Electric Car Economics

[Bentwings]

I’ve done cost per mile spreadsheets for my cars ever since I learned basic Excel. I’ve put every cost from nickel dime stuff to major repairs ( few) . I also enter any financing costs and depreciation. In other words cost of ownership. I do this mostly for fun as it’s time consuming but in the end I can see where I went wrong and where I went right. I do as much of the repair and maintenance myself.
Getting older and moving to live aboard has forced outside work which adds more to the cost per mile.
Depreciation and financing are very big cost drivers.

Of late I’m into classic cars and keep records on these. I drive my classics a lot too. After all they were real every day cars in their eras. Most have been restored and have modernized powertrains. Emmisions are not quite as important on these but mine have emission equipment that operates as it is supposed to.

I’m finding that yesterday’s selected restored classic cars are pretty economical considering you can drive them carefully and keep them in perfect mechanical condition for five years then sell them for the original cost. They are the only cars I’ve ever had that I’ve sold for a good deal more than I had in them.

Most new cars depreciate about equal to boats. I find this Apple pretty sour.
My big Buick wagon get 20-24 mpg every day. It’s bigger the a lot of SUV and can carry a rediculous amount of cargo. It can sit for months and start on the first turn. Comfy AC and pleasant ride. The trailer package gives great handling and braking. It’s disadvantage is that it’s hard to find anyone able to work on repairs. Most of the era mechanics have retired or are dead. This means I need my own scanner and knowledge to prepare for service. I can direct the newer techs once I convince then I know what I’m talking about.

Just my opinion.

[Neeltje]

The way I see it, you've only got one life to live, so if you really want to go electric, go full Monty and get yourself on the waiting list for the 2nd generation Tesla Roadster before you're too old to enjoy it.

I can almost guarantee you that it will get you to work on time, and if, once you've convinced your wife that "electric" is the economical way to go, she asks you "But where's our 180 lb. Newfoundland going to sit?", just smile and change the subject.

Once it's ironed-out its current shortcomings, I can see the World going full Nuclear in the not too far distant future (even maybe in your lifetime), and buying electric cars at this point will go a long way in accelerating the process.

[Capt. Ray]

Any examples of these "...crazy European rules"?

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I suggest reading up on the subject if you aren't familiar. There are 4 basic drive-train configurations (with a few minor variants):
- Pure ICE: All propulsion comes directly from an internal combustion engine. Electricity use is largely limited to starting the engine, ignition controls and auxiliary devices.
- Hybrid: These come in serial and parallel variations but the primary propulsion comes from the ICE with the batteries used to smooth out the power demand eliminating inefficient low and high demand power output scenarios where the ICE is inefficient.
- Plug-In Hybrid: These cars utilize a battery bank as the primary power source but rather than putting in a massive battery bank to try and compete with Pure ICE on range, they put in a battery bank consistent with typical daily usage: 20-50 miles under battery power. In normal usage, you use exclusively electric but if something comes up and you need to go 200miles, the small ICE just kicks on seamlessly and if necessary a 5 min fill up and you have effectively unlimited range.
- Pure EV: This is a battery only vehicle no ICE included. When the batteries go flat...you are done until you can get a recharge.

I don't know where you got your data but everyone I know who has a Plug-In-Hybrid brags about only using 5-10gal per year because they plug in at night and run almost exclusively on battery.

I suppose it might be a european thing where they put crazy rules out driving the market in ways the buyers don't like. So you have people who want a full function car but they need to drive in an urban congestion rules area, so they really want a Pure ICE but the rules force them into a Plug-In-Hybrid...I could see that as a case where people buy them so they can have full functionality and access to congestion zones.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

How would a carbon tax reduce carbon? That is what I keep wondering.
What it will do is hurt poorer people, the ones that belly up and buy thousands of gallons of fuel for their yachts and private jets will continue to do so, but the school teacher who commutes to work is going to have to feed her kids hotdogs cause they can’t afford better food.

I don’t think the taxpayer should subsidize much of anything, farmers, fossil fuel or Solar, EV’s etc.
I believe if left alone the market forces will make it so that the consumer gets what they want, whatever that is.

I assume if fossil fuel wasn’t subsidized then it would cost more and that school teacher would commute in a big four wheel drive SUV, but she would in a smaller more fuel efficient vehicle, which would reduce carbon, without a tax.
Subsidizing something and then taxing it is not logical to me, how about don’t do either?

As to why it’s on this Forum, I can’t tell as I’m on a mobile device, but I assume it the off topic forum?

Fair questions and subject to a lot of misinformation out there.

The general idea you have right - which is that you have to use supply and demand to change consumption patterns. I also agree that we are both taxing and subsidizing carbon right now - definitely illogical. The general notion is to rationalize this by eliminating the indirect subsidy of the free dumping of CO2 into the environment by pricing that into the fuel tax.

Then, you are basically raising the problem that that is a regressive tax- that it hurts lower income people more than upper income. One proposal is to collect the carbon tax at the pump and then refund it all to every income tax payer - everyone gets the same flat rebate. That would level out the regressive nature of it, but still provide your teacher with an incentive to drive the prius to work - s/he would get the income tax rebate and save money on gas.
As far as the uber-rich, yeah, hard problem. I was in Charlotte Amalie at the fuel dock and asked the guy what his biggest fill up was - he said it was Larry Ellison's megayacht which cost 10's of thousands to fill up. There is nothing I know of you can do to stop that, but just make them pay the per gallon tax (and get the same rebate as the teacher) and then Larry is subsidizing solar and your teacher.

[Neeltje]

As Lester implied and Trump has already partially implemented (knowingly or not) with his "Tariffs", we need a Federal sales tax that will even the playing field between those who consume the most and those who can't afford to.

Granted, that probably wouldn't sit well with those who currently buy Chinese wide-screen TVs at Walmart or on Amazon just because they have a wall to decorate, whilst throwing away half the food they buy, but it could end up making our national addiction to overconsumption a "thing" in the long run. You never know.

[FlyingScot]

For the non Americans or those not familiar, Forbes is not a left leaning institution. Headline: The US spends ten times more on fossil fuel subsidies than education.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesel.../#7a77e8244735

[captainwd40]

I bought a new 2018 Toyota Camry Hybrid LE a year and a half ago and love it!

I get 56 miles per gallon driving around town and 42 miles per gallon on the highway running 80 miles per hour.

Cheap to keep and it drives really well.

Cheers!

[Neeltje]

Originally Posted by captainwd40

I bought a new 2018 Toyota Camry Hybrid LE a year and a half ago and love it!

I get 56 miles per gallon driving around town and 42 miles per gallon on the highway running 80 miles per hour.

Cheap to keep and it drives really well.

Cheers!

My dad's Panhard Dyna got better millage and went faster than that back in 1955 with a 2-cylinder boxer engine and 6 people on board. Guess you can't stop progress... ;-)

[Capt P]

As a big petrol head who has changed to an EV driver, have a look at the Hyundai EV, you will get more for your money than the BMW, and the battery can heat up to extend range.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

If we can’t develop self driving trains, then what chance of developing self driving cars and trucks? It’s a much simpler problem to solve, but we still haven’t been able to pull it off.

Um. Actually, we can tick that one off. Latest suburban commuter Metor line bult in Sydney, Australia features driverless trains.

Various mine-owned railway lines in this country utilise driverless trains.

Most mine sites these days have automated dump trucks carrying ore from the 'coal face' to the railhead....

So yeah, not yet *widely* available, but certainly the technology exists.

[Buzzman]

There is one other aspect of vehicle ownership that is often overlooked - the "embodied energy" involved in manufacturing the vehicle in the first place.

Generally speaking, this is hard to quantify, but I've seen believeable reports of around 8t / vehicle as a 'working average'. But I did find this in an article by Mike Berners-Lee in the Guardian online:
The carbon footprint of a new car:
6 tonnes CO2e: Citroen C1, basic spec
17 tonnes CO2e: Ford Mondeo, medium spec
35 tonnes CO2e: Land Rover Discovery, top of the range

For a vehicle like my 25-yr-old Toyota Corolla, which uses around 6L/100km for an eCO2 of around 140g/km, that 8t of embodied energy is equivalent to 6 years of normal driving.

I'll probably only keep the car 6-8 years (this is the second AE102 I've owned, and the last one I had 8 years, adding 90K km to its odometer) so, rather than buying a new car and 'wasting' that 8t of CO2, I'm getting mileage from it.

So, as Berners-Lee reported:
"Making a new car creates as much carbon pollution as driving it, so it's often better to keep your old banger on the road than to upgrade to a greener model."

Oh, and the BMW i3 with less than 20K km in this country is around AU$40K.

I can buy 10 low-mileage Corollas for that much money.

So for me, the economics don't stack up.

YMMV

[Buzzman]

Another way to look at it is this:

Many people, those I call 'professional consumers', *upgrade* their vehicle every (several) years.

This is primarily for parking lot and driveway 'bragging rights' as much as for any other consideration, no matter what arguments they use to self-justify the 'upgrade'.

The point is that each time you purchase a new car, you release that "embodied energy" into the atmosphere (effectively), so the more often you change cars, the higher your GHG 'footprint'.

I have not been able to find a reliable source that determines at what point the embodied energy of the *first* car you buy is amortised (complex calculation involving miles travelled, fuel consumed, etc etc etc) but at SOME point in a vehicles life, (while still owned by the first owner) its 'embodied energy' must reach equilibrium when compared to the neighbours who change their car every (several) years.

So, potentially, driving an A-Model Ford to work appointments *might* be better for the planet than driving a near-new BMW i3.

I know, I'm oversimplifying, but you get the drift.....

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Neeltje

My dad's Panhard Dyna got better millage and went faster than that back in 1955 with a 2-cylinder boxer engine and 6 people on board. Guess you can't stop progress... ;-)

Maybe downhill... According to wikipedia 30-40 mpg. And manual transmission, no AC, no stereo, no cruise control, no air bags, probably no real crash protection at all, so, yeah, that Camry hybrid is huge progress.

[a64pilot]

The other side of the argument is that on average, or used to be anyway the newer cars burnt less fuel and polluted less.

Remember the Obama administration cash for clunkers? Idea is sound, but I disagree with government subsidies.
Back home, meaning Albany Ga , before I started cruising, the wealthier “smart” people were buying new golf carts and having the government pay for them because they were an electric vehicle. They would of course pull them behind their F-150’s to go hunting or maybe to play golf.
I was asked why I didn’t, with the subsidies and tax breaks you made money and got a free golf cart.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Another way to look at it is this:

...The point is that each time you purchase a new car, you release that "embodied energy" into the atmosphere (effectively), so the more often you change cars, the higher your GHG 'footprint'...

Glad you raised this - I always puzzle over this. I sold my gas hog 7 passenger SUV and got a RAV4 hybrid. Went from ~17 MPG to ~32. Did I help the environment? I tend to think so, because offloading my hog means that someone who 'needs' a big SUV takes mine and that is one less gas hog that needs to be built to satisfy that consumer need, right? The more used gas hogs that are on the market, the fewer will be made, yes? My former gas hog is still on the road, consuming as much gas (and spewing as much carbon) as I would have (on average). What gets me confused is how many steps out to carry such an analysis.

We need an economist...