Park Renovation, recreation.  You would think this was obvious.  I suspect many have never given this scenario any consideration.  In fact, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine the idea never even crossing their mind.  So, I shared my own experience to make sure there was no chance of such an overlook:  Lastly, don't overlook what is already in place.  At Cleary Lake, they have chargers.  It took almost the entire battery-capacity of my plug-in hybrid carrying 2 kayaks on top to enjoy the lake there.  After dropping them off at the landing, I would plug in to recharge.  Upon completion of paddling, I would have a charged battery ready for the trip home.  My wife and I have done that quite a number of times now.  It is missed opportunity for Antler's park.  Note that we also kayak on Lake of the Isles in Minneapolis, where unfortunately there is no place to recharge.  The same goes for Bush Lake Park in Bloomington.

Park Renovation, frustration.  Constructive dialog continued.  I was happy he shared more.  His perspective stems from frustration revealed in this exchange: "Don't think the park was built so you can run down for a fast charge... saw someone drop their car off at Valley Natural Foods for a "free" charge and get picked up by another car, and leave without going in the store."  I was pleased to learn more about what he had been exposed to.  This is how I responded to that exchange:  Again, that's a confirm of not 0 understanding the technology available.  There is a profound difference between a slow charger (like at Valley Natural Foods or Hy-Vee) and a DC fast-charger (like at Holiday or Apple Ford).  Being able to stop at the park and hangout for 30 minutes fast-charging would add +100 miles.  Slow charging would only provide a small fraction of that, roughly 10 miles in the same amount of time.  That type of enticement to go to the park can be quite a draw, an excuse to enjoy the lake setting.  Keep in mind, some people work remotely and seek out pleasant locations like that.

Park Renovation, at home.  This was the reply I got: "...so you can't charge you're car at home ??"  That brief comment with such attitude took me a bit to reply to.  He clearly didn't understand what chargers had to offer.  I had to consider how his lack of background would influence his reaction.  Absence of knowledge related to the size, speed and cost of charger types is a very real problem.  In fact, his post stirred curiosity on my part related to assumptions people make related to charging elsewhere.  I suspect the assumption is there isn't much difference, that chargers installed at businesses are only for those who travel.  It's hard to every really know.  Being able to reach those who you wouldn't otherwise cross paths with has tradeoffs.  I seek them, capitalizing on the teaching moment.  In this case, I know county-owned parks here will be getting chargers as some point, a mix of regular AC chargers and some DC fast-chargers.  This part is city-owned, not much different from one in the north that has plans for chargers.  So, I proceeded by carefully posting:  Asking that question also reveals the technology is not well understood.  Sure, most people will have some means of charging at home, but it is always slow.  If you don't have overnight to wait, you seek out a place to fast charge.  Going to a business, rather than a beautiful park, is missed opportunity.  Why wouldn't you want to attract people to the park for that?

Park Renovation, no chargers.  There is a massive old park nearby with a beautiful beach and a really nice bike path that has been closed for renovation for over a year.  It will be opening soon.  Drone video footage showed the massive new parking lot, where they cut down trees for improving traffic flow & safety.  It was well done, but the shear size of it has really upset a number of people.  My look was at the practicality of the new parking instead.  Knowing other parks north of the cities have been installing chargers, I was quite intrigued for this first rebuild from scratch south of the cities would stir for feedback.  So, I posted:  Lots of parking, yet not a single spot offering a place to plug-in to charge your car.  That's a draw being planned for many other parks & beaches. Some already provide them.  It's a good way to attract a wide variety of people to spend time there.

Behind Narrative, accepting reality.  The pushback was quite amusing.  Defense was ironic, doubling down on the cherry-picking.  I was delighted to punch back with:  Assessment of status based on a single criteria is the very definition of cherry-picking.  In this case, it's measuring Toyota's progress solely on sales.  This is a marathon, not a race.  Offering a variety of choices is just as important.  The claim about there only be one model sold anyway is wrong anyway.  UX300e has been available in Europe for several years now, long enough to have got a mid-cycle upgrade last year (range was increased).  This year, Europe also gets the new Urban SUV, likely to be called bZ3X.  Next year, we get the new larger SUV called bZ5X, built in the United States using batteries produced in the United States.  Toyota's PHEV also delivers a full EV drive system, a reality debunking that "They are behind." claim.  Since 2016, that hardware has been providing all-electric miles... priceless production & reliability experience that narrative clearly ignores.  Another reality not being acknowledged is this approach for EVs very closely follows Toyota's hybrid history.  They started Prius with low-volume also, for the same purpose of shaking out refinements prior to ramping up production.

Behind Narrative, cherry-picking.  Taking the offensive, I called the nonsense out:  It's interesting to watch the cherry-picking to keep that "behind" narrative alive.  That narrow scope and short-term perspective just becomes increasingly more obvious.  Reality is, Toyota has shared a roadmap showing the variety of battery choices they will be offering... introduction of bi-polar and expansion to include LFP, followed by solid-state... in combination with the new platform rollout.  Look at how much time it took for NEVI projects.  Delivery of the first stations in many states will be 2 years after the IRA bill to provide funding was passed.  Landlords who have to fund their own installs will struggle for years to make chargers for tenants a reality.  Associations with large properties could take even longer.  Impatience from enthusiasts means nothing to ordinary consumers that will still be waiting years for convenient & affordable routine charging.  2030 is only 6 years away.

Toyota Bashing.  It was no surprise to see the flurry of attacks coming from this statement: "Wasted investment is worse then the credit purchase."  Enthusiasts like to pretend purchase of carbon-credits doesn't happen by others, that only the desperate use them to offset mandate shortcomings.  Everything is stigmatized that doesn't follow their narrative.  Ugh.  It's such a double-standard to turn a blind-eye to what they don't like their own favored automaker doing something then to attack another for doing the same thing.  What I get a kick out of is Toyota being honest that it could happen, but there's nothing actually showing that to be likely.  Oh well.  Some people commenting online see the hypocrites.  To them, I try to provide constructive feedback like this:  Bashing comes from impatience.  It's easy to see Toyota following the same approach they did with Prius.  Using the first generation to shake out their technology worked well with low-volume, more than enough to prepare them for a high-volume launch with the second generation.  It makes no sense pushing e-TNGA knowing production cost & efficiency will be much better with the new platform.  According to their roadmap, there will be a choice of battery type (performance/range vs. longevity/cost, even before their solid-state rollout begin.  So what if enthusiasts are unwilling to wait and don't like the approach?  They aren't the targeted audience.  Toyota's goal is to be able to sustain high-volume profitable sales to ordinary consumers.  That means avoiding waste by spreading risk. Don't think they won't follow opportunity.

California Sales.  This news stirred some unwelcome discussion: "In 2023, USA's EV sales were 7.6% of all new vehicles.  A whopping 40% of those EV sales were in California even though they're just 12% of the population.  That means the rest of the nation is still behind..."  That imbalance is what automakers must address when planning.  It is why Toyota has been so forthcoming with their forecasts.  They want to be realistic.  Seeing expectations set too high and failing to be reached time after time hurts everyone.  Yet, we still see that happening still.  Enthusiasts don't like slow and don't want to address the growing gap.  Getting other states to adopt California rules shows the barriers we continue to face.  In takes many years for each phase to be agree upon, then implemented.  Who knows how well enforcement will actually go.  Even with the best of intent, follow through can be extremely difficult.  It all adds up to a confirmation of such statements becoming an obvious problem... for states.  For automakers who have to deal with that outcome, I drew attention to:  An over-commitment with volume can be costly in several regards, much more so than having a backlog of orders to fill.  Credits as a buffer make sense, especially when you consider how others could be stretched to reach goals as well.  That reality of California not being representative of the rest of the country, along with their battle of expensive electricity in that state, does put the situation into context.  2030 is not that far away when you consider how much takes to plan, approve and fund large deployments of level-2 chargers in association & landlord controlled parking.  Unfortunately, we have a massive knowledge gap to still deal with too.  Thankfully, availability of PHEV choices will help the BEV education process along.  Everyone benefits from having overnight parking with plug.

Catastrophically Stupid.  How many times can you point out hat adoption will be rough.  I stated that getting all automakers to agree to NACS was a rather desperate move, a Hail Mary that appeared to actual work.  In reality, it was a rush due to V4 stations not being rolled out yet.  That lack of availability for the upgrade... longer cords... will have consequences almost immediately.  Ford activation of NACS only happened yesterday and we are already doing comments like this: "Honestly, what Tesla has done here is... catastrophically stupid."  There is simply no way to share charging with such an ironic shortcoming... the cords are too short.  As a result, you have to park in a way that occupies 2 charging stalls.  Blocking others from using a charger puts you in a very uncomfortable position.  Think about how many Tesla owners were proud of their decision to purchase a Tesla due to the exclusivity of having access to such an impressive private network... only to see it later opened up for others to use.  Tesla rushed.  Rather than doing it right, they was obvious panic.  MagicDock served as an awesome means of proving adapters could work.  V4 was how those without a Tesla could interface with chargers.  Not waiting for their deployment was clearly a mistake.  Now, we there is a feeling of potential backlash.  There is also strange discussion of extension cords.  Knowing how expensive DC equipment is, even the slower grade without cooling, how would that work?  It would be a challenge getting people to accept the European approach, where you provide your own cord for level-2 but this instead being for a much heavier gauge.  Speed would be limited anyway.  Needless to say, Tesla got itself into this mess.  Others will likely be able to avoid it.  When they switch from CCS to NACS, it will only be the plug itself.  Cords are already longer.  What I like is that some have already addressed the parking situation too.  I posted:  It's nice to see competitors who own the land where the stations are installed, rather than lease like others (Tesla, Electrify America, etc.) provide ample parking room.  CircleK (Holiday here in Minnesota) stations place a wide gap between every other spot.  That extra room between vehicles makes for a much nicer charging experience.

PHEV Excuse.  The latest spin is that somehow PHEV are an excuse by automakers not to ever produce BEV.  It's a sign of panic.  Remember when Volt enthusiasts fought so intensely to prevent any type of dilution?  They sincerely believed reduction of a trait would result in the collapse of progress.  Somehow, offering less range to deliver an affordable choice was going to prevent benefits like economy-of-scale.  That makes no sense whatsoever.  How could not taking advantage of starting with a full battery everyday not contribute to a desire for greater capacity the next purchase?  We're seeing that same unreasonable fear again.  Somehow, having a PHEV that delivers a full EV driving experience is counter-productive to the acceptance of BEV.  What are they thinking?  We can't just make a wish and suddenly only sell vehicles without a gas-engine.  The real-world has challenges that automakers alone cannot address.  They can help though with a means of making transition easier, like providing the choice of PHEV.  That's not an excuse.  It's not a weakness.  Addressing problems we face hear & now is being responsible.  Ugh.  I tried to combat that nonsense today with:  Since infrastructure is independent of automakers, that excuse concern falls a bit flat.  We already see major investments by both vendors & coops.  Don't overlook the vital role PHEV play with regard to pushing landlords to invest.  Those level-2 install are hardware agnostic.   What you drive makes no difference.  Everyone benefits from overnight charging.

Stopgap.  It's back, after so long ago: "There is a place for plug-in hybrids, but they are at most a temporary stopgap.  They're not good enough to be part of the long-term solution to the climate crisis because they still emit CO2."  Electric vehicle usage results in CO2 too.  They just don't emit them from a tailpipe.  Most electricity still does not come from renewable sources.  Burning natural-gas instead of coal is much better, but far from zero emissions.  It's the same old rhetoric anyway.  Volt enthusiasts would argue in a bubble, forcing their perspective to be vehicle-to-vehicle comparison.  Stepping back to look at the fleet as a whole was considered support for oil, only something anti-EV supporters would do.  If then didn't like it, the message was deemed propaganda to support ICE vehicles.  If it wasn't pure, it was seen as slowing down progress.  Ugh.  I jumped into that, remembering the long history of the term pointing out:  Use of "stop gap" is pointless without context.  Effectiveness they can provide over the next full product-cycle (6 years) is enormous.  It simply makes no sense selling ICE-only vehicles while waiting for infrastructure to catch up and only a small market share being able to use BEV in the meantime.  Simple level-1 charging can sustain daily EV driving from a PHEV without any concern for distances beyond battery depletion.

Might Be Good.  Isn't it amazing how long certain revelations take?  What we figured would take roughly a decade for ordinary consumers to take notice of actually did.  I understood the delayed recognition of value from having participated in the advancement of computer technology through the 80's and 90's and 00's and 10's.  My father taught me well back in the 70's.  He informed me what it truly took for change to happen.  It all comes down to one word: "Patience".  You just stick with it, keep sharing that knowledge & experience.  Eventually, they catch on and will see the value.  Nowadays, long after my father has passed, I see & appreciate others doing the same.  Sometimes, that sentiment works it way to the media.  This time, it was: "Consumer Reports Says That Plug-In Hybrids Might Be Good, Actually"  You don't need to provide a ringing endorsement.  All you need to do is provide information to help the process along.  Their effort to avoid bias and share enough data points to carry some value in their statements, it makes an opportunity for that "actually" to be evaluated.  I was happy to help that process along by adding:  This is just market advancement.  Original offerings by some were augmentations of the hybrid system, added battery-capacity to just increase efficiency & power.  That made sense a decade ago, when having level-2 at home was in its infancy stage Then Toyota rolled out its gen-2 design, covering the entire speed range without sacrificing EV efficiency and along with the introduction of a heat-pump, set the stage for head-to-head competition with both ICE and BEV.  Now with gen-3 providing a big range increase, we can see where the market is going.  In Toyota's case, they have Prius, RAV4, Crown and CH-R all striving to reach new audiences.  Consumer Reports recognizes the potential for market growth from mature offerings like that.  It's ironic how BEV purists recognize the progress.  What they claim to be "obsolete" is really an acknowledgement of entering the "well proven" stage, being ready for the masses.