When do you plan to switch to an EV?

[kalvado]

Never. I don't want an electric vehicle until they are capable of going at least 400 miles on a charge at highway speeds or in mountainous terrain, and can be fully recharged in 15 minutes or less. By the time that technology arrives, I'll be dead.

I bolded the part of this that I have always added when pondering the pros and cons.

Put me in as part of the "never" crowd. I'm 51 now, which means that by your logic, I will also be dead when the improvements come.

A piece of personal experience: once I say "never!" clock starts ticking. Usually I am doing that stuff full time in less than 10 years.

[doorknob60]

For my wife's car, I'd pull the trigger now if a. her current car (2009 Subaru Impreza) was no longer working and needed replacing, and b. the cost of an EV made sense. She pretty much drives that car to work and back (20 miles RT), and to run a few nearby errands, and that's it. In the ~5 years we've owned the car, I don't think it's ever been driven more than 30-40 miles away from home, and probably haven't put more than 100 miles on it in a single day. So range is almost no concern.

For my car, there's still some progress that needs to be made, but we're getting closer. We need a car that we can take long road trips on. And living in Boise, that means it needs to be able to drive long distances in the middle of nowhere. The 240 miles of US-95 between Nampa and Winnemucca is sparse even for gas stations, and definitely has no viable EV chargers right now. Meaning a road trip to California in an EV is impractical unless heading the long way through Utah. Heading north towards Lewiston isn't much better. US-20 west to Burns and Bend is in the middle of nowhere, but I believe at least Tesla is installing a charger in Burns which would be enough to make that highway usable (in a Tesla). But for me to buy an EV for our road trip car, there needs to be good fast charging coverage on more than just the interstates. US-20, US-95, US-93, etc. for our area.

I'd also want to see standardization in charging technology (I believe Europe already has this). The fact that Tesla chargers aren't compatible with non-Tesla EVs is pretty ridiculous. And some combinations of vehicles and chargers require adapters which is an unnecessary inconvenience.

[Scott5114]

Haven't bought my first car yet (been using one of my parent's old car so far), but EVs are not completely off the table for me yet. Probably not a Tesla though, for many reasons.

I think I'm the most open to an EV of anyone that's posted in this thread, and even I wouldn't touch a Tesla with a 10-foot pole. The software is too restrictive. My initial inclination would be to probably get one from GM or Ford.

[GaryV]

For my wife's car, I'd pull the trigger now if a. her current car (2009 Subaru Impreza) was no longer working and needed replacing, and b. the cost of an EV made sense. She pretty much drives that car to work and back (20 miles RT), and to run a few nearby errands, and that's it. In the ~5 years we've owned the car, I don't think it's ever been driven more than 30-40 miles away from home, and probably haven't put more than 100 miles on it in a single day. So range is almost no concern.

My wife's driving patterns are similar.  But I doubt she would try an EV.  She'd be too worried about running the battery out, even though she'd seldom get below 75%.

When getting her current vehicle, she wouldn't consider a start-stop model.  When we test-drove one, she almost freaked out every time we came to a stop, worrying that it wouldn't start up again.

Some things are just outside people's comfort zones.

[SkyPesos]

Haven't bought my first car yet (been using one of my parent's old car so far), but EVs are not completely off the table for me yet. Probably not a Tesla though, for many reasons.

I think I'm the most open to an EV of anyone that's posted in this thread, and even I wouldn't touch a Tesla with a 10-foot pole. The software is too restrictive. My initial inclination would be to probably get one from GM or Ford.

I'm hoping for an EV that doesn't have Tesla's software restrictions, but can also charge as fast as a  Tesla with a supercharger. Might take a few years, but it'll take that long before I'm in the market for a new car. Also, more competition = better for us consumers. At least 300 miles on a freeway under a full charge would be nice too; that'll be enough for me to drive to Chicago from Cincy.

[Bruce]

Haven't bought my first car yet (been using one of my parent's old car so far), but EVs are not completely off the table for me yet. Probably not a Tesla though, for many reasons.

I think I'm the most open to an EV of anyone that's posted in this thread, and even I wouldn't touch a Tesla with a 10-foot pole. The software is too restrictive. My initial inclination would be to probably get one from GM or Ford.

Same here. An EV makes good sense for me given the local cost of fuel ($4/gal versus $0.104/kWh), but I've driven my friend's Tesla a few times and come away very unimpressed. The screen is cumbersome to use and trying to change things like temperature controls while driving is extremely distracting.

[Takumi]

Haven't bought my first car yet (been using one of my parent's old car so far), but EVs are not completely off the table for me yet. Probably not a Tesla though, for many reasons.

I think I'm the most open to an EV of anyone that's posted in this thread, and even I wouldn't touch a Tesla with a 10-foot pole. The software is too restrictive. My initial inclination would be to probably get one from GM or Ford.

I'd consider a Nissan, which has been building EVs for a bit, before most other brands. I'm waiting to see how Toyota and Honda enter the market. Right now Honda has an EV called the e in Europe and Japan, but it isn't coming to the US. Like you, I won't touch a Tesla. The cult of personality around the brand makes Mazda Miata owners look sane.

[vdeane]

Haven't bought my first car yet (been using one of my parent's old car so far), but EVs are not completely off the table for me yet. Probably not a Tesla though, for many reasons.

I think I'm the most open to an EV of anyone that's posted in this thread, and even I wouldn't touch a Tesla with a 10-foot pole. The software is too restrictive. My initial inclination would be to probably get one from GM or Ford.

Yeah, I don't like how Tesla forces users to go through the touchscreen for most everything, changes around other controls, and is going all-in on a yoke that nobody wants.  Plus there are known QC issues with their cars and customer service doesn't have a great reputation.  And you have to order the car online, even if you go to a sales center; you can't test drive a car on the lot and then buy that specific car (and given the experience my parents had with our 1997 Accord, I don't understand why one would buy a car they can't test drive first).  It's too bad, given how much better the Supercharger experience is than CCS chargers.

GM though... their reputation wasn't exactly great even before the Bolt issues with batteries catching on fire (Dad avoids them like the plague).

I'm also curious how things will go with Honda, though I'm disappointed that their first EVs (at least in the US) will basically be GM cars that they happen to sell.

[Scott5114]

2/3 of the ICE cars I've owned have been GMs, and they've basically been problem-free, especially compared to the hell on Earth that was my experience with owning a Chrysler. That doesn't mean that their EVs are any good, I suppose.

My wife owns a Civic and loves it, and it's also been problem-free, so I guess I should look into their eventual EV offerings as well.

[Max Rockatansky]

2/3 of the ICE cars I've owned have been GMs, and they've basically been problem-free, especially compared to the hell on Earth that was my experience with owning a Chrysler. That doesn't mean that their EVs are any good, I suppose.

My wife owns a Civic and loves it, and it's also been problem-free, so I guess I should look into their eventual EV offerings as well.

Weirdly every GM cars (4 total) I've owned has always had problems either rooted in build quality or mechanical issue.  The build quality on my 2010 Camaro and 2014 were so bad that they are only cars I've bought new that I sold before 100,000 miles.  The two Fords I've owned and the one Chrysler have largely been problem free.  My wife has a lot of problems with mechanical reliability on her Forester whereas I haven't had any with my Impreza.  Sometimes I think it's just luck of the draw in terms of quality and reliability with volume automakers.  To that end I would prefer to go with whatever manufacturer had the most parts availability for an EV.  The domestic automakers tend to in my experience have the cheapest and easiest to obtain OEM and third party parts.

[zachary_amaryllis]

I question the use of an electric vehicle for off-road / off-grid purposes...unless you live very close to the places you're camping or exploring, the ability to plug in and charge your vehicle away from the crowds is presently very limited.

you could always bring a generator 

wait.

[Max Rockatansky]

I question the use of an electric vehicle for off-road / off-grid purposes...unless you live very close to the places you're camping or exploring, the ability to plug in and charge your vehicle away from the crowds is presently very limited.

you could always bring a generator 

wait.

Speaking of things like that I might just buy a generator for myself.  We have a ton at work given everyone thinks we'll get a Hurricane for some reason in Central California.  They usually hit clearance eventually given they sit forever and I can imagine a generator being a hot commodity in coming years.

[triplemultiplex]

Before The Plague, I was starting to think the next vehicle might be electric for me.  But working from home changes the calculus.  (That's a permanent change for my employer.)  I'm putting WAY fewer miles on my existing vehicle, using less gas, and needing maintenance less frequently.  If I end up only using a vehicle for mostly weekend stuff for the next several years, that reduces the incentive for me to make the switch.  I'm back to 'commuting' with my feet, which I loved back when I lived and worked in Milwaukee.

That wasn't possible with my current gig until the plague (suburban office parks are not livable spaces. )
If a tree falls on my ride tomorrow, I'd probably get another gas car.
If it's four years from now and my wheels are on their last legs, I think I'll have to do the math and see if it makes sense for me financially and ethically.

[SP Cook]

As to the OP's question, never. 

The purpose of science is to determine what IS true, not to invent whatever some person or group wishes was.

IMHO, science seems to be provings that:

An electric car, with the capabilities of a modern gasoline car, cannot be made at a price that ordinary people can afford.

IMHO, the only way to market such vehicles is via tax subsidy.  At least in the USA, the nature of the tax subsidy is that it only applies to very rich people, who are thus the only people who can afford such vehicles, and since there is a 99.999% certainty I will never be in such a situation, I will never own one.  Further, I believe that the backers of such vehicles would rather ordinary people like myself be pushed in to communal transit (or simply told to stay home and like it) and would thus push such policies rather than extend such subsidies to ordinary people.

As to the side discussion:

Speaking of West Virginia, the state's economy is doubly screwed to become even more shit as time progresses given it is highly reliant on the coal industry.  What else substantial does West Virginia have to offer economically aside from recreation?

Well, the blunt fact is that MUCH of WV has a topography that is unusable.  Find places with similar topography, but no coal, and pretty much nobody ever lived there, or ever will.  This is why, IMHO, all the talk about redeveloping such areas with other industries is so much ho-ha.

But MUCH, is not ALL.  There still are plenty of places with potential.  The problems, IMHO, have been:

- The state spent 100 years treating job creators like garbage.  Can't just move a coal mine to Texas, now can you?  That is changing, but it will take time to change.

- The public schools are awful.  Education is the key to GTFO of the bad parts of the state, and thus people who are smart get out, leaving behind the remnant with marginally qualified teachers.

- The remnant itself.  The actual number of people who should live in a place like McDowell County is ZERO.  9 out of 10 have left.  The 1 that remains, with high demands for services and no prospects for work, are a problem.

- The higher ed system is quite bad. 

- For 2/3rds of the state, the airport is Charleston's, and it is awful.  High prices and day long connections.  Businesses just won't subject themselves to it.

- The state, and county, governments taxed coal and funded the whole government on that.  With coal gone, the tax structure is just broken.

[Scott5114]

As to the OP's question, never. 

The purpose of science is to determine what IS true, not to invent whatever some person or group wishes was.

IMHO, science seems to be provings that:

An electric car, with the capabilities of a modern gasoline car, cannot be made at a price that ordinary people can afford.

IMHO, the only way to market such vehicles is via tax subsidy.  At least in the USA, the nature of the tax subsidy is that it only applies to very rich people, who are thus the only people who can afford such vehicles, and since there is a 99.999% certainty I will never be in such a situation, I will never own one.  Further, I believe that the backers of such vehicles would rather ordinary people like myself be pushed in to communal transit (or simply told to stay home and like it) and would thus push such policies rather than extend such subsidies to ordinary people.

This post is so thoroughly incorrect and so divorced with reality, it's hard to even know where to start with replying to it.

For one thing, science has nothing to do with the price of anything. That's a matter of economics and business. A good chunk of the reason the price of electric cars is so high right now is because one company (Tesla) is explicitly marketing them as luxury goods, and the rest of the market is currently not large enough to create the economies of scale necessary to make them affordable. As the technology and charging infrastructure progresses to the point that they are more appealing to the average consumer, the price will drop.

In 1981, the first IBM PC cost $1,565 (equivalent to $4,455 adjusted for inflation). I'm sure there was some guy in 1981 griping that a computer cannot be made at a price that ordinary people can afford. Now you can get a computer that blows that one out of the water in processing power for $300.

Hell, look at the history of automotives. The first modern car was built in 1878. Cars weren't considered accessible to the general public until the Model T in 1908. That's a 30 year period where some guy was griping that a car cannot be made at a price that ordinary people can afford. (Good luck finding a new car for the $3,837 adjusted-for-inflation price of a Model T, though.)

I also don't see how electric cars would help push people to transit. In fact, widespread deployment of electric cars would undercut the argument for transit, as the most effective criticism of driving is its environmental impact. Take that away, and you just have the general arguments against suburban development patterns, which don't resonate with nearly as many people (if they did, people wouldn't willingly live in the suburbs).

I'm actually a little surprised that conservatives aren't just as gung-ho on electric cars as liberals are, because electric cars would mean the price of oil literally becomes a non-issue for anyone that isn't in an industry like plastics, which means (for better or worse) never having to give a shit about the Middle East or Venezuela ever again. All of that economic activity would shift to power-generating companies that are necessarily going to have to produce their electricity in the United States (it would be inefficient as all hell to generate the power overseas and wire it to the US). What's not to like?

As for tax subsidies, there are tons of them in products you use every day. Ever wonder why Mexican Coke uses real sugar but in the US we have high-fructose corn syrup? It's because corn is subsidized. Take away the corn subsidy, and sugar is cheaper than corn syrup.

[1995hoo]

....

I'm actually a little surprised that conservatives aren't just as gung-ho on electric cars as liberals are, because electric cars would mean the price of oil literally becomes a non-issue for anyone that isn't in an industry like plastics, which means (for better or worse) never having to give a shit about the Middle East or Venezuela ever again. All of that economic activity would shift to power-generating companies that are necessarily going to have to produce their electricity in the United States (it would be inefficient as all hell to generate the power overseas and wire it to the US). What's not to like?

....

As someone who generally (though not always) leans conservative, I think part of the issue may relate to concern about the best appropriate means to tax EVs. The gas tax is flawed, no question about it, and it obviously doesn't account adequately for EVs. But I think many, perhaps most, conservatives have a serious beef with the idea of GPS logging for purposes of a miles-driven tax, which is one of the primary alternatives you see recommended, because many conservatives abhor the idea of having their location being monitored in that fashion. I'm mildly surprised that more liberals don't oppose that sort of taxation concept for a different reason–racial disparity and the concern of misuse of location data (example: a burglary takes place in a wealthy white neighborhood and the GPS logging shows that a black man was there at the time, so he immediately becomes the prime suspect regardless of the reason why he was there–surely that sort of scenario ought to be problematic to most reasonable people).

I don't want to go further with that discussion because I'm concerned it would derail the thread into a political war that would end with it being locked.

[Scott5114]

I think the best solution is to simply have the state check the odometer whenever you renew your tag and tax you on the mileage driven since the last tag renewal. If you drive in a state you're not registered in, oh well; it's not much different than gassing up in Las Vegas and driving to St. George without stopping at an Arizona gas station along the way. If certain states throw a fit about that solution, then do the mileage accounting as part of your annual tax return and have FHWA dole out the resulting revenue as they do with the federal gas tax.

[kalvado]

I think the best solution is to simply have the state check the odometer whenever you renew your tag and tax you on the mileage driven since the last tag renewal. If you drive in a state you're not registered in, oh well; it's not much different than gassing up in Las Vegas and driving to St. George without stopping at an Arizona gas station along the way. If certain states throw a fit about that solution, then do the mileage accounting as part of your annual tax return and have FHWA dole out the resulting revenue as they do with the federal gas tax.

Odometer fraud is already a concern.
Of course, it is possible to integrate things deeper into electric vehicle and have motor controllers account for power spent, for example. That quickly becomes an arms race with hacking, as John Deere learnt. 
And spread out payments are mentally easier than once-a-year payment (another reason for having paycheck deduction).

This all can be accommodated.  Cost - including resource-driven costs and constrains (Li, Cu, Sm, Co, Nd) - are a hurdle.

[hbelkins]

The best way to tax EV usage would be to someone manage to separate out the electricity used to charge the car from the rest of the power used in a home, and add a surtax to it. That would have to be done via the charging device.

I'm not sure how the Tesla charging stations work at commercial facilities like Sheetz (which has banks of the chargers at many of its locations.) Is there a meter and do you pay for a kilowatt-hour the same way you pay for a gallon of gas, with a certain amount of tax paid for each gallon?

I certainly don't favor some sort of blanket tax on electricity to fund roads.

[tmthyvs]

I think the best solution is to simply have the state check the odometer whenever you renew your tag and tax you on the mileage driven since the last tag renewal. If you drive in a state you're not registered in, oh well; it's not much different than gassing up in Las Vegas and driving to St. George without stopping at an Arizona gas station along the way. If certain states throw a fit about that solution, then do the mileage accounting as part of your annual tax return and have FHWA dole out the resulting revenue as they do with the federal gas tax.

Odometer fraud is already a concern.

Odometer fraud may be a concern, but is it a concern on a larger scale than fraud by using untaxed fuel (sometimes available for limited purposes) for road vehicles?

[kalvado]

I think the best solution is to simply have the state check the odometer whenever you renew your tag and tax you on the mileage driven since the last tag renewal. If you drive in a state you're not registered in, oh well; it's not much different than gassing up in Las Vegas and driving to St. George without stopping at an Arizona gas station along the way. If certain states throw a fit about that solution, then do the mileage accounting as part of your annual tax return and have FHWA dole out the resulting revenue as they do with the federal gas tax.

Odometer fraud is already a concern.

Odometer fraud may be a concern, but is it a concern on a larger scale than fraud by using untaxed fuel (sometimes available for limited purposes) for road vehicles?

I suspect tax free fuel accounting goes through sanity checks which can catch significant abuse. Year to year trends, fleet size, acreage for farms seem like no brainer.
Odometer fraud has no obvious checks, and affect private parties mostly - so feel free to hire a lawyer, this is a small concern for government. Would be difficult to enforce when it becomes a significant one.

[Scott5114]

I think the best solution is to simply have the state check the odometer whenever you renew your tag and tax you on the mileage driven since the last tag renewal. If you drive in a state you're not registered in, oh well; it's not much different than gassing up in Las Vegas and driving to St. George without stopping at an Arizona gas station along the way. If certain states throw a fit about that solution, then do the mileage accounting as part of your annual tax return and have FHWA dole out the resulting revenue as they do with the federal gas tax.

Odometer fraud is already a concern.
Of course, it is possible to integrate things deeper into electric vehicle and have motor controllers account for power spent, for example. That quickly becomes an arms race with hacking, as John Deere learnt. 

Tax fraud is already a concern too, but that doesn't stop us from throwing up our hands and not collect taxes. The Venn diagram of people with the technical aptitude for hacking their car to avoid taxes, and people with the lack of moral fiber (and fear of going to jail if caught) to go ahead with doing it, has to have a pretty slim center. The vast majority of people are going to pay the correct amount of taxes due, which should be enough to cover it. If not, send IRS agents after suspected cheats and fine their asses into bankruptcy. That should pay for a few nice bridges.

The best way to tax EV usage would be to someone manage to separate out the electricity used to charge the car from the rest of the power used in a home, and add a surtax to it. That would have to be done via the charging device.

Doable, but would require the use of some sort of standardized government-regulated charging device. Elon Musk would burst into tears.

I certainly don't favor some sort of blanket tax on electricity to fund roads.

Why not? Suppose the average household pays $W in gas taxes every year and drives X miles, an electric car uses Y kWh to go X miles, and the average household uses Z kWh per year. Couldn't you use those four values to compute an acceptable per-kWh amount that would be equal to the amount they pay now? (This would also mean that crypto farms would actually contribute something to society by funding infrastructure, so we'd actually get more infrastructure funding by this model than we do now.)

[SP Cook]

This post is so thoroughly incorrect and so divorced with reality, it's hard to even know where to start with replying to it.

For one thing, science has nothing to do with the price of anything.

Then please send me a gold making machine, such that the price per ounce is reduced to three cents.

The very purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  We are now learning that electric cars cannot exist, absent subsidy.  Science.

A good chunk of the reason the price of electric cars is so high right now is because one company (Tesla) is explicitly marketing them as luxury goods, and the rest of the market is currently not large enough to create the economies of scale necessary to make them affordable.

Or, the only people that can afford such a plaything, in the USA economic system, are the very rich, AKA people who buy "luxury goods" .    Ordinary people cannot afford such things, because they are the ones that pay the tax subsidy, rather than the ones who receive its benefits.

As the technology and charging infrastructure progresses to the point that they are more appealing to the average consumer, the price will drop.

The accountant's fallacy.  You ASSUME that what you wish, WILL be invented.  Again the purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  Perhaps, the the "technology"  NEVER "progresses" .  If you disagree, then please send me a light saber, a transporter, and a raise people from the dead device along with my gold making machine.

I also don't see how electric cars would help push people to transit.

Basic public policy.  With gasoline and new gasoline powered cars priced out of the range of the average person, and electric cars, with or without the massive subsidy, only available to the rich, the average person is forced into communal transit.  The goal.

I'm actually a little surprised that conservatives aren't just as gung-ho on electric cars as liberals are...

It isn't really so much a left-right issue, it is just science.  ASSUMING that in some unnamed future era, something that DOES NOT EXIST TODAY will exist, and exist in an economically viable way, is no way to run a society.  You might as well say that "well, in ten years, when we can make food out of used tires, we won't need farms, so..." . Gibberish, and bad public policy.

As for tax subsidies, there are tons of them in products you use every day.

Ah, the reverse camel's nose fallacy.  In a discussion of one public policy, one bring up some unrelated issue and says "well, this is X, so thus you must automatically support every other X" .

Nope.  The existence of one tax subsidy, has no bearing on whether another is good public policy or not.

[kalvado]

This post is so thoroughly incorrect and so divorced with reality, it's hard to even know where to start with replying to it.

For one thing, science has nothing to do with the price of anything.

Then please send me a gold making machine, such that the price per ounce is reduced to three cents.

The very purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  We are now learning that electric cars cannot exist, absent subsidy.  Science.

A good chunk of the reason the price of electric cars is so high right now is because one company (Tesla) is explicitly marketing them as luxury goods, and the rest of the market is currently not large enough to create the economies of scale necessary to make them affordable.

Or, the only people that can afford such a plaything, in the USA economic system, are the very rich, AKA people who buy “luxury goods”.    Ordinary people cannot afford such things, because they are the ones that pay the tax subsidy, rather than the ones who receive its benefits.

As the technology and charging infrastructure progresses to the point that they are more appealing to the average consumer, the price will drop.

The accountant’s fallacy.  You ASSUME that what you wish, WILL be invented.  Again the purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  Perhaps, the the “technology” NEVER “progresses”.  If you disagree, then please send me a light saber, a transporter, and a raise people from the dead device along with my gold making machine.

I also don't see how electric cars would help push people to transit.

Basic public policy.  With gasoline and new gasoline powered cars priced out of the range of the average person, and electric cars, with or without the massive subsidy, only available to the rich, the average person is forced into communal transit.  The goal.

I'm actually a little surprised that conservatives aren't just as gung-ho on electric cars as liberals are…

It isn’t really so much a left-right issue, it is just science.  ASSUMING that in some unnamed future era, something that DOES NOT EXIST TODAY will exist, and exist in an economically viable way, is no way to run a society.  You might as well say that “well, in ten years, when we can make food out of used tires, we won’t need farms, so…”. Gibberish, and bad public policy.

As for tax subsidies, there are tons of them in products you use every day.

Ah, the reverse camel’s nose fallacy.  In a discussion of one public policy, one bring up some unrelated issue and says “well, this is X, so thus you must automatically support every other X”.

Nope.  The existence of one tax subsidy, has no bearing on whether another is good public policy or not.

Honestly speaking, economy is not a science.
If there is a huge source of gold found somewhere in depths of pacific tomorrow, it is quite possible gold wiring will become a new standard. Or any other resource.  Technology wise, EVs are not out of reach.

As for EVs... I can think of an evolutionary path to make them very feasible in a different paradigm. Aluminum coils, sodium batteries, much smaller overall (that already happens with ICE elsewhere), lots of software protections to enable crash avoidance instead of beefy metal crash survival. Range of 50 miles, cost and size of a fraction of regular car. Can be used for commute, long haul vehicles can be rented as needed, or limited to 1 per family. Nothing unscientific about it. 

BUT, I suspect problem has to addressed even differently.

[vdeane]

It's worth noting that a lot of people are perfectly happy with the EV technology that exists today.  We now have cars that can go 200-300 miles from a regular charge and can get the battery to 80% charge in the time it takes to eat lunch.  It's mainly a question of actually building enough chargers to support travel and people who don't have access to home charging for whatever reason, and for companies to source enough supply of batteries.  These are business and infrastructure problems, not technology problems.

This post is so thoroughly incorrect and so divorced with reality, it's hard to even know where to start with replying to it.

For one thing, science has nothing to do with the price of anything.

Then please send me a gold making machine, such that the price per ounce is reduced to three cents.

The very purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  We are now learning that electric cars cannot exist, absent subsidy.  Science.

A good chunk of the reason the price of electric cars is so high right now is because one company (Tesla) is explicitly marketing them as luxury goods, and the rest of the market is currently not large enough to create the economies of scale necessary to make them affordable.

Or, the only people that can afford such a plaything, in the USA economic system, are the very rich, AKA people who buy "luxury goods" .    Ordinary people cannot afford such things, because they are the ones that pay the tax subsidy, rather than the ones who receive its benefits.

As the technology and charging infrastructure progresses to the point that they are more appealing to the average consumer, the price will drop.

The accountant's fallacy.  You ASSUME that what you wish, WILL be invented.  Again the purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  Perhaps, the the "technology"  NEVER "progresses" .  If you disagree, then please send me a light saber, a transporter, and a raise people from the dead device along with my gold making machine.

I also don't see how electric cars would help push people to transit.

Basic public policy.  With gasoline and new gasoline powered cars priced out of the range of the average person, and electric cars, with or without the massive subsidy, only available to the rich, the average person is forced into communal transit.  The goal.

I'm actually a little surprised that conservatives aren't just as gung-ho on electric cars as liberals are...

It isn't really so much a left-right issue, it is just science.  ASSUMING that in some unnamed future era, something that DOES NOT EXIST TODAY will exist, and exist in an economically viable way, is no way to run a society.  You might as well say that "well, in ten years, when we can make food out of used tires, we won't need farms, so..." . Gibberish, and bad public policy.

As for tax subsidies, there are tons of them in products you use every day.

Ah, the reverse camel's nose fallacy.  In a discussion of one public policy, one bring up some unrelated issue and says "well, this is X, so thus you must automatically support every other X" .

Nope.  The existence of one tax subsidy, has no bearing on whether another is good public policy or not.

OK Malthus.  Incidentally, Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos could easily crash the gold market if they wanted to.  The reason we don't mine materials from asteroid also isn't a technology problem so much as a business problem - namely, there's so much material, if we did start mining it, the price would go down to practically zero from over-supply and make any investment in the mining basically worthless.