Are electric vehicles cheaper to own? Maybe not
bigthink.com
bigthink.com
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.
> 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.
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 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 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.
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).
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 size, which ultimately affects maximum charge rates. Compare a 2020 Toyota Yaris with a 2024 Nissan Leaf. The Yaris has 452 miles of range [9], while the Leaf (base model) has 169 miles of range [10]. A road trip in a Yaris is doable, but recharging a Leaf around 6 times with a 50kW charger would add a minimum of six hours to a road trip, which is a bit too much.
To increase charge times, I have a strong feeling that EVs will continue trending bigger and bigger, at least until a better battery technology is brought into production.
[1] https://www.motortrend.com/features/how-much-does-it-cost-to...
[2] https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310
[3] https://www.gasbuddy.com/charts
[4] https://www.gasbuddy.com/gaspricemap
[5] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml
[6] https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/
[7] https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/a32603216/ev-ra...
[8] https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/range-electric-car
[9] https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/yaris/specs
[10] https://www.drivingelectric.com/nissan/leaf/range
[11] https://pod-point.com/guides/driver/how-long-to-charge-an-el...
[12] https://www.power-sonic.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-dc-fa...
[13] https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-charging.html
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.
When it gets economical to own an EV, I will switch despite a little inconvenience. Not for green washing reasons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.