Most EVs Cost More to Drive Than Their Gas-Powered Rivals:

P

ptif219

Verified User
EVs are not cheaper to operate. Biden does not care how much you have to pay he will still drive his corvette


https://www.theepochtimes.com/artic...utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport


Most electric cars, crossovers, and trucks cost more to drive than their traditional gasoline-powered counterparts, according to a new study that highlights the wisdom of considering the real-world costs of operating a vehicle before making a buying decision.

Acquiring a vehicle is likely to be a person's biggest purchase after buying a house. With a growing range of electric vehicles now part of the offering, consumers are spoiled for choice—that is until bans on gasoline-powered vehicles start going into effect in some states in coming years.

But while many advocates of electric vehicles (EV) claim operating cost affordability as an argument in favor of ditching internal combustion engine (ICE) cars and trucks, a new study from Anderson Economic Group (AEG) has hit the brakes on that argument.It turns out that, in AEG's analysis of vehicle fueling costs, the vast majority of gasoline-powered cars and crossovers sold in the United States cost less to fuel than their electric counterparts to charge.

“With electricity prices trending up and gas prices going down, most traditional gas-powered vehicles cost less to drive than their EV counterparts," the consulting group wrote in the study.For example, in the Entry segment (which includes cars like the Chevy Bolt and Honda Civic), a gasoline-powered model costs on average $9.78 per 100 miles to fuel. By contrast, the average EV in the same segment costs $12.55 to charge per 100 miles—but only if charged mostly at home. If charged mostly commercially that cost soars to $15.97 per 100 miles.

It's the same story for the Mid segment (which includes the Chevy Malibu and the Honda Accord). An ICE car in this category costs on average $11.08 per 100 miles in gasoline, while an EV costs $12.62 for mostly home charging and $16.10 for mostly commercial.

The difference slims in the Truck segment with a gasoline-powered pickup like the GMC Sierra costing on average $17.58 per 100 miles to fuel, while an EV model costs $17.72 to charge per 100 miles—provided it's plugged in mostly at home. Those who charge their electric pickups mostly commercially are in for a rude awakening with the cost surging to $26.38 per 100 miles.
Click to expand...
 
The future is electric.......get aboard or get hurt...there is no disturbing of the solidarity in UTOPIA.
 
I was looking at them, I live in a house and don't really travel anywhere long distance so one would probably be perfect but they are far more expensive.

In my opinion if they want to push them, they meaning the government, they should lower the price by about 10k.

If they did that I'd have no problem buying one.

I recently purchased a solar powered generator for my sailboat so I'm all for alternative energy, if it is affordable.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I was looking at them, I live in a house and don't really travel anywhere long distance so one would probably be perfect but they are far more expensive.

In my opinion if they want to push them, they meaning the government, they should lower the price by about 10k.

If they did that I'd have no problem buying one.

I recently purchased a solar powered generator for my sailboat so I'm all for alternative energy, if it is affordable.
Click to expand...

"Alternative" (eg., solar and wind) energy are never affordable. They are competitive only when you heavily subsidize them. Sure, they can work for niche applications, but for general use wind blows and solar sucks.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
"Alternative" (eg., solar and wind) energy are never affordable. They are competitive only when you heavily subsidize them. Sure, they can work for niche applications, but for general use wind blows and solar sucks.
Click to expand...

And they should be subsidized, so therefore they are very competitive.

There is no denying that fossil fuels enjoy massive, MASSIVE subsidies year over year, but they have decades of subsidies also built in to their legacy infrastructure.

What we should never do, is deny new and better technologies the same type of subsidies, thus locking in older and worse technologies for decades beyond them being able to compete fairly, as the old ones are the only ones enjoying subsidies. That harms all of us.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
"Alternative" (eg., solar and wind) energy are never affordable. They are competitive only when you heavily subsidize them. Sure, they can work for niche applications, but for general use wind blows and solar sucks.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

I have lots of solar devices but since it's always sunny down here they are usually up and running.

My boat runs on solar power most of the time cutting down on my fuel costs.

Yes it was expensive to have it installed but it should pay for itself eventually.

Well if I ever actually use my boat again lol.
 
QP! said:
And they should be subsidized, so therefore they are very competitive.

There is no denying that fossil fuels enjoy massive, MASSIVE subsidies year over year, but they have decades of subsidies also built in to their legacy infrastructure.

What we should never do, is deny new and better technologies the same type of subsidies, thus locking in older and worse technologies for decades beyond them being able to compete fairly, as the old ones are the only ones enjoying subsidies. That harms all of us.
Click to expand...

Why? Let them compete on a level playing field. If they can't compete, then too bad for them.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Maybe.

I have lots of solar devices but since it's always sunny down here they are usually up and running.

My boat runs on solar power most of the time cutting down on my fuel costs.

Yes it was expensive to have it installed but it should pay for itself eventually.

Well if I ever actually use my boat again lol.
Click to expand...

Actually, it probably won't pay for itself. People that do home solar are simply paying for 20 years + of electricity today. Without the huge government subsidies they wouldn't even break even on the costs.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually, it probably won't pay for itself. People that do home solar are simply paying for 20 years + of electricity today. Without the huge government subsidies they wouldn't even break even on the costs.
Click to expand...

Depends, on my boat it was about 7000 dollars for the generator and installation, do you have any idea how much fuel costs?

Not having to run my fuel generator will save me a ton of money.

I did the math.

It also saves on maintenance costs.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Maybe.

I have lots of solar devices but since it's always sunny down here they are usually up and running.

My boat runs on solar power most of the time cutting down on my fuel costs.

Yes it was expensive to have it installed but it should pay for itself eventually.

Well if I ever actually use my boat again lol.
Click to expand...

Don't sailboats use wind power?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Why? Let them compete on a level playing field. If they can't compete, then too bad for them.
Click to expand...

Because the politicians are addicted to the quid pro quo of getting massive donations from O&G and Big Auto and other corporate interests and will NEVER stop giving away tax payer money to get money they can personally use. I mean who would not give away other peoples money (tax payers) to build up their own personal use accounts?


So understanding that unless you are naive enough to believe you can stop the above (Part A), you then have to realize the only way to level the playing field is to ALSO give the same benefit (subsidies) to Part B, the new technolgoies.


If you do not, then you risk being stuck forever in a cycle of old technology with few upgrades, as the old tech is the only one that has current revenues and subsidy cash to bribe the politicians.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually, it probably won't pay for itself. People that do home solar are simply paying for 20 years + of electricity today. Without the huge government subsidies they wouldn't even break even on the costs.
Click to expand...

I always love your silly math that has nothing to do with reality.

Personal anecdote
My panels cost $22,000 installed which also included a new 200 amp service panel.
They produced an average of 8.4 mWh per year for the last 2 years.
At .1409 per kWh, the panels pay for themselves in a little over 18 years with no subsidies and no inflation
If we add in inflation at 2% per year to the electric cost the panels pay for themselves in 16 years.

You do know what "breaking even" means, don't you?
 
ptif219 said:
EVs are not cheaper to operate. Biden does not care how much you have to pay he will still drive his corvette.
Click to expand...

EVs being more expensive to operate is entirely irrelevant
if in fact, it's now true that they're required for the environment.

Whether they are or not is one conversation,
but the cost of operation has nothing to do with it.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I always love your silly math that has nothing to do with reality.

Personal anecdote
My panels cost $22,000 installed which also included a new 200 amp service panel.
They produced an average of 8.4 mWh per year for the last 2 years.
At .1409 per kWh, the panels pay for themselves in a little over 18 years with no subsidies and no inflation
If we add in inflation at 2% per year to the electric cost the panels pay for themselves in 16 years.

You do know what "breaking even" means, don't you?
Click to expand...

Like I said, you paid for your electricity up front. There's no real savings in that.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
EVs being more expensive to operate is entirely irrelevant
if in fact, it's now true that they're required for the environment.

Whether they are or not is one conversation,
but the cost of operation has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Depends if you believe the doom and goom lies of the Democrats that do not happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top