GM Volt Forum banner

61 - 80 of 118 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
The article gives "conservatives" another excuse not to conserve and continue to pollute without feeling bad about it. A focus on the edge cases that switch back to ICE to justify an existing bias against EV's. Remember when a certain Presidential candidate said EV's can't run on windmills? “You can’t drive a car with a windmill on it.” Totally ignored that EV's could be charged with electricity from renewable sources including windmills. Recently he's saying 90% of cars will be EV in the next 10 years which is likely too optimistic. But at least he's seen the (sun)light or has the wind(mill) at his back now when it comes to EV's, haha.
There is unfortunately some truth to this. Too many people take what their "leadership" says as gospel, but a true conservative will do their own research.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,197 Posts
"...PEV discontinuance in California occurs at a rate of 20% for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle owners and 18% for battery electric vehicle owners. We show that discontinuance is related to [a number of factors, including] ...not being male."
Ah. That's.... INTERESTING. That the discontinuance rate is even higher for PHEVs casts some serious doubt about how vitally important the charging infrastructure actually is, because PHEVs ....are exactly the vehicles that don't have any demands for charging. Five minutes to add 300 miles of range and all that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,197 Posts
If someone else in the first 51 posts already mentioned this and I missed it, forgive me. I find the slanted title "strange". Why not a title of "Fully 80% of EV owners refuse to return to ICE," instead of focusing on the minority segment?
Clicks. I'd never have even bothered with the thread since I totally agreed with the majority outcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #65 ·
Ah. That's.... INTERESTING. That the discontinuance rate is even higher for PHEVs casts some serious doubt about how vitally important the charging infrastructure actually is, because PHEVs ....are exactly the vehicles that don't have any demands for charging. Five minutes to add 300 miles of range and all that.
It's unlikely that the difference between 18% and 20% is statistically significant, and as far as I can tell the article in Nature Energy doesn't claim that it's significant.

It's also important to keep in mind that although charging infrastructure (or "charging convenience", the actual words used on the questionnaire) was the most important factor the study identified that explains the probability of switching to a non-EV, that doesn't mean that all or even most people who switched did so for that reason. Consider that 48% of people who did NOT switch said they were "very satisfied" whereas only 31% of people who switched said they were very satisfied. Clearly, about a third of people who switched were perfectly happy with charging infrastructure, so they must have switched for another reason. Furthermore, some fraction of people who were "slightly satisfied" or less with charging convenience probably had other reasons to switch, like wanting a bigger car, or a lower car payment, or any number of other reasons - none of which were captured (as far as I can tell) by their questionnaire. Finally, how should we interpret the fact that about two thirds of EV owners who switched to a non-EV said they were less than "very satisfied" with charging convenience? Does that mean they switched because of charging inconvenience? Probably some of them did - but clearly not all of them, which we can infer from the fact that half the people who did not switch were less than "very satisfied" with charging convenience.

So, while I think charging infrastructure certainly played a role in some people's decision to switch, I think the impact of that variable is much less than claimed by the media stories about this study. It's a little silly: one would not expect a big brouhaha over a study finding that 20% of convertible owners switch to a non-convertible. Such an observation wouldn't surprise anyone because we instinctively know people have a million reasons deciding to switch cars. The same is true for EV owners, and as long as non-EV vehicles are commonly available, some fraction of them is going to get rid of their EV and buy a non-EV. The remarkable thing (as someone pointed out upthread) is that 80% of them stuck with their EVs.
 

·
Registered
2013 Volt
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
Clicks. I'd never have even bothered with the thread since I totally agreed with the majority outcome.
Just to clarify, my confusion isn't over the title of the thread, it's the title of the subject Yahoo News article. As written, it sounds like a clear warning to anyone considering an EV that lots of buyers end up being dissatisfied and switch back
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Here you go: 2010 Urban Area FAQs Hasn't been updated for 2020 yet, but the other FAQs have, so I'm sure it's coming soon.

Anticipating your next question, here's the maps: Index of /geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua
Thank you, now we can work from a common definition. That said I'm not sure why you're making the distinction between urban and rural areas. A number of issues facing potential EV owners exist within urban areas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Just to clarify, my confusion isn't over the title of the thread, it's the title of the subject Yahoo News article. As written, it sounds like a clear warning to anyone considering an EV that lots of buyers end up being dissatisfied and switch back
I am not sure how how you reach this conclusion. It clearly indicates that 20% of people who purchased an EV switch back to an ICE vehicle because of charging hassles. There's no ambiguity as to the percentage (it's 20%) and the reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,804 Posts
Read what I wrote, this time try and understand what I was saying.
OK big guy, this is what you wrote: "a Chevy Volt he tested still needed nearly six hours to top its range back up to 300 miles from nearly empty"

That statement makes no sense at all. Are you, or the author of the article, trying to make a joke?

I understand it as apartment dwellers took the EV plunge and then decide that an EV is not for apartment dwellers.
When they move to a house of their own, they will come back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
OK big guy, this is what you wrote: "a Chevy Volt he tested still needed nearly six hours to top its range back up to 300 miles from nearly empty"

That statement makes no sense at all. Are you, or the author of the article, trying to make a joke?

I understand it as apartment dwellers took the EV plunge and then decide that an EV is not for apartment dwellers.
When they move to a house of their own, they will come back.
I didn't write that, it was a quote (which is why it was surrounded in quotation marks in my post) from the article (which now appears to have been corrected):

"Even with the faster charging, a Chevy Bolt he tested still needed nearly six hours to top its range back up to 300 miles from nearly empty - something that takes him just minutes at the pump with his family SUV."

You're correct in that it does not make sense if the vehicle in question were a Volt. Which means, to anyone who can apply critical thinking and context, that perhaps they meant Bolt, which apparently they did because the article has been updated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
Ah. That's.... INTERESTING. That the discontinuance rate is even higher for PHEVs casts some serious doubt about how vitally important the charging infrastructure actually is, because PHEVs ....are exactly the vehicles that don't have any demands for charging. Five minutes to add 300 miles of range and all that.
During the time period of this study, California revoked all the existing PHEV carpool stickers and those drivers had to get back in line behind full BEV drivers for those stickers. Since the PHEVs on the market at the time didn't meet their other requirements such as cargo space, why keep them.
 

·
Registered
2017 Volt Premier 80k+ Miles
Joined
·
593 Posts
And here it is, the unsupported accusation by a greenie that "conservatives" are merely anti-green and unable to think for themselves and therefore you know what's right for them. You have yet to demonstrate that their situations are edge cases. IMO 20% is not an edge case. I see these "edge" cases all over the place.
I'll add that in the country, most are conservative, and most are concerned about the environment, because they actually live within it. Unless someone lives with nature on a daily basis it's hard to truly appreciate it, and you cannot completely do that without having land. One is not going to "save the world" by driving an electric car. I do like the tech and no tailpipe emissions. There are much larger impacts, primarily population increase, and far greater things one can do. Every family should be able to afford a house with land so the kids can grow up in surrounded by nature, and have this appreciation. Policies which are counter to this are not "green".

Emissions were down significantly in the US over the last 4 years. The reality is the current rapid addition of millions, and the policies driving it, will result in far greater environmental damage in the US than the 20% that are going back to a gas car. Such policies are not "green".
 
  • Like
Reactions: volty25

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
The only green I'm trying to save are the stuff in my wallet. Yes, I have a big gas guzzling SUV that I pull my 7000# camping trailer hundreds of miles regularly. I also have a gas guzzling V8 boat that's even more wasteful but it's meant for leisure. The more I drive my Volt, the more I'm reaffirmed that it's the right car for me. I don't have to charge it but I do. At home I charge at Level 2 which is fast enough for me. At work I charge with Level 1 for 10 hours so I get very close to a full charge. I live in the rustbelt midwest so I don't understand why anyone in a warmer climate does not appreciated the ease of their charging. The Volt gives me the option not to charge but the benefits of a full battery is so much more attractive. Silence and quick acceleration being the top two. I'm also using less than $1 to drive 50 miles to work and $1 to drive back home. You can't even ride a bus 100 miles back and forth to work for $2

I will be the first to admit that a full BEV is a hard sell in my area. There will always be range anxiety and the charge time is just too long even on a DC charger.
But it's awesome using a Volt as a long daily commute vehicle. It takes 5 seconds to plug in and 15 seconds to unplug and wind the cord. I can do this all the time to save $300 a month.
I think I can wake up 15 seconds earlier in the morning to make up my lost time. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #74 ·
I am not sure how how you reach this conclusion. It clearly indicates that 20% of people who purchased an EV switch back to an ICE vehicle because of charging hassles. There's no ambiguity as to the percentage (it's 20%) and the reason.
See my post above (#65). The media articles say this (and I paraphrased them in the title of the thread). But the data in the research article indicate that not everyone who switched from EV to ICE did so because of charging hassles, and it may not even have been a majority of people who did so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #75 ·
Every family should be able to afford a house with land so the kids can grow up in surrounded by nature, and have this appreciation. Policies which are counter to this are not "green".

Emissions were down significantly in the US over the last 4 years. The reality is the current rapid addition of millions, and the policies driving it, will result in far greater environmental damage in the US than the 20% that are going back to a gas car. Such policies are not "green".
Actually there are lots of studies indicating that individuals living in cities have substantially less environmental impact than individuals living in suburban or rural areas. If I remember right, that's primarily because of public transit and the lower per-person carbon footprint of multifamily buildings vs standalone houses.
 

·
Registered
16,17 volt
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
if its your primary vehicle i can see you flipping back if it doesn't meet all your needs
lot of people could have just been curious , and gave it a go, deciding later whether it was a fit or not
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
See my post above (#65). The media articles say this (and I paraphrased them in the title of the thread). But the data in the research article indicate that not everyone who switched from EV to ICE did so because of charging hassles, and it may not even have been a majority of people who did so.
You'll have to ask the publisher of the article you linked to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,423 Posts
Actually there are lots of studies indicating that individuals living in cities have substantially less environmental impact than individuals living in suburban or rural areas. If I remember right, that's primarily because of public transit and the lower per-person carbon footprint of multifamily buildings vs standalone houses.
That's horseshit.

I can see the environmental impact of the people living in cities everyday on the local landscape. Soil erosion, reduced biodiversity, killing of species and general decline of organic matter in the land. We've gone globally from 400 tons of carbon per hectare down to 40-60 tons and we're already using 2% of world total energy for making artificial fertilizers just to keep something growing on the barren soil. Sure, while eating up the organic matter and supplementing it with enough fertilizers and biocides farms are hitting record numbers on production so that the city folk can enjoy their guargum tree bark supplemented bread and stuff it with lean fat pork products. Nothing comes back to the fields, sewage is "treated" then flushed to oceans.

Third of the world bees have already died for you and rest will be gone in few decades. In some areas trees and bushes are already pollinated by hand since there's no natural insects living which would do that.

Oceans are almost void of fish and lakes are run with planted fish stock so you can enjoy your fishing trip. And your "better fishing worms" are already spreading out, killing forests and causing soil erosion & nutrient run off to oceans.

And let's no go to your driveway, which contributes to the 8% of world co2 release on concrete making, nor shipping & flying the plastic stuff around the globe for entertainment of the city folk. Let's blame it all on non-urban people using more cars.

Btw: using the green plant a tree logic, in last week only I made myself carbon neutral for next century and beyond.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,658 Posts
"While study after study shows the lack of a robust public charging network to be a major obstacle for those considering an EV, the reality, according to the U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, is that 80 per cent of vehicle charging is done at home, usually overnight. Many of these vehicle owners install Level 2 chargers at home. (Level 3 fast-charging can only be done at public stations, and there aren’t many of those just yet.)

The UCD study found that those who bought lower-range EVs were more likely to go back to gasoline. Those who owned EVs from Tesla and GM were most likely to stay with electrics, while those most likely to give them up were driving models from Fiat (which has since discontinued the Fiat 500e in the U.S., and never made it available in Canada), Toyota, and Ford."

So it seems part perception (lack of charging availability outside of doing it at home), part buying a car with an anemic battery range, part getting a hybrid "EV" that's using the gas engine for acceleration, etc.
 
61 - 80 of 118 Posts
Top