Posted on 01/03/2022 8:00:39 AM PST by rktman
Summary of Study < Embed > Bottom Line: There is a growing climate change goal to displace internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE, i.e., those running on oil-based gasoline) with ones that are powered by electric batteries (EVs). It is routinely claimed that this will not just reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help fight climate change but will also ultimately be cheaper for the consuming public. The present study thus conducts a rigorous analysis of the real-world costs to fuel both types of vehicles. Importantly, the study examines all categories of costs, including several that are commonly omitted in other EV studies. The primary conclusion here is that EVs can be more expensive to fuel than their ICE counterparts.
(Excerpt) Read more at andersoneconomicgroup.com ...
Hey, this is very interesting. Thanks.
Libs can not/will not/unable to read it.
And the relatively simple math refs contained within will totally bamboozle the laughable media.
Well if you don’t try............LOL!
Stumbled on it while looking at something on Realclearenergy.com. I thought it was interesting too.
Here’s every electric vehicle on sale in the US for 2020 and its range
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/every-electric-car-ev-range-audi-chevy-tesla/
Thanks.
If the folks that purchased these vehicles, because they are ‘oh so’ GREEN and care about the environment so much, were forced to charge the batteries with alternative energy systems[wind,solar,hydro] and were prohibited from plugging a cord into an outlet powered by a fossil fuel power plant, I’m pretty sure there wouldn’t be many EVs on the road.
Toss in not getting tax breaks for buying one and there’d be even fewer.
Read a study a week or so ago that detailed the fact that it’s cheaper to build a new battery than it is to recycle them and that the recycle batteries normally end up being used to make batteries for tools, etc.
And then there’s the fact that the Chinese control about 80% of the lithium in the world and nickel mining is destroying the environment, I’m thinking these things will never be what they’re cracked up to be.
Rivian just announced a multi-billion dollar facility east of Atlanta. 7500 jobs they say. I think one of the only reasons that Rivian is on the map, given that its vehicles start at $75k, is the fact that Amazon bought a bunch of them. I’m curious to know where that many jobs are, when the process for building cars is done primarily with robots.
Guess it’s no different than how Musk’s wealth went through the roof when Hertz said they were buying 1000 of his cars.
Of course, the EV enthusiast/cult member will say that in the future this, that and the other thing will happen. And all will be right with the world.
Also in the future we’ll be able to jump on board the Millenium Falcon and make the jump to light speed to visit Mars.
The gov’t can’t agree on whether they support electric vehicles or not. The Federal gov’ts tax policies suggest they support them. Here in Ohio, if you own an electric vehicle, it costs you $200 more to get a license for it. Their reasoning: You’re using the roads, but not paying the state gasoline tax ($0.28 per gallon). I don’t know if other states have similar laws.
The carbon savings by vehicle emission has to be factored by the rise of emissions from the power plants.
Seems there are a lot of rumblings on requiring that mileage be entered when obtaining power for your vehicle be it gas or an EV. Maybe your plate number to keep track. Oh, and scan your CONvid QR code while you’re at it. LOL!
IOW for whole article: EVs suck for personal use.
Make them remove anything and everything that is manufactured using EF (Evil Fossil) products or byproducts and see what’s left.
It’s a jump to hyperspace. Han never said he could reach light speed. :-)
And let’s talk about those minerals that are going to be required for making all those batteries. Where is it going to come from, The Mineral Fairy?
See my post 13.
So, something that governments all over the world are touting as an ultimate solution is another farce. What a surprise!
If I could buy a new, $25,000 Electric Car with 250+ mile range that had zero chance of burning down my $1M house, I would buy it (I pay less than $.10/KWH and have 220 outlet in my garage and a charger right by where I park at work).
I’m not buying a $60K car that I have to park/charge in my driveway.
Garbage in garbage out. They rely far too heavily on those using commercial chargers for their charging instead of home charging.
Their cost per KWhour for home charging is 6 -10 times what mine is (I have a special rate of 3 cents per KWhour from 11PM to 7AM each night.) I have done a detailed analysis of my cost per 100 miles - Direct charging costs are 62 cents. Indirect costs over the 6 years I have had mine (52,000 miles) come to maybe another 20 Cents per hundred miles.
So let’s just say my costs are 85 cents per hundred miles. Far lower than the garbage they come up with here by focusing primarily on commercial, non-home charging. For example I don’t do any “deadhead” miles looking for charging.
I also compared my total time fueling my ICE cars and found I spend more physical time on those per month. Plugging in my car to my home charger takes about 5 seconds in/out, and is done about every 2.3 days for about 140 seconds per month. Filling up a couple of times a month in my gas cars takes roughly 15 minutes - almost 7.5 times more. Plus I have to stop to fuel them, rather than just go home.
Also, I don’t have to go in for oil changes ever, which I didn’t even see that time factored here. Also, I get free use of toll lanes, which isn’t factored as well.
Overall, pure garbage, taking the most expensive route possible to make it look far more expensive than it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.