Br eit ba rt com

Thanks to skyrocketing electricity prices, it now costs more to drive the average electric vehicle 100 miles than it does to drive a gas-powered car the same distance.

A report from the Anderson Economic Group (AEG) shows that driving a gas-powered car 100 miles costs an average of $11.29. However, the cost for people who drive electric vehicles and charge up at home is $11.60 per hundred miles. A little more expensive.

But.

For those electric car owners who use recharging stations, the average cost for 100 miles is substantially higher at $14.40.

I’ve owned a Tesla for about a year and a half now. Driving ~2100 miles a month, last YEAR I spent $736 on energy usage recharging the car. I’ve never once needed to go to a supercharger.

This "article" is based on a report from AEG (as mentioned in the article). If you actually READ that report, it also points out that, even in areas where this is the case, it is the first month in over 18 months where this has been the case. So, by an overwhelming majority, the EV was still cheaper almost 95% of the time. Jason gives us a great real-world example of that.

The same report also notes that this one month of being cheaper is only for "average/mid-price" cars under certain circumstances (i.e. not charging at home and using commercial chargers). If you compare just charging at home, it's still cheaper to run an EV than gas for ALL types of cars. If you compare higher-end/luxury vehicles, it's still cheaper to run a luxury EV than a luxury gas no matter where you charge.

I also love that jab about "at least you're saving the planet, right?" Um, well, yes. That should also count for something in many of these situations.

So, in summary, if you ignore the headline/click-bait, the report actually shows that, over the past 18+ months, EVs have been cheaper like 94.5% of the time for the average car -- and 100% of the time for luxury vehicles.

I read the same article, and it does seem a bit cherry picked. I'm not doubting the facts, but perhaps not all the facts in all situations were considered.

Here's what I see are the challenges EVs will have to overcome:

1) Orders of magnitude more robust electric grid required. This includes retrofitting older housing and neighborhoods with new service panels and feeder lines, much of which will likely be beyond the affordability for low-income and will have to be Govt (taxpayer) subsidized.

2) Additional electrical generating capacity.

3) More charging stations in more locations. This will be a huge challenge in places where parking is already limited and power lines cannot run over sidewalks.

4) Speed up charging times. I will note there have been significant improvements recently, but they still need to cut the time down to no more than 5 minutes to get up to an 80% charge, to avoid massive back ups at the "pumps".

5) Cost. Until EVs can sell on their own without Govt (taxpayer) subsidies, they can't be considered to have sales as measured by the current market demand any more than an "adult" still living in mom and dad's basement can be considered independent.

6) Disposal of batteries, which today is a significant environmental hazard. Reminds me of CFL lightbulbs... Govt mandated them but forgot to have a decent plan for disposing of them.

7) Cost of new batteries after first pack goes dead. Comparable to an engine rebuild on an ICE.

8) Loss of range in cold climates.

9) Mining of component materials in countries well-known for using child and slave labor.

Regarding technical issues: I've seen great progress in some of the above since I first started following EVs in 2008, and technology will no doubt improve as it did with ICEs. There's always a ramp up period for any "new" tech. That said, I think it will be slower and far more costly. ICEs/petroleum were "low hinging fruit"; EVs are the fruit at the top of the tree. People adopted ICEs quickly because they were a vast improvement in speed and reliability over horse drawn vehicles. In contrast, EVs do essentially all the same things as ICEs do with the same speed (about 40-70 mph average), so there is little to no gain in functionality. EV's only real clear advantage is less carbon emissions and possibly savings on "fuel". People like to say they're motivated by reducing climate change, but when it comes to the wallet, what people do doesn't always match what they say.

Regarding ethical issues: Hopefully, as awareness of the mining industry grows, more ethical solutions will be found. That may comes with a significant price tag increase.

My greatest concern though is going to be the simple fact that energy density per pound in an EV battery pack vs gas in ICEs is still wildly in favor of ICEs, and as we know the more efficiency you try to squeeze out of something, the more complex and expensive it gets. There's always a trade off in engineering: you don't get cheap, efficient, and reliable. Usually, you pick 2 out of 3.

How do the challenges balance against the world-wide carbon footprint / climate change? Difficult to say. Much pollution comes from countries like China and India, where we have zero control.

Bottom line: I'm not ready to go EV yet. I see the clear advantages in some aspects, but there's still a long road to go, and I don't see them as a net positive yet. I'm happy to let others work out the kinks and adopt the tech to lower costs overall before I jump in. Meanwhile, my gift to the Earth is both my wife and I work from home and don't commute, so our carbon footprint is much lower than many of the staunchest "Greenies" by nature of our work/life situation.

Who will pay the taxes to "maintain" the roads?

The biggest problem I see is that the states that are mandating electric cars and tractor/trailers and outlawing new gas cars, is that those states are already not producing enough electricity for domestic use. How are they going to power 40 million electric cars and delivery vans and trucks when they can't even keep the lights on?

A lot of environmental harm to make the car (batteries!) and to make the electricity (coal).

The EV Porsche is outselling the gas model.

I'm waiting for the electric Rolls Royce Spectre. Talk about a quiet ride!

BRAD

If you would like to see trends, if your lucky enough to be a big city that has a new technology expo. You will be blown away at some of the new technologies that will be coming in the next few years. esp new formula batteries that will be far better than the ones we currently have that do not use expensive lithimum.They Charge much faster and go much farther.Also new tech solar cells that are cheaper and more efficent.they also can use these batteries to store energy for night time.

Then new car technology that are not only more efficient with greater range in themselves. but have some innovated ways of generation some energy by rolling forward.

Things move forward, perhaps think about your first computer. I remember when I was looking to by one, magazines said to be sure one should get 20mb of storage,..I don't think 20mb would ever fire up this one.And then remember all the different and terrible operating systems? Mostly crude systems from universities,..like ARCHIE is one I remember,.couldn't do much work with them,

I remember too,..looking to but a DVD player,..about 700.00.

in a couple of years they could do the same thing for 39.95.

AllyM: You've been saying that forever. It isn't an issue. And, even if it WAS an issue, do you not see that all of our gas cars are also fuel injected and controlled by electronics? They would be just as "fried" regardless of if the car engine/motor happens to be powered by gas or battery.

Sorry, but your gas Buick is going to be just as fried if your magical "solar explosion" ever happens. (But, it won't.)

I did not read the article, but...

"at least you're saving the planet"...uh...maybe not

The way the metals are obtained for batteries is disastrous to the planet...and the people mining it are doing so at their own peril/health risks.

And where is the infrastructure going to come from for all the charging stations needed. I was a home inspector for 7 years and I'd estimate in Indiana that half or more of the homes here are older than 50 years and have 60A electrical service...there's no way an effective charging station can be installed in a house like that...the gov't will have to give tax credits for upgrades to all those houses...at a huge expense to the taxpayers.

I don't need to argue over the details of that -- but the point was that someone was taking a jab at someone trying to do something better for the environment as if that wasn't a good reason to do something. In other words, they were arguing that the only reason to do it was to save money and that EVs apparently weren't saving money over gas. (Which, we learned above, isn't really true except in very limited circumstances.)

My point was that there may be reasons OTHER than pure cash savings over going with an EV. I still think there are, but we don't even need to get into the gritty details to be able to just agree that there might be non-cost-savings reasons to do it. (And, again, contrary to what someone was trying to push here, there certainly ARE still cost reasons to do it in most circumstances.)

(If you want to get into the gritty details, we could. I just don't think it would be worth it. Things like the fact that most of the EVs until recently used nickel-based batteries and of all the nickel mining, only a tiny percentage goes to battery production -- and most are now switching to lithium which is even less taxing on the earth. So, yes, metal mining does disasterious things to the planet, but the vast majority of it has very little to do with EVs and battery production.)

Also, from what I hear of Hydrogen cell cars so far, they are significantly less efficient than even gas cars and tons less than EVs. Hydrogen is just not a good road fuel. You either need very large tanks or very high pressure tanks -- neither of which makes sense on our roads. We need to go a LONG way with hydrogen cells. It's not just "not quite there yet". It's more like a long ways from there.

Note that Hydrogen seems to be what the existing fossil fuel industry is pushing. It's a bit of a smokescreen, IMO, to have something to go against EVs. But from a tech and efficiency standpoint, it just doesn't make much sense as an auto fuel.

Heck, Mercedes had an H2 initiative that they basically abandoned over 2 years ago, if I recall. They realized that it just wasn't viable.

Honda has been working on it -- and GM is using their tech, I believe -- but with the goal of using it for military situations. Toyota has been trying for a while, but it doesn't look like much has moved forward in years. And both Honda and Toyota have finally introduced BEVs even though they resisted for years (saying that H2 was the plan). In other words, lots of big companies that thought they could make H2 work have given up and moved to EVs.

Finally, you're talking about infrastructure above... Well, there is almost NO infrastructure for supporting H2. We'd have to build ALL of it. At least we have existing infra for EVs. (But I do agree that some households - including my own -- would have some trouble support EV chargers as they are now.)

Can't move forward until you find what works.

I do not believe that EV's as they are right now are the answer. Nor do I believe that hydrogen is.

But we need to allow people to test the products. Run the cycles and then gather enough data to make a rational decision.

I say let the dinosaurs keep running my truck and heating my house while the other tech works out the kinks.

My son bought an EV last fall. He drove up to see me over Thanksgiving and his normally 8 1/2 hour drive took 14 1/2. In rural Texas there are no fast chargers. He came back to see me over Christmas and decided to fly. That pretty much sums up the state of the industry.

Robert: If you think EVs are only Teslas, you are way behind the times. Heck, I see people buying $65k+ pickup trucks these days. You can choose from a LOT of EVs for under that...

BillW: How come I don't hear people saying the same thing about beef or dairy? If beef is such a great thing, how come it needs to be so heavily subsidized with taxpayer money? If cow's milk is such a great thing, how come it needs to be so heavily subsidized with taxpayer money?

Over the next 5 years, it is estimated that the total US subsidies for EVs will be under $2 billion.

For comparison, the total US subsidies for meat and dairy is about $38 billion per year -- so roughly $190 billion over the next 5 years.

$2B to help with EVs is a drop in the bucket.

We subsidize things all the time for various reasons. But I only see people complain when it happens to be the thing that they don't feel like buying today...

MikeA: Your unique example for a all-day drive in an EV certainly does NOT "sum up the state of the industry" even by a long stretch.

First, there are about 2000 EV charging stations in Texas already. It is getting much better.

That being said, sure, there are examples where an EV isn't a good solution. But there are a lot more where they work just fine (i.e. generally under 200 mile trips -- so LOTS of people driving for normal things every single day). And, cross-country travel is usually possible too with a few exceptions like yours.

So, to say that your very unique situation "sums up the state of the industry" is just being blind. You have to see that that absolutely is not the situation for MOST EV drivers, right?

If in a flash of an eye - there was a huge blast.....and all humans on this planet were suddenly just gone. Would the planet survive?

I am inclined to think without humans it would not only survive but it would thrive.

I don't doubt that humans are changing the environment. 400 years ago we believe the world was flat. The science of the time said it was flat and if you didn't believe it, you were against society. Guess what - if you are against a prevailing believe society labels once more.

BillW: That's great about the government subsidies. I think you are more of an exception though. Again, I hear people complain about under $2B going to EVs all the time -- but the same people never seem to mention that we all have to subsidize beef and dairy to almost 10 times that amount...

MikeA: Lots of EVs can go 200 miles on a charge. You can live pretty darn rural and not drive more than 200 miles a day. EVs work just fine in most areas -- even very remote/rural areas.

You're talking about a LONG all-day trip (even by gas car) in the 2nd largest state in the USA. Again, that is an exception and not your average "rural" area that "50% of the population" lives in. The vast majority of the population -- even those in very rural areas -- would be fine driving an EV every day and charging it at home.

They'd likely be fine for most most cross-country trips too, but I'll grant you some expansion there is still needed.

But the idea that they are "totally ineffective for half of Americans" doesn't make any sense. Again, for anyone driving less than 200 miles per day, they can be very effective -- even in very rural areas -- because the charger is at home, of course!

To be very clear, _I_ live in rural America. I'd have no problem driving an EV every day here. I'd charge my car at home. And, heck, even here in "rural America", there is a Citco station that I pass on the way to work (about 20 miles from my home) with Fast Chargers.

John, other than the basic functions of government, granted by the constitution, I don't believe government should be meddling in anything else.

Again, that's great, but I think you are an exception. Lots of people like to PRETEND that that is their stance, but then when they find out how much hamburger would cost them without billions and billions in government subsidies every year, suddenly their are fine with that sort of "meddling."

But, again, great if you are an exception to that. Like I said, I see people whining about a couple billion (over 5 years) in EV subsidies -- but I never hear those same people getting upset about the beef and dairy subsidies that are almost 10x that amount every year...

Typo: I meant "suddenly THEY are fine with that sort of 'meddling'", of course.

I’ve had mine for a year and a half and have NEVER needed to charge anywhere other than home. I drive 110 miles round trip to work daily and still have plenty of power left to drive wherever I need. I wake up every day with a “full tank” that will get me 300+ miles and get into a warm car every morning. I haven’t had to waste any time sitting at a gas station. The fact that it does most of the driving for me is just a bonus.

This is the first and only ev I’ve driven and in my opinion, they’re superior in every way but I have no interest in converting anyone. Drive what you want. Meanwhile I’ll enjoy embarrassing the beefiest of muscle cars out there that always try to race me day after day.

It's not tops on my list, but my purchase decisions are affected by the environmental impact of what I'm buying. It's good people are aware that EVs aren't a climate change panacea and they impact the environment in different ways that ICEs do.

*in some states.

Note that several states have already introduced "EV registration fees" that end up being HIGHER than the average person pays in gas tax every year. In Texas, for example, the proposed fees for EVs are 212% what most people pay in gas taxes in that state. In your state (PA), the proposed fees for 2025 are 48% higher than the gas tax that gas drivers pay.

So, in some states, such as yours, EV drivers will soon be paying much MORE than their fair share to pay for the roads. You'll need to be thanking those EV drivers for paying part of YOUR share of the road tax...

Also, note that something like 25-30% of money for roads come from gas taxes. So, even if they were NOT adding fees for EVs, EV drivers wouldn't be getting a "free ride" -- they'd be paying maybe 25-30% less than gas drivers.

So, in states without EV fees, they are getting about a 1/3 discount. But in states like yours (and many others) that are adding EV fees, it looks like they will be (unfairly) paying anywhere from 50-200+% MORE than gas drivers.

After reading this thread, I elected to look up what the ranges were on Tesla's and looks like John was spot on. I then wondered - as I often do, 295 miles isn't bad but that is a two wheel drive car.