Balancing Act: Range vs. Cost in Next-Gen Electric Cars

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. While the Tesla Model S, for example, offers 160 miles of range in the base version, my understanding is that customers can pay extra and add enough battery capacity to drive as far as 300 miles. I'd like to see Ford do the same thing with the upcoming Focus EV. Given that I live in a semi-rural part of Southern California (in the mountains), it would be worth it to me to pay at least several thousand extra for an additional 50+ miles of range.

Also, in rationalizing the extra cost of an EV, I think the real competition at the moment is the Prius (starting at $21K "true market" value), not ICE-only vehicles. Depending on how much you drive, the extra cost of the Prius relative to a comparable non-hybrid will pay for itself in a very reasonable amount of time just in gas savings. Unless you're able to take advantage of a generous state rebate in addition to the $7500 federal tax credit, I wouldn't count on a current-generation EV paying for itself in fuel/maintenance savings.

Instead, you have to rationalize the purchase out of a desire to "do the right thing" for energy independence, the environment, etc., or maybe just for fun. Plenty of people have no problem spending more than average on cars they find attractive, so why not spend a bit extra for an EV which will pollute less and send less of our money overseas to people who hate us?

Well, I am here to give ANY Car Manufacturer this message: RANGE IS THE BIGGEST FACTOR WHEN IT COMES TO EV'S!!

I drive & sell All Electric Motorcycles and there has not been a single day that has gone by that I did not want more range than my cycle could give me. I have a 50-85 mile range on the cycle(s) that I drive and sell and I would love to have more. 150 miles on a cycle and 300 miles in a car. This should be the benchmarks that all EV's should have as a starting point to make the public take notice. You put those numbers out there and people will come to your dealerships to buy those vehicles. Stop trying to entice people in with your limited range EV vehicles. When you build a car today, do you list them as a 2 gallon gas tank model? A 5 gallon gas tank model? No, you put the 14 or 16 gallon tank in all your models. Do the same with the EV's. Build them to match or even surpass the type of car we have been driving for well over 50 years. Because we should expect you to surpass something you have been making for that long. Get with the program Ford and all the other ICE makers, because Tesla is just the beginning. And the Leaf is just the beginning.

And Josie, get real and believe in the stuff you are reporting on. You sound like a "You will have to peel my dead fingers from my SUV ICE car before I will drive an EV" person. I may be way off but, that is how I felt after reading your article.

**oops. Meant "don't agree" in place of don't disagree.

Range vs cost will be the issue for the forseeable future. Yes, Tony, I definitely hear you. And when people tell ME that they "need" more range, I reply with, You can have it. How much are you willing to pay for it?" Let's say you get 100 miles of range for $30k. Are you willing to pay $50k for 200 miles of range? People will want choice. There are many, many out there who never drive more than 100 miles, so why would we ever want to force them to have 200 miles worth of expensive, energy-intensive and heavy batteries to lug around? Yes, if price and environmental impact were of no consequence, I'm sure everybody would like 500 miles of range for those rare times when it would be handy to have. But when we have to pay for it, folks tend to put their "needs" into better perspective.

@ ex-EV1, Well, you have me on the edge of my seat now. How do we squeeze this top-secret Tesla information out of you? You seem to be the only one who knows this??? Can't just dangle little nuggest like that. Out with it, man!

Okay. Here's my guess (even though I don't expect ex-man to say yes or no).

It's a battery leasing or buy-back plan or some other scheme to not saddle the buyer with the upfront costs of buying the whole pack. There will be some level of flexibility regarding the ability to buy the range you want--instead of accepting only what comes as standard.

That's as far as I can take it, but I believe it's on the business side of the equation--not some dreamy new chemistry or technology. Okay Darell and others, your turn to riff.

There isn't any silver bullet.

Post peak oil people will grab what they can get - even as the sprawl shrinks.

Tesla can keep dreaming about their quick change batteries, just like better place.

@JamesDavis -

Apparently you are replying to my joking post above re. everybody having read the article? While I'm not sure that I entirely grasp the point of your post, I HAVE looked at "all the crappy ugly EV cars that GM has come out with." By my count it is 1.5 EVs that they've managed to come out with. I leased one (EV1) and I've seen and driven the other 0.5 (Volt). I found neither of them to be crappy nor ugly. I have my own views on the motives of the various automakers, certainly.

Coming back to OP - there is an interesting twist to this in the PHEV world. The tax credit structure makes the price moot.

Every kwh above 4kwh battery capacity gives extra $417 in tax credit. This maxes out at 16 kwh (exactly what Volt has - not a coincidence). This $417 is enough to cover the marginal cost of a battery higher in capacity by 1kwh. So a PHEV with some 8 miles ev range (4 kwh battery) and 40 mile range (16kwh) can be sold for the same post tax credit price !

@Steven. You got it. We'll do a deep-dive comparo of LEAF v. Focus Electric. Stand by.

By the way, I'm working on a magazine article about electric motorcycles. Brammo, really the only player right now--I see them as the Tesla of electric two-wheelers--will soon offer the upcoming Empulse with three different pack choices: 6 kWh, 8 kWh, and 10 kWh. You want the best price ($10k) and are willing to sacrifice range, go with the 6 kWh pack. Got the dough ($14k) but want to push past 100 miles of range, buy the 10 kWh system. Or split the difference in the middle. How hard could it be for EV makers to do the same? Of course, maybe packaging would not be as neat and tidy in the smaller pack and maybe the whole system wouldn't be entirely optimized on the power side, but it seems feasible considering the ability to adjust the firmware.. Just like when you decide on a computer with more or less processing speed and memory storage.

Brad: Looking forward to the LEAF/Focus comparison. One of the challenges I think you have is how to properly compare the two vehicles performance in extreme weather conditions which I think is a big concern for most folks.
Sure, we basically know the range of the cars under ideal conditions, but how much better will the Focus perform in cold temperatures with it's active thermal management system? I would assume (and hope) much better, but is that really the case?
We're having an extraordinarily cold and snowy winter here on the East and the passive thermal management system on my MINI-E is struggling. Range is reduced, regenerative braking disengages when the battery temperature gets below 40 degrees, and if the battery gets too cold, it won't accept a charge so I have to drive it a bit to warm up the cells so I can plug in. I know it's a prototype not meant for production, but I am still very concerned about the LEAF's passive thermal system. I really hope they have engineered it to handle conditions like we are getting here now.

As for the topic of discussion here, remember that these cars are really the first generation of EV that will be for sale. 100 miles seems to be the current benchmark but that's not going to be the case for long. Ranges will steadily increase, prices will fall and charging time will decrease.

I think the manufacturers are going to really get to work on more purpose built EV's rather than starting with a conventional car and figuring how to make it an EV. Extreme weight reduction and aerodynamics are going to play a big role in reducing cost and improving range. You CAN engineer a safe, lightweight car that exceeds crash tests requirements. Pushing around 4,000+ pounds of metal and plastic plus occupants isn't they way to build cars anymore.

@ ex-EV1

My veiw as well. I liken this to the whole fuel cell business - where the promise of a non-existant, perfect fuel cell vehicle of the future is compared to EVs that have actually been on the road for a decade. My favorite part being that EVs run on coal power, and all fuel cells of the future *will* run on renewables.

Yes, it is hard to hear about how perfect the FFE will be as compared to a product like the LEAF that currently exists.

@Steven One important thing to remember about Focus EV is that it is a conversion that brings its own compromises (like no real trunk).

@Tom I believe Nissan tested some of their older Li cars in a research facility near north pole. So, east coast shouldn't be a problem ;-)

As to reduction of range in winter - that will be a big issue. Nissan is bringing out a "Cold weather Spec" Leaf trim for colder states.

But, Volt is not doing much better in cold weather with all that active thermal management. The range is down to 25 or below.

Coming back on topic, if I was in a cold place I'd want more range - may be 150 miles, becuase that would correspong to 100 mile range in warmer places.

@ex and Darell - Good point about theory vs. reality on a LEAF v. Focus Electric comparison. Yet, Nick is just returning from a Ford event where he drove the new Focus (ICE version). It's not a ton to go on, but between that experience and knowledge about the cars' relative systems, we can get the ball rolling with some notion for plug-in shoppers if they should at least hold off on a final decision about the LEAF until they can test drive both cars. Of course, all the LEAFs will be scooped up right away regardless.

To me, it's great news that we can start to compare an EV to and EV, apples to apples, rather than the 2010 (so long ago) debate about LEAF v. Volt, despite the broad differences between the two. I think the Focus and LEAF will stack up pretty close to each other, and will come down to a matter of taste. Wow, real choices for EV buyers!

@ex-EV1 driver, Sorry for misinterpreting the point you were trying to make. If, as you suggest, the coming Tesla innovation leads to the mass market manufacturers scrambling to catch up, then that could be terrific. I hope that comes to pass.

Your thoughts about the Leaf vs. Focus EV seem dead-on to me. Since neither will fit my needs I am going to have to wait for second (third?) generation models anyway. Perhaps I will end up waiting so long that Tesla really will have an affordable car on the market and I could skip the major auto companies entirely. But now that there are actual EVs on the market, at last, it is getting harder to be patient. (Which may not make much sense to someone who went through the whole EV-1 travesty.)

@EVNow, You said: >Coming back on topic, if I was in a cold place I'd want more range - may be 150 miles, because that would correspond to 100 mile range in warmer places.< Exactly! Give me 150 miles so I can deal with the reduced range in Winter and I am satisfied. I'll even front another $5000 for the larger battery pack. But the car manufacturers have to start somewhere and it may be a few years yet before such options become widely available.

@ex-EV1 driver, Oh my! I'm afraid you may be right about getting spoiled by an EV experience. I was considering crossing the mountains next year to test drive the Focus EV in Denver; perhaps that isn't a good idea.

There isn't much I can do about charging stations out here in the boondocks. I asked about it at the Ford/Nissan dealer and was told they had no plans to install one (or to sell EVs, for that matter). I expect that this will be one of the last places in the country that will get them. Since my need for the longer range is 70 mile grocery shopping trips even in Winter, it isn't as if I could get a charger installed unless I could convince a store to do it. Or, perhaps, a friend who lives in the destination city (now there's a thought I hadn't considered...).

@dgpcolorado,
If you've committed to $5000 (sorry to hold you to your words), you actually have quite a few options, including your friend's house. Odds are, your friend has 240 volts in his garage already so you could rig up an outlet for less than $50. You'll have to wait until J1772 mobile connectors are available too. Otherwise, you'd need to connect a true J1772 EVSE but $5000 would easily cover that.
Alternatively, you could actually donate a charger and installation to the city or shopping center for around $5000. You'd actually come out ahead if you donate it to the non-profit Electric Auto Association or Plug-In America and take the tax deduction for the donation.
If there is an RV campground, you can simply plug-in there (once you get that mobile connector) to charge when you're in town. The downside of this is that RV campgrounds are usually away from the major trading centers of towns so this might have limited practicality.
Or, as abasile is doing, you can just be responsible with your money today so that when an EV that does meet your needs becomes available (Tesla Model S?), you'll be better able to afford it.

I want to own my battery pack on principle. For the same reason I dont like the idea of hydrogen fuel cell, battery swapping schemes are just one more way to build out ridiculous and unnecessary infrastructure and ultimately infringe on your freedom of mobility. Building networks of battery swapping stations or "hydrogen highway" projects are akin to swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Battery technology that is in the lab today will more than take care of range over the next decade. Residential PV combined with EV ownership equals peace of mind, and more so during future commodities run-ups.

> I classify darelldd and most Rav4EV drivers as light automobile users <
I know you said "most" and most don't do this... but we certainly have a significant percentage of Rav4EV drivers who put 150,000 miles on the cars in six years or less. The first driver to reach 100,000 miles did it in 3.5 years.

I'm certainly proud to be a "light automobile user." It isn't because I don't go places. It's because I go those places without using an automobile. 130 miles just today, in fact.

@darelldd,
I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with being a light auto user, in fact, I envy you.
I wanted to highlight that a solution that works for light users may not work for heavy users.
There are a few 100K Rav4EVs but there are also a lot around 50k miles after a decade. I do agree that the Leaf will work for most but many will have to be a bit creative to make it work.

@darelldd,
I'd like to see statistics showing the percent of our oil (and related problems) are caused by light users -vs- heavy users. I've done a brief look at my wife's situation. She only commutes about 5 miles (walk, bike, or drive) each day. Whether she walks, bikes, drives the EV, the HCH, or even our (usually garaged) 18 mpg Xterra, she doesn't come anywhere close to consuming as much energy as I do with the EV. Likewise, a colleague of mine who lives about 5 miles from work did the math and showed the paltry energy savings he would get if he bought a Prius to commute in when he'd be using his 4-Runner for weekend hauling and visiting the grandkids, where he puts most of his miles in. Maybe an FEH or THH would be a better compromise but it would limit where he could go with the grandkids in the desert.

I'm sorry, I meant to have @dgpcolorado in my above reference to finances. In any case, I can appreciate the choices DGP made in becoming financially independent at an early age. We should admire the kind of discipline it takes to do that.

Similar comment as EVNow's. What defines the primary and secondary car? Our long-range car is only driven when we need long-range. Our "light use" EV is used the other 95% of the time - meaning every day. Our "light use" of EVs has added up to over 120,000 miles of pollution-free driving. We're like most US drivers - we don't need more than 100 miles of range very often - thus a "light use" vehicle is our primary vehicle. I fully understand that not everybody is like most.

@abasile, Thank you. It does take discipline and a certain single-mindedness to retire young. But now I can do want I want rather than what I must. And I get to live in a peaceful scenic place.

@ex-EV1 driver,

>When there were no EVs available, I used to tell people that the car they were driving today was the greenest car on the planet and that they should keep driving it as long as they can, pay it off, and then start saving the payments for an EV. They're going to be expensive initially.<

I agree. I did that until October when I hit a deer with my venerable VW Golf (25 years, 230,000+ miles, purchased new for $8600 cash). Now I have a hole in my garage I'd love to fill with an EV. The VW was supposed to hold me until the 2015 model year, by which time I figured there would be a lot of second and third generation EV choices [better make that "third and fourth" generation to keep darelldd happy ;-) ]. Much harder to wait now. My budget was built around a $15,000 car (I have a "car replacement fund" line item) so a $30K one is a stretch.

@spicoli,
Let me try to sum up the problems with compressed air cars quickly. The topic has been discussed a lot before but apparently, it seems like there are forces trying to resurrect it:
1) Compressed air only contains a small fraction of the energy per weight of electricity. This is primarily because of the strength of a tank required to safely carry such high pressures. Therefore, in order to carry enough energy it would take a lot of weight.
2) Compressing air can't be done very efficiently. A lot of heat is given off as you compress the air. That heat represents wasted energy.
3) Every few years, someone comes up with the idea of a compressed air car and shows a few tiny concept cars that go very slowly for short distances (they are generally quite zippy but slow top speed) but, unfortunately, it just doesn't scale up to be a real car.

@DarellDD and @EVNow: I apologize for not being a bit clearer. I would define "light use" as low annual miles, as in ex-EV1's grandmother's Buick before he inherited it. :-) "Light use" does not necessarily correlate with the range of the vehicle; someone with a ~100 mile EV (like Tom M.) could still be a heavy user if their driving patterns fit within the range.

As for a "primary" car, I meant the one that accumulates the most miles per year, not necessarily the one with the longest range. When we finally purchase an EV, I would like our Prius to become a second/third car in terms of annual mileage.

@spicoli,
The link (which was clickable) you've found is for a compressed air engine. I don't doubt that it works but the challenges I know of are in compressing the air and storing it.
The heat is lost in the compression of air. Look at an air compressor some time and you'll see cooling fins on it to shed all the heat caused by compressing air.
On the motor side, you're right that adding another pound of air costs nothing but adding additional structure to the tank to handle the extra pressure caused by squeezing in that extra air is expensive.
Some folks in the Formula One race world were looking at compressing air when slowing down, then using the compressed air to help accelerate again. This is an identical concept as regenerative braking. Flywheels have also been explored for similar reasons. As long as you don't need to store too much energy in compressed air, this probably works. The problems come when you need to drive a long way so you need to store a lot of energy as compressed air.
It may be cheaper but the weight gets you. Sure, 'space-age' materials such as composites and exotic metals may help but, so far, not enough.
The answer always seems to come back to adding more batteries or adding a chemical fuel (gas, diesel, natural gas, etc) engine as being the only feasible way to extend the range.
I never say never though.

@Anonymous Similarly equipped Prius is about 28,000 and Leaf is 26,000 post tax credit. In CA it is just 21K. Yes, Leaf is cheaper than Prius.

@abasile : To me the primary car is the one I use most of the days - like 300 or more. That will be my Leaf once I get it next month. My wife's ICE will be our long drive car, which will continue to be her primary car until sometime in 2012 when we hope to replace it with a PHEV (may be Ford Energi ). See my blog post below on how we can save over 90% gas with this arrangement.

http://www.c-maxenergi.com/2011/01/ev-phev-cuts-gas-usage-by-over-90-wit...

ok, with my new avatar I just had to do that, heh

That's one of the reasons for electrifying our transportation, isn't it? So that when oil supplies become really constrained, we can still get around. I regard cars like the Prius and the Volt as temporary solutions (for some) while battery technology improves.

Also. Where is the response from the writer? I have another question for her. Why did you go to Ford to talk about range when they do not have an all BEV on the market? Tesla and Nissan are the only companies that matter is this question. Coda is a big question mark and is just another Ford "Profit before Consumer" company. Her article is the equivilent of asking the fattest cat about the mouse problem. All your article did was cause some ugly name calling here. Get to the heart of the matter by talking to the right people. Ford and GM are not going to have much to say for 2-5 years and by then they will be asking for another bailout.

@Josie Garthwaite

Interestingly Ford is keeping their card very close. They have not released even the most basic spec for their electric offerings - GM & Nissan had given out a lot of info at this time in their product lifecycle.

What is C-Max Energi's EV range, for eg. Is it 10,20,30,40 ?

Ok, for Josie, when talking with Ford would you be willing to ask them about graduated or modular battery's, like some sort of battery in series set up so that range can be bought and dropped in as the customer pleases? Maybe I buy 300 miles worth of battery packs, but during the week only have half of them plopped in there. Each one obviously shouldn't be heavier than a normal human being can lift without crazy effort. Maybe another customer knows for a fact that that this is his or her commuter vehicle and only wants half as many packs or, 150 miles range, or half of that. But to create such a huge issue for no logical reason (how hard would this have been for crying out loud) is incomprehensible to me. Of course, I am not an expert and I have to assume they are..I guess.

With this oversight (for lack of anything better to call it) they have even added a new phrase to the English language, "range anxiety" and of course now all the mainstream media outlets are parroting this phrase and the average person has become aware of this negative connotation surrounding EV's. Self sabotage again? I remember in the movie "Who killed the electric car" some guy was saying that he thought that a car company would sell you a car that ran on pig crap if they thought someone would buy it. Makes sense ya? So why let such a basic simple idea that I've heard so many people mention stand in the way of a bigger rollout of what would be a popular product. Call me silly, I don't get it.

@ dgpColorado, your last sentence echoes my sentiment exactly. I love your use of the word "rabbit warren", awsome! I've done the rabbit warren thing too and ya, it's nice in it's own way. Going out for a night on foot, alittle pub crawl without the need for a car, coffee shops, bookstores, shopping, work all at your fingertips. But when you want to shoot skeet, pee off your deck or howl at the moon for no reason country living is it. I'm in planning stages but an off-grid PV installation and a EV or PHEV is where it's at for me. I might even grow a ponytail and start an organic garden heh. Have a good day guys!

We enjoyed city living for a time. But we're more interested in immediate trail access (for hiking, mtn. biking, running, backcountry skiing, etc.) than in urban culture, etc. And you can't call where we live "sprawl"; our neighborhood (which started out as mountain vacation cabins) has been here since the 1920s. This is the 21st century. We are supposed to be able to use technology (Internet, EVs, PV, etc.) to "untether" ourselves to some degree. (I'm no Luddite.)

@EVNow, >Not really - given the issues we are talking about in this "thread". Also checkout the Leaf forum - for a large number of SoCal residents apparently Leaf is at the edge of usability.<

You seem to be assuming that the current 100 mile nominal range EVs are the limit for the foreseeable future. I don't buy it. The current EVs are the first baby steps and I expect the offerings to advance in range options rapidly. Do you really think I am wrong about that?

>Of course we won't be replacing the 350 million ICE cars anytime soon with EVs.< True enough. But if high oil prices come to pass, the changeover to EVs (and PHEVs) could be accelerated. But it will take some time before there are enough to make much difference in oil usage, so your point is well taken.

It may be some time before a $20K EV with a 150 mile nominal range happens, if it ever does (I doubt it, at least in this country). But if your fears about Peak Oil, plus massive increased usage from China and India, come to pass, a $30K car with 150+ mile range that uses no gasoline may start to look very good. And I would expect such a car on the market in four or five years at the outside.

Meanwhile, as "ex-EV1 driver" and I discussed at some length above, there are options to be considered even for the current short range EVs, such as charging at one's destination. It isn't as convenient a solution as having a longer range EV, but it would work.

>So we are looking at a decade of fluctuating prices, stagnant or declining economy - and possibly gas rationing.< A rather gloomy forecast!

"Fluctuating prices". That seems likely. High gas prices would increase the appeal of EVs and that strikes me as a good thing.

"stagnant or declining economy" That is certainly possible and I can think of a number of scenarios that could cause it to come to pass. But long experience in economics and investing make me think that it is unlikely.

"and possibly gas rationing". Again, I can think of scenarios which could cause that to come to pass, such as a war with Iran (just what we need: another war...). Gas rationing would make EVs look rather attractive though.

The next few years should be interesting.

I would not worry about what is being advertised as "peak oil". There is an incredible amount of oil out there, I almost wish it were not true. Just stick to the idea of liberating yourself and helping the environment...if thats your thing. We are on the cusp of some really cool things. Production vs demand...yup, that's an issue.

Solidarity, dood.

@"thorn", Is it true that the NiMH version of the EV1 had a 120 mile nominal range? If so, aren't the Leaf and coming Focus EV something of a regression? The baby fell down and is trying to get up...

@dgpcolorado - The deal is... we can make longer-range EVs. (Tesla Roadster, anybody?) And this whole thread is about how that needs to be ballanced with cost (Tesla Roadster, anybody?). The Leaf could have gone farther than it does. Would it have sold as well at $45,000? So yes, it is a bit of range regression by definition. But mostly it is the car companies trying to hit the sweet spot of performance, range and cost. Nissan didn't want to come to market with an expensive car, or they would have heard nothing more than what most people first say when they hear the price of the Roadster.

Enjoy this now, because you won't often see me defending corporate automotive decisions!

@darelldd, Oh I agree about Nissan (and Ford) trying to balance range and cost with their launch offerings.

The point I had been trying to make with my comment wasn't that the offerings were poor, quite the contrary. Rather it was that I expect longer range versions to be offered soon. Perhaps even in the next model year (I can hope). So, those who dismiss current offerings as being impractical for beginning to wean us off oil, and unlikely to be adopted by many car buyers, should wait a year or two or three and see what's available then.

Perhaps I'm dead wrong about that and five years from now affordable EVs will still only have a 100 mile nominal range. In that case the option of charging at one's destination can expand that range somewhat.

Eric, Don't worry nobody is going to force you to buy an electric car. But seriously, do you worry about mass blackouts across the US? You know you don't necessarily need to recharge every single day. You said you commute 20 miles to work so you'd be good for at least two days with a 100 mile BEV and you could probably push it to three if you just drove a little slower. If the power is out for more than three days (That's never happened to me in the 43 years I've been alive) then we have bigger problems than getting to work.

I happen to have a backup home generator that will charge my EV in the case of a power failure but even though I've had power outages, I've never needed to charge off the generator yet. You were definitely lucky to find a gas station that had a generator. I don't know of any in my area that do. I remember a few years ago driving around from station to station to find one open for my wife's car during a power outage. It didn't take long, but I had to find one that wasn't involved in the outage. All of the stations effected were closed.

Nothing's perfect, until we find the key to perpetual motion, that is.

I find it amusing that most people try to estimate their required EV range by thinking about long drives, while I do almost the opposite because I am most concerned with less than 100% use of the battery every day. I suppose part of difference is my frugality, and ability to keep an ICE car (Prius) as a back-up for EV incompatible use.

@spicoli: You wonder why not all of the attention attracted by EVs is positive. The bottom line is that EVs threaten entire industries, including ICE manufacturers, parts suppliers, repair shops, etc., and ultimately, the oil industry. Why else would Chevron want to control the patent on the use of NiMH batteries in EVs? What are auto repair shops and dealerships going to do when cars require much less maintenance than they do now? (But don't worry; I think your job in the oil industry is going to be safe for quite a while yet.)

Back to the original topic, given that more range costs more money, how much range is generally worth paying for? I would say enough such that the EV can be used for most (but not all) of the miles one drives. 100 miles of range thus seems like a good trade-off for most people, who'd likely prefer to see EV price reductions as batteries improve. Five years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if EV base models still have 100 miles of range, with options to pay more if greater range is desired.

@spicoli: Right now Nissan is able to sell every 100-mile EV they manufacture (likewise with the Volt), so I don't think the lack of range options is going to slow adoption for a while yet. But yes, within the next few years, I'd expect carmakers to start supporting multiple range options. Tesla already does.

Buying the current LEAF, made in Japan as it is, is in some sense a show of support for domestic automaking. Both Nissan and the federal government (via loan guarantees) have made a huge commitment to manufacturing LEAFs in Tennessee. By 2013, nearly all LEAFs sold in America should be domestically produced. If I go ahead and purchase the Japan-produced LEAF that I have ordered, I am helping to send the message that there is an American market for this car, further vindicating Nissan's decision to employ American workers and build the LEAF here.

I know that doesn't help you with the styling, though.