That 100 mile range needs to be all-conditions, all-seasons. Which means that it will likely need to be EPA rated at 135 miles. Beyond that, we'll need to see vehicles equipped with fast-charge solutions, as well as fast-charge stations pop up that can provide a 25 mile charge in 5-10 minutes (enough for people to finish their day).

@Anthony - Today's < 100 mi EVs that can QC, can pick up 25 miles of range when QCd from a low state of charge on a 40-50kW QC station in 10 minutes. So with sufficient QC infrastructure situated so that one knows that they can rely on charging if they get low, current EVs are OK. With even a bit more battery, EVs will be able to even better take advantage of 40-50kW QC stations.

@Nick - availability of street charging especially in residential areas is definitely an issue for wide-spread adoption. Ultimately more workplace charging and larger battery packs will be required for wider adoption once it gets to that point.

For a lot of reasons, it's pretty reasonable to expect a mix of hybrids, PHEVs and EVs for the forseeable future. It will take 200+ mile affordable EVs along with 100 kW+ charging infrastructure, to really see widespread EV adoption.

Range anxiety mostly disappears with PHEVs.  If the goal is petroleum replacement, replacing 4 ICEVs with PHEVs with 25-mile AERs is superior to building 1 100-mile EV.

PHEVs benefit from widespread charging opportunities even more than EVs.  Even Level 1 charging is quite beneficial (personal experience); if existing circuits were re-wired from 120 V to 240 V to permit charging at 240 V 12 A, the benefit would be increased without any costly pulling of new wire.  That would be sufficient to displace at least 50% of current petroleum consumption (my experience is more than 3/4).

@electric-car-insider.com:

The biggest limitation is not the vehicle, it's awareness and education.

This may apply in some urban areas, but it is certainly not true for us where we live.

What would work for us would be the Voltec platform in a more practical vehicle--better outward visibility and rear seats usable by tall-ish adults.

To elaborate: "long-distance travel days" are not the problem for us. It's the mid-distance: I drive 75-100 miles round trip on a regular basis--once or twice a week--just to get around. I really need 150 miles of actual range, including going over 1700' elevation hills at times. 150 miles would cover our everyday, regional travel. There is no car share available here, no rental car agency closer than 35 miles distant. EVs are city cars (save Tesla).

As I said, a more practical PHEV or REEV is what we need here (or winning at Lotto).

Nick - driving 75 - 100 miles 50 to 100 times a year makes you an outlier.

Only 10% of all US driving days are greater than 75 miles. People who drive a lot, many days a week are likely responsible for a lot of that total. A limited range EV won't work for them, and seemingly for you.

But look back to Raymond's $120 per month savings. For someone who takes a few long trips a year they are way ahead to rent a car for the long trips.

@Electric car insider, I am really pleased that Fiat have the car rental voucher system - it seems like an obvious thing to me if you don't have a second car.

[ I have been saying this since 2011].

A problem is the ICE pickup - you drive to the rental place and need to be able to park your EV there while you use the ICE, or you need them to drop off the EV and take your ICE with them.

As people have said, if you live in the country or have longish drives, an EV isn't for you at present.

@Nick, you're right, there are still big gaps in the EV lineup. Mitsubishi Oulander PHEVS and Chrysler minivan will help.

Ford Fusion Energi is a four door that seats 5. It only gets 21 miles all-electric range but with workplace or destination charging that's ~1,000 all-electric miles a month. I would not have thought much about Ford 15 years ago, but they came a long way under Mulally and the Focus Electric I leased about a year and a half ago has been a great car. Far better appointed and equipped than I had remembered the Focus. Good performance. The people I know who have the Fusion Energi are also happy with their cars, which probably explains Ford's recent good sales performance with the Energi line. Despite zero ad budget, it's becoming a top seller. Word's getting out.

I'm confident that if we have a robust charging infrastructure using 90kW CCS here in the states, then people would feel more comfortable with ~100 mile range vehicles.

Call it 100kW baseline, with a 33kWh usable battery for 100mi of range. Which battery chemistry can be charged at 3C regularly and be economically warranted for 8 years and 100000 miles with no more than 20% capacity loss?

Plus, that infrastructure would need multiple chargepoints at no more than 50mi apart to be practical.

There's so many good things you get with bigger batteries, and which scale with size: energy, power, charge rate. They all go together.

Limited range EVs make sense only UNTIL batteries price drop to $100/kWh. Beyond that point, extended range BEVs will probably reach 500+ miles.

Which battery chemistry can be charged at 3C regularly and be economically warranted for 8 years and 100000 miles with no more than 20% capacity loss ? - Otis

Good question. I also have raised concern over Mr Musk's assertion - at a press conference in England recently - that Tesla users should use Superchargers all they want. Trouble is I brought it up on Tesla's Forum. This was in rebuttal to comments from new owners, made on the "potential buyers" thread for Model S where they immediately called me a troll. I was asked to provide a valid source for my assertion. Well my experience is with the DIY crowd using Pb-acid batteries. We made sure our members were informed of the care and feeding of Pb_acid battery packs from our monthly newsletter. Apparently this was not good enough for the moderators (admin). They said Li-Ion was not the same as Pb-acid in other words I was making an orange to lemons comparison. At which point I challenged them. I said that since they were the ones making the claims they should be the ones providing the proof and not the anecdotal proof that some members came up with. Anyway their response was to move my subsequent posts to the OFF TOPIC section.

Why did Musk make the assertion ? I'll apologise for him. He is very much an engineer and you can often see him choosing his words slowly and wisely unless he has opportunity for a canned reply in which case he reels off a professional delivery. In this case I think he was tired and the journalists caught him off guard.

Three things you need to consider. The Supercharger option is free to those with the Model S equipped with the 85Kw pack which is a high proportion of the approximately 40,000 cars made. Most of the vehicles are still less than two years old. Any data collected by the more than 2600 Roadsters now approaching four years old is non applicable since their internal circuitry will not allow them to accept the 120Kw DC charging from the Supercharger. Bottom line is that supercharger use should be judiciously taken until we have more data.

About ten years ago Sean O'Keefe, chief administrator at NASA, in a televised address, mostly to Nasa employees regarding the transformation that NASA would be making to avoid another Columbia disaster, made a particularly honest appraisal of the situation. Apparently when it was first noticed that lumps of ice were breaking away from the upper part of the LOX tank and striking the re-entry heat tiles on the undersurface of the SST as it lifted off the pad, the reaction from observers was subdued. No one would blow the whistle on it - most could make the case that it wasn't in their job anyway - and subsequent successful launches gradually dispersed those who had been accused of unwarranted paranoia. As the shuttles began to be reused any broken tiles that appeared on the heat shield were replaced as a matter of course. Ice falling on to the heat shield was no longer considered a problem. Everthing was fine for many years. Then 2003 happened. Later on, investigators were able to pull down lots of video with sheets of ice raining down onto the shuttle's shield. Perhaps the risk being assessed as being marginal was in fact not the case. How about that any statement inferring minimal ice damage to the orbiter was less than true in fact could it be a big fat lie ? Mr O'Keefe continued.

You have a developing situation at Tesla where a $100K car can be leased with little investment from the driver. Then you set up a situation where high power chargers are free to use as often as needed. If the battery pack is degraded by this practice it will be the shareholders - that's where I come in - who will carry the can for the warranty replacements. Nissan's battery warranty protects the company by specifying 1100miles/month + 25c /mile overage or something like that.
Finally Proof of Life is not set out for when these vehicles become CPOs in the automobile market. The battery is a big part of an EV. How accurately can the state of the battery be measured for a future buyer ? Owners report that even on-board range estimation still leaves a lot to be desired.

Otis, from your previous two comments I see that you are pushing for larger batteries until battery tech catches up. Here's the problem I see with that. When is enough enough ? I think even at $150/Kwh the 24Kwh Nissan Leaf would have a $3600 pricetag. Not surprisingly there are many out there who are demanding double that for what they consider to be a viable car. However the case for future transport should be that "the purpose of cars is to primarily transport people and not the carriage of tons of chemical material through the streets". A single occupancy Model S weighing over 4000lbs is not the answer when some are purchased to gain unbridled access to the HOV lanes.

My deal is with the Superchargers which permit range extension for any size battery and the way in which they are being introduced to the market. In particular the free use aspect. When free use is permitted on anything, like supercharging in this case, then most people are going to want to capitalise on it.

Again human nature being what it is, a better strategy may be to impose a minor fee per use. Overtly this stategy might discourage bunching up around supercharger sites which is very likely to occur as the population of Tesla vehicles escalates, while achieving the underlying purpose of serving to avoid or mitigate any possible, but as of yet unproven, acceleration in the deterioration of battery capacity. A condition vehemently denied by Tesla supporters and something I hope will turn out not to be the case when more data is available.

However you have to be aware that a negative outcome carries the risk of additional financial implications to Tesla since the company has pledged to support the resale price to the original owner. The idea is that providing a backstop on the residual price will enhance the value of the brand and encourage future sales.

Meanwhile at Tesla, software designers may be taking advantage of the vehicle knowing - through the touch screen - when the vehicle is about to be visiting a SC site and will use the intervailing time by supercooling the battery enclosure in anticipation of the event. This proaction should ameliorate the effect of heat which will eminate from those 8000 individual cells during the subsequent sustained recharge at an ~2C rate.

Marketing at Tesla has taken the stance of saving on cost and to rely on word of mouth advertising, in which case they might try an assurance to remind consumers that " Whenever you leave home you start off with a FULL TANK". A sentiment that costs nothing but may dispel thoughts of range anxiety.

Is it also too much to ask that marketing will better connect consumers to the effect of speed on range ? I find it somewhat circumspect to benchmark range at 55mph in order to enhance vehicle capability on paper. Is it safe to say that no one who has paid out close to $100k for a Tesla is going to be satisfied by driving it at that speed unless, of course, they happen to be in a 40mph zone ?