Electric vehicles have once again become a political football.
As someone who lived through the Chevrolet Volt discourse all those years ago, I’m getting a sense of déjà vu.
To recap: Soaring gas prices lead to a Twitter discourse about EVs that was just, well, terrible.
Some EV advocates seemed to suggest that a mass move to EVs would help alleviate our dependence on fossil fuels (and thus lead to reduced demand for gasoline, which would cause prices to drop). Meanwhile, anti-EV folks pointed out that EVs are too expensive for the average consumer to switch to. The number $60,000 seemed to be thrown around as an average base price for EVs. They also pointed out that even if EVs don’t have tailpipe emissions, there’s still an environmental cost in terms of their assembly.
Both sides of the discussion were right about some things and wrong about others, but as usual in today’s world, there’s no place for nuance.
EV advocates are almost certainly correct that a long-term switch to EVs will be friendlier to our environment while reducing the demand for fuel consumption – even accounting for the environmental costs of manufacturing vehicles. But the keywords here are “long term”: As The Verge points out, even if Americans rushed out to buy EVs right freakin’ now, that wouldn’t solve the short-term problem of high prices at the pump.
Not to mention that as The Verge also points out, the chip shortage and related (and unrelated) supply-chain problems are leading to low inventory, which means high prices. This means it’s going to be hard to find an EV (or any vehicle) right now, and even if you do, it might not be affordable.
All this said, those who were saying that EVs are too expensive for the average consumer are both correct and wrong. Yes, many EVs are expensive. Perhaps they are thinking of Teslas, which are well-known to the average person, and also, generally speaking, expensive.
Certainly, some of last week’s discourse may be a callback to November 2021, in which conservatives attacked Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for being out of touch when he said this: “The people who stand to benefit most from owning an EV [electric vehicle] are often rural residents who have the most distances to drive, who burn the most gas, and underserved urban residents in areas where there are higher gas prices and lower income,” Buttigieg said. “They would gain the most by having that vehicle. These are the very residents who have not always been connected to electric vehicles that are viewed as kind of a luxury item.”
That linked NY Post article contains a link to car-shopping site Kelley Blue Book that shows the average sticker price of an EV at $55,676, as of October 2021. The Verge cites the price for EVs as over $60K as of February of this year, and also says the average transaction price of an EV is $10K over the industry average.
This partisan criticism of Buttigieg ignores the fact that while the average MSRP of EVs is indeed high, there are affordable electric vehicles out there*, and government incentives still exist. Then again, Buttigieg seems to forget that EV charging in rural areas is sparse, at best.
*Affordable in normal times, anyway. As noted above, the current low-inventory situation may be driving prices up.
Here’s the truth: EVs will likely help move us away from fossil fuels in the long run, but a run on the EV market isn’t going to drop fuel prices this week. And not all EVs are too expensive for the average car shopper. Some folks would benefit from EVs, and some of those same folks can afford one.
That said, affordability is only part of the equation. Take me, for example – I wouldn’t buy even the most affordable EV. Not because I don’t like EVs or am worried about range, but because the building I live in doesn’t have a Level II charger. It would be massively inconvenient for me to own an EV. Again, once chargers are more plentiful – and are actually working as intended – and charge times come down, more consumers might make the shift.
In other words, while price holds some potential EV buyers back, others are held back from making the switch for other reasons, and high gas prices won’t change that.
I get it, gas prices cause a lot of our brains to break, and it’s easy to fall into partisan wrangling on social media when prices at the pump are high. I paid $4.79 per gallon for regular to re-fill a test vehicle the other day, and driving around Chicago this weekend, I saw prices at some stations that were close to $5.20 per gallon for regular.
High gas prices are a problem for most of us, so we naturally look to place blame – and propose possible solutions. But when it comes to EV discourse, the truth is nuanced. EV advocates, especially liberal pundits and pols, need to understand that EVs aren’t going to be the short-term savior, even if they do promise benefits over the long haul.
Meanwhile, anti-EV folks and/or conservative pundits and politicians need to understand that not all EVs are out of the price range for the average car buyer, at least when inventory is available, and that EVs likely will be beneficial to society eventually.
Finally, both sides need to learn that ignoring inconvenient truths to score political points only serves to make our discourse less honest.
There’s a reasonable debate to be had about the cause(s) of – and solution(s) to – high fuel prices. Too bad too many high-profile people (and random social-media users) don’t seem interested in that discussion.
[Image: U.S. Dept. of Transportation]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
Nobody ever mentions the states that add rego fees for EVs, to make up for the fuel taxes these cars don’t generate.
Fuel taxes aren’t keeping up with road repair needs and CAFE requirements anyway, so this funding system needs to be completely re-thought.
Arbitrarily taxing EVs is a political bone that doesn’t solve the problem.
Nothing arbitrary about taxing all vehicles using public roadways.
Agreed, but the state road taxes for EVs are actually too low. $200 (for example) is ridiculous.
Fuel taxes should be abolished, in favor of:
Tax = GVWR x annual miles driven x (the politically-derived constant)
So those who drive small cars very little, pay next to nothing. OTR trucks would pay the most. EVs are typically heavier, and would pay more than their ICE counterparts.
Pump fuel taxes are woefully out of date, and out of step with the technology.
@SCE to AUX: Agreed, +1. That would be a very logical way to do it. If you don’t need a full-size SUV, it would incentivize getting something that actually fits your needs.
@ Tim Healy, you could have shortened the lede to “Discourse Once Again Lacks Nuance”.
There are nuances or shades of grey to everything. Unfortunately polarization along various lines makes discussion difficult. Social media algorithms and bots amplify information/misinformation and foster the creation of an “us versus them” approach. “Likes” and “Dislikes” remove the middle ground where compromise is needed.
Nuance? Oh, dear…not nuance. But if we’re talking about nuance, I’d say here’s what has to change on both sides:
1) The pro-EV folks need to realize that the market, not the government, is going to dictate adoption of these vehicles. Heavy-handed government intrusion will, in fact, be detrimental to the goal of EV adoption.
2) The anti-EV folks need to stop the “but they’re taking away my gas powered car” complaint. No one’s coming for your gas powered car or truck anytime soon, and anyone who tries is going to get a political pushback of Biblical proportions. In fact, anyone who is anti-EV should drive one.
I’ll disagree with this sentence, though:
“Again, once chargers are more plentiful – and are actually working as intended – and charge times come down, more consumers might make the shift.”
It’s not incorrect per se, but I think it ignores that the main market for EVs right now isn’t people living the way Tim or I do – i.e., in a complex without a charger. It’s people living in single family homes with garages. And for now, that’s OK – starting the day with 250-300 miles of range for your commute is more than sufficient.
I think the real problem is that the product mix for EVs hasn’t been what the mass market is looking for. And we all know what that means – trucks, SUVs and crossovers. I think the canary in the coal mine will be the upcoming Ford EV pickup. If it’s a hit – and I think it will be – then there will be incentive to build better chargers in more places. That would enable folks like me or Tim to buy one. And by the time that happens, there will be cheaper options out there.
My two cents’ worth, anyway.
” the product mix for EVs hasn’t been what the mass market is looking for”
To clarify, the EV product mix hasn’t had an entry in every market segment. But Tesla single-handedly boosted the sedan market with Model 3 volume, and the Model Y outsold 278 other vehicles in Q4-2021, being the #15 selling model in the US.
The Cybertruck remains mythical, but the R1T, Lightning, and Silverado EV will help mainstream the electric truck experience.
@SCE:
The success of the Model Y tells me that there definitely is a market out there for compact EV crossovers. But the Model Y is basically a $50,000-and-up vehicle; what I’m talking about is stuff in the $35-45,000 range. Theoretically, the cheaper market is fatter, particularly with the Federal tax incentives you can’t get with Tesla anymore.
The Mach E select would like a word with you…
I’m thinking more of something like an electric RAV4 (as much as that pains me).
Toyota’s got the the bZ4x (what a great name!) coming just for you.
“there are affordable electric vehicles out there*”
I’d say that “affordable” for someone looking to buy a new Ram Rebel GT is different from “affordable” for someone driving a 2011 Cruze LT. It isn’t a universal concept so it’s easy to spin it in the direction you want to argue.
I agree with your overall point though. EVs might be the solution to fuel price shocks in the future, and I do think related infrastructure projects should be supported, but BEVs aren’t going to provide relief in 2022.
Agreed, “affordable” is a spectrum.
My electric DD was $23k after Federal subsidy, but it has an EPA range of 124 miles. At 40k miles, it’s been plenty useful for my needs.
It has been ‘affordable’ to me.
But if you want 500 miles range while towing 10,000 lbs at 40 below, nobody can afford that – because it doesn’t exist in electric form.
“500 miles range while towing 10,000 lbs at 40 below”
That doesn’t exist with an ICE engine either.
Whaddya talking about? EV haters do it all the time, on the internet.
A diesel powered tractor trailer can blow those numbers into the weeds! 2000 mile range, tow 60,000 lbs.
Lou, it would not be a stretch to say such vehicles exist. My 22 year old F-250 has a 7.3 l diesel engine. I have a 24 foot enclosed aluminum trailer that weighs about 4000 lbs empty. It’s just an inch under 9 feet tall and is 8 feet wide. The heaviest thing I have hauled was a ford fusion and a 4×4 atv and a few other odds and ends. So total load was around 9500 lbs in the trailer with 4 adults in the cab. It was March in NY so temps were no were near 40 below but even if they were once the truck is running those temps would not make a big impact on MPG. That trip was only 200 miles but I averaged just over 14 mpg driving 60 miles per hour. With my stock tank which holds a hair over 30 gallons I had a range of 420 miles. If I had a second tank or a larger single tank the 500 mile mark would be easily doable. I don’t need that extra fuel routinely so modding the truck isn’t necessary. But taking two diesel cans with 5 gallons each along in the trailer would be no hassle and add another 140 miles to my range. I know this isn’t a perfect example and it’s not exactly 10000 lbs but I would add that pulling that same trailer empty yields very similar mpg’s so I would bet if it was at exactly that number the result would be the same. I would also speculate that if my truck were a regular cab 2WD it would come very close to hitting your numbers pulling my trailer.
@TR4 – My point is that there isn’t a stock pickup powered by gas or diesel that can be purchased right now that will give you a 500 mile range under those parameters.
A “tractor” with a 120 – 150 gallon tank is good for 500 – 600 miles.
Have you operated anything for extended periods in -40 C or F? I have.
Lou, I think your wrong about that capability. I’d think a modern diesel pickup truck with extended range tanks could do it. As a matter of fact I have spent thousands of hours at temps like that but I was above 30,000 feet :)
@kcflyer – any vehicle could do it if you added energy storage capacity. That’s the way one should look at EV to hydrocarbon powered vehicles. Gasoline, diesel etc. is a form of stored energy just like charged batteries.
How much storage capacity does one need to build in to capture the majority of the purchasing public’s needs?
The only people who’d need the mythical 500 mile, 10,000 lb. tow in -40 are those living in very remote areas.
”
“500 miles range while towing 10,000 lbs at 40 below”
That doesn’t exist with an ICE engine either.”
Nobody has claimed it did. But getting even 10MPG towing and a 36+ gallon tank gets you far. Then its an under 5 min fill up and you have many more hundreds of miles to travel. And you don’t have to stop filling your fuel tank at 80%.
Win/win
Good piece.
FWIW, I just replaced a 19 mpg vehicle with a 24 mpg vehicle. I considered electric up right to the end – which would join my electric DD in the garage – but I can’t swallow the 50% range loss while towing at capacity.
30-minute recharge stops every 100-150 miles are untenable if you’re traveling. And that’s best case with today’s tech.
I’m very pro-electric, but there are corner cases (and not-so corner cases) that mean it’s not for everyone right now.
I’m not sure that any rational discourse on gas prices can be had right now. I’m fully aware that gas prices were on the rise prior to what happened in the Ukraine. It is unclear how high they would have gone without that (and inflation in general). And it’s important to remember that it’s hard for the US to turn up supply at a moments notice due to a number of factors, not the least of which is manufacturers are afraid of tooling up then getting hosed by government.
But it feels like today is not the day to talk about nuance. Sign a 5 year deal with oil companies to make them feel financially safe to drill while we weather this. If all I have to do is pay more for gas and groceries, it’s a bargain compared to possible alternatives.
Then Pete can pontificate all he wants.
You’re assuming that the rapid rise in prices is because of fundamentals. It is not, it is the action of oil traders assuming that there will be a supply interruption. Supply is not the issue.
I would agree, until February 24th. Now there is a de facto supply interruption since you either can’t buy russion oil or buyers don’t want to take the risk of buying it.
OK, but per my research, Russian oil accounts for about 10% of global output, and there are still any number of countries buying it. Meanwhile, prices went up by about 30% from the start of the war to March 7.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how these figures make rational sense. That leads me to believe “the market” itself is irrational…and we all get to pay a LOT more to keep it afloat.
The speculators have been controlling things since 2000.
I can remember going to work on the day it happened. Gas was around a dollar a gallon in the morning, and it shot up to $1.45 when I was coming home from work! I’d never seen more than a ten cent jump prior to that!
Something someone pointed out to me last week about her near purchase of a BEV (but subsequent ICE purchase) was something I hadn’t considered and is seldom brought up.
Growing up, I was a huge RC car fan. I started with 9.6V NiCD Tyco/New Bright stuff as a kid, then as a teen I upgraded to Nitromethane powered units, then dabbled with the LiPo brushless electrics in my mid-30’s, so I am amazed that I never considered the possibility of battery charge degradation if you’re faced with the problem that my friend had.
She works 2 jobs here in Honolulu and yes, charging stations are common, but like others are stating, she doesn’t have access to a L2 charger at her apartment complex. She was considering a new Nissan Leaf but ended up going for a Sentra instead because if she was to use the standard 120v outlet near her parking space (a lucky spot assignment), her state of charge would almost never be able to be brought to 100% overnight. So, to that end, she was worried about doing permanent damage to the battery because it would seldom be able to be brought to a full state of charge.
Is this a legitimate concern for potential BEV purchasers that don’t have regular access to a L2 charger and have to rely on 120V outlets to charge their cars?
Actually, 100% filling is generally a bad practice for daily use.
A couple exceptions:
– LFP batteries can tolerate it. AFAIK, only some low-end Model 3s have this today.
– 100% filling during a road trip is OK since you’ll begin emptying the tank immediately.
– Some batteries have sufficient inaccessible margin built in that 100% filling is really 90% filling, for example. My 19 Ioniq EV is like this, but I still don’t go to 100% very often.
Her real problems with 120V filling:
– 240V is actually better for the battery. I’m not sure, but only trickle charging might not exercise the battery’s chemistry sufficiently.
– Charger access is painful if she can’t get that one spot.
– Time. 240V filling is about 5x faster, and fits most people’s daily driving much better.
In her case, I’d get the ICE also.
Interesting. The discussions I’d seen online suggested that trickle-charging is actually preferable to 240V charging in terms of battery health. Literally everything you read about maintaining an EV battery, you can find something fairly easily saying the precise opposite.
While our house is under renovation, we are temporarily living with 120V charging for our Bolt. Our temporary rental has a reserved spot in a common garage that has a couple of easily accessible 120V outlets. So far the association hasn’t said anything about the electricity usage, but if they do I will offer to reimburse them for it.
For the most part it’s worked just fine. At 120V the battery will fill at around 1.25 kWh.hour. We fill only to 90% to preserve battery lifespan. We get a bit under 3 miles/kWh in the winter and a bit under 4 miles/kWh in the summer, so basically we are filling at 4-5 miles/hour. We have two typical usage patterns on weekdays, one of which has us driving around 15 miles and the other more like 40. As long as we consistently plug in at night, we can easily make up any shortfall from the longer driving days on the shorter days. It’s even fine if we drive longer distances on the weekends.
So far the only trouble has come if someone forgets to plug in at night after a longer driving day. Then it can take three or four days of charging at night to get back to 90%.
Our normal 240 V charging would be more tolerant of mistakes, but we’re getting along fine with a wall outlet.
SCE, if the Leaf, without liquid cooling, balances the cells the lower and slower voltage is good for that. Where higher voltage do not allow cell balancing as they charge higher cells too fast compared to lower voltage cells.
@NormSV650: I can’t speak for the newer Leaf, but the Nissan manual specifically recommended that my 12 Leaf should be charged on 240V.
As for cell balancing, again I’m not certain, but I thought that occurred during a full charge. Perhaps it’s possible with less than a full charge with today’s better tech.
I guess it depends on how far she drives every day. A fairly typical rule-of-thumb average for L1 charging is four added miles of range per hour of charging. If you leave home at 8:00 to drive to work in the morning, and get your car back into its spot at 7:00 in the evening, that leaves you enough time to recover roughly fifty miles of range. My commute to work is about ten miles, and I’m guessing that your friend’s isn’t much longer, unless she’s doing laps of the island.
What’s missing is leadership. On this issue as with many others we just get partisan bickering. Show me how this is better for me and my situation if you want me to adopt your plans. Don’t ban or otherwise censor discourse or the flow of opinions / facts. Beyond that I wish I could find ev information with no agenda. I don’t know a single person who owns a pure ev so getting reliable first had facts is diffcult.
Sadly, you can’t rely on the mfrs for the truth, either.
Insideevs.com is migrating away from blind Tesla flag-waving to offering some good critical real-life tests and experiences. There is still plenty of cheerleading, but also a decent mix of real-world stories about fires, bad service, price gouging, and other things in the EV world.
“Beyond that I wish I could find ev information with no agenda. ”
Car and Driver? Seriously…any of the buff books do a good job of giving you the lowdown on any car’s good points and weaknesses.
I don’t think EVs will fit everyone’s needs – yours included – but then again, what you drive probably doesn’t fit my needs. Rhetoric aside, conventionally powered vehicles aren’t going away anytime soon. There’s plenty of time for the tech to develop to the point where it fits the needs of a broader slice of buyers.
Mike, I don’t mind the car and driver reviews but I’ll admit to preferring Alex on autos and the Savage Geese guys. But I’m not talking about a new car review. I’m talking about living with and EV. The cost of installing a charger. Etc. Alex is doing a long term review on a Mach E that he bought and that is informative but his long term is about one year. I have found a few model 3 reviews with high mileage cars that are also informative but the reviewers were self admitted Tesla fanboys.
I’m generally ambivalent about EV versus gas vehicles. I currently live in a mobile home park and could conceivably put in a charger, but I’m looking to move in a few years and don’t want to put money into a charger that I wouldn’t be using for that long, and that might also get torn out when I move. I don’t know where I would look for the dollars and cents (how much would I spend on electricity versus how much would I save on gas) estimate of the pros and cons of one or the other. I’m familiar with gas and estimating what I’ll spend relative to other vehicles. A good midpoint for me would be a plug-in hybrid. 40 miles of electric range would cover most of my driving and the gas engine would be there as backup.
Call plug-in hybrids training wheels for the uninitiated.
Here’s a decent calculator for any kind of car:
https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/
Thanks for that link. Pretty interesting. The assumptions indicate that a value for maintenance and repair is included for each vehicle type. Importantly, the cost does not include any battery replacement for any EV. Meaning, the total costs for EVs are likely understated to some degree.
I used it to compare 5 different EVs. Just for comparison, I added a Mazda CX-30 (which is AWD and roughly equal in capability to these choices – though the Ford is a bit larger, I think). For the purposes of amplifying differences in usage, I assumed 100k miles of usage per year. Here are the costs after 15 years and 1.5 million miles:
1. Nissan Leaf 40kWh – $156,000
2. Nissan Leaf 62kWh – $163,000
3. Tesla Model 3 RWD – $169,000
4. Mazda MX-30 – $174,000
5. Tesla Model 3 AWD Long Range – $174,000
6. Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD – $187,000
7. Mazda CX-30 AWD (fuel at $2.32/gallon) – $239,000
8. Mazda CX-30 AWD (fuel at $4.64/gallon) – $364,000
Interesting that the “bad” EVs like the Leaf and Mazda are much cheaper than the Mach-E, and cheaper or equal to the Tesla. To catch up to the Mazda MX-30 takes about 9 years for the Tesla Model 3 RWD, and 15 years for the Model 3 AWD LR.
Of course, very few people could ever put 1.5 million miles on a vehicle in 10 years. In a more realistic lifespan (150,000 miles over 10 years), the costs are:
1. Nissan Leaf 40kWh – $61,000
2. Mazda CX-30 AWD (fuel at $2.32/gallon) – $65,000
3. Nissan Leaf 62kWh – $67,000
4. Mazda MX-30 – $69,000
5. Mazda CX-30 AWD (fuel at $4.64/gallon) – $77,000
6. Tesla Model 3 RWD – $80,000
7. Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD – $82,000
8. Tesla Model 3 AWD Long Range – $87,000
In other words, EVs with small batteries are cheaper to own and run over short, medium, and long time-frames. And even if gas stays at this (relative) price level, gas cars will still be cost-competitive with EVs.
If gas goes back down to the mid-2-dollar level, gas cars will beat all but the cheapest EVs on cost to run.
As a footnote, I used one of the states with cheaper electricity (Pennsylvania) for the calculations. If California was used instead, the EVs would get $3000 to $4000 more expensive over 150,000 miles. The results would not be changed too drastically.
Remember not too long ago when incandescent lightbulbs were the worst thing on the planet? Murders, pedophiles, drug dealers, etc all moved up the ladder of morality because incandescent light bulbs were ruining the planet 60 watts at a time. Companies reacted to this by developing lightbulbs that used far less electricity, lasted much longer, and provided no discernible difference in light performance.
The planet was saved because we effectively cancelled the incandescent light bulb (because remember, using electricity was very very bad).
Now those same people who were so virtuous in claiming that incandescent lightbulbs had to be (nearly) banned because they use too much electricity, are the same people now claiming they are saving the planet by forcing our entire national fleet to switch to vehicles that are powered by electricity. And do it recklessly before the technology is perfected and ready for prime time (at least they waited until LED and CFL bulbs were ready before going scorched earth on the noble incandescent light bulb).
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you are the person unable to grasp that, if using non-renewable energy is harmful, then using a 38% efficient system that cannot be converted to renewables to turn fuel into motion is more harmful than using a 70% efficient system that can be converted to renewables over time for the same purpose.
One problem with arguing with a fool: observers might not be able to tell the difference.
I knew you would be incapable of understanding a very simple analogy.
Electricity to power a light bulb? Very bad
Electricity to power an automobile? Very good.
The hypocrisy is astounding. How can Dal be this disconnected from reality?
Let me rephrase this in terms you can grasp.
Less energy use good.
More energy use bad.
Electric cars use less energy than gas cars.*
LED bulbs use less energy than incandescent bulbs.
*yes, even with manufacture taken into account
Again not surprised you still don’t get it
@Ebflex,
Whatever happened to “waste not, want not”?
Incandescent bulbs are wasteful. LEDs (and CFLs) are less wasteful, and more reliable.
There’s no reason for you to be angry about avoiding waste.
While stated in hyperbole, EBflex actually has something of a point there. CFLs and LEDs are not perfect substitutes for incandescent bulbs.
(Before I say anything else, be aware that I personally think LEDs are pretty great for most applications. I find CFLs to be a poor light source with many drawbacks. And almost useless now that LEDs have gotten good and relatively affordable. And I still think incandescent has its place. That said, here are further thoughts.)
For example, a closet lightbulb that needs to turn on quickly for about 10 seconds at a time every few days is a very poor application for a typical CFL. The warm-up time of the ballast and light means that you are still waiting for the light to, you know, generate light, when you could have found the item you wanted and been out of the closet already. That means wasted time. And the short on-off cycles mean the CFL wears out quickly, in a fraction of its rated lifespan, which kills any potential savings and generates unnecessary waste. And beyond that, the total lifespan energy usage of a closet lightbulb is probably measured in the single dollars. Meaning there was never any real potential for savings in the first place.
There is also the very real use case of the lightbulb *as a heater*, which is done in various places around the home. A pet house, a winter plant enclosure, etc. CFLs and LEDs obviously cannot do this. Besides that point, consider that a lot of power usage in the USA occurs in the winter months. Cooler residential lightbulbs mean that residential heaters run longer, because the thermostat setting isn’t changing. So half of the energy savings is cancelled out because the users just get their heat somewhere else.
Even if all those factors are taken off the table, there are some people who just don’t like CFLs and LEDs. Either because they flicker and whine (which some cheap ones do), or they like the color spectrum they emit, or for completely irrational reasons. If you do have such an irrational person on your hands, wouldn’t it be cheaper for society in the long run to let him buy the lightbulbs he likes, and reduce his stress level accordingly? Consider it cheap therapy.
I’m glad we have moved on to LED bulbs. That’s because while CFLs could theoretically last much longer than incandescent bulbs, most didn’t last nearly as long. That’s because the cheap electronics at the base of the bulb had a nasty habit of burning out in only a few months. Even some of the early LED bulbs did that. While the vast majority of bulbs in my house are LEDs, I still have two or three Hungarian-made incandescent bulbs put in by the builder that are still proudly providing service — I kid you not — 27 years later.
He’s angry about anything Ford does.
You must have missed where I praised the Ranger Raptor. ‘Tis a shame you have to resort to lying so publically.
That was the only time. Your words say it all.
Completely untrue. I’ve praised Ford many many times over the years. Some of my favorite vehicles I’ve owned and driven have been Fords.
Again, why must you lie?
I would like to challenge everyone to name two EVs that cost under $60,000 that offer the same range (per charge) as a $17,000 Nissan Versa on a single tank of gas. I can only think of one and it retails for $53,000. Sure, more are coming but something tells me they won’t be stickering for anywhere near that Versa.
While it’s undoubtedly true that EVs have been made overtly political, I would argue needlessly so. Problems can be solved in an objective manner by looking at the issue from beyond the scope of which party is more eager to want widespread electrification. At this point, EV proliferation looks assured and we need to figure out how realistic (and/or responsible) the strategies at play happen to be. People need to stretch their dollar now more than ever and the government recommending they all go out and buy EVs, which Buttigieg and Harris both did last week, is beyond ridiculous. If a conservative suggested something similar, they would also be worthy of public ridicule. I don’t care what party people align themselves with, just how much sense they make when sat in front of a microphone.
Oh yeah, that same old saw. Yes, there are still no EV’s that’ll give you the range of a Nissan Versa for the same price. So what? For a lot of people out there (and, I’m noticing and increasing number of the Best and Brightest), EV’s a practical, desirable, and do the job they need. And that number of potential practical users is constantly growing.
In the short run, no, nobody’s going to bring out a price/range equivalent of the Versa. In the long run, who the hell knows?
As to ‘overtly political’ yes, they are, but made so by whom? In the auto blogs I frequent, I catch more anti-EV vitriol on the part of the die-hard ICE crowd than the reverse. And no, we’re not trying to take your Hemi from you at gunpoint.
I didn’t ask people to find a price/range equivalent to the Versa. I asked for examples of sub-$60,000 EVs that can cover the same amount of territory in a single day as a sub-$20,000 combustion vehicle.
They may not be taking my Hemi V8 at gunpoint. But the continued regulatory pressures and widening income gap has convinced automakers to stop building those types of cars for regular people. The EU wants to ban all ICE’s by 2035. So does California, and it’s the state that seems to inform everything the EPA does these days. Hell, Subaru just said it couldn’t build the WRX STI due to environmental issues and it uses an itty-bitty turbo.
@Matt:
The take rate on Hemi Challengers, Chargers and 300s has been dropping for a LONG time now. Main reason? They discontinued AWD availability with them, which makes them a very tough sell in a place like Denver (I suppose stuff like the Hellcats/Scat Pack models would be an exception, but the folks who buy them around here use them as weekend toys, not daily drivers).
“People need to stretch their dollar now more than ever.”
Even if EVs are always more expensive to buy than gas cars (which they won’t be, for the majority of the market) the fuel costs are likely to make up the difference. I’ll use myself as an example.
A Chevy Sonic, the closest possible equivalent to my Bolt, gets 26 mpg in the city where we drive. My local gas station had regular for around $4 before Putin lost his mind and now it’s $4.85. 26 miles of electricity for my Bolt is around 10 kWh in the winter or 7 kWh in the summer. At our local rate of 10¢/kWh, that’s as if gas for the Sonic were under $1/gallon.
After tax credit I paid around $28k for my Bolt Premier. The price of a 2019 Sonic Premier was right around $22k. Not even taking differing equipment levels into account, at pre-Putin gas prices it would take only around 50k miles to make up the price difference. Bolts have gotten even cheaper since then, and gas cars have gotten more expensive because in the era of production constraints there’s no reason to make cheap cars.
I still think if lowest TCO is the #1 goal then a conventional hybrid will win out most often.
There’s about $8K price difference in 2022 between a Corolla Hybrid and a base Bolt (no more available tax credit). At $4/gal and .10/kwh it would take around 164k miles for fuel to make up that difference. The hybrid will have oil changes but beyond that conventional hybrids have shown to be quite reliable and easy on consumables so I’m not sure how much the EV will make up on the maintenance difference
The people who would know TCO are the local TNC drivers. The ones who are driving full-time still mostly have Priuses, but I’m seeing more and more Bolts and Leafs despite the charging downtime. We’ll see how it shakes out.
Now compare the pre tax credit cost of an EV along with electricity taxed to match gas taxes versus the costs of a hybrid. Right now the hybrid makes more sense for many people. EVs are not getting any cheaper in the near term – the Bloomberg commodity index has already doubled from its lows – and Elon is adding thousands $ to his vehicles on what seems like a weekly basis.
I would like to challenge everyone to name a single ICE vehicle, at any price, that fills up in my garage while I sleep, that travels for hundreds of miles on $9 worth of fuel, and that never needs to have routine engine maintenance.
You can’t, of course, because EVs and ICE vehicles are different, and have different strengths and weaknesses. If you regularly drive 350 miles nonstop, then EVs probably won’t work for your use case, but I’d wager the majority of drivers don’t. Pretending that the only, or most important, criterion for choosing a car is “range on a single fill-up” is as nonsensical as anything else that anyone has said on this topic.
@Matt:
“I would like to challenge everyone to name two EVs that cost under $60,000 that offer the same range (per charge) as a $17,000 Nissan Versa on a single tank of gas.”
OK, name me any conventionally powered car at any price that can “gas up” in the owner’s garage every night and provide the owner with 200+ miles of range every day.
“EV range” really depends on how you think about it. In your case (and mine), there’s no place to charge an EV every night, and charging is time consuming at this point, so, yes, range would be a worry. It’d be a “no-buy” factor for me. But America has literally hundreds of millions of people living in single-family homes with garages, which means that an EV owner in that living situation has all the range he or she could ever use on a daily trip.
The fact is that even in their current state of tech development, EVs DO fit the needs of a huge swath of American buyers. I think the limiting factors so far have been a) cost, and b) no mid-priced options in the product segments Americans can’t get enough of (trucks, SUVs and CUVs). I think b) will be solved in the next couple of years, and once that happens, and volumes build, a) will follow suit – consumers are going to like the way EVs perform, and they’re going to like the convenience of fueling them at home. Once enough EVs get into circulation, non-home charging capability will follow suit – if there are enough EV owners out there that need to “juice up” their vehicles away from home, businesses will figure out a way to cater to them. If the demand’s there, supply will follow.
The last slice of buyers who will be “served” by EVs will be folks like you and me.
You can charge any plug-in hybrid at home with the proper hookups. They might not net you +200 miles of all-electric propulsion but they tend to cost less upfront and still work for people without garages. My point is that EVs don’t yet make sense for everyone despite having some unique advantages of their own.
You can buy what you want. I 100% want you to buy an EV if it makes you happy and just ask that the same courtesy be extended to ICE fans. My big gripe is that its totally nonsensical for governments to treat this as a one-size-fits-all problem before EVs have reached parity with ICEs, not that some people like electric cars more.
I am also still waiting on those sub-$60,000 EVs that could keep up with a Nissan Versa on a long road trip and I’m thinking I’ll have to continue waiting a few more years.
@Matt–Agree at the present time a hybrid and a plug-in hybrid make more sense for most people and are more affordable but given some more time in the near future EVs might be more competitive price wise and easier to charge. I ordered a hybrid Maverick which will be delivered mid April and yes it is not a plug in but the base price of 21k including freight makes is competitive with a non-hybrid compact car. Not too long ago there was a much bigger price gap between hybrid and non-hybrid. That could also be true for EVs in the near future. When that happens and along with more infrastructure to support it I along with others will make the change to EVs.
@Matt:
True, you can charge a plug in hybrid at home, but the point of a plug in is fuel economy, and I think the advantage of an EV is the way it drives. I think “it looks cool and goes fast” is a far easier sell than “it’s stingy on gas saves mother Earth” (yes, even now). That’s why Teslas are selling and the Volt is discontinued.
I have long thought that manufacturers are making a mistake selling EVs as a “save the world mobile.” GM and Nissan tried that with the Bolt and Leaf, and neither was much of a sales success. Ford outsold both of them with the Mach E, which wasn’t even available for the entire year.
“but the point of a plug in is fuel economy, and I think the advantage of an EV is the way it drives”
I think you’re selling PHEV performance a little short here. The Crosstrek and Prius Prime aren’t very exciting but the Volvo and Jeep ones are quick in their class and the BMW ones are decent.
“That’s why Teslas are selling and the Volt is discontinued. ”
Well, that and the fact that Volt has the bowtie for a badge, which for many people is money repellent.
Branding, like any strong opinion, is difficult to change. Plus, the Volt was ugly, cramped even in the front seats, had a really small back seat, had a hatch (super popular in the US) and you had to go to a Chevy dealer if you wanted a new one.
I’m no Tesla fan, but sitting in their S or X, it wasn’t hard to slide in, there was plenty of room and it looked kinda cool. Things fall apart when you start picking nits, though.
@ajla:
Good point – I hadn’t thought of vehicles like the Volvos you mention, but then again, Volvos compete in the same market space as Tesla, which is outselling Volvo in the U.S. by about three to one. Seems to me the market has spoken there.
Sooner or later people will wake up to the fact that for almost all driving requirements, 200 miles of range is more than enough.
Tesla is beginning to test these waters with a “low-range” Model Y with 280 miles of range powered using lower density and cheaper (and safer) lithium iron phosphate cells. I believe that the expected “low-cost Tesla” will be accomplished by simply having less battery capacity.
We keep getting caught in the trap of expecting all vehicles to be all things to all people. There is nothing wrong with vehicle specialization in multi-vehicle households. In fact it is already the norm with the pickup or big SUV to haul the boat/camper/mulch. This is no different.
If the battery cost savings from shrinking the requirement to 200 miles can be passed back to the consumer, I believe that this market segment will be the volume leader in EVs that drives mass adoption. Lest the obvious not be so obvious, adopters thereof will have garages and home charging or some other equivalent alternative. However, that’s still a hell of a big market.
We need to get past the absolutism in our discussions and recognize that there are practical ways to achieve 80% of our goals by adopting the most achievable approaches rather than (wishing/saying we will never) find the magic bullet. There is no magic bullet. There are only optimized solutions reached by the confluence of needs, trends, market conditions and available technology as well as public policy.
Suggesting that we have no Nissan Versa equivalent EV completely obscures the point. I, for one, wouldn’t select a Versa as my vehicle of choice for a long road trip. Would you?
@bunkie – If governments get serious about assigning road use taxes in a sensible manner (based on axle weight), then there will be a very real incentive to economize EV range and use of battery materials.
I think a path somewhere between Tesla’s and Mazda’s is appropriate for most consumers.
People who really don’t feel safe without 400 miles of range can spend extra for a Tesla, both at purchase and on yearly road fees.
People who only need 100 miles of range can buy something with a small battery, and save money both at purchase time and on yearly road fees.
This would be a win for consumers, manufacturers, and the planet.
I would like to challenge everyone to name two people that would actually want to DD a Versa?
I hear nice things about the new one, actually. But the old one was horrid.
@FreedMike – Maybe the recent old Versa was horrid, but the old old Versa was pretty nice. Though, built to Nissan quality levels, of course.
If it had a manual and it was just for commuting and for grocery getting a Versa hatch might be alright but not on a long trip. I wouldn’t get one with a CVT though.
That’s kind of my point. There are a ton of people who cannot afford to spend the kind of money required to purchase a competent EV, so they end up in something like a Versa. But is no electric equivalent on the market today and we’re already discussing ICE bans while giving “free” money to people buying luxury cars. Bad mojo.
“name two EVs that cost under $60,000 that offer the same range (per charge) as a $17,000 Nissan Versa on a single tank of gas”
@Matt – That’s not really the challenge. You’ve identified a corner case that applies to you, but not everyone.
I don’t need a car with the same range as a Versa. My $23k EV (after subsidy) has accumulated 40k+ miles in 40 months. Fuel cost is $0.03/mile.
Unless that Versa gets over 100 mpg and requires no maintenance, I’ll be ahead. Even if I’m not precisely ahead on the money, I’ve had a much happier driving and ownership experience.
“I would like to challenge everyone to name two EVs that cost under $60,000 that offer the same range (per charge) as a $17,000 Nissan Versa on a single tank of gas.”
And that’s something I’ve argued from the start and have been called a plethora of names because of it.
It’s a similar to the very simple questions I have surrounding global warming. If man made global warming is real, then three simple questions should be able to be answered:
1. What is the temperature supposed to be?
2. When was the climate “correct”?
3. Set climate change models to 1900 and have it predict what the weather is supposed to be in the preceding years. If it matches weather stats from that time, then it’s a valid model. If not, it’s junk science.
Once again, the problem with EVs is because they are the opposite of LED light bulbs. The reason LED light bulbs took off is because for just a little more money, they offered a much monger life and much cheaper operating costs. All while having no discernable difference in light output. Meanwhile EVs are a major step backward compared to a $17K Nissan Leaf. All while costing an astronomical amount. Current EVs are a massive failure compared to proper ICE vehicles. ICE vehicles embarrass current EVs. How sad is it that a $17K Nissan Leaf absolutely embarrasses a $50K EV? EVs are laughably bad.
Nothing against EVs or ICE vehicles. Listened to a portion of a tech/computer oriented show this past weekend on the radio that I happened across. They tackled the question of the cost difference between EV and ICE and concluded that ‘total cost’ of ownership was not significantly different between the two. I took that with a grain of salt. Do you folks know if that is even close to true? I do not know any of the particulars of what they were comparing to what. As far was switching to an EV, I could barely afford to buy the used 2013 car I purchased in 2019. Now, since my employment situation has changed, I could not even buy that car today in 2022. It’s a non-solution for me at this point in time.
Based on my experience with EVs, I would guestimate the average driver doing 15,000 miles annually (let’s say in a Model 3) would probably spend $500 recharging per year. Your typical combustion vehicle (let’s say the ever popular F-150) would be just under $2,500 in gas per year at today’s prices. Assuming you’re getting them both in their most basic formats and everything else was equal, you’d recoup your initial expenditure on the Tesla after about eight years.
But the outcome would change if fuel prices came back down or we slot in a cheaper automobile with better fuel economy than the F-Series. A $24,000 sedan yielding 30 mpg would have a price advantage over the Model 3 for a full thirteen years. Though that doesn’t take into account maintenance (which is allegedly far less expensive on EVs until you have to do the big battery replacement) or resale values (which have been notoriously unkind to battery electric cars thus far). It also fails to factor in people installing home charging solutions for EVs, the possibility of charging at off-peak hours to save money, whether someone buys a vehicle they can maintain themselves, and dozens of other factors.
Total cost of ownership can be equal. But it’s hardly a given, depends on a myriad of items, and typically takes the majority of a vehicle’s lifespan.
Why would you compare an entry-luxury car like a Model 3 against a bottom-of-market $24,000 car? Either compare the Model 3 against its competition (most likely an Audi A4 or BMW 330i) or pick an EV like a Leaf or Bolt more appropriate for a bottom-of-market comparison.
I picked the most popular models currently on sale in the United States. But I suppose the Leaf would be a solid option for anybody who never ventures far from home and doesn’t care about how fun a vehicle is to drive.
How about you do the part II and tell us how the math works out?
The Leaf Plus has a 215-mile range and retails for roughly $33,000. The base leaf does 150 miles and costs about $28,000.
An apples-to-apples comparison would be vehicles in the same segment that actually compete against each other. That would be a Model 3 against a 3-series, or a Rav4 against an ID.4. In the latter case, a roughly $10k premium from the Rav4 XLE to the ID.4 Pro would be offset by about $2500 in fuel savings each year – by which I mean, the difference in monthly payments is actually less than the ~$200 a month that the Rav4 driver could expect to pay for gas at today’s prices. And of course, that’s not factoring in the tax credit.
OK, let’s do Model 3 against 330i. The 330i xDrive, popularly equipped (Premium 2, heated seats), is around $49k. The Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor, popularly equipped (premium interior, premium paint, no ripoff FSD) is $52k (note: no tax credit). At 28 mpg combined for the 330i, 3 mi/kWh for the Model 3, and $4/10¢ prices, you’re looking at less than 30k miles of driving to make up the purchase price difference.
The math is even more lopsided if you compare the Model 3 Performance against the M340i.
@dal:
28 mpg in a 330i Xdrive? That’s generous. I never got more than 24 around town in my old A3, and that’s a smaller car.
I think the S60 Recharge could make a decent case versus the M3LR. The price is pretty close if you don’t get the $3200 stereo, acceleration is similar, you don’t need to install a L2 charger at home, and you still wouldn’t use fuel in around town trips.
Long-term ownership is where I think PHEVs (especially Volvo’s) raises concern.
I’m just using the EPA combined rating. BMW’s turbo fours have been pretty good in-category on fuel efficiency.
ajla, I’d rather buy a Volvo than a Tesla in general, but I’d also rather NOT hear the Volvo four’s agricultural noise. I’ll wait until the forthcoming group of Volvo pure EVs appears.
“ Why would you compare an entry-luxury car like a Model 3 against a bottom-of-market $24,000 car? ”
It’s called an apples to apples comparison. The model 3 is by no means a luxury car, at one time started at $35k and was hailed as the most affordable EV.
Plus, it’s helpful to show how even a mediocre ICE vehicle is vastly superior to a far more expensive EV. It’s a completely legit comparison. Just because it doesn’t show your government subsidized power wheels in a good light doesn’t mean it’s illegitimate.
Electric adopter here, and quite happy with the way I’m going. My Bolt is working fine for my needs (and that includes a 130 round trip commute to Jamestown Settlement on a fairly regular basis). Next step is to replace my Kia Sedona with a Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid. I need a van for long distance travels (almost invariably historical reenactments with lots of canvas camping gear hauled along), so the plug in hybrid gives me the best of both immediate worlds: EV for around town and ICE for long distance.
The wife’s car is a bit further down the road, but it’s definitely going to be an EV when that time comes. Having lived with my Bolt over the past year, she sorry now that she went ICE six months earlier.
Which should mean that, say five years from now, the only fully-ICE vehicles in the stable will be my motorcycles. And the day someone comes up with an EV Electra Glide equivalent, I’m going to be VERY interested.
Yes, I live in a single family home, and the garages are wired for Level 2 charging. When you’ve got the facilities, you use them. No, I don’t expect the rest of the world to follow my example. I have, however, lost any and all patience for those out there who keep on the tired litany of “EV’s can possibly be practical” or “no matter how good they get, my personal acceptable standard will be at least 5% better.” I get it, they’ll take your Hemi from your cold dead hands . . . . . . . Just quit bitching about the price of gas.
“Underserved urban areas”. Anyone want to compute the probability of being mugged while spending a half hour at a charging station in Chicago, Phillie, NYC, etc? Forget CHAdeMO, and think more about CCW.
It’s always amusing to see internet tough guys wet their pants about how much danger they would be in if they went into the cities where the people they deride as “soy boys” live their day-to-day lives, usually without any incident.
Read the statistics for yourself and tell me all about the lack of incidents. Then explain precisely how pointing out the obvious makes one an “internet tough guy”.
Depends on the precise corner you’re standing on. Cities have crime hotspots that are usually very small and easily avoided.
Where I live is safer than your average suburb. Go to the local informal-bazaar corner about half a mile south, and, yeah, you probably don’t want to stay longer than you need to. But it’s just hilarious when people who haven’t set foot in a city in 20 years act as though everywhere in a city is just like its most problematic corner.
I think jpolicke has finally hit on the way to sell EVs to right wing types: you’ll need more guns to buy one. Booya!
Someone like myself that drives from North Idaho to Arkansas 4-5 a year an EV is impossible! To stop every 250 miles and charge is ridiculous! Yet at home it will probably cost an EV owner to pay $0.08 cents a KW to charge which is cheap yet to stop and quick charge will cost up to $0.43 cents a KW which is basically the price of fuel and the time you have to sit there and wait well I guess bring beer weed a good book idk but it would take twice as long to get to my destination! Plus the fact there isn’t any charging stations Even close enough to get to the next! You can go as green as you want but National security and military vehicles won’t run on electricity and I’m definitely not getting on an electric plane in the future and cargo ships won’t be electric either!
One thing not yet mentioned is the cost and reliability of charging outside the home. I’ve heard horror stories of costs approaching that of gas refills, and being stranded or delayed due to inoperable charging stations.
That would be a big concern for me I have heard about the inoperable charging stations. I’ll wait till they sort that out before I make an EV my main or sole vehicle.
Can we all agree that spending tens of thousands on *any* new vehicle simply to save hundreds on fuel is a poor financial decision?
Buy an EV if you like them, and if you need a new car anyway.
My criteria for EV performance is the same as it’s always been, simply equal the performance (in all areas) of my ICE vehicles in the same situations for the same TCO and I’ll consider switching. Right now nothing is on sale that meets those criteria. I’m hopeful that may change someday, but in the meantime I won’t begrudge anyone buying what they like if they’ll extend me the same courtesy. Not sure why it needs to be any more complicated than that.
“spending tens of thousands on *any* new vehicle simply to save hundreds on fuel is a poor financial decision”
Agreed. EV fuel savings is a very long-term calculation.
1. “Here’s the truth: EVs will likely help move us away from fossil fuels in the long run”
How does this exactly work when 60 percent of the United States is still on Fossil fuels when it comes to electricity generation? How does this work when the world as a whole is on 65-70 percent fossil fuels? EV adoption doesn’t magically make that go away.
2. In many of the price comparisons, everyone is looking at the current price of electricity. What happens when electricity doubles in price when 50 percent of Americans are driving EVs and the electrical grids have to be beefed up for the future of EVs which means electricity per KWh goes up?
3. I’m actually all for EVs. I think Matt’s point is pretty spot on. For 33K we got a CX-5 that will do 0-60 in about 6s. What pure EV compares in price and space at the moment? Sure, the Versa is a terrible example. The leaf is also a poor example because of range. Where is the 400 mile CRV/RAV4 EV being sold for 25-30K?
EVs are much, much more energy efficient than ICE vehicles. This is why MPGe numbers for EVs are typically in the 100 range, while a typical ICE vehicle is more like 30. So even if fossil fuels powered 100% of our electric grid (which they do not), switching from ICE vehicles to BEVs would result in about a two-thirds drop in fossil fuel usage for vehicles.
And while it sounds like VW have lost the plot on infotainment controls, the ID.4 is otherwise pretty competitive with middle-of-the-road CUVs in terms of specs and performance, but cheaper overall if you factor in fuel costs.
I get that. I understand that a Tesla can go 100 miles on 36kwh while a gallon of gas only has 36kwh, and no car is that effecient.
For me and mine personally, its simply the charging time. We drive too many trips to wait to wait for a recharge. Part of that is also that in the South, the only place with lots of charging stations is in big cities.
The ID.4 AFAIK isn’t for sale yet. It’s also the only one that could compete. We need an ID.4 from every company for better adoption.
Unquestionably, whether an EV works for any individual is a question of circumstances. For us, it clearly does: we live in the suburbs in the northeast US megalopolis, basically never drive more than 200 miles at a shot (my commute is eight miles each way), and charge overnight in our garage, meaning that we basically don’t have to worry about range anxiety. If I still lived in California and regularly drove between SF and LA or Vegas, it would be a very different scenario.
@Daniel J: The ID4 has been on US roads for a year. Cars.com shows 500 available for sale right now.
@Daniel J:
A point about power generation: You get economies of scale at the plant that cannot be matched at home. This is why most people don’t generate their own power. Backup generators are frightfully expensive to operate, for example.
Absolutely none of my fellow liberal pundits believe that buying EVs now will have any effect on gas prices in the short term. For us, it is, mostly, about the long term view. For the last two years, we had been planning an EV as our next vehicle to be acquired in February of 2023. Circumstances have thrown a wrench in that plan. Instead, I will lobby to keep our current car beyond its warranty period despite it’s fuel appetite (about 17 mpg around town). This is an easy decision as we now drive only about 250 miles per month and, frankly, the run up in fuel prices have a much smaller effect with such a low number of miles driven.
Fuel prices will drop. And, I believe, they will fall sooner than most people think because, despite what the other side may believe, liberals, often, do understand market forces. The oil producers of the world will quickly readjust and get in on the cash grab made possible by higher prices. I predict that China will strong arm Russia into a sweetheart deal for its oil, becoming an exclusive customer and will source much less from global markets, which will put intense downward pressure on price. It will take a while, but ot won’t take forever.
What I hope to come out of this is that the increased interest in EVs will drive quickened acceptance resulting in more investment in both green electricity production and build out of the needed charging infrastructure.
I have now driven through three complete and one ongoing “gas crisis”. They always end. The dead hand always wins.
@bunkie:
Agreed 100% – these “crises” are manufactured. Case in point: gas prices are up 30% based on what…30% less gas produced? 30% less oil produced? Give me a break.
As long as the energy market is based on “commodities,” this is the kind of BS we will have to deal with. The producers know this, have gamed it so they can maximize profits, and have paid our elected officials off to ensure the game goes on and on. Meanwhile, you can’t commoditize the sun, or wind, or (once fusion is feasible) hydrogen. Is it accidental that the producers, and their on-the-payroll elected representatives in the GOP go DEFCON 1 over the idea of switching to renewables? Of course not – it threatens their business model.
Freed – I agree with what you are saying – oil has been a commodity toyed with by speculators for most of a century. I would qualify this with the political players in the game are of all political stripes and are mostly not US folks – this is and has been an international game (re: 1973).
@bullnuke:
If I owned my own home, I’d install solar panels, go EV and tell them all to kiss my ample Jewish behind.
I have been driving a phev for 4 years. Frist a 2018 Prius Prime and now a 2021 ford escape phev. I do a 2500 mile round trip once a year. Averaged 90 mpg on the prius for 32,000 miles. Ford is at 67mpg for first 5300 miles, which includes 2500 hev miles.
Prius Prime my net cost was 22,500.
Ford escape my net cost was 25,000.
If you want to be a positive force in gaining our independence from ff
there are affordable options.
tonyd Great post. Could you elaborate? Specifically how much all electric range you see at various temps. Thanks Also curious why the switch from the Prius to the Ford?
Range for the escape is 37 epa. I see from 32 (temps in the 30’s) to 44 (temps in the 70’s). I have the base SE so no seat heaters. It does not have a heat pump so I put on gloves and a hat rather than use the heater when my wife is not in the car.
I moved to the escape for more cargo capacity,easier entry/exit, and more electric range. The 25 miles on the prius did not get me home from work some times.
Thanks tonyd