Three year cost comparison analysis between Cooper, gas v electric and Kona, gas v electric. -Autoweek

[wemay]

Are Electric Cars Worth It? Here's A 3-Year Cost Analysis

Choosing between an electric car or a gas car can be a complicated decision with one of the primary factors often being cost. We break down a 3-year analysis of the cost of owning an EV so you can understand what it could cost you over time.

www.autoweek.com

 

[supton]

Seems fairly well done, lots of variables taken i to account. Although one has to wonder, why only 3 years of ownership? Depreciation is usually the biggest line item in short term ownership. I get it, not all of us are alike, each has different ownership goals, but if one is truly concerned about cost, at what point shouldn’t longer term ownership be analyzed?

 

[Cujet]

I posted this article in the Tesla Cybertruck thread. I considered making a stand alone thread, but it seemed to fit there too.

In any case, the EV Kona is about $8K per year more than it's gas counterpart. Depreciation is a big part of that. Some responses also include the fact that charging on the road is actually more expensive than gas, with the crazy pricing strategies of fast chargers, some of which are near 50c per KWh now and EV owners are starting to understand they purchase as much as 30% more power than the "display" says they use per mile.

Here is how I see it:

1) I love EV's, the way they drive, the outrageous performance, the low center of gravity, the response.
2) The truly capable and full size EV's are $100K++ vehicles
3) Lesser EV's have shortcomings somewhere, either in size, range, performance or all 3
4) EV's don't have the highway range claimed, regardless of those claims. If I buy one, I should expect sub 200 mile highway legs.
5) A 70 or 80KWh battery is a small battery and can't be asked to do the work of a gas engine and normal sized fuel tank.
6) EV's use 60-70% of battery capacity on highway trips, due to time constraints.

Like it or not, the Nissan Altima is larger than a Model 3, about 1/2 the cost, and will go 600 miles on a tank on the highway at 85MPH. 4x what a model 3 can do between reasonable length charges. As you can't quickly "fill up" a EV.

Put another way, the Altima can go from NY to FL with one fuel stop.

 

[Pablo]

Wait for it.................

While it may be cheaper to buy and own a gas car in some situations, whether that's really better depends entirely on your....... views.

Pretty much the same conclusion in all the BITOG threads

 

[99Saturn]

Are the bells and whistles in the two Minis or the two Kona's comparable or are the EV models forced packaged with extra options?

 

[CarDoc66]

Charging cost aside, I think the more important issue is how many miles you need to drive an EV to offset the carbon emissions produced during the manufacture of the batteries. Isn't that the ultimate goal? Reduction of emissions?
I have read it is somewhere in the range of 60-70,000 miles.
I'd like to see more studies on this because honestly I don't think modern "over the road vehicles" are contributing as much as aircraft, maritime shipping and pleasure craft. We need to focus on the ICE transportation that have no emission controls instead of shoving the EV dream on us which will eventually cause grid issues (a grid which is already stressed) among other issues. My opinion is this is going to help more than the not very well thought out plan we are foolishly racing to achieve.
Modern gasoline ICE vehicles run very clean when warmed up, just look at photos of smog in Los Angeles in the sixties......it seems we don't see it like that anymore. I'm not saying air quality in LA is great now but it's not as bad as it was considering almost four times as many vehicles.
Example: California vehicle registrations in 1965 was about 6.2 million including buses, trucks and cars. Registrations in 1995 were about 22.5 million. I don't know what it is today but I bet its close to 30 million?
Cost is justified if the outcome is effective and I just am not convinced that the shift happening is a very effective one......in other words there are some really big fish to fry as far as pollutants from vehicles other than cars and trucks.

 

[wpod]

The cost per year means nothing when you are virtue signaling to others you are saving the planet.

 

[wpod]

Charging cost aside, I think the more important issue is how many miles you need to drive an EV to offset the carbon emissions produced during the manufacture of the batteries. Isn't that the ultimate goal? Reduction of emissions?
I have read it is somewhere in the range of 60-70,000 miles.
I'd like to see more studies on this because honestly I don't think modern "over the road vehicles" are contributing as much as aircraft, maritime shipping and pleasure craft. We need to focus on the ICE transportation that have no emission controls instead of shoving the EV dream on us which will eventually cause grid issues (a grid which is already stressed) among other issues. My opinion is this is going to help more than the not very well thought out plan we are foolishly racing to achieve.
Modern gasoline ICE vehicles run very clean when warmed up, just look at photos of smog in Los Angeles in the sixties......it seems we don't see it like that anymore. I'm not saying air quality in LA is great now but it's not as bad as it was considering almost four times as many vehicles.
Example: California vehicle registrations in 1965 was about 6.2 million including buses, trucks and cars. Registrations in 1995 were about 22.5 million. I don't know what it is today but I bet its close to 30 million?
Cost is justified if the outcome is effective and I just am not convinced that the shift happening is a very effective one......in other words there are some really big fish to fry as far as pollutants from vehicles other than cars and trucks.

We are a nation of dumbed down Tv watchers unable to discern fact from what the Tv/ media tells us to believe.

 

[Leo99]

The cost per year means nothing when you are virtue signaling to others you are saving the planet.

None of the folks that I know that own EVs care about virtue signaling. They have EVs because they're pretty cool vehicles.

 

[CarDoc66]

We are a nation of dumbed down Tv watchers unable to discern fact from what the Tv/ media tells us to believe.

I agree, there is no doubt the MSM is now a propaganda tool, not an information source.
The problem I see is the the people in charge are making decisions based on emotion more than actual facts. THEN, the media latches on to the doom and gloom aspects scaring people in to climate hysteria.
I'm not a climate denier but we have a problem with the people making these decisions. Poor or little factual-based planning, ignorance of many other sources of CO2/greenhouse gasses (SF-6 is a prime example), investors wanting a return on the "green agenda", and the crooked and creepy world elites that want to control everything.

 

[CarDoc66]

None of the folks that I know that own EVs care about virtue signaling. They have EVs because they're pretty cool vehicles.

I think they are cool too, really fun to drive. But we need better battery technology, until then a really good hybrid is what we need to hold us over until the problems are worked out for 100% EV.

 

[loneryder]

Charging cost aside, I think the more important issue is how many miles you need to drive an EV to offset the carbon emissions produced during the manufacture of the batteries. Isn't that the ultimate goal? Reduction of emissions?
I have read it is somewhere in the range of 60-70,000 miles.
I'd like to see more studies on this because honestly I don't think modern "over the road vehicles" are contributing as much as aircraft, maritime shipping and pleasure craft. We need to focus on the ICE transportation that have no emission controls instead of shoving the EV dream on us which will eventually cause grid issues (a grid which is already stressed) among other issues. My opinion is this is going to help more than the not very well thought out plan we are foolishly racing to achieve.
Modern gasoline ICE vehicles run very clean when warmed up, just look at photos of smog in Los Angeles in the sixties......it seems we don't see it like that anymore. I'm not saying air quality in LA is great now but it's not as bad as it was considering almost four times as many vehicles.
Example: California vehicle registrations in 1965 was about 6.2 million including buses, trucks and cars. Registrations in 1995 were about 22.5 million. I don't know what it is today but I bet its close to 30 million?
Cost is justified if the outcome is effective and I just am not convinced that the shift happening is a very effective one......in other words there are some really big fish to fry as far as pollutants from vehicles other than cars and trucks.

In the DC metro area, in the 80's and early 90's smog in the summer was terrible. Some days you couldn't see the sun. There would be orange smog alerts all the time. Fast forward to today. Millions more cars on the roads(parking lots) and never a code orange. Rarely can you even see the smog. We don't give enough attention or credit for how clean our vehicles run these days.

 

[supton]

Charging cost aside, I think the more important issue is how many miles you need to drive an EV to offset the carbon emissions produced during the manufacture of the batteries. Isn't that the ultimate goal? Reduction of emissions?
I have read it is somewhere in the range of 60-70,000 miles.
I'd like to see more studies on this because honestly I don't think modern "over the road vehicles" are contributing as much as aircraft, maritime shipping and pleasure craft.

So the amount of carbon per gallon is a fixed number. For gasoline is around 8,900 grams CO2 per gallon. Doesn’t matter if you get 1 mpg, 10 or 100 mpg, it is rather fixed.

I do believe there are reports showing the higher upfront CO2 generation, but then the lower per mile CO2 emissions. Which is in turn a big variable—coal powered kWhr is very different than solar cell or wind. And of course, all our energy is being dumped onto the grid, so what goes into your car is what the mix of renewables to nonrewnable is.

70k though isn’t that long. That may be 5 years for the typical driver, which might be longer than what the typical new car buyer might own for. But the is not recycled at that point, it then goes on to the next owner. With the average age of the fleet tipping past 12 years, the CO2 tipping point may be realized by the second owner.

What is probably the big sticking point is the cost of replacement batteries and then the recycling of used battery packs. That I’m not sure I have seen much about.

Anyhow,

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | US EPA

The national greenhouse gas inventory is developed each year to track trends in U.S. emissions and removals. Find emissions by source, economic sector and greenhouse gas.

www.epa.gov

shows transportation makes some 26% of CO2 emissions, just behind electricity. But this report is old and doesn’t show a breakdown between the types of vehicles. Maybe later I will try to look for that (wrapping up lunch and back to chores ).

 

[wemay]

@Cujet
Sorry about that. Didn't realize you posted it elsewhere.

 

[UncleDave]

The cost per year means nothing when you are virtue signaling to others you are saving the planet.

I havent yet met anyone who believes their EV is saving the planet, but I hear about them a lot on this site.

 

[Pablo]

I havent yet met anyone who believes their EV is saving the planet, but I hear about them a lot on this site.

I've met plenty of people who say their EV is better for the planet that ICE cars. But I live in a state filled with completely ignorant deluded people.

 

[PandaBear]

It's just me, I wouldn't buy Hyundai Kona or Mini Cooper, gas or electric. If you are trying to save money get something more reliable like Civic or Corolla, and like others said keep it for longer than 3 years.

EV works best if you can drive it every day to almost the entire range, so you don't waste any battery to depreciation for nothing. Too long of a commute you are better off with a hybrid or plug in hybrid. Too short of a commute you are better off with the cheapest gas vehicle and ignore mpg, just pay for gas instead of letting a battery pack depreciate without being driven.

 

[macarose]

Let me make life easier for everyone.

EV technology is still in its early infancy. Ten years ago the best selling EV in the world could go only about 80 miles (Nissan LEAF). Today the best selling EV (Tesla Model Y) has a real world range of 275 miles.

Your real energy costs mainly depend on your utility rate per kWh. The average cost per kWh in the USA right now is .17 per kWh which is roughly 4 cents per mile. The average cost of gas is $3.83 which is roughly 15 cents per mile.

EV batteries still do not have the durability of a gas or diesel engine. They have fewer parts, but their powertrains are more expensive.

Finally, any of you who thinks that this is political is ignoring the salient fact that in China and the EU, electric vehicles have a far larger share of the car market (38% and 21%) than we do (8%). Tesla may be a global market leader, but the USA is not the locomotive in this train of worldwide demand.

In the end it's a form of propulsion. That's it. The fact that we now have over $31 trillion in national debt and can't say no to a spending program should concern you a helluva lot more than the type of motor in a random vehicle.

 

[Cujet]

I've met plenty of people who say their EV is better for the planet that ICE cars. But I live in a state filled with completely ignorant deluded people.

Clearly, a city full of nothing but EV's will be devoid of vehicle tailpipe emissions. I imagine this is a positive thing. Put the power plants out in the burbs where they belong.