Some EVs are now more affordable than the average gas-powered vehicle

[sreams]

But even a basic understanding of science would allow one to acknowledge that burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, distributing it over a very lossy grid, charging a battery and then using that to move a much heavier vehicle is less efficient that burning the fuel directly in a lighter vehicle.

Except that you are leaving out pieces of the equation. Energy conversions tend to be far more efficient at scale. Having millions of little engines burning fuel will never be as efficient as several *much* larger systems.

It takes quite a bit of electric energy to refine and transport liquid fuels. One could make the same argument you did in this regard... why waste that electricity on creating and moving liquid fuels around when you could simply put it straight into the vehicle?

Also... what percentage of electricity is sourced from the burning of gasoline or diesel fuel anyway? There is hardly a comparison to be made there.

Though perhaps I should have been more precise and said that every single EV charged with grid electricity creates more CO2 than any ICE vehicle.

Stating this in a comments section does not make it true.

 

[lonetac]

Except that you are leaving out pieces of the equation. Energy conversions tend to be far more efficient at scale. Having millions of little engines burning fuel will never be as efficient as several *much* larger systems.

It takes quite a bit of electric energy to refine and transport liquid fuels. One could make the same argument you did in this regard... why waste that electricity on creating and moving liquid fuels around when you could simply put it straight into the vehicle?

Also... what percentage of electricity is sourced from the burning of gasoline or diesel fuel anyway? There is hardly a comparison to be made there.


Stating this in a comments section does not make it true.

lets also not forget solar power on houses charging EV's directly from produced energy completely offsetting the need to power them via fossil fuels.

My house has 100% solar energy, we only rely on the grid a little bit at night when there is no sun but we produce way more during the day that goes back to the grid. Our dependency on the grid is about 18% which is a 82% offset from using fossil fueled energy.

We could power several EV's using our solar system that would require no fossil fuels (unless charged in the evening).

Where I live, quite a few folks have solar completely powering their houses reducing the need for fossil fuels.

I dont think we are close to eliminating the need for fossil fuels but we can reduce our dependency on it and use cleaner sources. There is no contest or argument that can be made that solar is more dirty than fuel.

 

[Endymio]

According to these numbers, electric cars are cheaper for maintenance and running costs.

https://www.drive.com.au/caradvice/...ars-cheaper-to-run-than-petrol-or-diesel-cars

Hrm, an "exclusive" poll by a Australian website that doesn't reveal its methodology ... but *does* admit it fudged the number by charging fuel costs to ICE vehicles, but charging the EVs entirely on free solar power. And the "maintenance costs" were taken only for the first three years, meaning essentially oil changes for the ICE vehicles, and nothing for the EVs.

Even still, the website admitted that EVs were substantially more expensive to purchase and insure.

They also produces few carbon emissions than an ICE car over their life cycle.

Depending on where you recharge it. In actual peer-reviewed studies, an EV driven in Poland, for instance, actually generates more emissions than an ICE. Most other nations the EV wins ... but very often the margin is razor-thin.

As for the (non-scientific) calculation you cite, it suffers from a large number of errors. For instance, the emissions from "refining and transporting" gasoline are included in ICE vehicles, but not the emissions required to build and maintain the electric power grid for EVs. As another example, the average weight of all EVs produced was used for EV energy consumption, but the ICE vehicle emissions were scaled upward to account for the fact that "Australians choose to drive larger, heavier vehicles" than the global population. If they choose large ICE vehicles, it's rather clear they'd do the same with EVs.

 

[J95qRP7]

Hrm, an "exclusive" poll by a Australian website that doesn't reveal its methodology ... but *does* admit it fudged the number by charging fuel costs to ICE vehicles, but charging the EVs entirely on free solar power. And the "maintenance costs" were taken only for the first three years, meaning essentially oil changes for the ICE vehicles, and nothing for the EVs.

Even still, the website admitted that EVs were substantially more expensive to purchase and insure.


Depending on where you recharge it. In actual peer-reviewed studies, an EV driven in Poland, for instance, actually generates more emissions than an ICE. Most other nations the EV wins ... but very often the margin is razor-thin.

As for the (non-scientific) calculation you cite, it suffers from a large number of errors. For instance, the emissions from "refining and transporting" gasoline are included in ICE vehicles, but not the emissions required to build and maintain the electric power grid for EVs. As another example, the average weight of all EVs produced was used for EV energy consumption, but the ICE vehicle emissions were scaled upward to account for the fact that "Australians choose to drive larger, heavier vehicles" than the global population. If they choose large ICE vehicles, it's rather clear they'd do the same with EVs.

Can you give me some reference links, please? I’d like to learn where I’m incorrect in my thought process.

 

[lonetac]

Good article that highlights how EV is beneficial (and not in some instances) with sources sighted:

The other benefit of electric vehicles - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Squid Surprise]

Perhaps try searching for the % of electricity in your nation that comes from fossil fuels? Anyone recharging their EV is using that electricity… and I don’t care which country you are talking about, but solar energy is a tiny %….

As of 2022, 60% of the world’s electricity came from fossil fuels - so any EVs are still mostly fossil fuel reliant.

When we get cold fusion, perhaps, we can have a better discussion

 

[lonetac]

Perhaps try searching for the % of electricity in your nation that comes from fossil fuels? Anyone recharging their EV is using that electricity… and I don’t care which country you are talking about, but solar energy is a tiny %….

As of 2022, 60% of the world’s electricity came from fossil fuels - so any EVs are still mostly fossil fuel reliant.

When we get cold fusion, perhaps, we can have a better discussion

1 in 5 houses where I live have solar. More of suburbia can adopt solar. The energy goes from the sun into your car and there is no fossil fuel needed.

We just need a higher adoption rate. Its a good option for a good portion of the country.

Nearly every one I know with a tesla here has a charging station at their home with solar panels.

Its an option.

 

[Nelson28]

It sounds just like the tide is virtually turning for EVs. Chevy's popping out with a base Equinox under $28,000 after tax credit and Jeep's were given a $25,000 electric version coming soon too. This is gonna make a massive distinction in getting more humans to replace to electric powered.

Sure, prematurely costs may still be a tad higher than gasoline cars, however with prices dropping so rapid, and the savings on leasing and fuel, it looks like EVs are the destiny. Plus, now not having to rely on fuel prices is a major perk! Here's to a cleanser and greater low priced future!

 

[Endymio]

with ...the savings on leasing and fuel, it looks like EVs are the destiny. Plus, now not having to rely on fuel prices is a major perk!

EVs cost more to lease than ICE vehicles, not less. As for your points on fuel, allow me to correct your economics.

1. Much of the cost savings for EV charging is due to the fact that drivers save the massive fuel taxes that go to pay for road maintenance and construction. This model works -only- when a small portion of drivers use EVs. Many nations are already beginning to institute massive mileage charges for EV owners.

2. Globally, 3% of drivers use electricity for fuel, and 97% use gasoline. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader what happens to prices when those figures are flipped.

3. Gasoline is sold on the free market, whereas electricity is a state-sanctioned monopoly, with profits legally guaranteed to the utility. If we sold gasoline by the same model, you wouldn't have the ups and downs in pricing -- you'd have just a steady "up" continuously.

 

[lonetac]

EVs cost more to lease than ICE vehicles, not less. As for your points on fuel, allow me to correct your economics.



2. Globally, 3% of drivers use electricity for fuel, and 97% use gasoline. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader what happens to prices when those figures are flipped.

You make a lot of assumptions. We shouldnt operate on "trust me bro" from someone on the internet but look at actual real world data where results have been achieved and can be mimic'd.

Take a look at norway as an example:
"Norway provides a real-world example of what’s possible. About 80% of new cars sold now are fully electric (and another 10% are plug-in hybrids) and are powered by an electricity grid that is already very green (91.8% hydropower and 6.4% wind). As a result, between 2000 and 2020, the emissions of particles under 2.5 micrometers in size (a particularly dangerous type known as PM2.5) plunged by nearly three-quarters, according to Statistics Norway."

 

[Squid Surprise]

You make a lot of assumptions. We shouldnt operate on "trust me bro" from someone on the internet but look at actual real world data where results have been achieved and can be mimic'd.

Take a look at norway as an example:
"Norway provides a real-world example of what’s possible. About 80% of new cars sold now are fully electric (and another 10% are plug-in hybrids) and are powered by an electricity grid that is already very green (91.8% hydropower and 6.4% wind). As a result, between 2000 and 2020, the emissions of particles under 2.5 micrometers in size (a particularly dangerous type known as PM2.5) plunged by nearly three-quarters, according to Statistics Norway."

Norway has a fraction of the population of the US - let alone China or India….

Solar / Hydro / Wind aren’t viable for the vast majority of the world…

EVs won’t really be globally viable until we have a cheap plentiful electricity tech - cold fusion anyone?

 

[lonetac]

Norway has a fraction of the population of the US - let alone China or India….

Solar / Hydro / Wind aren’t viable for the vast majority of the world…

EVs won’t really be globally viable until we have a cheap plentiful electricity tech - cold fusion anyone?

There are plenty of sources for renewable energy given the investments.

We should not discredit real world evidence and proof that it can work. Yes our population is much larger and there are many parts of the country and world who can adopt clean energy sources and implement much of the same.

Just because it cant be 100% doesnt mean it cant be more than it is.

The big point though is the proven reduction of contaminates in the air. Anyone saying that its not helping build a cleaner planet is just denying the facts proven here.

Yes digging for lithium is a problem. So is fracking, coal mines, oil pipes, oil spills, etc. We dont have solar spills that ruin entire ecosystems of our planet for example. There can be some debate on solar/wind farms impact admittedly but its far less than what oil does.

I do wonder if there is an alternative to using lithium.

Bring on the cold fusion! we should use every viable solution to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels even if we never obtain 100% independence from them IMHO. Some may disagree, thats fine.

I could charge my EV for the next 30 years using my solar system on my house which would be 100% using renewable energy if I charge during the day.

 

[Endymio]

Take a look at norway as an example:
"Norway provides a real-world example of what’s possible....

Norway is hardly a random pick: it's the #1 EV nation in the world. It's also very atypical: Norway granted EV owners an average of $27,000 on every EV purchase, as well as exempting EV owners from paying parking, road tolls and ferry charges (and in Norway, ferries are ubiquitous) Norway also has one of the cheapest electricity rates on the continent -- and nearly all that electricity is generated from wind and hydro, meaning charging an EV doesn't generate the same emissions it does in a nation like Australia or Poland.

... As a result, between 2000 and 2020, the emissions of particles under 2.5 micrometers in size (a particularly dangerous type known as PM2.5) plunged by nearly three-quarters, according to Statistics Norway."

Yet public health in Norway hasn't improved one bit from the hundreds of billions of dollars Norway squandered on their EV push: of the purported side effectives of PM2.5, asthma, stroke, and heart disease rates are nearly unchanged, and lung cancer rates have actually increased in the last 20 years. Had Norway spent 1/10 the money on actual medical care, they would have saved far more lives.

https://www.lungcancerjournal.info/article/S0169-5002(18)30412-4/abstract

Even worse for your argument, Norway's EV push has actually increased the population's dependence on private autos, and decreased ridership on public transport:

Why Norway — the poster child for electric cars — is having second thoughts

Electric cars are crucial, but not enough to solve climate change. We can’t let them crowd out car-free transit options.

www.vox.com

And as this article notes, most of the money and benefits went to help the rich, who purchased two, three, even four or more pricey EV Porsches and Mercedes, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in government funding for their toys.

We should not discredit real world evidence and proof that it can work.

Nothing "worked" A massive government subsidy effort resulted in zero real-world benefits -- and, arguably, more harm than good.

 

[dalpilot]

" While these prices are still on the higher side, they are lower than the national average price for new cars, which is around $47,000."

So we're comparing the average price of all cars to the price of specific EVs? Seems a little disingenuous. It's pretty obvious WHY this was written this way. I'd even go so far as to say this is misinformation, which only works with multiple asterisks. Yes, some EVs are now cheaper then the average new car price. Which doesnt mean diddly squat, you can get TONS of gas cars for less then half the average price.

"The Chevy Equinox SUV offers an impressive 319 miles of range and costs around $42,000" doesnt sound NEARLY as impressive when you tack on that the GAS model of the equinox starts at $26,600. That $42,000 EV equinox? Yeah, that's a base model, nowhere near comparable to the "average" $47000 vehicle. Same applies to the ioniq 6, which you compare to the average vehicle price, and not its direct gas competitor, the sonata, which starts at $27,500. OOPS. So, if you are looking for an EV, you are STILL paying at least $15-20k over the gas model for the electric equivalent. The electric models are NOT more affordable then their gas counterparts. If you have to compare an equinox EV base model to a suburban to make the equinox look affordable, you're doing it wrong.

And dont forget, hyundai/kia charge you retail price for a newer battery, in canada two different owners were quoted over $60K to replace the battery. Which yes, is more then the vehicle costs. just over 100k miles in both cases BTW. Disposable, expensive car. Replacing the engine in my Jetta is a $5k job, and they go a lot longer then 100k miles.

It's good that EVs are not as expensive as they used to be, but maybe we shouldnt be using snake oil salesman language to make them seem more affordable then they really are?

Facts, not innuendo. I have own(ed) all three types of vehicles - ICE (obviously), mild Hybrid and BEV (current). I have had excellent experiences with Hyundai and have only owned Hyundais for last 16 years - 3 (ICE) Sonatas, 1 mild Hybrid Sonata, and now a full BEV Ionic 6. The Ionic 6 is loaded as it is the AWD (2 motor with 320 HP/446 lb-ft torque with a 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds - goes fast quickly) with long range battery (77.4 kwh). Love the styling (very sporty although very love it or hate it if I'm honest) but the styling sloped hood line and sloped trunk results in very limited cargo space (get a similar Ionic 5 SUV (I still think they are more Hatchbacks than SUVs) or Kia EV6). It retails for $50K but got a very good lease at $320/mo. because of $10K Hyundai Motor Co. cash and $7K equity trade in for 33 months and $29.5K residual lease end. Nicest, fastest car I've ever owned, great interior space front and rear, quiet, great road feel. Next best car is the Hybrid - 2016 model (base model - still well equipped) that got 45 mpg, second nicest driving car and no compromises as far as driving - HWY only would go 650 miles - filled up every 4-6 weeks (averaged 600-800 miles a month) and would have been a long term car except it was totaled in an accident (any accident that deploys air bags -ICE, Hybrid, EV- they cost a fortune so rarely will car be repaired that deploys air bags). Hybrids are definitely the way to go - it is almost impossible to step onto a dealer lot and walk away with a hybrid - I had a 3 month wait for the car I was going to get (a 2024 Sonata Hybrid for about $36.5K (tax, title, destination, license, etc - all out the door) until the 2024 Ionic 6 lease came along. Toyota (a full range of hybrids for sale), Honda, Hyundai are all making big money as they have hybrids of all their most popular vehicles while the Big 3 have nothing hybrid to sell. Most hybrids are only $1-2K more expensive and pay for themselves in gas savings in 1st 12 mos. or less. The small battery (2-3 kwh) will usually last as long as the engine (about 200,000 miles) and for the owner don't have to worry where you will fill up. I'm retired and longest trip is 180 miles RT to airport well within 300 mile range of car and have a 120V Level 1 charger that puts about 1.5 kwh into battery/hour so a full charge would be 52 hours (but you really want to stay in the sweet spot of 20-80% charge to maintain battery longevity). I usually go 30-70 since I have to charge longer and most trips around town are 3-5 miles so range is not a concern. Everyone I know that has a EV usually has a second vehicle for long trips to avoid planning around charging stations and for a commuter vehicle (my friend loves his Tesla 3) they are cheap to run (electricity runs around 8-10 cents/kwh) and fun to drive (almost all EVs (except the low end ones) have loads more power and torque than equivalent ICE vehicles so they are a blast to drive. That JMHO around all 3 that I have owned.