Why Don't We Drive More Electric Vehicles?

[neroden]

I tell you why I will never drive an EV:

Gas Price: 3$/Gallon.
My Prius: 50mpg EPA, 40mpg Real world.
-> 0.075$/Mile fuel costs.

Well, so it doesn't make sense for you... yet.

Nissan Leaf/Tesla Model S: 350Wh/Mile, 450Wh/Mile Real world.
20% Charging to wheel efficiency loss (assumed) -> 540Wh/Mile.

Bzzzt, wrong. My real-world efficiency for the Model S is 330 wh/mi under very nasty weather conditions; in Florida your efficiency would be better. The charging losses seem to be less than 20% as well.

-> 0.54 * (Your electricity rate, Mine in Florida is 0.12$/Kwh) 0.12 = 0.068$/Mile ~ Gas Price.

So it doesn't seem to be much cheaper.... yet.

With more renewables coming online soon, electricity prices will increase.

That's not how it works. You need to get a clue about the economics of solar and wind power. The latest utility-scale solar plant bids are coming in at a levelized price under $0.05/kwh, which mones out to less than $0.11 at retail (after typical transmission costs). Wind is even cheaper. Electricity prices are coming *down*.

In sunny places like Florida, you can effectively get $0.15/kwh by putting solar panels on your house; and that's frankly overpriced. Installation costs are much lower in Germany and US installation costs will presumably come down to match, eventually. This puts a long-term cap on electricity prices.

 

[mknox]

Bzzzt, wrong. My real-world efficiency for the Model S is 330 wh/mi under very nasty weather conditions; in Florida your efficiency would be better. The charging losses seem to be less than 20% as well.

If you're basing that on the car's displays, you are unfortunately incorrect. For the past two and a half years I have been metering my car's electricity separately and have found my "calculated" Wh/mi to be quite a bit higher than what the car reports. Those displays don't account for charging inefficiencies nor for standby losses. The car's displays really only show you how much power comes out of the battery when driving and under way. When my car's display shows around 330 Wh/mi, my calculated consumption is more like 425 due to these other factors that the car doesn't account for. As an analogy, if you spilled gas when fueling your car, and your car had a small leak in the tank, you'd still pay for that fuel.

That's not how it works. You need to get a clue about the economics of solar and wind power. The latest utility-scale solar plant bids are coming in at a levelized price under $0.05/kwh, which mones out to less than $0.11 at retail (after typical transmission costs). Wind is even cheaper. Electricity prices are coming *down*.

Sadly, that hasn't been the case here in Ontario, Canada. Electricity rates have gone from around 5.4 cents / kWh in 2000 to 12.65/17.07/21.17 (Off/Mid/On Peak) currently with the phaseout of coal and the advent of solar and wind. There is much talk of prices further increasing by about 40% over the next 5 years or so as well.

Don't get me wrong... I'm a big believer and booster of EVs, but feel it's important to have the facts straight.

 

[abasile]

Our long-term average efficiency with our 2011 LEAF has been over 4 mi/kWh, or 250 Wh/mi. Charging losses are no worse than about 15% (they'd be better if we had a newer LEAF). Call it 300 Wh/mi. At $0.17 per kWh here in California, that's $0.17/kWh * 0.300kWh/mi = $0.051/mi.

With our 2010 Prius, we've been averaging about 45 mpg, after correcting for the dash display mpg being about 6% optimistic. At $3.50/gal here in California, that's $3.50/gal / 45 mi/gal = $0.078/mi.

My conclusion is that, if comparing against a Prius, the fuel savings alone are insufficient to justify owning a BEV. Unfortunately, that's partly because the price of fuel is too low; it doesn't account for the damage done to public health and the environment, nor does it account for the cost of military protection in the Middle East.

That said, we are greatly looking forward to switching from the Prius to a Tesla vehicle for our long-distance trips. Aside from being an EV, the Model S is larger and more comfortable, and we could really use the space. And even our LEAF is much more fun to drive here in the mountains than a Prius. I love how responsive and quiet the EV powertrain is. Really, I don't understand how anyone can compare a Prius to a Model S.

 

[AB4EJ]

Our long-term average efficiency with our 2011 LEAF has been over 4 mi/kWh, or 250 Wh/mi. Charging losses are no worse than about 15% (they'd be better if we had a newer LEAF). Call it 300 Wh/mi. At $0.17 per kWh here in California, that's $0.17/kWh * 0.300kWh/mi = $0.051/mi.

With our 2010 Prius, we've been averaging about 45 mpg, after correcting for the dash display mpg being about 6% optimistic. At $3.50/gal here in California, that's $3.50/gal / 45 mi/gal = $0.078/mi.

My conclusion is that, if comparing against a Prius, the fuel savings alone are insufficient to justify owning a BEV. Unfortunately, that's partly because the price of fuel is too low; it doesn't account for the damage done to public health and the environment, nor does it account for the cost of military protection in the Middle East.

That said, we are greatly looking forward to switching from the Prius to a Tesla vehicle for our long-distance trips. Aside from being an EV, the Model S is larger and more comfortable, and we could really use the space. And even our LEAF is much more fun to drive here in the mountains than a Prius. I love how responsive and quiet the EV powertrain is. Really, I don't understand how anyone can compare a Prius to a Model S.

My experience has been very much like the comments above - my LEAF energy consumption has been around 230 wh/m; our electricity runs about 10.3 cents/khw if you charge during off hours. So the vehicle has saved us about $130/mo accounting for electricity costs. The lease is $209/mo, so it was a net increase in cost of $79/mo. I rationalized this by saying, well, this is keeping miles off my Mercedes (very expensive to operate and service), and I get to drive a new car for 3 years for $79/mo. Seemed like an OK trade-off.

A friend of mine recently went through the same thought process about a LEAF, but found it was a much bigger cost addition - I didn't account for the $2000 up-front payment I had made to get the $209/mo lease, in my calculation above! So (even after he's paid someone to install a 14-50 plug in his carport), he decided it was not a net cost saving, but a cost add.

My impression is that this is really the answer to "why aren't EVs more popular?" - - many, if not most, people use cost as the major decision factor on what car to drive. There is the up-front cost of the in-garage charging system (I'm into that by $3000 now), and then the price of the vehicle. The cost of electricity is a factor in some areas, too. I believe that EVs are going to struggle to go mainstream until the costs are lower than an equivalent ICE vehicle. And by that, I mean a car that a lot of people drive (such as the Toyota Camry, which can be had for around $18K). This is a tough challenge, but one I think the EV industry is going to need to address. Further, we know that the cost of gasoline is artificially low (in that it doesn't include environmental damage), and ICE vehicles benefit from low costs due to enormous production volume. These are the headwinds we have to overcome for widespread EV adoption.

 

[beeeerock]

In addition the general customer does NOT care about CO2 emissions.

And that selfish and short-sighted attitude of the masses is what will kill us all. But that's fine, as long as they managed to save a few cents per mile, driving places they really didn't need to go. Unfortunately, 'stupid' can't be fixed.

 

[adiggs]

And that selfish and short-sighted attitude of the masses is what will kill us all. But that's fine, as long as they managed to save a few cents per mile, driving places they really didn't need to go. Unfortunately, 'stupid' can't be fixed.

The masses are, of course, a whole bunch of people with a whole bunch of different things going on in their reality.

Some of them DO have the financial wherewithal to care about more than cost, but choose to only make their decisions based on their personal cost, and the rest of the cost to the planet is known but irrelevant to them. I'd be willing to put these folks into the stupid category.

And there are people who know about the costs to the rest of the planet, and don't have the wherewithal to make their decision on any other factor than cost - their only real alternative is to commit suicide so they stop contributing to the problem. Of course, they don't choose to do that. These folks aren't stupid - they're desperate just to get by. They're also not ignorant - they'd do something different if survival wasn't an all consuming imperative in their lives.

Some are people who have the financial choices and they don't understand the external cost - they really do think the money out of pocket is the sum of the cost involved in the choice. These people aren't stupid - they're ignorant, and ignorant can be educated and improved. My own sense of things is that ignorance on this topic is fading broadly speaking. Extreme weather will, I think, be our ally on this front

And most people are somewhere on a continuum within these extremes. Not malicious, not stupid, not out to destroy the world and feather their nest along the way.


The point of course is that the masses aren't, really, and that there's a whole range of nuance within a very big range of attitudes and approaches. Somebody else pointed out elsewhere that while its easy to be impatient at the rate of adoption of EV's and conversion to renewable energy sources, the reality is that this is happening at a shockingly fast pace. The term "EV" wasn't in general use 10 years ago - today it is. At least in the US, coal powered electric generation plants are being taken offline at an amazing pace - the article somebody linked elsewhere on the site, if I remember right, indicated something like 1/3rd of that fleet decommissioned over the last 10 years. And the kinds of rationale and approach to helping shut those plants down that makes it easy for me to imagine coal powered electricity will be gone from the US in 10 or 15 years (not a fact - a guess made by me and from what I got from the reading).

Something we can all do to help with the transition to electric transport - volunteer some time when you can and attend an EV event. Show off your car and talk to people about EV's. Heck - we're all doing that already as we're driving around doing errands I figured out for myself - what I am there to accomplish when I do something like that, is to help people make the mental transition from "EV's are something other people drive, but don't work for me" to "Maybe I can see myself in an EV" (any EV!).

 

[spacexfan]

The masses are, of course, a whole bunch of people with a whole bunch of different things going on in their reality.

Some of them DO have the financial wherewithal to care about more than cost, but choose to only make their decisions based on their personal cost, and the rest of the cost to the planet is known but irrelevant to them. I'd be willing to put these folks into the stupid category.

And there are people who know about the costs to the rest of the planet, and don't have the wherewithal to make their decision on any other factor than cost - their only real alternative is to commit suicide so they stop contributing to the problem. Of course, they don't choose to do that. These folks aren't stupid - they're desperate just to get by. They're also not ignorant - they'd do something different if survival wasn't an all consuming imperative in their lives.

Some are people who have the financial choices and they don't understand the external cost - they really do think the money out of pocket is the sum of the cost involved in the choice. These people aren't stupid - they're ignorant, and ignorant can be educated and improved. My own sense of things is that ignorance on this topic is fading broadly speaking. Extreme weather will, I think, be our ally on this front

And most people are somewhere on a continuum within these extremes. Not malicious, not stupid, not out to destroy the world and feather their nest along the way.


The point of course is that the masses aren't, really, and that there's a whole range of nuance within a very big range of attitudes and approaches. Somebody else pointed out elsewhere that while its easy to be impatient at the rate of adoption of EV's and conversion to renewable energy sources, the reality is that this is happening at a shockingly fast pace. The term "EV" wasn't in general use 10 years ago - today it is. At least in the US, coal powered electric generation plants are being taken offline at an amazing pace - the article somebody linked elsewhere on the site, if I remember right, indicated something like 1/3rd of that fleet decommissioned over the last 10 years. And the kinds of rationale and approach to helping shut those plants down that makes it easy for me to imagine coal powered electricity will be gone from the US in 10 or 15 years (not a fact - a guess made by me and from what I got from the reading).

Something we can all do to help with the transition to electric transport - volunteer some time when you can and attend an EV event. Show off your car and talk to people about EV's. Heck - we're all doing that already as we're driving around doing errands I figured out for myself - what I am there to accomplish when I do something like that, is to help people make the mental transition from "EV's are something other people drive, but don't work for me" to "Maybe I can see myself in an EV" (any EV!).

Great Post! And thx for all the responses. Very interesting to read.

I made the very controversial post on purpose. -> There is a clear paradox, which must be solved. <-

In order to get more EVs on the road we must have cheaper electricity rates. But the electricity must also me clean. However, even if we produce all electricity via coal the overall CO2 emissions will be lower and the USA would be self sufficient and not dependent on foreign oil. This means no meaningless wars, etc, which has been mentioned above as an indirect cost of gasoline.

But at the same time we try to change electricity production from coal to something else and make the mistake to cause an increase in electricity rates, which will kill off the EV revolution. There are numerous sources of how little far we get when we try to change electricity production from coal to solar, Wind, etc. For example google primary energy consumption. Also check out how little primary energy is used to be converted to electricity. Most is used for heat production as process heat, building heating, and for transportation. We need to accept the fact that the need to produce electricity will increase maybe 10-100 fold if we try to electrify the world.

Being a physicist I have a somewhat educated opinion on the global warming issue and I do not see it as a threat to humanity in the short run or maybe even in the long run. Way bigger treats (by measurement of casualties) include tsunamis, asteroids, budget deficits (yes, poverty induced crime), antibiotic resistance of bacteria, viruses such as HIV. Global warming is a very dangerous distraction from very important problems. It is a incredible for me that the 2011 tsunami, which killed 30000 people caused California to close down the nuclear plant and not to think about the very likely possibility of a tsunami hitting the SF bay area or Los Angeles, with millions potential casualties and the triggered possibility of the collapse of the US economy.

I care about the environment and thus I do not care about CO2, since this is one of the most environmental friendly gases. IMO we have to seriously step up the funding to a new nuclear reactor design, such as the Breed and Burn rector, the Polywell fusion reactor or similar projects (stellenator). If not we will forever be stuck in the fossil fuel age.

 

[ecarfan]

@spacex, you describe yourself as a "physicist", so I assume you are aware that the sun is essentially a gigantic fusion reactor that produces massive amounts of energy that impact the surface of the earth every day, energy that can be readily converted to electricity, some of which can be stored in batteries to use during the part of the day when the sun is not high in the sky. But it appears that you are dismissing that reality.

So let's move on from that. You say that electricity needs to be cheaper to get more EVs on the road. My energy costs for my Tesla are less than a quarter of what my energy costs were for the gasoline cars I used to own, and I live in the US where gas is a fraction of the cost of what it is in Europe and Canada and Japan. So clearly the cost of electricity is not a barrier to EV adoption
Your statements do not hold up when evaluated on a factual basis.

 

[abasile]

Being a physicist I have a somewhat educated opinion on the global warming issue and I do not see it as a threat to humanity in the short run or maybe even in the long run. Way bigger treats (by measurement of casualties) include tsunamis, asteroids, budget deficits (yes, poverty induced crime), antibiotic resistance of bacteria, viruses such as HIV. Global warming is a very dangerous distraction from very important problems. It is a incredible for me that the 2011 tsunami, which killed 30000 people caused California to close down the nuclear plant and not to think about the very likely possibility of a tsunami hitting the SF bay area or Los Angeles, with millions potential casualties and the triggered possibility of the collapse of the US economy.

Am I correct in understanding that you agree that the globe is warming and that human use of fossil fuels is the primary cause? It appears that what you are saying is that we have bigger fish to fry, that while the effects of warming will be serious, they will not be as catastrophic as other potential threats. I am surprised that you are not that concerned about the rate of change of the climate. Assuming we continue to burn fossil fuels with abandon, and human-caused warming is amplified by the release of huge quantities of methane triggered by warming in the Arctic, there are very real concerns as to whether we and the life we depend on can adapt quickly enough.

I care about the environment and thus I do not care about CO2, since this is one of the most environmental friendly gases. IMO we have to seriously step up the funding to a new nuclear reactor design, such as the Breed and Burn rector, the Polywell fusion reactor or similar projects (stellenator). If not we will forever be stuck in the fossil fuel age.

Again, I'm surprised at your lack of concern for the rapid increase in atmospheric and oceanic carbon. However, I fully agree that next-generation nuclear power should remain on the table and that we should step up R&D funding.

 

[spacexfan]

@spacex, you describe yourself as a "physicist", so I assume you are aware that the sun is essentially a gigantic fusion reactor that produces massive amounts of energy that impact the surface of the earth every day, energy that can be readily converted to electricity, some of which can be stored in batteries to use during the part of the day when the sun is not high in the sky. But it appears that you are dismissing that reality.

So let's move on from that. You say that electricity needs to be cheaper to get more EVs on the road. My energy costs for my Tesla are less than a quarter of what my energy costs were for the gasoline cars I used to own.

Your statements do not hold up when evaluated on a factual basis.

You are right with every point. You rightfully compare probably a luxury sedan with a Model S. I compared it with a compact car. You can argue that this is not fair and I agree.

But you have to calculate the cost of storage and PV (?) solar energy production. This is not something no one can feel or estimate. I looked at a paper of someone who actually calculated this and the results were not good. I will provide the hyper link to arxiv when i find it again. I have no time to replicate this work with Tesla Powerwalls, but maybe i will in my freetime this summer, since the interest seems not that low.

And yes, I don't know if I can call me that yet, I only have my masters degree yet. But why not here at the TMC. ;D

Cheers!

(I will look at all replies in 2-3 weeks. Sorry.)

- - - Updated - - -

Am I correct in understanding that you agree that the globe is warming and that human use of fossil fuels is the primary cause? It appears that what you are saying is that we have bigger fish to fry, that while the effects of warming will be serious, they will not be as catastrophic as other potential threats. I am surprised that you are not that concerned about the rate of change of the climate. Assuming we continue to burn fossil fuels with abandon, and human-caused warming is amplified by the release of huge quantities of methane triggered by warming in the Arctic, there are very real concerns as to whether we and the life we depend on can adapt quickly enough.


Again, I'm surprised at your lack of concern for the rapid increase in atmospheric and oceanic carbon. However, I fully agree that next-generation nuclear power should remain on the table and that we should step up R&D funding.

Ok one more quick reply. I am no expert on this issue. Thus see it just as an opinion, which is not more worth that yours. There are several papers that you have based your first point on. I have not read them. Sorry.All I can say is that history has shown that humans are very adaptable to "slow" changes in climate. Yes the CO2 increase is very likely man made. I still see global warming as the lesser of all the problems, I have made experiences with many other issues before and see them as more severe immediate threats.

But this is off topic. Sorry. But still those are very closely related issues. I just think that we should seriously start to consider the effects of high electricity prices on the rise of the EV market and make governmental investment decisions accordingly.

 

[jerry33]

But you have to calculate the cost of storage and PV (?) solar energy production.

Of course, if we're really going to do it right, we should add in the cost of health problems caused by fossil fuels and military spending to keep the source of cheap oil open.

 

[eloder]

I tell you why I will never drive an EV:

Gas Price: 3$/Gallon.
My Prius: 50mpg EPA, 40mpg Real world.
-> 0.075$/Mile fuel costs.


Nissan Leaf/Tesla Model S: 350Wh/Mile, 450Wh/Mile Real world.
20% Charging to wheel efficiency loss (assumed) -> 540Wh/Mile.
-> 0.54 * (Your electricity rate, Mine in Florida is 0.12$/Kwh) 0.12 = 0.068$/Mile ~ Gas Price.
-> 0.54 * (GERMANY (Cali too? There is a lot of solar power there too) is 0.35$/kwh) = 0.19$/Mile ~ 2-3 times Gas Price. !!!!

With more renewables coming online soon, electricity prices will increase. In addition the general customer does NOT care about CO2 emissions.



-----> NO THANK YOU EV.


:smile:

Those efficiency estimates are horrendously off... lol

I've hit 200 wh/mile in my Leaf with relative ease as rated by the dash. Driving like a madman in the city still puts it no lower than 250 wh/mile.

You're comparing the most efficient gas car with the least efficient EV. Compare a Tesla with a Corvette and you'll get an accurate description. Compare a Leaf with a Prius and you get an accurate description.

For me, my payment on my Leaf is $240 a month. I'm saving about $60 a month on gas, compared to my 42 mpg lifetime smart car. The difference between my smart car lease and the Leaf lease effectively drops to about $80 on the lease price.

Finding a Prius lease for under $200 month is not something I've seen possible.

If you want to talk long-term ownership costs, then an EV is completely unbeatable for anyone driving a reasonable number of miles a year. You not only save a huge amount on fuel, even compare to a Prius, but you also save an incredible amount on maintenance especially as you're hitting the later years of an ICE and run into fun repairs like transmission and other drastically expensive repairs, while the Leaf won't run into those issues (at least outside of hot climates where the battery doesn't degrade substantially. Hot climates do not have many good options for long-lasting EV batteries in the economy category. Smart ED is about it).

The only way you can make the argument of an ICE being more affordable than an EV nowadays is if you drive a smart car. Any argument based on cost for EVs is not at all accurate, you can only make reasonable arguments for things like range, charging time, charging ability, or availability.

Even if you purchase, you can go the Lease-->purchase route for a new Leaf and it'll come within a couple thousand dollars of a base model Prius C. For me a lease then purchase comes out to about $20k pre-tax on a Leaf, or within 1k of a Prius C in my area. Ohio has no state tax credits so I doubt my dealer is special in striking such a good deal.

Also, some solar projects in Texas are bidding at under 4 cents per kwh now. Welcome to 2015

Those displays don't account for charging inefficiencies nor for standby losses.

Standby losses are extremely minimal for most other cars. I can get 90+ miles out of my Leaf's charge over the course of four days.

The only important measure for me is A) How much I spent on gas minus B) How much I spend extra on electricity = C) Net savings on driving my econo-EV

Tesla is absolutely incredible and the best car in the world, and it's incredibly lower TCO than any sports car out there, so the comparison still stands despite low efficiency (yay weight!) and by comparison heavy standby drain.

 

[Mookuh]

I tell you why I will never drive an EV:

Gas Price: 3$/Gallon.
My Prius: 50mpg EPA, 40mpg Real world.
-> 0.075$/Mile fuel costs.


Nissan Leaf/Tesla Model S: 350Wh/Mile, 450Wh/Mile Real world.
20% Charging to wheel efficiency loss (assumed) -> 540Wh/Mile.
-> 0.54 * (Your electricity rate, Mine in Florida is 0.12$/Kwh) 0.12 = 0.068$/Mile ~ Gas Price.
-> 0.54 * (GERMANY (Cali too? There is a lot of solar power there too) is 0.35$/kwh) = 0.19$/Mile ~ 2-3 times Gas Price. !!!!

Never say never. As others pointed out, lumping the LEAF and the Model S in the same bucket, assuming they get the same Wh/Mile is flat out wrong. Charging efficiencies play a factor, but a car like the LEAF, i3 or Renault ZOE will get far better mileage than your 540 Wh/Mile number.
My father drives a Renault ZOE and has installed a meter before the charging port to measure losses etc. Charging efficency (meter display vs. car display) is around 85%, total useage (including charging losses) was 170 Wh/km or 270 Wh/mile. So pretty much half the number you put down for the LEAF.
Electricity in Germany is pricey indeed, about 0.32$ or 0.25€... but wanna know what our fuel costs? Currently, around 1.55€/liter Super. That's 6.46$ per Gallon.
So with your back of the envelope calculation, this puts a ZOE vs. a Prius at:

Germany:
40mpg / 6.46$/Gallon = 0.1615$/Mile for the Prius
270Wh/mile * 0.32$ / kWh = 0.0864$/Mile for the ZOE
425Wh/mile (as per mknox) * 0.32$ /kWh = 0.136$/mile for the Model S

US (Florida):
0.75$/mile for Prius
270Wh/mile * 0.12$/kWh = 0.0324$/mile for the ZOE
425Wh/mile (as per mknox) * 0.12$ /kWh = 0.051$/mile for the Model S

Using realistic numbers for both locations and all 3 vehicles, both the ZOE and the Model S are cheaper to drive per mile than a prius, if you consider only fuel costs.

With more renewables coming online soon, electricity prices will increase. In addition the general customer does NOT care about CO2 emissions.

The increase in price from renewables is certainly true, at least here in Germany. But where do you think gas prices will be going?

 

[dhrivnak]

We had a Prius and made the switch to plug in cars. My Roadster is closer to 250W/mile 275 with charging making my cost $3/100 miles or half the cost of the Prius on $.085 KWH electricity. But we also have a car the handles better accelerates better and stops better. In other words it is a joy to drive even in the Volt. So not only am I saving half on fuel costs but like many other EV owners we make our own fuel. How cool is that? Driving on Sunshine - Page 18

 

[djplong]

For the past few years, I've been using an app to track every expense on my Camry. Most of the time, it's to track what kind of fuel economy I'm getting. However, since I also record all the service done, I found a startling correlation. Of the $10K I've spent on the car in that time, over $4400 of it was for service. Everything from oil changes to the catalytic converters (3 total at just under $1000/each). Brakes last at least 3 times longer in a BEV than an ICE so tires, washer fluid and shocks are pretty much the 'consumables' that are still on an even comparison between the two.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I tell you why I will never drive an EV:

Gas Price: 3$/Gallon.
My Prius: 50mpg EPA, 40mpg Real world.
-> 0.075$/Mile fuel costs.


Nissan Leaf/Tesla Model S: 350Wh/Mile, 450Wh/Mile Real world.
20% Charging to wheel efficiency loss (assumed) -> 540Wh/Mile.
-> 0.54 * (Your electricity rate, Mine in Florida is 0.12$/Kwh) 0.12 = 0.068$/Mile ~ Gas Price.
-> 0.54 * (GERMANY (Cali too? There is a lot of solar power there too) is 0.35$/kwh) = 0.19$/Mile ~ 2-3 times Gas Price. !!!!

With more renewables coming online soon, electricity prices will increase. In addition the general customer does NOT care about CO2 emissions.



-----> NO THANK YOU EV.


:smile:

Not sure where you're getting that stat from, but it's wrong. Even accounting for charging losses that's too high. My last electric bill showed about 300Kwh consumed for a little over 1200 miles driven. That translates to only 250Wh/mile for a 60 mile/day commute (3/4's of it going 70mph on the highway). Granted, I live in mild Southern California, but as a physicist, you should be able to appreciate the significance of that statistic against what data you've found. The data is overwhelmingly in favor of EV's.

 

[CHG-ON]

Most likely already said, so I apologize for repeating somebody else's opinion.

Why don't we drive more EVs?

Simple:

Oil companies not willing to become true "energy companies" and invest in other sources. Primarily due to subsidies, in my opinion.
Auto mfrs with huge sunk costs in their current models, production lines, relationships with the oil co's. Vice versa for Oil.
Politicians receiving incredible amounts of good old cashola from the above to keep the status quo.
Existing infrastructure for:
-Electric grid that can't necessarily handle the demand during the day. But certainly can at night
-Enough fast charging locations to handle the demand.
-Brainwashing by the self-interested to the great mass of Americans who really don't know much about this, so they stick with the known. Kind of like horse to the car.

Hey. At least we're consistent!