Electric Cars Are Already Cheaper To Own and Run Than Petrol Or Diesel, Says Study (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Electric cars are already cheaper to own and run than petrol or diesel cars in the UK, US and Japan, new research shows. The lower cost is a key factor driving the rapid rise in electric car sales now underway, say the researchers. At the moment the cost is partly because of government support, but electric cars are expected to become the cheapest option without subsidies in a few years. The researchers analyzed the total cost of ownership of cars over four years, including the purchase price and depreciation, fuel, insurance, taxation and maintenance. They were surprised to find that pure electric cars came out cheapest in all the markets they examined: UK, Japan, Texas and California.

Pure electric cars have much lower fuel costs -- electricity is cheaper than petrol or diesel -- and maintenance costs, as the engines are simpler and help brake the car, saving on brake pads. In the UK, the annual cost was about 10% lower than for petrol or diesel cars in 2015, the latest year analyzed. Hybrid cars which cannot be plugged in and attract lower subsidies, were usually a little more expensive than petrol or diesel cars. Plug-in hybrids were found to be significantly more expensive -- buyers are effectively paying for two engines in one car, the researchers said. The exception in this case was Japan, where plug-in hybrids receive higher subsidies. The study has been published in the journal Applied Energy.

Comments

Re: Corrects its own headline in the third sentenc

[Anonymous Coward]

eGolf lease deposit - $4000
Lease monthly payment - $50
Price to drive to work 12000 miles at 4m/kWh and $0.11 per kWh - $330
Total cost of ownership over 3 years - $6740

Golf lease deposit - $3000
Golf lease monthly price - $170
Price to drive 12000 miles at 36mpg and $2.60 per gal - $867
Price for yearly service - $300
Total cost of ownership over 3 years - $12451.

Re:Corrects its own headline in the third sentence

[serviscope_minor]

Most electricity is generated from fossil fuels, so it would be hit by the same tax.

Why? Powerstations, even coal fired ones, don't dump huge amounts of very nasty particulates into the air at ground level right in the middle of densely populated cities.

Do note that EVs are not more efficient than ICE vehicles. Take the ~40% efficiency of an electricity-generating coal plant, multiply it by 90% transmission losses, by the 75% battery charging efficiency, and approx 85% electric motor efficiency, and you get (0.4)*(0.9)*(0.75)*(0.85) = 0.2295. Or 23% energy efficiency for EVs.

So basically, you get much better pollution control without any loss in efficiency? Sounds like a huge win to me.

Except...

That's if you have an old coal plant. If you have a combined cycle plant you'll hit 62% thermal efficiency on the front end, never mind if you use nuclear or renewables.

Your figures for charging are pessimistic. Charging is more like 80-90% efficient.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/doc...

Distribution losses are more like 6.5% in the US not 10% that you quoted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And even some random low power cheapo electric motor easily beats 85% efficiency:

https://www.acdcdrives.co.uk/t...

And larger motors are almost always more efficient.

And even if we take your incredibly pessimistic numbers, you still have the advantage of electric braking. But more realistically, the efficiency is more like 42% plant to wheel (47% taking the more optimistic end of the range).

So penalizing technologies solely based on pollution emissions is equivalent to penalizing higher energy efficiency. Higher efficiency and higher pollution come as a package deal with combustion processes.

Which is a phenomenally good argument for electric cars. If you want the efficiency, you want to put the relatively dirty place a long way from people and all in one place so you can have effective scrubbers on the output.