[mehrdadn]

> his is already solved in technology terms. Battery capacities and charging speeds are already good enough for almost all long-distance travel scenarios.

Really? It seems to me that decent EV ranges are around 150mi right now, with the best ones going to 300mi... meaning they generally might get you halfway from (say) SF to LA, and you can bet that none of them will get you all the way. And that's not even that long of a distance, depending on what your standards are. Now charging times run into multiple hours, right? How is that even remotely close to gasoline?

[Reason077]

Charging times are around 45 minutes today for 250-300 miles of travel. Most people want to take a break after 4-5 hours of driving anyway, so it’s just a case of having chargers in the right locations.

The new generation of 350kW / 800V chargers will bring that down into the 15-20 minute range.

[mmt]

> Most people want to take a break after 4-5 hours of driving anyway

I realize I'm not most people (I love to drive), but this seems like it's bordering on extraordinary-claim territory. I don't actually expect evidence, since this would be the kind that's particularly difficult to gather (you could ask people, but what people say doesn't necessarily translate to what they do).

Regardless, it seems unlikely to me that anyone would want to be forced to take a break at the 4 hour mark rather than waiting for their destination at the 5 hours mark (e.g. SJ-LA).

I realize, of course, that it's just a matter of (not that great a) degree between 20 minutes every 300 miles for charging versus 10 minutes every 400 miles for fueling. However, because we're not even there yet for a comparably-priced/affordable electric car, it may be premature to think that way.

[mehrdadn]

I agree it was a little harder to swallow but it wasn't really "extraordinary". It's pretty normal to take breaks to stretch, eat, use the restroom, etc. during a 5+-hour ride. On top of that, given how doctors say you should get up and walk around in an airplane every few hours at least, I imagine it's not healthy to drive 5+ hours nonstop on the road either, in which case you arguably should be taking a break if you're one of those who doesn't.

[mmt]

Hard to swallow doesn't at least border (which is what I said) on extraordinary for you? :)

All those "shoulds" being forced on a consumer are likely to be disincentive to purchase, no matter how "bad" or irrational that might seem.

[Reason077]

Turning that around, the requirement to have to stop or make a special trip to fill up with gas every time they get empty is a disincentive to purchase combustion vehicles.

Considering that the vast majority of trips are within the 200-300 mile range of a modern electric vehicle, the fact that it's already "full" and ready to go every morning can be seen as a major advantage.

[mmt]

> the requirement to have to stop or make a special trip to fill up with gas every time they get empty is a disincentive to purchase combustion vehicles

Not really, since this is a requirement of electric vehicles, too.

> the fact that it's already "full" and ready to go every morning can be seen as a major advantage.

That's not a fact but a speculation. It requires infrastructure at every vehicle owner's home (including adjacent, dedicated parking for every such vehicle!) that does not yet exist, for this to be true. (Substitute/add "workplace" for "home" may be slightly more likely but not for any specific vehicle).

A combustion vehicle owner could have similar infrastructure installed for liquid fuel, or hire a service to top vehicles off at night. It's too expensive, so "nobody" does it.

Is there even data that shows what proportion of commuters actually park in their garage, carport, or somewhere similarly electricity-adjacent?]

[Reason077]

"it seems unlikely to me that anyone would want to be forced to take a break at the 4 hour mark rather than waiting for their destination at the 5 hours mark (e.g. SJ-LA)."

If your destination is only 1 hour further away, then you're only going to need about a 10 minute charge, not the full 45 minutes. And you can stop pretty much anywhere en route where there are chargers available, it doesn't have to be at the 4 hour mark. Plenty of flexibility there.

"we're not even there yet for a comparably-priced/affordable electric car"

I agree, but they're getting close already when you consider lifetime costs including fuel and maintenance. And the more driving you do, the more financial sense an EV makes. That's why we're seeing taxi operators embracing EVs enthusiastically.

[mmt]

> And you can stop pretty much anywhere en route

This is speculative and doesn't affect the emotional purchase decision today.

> Plenty of flexibility there.

Perhaps by some objective measure, but, again, that ignores the emotional component.

> but they're getting close already when you consider lifetime costs including fuel and maintenance

That's as may be, but lifetime costs are irrelevant if the barrier to entry (practical or emotional) is too high in the form of purchase cost.

It's not even necessarily irrational to decide to pay what appears to be a higher lifetime cost if ones personal "interest" rate in the TVM calculation exceeds the standard/average one, due to a high opportunity cost or just a high borrowing cost.

[mehrdadn]

Interesting, I didn't realize that, thanks. But these must be the best cars, right? Not typical?

[Reason077]

Right. But where Tesla is today, the rest of the industry is heading. That sort of range and charge speed should be typical for mid-range electrics by the early 2020s or so.