The numbers used seem skewed in favor of promoting their product rather than a real comparison.<p>The number used for MPG is 21.4 which is the "Average U.S. light duty vehicle fuel efficiency".<p>In addition to passenger cars the light duty vehicle class includes SUVs and pickups (including 1/2 ton models such as the Silverado, F-150). At this time I don't believe there are any electric vehicles that would compete with a 1/2 ton pickup in terms of payload or towing.<p>It would seem the Passenger Car fuel economy would be the most accurate number to use; which is 36.4 MPG.<p>They do acknowledge this number at the end of the post:<p>>The average EPA fuel economy of passenger cars (not counting trucks) was 36.4 miles per gallon in 2014. Using that number puts gas and electric cars on a more even playing field.<p>Though doing so makes electricity only cheaper in 43/50 states and the savings is not nearly as compelling as the figures from the 21.4 MPG comparison.<p>TL;DR: this is is more of a clickbait product promotion article than a real comparison
Running the numbers. I live in Massachusetts and sure enough, that is one of the bottom 10 states. My Honda CRZ hybrid gets about 40 mpg average over the year. The price of gas, price per kWh and the number of miles are about right.<p>Gas: 12282 miles @ $2.14/g and 40 mpg is $657.
Electric: 12282 miles @ $0.191/kWh and Tesla P85 85kWh 285 mile range is 3.35 miles/kWh for $700.<p>Basically a wash in a state ranked as 47th with a decently high mpg car. Price difference on the car is substantial though. $66,000 vs $23,000.
Shouldn't one also factor in the cost of purchasing comparably classed vehicles? For example - the base Nissan Leaf costs 29k versus a comparable Nissan Versa costing 14k. 15k difference in vehicle is equivalent to just over 6000 gallons of gas (or around 186 thousand miles).
Quite a few UK homes were fitted with electric storage heaters because electricity was cheap in the evenings.<p>Now they are extremely expensive, massively more expensive than normal gas (the other kind) central heating.<p>Is the price of US domestic electricity going to stay at the present price?
So, it does nothing to take into account the fact that if every car tomorrow switched to electric, we'd literally have no way to power the cars. The price of electricity would skyrocket to reflect the complete and utter lack of generation capabilities.<p>It's great to talk about how electricity is cheaper at rates that are unsustainable, but unless we're willing to adopt nuclear, we're a LONG way from having enough energy and enough of it in a clean format to power our energy needs.<p>I know, I know - solar and wind (which will help but not solve the whole issue). That being said, I still have questions about how pulling that much energy and heat from the earth will affect our larger ecosystem. I don't think we REALLY have a grasp on the macro effects of "renewable" energy.
This article seems disingenuous. What matters is total cost of ownership. Which is unfortunately, because there are several compelling cases now where owning an EV is cheaper than a comparable ICE.
Can confirm, Tesla Owner.<p>I guess living in Texas as well, which has dirt cheap/free electricity. Yes, I have a plan that I pay $0.00/KwH between 8pm and 5am. I charge it during those hours.
As I am eagerly awaiting delivery of a 2017 Prius Prime plug-in hybrid in their #1 state Oregon, this is all good news. However, as I'm switching from an old diesel VW, I also can't help but notice these numbers are very literally electric vs. gas, and look like they wouldn't pencil out against a diesel sedan. That said, the contrast there is between belching soot out vs. clean air, so hard to argue on that front.
Disclaimer: I understand this is a US focused article.<p>My story? Everyone drew lots and I lost: I drive a Prius Plugin Hybrid for the next 2.x years as a company car because no one wanted it.<p>My biggest beef: It's too expensive. The list price is around 50k EUR - and that's what the state of Germany uses to tax me for that car. For comparison: I drove an A3 Quattro Sportback with ~everything~ before that and that's the same price.<p>The second problem is actually very relevant to this article: There aren't any 'free' recharging stations even remotely close to my place (a 'major city' in Germany, you'd know Bochum if you'd be from this country). This crappy car has a 22km reach when fully charged. That is far too low and even if I find a charging station .. I probably end up being at 50% if I get back home.<p>But! The article claims that it is actually cheaper to charge your car than to refuel it. And here's another problem: The 'your company car needs fuel' problem is solved. I have two different cards that I can use to either refuel at Routex (think BP et all, big list of participants) or Shell. So, I can fuel up for free almost all the time. There's no proven way (and nothing in place for me) to pay for electricity.<p>Ignoring the fact that it would be a logistical nightmare to plug the car in at my flat and ignoring that the 22km are really nothing but a joke and utterly useless for .. anything I do: I'd pay for that out of my own pocket vs. 'free' fuel.<p>So I think this country over here needs to adjust quite a bit more before electrical vehicles become a decent option. Companies need to adjust their policies (why do they even give me a plugin hybrid?). More recharging stations are required. And honestly .. if your car cannot do at least 150-200km on a charge.. Then it's not an electric car, it's an electric bike with a roof on top (those can already do 60+km easily for the basic starter models).
I ran the numbers for my father a few months ago and it was basically even for him:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12379662" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12379662</a>
"On average it is $60 cheaper per month to drive on electricity than gasoline."<p>So far in 2016 I've spent less than $87/month on fuel. In February I spent less than $60, while some long road trips in July pushed me up to $144. I've taught my son to drive this year, so that's a bit extra, but it's hard to imagine this working out for me.<p>If I'm reading the chart right, Texas comes in at #18, with $810 in savings. So far I've spent $869.59 on fuel this year. Admittedly, the year is not over, but I suspect it might take more than $59.59 for me to charge an electric car.<p>I mean, if my parking space weren't such a very long way from my apartment, that is. For now, I'm planning to buy a Prius, but not the plug-in model.
The statement comes from "pluglesspower.com".<p>Is that a credible source? I kind of follow the tech scene, I never heard of them. Did anyone?<p>So. It is just a company blogger tasked to promote whatever they are doing.<p>So... no comment.
As someone who has an electric car, this completely disregards the fact that by having an electric car, it nearly automatically puts you into a higher electricity cost tier. In my case, it's $0.10/kWh for the normal, and $0.18/kWh for the higher tier. They're using the "average" cost of electricity which should be lower than the actual cost of electricity. I ended up getting solar panels, so that dropped me back down to using very little electricity from the local municipal electricity company and saving at least $100/month when taking into account the cost of the solar panels.
There are additional costs if we compare ICE vehicles and EV charged with clean energy.<p>The economic, social and environmental costs of pollution and greenhouse gases of ICE vehicles are a considerable part of these and others costs, but not all:<p>- pollution health impact -<p><< Some three million deaths a year are linked to exposure to outdoor air pollution. Indoor air pollution can be just as deadly. In 2012, an estimated 6.5 million deaths (11.6 per cent of all global deaths) were associated with indoor and outdoor air pollution together.<p>Ninety-four per cent of the deaths are due to non-communicable diseases – notably cardiovascular diseases, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer. Air pollution also increases the risks for acute respiratory infections.<p>“ This new model is a big step forward towards even more confident estimates of the huge global burden of more than six million deaths – one in nine of total global deaths – from exposure to indoor and outdoor air pollution,” said Dr. Neira, who is WHO Director, Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health. " >><p>source: <a href="http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/09/vast-majority-of-world-6-76-billion-people-living-with-excessive-air-pollution-un-report/" rel="nofollow">http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/09/vast-m...</a><p>- Greenhouse gases emission for climate change impact -<p>“Temperature change will leave the average income around the world 23% lower in 2100 than it would be without climate change”
"This study is far from the first to suggest that climate change will slow economic growth. Big business has been especially keen on highlighting the potential damage. A Citigroup report released last month found that minimizing temperature rises to 2.7ºF (1.5ºC) could minimize global GDP loss by $50 trillion compared to a rise of 8.1ºF (4.5ºC) in the coming decades."<p>source: <a href="http://time.com/4082328/climate-change-economic-impact/" rel="nofollow">http://time.com/4082328/climate-change-economic-impact/</a><p>source paper in Nature: <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725.epdf?referrer_access_token=thXOWAL7phwQx1Ix4h4B5NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9qnfWTywcc-SwmqGd2vK84Dm7GGBIHFDIK3iZFcb2NUnSWQFSATgixEL12Q5gaz4cu6pwBdmJr0pzYWgCowDlURYTItMWFpO9JXTxz0wQhwn5ENsOs0FZbjPUiCI6nuAjOV3rDJp4u1OyDAn_STB05X0irCG8b53vplpSGjftjg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=time.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725.epdf?referrer_acc...</a><p>- Fossil fuel subsidies -<p>"Fossil Fuel Subsidies Cost $5 Trillion Annually and Worsen Pollution
The International Monetary Fund notes that subsides for burning fossil fuels enrich the wealthy and make air pollution worse"<p>source: <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuel-subsidies-cost-5-trillion-annually-and-worsen-pollution/" rel="nofollow">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuel-subsi...</a><p>I repeat that ICE vehicles are a considerable part of this costs, not all. Also EV charged with clean energy have costs, R&D&I, subsidies, etc. but compared in economic, social and environmental costs and in each of them alone, EV charged with clean energy cost less and are better for society’s health, economy, security, survival and happiness, globally.
There is a lot of work and costs left to do but I think we can do it with increasing innovation and social awareness.