It’s easy to tell other people how to live their lives. It’s easy to say to people you don’t know that they should buy electric cars in the blissful abstraction of the Internet. Reality is a lot harder. And the reality, according to a recent study, is that owning an electric car is difficult for those who don’t have access to a home charger.
Yes, we’re going to beat up the universe for not providing enough chargers, because the big concern most EV owners have is that they can’t charge easily. Specifically, we’re going to beat up Electrify America, which may be one of the companies that has, ironically, done the most damage to electrification in America.
Who else is damaging the move towards electrification? The American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, both of whom are suing to stop the Biden Administration’s new rules on emissions. Rules that, I’d point out, were cut back fairly dramatically to make it easier for automakers. This is also a little ironic given that the Biden Administration has quietly been great for America’s oil producers.
Whether accurate or not, Elon Musk is the one individual who usually gets credit for electrifying America and he wants to get paid for it. According to Musk, that’s gonna happen.
Owners Are Cranky About Electric Charging
I should clarify right off the bat that this survey is from global consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and some people have thoughts about McKinsey that are not charitable. The survey, however, sounds correct. (I mean, McKinsey may have aided a pharmaceutical company in the creation of an opioid crisis that wrecked lives and communities, but the firm’s advice was at least accurate. Terrible, but accurate). [Ed Note: My view and Matt’s don’t align on McKinsey. I think, though the company has a checkered history, it also does a lot of good, helping struggling organizations optimize and, in some cases, stay afloat. (A close family member of mine works for McKinsey). But I get it. -DT].
The data we have comes via a survey done by McKinsey’s Center for Future Mobility, which I have not seen, but was viewed by Automotive News:
Twenty-nine percent of EV owners across the globe said they’re likely to reverse course. That hit 46 percent in the U.S. Consumers globally said their top concern was the inadequacy of the public charging infrastructure. They also cited concerns with high costs of ownership and detrimental impact to long-distance trips.
“I didn’t expect that,” Philipp Kampshoff, leader of the consulting firm’s Center for Future Mobility, told Automotive News. “I thought, ‘Once an EV buyer, always an EV buyer.’ ”
That sounds right to me. Our non-Tesla EV charging infrastructure is bad. I was at an EVGo station yesterday and it was packed, which makes sense because there are only two non-Tesla stations near me and they’re always clogged with Uber drivers and the wait times are terrible. It’s a big reason why I’m not getting a PHEV or an EV.
I also think this is where Tesla has been successful. The Supercharger network is great. Up-time is really high, and because it’s only served Tesla cars up until recently, issues have been minimal. Tesla also went to a lot of prime spots for charging early and won that battle.
If only there were another company that had a huge amount of money and a big lead that could have provided an alternative to Tesla. If only it was actually owned by a car company…
In Ultimate Rebuke Of Electrify America, Porsche Adds ChargePoint Capability
I’ve already gone full batting practice on Electrify America, so I’ll just summarize for those who are new to the awfulness that is Electrify America. Some smart lawyer or planner at Volkswagen convinced a judge that, instead of just turning over all those billions of dollars in Dieselgate fines to the government, the company would take a couple of those billions and build out an EV charging network.
That network became Electrify America. It could have been the alternative to Tesla’s Supercharger network, but instead, it became a laughing stock. I’ve rarely been to an Electrify America charging station where everything just worked. Between credit card readers failing and chargers freezing up, it’s been a bad experience for myself and many other people I know who have roadtripped electric cars.
This failure led Ford and, eventually, Volkswagen to agree to adopt Tesla’s NACS charging standard for future vehicles. And now, there’s this, from Porsche:
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (PCNA) today announced it has signed an agreement with ChargePoint, a leading provider of charging solutions for electric vehicles (EVs), which will enable access to its charging network within the Porsche Charging Service. The collaboration will increase the number of chargers available to Porsche customers to more than 86,000 across the United States.
“We passionately believe in choice, and as a result we are constantly looking for opportunities to enhance our customer experience and expand charging options,” said Timo Resch, President and CEO of PCNA, “this is a significant step in that direction, and well-timed as we look forward to the arrival of both the new Taycan arriving at Porsche Centers this summer but also the all-new Macan Electric later this year.”
On the one hand, this was probably inevitable. Electrify America, for whatever reason, was unable to get big enough to serve all VW brands, and most buyers like being able to just connect to a charger and not have to mess with a bunch of different apps. By integrating ChargePoint, Porsche owners will be able to connect to a charger via the My Porsche app and not have to fuss. I suspect this isn’t the last company that’ll get integrated into Porsche’s system.
On the other hand… lol.
The Oil Lobby Wants To Save You From Electric Cars
It’s important to reiterate that there’s no specific federal mandate saying that car companies can’t sell gas-powered cars. There’s a formula for emissions/mileage (well, two formulas, sort of) that automakers have to meet, and the federal government leaves what that technology is up to automakers. Can automakers meet those goals without selling a lot of electric cars? Probably not.
I mention this because this is why two oil and gas lobbying groups are suing the Biden EPA’s new, kinda relaxed regulations.
“Today, we are taking action to protect American consumers, U.S. manufacturing workers and our nation’s hard-won energy security from this intrusive government mandate,” API Senior Vice President and General Counsel Ryan Meyers said, voicing a common refrain from opponents of electric vehicles.
[…]
“EPA has exceeded its congressional authority with this regulation that will eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade,” Meyers added. “We look forward to making our case in court.”
BTW, because of President Biden’s policies, these companies are all more profitable than ever. We have a system of government that allows this to happen and so these groups can exercise their rights as they see fit, but I’d just point out that automakers seem fairly happy with the revised regulations.
Elon Musk On Track For Biggest Payday Ever
Both Tesla shareholder resolutions are currently passing by wide margins!
♥️♥️ Thanks for your support!! ♥️♥️ pic.twitter.com/udf56VGQdo
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 13, 2024
I’m not sure what to make of the tweet above, but it seems like Elon Musk is confident he’s going to get the biggest paycheck in human history. Will a Delaware judge allow the company to leave to avoid enforcing its judgment? That remains to be seen.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
Man, this song from post-punk Irish band Fontaines D.C. is extremely good and I can’t wait to hear the rest of this album, which comes out at the end of summer. Also, what is this video?
The Big Question
Does this study sound right to you?
I just bought a 2024 ev6, and I don’t expect to plug it anywhere other than at work when I find an unoccupied ev spot or at home on my level2 48amp charger.
But for family use we still will use our 2014 pathfinder, since it’s a 7passenger(we got 5kids) and Toronto or Montreal is a 7 hour drive. I live in rural north-western Quebec.
Of all my vehicles my too favourites are now not gas powered. My ev and my diesel tractor are my favourites, and oddly they were both made in South Korea..
I’m the perfect scenario for an EV. I have a 22 mile daily commute round trip. My wife has the ‘better’ car for road trips we take together. I have a place in our large carport where a level 2 charger could be installed. But there are a couple things that have kept me from buying one.
I’m the perfect scenario for an EV. I have a 22 mile daily commute round trip. My wife has the ‘better’ car for road trips we take together. I have a place in our large carport where a level 2 charger could be installed. But there are a couple things that have kept me from buying one.
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
If you gave me the choice of a brand new 2024 electric, or the very first car that I ever drove while learning how to drive, a 1941 Packard Super 8, I’d take the Packard!!!! BTW, if you’re curious about my age, I am past 80.
I don’t blame you, and Mazeltov!
Thank you!
If you gave me the choice of a brand new 2024 electric, or the very first car that I ever drove while learning how to drive, a 1941 Packard Super 8, I’d take the Packard!!!! BTW, if you’re curious about my age, I am past 80.
I don’t blame you, and Mazeltov!
Thank you!
I love my EV, but I also have an old Yukon XL for camping and mountain bike trips. I’ve basically made my own personal Ramcharger between the two; battery for the commute and gas for road trips. I would much rather just have one vehicle, but there is nothing that really hits the spot in the market yet.
I love my EV, but I also have an old Yukon XL for camping and mountain bike trips. I’ve basically made my own personal Ramcharger between the two; battery for the commute and gas for road trips. I would much rather just have one vehicle, but there is nothing that really hits the spot in the market yet.
I’m going to have to don my union suit made of fresh, virgin* Canadian asbestos for this post, but…
We have refused to include in the price of fossil fuels the known costs of toxic pollution (there’s still some even with modern emissions controls, and oil extraction and refining are dirty activities) for generations, and that doesn’t even include the social costs of dispersed populations and workplaces heavily segregated by race and class (to be fair, that doesn’t include the value of more efficient logistics enabled by widespread motor transport as well.) The worst effects of air pollution and environmental contamination tend to be concentrated in areas and among groups that derive fewer of the benefits from the way the system is arranged.
Such is also true for carbon dioxide and anthropogenic climate change, but the distribution of the good and the bad of mass industrialization is far wider. In the US, which along with Canada, Australia and the richer portions of the Arabian Peninsula currently are the largest per capita generators of carbon dioxide, the effects are already being seen – hotter summers, rising sea levels, more intense storms. But as a long-term beneficiary of industrialization, we can afford things like higher seawalls, relocation programs, stronger air conditioners, stricter building codes. It will be expensive and will demand reallocation of funds from other priorities as well as some degree of political will, but it’s possible.
That’s not true in many other parts of the world, not coincidentally places which have received far fewer benefits from the carbon economy. According to the World Bank, Kiribati’s per capital GDP in 2015 US dollars peaked at $3,417 in 1975 and has fallen to $1,434 by 2022. That kind of decline isn’t true for most less developed nations, and expanded industrialization and globalization have lifted hundred of millions out of poverty, but I mention Kiribati because it’s the first country expected to disappear completely due to ACC-driven sea level rise. Gone. Bye-bye islands. Bangladesh has seen significant economic growth, but it’s a crowded country with much of its territory in a low-lying river delta, and it’s not hard to imagine what will happen to that. And recent growth still isn’t nearly enough to provide ample funds to ameliorate the problem.
I get it. Nobody in the better-off parts of the Global North wants a lifestyle cut, and few people think they’re doing all that well, especially these days. But compared to most of the world – even most of the people in fast-growing China (still spewing forth about the same amount of carbon as the US to keep almost five times as many people going) – all but the poorest Americans (and given more generous welfare states, all but the very poorest Europeans) are doing pretty well.
So, yeah, nobody wants to be forced to drive something they don’t want. Nobody who tows a boat or frequently drives long distances for discretionary reasons wants the hassle of an electric car. I get it. I’m American, so of course I regard all multifamily housing as equivalent to the little walled sleeping cells in Hong Kong’s Chunking Mansions and fervently believe mass transit to be a sin against God and man. And certainly I sympathize with those who have to commute between the Antelope Valley or east of Riverside and Los Angeles because they can’t afford to buy – or these days even rent – closer in. But we have to do something, and that something will involve painful change.
I’m not well-off at all – I live in an area with a cost of living that’s right about at the national metropolitan average. and if I’m lucky, I’ll get a job soon with a salary that many commenters recently called “scraping by” in another thread, and that will be a raise. But I was doing okay before, and I had and have some room to cut, if not more easily sacrificed things like frequent air or surface travel, a boat, an RV, or a cabin somewhere.
We can give up mandates if we start including the impact of fossil fuels in their pricing. And that would include the cost of substantial contributions by highly industrialized countries to carbon reduction initiatives and amelioration of the consequences of ACC. That will be regressive, especially in the US, where longstanding policy has left much of the population dependent on private transportat. It will weigh heavily on rural America, although since New Yorkers generate far less carbon per person than do people in Wyoming, maybe it should.
I don’t expect that to actually happen, though. Everybody likes their trips and their cars and their towed toys, and after all it’s the very rich who do the most damage. (Fitzgerald was right – the very rich are different from you and me. But there aren’t nearly as many of them.) The only way to control their carbon dioxide emissions would be through mandates, though, and nobody can stand that.
I guess I’m really just an angry old man complaining that nobody wants to take any responsibility and everybody’s perfectly willing to deny any responsibility for the way things have turned out. I’m not surprised by it, though. I just wonder how whiny we all seem to people in places where climate change is a far more existential threat than it is here.
*The label doesn’t say “fresh” or “virgin,” just “friable,” but I think that means the same thing.
Capitalize profit, democratize risk/loss. Also, REAL free markets dont hide externalities from the consumer and the consumer makes informed decisions in its best interest.
A friend of mine summed it up best: people suck.
And since most people are selfish, they’ll elect politicians who cater to their wants. Therefore, those who can do something won’t.
The only thing giving me hope for the future is that life survived a couple mass extinctions already. Hopefully it’ll survive humanity.
I’m going to have to don my union suit made of fresh, virgin* Canadian asbestos for this post, but…
We have refused to include in the price of fossil fuels the known costs of toxic pollution (there’s still some even with modern emissions controls, and oil extraction and refining are dirty activities) for generations, and that doesn’t even include the social costs of dispersed populations and workplaces heavily segregated by race and class (to be fair, that doesn’t include the value of more efficient logistics enabled by widespread motor transport as well.) The worst effects of air pollution and environmental contamination tend to be concentrated in areas and among groups that derive fewer of the benefits from the way the system is arranged.
Such is also true for carbon dioxide and anthropogenic climate change, but the distribution of the good and the bad of mass industrialization is far wider. In the US, which along with Canada, Australia and the richer portions of the Arabian Peninsula currently are the largest per capita generators of carbon dioxide, the effects are already being seen – hotter summers, rising sea levels, more intense storms. But as a long-term beneficiary of industrialization, we can afford things like higher seawalls, relocation programs, stronger air conditioners, stricter building codes. It will be expensive and will demand reallocation of funds from other priorities as well as some degree of political will, but it’s possible.
That’s not true in many other parts of the world, not coincidentally places which have received far fewer benefits from the carbon economy. According to the World Bank, Kiribati’s per capital GDP in 2015 US dollars peaked at $3,417 in 1975 and has fallen to $1,434 by 2022. That kind of decline isn’t true for most less developed nations, and expanded industrialization and globalization have lifted hundred of millions out of poverty, but I mention Kiribati because it’s the first country expected to disappear completely due to ACC-driven sea level rise. Gone. Bye-bye islands. Bangladesh has seen significant economic growth, but it’s a crowded country with much of its territory in a low-lying river delta, and it’s not hard to imagine what will happen to that. And recent growth still isn’t nearly enough to provide ample funds to ameliorate the problem.
I get it. Nobody in the better-off parts of the Global North wants a lifestyle cut, and few people think they’re doing all that well, especially these days. But compared to most of the world – even most of the people in fast-growing China (still spewing forth about the same amount of carbon as the US to keep almost five times as many people going) – all but the poorest Americans (and given more generous welfare states, all but the very poorest Europeans) are doing pretty well.
So, yeah, nobody wants to be forced to drive something they don’t want. Nobody who tows a boat or frequently drives long distances for discretionary reasons wants the hassle of an electric car. I get it. I’m American, so of course I regard all multifamily housing as equivalent to the little walled sleeping cells in Hong Kong’s Chunking Mansions and fervently believe mass transit to be a sin against God and man. And certainly I sympathize with those who have to commute between the Antelope Valley or east of Riverside and Los Angeles because they can’t afford to buy – or these days even rent – closer in. But we have to do something, and that something will involve painful change.
I’m not well-off at all – I live in an area with a cost of living that’s right about at the national metropolitan average. and if I’m lucky, I’ll get a job soon with a salary that many commenters recently called “scraping by” in another thread, and that will be a raise. But I was doing okay before, and I had and have some room to cut, if not more easily sacrificed things like frequent air or surface travel, a boat, an RV, or a cabin somewhere.
We can give up mandates if we start including the impact of fossil fuels in their pricing. And that would include the cost of substantial contributions by highly industrialized countries to carbon reduction initiatives and amelioration of the consequences of ACC. That will be regressive, especially in the US, where longstanding policy has left much of the population dependent on private transportat. It will weigh heavily on rural America, although since New Yorkers generate far less carbon per person than do people in Wyoming, maybe it should.
I don’t expect that to actually happen, though. Everybody likes their trips and their cars and their towed toys, and after all it’s the very rich who do the most damage. (Fitzgerald was right – the very rich are different from you and me. But there aren’t nearly as many of them.) The only way to control their carbon dioxide emissions would be through mandates, though, and nobody can stand that.
I guess I’m really just an angry old man complaining that nobody wants to take any responsibility and everybody’s perfectly willing to deny any responsibility for the way things have turned out. I’m not surprised by it, though. I just wonder how whiny we all seem to people in places where climate change is a far more existential threat than it is here.
*The label doesn’t say “fresh” or “virgin,” just “friable,” but I think that means the same thing.
Capitalize profit, democratize risk/loss. Also, REAL free markets dont hide externalities from the consumer and the consumer makes informed decisions in its best interest.
A friend of mine summed it up best: people suck.
And since most people are selfish, they’ll elect politicians who cater to their wants. Therefore, those who can do something won’t.
The only thing giving me hope for the future is that life survived a couple mass extinctions already. Hopefully it’ll survive humanity.
Sounds like a BS “study” to me!
Sounds like a BS “study” to me!
Oh, McKinsey said. *makes jerking off motion in the air*
Oh, McKinsey said. *makes jerking off motion in the air*
“Owners Are Cranky About Electric Charging”
Of course in that study, they don’t differentiate between the Tesla charging experience vs the non-Tesla charging experience. So I suspect this is just more anti-BEV FUD pretending to be a legit study.
And the fact is… it’s just a survey, not an actual study. And I’ve found that many people out there will say one thing and do something completely different.
Does the non-Tesla charging situation need to improve? Sure.
Is it so bad that a lot of people are willing to pay through the nose in high fuel costs in a lot of places?
I doubt it.
I pay less on fuel than I’d pay to buy a new EV. So, yes, definitely.
“Owners Are Cranky About Electric Charging”
Of course in that study, they don’t differentiate between the Tesla charging experience vs the non-Tesla charging experience. So I suspect this is just more anti-BEV FUD pretending to be a legit study.
And the fact is… it’s just a survey, not an actual study. And I’ve found that many people out there will say one thing and do something completely different.
Does the non-Tesla charging situation need to improve? Sure.
Is it so bad that a lot of people are willing to pay through the nose in high fuel costs in a lot of places?
I doubt it.
I pay less on fuel than I’d pay to buy a new EV. So, yes, definitely.
Fontaines DC is so fucking awesome. Nicely done Matt.
Fontaines DC is so fucking awesome. Nicely done Matt.
As someone who road trips for work almost weekly, I’ve been hesitant to hop on the EV train. Used Model Y’s and 3’s have been on my radar as the Supercharger network just works, but I’ve been eyeing Ford’s Mach E and Lightning since they got access. If GM and Hyundai get access, I’ll be pulling the trigger within the next 12 months.
I normally route my trips with ABRP and I’ve found I’d be taking a 10-15min stop in total for the trip to my customer’s location (which is the amount I’m usually stopped for with gas and snacks). That’s with both Supercharger and EA stations as options. I book a hotel with a charger and I’m fully charged for the ride home. Only one instance have I found that I would not be able to be perform a trip safely (Milwaukee to little town in Iowa, no chargers except a local Nissan dealer with a spotty charger rating) and even with that instance I’d just rent a car and have work pay for the fuel for piece of mind.
Having a PHEV (Chevy Volt) I’m perfectly OK with my current setup, but I’d like to make the switch. My goal is to have my home on solar soon and being able to charge for even part of the day on solar would be a positive experience I can support.
Both have deals in place, but I think the Supercharger team cuts may have delayed them. I’m hoping that it’s all sorted out sooner rather than later.
Yeah they have announcements, but until I see a Blazer or an Ioniq5 plugged in and charging, I won’t be pulling the trigger. I hope as well that the delays aren’t too bad, but I’d be surprised if we saw them on the network by next year.
It’s noble to want to make the switch, but you are not the problem. Someone who drives a car that gets 35 miles a gallon and switches to a car that gets 50 miles per gallon winds up saving a very small amount of gas. The people we have to touch are those driving vehicles that get 15 miles a gallon, and encourage them to electrify or to at least move up to something that gets 28 miles per gallon. Now suddenly there is an enormous fuel savings.
My 911 gets ~15MPG and if you think you’re gonna take it away from me you better pack a lunch, because you’re gonna have a long, hard, day.
Ditto, but replace 911 with Land Cruiser (a real one).
My Plaid is faster than your 911, cost half as much, and gets 100MPG. You can keep your overpriced CO2 spewing planet-destroyer.
Yep — Spoken like someone who can’t heel’n’toe downshift…
My MXP is quicker (note I didn’t say “faster”) than my 911, too. And it gets ~100MPG. And it’s far better transportation for the family, a road trip, or all-around general comfort.
But it’s still nowhere near as pleasurable to drive as any sports car / roadster.
If I can only keep two of my cars, it’s the 911 and the Model X. If I can only keep one, the Porsche wins.
PS: Your and my coal-powered EVs aren’t doing the planet many favors, either!
As someone who road trips for work almost weekly, I’ve been hesitant to hop on the EV train. Used Model Y’s and 3’s have been on my radar as the Supercharger network just works, but I’ve been eyeing Ford’s Mach E and Lightning since they got access. If GM and Hyundai get access, I’ll be pulling the trigger within the next 12 months.
I normally route my trips with ABRP and I’ve found I’d be taking a 10-15min stop in total for the trip to my customer’s location (which is the amount I’m usually stopped for with gas and snacks). That’s with both Supercharger and EA stations as options. I book a hotel with a charger and I’m fully charged for the ride home. Only one instance have I found that I would not be able to be perform a trip safely (Milwaukee to little town in Iowa, no chargers except a local Nissan dealer with a spotty charger rating) and even with that instance I’d just rent a car and have work pay for the fuel for piece of mind.
Having a PHEV (Chevy Volt) I’m perfectly OK with my current setup, but I’d like to make the switch. My goal is to have my home on solar soon and being able to charge for even part of the day on solar would be a positive experience I can support.
Both have deals in place, but I think the Supercharger team cuts may have delayed them. I’m hoping that it’s all sorted out sooner rather than later.
Yeah they have announcements, but until I see a Blazer or an Ioniq5 plugged in and charging, I won’t be pulling the trigger. I hope as well that the delays aren’t too bad, but I’d be surprised if we saw them on the network by next year.
It’s noble to want to make the switch, but you are not the problem. Someone who drives a car that gets 35 miles a gallon and switches to a car that gets 50 miles per gallon winds up saving a very small amount of gas. The people we have to touch are those driving vehicles that get 15 miles a gallon, and encourage them to electrify or to at least move up to something that gets 28 miles per gallon. Now suddenly there is an enormous fuel savings.
My 911 gets ~15MPG and if you think you’re gonna take it away from me you better pack a lunch, because you’re gonna have a long, hard, day.
Ditto, but replace 911 with Land Cruiser (a real one).
My Plaid is faster than your 911, cost half as much, and gets 100MPG. You can keep your overpriced CO2 spewing planet-destroyer.
Yep — Spoken like someone who can’t heel’n’toe downshift…
My MXP is quicker (note I didn’t say “faster”) than my 911, too. And it gets ~100MPG. And it’s far better transportation for the family, a road trip, or all-around general comfort.
But it’s still nowhere near as pleasurable to drive as any sports car / roadster.
If I can only keep two of my cars, it’s the 911 and the Model X. If I can only keep one, the Porsche wins.
PS: Your and my coal-powered EVs aren’t doing the planet many favors, either!
Who paid for the study?
McKinsey is a company that does studies with a target. That is how they operate with a “what would you like to accomplish” in mind.
Knowing who paid for the study will tell you a lot about what they are trying to support.
Great for supporting that RIF with a “study” but probably not a company I would rely on for real objective insight.
I know. A company paid for this research, and paid expecting these exact conclusions.
They are a terrible company that acts as an enabler of worse companies and they do absolutely nothing in the interest of the public. Nobody who thinks fresh clean drinking water is important to humans needs to pay McKinsey for a study supporting that conclusion.
That’s the real question. As a consulting firm rather than an academic institution, they reach the conclusions they’re paid to reach. If they were paid to find a reason electric cars are bad, the results mean almost nothing. If they were paid by someone who wants to know what the timeline is likely to be for the transition to electric it might be more accurate. But then in that case it would have stayed secret rather than getting turned into press releases with a PR campaign.
Not that charging isn’t a concern, but I have pretty serious doubts about 46%.
McKinsey are information mercenaries who will torture data until they hear what the clients want to hear.
I’m stealing that.
Who paid for the study?
McKinsey is a company that does studies with a target. That is how they operate with a “what would you like to accomplish” in mind.
Knowing who paid for the study will tell you a lot about what they are trying to support.
Great for supporting that RIF with a “study” but probably not a company I would rely on for real objective insight.
I know. A company paid for this research, and paid expecting these exact conclusions.
They are a terrible company that acts as an enabler of worse companies and they do absolutely nothing in the interest of the public. Nobody who thinks fresh clean drinking water is important to humans needs to pay McKinsey for a study supporting that conclusion.
That’s the real question. As a consulting firm rather than an academic institution, they reach the conclusions they’re paid to reach. If they were paid to find a reason electric cars are bad, the results mean almost nothing. If they were paid by someone who wants to know what the timeline is likely to be for the transition to electric it might be more accurate. But then in that case it would have stayed secret rather than getting turned into press releases with a PR campaign.
Not that charging isn’t a concern, but I have pretty serious doubts about 46%.
McKinsey are information mercenaries who will torture data until they hear what the clients want to hear.
I’m stealing that.
Amazing that people don’t think first.
You can afford or need only one car? Then an EV is likely not for you.
No home charging, which will cost a LOT less than at charging stations? Then an EV is likely not for you.
The EV market (not exclusive, but the focus) should be: people with reasonable daily commutes, AND with alternative vehicles for other uses (long trips, hauling), AND who can charge at home overnight.
Dealers, though, see chumps walk in and will sell them whatever they can.
So, think before you buy!
Amazing that people don’t think first.
You can afford or need only one car? Then an EV is likely not for you.
No home charging, which will cost a LOT less than at charging stations? Then an EV is likely not for you.
The EV market (not exclusive, but the focus) should be: people with reasonable daily commutes, AND with alternative vehicles for other uses (long trips, hauling), AND who can charge at home overnight.
Dealers, though, see chumps walk in and will sell them whatever they can.
So, think before you buy!