Only 31% of Americans want an EV or PHEV. What about you?

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Do you want your next vehicle to be an electric vehicle?

  • Yes! EV all the way!

    Votes: 23 27.7%
  • Maybe, but at least a PHEV (plug-in hybrid)

    Votes: 21 25.3%
  • I don't care, hybrid or whatever looks best at the time

    Votes: 16 19.3%
  • You can pry internal combustion from my cold, dead hands!

    Votes: 20 24.1%
  • I'm not planning to get another vehicle, ever

    Votes: 3 3.6%

  • Total voters
    83

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,237
37,643
136
It has to be the speed. Doing over 74-75 in my i3 rapidly drains the battery.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,684
1,962
136
He charged to 100% at home, but didn't think he had enough to get home so charged to 100% in OKC before heading back to Tulsa (~120 miles). Obviously not what he should've done for time efficiency, but the bigger issue is needing to charge in the middle of a 240 mile trip.

I do plan on telling him about A Better Route Planner.

From what I am reading your co-worker probably has a M3 RWD which only has about 270 mile EPA range which is why he couldn't do the complete trip without charging. With a Tesla I really don't see a issue at stopping to charge because the charging is fairly quick. In February of this year I had taken what I consider a roughly similar trip from Phoenix to Tucson and back to Phoenix while I was on a business trip for my employer. I had driven from San Diego to Phoenix in my Model Y. I left Phoenix with about 80% charge since the hotel didn't have a L2 charger. I drove to Tucson with 2 other co-workers with me in the car. I was driving at speeds of 80 mph+ for long parts of the trip along the I-10. FYI - Tesla FSD doesn't allow you to set your max speed above 85 mph. On the way back I needed to charge. We stopped at a gas station/convenience store right off the Interstate to charge with a bunch of Tesla V3 Superchargers. Tesla route planner navigated me to the charging station. I pulled in with 19% and within 20 mins I was back at 80% and we left. We barely had time to use the bathroom and grab a snack. It really was a non-event. Both of my co-workers who don't own EV's where shocked at how quick the charging was considering all the stuff they had heard about EV's charging slowly.


PXL_20240228_200207283.jpg
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,266
29,008
136
We stopped at a gas station/convenience store right off the Interstate to charge with a bunch of Tesla V3 Superchargers. Tesla route planner navigated me to the charging station. I pulled in with 19% and within 20 mins I was back at 80% and we left. We barely had time to use the bathroom and grab a snack.


View attachment 102041
Did you appreciate the ice in the urinals? :p
 

AdamK47

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,587
3,293
136
A big part of EV buyers remorse has to do with basic human behavior. People saw other people buying them up in '21/'22. Talking constantly about them. This lead to a boom in sales with buying behavior that goes back thousands of years. Reasoning goes out the window. Financial implications go out the window. Their neighbors are doing it, so it must be right.

That shiny veneer has worn off. The hype is gone. FOMO a distant memory. Reality sets in. Now things that actually do matter overshadow the once blissfully ignorant happy times.
 

5to1baby1in5

Golden Member
Apr 27, 2001
1,244
106
106
I jumped in with one of the Nissan Leaf S cars they are 'practically giving away' on lease (I actually purchased mine). I bought it as a daily commuter for 25 miles per day plus weekends for about 14K miles per year.

So far, I really like it. Great acceleration. It's definitely more than a glorified golf cart. Lotsa fun to drive. I took it up and drove about a third of the peak to peak hiway, and still had 49% on the battery when i got back. Getting up coal creek canyon burned 25%.

It does corner weird due to the battery weight, and the suspension isn't very robust (compared to my 4Runner LOL).

Unfortunately, the $3750 Federal tax credit went away for the 2025 model year, or I would have got it for under $10K. Not paying $60 a week for gasoline should save $50 per week with break-even in 5.5 years. I'll have extra expenses like Comprehensive insurance coverage for a few months while the title clears from nissan to NMAC, and a new 220V circuit in the garage, so it's probably a little more than 6 years to break even (85,000 miles). If there's any value left in it after 6 years, that's a bonus.

If/When battery technology makes another evolutionary leap (NiCad to Lithium Ion --> ???), we'll all be buying EV's for financial reasons instead of just for Smug (Southpark).
 

nOOky

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,011
2,029
136
I don't think the folks that drive monster trucks will ever drive an EV for financial reasons lol they'd probably quit drinking and vaping first so they could continue to buy diesel or gas. I've lived through a few gas price crises. It used to be that folks sold the muscle cars and bought Honda Civics. Now they just grimace and don't spend the money they have to pay for gas on other things. I seriously think it could be $6 a gallon nation wide and they'd still drive a huge truck around just to get groceries to own the libs.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,531
12,647
126
www.anyf.ca
If there was a proper EV work truck I could see some people buy them. I would be all over that if the price was right. Single cab, 8 foot box, and built to go in the bush and rough terrain. High ground clearance etc. Even the gas trucks are ridiculously expensive now though, so I think the days of affordable trucks are long gone.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,890
1,552
126
Here's a thought for this thread.

I have been agonizing for a few years in thinking about replacing my 30-year-old Trooper with an EV, hybrid, or PHEV. At the same time, I've spent a bundle on that Trooper this year to replace sensors, fuel-pump and sending unit, and a fuel-pressure-regulator. As I've said too many annoying times before -- the prevailing wisdom suggests that proper care and maintenance may allow me to double my 202,000 odometer miles before major overhaul.

In the back of my mind, looking at cars backed up on different interstates and freeways between here and LA, or the routine morning processions from around the capital beltway and into DC, it's easy to think the carbon emissions from vehicles are a big part of the carbon pollution problem.

BUT NO! WE'RE NOT "DRIVING" OURSELVES TO CLIMATE CATASTROPHE. Emissions from passenger vehicles and buses account for only 7% of carbon pollution, while the entire "Transport Sector" is 28%.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,531
12,647
126
www.anyf.ca
As far as emissions go, airplanes are worse too, although container ships are bad too. Look at an airline tracking site, it's mind blowing how many planes are in the air at any given time. All that carbon emissions is happening at high altitude too, so it doesn't even matter if we try to plant more trees or come up with some super duper carbon capture tech when the CO2 is that high up. The carbon capture tech would need to be onboard each plane and be efficient enough that the planes clean the air rather than pollute. I don't see such tech happening, not to mention doing anything to the engines that involves running the exhaust through something would affect performance.

Even if I have a gas truck I make up for it by using all electric yard tools like lawn mower, chainsaw, snow blower etc. Those type of engines actually pollute more than car engines.

If the price was right and serviceability was not an issue an EV would be nice but just can't justify the cost, and risk. If it breaks down it can cost a lot of money and you're without a vehicle for months.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,890
1,552
126
As far as emissions go, airplanes are worse too, although container ships are bad too. Look at an airline tracking site, it's mind blowing how many planes are in the air at any given time. All that carbon emissions is happening at high altitude too, so it doesn't even matter if we try to plant more trees or come up with some super duper carbon capture tech when the CO2 is that high up. The carbon capture tech would need to be onboard each plane and be efficient enough that the planes clean the air rather than pollute. I don't see such tech happening, not to mention doing anything to the engines that involves running the exhaust through something would affect performance.

Even if I have a gas truck I make up for it by using all electric yard tools like lawn mower, chainsaw, snow blower etc. Those type of engines actually pollute more than car engines.

If the price was right and serviceability was not an issue an EV would be nice but just can't justify the cost, and risk. If it breaks down it can cost a lot of money and you're without a vehicle for months.
My sense of it exactly. I'm going to stick with my Pooper and my Hardbody. The newer-vehicle plan is now just a contingency.

But it's funny. The other 21% attributable to the ships, planes and trains should be the priority, but somehow we're made to feel that it's a four-wheeled vehicle problem.

Right now, the temperature here has cooled -- to 102F. I think the world is probably doomed. Nobody wants to say so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Squirrel

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,890
1,552
126
He has a machine that unmixes the air and make CO² go to stratosphere.
Doesn't CO2 sink to floor level if released in a room? Or doesn't the evaporated gas from dry ice go to the floor?

I think we're going to suffocate ourselves. Then we should move to higher elevations. But all the people with COPD like me will not be able to breathe at those heights.

Oh, sure! the weather will take care of it, and mix it all up!
 

manly

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
11,901
2,846
136
Doesn't CO2 sink to floor level if released in a room? Or doesn't the evaporated gas from dry ice go to the floor?

I think we're going to suffocate ourselves. Then we should move to higher elevations. But all the people with COPD like me will not be able to breathe at those heights.

Oh, sure! the weather will take care of it, and mix it all up!

Explainer:


As far as taking the Paris accords seriously and trying to slow down the accumulation of GHG, it will take a global multi-pronged approach that includes personal transportation. Automobiles is actually a fairly large chunk of carbon emissions in the U.S. so being dismissive of the automobiles problem doesn't help. Another thing to keep in mind is that BEVs, despite their environmental impact to manufacture, already solve the emissions problem over the lifetime of an auto (depending on the source of the electrons). OTOH jet travel doesn't have any ready-made replacement so that isn't an area of improvement anytime soon.

Finally, with motor vehicles, it isn't just carbon emissions. They also spew particulate pollution that is known to be very bad for human health, particularly for young children that live close to busy highways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
97,031
16,248
126
Doesn't CO2 sink to floor level if released in a room? Or doesn't the evaporated gas from dry ice go to the floor?

I think we're going to suffocate ourselves. Then we should move to higher elevations. But all the people with COPD like me will not be able to breathe at those heights.

Oh, sure! the weather will take care of it, and mix it all up!

In essense it will become a homogeneous mix in lower layers. Upper layers doesn't mix as well because there is less to mix.

Lifted from reddit

The homosphere and heterosphere are defined by whether the atmospheric gases are well mixed. In the homosphere the chemical composition of the atmosphere does not depend on molecular weight because the gases are mixed by turbulence.[11] The homosphere includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere. Above the turbopause at about 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft) (essentially corresponding to the mesopause), the composition varies with altitude. This is because the distance that particles can move without colliding with one another is large compared with the size of motions that cause mixing. This allows the gases to stratify by molecular weight, with the heavier ones such as oxygen and nitrogen present only near the bottom of the heterosphere. The upper part of the heterosphere is composed almost completely of hydrogen, the lightest element.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken g6

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
I just bought an electric bicycle, Loving it so far the power to weight ratio just makes so much more sense than heavy batteries in a EV or complexity of a hybrid system.
Additionally cause we have snow on the ground 6 months of the year. . . just kills an EVs range. I have a sibling who just bought a Cadillac EV tho, so we can see how it goes for them :)
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
97,031
16,248
126
Ohman… That Lyriq is sweet! Jelly!!!
Did they solve the platform problem? Apparently their battery pack assembly plant was having issues.

 
Last edited:

iRONic

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2006
7,513
2,806
136
Dunno, I’m just going by what I saw online and in advertisements.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,703
3,731
136
I don't know what's hard or complicated about that statement. Airplanes pollute high up, that's where the greenhouse effect is the most present.

Trees and land based carbon capture take care of CO2 at lower levels but no tree is tall enough to capture CO2 at air traffic heights.
Nothing is complicated about it, it just shows a frankly hard to believe lack of understanding of basic physics and common sense. Air mixes. There’s no magic keeping airplane pollution at 35000 feet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,890
1,552
126
Well, the long and short of it for me is the percentage of carbon pollution.

There's no certainty that the technology will become exclusively electric. They're experimenting with hydrogen.. We speculate about the prevalence of electric in our investment decision of vehicle purchase.

Meanwhile, the push to EV is only addressing 7% of the climate carbon pollution problem. 7% won't mitigate anything. The other 21% would, if there were a fix.

I can't think of any other avenues for replacing carbon. They'd have to resurrect nuclear power.

Personally, I think civilization is doomed, unless they can scrub atmospheric air and turn the CO2 into limestone or cement. Then we can worry about when fossil fuel -- particularly oil of any kind -- runs out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Squirrel

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,703
3,731
136
Well, the long and short of it for me is the percentage of carbon pollution.

There's no certainty that the technology will become exclusively electric. They're experimenting with hydrogen.. We speculate about the prevalence of electric in our investment decision of vehicle purchase.

Meanwhile, the push to EV is only addressing 7% of the climate carbon pollution problem. 7% won't mitigate anything. The other 21% would, if there were a fix.

I can't think of any other avenues for replacing carbon. They'd have to resurrect nuclear power.

Personally, I think civilization is doomed, unless they can scrub atmospheric air and turn the CO2 into limestone or cement. Then we can worry about when fossil fuel -- particularly oil of any kind -- runs out.
7% is a huge deal, especially when it comes without any serious impact to quality of life …