13 ms·

It May Not Cost You More to Drive Home in a Climate-Friendly Car

42 points by af16090 10y ago

Roodgorf 10y ago
Is there much research on how information like this actually affects consumer decisions? It looks good on paper, but the up-front cost is still generally much higher than higher-emission vehicles. My impression is that people will generally ignore these long-term benefits in favor of the more immediate reward of a lower investment at the start, but perhaps that coupled with the environmental factors could sway more minds than usual in this case?
- Retric 10y ago
  There is always a trade-off. Passive solar heating is a vastly better investment in terms of environmental impact. Even home solar panels is a better investment than this in terms of environmental impact. I remember running the numbers and while I was walking to work and basically never driving keeping an ancient sub 25MPG in the city car was both much cheaper and actually better for the environment than buying a Prius. Note this was at ~1-3k miles driven per year. So, my guess is it might have some small impact at the margins. But, mostly in convincing people to do something they where thinking of doing anyway.
  - Decade 10y ago
    The environment is not just total carbon emissions. It is also where you burn fossil fuels. This is why I'm so enthusiastic about Uber and Lyft in cities: The drivers have an incentive to use well-maintained vehicles instead of smoggy clunkers. If I can smell your exhaust, then you are doing something wrong. The built environment also includes roads. Fuel-efficient cars pay less gas tax, and most are lighter than gas-guzzlers, but long-range electrics like the Teslas are monster road destroyers that pay nothing to road maintenance. I'm not arguing for fuel-wasting vehicles, though; I think people should be using cars far less. Congestion charge or something.
    - Retric 10y ago
      VA has fairly good emission tests every two years which keeps the old clunker pollution down. Without those I can see the temptation to let things slip a little. At the time I would go weeks without driving / riding in a car. This was really for weekend trips where Uber is not really an option or once a month going for heavy things like water I did not want to carry home. I looked into car sharing services, but at the time there was no good ones in my area.
    - Roodgorf 10y ago
      I do think there need to be significant changes to how road maintenance is subsidized, especially in the wake of more fuel efficient and even fuel-less vehicles. I think I've seen a similar concern in regards to bicyclists that I haven't seen a great solution for yet. But I was wondering what exactly you meant by "Teslas are monster road destroyers"? This is the first I've heard this sentiment. Do you mean that they are so heavy they do more damage than most cars, or just that they are not paying towards roadwork, thereby doing more net damage than gas vehicles?
      - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
        To your point, in Washington state electric car owners pay $100 a year extra tax to cover road use, since we don't buy gas, and that's how most road work is funded. $100 is actually a high bill, it worked out to about 20k miles of driving. This problem of increasing fuel efficiency is already hurting the ability of states of pay for their road work. I think the inevitable change is either paying a fee like ev do already per year, or paying based on mileage (and the usual argument of I wasn't even in the state most of the year).
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  A standardised "carbon rating," analogous to the single-number MPG metric, would be helpful.
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    like this? https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-rating https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-rating
- miahi 10y ago
  For me (bought a new "normal" car recently) the main reason against an electric/plug-in hybrid vehicle was that I did not have an easy solution to charge it (apartment with parking nearby but no charging infrastructure). The second reason was upfront cost. The third reason was unknown maintenance costs when the battery gives up (I usually keep a car for more than a few years).
  - Decade 10y ago
    So instead of known lower maintenance costs with unknown high cost in the future, especially given the Tesla Gigafactory, you chose known high maintenance costs (brakes, oil, transmission) and less certain future fuel costs. Charging is an issue. However, I don't personally know any plug-in hybrid that is actually plugged in at night. They still get the government subsidies, and they can plug in at certain mall parking lots or appropriately equipped parking garages, but I think they're mostly driven as normal vehicles. That use brake pads and low-RPM gearing less than normal vehicles.
    - shortstuffsushi 10y ago
      Perhaps unrelated, but is the Tesla Gigafactory intending to produce "competitor" batteries, or are you assuming that GP was only looking at Tesla's? If the GP didn't get a Tesla, how would their factory be of use to him? (Actual question, not sure if there is an implication that the new factory will drive down prices for everyone). Also, unless GP lives in an area where those sorts of garages are available, at least in the near term, they won't have anywhere to charge, which seems a fair argument against purchase. For instance, I live in south-eastern Wisconsin, and while there are charging stations within driving distance, there aren't any that would be convenient on my way to or from work, and I couldn't simply leave it at one and walk to work (or bus, because we don't do public transit here). Known costs are known, less of a risk. It's easy enough to buy a new EV car if the other factors here are resolved, but I don't think it's unfair to say too many issues are up in the air at this point.
      - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  I'm not sure of the research, but I think your impression is correct to a point. I think for lower-income buyers, the initial cost is prohibitive - even with long-term savings and benefits. And I'm guessing some banks would hesitate to give the extra loan money as well if you don't have the income to support it. It is kind of like buying a decent pair of shoes. If you are working retail, it muchly benefits you to buy good shoes. But you have to save for those shoes because of income limitations: If your current shoes wear out before you can buy new ones, you get sucked further into a cycle of cheap new shoes. It really doesn't matter if you get long-term benefits or have a great desire to be environmentally friendly if you can't afford to do so. I think once we have a decent used car market with them and the price comes down to soemthing on par with higher-emission vehicles, there will be a much larger change.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- bonniemuffin 10y ago
  It looks like the lower left corner of the standard gasoline cars are both (1) cheap little subcompacts (Ford Fiesta, Honda Fit, Nissan Versa), and (2) pretty close to the 2030 target. That seems like the sweet spot for the budget car buyer who can't afford a hybrid. If you haven't noticed the hover-able version of the chart where you can see what each dot is, it's here: http://carboncounter.com/ http://carboncounter.com/
hnal943 10y ago
What's missing from the article is an analysis of the break-even point. How long do you have to own your hybrid before the high initial cost pays off? There's also the problem that there are not "climate-friendly" equivalents for many vehicles. The article mentions the Chevy Suburban; there's no electric option that big. Obviously big SUVs are going to be more expensive to operate than sedans, which makes me wonder if they are even comparing apples to apples here.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  When I did the calculations a few years ago on the Toyota Camry vs the Camry Hybrid, the payout on a cash-basis was over 100K miles, assuming 2/3 highway, 1/3 city. (That means the NPV payout is even longer.)
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  The model x is the closest to a suburban, 3 rows of seats are available, it can tow.
  - hnal943 10y ago
    I think you're right. I also think that if you told a suburban owner that they should trade for the Model X, they would laugh.
droro 10y ago
I had more questions about the specific parameters they were using, so I followed the link (http://carboncounter.com/ http://carboncounter.com/) in the article and checked out the "Customize" tab. Pretty sweet.
rusbus 10y ago
Anecdotally: I wanted the cheapest possible new car for commuting around the Bay Area. After some research, I found the Spark EV for only $60/month after rebates. With insurance it's only$5/day. I assumed electric cars were defacto expensive until I actually researched it. No idea why more people don't pick up these cars. (Probably because it only goes 80 miles)
- mason240 10y ago
  >(Probably because it only goes 80 miles) Which for the majority of 2 car households is all you need for the second car.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    Quite true, and since its cheaper to operate it will usually be the primary car, with the secondary car only used for longer trips.
  - smoyer 10y ago
    I drive my car (our designated second car) an average of just 12 miles per day. Fuel economy is an extremely low priority since it's dwarfed by other costs. Reliability is my number one priority - if I don't have to pay to repair it very often, it will still be in the driveway for another 15 years (yes - it's 15 years old and has close to 200k miles on it). At this point, I'm also saving the environment by keeping it out of the junkyard. EDIT: I should also mention that when the wind is favorable, it's also responsible for towing my yacht to the water - something a small plugin hybrid will never do.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  Well if you rent you can't really buy an electric vehicle, because where will you charge it?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Some places offer charging in their attached parking. Some workplaces offer charging as well, so you can charge there during the day, and leave it unplugged at night. Neither one is commonly available (yet?) though.
kevinpet 10y ago
I thought that they would have overlooked taxes. In fact, I can't see how this is anything other than stacking the deck: "Each vehicle’s price is based on its official manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) without tax. In addition, we evaluate the impact of federal tax refunds on the lifecycle costs of PHEVs, BEVs, and FCVs. The federal refund scales with the capacity of the battery up to a maximum value of $7500.45 Finally, we inspect the added effect of a best-case state tax refund. Assessed for the case of California, this contributes $1500 for PHEVs, $2500 for BEVs, and $5000 for FCVs.46 Some other states have similar programs, but they were not analyzed in detail." In California, sales and license taxes are about 18% of purchase price (half up front, half over the next 11 years). But they've chosen to take California for the rebate, but not include higher taxes on the purchase price (hybrids have higher purchase price but lower operating costs). Similarly a caption on one of the charts. "(d) a BEV-friendly energy price scenario, using average inflation-adjusted prices from Washington State in 2012 ($3.88/gal for gasoline and $0.086/kWh for electricity) and combined federal and state (CA) tax refunds." This analysis is cherry picking pieces of the equation from different scenarios, and so paints a more rosy picture of the cost of alternative energy than any single consumer could possibly have faced. I don't doubt that electric cars will get there, but saying they are there now is a lie.
groundhogday1 10y ago
I think if climate friendly options were available in more chassis options and body styles, people would adopt them faster. I think people want to do the 'right' thing in switching to an EV/hybrid option, but there isn't a climate friendly, cost effective pickup/SUV option available. Tesla has the right idea in offering a low cost EV option that doesn't look stupid with the Model 3. If there were Camry/Corolla and Accord/Civic EV options with the same off-the-lot price tag and same exact body style available, I think we would see more widespread adoption. Additionally, if we were to see more electric utility vehicle options available with body styles identical to the gasoline powered ones we see on the road today, I believe that would capture another large swath of consumers. Of course, this hinges on the manufacturers to offer these options in spite of their gasoline producer friends urging them not to.
- treehau5 10y ago
  For fun -- you can almost get the "MPGe" equivalent of a Tesla S in a Geo Metro or Honda CRX http://jalopnik.com/5558345/how-to-get-997-mpg-from-a-geo-metro http://jalopnik.com/5558345/how-to-get-997-mpg-from-a-geo-me...
mbroshi 10y ago
Can I ask a couple of naive questions (I'm not very well informed on these issues): 1. Since electric cars may well be powered by coal, not gasoline, might they not be more heavily emitting? 2. Does the environmental impact of creating and disposing all the batteries in electric cars counterbalance any emission gains?
- dmoy 10y ago
  1. Possibly, but typically not. A huge power plant is generally much more efficient and less emitting per watt than a tiny internal combustion engine. (Depends on the power plant...) 2. No idea sorry.
- Retric 10y ago
  1a.) Car engines are far less efficient and more polluting because they need to be portable, compact, and quickly operate over a wide power range. 1b.) Coal + Natural gas is generally less than 50% of electricity generation. 1c.) Oil takes a lot more effort to get to your car than coal does to a power plant combined with electricity transmission and storage. This indirect effect is huge. Net effect, gas cars create a lot more pollution per mile. 2) To some degree, however batteries can also be recycled.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  EVs are still better taking both these issues (and some others that aren't immediately obvious) into account: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-... Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave "Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner." "We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for."
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    According to the graph in the OP, battery-powered EVs have roughly 1/2 the lifecycle emissions. That's certainly lower and a good thing, but not a fundamental change given what needs to be done. I'd have to do the math, but it would seem that the switch from gas to electric is roughly as beneficial as the past switch from carburetors to fuel injection. It looks incremental rather than revolutionary. And I think there is much improvement to be made. These numbers are American cars, so I assume they aren't diesel and are for generally larger cars than in europe. Has a diesel-electric hybrid ever been sold in the US?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gagmaker 10y ago
if one concerns about 'climate', he should learn there is no such thing as a 'climate friendly car'
dominotw 10y ago
I live in a city and park my car on the street. How am I supposed to charge it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  You are what they call "high hanging fruit". People like you won't be part of the equation until deeper into the adoption curve. But the answer is: your car will charge itself somewhere and drive itself to you.
  - ocb 10y ago
    Not saying that won't happen eventually, but it seems a lot more likely to me that on-street public charging facilities will proliferate as EVs gain popularity.
    - erikpukinskis 10y ago
      There will be some, but car ownership will collapse as soon as it becomes more expensive per mile than being driven around by the Uber/Tesla/Google fleets. And it'll be much easier politically and financially to replace your car with a fleet than to get new infrastructure installed in cities. It will happen in specific places (Portland, Helsinki, etc) but I think the adoption curve of street charging will be dwarfed by the adoption of self-driving cabs by 2025. Self-driving cabs don't have to be allowed everywhere for that to happen, they just have to be allowed in more places than there are electric street charging infrastructure projects.
  - bhhaskin 10y ago
    Only issue there is it will more than likely no longer be "your" car, but a paid service like Uber.
vkjv 10y ago
sigh Another one of these that focus on new cars. Most fiscally minded people, like myself, exclusively drive used cars. Even a lightly used model that is only a couple of years old is significantly cheaper than a new car. As I get more environmentally conscientious, here's what I really want to know: What is better for the environment manufacturing a branch new EV and driving it around for 5 years or picking up an existing junker that's going to be scrapped and doing the same.
- heygrady 10y ago
  Get a used EV! The Nissan Leaf is highly recommended as a used car. We have to build new ones -- and sell them -- before there are used ones available. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098554_should-i-buy-a-used-nissan-leaf-or-another-electric-car http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098554_should-i-buy-a-u...
  - vkjv 10y ago
    Interesting, I had assumed that EVs maintain their value better, but this link says the opposite. I'll have to check it out. Thanks!
    - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
      Tesla have held their value better because there was a shortage, but increasing supply and competition / availability of other models is putting downward pressure on used prices. But all these cars have advancing technology. My view is buying a slightly more expensive electric car today is jumpstarting the future for other people. And if you prefer, you can buy a very cheap used ev today - if doing so, the key thing is to figure out if the car has reduced range. Teslas don't generally have a problem with this because they cool the battery pack when recharging, not other cars do that.
    - emp_zealoth 10y ago
      You literally wreck the most expensive part of the car a little every time you drive it for more than a few miles - the battery pack! If you only trickle charge it to 80%, dont get it below 30%-20%, the pixies in the pack will stay happy and stick around. Drive hard and long, charge fast and the thing deteriorates. The worse it gets the quicker it deteriorates. So a used car you bought for 7k might be worth 0 in 2 or 4 years...

42 points by af16090 10y ago

Is there much research on how information like this actually affects consumer decisions? It looks good on paper, but the up-front cost is still generally much higher than higher-emission vehicles. My impression is that people will generally ignore these long-term benefits in favor of the more immediate reward of a lower investment at the start, but perhaps that coupled with the environmental factors could sway more minds than usual in this case?

Retric 10y ago
There is always a trade-off. Passive solar heating is a vastly better investment in terms of environmental impact. Even home solar panels is a better investment than this in terms of environmental impact. I remember running the numbers and while I was walking to work and basically never driving keeping an ancient sub 25MPG in the city car was both much cheaper and actually better for the environment than buying a Prius. Note this was at ~1-3k miles driven per year. So, my guess is it might have some small impact at the margins. But, mostly in convincing people to do something they where thinking of doing anyway.
- Decade 10y ago
  The environment is not just total carbon emissions. It is also where you burn fossil fuels. This is why I'm so enthusiastic about Uber and Lyft in cities: The drivers have an incentive to use well-maintained vehicles instead of smoggy clunkers. If I can smell your exhaust, then you are doing something wrong. The built environment also includes roads. Fuel-efficient cars pay less gas tax, and most are lighter than gas-guzzlers, but long-range electrics like the Teslas are monster road destroyers that pay nothing to road maintenance. I'm not arguing for fuel-wasting vehicles, though; I think people should be using cars far less. Congestion charge or something.
  - Retric 10y ago
    VA has fairly good emission tests every two years which keeps the old clunker pollution down. Without those I can see the temptation to let things slip a little. At the time I would go weeks without driving / riding in a car. This was really for weekend trips where Uber is not really an option or once a month going for heavy things like water I did not want to carry home. I looked into car sharing services, but at the time there was no good ones in my area.
  - Roodgorf 10y ago
    I do think there need to be significant changes to how road maintenance is subsidized, especially in the wake of more fuel efficient and even fuel-less vehicles. I think I've seen a similar concern in regards to bicyclists that I haven't seen a great solution for yet. But I was wondering what exactly you meant by "Teslas are monster road destroyers"? This is the first I've heard this sentiment. Do you mean that they are so heavy they do more damage than most cars, or just that they are not paying towards roadwork, thereby doing more net damage than gas vehicles?
    - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
      To your point, in Washington state electric car owners pay $100 a year extra tax to cover road use, since we don't buy gas, and that's how most road work is funded. $100 is actually a high bill, it worked out to about 20k miles of driving. This problem of increasing fuel efficiency is already hurting the ability of states of pay for their road work. I think the inevitable change is either paying a fee like ev do already per year, or paying based on mileage (and the usual argument of I wasn't even in the state most of the year).
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
A standardised "carbon rating," analogous to the single-number MPG metric, would be helpful.
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  like this? https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-rating https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-rating
miahi 10y ago
For me (bought a new "normal" car recently) the main reason against an electric/plug-in hybrid vehicle was that I did not have an easy solution to charge it (apartment with parking nearby but no charging infrastructure). The second reason was upfront cost. The third reason was unknown maintenance costs when the battery gives up (I usually keep a car for more than a few years).
- Decade 10y ago
  So instead of known lower maintenance costs with unknown high cost in the future, especially given the Tesla Gigafactory, you chose known high maintenance costs (brakes, oil, transmission) and less certain future fuel costs. Charging is an issue. However, I don't personally know any plug-in hybrid that is actually plugged in at night. They still get the government subsidies, and they can plug in at certain mall parking lots or appropriately equipped parking garages, but I think they're mostly driven as normal vehicles. That use brake pads and low-RPM gearing less than normal vehicles.
  - shortstuffsushi 10y ago
    Perhaps unrelated, but is the Tesla Gigafactory intending to produce "competitor" batteries, or are you assuming that GP was only looking at Tesla's? If the GP didn't get a Tesla, how would their factory be of use to him? (Actual question, not sure if there is an implication that the new factory will drive down prices for everyone). Also, unless GP lives in an area where those sorts of garages are available, at least in the near term, they won't have anywhere to charge, which seems a fair argument against purchase. For instance, I live in south-eastern Wisconsin, and while there are charging stations within driving distance, there aren't any that would be convenient on my way to or from work, and I couldn't simply leave it at one and walk to work (or bus, because we don't do public transit here). Known costs are known, less of a risk. It's easy enough to buy a new EV car if the other factors here are resolved, but I don't think it's unfair to say too many issues are up in the air at this point.
    - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
I'm not sure of the research, but I think your impression is correct to a point. I think for lower-income buyers, the initial cost is prohibitive - even with long-term savings and benefits. And I'm guessing some banks would hesitate to give the extra loan money as well if you don't have the income to support it. It is kind of like buying a decent pair of shoes. If you are working retail, it muchly benefits you to buy good shoes. But you have to save for those shoes because of income limitations: If your current shoes wear out before you can buy new ones, you get sucked further into a cycle of cheap new shoes. It really doesn't matter if you get long-term benefits or have a great desire to be environmentally friendly if you can't afford to do so. I think once we have a decent used car market with them and the price comes down to soemthing on par with higher-emission vehicles, there will be a much larger change.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
bonniemuffin 10y ago
It looks like the lower left corner of the standard gasoline cars are both (1) cheap little subcompacts (Ford Fiesta, Honda Fit, Nissan Versa), and (2) pretty close to the 2030 target. That seems like the sweet spot for the budget car buyer who can't afford a hybrid. If you haven't noticed the hover-able version of the chart where you can see what each dot is, it's here: http://carboncounter.com/ http://carboncounter.com/

hnal943 10y ago

What's missing from the article is an analysis of the break-even point. How long do you have to own your hybrid before the high initial cost pays off? There's also the problem that there are not "climate-friendly" equivalents for many vehicles. The article mentions the Chevy Suburban; there's no electric option that big. Obviously big SUVs are going to be more expensive to operate than sedans, which makes me wonder if they are even comparing apples to apples here.

sokoloff 10y ago
When I did the calculations a few years ago on the Toyota Camry vs the Camry Hybrid, the payout on a cash-basis was over 100K miles, assuming 2/3 highway, 1/3 city. (That means the NPV payout is even longer.)
NotSammyHagar 10y ago
The model x is the closest to a suburban, 3 rows of seats are available, it can tow.
- hnal943 10y ago
  I think you're right. I also think that if you told a suburban owner that they should trade for the Model X, they would laugh.

droro 10y ago

I had more questions about the specific parameters they were using, so I followed the link (http://carboncounter.com/ http://carboncounter.com/) in the article and checked out the "Customize" tab. Pretty sweet.

rusbus 10y ago

Anecdotally: I wanted the cheapest possible new car for commuting around the Bay Area. After some research, I found the Spark EV for only $60/month after rebates. With insurance it's only$5/day. I assumed electric cars were defacto expensive until I actually researched it. No idea why more people don't pick up these cars. (Probably because it only goes 80 miles)

mason240 10y ago
>(Probably because it only goes 80 miles) Which for the majority of 2 car households is all you need for the second car.
- epistasis 10y ago
  Quite true, and since its cheaper to operate it will usually be the primary car, with the secondary car only used for longer trips.
- smoyer 10y ago
  I drive my car (our designated second car) an average of just 12 miles per day. Fuel economy is an extremely low priority since it's dwarfed by other costs. Reliability is my number one priority - if I don't have to pay to repair it very often, it will still be in the driveway for another 15 years (yes - it's 15 years old and has close to 200k miles on it). At this point, I'm also saving the environment by keeping it out of the junkyard. EDIT: I should also mention that when the wind is favorable, it's also responsible for towing my yacht to the water - something a small plugin hybrid will never do.
jdavis703 10y ago
Well if you rent you can't really buy an electric vehicle, because where will you charge it?
- mikeash 10y ago
  Some places offer charging in their attached parking. Some workplaces offer charging as well, so you can charge there during the day, and leave it unplugged at night. Neither one is commonly available (yet?) though.

kevinpet 10y ago

I thought that they would have overlooked taxes. In fact, I can't see how this is anything other than stacking the deck: "Each vehicle’s price is based on its official manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) without tax. In addition, we evaluate the impact of federal tax refunds on the lifecycle costs of PHEVs, BEVs, and FCVs. The federal refund scales with the capacity of the battery up to a maximum value of $7500.45 Finally, we inspect the added effect of a best-case state tax refund. Assessed for the case of California, this contributes $1500 for PHEVs, $2500 for BEVs, and $5000 for FCVs.46 Some other states have similar programs, but they were not analyzed in detail." In California, sales and license taxes are about 18% of purchase price (half up front, half over the next 11 years). But they've chosen to take California for the rebate, but not include higher taxes on the purchase price (hybrids have higher purchase price but lower operating costs). Similarly a caption on one of the charts. "(d) a BEV-friendly energy price scenario, using average inflation-adjusted prices from Washington State in 2012 ($3.88/gal for gasoline and $0.086/kWh for electricity) and combined federal and state (CA) tax refunds." This analysis is cherry picking pieces of the equation from different scenarios, and so paints a more rosy picture of the cost of alternative energy than any single consumer could possibly have faced. I don't doubt that electric cars will get there, but saying they are there now is a lie.

groundhogday1 10y ago

I think if climate friendly options were available in more chassis options and body styles, people would adopt them faster. I think people want to do the 'right' thing in switching to an EV/hybrid option, but there isn't a climate friendly, cost effective pickup/SUV option available. Tesla has the right idea in offering a low cost EV option that doesn't look stupid with the Model 3. If there were Camry/Corolla and Accord/Civic EV options with the same off-the-lot price tag and same exact body style available, I think we would see more widespread adoption. Additionally, if we were to see more electric utility vehicle options available with body styles identical to the gasoline powered ones we see on the road today, I believe that would capture another large swath of consumers. Of course, this hinges on the manufacturers to offer these options in spite of their gasoline producer friends urging them not to.

treehau5 10y ago
For fun -- you can almost get the "MPGe" equivalent of a Tesla S in a Geo Metro or Honda CRX http://jalopnik.com/5558345/how-to-get-997-mpg-from-a-geo-metro http://jalopnik.com/5558345/how-to-get-997-mpg-from-a-geo-me...

mbroshi 10y ago

Can I ask a couple of naive questions (I'm not very well informed on these issues): 1. Since electric cars may well be powered by coal, not gasoline, might they not be more heavily emitting? 2. Does the environmental impact of creating and disposing all the batteries in electric cars counterbalance any emission gains?

dmoy 10y ago
1. Possibly, but typically not. A huge power plant is generally much more efficient and less emitting per watt than a tiny internal combustion engine. (Depends on the power plant...) 2. No idea sorry.
Retric 10y ago
1a.) Car engines are far less efficient and more polluting because they need to be portable, compact, and quickly operate over a wide power range. 1b.) Coal + Natural gas is generally less than 50% of electricity generation. 1c.) Oil takes a lot more effort to get to your car than coal does to a power plant combined with electricity transmission and storage. This indirect effect is huge. Net effect, gas cars create a lot more pollution per mile. 2) To some degree, however batteries can also be recycled.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
EVs are still better taking both these issues (and some others that aren't immediately obvious) into account: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-... Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave "Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner." "We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for."
- sandworm101 10y ago
  According to the graph in the OP, battery-powered EVs have roughly 1/2 the lifecycle emissions. That's certainly lower and a good thing, but not a fundamental change given what needs to be done. I'd have to do the math, but it would seem that the switch from gas to electric is roughly as beneficial as the past switch from carburetors to fuel injection. It looks incremental rather than revolutionary. And I think there is much improvement to be made. These numbers are American cars, so I assume they aren't diesel and are for generally larger cars than in europe. Has a diesel-electric hybrid ever been sold in the US?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gagmaker 10y ago

if one concerns about 'climate', he should learn there is no such thing as a 'climate friendly car'

dominotw 10y ago

I live in a city and park my car on the street. How am I supposed to charge it.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
erikpukinskis 10y ago
You are what they call "high hanging fruit". People like you won't be part of the equation until deeper into the adoption curve. But the answer is: your car will charge itself somewhere and drive itself to you.
- ocb 10y ago
  Not saying that won't happen eventually, but it seems a lot more likely to me that on-street public charging facilities will proliferate as EVs gain popularity.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    There will be some, but car ownership will collapse as soon as it becomes more expensive per mile than being driven around by the Uber/Tesla/Google fleets. And it'll be much easier politically and financially to replace your car with a fleet than to get new infrastructure installed in cities. It will happen in specific places (Portland, Helsinki, etc) but I think the adoption curve of street charging will be dwarfed by the adoption of self-driving cabs by 2025. Self-driving cabs don't have to be allowed everywhere for that to happen, they just have to be allowed in more places than there are electric street charging infrastructure projects.
- bhhaskin 10y ago
  Only issue there is it will more than likely no longer be "your" car, but a paid service like Uber.

vkjv 10y ago

sigh Another one of these that focus on new cars. Most fiscally minded people, like myself, exclusively drive used cars. Even a lightly used model that is only a couple of years old is significantly cheaper than a new car. As I get more environmentally conscientious, here's what I really want to know: What is better for the environment manufacturing a branch new EV and driving it around for 5 years or picking up an existing junker that's going to be scrapped and doing the same.

heygrady 10y ago
Get a used EV! The Nissan Leaf is highly recommended as a used car. We have to build new ones -- and sell them -- before there are used ones available. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098554_should-i-buy-a-used-nissan-leaf-or-another-electric-car http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098554_should-i-buy-a-u...
- vkjv 10y ago
  Interesting, I had assumed that EVs maintain their value better, but this link says the opposite. I'll have to check it out. Thanks!
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    Tesla have held their value better because there was a shortage, but increasing supply and competition / availability of other models is putting downward pressure on used prices. But all these cars have advancing technology. My view is buying a slightly more expensive electric car today is jumpstarting the future for other people. And if you prefer, you can buy a very cheap used ev today - if doing so, the key thing is to figure out if the car has reduced range. Teslas don't generally have a problem with this because they cool the battery pack when recharging, not other cars do that.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    You literally wreck the most expensive part of the car a little every time you drive it for more than a few miles - the battery pack! If you only trickle charge it to 80%, dont get it below 30%-20%, the pixies in the pack will stay happy and stick around. Drive hard and long, charge fast and the thing deteriorates. The worse it gets the quicker it deteriorates. So a used car you bought for 7k might be worth 0 in 2 or 4 years...