[theluckycountry]

Boat insurance companies are sufficiently concerned about Lithium batteries that they now require you to say if you have it...

I can’t even source simple GC-2 batteries where I am now, they have to be shipped in with a 3 to 4 week lead. Waiting to hear delivery as I speak. Same thing for chain.

No matter, I sit in Paradise. I can be patient.

Lucky you. I love boats, and the ocean, but alas it was not meant to be. So those GC-2 batteries are lead acid, sealed or flooded? I have an offgrid backup system, a hobby thing really, with a bank of the 225 6V Trojan batteries. They are about 1/4 the cost of dangerous lipos, maybe even cheaper? And they are good for 10+ years, equivalent or better than Lipos I suspect.

Cell phones, sure. RC toys, of course. But boats and cars, a classic example of marketing hype leading to bad decisions.

BTW, what sort/brand of biscuits do you buy? I had a big tin of "ship biscuits" years ago and loved them but haven't seen them around. I like long lasting stuff you know, but I don't want to set foot inside a chandlery, those places are as dear as poison.

[AdamB]

No matter, I sit in Paradise. I can be patient.

One man's paradise, another mans insect infested sauna. I'll take the Rocky Mountains from the Mexican border to the Brooks Range, 2 wheels or 4, sleeping in the back seat of a car, a tent or a motel.

[Plantagenet]

There were over 200 Ebike fires last year......just in New York City.....and the number of Ebikes coming into the US....many of them from China...... is growing exponentially.

The New York City Fire Commissioner just referred to Ebikes as "incredibly dangerous".

epidemic-e-bike-fires-rips-across-america


Wheeeeeee!

[theluckycountry]

Yes, it's an unfortunate thing, but when any new technology is introduced the positive aspects are way over rated and the pitfalls typically thrown under the rug. I remember reading stories about how computers were going to take over all the mundane work and free us up so we could be drinking wine in the park while watching street theater. As it turned out it merely made millions redundant and sent them into lower paid jobs, and eventually facilitated the virtual police state we now live in. Computers watching every move you make and fining you for tossing a cigarette butt out the window.

The home PC also generated it's share of social problems with whole generations losing themselves in computer games, or watching online pornography, as I'm sure Adam is well aware Millions of American daughters driven into the burgeoning porn industry to cater for the sick fetishes of degenerates. Yes they had porno before the computer, but as with all things computers are applied to, the industry simply went on steroids.

Well the Genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back, except on a personal level, but what are the future unintended consequences of the shift to EV's? huge dumps filled with old batteries that no one wants and that are impractical to recycle, just like the old solar panel dumps? Conventional lead acid batteries are easy to recycle, but not LiPOs

...But Li batteries are made up of lots of different parts that could explode if they're not disassembled carefully. And even when Li batteries are broken down this way, the products aren't easy to reuse.

"The current method of simply shredding everything and trying to purify a complex mixture results in expensive processes with low value products," says Andrew Abbott, a physical chemist at the University of Leicester. As a result, it costs more to recycle them than to mine more lithium to make new ones.

EV consumers though care for none of this, as they smugly drive around with the belief they are saving the Planet. Nothing could be further from the truth, they are simply planet rapists of slightly different order.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2022 ... d-question

[Shaved Monkey]

Heres a good news story
Company in Australia doing electric motor conversions on old trucks
And doing battery swaps as you need them
The system at the moment needs a forklift the fully automated robot version is on the way with a 1 minute turn around (re fuel)
Conversion costs about $150 G AUD
You need to rebuild a diesel every million or so KMs when that comes up you do an electric rebuild
It doubles the life of you gear box and you virtually never need to touch the brakes so they last a lot longer
Running cost is 60 cents a KM Diesel is $1 a KM Using grid price add solar to your wharehouse roof and its a few cents
Maintenance on a Diesel is 14 cents a KM this is virtually no maintenance cost maybe a few cents but without the massive down time too.
Trucks usually last 15 odd years with 2 or 3 full engine and gear box rebuilds this extends their life and saves money and is good for profits and the enviroment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eYLtPSf7PY

[Plantagenet]

A new study done in the USA finds that EVs now cost MORE in electricity to fuel up then ICE vehicles have to pay for gasoline to go the same distance.....

new-study-found-that-evs-were-more-expensive-to-fuel-than-gas-powered-cars

According to this study done by the Anderson Economic Group, typical ICE cars cost about $11.29 in gasoline to go $100 miles, while typical EVs charged at home had about $11.59 in electricity costs per 100 miles......thats not a huge difference but the ICE cars were clearly cheaper to fuel.

AND, if the EVs are being charged at commercial charging sites outside the home, the comparison gets much worse for the EVs. The report says the EV would cost over $14.30 for the 100 miles, i.e. the EVs cost 30 percent MORE than the gasoline powered cars, which cost only $11.29 per 100 miles in gasoline consumed.


The cost of Electricity for EVs is now greater then the cost of gasoline for ICE vehicles going the exact same distance......

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

Yeah that's the same study lucky has posted like 3 times now. Completely ignoring the debunking I posted on it. Even the study admits electricity is cheaper to fuel with than gasoline. So the study invented a bunch of bogus charges to make the EV appear more expensive. Typical hatchet job done when you pay enough money to smear your intended target. CarAndDriver, Consumer Reports, US Department of Energy, etc all say EVs are cheaper to fuel.

Gasoline Costs
Here is the cost to drive the gasoline-powered Kona and F-150 for 45,000 miles.
Hyundai Kona: $5162
Ford F-150: $8325

Charging Costs
We threw all these numbers on charging into a bucket to determine the amount it would take to keep the two EVs charged up enough to cover 45,000 miles.
Hyundai Kona Electric: $2548
Ford F-150 Lightning: $4529

CarAndDriver: EV vs. Gas: Which Cars Are Cheaper to Own?

Overall, BEVs were estimated to save consumers about 60 percent on fuel costs compared with the average vehicle in their class.

Consumer Reports: EV Ownership Cost Final Report

The latest "Electric vehicles are scary!" study is out, and this one is a doozy. A new paper from the economic consulting firm Anderson Economic Group (AEG) does some novel things as it tries to comprehend the full spectrum of costs associated with making the shift away from a gas-powered vehicle to an EV.

Here's another example of the study's methodology. The paper makes the case that charging an EV takes longer than an internal-combustion-engine vehicle. This is true for anyone who can't charge at home—and it is undeniably a real issue—but then, in order to estimate the cost of the extra time it takes an EV driver, the authors assume two rates: a $9.65/hour minimum wage as well as an annual salary of $70,000. According to the Social Security Administration, though, the national average wage index for 2020 was just over $55,000. ZipRecruiter says the average annual pay for a national in the United States is just over $74,000 a year, but also says that the "average pay range . . . varies greatly (by as much as $52,500)." In any case, by using the higher estimated wage, the study authors are able to show that EVs "cost" a scary amount in lost time because they assume that each minute of time it takes to charge is worth more money than if they had used a lower annual salary.

Then let's look at how the study authors deal with "free" public chargers. They admit that these options exist, but then say that they "recognize that ['free' chargers] involve a cost that must be paid, and which may be embedded in property taxes, tuition, consumer prices, or investor burdens." Their solution? They simply "price [the free chargers] using commercial rates." Well, isn't that convenient? And you can probably guess how they deal with the various free charging bundles that some automakers offer with the purchase of a new EV. That's right. Instead of counting it as zero cost, they price it like other commercial rates.

There's more. While the paper mentions that "EV buyers typically receive a Level 1 charger along with their auto purchase," they still include a $600 fee to buy one in their tally of costs. They also make another gaffe when calculating how much energy is needed for each vehicle. Although they cite our piece on charging losses, they apparently forgot to read the one on consumption versus efficiency, because they use EPA combined efficiency figures in their calculations—those already include charging losses—and then add another factor of 88 percent to account for charging losses.

Study: EVs Have Higher 'Real World Cost' Than Gasoline Vehicles

Have you heard about the study from Anderson Economic Group, the one that says, “Electric vehicles can be more expensive to fuel than their internal combustion engine counterparts” in the subtitle? It’s all over the news and getting lots of attention from electric car haters. But don’t be scared, EV fans. You can put this one solidly in the “figures lie and liars figure” category. As Car and Driver says, “Read the fine print and the study makes some questionable assumptions in order to make scary claims about electric cars.”

What sort of questionable assumptions? Try this one on for size. The study assumes the average American earns $70,000 a year. That will come as a surprise to lots of folks who do not earn $70,000 a year. The key here is the word “average.” That means the stunning salaries of people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, and Mark Suckaberg are included. OK. So that’s a stupid assumption, but let’s move on.

The study next compares the amount of time it takes to recharge an EV versus the amount of time it takes to fill the tank of a conventional car with planet-killing gasoline. Surprise! Charging the electric car takes longer. Wow! That means the highly paid $70,000 a year person is unproductive the whole time the car is charging. Figure the average earnings per minute of that person, multiply by the average number of minutes spent charging, multiply by the average number of charging sessions a year [figure, figure, figure…..carry the one, round off to three places] and VOILA! The EV costs more to “fuel” because the ICE driver is back on the road sooner and doing productive things while the EV drivers is stuck at a charging station somewhere doing unproductive things.

And that, folks, is the 100% pure, unadulterated horse puckey you get when you shovel a lot of money at a so-called consulting firm and say, “Create a study that shows EVs cost more than conventional cars” — an outcome-driven hatchet job that confirms the built-in biases of the people who fund such studies in the first place. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Want more proof? The “study” assumes EV drivers recharge away from home 40% of the time. Where did they get that figure? They made it up! In fact, most EV drivers charge at home 80 to 90% of the time. There again, the highly paid bean counters at Anderson have found another way to stick a knife into the ribs of electric car owners.

Here’s the point. Anderson was paid to throw EVs under the bus and they delivered for the client. Good for them. They can hold their heads high and feel proud of their ability to make figures sit up, roll over, and play dead on command. That’s what accountants do.

What we have here is a so-called report that gives EV haters cover to “tut-tut” about how electric cars cost more to refuel than conventional cars. It’s a carefully constructed lie that fails to take into account the environmental benefits of not burning gasoline or the $5.9 trillion in direct and indirect subsidies that fossil fuel companies get every year. Why is there no consideration given to those factors?

Because the people who paid for this load of bollocks don’t want to talk about such things and Anderson Economics Group is smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds it. This is a study for those who get their facts from Fakebook or One America News. People with an IQ higher than a kumquat will see through this disinformation campaign in a heartbeat.

About That Scary "EVs Cost More To Fuel" Study... NOT!

[mousepad]

And that, folks, is the 100% pure, unadulterated horse puckey you get when you shovel a lot of money at a so-called consulting firm and say, “Create a study that shows EVs cost more than conventional cars” — an outcome-driven hatchet job that confirms the built-in biases of the people who fund such studies in the first place. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

The guy sounds angry. Almost a if somebody attacked his religion. The faith of "solar/wind and EV will save the world". Funny. An indication that Anderson is probably on to something.

Could it be that EV are only cheaper because everything about them and around them is heavily subsidized?
Luckily we will find out pretty soon. As soon as state mandates for full EV adoption are implemented. Personally I think the burn those states are going to experience will be epic.

[kublikhan]

The guy sounds angry. Almost a if somebody attacked his religion. The faith of "solar/wind and EV will save the world". Funny. An indication that Anderson is probably on to something.

Any idiot with a calculator can do the math themselves and see the answer for themselves in 30 seconds. The fact that they don't speaks more to their faith. Here, I'll do the math for you:

US residential electricity price: 14.96 cents per kWh
Hyundai Kona Electric usable battery capacity: 64kWh
$0.1496 * 64 = $9.57 to fully charge for 258 miles of combined range
$9.57 / 258 = $0.04 per mile

US average price of gasoline: $3.28
Hyundai Kona fuel tank capacity: 13.2 gallons
$3.28 * 13.2 = $43.30 to fully fill up Hyundai Kona for 422 miles of combined range
$43.30 / 422 miles = $0.10 per mile

So in the US, the EV Hyundai Kona cost less than half as much fuel per mile as the ICE Hyundai Kona. Of course, EVs have their issues. They cost more($34k for the EV Kona vs $22k for the ICE version), have less range, have less refueling stations compared to ICE, take longer to charge, L2 charger is extra, fires harder to put out, weight more, Tesla repair costs are higher, etc. There are plenty of legitimate issues with EVs. I really don't see why you guys feel the need to post BS about EVs that can be debunked in 30 seconds when there is a laundry list of legitimate issues of EVs.

[mousepad]

The guy sounds angry. Almost a if somebody attacked his religion. The faith of "solar/wind and EV will save the world". Funny. An indication that Anderson is probably on to something.

Any idiot with a calculator can do the math themselves

I have my doubts. Maybe you should visit a high school and update your impression of the american education system.
Here's a map comparing the levels to countries.

Here, I'll do the math for you:

Thanks, but not needed. Math and engineering is what I'm good at.

What I wonder is the amount of subsidy that goes into all this EV business. That certainly has to distort the cost. But by how much?
There's subsidies for manufacturers. And then there's subsidies for consumer. The amount available is mind bending:
https://pluginamerica.org/why-go-plug-i ... ncentives/

Here's the list for Gavinlandia

Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) offers up to $2,000 for the purchase or lease of BEVs, and $1,000 for the purchase or lease of PHEVs. Qualifying low-income households may receive an additional subsidy. Beginning 12/3/19, individuals will be limited to one rebate instead of two, eligible vehicle MSRP will be capped at $60k, and the standard rebate amount will be reduced. Please reference CVRP website for full details.
Residents living within SCAQMD and San Joaquin Air Valley Pollution Control District jurisdiction are eligible for a $2,500 - $4,500 incentive to replace an old vehicle with a low-emission vehicle, depending on income level and vehicle model, under the "Replace Your Ride" and "Tune In Tune Up" programs. Consumers living within zip codes determined to be a “disadvantaged community” receive an additional $3,000 - $5,000 for the vehicle and $2,000 for EVSE.
City of Riverside provides a $500 rebate for PEV purchases.
Antelope Valley AQMD and El Dorado County AQMD offer $1000 for the purchase or lease of a PEV.
SJVAPCD's Drive Clean! rebate program offers qualifying residents up to $3000 for the purchase or lease of a PEV.
Starting 8/1/19, Monterey Bay Community Power customers can receive a $1000 rebate for a new BEV, and $500 for a new PHEV.
Certain Pasadena Water & Power customers can receive up to $750 for the purchase or lease of a new or used PEV.
Peninsula Clean Energy offers income-qualifying San Mateo County residents a $4000 rebate to purchase a used PHEV.
PG&E offers an $800 Clean Fuel Rebate to offset charging costs for customers who own or lease a PEV. Like PG&E, SCE offers up to a $1000 rebate to its customers for PEV purchases and leases. SMUD offers customers a $599 rebate towards the purchase or lease of a PEV. San Diego Gas & Electric also has a climate credit rebate available to PEV drivers, but the 2019 credit is now closed.
BEVs and PHEVs are eligible for Clean Air Vehicle Decals which allow access to HOV lanes for single occupants.
Starting January 1, 2020, a vehicle that was previously issued a Clean Air Vehicle Decal for HOV lane access may be re-issued a decal based on income level.
Various utilities offer discounted rates for residential charging during off-peak hours. PG&E offers two residential EV rates. SCE offers an EV rate plan with off-peak pricing between 9pm and 12pm that is charged separately from the residential electricity and a TOU rate plan with off-peak pricing between 10pm and 8am. SDG&E offers an EV rate plan with off-peak hours from 6pm - midnight and super off-peak hours from midnight - 5am. Several other city utilities also offer EV rate programs, including LADWP, SMUD, Alameda, Burbank, Colton, Azusa and Riverside.
Imperial Irrigation District now offers rebates of $500 to customers who purchase and install a Level 2 (240V) plug-in electric vehicle home charger in 2020.
The City of Sacramento offers free charging in public parking garages for EVs that apply and are certified by the City's Emerging Small Business Development program.
Pasadena Water and Power offers up to $600 of free electricity for EV charging for one year.
BEVs and PHEVs are subject to a $100 road usage fee beginning in 2020, for model years 2020 and later.
Hotels and commercial buildings may offer reduced or free parking for EV drivers.
The City of Sacramento offers free parking to those BEVs that apply and are certified by the City's Emerging Small Business Development program.
The City of San Jose, the City of Santa Monica and the City of Hermosa Beach also offers free parking.
Residential property owners may have access to Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing to install EV supply equipment (EVSE), if the local government has a PACE program in place. PACE financing allows property owners to borrow funds to pay for the EVSE, and repays the funds through a special assessment on the property over a defined time.
SMUD offers residential customers either a $599 rebate or a free level 2 charger for SMUD customers who purchase or lease a PEV.
LADWP’s Charge Up LA! Program offers a $500 rebate for the installation of an EV charger and an additional $250 and 2.5 cents/kWh rate discount with a separate meter TOU rate enrollment for purchases before 6/30/21 or until funds are exhausted.
SCAQMD's residential EV charging incentive pilot program provides a $250 rebate for Level 2 EVSE, with an additional $250 for low-income individuals.
The City of Anaheim provides a $400 rebate and a city permit fee waiver for a level 2 charger installation. The City of Burbank offers a $500 rebate for residential customers for installation of a Level 2 charger. City of Colton also offers $500 for a level 2 charger installation for either residential or commercial use. Pasadena Water & Power offers a $600 rebate installing a Wi-Fi enabled Level 2 EVSE. Glendale offers a $500 rebate for installation of a level 2 charger.
Sonoma Clean Power offers customers financial assistance for the purchase and installation of Level 2 EVSE.
Alameda Municipal Power offers customers up to $800 for the purchase and installation of Level 2 EVSE.
CA Insurance companies may offer discounts on PEVs. Vehicles that do not pass emissions tests may be eligible for a retirement rebate of up to $1,500 depending on income (funds permitting).

Yet even with all this the EV can't pull thru on its own. It also requires ICE phase out laws, by 2035 I presume.
Clearly not a technology that has "winner" written all over.

[Plantagenet]

Gasoline Costs
Here is the cost to drive the gasoline-powered Kona and F-150 for 45,000 miles.
Hyundai Kona: $5162
Ford F-150: $8325

Charging Costs
We threw all these numbers on charging into a bucket to determine the amount it would take to keep the two EVs charged up enough to cover 45,000 miles.
Hyundai Kona Electric: $2548
Ford F-150 Lightning: $4529

CarAndDriver: EV vs. Gas: Which Cars Are Cheaper to Own?

[/quote]

BZZZZZTTTT!!!!!!

GIGO ALERT!!!! GIGO ALERT!!!



Normally I find your posts to be very good, Kublkhan, but this time you are way off base.......and so are the studies you are quoting. Shame on Car and Driver for putting out this questionable comparison.

A Hyundai Kona is a little tiny car. A Ford F-150 is a very big pick-up truck.

Obviously if you're going to compare the costs of fueling an EV with electricity vs. the cost of fueling an ICE car with gasoline, you should start by comparing similar size vehicles.

Come on now, surely Car and Driver should know better then to try to cook the numbers by comparing a tiny EV car with a much much larger ICE truck.....comparing two different things like a tiny Hyundai Kona and a large Ford F-150 pickup up is what is know as comparing apples to oranges. It's a dishonest rhetorical trick.



Might I suggest that next time Car and Driver (and you) be careful and fair and compare an EV pickup truck to an ICE pickup truck of the same size, like the study I cited did.

Trying to cook the books by comparing the cost of fueling up a tiny EV to the cost of fueling up a huge ICE pickup truck is like pretending apples and oranges are the same thing and then comparing them....its utterly ridiculous.

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

I have my doubts. Maybe you should visit a high school and update your impression of the american education system.
Here's a map comparing the levels to countries.

America is not the world. Also, I think it has more to do with confirmation bias. People want to seek out information that conforms to their beliefs. How much research do advocates of wind energy do on how many birds those turbines kill per year? Are solar PV proponents aware of the amount of e-waste these panels are going to create? Has either group studied how the grid is being negatively impacted by the intermittency of these two? People tend to search out information that confirms their existing beliefs.

“Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.” Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted.

The Stanford studies became famous. Coming from a group of academics in the nineteen-seventies, the contention that people can’t think straight was shocking. It isn’t any longer. Thousands of subsequent experiments have confirmed (and elaborated on) this finding. As everyone who’s followed the research—or even occasionally picked up a copy of Psychology Today—knows, any graduate student with a clipboard can demonstrate that reasonable-seeming people are often totally irrational.

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

Yet even with all this the EV can't pull thru on its own. It also requires ICE phase out laws, by 2035 I presume.
Clearly not a technology that has "winner" written all over.

The push for EVs is not coming from market forces. If it were, they never would have needed subsidies or mandates in the first place. They are being pushed for other reasons such as lowering global co2 emissions, reducing FF imports, reducing local air pollution, etc.

August 2009 - Outdoor air pollution in China causes over 650,000 premature deaths each year, and many more are hospitalized or put out of work due to illness. The two largest sources of this air pollution are coal-powered electric plants and petroleum fueled cars. While power plants may be the greatest emitter overall, the internal combustion engine (ICE) is a major source of air pollution in urban areas and a large contributor to overall GHG emissions.

The petroleum dependence and pollution from ICEs have forced nations to look for cleaner technologies for vehicles, one of the most prominent alternatives has been the electric vehicle (EV). The zero tail-pipe emissions and ability to build on basic existing power grids and infrastructure have made EVs a very attractive choice for replacing the ICE. Countries all over the world have poured money into research and development of EVs, and China has been at the forefront.

Why Electric? It Just Makes Sense
There are two main reasons why the Chinese government and industry leaders are enthusiastic about promoting electric vehicles: (1) to reduce China's dependence on imported oil, and (2) to establish a profitable low emissions vehicle industry in China that would reduce significant pollution problems in urban areas. EVs have become the clear leader in achieving these goals when compared to other technologies such as liquid natural gas, hydrogen, or alcohol-based fuel systems. The EV technology, while not fully mature, has had more experience in the real world than many other non-petroleum alternatives. It also requires significantly less, although by no means negligible, technological investment as no additional fuel supply chains are needed. Alternatives are needed soon, as China's vehicle fleet is expected to grow exponentially over the coming decades, exacerbating the current oil and pollution problems.

Oil Dependence
China's Green Revolution—a recent McKinsey and Company report— predicts that at current growth rates, over 270 million vehicles could be added to China's roads by 2030. Along with massive amounts of pollution, these additional cars would require an extra 6.2 billion barrels of imported crude oil per year. [6] To put this in perspective, the 2007 estimate for oil consumption was about 2.8 billion barrels and about half of this was imported. [7][8] These additional ICE cars would significantly increase China's demand for foreign oil.

The majority of Chinese oil has to be imported from foreign sources as local production simply is not enough to meet demand. Relying on foreign sources subjects Beijing to pressures from international oil politics. China experienced this situation in the 1950s when the country was dependent on imported oil from the Soviet Union. When this source dried up during the Sino-Soviet split, China found itself in an energy crisis. The present day reliance on foreign oil has the potential to cause a similar situation.

Health and Climate Co-Benefits
The by-products of internal combustion engines present significant issues for the health and welfare of the Chinese population. The connection between auto pollution and adverse health effects has been well established.[12] Automobile pollution has been linked to increased cancer rates, respiratory diseases, and other significant health issues. A recent study of air pollution in Beijing revealed that the decrease of auto activity, among other measures, during the Olympic Games correlated directly to improved health among Beijing residents.

Electric Cars: The Drive for a Sustainable Solution in China

[kublikhan]

Normally I find your posts to be very good, Kublkhan, but this time you are way off base.......and so are the studies you are quoting. Shame on Car and Driver for putting out this questionable comparison.

A Hyundai Kona is a little tiny car. A Ford F-150 is a very big pick-up truck.

Obviously if you're going to compare the costs of fueling an EV with electricity vs. the cost of fueling an ICE car with gasoline, you should start by comparing similar size vehicles.

Come on now, surely Car and Driver should know better then to try to cook the numbers by comparing a tiny EV car with a much much larger ICE truck.....comparing two different things like a tiny Hyundai Kona and a large Ford F-150 pickup up is what is know as comparing apples to oranges. It's a dishonest rhetorical trick.

Might I suggest that next time Car and Driver (and you) be careful and fair and compare an EV pickup truck to an ICE pickup truck of the same size, like the study I cited did.

Trying to cook the books by comparing a tiny EV to a huge ICE pickup truck is clearly ridiculous.

Cheers!

You misunderstood the comparison. They compared a Hyundai Kona ICE to a Hyundai Kona EV. And a Ford F-150 ICE to a Ford F-150 EV. That is the best apples to apples comparison you are going to get.

[AdamB]

Trying to cook the books by comparing a tiny EV to a huge ICE pickup truck is clearly ridiculous.

Cheers!

You misunderstood the comparison. They compared a Hyundai Kona ICE to a Hyundai Kona EV. And a Ford F-150 ICE to a Ford F-150 EV. That is the best apples to apples comparison you are going to get.

Plant can't be bothered to read their own references prior to misrepresenting them, you don't seriously think he/she/it would pay attention to someone else's?

You aren't supposed to have a functioning brain to notice the misrepresentations of course, otherwise Plant's claim of making scientifically accurate posts would be called into question.

[Plantagenet]

They compared a Hyundai Kona ICE to a Hyundai Kona EV. And a Ford F-150 ICE to a Ford F-150 EV. That is the best apples to apples comparison you are going to get.

OK...Fair enough.

But the comparison you are making between the Car and Driver data and the 2022 study I linked still has a basic problem that invalidates your comparison...... you see....there is still another apple and another orange to consider. So tell me......When was your study done? What was the date of the study? And what were the prices of gas and electricity on those dates back when that study was done?

Why is that important?? Please allow me to explain. First....Consider this simple fact:

Your excellent post above linked to several studies of EV costs vs. ICE vehicle costs, and these studies were all done at different times. But consider this obvious problem----Studies done at different times will have different results depending on the changes in the price of gasoline and electricity.

So..... thats why I'm asking you when was the comparison done in the Car and Driver study you are citing? What was the date of the study?

This is important because as both the price of electricity and the price of gas go up and down, you will get wildly divergent results depending on the relative costs of electricity and the cost of gas at any given time.

When the price of electricity is low, for instance, and the price of gasoline is high, you will get higher costs for the gas powered car. But if the test is done when gas prices have come down and electrical prices haven't, then you will get a different result.

This should be obvious, but I'll explain in case someone doesn't get it, as usual. The pride of gasoline goes up and down dramatically through time, and that will greatly affect the cost of fueling up ICE vehicles. Thats obvious right??? But somehow the issue of large changes in energy costs is never mentioned when ICE vehicles and EVs are compared. People just cherry pick the study they like and ignore the fact that energy prices keep changing. AND thats another BIG APPLES AND ORANGES PROBLEM that most people just ignore.


There is aother fundamental APPLES versus ORANGES mistake being made in discussing these comparisons of EVs vs ICE vehicles

As i posted out in my post above, the study I linked to above is for a specific date, and that date is late 2022. As far as I know the study I linked to is the most recent study done comparing EVs and ICE vehicles.

Average Electricity prices have been trending up through time in the US and a large increases in the price of NG occurred in late 2022 as a consequence of the war in Ukraine. NG went up about 400% by late 2022, and NG is widely used to generate electricity in the USA. This caused electricity prices to spike in some parts of the US, and these higher electricity prices may account for the 2022 study result showing EVs cost slightly more than ICE vehicles to fuel up for the same travel distance. Thats how it was in late 2022, but as energy price keep changing things may be different now. For instance , NG has since fallen dramatically, and possibly if another study was done now EVs might again be cheaper to fuel up then the ICE vehicles for the same travel distance.

So there is is...I looked at the actual data and I quickly found another issue where invalid "Apples and Oranges" comparisons are being made. The strident claims I see here that studies done some years ago when electricity was cheaper for EVs to fuel up somehow invalidates another study in late 2022 when electricity was more expensive for EVs to fuel up with are nonsensical and constitute just another meaningless comparison that can be invalidated due to the "Apples and Oranges" fallacy of comparing two things that are actually quite different.

So, in summary---Changes though time in the price of electricity and gasoline are going to change the relative costs of fueling and driving EVs and ICE vehicles. When electricity is cheap and gasoline is expensive EVs will be cheaper to fuel up. When electricity is expensive and gasoline is somewhat cheaper, as we saw in late 2022, the Anderson study shows that ICE vehicles are actually slightly cheaper to fuel up for the same travel distance than Evs are.

Thanks Kublaikhan....this whole discussion has been quite a lot of fun!!!! I hope you will now agree with me that ignoring changes in gasoline and the price of electricity through time when evaluating the cost of fueling up EVs and ICE vehicles is clearly wrong. Comparing the cost of EV and Ice vehicles per mile without taking into account the changing price of electricity and the changing price of gasoline is the wrong approach because it also is subject to the Apples vs. Oranges problem!!!!

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

But the comparison you are making between the Car and Driver data and the 2022 study I linked still has a basic problem that invalidates your comparison...... you see....there is still another apple and another orange to consider. So tell me......When was your study done? What was the date of the study? And what were the prices of gas and electricity on those dates back when that study was done?

Both Car and Driver and Consumer Reports have put out studies with recent data. The Car and Driver study was last updated with new data on 10/28/2022. The most recent consumer reports study is from February 16, 2023. The Consumer Reports study used electricity prices and gasoline prices from 3 different states to give you an idea of the differences you can see across the country. The car and driver study used national averages. All of the specific data is available in the links above.

somehow the issue of large changes in energy costs is never mentioned when ICE vehicles and EVs are compared.

I don't know where you got that idea from but it is untrue. The Consumer Reports study mentions this directly, as have other studies:

EV buyers also need to calculate how much an electric car will cost to drive, including tax breaks and electricity rates. And those can vary depending on where you live, the vehicle you choose, whether you buy or lease, and even your annual income. “Figuring out how much an EV will cost can be complex, but it’s worth doing the math before making such a major purchase,” says Jake Fisher, senior director of auto testing at Consumer Reports.

Will an Electric Car Save You Money?

You don't even have to rely on studies with old data, there are online calculators available like this one from the Department of Energy to help consumers make their decisions with rates that are tailored to their specific situation. Here, I put in today's data for Alaska for you for the Hyundai Kona EV vs ICE:

2023 Hyundai Kona Electric EV annual fuel cost: $758
2023 Hyundai Kona AWD Gasoline annual fuel cost: $1,482

Fuel cost for the EV is about half the cost of the ICE, the same result the vast majority of studies come up with. EVs really do cost less to fuel than an ICE. Now that doesn't mean they make sense for everyone. The EV version of the Hyundai Kona is $10k higher than the ICE version! Even adding in operating savings, it takes 12 years of annual savings for the EV to break even with the ICE version because of the EV's higher purchase cost. The average length of car ownership is only 8 years. So before tax credits this purchase doesn't make a whole lot of sense for an individual. But the picture changes once you consider tax credits. Add in the Federal and Alaska EV tax credit and it breaks even in year 1.

Thanks Kublaikhan....this whole discussion has been quite a lot of fun!!!! I hope you will now agree with me that ignoring changes in gasoline and the price of electricity through time when evaluating the cost of fueling up EVs and ICE vehicles is clearly wrong.

Planty, you've gone back into troll mode. Snap out of it! We already discussed this point earlier in the thread so don't pretend like it never happened.

short term changes in energy prices will affect the competitiveness of EVs vs ICE, how high gasoline prices make EVs more competitive and low gasoline prices make EVs less competitive.

Of course.

[Plantagenet]

somehow the issue of large changes in energy costs is never mentioned when ICE vehicles and EVs are compared.

I don't know where you got that idea from but it is untrue.

Of course its true. I got the idea that this issue hasn't been previously discussed on the thread here from reading the posts that you and others have made in this thread where this issue hasn't previously been discussed. How hard is that to understand?

Go back and read the posts in this thread. Posters, including you, proclaim over and over again that EVs cost XX or YY to travel some distance while ICE vehicles cost AA or BB to go the same distance, without ever noting that these costs aren't absolutes---- they change dramatically through time because they are completely dependent on the changing cost of energy through time.

And as electricity costs rise to a high enough level and gasoline prices fall to a low enough level, EVs will cost more to operate while the price of fueling ICE vehicles will go down. Surely you understand that?

Its not that hard to understand if you've got a grasp of what's involved here. And, surprisingly, the recent Anderson study suggests that ICE vehicles actually become slightly less expensive to fuel up then ICE vehicles in response to a jump in electricity and a simultaneous drop in gasoline prices late last year.

If you accept that the costs of fueling up EVs and ICE vehicles are dependent on changing energy costs, then why all the personal attacks just because I pointed out this obvious fact.

Surely we should be able to pleasantly agree on something this obvious and factual and simple.

Thanks Kublaikhan....this whole discussion has been quite a lot of fun!!!!

Planty, you've gone back into troll mode.]

Well....thats not the pleasant agreement on these obvious facts that I had hoped for.

When you post childish name-calling like that it appears that you are the one in troll mode.

Lordy lordy----I posted a pleasant note and I thanked you for discussing this topic, and you respond by posting childish name-calling.

Hey...might I suggest that you take a deep breath and calm yourself down?. The ad homs aren't necessary, kublaikhan. You've got a lot to offer here, but the childish name-calling detracts from the points you wish to make.




Cheers!

[kublikhan]

Of course its true. I got the idea that this issue hasn't been previously discussed on the thread here from reading the posts that you and others have made in this thread where this issue hasn't previously been discussed. How hard is that to understand?

Go back and read the posts in this thread. Posters, including you, proclaim over and over again that EVs cost XX or YY to travel some distance while ICE vehicles cost AA or BB to go the same distance, without ever noting that these costs aren't absolutes---- they change through time because they are completely dependent on the changing cost of energy through time.

Because not only was the issue previously discussed, you were part of the discussion! Now you want to deny the discussion even happened? I quoted it for you.

And when electricity costs rise to a high enough level and gasoline prices fall to a low enough level, the Anderson study suggests that ICE vehicles can become slightly less expensive to fuel up then ICE vehicles.

If you accept that the costs of fueling up EVs and ICE vehicles are dependent on changing energy costs, then why not agree with me on this question. I don't get why there was an argument when I posted a link showing that EVs fuel costs rose significantly as electricity costs rose significantly last year? If you accept that the cost of fueling up an EV will increase as the price of electricity increases, then why all the argument when I post a link to a study that found the costs of fuelig an EV increased when electricity costs increased. Surely you can see this is to be expected.

Spoken like someone who didn't even bother to read the study. If you had, you would have noticed that the study mentioned electricity costs are cheaper to fuel with than gasoline. So to make EVs appear more expensive, they invented additional 'charges' and applied them to the EVs to make them appear more expensive. That is why the vast majority of studies on this topic, yes even ones using data from last year, all say the same thing: EVs are cheaper to fuel with than ICE. Again, I'm not asking you to accept my word on this or that of the studies. Grab the electricity and gasoline costs yourself, plug them into a calculator, and see the results with your own eyes. The facts don't lie. EVs really are cheaper to fuel.

[theluckycountry]

What I wonder is the amount of subsidy that goes into all this EV business. That certainly has to distort the cost. But by how much?
There's subsidies for manufacturers. And then there's subsidies for consumer. The amount available is mind bending:
https://pluginamerica.org/why-go-plug-i ... ncentives/

And the biggest subsidy of all is of course, OIL. Take away the oil and coal for mining and fabrication and the industry will die instantly. That's the most ridiculous part of the whole EV story. Were going to convert over to them so we can still drive to Burger Queen when the oil runs out lol lol.

No Oil = No EV

[Peak_Yeast]

Electricity prices as well as distribution cost of said electricity has risen dramatically in my country.
Electricity up 300%. Transport of it up 1000%.

1KWh is now between 0.3 and 0.6$
1 Liter of diesel is about 10KWh and 2$.

And while the efficiency may be higher in the electric car it does not make up for the extra cost - each lost KWh in charging and consumption is at a higher cost.

There is still gains in form of taxation, but it is likely they will disappear sooner or later. They have already been worsened significantly.

And we do not even have a lot of electric cars yet...