Tag: range

Study: Cost of ‘fueling’ an electric vehicle is equivalent to $17.33 per gallon

The complete costs of “fueling” an electric vehicle for 10 years are $17.33 per equivalent gallon of gasoline, a new analysis from the Texas Public Policy Foundation says.

BY KENNETH SCHRUPP 

An electric vehicle driver makes use of a charging station in Seattle. Photo courtesy of the City of Seattle.

The study authors say the $1.21 cost-per-gallon equivalent of charging a car cited by EV advocates excludes the real costs born by taxpayers for subsidies, utility ratepayers for energy investments, and non-electric vehicle owners for mandate-and-environmental-credit-driven higher vehicle costs, which they say total $48,698 per EV. Those costs must be included when comparing fueling costs of EVs and traditional gas-powered vehicles, TPPF maintains.

“The market would be driving towards hybrids if not for this market manipulation from the federal government. We’d be reducing emissions and improving fuel economy at the same time on a much greater scale,” study author Jason Isaac told The Center Square in an interview. He then cited Toyota estimates that the batteries from one EV can power 90 hybrids and reduce emissions 37 times more than that one EV. 

The study adds up the costs of direct subsidies to buyers of the car and chargers; indirect subsidies in the form of avoided fuel taxes and fees, as well as electric grid generation, transmission, distribution, and overhead costs for utilities; and regulatory mandates that include fuel economy standards, EPA greenhouse gas credits, and zero-emission mandates. 

Image courtesy of the Texas Public Policy CenterTexas Public Policy Center

The study also assumes EVs will be driven for 10 years and 120,000 miles, which the authors claim is a generous estimate. According to J.D. Power, EVs lose 2.3% of their range each year due to battery degradation, in part driving EVs to lose value faster than internal combustion cars.

With Ford losing an estimated $70,000 per EV and subsidies reaching $50,000 per EV, Isaac says the real cost of a vehicle such as a Ford Lightning is over $150,000, and those costs are carried by everyone, including non-EV owners and even Americans without cars. 

“The real cost of a Ford Lightning is closer to $172,00 and no one would buy them at that. I know their sales have tanked. The [electric] Silverado sold 18 electric trucks last quarter,” Isaac said. “Buying a car is more expensive today and people don’t understand why that is. I’m trying to help them understand if they buy a gas or diesel car they’re paying for an electric vehicle for a wealthy EV owner.” 

To reach the $17.73 per gallon equivalent figure, the authors created categories for costs borne by EV owners, taxpayers, utility ratepayers, and buyers of electric vehicles. For reference, the cost per gallon equivalent is computed by dividing the number of miles over a car’s ten year lifetime by the average new vehicle’s fuel efficiency of 36 miles per gallon equivalent, and using that number to divide the total cost presented. 

EV owners only pay $1.21 for the cost of residential electricity and $1.38 for charging and metering costs per equivalent gallon, which makes charging still cheaper than gasoline in terms of costs paid by EV owners.

However, taxpayers pay $2.72 per gallon in federal and state EV buyer tax credits and rebates ($8,984 over a vehicle lifetime), a cost of $0.40 per gallon ($1,318 over a vehicle lifetime) in avoided charging infrastructure costs split between taxpayers and utility ratepayers. Utility ratepayers then pay $3.18 per gallon ($10,515 over a vehicle lifetime) in increased costs to enable the grid to charge electric vehicles at mass scale through increased power generation, transmission and distribution.

Lastly, buyers of non-electric vehicles face increased vehicle costs equating to $1.48 per gallon equivalent ($4,881 over a vehicle lifetime) due to requirements in many states that manufacturers sell a certain number of often money-losing EVs to continue selling other cars, $1.01 per gallon equivalent ($3,322 over a vehicle lifetime) due to EPA GHG emissions standards, while Corporate Average Fuel Economy Credits add a whopping $5.96 per gallon equivalent ($19,678 over a vehicle lifetime). 

Read the full story at The Center Square

Auto buyers have good reasons for avoiding e-cars

The politicians are ignoring the reality as they force people to buy products they don’t want.

From  CFACT

By Jason Hayes

Big government mandates are forcing the national transition to electric vehicles. Consumer demand doesn’t appear to matter.

Government is doling out billions in special loans and subsidies to select companies and twisting tax policy to make EVs appear cheaper. At the same time, heavy-handed mandates are making traditional, reliable cars more expensive and harder to produce.

Despite these efforts, the evidence is increasingly clear: Electric vehicles are not ready for prime time.

People buy vehicles to get them where they want to go, when they want to go there, with the things they want to take along with them. Yet a June study from AAA found that electric trucks lose nearly 25% of their range when they haul heavy loads. Even when they’re carrying 100 pounds less than their maximum load, their range drops off precipitously.

Trucks powered by combustion engines can lose range, too. But when you compare them with electric vehicles, traditional vehicles have a clear advantage. A Magna International towing test, carried out in July 2022, compared the capacity of a Ford F-150 Lightning to a gasoline-powered GMC Sierra when both trucks were towing a 6,100 lb. trailer at highway speeds. The gasoline-powered Sierra managed to pull the trailer 156 miles with an estimated 65 miles remaining in the tank, for a total of just over 220 miles. The F-150 Lightning managed an anemic 86 miles before requiring a charge. The gas truck went more than 2.5 times the EV’s distance.

Magna did a similar range test in October, comparing a Ram Cummins diesel with a GMC Hummer EV. Again, both trucks were pulling 6,100 lb. trailers at highway speeds. The Hummer had to stop at 123.2 miles, with an estimated 5 additional miles remaining in the battery — for a total possible distance of 128 miles. The Dodge Ram made it 212 miles before stopping to refuel, with an estimated 87 miles (or more than a quarter of the tank) remaining. That’s a total possible distance of 299 miles. The diesel truck was able to go more than 2.4 times farther.

It’s not just trucks. Electric vehicles, as a whole, are less convenient options for getting people where they want to go. The Wall Street Journal described a nightmare of an EV-powered trip from New Orleans to Chicago, highlighting range anxiety as well as extended charging times.

Certainly, electric vehicles have their staunch defenders, and they appear to be OK for short trips around larger cities where ample charging infrastructure exists. But they will fail to meet the needs of many drivers who live in rural areas or routinely need to travel on highways. Politicians are floating extensive plans to expand charging infrastructure, but that goal is decades away and will cost billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

Consumers are smart enough to know that electric vehicles don’t meet their needs. Most people, when given the option, select from a mix of luxury, reliability, cost, and design. They buy vehicles that get them where they want to go, with as little difficulty and as much comfort as they can afford. More often than not, that means avoiding an electric vehicle.

Consumers are also smart enough to know that electric vehicles are a worse investment. The North American Auto Dealers Association used Kelley Blue Book figures to conclude that the average EV has a five-year cost to own of more than $92,000. A typical internal combustion vehicle, meanwhile, costs only $76,500 over that same time frame. The association also noted that, after five years of ownership, electric vehicles depreciated by an average of $43,515, whereas traditional vehicles depreciated by $27,883.

The politicians who are coercing the public into buying electric vehicles are ignoring these realities as they force people to buy products they don’t want at far higher prices.

Mandates from on high should always concern customers and voters because they are inefficient and take away consumer choice. But electric vehicle mandates, in particular, use a top-down method that satisfies only the desires of government bureaucrats and C-suite executives, not consumers or the public.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner and The Mackinac Center

Author


Jason Hayes

Jason Hayes is the director of energy and environmental policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.