[Dormant] Electric Vehicles

3192 readers

1 users here now

We have moved to:

[email protected]

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No self-promotion.
No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
No trolling.
Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Ceres

121

You Need Way Less EV Range Than You Think: Study (insideevs.com)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by MicroWave to c/evs

158 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Data from thousands of EVs shows the average daily driving distance is a small percentage of the EPA range of most EVs.

For years, range anxiety has been a major barrier to wider EV adoption in the U.S. It's a common fear: imagine being in the middle of nowhere, with 5% juice remaining in your battery, and nowhere to charge. A nightmare nobody ever wants to experience, right? But a new study proves that in the real world, that's a highly improbable scenario.

After analyzing information from 18,000 EVs across all 50 U.S. states, battery health and data start-up Recurrent found something we sort of knew but took for granted. The average distance Americans cover daily constitutes only a small percentage of what EVs are capable of covering thanks to modern-day battery and powertrain systems.

The study revealed that depending on the state, the average daily driving distance for EVs was between 20 and 45 miles, consuming only 8 to 16% of a battery’s EPA-rated range. Most EVs on sale today in the U.S. offer around 250 miles of range, and many models are capable of covering over 300 miles.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

China has done it pretty well, and there's no reason we can't too. It's just our car and oil lobbies would rather people spend stupid amounts of money on driving everywhere than literally any other form of transit.

I live in SF and bus/train everywhere and it's fantastic. Never have to look for parking, I get natural exercise in my daily routine through walking, and I'll spend at absolute max $1100 a year for unlimited transit rides which might cover the insurance cost on an okay car. There's no excuse for the shitty transit system we have in the US.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh wow. I like totally forgot that everyone in the country lives in an expensive and large, dense city that they almost never have to travel outside of. Silly me.

That only works well for people in about 40 cities in the country. The average home cost in San Fran right now is $1,200,000. The average home cost in a place like Blue Springs Missouri is about $300,000. So tell you what, give me $900,000 to make up the difference and I'll move to San Fran and stop bitching about public transport not being viable on a national level, because most of the country can't afford to live in that type of city. Apparently unless you're homeless. You have way more people living on the streets.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I never said that, but okay.

My point is we have no excuse for not at least connecting our major metros together by transit, and having good transit within them. I grew up in the country, I lived 6 miles from the nearest town. I'm well aware it doesn't work everywhere, but the majority of people, in fact, DO live in cities, and yet we still insist on cars being the main mode of transportation for almost every single metro except like 3 of them. It's terribly inefficient and horrible for the environment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah, the majority live in cities. But not the like 40 cities that I stated. Most people don't live in those. You're skewing what I said. There are over 300 cities in the US, and most of them aren't like NYC, LA, Atlanta, and San Fran etc.