Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
So it's cheapest -- as long as you ignore that pile of money over in the corner that someone else is paying, and one we promise will go away Real Soon Now. Good grief.
I can't afford Petrol or Diesel.
Let's not forget that in most markets electric cars get a free ride on public roadways. Gasoline taxes are collected to pay for the infrastructure combustion engines drive on, electricity has no such taxes so plug-in electrics pay no taxes based on usage, and hybrids only pay minimal taxes, based on the gasoline they use when the charge runs out.
Ken
Given the tax bill the republicans just passed, ahahahahHhahahhahahahahahahahahahaha
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.
Yes, as soon as the kid has grown up, it has to do exactly that. Until then, we don't force the kid to work and don't tax him. Just like human kids.
Bert
Really? Having your car out of power in a natural disaster means you can't easily go somewhere else for a little while to wait for them to fix basic infrastructure. If something is significant enough to knock out power for a week, being able to use the car would be one of my largest concerns.
To support AC's point:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org...
https://www.energyandcapital.c...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
From the first one, discussing the US defense-related costs as just one aspect: "Put all these numbers in perspective: The price of a barrel of oil consumed in the United States would have to increase by $23.40 to offset military resources expended to secure oil. That translates to an additional 56 cents for a gallon of gas, or three times the federal gas tax that funds road construction. If $166 billion were spent on other priorities, the Boston public transportation system, the âoeT,â could have its operating expenses covered, with commuters riding for free. And there would still be money left over for another 100 public transport systems across the United States. Or, we could build and install nearly 50,000 wind turbines. Take your pick."
But there are many other external costs to fossil fuels like health care costs (the legacy of leaded gas is still taking a tremendous toll on our society, but air pollution in general is a killer). For example:
https://thinkprogress.org/here...
"The average cost of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. right now is $2.47. If that cost took into account the environmental and human health costs of burning the gasoline, however, it would more than double, according to a new study. The study, published this week in the journal Climatic Change, created models for the âoesocial cost of atmospheric release,â a method of determining the costs of emissions beyond their market value. According to the study, accounting for the social costs of burning gasoline would add an average of $3.80 per gallon to the pump price, raising the price to $6.27. Diesel has an even higher social cost of $4.80 per gallon. The study also measured the social costs of other fossil fuels not used at the pump. Coal, for example, would jump from 10 cents per kilowatt hour to 42 cents per kilowatt hour, the study found. And natural gas, which has emerged in recent years as a cheap source of fuel, would see its price rise from 7 cents per kWh to 17 cents per kWh."
And on the legacy of leaded gas (and how it has contributed to the USA's huge prison populations): http://www.motherjones.com/env...
A related essay I wrote in 2009 on "Why luxury safer electric cars should be free-to-the-user":
https://groups.google.com/foru...
"This essay explain why luxury safer electric (or plug-in hybrid) cars should be free-to-the-user at the point of sale in the USA, and why this will reduce US taxes overall. Essentially, unsafe gasoline-powered automobiles in the USA pose a high cost on society (accidents, injuries, pollution, defense), and the costs of making better cars would pay for themselves and then some. This essay is an example of using post-scarcity ideology to understand the scarcity-oriented ideological assumptions in our society and how those outdated scarcity assumptions are costing our society in terms of creating and maintaining artificial scarcity."
But the real answer (if maybe not politically acceptable) is not to subsidize electric cars. It is to tax *all* the externalizes of fossil fuel use at the point of purchase, bringing the cost of gas to, perhaps, US$10 a gallon or more. The tax could be redistributed as a basic income to everyone.
Perhaps the deepest irony about all this (mentioned in the above essay) is mentioned here by B
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
If you're going to factor in the production and transmission efficiencies of electrical power, you need to do the same for gasoline or you are comparing apples to oranges.
Or instead, instead of playing amateur scientist on the net, the GP could listen to actual scientists who've studied the issue. ;)
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
Meanwhile, here's what its actually like to have an EV in a natural disaster.
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
"However, upgrading a residential switchboard to handle a high output EV charger is a significant expense, and one that reasonably needs to be factored into the total cost of owning an EV. " Installing a 240V outlet is not expensive. To put a NEMA 14-50 on to an existing 200 AMP service is typically between $200 to $400. This is enough to charge any EV overnight (e.g. 6-8 hours). Because most EV owners charge at night, when their other demands are lower, there's no issue. In addition the urban environment becomes cleaner, asthma rates lower, and healthcare costs are reduced. It's far easier to clean up a power plant than it is to clean up millions of 20% efficient vehicles. And only 39% of the U.S. electricity is generated by coal, so the "OMG it's from coal" is a mainly bogus claim, as is the Solar and wind are more expensive--that was true at one time, but not any longer in most cases (there are always exceptions). And driving an EV is a much better experience than driving any gas car and far better than any diesel car. Most of the arguments against EVs are of the "it will put the blacksmiths and horse traders out of business" type. Having driven one for over 100K miles, there is no way I would go back to an internal combustion car.
Yo Sparky,
Apparently 9 years ago is "history", and I infer from your comment that you didn't do too well there.
The bailout began on Bush Jr's watch. Bernanke and Paulson brought a single-page set of required steps to the U.S. Congress in October 2008 to prevent an immediate and complete meltdown of a worldwide financial system.
Following up on the Bush bank bailout, Obama had a challenge: Continue supporting the bailout of the motherfuckers that almost took out the world economy, or put up with the fallout of the worldwide depression without it.
<conjecture>
I am guessing that you and your other apparatchik friends are all good with the new tax bill the U.S. Senate just passed. You may think that by sucking up to the new oligarchy that they will grant you some space in their world. You are wrong.
</conjecture>
History (there's that word again) shows that societies destabilized by extreme inequality always fall and when they do, they tumble down hardest on the general population.
The thing that makes it uneven (and even unfair) is the fact that the public is paying for your use of that vehicle in terms of road maintenance costs you aren't contributing to and subsidies you are getting.
If you find that upsetting, consider that virtually all road damage caused by vehicles is done by heavy trucks, but they hardly pay more to offset that. Those costs should be paid by transportation companies and wind up baked into the cost of goods, which would permit purchasing decisions which reflect the true state of the world. Instead, everyone has to pay those costs, even people who don't buy goods which are transported long distances.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The cost of the eGolf lease is dependent on the $7500 Federal EV tax credit, and probably the $2500 California credit as well. Add that $10k to the eGolf's lease price and you get a very different picture. Which was GP's point.
Also, I'm curious where you were able to find it for a $50/mo lease payment. When I almost leased one a couple years back, the lowest price I could find was $79/mo.
Yeah because the math is different for them and everyone shouldn't reach the same conclusions.
I love this new science.
But the "journal of applied energy" report they reference said "To address this gap, this research provides a more extensive Total Cost of Ownership assessment of conventional, Hybrid, Plug-in Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles in three industrialized countries – the UK, USA (using California and Texas as case studies) and Japan – for the time period 1997–2015."
So they had almost 20 years of data but reported on only the first 4 years of car ownership. Such a short period seems suspect to me.
They pay taxes like every other business does. No business pays federal income taxes on EXPENSES. That's the main thing the people trying to trick you call a "subsidy", which is just friggin ridiculous. Here's how it works:
Your local bookstore starts out with $100,000 dollars.
They buy a bunch of books for $100,000.
They sell half the books for $75,000.
They now have $75,000 plus half a shipment of books, worth $50,000. That's $125,000
They started with $100,000 and ended with $125,000 so that's a profit of $25,000
They pay corporate taxes on $25,000 profit (and stockholders pay taxes again on the same $25,000)
Note they would be LYING if they told potential investors or a bank they wanted a loan from that they had made $75,000. The $75,000 in sales cost them $50,000 in books and failing to account for that would be fraud.
An oil company starts with $100,000
They buy / lease land with oil for $100,000
The sell half the oil for $75,000
They now have $75,000 plus half a shipment of the oil, worth $50,000. That's $125,000
They started with $100,000 and ended with $125,000 so that's a profit of $25,000
They pay corporate taxes on $25,000 profit (and stockholders pay taxes again on the same $25,000)
Again it would be fraud for them to claim $75,000 - they only made $25,000. ($75,000 sales minus the $50,000 it cost them to get the oil they sold).
That's the main thing that silly "green" propagandists / click bait sites try to tell you is a "subsidy" - the fact that LIKE ALL OTHER BUSINESSES they don't fraudulently claim their expenses as profit.
https://insideevs.com/tesla-le... - read this article for an update... in case you don't, a quote "it appears that most users are retaining over 90% of their vehicles’ original range, even after the odometer rolls well into the 6 digits."
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Ah, appeal to authority! The foundation of all science!
(That was sarcasm in case you didn't notice.)