One of our biggest stories last week was a report about a study that showed 46% of EV owners in the United States say they’re going to go back to a gas-powered car. At the time I wrote the story, I lacked an actual copy of the study, so I was just going on what was already reported.
After posting the story I got a lot of feedback from people stating it was “fake news” and wanting to get more details on how the study was done, with a lot of chatter on X/Twitter over the findings.
I’ve now got a copy of the McKinsey Mobility Consumer Pulse (MMCP) study, produced by McKinsey’s Center for Future Mobility (MCFM), and I now have a lot of answers to the various questions people had about the study.
What Is This Study? Who Answered The Questions?
The report, which I will refer to as the MFCM study, surveyed more than 30,000 respondents globally who “regularly use mobility” and asked more than 200 questions about mobility, car ownership, and consumer preferences.
McKinsey is a massive consulting firm and “mobility” is of interest to governments, investors, and large companies (all of which buy services from firms like McKinsey). Specifically, the company says the MCFM:
“[H]as worked with stakeholders across the mobility ecosystem by providing independent and integrated evidence about possible future-mobility scenarios. With our unique, bottom-up modeling approach, our insights enable an end-to-end analytics journey through the future of mobility—from consumer needs to a modal mix across urban/rural areas, sales, value pools, and life cycle sustainability.
Since 2021, the survey has included consumers from the 15 biggest auto markets (ranging from massive markets like the United States and China to smaller ones like Norway and South Africa). Overall, the countries included account for more than 80% of global sales volume.
According to the MFCM, the survey was conducted in February of this year.
Where Did That 46% Number Come From?
Here’s the question that was asked of current EV owners:
How likely are you to switch back to a traditional combustion engine vehicle based on your current experience with the electric vehicle you own?
Globally, the average number is about 29%, but you can see the full chart here:
The country where someone is most likely to switch back to an internal combustion engine-powered car is Australia, at almost half, followed by the United States and Brazil. The reasoning?
I don’t have a breakdown for American consumers, but globally the biggest reasons for switching back were:
- Total cost of ownership too high (34.5%)
- Cannot charge at home (33.8%)
- Needing to worry about changing is too stressful (31.9%)
As someone who regularly borrows electric cars but cannot charge at home, I can relate to this. Public charging simply isn’t good enough for me and I live in a relatively dense urban environment.
More People Than Ever Want EVs Globally, They Just Want Them To Be Cheaper
The largest barrier to ownership might be practical concerns around charging, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t interested in electric cars. The number of respondents globally who say that they’re going to purchase a BEV (battery electric vehicle) for their next car grew to 17.6% this year, up from 14% in December of 2021.
Overall, 70% of respondents said they’d either be getting a BEV or PHEV next or, at the very least, only expected to own one more gas-powered car before switching over to an electric car.
That, too, conforms with my experience as I plan to buy a hybrid and then, hopefully, an electric car if charging around me improves.
Still, the reasons why people haven’t switched over yet have a lot to do with the fact that EVs are too expensive in most places. The top reasons given for not wanting to switch were:
- Too expensive (45%)
- Charging concerns (33%)
- Driving range concerns (29%)
Obviously, the “expensive” issue is geography dependent. In China, there are plenty of affordable electric cars so only 9% of EV skeptics interviewed there were worried about cost of ownership. Norway was the only other country that low, at 29% of EV skeptics, but Norway has become the largest EV market proportionally due to extremely high subsidies for electric cars.
And, going deeper into consumers in the United States, many are likely to postpone a new EV purchase because of “the current economic situation” as you can see in this graphic:
This isn’t just in the EV market. The average age of American cars is now 14 years as people hold onto their cars, EV or ICE, a lot longer. There are many ways to interpret “the current economic situation” and I think a lot of it has to do with higher uncertainty and higher interest rates.
People Also Want More Range
Here’s an interesting tidbit from the study:
Range expectations have been increasing over time (+ ~30% in the past 5 years) and are outpacing actual range improvements: Since 2022 consumers demand 5% more range, while actual range increased by only 2%
As of the most recent study, people expect at least 291 miles of maximum range, on average, before they’d consider getting a new electric car. This is a little higher than many vehicles currently for sale, but it puts quasi-affordable vehicles like the Tesla Model Y, Mach-E, and Equinox EV on the table.
I Don’t Think This Is Entirely Bad News
If you love electric cars or think everyone should be driving an electric car then this is not what you want to hear. It’s hard enough to get someone to switch to an electric car and hearing that almost half of owners in the United States want a gas-powered car isn’t encouraging.
The study didn’t ask if those people would consider buying a hybrid or a PHEV when going back to a gas-powered car, but that’s not an unreasonable assumption (especially if those owners have access to home charging).
While there are many good electric cars on the market, the next generation of EVs will hopefully better meet range requirements and cost less money. If automakers can deliver a little more range for a little less money then new consumers seem to be there according to this study.
At the same time, it’s important for the industry and the government to work together to solve charging issues, especially in denser urban corridors.
Funny, so many commenters decry the charging problem, but it’s the third ranked one here from actual owners! I don’t count the second one, because if you buy an EV with out at-home charging, well, surely you knew that before the purchase.
You seem to be overestimating the intelligence of a lot of Americans.
One thing cities(especially tourist locations) need to figure out is that people want to charge somewhere they actually want to go, not at some random gas station or shopping mall. When a small town has an EV charger downtown, it puts it on the map for us to stop, charge and spend some money there. On the flip side is places like Paso Robles, where we looked at cool places to stop downtown, realized there were no chargers and so only made a quick stop and moved on to the gas station at the edge of town that had a DCFC.
One thing cities(especially tourist locations) need to figure out is that people want to charge somewhere they actually want to go, not at some random gas station or shopping mall. When a small town has an EV charger downtown, it puts it on the map for us to stop, charge and spend some money there. On the flip side is places like Paso Robles, where we looked at cool places to stop downtown, realized there were no chargers and so only made a quick stop and moved on to the gas station at the edge of town that had a DCFC.
I’m waiting a few years…for the Rivian R3X!
Same; I really hope things go well for Rivian because goddamn, yo
I’m waiting a few years…for the Rivian R3X!
Same; I really hope things go well for Rivian because goddamn, yo
Though this does break down the numbers. Using anything from Mckinsey should probably be taken with a grain of salt. As they do stuff like this- https://www.propublica.org/article/new-york-city-paid-mckinsey-millions-to-stem-jail-violence-instead-violence-soared. And being that world’s 2nd largest oil producer, has a let’s call it close relationship- https://www.ft.com/content/908b1883-f4de-4d53-bfee-acdc01602223. And they have been known to take some shady steps to keep there plan with the House of Saud, Exxon etc. moving- https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2023/11/08/companies/mckinsey-climate-change-whistleblowers/.
Unless Mckinsey let’s me see a video evidence of every person asked, I wouldn’t trust a word they say. They’ve earned it.
Solid take. My company has used McKenzie as a contractor several times. It never felt right forever that’s worth… For me ICE and hybrid are the way to go for now.
John Oliver’s McKinsey expose was a great watch… look it up if you haven’t seen it!
The important thing is to understand that they’re a consulting company, not an academic institution. They’re paid to reach a conclusion, not find the answers. So the real question is, who funded the study?
Though this does break down the numbers. Using anything from Mckinsey should probably be taken with a grain of salt. As they do stuff like this- https://www.propublica.org/article/new-york-city-paid-mckinsey-millions-to-stem-jail-violence-instead-violence-soared. And being that world’s 2nd largest oil producer, has a let’s call it close relationship- https://www.ft.com/content/908b1883-f4de-4d53-bfee-acdc01602223. And they have been known to take some shady steps to keep there plan with the House of Saud, Exxon etc. moving- https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2023/11/08/companies/mckinsey-climate-change-whistleblowers/.
Unless Mckinsey let’s me see a video evidence of every person asked, I wouldn’t trust a word they say. They’ve earned it.
Solid take. My company has used McKenzie as a contractor several times. It never felt right forever that’s worth… For me ICE and hybrid are the way to go for now.
John Oliver’s McKinsey expose was a great watch… look it up if you haven’t seen it!
Not only are “the EVs are too damn expensive” right now, but the depreciation is eye-watering! It’s a double whammy.
I love the idea of an EV, but holy crap, why should I, as a rational consumer, take a financial bath “to save the planet?”
To be clear, I care deeply about the planet but bankrupting myself ain’t helping it.
There is *so much* that needs to be worked out at a macro level (in the US, and apparently also Australia and Brazil) with EVs before they make sense for mainstream buyers … as the McKinsey report essentially shows with these %s Matt’s reporting on.
That’s why I’d just lease. This way, the depreciation hopefully wouldn’t hurt so much, and it contributes to the used market.
Yes, that’s true, but depreciation has only become a factor since people started going through cars like cell phones. If you keep the car for 10 years, depreciation has flatlined by that point regardless of the curve slope. My parents always bought their cars new then drove them until the wheels fell of, so I picked up the same habit for my daily driver, but cycle through older weekend fun cars that already hit their value floor years ago.
Now granted, early EVs like the 2011-2012 Leafs had battery issues that prevented many of them from lasting 10 years, but that’s resolved in current EVs.
Barring it completely falling to pieces for some reason, I’m keeping my Mach-E for at least 10 years. We’re up to 6 years on our Leaf, and we’ll keep that until the Rivian R2 comes out, so pretty close to 10 years.
Not only are “the EVs are too damn expensive” right now, but the depreciation is eye-watering! It’s a double whammy.
I love the idea of an EV, but holy crap, why should I, as a rational consumer, take a financial bath “to save the planet?”
To be clear, I care deeply about the planet but bankrupting myself ain’t helping it.
There is *so much* that needs to be worked out at a macro level (in the US, and apparently also Australia and Brazil) with EVs before they make sense for mainstream buyers … as the McKinsey report essentially shows with these %s Matt’s reporting on.
That’s why I’d just lease. This way, the depreciation hopefully wouldn’t hurt so much, and it contributes to the used market.
Yes, that’s true, but depreciation has only become a factor since people started going through cars like cell phones. If you keep the car for 10 years, depreciation has flatlined by that point regardless of the curve slope. My parents always bought their cars new then drove them until the wheels fell of, so I picked up the same habit for my daily driver, but cycle through older weekend fun cars that already hit their value floor years ago.
Now granted, early EVs like the 2011-2012 Leafs had battery issues that prevented many of them from lasting 10 years, but that’s resolved in current EVs.
Barring it completely falling to pieces for some reason, I’m keeping my Mach-E for at least 10 years. We’re up to 6 years on our Leaf, and we’ll keep that until the Rivian R2 comes out, so pretty close to 10 years.
I don’t entirely believe that more range, and a lower cost combined are needed to increase sales. Current range of all EVs on the market isn’t terrible, most to all are above 220 mile, but the price for those limitations are too high. If current EVs with 300 or less miles or range actually had price parity with ICE equivalents(without gov’t rebates) people would be able to see the EVs savings immediately, and more would sell. But because the average EV price is about 60K, it takes to long to see the savings for most people. If prices remain flat, or increase, then range needs to increase a lot.
Charging infrastructure is also a barrier for many people at this moment, and because of that there is a large group of people that won’t consider them simply because of accessibility, lower prices/more range won’t likely persuade these people, but seeing charging stations where they park might.
Charging infrastructure and share time are my biggest reason why I won’t bother. I can install a charger (although I suspect looking at my electrical it won’t be cheap) but take road trips and don’t want to have to find a charger and sit (maybe at some place in the middle of nowhere) for a long time. However, looking at a PHEV for our next car to get benefits from EV without the logistical downside.
I don’t entirely believe that more range, and a lower cost combined are needed to increase sales. Current range of all EVs on the market isn’t terrible, most to all are above 220 mile, but the price for those limitations are too high. If current EVs with 300 or less miles or range actually had price parity with ICE equivalents(without gov’t rebates) people would be able to see the EVs savings immediately, and more would sell. But because the average EV price is about 60K, it takes to long to see the savings for most people. If prices remain flat, or increase, then range needs to increase a lot.
Charging infrastructure is also a barrier for many people at this moment, and because of that there is a large group of people that won’t consider them simply because of accessibility, lower prices/more range won’t likely persuade these people, but seeing charging stations where they park might.
Charging infrastructure and share time are my biggest reason why I won’t bother. I can install a charger (although I suspect looking at my electrical it won’t be cheap) but take road trips and don’t want to have to find a charger and sit (maybe at some place in the middle of nowhere) for a long time. However, looking at a PHEV for our next car to get benefits from EV without the logistical downside.
I fully understand people who can’t charge at home wanting to switch back. When we stay at hotels or vacation rentals that don’t have charging options available, coming up with a charging plan sucks. I can’t imagine having to deal with that daily.
Our vacation rental this weekend fortunately has a DC fast charger two miles away at a grocery store.
I fully understand people who can’t charge at home wanting to switch back. When we stay at hotels or vacation rentals that don’t have charging options available, coming up with a charging plan sucks. I can’t imagine having to deal with that daily.
Our vacation rental this weekend fortunately has a DC fast charger two miles away at a grocery store.
The “how likely to switch back” question isn’t quite the same as “percentage of people planning to swap back”. Either way, for the general population who buys an EV without research and expects it to be the same as their old ICE, ~50% seems about right. For people who actually research and understand the car before buying an EV, I would think the return rate would be more like 5-10%. The population polled is going to have a lot of influence, and any number from 5%-50% is going to be accurate, for a given category of person.
Saw this recently, I’m guessing they were polling people who put their research in before buying an EV, not so much the general population- https://www.supermarketnews.com/news/some-61-electric-vehicle-owners-more-likely-shop-retailers-charging-stations
“Most current EV owners are in it for the long haul, with 87.2% of survey respondents saying they are somewhat or extremely likely to choose an EV again in the future. Only 3.3% said they were somewhat or extremely unlikely to purchase another electric vehicle.”
The “how likely to switch back” question isn’t quite the same as “percentage of people planning to swap back”. Either way, for the general population who buys an EV without research and expects it to be the same as their old ICE, ~50% seems about right. For people who actually research and understand the car before buying an EV, I would think the return rate would be more like 5-10%. The population polled is going to have a lot of influence, and any number from 5%-50% is going to be accurate, for a given category of person.
Saw this recently, I’m guessing they were polling people who put their research in before buying an EV, not so much the general population- https://www.supermarketnews.com/news/some-61-electric-vehicle-owners-more-likely-shop-retailers-charging-stations
“Most current EV owners are in it for the long haul, with 87.2% of survey respondents saying they are somewhat or extremely likely to choose an EV again in the future. Only 3.3% said they were somewhat or extremely unlikely to purchase another electric vehicle.”
Interesting that the three countries that lead in percentage of EV owners who want to switch back to some version of ICE are also geographically large countries where range means something different than in small countries. I wonder how much of that is psychological?
If 99% of daily driving fits well within the capabilities of – let’s say – a 250-mile range EV, then range anxiety really shouldn’t be that much of a consideration as lots of EVs meet that criteria. You still have cost and charging ease/availability to deal with, but range anxiety shouldn’t be an issue. It’s different with tow vehicles, of course, but that’s an outlier.
In this country, in particular, we seem to go to the extreme instead of the mean when considering if an EV meets our most frequent driving needs and behaviors, aside from cost and charging issues, I mean. I wouldn’t be bothered by an EV that was limited to 100 miles of range if charging was readily available, reliable, and fast. So, for me, charging and cost would be the decision drivers, which is why, for now, I’d be more likely to buy a hybrid or PHEV.
I noticed the same thing; large countries with a lot of wide open space.
The range thing isn’t going away. Automakers keep putting out 250-300 mile cars then act surprised when people aren’t jumping at the chance to pay $60-100k for them.
People can talk all day about how it’s irrational, how 99.999999% of driving is within 100 miles, and it just doesn’t matter. People want their cars to be capable of anything they need done. That includes towing and road tripping, even if those aren’t done often. Trying to talk people out of that mindset is IMO a losing cause. Just sell longer range cars!
In a way, the industry dug this hole for themselves. They’ve been aggressively marketing fringe use cases and what-ifs to sell the more profitable SUV’s over sedans for decades, and now they can’t make EV’s that match the market they created. I say they made their bed, and now they have to lie in it.
I bet in the next few years we’ll see some aggressive backpedaling on the size wars with classic-VW-esque “think small” ads as manufacturers downsize cars to widen EV profit margins and price competitively, especially as “light truck” classing becomes obsolete, what with EV’s being immune to CAFE standards.
Alternatively – people wont adopt EV’s if it means downsizing. Maybe hybrid technology is as far as the large SUV consumer is willing to go. They will adopt EVs when it makes sense to them personally.
I agree completely with your first paragraph, and not at all with your second.
Nothing in the last century other than gas crises has been able to even temporarily get Americans out of large vehicles. Once that risk goes away with hybrids and EVs, there will be little to no incentive to buy anything small other than cost. Which typically hasn’t stopped people before. Never say never, but I’m as sure as anything about my prediction that small cars will never make a comeback here.
That’s a fair point, but I can dream that maybe one day we’ll be free of the tall-car scourge. Hopefully they at least just make them shorter, a la Toyota Crown, until eventually it’s just a bunch of liftback wagons.
For real. I would add that if an EV goes half as far as a gas car, it should cost half as much. Instead it’s the opposite!
Well said sir
Speaking from experience, Australia has had massive cost of living increases in the last couple of years including huge rate increases for electricity due to poor policy making which won’t be helping. One of the major electricity grid companies has announced they are going to start charging people for feeding rooftop solar into the grid for example. Prices per kWh of electricity to residential areas have more than doubled in two years.
Those are some pretty regressive policies. Charging people for extra electricity pumped back into the grid makes no sense. I would think that would lead to people decoupling from the grid entirely, assuming their solar equipment doesn’t belong to the power company and it provides enough power for their homes.
In the US, power companies attempted to force people to sell them their excess power (at greatly discounted rates for the power company). That’s been hit and miss since people are able to independently purchase and install solar equipment. The power companies then tried to threaten independents with disconnect from the grid if they installed their own equipment. It’s handled differently from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, which is confusing and subject to influence from lobbyists and outright corrupt operators.
Still, power has generally remained cheap here, excepting California. What’s driving the large rate increases in Australia?
A combination of things:
Australia supplies a massive amount of resources to the world, but the government has never thought of doing something like Norway or Qatar and charging royalties for export. We could easily fund anything we need from basic royalty payments.
Whew! That’s a witch’s brew of contributing factors. Here, too, the greed factor versus the public good has a tendency to snarl up the works. Solar is growing rapidly here, but it sounds as if Australia, on a per capita basis, is way ahead of America. The power companies here are terrified of what happens when everyone has self-sustaining solar and battery backups and don’t need or want their services, so they have been throwing out every anchor they can find. That old power infrastructure is going to get real expensive to maintain as customers drop off the grid, if that ever comes to pass.
Current numbers show at least 20GW of installed rooftop solar in Australia which is 11.2% of the total generation needed for the country. 3GW was installed in 2023 alone.
Charging for putting power back in?! WTF, I’d go off-grid at the point, PITA that it might be.
It’s also set up that you pay for power back to the grid during peak generation time. Off the grid would be viable if battery storage was cheaper. Getting something like a Powerwall (an easy example) could cost you $20k to do.
Most likely is that solar companies will start introducing smarter controllers that don’t pass the electricity onto the grid and just dump the excess.
A guy I knew who was off-grid used old cell site buffer batteries (they run the DC equipment in between a grid outage and the generator coming on)—huge 3V lead acid things that are traded out on a schedule rather than by failure and he could get them cheap. Of course, the cheap solution means it’s a PITA and he ended up ditching the batteries and getting reconnected. They pay for surplus electricity by law in many states, including his (Vermont), so he said between months where he got a refund and winter months where he pulled more than he generated, it was about a wash in cost for the year.
Another option would be to use a gravity storage system to store some of the excess for later use. It runs pumps to fill a raised water reservoir, which then releases to turn an electric turbine when power generation falls off. Packaging and such is a hurdle, though I imagine someone could DIY a system for cheaper than good battery storage.
Flow batteries is what I’m waiting for, for home storage solutions (that and free capital to spend). Luckily the leading chemistry of vanadium flow is an Australian innovation from the 80s that we… *checks notes*… did nothing with.
Interesting that the three countries that lead in percentage of EV owners who want to switch back to some version of ICE are also geographically large countries where range means something different than in small countries. I wonder how much of that is psychological?
If 99% of daily driving fits well within the capabilities of – let’s say – a 250-mile range EV, then range anxiety really shouldn’t be that much of a consideration as lots of EVs meet that criteria. You still have cost and charging ease/availability to deal with, but range anxiety shouldn’t be an issue. It’s different with tow vehicles, of course, but that’s an outlier.
In this country, in particular, we seem to go to the extreme instead of the mean when considering if an EV meets our most frequent driving needs and behaviors, aside from cost and charging issues, I mean. I wouldn’t be bothered by an EV that was limited to 100 miles of range if charging was readily available, reliable, and fast. So, for me, charging and cost would be the decision drivers, which is why, for now, I’d be more likely to buy a hybrid or PHEV.
I noticed the same thing; large countries with a lot of wide open space.
The range thing isn’t going away. Automakers keep putting out 250-300 mile cars then act surprised when people aren’t jumping at the chance to pay $60-100k for them.
People can talk all day about how it’s irrational, how 99.999999% of driving is within 100 miles, and it just doesn’t matter. People want their cars to be capable of anything they need done. That includes towing and road tripping, even if those aren’t done often. Trying to talk people out of that mindset is IMO a losing cause. Just sell longer range cars!
In a way, the industry dug this hole for themselves. They’ve been aggressively marketing fringe use cases and what-ifs to sell the more profitable SUV’s over sedans for decades, and now they can’t make EV’s that match the market they created. I say they made their bed, and now they have to lie in it.
I bet in the next few years we’ll see some aggressive backpedaling on the size wars with classic-VW-esque “think small” ads as manufacturers downsize cars to widen EV profit margins and price competitively, especially as “light truck” classing becomes obsolete, what with EV’s being immune to CAFE standards.
Alternatively – people wont adopt EV’s if it means downsizing. Maybe hybrid technology is as far as the large SUV consumer is willing to go. They will adopt EVs when it makes sense to them personally.
I agree completely with your first paragraph, and not at all with your second.
Nothing in the last century other than gas crises has been able to even temporarily get Americans out of large vehicles. Once that risk goes away with hybrids and EVs, there will be little to no incentive to buy anything small other than cost. Which typically hasn’t stopped people before. Never say never, but I’m as sure as anything about my prediction that small cars will never make a comeback here.
That’s a fair point, but I can dream that maybe one day we’ll be free of the tall-car scourge. Hopefully they at least just make them shorter, a la Toyota Crown, until eventually it’s just a bunch of liftback wagons.
For real. I would add that if an EV goes half as far as a gas car, it should cost half as much. Instead it’s the opposite!
Well said sir
Speaking from experience, Australia has had massive cost of living increases in the last couple of years including huge rate increases for electricity due to poor policy making which won’t be helping. One of the major electricity grid companies has announced they are going to start charging people for feeding rooftop solar into the grid for example. Prices per kWh of electricity to residential areas have more than doubled in two years.
Those are some pretty regressive policies. Charging people for extra electricity pumped back into the grid makes no sense. I would think that would lead to people decoupling from the grid entirely, assuming their solar equipment doesn’t belong to the power company and it provides enough power for their homes.
In the US, power companies attempted to force people to sell them their excess power (at greatly discounted rates for the power company). That’s been hit and miss since people are able to independently purchase and install solar equipment. The power companies then tried to threaten independents with disconnect from the grid if they installed their own equipment. It’s handled differently from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, which is confusing and subject to influence from lobbyists and outright corrupt operators.
Still, power has generally remained cheap here, excepting California. What’s driving the large rate increases in Australia?
A combination of things:
Australia supplies a massive amount of resources to the world, but the government has never thought of doing something like Norway or Qatar and charging royalties for export. We could easily fund anything we need from basic royalty payments.
Whew! That’s a witch’s brew of contributing factors. Here, too, the greed factor versus the public good has a tendency to snarl up the works. Solar is growing rapidly here, but it sounds as if Australia, on a per capita basis, is way ahead of America. The power companies here are terrified of what happens when everyone has self-sustaining solar and battery backups and don’t need or want their services, so they have been throwing out every anchor they can find. That old power infrastructure is going to get real expensive to maintain as customers drop off the grid, if that ever comes to pass.
Current numbers show at least 20GW of installed rooftop solar in Australia which is 11.2% of the total generation needed for the country. 3GW was installed in 2023 alone.
Charging for putting power back in?! WTF, I’d go off-grid at the point, PITA that it might be.
It’s also set up that you pay for power back to the grid during peak generation time. Off the grid would be viable if battery storage was cheaper. Getting something like a Powerwall (an easy example) could cost you $20k to do.
Most likely is that solar companies will start introducing smarter controllers that don’t pass the electricity onto the grid and just dump the excess.
A guy I knew who was off-grid used old cell site buffer batteries (they run the DC equipment in between a grid outage and the generator coming on)—huge 3V lead acid things that are traded out on a schedule rather than by failure and he could get them cheap. Of course, the cheap solution means it’s a PITA and he ended up ditching the batteries and getting reconnected. They pay for surplus electricity by law in many states, including his (Vermont), so he said between months where he got a refund and winter months where he pulled more than he generated, it was about a wash in cost for the year.
Another option would be to use a gravity storage system to store some of the excess for later use. It runs pumps to fill a raised water reservoir, which then releases to turn an electric turbine when power generation falls off. Packaging and such is a hurdle, though I imagine someone could DIY a system for cheaper than good battery storage.
Flow batteries is what I’m waiting for, for home storage solutions (that and free capital to spend). Luckily the leading chemistry of vanadium flow is an Australian innovation from the 80s that we… *checks notes*… did nothing with.
As a new EV owner, I get it.
My PHEV is perfect imo and I decided to get an EV as car #2. Overall it has been fine so far, except that I went on a 200ish mile trip over the weekend and my range is quite low remaining right now.
Had planned to charge at work today and I get there and all of the chargers are broke.
Looks like I’m going to be living night to night charging on the granny charger at home for a bit, slowly charging more than my commute is.
This is why home charging is basically a must have for EV ownership. Once you can charge a full range overnight without worry, it’s never a problem.
Some cities by us are requiring the electricians to install the chargers on all new builds.
Yeah a charger is definitely in my future planning, just annoying when the charger you have been using for the last 2.5 years with no issues on your PHEV decides it wants to stop working a week after buying a full EV haha.
As a new EV owner, I get it.
My PHEV is perfect imo and I decided to get an EV as car #2. Overall it has been fine so far, except that I went on a 200ish mile trip over the weekend and my range is quite low remaining right now.
Had planned to charge at work today and I get there and all of the chargers are broke.
Looks like I’m going to be living night to night charging on the granny charger at home for a bit, slowly charging more than my commute is.
This is why home charging is basically a must have for EV ownership. Once you can charge a full range overnight without worry, it’s never a problem.
Some cities by us are requiring the electricians to install the chargers on all new builds.
Yeah a charger is definitely in my future planning, just annoying when the charger you have been using for the last 2.5 years with no issues on your PHEV decides it wants to stop working a week after buying a full EV haha.
I tend to think that we’re in the Blackberry phase of the transition from everybody having a RAZR to everybody having an iPhone… There’s obvious advantages for a subset of people, but there are downsides such as weight, bulk, and battery life that would more detrimentally affect your typical RAZR owner’s day to day that the ability to check your yahoo mail or geocities page doesn’t make up for. That said, the blackberry was a necessary stepping stone in getting where we are now.
I wonder if the kids today would believe that once upon a time, a Blackberry was a real status symbol and celebrities loved to show them off.
you mean the cybertruck? 🙂
I tend to think that we’re in the Blackberry phase of the transition from everybody having a RAZR to everybody having an iPhone… There’s obvious advantages for a subset of people, but there are downsides such as weight, bulk, and battery life that would more detrimentally affect your typical RAZR owner’s day to day that the ability to check your yahoo mail or geocities page doesn’t make up for. That said, the blackberry was a necessary stepping stone in getting where we are now.
I wonder if the kids today would believe that once upon a time, a Blackberry was a real status symbol and celebrities loved to show them off.
you mean the cybertruck? 🙂
Since carbon emissions are cumulative, people holding onto their current vehicles longer before getting an EV is actually good news for the planet.
Since carbon emissions are cumulative, a small improvement made early can have a bigger impact than a large improvement made too late.
We can math it out if you’d like, but the bottom line is fuel emissions are bigger than automotive manufacturing emissions. The best thing for the planet is to get gas guzzlers off the road as soon as possible — even if it means building new cars to replace them, and even if it means using stopgaps like hybrids.
Certainly someone eeking another 2 years out of their ICE then going EV is better than going PHEV and operating a compromised vehicle for 10 years.
However, my primary point is that getting additional utilty from a vehicle that is already manufactured is better than discarding it and taking the hit for the initially emissions. Plus EVs are getting cleaner in both usage and manufacturing over time so an EV two years from now is a lower emissions hit than one today.
Obviously there is a crossover somewhere. Dumping a working Prius is a bad idea. Swapping a pre-catalist 10mpg vehicle is probably worth doing any time.
Since carbon emissions are cumulative, people holding onto their current vehicles longer before getting an EV is actually good news for the planet.
Since carbon emissions are cumulative, a small improvement made early can have a bigger impact than a large improvement made too late.
We can math it out if you’d like, but the bottom line is fuel emissions are bigger than automotive manufacturing emissions. The best thing for the planet is to get gas guzzlers off the road as soon as possible — even if it means building new cars to replace them, and even if it means using stopgaps like hybrids.
Certainly someone eeking another 2 years out of their ICE then going EV is better than going PHEV and operating a compromised vehicle for 10 years.
However, my primary point is that getting additional utilty from a vehicle that is already manufactured is better than discarding it and taking the hit for the initially emissions. Plus EVs are getting cleaner in both usage and manufacturing over time so an EV two years from now is a lower emissions hit than one today.
Obviously there is a crossover somewhere. Dumping a working Prius is a bad idea. Swapping a pre-catalist 10mpg vehicle is probably worth doing any time.
Thank you for adding the needed context to this story! It really does support the conclusions we often see in the comments. Charging is the biggest barrier to EV ownership, and (for many of us) price is a problem too.
Thank you for adding the needed context to this story! It really does support the conclusions we often see in the comments. Charging is the biggest barrier to EV ownership, and (for many of us) price is a problem too.