Electric shock: A new study found that EVs were more expensive to fuel than gas-powered cars at the end of 2022

petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,343
12,815
113
Low Earth Orbit
Who didnt see that coming?

According to a new study from the Anderson Economic Group, rising electricity prices — combined with softer gas prices — made EVs more expensive to fuel than gas-powered cars at the end of 2022.

“In Q4 2022, typical mid-priced ICE car drivers paid about $11.29 to fuel their vehicles for 100 miles of driving,” the study says. “That cost was around $0.31 cheaper than the amount paid by mid-priced EV drivers charging mostly at home, and over $3 less than the cost borne by comparable EV drivers charging commercially.”

Of course, that doesn’t exactly mean gas-powered cars are cheap to run. The national average price for mid-grade gas in the U.S. is still close to $4 a gallon according to motoring and leisure travel giant AAA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2
T

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,839
113
Yeah i gotta call bullshit. The report doesn't say what you're claiming. For SOME ev's (mostly commercial) in SOME areas it can be. That's not what you wrote.

The study looked at MOSTLY COMMERCIAL ev's. They specifically note in their report that the cost of electricity for commercial use is at least 2 times as much as the residential examples.

And they included costs such as road taxes and other things which did not apply to ICE vehicles in the areas they looked at. They also looked at prices in areas that have high electricity costs, but low gas costs specifically.

They also included the cost of a charger installed at your home and factored that in. That's not the 'cost of gas', that's the cost of the vehicle. They didn't factor in the cost savings for maintenance i notice. So that's not really appropriate.

And other things like 'deadhead' miles. That's the distance out of your way you might have to travel to find charging infrastructure. Again - for commercial use that might be a significant issue and it might be a problem for some users in some areas or for some longer road trips, or for users in areas with no fast chargers. but it probably isn't that much of an issue for the average driver.

IT also includes time to charge and such. That really isn't a 'cost' per se for the average driver but of course it is a big cost for the commercial drivers.

The report raises some interesting issues and highlights the problems with making a COMMERCIAL fleet into an ev fleet but your headline suggests that EV's in general are more expensive for 'fuel' than regular cars and for the average person in most areas that's probably bullshit.

Here's the actual study:
 
T

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,839
113
petros said:
Commercial roadside pay for charging not commercial vehicles.
Click to expand...
Still doesn't make sense. if you average that in you get a skewed result, it would be like combining those who eat out all the time and those who eat at home when calculating food prices.

And things like road tax - that's not a thing in a lot of areas. Do you know ANY province for example charging an extra 'tax' for electric vehicles? And as noted including the cost of the charger is ridiculous, that's just the cost of the car. You could compare the total cost of ownership of an ICE vs EV and THEN you could include that but if you're just looking at the cost of fuel that's dumb.

Additional taxes for ev's also have no part in this. That would be part of the total cost of ownership, not the cost of fuel.

And deadhead miles is also not going to apply proportionally. Seriously - they're including the cost of home chargers BUT also the cost of having to drive to find a charger.

And some of their sources for their data are a little suspect. Like "reddit forums".

And sorry but while the time spent waiting to charge is something people should consider it's not actually a cost at all for the average person. Like i said - commercial, SURE, and those driving for work might consider that a real cost. But the average person isn't paying for that time and might well use it for other things like talking to someone on the phone, catching up on their emails and texts etc.

And even then, they are forced to admit that even using their skewed numbers only SOME cars are 'more expensive' on electric 'fuel'.

This is the kind of report you produce when you want to have a certain outcome.
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,032
8,310
113
Washington DC
The_Foxer said:
Still doesn't make sense. if you average that in you get a skewed result, it would be like combining those who eat out all the time and those who eat at home when calculating food prices.
Click to expand...
These days, what with "delivery fees" and all-but-mandatory tips, it comes out about the same.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,343
12,815
113
Low Earth Orbit
The_Foxer said:
Still doesn't make sense. if you average that in you get a skewed result, it would be like combining those who eat out all the time and those who eat at home when calculating food prices.

And things like road tax - that's not a thing in a lot of areas. Do you know ANY province for example charging an extra 'tax' for electric vehicles? And as noted including the cost of the charger is ridiculous, that's just the cost of the car. You could compare the total cost of ownership of an ICE vs EV and THEN you could include that but if you're just looking at the cost of fuel that's dumb.

Additional taxes for ev's also have no part in this. That would be part of the total cost of ownership, not the cost of fuel.

And deadhead miles is also not going to apply proportionally. Seriously - they're including the cost of home chargers BUT also the cost of having to drive to find a charger.

And some of their sources for their data are a little suspect. Like "reddit forums".

And sorry but while the time spent waiting to charge is something people should consider it's not actually a cost at all for the average person. Like i said - commercial, SURE, and those driving for work might consider that a real cost. But the average person isn't paying for that time and might well use it for other things like talking to someone on the phone, catching up on their emails and texts etc.

And even then, they are forced to admit that even using their skewed numbers only SOME cars are 'more expensive' on electric 'fuel'.

This is the kind of report you produce when you want to have a certain outcome.
Click to expand...
Why skewed? Home charge cost, Commercial charging cost and gasoline cost over 100 miles is a pretty fair measure.
 
T

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,839
113
petros said:
Why skewed? Home charge cost, Commercial charging cost and gasoline cost over 100 miles is a pretty fair measure.
Click to expand...
Let's say i own a home charger, my vehicle is capable of 300 km, and i mostly drive 100 km per day average to work and back and to pick up the kids etc. (and actually the average is much lower but lets just say).

So - for me i'm probably NEVER going to use a commercial charger. Even on days of unusual travel i'm well within my range. Only if i'm going on an extended trip would i use it. So i pay around 15 cents US per kwh in their study (which is very high - some places might charge that but in bc even the highest teir costs are not that high or even close).

now - lets say i live in a building where i can't put in a charger. And all my charging is commercial, and i must now pay around 35 cents per kwh (ish - i believe their commercial rates start there).

That's twice the price of the most important factor when discussing the cost of 'fueling' a car - the fuel itself.

So the question becomes is it reasonable to say that all ev drivers will spend an average of 25 cents? Well... No, no it isn't. The at home people will not spend anywhere near that, not just 'on average' but 'ever' So if 2/3 of the people charge at home - your results would be completely false for 2/3's of the people out there.

Averages only work in groups where there is relative consistency. If everybody charged at home some of the time and at commercial facilities some of the time then an average might be useable. But in this case it simply isn't and artificially pumps up one groups numbers, without necessarily dropping the second group below the cost comparison threshold. So you could literally go from ev is cheaper for 2/3rs to EV is more expensive for all as an example - which would be grossly incorrect.
 
T

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,839
113
petros said:
Try reading the report and how they gathered and interpreted the data. Its all in there.
Click to expand...
Uhhh - yeah it is. Here you go:

We presume some EV drivers rely primarily on commercial chargers, and some on residential chargers.

•We estimate charging costs for these representative drivers using a weighted sum of the residential and commercial charging costs (includ-
ing, when applicable, the cost of a home L2 charge.

So there you go. Exactly as i said. They make an assumption about how many charge at home and how many charge commercially and then do a weighted average. AND they throw in the cost of the EV charger assuming some do an l2 charge for the home figures which is totally inappropriate to a 'fuel' cost.

Oh - and they scroll online web forums such as reddit etc to arrive at their numbers for how many charge at home and how many don't. Probably the only source there is but it's still horribly unreliable.

As you say - it's all there. And it's prety hilarious telling me to read the report when we both know you'd never even considered looking it up till i posted a link for you.
 
T

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,839
113
Tecumsehsbones said:
When you PRESUME, you make a PRES of U and ME!

Wait. . . that doesn't work. . .
Click to expand...
NO no - it's supposed to be "assumption", like when you make an assumption you make an Ass out of U and.... er... umption... DAMN i felt i was SO CLOSE....
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,343
12,815
113
Low Earth Orbit
The_Foxer said:
Uhhh - yeah it is. Here you go:

We presume some EV drivers rely primarily on commercial chargers, and some on residential chargers.

•We estimate charging costs for these representative drivers using a weighted sum of the residential and commercial charging costs (includ-
ing, when applicable, the cost of a home L2 charge.

So there you go. Exactly as i said. They make an assumption about how many charge at home and how many charge commercially and then do a weighted average. AND they throw in the cost of the EV charger assuming some do an l2 charge for the home figures which is totally inappropriate to a 'fuel' cost.

Oh - and they scroll online web forums such as reddit etc to arrive at their numbers for how many charge at home and how many don't. Probably the only source there is but it's still horribly unreliable.

As you say - it's all there. And it's prety hilarious telling me to read the report when we both know you'd never even considered looking it up till i posted a link for you.
Click to expand...
Based on commercial vehicles...???
 
T

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,839
113
petros said:
Based on commercial vehicles...??
Click to expand...
Commercial chargers. Yeash, read the report :)

Joking aside commercial vehicles will feel the weight of this much more - as an example like i mentioned, time stopped charging actually is a cost for them where as it's an imaginary cost in this study for normal drivers. Coming up with a fake hourly rate and applying it like that is ridiculous. Especially those charging at home.

Another thing they include is extra registration taxes when you get the vehicle for road maintenance. Again - that's the cost of the vehicle, NOT the fuel. It doesn't matter if you drive 1 km or 1000000, the cost is the same for that tax. If you want to do a total cost of ownership then that's different but that's not what they did. They're selectively adding some costs of ownership to 'fuel' to try to drive up the costs of electrical vehicles fuel. AND - they don't take into account the many REBATES available in many areas for evs - so they're happy to slap on tax INCREASES but ignore any tax REBATE that an EV gets. Including in the state mentioned.

Whenever someone cherry picks the info they use like that, it's worth being extra wary.
 
T

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,839
113
Petros:
Ooops - i realized i was wrong AND that the article i like is full of shit but rather than simply carry on and look at the subject in general i'll freak out and try to shift the focus!!!!!
Click to expand...
You go boy!

God you're such a child. So - you can't disagree with any of the points i raised? So - guess it's true that it is actually CHEAPER to "fuel' an electric vehicle for most people, yes? :) Sorry if that pisses you off, the truth can be a bit of a harsh bitch sometimes.

total cost of ownership numbers are more interesting but hard because the variables change SO much depending on where you are. Cost of upgrading the infrastructure to accomodate all the EV's if everyone bought one would be even more interesting but nobody seems to talk about it much and it's hard to calcuate without a lot of info from the power companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom