The "gotta have it" just isn't there for electric vehicles.
It's a mistake to think the adoption rates of EVs will approach
anything like what we've seen with consumers electronics products in
the last 20 years. Many of those technologies (VCRs, telephone
answering machines, video cameras to name a few) had metoric
adoption rises for cost and convenience reasons.
CEO George Colony's quote:
“If you look at the history of technology, there is a
threshold where one day, you had to have something. You had to
have a fax machine. Remember that day? It was 1981 or something.
You had to have a fax machine on that day. The day before, day
before, you didn’t need it."
EVs have an existing infrastructure (roads, grid), and the user
experience is essentially identical to what the consumer is used to,
so the adoption rates should be red hot. But you don't have to have
it. Thirty years ago we spent a lot of money for one of the first
IBM PCs (or Apple computers) because we felt we needed it. More
people would pay the EV premium today if we felt we had to have it.
So faster adoption will come with radically reduced pricing (Nissan
the price on its all-EV Leaf), and, as you know,
that's not happening overnight because of battery chemistry and
economics. There will be no hockey-sticking of EV sales.
In fact, I'd bet that technologies such as ride-sharing apps and
services will be much more disruptive to driving and car-buying
habits in the next few years than EVs.
That's why we'll be writing the same headline next year.
I am not willing to pay a premium for an electric car. If an electric car has a range of 100 miles (I commute 90 miles per day) between charges in the dead of winter at 15 degrees F and costs no more than a ICE car, I will buy it. If not, forget it.
How about a source rather than an anecdotal, unsubstantiated "what-if"? You actually KNOW someone who "abused" the battery thusly, it died completely in these two years, and they refused to replace the battery due to the "abuse" because they could pull the record from the car.
Sounds highly unlikely for many reasons to me.
People talked about the original Prius batteries costing $10k to replace (oddly enough the same figure) back when they came out. Now, years later, the very first Prius' are beginning to need new batteries, and they can be replaced for between $1500 to $2500. Sounds like it's worth doing in most cases.
As far as "free or low cost service for 100,000 miles" , yeah... right... let me tally up what the service costs were for my Audi A6 Turbo for miles 60,000 to 100,000 (the first 60,000 were under warranty - needed to dump or extend the warranty before 60,000...) Those 40,000 miles were a lot more than $10,000...
"typically halving the range" - a bit of an exaggeration - I'd say more like "at the extreme tail, it MIGHT halve your range..." it's more like 2/3rds your range. Case in point, on a single charge, my Volt will break 50 miles all electric. In close to freezing, it might go down to 33-35 miles... I admit that I've never driven it in sub-freezing levels, but people were never meant to live in such places, much less drive! ;-)
It did occur to me that it could have been an urban legend.
I did a little bit more research, and there are reports that the console warning lights go crazy and inform that one really needs to add fuel before running out. Then it makes sure that the driver knows that there is no fuel. Once someone shuts it down without fuel and attempts to start it, it will give three chances to start with enough fuel before it shuts down and requires an engine code reset. There are reports that people might have been able to get up to two miles on the battery alone, although it progressively lowers speed (maxes at about 18 MPH).
So perhaps my original understanding was off. Turns out more detailed reports are that they are designed to keep the battery from depleting. However, running out of fuel is a bad idea. I don't know if Toyota will consider it abuse for warranty claims.
I absolutely agree, Kris! I'm only arguing EVs relative to ICEs. Moving a person or two at significant speed in a 1-1/2 ton box is energy intensive any way you cut it! Unfortunately, areas like mine have a lot of hills, are hostile to non-motor traffic, and have very weak public transport.