Hacker News Reader

Comment by wahern | Hacker News Reader

Depends on where you live. In states like Connecticut, or certain areas of California (PG&E Bay Area customers), the ROI is very long or simply doesn't pencil out at all. I think for Connecticut, which has high electricity prices but low gas prices, it's just net negative. For me in SF, despite high gas prices the ROI is just too long (5-10 years?), and that's before factoring in the ~$5000+ required for updating my electrical box, which is a conservative estimate because now the city requires the meter to be outside the house, whereas it's currently in the garage.

View on HN

A regular household plug should be more than enough unless you want to use your home as a quick pit-stop between two long rides. (e.g. drive 150km from work to home, then drive 300km to your holiday home for the weekend an hour later).

Typical EVs nowadays get about 6 km per kWh, the average driver in the US drives about 54 km. A US home typically has 15A plugs, or 20A in the kitchen/garage. That's 1.8 - 2.4 kW. Even at 80% safe continuous charge, you'll be averaging 1.5 kW at minimum. So that's just 6 hours of daily charging at minimum.

If you have a garage and plug in when you get home, your car typically sits there from 8PM to 8AM for 12 hours. That's already double the time necessary to charge 100% of your driving at home, at the minimum charging speeds equivalent to a microwave or washing machine. And you'll typically have much more time with the car plugged in on weekends and home-work days.

A 5k upgrade to the electrical box might be a good idea, but it's definitely not necessary for most normal EV users.

As for ROI, a Corolla might get 20 km per liter, in Connecticut that's 6c per km. An EV even at the 29c per kWh is just 4.8c per km which is 20% cheaper. If you have some solar panels you can cut that figure by another 65%.

Not to mention the lower maintenance costs for EVs and the rebates various local governments give.

I drive an EV because in every dimension I care about it’s a superior vehicle. They drive better, sound better, and use a fundamental force rather than flintstone fire smoke stink. It’s time to move on from pouring distilled dinosaur juice into your explosion mobile and join the Maxwell equation crowd. The upgrade of your electric is a one time cost that will enable you to use an EV until you move, and improves your home value, so hard to count it into the cost of the car.

Plus they last basically forever and require almost no maintenance. I like being able to never change oil, tune up, belts, whatever every few months. Every few years I get the cabin filter changed and that’s it. In 10 years the battery might be reduced by 20%, and I might replace the batteries around 15-20 years out, but I expect to literally drive it into the ground. (Mine is a Tesla with unlimited super charging for life, and I live next to a super charger)

I have family overseas and will likely buy them one of these EV Camrys. If they’re good, I might get one for my daughter. At $30k it’s fairly affordable.

I'm not anti EV. I would love to own an EV. I just can't justify the expense. In my case a big part of it is the cost of upgrading the electrical, otherwise I might be inclined to pay the premium.

However upgrading the electrical is a capital improvement process on your home isn’t it? That’s an investment that doesn’t deprecate like the car, no? It also increases the cost basis of the home which can have tax benefits in the long term.

I'll point out one area that EVs are inferior in lifespan - calendar life of the battery. I use a bicycle for day to day and take the car only on road trips so I only end up driving about 5k mi/yr or so, maybe 10k if I roam far. At that pace the 2% capacity loss per calendar year (even higher in hot climates) will total any EV I buy long before an ICE vehicle has age issues. ICE vehicles without defects do not creep towards engine failure or transmission failure little by little like EVs do, or at least do so at a pace far slower than EVs, as long as they are driven at least once a month to prevent issues ICE vehicles can get in storage.

Unfortunately EVs still have a ways to go to catch up to my use case of buying 10-15 yr old vehicles with 100k mi for $5k and taking them to remote trails where a 550mi range is useful for safety. Such vehicles can be screened for design defects and are therefore more reliable than new vehicles - see the Toyota V6 recall for an example that even a sterling reputation isn't as strong a guarantee as just waiting and seeing. Maybe the EV range will catch up in my life but I wouldn't expect the cost of those long range models to catch up for a long time, and by the time an EV is well-used and in my price range it will no longer be a long range EV what with the capacity degradation. See how this use case perfectly hits all the negatives of EVs? It's not that uncommon a use case in North America among us dirtbag wilderness enthusiasts. I don't doubt EVs are strictly better for many people though and am very interested to see how their long term reliability and cost fares as they trickle into the 10+ yr used market I participate in.

Btw my diy oil change takes 20 minutes and costs $20 all in and during that time I do an annual safety once-over which an EV would also require. So almost 0 net time involved and a negligible amount of money compared to things like tires which cost me 5x as much per year, a number that apparently is higher for EVs since they use tires more quickly afaik. Plus many EVs seem to be much harder (intentionally?) to do DIY repairs on - wrenchers probably won't move over for a long time either.

Most modern EVs have superior battery management systems and batteries, and are generally limited in loss by discharge and recharge not specifically calendar time. They’re not alkaline batteries. The time degradation comes from use primarily . Solid state batteries hope to improve that as well. Batteries also are almost entirely recyclable because the degradation isn’t wear per se as much as chemical changes. As a machine they are absurdly simple - copper coils; magnets, and electrical potential - while ICE are insane Rube Goldberg machines. An EV can probably operate 100+ years with the same mechanicals and electrical, and a swap of batteries periodically, and the battery swap need not be expensive - in fact one mode for fast charging proposed has been racking new battery racks at the charging stations because for the provider the batteries are all the same and can be recycled as needed in bulk at low cost.

Does that mean in 2026 that all ICE use cases are replaced? No, and with the aggressively anti science US administration it’s been set back by at least 8 years - the time it will take to rebuild momentum lost, research discarded, investment displaced. But there’s no reason beyond our lack of imagination to believe ICE will be on the road in 50 years in any use case.

I'm trying to disentangle that EVs wear out from both usage as well as calendar time, you say it's usage "primarily" but you're assuming a certain use case there and re-entangling them. With zero driving, top of the line battery management, and doing everything right it's something like 3% capacity loss per year in hot climates. My point is empirical - in a hot climate a light user will have to spend $10k to replace their battery in 15 years even if they rarely drive, while an ICE will not if the transmission and engine were designed well and maintained. Your point is theoretical and what use are theories that don't match observations? I don't dispute that EVs are simpler and more environmentally friendly but there are many cases (too hot climate, too cold climate, too little usage, need for range) where they are more expensive, more disposable and generally inferior.

Saying ICE will be off the road in 50 years assumes technological advances that have not yet arrived despite massive research investment and may require the government to force people to do it to their individual detriment. I am an environmentalist so I wouldn't even be mad in that scenario (the US government already significantly harms the individual in this industry by banning BYD anyway) but I also want to be clear eyed about it. What you say about easy recycling may be true but when it comes down to it we don't have cheap battery swaps yet despite your ideal theory and much industry effort. Don't get me wrong I hope for all our sake that happens, I'm just objecting to your initial comment having the vibe that EVs are a panacea and that saving on oil changes is superior on net - to me this reads as penny wise pound foolish as a single battery replacement is the same as 500 years of oil changes. There's a lot of nice ideas in this comment but it will take seeing for me to believe - specifically I need to see a 10 year old car for $5k that isn't coming up on an expensive new battery that costs more than the car is worth. People who shop for cars like this are a significant part of the market that is way underrepresented on HN.

This used to be true, but gas is $6.30/gallon in California now with no particular reason to think it is coming back down. I haven't actually re-done the numbers, but I have to imagine the ~40% increase in gas prices over the last year have significantly moved the needle in CA.

Until your current car dies, ges old or whatever happens, you decide you need a new one anyway. At that point the ROI is not the total cost of the car but the difference compared to your alternatives.

Yes, the difference. I'm not comparing keeping an ICE to purchasing a new EV. The premium for EVs is $5-10k or more relative to ICE models, and the $5-10k is being very charitable.

Non-peak electricity rate in some parts of California is $0.45/kWh or thereabouts, 2-3x what it is elsewhere in the country.

Connecticut has more expensive gas than either New York or New Jersey too!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com