I live in a major city and the air would be better if everyone drove EVs, especially the trucks. Another major win is that renewables once installed (even if the materials are acquired from China) are energy produced locally which is a national security win.
Above that, I don't agree that EVs are reducing carbon by an order of magnitude given the way batteries are manufactured and the current mix of electricity generation. If you have a home charger and can have a second gas car for trips in rural areas (if you need that) then a pure EV can work. But a 100% transition to all EVs is unrealistic. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and it becomes yet another wedge issue in American society that is going to cause a lot of social strife.
The air quality is what I mostly look forward to. I bike 10km 1 way on my commute and it would be so much more enjoyable if the air quality was better.
Recently I’ve been thinking about how municipal air quality would be improved if stoves, furnaces, ICE and other adiabatic processes used stored sources of oxygen instead of the nitrogen rich atmosphere. Essentially turn everything into a rocket.
Of course there are some other tradeoffs about stored vs atmospheric oxygen.
I wonder if we couldn't use an oxygen concentrator as a first stage instead of relying on stored oxygen. This would obviously increase the cost of the appliance (probably by a significant amount) but it would be safer and less disruptive (no need for a new distribution mechanism and you can just upgrade existing appliances).
> Another major win is that renewables once installed (even if the materials are acquired from China) are energy produced locally which is a national security win.
Much less so as the US has become the world's leading oil producing country, with spectacular growth in the last 15 years.
I didn't by one for running cost reasons; more safety and speed. However, anecdotally it seems to chew through tires - which isn't mentioned, but is obvious with a quite heavy powerful car - and they're relatively expensive. Charging, some placed really gouge you - I mostly charge at home (~0.115k/wh), and some local places are 3-5x that; home charging is the cheapest I've found.
noticed you mentioned speed.. That's probably why you are going through tires so fast.. ya EVs go through tires a lot faster but if you drive fast and more so accelerate fast then you will really go through tires
Good article! Thanks. Unfortunately climate change will also decimate fish stocks. I hope the industry will find a less harmful chemical to use instead of 6PPD.
I don't think so. In cities quality of air will increase dramatically once majority of ICEs is migrated to EVs. Obviously it will be even better if many private vehicles are replaced by public transportation. But one is not excluding the other.
>The company found that a car’s four tires collectively emit 1 trillion ultrafine particles — of less than 100 nanometers — per kilometer driven. These particles, a growing number of experts say, pose a unique health risk: They are so small they can pass through lung tissue into the bloodstream and cross the blood-brain barrier or be breathed in and travel directly to the brain, causing a range of problems.
That's extraordinarily problematic for human beings, particularly if storm water runoff finds its way into a city's water supply.
ICEs use tires as well, uh? So you just need to factor in the difference between ICEs and EVs tires wear. ANd you should also subtract for EVs particles from brakes (they are bad for human beings as well) and obviously exhaust emissions.
You need to ask for credit for the tread wear warranty when buying new tires.
They won’t give this automatically but if you ask they should immediately do it cheerfully at a good shop.
If you’re in the US, I’ve had good experience with Discount Tires and Americas Tires (same company; they use a different name depending on what state you’re in). Savings for me has been about 50% each time.
And Costco is the worst for this; I suspect they get the warranty money and pocket it because they sure put up a wall with a bad policy that says they don’t honor the warranty unless the tread gets down to a dangerous level.
2. Follow recommended guidelines for inflation and rotations
3. Use tires until they wear down to the level where change is recommended. They have to be below a certain depth (3mm I think?) to qualify. (A problem with Costco is last I checked they required them to be down to 1mm if I recall correctly. That's pretty low, and possibly dangerous.)
4. Go to tire store, ask for credit for tread wear. Normally at time of purchase, but you could gate your purchase by seeing what they say and if they don't play ball, go elsewhere.
5. They have a record of your car's mileage when you bought the tires. Or it's on the receipt if you bought elsewhere, or the original mileage is zero if the old tires first came on the car. They check your mileage now. They subtract the two and find the result. Tread warranty goes for 45,000 miles but you've only driven 20,000 miles. If they are strict, they check their records and see that you've done the recommended rotations. Or maybe they are not strict and don't care.
6. They give you a credit prorated to how many miles you got out of the tires. You got only 50% of the warranty miles? Then it's a (roughly) 50% credit on the price of the tires. So if the set of 4 is $1000, they give you a credit of $500. Your new tires cost you $500 out of pocket. These numbers are not exact… don't be surprised if it's 45% or something, might be something I'm forgetting here.
6a. Live in a state where people are chill. California comes to mind. Consumers are treated really well here.
7. Repeat with each new set of tires. They go by the full price of the tires before the credit, so even though you paid $500, your tires were $1000 tires (full set) for your next set you still get the same $500 credit even though you paid only $500 last time. In other words the new credit each subsequent time around is 50% of $1000, not 50% of the $500 you paid.
Important to know, these warranties are paid for by the tire manufacturer, not the reseller. Therefore the reseller should not care and should be happy to give it to you. They recoup it from the manufacturer. That could in theory argue against going to a branded one-brand shop, because presumably they would fight harder against honoring the warranty, as compared to a place that sells multiple brands.
> Charging, some placed really gouge you - I mostly charge at home (~0.115k/wh), and some local places are 3-5x that; home charging is the cheapest I've found.
I wouldn't call it gouging. You're excluding the capex on your home charger in your comparison, but public chargers have to include that, maintenance costs as a result of public abuse, maintenance of payment infrastructure, rent for the site, and taxes. If you consider what a public charger might take in a day, it's clear that the non-marginal costs are the majority of the cost.
> If this results in a 500% markup, customers should rightly be outraged.
No, it just means that the economics are different than what you think and that you should adjust your expectations accordingly.
For example, we can expect most electric car owners to charge at home with public chargers predominantly being placed on or near long distance routes. Public chargers elsewhere may struggle to be viable, except perhaps where home charging is impractical (eg. in areas where people don't have off-street parking).
I'm sorry, but I feel compelled to interject with a friendly PSA, "k/wh" (thousand per watt-hour) isn't a real unit in this context, it's $0.22/kWh ($0.22 per thousand Watt-hours)
Always take these articles based on studies with a big pinch of salt. They’re typically funded by one side or the other, and consequently biased.
All I can say from personal experience is that I’ve had a Tesla model 3 for 5+ years, and its maintenance has been virtually zero as Tesla fixed the creaks and quirks under warranty. Downtime was maybe 4 days, whilst we got a replacement vehicle. Break fluid and tires were replaced. That’s it. Rock solid drive train. Still have 250miles range out of 310 originally.
Electric cost was roughly 1/3 of what gas should have been.
Personal anecdotes with skin in the game (ie, the OP chooses to continue owning a Tesla) are more informative than "journalism" paid to have an opinion.
Sometimes, other times they become vocal and entrenched detractors. I've purchased and used many dell computers in the past, and I have nothing but disdain for the company.
No doubt his operating costs are low. The question of the paper is: how long do you have to operate the car before the savings equal the difference in purchase?
Somebody might feel good about spending more for a car that they like or that protects the environment, etc.
> ...before the savings equal the difference in purchase twice.
Why twice? Isn't once sufficient?
One reason to require the expectation to be better than break even might be due to uncertainty. But EVs seem to have developed into better certainty about maintenance costs, since there are fewer suddenly large expenses ("need a new turbo" was my most recent ICE sudden expense experience, for example).
Not only an anecdote, but one based entirely on in-warranty period, when repair costs are expected to be zero!
I wonder how battery degradation factors in to this. After ten years of daily use, a well-maintained Toyota will continue to cost very little in maintenance, but a lithium battery will have lost 50% of its capacity. How does the need to replace a battery affect TCO? Or is the assumption that no one will own a car that long?
> After ten years of daily use a lithium battery will have lost 50% of its capacity
No it won't. If your degradation is that bad, you would have been able to replace the battery before the warranty was up. Most manufacturers are similar, but Tesla has a 70%/7 year battery warranty. Any battery that will hit 50% in 10 years would hit 70% in 7 years and you would have had it replaced.
And obviously Tesla sets the warranty at a level where it doesn't expect to replace many batteries.
I had a look at the warranty and it says that they will not install a new battery, just one that gets you to the minimum of the promised degradation range:
> For warranty claims specific to Battery capacity, the replacement Battery will be in a condition appropriate to the age and mileage of the vehicle sufficient to achieve or exceed the minimum Battery capacity for the remainder of the warranty period of the original Battery. Note that the vehicle’s range estimates are an imperfect measure of Battery capacity because they are affected by additional factors separate from Battery capacity. The measurement method used to determine Battery capacity, and the decision of whether to repair, replace, or provide reconditioned or remanufactured parts, and the condition of any such replaced, reconditioned or remanufactured parts, are at the sole discretion of Tesla.
Batteries tend to degrade to around 80% and then stay there. This is apparently the generally accepted trend now, but my anecdotal evidence matches: my Leaf is now nine years old and still has just over 80% of its capacity left.
> Still have 250miles range out of 310 originally.
I appreciate that batteries degrade over time, but think this will deter many would-be EV owners. Losing 1/6 of your total range in the first 5 years of owner just doesn't happen with ICE vehicles. How long until you're down to 1/2 the original total range and can no longer handle the journeys you bought the car for? I'll probably be in the market for a new car in the next 2-3 years, and I'd very much prefer to go green next time, but this puts me off somewhat.
I wonder what the used market is going to be like too. Will many people want to buy cars that simply don't go as far as they used to (and will lose more miles as time goes on)? Do they just have to accept that a battery replacement will be necessary?
Agree that the range degradation is unsettling. My model 3 started with 320 and now its about 7-8% lower after 2 years.
However, this is my daily driving car for which I put on average 25 miles a day... but maybe an occasional peak at 150 miles in a single day or weekend. One thing that you'll discover is that charging is super simple. Plug it in at home and fill it up (I have a 30amp 240v) whenever you want. Or go find a super charger nearby if you're in a pinch.
Granted what people can do at home wrt/ electrical and how close you are to a super charger is all situational. But at least for me the loss in range hasn't changed my behavior or caused me any problems.
However, important note: I do not use the Tesla for long distance trips. I've done it a few times... its fine, but prefer gas/ICE for that.
Our Model 3 got 9000 miles added to it this past year. Our family 2011 Q5 got 1500 miles.
The article isn't claiming that the operating costs are more for XXL and very long range EVs than equivalent gas cars but that for smaller and shorter range vehicles the difference in operating costs is large enough to make up for the increased purchase cost.
That's not an entirely fair metric because the CO2 emissions for the EV are more and these are an external cost that people aren't paying in most countries.
if we had a $100/tonne CO2 carbon tax (which might make some carbon capture viable) that amounts to about $1 on a gallon of gas, which I'd imagine is about $500 a year for a compact car, could be quite a bit more than that for an XXL vehicle. For certain drivers with certain cars the difference could be close to the $7500 tax credit in 7 year or so.
Similar experience here with a ~2021 Model 3 in Massachusetts. Maintenance has been 0 thus far. Electric rates are high, I think.. compared to most of the US. I'm at $0.27/kwh looking at the last rolling 12 months.
Still, at $0.27/kwh that roughly equates to about $0.07 per mile based on recorded usage in the car.
In contrast... gas prices here are now $3.30/gallon. An ICE sedan might get 33mpg... so $0.10. A Hybrid however is on par or slightly beating (say 55mpg so thats $0.06).
I've driven 18,000 miles over the last 2 years. So... call it $270/year in savings vs the ICE. I have a 12yo ICE SUV used as the family car for long trips. Even though we don't drive it a ton, I still have to change the oil (which I do myself and costs ~$60 all in).
Is it an amazing savings. No. But the car is fun to drive, quiet, comfortable. It is our daily driver. The fact that I don't have to change its oil is a nice bonus.
> The findings broadly challenge the optimistic cost-of-ownership assessments frequently touted by EV enthusiasts. The researchers found that while small and low-range EVs capable of traveling around 200 miles are indeed less expensive to own than their gas-powered counterparts, larger, long-range EVs that can cover 400 miles are more expensive. Midsize SUV EVs — currently the top-selling models by far — only reach cost parity if government incentives are applied.
> long-range EVs that can cover 400 miles are more expensive . Midsize SUV EVs — currently the top-selling models by far — only reach cost parity if government incentives are
The Model Y is the best selling car, and the range is 310 miles, so I think the journalist is either very misinformed or being dishonest.
Apart from the inconvenience of the time it takes to charge and the failure of battery pack swapping that the Model S supported, most people don't need even 200 miles of range in everyday life. On long trips, there is already a massive network of charging stations throughout CONUS that the only problems will be edge-cases of remote areas limited to RV shore power circuits, e.g., 120 V 30 A (2.9 kW to car) or 240 V 50 A (9.6 kW to car). While finding a 48A L2 NACS portable charger is a $$ and a PITA, it's doable.
Or if you like fun… or safety… or if you need amazing AWD that blows anything else out of the water… or a bunch of other reasons. But yeah definitely charge at home or work.
the acceleration is fun for a while... but safety you can easily get somewhere else... never heard about Tesla's AWD performance, but of course most people won't notice it because most people drive like grandmas and dont go offroad.
Safety you can get somewhere else for more money (TCO) with fewer features and more problems but why?
AWD that just works is something that will help anyone in the right situation when it comes, even unexpectedly, even gramas.
Other benefits… never having to smell gas, never dealing with gas station panhandlers or muggers, smelling fresh air, quiet driving, having a full tank every morning when leaving the house, smooth deceleration, one pedal driving, OTA updates that add driving features, fill the tank using any outlet even if all gas stations are closed by government order, and many others, too many to list.
YMMV. If you're charging in Ontario Canada on super-low overnight electricity plan (3c/kWh) it costs $2. In California at some superchargers at peak times it costs 60 c/kWh, or $40 for a charge.
So, somewhere between $2 and $40. IOW, a generic answer is in no way helpful.
It depends on the state/region as it depends on the underlying electricity cost. You can “fill up” for like $5-15 if you’re in a state where electricity is inexpensive and you’re willing to charge at off peak times.
There are so many variables to manipulate in EV vs ICE arguments that one can say anything. You can manipulate prices and costs so EVs are cheaper to own, or you can do the opposite and make ICE cheaper, or you can manipulate them so costs are exactly the same. "Your mileage may vary."
Yep. The problem is Americans buying heavy SUVs rather than more efficient, safer, smaller cars. The combination of demanding extreme range and extreme weight costs more in fuel or electricity. Perhaps instead of going back to 1970's-sized inefficient vehicles, vehicles should be taxed by weight. Also, the SUV/light truck loophole has to go and they should be regulated, taxed, and tariffed similarly to passenger vehicles.
Kudos to them for including the "Time value costs are calculated for refueling, maintenance, and repairs.", though I think they assume too much time spent on refueling electric vehicles.
There is a big concern where I live about resale costs. I'm in a rural area so people make a lot of miles on their vehicle. The batteries are only good for so many miles, so what happens to my trade-in value for a high mileage vehicle where the range has been significantly impacted? Or if I just decide to keep the car for a long time? Battery replacement costs are huge. Conventional ICE vehicles don't have this step-function maintenance cost.
Catalytic converter and transmission costs come nowhere near that of a new battery. As far as engines go, you can almost always repair an engine at a fraction of the cost of replacing an engine. Multiple times if need be. Probably same with the transmission. Battery replacement is a one shot deal.
Rust isn't a big deal where I live. I put 440,000 km on my 2001 Honda Civic and had it for 15 years. The body was still in good condition.
Batteries aren't like timing chains, they have gradual degradation. A 15 year old Tesla with a 150 mile range is still useful and would still have value.
I am thinking about getting a used Nissan Leaf with 80 miles or so range because that's good enough for going to work or shopping and we already have two gas cars on the farm.
I understand that batteries have gradual degradation. But they will gradually degrade to the point where range is substantially impacted and that is the time you have to look at selling the car or replacing the battery. Again, I live in a rural area and a vehicle with 150 mile range would not be worth much. The problem is compounded by the harsh winters where I live. It was -35C here last week and that 150 mile range in summer is noticeably impacted in winter.
I think the TCO would be impacted if enough people get electric in a city to require electric grid upgrades. That money will come from increased electric rates, higher rents, or in taxes of some form. Of course it's nearly impossible to predict ahead of time but it's a looming cost.
Imagine a 100 car parking lot for an apartment building, if everyone drives 20 miles per day average at an efficiency of 3.5kwh/mile, that's 7 megawatts that needs to be delivered every night or people can't get to work (assuming load balancing chargers). That seems like a lot. Multiply that by several buildings in a block plus the charging equipment for each parking spot... The money needs to come from somewhere.
Your numbers are way off - EV efficiency isn't measured in kWh/mile but miles/kWh.
If the average EV gets 3.5 miles/kWh, then those 20 miles per day need ~6 kWh. That's 600 kWh a night for your 100 cars, which over 10 hours is about 60 kW.
That's far more achievable - comparable to 5 houses using an electric shower at the same time.
There's bound to be some localised challenges, but the amount of electricity required for charging is well within most grid's existing capabilities. Grids are built for peak demand, with the low usage overnight typically half of peak. Additionally, electricity usage per household has been falling in the west for the last decade - with a peak in the mid 00s. The energy efficiency savings in lightbulbs and appliances have given extra headroom for charging.
The average car in the US drives 14k miles a year. At 3.5 miles per kWh that's 4000 kWh a year, or an average of 460W. The average US home uses about 10,000 kWh a year - so that car charging represents a 40% increase. As long as that 40% is in the night, when infrastructure is barely being used, it's not really a problem.
> “EVs are more competitive in cities with high gasoline prices, low electricity prices, moderate climates, and direct purchase incentives, and for users with home charging access, time-of-use electricity pricing, and high annual mileage,” the researchers summarized.
I think the conclusions are all pretty well understood by anyone interested in this area.
Fundamentally almost every EV available uses less energy per mile than a comparable ICE vehicle. Even in the cold. That's because of the relative efficiencies of ICE vs electric drivetrains. Even accounting for generation efficiency, EVs are more efficient at turning hydrocarbons into motion - because fixed power stations are so much more efficient than small portable internal combustion engines - 20% vs up to 60%.
All the other factors are incredibly personal.
Ultimately I'd expect the long term cost of ownership of an EV to be a bit less than a comparable gasoline vehicle. The total amount of energy consumed will be less, but the cost will be incredibly variable depending on time of charging. Electric drivetrains are clearly more robust and much less mechanically complex than comparable ICE drivetrains - but actually modern engines are pretty reliable anyway, and all the other wear items like suspension and brakes are still there (admittedly with much less brake use). EVs currently benefit from not paying fuel taxes - that will probably be changed over time.
Here in the rust belt, electric cars are not a panacea. Electricity is cheaper than gas, but not by a mind-blowing margin. (Solar would help, if the sun shined at night when most cars would be charging.) The whole non-engine rest of an EV has the same disadvantages as a gas guzzler.
The best way to lower TCO of any car is to avoid buying a replacement for as long as you can. In my area, we get an average of 12 years out of a vehicle before the frame, suspension, and floorboards rust out so bad that the car is unsafe to drive or uneconomical to repair. There are two ways this could be solved:
1. Stop using salt and other extremely corrosive chemicals to melt ice and snow on public roads. This isn't going to happen because there are no good replacements in the first place. But even if there were, decision-makers have no incentive to risk their political power with a choice that (even in hindsight) turned out to negatively impact public safety. Salt keeps people safe, damn all the other reasons not to use it.
2. Make car frames, suspensions, and undercarriages out of more durable metals, like aluminum and stainless steel. This is more likely and feasible than #1, but still has several hurdles. Car makers will not voluntarily do this for multiple obvious reasons. Consumers would complain about the higher prices but pay them anyway. I would like to see--but probably won't--regulation passing in spite of lobbying efforts from both sides.
Edit: I can see myself buying an electric car for around-town driving at some point, IF the manufacturers ever make one that does not require the car being permanently connected to the cloud in order to function and charge.
I'm not taking a pro- or anti-EV stance here. It must be stressed and truly appreciated just how long ICE vehicles have been developed and continuously refined at the socioeconomic level. As one example, the gas station is key to our socioeconomic relationship to ICE vehicles.
You can say that owning and operating a gas stations isn't a glamorous job, and you'd be right to an extent, but also very wrong. Gas stations (and all the associated infrastructure which enable them to function) provide many, many jobs to society, and every single person who drives an ICE car will visit one. Not many things in society work that way.
Gas stations may also serve a social function. I'm aware of a group of individuals in a small Wisconsin town who meet up at the gas station, have some coffee, and share the news with each other. The town is not large enough to sustain a coffee shop or even a cafe. For them, the gas station is a meeting place. They'll not switch from ICE vehicles anytime soon, so that way of life is not under threat.
The gas station provides one crucial element: convenience. In the day-to-day, most people just like being able to go to a gas station, fill up in a couple minutes, and be on their way. On a road trip, they might also like being able to stop and have a meal. My understanding of EV pricing when you're traveling is that it's significantly more expensive than home charging. If you have a lot of money, paying for that electricity doesn't matter as much. However, lots of people (especially those with kids) take a road trip, paying time to save money. It seems a bit odd to assume that people with EVs will take a road trip to save money, when it's probably worth their time to just fly most/all of the way and get a rental car.
> In the day-to-day, most people just like being able to go to a gas station, fill up in a couple minutes, and be on their way.
It's much more convenient to not stop and just go home.
> My understanding of EV pricing when you're traveling is that it's significantly more expensive than home charging. If you have a lot of money, paying for that electricity doesn't matter as much.
It is much cheaper at home, but it's still cheaper to supercharge than buy gas.
> It seems a bit odd to assume that people with EVs will take a road trip to save money, when it's probably worth their time to just fly most/all of the way and get a rental car.
Lots of people take road trips to save money. Driving a 1000 miles is probably at most a few hundred dollars and can carry 4, or more, people. Four flights, plus airport ride/parking, plus rental car is no where near that cheap. That isn't an EV/ICE thing though.
>It's much more convenient to not stop and just go home.
Actually, I'd rather spend three minutes to fill up than have my car plugged in overnight, but to each their own.
>It is much cheaper at home, but it's still cheaper to supercharge than buy gas.
The latter is universally not true, according to this 2023 MotorTrend article: "Owning a Tesla can save you hundreds of dollars a year on fuel costs, but only if you're able to charge at home or find public plugs with free or subsidized electricity. The premium pricing at Superchargers and other public charging stations often makes driving an EV just as expensive as driving an efficient hybrid or gas car" [1].
>Lots of people take road trips to save money. Driving a 1000 miles is probably at most a few hundred dollars and can carry 4, or more, people. Four flights, plus airport ride/parking, plus rental car is no where near that cheap. That isn't an EV/ICE thing though.
I'm not too sure about this, but I also haven't looked into it recently, so let's actually look at it in context of a 1000 mile road trip. Assuming an average speed of 70mph, you're looking at about 14.5 hours of pure driving.
The average MPG for an ICE car and truck is 24.2 mpg and 17.5 mpg, respectively [2]. The average US gas price is $3.03 [3], though where you do your road trip will matter greatly [4]. With that, 1000 miles in an ICE car or light truck costs $125 and $173 in fuel, respectively. Now, fuel tank capacity will also determine how often you need to refuel, and a rough estimate for tank capacity for a car and truck is 14 and 20 gallons, respectively. Assuming a full tank at the start of the trip, the car and truck will consume 2.95 and 2.86 tanks of gas, respectively. From that, let's be generous and say both the car and truck will stop 3 times to refuel. With normal maintenance, 3 stops should be the maximum required stops over the life of the vehicle. With bathrooms, food, and a leisurely pace, let's assume each stop averages to 20 minutes, which means the minimum of non-driving time on a ICE road trip is 1 hour.
Averaging fuel prices, a 1000 mile road trip with an average ICE vehicle will require 3 stops, span 15.5 hours, and cost $150 in fuel. How does an EV stack up against those three items?
First, let's look at stops. After reading a bunch of articles to figure out average EV range [5][6][7], and finally finding this site [8], a good average is be 225 miles. Driving 1000 miles, that translates to about 4.5 stops.
Next, let's look at total trip time. The 14.5 hour minimum drive time shouldn't significantly vary. Since it takes three minutes to fill a gas tank, charging time is the single important factor increasing total trip with an EV. On a road trip, an L1 or L2 charger is too slow (unless you're getting a hotel, but that is irrelevant), so you'll need a DC fast charger [11][12]. This webpage [13] shows different miles per charging-hour rates across EVs, and the variance is high, ranging from 179 to 868, with a rough average of 470 miles per charging-hour. With an average range of 225 miles and assuming constant charger availability, you'd need about thirty minutes purely to recharge. With a minimum of 4 stops, that's 2 hours of just charging. That beings the trip time to 16.5 hours.
Finally, let's look at energy cost. It's basically impossible to pin this down, and I'm not even going to try because there's so much variance. It will probably be, at most, just as expensive as gas.
So, compared to the average ICE vehicle, the average EV will require 1.5 more stops, add approximately 1 hour to a 14.5 hour road trip, and will be no more expensive than a gas car. I'm genuinely surprised by that result. It's impressive how far the EV industry has come. I guess new EVs are pretty close to the gas paradigm, assuming you're able and willing to purchase a new car.
Still, EV chassis size determines maximum battery siz...
3 minutes? I have to go to the gas station, it’s a lot cheaper to go to Costco. Wait for a car or two. Fill up. Costs more money. I’m glad you’d rather do that than literally 5 seconds at home. Enjoy
Yes, because I get gas when I'm already out running an errand. If I'm below a quarter-tank, I go to the cheapest gas station around me (it's not a Costco). I never wait for gas, and it takes me literally three minutes to fill up. I then don't think about refueling for around two weeks.
Many of today's gas stations will survive the transition to EV just fine, just not as gas stations. They already make most of their money via the attached convenience store -- ripping the pumps out will mostly just lower costs.
> Gas stations...provide many, many jobs to society
However, if they are no longer necessary, then everybody stands to benefit economically because it's an inefficiency that we can eliminate. We can be nostalgic about it and lament tangential benefits that would be lost, but ultimately that's the reality.
> My understanding of EV pricing when you're traveling is that it's significantly more expensive than home charging. If you have a lot of money, paying for that electricity doesn't matter as much. However, lots of people (especially those with kids) take a road trip, paying time to save money. It seems a bit odd to assume that people with EVs will take a road trip to save money, when it's probably worth their time to just fly most/all of the way and get a rental car.
This doesn't apply to the vast majority of car journeys, and the infrastructure we enjoy at low cost is propped up by those. When they disappear, I don't think the economics will work any more to favour ICE journeys. The infrastructure for electricity distribution will continue to exist since it's used for much more, but the gas distribution network will wither, and gas-based road trips will therefore get more expensive.
>However, if they are no longer necessary, then everybody stands to benefit economically because it's an inefficiency that we can eliminate. We can be nostalgic about it and lament tangential benefits that would be lost, but ultimately that's the reality.
Agreed. Seventy years ago, typists were employed by the thousands, but society adjusted, for the better at that.
>This doesn't apply to the vast majority of car journeys, and the infrastructure we enjoy at low cost is propped up by those.
I, for one, enjoy low-cost infrastructure, and so does anyone struggling to pay their bills.
The main reason the EV industry is growing is due to governmental support, not pure customer demand. The cost of EV charging infrastructure will amortize, but the economics of the eventual dominance of EVs (in its current state, mind you) will mostly hurt the poor in the near term, not help them. Perhaps there may yet be a turning point in the future.
The upfront cost of the car itself is a big part of total cost of ownership. About half if you drive 15,000 miles per year and keep the car for at least 10 years. For example I bought a 2008 car for $25,000 and drive it 10,000 miles per year. I finally reached the point where insurance, fuel, and maintenance also added up to $25,000. If I financed the car it would increase the CAPEX side. If I was a young driver the insurance would be much more expensive pushing up the OPEX side.
You need a lot of electric miles to make the upfront cost worth it. The biggest beneficiaries from energy cost savings are those who choose a long commute (or have to). But moving closer saves a lot of time and mileage. If only zoning were not so restrictive to allow for more housing supply closer in.
Absolutely. When people ask me whether an EV would save them money, my first question is "How much do you drive?", even before "Can you charge at home?"
I don't know when it started, but it seems that EVs have broken into the Uber/Lyft market in a MAJOR way, which just makes sense: the more you drive them, the greater the cost advantage.
EVs are going to take a while before they get more mainstream adoption. I live in a big European city, and I don’t have any way of charging from my “townhouse” electricity despite producing surplus with my solar panels. This is because I don’t have a dedicated front yard to park my car. No way to charge. If I compare the public fast EV chargers to gas stations, atleast in the Netherlands, the prices come out pretty much same vs gas. So, as a customer, I’d have to choose to pay more upfront to get an EV with the inconvenience of range anxiety only so that I can feel better about the environment. On the other hand, it is rather maddening to know that I’m a fractional drop in the bucket while large industrial emitters go about Scot free warming up the planet anyway.
When it gets economical to own an EV, I will switch despite a little inconvenience. Not for green washing reasons.
I might be going with a plug in hybrid next. I wanted to go all electric, but I'm not getting a Bolt because they don't charge fast, and not getting a Tesla because reasons. A Prius Prime would cover 99.9% of my trips in town on battery and would enable my several-hour road trips with great fuel economy. And they're relatively inexpensive.
Still a bummer to have a more complex drivetrain, though. The simplicity of an EV is wonderful.
Consider the expensive complexities of hybrids maintaining both EV and ICE systems. Perhaps investigate TCO figures and repair history before purchase. And have a look at alternatives like the Fisker Pear and extensive charging networks (some are free) available on the map of PlugShare.
I only skimmed the original paper, but it really seems like they put a lot of work into not directly answering the central question: At what purchase price does an EV make financial sense?
In the chart labeled "Break-even analysis", I was expecting to see something along those lines, but no. They base an entire paper upon prices that are almost certainly all way out of date by now.
98 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 201 ms ] threadAbove that, I don't agree that EVs are reducing carbon by an order of magnitude given the way batteries are manufactured and the current mix of electricity generation. If you have a home charger and can have a second gas car for trips in rural areas (if you need that) then a pure EV can work. But a 100% transition to all EVs is unrealistic. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and it becomes yet another wedge issue in American society that is going to cause a lot of social strife.
Of course there are some other tradeoffs about stored vs atmospheric oxygen.
Much less so as the US has become the world's leading oil producing country, with spectacular growth in the last 15 years.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
Meanwhile China has a large lead in the production of photovoltaics, requiring the "once installed" qualifier.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-manu...
https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemical...
>The company found that a car’s four tires collectively emit 1 trillion ultrafine particles — of less than 100 nanometers — per kilometer driven. These particles, a growing number of experts say, pose a unique health risk: They are so small they can pass through lung tissue into the bloodstream and cross the blood-brain barrier or be breathed in and travel directly to the brain, causing a range of problems.
That's extraordinarily problematic for human beings, particularly if storm water runoff finds its way into a city's water supply.
They won’t give this automatically but if you ask they should immediately do it cheerfully at a good shop.
If you’re in the US, I’ve had good experience with Discount Tires and Americas Tires (same company; they use a different name depending on what state you’re in). Savings for me has been about 50% each time.
And Costco is the worst for this; I suspect they get the warranty money and pocket it because they sure put up a wall with a bad policy that says they don’t honor the warranty unless the tread gets down to a dangerous level.
2. Follow recommended guidelines for inflation and rotations
3. Use tires until they wear down to the level where change is recommended. They have to be below a certain depth (3mm I think?) to qualify. (A problem with Costco is last I checked they required them to be down to 1mm if I recall correctly. That's pretty low, and possibly dangerous.)
4. Go to tire store, ask for credit for tread wear. Normally at time of purchase, but you could gate your purchase by seeing what they say and if they don't play ball, go elsewhere.
5. They have a record of your car's mileage when you bought the tires. Or it's on the receipt if you bought elsewhere, or the original mileage is zero if the old tires first came on the car. They check your mileage now. They subtract the two and find the result. Tread warranty goes for 45,000 miles but you've only driven 20,000 miles. If they are strict, they check their records and see that you've done the recommended rotations. Or maybe they are not strict and don't care.
6. They give you a credit prorated to how many miles you got out of the tires. You got only 50% of the warranty miles? Then it's a (roughly) 50% credit on the price of the tires. So if the set of 4 is $1000, they give you a credit of $500. Your new tires cost you $500 out of pocket. These numbers are not exact… don't be surprised if it's 45% or something, might be something I'm forgetting here.
6a. Live in a state where people are chill. California comes to mind. Consumers are treated really well here.
7. Repeat with each new set of tires. They go by the full price of the tires before the credit, so even though you paid $500, your tires were $1000 tires (full set) for your next set you still get the same $500 credit even though you paid only $500 last time. In other words the new credit each subsequent time around is 50% of $1000, not 50% of the $500 you paid.
Important to know, these warranties are paid for by the tire manufacturer, not the reseller. Therefore the reseller should not care and should be happy to give it to you. They recoup it from the manufacturer. That could in theory argue against going to a branded one-brand shop, because presumably they would fight harder against honoring the warranty, as compared to a place that sells multiple brands.
I wouldn't call it gouging. You're excluding the capex on your home charger in your comparison, but public chargers have to include that, maintenance costs as a result of public abuse, maintenance of payment infrastructure, rent for the site, and taxes. If you consider what a public charger might take in a day, it's clear that the non-marginal costs are the majority of the cost.
Sounds like a "not my problem" kind of thing. If this results in a 500% markup, customers should rightly be outraged.
Also the kind of thing where businesses should have massive economies of scale (like getting a discount on buying 10,000 chargers at once)
No, it just means that the economics are different than what you think and that you should adjust your expectations accordingly.
For example, we can expect most electric car owners to charge at home with public chargers predominantly being placed on or near long distance routes. Public chargers elsewhere may struggle to be viable, except perhaps where home charging is impractical (eg. in areas where people don't have off-street parking).
All I can say from personal experience is that I’ve had a Tesla model 3 for 5+ years, and its maintenance has been virtually zero as Tesla fixed the creaks and quirks under warranty. Downtime was maybe 4 days, whilst we got a replacement vehicle. Break fluid and tires were replaced. That’s it. Rock solid drive train. Still have 250miles range out of 310 originally.
Electric cost was roughly 1/3 of what gas should have been.
No regrets here.
N=1
> are more informative than "journalism" [0] paid to have an opinion [1].
That's quite the statement. Can you point which parts of the article are paid for ? Especially when the conclusion goes against the title:
> With battery prices predicted to continue steadily declining in the coming years, the math is likely to shift more in favor of EVs.
[0] your bias is showing
[1] everyone is entitled to it but for an opinion piece there were still some sources in it
Somebody might feel good about spending more for a car that they like or that protects the environment, etc.
Why twice? Isn't once sufficient?
One reason to require the expectation to be better than break even might be due to uncertainty. But EVs seem to have developed into better certainty about maintenance costs, since there are fewer suddenly large expenses ("need a new turbo" was my most recent ICE sudden expense experience, for example).
I wonder how battery degradation factors in to this. After ten years of daily use, a well-maintained Toyota will continue to cost very little in maintenance, but a lithium battery will have lost 50% of its capacity. How does the need to replace a battery affect TCO? Or is the assumption that no one will own a car that long?
No it won't. If your degradation is that bad, you would have been able to replace the battery before the warranty was up. Most manufacturers are similar, but Tesla has a 70%/7 year battery warranty. Any battery that will hit 50% in 10 years would hit 70% in 7 years and you would have had it replaced.
And obviously Tesla sets the warranty at a level where it doesn't expect to replace many batteries.
After 9 years and 1 month, my battery is down about 13% from new. 50% loss in 10 years is pure FUD, IMO.
I appreciate that batteries degrade over time, but think this will deter many would-be EV owners. Losing 1/6 of your total range in the first 5 years of owner just doesn't happen with ICE vehicles. How long until you're down to 1/2 the original total range and can no longer handle the journeys you bought the car for? I'll probably be in the market for a new car in the next 2-3 years, and I'd very much prefer to go green next time, but this puts me off somewhat.
I wonder what the used market is going to be like too. Will many people want to buy cars that simply don't go as far as they used to (and will lose more miles as time goes on)? Do they just have to accept that a battery replacement will be necessary?
However, this is my daily driving car for which I put on average 25 miles a day... but maybe an occasional peak at 150 miles in a single day or weekend. One thing that you'll discover is that charging is super simple. Plug it in at home and fill it up (I have a 30amp 240v) whenever you want. Or go find a super charger nearby if you're in a pinch.
Granted what people can do at home wrt/ electrical and how close you are to a super charger is all situational. But at least for me the loss in range hasn't changed my behavior or caused me any problems.
However, important note: I do not use the Tesla for long distance trips. I've done it a few times... its fine, but prefer gas/ICE for that.
Our Model 3 got 9000 miles added to it this past year. Our family 2011 Q5 got 1500 miles.
That's not an entirely fair metric because the CO2 emissions for the EV are more and these are an external cost that people aren't paying in most countries.
if we had a $100/tonne CO2 carbon tax (which might make some carbon capture viable) that amounts to about $1 on a gallon of gas, which I'd imagine is about $500 a year for a compact car, could be quite a bit more than that for an XXL vehicle. For certain drivers with certain cars the difference could be close to the $7500 tax credit in 7 year or so.
Still, at $0.27/kwh that roughly equates to about $0.07 per mile based on recorded usage in the car.
In contrast... gas prices here are now $3.30/gallon. An ICE sedan might get 33mpg... so $0.10. A Hybrid however is on par or slightly beating (say 55mpg so thats $0.06).
I've driven 18,000 miles over the last 2 years. So... call it $270/year in savings vs the ICE. I have a 12yo ICE SUV used as the family car for long trips. Even though we don't drive it a ton, I still have to change the oil (which I do myself and costs ~$60 all in).
Is it an amazing savings. No. But the car is fun to drive, quiet, comfortable. It is our daily driver. The fact that I don't have to change its oil is a nice bonus.
The Model Y is the best selling car, and the range is 310 miles, so I think the journalist is either very misinformed or being dishonest.
What are the other reasons?
The acceleration never gets old. Never.
Safety you can get somewhere else for more money (TCO) with fewer features and more problems but why?
AWD that just works is something that will help anyone in the right situation when it comes, even unexpectedly, even gramas.
Other benefits… never having to smell gas, never dealing with gas station panhandlers or muggers, smelling fresh air, quiet driving, having a full tank every morning when leaving the house, smooth deceleration, one pedal driving, OTA updates that add driving features, fill the tank using any outlet even if all gas stations are closed by government order, and many others, too many to list.
So, somewhere between $2 and $40. IOW, a generic answer is in no way helpful.
Over 3+ years, they have required zero maintenance.
I suspect it's because they lack all those moving parts and messy fluids in an internal combustion engine that do require regular service.
Most of my charging (well over 90%) is at home.
I don't know about other EV brands.
A vehicle with low energy efficiency per unit weight, like an SUV, costs about the same regardless of fuel.
To find a higher TCO for EVs, you have to go to long-range (>400mi) vehicles and include battery technology from 25 years ago.
Kudos to them for including the "Time value costs are calculated for refueling, maintenance, and repairs.", though I think they assume too much time spent on refueling electric vehicles.
Except that they obviously do, in the form of transmission/engine/Catalytic converter.
> Battery replacement costs are huge.
Your vehicle is much more likely to become a rustbucket before the battery wears out. This isn't Nissan Leaf gen 1 anymore.
Rust isn't a big deal where I live. I put 440,000 km on my 2001 Honda Civic and had it for 15 years. The body was still in good condition.
Imagine a 100 car parking lot for an apartment building, if everyone drives 20 miles per day average at an efficiency of 3.5kwh/mile, that's 7 megawatts that needs to be delivered every night or people can't get to work (assuming load balancing chargers). That seems like a lot. Multiply that by several buildings in a block plus the charging equipment for each parking spot... The money needs to come from somewhere.
If the average EV gets 3.5 miles/kWh, then those 20 miles per day need ~6 kWh. That's 600 kWh a night for your 100 cars, which over 10 hours is about 60 kW.
That's far more achievable - comparable to 5 houses using an electric shower at the same time.
There's bound to be some localised challenges, but the amount of electricity required for charging is well within most grid's existing capabilities. Grids are built for peak demand, with the low usage overnight typically half of peak. Additionally, electricity usage per household has been falling in the west for the last decade - with a peak in the mid 00s. The energy efficiency savings in lightbulbs and appliances have given extra headroom for charging.
The average car in the US drives 14k miles a year. At 3.5 miles per kWh that's 4000 kWh a year, or an average of 460W. The average US home uses about 10,000 kWh a year - so that car charging represents a 40% increase. As long as that 40% is in the night, when infrastructure is barely being used, it's not really a problem.
I think the conclusions are all pretty well understood by anyone interested in this area.
Fundamentally almost every EV available uses less energy per mile than a comparable ICE vehicle. Even in the cold. That's because of the relative efficiencies of ICE vs electric drivetrains. Even accounting for generation efficiency, EVs are more efficient at turning hydrocarbons into motion - because fixed power stations are so much more efficient than small portable internal combustion engines - 20% vs up to 60%.
All the other factors are incredibly personal.
Ultimately I'd expect the long term cost of ownership of an EV to be a bit less than a comparable gasoline vehicle. The total amount of energy consumed will be less, but the cost will be incredibly variable depending on time of charging. Electric drivetrains are clearly more robust and much less mechanically complex than comparable ICE drivetrains - but actually modern engines are pretty reliable anyway, and all the other wear items like suspension and brakes are still there (admittedly with much less brake use). EVs currently benefit from not paying fuel taxes - that will probably be changed over time.
The best way to lower TCO of any car is to avoid buying a replacement for as long as you can. In my area, we get an average of 12 years out of a vehicle before the frame, suspension, and floorboards rust out so bad that the car is unsafe to drive or uneconomical to repair. There are two ways this could be solved:
1. Stop using salt and other extremely corrosive chemicals to melt ice and snow on public roads. This isn't going to happen because there are no good replacements in the first place. But even if there were, decision-makers have no incentive to risk their political power with a choice that (even in hindsight) turned out to negatively impact public safety. Salt keeps people safe, damn all the other reasons not to use it.
2. Make car frames, suspensions, and undercarriages out of more durable metals, like aluminum and stainless steel. This is more likely and feasible than #1, but still has several hurdles. Car makers will not voluntarily do this for multiple obvious reasons. Consumers would complain about the higher prices but pay them anyway. I would like to see--but probably won't--regulation passing in spite of lobbying efforts from both sides.
Edit: I can see myself buying an electric car for around-town driving at some point, IF the manufacturers ever make one that does not require the car being permanently connected to the cloud in order to function and charge.
You can say that owning and operating a gas stations isn't a glamorous job, and you'd be right to an extent, but also very wrong. Gas stations (and all the associated infrastructure which enable them to function) provide many, many jobs to society, and every single person who drives an ICE car will visit one. Not many things in society work that way.
Gas stations may also serve a social function. I'm aware of a group of individuals in a small Wisconsin town who meet up at the gas station, have some coffee, and share the news with each other. The town is not large enough to sustain a coffee shop or even a cafe. For them, the gas station is a meeting place. They'll not switch from ICE vehicles anytime soon, so that way of life is not under threat.
The gas station provides one crucial element: convenience. In the day-to-day, most people just like being able to go to a gas station, fill up in a couple minutes, and be on their way. On a road trip, they might also like being able to stop and have a meal. My understanding of EV pricing when you're traveling is that it's significantly more expensive than home charging. If you have a lot of money, paying for that electricity doesn't matter as much. However, lots of people (especially those with kids) take a road trip, paying time to save money. It seems a bit odd to assume that people with EVs will take a road trip to save money, when it's probably worth their time to just fly most/all of the way and get a rental car.
It's much more convenient to not stop and just go home.
> My understanding of EV pricing when you're traveling is that it's significantly more expensive than home charging. If you have a lot of money, paying for that electricity doesn't matter as much.
It is much cheaper at home, but it's still cheaper to supercharge than buy gas.
> It seems a bit odd to assume that people with EVs will take a road trip to save money, when it's probably worth their time to just fly most/all of the way and get a rental car.
Lots of people take road trips to save money. Driving a 1000 miles is probably at most a few hundred dollars and can carry 4, or more, people. Four flights, plus airport ride/parking, plus rental car is no where near that cheap. That isn't an EV/ICE thing though.
Actually, I'd rather spend three minutes to fill up than have my car plugged in overnight, but to each their own.
>It is much cheaper at home, but it's still cheaper to supercharge than buy gas.
The latter is universally not true, according to this 2023 MotorTrend article: "Owning a Tesla can save you hundreds of dollars a year on fuel costs, but only if you're able to charge at home or find public plugs with free or subsidized electricity. The premium pricing at Superchargers and other public charging stations often makes driving an EV just as expensive as driving an efficient hybrid or gas car" [1].
>Lots of people take road trips to save money. Driving a 1000 miles is probably at most a few hundred dollars and can carry 4, or more, people. Four flights, plus airport ride/parking, plus rental car is no where near that cheap. That isn't an EV/ICE thing though.
I'm not too sure about this, but I also haven't looked into it recently, so let's actually look at it in context of a 1000 mile road trip. Assuming an average speed of 70mph, you're looking at about 14.5 hours of pure driving.
The average MPG for an ICE car and truck is 24.2 mpg and 17.5 mpg, respectively [2]. The average US gas price is $3.03 [3], though where you do your road trip will matter greatly [4]. With that, 1000 miles in an ICE car or light truck costs $125 and $173 in fuel, respectively. Now, fuel tank capacity will also determine how often you need to refuel, and a rough estimate for tank capacity for a car and truck is 14 and 20 gallons, respectively. Assuming a full tank at the start of the trip, the car and truck will consume 2.95 and 2.86 tanks of gas, respectively. From that, let's be generous and say both the car and truck will stop 3 times to refuel. With normal maintenance, 3 stops should be the maximum required stops over the life of the vehicle. With bathrooms, food, and a leisurely pace, let's assume each stop averages to 20 minutes, which means the minimum of non-driving time on a ICE road trip is 1 hour.
Averaging fuel prices, a 1000 mile road trip with an average ICE vehicle will require 3 stops, span 15.5 hours, and cost $150 in fuel. How does an EV stack up against those three items?
First, let's look at stops. After reading a bunch of articles to figure out average EV range [5][6][7], and finally finding this site [8], a good average is be 225 miles. Driving 1000 miles, that translates to about 4.5 stops.
Next, let's look at total trip time. The 14.5 hour minimum drive time shouldn't significantly vary. Since it takes three minutes to fill a gas tank, charging time is the single important factor increasing total trip with an EV. On a road trip, an L1 or L2 charger is too slow (unless you're getting a hotel, but that is irrelevant), so you'll need a DC fast charger [11][12]. This webpage [13] shows different miles per charging-hour rates across EVs, and the variance is high, ranging from 179 to 868, with a rough average of 470 miles per charging-hour. With an average range of 225 miles and assuming constant charger availability, you'd need about thirty minutes purely to recharge. With a minimum of 4 stops, that's 2 hours of just charging. That beings the trip time to 16.5 hours.
Finally, let's look at energy cost. It's basically impossible to pin this down, and I'm not even going to try because there's so much variance. It will probably be, at most, just as expensive as gas.
So, compared to the average ICE vehicle, the average EV will require 1.5 more stops, add approximately 1 hour to a 14.5 hour road trip, and will be no more expensive than a gas car. I'm genuinely surprised by that result. It's impressive how far the EV industry has come. I guess new EVs are pretty close to the gas paradigm, assuming you're able and willing to purchase a new car.
Still, EV chassis size determines maximum battery siz...
However, if they are no longer necessary, then everybody stands to benefit economically because it's an inefficiency that we can eliminate. We can be nostalgic about it and lament tangential benefits that would be lost, but ultimately that's the reality.
> My understanding of EV pricing when you're traveling is that it's significantly more expensive than home charging. If you have a lot of money, paying for that electricity doesn't matter as much. However, lots of people (especially those with kids) take a road trip, paying time to save money. It seems a bit odd to assume that people with EVs will take a road trip to save money, when it's probably worth their time to just fly most/all of the way and get a rental car.
This doesn't apply to the vast majority of car journeys, and the infrastructure we enjoy at low cost is propped up by those. When they disappear, I don't think the economics will work any more to favour ICE journeys. The infrastructure for electricity distribution will continue to exist since it's used for much more, but the gas distribution network will wither, and gas-based road trips will therefore get more expensive.
Agreed. Seventy years ago, typists were employed by the thousands, but society adjusted, for the better at that.
>This doesn't apply to the vast majority of car journeys, and the infrastructure we enjoy at low cost is propped up by those.
I, for one, enjoy low-cost infrastructure, and so does anyone struggling to pay their bills.
The main reason the EV industry is growing is due to governmental support, not pure customer demand. The cost of EV charging infrastructure will amortize, but the economics of the eventual dominance of EVs (in its current state, mind you) will mostly hurt the poor in the near term, not help them. Perhaps there may yet be a turning point in the future.
You need a lot of electric miles to make the upfront cost worth it. The biggest beneficiaries from energy cost savings are those who choose a long commute (or have to). But moving closer saves a lot of time and mileage. If only zoning were not so restrictive to allow for more housing supply closer in.
I don't know when it started, but it seems that EVs have broken into the Uber/Lyft market in a MAJOR way, which just makes sense: the more you drive them, the greater the cost advantage.
When it gets economical to own an EV, I will switch despite a little inconvenience. Not for green washing reasons.
Still a bummer to have a more complex drivetrain, though. The simplicity of an EV is wonderful.
In the chart labeled "Break-even analysis", I was expecting to see something along those lines, but no. They base an entire paper upon prices that are almost certainly all way out of date by now.