Interesting study has come out from economics researchers at the University of British Columbia, comparing the costs of gas vehicles to electric vehicles.
They conclude that the point at which EVs become cheaper, long-term, is if the motorist drives the car an average of 64 km a day, for 7 years. (That’s for BC, based on BC gas prices. They apparently have broken it down for each province and territory, based on average gas prices in each one.)
The Vancouver Sun article goes on to point out that ownership rates for EVs correlate strongly with higher income.
From reading the article, they appear to also be taking into the initial capital cost of the vehicle. Towards the end of the article they are quoted as saying that there has to be greater emphasis on building smaller, lower market EVs, to bring the lifetime cost down.
While I agree, I does beg the question of how you compare apples to apples with EVs. Obviously, something like the F150 Lightning is easy. Rivian, not so much. Model S Plaid? About the only comparison is the Lucid, IMHO. Our Cadillac Lyriq? Where do you cross-shop a 500 HP luxury wagon? Audi SQ5? Model Y? The SQ5 is significantly more expensive and is going to get 20mpg if you’re lucky. And smaller.
Sure, that’s basic economics, but I think that they’re making the point that EVs right now tend to be a high-market vehicle, and if the overall goal is to reduce carbon consumption, they have to be made more affordable for greater mass market pickup.
I think it’s highly annoying that there are not more small, cheaper EVs with good range. I’d love a Honda Fit EV, for example, or a Mini EV with double the mileage it currently has.
In terms of the prices, though, we’re still in the "early adopter’ phase, so of course prices are high. Which is why the subsidies are so necessary right now (in the US at least). I don’t think this study included subsidies, did it? I just bought the car they cite in their comparison study - a Hyundai Kona EV. After the federal and state subsidies, the EV was about $4,000 more than the comparable gas version. Based on my previous Kona EV experience, I will make up that difference in about 3 years through fuel and maintenance savings, at the very latest, probably sooner.
I linked to a similar study on CO2 savings a while ago. In that study, if you drove less than 5,000 miles per year, an EV would never pay back its CO2 cost for manufacturing and delivery. You had to drive 15,000 miles per year to get to a net savings on CO2 within 5 years. If you are driving an EV truck instead of a small ICE sedan, I’d guess that it’s a CO2 loser no matter how much you drive.
I believe this was calculated assuming an national average mix of coal vs renewable power.
Bottom line: if you don’t drive very much, the best thing you can do for the planet is keep your current car running for as long as possible. It’s also the smartest thing for your pocketbook.
I came to that conclusion quite some time ago, and post-retirement that’s exactly what I’m doing, even if it’s not environmentally fashionable. Aided by the fact that my current ICE vehicle is amazingly reliable despite now being 19 years old!
Driving 64 km a day for 7 years (per the OP)? On average I don’t even drive 64 km a week – and some weeks it’s literally zero – mostly because most of the things I need are so close by. I don’t even remember the last time I filled up my ICE vehicle. I probably personally consume a larger volume of vodka than my car consumes gasoline.
I’ll occasionally visit more distant shopping locales, partly for variety, but also to give the car a chance to have good run on the highway.
I’m in the same boat. 2014 Escape, and it only has 89,000 km. My wife’s car is a 2005, and has about 130,000. Neither of us can justify a new vehicle, and if we traded ours in for new electric cars it would be a net negative for the olanet.
Is the assumption that your traded in cars would just be crushed? Or would someone buy your used car and get rid of their even older gas guzzling junker? That would be a net positive for the planet.
There are indeed complexities here, but let me put it this way. One of the things that really, really pissed me off about the emissions testing requirement here in Ontario is that it was one of several government measures that seemed to be pushing people to buy new cars (which were exempt from testing for – IIRC – at least the first five years).
And the thing is that there is a huge environmental cost – just absolutely huge – associated with manufacturing any new car, either ICE or EV. It was a hugely counterproductive disincentive to the principle of “reduce, reuse, recycle”. My mechanic loathed the emissions testing program so much that he absolutely refused to participate in it, even though it could have brought him additional business. Fortunately, it was abandoned a few years ago after a long period of angry controversy.
The simple point being that whatever the improved environmental impact of a new vehicle, the time it takes to realize those benefits has to be weighed against the environmental costs of producing the damn thing.
Car rental companies go through a massive number of vehicles and here is one case where the economics of electric vehicles were not at all good:
Hertz Global Holdings Inc. is replacing its chief executive officer in the wake of a disastrous bet on electric vehicles that the company began unwinding in recent months.
Hertz announced its EV sell-down plans in January, citing lackluster demand, costly depreciation and expensive repairs. The Estero, Florida-based company took a $245 million charge and reported its biggest quarterly loss since the pandemic.
I rent cars from Hertz on business trips and noticed that the Tesla and other EVs in their fleet were only available at extra cost. I’d like to try one but am not willing to pay extra for the it. They might have had more success if they didn’t charge extra.
