I think there are at least four things that make the CA EV poll unreliable.
(1) People strongly tend to give "nice"nswers to poll questions. (Would you risk your life try to save a drowning stranger? Yes, surely I would.)
(2) Would the people who said they would buy an EV at a "reasonalble" price buy one at the actual price needed for mfgrs to make a profit? (Even at $150/kW, NiMh batteries would have a manufacturing cost of over $5000 per 35 kW batter pack.)
(3) Would those people actually buy an EV if given three choices: regular vehicle, EV, hybrid (ultra low emissions, 60 mpg, high milage range)?
(4) Major auto makers do not seem to be simply against change or to hate alternative vehicles -- they are endorsing hybrids and FC/EV types -- yet they all state that their market research shows a much smaller demand than claimed from the subject poll. Possibly these mfgrs are not fully sincere or are mistaken -- but the same doubts apply to the pollsters too, right?
Make no mistake, I want to see cleaner alternatives to gasoline-burning ICEs, but I think many environmentalists are not fully appraised of all the alternatives and all the pros & cons for these options -- and can be very stubborn in more-or-less assuming nefarious behavior on the part of the auto industry (I mean the entire industry, not just one or two auto makers).
Consider: As a precondition, the people answering the subject poll are first made to read in-depth (really read and understand, as proven by a subsequent test) about advanced-hybrids and FC autos as well as the relatively well-known battery EVs. Now have a new poll among these same people asking how the auto industry should proceed. I think these same people would likely endorse a plan to, first, develop and promote advanced, ULEV hybrids, then introduce H2 fueled FC vehicles -- which is just what is happening, IMO. |
