By on May 26, 2017

Ford Focus Electric

Electric vehicles haven’t quite caught up to internal combustion models in terms overall cost effectiveness. In fact, if it weren’t for government incentives, there would probably be significantly fewer early adopters willing to shoulder the financial burden for the rest of us. However, EVs will eventually become the cheaper option on the market — with or without a tax credit.

While the obvious fueling benefits drastically reduce the cost of ownership, those savings don’t offset the higher buy-in price, especially with gas prices still relatively low. Batteries aren’t cheap, but costs are estimated to drop by around 77 percent between last year and 2030. That may sound like a lifetime of waiting if you’ve been holding out on an electric but, thankfully, the affordability tipping point should occur much sooner than that. 

“On an upfront basis, these things will start to get cheaper and people will start to adopt them more as price parity gets closer,” said Colin McKerracher, analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “After that it gets even more compelling.”

Bloomberg forecasts EVs will represent around 35 percent of all new light-duty vehicle sales in 2040, some 90 times the numbers seen in 2015. However, the normalization of battery-driven vehicles should help drive down prices to competitive levels by 2025 — at least in Europe and North America. Some automakers expected the reduced cost of ownership to make up the difference even earlier than that.

Renault is anticipating total ownership expenditures on EVs to equal conventional internal combustion units by the early 2020s. Fuel prices will play a significant factor in deciding exactly how soon the change will occur, but it’s safe to say it’s not too far off.

“We have two curves,” Gilles Normand, Renault’s senior vie president for electrics, said in an interview earlier this month. “One is EV technology cost reductions because there are more breakthroughs in the cost of technology and more volume, so the cost of EVs will go down. ICE going to go up as a result of more stringent regulations especially regarding to particulate regulations.”

Even if gas prices stay level, regulatory measures against vehicle emissions are likely to keep average ICE production costs from ever dropping. That gives electrics the opportunity to overtake them in 2025 and gradually become more affordable in subsequent years.

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

140 Comments on “How Long Until Electric Vehicles Are Actually Cheaper Than Gasoline Models?...”


  • avatar
    thornmark

    Here’s a good one from a lousy paper:

    “Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they’re within reach of the average family.”
    ‘The Washington Post’, 1915

    Based on their reporting, another century or so.

  • avatar

    Price isn’t the only roadblock for EVs. I suspect EVs will take off far earlier in Europe, due to fuel prices, than in the US, unless the range and refueling time problems get resolved. And those probably need a breakthrough in battery tech.

    • 0 avatar

      @David C Holzman

      That’s all very logical and makes perfect sense. People on the other hand are irrational, as Dan Ariely says, predictably irrational.

      Comparatively speaking, EV’s got off to a strong start in the US, while in Europe the buying public remained ambivalent towards EV’s; despite much much higher gas prices. Recently the US demand for EV’s appears to be softening (especially outside of the CARB states) while Europe has suddenly got the EV bug and demand is growing hand over fist.

      What drives folks to buy electric, or 4×4 monster trucks has nothing to do with logic.

      Europe and China will lead the adoption of EV’s, and it will have little to no bearing to the cost of gas. Lower priced EV’s will fuel the EV demand there since they are in vogue, while in the US cheaper EV’s will have little to no effect on demand. It seems unlikely that the US will get the EV bug anytime soon, if EV’s are viewed as less than desirable in the US, a lower purchase price won’t make them anymore desirable. Pent up demand must exist for EV prices to be a driver.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        For short to mid distance urban driving, EVs can be plenty logical. If you throw in regulatory perks like HOV lane access, preferred parking in crowded cities, and bans on ICEs in town centers, doubly so.

        In the US, longer distances are more common than in Europe, and there is generally more space for parking, hence the tables are tilted more towards ICEs, or at least plug in hybrids.

        • 0 avatar
          Asdf

          There are no good reasons to give EV drivers those benefits, though. Quite obviously, the adoption of EVs shouldn’t be a goal in itself for governments, it should be up to the markets to decide when EVs are good enough, and then we will see them being adopted. The current verdict is easy to see.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Actually, there are plenty of good reasons to “prime the pump” for alternatives to traditional ICEs in transportation – and in many other arenas as well. The “market” is not always the best means for a country to prepare itself for fluctuations in the very market you propose to use as the controller. Relevant case in point: The fuel crisis of the early 1970s. For a host of reasons, the fuel spigot was turned off. Our industry had no products in the pipeline to offer to buyers (market) which switched its preference to efficient products nearly overnight. The impact on industry, jobs, and economy reverberated through the country and still does to this very day. That is why the government introduced efficiency standards and is willing to incentivize things like EVs, HOV lanes, alternative fuels, etc. The market is too interested in today’s returns – it is not a very good tool to protect against massive shifts in things like fuel availability and price. The government has a responsibility to its citizens to do everything it can to prevent such disruptive upheavals like the one I used as an example. It made no difference what political party you supported back then – you waited your turn for fuel regardless.

          • 0 avatar

            “The market is too interested in today’s returns”

            A free market is the only thing that reflects actual reality. Government regulations, particularly mandates and incentives, try to force reality to fit policy and end up distorting things.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Ronnie I agree. The regs do distort what the market might do left to its own devices. That is frankly the purpose. One only has to look at photos of smog and pollution from the early 1970s and compare to today to see the “distorted” market looks a lot better than it would have left to its own devices. The problem is when the policy the regulations try to achieve are bad. A simple example would be those old seatbelt interlocks in 1974. The push for safety was good; the method was bad.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            the “Free market” thought writing bad mortgages and packaging them up as “safe” securities was a good idea, and it nearly tanked this country.

            and that was less than 10 years ago.

            how short some of your memories are.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Or how about diesel cars in Europe? That was a top down solution that created bigger problems than the ones they were supposedly addressing. Some regulations being good doesn’t mean that more regulations are better. Right now, our absurd CAFE standards are necessitating solutions that are creating real problems in the form of direct-injection produced particulates. They’re being ignored by the ideology driven fools who support government regulation, but the time is coming that they’ll cause more harm than cars that averaged 27.5 mpg ever did. I suppose that will create a ‘crisis,’ allowing progressives to further erode our liberties in the name of their superior wisdom.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            It’s too late to “Leave it to the market to decide” when there are millions of miles of public-financed and maintained roads favoring cars over trains, say…and billions of dollars of public money spent going to war, propping up terrorism-exporting dictatorships, policing the world’s shipping lanes at our expense, giving favorable tax treatment to fossil fuel extraction, even guarding a goddamned Colombian pipeline, all to keep gasoline cheap.

            Absurd.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Oil isn’t just real freedom HotPotato. It is also the key to the planet sustaining the population level that it has. You’re letting yourself be a soldier in a war being conducted on you, even if you’ve never given a single thought to anybody else.

      • 0 avatar
        Zackman

        “Europe and China will lead the adoption of EV’s…”

        You bet they will – just like a decent railroad passenger system, while this place wallows in the dust of trucks and SUV/CUVs and various half-hearted attempts at transportation efficiency.

        That’s OK, though, since some people believe in the so-called land of the free, etc., that the mantra of rugged individualism is still the way to go, regardless of the fact that dream ended a couple generations ago.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @JPWhite – “What drives folks to buy electric, or 4×4 monster trucks has nothing to do with logic.”

        I can get much more use out of a 4×4 monster truck than I can from an electric car. I can also present a logical explanation why I’d prefer one over the other.

        With that being said, I do see your point.

    • 0 avatar
      stroker49

      When there are more EV’s here in Europe they will put approx. 1 usd in tax for every 6 mile you drive. Gas is 5,90 USD/gl and the state need the money. It will never be cheap.

      I pay 44 usd/month in tax on my car, so I cannot escape even though I take my bicycle to work 3 mile one way every day.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @David Holzman: There are already 300+ mile range EVs that are either in production already or on their way. Charging technology will be deployed soon that allows 250 miles of range in 15 minutes. That technology is going to make EVs possible for a large segment of the population once the prices on those cars comes down.

      • 0 avatar
        NMGOM

        mcs – – –

        My HD diesel truck cost only $51K; goes 1000 miles on a “charge”; can haul 3500 lbs, can tow 16,000 lbs, can travel at -10 deg F for hours; — and can do all that so 25 years and 250,000 miles later.

        An EV truck? You’ve got to be kidding…(^_^)… Try: none of the above…

        =========================

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          @NMGOM: I wasn’t talking about trucks. If we’re going to go that route…

          My favorite airline can get me from Boston MA to Cork Ireland for $99. Their plane can make the 2900 mile trip on one charge and won’t need a snorkel kit to do it.

          https://goo.gl/jmMGhM

  • avatar
    brawnychicken333

    “In fact, if it weren’t for government incentives, there would probably be significantly fewer early adopters willing to shoulder the financial burden for the rest of us.”

    Ahem-those early adopters aren’t shouldering the burden for the rest of us. We taxpayers are shouldering the burden for them.

    I mean, maybe you’re into using your money to help rich guys buy Tesla’s, but not all of us are.

    • 0 avatar
      fazalmajid

      Yes, it’s distasteful, but early adopters are funding the development of the technology in a much more efficient way than direct government handouts would (ahem, Solyndra & Fisker).

      We should also not forget all the subsidies the fossil-fuel industry is getting, from the blood & treasure spent on fighting wars in the Middle East to tax credits for exploration, and the externalities from pollution and global warming borne by all of us.

      We reached peak gasoline consumption in the US around 2003-2004 depending on your measure. It’s mostly due to more fuel-efficient cars, primarily hybrids, but EVs will keep depressing gas prices. It would be foolhardy to project oil price increases in assessing the future ICE vs. BEV relative affordability. You then have to factor in how modern cars are more reliable and people keep them longer, thus dampening the impact of new EV sales on the total installed base, vs. Millennials’ preference for ride-sharing services.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        Not exactly an apple to apples argument.

        Because it likely everything you use has an oil base. Everything.
        From parts to power used in production…it’s glue that holds it our economy together or powers.

        In this case we are supporting a product…not an entire foundation of a culture

      • 0 avatar

        I’ve seen a few analyses that say that even a 20% EV/Hybrid fleet will put the same downward pressure on oil prices as the recent fracking inspired glut. I’ve also seen some people predict $25 oil, based on similar EV related projections.

        None of these prognostications consider that depressing the price of oil will make ICEs more competitive.

        I do think that in the long run, petroleum is too valuable as a chemical feedstock to burn it as fuel, but we don’t appear to be running out of it any time soon.

        • 0 avatar
          HotPotato

          “None of these prognostications consider that depressing the price of oil will make ICEs more competitive.”

          Ding ding ding! Everyone who prefers to drive an ICE car should celebrate EVs. Depressing oil demand depresses oil prices. Like cheap gas? Encourage your friends to drive an EV. Seriously.

    • 0 avatar
      Blackcloud_9

      Saying “We taxpayers are shouldering the burden for them” is a false argument or at the very least making the tax burden seem FOR MORE onerous than it is. The tax burden to the tax-paying individual is minuscule, probably far less than a penny per every tax dollar you contribute.
      I also don’t believe the line “maybe you’re into using your money to help rich guys buy Tesla’s”. I highly doubt many rich guys thought, “If I’m going to spend 80 to 100K on a car. I’m going to pick the Tesla because of the $7,500 tax credit”

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        The problem is, that all those pennies ad up. It’s always a billion here, three billion there and all of a sudden we have a $20 trillion in government debt.

        • 0 avatar
          Blackcloud_9

          I agree that the tax incentives should go away one day. I am also in agreement that perhaps the incentive could be modified so high-end EVs don’t qualify.
          However, having the incentives were a good idea at the outset. Just like tax incentives for putting solar on your home was a good idea. But now, solar power is a much more affordable, economically viable option for your home and those incentives are largely going away.
          I think that in another five years or so the incentive could be eliminated. By that time there should be two to three more “long-range” EVs on the road and the EV Auto marketplace should be able to support itself

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            They will. When an automaker reaches 250,000 eligible units, from my understanding, its BEVs no longer qualify for the tax credit. For Tesla, that’ll be rather soon, well before the company runs through the list of current Model 3 pre-orders. For GM and Nissan, it’s probably a few years away.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @kyree: It’s actually closer than you think for GM and Nissan. There’s a chart somewhere out on the net with estimates.

          • 0 avatar

            @Kyree.

            Just read up on it to enhance your understanding.

            The phase out period (not a cutoff BTW) starts after 200,000 eligible units are delivered. It takes a year for the phase out period to reduce the benefit to zero. In the meantime it’s possible for Tesla to work through a large portion of the model 3 reservation list.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “Ahem-those early adopters aren’t shouldering the burden for the rest of us. We taxpayers are shouldering the burden for them.”

      …just like taxpayers originally shouldered the burden for all the technology you used to complain about taxpayer-shouldered burdens…

      The question, then, is this: did the taxpayer-shouldered burden for computer and Internet technology ever show a return? I’d say the answer lies in your own 401k.

      • 0 avatar
        Cactuar

        Using tax dollars to develop technology used in business, communications etc. probably makes sense for most people. I would guess people start getting irritated when their perception is that their tax money is used to help finance 4-wheeled status symbols.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I suppose they also got irritated when the tax code changed in the 2000s so that owners of status-symbol Navigators and Escalades could write them off as…ahem…”work trucks.”

          LOL…the only stuff these rigs ever hauled was Cheesecake Factory leftovers and Nordstrom shopping bags.

          • 0 avatar
            Blackcloud_9

            Well, when the Cheesecake Factory leftovers left a grease stain on the seats or carpet, it qualified as a depreciable asset ;-)

          • 0 avatar
            tnk479

            @FreedMike, yeah, as a single, non-home owning upper income person, actually I am irritated at all taxpayer subsidies across the board. You got any better point to make? I am not fond of buying luxury cars for the uber rich.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Yes, I do have a better point to make, which is this: electric cars constitute a brand new and very lucrative product that we are uniquely suited to produce in great numbers in this country, thus increasing the MAGA factor.

            If it takes tax subsidies to get this new tech off the ground, then so be it. If it’s successful, then the taxpayers’ largesse will be repaid handsomely…with new wealth.

            Who knows, maybe you’ll figure out how to make some money off them too.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      brawnychicken – the taxpayer “freebie” the wealthy get when buying their Tesla is a deck chair off the Queen Mary in regards to the tax benefits they get elsewhere. When the 1%er pays the same percentage of tax that I (and most here) do, we can start worrying about the EV subsidy which is barely more than a rounding error.

    • 0 avatar
      Number6

      Please. We taxpayers shoulder a huge burden for cheap gas until very recently. Just about all of US foreign policy in the Middle East is driven by oil. So when you gush over cheap gas, keep in mind that over 50% of your income tax burden pays for it. And now we get the added benefit of recruiting future terrorists. Don’t think taxes and cheap oil aren’t intertwined.

      And the cost of that ain’t going away.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    A really big factor is depreciation. I would have lost my shirt if I had purchased my former Leaf.

    To date, only Teslas seem to have acceptable depreciation, but the reasons are unclear – is it due to:

    1. The brand name,
    2. The long range,
    3. The low battery degradation,
    or a combination of these factors?

    How will other brands’ long-range EVs fare as they depreciate?

    Will Tesla’s Model 3 depreciate worse than its premium cars?

    On top of all this, I’m leery of the MSRP of EVs coming from mfrs who produce ICE cars, because they can underwrite EV losses with truck profits, for instance. If they wanted to, Ford and GM could always price their EVs lower than an EV-only company – at least for right now.

    • 0 avatar

      I think desirability is the biggest factor affecting EV depreciation, and yes the brand is part of that.

      As for range, I don’t think that’s a huge factor, the SC network is huge.

      I did purchase my LEAF, so the heavy depreciation is the motivation to keep driving it. Thankfully it is very reliable (touch wood) and isn’t sa chore to keep. Eventually all cars depreciate to zero if you keep them long enough.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      ” I would have lost my shirt if I had purchased my former Leaf.”

      You’re not making the mistake of looking at the MSRP vs. the price paid to calculate depreciation are you? If a car costs 40k and has a 10k tax credit and it sells used in a year for 28k it didn’t depreciate 30% it depreciated 7%.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        No.

        New car in 2012:
        MSRP = $38250
        Fed subsidy = $7500
        PA subsidy = $2500
        Net price = $28250

        Three years later it went to auction from Nissan:
        Price on used car lot 3 states away = $9000
        Likely transaction price for new customer = $8000
        Likely auction price = $7000

        So I’m seeing a depreciation of ~75% from the Net price to the Auction price in 3 years – pretty bad. Feel free to calculate it another way, but short-range EV depreciation is horrendous no matter how it’s done. Mitsubishi i-MiEVs are even worse.

        • 0 avatar
          87 Morgan

          SCE to AUX…you are 100% correct.

          I never thought I would say this…but the Leaf, used, starts to make sense sub 10k.

          Especially for those new drivers who are driving to school and home then perhaps to a part time job or practice back at school. A 65 mile range works perfectly and you get a car with little to no operating expense that has all of the safety tech packed in. At 8 or 9k transaction price you are realistically buying a 90k or higher Honda Civic for junior.

      • 0 avatar
        Whittaker

        No.
        The price paid was still 40k.
        The owner paid 30k and the rest of us paid the other 10k.
        A car does not depreciate less because someone else helped pay for it regardless if that someone else was your grandmother or your neighbor.

        • 0 avatar

          @Whittaker

          The owner paid more than 30k

          Remember that he/she pays the same taxes as yourself so contributed to the $10,000 tax credit like the rest of us.

          As a purchaser the owner has to have a $7.500 tax liability to receive the full $7,500 which places them in the upper echelons of earners.

          Those receiving this “free handout” have been paying a healthy amount in taxes each year.

          The argument that someone else paid for a benefit an individual received is very priggish. It’s like saying I paid for someone else’s kids to go to school, since schools are funded by the taxpayer.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            ” It’s like saying I paid for someone else’s kids to go to school, since schools are funded by the taxpayer.”

            technically I do, since I don’t have kids. But I’m fine with it; the better educated everyone else’s kids are, the less likely one of them is going to be sticking a gun in my side demanding my car and wallet.

            it’s why I got some smug satisfaction about those people who refused to pay the county fee for fire department service, and when their houses caught on fire the department rolled trucks just to watch them burn down.

            you want to be all “rugged, independent, git yo’ hand out of my pocket ‘cos nothin’ there belongs to you,” then fine. Go live in a shack out in the sticks and be self-sufficient. But if you’re going to live in a society amongst other people, you’re going to have to contribute to that society’s well being even if it doesn’t personally benefit you right away.

          • 0 avatar
            mchan1

            “The argument that someone else paid for a benefit an individual received is very priggish. It’s like saying I paid for someone else’s kids to go to school, since schools are funded by the taxpayer.”

            That IS true!

            Single taxpayers should not be paying for someone else’s kids to attend school.
            If people are paying for someone else’s kids to attend school, those people have the RIGHT to say things about where their tax dollars go and how it’s spent!

            People who can afford Luxury and EV vehicles WITHOUT ANY tax subsidies which are borne from other taxpayers’ tax dollars.

            Don’t give us the BS that you and all other wealthier people use in Justifying your greedy attempt to buy a hybrid/EV vehicle that had/may come with tax subsidies. That’s BS!

            Don’t worry about the gas/maintenance of a luxury vehicle if people can Afford to buy luxury vehicles.

            The SAME concept applies to EV/hybrids with tax incentives… the wealthy does NOT NEED those tax incentives when they can almost easily BUY them without!

            Only the ARROGANCE of the wealthy uses that BS concept to justify their purchase of EV/Hybrids and related tax rebates.

          • 0 avatar

            @mcchan1

            On the one hand you say the rich are arrogant for wanting to take tax credits but in the same breath say that single tax payers should not pay for schools!?!

            Huh?

            As single taxpayer, the taxpayer should consider they are paying back into the system that has already benefitted them; not that the person with children in school somehow doesn’t deserve their tax dollars.

            When we pay our taxes we don’t get to pick and choose how it’s spent. Our influence is indirect, one of the few actions we can take directly is to vote for those who we believe will spend our money in the manner we prefer and/or alter the amount we pay.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Anyone ever see a garage that clean?

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Yes I have. The one belonging to my father.

      In his “defense” it was the house my parents had built for themselves, their was a giant drain in the middle of the floor (at his insistence), and he had HOT and COLD running water from the hose bibs he had in the garage.

      Later he paneled the interior with peg board and old barn siding.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      No, and I’ve never seen an all-blue license plate, either.

    • 0 avatar
      Blackcloud_9

      I’m surprised they allowed the colored plastic bins in the photo. For those advertising/stock photos, usually everything in the background is white or a highly muted shade. They want you to focus on the car/person/product.

    • 0 avatar
      Zackman

      Nice studio shot.

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      Yes I have. Mine. Both of them.

      It helps that one is also my bicycle repair/restoration shop, while the other hold my car and both my touring motorcycles.

      I can’t stand a messy garage.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        My point was that the garage looks as clean as an operating room theater.

        If one works on vehicles, motorcycles or even bicycles, there will be stains somewhere.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      Yes..mine as well.

      I like a clean garage. I mop it a couple times of year to keep the epoxy floor looking nice. I would post a pic as proof, but that is not aloud round these parts.

  • avatar
    MBella

    Yes. They are usually very rich people. I’ve seen carpet on the garage floors in some places. Coincidentally, they are probably the most likely people to buy an electric car. That car will likely not be a Focus however. You need to show everyone you’re ​saving the world.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “Batteries aren’t cheap, but costs are estimated to drop by around 77 percent between last year and 2030.”

    “Bloomberg forecasts EVs will represent around 35 percent of all new light-duty vehicle sales in 2040, some 90 times the numbers seen in 2015. However, the normalization of battery-driven vehicles should help drive down prices to competitive levels by 2025 — at least in Europe and North America.”

    I highly doubt all of this. Short of a significant scientific or geopolitical event as a catalyst, batteries as currently designed will not drop 77% in cost and I’d wager you will not see 35% adoption unless battery range is significantly improved.

    This may qualify as a significant scientific event IMO, time will tell:

    http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/honda-rare-earth-battery-hybrid/

    ““We have two curves,” Normand said in an interview earlier this month in London. “One is EV technology cost reductions because there are more breakthroughs in the cost of technology and more volume, so the cost of EVs will go down. *****ICE going to go up as a result of more stringent regulations***** especially regarding to particulate regulations.””

    Another factor is they may increase the ARTIFICIAL CONSTRAINTS in order to meet the stated figures. You know, for the children, so they cannot have cheap reliable transportation.

    Because, f*** you free market.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-26/electric-cars-seen-cheaper-than-gasoline-models-within-a-decade

  • avatar
    dwford

    Refueling time is THE key to EV adoption. Until you can substantially charge an empty battery in a few minutes, the number of people who could reasonably live with an EV is limited. Not only do you need the range restraint completely removed, but also there are only so many people who can have an EV charger at their home, so quick recharging elsewhere is key.

    • 0 avatar
      Mandalorian

      This is exactly it. A car that takes HOURS to refuel is very compromised. Wanna take a road trip? Too bad. They almost require one to own an ICE car in addition which kind of defeats the point.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      “Until you can substantially charge an empty battery in a few minutes,”

      You can quibble about “few” but 50% for 20 min seems decent.

      “Tesla supercharging stations charge with up to 145 kW of power distributed between two adjacent cars, with a maximum of 120 kW per car. That is up to 16 times as fast as public charging stations; they take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100%.”

      • 0 avatar
        dwford

        75 minutes to 100% charged vs 5 minutes to fill a 18 gallon gas tank. Too big a difference still.

        • 0 avatar
          Maymar

          For what it’s worth, my car effectively has a 250 mile range on a single tank. Short of road trips (which are rarely impromptu), I’m not sure I’ve ever gone through an entire tank in a single day. For my use, it’d be preferable to have my own refilling station at home rather than go out of my way to get to a gas station (even if it’s a minor 5-minute inconvenience once a week). Not to say EV’s work for everybody just because they work for me, but I think we’re getting to a point where the range limitations are overstated.

          I’d be curious to see if there’s any studies on range-extended EV’s to see how much the average owner actually uses that range extension capability.

          • 0 avatar

            For trips over 500 miles I fly. I drive over 250 miles 5-6 times a year, and over 150 several times a month. That’s a big reason electric would be a 2nd car for me. Of course my daily round trip commute is 65 miles and at one point was 110 miles.

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      This is only true if you’re determined to run an EV on the same basis and schedule as a gasoline or diesel powered car. And use that EV as the only automobile in every situation. 99% of the time, it’s not going to be a problem: You just plug the car in every evening, and next morning you’re completely charged up.

      Where it’s going to make a difference is if you’re determined to use that EV for a 200+ mile trip. As I’m guessing that the majority of EV owners are also going to own a gasoline powered vehicle, it shouldn’t be an issue.

      While I currently don’t own an EV (but am considering owning one for my next car) I don’t see where it would be a problem on my part. As we speak, any trips of over 100 miles one way in our household currently falls on my Kia Sedona, due primarily to the comfort factor. Which means both my wife and I could own EV’s as our primary vehicles without any juggling of the household motor pool. In fact, I’m currently working towards that, as the electrician who’s wiring up my new garage is installing a 230v line as part of the setup just for an EV chargers. And an EV charger isn’t all that expensive.

      I long ago realized that the “EV’s won’t work until you can charge them in less time than it would take to fill the tank” is an argument for those who are determined to believe that an EV cannot possibly work. And they refuse to believe otherwise.

      In all seriousness, how many of us on this board only own one car, and will go thru our lives only owning one car?

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        @Syke- The majority of the population simply cannot AFFORD more than one vehicle per person. Prices are higher than ever.

        I don’t think the argument is against EVs, it’s against EVs in their current form. Right now they just have too many inconveniences compared to regular vehicles.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Mandalorian – agreed. I am in favour of EV’s but I’d have to radically change my lifestyle to suite an EV’s range and capacities.

          Make a pickup EV that can haul 2,000 lbs for 250 miles and I’d might consider one. (Assuming it doesn’t cost double that of an ICE vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Most of the households of my friends and family are single vehicle. Beyond that very few have an enclosed garage or even a private car port so I don’t know where they would charge an EV.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        Yeah, this. I can “refuel” an EV at home, whenever I am not driving it. Or at work, while I’m sitting inside the office. Or at the local Meijer which offers charging stations while I’m inside buying groceries.

        Can’t do any of those with a gas/diesel car.

        I think a lot of the whiners about EV recharge time do so simply out of a petulant, stubborn refusal to change the way they do things. Even something as trivial as this. “I fill my car up at the gas station, my daddy filled his car up at the gas station, his daddy filled up at the gas station, and consarnit that’s what I’m going to do until the day I die!”

        People can be such bull-headed morons.

    • 0 avatar
      stroker49

      Yes and that also boils down to infrastructure.
      Even if you have a Tesla and can find a supercharger with up to 150 kW (here in Europe) it will take at least 30-40 min to fill up. That might be ok if you have a large battery, but do you want to wait in line with one or several cars in front of you before you can fill up? That means that in order to service as many cars as a normal gas station with six pumps you need like 35- 40 Superchargers! And every one of them would need to be fed with 400 V and 72 A if you have three phases. We don’t have that infrastructure here and America certainly does not.

      We might invent a superdupergrafencapacitor that can take you 300 miles and can be charged in 10 minutes (that is maximum what I would like to wait for someone in front of me charging)

      If that batteri shows up in the future:
      We need to fill with 100 kWh in 10 minutes= 100 000/0.167= 600 000 W!!!
      That would require 600 000/3/400*v3= 288 A for every phase and 400V

      We will need huge watercooled cables between the supercharger and the car and it also starts to be dangerous.

      I’m sceptical

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @stroker49: “We might invent a superdupergrafencapacitor that can take you 300 miles and can be charged in 10 minutes (that is maximum what I would like to wait for someone in front of me charging)

        The newest technology headed to production is 300+ miles range and less than 15 minutes to put in 250 miles.

        https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/technology/porsche-engineering-e-power-electromobility-800-volt-charging-12720.html

        Don’t know why you think it’s dangerous. The full power doesn’t get turned on until the car is plugged in and diagnostics are run. It’s safe. I’ve done 400v charging in the rain.

        Another possibility overlooked is that dual cables/ports could be used. For Porsches 800v technology, that would mean 250 miles range in less than 8 minutes.

      • 0 avatar
        Maymar

        That sounds like a bit of a false equivalency – assuming all EVs have recharging capability at home, the only concern is the odd one that goes through a full charge in less than a day. It might make sense at highway rest stops, but in town, how many people are actually going to need charging?

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Given the time needed to recharge, even at a Tesla Supercharger, EVs remain limited to running local errands. You’re not going to cover 1,000 miles in 15 hours with one. That means you need an ICE vehicle, which you own or rent, for trips beyond an EV’s range on a single charge or you rely on mass transportation like airlines, trains or buses.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      From 2 years ago:

      http://jalopnik.com/they-drove-a-tesla-from-la-to-new-york-in-a-record-58-h-1699782187

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      I like how- once EVs are the topic- suddenly everyone is driving halfway across the country every day.

      Good lord.

      • 0 avatar
        geozinger

        @JimZ: So true. I’m currently house-hunting and drove my minivan about 40 miles today going from open house to open house.

        Most days I drive 12-15 miles per day. Even when I find a new place I will still only drive 12-15 miles per day. I can realistically use an EV. If I need to go long distance, hello ICE powered sedan…

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          If you are serious about a new house do yourself a favor and stop going to open houses. In general open houses exist to get new clients for the agent sitting the open. Less than 1% of sales occur due to first seeing the property at an open house. The best deals and the nicest houses rarely make it to the open house stage. My rule is only to allow an open if the property has been on the market for 2 full weekends and there are no credible offers on the table. Otherwise you don’t want to be stopping actual serious buyers from looking at the house. You don’t want to accidentally tip your hand to agent sitting the open or in the rare case that another person there that is an actual buyer.

    • 0 avatar
      Kendahl

      Jalopnik’s average speed was about 50 mph. Car and Driver’s was in the low 30s. Fifty years ago, my goal was 60 mph, including stops, in a 53 hp VW beetle. Today, it’s 70 mph. What Jalopnik and C&D proved, once again, is that making good time on a long trip depends less on how fast you go than on how slowly you don’t go. The time spent recharging an EV is a killer.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @kendahl: “EVs remain limited to running local errands.”

      Kendahl, I did not know that. I wish I had read your post earlier because I would have known my EV couldn’t make the 105-mile trip I just made in it. Not sure how long it took for it to charge at the halfway point because it was done by the time I finished my breakfast, but I’ll take your word for it that it took too long. 1000 miles? My problem is that an ICE isn’t going to cover that distance in 2 hours like an airplane.

  • avatar
    Driver8

    Not in my lifetime until: there is as widespread charging infrastructure as gasoline, with charging that is as rapid as filling a gas tank, with equivalent range and performance at real market price parity.
    US buyers preferences for 3+ ton vehicles will push this window out even further.

    Fuel taxes, EV subsidies, HOV/inner city restrictions may push them along in the EU but not the US.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      If fuel taxes affected vehicle choice, PA wouldn’t have any trucks.

      We pay 58 cents to the state alone, plus the Federal 18 cent tax – $0.76 per gallon just in taxes.

      As you say, US buyers don’t seem to care much.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      The ability to charge while idle is something EVs can do that ICE vehicles can’t. I can’t (easily) fill my tank at home.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        I’m enjoying coffee and a muffin right now while my car tops up. If I had my ICE with me today, I’d have lost 5 minutes fueling out of my day on my way to breakfast. Actually, I don’t really need to be charging now anyway – just topping up.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    “Even if gas prices stay level, regulatory measures against vehicle emissions are likely to keep average ICE production costs from ever dropping.”

    Just lovely.
    .
    .

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    “How Long Until Electric Vehicles Are Actually Cheaper Than Gasoline Models?”

    Have you priced a used Leaf lately?
    .
    .

  • avatar
    zip89123

    How Long Until Electric Vehicles Are Actually Cheaper Than Gasoline Models?

    Never.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      Just wait until you have to dispose of ICE vehicles and have to pay by the pound to get rid of them.

      • 0 avatar
        DrSandman

        Objectively, EVs should cost less than gasoline counterparts because they aren’t as capable. They are foisted upon consumers by coercion, while a few buy them for virtue signaling and religious reasons. Fortunately, the age of government coercion is in its death throes.

        I personally can’t wait for cheap EVs: their reduced range and limited capabilities make them ideal for a teen’s first couple of cars.

        • 0 avatar
          HotPotato

          You don’t have to wait for cheap EVs, they’re here: used first-gen Leafs from before Nissan figured out battery cooling. Dirt cheap, limited range.

  • avatar
    grrr

    High uptake of EV’s will naturally help keep gas prices down due to reduced demand.

    Moreover, if reduced demand becomes a “writting on the wall” scenario for those sitting on large oil deposits, they may choose to increase supply, further pushing prices down.

  • avatar
    kwong

    Electric cars getting cheaper and cheaper as production grows, technology advances, and more shared parts (batteries, drive units, inverters, etc) are used. But this cheapskate couldn’t wait. I bought a 24K mile old off-lease 2013 Fiat 500e for $7,300 out the door. My wife has since driven it 7,500 in the last 4 months. We’re saving $9-$12 a day in fuel costs compared to her 28mpg Lexus Rx400h and she gets free access in the toll lanes which can range from $2-$14 each way. By my calculations, the car will pay for itself in 1.2-1.5 years.

    I’m guessing the car will hold up for at least another 5 years, at which point an affordable longer range EV will be available.

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    Another ev article, another [email protected] fest.

    Charging time issues are eliminated by swapping batteries. Faster than refuelling.

    Need a tow vehicle twice a year? Rent a truck. Rent a boat. Rent a room.

    Ev’s may already be cheaper if all the costs of burning fossil fuels were factored in.

    Governments are not all-powerful independent agencies. Governments are you and your fellow citizens.

    These are truths about cars.

    • 0 avatar
      stroker49

      Yes, swapping batteries is a good idea. But I haven’t seen it in real life.
      One EV and rent a car with ICE for road trips might be a good solution. Or plug in hybrids. A batteri sufficient for 5 – 10 miles and then you can start your ICE.

      My setup is good but I live in a town i Sweden with bicycle roads and other good infrastructure. They even start plowing and sanding the bicycle roads before the roads for cars and buses. I use my bicycle also in the winter up to 3 mi and for longer distances my car.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Charging time issues are eliminated by swapping batteries. Faster than refuelling.”

      So why isn’t anyone doing that yet? Surely Tesla- the undisputed leader of the entire automotive industry- would be doing it already if it was so easy.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        Swapping batteries requires “service” stations equipped to store, swap and charge batteries. Until there is a certain density of ownership such stations are far less viable than the current charging-only locations.

        The increasing diversity in battery configurations and charging systems will further delay swap stations. As will designs that hamper battery swapping. Batteries themselves will need to be handled as common property.

        This depends on commonality of ev ownership. It’s the sort of thing that citizens, through their governments, can bring forward.

        With European countries banning new ICE cars as of 2025, all this is inevitable.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Not to mention you have no idea how good the battery is that you swap. If I had a newish Tesla and consistently received a battery pack that was down on range due to age I would not be too happy.

          Ever use those propane exchange companies for small tanks? I’ve turned in my nice clean rust free tank and the clerk brought out a dirty tank streaked with grease. I refused to take it and brought my tank to the gun shop where they refilled my original tank. And this is small scale, not a Tesla…..

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            It would be pretty easy to track capacity of battery packs and factor that into the exchange price. The same system would allow you to choose the capacity rating of your next battery. The battery you specify when you buy the car would determine your “tradein” starting value.

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        Better Place did it, but ran the company like a coke-fueled internet startup, so it didn’t survive long enough to judge success. Turned out fully automated battery swap stations cost twice as much to build as they thought, but still a fair bit less than I expected.

        Tesla built one (1) battery swap station. Their customers weren’t interested. That was that.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    EV sales and cost projections are based on the preferences of early adopters, which is problematic because: 1) they are far wealthier than average car buyers, 2) the wealth allows them to own a “regular” car or three for when the battery range is insufficient, 3) the wealth means they likely to own a stand-alone home with easy access to an outlet (unlike apartment dwellers), 4) early adopters are “greener” in their own minds than the average person and like being seen as “ahead of the crowd” technologically and environmentally, 5) early adopters are enjoying massive taxpayer funded subsidies, and 6) early adopters are enjoying a very favorable ratio of EVs to recharging stations.

    So how is this a problem for EV projections: points 1 to 3) average income and below citizens are more likely to rely on one car which needs to handle city driving, long-trips, cargo hauling, etc. and current EVs can only do city driving. Lower income people and many wealthier city dwellers do not have easy access to recharging, which will only get worse when more EVs with larger batteries are on the road looking for an unused public recharging station so they can recharge those large batteries for a few hours. Point 4 loses its attraction when lots of people have EVs and early adopters no longer “stand out”. Point 5 will turn into a deficit as governments realize that EVs can be a profit center and they replace subsidies with EV environmental taxes (got to protect the public from those nasty batteries), EV road taxes (those heavy EVs are destroying the roads and not paying their share), EV infrastructure taxes (someone has to pay for all those grid upgrades and recharging stations), EV fuel taxes (got to discourage vehicle use to reduce those greenhouse gases from the 40-80% electricity generated by carbon sources). Point 6 becomes critical if there is a rapid expansion of EV ownership because pulling up to recharge will not be fun if 3 cars (at 20+ minutes each) are in line ahead of you.

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    Some fret about charging inconvenience while others are having their lives turned upside down.
    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/inuit-climate-change-health-1.4110299

    • 0 avatar
      stroker49

      I care about the environment and pollution. I don’t think we can do much about the climate. It has been changeing for at least 3500 million years and will continue to do so. We have to cope with it.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        Go stand over there with the flat earth folks.

        • 0 avatar

          Regardless if stroker49 is a flatlander or not, one must evaluate his/her first sentance for its merits.

          Environment and pollution are pretty important to our well being.

          Our societies have for whatever reason you can summon; fixated on a single emission. CO2. And a single fix to our eventual self-destruction, reducing CO2 i.e. our “Carbon Footprint”.

          Not that we shouldn’t be concerned with that, but what about all the other emissions we throw out of our tailpipes and smokestacks?

          Rather than focus on a single thing which may or may not turn out to be the most critical factor contributing to our demise, why not address all emissions, reducing or eliminating whenever possible.

          In other words, pollution which has a direct impact on our environment.

          Rather than trying to convince people to reduce CO2 emissions to save a polar bear or three thousands of miles away, it might be much easier to convince them to not pump the air *they* breath full of crap. At least they have a skin in the game they can relate to directly. Their own health and well being.

          To all of you “Climate Change” proponents. It’s time to widen your horizons and look at the globe holistically, not down the CO2 kaleidoscope.

          • 0 avatar
            derekson

            Modern science refuses to look at anything holistically; the entire approach has become reductionist and specialist centric.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            I don’t think the climate scientists or environmentalists ever reduced the concern to CO2 levels. Environmentalists address a wide range of pollutants. For instance, plastic garbage in the oceans is in the news. I hear about methane. Diesel particulates obviously are getting attention. The media may be resonsible for the focus on CO2.

            Maybe you should say how far down the hierarchy of harmful substances the description of the overall problem should include, while at the same time not losing the attention of the audience.

            Maybe CO2 levels are the best combination of being easy to understand and probably the most influential element in climate change.

            In any case, arguing about this or that being a problem and who dunnit is like arguing about the arrangement of the Titanic’s deck chairs. We don’t have the luxury of time for unproductive yakking.

          • 0 avatar

            @derekson

            I beg to differ. The grand unified theory is designed to unify three particle physics theories into one.

            Beyond that there is also a drive in physics to combine other grand unified theories into one theory of everything.

            Science is much more than reductionist and inward looking. Some scientists see the big picture, when studying the universe you pretty much have to.

        • 0 avatar
          stroker49

          I must admit that there is a small possibility that I’m wrong. It has happened.

          Let’s asume climate change is caused by burning of fossil fuel. Fossil fuel represents over 80% of the worlds energy. If we suddenly stops using that, millions and millions of people would starve to death, millions and millons would die from cold and deseases. The econmic crash would make the big depression look like paradise.

          The thing is that suddenly stopping to use fossil fuels is a worse alternative than adopting to a climate change that might be caused by humans and might be seen in a hundered years.

          • 0 avatar

            @bradloyalty

            Several issues here.

            CO2/Climate change is politically divisive and a “tough sell”. If it was so easy why are we not well on our way to solving the problem? We’ve been talking about this for decades. As you point out, talking doesn’t resolve the issue.

            My point is that pollution control is an easier sell. For a historical example, once we had evidence that lead in gasoline caused brain damage, it was eliminated relatively quickly. If we can show burning fuels causes us harm, personally, then action will come more readily.

            In addition reducing all pollutants is much more likely to prevent us killing ourselves than focusing on a single element.

            Secondly Water Vapor is a much more influential element than CO2 with regard to the climate, Should we eliminate that as well? Methane is also a huge potential influence on climate.

            By converting transportation to electric and adopting more renewable sources of electricity will be much more effective than all the political accords we have seen to date. All pollutants as well as CO2 will be reduced. It solves many of the problems we are aware of and no doubt many we aren’t aware of.

            As you point out we haven’t time to mess around, so focusing on a single threat (climate change) may miss the mark plus its a tough sell and most likely to result in little to no action. Some with political influence in the US are now talking about dropping out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

            It’s quite possible that a fixation on climate change as the number one threat to humanity will delay action and thereby ensure our mutual destruction.

  • avatar
    hreardon

    Projections are nice, but here’s what I think we’re most likely to see over the next 20 years: hybrid electrics are going to extend the life of the (downsized) ICE for a substantial time to come. It will be the transition phase to electric in much the same way we went from propeller to turbo-prop to then full jet engine travel in the air.

    Pairing downsized ICE with an electric system solves the issue of range anxiety and filling stations: as others have mentioned, consumers are NOT rational. In general, humans do not make rational decisions: our lizard brains decide for us, then the logical side of our head provides the reason and rationale to justify said lizard decision. Over-generalizing, yes, but that’s the jist of how the vast majority of humans operate.

    Various manufacturers are experimenting with electric systems to do things like: parallel drive, where the ICE powers the front, electric the rear (Audi’s oft rumored e-quattro system), charging the batteries while driving; Systems that, upon launch from a stop, use the electric motor until cruise, then switch to ICE (this is the phase of the engine cycle that is most wasteful), etc.

    Take VW’s 1.4TSI engine – it will do a solid 30+ around town and 40+ highway, effectively neutering the case for diesel for many. Add in a mild hybrid system like the A3 e-tron which leverages the electric system to support the gasoline and you’ve got around 48mpg combined overall.

    This will all boil down to price, and realizing that there is little benefit to being the first to market with an expensive to develop technology. In the current climate, were someone to market a 60mpg vehicle with all current creature comforts, but it costs $15,000 more than the competition – it would flop. Get within 10% of the competition and your odds improve. But the smarter money is in projecting out where the competition will reasonably be able to profitably push fuel economy numbers and investing to keep pace there.

    Frankly, most consumers will be most comfortable with what they know – the hybrid approach will likely be the most effective means toward improving efficiency most rapidly with as much public acceptance as possible.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      Experiencing what’s available also affects demand. I was a manual-only crank until I actually owned a car with an automatic and realized that having a smaller pain in the ass 85% of the time more than made up for having less fun 15% of the time. In the same way, as more people drive hybrids and come to appreciate their strong torque and silent operation during brief blissful interludes of EV-only mode, they’ll want every mile to be like that.

      But yeah, people worry about running out of charge, and that’s valid. So really the Chevy Volt, the market’s only proper EREV — 100% electric operation for the length of a normal commute, automatically then switching to a hybrid with zero loss of performance for long road trips — ought to be the sweet spot. But that car needs to go up one size class or down one price class to really sell.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @hotpotato: “as more people drive hybrids and come to appreciate their strong torque and silent operation during brief blissful interludes of EV-only mode, they’ll want every mile to be like that.”

        That’s exactly what happened to me. You nailed it. Climate change, saving money, status or whatever any of the critics think people buy EVs for is not the reason that I added an EV to my little fleet. It’s the driving experience. Surprisingly, there are some of us on this site that are actual auto enthusiasts and we’ll ignore costs, politics, and practicality to experience what we think is one of the most amazing and enjoyable ways to power a car ever.

        Once you drive an EV or experience a hybrid in EV mode, you get addicted fairly quickly. Hybrids are a gateway drug. I tried the ICE backup route for longer trips, but you end up finding ways of getting the EV to where you want to go. An ICE (or ICE mode) just isn’t the same once you get used to an EV.

        Too many of you guys get way too focused on the politics and other BS. Just go out and test drive a Tesla and see what it’s all about. Screw the politics and be auto enthusiasts for once. A lot of us are buying EVs just because we like to drive them.

        • 0 avatar
          Asdf

          This is actually a valid point. The ubiquitous “climate change” bogeyman is really not relevant at all, the driving experience of an EV is. And EVs certainly have an advantage there. I drove one the other day (it was not the first time I drove an EV, by the way), and at that particular moment, part of me actually wanted to own one.

          But then I thought of all its very serious drawbacks, and I quickly came to my senses. It’s after all better to drive a fossil-fueled car than to become a fossil waiting forever for the EV to charge, and I wouldn’t be willing to lose range and pay an extortionate amount for this experience.

          So in the end, the drive only reminded me of why I don’t want an EV in the first place.

          And I’m *extremely* disappointed by the EV fanbois, who for whatever reason refuse to hold EV manufacturers to account for making products that are not fit for purpose. Because if the market actually demanded decent EVs that could work as general replacement for ICE-powered cars (as opposed to being decent only in the fringe use cases that fanbois always come back to while defending EVs), then maybe EVs actually *would* have had a future, and we could have enjoyed their advantages without having to dismiss them because of their drawbacks. But no, people apparently aren’t willing to do that (and prefer to call people like me weird instead).

  • avatar
    islander800

    It will only take one serious international confrontation (say, Trump takes on Iran) for the demand for electrics to go through the roof.

    America and Iran at war means all gulf oil will be stopped in its tracks as Iran sinks tankers to block the Strait of Hormuz. With about 40% of world oil drying up, the price per barrel will go through the $200/barrel mark. For the Europeans, it would mean the loss of most of their current oil supply, leaving them at the mercy of Russian gas and oil imports. Shortages and actual rationing would appear in America – and Canada – almost overnight. Note for President Trump: you may not want to be in such a hurry to re-negotiate NAFTA, as the current agreement REQUIRES all signees to “share” in any shortages, meaning cut-off of Middle East oil REQUIRES Canada and Mexico to supply oil to America and suffer shortages too, in order to help offset American losses from overseas. Another side note – the guys that buy up half the national strategic oil reserve under Trump’s brainfart at $50/barrel will likely “ration” it back to American citizens at $200/barrel – without even having moved the physical oil from present underground federal storage when bought, just recorded as entries on a ledger – becoming fabulously wealthy. Ironic that the one president likely to start a war with Iran is the one to cancel the insurance policy on the national oil supply. THAT’S a move that Putin would love. Which raises the question….oh, never mind.

    Overnight, demand for electric cars will go through the roof – many will pay ANYTHING for the luxury of transportation, period. Suddenly, it will make perfect sense as a manufacturer to abandon ICE autos entirely and concentrate solely on electrics.

    I find it puzzling that no one seems to be looking at the almost inevitable international conflict variable under a volatile President Trump. Mr. “I will make oil and coal great again” Trump could very well be responsible for the final nail in the coffin of fossil fuels by showing the idiocy, finally, of fighting national wealth-draining wars to keep the oil flowing. Let the Persians – and Arabs – drink their frigging oil.

    • 0 avatar

      The world’s oil supply has become diverse enough I doubt we would see 200/barrel maybe 150 briefly then I expect it would fall and stabilize between 70-100 a barrel. South American Canadian and US suppliers could fill in the needs quickly now a days.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Until something happens to fracking, no such luck.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      You do realize we just found the largest American oil reserve (known thus far) in Texas? Iran can go screw itself. America can take the cheap stuff from the ME as long as they sell it, if they try to jack up prices too Much they lose all our business.

      America can bathe in oil for the next 250 years and Iran can continue to suck it. If they cut us off we might hit $3.00 again but American slack can quickly make $2.50 the norm, much higher than we have to pay now but livable.

      • 0 avatar
        Yurpean

        Lol

        Unless you nationalize oil production that oil will go to woever pays the most. Free markets, remember? If European are willing to pay $200 then you’ll pay $200 as well, homie.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Problem with that is at $200 a barrel almost every method of oil extraction is so ungodly profitable that the market would be flooded with oil. Europe, Russia, North America, would all be at full capacity in oil production. The ME isn’t going to forgo oil production just to make a point. They require money coming into their countries.

          Outside of the government going against their citizens causing oil prices to unnecessarily go up, there’s little risk in oil prices sky rocketing in the near future, newer extraction methods make $60 oil profitable for a large amount of oil producing countries. Saudis can’t stop technological advances, but they have to make a profit. They don’t make jack if other countries will sell the same oil for 1/4 the price.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    I’d buy a Tesla, it’s range is right (I have plenty of road trip trucks), it’s size is big enough, it’s made in America. Price is the problem. When I buy a vehicle I’m second to the vehicle buying the engine. A truck with a 8.1L has no problem getting me to open my wallet for $60k, the same truck with a 2L is worth about 15k to me. I can’t reasonably put down $50k on a car that doesn’t have something I can be proud to drive. For $25k I’ll buy a Model S tomorrow. I don’t see that happening. And the rest of the EV jokes are good for a laugh but compact economy cars regardless of their range, offer me no use.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “For $25k I’ll buy a Model S tomorrow.”

      You could say the same about a Porsche Cayenne.

      Would you buy a Tesla Model 3 for $35k next year?

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        You can buy Porsche Cayennes all day long for $25K, if that’s what floats your boat and you don’t need to get anywhere.

        https://charlottesville.craigslist.org/cto/6151521092.html

        https://charlottesville.craigslist.org/cto/6141667231.html

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        I get your point, and I struggled to even get that written onto a post because it sounded stupid as hell.

        However fear not, I have a point.

        That being the EV still carries the golf cart stigma, there’s no gas vehicle on the market that you could buy new and worry about taking unplanned trips in. As I said, not a problem for me. What is a problem is that fact I have bought engines and been given a car with them for almost 2 decades now. That sentiment isn’t soon to change. I may not fully represent the average consumer but my needs still have to be met to get my money.

        -Cool car? Check
        -Fullsize? Check
        -Fast? Check
        -Enough range for an EV? Check
        -price? Ehhh

        If they can continue to sell them at 60k a piece, then they clearly don’t need me. The rest of the auto industry however is still selling uninteresting penalty boxes for EVs.

        I don’t expect them to lower the price that much, however at that price it’s not a hard sell for me.

        As for a Cayenne? No thanks, it’s an uninteresting product with a tiny layout and few redeeming features outside of the brand name(contestable). Similarly the Model 3 goes back to an earlier issue. I’m not driving a penalty box.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          They have to offer me something for my money, if I’m not listening to a V8 or a gas turbine, I require a different checklist to meet my needs. I didn’t say it was reasonable.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    According to my most recent electric bill, I was charged $39.64 for 184 kWh. They break it down to generation, transmission, delivery, and government fees, but by my reckoning, that’s 21.54 cents per kWh.

    Also included in the bill was four requests by the utility for increases in various charges, and the local utility said increased costs would raise the “nominal” rate of 15.2 cents/kWh to 25 cents by 2025.

    With West Texas fracking now the swing producer likely to keep gasoline prices low, that rate to recharge an electric car is not going to result in any savings at all. The price of electric vehicles will have to drop substantially, or the government credits will have to increase, instead of being phased out.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      IDK man. We have capacity out of the ground but are still choked in refineries. Another storm batters LA and we’ll get a spike in gas prices. Electricity is a lot more diversified and by extension more stable.

      Plus the price of electricity varies a lot, not just by geography but by time of day and end usage. My last job was managing the energy data for a retail portfolio up and down the East Coast. We were struggling to find viable projects because wide swaths of our portfolio is paying as little as 6 cents/kWh with taxes and fees and everything. At night on a time of use rate we might be paying as little as 3 cents/kWh- which is exactly when people would do the bulk of their charging I imagine. Gas prices don’t fluctuate anywhere near as much, so for wide swaths of the country electric can indeed be cheaper.

      This also doesn’t factor in the cost savings from having a steadier load on the grid as conventional electricity sources don’t like big load swings. So there are a lot of moving pieces. But from what I’m seeing there’s a lot of potential on the generation side. The big hold up is batteries.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        Your 6-cent and 3-cent prices are for major users. Residential users who will be charging their cars pay the highest rates, and there’s no overnight rates for off-peak hours. For a lot of people, the cost of a recharge is going to be a shock.

    • 0 avatar

      Location matters a lot I’m amazed your rate is that high in​ TX. Here in CT which is typically one of the most expensive states I payed .21 KWH delivered with taxes etc (70%of the bill is delivery and taxes). It will go down to .17 next month. At those rates and our local high gas prices really a electrical car costs about the same per mile in energy as a efficent gas or hybrid car.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        I’m not in Texas, I’m in San Diego, still suffering the after-effects of the latest bright idea from the crazy people in Sacramento. your electricity cost in Connecticut is virtually the same, you’re paying 21 cents, I’m paying 21.54 cents, and those are both too high.

        Coal-fired electricity generation was MUCH cheaper, and floating bed technology and stack scrubbers made emissions competitive with natural gas, but the price of that natural gas is marginally higher, so utilities are using the excuse of that added expense to stick it to residential customers.

        Electricity usage has dipped due to customers switching to LED and CFL lighting, reducing their usage, and the utilities are making up the revenue loss with higher prices.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • 3SpeedAutomatic: The top photo reminds me of the ‘08 thru ‘12 Ford Escape (very boxy). The current Escape looks like...
  • CapVandal: If people won’t pay $900 for a hybrid, they will never pay up, in mass, for BEVs, which are now...
  • dal20402: I honestly can’t believe that Elon hasn’t been prosecuted for criminal fraud over this in the...
  • Scoutdude: Well you get those if you are crawling rocks in the desert, not muding or crossing rivers. Then of course...
  • Scoutdude: It out Jeeps the Jeep in many ways right off the bat. Sasquatch on the base model blows away anything from...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber