Yes lots of subsidy mining going on .Replacement batteries don't seem to be addressed in this study which is a huge additional cost, depending on the EV. I understand this wasn't part of the study but should be included, along with the "extras" that are not included in EV's (per the study) but are included in the cost of fuel for regular vehicles. Overall, EV's are not good for "climate change." The mining required....
Well this is why overall 'total cost of ownership' studies make more sense.Replacement batteries don't seem to be addressed in this study which is a huge additional cost, depending on the EV. I understand this wasn't part of the study but should be included, along with the "extras" that are not included in EV's (per the study) but are included in the cost of fuel for regular vehicles. Overall, EV's are not good for "climate change." The mining required....
I hate to disagree when you're agreeing with me, but really all it's proof of is that there are so many variables you can't possibly make a generalized statement. For example - in boston where the electricity is so freaking high (that is insane) all it would take is gas prices to drop a little and it would be cheaper for ice cars. So - then it might very well be fair to say in that area ice is cheaper.Is it really cheaper to drive an EV 100 miles than it is to do so in a gas-powered car? Yes, it is. Here we run the numbers to prove it.insideevs.com
I get where youre coming from but in the end a national average is a national average. An estimate.On the other hand, in BC where electricity is a fraction of that price and we have very expensive gas due to far more taxes, there is no chance a gas engine is going to beat electric.
But they also haven't factored in battery performace drops in the winter (not such a big deal in the lower mainland, quite a factor in the kooteneys.) etc etc.)
You'd almost have to create a calculator - work out total cost of ownership and allow variable input for those variables so you could calculate if it was cheaper for you where you live.
I think the study might be skewed for one major reason. How many rent an apt unit compared to owning their home? That's going to be the big decider. I don't anticipate many landlords going through the expense of making sure their tenants all have access to chargers once the EV mandate comes into effect, especially in already existing buildings. And if they do, well I can see people's rents getting jacked up even if they don't drive.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.
Usually in poor countries where it's more advantageous & corruption reins.Well this is why overall 'total cost of ownership' studies make more sense.
But in a respect you're talking about the impact - what impact does an EV have compared to an ICE. Then mining and what they burn to make electricity etc all become major factors.
THe impact to the planet really really depends on where you are, so much of this is completely situational.