4 ms·

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 h

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/

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/