TRUTH Or SCARE? Is The BIGGEST Obstacle To Electric Car Adoption Not The Car Itself?

Of course it's "the car itself"! If...
+ EV's all had a real 400 mile range in any weather
+ They recharged in 5 minutes
+ Charging stations were as common as gas stations
+ They didn't depreciate like a rock falling off a cliff
+ Their batteries were guaranteed for 20 years
+ They cost about the same as ICE
+ TCO was substantially lower than ICE
+ They didn't look quirky, or cheap, or had a dash like a gamer's paradise
...then getting an EV would be a no-brainer, wouldn't it?

Yeah, I know: It's ridiculous to ask this of an EV. That's why EVs are still a fringe interest for most people. But hey, blame marketing and customer awareness rather than what the car is and isn't, if you want :-/

While I agree that the lack of infrastructure is a major problem for electric vehicle production - there remains a bigger one - Lack of Electric Generation Capacity.

THE USA currently does not have enough generation capacity from ALL sources to provide energy for replacing even 20% of the cars currently on the road. I see no MAJOR effort to address this issue - with the knowledge that a number of Nuclear powerplants are scheduled to come off line in the next ten years - we do not even have plans in place to replace THOSE needs yet. It can take a decade or more to get all the permits required to build a Natural GAS fired Electric plant- Solar "plants" are possible - but they will need major backing from the government initially as well.

So - where is the ELECTRICITY going to come from? WORSE - with a shortage of something - normally means a major price increase as well. IF the whole country had rates we are accustomed to in the North East - the economy would be in the tank- and EVs left on the dealer lots.

@TomM: A big "yup" to you. I'm aware that today's power generation capacity is barely keep up with current needs, *without* the added burden of a lot more EVs and PHEVs.

As much as I agree with all your statement, I speculate that they don't play a significant part in car consumers' minds. Remember around April-June 2015 when pump prices were at a multi-year low, and people were buying gas-guzzling vehicle, not even able to imagine that gasoline prices won't continue to decline to zero, and won't continue to stay low? Well, I don't those folks are honed up on electrical generation futures when thinking about an EV or PHEV. Just my two cents.

"Do you believe these findings or is there a hidden agenda behind this survey?"

Definitely a hidden agenda. Given how Alt-Left universities are, the obvious narrative is that if cars were sold in price-fixed, company stores that obliterates all competition for a low price, then the socialist agenda is advanced and forced on people.

"Why would car sales staff make it so difficult for customers to buy a car? Because they want them to buy a different kind of car."

Buying a car--any car--is not difficult. Furthermore, most buyers have zero interest in an EV. Sales people will not go out of their way to push an EV because "why?" and EVs have no profit in them.

Unless an until an EV has the same range as ICE, can be recharged as fast as an ICE car can be refilled, and does not cost double the price of an equivalent ICE car, EVs are not ready.

It's well-known that dealers steer folks to what they know, what has a higher sales margin, and a higher service margin. However that is changing as dealerships now have EV specialists that only sell plugins.

Is it the biggest obstacle? No, the biggest obstacle are the consumers themselves. They are lazy, ignorant, stubborn, selfish, and cheap.

So, what's new? :)

Its the 3 Rs. Range, Recharge time, Replacement(battery) cost. Current offerings still cannot offer the convenience of ICE vehicles with all 3 of these combined. An EV has to solve all 3 of these to compete.

Studies show that consumers are more educated these days, thanks to the internet, and know what they want before going into a dealer. Heck, to buy a Tesla you have to do that anyway. The days of the pushy dealer sales person are dying.

BS! If a person coming in wants an F150, a salesman would not steer them to a CMax. However, if they want a loaded Fusion and the dealer can make more money behind the scenes by offering an attractive deal on the MKZ--and that IS a reality by the way--then there is no harm in suggesting the Lincoln. But to assert that people come in wanting a Leaf and are instantly steered toward an Armada is nonsense.

Its the 3 Rs. Range, Recharge time, Replacement(battery) cost. Current offerings still cannot offer the convenience of ICE vehicles with all 3 of these combined. An EV has to solve all 3 of these to compete.

@Joneshamilton, well they are Alt-Left, so...

Its still fairly new technology that is not backed up by infrastructure. Right now affordable EV's are city cars only. That means they cannot be your only car. The other problem is that the Lithium Ion batteries still have their limitations in terms of weight, range, cost and longevity. Fisker is now making wild claims about "Solid State" batteries. His solid state is supposed to multifaceted thereby eliminating the weakness of most current solid state batteries(Not enough charge and too susceptible to cold). He is claiming a 500 mile range, significantly lighter and "one minute" charging time". The battery is supposedly undergoing testing now on his new vehicle. If it passes the testing the car is supposed to be out in some time 2019. Of course that would be a significant breakthrough. It is surprising to hear though that these type of tactics are happening in Scandinavia. I was under the impression that Europe was gravitating towards EV's due to the diesel scandal with VAG. EV's are going to be a continued tough sell in the US until there is a real breakthrough in the batteries, decent range, the cost for an average EV is in the mid 20K range and it will take no more than 5 minutes to recharge. Too many hurdles right now to jump over.