My Electric Vehicle Interview With The Chicago Tribune
Originally published on EV Obsession.
The 2016 Chevy Volt & Chevy Bolt news has woken up conventional media a bit. As one sign of that, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune (a member of the editorial board, actually) recently reached out to me to ask me a bunch of questions about electric vehicles. Naturally, I had a lot to say. As you could probably guess, the article ended up being a fairly generic one about modern electric vehicles, some of their advantages and limitations, and the future of the technology. It’s the same sort of thing you see over and over again in the mass media, with many of the same cliches. I’ll say that the article did seem to get its facts straight, at least, and on the whole, it was definitely above average for a mass-media electric vehicle article (imho). The reporter who contacted me seemed very interested and eager to learn as much as possible. I guess that’s how he ended up on the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune. The article ended up being published by the editorial board, but I’m not sure how much input other members of the editorial board had.
Anyhow, as is always the case, only a few of the things I wrote ended up in the article. While I was noted to be an EV evangelist, I was actually the only one quoted in the article (iirc — I can’t see the article now without becoming a subscriber), so thanks to the Chicago Tribune for that. It seems a bit weird to be called an “EV evangelist,” even though I guess I am one. I see myself more as an auto-market realist, much as people early to see that cell phones or the Internet were the future were eager to talk with others about this. The idea of “cell phone evangelists” or “Internet evangelists” seems weird, and the idea of “EV evangelists” seems weird in the same way, to me. But we’re getting into pedantics….
Since I think the stuff I wrote was worth sharing, and since I think the reporter/editor asked some very good questions (especially for those not already well aware of modern EVs), I’ve decided to share all of the questions and answers here (with only some minor formatting changes). Check them out, and share with friends:
Chicago Tribune editor: I’m intrigued by the Bolt announcement and want to give readers some perspective on the reality of EV vs. the hype.
How big a deal is the Bolt? What’s it really going to take for EV to go mainstream? Or do you think another alternative fuel (hydrogen?) will win out?
Me: Electric vehicles would already work well for the majority of people, and I think be even more convenient and pleasurable for them. However, we stick to habits and technologies we are familiar with. For a technology to really be “disruptive,” as the economists say, it has to be much better and the same price. In the case of EVs, I think this means the same upfront price (not cost of ownership price)… simply because of how people approach purchases.
This is already the case for a lot of people. The top-selling Nissan LEAF, for example, costs $29,010, or $21,510 after the US federal tax credit for EVs, or even $19,010 if you live in California and can also take advantage of the state’s $2,500 EV rebate. The average price of a new car sold in the US is now around $31,000–$32,000. Meanwhile, electric vehicles come with at least 8 big benefits, including the tremendous convenience of charging at home while you sleep or hang out with family & friends (never going to the gas station is awesome!) and their instant torque (awesome acceleration).
However, most people really don’t understand this, and they are often turned away from EVs due to “range anxiety anxiety” — not real-world range anxiety, which is hugely hyped but would be irrelevant for most people, but just the fear that they will have range anxiety. To put this into a little context, I saw a study showing that most EV drivers planned to charge their cars every night, but they quickly realized that wasn’t even necessary and started charging them every other night.
The Bolt is a very big deal… and it’s not. The thing is, several major manufacturers have said that long-range, affordable electric cars are right around the corner. (For context, the Nissan LEAF has 84 miles of range per full charge, while the Bolt is reportedly going to have over 200 miles for a similar price.) Tesla Motors has long planned the release of a long-range, affordable EV in 2017 or 2018 — the Tesla Model 3 — but no other automaker has announced a name or date for such a car, until GM announced the Bolt. So, that’s big news. Furthermore, GM released an actual demo/concept version of the Bolt, which even Tesla hasn’t done with the Model 3. That said, it seems very clear that Nissan and Volkswagen are planning to roll out an affordable, long-range EV around the same time, if not even sooner, based on recent statement by top executives at those companies. BMW is probably aiming for that as well, and I would be surprised if other major manufacturers are. But with GM beating everyone else to an auto show with a concept EV like the Bolt, I’d say that it is taking a big step forward and putting a lot of pressure on these other manufacturers. From what I can tell, all of the ones mentioned above believe that electric vehicles are the future of passenger cars.
I definitely don’t see any other fuel competing with battery-electric vehicles in the coming decade or two. I could write a book about why hydrogen is a lame and counterproductive solution that will not catch on in the coming two decades at least, but others have already done that and I don’t see the need right here. 😀
Chicago Tribune editor: Concerning EV: How long will it take a Bolt or Tesla to charge to go 200 miles? Does that make the Bolt potentially the first truly mainstream EV?
Charge time varies a lot depending on the charger used, or if the car is just plugged into the wall like a vacuum cleaner or your smartphone is. With the fastest chargers, by 2017, I think a 200-mile EV will be able to charge in under 20 minutes. However, most charging is done at night. All you have to do is plug in when you get home and unplug when you leave in the morning. And robots or wireless charging devices have been developed, and will continue to be improved, that could well handle those 5 seconds of inconvenience for you.
Chicago Tribune editor: Where do you think we’re actually going? What will it the market look like in 10 or 20 years? How efficient will EV be and how mainstream? What technologically has to happen? Do you have to be able to charge up in 10 minutes anywhere? Or will the reality look different?
These are great questions, and I think they show you are generally interested in the matter. I was writing about EVs for a long time before I drove one. Based on logic, they seemed like the future of cars. But once I drove one, I knew they would be the future. They are simply better in so many respects. I look at a gasmobile the way I look at a landline telephone, or a film camera… or something even worse, since gasmobiles are actually harmful, not just inconvenient and clunky.
I’ve laid out 8 big benefits of EVs that I think will drive their mass adoption within the next 5–10 years. Some of those include the tremendous convenience of charging at home (imagine the hours, or days, saved by not going to the gas station); the instant torque, or in human terms, much better acceleration; the smoother and quieter ride; the financial savings; the potential energy independence (especially if you have solar panels on your roof); and the big health and environmental benefits.
I think the #1 barrier to mass adoption is now simply lack of awareness and lack of experience. I don’t think those would be overcome with the current technology and crop of electric cars, but a lot of progress is being made. I do think they will be quickly overcome in around 2017 or 2018. I think that’s when a tipping point will really occur. Again, if you look at cell phones, they were “too expensive” or “cool, but not necessary” for awhile after they were really competitive. People had a hard time adjusting to the idea that they didn’t need landlines. But then, pow, all of a sudden, everyone had a cell phone. It happens with technology after technology — cassette tapes, CDs, digital cameras, laptops, cell phones, smartphones, dishwashers, etc. I’m definitely convinced it will happen with electric cars, and before 2020.
Back to charging: No, 10-minute charging won’t be necessary at all. The need for public EV charging stations is massively overhyped, in my opinion. They are helpful, but they won’t inspire the shift to EVs and they aren’t holding it back. That said, I think we will have a lot more public EV charging stations by 2017. Also, important to remember, electric cars can charge with the simple electrical sockets that we use to charge our phones.
Chicago Tribune editor: I don’t understand the charging station equation. Do we need ubiquitous charging stations to make EV a reality? The story so far is they aren’t successful and require government funding.
Are you concerned about the low cost of gas hurting development?
I do think the low cost of gas is currently keeping electric car sales a bit lower than they would have been. However, the really big selling points of EVs are that 1) they are much better, safer, and more fun to drive, and 2) they are much more convenient than gasmobiles. The ability to save money and become energy independent is also big, but I think it’s primarily those other two points that are driving sales right now and will drive the next wave of electric car purchases. Nonetheless, in 2017, when EVs are much cheaper than gasmobiles and have those other benefits above, and are much better for our health and the environment (which they are today), then I think there’s no way the auto industry won’t transition and move beyond gasmobiles back to electric cars (where we started over a century ago).
Chicago Tribune editor: How many EV (plug-in and full electric) models are on sale today?
In the US & Europe, 32: http://evobsession.com/
In the US, 22: http://cleantechnica.com/
Chicago Tribune editor: How many do you expect by 2018 or so?
I expect well over 50 by 2018 (maybe 70?), but that’s a hard question, as it relies on manufacturers really changing their businesses.
Chicago Tribune editor: In a sentence, why is hydrogen not an option? Is there another technology out there?
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles don’t have the excellent performance benefits of battery-electric cars, are absurdly expensive to produce (with almost no chance of that changing a lot in the coming decade or two), and are much “dirtier” when it comes to environmental matters (the Prius is cleaner).
Images by GM
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
I read nowhere the sexy thing about EV and the point of easyness to score chicks while driving EV. all about cars is sex and sexy. next time say EV is so much sexier than gas and easier to score chicks.
that will ramp up EV sales.
hehehe
next interview start with EV is sexy and end with EV is sexy.
“easyness to score chicks” This is your strategy to get soccer moms to buy the Model X people mover?
What study showed that most EV drivers planned to charge their cars every night, but started charging them every other night?
I may be mistaken, but I think that came from a customer survey done by Nissan..
Good interview! I think you could have pointed out how much simpler and less expensive maintenance will be with EVs; how many fewer parts there are on Evs. To me , I think the big car manufacturers are being dragged into this revolutionary shift to EVs because of Tesla [ with the possible exception of Nissan ]. They really make their money selling parts with huge margins; parts that will not be needed soon.
Good answers, Zach. I’d be interested to see how the published article turned out. When a local publication interviewed me a couple years ago about EVs, I was horrified to see 2 hours of phone conversation i had with the reporter distilled down to about 2 sentences in the printed article.
Hi Benjamin, While you might have been horrified to have seen your two hour conversation whittled down to 2 sentences, you did invest your time to educate an opinion leader. This is how transformation happens. Good work.
Zach, Good article. I like the diary style. Interesting experience. I loved your understated line: “Naturally, I had a lot to say.” lol Good one.
C.f., NREL document “Non-Cost Barriers to Consumer Adoption of New Light-Duty Vehicle Technologies”. (2012) It is the kind of analysis GM, VW, Ford, etc. look at to determine production volumes, return-on-investment, and pricing.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55639.pdf
It is too long to summarize but some key points:
“The disutility function ranged from approximately $12,000 for the modest driver to $30,000 for the frequent driver, due mostly to the battery cost. The range anxiety term was slightly over $1,000 for modest drivers and $6,000 for frequent drivers.” (pg 23). Assuming battery costs of $125/kWh cuts the disutility function to $4K to $10K. This is a discount (possibly as fuel savings) EVs need compared to ICEs to compete.
“The monitoring results suggest that if a BEV was always charged once a day, a BEV with a 100-mile range could be driven by 9% of these drivers without foregoing any trips or making other adaptations (such as using an alternate vehicle or travel mode). To satisfy 50% of these drivers, a vehicle would need a range of 313 miles.” (pg 19)
“…the fraction of drivers who could make the recorded trips with BEVs having different ranges. They estimated few (less than 1%) could make all their trips in a BEV with a range of 100 miles without making adaptations. If drivers were willing to adapt on three days per year, then about 5% could make the remainder of their trips with a 100-mile range BEV, and just over 20% could do that in a 150-mile range BEV.”
“Considering these results, the value for the barrier represented by a combination of limited vehicle range, limited fuel availability, and long refueling time is on the order of $1,000 to $10,000.”
So many more charging stations, and longer battery life are needed. This will take time. Obviously, things are changing rapidly so more information about potential market size is available every year. While I am sure market size will increase, it is going to take longer than many (including me) initially thought.
“A study by the UK Technology Strategy Board of 340 BEV drivers found that range anxiety dropped by 35% after 3 months of driving a BEV – 100% of drivers surveyed stated that they were worried about getting to their destinations before purchasing a BEV but that number dropped to 65% after three months. A joint study by BMW and University of California at Davis found that drivers thought that the BMW Mini-E met 90% of their driving needs. Furthermore, 71% of these respondents said they are now more likely to purchase a BEV than they were a year ago while only 9% said they are less likely”
pg 36 of “PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLE DEPLOYMENT IN THE
NORTHEAST” from
http://www.transportationandclimate.org/tci-releases-report-status-electric-vehicles-northeast-0
$125/kWh is where Tesla expects to be when their new factory is running. That’s short years ahead.
Tesla will soon be delivering a replacement for their Roadster which will almost double the range of their earlier battery. From 245 miles to 400 miles.
A rapid charging network can be set up quickly. Look at what tiny Tesla has done. Now imagine every utility getting into the market. There is money to be made.
Tesla(Panasonic) seems to be dropping battery prices, increasing capacity and installing the needed charging system. Tesla is showing that it can be done which should make it very easy for other companies to imitate.
Good article, Zachary. I’d add that not only will the transition to EVs increase dramatically once the $35K/200 mile cars enter the market, but the rise of the fully-electric autonomous car will come shortly after that. Imagine the efficiency gained by a 200 mile range, purpose-built autonomous car that can pick up and deliver commuters during the day, take folks out to dinner, shopping, movies at night, and drive the drunks home from the bars after midnight.
One autonomous car can easily replace 10-20 privately owned cars. Stopping only to fast charge, these cars can work 22 hours per day, 265 days per year. Maintenance is minimal, and a well-built car can last for many years, replacing spent battery packs and tires as needed. The transition to this form of personal transportation is already underway, but will really take off when the cost of using this service falls under the cost of owning your own car. That won’t take very long.
The savings globally will be measured in the trillions when the health, environmental and military costs are tallied.
I’m seeing a future in cities where there will be few personal cars. People will just phone for a 2, 4, more seater or a hauler with options running from large screen TV to “move my house”. There will be specialized rides for people with special needs such as ones that allow easy wheelchair access.
Yep, flying cars and robots in child care.
Perhaps a pill to stop people from making silly comments.
That will certainly be a possibility as taxi service evolves.
But the desire to own a car comes from the same innate place as the desire to own property and a house. People want space/territory that they can call their own. They don’t want others’ mess or b.o. or pathogens or whatever in there, they want personalization and style, and they want the feeling of knowing they can just drive far away if they want to.
I understand that desire. But car ownership comes at a very high price in densely populated cities. The problem of parking is significant. I’ve given up on eating dinner in SF if I’m driving because parking is too hard to find.
There’s no reason why “phone for a car” cars would need to be dirty. If one shows up that is dirty then ‘phone it in’ and get a replacement in a couple of minutes. The person who trashed it will get billed. Cars can be routinely cleaned during slower demand hours.
Drive as far as you want to is easily solvable. Your “phone for” will drop you and your luggage off at a waiting “go far” vehicle on the edge of town.
Funny, I read “reporter/editor” as “redditor”.
About “Range-anxiety-anxiety”…we need to simplify this terminology. I think we’re clear on what the issue is (and I fully agree with your concept that people are worried about being worried (really just the unknown of it all) but using this terminology scrambles peoples brains and disconnects them with the point. I’ll keep noodling on this but the more we can simplify (KISS concept), the easier it will be to clearly communicate this point – which is a huge one and will be for the next 2-3 years for EVs.
“GM released an actual demo/concept version of the Bolt, which even Tesla hasn’t done with the Model 3.” – interesting. I was all caught up on the fact that it was just a concept…but this is a big point. Similarly, no concept from Nissan or VW though they would presumably use the Leaf and eGolf platforms for their longer range vehicle.
Charging – at current home L2 rates and battery tech (neither of which I expect to change by the time these next gen EVs come out), we would expect a ~50kwh battery at 6.6kwh charging = 7.6hrs to charge from zero to hero. Obviously the average charge at night will be much less than that…but as you stated, it’s really not relevant. Having said that, the real key is DC fast charging. I’m excited to see what those will do as our current EV doesnt have it. If a DC fast charger could get the battery to 80% charge in 20-30 mins (which seems to be the current “best in class” rates), we would have 160 miles of range in a coffee/bathroom break timing.
Automated charging – while this is, as you noted, a minor point…it can be yet another huge win for EVs. It’s something that Gasmobiles simply can’t do and makes peoples lives that much easier.
An estimate of the time it might take for EVs to replace all US car sales:
Current car sales = 16.5M
Current PHEV and BEV sales = 119K
(Not counting non-plug-in hybrids)
Source http://electricdrive.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/20952/pid/20952
For 100% of new US car sales to be EVs, EVs will have to grow at the following rates:
64% annual y-o-y growth to make it in 10 years OR,
39% annual y-o-y growth to make it in 15 years OR,
29% annual y-o-y growth to make it in 20 years OR,
22% annual y-o-y growth to make it in 25 years
10 years is unimaginable, 15-20 years seems unrealistic though possible, 25 years seems realistic if everything goes very, very well, but then, I’m an optimist.
One of the hindrances is simply the time it takes to build a large factory. Look how long Musk’s Gigafactory is going to take. I am sure once they get the first one built, the next can be built faster, but still – it takes time.
We don’t need that many new factories. We already have a lot of huge factories. As ICE production will phase out step by step, those factories can be retooled relatively quick and be used for EV/battery production.
IIRC, Ford set up three assembly lines for the Focus in a manner that allowed one to be converted to/from EV/ICE in a few days if demand grew for one model over another.
That’s some great information, thanks!
Very smart to have some joker that can be played in a matter of days. Retooling a normal production line probably takes a few weeks (just a wild guess here).
Seems like it’s common to shut down for a few weeks to retool for the next year’s models. I would expect that goes faster these days with so much of the job done by robots. They could have their programs worked out on a dummy line while the regular line kept in operation.
I referred to what will be the largest battery factory in the world, taking years to build, as a constraint on EV growth. You are referring to an assembly plant for doors, chassis, seats, etc. of which there are too many to keep track of.
So what is your estimate of the year-over-year (y-o-y) growth rate for EVs? And sources please.
Here’s Navigant: http://www.navigantresearch.com/research/electric-vehicle-market-forecasts
Growth in all EVs, including non-plug-in hybrids, from 2.7M in 2014 to 6.4M in 2023 which is an annual growth rate of 10%
Here’s another source:
“from 2014 through 2020, EV sales will experience a CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 19%”
http://insideevs.com/global-electric-vehicle-sales-predicted-to-hit-7-5-million-annually-in-2020/
And your estimate is?
Two years to build a massive factory doesn’t seem very long to me. YMMV.
I think you believe Tesla should have used an existing building in the rust belt rather than building a new building. Doing so would have meant shipping lithium a couple thousand miles and then shipping the batteries back a couple thousand miles to the car factory.
Just based on energy requirements alone that makes no sense. Plus a lot more long range air travel would be required moving staff back and forth.
(Plus those of us who have lived in places like Chicago and made it to California have no desire to re-experience that weather. ;o)
I don’t have a year to year growth rate protection for EVs. I can see it starting slowly and then taking off like a rocket like most technology shifts occur.
We’re roughly two years away from longer range $30/35k EVs. I think that price is a bit too high to kick off mass adoption unless we return to expensive oil (unlikely).
More likely once we get ~$30k EVs it will take a few years to bring <$25k EVs on line and then the move will kick off.
If Nissan or another of the shorter range manufacturers can bring a "solid 100 mile range" EV – 100 miles in the worst of driving conditions to market for about $25k that might kick things off.
Which has nothing whatever to do with battery production (for which the Gigafactory is being built). When people say the Tesla is “supply constrained” they are not referring to the sheet metal, suspension, seats, etc. which the Ford factory you refer to is making, they are referring to the batteries.
Why do you think Musk is building the Gigafactory if battery supply is not a constraint? And why do you think it is taking so long?
I’m quite sure battery manufacturing capacity is holding back larger scale EV production. If Panasonic could supply the Model 3 from its existing plants then it wouldn’t be joining Tesla to build the new Reno plant.
Two years to build an enormous factory doesn’t seem long to me. I just watched it take a year or so to build a Holiday Inn and not a huge one at all.
Which again puts us in perfect agreement, so I am perplexed why you brought up the small time needed for motive source changeover in Ford’s factory. It appeared that you were saying building battery factories is not an issue in limiting the growth rate of EVs. I take it then, that you more or less agree with my calculations that it will take 20-30 years for EVs to replace ICEs in a reasonable, yet optimistic, view?
I’ve explained. While you were typing this comment.
I’m not predicting a timeline. I can see it possible that within 10 years of having <$30k, 200 mile range EVs the sales of ICEVs could be very low. Minor niche low.
Following a domination of sales by EVs it might take roughly 20 years to get ICEVs off the road. People with limited incomes and lower annual driving will likely stick with ICEVs as long as fuel isn't too hard to access.
Thanks for the explanation for diverting the conversation from battery factories to chassis production.
I don’t know what you mean by niche level for ICEs in 10 years. If it is 5% then you are looking at around 60% annual growth for EVs. That implies a doubling of manufacturing capacity every 18 months. So 18 months after finishing the Gigafactory, 2 more must be built, then 18 months later, 3 more, then 6 more, then 12 more, then 8 more and you are done. For the US alone.
5X that for the entire world including growth in overall sales of cars. I.e., First 10 more Gigafactories, then 15 more, then 30 more world-wide, then 60 more, finally 40 more. Every 18 months for 10 years. That is an ambitious projection.
We’ll see.
Right now we’ve Tesla/Panasonic, LG Chem, BYD and some other company building/preparing to build big battery factories. We’re not starting with one but three or four.
This round is likely to get us to <$30k, 200 mile range EVs. And this round covers Tesla, GM, BYD and maybe one other manufacturer. Who's building batteries for Ford, Nissan, VW, Mitsubishi, and the other companies that are likely to jump in as the market becomes obvious?
We could easily see another bunch of factory starts before prices drop under $30k. VW/Porsche is going to order up some volume. The Korean manufacturers are going to order up some volume. They are going to want assured delivery before they commit to manufacturing. Round two of building could be 6, 8, 10 factories started.
If battery prices do drop then we're likely to see a lot of parallel activity simply because everyone will want to be assured a source as their needs rise.
Then as the market builds (I assume) the next dozen plus will break ground. Companies will need their second factory.
So why is Elon Musk taking so long to build the “Gigafactory”?
Because he doesn’t have a magic wand?
So you concede that it takes years to make factories to supply the batteries for EVs. This supply limiting factor of batteries was what I was referring to and it now appears you know that. So a temporary lapse on your part when you apparently changed the subject to model changeover issues relating to sheet metal, seats, and other elements which are in plentiful supply and *not* limiting factors in the production of EVs. Thank you for that indirect agreement.
I still await any estimate you might have of an annual growth rate for EVs. 20% ? 30% ? Without that you’re not really saying much except that EVs aren’t quite ready for prime time but it will be really cool when they are.
You apparently want to beleive it will happen overnight. It won’t. I wish it as much as you but I am constrained by actual numbers.
Michael, I’ll let you in on a little secret.
Every single comment on CT shows up in my email. Dozens every day and sometimes hundreds.
I read every one and open most links to check we aren’t being scammed. It takes a lot of time.
Sometimes I reply from email, seeing only the comment, and miss the context. That happened in this case. I saw Phillip’s comment ” those factories can be retooled relatively quick and be used for EV/battery production” and offered a bit of information about how Ford had set up their lines for quick shifting from one system to another.
Now, why that comment should have caused you to get your bloomers in a twist is beyond me. Only you can figure that out.
Because it’s a new factory build from the ground up?
I just added to your comment, that we potentially don’t need every battery factory build from the ground up.
Right now most factories are still producing ICE cars, but as transition progresses they’ll become available and can be used for battery/EV production.
When we reach that take off point that Bob mentioned we can produce a huge amount of EVs realtively fast making that exponential growth curve even steeper. At least that’s my take on this.
If it were just putting up walls and a roof, it could be done in a few months or even weeks. I think it is that building large batteries in mass production efficiently is complicated. I agree, there is no shortage of available factory space, but I don’t see space as the constraining factor.
GMT has a picture of the Tesla/Panasonic factory up today. Part of the roof was on when the picture was taken.
Getting the box build is likely quick. But they’re also building equipment as well along with getting all the other stuff working.
Well Zach doing a quick Google search and the article pops right up “A Volt a Bolt and a quick jolt of electricity” or something like with no hassles over a paywall to view.
On the whole I think that you were being a little generous as it is a pretty negative article on EV’s. Nothing on the Volt being able to plug in, only saying that the battery recharges from the gas motor. A totally false statement that there are zero or very few charge points available around the country. That even an EV with a 200 mile range will suit the needs of a tiny minority of drivers and only be suitable for city or commuting needs.
About the only positive statement was that EV’s do have good acceleration.
With the final paragraph (ie what people leave the article thinking about) a positive statement as to the future potential of hydrogen fueled vehicles over BEV’s.
And as for your being the EV evangelist, sorry but it just seems to make you out as one of the crazies with your ten year forecast for mass market adoption totally unrealistic.
“No need for EV public chargers, after all you can charge your phone off any 120 outlet”
Gee whiz, article/blogger guy writer is an idiot. Take a week to charge a leaf off 120 power.
Maybe he has a week.
Well, since it would take about 16 hours to fully charge a totally discharged Leaf from a 120vac outlet I think it might be time to reassign the idiot label.
But since this site has a rule against name-calling I’ll try to restrain myself.
I would suggest you do the same going forward….