Featured Real-World Electric Vehicle Fueling Costs May Surprise New EV Drivers

Maybe that depends on where people live. In the areas that we reside - pickups, vans & SUVs are over 80% of the traffic. That's a significant contingent of people that have little desire to even contemplate 40 MPG.
.

 

According to the graph at Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - U.S. HEV Sales by Model , the HEVs took a hit as Tesla siphoned off some of the sales but HEV sales are climbing again too. As of 2019 there were 220 HEV and alternative fuel models available. There were 400,000 HEVs sold in the USA in 2019 and that's a healthy number of hybrids.

 

It blows me away how many of those models on that chart have been done away with. Some of them quite efficient. The Prius C & v come to mind. Lexus too. The entire division, Saturn, done away with. So much for, "know your audience".
.

 

The Taycan Turbo S is the only BEV literally using twice the energy of a PP in EV. A comparable ICE model(performance and price tag ~$200k) from Porsche is rated 17mpg combined. There are less efficient PHEVs available that don't do much better on gas than the non-hybrids. These are all high end, very expensive cars, that sell in low numbers. Your double the energy used is a strawman when looking at the real world.

Of the more pedestrian brands of BEVs, the Mach-E GT Performance is the least efficient. Compared to the PP's 133mpge, its 82mpge is like 34mpg in an ICE to 55mpg. That spread is around that of a Prius to a Rav4. The hybrid Rav4 would do better, but 34mpg is still much better than the US fleet average.

Tell someone choosing efficiency within their means and needs isn't good enough, and they might just say **** it next time.

That 400k is still only 2.0% to 2.1% of new car sales in the US. At the Prius' peak, they were over 3%. Plug ins have already beaten hybrids in market share for some months. As pointed, the issue is on the supply side, not demand for their growth rate.

Hybrids get a sales boost with increased gas prices. Which will also increase demand for plug ins.

I don't think they need convincing. Rivian just stared making deliveries, so are just starting to fill reservations. Ford stopped taking reservations for the F150 Lightning when the number neared 200k, because they aren't ready to make such numbers even when production starts. The Cybertruck also has a long reservation list despite its weirdness.

Those older vehicles are also a major source of other emissions for the car segment. A serious push to lower emissions will also include programs for getting them off the road.

 

It's not a strawman so much as it's simply put forth as a number that's easy for people to understand. The BEV industry appears to have taken a page from the muscle cars of the 60s. In the 60s they put huge engines with huge gas tanks to provide sufficient range for huge, heavy sedans. The BEV equivalent is to make SUVs with huge batteries to deliver usable range, and use oversized motors to make them "sporty".

Back in the 1970s the oil embargo taught the American buyer that a Datsun with a 1.2 liter engine was quite drivable for the average commuter or even for a family of 4. At some point in the near future the same realization will hit with regard to overbuilt BEVs. I would not be surprised to see something like the CAFE for BEVs to require a reasonable efficiency measured in a reasonable manner.

 

Outside California we need to be very careful not to repeat cash for clunkers

Most of the folks I know who took advantage traded a Geo Metro or some other economy car for some gigantic hulk.

I would argue such a program should be written specifically to block economy classes from being junked and on the other side only allow specific vehicles (preferably just efficient cars) to get the deal.

The folks who can afford a land barge or super car, can afford to pay in full.

Even with all these restrictions I don’t think we need to worry about antiques they age out all on their own.

 

Antiques and collectibles aren't driven many miles. Plenty of cars built to less stringent emission regulations are being used as daily drivers. Our gasoline blends were formulated for the few carbureted cars that are still being driven. Blends for modern engines could mean better emissions and efficiency in those cars, but worse in the older ones.

Any incentive needs to be carefully written. Cash for Clunkers wasn't the only one with problems. The original US one for flexfuel and EU one PHEVs didn't contain anything for people to actually use the alternate fuel.

 

My 10 year old Volt is considered a relic despite the sealed gas tank and mostly electric driving

My 22 year old Honda Insight can have Antique/Collector plates and could get junked under legislation as you describe which would also be a bad idea, especially in a rural area

Older daily drivers, crash, rust and break down fast enough that they will be mostly gone in a decade.

Forcing them off the road nationwide will plug up our car crushers / exporters

Our focus at this point should be on the commercial and stationary sources, like the clean refineries that spill more pollution In the real world than they emit out the tailpipe

We should also explore the fact that pumping exhaust through an adequately sized ground diffusion loop from say a normal home sized water heater or furnace seems to eliminate the majority of pollution continuously for decades in “most” climates.

As long as you don’t get ground spouts smaller emission sources can be mostly sequestered in soil by Bacteria, fungal/mold and plants.

People who insist on destroying the environment by fertilization and pest sprays would find they don’t need these things.

There are many possibilities but we have to have the willpower to $$$$ for them.

 

I never suggested laws to force old cars off the road, and scrapped. Just an incentive program for owners to get rid of the inefficient and dirty ones. We can learn from past laws to improve it. I wouldn't classify a Volt or Insight as inefficient or polluting, but if it somehow happen, you'd be free to keep them.

If all new car sales this year are hybrids and plug-ins, it can take over 19 years for them to reach 90% of the US fleet. Incentives to buy a hybrid or plug in help shift new cars sales to those types of cars, but don't help in speeding up the turn over of the fleet. Even with a nice discount from the government, a new car is still a substantial amount of cash.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf4d2#erlaaf4d2s1

 

F150 Lightning pricing announced; $40k to over $90k before destination.
Ford F-150 Lightning Pricing Announced
Without delving into feature specifics, it starts at $10k more than the ICE model, before the federal tax credit.

 

This article got more of my attention than the $100,000+ electric pickup:

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/01/chevy-blazer-ev-and-equinox-ev-crossovers-to-arrive-in-2023/

 

I don't really like the term clunkers, and California's mandate will probably keep more inefficient distilled oil only vehicles on the road longer than no mandate. I would look at around 30 years to get the bulk of inefficient vehicles off the road. We are just at the knee of the curve for plug-ins, this should get investment up even with no government incentives.

I would not call it syphoning off if sales are rising because of plug-in technology. Toyota reported their US results earlier this week.
Toyota Motor North America Reports U.S. December, Year-End 2021 Sales - Toyota USA Newsroom
Crunching the numbers traditional Toyota/Lexus hybrids grew 66% compared to a year ago to 528K, phevs grew 195% from a year ago to 53K. The prius liftback was only 6.5% of toyota/lexus hybrid sales. The big hybrid gains were in the new Sienna and Venza, with these and the rav4 and highlander hybrid greatly outselling the prius hybrid and all beating the prius + prius prime combined. PHEV sales would have increased more but toyota could not make enough rav4 primes to satisfy demand, and they don't have phev versions of those 3 other vehicles.

 

That assertion about keeping inefficient cars on the road longer is almost impossible to prove/disprove. There is a relatively new mechanism in play; The California governor is making new regulations, such as that mandate, by executive order. It would not be too great a stretch for a governor issue a mandate that would cripple the gas delivery system. It could be done as simply as requiring a monthly test and certification of every gas pump when there are only enough inspectors to certify one out of every 3. That would force a lot of gas stations out of business, leaving us with 1/3rd the number of stations.

Of course, there could simply be a properly crafted law that declared vehicles above a certain pollution level as not licensable. We have that law in place already, but the law allows pretty dirty exhaust. However, if you can't register your 19 mpg SUV it will have to be retrofitted**, sold out of state or recycled.

I suspect that as time goes on, we will find ourselves using a model more like Japan. They have embraced the idea of city cars as well as mass transit for longer travel. Here in the USA many people would do fine with small, low speed cars with a limited range. Of course, this might require changing our lifestyles a little. Working and playing locally would be a good idea.

 

Followup... City cars are short range low speed cars designed for use in urban areas. Being low speed, these cars generally fall under more lenient safety regulations. Most city cars are restricted to roads that have a speed limit less than 40 MPH.

There are cities in the US that are set up to allow free access to these low speed cars, but not many. My city, for example, is criss-crossed by storm control channels. The only way to cross these channels are using roads with a 45 MPH speed limit. A city car is not feasible in my area.

 

It is a prediction not an assertion. It is based on reactions to such regulations in the past, and the predictable unintended consequences of the regulations. I'm sure if you shut down 2/3 of gas stations they would be a hardship in rural parts of the state and wealthy areas would not change. I doubt it would do much other than make people wait longer or drive further for gasoline.

We have a couple of things going on here. Absolutely agree that to get the unhealthy exhaust removed california can easily do it on inspections. The state has loopholes to keep many of these cars on the road. For the inefficient but low unhealthy pollution vehicles ghg is a global not local effect. Moving the vehicles from california to other states or mexico would not drop co2 or methane global warming gasses at all.

You do realize that that will only happen if the government forces it. People are choosing better accelerating and more comfortable vehicles. Prius family of cars sales have dropped significantly versus their peak a decade ago. City gasoline cars are much less efficient than bevs. PHEVs from VW, BMW, and Toyota sales seem to be a choice many will make if the companies build enough cars.

Compare Side-by-Side


Most effective way to reduce inefficient vehicles is to raise the gas tax, but the government will not do that. It has actually declined adjusted for inflation in most states. Mandating that people can't buy a new SUV will just mean they keep their older ones longer.

 

Raising the gas tax has a short term impact. Even with the increase of gas taxes in California, I've not heard anyone saying that they will get a job closer to home in lieu of the 50 mile commute to Silicon valley. After the first few months people tend to forget that the tax is even there.

It's much more effective to regulate heavy polluters out of existence, especially when those regulations can be created via fiat instead of through political negotiations. The proclamations can be focused tightly; the legislation is a series of compromises.

It's interesting that when the subject of citycars came up the first knee jerk response was that "City gasoline cars are much less efficient than bevs.". There is no reason that a citycar would be need to be gas powered. Given a small, lightweight car with a small battery pack and 30 mile range, virtually all daily use could be covered. The 7 kWh battery in my car would move a 1000 lb citycar quite well.

 

The cost of getting a closer job, or moving closer to work, is higher than the gas tax in those cases.

Shame we live in a democracy then.

If living in a city, why go through the trouble of car ownership or access for a city car when public transit meets most needs?

Tiny cars are not new to the US. They were very unpopular. The ones that could truly be called city cars are no longer available. The slightly bigger ones, like the Spark and Mirage, could have been had for quite cheap. Most car buyers opted for something bigger. Considering the cost of car ownership, they wanted more versatility from their rides.

Nothing wrong with the concept of city cars, but the US doesn't have factors, like narrow roads in Europe, to encourage their sale. We'd probably need to ban full size cars from city centers, and possibility of that may not be more likely than making the city a walking one.