[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]

The point is that most EV owners typically charge at home, or in some cases work, rather than take time out of their day to refuel (not to mention money out of their wallets!)

It's easy and inexpensive to install EV chargers at any home with a garage or parking space where electrical wiring can be installed. (In fact you don't even need to install a dedicated charger: you can charge an EV from any electrical outlet, if you don't mind slower charging speeds)

The vast majority of "typical suburban commuters" fit into that category, and they are the majority of car owners in North America and Europe.

OK, it's more of a challenge if you're an apartment dweller or live in a dense urban environment with only on-street parking.

But these are being solved, too: cities are installing kerbside chargers (including the ones built into lamp-posts that take advantage of existing wiring), and building regulations require new housing developments to include EV charging. Worst case, you can always make a trip to a nearby fast charger, but of course it's most convenient if you can charge at the location where you normally park anyway.

Dense cities like London and Amsterdam have exactly these issues, and it hasn't stopped an ever-increasing number of people from buying EVs.

[mmt]

> The point is that most EV owners typically charge at home

Maybe today. Those are the early adopters. You're still speculating about a future that doesn't exist yet.

> It's easy and inexpensive to install EV chargers at any home with a garage or parking space where electrical wiring can be installed.

Are you a brochure for an EV/charger? :) The "where electrical wiring can be installed" implies installing electrical wiring, which is neither easy nor inexpensive (not in the US, as it will, for most people, involve an electrician and always, AFAIK, require permitting/inspection).

> if you don't mind slower charging speeds

It's not a question of minding but of whether it gets the job done of obviating the need for the separate fillup. If a Leaf needs 17 kWh for 50 miles, it would need 13 hours drawing 12A (max continuous for a 15A circuit) at 110V, which is doable but not exactly a long commute. 70 miles? Nope.

> The vast majority of "typical suburban commuters" fit into that category, and they are the majority of car owners in North America and Europe.

Which category, exactly, though? The one where they live in a neighborhood that merely has garages and carports? Or the one where they actually park every single car in a garage or carport space? (I live in a suburb, and the streets and driveways are pretty full at night.) Also, a majority of a majority can easily be a minority.

I still think you're speculating, and maybe wishfully thinking, without firm numbers.

> Worst case, you can always make a trip to a nearby fast charger

And again you return to the situation where an EV is no different than an ICE vehicle going to a fueling station.

> hasn't stopped an ever-increasing number of people from buying EVs

Without looking at (and showing us here) the actual numbers, from at least the whole of North American and Europe, "ever-increasing" is meaningless, especially when used in support of your original thesis that ground trasport will be largely electrified in the coming years (vanishingly unlikely) and decades (far more likely since you never specified how many).

Global car production, excluding China, is on the order of 70 million. I don't think non-hybrid EVs are even 1% of that, and the production growth has been closer to linear than geometric.

Even if 50% of new cars this year were EVs, I can't imagine that even in 10 years half the cars out there would be EVs. Assuming the current trend, though, for the Western world, it could be another 20 years before that 50% production mark, which means over 30 years before half the cars are electric. There's my speculation.

[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.