It May Not Cost You More to Drive Home in a Climate-Friendly Car | Hacker News Reader

It May Not Cost You More to Drive Home in a Climate-Friendly Car

npr.org

42 pointsaf1609079 comments

Anecdotally: I wanted the cheapest possible new car for commuting around the Bay Area. After some research, I found the Spark EV for only $60/month after rebates. With insurance it's only$5/day. I assumed electric cars were defacto expensive until I actually researched it. No idea why more people don't pick up these cars.

(Probably because it only goes 80 miles)

>(Probably because it only goes 80 miles)

Which for the majority of 2 car households is all you need for the second car.

Quite true, and since its cheaper to operate it will usually be the primary car, with the secondary car only used for longer trips.

I drive my car (our designated second car) an average of just 12 miles per day. Fuel economy is an extremely low priority since it's dwarfed by other costs. Reliability is my number one priority - if I don't have to pay to repair it very often, it will still be in the driveway for another 15 years (yes - it's 15 years old and has close to 200k miles on it). At this point, I'm also saving the environment by keeping it out of the junkyard.

EDIT: I should also mention that when the wind is favorable, it's also responsible for towing my yacht to the water - something a small plugin hybrid will never do.

Well if you rent you can't really buy an electric vehicle, because where will you charge it?

Some places offer charging in their attached parking. Some workplaces offer charging as well, so you can charge there during the day, and leave it unplugged at night. Neither one is commonly available (yet?) though.

This is the biggest issue for me. I would happily pay for any metered electricity to a parking spot in my apartment complex, but the managers aren't interested. And my building was built in 2014!

If you live in California, in a multi-unit dwelling, they can't prevent you from installing your own charging port (which could be as simple as a standard 120V). The bill is AB 2565. You do need to carry an umbrella insurance policy, and come up with all the plans:

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-update-new-la...

And you can charge a lot in 12 hours at 120v. A tesla can add 3-4 miles of range per hour of charging, so overnight, you get 3.5*12 = 42 miles added. Teslas can charge at higher power, but it's often not necessary. Other cars, like the leaf can charge similar or slightly larger range at that amount of power because they are generally lighter. 120v outlet and daily range use of less than 40 miles and you are set. In the winter, if you run a heater, you will of course use more power (gas cars get almost free heat because they are ICE).

So you need a spot to charge, at least a 120v outlet. The next limitation is quick recharge. If I want to drive somewhere at the range of my car (say 80 miles with a leaf or i3, or 250 miles with a model s), and then I want to do my business, quickly recharge and go back home right away, you need a faster recharge, like an hour. Chademo can do this for leafs, supercharger handles that for teslas but they are rarer. Tesla can use chademo with an extra cost adapter, but they can also use high power ac (80 amps 220v) and charge 60+ miles of range added per charging hour.

EV driver who rents here, I charge at work, at a free station a mile from my house, or I run a heavy duty extension cable out to my car. My landlords are cool so YMMV but it's definitely doable depending on your setup.

One reason might be that it's just not available in their area. I just went looking at the Chevy Spark EV (since it was so low in the charts and base price both) and find it's only available in participating dealers in like 3 or 4 states.

Yeah, that would explain a lot:

Available At Participating Dealers In California, Oregon And Maryland In Limited Quantities.

Hate to say it but this is part of the problem. There's nothing sustainable about these manufacturer/government sponsored lease deals. California is the biggest offender with the largest incentives and unreal regulations. A car is a long term consumer good, the energy that goes into building one outweighs the 2-3 year leases these cars are offered at loss prices. What happens when these leases are up? Most owners will walk, because why pay big bucks to buy out the car if you can get into another one for $50/month. These cars will end up being bought back en masse by the manufacturers and it's a big question what will happen then. Very likely to be scraped and, again, lots of energy wasted. All thanks to Californias EV credit system.

Edit: lol downvote all you want, the reality won't change. If you understand the economics of these leases (see my other comment) you'll see it too...

That makes no sense. Why would the lessor scrap the car rather than sell it at the end of the lease?

Let me explain how these leases work, MSRP for OPs Chevy Spark EV is in the 25k ball park, lessen the 7k government incentives is 18k. If OP is paying 80/mo (we don't know if that payment includes sales tax but let's say even if it doesn't) that's 2880 paid over a typical 3 year/10k mile a year lease. So now the balance on the car is 15k. Looking at cars.com a comparable EV Nissan Leaf (Spark EVs haven't been around for that long) 3 years old with 30k miles are going for 7-10k range. Now who do you think pays for that difference? And that's even assuming these cars all can be sold. Scraping is a bit extreme but is definitely not unheard of. The issue with EVs is that where most ICE cars can be sold at auction and exported to other countries, EVs aren't desirable to that market since there's a lack of infrastructure for them to be usable in, let's say, Latin America or Africa.

I don't follow the maths. A leasing company has a vehicle that they've got 15K "left" to pay off on, and they can only sell it for 10K so they'll just pay money to scrap it instead? How does that make sense for them?

If there is some monetary incentive for them to do this, you've not outlined who is paying it to them. And even if it exists, that's the problem, not the up front incentives.

In the case of these ultra cheap EVs the bank is the financing arm of the manufacturer. Of course no normal financial institution will take such a loss but because of CAFE regulations the only way they can kee selling high profit margin, gas guzzling SUVs is by offering these 'highly sponsored' EVs.

Are you saying they would rather "scrap" the car than get the $7k -$10k? Why in the world would that happen?

Secondly, OP is subtracting the $2,500 rebate from the car payments he's making, so the manufacturer is actually getting ~$6k instead of $3k, which is a significant chunk of the difference between residual and current resale value.

Yes scrapping is a bit extreme and I'm sure someone will buy them for way below the residual value but I just used it to get the point across of the economics of these cheap leases. It just doesn't add up.

> It just doesn't add up.

Yes it does, you're just a variable: California requires car companies to sell a certain number of EVs in order to sell other cars in the state.

So companies take their cheapest model, convert it into a passable EV, then their financing arm offers nice incentives to get them out the door and the parent company eats the difference as a cost of doing business in California.

Exactly, what I mean by doesn't add up is not sustainable long term. I really wonder in 1-2 years from now when all these EVs flood the market. 3 year old Leafs already sell for 6-7k, crazy!

California is not the only electric car market, I think they will phase out the subsidies there over time. They were jump starting the market in a useful direction. That's all that these rebates are trying to do. In July 2012, even the tesla model s had not come outer - that is slightly more than 4 years ago. Look at all the choices now! It's amazing to me how well cali rules plus the us tax subsidies kick started the market.

People buy teslas, leafs, i3s everything in my northwest state and we don't have a state rebate or requirement like California. Leafs were ~$250/month here. You see tons of them; when they increase the range a bit, I predict sales will really go up.

The tax subsidies were never meant to be a long term solution, so they don't need to be "sustainable," whatever you mean by that.

Not commenting on the merits of CA or Federal tax credits, but these cars end up getting sold as used cars in states that don't have tax credits. They still have value and are definitely not being scrapped.

Your argument is pretty thin. I would imagine the best way to alleviate your concerns would be to require aggressive recycling programs for an EV.

Long-term, the sale of these cars is allowing the EV market to mature. Already the price of the batteries has gone way down. The nextgen EVs coming out this year and next with 200+ miles of range were only made possible by this "unsustainable" consumer good. Maybe my 2012 EV with 75 miles of range is already in a land-fill somewhere. But a car like a Tesla S keeps its value surprisingly well and should last for quite a while.

The Chevy Bolt is a compelling car that someone could own for a decade. Your main complaint is that the cars are evolving so fast that there are better options available every time your lease is up. Big deal!

I think the battery is the most hazardous component. It's also the most valuable from a recycling perspective.

Firstgen EVs are not popular in the aftermarket: http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-aside-resale-values-for-e...

Battery recycling is an emerging market as well: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093810_electric-car-bat...

I would argue that aftermarket prices are artificially low for EV's because of the tax credits.

There are quite a few dealers in my area that sell used Nissan Leafs as fast as they can get them in, they are really nice cars for the price. We also happen to have better than average charging infrastructure and most of it is free currently.

You're comparing a 100k luxury Tesla with a $80/month lease. Yes I understand the EV market is maturing and will find more niches while it develops but least not ignore the reality of the $49/month EV (yes you can lease a Golf EV at my local VW dealer for that little). See my other comment on how these leases work and why they're not economically sustainable. There's also the issue of California's EV credits that force every manufacturer to have an EV. Why do you think Fiat sells the 500 EV? Not because the couple thousand they sell a year are worth it economically, I can say that much.

Sorry for mentioning Tesla. I realize it's an annoyingly expensive luxury car. The larger point is that getting a "usable" firstgen EV required getting a luxury car. A nextgen EV with 200+ miles of range will be available for "affordable" prices by the end of this year (from Chevy).

EV incentives weren't meant to be unsustainable. That's why they're limited to 200k cars per manufacturer. Tesla will be the first EV maker to become ineligible for tax credits because they will have hit the limit. They're also the first EV maker to deliver a car that keeps its value. Others will follow this year and next.

How the EV tax credit works: https://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/19/how-the-ev-tax-credit-w...

> for only $60/month after rebates

How is that possible? Even if you got a 72-month loan that would only be $4,320 with the MSRP being 'From $25,120'.

I would love to hear from somebody that knows more, but I believe that the leasing company takes the $7500 federal tax credit, and the buyer takes the $2500 California tax credit. So on a, say, 3 year lease, that's $2,160 in lease payments, and $10,000 in tax credits, and if the residual value after three years is $13,000 or more, then the numbers mostly add up.

I tried to talk to the dealer about this when I leased a Fiat 500e, but as is typical with dealers they were all lies and untrustworthiness, so I have no clue of their financials. I never want to step foot in a dealership again, if possible...

I can't speak for CA but what you described is how it works in MA

I posted this elsewhere, but here goes...

California requires car companies to sell a certain number of EVs in order to sell other cars in the state.

One issue could be that you need somewhere to charge it. A lot of properties (particularly in the UK) don't have off-street parking and you need to park on the road. So even if you own the building you can't install a useful charging point.

However, there's a Tesla Model S and a couple of Nissan Leaf EVs parked on a road near me and they must be getting charged somewhere. Perhaps at work?

Thinking about this a bit more, there's an interesting startup opportunity in matching the supply and demand of charging points. Some sort of sharing economy marketplace for renting out your parking spot that has an EV charging point.

How about a subscription charge delivery service? A Chevy Spark on a fast charger reaches 80% in about 20 minutes. A Nissan Leaf is about half an hour.

You subscribe and the service sends a truck every night with a fast charger powered by a big battery bank to your street and charges your car for you while you sleep.

I thought that they would have overlooked taxes. In fact, I can't see how this is anything other than stacking the deck:

"Each vehicle’s price is based on its official manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) without tax. In addition, we evaluate the impact of federal tax refunds on the lifecycle costs of PHEVs, BEVs, and FCVs. The federal refund scales with the capacity of the battery up to a maximum value of $7500.45 Finally, we inspect the added effect of a best-case state tax refund. Assessed for the case of California, this contributes $1500 for PHEVs, $2500 for BEVs, and $5000 for FCVs.46 Some other states have similar programs, but they were not analyzed in detail."

In California, sales and license taxes are about 18% of purchase price (half up front, half over the next 11 years). But they've chosen to take California for the rebate, but not include higher taxes on the purchase price (hybrids have higher purchase price but lower operating costs).

Similarly a caption on one of the charts. "(d) a BEV-friendly energy price scenario, using average inflation-adjusted prices from Washington State in 2012 ($3.88/gal for gasoline and $0.086/kWh for electricity) and combined federal and state (CA) tax refunds."

This analysis is cherry picking pieces of the equation from different scenarios, and so paints a more rosy picture of the cost of alternative energy than any single consumer could possibly have faced.

I don't doubt that electric cars will get there, but saying they are there now is a lie.

What's missing from the article is an analysis of the break-even point. How long do you have to own your hybrid before the high initial cost pays off? There's also the problem that there are not "climate-friendly" equivalents for many vehicles. The article mentions the Chevy Suburban; there's no electric option that big. Obviously big SUVs are going to be more expensive to operate than sedans, which makes me wonder if they are even comparing apples to apples here.

When I did the calculations a few years ago on the Toyota Camry vs the Camry Hybrid, the payout on a cash-basis was over 100K miles, assuming 2/3 highway, 1/3 city. (That means the NPV payout is even longer.)

The model x is the closest to a suburban, 3 rows of seats are available, it can tow.

I think you're right. I also think that if you told a suburban owner that they should trade for the Model X, they would laugh.

sigh Another one of these that focus on new cars. Most fiscally minded people, like myself, exclusively drive used cars. Even a lightly used model that is only a couple of years old is significantly cheaper than a new car.

As I get more environmentally conscientious, here's what I really want to know: What is better for the environment manufacturing a branch new EV and driving it around for 5 years or picking up an existing junker that's going to be scrapped and doing the same.

Get a used EV! The Nissan Leaf is highly recommended as a used car. We have to build new ones -- and sell them -- before there are used ones available.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098554_should-i-buy-a-u...

Interesting, I had assumed that EVs maintain their value better, but this link says the opposite. I'll have to check it out. Thanks!

Tesla have held their value better because there was a shortage, but increasing supply and competition / availability of other models is putting downward pressure on used prices. But all these cars have advancing technology. My view is buying a slightly more expensive electric car today is jumpstarting the future for other people. And if you prefer, you can buy a very cheap used ev today - if doing so, the key thing is to figure out if the car has reduced range. Teslas don't generally have a problem with this because they cool the battery pack when recharging, not other cars do that.

You literally wreck the most expensive part of the car a little every time you drive it for more than a few miles - the battery pack! If you only trickle charge it to 80%, dont get it below 30%-20%, the pixies in the pack will stay happy and stick around. Drive hard and long, charge fast and the thing deteriorates. The worse it gets the quicker it deteriorates. So a used car you bought for 7k might be worth 0 in 2 or 4 years...

Leafs are also dirt cheap on Craigslist. You can find 2 year old ones with <30k miles for $7000 in some cities.

Is there much research on how information like this actually affects consumer decisions? It looks good on paper, but the up-front cost is still generally much higher than higher-emission vehicles. My impression is that people will generally ignore these long-term benefits in favor of the more immediate reward of a lower investment at the start, but perhaps that coupled with the environmental factors could sway more minds than usual in this case?

There is always a trade-off. Passive solar heating is a vastly better investment in terms of environmental impact. Even home solar panels is a better investment than this in terms of environmental impact.

I remember running the numbers and while I was walking to work and basically never driving keeping an ancient sub 25MPG in the city car was both much cheaper and actually better for the environment than buying a Prius. Note this was at ~1-3k miles driven per year.

So, my guess is it might have some small impact at the margins. But, mostly in convincing people to do something they where thinking of doing anyway.

The environment is not just total carbon emissions.

It is also where you burn fossil fuels. This is why I'm so enthusiastic about Uber and Lyft in cities: The drivers have an incentive to use well-maintained vehicles instead of smoggy clunkers. If I can smell your exhaust, then you are doing something wrong.

The built environment also includes roads. Fuel-efficient cars pay less gas tax, and most are lighter than gas-guzzlers, but long-range electrics like the Teslas are monster road destroyers that pay nothing to road maintenance. I'm not arguing for fuel-wasting vehicles, though; I think people should be using cars far less. Congestion charge or something.

VA has fairly good emission tests every two years which keeps the old clunker pollution down. Without those I can see the temptation to let things slip a little.

At the time I would go weeks without driving / riding in a car. This was really for weekend trips where Uber is not really an option or once a month going for heavy things like water I did not want to carry home. I looked into car sharing services, but at the time there was no good ones in my area.

I do think there need to be significant changes to how road maintenance is subsidized, especially in the wake of more fuel efficient and even fuel-less vehicles. I think I've seen a similar concern in regards to bicyclists that I haven't seen a great solution for yet.

But I was wondering what exactly you meant by "Teslas are monster road destroyers"? This is the first I've heard this sentiment. Do you mean that they are so heavy they do more damage than most cars, or just that they are not paying towards roadwork, thereby doing more net damage than gas vehicles?

To your point, in Washington state electric car owners pay $100 a year extra tax to cover road use, since we don't buy gas, and that's how most road work is funded. $100 is actually a high bill, it worked out to about 20k miles of driving. This problem of increasing fuel efficiency is already hurting the ability of states of pay for their road work. I think the inevitable change is either paying a fee like ev do already per year, or paying based on mileage (and the usual argument of I wasn't even in the state most of the year).

A standardised "carbon rating," analogous to the single-number MPG metric, would be helpful.

like this? https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-rating

For me (bought a new "normal" car recently) the main reason against an electric/plug-in hybrid vehicle was that I did not have an easy solution to charge it (apartment with parking nearby but no charging infrastructure). The second reason was upfront cost. The third reason was unknown maintenance costs when the battery gives up (I usually keep a car for more than a few years).

So instead of known lower maintenance costs with unknown high cost in the future, especially given the Tesla Gigafactory, you chose known high maintenance costs (brakes, oil, transmission) and less certain future fuel costs.

Charging is an issue. However, I don't personally know any plug-in hybrid that is actually plugged in at night. They still get the government subsidies, and they can plug in at certain mall parking lots or appropriately equipped parking garages, but I think they're mostly driven as normal vehicles. That use brake pads and low-RPM gearing less than normal vehicles.

Perhaps unrelated, but is the Tesla Gigafactory intending to produce "competitor" batteries, or are you assuming that GP was only looking at Tesla's? If the GP didn't get a Tesla, how would their factory be of use to him? (Actual question, not sure if there is an implication that the new factory will drive down prices for everyone).

Also, unless GP lives in an area where those sorts of garages are available, at least in the near term, they won't have anywhere to charge, which seems a fair argument against purchase. For instance, I live in south-eastern Wisconsin, and while there are charging stations within driving distance, there aren't any that would be convenient on my way to or from work, and I couldn't simply leave it at one and walk to work (or bus, because we don't do public transit here).

Known costs are known, less of a risk. It's easy enough to buy a new EV car if the other factors here are resolved, but I don't think it's unfair to say too many issues are up in the air at this point.

Tesla plans to use all their battery production, for model 3 and the solar power battery packs.

I am assuming that Tesla is pressuring other car makers to make high-mileage electric cars at affordable prices, and they will pay for worldwide battery production to increase dramatically. They may not build their own Gigafactories, but I hear even there the battery manufacturer is actually Panasonic. Tesla makes the battery packs.

I'm not sure of the research, but I think your impression is correct to a point.

I think for lower-income buyers, the initial cost is prohibitive - even with long-term savings and benefits. And I'm guessing some banks would hesitate to give the extra loan money as well if you don't have the income to support it.

It is kind of like buying a decent pair of shoes. If you are working retail, it muchly benefits you to buy good shoes. But you have to save for those shoes because of income limitations: If your current shoes wear out before you can buy new ones, you get sucked further into a cycle of cheap new shoes.

It really doesn't matter if you get long-term benefits or have a great desire to be environmentally friendly if you can't afford to do so. I think once we have a decent used car market with them and the price comes down to soemthing on par with higher-emission vehicles, there will be a much larger change.

It looks like the lower left corner of the standard gasoline cars are both (1) cheap little subcompacts (Ford Fiesta, Honda Fit, Nissan Versa), and (2) pretty close to the 2030 target. That seems like the sweet spot for the budget car buyer who can't afford a hybrid.

If you haven't noticed the hover-able version of the chart where you can see what each dot is, it's here: http://carboncounter.com/

I had more questions about the specific parameters they were using, so I followed the link (http://carboncounter.com/) in the article and checked out the "Customize" tab. Pretty sweet.

I think if climate friendly options were available in more chassis options and body styles, people would adopt them faster. I think people want to do the 'right' thing in switching to an EV/hybrid option, but there isn't a climate friendly, cost effective pickup/SUV option available.

Tesla has the right idea in offering a low cost EV option that doesn't look stupid with the Model 3. If there were Camry/Corolla and Accord/Civic EV options with the same off-the-lot price tag and same exact body style available, I think we would see more widespread adoption.

Additionally, if we were to see more electric utility vehicle options available with body styles identical to the gasoline powered ones we see on the road today, I believe that would capture another large swath of consumers. Of course, this hinges on the manufacturers to offer these options in spite of their gasoline producer friends urging them not to.

For fun -- you can almost get the "MPGe" equivalent of a Tesla S in a Geo Metro or Honda CRX

http://jalopnik.com/5558345/how-to-get-997-mpg-from-a-geo-me...

Can I ask a couple of naive questions (I'm not very well informed on these issues):

1. Since electric cars may well be powered by coal, not gasoline, might they not be more heavily emitting?

2. Does the environmental impact of creating and disposing all the batteries in electric cars counterbalance any emission gains?

1. Possibly, but typically not. A huge power plant is generally much more efficient and less emitting per watt than a tiny internal combustion engine. (Depends on the power plant...)

2. No idea sorry.

1a.) Car engines are far less efficient and more polluting because they need to be portable, compact, and quickly operate over a wide power range.

1b.) Coal + Natural gas is generally less than 50% of electricity generation.

1c.) Oil takes a lot more effort to get to your car than coal does to a power plant combined with electricity transmission and storage. This indirect effect is huge.

Net effect, gas cars create a lot more pollution per mile.

2) To some degree, however batteries can also be recycled.

EVs are still better taking both these issues (and some others that aren't immediately obvious) into account:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-...

Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave

"Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner."

"We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for."

According to the graph in the OP, battery-powered EVs have roughly 1/2 the lifecycle emissions. That's certainly lower and a good thing, but not a fundamental change given what needs to be done.

I'd have to do the math, but it would seem that the switch from gas to electric is roughly as beneficial as the past switch from carburetors to fuel injection. It looks incremental rather than revolutionary. And I think there is much improvement to be made. These numbers are American cars, so I assume they aren't diesel and are for generally larger cars than in europe. Has a diesel-electric hybrid ever been sold in the US?

As electricity sources get cleaner, so will electric cars. Diesel and diesel-hybrid will stay the same.

Solar, wind, and storage are getting so cheap that they will completely change the electricity generation profile over the next few decades.

Even without that, a factor of 2 would be considered a revolution by pretty much any measure.

>> Diesel and diesel-hybrid will stay the same.

Really? Development is done? I think there are plenty of engineers out there working on efficiency. Engines today are more efficient than they were a generation ago, and will be better in the future. In the realm of personal transport we can talk of going all-electric but for things like shipping, the heavy+distance things, there don't seem to be many non-IC options. Development therefore must not be abandoned.

Your car stays the same. Unless you're replacing your car all the time, you're not enjoying these higher efficiencies.

Existing battery-electric vehicles become cleaner as their electricity supply becomes cleaner.

* US electricity is about 1/3 goal, and constantly using less coal.

* Emissions out of a tailpipe happen in cities and places with people. Power Plants tend to be more remote, so the toxic gasses are emitted away from most people.

* Even if EV's were 100% coal powered, you would still be better off in CO2 emissions, because coal plants + EV is more efficient than digging up oil, refining it, transporting it to gas stations, and using in tiny, mobile, low use, low cost power plants.

if one concerns about 'climate', he should learn there is no such thing as a 'climate friendly car'

I live in a city and park my car on the street. How am I supposed to charge it.

You are what they call "high hanging fruit". People like you won't be part of the equation until deeper into the adoption curve. But the answer is: your car will charge itself somewhere and drive itself to you.

Not saying that won't happen eventually, but it seems a lot more likely to me that on-street public charging facilities will proliferate as EVs gain popularity.

There will be some, but car ownership will collapse as soon as it becomes more expensive per mile than being driven around by the Uber/Tesla/Google fleets. And it'll be much easier politically and financially to replace your car with a fleet than to get new infrastructure installed in cities. It will happen in specific places (Portland, Helsinki, etc) but I think the adoption curve of street charging will be dwarfed by the adoption of self-driving cabs by 2025.

Self-driving cabs don't have to be allowed everywhere for that to happen, they just have to be allowed in more places than there are electric street charging infrastructure projects.

Only issue there is it will more than likely no longer be "your" car, but a paid service like Uber.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com