Which Is Cheaper to Fuel, A Gasoline Car or an EV?

[ice-capades]

Which Is Cheaper to Fuel, A Gasoline Car or an EV? Washington Post Takes a Deep Dive

https://www.autoblog.com/2023/08/09/which-is-cheaper-to-fuel-a-gasoline-car-or-an-ev-washington-post-takes-a-deep-dive/

A Look at Costs State by State, And the Many Variables Behind the Answer

 

 

Red or black? Draw or stand pat? Electric or gasoline?

 

So many choices. To ease some of the mental strain that may afflict new car buyers, The Washington Post has a piece titled “Is it cheaper to refuel your EV battery or gas tank? We did the math in all 50 states.” A long title, and a long piece filled with useful information.

 

It takes hundreds of words to explain the challenges posed by the choices. The piece is filled with facts, and author Michael Coren — he’s identified as the Post's “climate advice columnist” — also offers some opinion.

 

We’ll cut to the chase, which we found deep in the piece. Coren asserts, “We may never agree on what it costs to refuel an electric vehicle.”

 

Then he continues, “That may not matter. For the everyday driver in the United States, it’s already cheaper to refuel an EV most of the time, and it’s expected to get cheaper as renewable capacity expands and vehicle efficiency improves.”

 

Coren embarks on a couple of hypothetical road trips to make his case about whether it costs more to recharge or refuel this summer. He notes average prices of a gallon of gas, but measuring electricity is more “tricky … rates not only vary by state, but by the time of day and even the outlet. EV owners may plug in at home or work and then pay a premium to fast-charge on the road.’

 

He details a make-believe trip to Disneyland from San Francisco, a 408-mile journey in a Ford F-150 and its electric counterpart, the Lightning.

 

“The winner? The EV — barely," he writes. "The savings were modest because of the substantial premium for using fast chargers, typically three to four times more expensive than charging at home. In a Lightning, I arrived at the park with $14 more in my pocket than if I had driven its gasoline counterpart.”

 

The story sets up the usual argument posed by many who believe that the high cost of electricity mitigates the savings promised by EVs. The writer points out that “just calculating the cost of gasoline vs. electricity is misleading. Prices vary by charger (and state). Everyone charges differently. Road taxes, rebates and battery efficiency all affect the final calculation.’’

 

That notwithstanding, Coren calculates that at the end of the day, “in all 50 states, it’s cheaper for the everyday American to fill up with electrons — and much cheaper in some regions such as the Pacific Northwest, with low electricity rates and high gas prices.”

 

But he says EVs even have the edge even where electricity costs more and gas costs less.

 

Particularly when you charge at home.

 

Overall, we’ll give props to the piece for its attempts to cover a myriad of issues and arguments in a single swipe. A wise reader will realize that the EV-vs-gas debate is far from finished.

 

The full article can be found here.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/electric-vehicle-charging-price-vs-gasoline/

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by ice-capades
Additional Content

[Rick73]

Below is best point I got out of the Washington Post article. 
 

“There’s a strong climate case against building electric versions of America’s gas guzzlers, but these estimates are meant to reflect the actual vehicle preferences of Americans.“

 

A few points seem so absurd to me that it’s hard to understand why they even bother discussing in that it detracts from study’s credibility.  Why bring up free charging or chargers that add 30 miles of range per hour?  I can see comparing home charging and Supercharging on road trips, but who’s going to realistically charge at 30 MPH rate during a road trip even if electricity is free?  Other than overnight at a hotel, charging for 10 hours to drive 300 miles has minimal practical application.

[rperez817]

10 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Below is best point I got out of the Washington Post article. 
 

“There’s a strong climate case against building electric versions of America’s gas guzzlers, but these estimates are meant to reflect the actual vehicle preferences of Americans.“

 

 

The data Washington Post shared for its California road trip comparing the best selling gasoline powered pickup truck, crossover/SUV, and sedan with BEV equivalents indicates the "electric version of America's gas guzzlers", in this case F-150 & F-150 Lightning, provides the greatest reduction in emissions compared to its gasoline fueled counterpart.

 

[jasonj80]

Miss one huge thing; Gas has almost a $1.00 a gallon tax on fuel. There is currently $0 tax on vehicle charging.

[rperez817]

21 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

Miss one huge thing; Gas has almost a $1.00 a gallon tax on fuel. There is currently $0 tax on vehicle charging.

 

Good point jasonj80. Oregon has an RUC pilot program called OReGO. Its per mile charge is $0.19 for all eligible light vehicles regardless of fuel type. It would be interesting to re-do the Washington Post cost analysis for Oregon with the provisions of OReGO applied to both the gasoline powered vehicles and BEV. OReGO helps preserve and improve Oregon roads. | MyOReGO

 

OReGO participants pay 1.9 cents for each mile they drive and that money goes directly into the State Highway Fund. Starting in 2019, the Legislature authorized ODOT to allow unlimited OReGO participants, and there are more volunteer perks than ever. Drivers of fuel-powered vehicles can receive a credit for fuel tax and remote emissions testing, and drivers of electric vehicles are eligible for reduced registration fees.

[92merc]

47 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

The data Washington Post shared for its California road trip comparing the best selling gasoline powered pickup truck, crossover/SUV, and sedan with BEV equivalents indicates the "electric version of America's gas guzzlers", in this case F-150 & F-150 Lightning, provides the greatest reduction in emissions compared to its gasoline fueled counterpart.

 

 

That chart neglects one big factor.  The amount of "energy" it takes to make an EV is higher than an ICE vehicle.  All the extra copper in the electric motors, the batteries, etc.  You have to look at these vehicles as the lifetime expected emissions, birth to death.  Including the extra efforts to dispose of an EV when it's done for.

 

It's been quite a few months since I saw a video.  But it had the data to show it takes anywhere from 50k to 100k miles, depending on battery size, to get into birth to death advantage for EV vehicles.  So too many articles are taking a short cut in reporting how much better emissions are better on an EV and only show it on a trip basis.  You can't put your blinders on and just ignore all the other parts.  (not you personally rperz.  I know you know.)

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

The data Washington Post shared for its California road trip comparing the best selling gasoline powered pickup truck, crossover/SUV, and sedan with BEV equivalents indicates the "electric version of America's gas guzzlers", in this case F-150 & F-150 Lightning, provides the greatest reduction in emissions compared to its gasoline fueled counterpart.

 

The comparison claims the gas F-150 produces 5 times more CO2 than Lightning as stated in article, but does that make objective sense to you?

 

EPA rates Lightning at 200 grams per mile.  That’s based on many favorable assumptions that are not real, but let’s go with 200 grams per mile.

 

EPA also states that burning a gallon of gas produces 8,887 grams of CO2.  If you choose a gas F-150 that gets 22 MPG, that works out to 400 grams per mile.  That’s 2 times more CO2, not 5 times as much.  Right away, this makes me question credibility.  Yeah, I know there are slight differences due to details, but let’s focus on big picture.

 

The only way to get 5 times more CO2 from gas F-150 by comparison is to reduce Lightning way below national electricity CO2 contribution.  That’s just not real.  Besides, businesses rarely use “averages” to justify economic decisions when contemplating or evaluating changes.  The same logic should apply here.  In reality, a Lightning contributes in order of 550~600 grams per mile to the environment, and that doesn’t even include manufacturing penalty.  Collectively we are not doing enough to reduce global warming by focusing so much on BEVs.

 

I want BEVs, but BEVs without decarbonized electricity can be worthless, or worse.  These studies too often cherry-pick assumptions to get results they want.  Auto industry consultants say one thing, and environmental extremist the opposite.  I just look at numbers for myself and come to my own objective conclusions.

 

 

 

 

[rperez817]

14 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Collectively we are not doing enough to reduce global warming by focusing so much on BEVs.

 

The author of the Washington Post article acknowledges this in the last few paragraphs, suggesting that the transition to BEV is necessary, but not by itself sufficient, to address the climate emergency.

 

Ultimately, we may never agree on what it costs to refuel an electric vehicle. That may not matter. For the everyday driver in the United States, it’s already cheaper to refuel an EV most of the time, and it’s expected to get cheaper as renewable capacity expands and vehicle efficiency improves.

The sticker price for some EVs is expected to fall below comparable gasoline cars as soon as this year, and estimates of the total cost of ownership — maintenance, fuel and other costs over a vehicle’s lifetime — suggest EVs are already cheaper.

After that there’s one last number I felt was missing: the social cost of carbon. It’s a rough dollar estimate of the damage from adding another ton of carbon to the atmosphere — a tally of heat deaths, flooding, wildfires, crop failures and other costs tied to global warming.

Every gallon of gas adds about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, equivalent to about 50 cents in climate damage per gallon, researchers estimate. Accounting for external factors such as congestion, accidents and air pollution, according to one 2007 estimate by Resources for the Future, the damage bill is closer to $3 per gallon.

You’re not required to pay this, of course. And EVs also don’t solve this problem on their own. For that, we’ll need more cities and neighborhoods where you don’t need a car to visit friends or buy groceries.

But electric mobility is essential to helping keep temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius. The alternative is a price that has become impossible to ignore.

[Gurgeh]

12 hours ago, jasonj80 said:

Miss one huge thing; Gas has almost a $1.00 a gallon tax on fuel. There is currently $0 tax on vehicle charging.

Electricity taxes are embedded in the rate you pay. States, counties, cities typically put their thumbs on the scale, but the amount of those electricity taxes vary greatly from state to state or even between localities. 

[T-dubz]

High demand usually means higher prices. Once EVs are more mainstream, I would expect the price of electricity to drastically increase. This means everything costs more. Cooling your house, watching tv, turning on a light would all be more expensive. Businesses will have higher bills which will get passed on to their customers. New power plants, power lines and other infrastructure will be needed to keep up with demand. Those costs will also get passed on to you.

 

If gas prices go down due to lower demand, it seems like a hybrid would be a great buy.

 

[CurtisH]

9 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

Electricity taxes are embedded in the rate you pay. States, counties, cities typically put their thumbs on the scale, but the amount of those electricity taxes vary greatly from state to state or even between localities. 

Gasoline taxes are supposed to pay for road maintenance.  Remove most of the ICE vehicles and the government will have to add or increase taxes somewhere to pay for road maintenance. 

[akirby]

33 minutes ago, CurtisH said:

Gasoline taxes are supposed to pay for road maintenance.  Remove most of the ICE vehicles and the government will have to add or increase taxes somewhere to pay for road maintenance. 

The idea with gas taxes is that people who drive more pay more and larger trucks pay a lot more so the ones causing the most wear and tear pay more to fix it.  And the cost was spread out weekly.   The only solution for EVs is a mileage based tax at annual registration time which is already used in some places.  The downside is it’s a one time annual payment.

 

I think they should just fund road improvements with general taxes.  Everybody uses the roads either directly or indirectly and trying to apportion costs between tiers of drivers isn’t worth the overhead and inconvenience of an annual fee.

[jasonj80]

9 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

Electricity taxes are embedded in the rate you pay. States, counties, cities typically put their thumbs on the scale, but the amount of those electricity taxes vary greatly from state to state or even between localities. 

Gas tax is how the vast majority of funds come to fund road construction. Gas users are heavily subsidizing the cost of electric vehicles in many ways right now. When trucking companies moved to CNG states very quickly added CNG tax equal to diesel because of the lost revenue. There hasn't been an appetite yet short of maybe a slightly higher plate fee to make electric vehicle road uses pay a fair use tax. 

Oregon, Michigan, Washington and Californian have some small programs to study a per/mile tax but how that would be paid (monthly, quarterly, yearly) is still TBD, some use connected vehicle data that report in real time. Some are using separate transmitters that will be overlapped with LPR systems to act as a fraud check. There is also considerable political blow back so no one wants to touch it. 

[akirby]

28 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

Gas tax is how the vast majority of funds come to fund road construction. Gas users are heavily subsidizing the cost of electric vehicles in many ways right now. When trucking companies moved to CNG states very quickly added CNG tax equal to diesel because of the lost revenue. There hasn't been an appetite yet short of maybe a slightly higher plate fee to make electric vehicle road uses pay a fair use tax. 

Oregon, Michigan, Washington and Californian have some small programs to study a per/mile tax but how that would be paid (monthly, quarterly, yearly) is still TBD, some use connected vehicle data that report in real time. Some are using separate transmitters that will be overlapped with LPR systems to act as a fraud check. There is also considerable political blow back so no one wants to touch it. 

Trucking companies don’t pay for fuel anyway.  They pass that cost on to the consumer of the goods being transported.  Just fund it from the general tax fund and eliminate all that overhead.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

I think they should just fund road improvements with general taxes.  Everybody uses the roads either directly or indirectly and trying to apportion costs between tiers of drivers isn’t worth the overhead and inconvenience of an annual fee.

That approach does not help to discourage waste.  I prefer taxes based on fuel or energy usage so person making decisions has incentive to conserve in order to turn higher profit.  For example, if we had two competing trucking companies, the one who buys more efficient trucks has an even higher advantage because not only do they save on basic fuel costs, but also on associated taxes.  Likewise, a 15 MPG SUV will pay much more in taxes than a 45 MPG hybrid, providing additional incentive to conserve. 

 

Though I generally do not like government involvement any more than absolutely necessary, I have come around to believe that the easiest way to affect human behavior is to add significant cost to undesirable decisions.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

That approach does not help to discourage waste.  I prefer taxes based on fuel or energy usage so person making decisions has incentive to conserve in order to turn higher profit.  For example, if we had two competing trucking companies, the one who buys more efficient trucks has an even higher advantage because not only do they save on basic fuel costs, but also on associated taxes.  Likewise, a 15 MPG SUV will pay much more in taxes than a 45 MPG hybrid, providing additional incentive to conserve. 

 

Though I generally do not like government involvement any more than absolutely necessary, I have come around to believe that the easiest way to affect human behavior is to add significant cost to undesirable decisions.

The price of gas and electricity will discourage wastefulness all by itself.  Added taxes are not needed and won’t make a difference. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

The price of gas and electricity will discourage wastefulness all by itself.  Added taxes are not needed and won’t make a difference. 

We are not actually talking about adding taxes, but rather a different way of calculating and collecting.  Funding road repairs and improvements from general tax fund still requires taxation, though like you say perhaps cheaper to collect.  Even so, I think that if we want people to use less gas,  increasing cost per gallon directly is best.  In my opinion we would find more efficient ways to live in order to compensate for higher cost.

[jpd80]

On 8/10/2023 at 11:57 PM, jasonj80 said:

Miss one huge thing; Gas has almost a $1.00 a gallon tax on fuel. There is currently $0 tax on vehicle charging.

That is true but you also cannot buy a cheap second hand BEV for say $2,000.

One of the big advantages with ICEs is the availability of low cost transport.

Edited August 11, 2023 by jpd80

[jasonj80]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

That is true but you also cannot buy a cheap second hand BEV for say $2,000.

One of the big advantages with ICEs is the availability of low cost transport.

I get your point, but right now you can’t find a decent anything for under $3000. If it runs you’ll get $2000 and a line of people right now. 
 

The leafs are actually pretty good cheap used electric vehicles, some battery degradation but can get a 8-10 year old one for 5k which for a simple commuter car isn’t that bad. 

[sullynd]

29 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

The leafs are actually pretty good cheap used electric vehicles, some battery degradation but can get a 8-10 year old one for 5k which for a simple commuter car isn’t that bad. 

They’re a good first car too if they’re responsible enough to keep charged.