
It May Not Cost You More to Drive Home in a Climate-Friendly Car - af16090
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/27/495534164/it-may-not-cost-you-more-to-drive-home-in-a-lower-emission-car
======
droro
I had more questions about the specific parameters they were using, so I
followed the link ([http://carboncounter.com/](http://carboncounter.com/)) in
the article and checked out the "Customize" tab. Pretty sweet.

------
kevinpet
I thought that they would have overlooked taxes. In fact, I can't see how this
is anything other than stacking the deck:

"Each vehicle’s price is based on its official manufacturer’s suggested retail
price (MSRP) without tax. In addition, we evaluate the impact of federal tax
refunds on the lifecycle costs of PHEVs, BEVs, and FCVs. The federal refund
scales with the capacity of the battery up to a maximum value of $7500.45
Finally, we inspect the added effect of a best-case state tax refund. Assessed
for the case of California, this contributes $1500 for PHEVs, $2500 for BEVs,
and $5000 for FCVs.46 Some other states have similar programs, but they were
not analyzed in detail."

In California, sales and license taxes are about 18% of purchase price (half
up front, half over the next 11 years). But they've chosen to take California
for the rebate, but not include higher taxes on the purchase price (hybrids
have higher purchase price but lower operating costs).

Similarly a caption on one of the charts. "(d) a BEV-friendly energy price
scenario, using average inflation-adjusted prices from Washington State in
2012 ($3.88/gal for gasoline and $0.086/kWh for electricity) and combined
federal and state (CA) tax refunds."

This analysis is cherry picking pieces of the equation from different
scenarios, and so paints a more rosy picture of the cost of alternative energy
than _any_ single consumer could possibly have faced.

I don't doubt that electric cars will get there, but saying they are there now
is a lie.

------
gagmaker
if one concerns about 'climate', he should learn there is no such thing as a
'climate friendly car'

------
groundhogday1
I think if climate friendly options were available in more chassis options and
body styles, people would adopt them faster. I think people want to do the
'right' thing in switching to an EV/hybrid option, but there isn't a climate
friendly, cost effective pickup/SUV option available.

Tesla has the right idea in offering a low cost EV option that doesn't look
stupid with the Model 3. If there were Camry/Corolla and Accord/Civic EV
options with the same off-the-lot price tag and same exact body style
available, I think we would see more widespread adoption.

Additionally, if we were to see more electric utility vehicle options
available with body styles identical to the gasoline powered ones we see on
the road today, I believe that would capture another large swath of consumers.
Of course, this hinges on the manufacturers to offer these options in spite of
their gasoline producer friends urging them not to.

~~~
treehau5
For fun -- you can almost get the "MPGe" equivalent of a Tesla S in a Geo
Metro or Honda CRX

[http://jalopnik.com/5558345/how-to-get-997-mpg-from-a-geo-
me...](http://jalopnik.com/5558345/how-to-get-997-mpg-from-a-geo-metro)

------
hnal943
What's missing from the article is an analysis of the break-even point. How
long do you have to own your hybrid before the high initial cost pays off?
There's also the problem that there are not "climate-friendly" equivalents for
many vehicles. The article mentions the Chevy Suburban; there's no electric
option that big. Obviously big SUVs are going to be more expensive to operate
than sedans, which makes me wonder if they are even comparing apples to apples
here.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
The model x is the closest to a suburban, 3 rows of seats are available, it
can tow.

~~~
hnal943
I think you're right. I also think that if you told a suburban owner that they
should trade for the Model X, they would laugh.

------
dominotw
I live in a city and park my car on the street. How am I supposed to charge
it.

~~~
erikpukinskis
You are what they call "high hanging fruit". People like you won't be part of
the equation until deeper into the adoption curve. But the answer is: your car
will charge itself somewhere and drive itself to you.

~~~
ocb
Not saying that won't happen eventually, but it seems a lot more likely to me
that on-street public charging facilities will proliferate as EVs gain
popularity.

~~~
erikpukinskis
There will be some, but car ownership will collapse as soon as it becomes more
expensive per mile than being driven around by the Uber/Tesla/Google fleets.
And it'll be much easier politically and financially to replace your car with
a fleet than to get new infrastructure installed in cities. It will happen in
specific places (Portland, Helsinki, etc) but I think the adoption curve of
street charging will be dwarfed by the adoption of self-driving cabs by 2025.

Self-driving cabs don't have to be allowed everywhere for that to happen, they
just have to be allowed in more places than there are electric street charging
infrastructure projects.

------
vkjv
_sigh_ Another one of these that focus on new cars. Most fiscally minded
people, like myself, exclusively drive used cars. Even a lightly used model
that is only a couple of years old is significantly cheaper than a new car.

As I get more environmentally conscientious, here's what I really want to
know: What is better for the environment manufacturing a branch new EV and
driving it around for 5 years or picking up an existing junker that's going to
be scrapped and doing the same.

~~~
heygrady
Get a used EV! The Nissan Leaf is highly recommended as a used car. We have to
build new ones -- and sell them -- before there are used ones available.

[http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098554_should-i-buy-
a-u...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098554_should-i-buy-a-used-
nissan-leaf-or-another-electric-car)

~~~
vkjv
Interesting, I had assumed that EVs maintain their value better, but this link
says the opposite. I'll have to check it out. Thanks!

~~~
NotSammyHagar
Tesla have held their value better because there was a shortage, but
increasing supply and competition / availability of other models is putting
downward pressure on used prices. But all these cars have advancing
technology. My view is buying a slightly more expensive electric car today is
jumpstarting the future for other people. And if you prefer, you can buy a
very cheap used ev today - if doing so, the key thing is to figure out if the
car has reduced range. Teslas don't generally have a problem with this because
they cool the battery pack when recharging, not other cars do that.

------
Roodgorf
Is there much research on how information like this actually affects consumer
decisions? It looks good on paper, but the up-front cost is still generally
much higher than higher-emission vehicles. My impression is that people will
generally ignore these long-term benefits in favor of the more immediate
reward of a lower investment at the start, but perhaps that coupled with the
environmental factors could sway more minds than usual in this case?

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I'm not sure of the research, but I think your impression is correct to a
point.

I think for lower-income buyers, the initial cost is prohibitive - even with
long-term savings and benefits. And I'm guessing some banks would hesitate to
give the extra loan money as well if you don't have the income to support it.

It is kind of like buying a decent pair of shoes. If you are working retail,
it muchly benefits you to buy good shoes. But you have to save for those shoes
because of income limitations: If your current shoes wear out before you can
buy new ones, you get sucked further into a cycle of cheap new shoes.

It really doesn't matter if you get long-term benefits or have a great desire
to be environmentally friendly if you can't afford to do so. I think once we
have a decent used car market with them and the price comes down to soemthing
on par with higher-emission vehicles, there will be a much larger change.

------
mbroshi
Can I ask a couple of naive questions (I'm not very well informed on these
issues):

1\. Since electric cars may well be powered by coal, not gasoline, might they
not be more heavily emitting?

2\. Does the environmental impact of creating and disposing all the batteries
in electric cars counterbalance any emission gains?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
EVs are still better taking both these issues (and some others that aren't
immediately obvious) into account:

[http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-
vehicles/life-...](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-
vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions)

Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave

 _" Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global
warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting
cleaner."_

 _" We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the
average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery
manufacturing is accounted for."_

~~~
sandworm101
According to the graph in the OP, battery-powered EVs have roughly 1/2 the
lifecycle emissions. That's certainly lower and a good thing, but not a
fundamental change given what needs to be done.

I'd have to do the math, but it would seem that the switch from gas to
electric is roughly as beneficial as the past switch from carburetors to fuel
injection. It looks incremental rather than revolutionary. And I think there
is much improvement to be made. These numbers are American cars, so I assume
they aren't diesel and are for generally larger cars than in europe. Has a
diesel-electric hybrid ever been sold in the US?

~~~
epistasis
As electricity sources get cleaner, so will electric cars. Diesel and diesel-
hybrid will stay the same.

Solar, wind, and storage are getting so cheap that they will completely change
the electricity generation profile over the next few decades.

Even without that, a factor of 2 would be considered a revolution by pretty
much any measure.

~~~
sandworm101
>> Diesel and diesel-hybrid will stay the same.

Really? Development is done? I think there are plenty of engineers out there
working on efficiency. Engines today are more efficient than they were a
generation ago, and will be better in the future. In the realm of personal
transport we can talk of going all-electric but for things like shipping, the
heavy+distance things, there don't seem to be many non-IC options. Development
therefore must not be abandoned.

~~~
Decade
Your car stays the same. Unless you're replacing your car all the time, you're
not enjoying these higher efficiencies.

Existing battery-electric vehicles become cleaner as their electricity supply
becomes cleaner.

------
rusbus
Anecdotally: I wanted the cheapest possible new car for commuting around the
Bay Area. After some research, I found the Spark EV for only $60/month after
rebates. With insurance it's only$5/day. I assumed electric cars were defacto
expensive until I actually researched it. No idea why more people don't pick
up these cars.

(Probably because it only goes 80 miles)

~~~
tinbad
Hate to say it but this is part of the problem. There's nothing sustainable
about these manufacturer/government sponsored lease deals. California is the
biggest offender with the largest incentives and unreal regulations. A car is
a long term consumer good, the energy that goes into building one outweighs
the 2-3 year leases these cars are offered at loss prices. What happens when
these leases are up? Most owners will walk, because why pay big bucks to buy
out the car if you can get into another one for $50/month. These cars will end
up being bought back en masse by the manufacturers and it's a big question
what will happen then. Very likely to be scraped and, again, lots of energy
wasted. All thanks to Californias EV credit system.

Edit: lol downvote all you want, the reality won't change. If you understand
the economics of these leases (see my other comment) you'll see it too...

~~~
heygrady
Your argument is pretty thin. I would imagine the best way to alleviate your
concerns would be to require aggressive recycling programs for an EV.

Long-term, the sale of these cars is allowing the EV market to mature. Already
the price of the batteries has gone way down. The nextgen EVs coming out this
year and next with 200+ miles of range were only made possible by this
"unsustainable" consumer good. Maybe my 2012 EV with 75 miles of range is
already in a land-fill somewhere. But a car like a Tesla S keeps its value
surprisingly well and should last for quite a while.

The Chevy Bolt is a compelling car that someone could own for a decade. Your
main complaint is that the cars are evolving so fast that there are better
options available every time your lease is up. Big deal!

I think the battery is the most hazardous component. It's also the most
valuable from a recycling perspective.

Firstgen EVs are not popular in the aftermarket:
[http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-aside-resale-values-
for-e...](http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-aside-resale-values-for-electric-
cars-are-still-tanking/)

Battery recycling is an emerging market as well:
[http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093810_electric-car-
bat...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093810_electric-car-batteries-
what-happens-to-them-after-coming-out-of-the-car)

~~~
tinbad
You're comparing a 100k luxury Tesla with a $80/month lease. Yes I understand
the EV market is maturing and will find more niches while it develops but
least not ignore the reality of the $49/month EV (yes you can lease a Golf EV
at my local VW dealer for that little). See my other comment on how these
leases work and why they're not economically sustainable. There's also the
issue of California's EV credits that force every manufacturer to have an EV.
Why do you think Fiat sells the 500 EV? Not because the couple thousand they
sell a year are worth it economically, I can say that much.

~~~
heygrady
Sorry for mentioning Tesla. I realize it's an annoyingly expensive luxury car.
The larger point is that getting a "usable" firstgen EV required getting a
luxury car. A nextgen EV with 200+ miles of range will be available for
"affordable" prices by the end of this year (from Chevy).

EV incentives weren't meant to be unsustainable. That's why they're limited to
200k cars per manufacturer. Tesla will be the first EV maker to become
ineligible for tax credits because they will have hit the limit. They're also
the first EV maker to deliver a car that keeps its value. Others will follow
this year and next.

How the EV tax credit works: [https://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/19/how-the-ev-
tax-credit-w...](https://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/19/how-the-ev-tax-credit-
works-tesla-model-3/)

