New York Times Public Editor Throws Reporter Under The Electric Bus

I'd have to agree with oldyak, we're talking a low production fringe element car that is being embraced by people as much for the 'wow' factor as the practical factor. Until EVs are as easy to use as ICEVs, they're never going to be more than an interesting novelty. We're looking at building an infrastructure for fueling, which will cost what... hundreds of millions? I certainly don't want the government spending increasingly scarce finances to underwrite the cost of developing, manufacturing, purchase subsidies and refueling infrastructure on a mode of transportation that is essentially, at it's current state of development, a toy. What would the fuel costs be if you had to start paying market rate for the electricity that is currently free (subsidized) at charging stations? Also, I can't imagine that EVs will be cost free over their lifetimes in regards to maintenance. Yes we're going to run out of fossil fuels someday, but until that happens, people are going to keep buying trucks and SUVs. Well, until the next spike in fuel prices. Societies memory is short term, as shown by the rise and fall of sales of gas guzzlers that march in step with the price of gas. Americans love big cars, and love convenience. When you can hop in your EV and drive without concern about range (yes, I know that range is an issue in ICEVs, but you can refuel to max range in 15 minutes at hundreds of thousands of 'recharging stations'), then MAYBE more than 2 or 3 % of the population will consider making them their primary choice for transportation. As they currently stand, it's like arguing that Ferraris aren't practical, we *know* that. They are what they are, and if you want to have one, you accept it's limitations. I realize that the early adopters are fanbois who are going to say "this is just as good as an ICE, you just have to make allowances". For me, knowing that a cross country trip would have to be planned like the Normandy invasion, plotting distance between charging stations, allocating time for charging, etc, it's just not something I want to do. Broder made some mistakes, from the tone of his original article, he wasn't trying to slam the car, (IMO). I think that if you took an average vehicle user off the street, put them in a Tesla and told them to drive the same route, in the same weather, they'd have problems too. BUT... this car isn't made for the masses, it's a limited production car, that appeals to a small segment of users, who'll sit with maps and calculators to plot out their trips, sit for hours to recharge a group so they can sit in a rest area and feel good about themselves. Before you say "it only takes an hour", to recharge the 'convoy', it took hours. Can you honestly see a bunch of average gearheads putting together a drive where the fueling will take up as much time as the driving? As they said in South Park, we're going to be blanketed in 'smug'. It's a tempest in a teapot, amusing to read about, but as relevant as arguing paint quality on a Bugatti Veyron vs a Mclaren. If the government were serious about cutting energy usage, they'd impose fuel taxes like Europe, and force everyone into more fuel efficient vehicles. Now that'll never happen, no matter who's in the White House. Far easier to dump gazillions into something that has little *immediate* impact on the bottom line of the average Americans' budget. After all it's just "Government money", if they changed that to "money that you worked for, the government took from you, and spent on things that would outrage you if you really knew where it was going", maybe people would be more involved. (FYI, before anyone starts throwing names, I don't care which party politicians come from, they're all basically feeding at the public trough, and quite willing to spend money that isn't theirs if it will keep them in office). Heck, give me a government credit card, and I'd max that sucker out too, it's human nature.

I do think the journalist shouldn't have told an untruth. But the fact remains that if you are required to expend lots of energy designing and planning a simple journey, then this is for the diehards. How much government money has been spent on Teslsa. That is subisdies, cheap government loans, handouts, rebates to purchasers of the vehicle etc. This kind of vehicle isn't required in todays world. As I have stated, this vehicle currently is a "feel good experience" for people who think they are saving the planet. Contrary to what arguments that are around, battery technology will still advance just through electronics. Maybe in 30-50 years we should look at this type of transport. But theirs and yours (EV buyers and your tax dollar) money would be better spent providing better energy infrastructure so millions in the US can access natural gas instead of using heating oil (diesel). This in turn will reduce pollution far more effectively than trying to appease socialist greenies. The tax dollars that these upper middle class and rich use to buy these vehicles also comes from the less fortunate in your country. Really a fair system.