3 ms·

This is an excellent question. The math is pretty easy to do and very few politicians want to seriously confront this reality. I did a calculation for a Toyota

This is an excellent question. The math is pretty easy to do and very few politicians want to seriously confront this reality. I did a calculation for a Toyota Camry Hybrid vs a Tesla Model 3 in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096215), and even in the state of WA which has extremely favorable electricity vs gas tradeoff price wise, the Camry Hybrid is an easy $/mile winner. There were some rebuttals, but they do not change the fundamental conclusion. Maybe things are a bit different on the lower end, but I haven't looked into it - the range on a Nissan Leaf is extremely low as you point out, and likely rules it out for many in the US regardless of $/mile calculations.

coryrc 5y ago
Because you don't pay the carbon cost of the gasoline.
- nullc 5y ago
  Dunno about the WA figures, but California cap-and-trade results in carbon costs increasing fuel prices. A quick internet search suggests that the cost of carbon credits to offset emissions for gas come out to $0.1 per gallon. I'm guessing adding this in wouldn't change the result being discussed.
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    The fact that CA is charging $0.1 per gallon does not mean you're actually paying the true carbon cost of the gasoline. You're paying a tax based on an arbitrary cap that was set by politicians, and one that may change dramatically in the future.
    - nullc 5y ago
      $0.1 is the price of for carbon offsets. 1 Gallon gas = 20lbs CO2, and going rate for carbon offsets are $10/ton. Due to how CA cap/trade works I can't directly figure out the marginal cost difference there, though it looks greater than the market offset rate (as you note these rates depend on caps). Obviously I don't think that offset capture the total externality, but if a comparison is to be made some figure is needed. Even our 'green energy' figures don't capture their own substantial carbon footprint entirely.

coryrc 5y ago

Because you don't pay the carbon cost of the gasoline.

nullc 5y ago
Dunno about the WA figures, but California cap-and-trade results in carbon costs increasing fuel prices. A quick internet search suggests that the cost of carbon credits to offset emissions for gas come out to $0.1 per gallon. I'm guessing adding this in wouldn't change the result being discussed.
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  The fact that CA is charging $0.1 per gallon does not mean you're actually paying the true carbon cost of the gasoline. You're paying a tax based on an arbitrary cap that was set by politicians, and one that may change dramatically in the future.
  - nullc 5y ago
    $0.1 is the price of for carbon offsets. 1 Gallon gas = 20lbs CO2, and going rate for carbon offsets are $10/ton. Due to how CA cap/trade works I can't directly figure out the marginal cost difference there, though it looks greater than the market offset rate (as you note these rates depend on caps). Obviously I don't think that offset capture the total externality, but if a comparison is to be made some figure is needed. Even our 'green energy' figures don't capture their own substantial carbon footprint entirely.