
Driving on electricity is cheaper than gas in all 50 states - ramonvillasante
https://www.pluglesspower.com/learn/driving-electricity-cheaper-gas-50-states/
======
draker
The numbers used seem skewed in favor of promoting their product rather than a
real comparison.

The number used for MPG is 21.4 which is the "Average U.S. light duty vehicle
fuel efficiency".

In addition to passenger cars the light duty vehicle class includes SUVs and
pickups (including 1/2 ton models such as the Silverado, F-150). At this time
I don't believe there are any electric vehicles that would compete with a 1/2
ton pickup in terms of payload or towing.

It would seem the Passenger Car fuel economy would be the most accurate number
to use; which is 36.4 MPG.

They do acknowledge this number at the end of the post:

>The average EPA fuel economy of passenger cars (not counting trucks) was 36.4
miles per gallon in 2014. Using that number puts gas and electric cars on a
more even playing field.

Though doing so makes electricity only cheaper in 43/50 states and the savings
is not nearly as compelling as the figures from the 21.4 MPG comparison.

TL;DR: this is is more of a clickbait product promotion article than a real
comparison

~~~
wtallis
Most SUVs and pickups get a lot of use for things like commuting where a
passenger car would suffice, because it's often still cheaper than buying
another car for the commute. Comparing against the light duty vehicle
efficiency number is probably going a little too far since many trucks do
actually get significant use as trucks, but the passenger car efficiency
number definitely understates how much fuel is burned for things like
commuting.

~~~
0xffff2
Electric cars can conceivably replace passenger cars though, whereas people
commuting in a pickup are very probably quite unlikely to replace that pickup
with an electric vehicle of any kind. (Are electric trucks even a thing?)

In light of that, it seems entirely reasonable to compare electric car
efficiency to gasoline passenger car efficiency.

~~~
bryanlarsen
"Are electric trucks even a thing?"

Yes. [http://www.viamotors.com/vehicles/electric-
truck/](http://www.viamotors.com/vehicles/electric-truck/)

They make quite a bit of sense, in a niche. Trucks are often fleet vehicles,
which are often well suited for electrification: predictable, regular, short
distances. Trucks handle the weight of batteries well. And Via turns the
original motor into a generator, which is useful for an electric vehicle and
is also useful on a job site.

~~~
draker
I think this would be useful for niche applications but wouldn't appeal to
contractors or anyone that didn't have very regimented tasks to perform.

The biggest problem is the payload is only 1,000 lbs in comparison to
1800-2000 for most 1500's. Many contractors opt for 3/4 ton (2500, f-250) or
larger models for more payload/towing.

My brother is a contractor and has a GMC 2500 HD crew cab. It was $38k; gets
~15mpg and he drives around 35k miles a year.

Fuel for the Via truck at that milage is 30mpg, so using $3/gal would be $3500
+ electricity cost versus $7,000 for gas alone.

Over 6 years the total cost difference for fuel would be $21,000 and put the
gas truck cost around $60k which is comparable to the Via's $65k.

The gas truck is a better choice in this case because it has a payload of
4,000+ lbs and towing 14k+ lbs in comparison to 1000 lbs and 4000 lbs for the
Via. A 1500 with a small engine would have nearly double the payload and
towing of the Via and be less expensive with a higher mpg than the 2500.

The generator is cool but kind of gimmicky because the truck has to stay on
site and stationary. A <$1000 generator would provide similar power and is
less of a hassle than having to park your truck close enough or runs cords for
power.

------
thoughtsimple
Running the numbers. I live in Massachusetts and sure enough, that is one of
the bottom 10 states. My Honda CRZ hybrid gets about 40 mpg average over the
year. The price of gas, price per kWh and the number of miles are about right.

Gas: 12282 miles @ $2.14/g and 40 mpg is $657. Electric: 12282 miles @
$0.191/kWh and Tesla P85 85kWh 285 mile range is 3.35 miles/kWh for $700.

Basically a wash in a state ranked as 47th with a decently high mpg car. Price
difference on the car is substantial though. $66,000 vs $23,000.

------
msandford
So is owning a house outright instead of paying a mortgage every month. But
you gotta cough up the cash up-front. Clearly not everyone can swing that.

~~~
vvanders
Sure but costs are rapidly dropping for EVs while house prices continue to
climb.

I think we're going to see some really interesting things over the next 5-7
years as initial prices come down and operating costs stay low. It's going to
squeeze the ICE market from both ends which could put them in a really tough
position.

I'm reminded of the HDTV market about ~10 years ago when it seems that prices
were astronomical. Now you can get a 4k TV for under $300.

~~~
sn0v
Out of curiosity, what 4k TV model is this? (under 300)

~~~
greendragon
Seiki 4ks have been sub 300 for a while, at least when they're on sale. (e.g.
I've been using
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RBA9MOC/ref=psdc_6459737011_t3_...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RBA9MOC/ref=psdc_6459737011_t3_B00BXF7I9M)
for over a year as a monitor after applying a beta firmware patch to get rid
of the terrible latency. I got it for $298.)

------
ksylvest
Shouldn't one also factor in the cost of purchasing comparably classed
vehicles? For example - the base Nissan Leaf costs 29k versus a comparable
Nissan Versa costing 14k. 15k difference in vehicle is equivalent to just over
6000 gallons of gas (or around 186 thousand miles).

~~~
runjake
> Shouldn't one also factor in the cost of purchasing comparably classed
> vehicles?

Certainly, but in the US, the gov't is offering a $7,500 tax rebate.
Additionally, many states are offering rebates, as well.

Here is one such illustration of cost breakdowns in the state of Colorado:

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/10/04/so-i-bought-an-
ele...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/10/04/so-i-bought-an-electric-
car/)

------
mattmanser
Quite a few UK homes were fitted with electric storage heaters because
electricity was cheap in the evenings.

Now they are extremely expensive, massively more expensive than normal gas
(the other kind) central heating.

Is the price of US domestic electricity going to stay at the present price?

~~~
Declanomous
It kind of depends. I live in Illinois, and I pay about 12 cents per KWH. A
huge proportion of the baseload is generated by nuclear power in Illinois,
which is incredibly inexpensive. Peaking power is provided with fossil fuels,
such as natural gas, which is much, much more expensive. It takes a long time
to ramp up or down nuclear plants, but the utility is pretty good at matching
demand, so electricity remains inexpensive as a whole.

The question of whether our power will continue to be inexpensive is brought
up often. The nuclear plants are slowly being decommissioned, and there are
vocal factions against all of the replacement options. The barriers to
constructing a new nuclear plant are substantial, but people are also opposed
to the construction of coal plants as well. There is a strong movement for
renewable power generation. Illinois is a great area to generate wind energy,
but wind is more expensive than nuclear and also requires a greater amount of
peaking plants because of the variable nature of the wind, etc. All those
extra peaking plants cost a lot of money, even if they sit idle 99% of the
time.

Illinois is way too flat for hydroelectric, but we have a few pumped hydro
storage facilities. They aren't very large, and a few of the pumped hydro
facilities are only designed to consume power to use up extra baseload power
when the supply is expected to outstrip demand.

~~~
caf
_and a few of the pumped hydro facilities are only designed to consume power
to use up extra baseload power when the supply is expected to outstrip
demand._

That doesn't seem right - if you want to temporarily curb the output of a
thermal power station (eg. nuclear or coal) without actually shutting down
units, you can just bypass some steam around the turbines.

~~~
0xffff2
Why do that when you can store the energy cheaply though?

~~~
caf
I may have misunderstood but I thought the parent was saying that some of the
facilities weren't being used for storage but just for power dumping.

~~~
Declanomous
Our "pumped hydro" is an old quarry that they let fill with water from a
nearby river, and then pump the water back out. The pumps exist because the
quarry is used for water retention, but they are also used to just waste
energy. I don't know the specifics, but I know they do that when electricity
prices go negative.

I didn't know turbine bypass was a thing though. Why does the utility purchase
load if they can bypass the turbines? Do transformers need a certain amount of
load on them?

The pumped hydro facility in Ludington, MI is kind of close by, but I suspect
it might be a little too far away to provide peaking power for Chicago.

------
tw04
So, it does nothing to take into account the fact that if every car tomorrow
switched to electric, we'd literally have no way to power the cars. The price
of electricity would skyrocket to reflect the complete and utter lack of
generation capabilities.

It's great to talk about how electricity is cheaper at rates that are
unsustainable, but unless we're willing to adopt nuclear, we're a LONG way
from having enough energy and enough of it in a clean format to power our
energy needs.

I know, I know - solar and wind (which will help but not solve the whole
issue). That being said, I still have questions about how pulling that much
energy and heat from the earth will affect our larger ecosystem. I don't think
we REALLY have a grasp on the macro effects of "renewable" energy.

~~~
jsight
A single 250 Watt solar panel can produce about 1 KWh per day in the US (a
little more or a little less depending upon the part of the country and the
aim). 20 of them would produce about 20 KWh. That ends up being between 60-80
miles of daily electric range for ~30 years. The panels themselves cost about
$125 each, with a total panel cost of $2500. Unfortunately, installed costs
will likely get you closer to $16,500 for this whole setup. Over the lifetime
of the panels, you would expect over 600,000 miles worth of production.

The equivalent amount of gasoline (assuming 36.5 mpg and 2.50/gallon) would be
41,000.

Feel free to check my match, and Of course, I'm handwaving around some
problems (the time value of money for one), but I think it is pretty easy to
see that there are viable options for vastly increasing the amount of power
production available and to do so largely in lockstep with the increase in
demand for power from electric vehicles.

I think it is also pretty easy to see how a Tesla salesman might frame a sales
pitch for solar panels.

~~~
zwily
The biggest problem with Tesla + solar panels is that most people charge their
Tesla at night. So you need to add a battery to that equation to really drive
on sunlight.

~~~
jsight
That was another part of what I was getting at when I said that I was
handwaving around some issues. :) In much of the US, net metering is currently
available, so it isn't really a problem for the consumer in those places.

On average, a US home consumes ~30KWh per day. A single Tesla P100D has a
100KWh battery. It isn't hard to imagine ways to shift the charging profile
towards the day for a lot of people.

------
deelowe
This article seems disingenuous. What matters is total cost of ownership.
Which is unfortunately, because there are several compelling cases now where
owning an EV is cheaper than a comparable ICE.

~~~
jws
_Electric vehicles can be more expensive than comparable gas cars up front.
The differences in monthly car payments is fixed and easy to understand. … For
gas car buyers, fuel costs are familiar and expected. But how does electricity
pricing compare to gas costs? It’s less intuitive to figure out for most of
us._

Hardly disingenuous, they hit that in the 2nd paragraph and explain this
article is about the differences in operating costs.

~~~
CalChris
Operating costs.

 _That’s $60 per month saved on fuel alone — not including lower maintenance
costs, fewer or no oil changes, and time saved in states that allow EV drivers
to use the carpool lane._

My Leaf replaced a high maintenance out of warranty Mercedes.

------
Cshelton
Can confirm, Tesla Owner.

I guess living in Texas as well, which has dirt cheap/free electricity. Yes, I
have a plan that I pay $0.00/KwH between 8pm and 5am. I charge it during those
hours.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Have you run the math to see if a PowerWall would make sense if you can charge
for free at night?

~~~
jburgess777
Even if you can charge for free the batteries only have a limited number of
charge cycles so you have to pay for the wear and tear on the batteries. Last
I heard the economics were pretty close to neutral for the US:

From [http://www.catalyticengineering.com/top-ten-facts-about-
tesl...](http://www.catalyticengineering.com/top-ten-facts-about-
teslas-350kwh-powerwall-battery/)

"So revenue is $1.66 x 183 days x 10 years = $3,000. You’ll just about recoup
the cost of the product, but you won’t profit because of two factors – the
cost of inverter and installation, and the time value of money. We’re in a
low-interest environment, but setting aside $7,000 today to make back $3,000
over 10 years still leaves you down $4,000 – not a very good deal."

~~~
toomuchtodo
Energy storage is eligible for the 30% tax credit the same as a solar panel
install on your roof. So knock 30% off the total install cost ($4500 total -
30% = $3150).

------
blacksmith_tb
As I am eagerly awaiting delivery of a 2017 Prius Prime plug-in hybrid in
their #1 state Oregon, this is all good news. However, as I'm switching from
an old diesel VW, I also can't help but notice these numbers are very
literally electric vs. gas, and look like they wouldn't pencil out against a
diesel sedan. That said, the contrast there is between belching soot out vs.
clean air, so hard to argue on that front.

~~~
relaytheurgency
How is the electricity in Oregon generated? I wonder what the carbon footprint
of running an electric vehicle on coal is, especially when you include mining
Lithium etc.

~~~
dver23
Mostly Hydro, Nat gas and renewable. Almost no coal.

~~~
agermanov
This says different:
[https://www.oregon.gov/energy/pages/oregons_electric_power_m...](https://www.oregon.gov/energy/pages/oregons_electric_power_mix.aspx)

33.65% is coal.

------
darklajid
Disclaimer: I understand this is a US focused article.

My story? Everyone drew lots and I lost: I drive a Prius Plugin Hybrid for the
next 2.x years as a company car because no one wanted it.

My biggest beef: It's too expensive. The list price is around 50k EUR - and
that's what the state of Germany uses to tax me for that car. For comparison:
I drove an A3 Quattro Sportback with ~everything~ before that and that's the
same price.

The second problem is actually very relevant to this article: There aren't any
'free' recharging stations even remotely close to my place (a 'major city' in
Germany, you'd know Bochum if you'd be from this country). This crappy car has
a 22km reach when fully charged. That is far too low and even if I find a
charging station .. I probably end up being at 50% if I get back home.

But! The article claims that it is actually cheaper to charge your car than to
refuel it. And here's another problem: The 'your company car needs fuel'
problem is solved. I have two different cards that I can use to either refuel
at Routex (think BP et all, big list of participants) or Shell. So, I can fuel
up for free almost all the time. There's no proven way (and nothing in place
for me) to pay for electricity.

Ignoring the fact that it would be a logistical nightmare to plug the car in
at my flat and ignoring that the 22km are really nothing but a joke and
utterly useless for .. anything I do: I'd pay for that out of my own pocket
vs. 'free' fuel.

So I think this country over here needs to adjust quite a bit more before
electrical vehicles become a decent option. Companies need to adjust their
policies (why do they even give me a plugin hybrid?). More recharging stations
are required. And honestly .. if your car cannot do at least 150-200km on a
charge.. Then it's not an electric car, it's an electric bike with a roof on
top (those can already do 60+km easily for the basic starter models).

~~~
mcv
The article talks just about prices, not about who's paying for it. If your
company pays for gas, but you pay for electricity, then for you obviously gas
is cheaper. But that's a very specific case.

Also, a Prius is a hybrid, and not meant to be used as a fully electric
vehicle (or it would have a bigger battery).

------
kylec
I ran the numbers for my father a few months ago and it was basically even for
him:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12379662](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12379662)

------
pwinnski
"On average it is $60 cheaper per month to drive on electricity than
gasoline."

So far in 2016 I've spent less than $87/month on fuel. In February I spent
less than $60, while some long road trips in July pushed me up to $144. I've
taught my son to drive this year, so that's a bit extra, but it's hard to
imagine this working out for me.

If I'm reading the chart right, Texas comes in at #18, with $810 in savings.
So far I've spent $869.59 on fuel this year. Admittedly, the year is not over,
but I suspect it might take more than $59.59 for me to charge an electric car.

I mean, if my parking space weren't such a very long way from my apartment,
that is. For now, I'm planning to buy a Prius, but not the plug-in model.

~~~
mcv
You're probably not an average car user, then. The article talks about
averages. Nobody is really average. Electric cars are more efficient for
people who drive a lot (see the point they make about Missouri).

------
carterehsmith
The statement comes from "pluglesspower.com".

Is that a credible source? I kind of follow the tech scene, I never heard of
them. Did anyone?

So. It is just a company blogger tasked to promote whatever they are doing.

So... no comment.

------
fryguy
As someone who has an electric car, this completely disregards the fact that
by having an electric car, it nearly automatically puts you into a higher
electricity cost tier. In my case, it's $0.10/kWh for the normal, and
$0.18/kWh for the higher tier. They're using the "average" cost of electricity
which should be lower than the actual cost of electricity. I ended up getting
solar panels, so that dropped me back down to using very little electricity
from the local municipal electricity company and saving at least $100/month
when taking into account the cost of the solar panels.

~~~
mikeash
I haven't heard of this. Whenever I see discussion of EV charging rates from
owners, it's in the context of taking advantage of extra-cheap overnight
rates. I'm sure what you say is the case in some places, but are you sure this
is common?

------
kazinator
Those nice and low ¢/kWh figures seem very subsidized; not market rate
figures.

Whereas gasoline is not subsidized; in fact taxed quite a bit.

~~~
mikeash
Gasoline is subsidized. The taxes exist to pay for road construction and
maintenance, but they're not high enough even to cover that, let alone the
costs imposed by the pollution released when burning the stuff.

~~~
kazinator
You're not describing subsidies in the sense that the government chips to
cover some of the cost of gas so that poor people can drive. That's how
residential electricity is subsidized: it costs pennies per kWh so that poor
people can have it.

You're describing fantasy subsidies consisting of insufficient taxation in
gasoline to cover infrastructure costs and the impact of driving.

We could argue that food is subsidized because terrorists eat, yet the food
industry doesn't pay for the harm they cause.

~~~
mikeash
Does it matter if the subsidy comes in the form of direct cash payments or
allowing people to impose costs on others without their consent? The effect is
the same.

Imagine if the local garbage company was allowed to dump their trash on your
yard without paying you. I'd call that a subsidy.

~~~
kazinator
Yes. People imposing costs through pollution or whatever without paying for
that _matters_. (It also matters that they may be doing irreversible damage,
irreparable at any cost.)

It's just not called a subsidy and is irrelevant to the point that putting
electricity in your car versus gas looks good from a pure "cost to my monthly
bottom line" point of view partly because of residential rate subsidies that
allow poor people to turn the lights on.

You're not getting gasoline from Big Oil Co below what it costs to _produce_.

You're getting residential power below production cost from Local Power Co.
For now. That loophole will likely be closed, at least partially, as EV's
become ubiquitous.

~~~
mikeash
Do you have something to back up that bit about residential power being below
cost? I was unaware of this and can't find anything about it.

I know that there are _times_ when that's the case, because I pay a flat rate
for electricity even though production costs spike heavily during periods of
high demand. But on average, I thought it covered costs. Especially since I'm
still paying that flat rate in the middle of the night when production costs
are far lower.

If you don't like calling the ability to pollute a "subsidy" then fine, but I
don't see how it's irrelevant. Part of the reason driving a gas car looks so
cheap is because you're allowed to impose a significant chunk of the costs on
other people.

------
ramonvillasante
There are additional costs if we compare ICE vehicles and EV charged with
clean energy.

The economic, social and environmental costs of pollution and greenhouse gases
of ICE vehicles are a considerable part of these and others costs, but not
all:

\- pollution health impact -

<< Some three million deaths a year are linked to exposure to outdoor air
pollution. Indoor air pollution can be just as deadly. In 2012, an estimated
6.5 million deaths (11.6 per cent of all global deaths) were associated with
indoor and outdoor air pollution together.

Ninety-four per cent of the deaths are due to non-communicable diseases –
notably cardiovascular diseases, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
and lung cancer. Air pollution also increases the risks for acute respiratory
infections.

“ This new model is a big step forward towards even more confident estimates
of the huge global burden of more than six million deaths – one in nine of
total global deaths – from exposure to indoor and outdoor air pollution,” said
Dr. Neira, who is WHO Director, Department of Public Health, Environmental and
Social Determinants of Health. " >>

source:
[http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/09/vast-m...](http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/09/vast-
majority-of-world-6-76-billion-people-living-with-excessive-air-pollution-un-
report/)

\- Greenhouse gases emission for climate change impact -

“Temperature change will leave the average income around the world 23% lower
in 2100 than it would be without climate change” "This study is far from the
first to suggest that climate change will slow economic growth. Big business
has been especially keen on highlighting the potential damage. A Citigroup
report released last month found that minimizing temperature rises to 2.7ºF
(1.5ºC) could minimize global GDP loss by $50 trillion compared to a rise of
8.1ºF (4.5ºC) in the coming decades."

source: [http://time.com/4082328/climate-change-economic-
impact/](http://time.com/4082328/climate-change-economic-impact/)

source paper in Nature:
[http://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725.epdf?referrer_acc...](http://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725.epdf?referrer_access_token=thXOWAL7phwQx1Ix4h4B5NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9qnfWTywcc-
SwmqGd2vK84Dm7GGBIHFDIK3iZFcb2NUnSWQFSATgixEL12Q5gaz4cu6pwBdmJr0pzYWgCowDlURYTItMWFpO9JXTxz0wQhwn5ENsOs0FZbjPUiCI6nuAjOV3rDJp4u1OyDAn_STB05X0irCG8b53vplpSGjftjg%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=time.com)

\- Fossil fuel subsidies -

"Fossil Fuel Subsidies Cost $5 Trillion Annually and Worsen Pollution The
International Monetary Fund notes that subsides for burning fossil fuels
enrich the wealthy and make air pollution worse"

source: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuel-
subsi...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuel-subsidies-
cost-5-trillion-annually-and-worsen-pollution/)

I repeat that ICE vehicles are a considerable part of this costs, not all.
Also EV charged with clean energy have costs, R&D&I, subsidies, etc. but
compared in economic, social and environmental costs and in each of them
alone, EV charged with clean energy cost less and are better for society’s
health, economy, security, survival and happiness, globally. There is a lot of
work and costs left to do but I think we can do it with increasing innovation
and social awareness.

~~~
SFJulie
It looks like a forced dichotomy. What is it compared to the cost of not
owning cars and having decent mass transportation, and dense/safe/cities in
which people can live without the threat of cars?

And also what about in both cases the costs of roads, bridge, traffic
jam/signals, accidents, policing?

Seriously, it is as if the problem for solving man created excessive energy
that screws the climate was to make MORE _green_ energy and not about
consuming _less_ energy.

Consuming more dirty energy or more green energy still results in extra
temperature on the surface of the globe.

------
gjolund
Does this include the additional cost of the electric car?

~~~
greglindahl
That's discussed in the 2nd paragraph of the article: No.

Electric cars have a ways to go to have lower total cost of ownership.

