80% may be a valid statistic, but perception is everything. No one likes limitations, just look at the Carter/Reagan election in 1980. Carter said there were limits and Reagan said there were none. Carter was right, but people liked what Reagan had to say.

I don't know where you live Chris, but in my LA neighborhood there are 4 gasoline stations just blocks from my house.

Likewise, according to a recent study, less than half of all Californians have off-street parking. Thus, for the majority in the Golden state charging is definitely the inconvenience.

Moreover, just because an EV provides generally acceptable range doesn't mean Americans find value in them. They're still significantly more expensive compared to conventional cars without tax incentives -- both to consumers and automakers/suppliers. Finally, for now automakers can subsidize EV costs through PR, etc. If they were suddenly forced to survive off EV profits, I bet EV prices would have to rise significantly.

Think about American automakers, for instance, and the massive percentage of profit driven by the pickup truck segment. Having to replace that profit with EV profit would be extremely difficult. Why do think the President essentially gave pickup trucks a pass in new CAFE requirements through the next decade? Because if we got tough on trucks today we'd crush the Big 3.

In theory, EVs make a ton of sense, in the real world; however, they still have massive obstacles to overcome.

Additionally, I think there is a bit of a flaw in this study.

In particular, the Nissan Leaf is not representative of the average vehicle in the US. Consequently, its range capabilities are therefore questionable.

For instance, typically around 50 percent or more of US sales are light duty trucks. Saying Nissan Leaf range meets the capabilities of a Ford F150 or a Chevy Silverado seems hardly accurate. The extra weight of the vehicles, aerodynamics and payloads would require a massive upgrade to the size of the Leaf's battery pack, otherwise, potential range would decrease significantly.

Current e-range BEVs limitation will fade away as batteries energy density will improve by 2X to 3X by 2020 or shortly thereafter.

Limited 100 miles range will be past history. Buyers will have the choice to purchase enough battery modules for 100, 200, 300 or 400 miles to suit their needs and/or pocket book.

I am always baffled when people takes sides on the electric vs. gasoline debate, when in fact it isn't either/or. Is it really a debate about whether BEVs can replace ICE vehicles?! Whether BEVs can duplicate gasoline car performance and range? BEVs are different animals than traditional ICE cars; I don't see why people should want them to be the same, or to fill the same transportation niche, or be used in the same way. It's not one size fits all. There is room for both (it's not a contest).

People who can charge at home and need a car for mostly shorter trips and who appreciate the esthetics (quiet, simplicity, seamless power, reliability) of electric vehicles can buy a BEV. Maybe they have a second car for long trips. Maybe they will rent. BEVs are practical NOW for those people, and that choice will likely not come down to cost. I hear too often that BEVs cost more than traditional ICE vehicles, so therefore somehow they are not now ready for prime time. Well, how many people buy cars/trucks based solely on how economical they are? Horsepower, status, entertainment systems, exhaust sound, magic seats, style, image, the latest thing . . . Why buy a Mercedes when you can get by just as well with a Camry?

For too many years I spent three hours a day commuting into Washington in rush hour traffic. I also regularly drove up and down the east coast in 600 mile lumps. I would not do that now; it's a matter of priorities.

But people who think nothing of routinely driving distances should buy a gasoline car. People who like trucks should have an ICE. People who don't need long range, and could charge at home, but who are nevertheless more comfortable with traditional cars should buy the ICE vehicle that makes them feel good. People who prefer gasoline vehicles will be in the majority for a long time to come.

I thought the point of the study was not that people who drive shorter distances should buy BEVs, but rather that for many people, a BEV would meet their mileage requirements. But that's not news. The real purpose of the study was to fulfill the academic requirements of two doctoral candidates by generating quantitative data (and not to challenge the psyche of ICE fans).

Nevertheless, technology evolves, and some people don't like change. So I suppose the debate will continue.

Car commuting distances were found to average 12.6 miles nationally, with 95% below 40 miles and 99% shorter than 60 miles.

This is THE most important finding here. And all worth discussion re: actual needs of commuters. But range anxiety is a fear-ploy used by oil and ICE companies unwilling to transition quickly to EV. Thus the wisdom of the Chevy VOLT which addresses the fear factor and deliver EV range equivalent to 95% of commutes.

Slow adoption is in part because the old industries do not want to give up the gravy train. Which is why when ultra low cost electricity arrives - the decision will leave their hands. Just as it left the hands of horse and buggy business.

Last year, every travel day I made could have been done in a Leaf. In fact, now that I think about it, I would have to go back 15 years to find a day I would have needed the range in a Tesla.

Mike D:
Obviously the reason for breaking downt the trips into single journeys and others is that as charging points become more common a lot of people will have the opportunity to charge at work and so on, so the range will effectively double.
The same rationale applies to short post work journeys etc.

As for the truck argument, clearly you are not comparing like for like due to the load carrying capabilities of the truck.
However it is also true that for most of the journeys most truck drivers take they do not actually use the load carrying capabilities, so a BEV would do just as well on that particular trip.

@ChrisL

Excellent points! Unfortunately an electric vs ICE debate has broken out instead of a more constructive electric and ICE debate, as to how different types of vehicles fill different niche roles.

The problem with "averages", as in average commuting mileages is that they mask a huge range of extremes. Some people will commute 1 mile whilst others will commute 70 miles or more. But then cars are for much more than commuting. They're used for road trips for holidays and to see families and this is when their full potential is realised - good range, space for passengers and luggage or camping gear and so on.

Hence electric cars = short journeys round town.
ICEs = longer road trips / longer commutes.

Of course this could well change as EV technologies develop with better range batteries. By the same token ICE vehicles will continiue to improve in effiency, whilst fuel will come from a wider variety of sources - petro fuels, synthetic fuels and bio-fuels. Also don't forget the potential of hydrogen as a source for ICE and fuel celled vehicles.

Whilst its easy now to criticise the environmental credentials of bio-fuels or question the costs of syntheic liquid fuels, everything will change as techology develops, that's what human inventiveness does. It overcomes barriers. If progress results in a wide diversity of vehicle choice - electric, ICE and fuel cell, this would be a good thing. Relying on just one route could be disastrous if it turns out to be a cul-de-sac.

Davemart,
I will accept the argument that we only care about trips if there were a way to fully charge in just a few minutes everywhere you park.

In the meantime I will use assumptions like slow charging at home and maybe at work. I am investigating several of these scenarios.

My overarching point is that to do ‘good’ we are not interested in happy customers. We are interested in happy EV miles (reduced fuel consumption). If we satisfy a high percentage of low-mileage drivers, what does that accomplish? Not as much as other alternative fuel vehicles.

Also, the 2008-2009 data may not be worth much. This survey occurred at exactly during the economic meltdown. It doesn’t seem to match 2001 very well. Still looking into it.

I also don't understand why this is a debate. The market will move as people see benefits.

Personally, I could drive 100% of my trips in a Leaf, but would not buy one because I too have range anxiety. Until charging points are ubiquitous, I would prefer a range-extended PHEV -- one that is cheaper with small battery capacity would do just fine for my average 20 mile commute. The range extender will get me further those two days a month that I need it.

Harvey .... I think you are right, and I am looking forward to that future.

Also it's more difficult to recharge the bev with solar panels , non-polluting and free electricity in winter