There you go again... starting off with 'my misconceptions'. You'd make a great salesman. I clearly was talking about EV's, not hybrids. Could you not figure that out?

Just because you can rationalize why the market SHOULD be stronger, doesn't mean it really should be. History is littered with those who think they were smarter than everyone else on stuff like this, end the end, a very small few actually were.

Instead of pining on why the market SHOULD be stronger for EVs, try a little critical thinking. You are the one who can't explain what is really happening. Doesn't that tell you something?

You are working hard to explain/rationalize why the market is not doing what you think it should do. I see you are passionate about EVs. But the market is speaking, and your explanations don't reflect what the market is telling you. You seem to want to ignore/dispute those points that give explanations for the actual market behavior, but you don't offer any your self other than "they just don't get it and here's why". If your rationalizations worked for the greater market, more cars would be selling.

As the product evolves to meet the needs of larger slices of the market, it will sell more.

If it makes you feel better to describe it that way.. power to you. But I'd be generous to say it is even 40% of the applicable market. Add the fact that you can only get a subset of the market segment for various reasons, and it is, with no doubts, a limiting factor today.

The whole "rental car" fallback is so tired. People want to drive their own cars. They don't want to rent one. Yes, there are some exceptions, but it is small group. And saying the use case is one long trip per year is really reaching as well. That's an even smaller segment of the market.

Total cost of ownership. A big portion of the market cares about that. And just because someone can afford it, or may buy a car in a similar price range, doesn't make an EV a good choice. And 'quite comparable" doesn't cut it for many people, with the sacrifice of range & therefore flexibility.

EVs are best for 2+ car families, with a garage and adequate parking space, with one person working relatively close to home. There are a lot of people in that category, but it is a subset of the entire market.

Your point is important. Many apartment residents basically are not even a candidate to buy one, so a good chunk of the market is not even in the mix. Even houses that don't have garages, requiring outdoor chargers, make ownership less attractive.

It is laughable when an article discussing why people do or don't buy EVs completely ignores the cost factors.

It still cost money to send guys out on bucket trucks to replace lights.

Without discussion of lease terms, length, and end of lease requirements, you really can't determine if there is anything to be saved. Also, installation costs might be a big factor purposely not discussed. It may be easy to lease the lights, but the costs of installation (and maybe even maintenance) drive the real cost up and potential benefit down.

You can't save $8000t "right away". That's just bullshit.

What they are doing is depending heavily on tax subsidy/credits... not actual cost. Then twisting the numbers.

Include 'time spent reading slashdot' in your study list.... and maybe foul odors....that should do it.

He is purposely conflating nuclear power plants with Oak Ridge, which is a trick regularly employed by Union of Concerned Scientists in their anti-nuclear cries. The simple fact they resort to those tactics tells you something about them.

Then take his insight as hypothetical as well.

You are a liar, that is about all you are. "engineering" doesn't tell a GM to shut the plant down to fix a pump. Operators do that, and its all proceduralized so there is no GM decision to make.

You can't even describe what pumps you are talking about nor their function.

Let them go on strike... then outsource to Utah!