Posted on 01/03/2022 8:00:39 AM PST by rktman
Summary of Study < Embed > Bottom Line: There is a growing climate change goal to displace internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE, i.e., those running on oil-based gasoline) with ones that are powered by electric batteries (EVs). It is routinely claimed that this will not just reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help fight climate change but will also ultimately be cheaper for the consuming public. The present study thus conducts a rigorous analysis of the real-world costs to fuel both types of vehicles. Importantly, the study examines all categories of costs, including several that are commonly omitted in other EV studies. The primary conclusion here is that EVs can be more expensive to fuel than their ICE counterparts.
(Excerpt) Read more at andersoneconomicgroup.com ...
I hear you. Then it will change my equation of whether the expense is worth the fun or not.
However, with the tax incentives at the time I got mine, I was able to get back some of the huge amount I pay in taxes, as well as pay what I am sure are incredibly low overnight electric charging rates based on some wasteful government subsidies.
—”If my ICE powered car catches fire in my garage, the Fire dept. 2 minutes from my house will put it out.. Heck, even I will try to put it out, in the 2 minutes before they get here.”
As I have posted here before, my neighbor’s new car burned in his garage and took out the house.
I can see the firehouse from my house, it is fully manned 24/7.
The neighbor was cutting his lawn when he saw smoke coming from the open garage door.
He tried, but could not get it out.
His garden hose did not help either, water on a gasoline fire, not so good.
It went up incredibly fast!
A friend was driving by as it started and came running our house yelling, the firemen were already there, but the fire was HUGE!!! CRAZY HUGE FIRE!!!
Watch the video, 8,000 ford fires from one model...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nlL6PRkdZU
Range obsession drives me crazy. It’s wasteful to put in such large battery capacity when 95% of driving is easily under 100 miles a day. The ICE cars are for the longer trips, the EV is a daily commuter car. It’s unfortunate to keep seeing this attempt to get more range with associated increased costs, weight, and waste.
What they should be pushing for is good value in the 100 mile range. EV’s really only make sense for the multi-car household IMO. Even though I have in enjoyed mine, there is no way in Hell I would have EVs as my only fuel type.
You really think in 10-20 years you're going to have a choice?
Actually, I do. I think there is a going to be a moment where the bulk of people realize the wastefulness and unreliability of too much EV and there will be a swing the other direction.
The Rats will simply use taxes to make it too expensive to use gasoline-powered cars.
Read the article. I’m calling BS on it.
1. Just as ICE vehicles experienced over many years, the development of an infrastructure occurs in concentrated areas, then spreads out from there. EVs aren’t an “everywhere everyone anytime” solution - yet; neither was ICE. Averaging “opportunity costs” of rare-EV vs common-EV areas is disingenuous. (This is akin to anti-gun “studies” averaging “murders by established criminals” with “murders by upstanding gun-owning citizens” and concluding both groups should be forcibly disarmed.)
2. Electricity prices given are jacked up. My normal electricity cost is substantially below the lowest price they list. If new owners install a separate-metering 240V line to a dedicated charger, doing most charging at off-peak hours, electricity costs can be mostly 1/10th that of the study’s claim. Amortizing charger cost is considered, but is then abused by minimizing its use.
3. Way too much is made of “commercial charging” (incurring substantial power & time markup). If you get an EV, you charge it mostly at home - personal time spent involved in the charging process is utterly negligible (get out of car, plug it in, done ... unplug car, get in, done), and costs a small fraction of commercial high-speed chargers.
4. Study over-magnifies “opportunity costs”, claiming that because it allegedly takes 5 minutes (!) to plug/unplug an EV (actually takes seconds), that the cumulative 4.5 hours per month equates to billable hours lost.
5. Researchers explicitly equate “entry level EVs” with “mid luxury ICE” prices. $27,400 is not comparable to $40,000+.
6. After pages of explaining how they’re going to mangle the numbers (admitting unrealistic assumptions), they completely leave out entry- and mid-level EV mostly-at-home charging costs, particularly ignoring those who just plug their EV into a 110V outlet >95% of the time.
7. Too much use of “analysis/proof by insult” occurs.
8. No consideration of related vehicle maintenance costs is applied. Oil changes, mechanical failures, increased brake maintenance, etc plus the much-considered (for EVs) “opportunity costs” thereof are completely ignored.
More analysis at https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38043667/study-electric-cars-higher-cost-questions/ and other sites.
The article is not about “green” costs i.e. CO2 emissions. It’s about real $ costs, and goes to great lengths to skew its conclusions.
“had zero chance of burning down my $1M house”
ICE vehicles do not have a zero chance either. It happens.
BTW: my last SUV burned itself up spontaneously.
Your data lines up with almost everyone else in the US that can fuel up at home. It is far less costly (outside the purchase price), and far more convenient. I get people don’t like BEV being forced on them or like to subsidize well off people to buy them. But that does not mean we should also “fake” data to make some non existent point. The left does that enough. To many people tie their existence up with their things and are not able to adapt to change. I cannot justify the high price of a BEV right now when I don’t drive enough to warrant that very high purchase price in fuel and maint. savings.
LOL! They probably got paid big bucks for their “study” as well. It’s info to be mulled over and conclusions made and differing opinions presented, like most things.
Worry not my codeflying friend. An EV advertised with a 100 mile range as several of the more affordable choices have... has a range in reality that is closer to 50 miles. First there is the exaggeration factor which is typically 20% to 50% or more. Many of the specs have obviously been based on theory more than practice. (If we sell a car that weighs 4000 pounds with a 30kwh battery my calculator says it should be able to go 100 miles.)
Then if you charge to only 80-90% as recommended and discharge to only 20% you can see that you are going to get nowhere near the advertised range. Then there are the known issues this time of the year... if the batteries are allowed to get cold their capacity drops off dramatically. In hot weather you have to be careful in some cars that your batteries do not overheat which means limiting speed and acceleration and not using the air conditioner.
If it wasn’t for Covid, the MSM would be singing the praises of the Chinese electric car industry and about how they were going to enter the US market in 2024 with $25K Electric cars.
China doesn’t have a path to “Carbon Neutral” other than dumping Trillions of dollars worth of green Tech on the world and taking the virtual “Carbon Credits”.
Covid likely saved thousands of US houses from burning to the ground from 2025-2030.
Thanks Dr. Fauci?
Except....that hasn’t been my experience at all for the last 6 years. I started at about 102 miles (almost as it was advertised) and six years later, I get about 80ish.
Cold range has been lower over the years for sure, sometimes forcing me to plug the car in every night during really cold spells for charging while I sleep. Hot temperatures even near 100 haven’t really had that much of an impact over the years. About 60 - 78 is the ideal temperature, which means most of the morning commutes are at ideal temperature in the South.
Also, EV’s are the opposite of ICE vehicles in that range is really quite good in slower traffic situations, and worse at high speeds when there is no traffic.
We live in an area where the power goes out frequently. Fortunately we have natural gas which currently costs less than a third to run a generator than gasoline. When our power goes out it often stays out for days and sometimes weeks. We have a 30 year old Generac with a Briggs/Stratton IC 10HP engine. I have no clue how many thousands of hours it now has on it. It is getting a little tired but because natural gas runs cleaner it keeps going and going. We do have a backup in storage but it has never had to be used. It puts out 5000 watts and we can run our entire house on it, but it does take a slight amount of planning.
It puts out 240 volts and if you try to run two high wattage major appliances on the same 120v side of that it will cause problems. Most frequently if you have the 1200 watt microwave or washing machine going and you try to use the toaster or hair dryer plugged in on the same side it will cause the generator to sputter and start browning out everything. It happens immediately so you just turn off the hair dryer or toaster and plug it into a different circuit. Other than that there are no other real issues.
The bigger the generator the more fuel that you are going to be using while it is idling away, I use a watt-meter and other advanced metering devices and it adds up to a substantial amount of extra fuel.
We typically use around 48 kwh in a day. Just check the electric company's meter a few days in a row to find out how much you normally use. It will vary depending on the time of the year. We run fridges and freezers on our generator but only smaller air-conditioning units. Most F150 lightnings have a 98kwh battery. Theoretically that would mean 2 days worth of power for us. But in reality you should not charge that big battery to more than 80-90% or discharge it to less than 20%. So you can see that it really only can provide closer to one days worth of power for my family.
Thanks for sharing your real world experiences. This is much more valuable than car maker claims. It is not unlike all the people who believe they need to buy a giant generator to power their house. I was one of them once, we had a much larger fuel hog generator to begin with. So I do understand what you were saying about range.
I would have expected a bigger difference between the two.
And that’s if the F150’is/was fully charged when it’s hooked up to the house.
And like you said, you run into trouble with 2 big appliances on at the same time if you’re on a generator. If you don’t want trouble The your generator has to be BIG.
My brother has a 7500k, running watts, generator that was purchased after Hurricane Sandy, on his house and he has to turn certain things off and hit switches depending on what he wants to use.
I was born in 1944, when I was in high school every problem known to man was going to be solved before I had a grey hair and there were not going to be any new problems. No one was going to need to work by now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.