Cost of Electric vs Cost of Gas - where is the break even point

I have free charging at home and at work, so I'm plugging in twice a day. Averaging at 68-70mpg daily with a 115mi daily work commute. Before free charging at work, I was averaging 59-60mpg. I suppose I'm saving, but for the OP, being able to do a quick trip on all electric without warming up is one of the nice benefits I enjoy. That and being able to plug in for free from time to time on public charging stations which I do on weekends while on errands. Some weekends, I drive 40mi and didn't spark up the ICE once. That makes me happy. lol

 

I still like to keep it charged.. at least I notice a bit more power when merging onto on ramps with a charged battery.

 

I would like to buy a Prius and am doing a pre-purchase investigation. I drive about 25 miles per day in the city so the electric capability of the Prius would be perfect for me. Gasoline prices are at $2.70/gal and electricity is about 21 c per kWh. My objectives are to reduce my CO2 footprint and environmental harm and to save some money. I looked at the CO2 footprint and environmental harm of manufacturing a Prius, the batteries, and using electricity compared to use of an ICE. There are some good articles on the net discussing each of these and makes me think twice about the reduction in CO2 footprint and environmental harm of buying and operating the Prius. Solar panels used to generate electricity, for instance, may be produced in countries using coal-fired energy and where toxic waste products may be discharged to the soil, groundwater, and/or ocean. Some of the posts have offered ways to save money such as using electricity that is paid by others. I guess if the others were aware of my use of their electrical power and didn't mind me tapping into it for free than it would be okay; otherwise I would feel obligated to pay the costs. I wonder what others think about the real CO2 footprint?

 

whatever they are, how could they be as bad as oil? you have to be careful about internet sources, and who is paying for what.
the general scientific consensus, (like climate change) is that renewables are the future, and as they are developing, less damaging ways will be discovered to produce energy.
with oil, it's never going to get better, and continues to get worse.

 

I agree that it will only get better. My electric company generates power using 96% natural gas and 4% wind and the current plan is to double the wind capacity so there is hope.

 

cali renewables increase in percentage every year. it is possible for states that aren't under the spell of the oil lobbyists.

 

I think we have to rely on each individual to lower energy consumption and not the government whose members can be influenced by lobbyists' $$ and do not always make decisions based on what is correct for the future. We have lots of natural gas here in Alaska and, unfortunately, a lack of sunshine; therefore, we look to the winds and there has been some interest in tidal power. The winds are favorable but the best locations for wind turbines are also frequented by migratory birds. I did a field study near Barstow back in the early 80s and thought that the solar energy plant there would be ideal for generating electricity in areas with sunshine. There are a number of ways to lower energy consumption either now, voluntarily, or in the future when population increases require mandatory cutbacks. I am hopeful that renewable energy resources will become so efficient that the entire world may live at the same standard of living as the middle class in the US and not cause detrimental effects to the biosphere. Maybe for my grand kids.

 

You can also offset the price of electricity by using less of it at home. I have power strips in all the rooms and all the appliances that have a parasitic draw are plugged into them, so when no one is using any of them, the strip is shut off. You can also use LED bulbs, products that have the Energy Star, etc..

 

I am hopeful that renewable energy resources will become so efficient that the entire world may live at the same standard of living as the middle class in the US and not cause detrimental effects to the biosphere.

I must say, THAT may be second biggest "hopeful" I've ever heard. Right behind world peace. When population increase is outpacing resources, I doubt it matters how efficient energy production becomes.

On another note, I used to hate getting my electric bill, seeing ~14 cents per kwh. I feel much better now after this thread.

 

i'll see your 14 cents, and raise you 10!

 

i don't think personal responsibility is going to cut it. everyone in the world is clamoring for a better living standard, no matter how they live now. we live and die by the nature of government, for better or for worse.

 

A very big hopeful, I will agree. World "peace" is likely to be attainable this century at the rate we are going. Read or listen to the short novel "Ten Billion" by Stephen Emmott which should be obtainable from your local digital library and you know from what perspective I mean. I still would like to have a Prius as well as solar panels on my house roof to produce enough electricity from the little sun we get here in Alaska to power my car on a renewable resource during my daily travels in the city.

 

Gas price is only one factor in the comparison cost. For example, in the state of Virginia, emissions testing is required every two years for vehicles... except Prius and some other hybrids. That $28 alone over the course of 14 years has saved me $196. Add to the fact that I drive in HOV lanes to/from work each day, which in many cases halves the amount of time it takes. Let's not forget that $7,500 tax deduction for buying a hybrid vehicle! If you consider that I use a plug-in, and generally get over 75 mpg each day, it's starting to look like straight gas isn't such a good deal after all...

The "added price" is basically a myth. Hybrid cars cost generally the same or less than other comparable models of the same size with the exact same features. Most comparisons will take a compact car without all the standard Prius extras and try to make a comparison price. Not only does the gas car not have those features, it doesn't get the mileage either...

 

The federal tax credit for the Prius Prime is $4,502. Google 30d-new-qualified-plug-in-electric-drive-motor-vehicles-toyota-motor-sales-usa-inc. The federal tax credit for a solar panel system on my house roof is 30%. A 12-solar panel system will provide enough electricity, about 500 kWh of AC energy, here in Alaska during June. the cost, including installation, is about $15,000; so about $5,000 tax credit. This is more than I need now but approximately the amount I would use by plugging in the Prime nightly for 8 hours. The electric company only buys excess electricity the solar panel system produces at 4 cents per kWh so it is not feasible to build a larger system.

 

You both list NY. Is your electricity more expensive than in Hawaii, the state normally listed as the most expensive?

Re: CO2 footprint:

Coal is worse than oil.

Though, peat and non-sustainably-harvested wood can be even a bit worse than some coals. But neither is heavily used for electricity.

 

Yes! This.

It's not about saving money. If it was, only the Prius TWO would sell. Because you can never get payback for the cost of the FOUR with saved gasoline cost. But, when you buy the TWO you get a real payback if you keep the car long enough.

 

Southern California Edison keeps our rates low. But they charge fees. But the rates are low. Fees aren't real money, ya know.

 

same here, there are 6 or 7 line items on the bill. electrons themselves are only 8 or 9 cents. looks great until you see the amount you have to write the check for.
half the problem is that the major boston supplier keeps getting sold to a larger conglomerate, and each time, they lump on another fee to pay the debt.

 

Apple computers can be cost analyzed the same way. That why, "I don't frequently buy computers, but when I do, I buy Macintosh."