You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The diagrams differ, but they agree in one point: No fuel price increase will make BEV competitive, unless battery costs approach $300 per kWh.
Well, it depends on how long you intend to keep the vehicle. At some point the battery in the Model S will need to be replaced and when that occurs in the car's life will have a dramatic effect on its TCO. We also don't know what an 85kWh Model S battery will cost in 5-8 years. ICE maintenance costs do go up over time but you're never going to have a $35k hit in a single year (unless you have a catastrophic failure which is rare) but you will have that w/ a Model S. Looking only at gas costs I'm saving ~$3,000/year in my Roadster over my Corvette so I'm expecting to break even with gas savings paying for a new battery in 7 years assuming gas prices stay where they are. If the battery lasts beyond that (and I'm still driving it) then I'm making money.Then both diagrams are wrong. BEVs are TCO competitive today (at least in the US). An 85kWh Model S, with leather and tech package, is $85k, and then you get a $7,500 federal tax credit and in many places a local tax credit. And from then on out you only buy electricity. An Audi A8 - the most similar car I can think of - is $80k, and then you have to buy gas. How is the BEV not price competitive?
We also don't know what an 85kWh Model S battery will cost in 5-8 years.
Well, it depends on how long you intend to keep the vehicle.
It's warrantied against defects, not loss of capacity. The battery WILL wear out - it's simple chemistry. Tesla takes very good care of their batteries but we simply don't know how long the batteries will last. Tesla's haven't been on the road long enough to be able to make accurate estimates. It also depends on how much capacity loss you can take and still go about your business. My wife's commute is 35 miles and she drives an 85kWh Model S so she could lose a massive amount of capacity and still be able to use the vehicle but others may be closer to needing their full battery.No owner needs to worry about what the 85kWh battery will cost in less than eight years, because Tesla warranties it for that long regardless of the mileage put on the car.
You're correct in that the TCO is what it is but while an ICE cost curve is generally an upward sloping curve (with the odd step-function for something like timing belt replacement), an EV cost curve is essentially flat until you hit a VERY large step with a new battery. Like everything you have to stop the TCO calculation at some arbitrary age and mileage. If you stop calculating before a battery swap the TCO for an EV will be dramatically lower than an ICE but if you take the calculation beyond where a new battery is required then the TCO for the EV will be much higher.I disagree that how long you keep the vehicle has any effect on vehicle TCO - it just affects which owner experiences which parts of it. (And owners that sell cars after just a year or two are going to take a bath no matter what they buy).
I wish they'd continued that chart upwards because in the UK and other parts of Europe we are way above those petrol prices. I'm intrigued by how the BEV line slopes leftwards.
This chart seems pretty wrong to me. As others have pointed out, how can an increase in gas prices make hybrids more competitive relative to battery only cars? It makes me wonder what if the entire chart is valid.
Yes, the McKinsey graph posted by @daxz above has intuitive slopes (directionally). McKinsey optimistically used 240 Wh/mile for the EV; I wonder what it used for the car's MPG?The Economist is using McKinsey as their main source, so the battery/hybrid line should probably slope to the right in their chart, as it does in the McKinsey graphic. I imagine this is an error.