Range anxiety is overrated
 

Car manufacturers have not marketed and informed their buyers that their EV offerings serve most if not all of their 'real world' needs. The buying public still believes that EVs are too expensive to own and they could not go far. Researchers from MIT and Santa Fe Institute have concluded that the average American average daily use is about 70 miles, lesser with AC used. This US average accounts 87% of vehicles on the road today and can be replaced by available low cost electric vehicles with standard battery size (overnight fully-charged), even if they could not recharge on that day. This range includes 93% of the urban commuters and even 80% of rural drivers. Only long range business/vacation travelers have to make recharging plans/charging logistics ahead of time.

Shorter-range electric cars meet the needs of almost all US drivers | Ars Technica

http://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016112

Translation: rather than come up with a solution to the problem, we'll just say it isn't a problem.

Sorry, this is a very real concern of the car buying public. This is a major turn-off for car buyers and as long as EV advocates try to discredit concerns rather than address them, EVs are going to continue to be a modest percentage of the market share.

Sure, you can get anywhere you need to go, but it takes planning and added time to go on a long trip. Why put up with the hassle of doing that when you could buy a similar car for half the price without the limitation? Car buyers are answering that question with their buying decisions...

I see 2 potential solutions.
One, enable a liquid fueled tow behind charging trailer, only problem with that idea is it looks like all the manufactures put their charge ports on the front or side of the vehicle. Ok, so relocate the charging port to the back, only problem there is every mass market electric vehicle I am aware is immobilized while charging.
That is the solution but it seems almost as if they have specifically went out of their way to engineer these vehicles so there is no way this could work with out heavy software and vehicle modifications.

Two by pass all the stupid technology on these electric cars. Call a guy with a big diesel powered roll back with liquid fuelled generator or a guy with a big diesel truck with car trailer and a generator. And that situation pretty much explains its self.

I don't see why they couldn't cram a small(10hp?) engine somewhere on board for backup power. It wouldn't add a lot of weight, if you kept the fuel tank small. It could be an add-on, like A/C, for those who actually want it. It would have to be designed to be there from the start, otherwise good luck making the components fit.

Want more? Tesla Model S P100D: 315-mile range, quickest production car in the world | ExtremeTech

For people who can afford two cars, range anxiety probably is fiction. They have an EV for daily commute type stuff and an ICE for everything else. But that's two cars in the place of one. I need one car to be able to carry me around on my 25-50 mile days and be completely ready to got 150 or 250 miles any given weekend. So range anxieties are an actual primary factor that has discouraged me from an EV as of yet. It is the primary factor, ahead of battery life and depreciation. I need to see entry level prices on good systems with much better than 100 mile EPA range before I can be tempted into one, I think.

Well, I guess I have range anxiety! I think I can make it safely and reliably to and from work with an EV, but not to my cabin after work .. a trip that I average every second weekend.

I have a high-way only commute that is 50 km (30 miles) one way, and I have been told that there is an opportunity to charge at work. It gets cold here (-40F), so the battery pack will need a heater if I am to drive it 4 seasons, like a real car.

I am building/converting an old Mazda MX6 and it looks like the curb weight is going to be 2700 lbs. So estimate around 270 watt-hours per mile .. if I am lucky. My Renault Fluenza pack (same chemistry as the original nissan leaf) is about 22 kw-h ... 81 miles, 130 km. Drop that to 65 miles and 105 km with a safety factor for head winds, rain, temperature, defogging windows, etc. Drop it further if I want my battery pack to last .. so I charge up to 80% and try to keep above 20% SOC ... That makes the practical range 52 miles or 83 km. MORE than enough to get TO work, but I NEED to charge before I come back HOME.

My trip to work and back is OK. But on Friday, when I get home from work and want to drive up to the cabin, 150 km away, the Mazda won't do it. So I will need to switch to a Dino burner for the weekend.

That's where I am .. not NOW, but in the hopefully near future .. until I can afford a Tesla (um, not really) or get an LG Bolt .. er .. Chevy Bolt .. which is sort of like a unicorn for me. I may hear about it and see pictures, but it may as well be mythical. I guess the Tesla Model 3 is sort of like that, too.

Which for me would mean three vehicles: the EV for short-range stuff, the Insight or similar for longer trips (70+ miles is something I do at least once a week), and a truck for hauling firewood, hay &c, going on rough dirt, pulling horse trailers...

The whole point of the article is that there are many people for whom existing vehicles have sufficient range. That may or may not be true, I don't know. The fact that many people on here, including myself, require a greater range does not alter the truth of the claim. Personally I don't know anyone who only ever uses a car for short journeys, but I can't say that such people do not exist. If I fell into that category I would use an EV.

There's a good reason cars have fuel tanks sized the way they are. It is because range anxiety *is* something that exists for most car buyers, whether they acknowledge it or not. Amusingly, it might also be one of the reasons the Tata Nano doesn't sell all that well. A 15 liter tank versus the 35 liter tank on an Alto means a real world range of up to 500 kilometers versus a thousand kilometer range.

Almost nobody ever uses up the range of their tank, but the convenience of going to the gas station just once a week or every two weeks is something they appreciate, as opposed to having to fill up every night. The extra range for cross-country trips is merely a side benefit.

-

Price is still a big factor. The price gap between the Leaf and the Versa it's based on is still a big one, and it'll take about a hundred thousand miles to simply ROI (so sue me... had to pull that off the net... no time to calculate)... about ten years for some... and you'll only get into the savings at the end of that... assuming nothing else has gone wrong with either car... (let's call the cost of servicing versus battery replacement a draw for the moment)...

Forbes is even more skeptical, painting payback (counting interest) at nearly 200,000 miles.

But who counts interest on car purchases? Not people buying new! :D

-

Still, people buying new can be swayed by emotional factors... which is why the Leaf sells, despite being a glorified Versa with a big battery. But for EVs to go fully mainstream, and the way forward if you're going to capture the end of the market that would rather not have to pay so much for a small car with limited range, is ride-sharing and shared-ownership... where people subscribe to a car service without taking ownership... leaving the potential open for that one-in-a-dozen who will need extra range for that day, taking the gasoline-powered option, while the rest share the all-electric fleet.

Not that this has worked out all that well in the past, but with the advent of Uber and Grab, it might just be possible to try again.