Charger Upgrades.  This crazy moment in automotive history here isn't all about GM's fall and Tesla's aspiration.  We often talk online about establishing infrastructure, but rarely is there mention of improving upon it.  But now that so many years have passed since those original efforts began, it is time to address their progress... or lack thereof.  In the case of where I park for work, there's very good news.  4 of the 6 chargers there (2 dual-plug units) lost communication with the network.  I don't know the detail of what happened, but the decision was made to swap them out with new models.  While at it, the 2 other units will be too.   Both dated back to 2012.  Only one L2 connection was available on each.  But since they from long ago, each also had a L1 connection.  Neither was ever used (as far as I know), but parking spots were allocated.  So, they will now become L2.  The newer duals will bump the count that can all L2 charge (usually a 208-volt commercial connection delivering up to 6.6 kW sustained) to 8 vehicles at the same time.  That's a nice setup, especially when you consider the really nice location the chargers are at.  Sometimes, you get really lucky.

Omitting Detail.  Reaction to my distortion callout didn't surprise me at all.  It was a typical mislead by omitting detail: "...but even if we look at recent sales - the Volt / Bolt (w/out the largest incentives any more) & Prime are all pretty close in sales."  His attempt ultimately had an expectation of taking attention off of GM.  I took the bait anyway, figuring his trolling had a motive of stirring discussion.  So, asking his point may result in something to derive a construction exchange with.  You never know, especially at such a critical junction.  So close to that tax-credit reduction none of the Volt enthusiasts ever took seriously is a harsh reality none can escape.  The nightmare they tried to dodge will smack them head on... production has already ended and the heavily depended upon subsidy is in the phaseout stage.  I hit him with:  Wow, that's a pretty lame attempt at whatever you're trying to convince us of.  The incentives are still available for Volt & Bolt.  That $7,500 tax-credit doesn't get reduced until next month.  So if anything, there should be a jump in sales for those wanting to take advantage of that final opportunity.  As for attempting to compare a nationally available vehicle to one with almost non-existent inventory in the center of the country, that reveals the opposite of what was claimed.  What was your point?  We can speculate endlessly about GM's point, but it always comes down to wanting to out Prius, Prius... something that breaks the status quo... which didn't happen.  Realistically, slow is just fine if it gets the job done.  That's why it doesn't matter whatever each legacy automaker does, as long as they actually do something to get their own loyal customers to change.

This discussion thread about EV adoption has been overlooking that history playing out at this very moment.  Those reasons are far more important than quibbling about a past long ago or looking beyond the bridge.  We must deal with what's unfolding right now.

Stepping back to consider the bigger picture (the legacy automaker market as a whole), what reason is there to claim Toyota as being slow?

First Sighting.  I saw a 2019 mid-cycle refresh Prius this morning.  It looked very new, no plates yet.  That first sighting caught me by surprise.  I hadn't heard much about shipments elsewhere yet.  Living in the middle of the country, it's quite normal for reports from the coasts to become common before there's even a chance of it happening locally.  So, I was happy to see the dealer-tag while driving by it parked on the road.  With the market so screwy right now, it's difficult to set any type of expectations.  Once the uncertainty of the tax-credit phaseout passes, then we should return to some sense of normal.  For now, I'll just chalk this first sighting up as a moment to remember.

Push Back.  Eventually, he may catch on.  Until then, it's dealing with stuff like this: "Why would someone install a 19kw charger at home in order to take advantage of time-of-use rates?  You are making no sense.  The idea of charging at night is that you have 8 or 10 or more hours to charge.  With an ~6kW L2 you can add enough miles for 95% of commuters."  That brings us back to the limited perspective, conclusions draw upon without having all the necessary information available.  My guess is the idea never crossed his mind.  Options that aren't ever thought of can sometimes result in a reconsideration when presented.  I'm not sure that will work in this case.  He seems dead set on incomplete facts being enough.  Ugh.  I pushed back anyway:  You are repeating what I already pointed out, the rule-of-thumb: a 40-amp line will deliver 200 miles in 8 hours.  You also sighted a situation when a person with the available capacity could take the most advantage of time-of-use rates.  Think about this.  It's mid-afternoon and you have a low battery.  You want to avoid the dinner-time rate.  The fastest charger possible is how you would achieve that.  So what if a person has the ability to rapid recharge at home for opportunity charging but also overnight charges.  You have the choice of when and how much.  For that matter, you can even choose charging speed.

Push.  Bouncing between several different attacks all at the same time is interesting.  I knew this day would come, when the panic from Volt enthusiasts would stir discussion about topics rarely addressed with anything more than just a brief mention: "PHEVs do not ever, IMO, push that long term infrastructure...they kick that can down the road."  That in particular caught my attention.  It was an effort to spin perspective.  That doesn't work when you've misidentified audience.  He kept dwelling on the consumer.  Overlooking another player involved is a surprise common problem.  We see that all the time with respect to dealers.  They are almost never treated as a customer to the automaker, even though that is exactly what they are.  They choose how to stock & sell the product.  That is a vital bit of knowledge to not notice.  With regard to this topic today, it's the lack of recognition from whom the electricity for charging comes.  Why would you equate infrastructure to an automaker?  Since when are they expected to do things like influence the location & quantity of gas stations?  In fact, that's an absurd idea to even suggest.  Yet, that's exactly what is being forced.  Ugh.  I replied to that nonsense with:  You're looking at it backward.  Again, know your audience.  There are electricity providers all around the country gearing up to do the push.  As a PHEV owner, it's just a matter of taking them up on the upgrade opportunity.  They want you to use more electricity, to get on their time-of-use programs, to want your next vehicle purchase to rely on electricity even more.

Know your audience.

Forcing Perspective.  Rhetoric most common among those attempting to appear constructive comes in a form like that: "Sure.  Build all the PHEVs that you want.  But don't pretend it is the fastest or only path to a highly electric future."  They are actually the ones who see the "fastest" and "only" perspective.  It's called "projection" when someone accuses you of the very act they are guilty of.  It's confirmation they recognize the problem, but mistakenly identify the wrong party of that act.  I see it on a regular basis.  Reading it gives me a bizarre feeling, every time.  Most continue on forcing their message of reversed perspective without ever figuring out their mistake.  You become familiar with their aviator after awhile.  This is why I often end my response to them with a question:  Automakers lived in the present for decades, promoting whatever was big at the moment.  Now that there is a need to look forward, why must there be a comprehensive look to the long-term.  You're setting a dangerous precedent.  Think about how unrealistic that can be.  Automakers can spin whatever future they want with no accountability... and some have already exploited that opportunity.  We've seen things get very messy in the past.  There's reason for caution.  What do you really expect from an automaker touting a fully electric future, but still sells millions of guzzlers annually for years to come?

More Attacks.  This was quite predicable: "Refine?? You mean like the cheap, inadequate TMS workaround that is in the Prime?"  I kept my reply to that short.  There's no sense arguing with someone who simply doesn't care, but it can be helpful to lurkers now and the curious later to leave behind evidence explaining what the situation truly was at the time:  Understanding the difference between want & need comes from seeking a balance.  Your insistence upon the battery-pack requiring liquid-cooling, knowing it will never be DC fast-charged, shows a lack of understanding.  Adding expense & complexity to a system that doesn't reveal the need makes no sense.  Toyota's observation of real-world data from forced air-cooling will help identify what's truly necessary.  It's ironic how some claim Toyota is unwilling to take risks, then turn a blind-eye to them when they do exactly that.