as opposed to probably around $15 for the same amount of electricity. How long does it take the average American to earn $35 take home? It's funny because so many people will say that they aren't willing to be inconvenienced by having to pull over every couple hundred miles to re-charge but they'll put in the 1-2 hours at work to avoid this inconvenience.

The fact is that the typical American driver doesn't make many trips over 150 miles during the course of a year. So the bulk of the time he is re-charging at home, which is less time consuming than going to a gas station. If you computed all the time spent re-charging compared to refueling and then divided your fuel savings by this amount I suspect that most people would find this a lucrative trade-off. It just comes down to getting the purchase price inline with ICE vehicles. I think at $25k you've accomplished this.

gagrice

I don't foresee any 400-500 mile EVs. With the average CA commute something like 33 miles each way, 150 mile range is plenty to cover a huge population of commuters. When Toyota talks about PHEV they only mentioned 30-40 mile EV only range. The company that has tried to get going with the add-on Prius batteries only expected 35 miles on electric only for an additional $12k worth of batteries. We need a break through in battery technology.

The person or persons that come up with a battery for the future EVs, will make more money than the Google Guys.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah I agree...why should an EV have a greater range than a small car with a full tank of gas? I'm stretching it at 350 miles and I don't fill up every day. I'd be very happy with a maximum emergency range of 250 and I think so would 99% of Americans. I could make do with that as a PRIMARY vehicle. As a secondary vehicle, even 100 miles would be okay.

You have to keep in mind that as EVs become numerous, there will be "opportunity charging" stations for them, as a customer convenience. You can "shop 'n charge" but in the good way, not as in VISA. :P

gagrice

My local Costco had two charging stations for the EV-1. I remember seeing one hooked up. I wonder who paid for it.

daysailer

Even IF there could be an EV with a 300mi range it would not be equivalent to a car with a full tank of gas. A gasoline vehicle can be refueled in a 5 min stop and continue on. The only limtations are the needs of the driver's/passenger's. An EV will require a lengthy stop for recharging which will seriously limit its usefullness for intercity travel. Even an EV with an optimistic 150 mi range would require stopping twice as often as a typical gas vehicle and for much longer. If such vehicles were a substantial percentage of the vehicles on the road, the number of recharging stations required would be much MORE than the number of gas stations for the same size fleet and those recharging stations would need to be much LARGER to accommodate the much longer average residence time of the EVs.

My point is that even IF EVs could achieve the performance objectives desired, they cannot become "primary" vehicles without redefining how we travel, nor without a much larger infrastructure than gas vehicles require. They cannot be direct replacements for gas vehicles. In my youth, without the limitations of an aging bladder, I routinely traveled 300mi non-stop.

Mr_Shiftright

I would agree that they won't serve as primary vehicles for most people.

reddroverr

Altair claims a one minute charging time, A123 a five minute. So if those types of batteries are real and affordable, battery is superior to gas fueling.

Why?

Consider that in addition, you can charge your car at home or overnight at a motel with standard electrical, you actually need less total time for station fueling, en masse.

I also have no doubt that PC cities like portland, would support the technology with some sort of wired public charging.

If all the gas stations now existing converted over to high capacity electric and EVs dominated, they would be virtual ghost towns.

As for near term, PIHEV looks like the most probable winner. But if the price of betteries comes down enough...look out!

reddroverr

I think that is about right, 150 mile range, $25k or less. Yaris size gets you a lot of takers, Prius size gets a lot more. I would still keep my other vehicle around for longer trips unless some fast charging solutions became widespread, which would surely take some time. A 200+ mile range and I might just be able to ditch the second car. But as we have pointed out, many households have second cars already.