I am still a fan of comparing cars based on total operational costs for the lifetime of a vehicle versus the total equivalent CO2 emissions. There are a couple relevant sites for drivers in the U.S. One is maintained by MIT , https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore . The other, that I just discovered, is maintained by DOE, https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/ .
I happen to live in NM and drive a 2021 RAV4 Prime, plug-in hybrid. For my edification, I compared three different 2024 models, a gas RAV4, a RAV4 Prime and an Ioniq 6 AWD EV, using the default values provided for NM and their default gas price of $3.65 / gallon, which is a
little high.
Adopting the comparative units used by MIT, the resulting values of $/month and gCO2 eq/ mile are:
Based on this analysis, I would say choosing the plug-in over the gas version is a no brainer. Choosing between the plug-in and the all electric is harder and requires a value judgement trading off eliminating emissions vs. lifestyle choices. I enjoy the freedom of taking longer trips to Colorado and Arizona and not having to plan my stops for charging. With that said, this is probably the last ICE vehicle I will ever buy.
Nice post! I also have a Rav4 prime and also enjoy driving around the western US for vacations. I've noticed my friends that have EVs only tend to fly for vacations. I'm not sure how you'd do it but I'd like to somehow factor that into the equation.
I spend a lot of time in NM visiting family, and agree with your assessment for hybrids over EV. Too much open space between charging points for most EVs, unless near large urban centres.
Family has hybrids, work well for long road trips.
Do the gas prices include state and federal taxes? If so, you also need to include the EV registration surcharge that many states impose. Here in Idaho, that is an extra $140 per year. Since this is a flat rate not related to miles driven, its impact on cost per mile varies. While the electricity cost for driving my Leaf is about 3 cents/mile, I also pay about 3 cents/mile for that surcharge due to the limited number of miles I drive yearly. However, great ownership savings come from low maintenance costs. The maintenance costs for my Leaf in most years have been zero; if you don't include the cost of windshield washer fluid.
This can have a substantial effect. Here in Pennsylvania, the legislature has just passed a bill that will institute an annual $200 EV fee in 2025, rising to $250 in 2026. For me, driving 8,000 miles per year in my eGolf, this will be far higher than the equivalent gasoline tax I would pay, and will essentially negate my fuel cost savings.
"it’s the ratio of gasoline-to-electricity prices that matters"
I'm not sure that's right, surely it's the dollars saved from monthly outgoings that matters and that depends on the absolute difference.
Imagine one state where electricity is 1 cent per mile driven Vs 2 cents per mile for petrol. Now imagine another state where it's one dollar per mile for electricity Vs 2 dollars for gas. If you drive 100 miles per month you'll save 1 dollar per month in the first state and 100 dollars per month in the second. Clearly the incentive to go EV is stronger in state 2 even though the ratio is the same.
Oh wow, I didn't realize how small the difference in fuel cost was. I thought electric cars would average 10x cheaper or more. Good advertising from the electric car industry I guess.
I also think this is using state averaged retail electricity rates. Increasing numbers of electric utilities are offering off-peak or managed charging rates that provide even larger fuel savings.
If they use solar, like California the cheap price is around noon, so workers would need to charge while parked at work, unless they are on the night shift.
You were right about my math, I meant to say over a thousand per year. You aren't quite right about this. What I'm referring to is specific rates for electric vehicle charging that utilities offer to reduce peak load, not about net energy metering, which has different rules for each state and for when then solar was installed. My prior work focused on designing rates like these, and they are very effective at passing wholesale market value to customers.
Your math is off. Average car drives 13,000 miles in America with 22 MPG and $3.10 gallon for gasoline which is $1832 for the gasoline cost. If an EV is 5x cheaper (only in Washington state), then instead it would cost $366, saving only $1466 in the best case. In California the gas cost is double, but the electricity cost is 4x.
Great analysis Hannah. It’s almost poetic coincidence that states, like Texas, which claim to have a pro-business/small government attitude, are the ones regulating carmakers from selling cars they way they want to.
It’s clear rent-seeking; trying to kill innovation in the cradle to protect incumbent donors.
Poetry doesn’t rhyme…Connecticut, Maine, Wisconsin and Michigan are not pro-business/small government states and also have these dumb laws (and some still prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays, which is a similar anti-consumer law). The reason these laws are in place is rent seeking and corrupt politicians of all stripes, who listen to big donors like scummy auto dealership owners who like their monopoly.
Given that so many people finance their car purchase (loan or lease) rather than purchase it for all-cash, the upfront outlay isn't/shouldn't be all that relevant for would-be buyers - the relevant comparison should be 'total monthly outlay' for ICE vs EV - totalling up the monthly lease/loan payment, insurance, fuel/electricity, and maintenance for each. Would be interesting to see Hannah's analytics on this comparison. I suspect you'll see monthly total outlay for EV is lower than monthly total outlay for ICE vehicle (for most reasonable assumed scenarios), but would be good for her expertise to properly analyse that.
Loan/lease rates are probably nearly identical, but EVs are now on average more expensive. Maintenance costs may be lower for EVs but tires and collision repairs (and thus insurance) are higher. You also need to factor in resale value, and account for the distortions of government subsidies. It probably mostly comes down to the energy prices, but a full analysis would be informative.
I suggest propensity to purchase F-350s for household use might correlate quite well... (it is a bit humourous seeing an educated Brit trying to fathom USA :) )
My midwestern state charges $300 per year for registering an EV. I assume this is to make up for lost gasoline taxes. It reduces the net savings of electricity vs gas.
Very interesting work thank you. Have you considered that for many drivers, 100 miles is nowhere close to a meaningful distance for analysis?
In my family, one person is a university professor whose local time demands at work means that she can charge for free at home and at work while driving less than 50 miles per day most weeks.
Two other family members routinely drive much, much more than that. One works as a driver. Another routinely makes weekend trips of 1,000 miles or more. There are nowhere near enough fast charging opportunities to keep these other two drivers on schedule. So time is a huge cost factor , in addition to the charging cost factor, when drivers routinely drive 100 miles a day or more. I’m thinking about parents of competitive children … range is a way bigger issue than appears at first glance because primary parents and young people have crunched the numbers and find electric cars too expensive to run and impossible to fit into their schedules. And these folks are the adopters the industry was counting on for sales.
Yeah, most EVs in the US are bought by wealthy infrequent drivers like college professors, which are much less than the majority of drivers. If EVs are too expensive or have inadequate range, they won’t become the majority of miles driven and won’t reduce emissions much. If a government tries to mandate them, that government will become unelected.
Do you have any evidence for your claim about college professors?
Obviously EVs are a minority so far, but they’re new, & growing exponentially. (They’re also absolutely necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change.) But to distract from the growth & the necessity, the far right wants to characterize them as unpopular. Also, elitist, which in reality means overwhelmingly conservative, though it’s been turned into an attack on liberals by relentless right wing propaganda.
EVs with a 100 mile range meet the needs of more than 90% of US drivers. The average US EV range is 300 miles. EVs are available in the US with more than 400 mile ranges; in China, with 620 miles, but they’re being kept out of the US so far.
800 miles is expected within a year or so, with a 370 mile 10 minute charge.
Subsidies for fossil fuels need to be eliminated & replaced by subsidies for climate solutions, including whatever it takes to make bicycling, walking, public transit including high speed rail, & EVs cheap & popular enough to quickly replace ICVs.
According to surveys most EV buyers are younger, male Democrats in urban or coastal areas making over $100,000 which closely fits the demographics of college professors.
EV sales as a percentage of new car sales in the US went from 5.9% in 2022 to 7.6% in 2023, and now stands at 6.8% now, so there is no growth and definitely not exponential.
The current combination of price, range , and other factors are not enticing people in the US to buy them even with the distortion of. You can taut the ranges and efficiency and whatever advantages you want, but people signing the contracts obviously don’t value that very much. I’m against tariffs, but I don’t think Chinese EVs would sell well here even at their lower costs. Chinese buyers value mostly the large screens and connected entertainment in the new EVs whereas US buyers value practically, convenience and comfort over digital dashboards.
I agree that fossil fuel subsidies should be eliminated with all other government subsidies, let the people decide what is the best for their own transportation needs. Bicycles and trains are great, but only if the geography and climate are hospitable. Living out here in sparsely populated southwestern deserts is not a place where they are feasible for daily commuting.
If fossil fuels were eliminated tomorrow, billions of people would starve to death, before many more dying when winter sets in. The IPCC itself doesn’t attribute any current disasters to climate change, other than more heat waves, but 10 times as many people die from cold compared to heat.
Global EV sales are growing exponentially. But the US is run by psychopaths running psychopathic corporations; both are lying & lots worse to keep power, profits, privilege & position. People who could save hundreds or thousands a year & dramatically reduce the harm they cause by switching to EVs have been soured on them by those lies.
"US buyers value practically,...” If by that you meant "practicality”, Ha ha ha ha ha! Good one. US buyers value driving a tank that’s bigger than their neighbor’s tank.
Bicycles & trains are necessary to give civilization & nature even a decent chance to survive. So are EVs—not just passenger cars, though EVs with a 100 mile range meet the needs of more than 90% of US drivers & the average US EV range is 300 miles, EVs are available in the US with more than 400 mile ranges; in China, with 620 miles. (It’s not the car, it’s the battery, & those will work just fine in the US, too.) All Vs have to be electrified; everything that moves & everything powered that doesn’t. Mining, farming, logging, construction, service & emergency Vs, trucks... everything.
“Cold” includes moderate cold, ie, exposure, in the arguments by lying denying delayalists, ARFs (anti-renewable fanatics), auntyBEVs, liars-for-hire. But they don’t say that part. In the US, extreme heat is one of many kinds of disasters being increased by climate catastrophe.
“Heat is the number one cause of weather-related deaths in the US. What happens to our bodies when we overheat?”
The Guardian, Aug 17, 2023
Ridiculous strawperson arguments aren’t helpful. Obviously, NO ONE is saying to eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow, even though they kill 10 million people every year & seriously sicken a hundred million more, while killing uncountable others & causing poverty, inequality, autocracy, oppression, repression, destruction, climate catastrophe. Sane people are saying we need to eliminate fossil fuels as fast as possible—as fast as they can be replaced by efficiency, wiser live, & clean safe fast cheap reliable resilient renewable energy. Sane people are saying we need to do that vastly faster than we are. But unsurprisingly, it still won’t happen in the next 24 hours.
Everything Buzen said is a dishonest deceptive denying delayalist/ARF/auntyBEV argument we’ve heard & debunked thousands of times. They should stop, & go with the truth for once instead.
"even with the distortion of. You can taut the ranges and efficiency and whatever advantages you want”
This is great! Could you please try running this comparison in a "dollars per gallon" equivalent?
Polling suggests there's a huge knowledge gap about the cost of driving EVs (as well as the upfront cost, and range) among US drivers, like in other countries.
One reason for this might be that we are all more used to thinking in terms of a fuel cost like dollars per gallon. So the best way to start tackling this knowledge gap might be to start talking about the cost of driving an EV using the intuitive cost metric that everyone already understands.
Hey, we could even ask all gas stations to display the average "refuelling" cost of an EV, in dollars per gallon, on their gas price signs!
Have already done this calculation for my EV, although in metric not imperial. Ratios are the same in any event.
A gallon of gasoline is 33.7kWh. So $3 per gallon gasoline is roughly 10¢ per kWh, and these numbers are close to the average USA energy costs overall which makes the mental math easy. That sets a baseline of equivalency in energy costs. Then you look at the efficiency of the EV in kWh per mile and an equivalent gasoline vehicle in miles per gallon. A good EV range is 4 to 5 miles per kWh, which is what I get. This allows you to get a dollar per mile rate for both options. 30mpg at $3 per gallon is 10¢ per mile, 10¢ per kWh is approximately 2¢ per mile. Charging is close enough to 100% efficient as to not make a difference for energy storage comparison, just as the varying real world driving conditions affect vehicles similarly enough to make the ratios constant.
So if you average 10,000 miles a year using typical mpg and EV range, that represents an average cost savings of $800 per year for the EV over gas. More use means more savings. And when you factor in servicing, the EV gets even more cost attractive.
Repairs are more expensive for EVs which is why Hertz got rid of most of the ones they had bought. Apparently even minor collisions can cause battery damage, and even body damage requires special knowledge on how to disable the high voltage battery systems to avoid injuries.
Depends on vehicle. I have a commercial one so a lot more robust than passenger vehicles. Battery is well inboard of vehicle perimeter and a crash that compromises the battery would write off any vehicle.
As for disabling the battery, every reputable shop and rescue agency has already been trained how to do that.
I guess Hertz could have bought commercial EVs (what is an example of one?) but they bought Tesla Model 3s. I rented one from them and it was fine to drive, luckily no one crashed into me.
The average collision repair costs for a Tesla Model 3 and a Toyota Camry can vary significantly due to differences in parts, technology, and repair processes.
Tesla Model 3:
Average Repair Cost: Around $4,700
Factors: Tesla repairs tend to be more expensive due to the specialized parts and technology involved. For example, a minor fender bender can cost upwards of $7,000
Toyota Camry:
Average Repair Cost: Typically ranges from $1,500 to $2,500
Factors: The costs for a Camry are generally lower due to more readily available parts and simpler repair processes. Common repairs like bumper or door damage can range from $100 to $1,500
Cost of replacing tires??? Tesla EV’s are very heavy and the tire wear is pretty extreme. I know three Tesla owners who needed to replace their tires within 40k miles? Why isn’t anybody taking about this? Tires are very expensive.
You have to replace tires anyway. Tesla is a more closed ecosystem so premiums there are higher. I have a commercial EV van that’s roughly equivalent to the gas and diesel models in tire wear.
Clearly you have never worked as a professional driver, because your comment is risible. The cost of replacing a premium set of tires starts at $1,200 US. Do this three times as much, if not two times, over the life of your vehicle and you erode the cost advantage of buying it. Simple math. Drivers who lease will feel the cost hike at time of lease. Drivers who driver very little will feel it over time, as tires need to be replaced over time no matter how many miles they’re driven. I’m already hearing complaints about this from my Tesla owning friends who cannot resell their vehicles without four, high end new tires. Tires seem to be lasting no more than 40k miles on any Tesla model from what I can make out. Which means the resale value is reduced minimum $1,200 at any given time. And high miles drivers see the costs up front and personal every year.
The gallon price is not meaningful unless you compare it to a specific vehicle since the amount of gasoline to go a mile or the Watt/hours to go a mile in an EV depend completely on the efficiency of each of the vehicles, and you can’t display a price that depends on two unknowns. variables.
Disagree. The only direct comparison metric is lifecycle costs. Cost per mile for life expectancy of the vehicle is the fairest way. You’re going to use a vehicle, so getting one that’s more cost effective to operate within your usual parameters is the more sensible option. We already apply a lot of that reasoning to ICE vehicles, otherwise mileage stats and reliability record wouldn’t be a thing. And yes, this information is readily available for all vehicles, and they are subject to the same test criteria.
Certainly in Europe, having an EV justifies moving to a variable electricity tariff and/or getting solar PV. And getting solar PV justifies getting an EV.
Solar PV:
Solar PV and EVs are complementary products. I estimate in my village (southern Germany) about 20-30% of homes have PV (another 20% have some form of solar hot water). Walking round the village, I noticed a few EVs parked in driveways. Every house with an EV had solar PV.
The proportion of residential solar to commercial/industrial solar is perhaps fairly constant, so would it be possible to match EV penetration versus Solar PV penetration?
Both variables may also be influenced by the political divide, though less so. Texas seems keen on solar power, Florida is trying to prevent it.
Variable rates:
Germany is a bit exceptional as it is only in the last few years that dynamic tariffs have been available, and there aren't many (or any?) tariffs offering cheap night time rates. In the UK, I would guess that the majority of EV charging is done at night, at about 8 pence per KWh.
Does the data take into account off-peak residential electricity prices.
There is another benefit to EV adoption with renewables, vehicle to grid technology. This allows certain vehicle plus charger setups the ability to either provide grid stabilization or local power backup. A high end example of this is the Ford Lightning, which can run a typical house for three days off of the internal battery. Ore manufacturers are moving towards this, and utilities are encouraging it as a cheaper way of managing demand than surplus generation.
Notwithstanding you can also charge “for free” from the surplus from your solar panels.
You should compare the cost per liter for fuel with fuel economy and the cost per kWh with EV economy to get a more accurate assessment. It’s 8.7 kWh per liter for petrol. Not sure what you’re paying for petrol or electricity.
Are these solar/EV owners retired or working night shift? If not how do they charge their cars when they go to work? In the US most EVs are bought by wealthy households as a second vehicle, but to reduce emissions, the cars that need to be EVs are the ones that are driven the most, which also means during the day. Germany really failed by shutting down its nuclear plants.
To reduce emissions most, we need to move to walking, bicycling, & public transit.
Most of the cars driven the most are commercial, & company fleet cars. They’re being electrified faster than private Vs, though not fast enough. They can be recharged in their impound lots from solar-powered batteries, & from the grid at night, when expensive fossil fuel generation is mostly shut off & power is increasingly renewables.
Again, evidence for the wealthy 2nd-V thing?
Germany made an excellent decision. They’ve more than replaced the nukes with renewables & would have had a completely renewable grid years ago but were slowed by the previous, conservative government & state coal politics like the US's. (It’s 60% RE now, with a 30% EV market share, increasing fast, though not fast enough.)
Gas tax? That seems to be the elephant out in the driveway. As more and more electric cars displace gas cars this will become an issue. What will happen? It'll be an interesting show for sure.
My daily driver is a Nissan NV200 battery EV. Their gas model won the recent contract for NYC cabs. Good small work van with decent payload and/or passenger capacity in any engine configuration. Sometimes a proven platform is a better choice for electrification than bespoke, especially when it comes to parts and service.
A meta level correlation may be to voting preference by state ? Also I think assuming all else being equal 🟰 cost, performance, what moves to an EV ? Increasingly I think convenience ie home charging for 50%, and security - home grown electrons vs imported oil products meaning less fuel price volatility or exposure.
The direct sales variable is possibly a bit problematic. To the extent that Tesla dominated EV sales in the USA for years, and that Tesla for that period was the only direct seller, is it more of a Tesla effect or a direct sales effect. Would Tesla have sold fewer if they had used dealers (and thus had access to all 50 states from the outset)?
Good stuff as usual.
I am still a fan of comparing cars based on total operational costs for the lifetime of a vehicle versus the total equivalent CO2 emissions. There are a couple relevant sites for drivers in the U.S. One is maintained by MIT , https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore . The other, that I just discovered, is maintained by DOE, https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/ .
I happen to live in NM and drive a 2021 RAV4 Prime, plug-in hybrid. For my edification, I compared three different 2024 models, a gas RAV4, a RAV4 Prime and an Ioniq 6 AWD EV, using the default values provided for NM and their default gas price of $3.65 / gallon, which is a
little high.
Adopting the comparative units used by MIT, the resulting values of $/month and gCO2 eq/ mile are:
Gas RAV4: $469.43 / mo. and 363.2 gCO2 / mile.
Prime RAV4: $480.20 / mo. and 213.3 gCO2 / mile.
Ioniq 6 AWD EV: $477.74 / mo. and 173.1 gCO2 / mile.
Based on this analysis, I would say choosing the plug-in over the gas version is a no brainer. Choosing between the plug-in and the all electric is harder and requires a value judgement trading off eliminating emissions vs. lifestyle choices. I enjoy the freedom of taking longer trips to Colorado and Arizona and not having to plan my stops for charging. With that said, this is probably the last ICE vehicle I will ever buy.
Nice post! I also have a Rav4 prime and also enjoy driving around the western US for vacations. I've noticed my friends that have EVs only tend to fly for vacations. I'm not sure how you'd do it but I'd like to somehow factor that into the equation.
I spend a lot of time in NM visiting family, and agree with your assessment for hybrids over EV. Too much open space between charging points for most EVs, unless near large urban centres.
Family has hybrids, work well for long road trips.
Do the gas prices include state and federal taxes? If so, you also need to include the EV registration surcharge that many states impose. Here in Idaho, that is an extra $140 per year. Since this is a flat rate not related to miles driven, its impact on cost per mile varies. While the electricity cost for driving my Leaf is about 3 cents/mile, I also pay about 3 cents/mile for that surcharge due to the limited number of miles I drive yearly. However, great ownership savings come from low maintenance costs. The maintenance costs for my Leaf in most years have been zero; if you don't include the cost of windshield washer fluid.
This can have a substantial effect. Here in Pennsylvania, the legislature has just passed a bill that will institute an annual $200 EV fee in 2025, rising to $250 in 2026. For me, driving 8,000 miles per year in my eGolf, this will be far higher than the equivalent gasoline tax I would pay, and will essentially negate my fuel cost savings.
"it’s the ratio of gasoline-to-electricity prices that matters"
I'm not sure that's right, surely it's the dollars saved from monthly outgoings that matters and that depends on the absolute difference.
Imagine one state where electricity is 1 cent per mile driven Vs 2 cents per mile for petrol. Now imagine another state where it's one dollar per mile for electricity Vs 2 dollars for gas. If you drive 100 miles per month you'll save 1 dollar per month in the first state and 100 dollars per month in the second. Clearly the incentive to go EV is stronger in state 2 even though the ratio is the same.
The only incentive in that case is to move from State 2 to State 1, and save $13,000/year.
Oh wow, I didn't realize how small the difference in fuel cost was. I thought electric cars would average 10x cheaper or more. Good advertising from the electric car industry I guess.
I also think this is using state averaged retail electricity rates. Increasing numbers of electric utilities are offering off-peak or managed charging rates that provide even larger fuel savings.
If they use solar, like California the cheap price is around noon, so workers would need to charge while parked at work, unless they are on the night shift.
You were right about my math, I meant to say over a thousand per year. You aren't quite right about this. What I'm referring to is specific rates for electric vehicle charging that utilities offer to reduce peak load, not about net energy metering, which has different rules for each state and for when then solar was installed. My prior work focused on designing rates like these, and they are very effective at passing wholesale market value to customers.
Check out any of these rates:
https://www.sce.com/residential/rates/electric-vehicle-plans,
https://www.pge.com/en/account/rate-plans/find-your-best-rate-plan/electric-home.html
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/evrate
5x cheaper is over a thousand dollars saved a year… that’s on top of very minimal repair/servicing work.
Your math is off. Average car drives 13,000 miles in America with 22 MPG and $3.10 gallon for gasoline which is $1832 for the gasoline cost. If an EV is 5x cheaper (only in Washington state), then instead it would cost $366, saving only $1466 in the best case. In California the gas cost is double, but the electricity cost is 4x.
Great analysis Hannah. It’s almost poetic coincidence that states, like Texas, which claim to have a pro-business/small government attitude, are the ones regulating carmakers from selling cars they way they want to.
It’s clear rent-seeking; trying to kill innovation in the cradle to protect incumbent donors.
Poetry doesn’t rhyme…Connecticut, Maine, Wisconsin and Michigan are not pro-business/small government states and also have these dumb laws (and some still prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays, which is a similar anti-consumer law). The reason these laws are in place is rent seeking and corrupt politicians of all stripes, who listen to big donors like scummy auto dealership owners who like their monopoly.
That's fair. Texas really stands out. They managed to attract a Tesla factory but didn't even allow the company to sell them
Given that so many people finance their car purchase (loan or lease) rather than purchase it for all-cash, the upfront outlay isn't/shouldn't be all that relevant for would-be buyers - the relevant comparison should be 'total monthly outlay' for ICE vs EV - totalling up the monthly lease/loan payment, insurance, fuel/electricity, and maintenance for each. Would be interesting to see Hannah's analytics on this comparison. I suspect you'll see monthly total outlay for EV is lower than monthly total outlay for ICE vehicle (for most reasonable assumed scenarios), but would be good for her expertise to properly analyse that.
Tim, see if my recent comment addresses your question.
Loan/lease rates are probably nearly identical, but EVs are now on average more expensive. Maintenance costs may be lower for EVs but tires and collision repairs (and thus insurance) are higher. You also need to factor in resale value, and account for the distortions of government subsidies. It probably mostly comes down to the energy prices, but a full analysis would be informative.
Great post, Hannah.
So California has the highest adoption rate but one of the lowest cost/benefit ratios of driving an EV?
If so, could it be that Californians drive EVs in greater numbers simply because they believe that it's the right thing to do?
This would be further proof that people decide not with their heads, but with their hearts.
I suggest propensity to purchase F-350s for household use might correlate quite well... (it is a bit humourous seeing an educated Brit trying to fathom USA :) )
My midwestern state charges $300 per year for registering an EV. I assume this is to make up for lost gasoline taxes. It reduces the net savings of electricity vs gas.
Very interesting work thank you. Have you considered that for many drivers, 100 miles is nowhere close to a meaningful distance for analysis?
In my family, one person is a university professor whose local time demands at work means that she can charge for free at home and at work while driving less than 50 miles per day most weeks.
Two other family members routinely drive much, much more than that. One works as a driver. Another routinely makes weekend trips of 1,000 miles or more. There are nowhere near enough fast charging opportunities to keep these other two drivers on schedule. So time is a huge cost factor , in addition to the charging cost factor, when drivers routinely drive 100 miles a day or more. I’m thinking about parents of competitive children … range is a way bigger issue than appears at first glance because primary parents and young people have crunched the numbers and find electric cars too expensive to run and impossible to fit into their schedules. And these folks are the adopters the industry was counting on for sales.
Yeah, most EVs in the US are bought by wealthy infrequent drivers like college professors, which are much less than the majority of drivers. If EVs are too expensive or have inadequate range, they won’t become the majority of miles driven and won’t reduce emissions much. If a government tries to mandate them, that government will become unelected.
Do you have any evidence for your claim about college professors?
Obviously EVs are a minority so far, but they’re new, & growing exponentially. (They’re also absolutely necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change.) But to distract from the growth & the necessity, the far right wants to characterize them as unpopular. Also, elitist, which in reality means overwhelmingly conservative, though it’s been turned into an attack on liberals by relentless right wing propaganda.
EVs with a 100 mile range meet the needs of more than 90% of US drivers. The average US EV range is 300 miles. EVs are available in the US with more than 400 mile ranges; in China, with 620 miles, but they’re being kept out of the US so far.
800 miles is expected within a year or so, with a 370 mile 10 minute charge.
Subsidies for fossil fuels need to be eliminated & replaced by subsidies for climate solutions, including whatever it takes to make bicycling, walking, public transit including high speed rail, & EVs cheap & popular enough to quickly replace ICVs.
According to surveys most EV buyers are younger, male Democrats in urban or coastal areas making over $100,000 which closely fits the demographics of college professors.
https://motorandwheels.com/electric-car-demographics/
EV sales as a percentage of new car sales in the US went from 5.9% in 2022 to 7.6% in 2023, and now stands at 6.8% now, so there is no growth and definitely not exponential.
https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/percentage-of-electric-cars-in-us.html
The current combination of price, range , and other factors are not enticing people in the US to buy them even with the distortion of. You can taut the ranges and efficiency and whatever advantages you want, but people signing the contracts obviously don’t value that very much. I’m against tariffs, but I don’t think Chinese EVs would sell well here even at their lower costs. Chinese buyers value mostly the large screens and connected entertainment in the new EVs whereas US buyers value practically, convenience and comfort over digital dashboards.
I agree that fossil fuel subsidies should be eliminated with all other government subsidies, let the people decide what is the best for their own transportation needs. Bicycles and trains are great, but only if the geography and climate are hospitable. Living out here in sparsely populated southwestern deserts is not a place where they are feasible for daily commuting.
If fossil fuels were eliminated tomorrow, billions of people would starve to death, before many more dying when winter sets in. The IPCC itself doesn’t attribute any current disasters to climate change, other than more heat waves, but 10 times as many people die from cold compared to heat.
Global EV sales are growing exponentially. But the US is run by psychopaths running psychopathic corporations; both are lying & lots worse to keep power, profits, privilege & position. People who could save hundreds or thousands a year & dramatically reduce the harm they cause by switching to EVs have been soured on them by those lies.
"US buyers value practically,...” If by that you meant "practicality”, Ha ha ha ha ha! Good one. US buyers value driving a tank that’s bigger than their neighbor’s tank.
Bicycles & trains are necessary to give civilization & nature even a decent chance to survive. So are EVs—not just passenger cars, though EVs with a 100 mile range meet the needs of more than 90% of US drivers & the average US EV range is 300 miles, EVs are available in the US with more than 400 mile ranges; in China, with 620 miles. (It’s not the car, it’s the battery, & those will work just fine in the US, too.) All Vs have to be electrified; everything that moves & everything powered that doesn’t. Mining, farming, logging, construction, service & emergency Vs, trucks... everything.
“Cold” includes moderate cold, ie, exposure, in the arguments by lying denying delayalists, ARFs (anti-renewable fanatics), auntyBEVs, liars-for-hire. But they don’t say that part. In the US, extreme heat is one of many kinds of disasters being increased by climate catastrophe.
“Heat is the number one cause of weather-related deaths in the US. What happens to our bodies when we overheat?”
The Guardian, Aug 17, 2023
Ridiculous strawperson arguments aren’t helpful. Obviously, NO ONE is saying to eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow, even though they kill 10 million people every year & seriously sicken a hundred million more, while killing uncountable others & causing poverty, inequality, autocracy, oppression, repression, destruction, climate catastrophe. Sane people are saying we need to eliminate fossil fuels as fast as possible—as fast as they can be replaced by efficiency, wiser live, & clean safe fast cheap reliable resilient renewable energy. Sane people are saying we need to do that vastly faster than we are. But unsurprisingly, it still won’t happen in the next 24 hours.
Everything Buzen said is a dishonest deceptive denying delayalist/ARF/auntyBEV argument we’ve heard & debunked thousands of times. They should stop, & go with the truth for once instead.
"even with the distortion of. You can taut the ranges and efficiency and whatever advantages you want”
Huh?
This is great! Could you please try running this comparison in a "dollars per gallon" equivalent?
Polling suggests there's a huge knowledge gap about the cost of driving EVs (as well as the upfront cost, and range) among US drivers, like in other countries.
https://newautomotive.org/research/driver-attitudes-to-evs
One reason for this might be that we are all more used to thinking in terms of a fuel cost like dollars per gallon. So the best way to start tackling this knowledge gap might be to start talking about the cost of driving an EV using the intuitive cost metric that everyone already understands.
Hey, we could even ask all gas stations to display the average "refuelling" cost of an EV, in dollars per gallon, on their gas price signs!
Have already done this calculation for my EV, although in metric not imperial. Ratios are the same in any event.
A gallon of gasoline is 33.7kWh. So $3 per gallon gasoline is roughly 10¢ per kWh, and these numbers are close to the average USA energy costs overall which makes the mental math easy. That sets a baseline of equivalency in energy costs. Then you look at the efficiency of the EV in kWh per mile and an equivalent gasoline vehicle in miles per gallon. A good EV range is 4 to 5 miles per kWh, which is what I get. This allows you to get a dollar per mile rate for both options. 30mpg at $3 per gallon is 10¢ per mile, 10¢ per kWh is approximately 2¢ per mile. Charging is close enough to 100% efficient as to not make a difference for energy storage comparison, just as the varying real world driving conditions affect vehicles similarly enough to make the ratios constant.
So if you average 10,000 miles a year using typical mpg and EV range, that represents an average cost savings of $800 per year for the EV over gas. More use means more savings. And when you factor in servicing, the EV gets even more cost attractive.
Repairs are more expensive for EVs which is why Hertz got rid of most of the ones they had bought. Apparently even minor collisions can cause battery damage, and even body damage requires special knowledge on how to disable the high voltage battery systems to avoid injuries.
Depends on vehicle. I have a commercial one so a lot more robust than passenger vehicles. Battery is well inboard of vehicle perimeter and a crash that compromises the battery would write off any vehicle.
As for disabling the battery, every reputable shop and rescue agency has already been trained how to do that.
I guess Hertz could have bought commercial EVs (what is an example of one?) but they bought Tesla Model 3s. I rented one from them and it was fine to drive, luckily no one crashed into me.
The average collision repair costs for a Tesla Model 3 and a Toyota Camry can vary significantly due to differences in parts, technology, and repair processes.
Tesla Model 3:
Average Repair Cost: Around $4,700
Factors: Tesla repairs tend to be more expensive due to the specialized parts and technology involved. For example, a minor fender bender can cost upwards of $7,000
Toyota Camry:
Average Repair Cost: Typically ranges from $1,500 to $2,500
Factors: The costs for a Camry are generally lower due to more readily available parts and simpler repair processes. Common repairs like bumper or door damage can range from $100 to $1,500
https://www.geekwire.com/2023/spendy-and-slow-tesla-repairs-frustrate-drivers-as-automotive-tech-drives-up-cost-of-collisions/
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/20/heres-what-7000-of-damage-looks-like-on-a-tesla-model-3/
Cost of replacing tires??? Tesla EV’s are very heavy and the tire wear is pretty extreme. I know three Tesla owners who needed to replace their tires within 40k miles? Why isn’t anybody taking about this? Tires are very expensive.
You have to replace tires anyway. Tesla is a more closed ecosystem so premiums there are higher. I have a commercial EV van that’s roughly equivalent to the gas and diesel models in tire wear.
Clearly you have never worked as a professional driver, because your comment is risible. The cost of replacing a premium set of tires starts at $1,200 US. Do this three times as much, if not two times, over the life of your vehicle and you erode the cost advantage of buying it. Simple math. Drivers who lease will feel the cost hike at time of lease. Drivers who driver very little will feel it over time, as tires need to be replaced over time no matter how many miles they’re driven. I’m already hearing complaints about this from my Tesla owning friends who cannot resell their vehicles without four, high end new tires. Tires seem to be lasting no more than 40k miles on any Tesla model from what I can make out. Which means the resale value is reduced minimum $1,200 at any given time. And high miles drivers see the costs up front and personal every year.
The gallon price is not meaningful unless you compare it to a specific vehicle since the amount of gasoline to go a mile or the Watt/hours to go a mile in an EV depend completely on the efficiency of each of the vehicles, and you can’t display a price that depends on two unknowns. variables.
What about using the national average efficiency of cars on the road, both ICE and EVs?
Disagree. The only direct comparison metric is lifecycle costs. Cost per mile for life expectancy of the vehicle is the fairest way. You’re going to use a vehicle, so getting one that’s more cost effective to operate within your usual parameters is the more sensible option. We already apply a lot of that reasoning to ICE vehicles, otherwise mileage stats and reliability record wouldn’t be a thing. And yes, this information is readily available for all vehicles, and they are subject to the same test criteria.
Certainly in Europe, having an EV justifies moving to a variable electricity tariff and/or getting solar PV. And getting solar PV justifies getting an EV.
Solar PV:
Solar PV and EVs are complementary products. I estimate in my village (southern Germany) about 20-30% of homes have PV (another 20% have some form of solar hot water). Walking round the village, I noticed a few EVs parked in driveways. Every house with an EV had solar PV.
The proportion of residential solar to commercial/industrial solar is perhaps fairly constant, so would it be possible to match EV penetration versus Solar PV penetration?
Both variables may also be influenced by the political divide, though less so. Texas seems keen on solar power, Florida is trying to prevent it.
Variable rates:
Germany is a bit exceptional as it is only in the last few years that dynamic tariffs have been available, and there aren't many (or any?) tariffs offering cheap night time rates. In the UK, I would guess that the majority of EV charging is done at night, at about 8 pence per KWh.
Does the data take into account off-peak residential electricity prices.
There is another benefit to EV adoption with renewables, vehicle to grid technology. This allows certain vehicle plus charger setups the ability to either provide grid stabilization or local power backup. A high end example of this is the Ford Lightning, which can run a typical house for three days off of the internal battery. Ore manufacturers are moving towards this, and utilities are encouraging it as a cheaper way of managing demand than surplus generation.
Notwithstanding you can also charge “for free” from the surplus from your solar panels.
You should compare the cost per liter for fuel with fuel economy and the cost per kWh with EV economy to get a more accurate assessment. It’s 8.7 kWh per liter for petrol. Not sure what you’re paying for petrol or electricity.
Are these solar/EV owners retired or working night shift? If not how do they charge their cars when they go to work? In the US most EVs are bought by wealthy households as a second vehicle, but to reduce emissions, the cars that need to be EVs are the ones that are driven the most, which also means during the day. Germany really failed by shutting down its nuclear plants.
To reduce emissions most, we need to move to walking, bicycling, & public transit.
Most of the cars driven the most are commercial, & company fleet cars. They’re being electrified faster than private Vs, though not fast enough. They can be recharged in their impound lots from solar-powered batteries, & from the grid at night, when expensive fossil fuel generation is mostly shut off & power is increasingly renewables.
Again, evidence for the wealthy 2nd-V thing?
Germany made an excellent decision. They’ve more than replaced the nukes with renewables & would have had a completely renewable grid years ago but were slowed by the previous, conservative government & state coal politics like the US's. (It’s 60% RE now, with a 30% EV market share, increasing fast, though not fast enough.)
So I found this
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1421967/solar-energy-cumulative-residential-systems-installed-by-state-us/
and this, Number of EV's registered by state.
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962
If someone has a Statista account and can get the tabular data, a plot of the two might show a strong corelation.
Gas tax? That seems to be the elephant out in the driveway. As more and more electric cars displace gas cars this will become an issue. What will happen? It'll be an interesting show for sure.
My daily driver is a Nissan NV200 battery EV. Their gas model won the recent contract for NYC cabs. Good small work van with decent payload and/or passenger capacity in any engine configuration. Sometimes a proven platform is a better choice for electrification than bespoke, especially when it comes to parts and service.
A meta level correlation may be to voting preference by state ? Also I think assuming all else being equal 🟰 cost, performance, what moves to an EV ? Increasingly I think convenience ie home charging for 50%, and security - home grown electrons vs imported oil products meaning less fuel price volatility or exposure.
The direct sales variable is possibly a bit problematic. To the extent that Tesla dominated EV sales in the USA for years, and that Tesla for that period was the only direct seller, is it more of a Tesla effect or a direct sales effect. Would Tesla have sold fewer if they had used dealers (and thus had access to all 50 states from the outset)?