That’s the headline on Dan Neil’s Wall Street Journal paeon to the battery-powered car. In his piece, he acknowledges the past and current shortcomings of Electric Vehicles, but he lays those off to car company marketing rather than to actual performance.
My mind isn’t as made up as Neil’s headline implies; nevertheless, challenge accepted.
I drove a Ford Fusion Hybrid for a number of years, and it was a fine car. However, the battery price premium was enormous, and the reduction in trunk capacity to make room for the battery was just as enormous.
I replaced it with an ICE Fusion, and that car was just as peppy and responsive as the Hybrid (peppiness and responsiveness was one of Neil’s touts regarding battery-powered cars), and I had decent trunk capacity.
I’d get a Hybrid again, were the battery premium actually to come down decently.
I won’t buy a purely battery-powered car until a number of criteria are met:
- the battery has to be chargeable to a 400-mile range in the same minimal time that I can fill my ICE gasoline tank to a 400-mile range
- the battery premium must come down. The 14% reduction Neil claims is from a hugely high price
- the battery’s lifetime must be at least as many years as I drive my cars, and as many miles
- the battery must stop suffering so significantly from cold temperatures. The battery in my ICE that powers my car’s starter motor also suffers, but it only needs to crank the engine. If needs be, I can get a jump start. The EV’s battery is its motive source, and that motor can’t be jump-started; its power source must be “refueled”
- the battery must be disposable/recyclable with far less environmental damage done or risk of damage done than is the case today
EV prices are coming down, as Neil claims? Show that after EV subsidies are stopped, and EV buyers pay actual market prices. No one should have to pay tax money because someone else bought an EV.