EV use can be more expensive than gas

[mkg3]

The problem with this discussion is that people live in different parts of the country where the gas prices vary significantly. So the same distance costs for ICE vehicle differ significantly.

The national average is somewhere in mid $3.50/gal or so. In CA, it’s $5.25/gal or so. Electricity cost is higher in CA than the rest of the country too so there‘s that, but the differential in $/kWh at DCFC do not vary nearly as $/gal.

As others have mentioned the maintenance costs vary too and what needs to be done. Any ICE will require Oil/Filter every 10k miles. EV does not and saves time to have to have/do service the vehicle.

On the other hand, EVs will go through tires much faster and will eat away any saving one might have from not having to change oil. The cost of first 30k mile services being covered by warrantee is embedded in the price of the vehicle.

Then there is the cost of insuring EVs vs ICE vehicles. It is becoming very clear that EVs are more expensive to insure than ICE for the vast majority of the people, than ICE.

After all said and done, the total ownership cost for EV, I believe for R1S or any other large EVs are more than ICE equivalent. Not surprising when you consider the energy density of gasoline vs batteries, higher registration, insurance and tire replacement frequency.

The best thing, from my perspective, related to this subject is that I do not have to bother with having to take the vehicle in for oil change, and I can charge overnight at home while sleeping. On the negative, have to be more patient and accept longer road trips due to charging times and unless I’m using Supercharger, there is high likelihood of not just charging time but waiting for charger to open time must be added for inconvenience.

EVs work for me because I usually change my tires every 25~30k miles anyway and charge at home. My insurance has not been impacted no more than my ICE vehicle (in term of increase %) and the registration is consistent with any vehicle in the similar price.

Sponsored

 

[RivianRunner]

Batteries aren't free. An ICE equivalent vehicle costs a minimum of 10k less. In reality, it's much more. My reasons for buying R1 are safety and the awesome suspension. Saving money isn't one. I won't save any money. Let's not even talk about battery replacements 10 years down the line.

Rivian batteries only last 10 years??

I doubt it. The average motorist in N. America drives ~13K miles per year. That would be a lifespan of only 130,000 miles. They should go 3X-4X that far.

 

[RivianRunner]

High mileage Teslas have gone through multiple battery and motor replacements and is well documented. And they use Panasonic cells, which I would trust more than Samsung cells.

The Tesla Model S was Tesla's first electric car built as an electric car. They only made a tiny number of Roadsters on the Lotus platform. They were learning battery management as they went, and they had crude thermal control (compared to modern Tesla) and very basic Battery Management Systems. The batteries have come a long way too. The brand of the battery tells very little as they are constantly changing.

Using early Model S as a proxy for longevity of an EV is so misguided I can't even fathom it.

When you used to buy ICE vehicles, did you say to the salesman, "Yeah, but what will I do when the engine and the transmission need replacement at 200,000 miles?"

No, I didn't think so.

 

[RivianRunner]

I have saved thousands of dollars over the years, but also have the benefit of very affordable electricity rates(nuke is 60% in our grid) and some of the higher gasoling prices in the country- and that's not assuming Premium gasoline prices which are outrageous in our area.

Chicago's grid has roughly 52% nuclear, 21% coal, 14% renewables and 13% natural gas. At and an average rate of $0.179 per kWh, it ranks more expensive than average, primarily due to the large amount of nuclear that was slated to go off-line for economic reasons but has been extended to meet carbon goals.

Anyone claiming nuclear is the cheapest source of electricity is blowing smoke up your ass. When nuclear proponents were hyping it back in the 1950's, their story was that power would be too cheap to meter. That's never going to happen due to the high cost to construct plants and dispose of the radioactive waste.

 

[RivianRunner]

Is there a ToU rate for Tesla superchargers? I charge my Model 3 all this time and didn't know.

Yes, Superchargers in busy locations have rates that vary with high demand periods. That's to encourage people to charge off-peak and reduce demand for additional charging stalls. Fast charging is not a very profitable business, to be profitable at all requires high utilization rates of each stall.

Whenever you see someone trying to make the case that gas is cheaper than electricity, they will almost always quote one of those peak-busy period rates to make electricity look bad. Oh, and they like to compare powerful EVs with economy (gutless) ICE vehicles. The proper comparison MPG to a Rivian R1T is not 25 mpg, it's closer to 17 mpg, in the real world. Even then, the gas vehicle will probably not be as capable.

 

[shap]

Chicago's grid has roughly 52% nuclear, 21% coal, 14% renewables and 13% natural gas. At and an average rate of $0.179 per kWh, it ranks more expensive than average, primarily due to the large amount of nuclear that was slated to go off-line for economic reasons but has been extended to meet carbon goals.

Anyone claiming nuclear is the cheapest source of electricity is blowing smoke up your ass. When nuclear proponents were hyping it back in the 1950's, their story was that power would be too cheap to meter. That's never going to happen due to the high cost to construct plants and dispose of the radioactive waste.

Well, PGE costs on average 0.45c and they do not use a lot of nuclear. So the price you pay and the cost of the power plant while correlated, vary by huge factor.

Building a Nuclear plant, mid-size, costs on average of $8k per MW. Natural gas power plant building cost is about $600-$800 per MW, so 10 times cheaper. But then the actual operation cost (long term) is what makes a huge difference.

As I said before, US uses very old (40 years old on average) nuclear power plants and has not built any new nuclear sites for the last 25 years. Indeed, two new energy blocks were recently added to the existing plant (Vogtle).

As our government recently spent 7.2B of our money on 8 DCFC chargers, the cost seems to be a nonissue

Right now the cheapest and cleanest way to generate electricity is natural gas, but Nuclear can replace it if needed. France, which almost entirely relies on nuclear, and is heavily taxed, charges house holds ~25c per kW.

 

[ndmiller]

Batteries aren't free. An ICE equivalent vehicle costs a minimum of 10k less. In reality, it's much more. My reasons for buying R1 are safety and the awesome suspension. Saving money isn't one. I won't save any money. Let's not even talk about battery replacements 10 years down the line.

Our last EV was a 2017 sold in 2024 with 1-2% less range than new (Mercedes B250E, Tesla Powertrain). There is plenty of battery studies with enough time on them that EV batteries even the original chemistries last a good long time. The last one I saw indicated 10-20 years.

 

[CrazyOne]

Our last EV was a 2017 sold in 2024 with 1-2% less range than new (Mercedes B250E, Tesla Powertrain). There is plenty of battery studies with enough time on them that EV batteries even the original chemistries last a good long time. The last one I saw indicated 10-20 years.

Is there an assumption that battery packs are failing only because of degradation? Nissan ones are, but not Teslas AFAIK. Dendrites, thermal runaway are some of issues. The rate of failure isn't that low for 10 year EVs. https://insideevs.com/news/717187/ev-battery-replacements-due-failure-study/

Time will tell if things get better. I don't expect much from NMC cells. Newer chemistries seem better. We also need modular batteries. A single cell can kill a 135 kw pack. That won't scale well

 

[atebit]

Unless your local grid is fed by petrol burning generators. Some of that petrol would be derived from imported crude. Majority of utility-grade powerplants in the US make electricity from fossil fuels. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=21

In my state, 90% of electricity is generated from natural gas, nuke-lurr or renewable sources, wil coal making up the other 10%. There’s a push here to use less coal and much more renewables.

 

[TRap015]

Isn’t all of EA lvl 3 charger at $0.5/kwh if you don’t have the $7/month pass??

 

[RivianRunner]

Well, PGE costs on average 0.45c and they do not use a lot of nuclear. So the price you pay and the cost of the power plant while correlated, vary by huge factor.

Building a Nuclear plant, mid-size, costs on average of $8k per MW. Natural gas power plant building cost is about $600-$800 per MW, so 10 times cheaper. But then the actual operation cost (long term) is what makes a huge difference.

As I said before, US uses very old (40 years old on average) nuclear power plants and has not built any new nuclear sites for the last 25 years. Indeed, two new energy blocks were recently added to the existing plant (Vogtle).

As our government recently spent 7.2B of our money on 8 DCFC chargers, the cost seems to be a nonissue

Right now the cheapest and cleanest way to generate electricity is natural gas, but Nuclear can replace it if needed. France, which almost entirely relies on nuclear, and is heavily taxed, charges house holds ~25c per kW.

Cherry-picking a couple of power producers and using their price and methods of generation is not a valid way to determine which fuel source is cheapest. Using that method, I could say nuclear must be expensive because our electricity through PSE costs $0.10/kWh, and has no nuclear generation. That is not how costs are determined.

The total cost of generation for every fuel source is well studied and well known to energy analysts, and there is some cost variation for each method, depending upon particulars, location, etc. but, in general, nuclear costs more than natural gas, hydro, wind and solar when all costs are accounted for. I'm not anti-nuclear, it just has a poor track record of making electricity cost-effectively.

 

[shap]

Cherry-picking a couple of power producers and using their price and methods of generation is not a valid way to determine which fuel source is cheapest. Using that method, I could say nuclear must be expensive because our electricity through PSE costs $0.10/kWh, and has no nuclear generation. That is not how costs are determined.

The total cost of generation for every fuel source is well studied and well known to energy analysts, and there is some cost variation for each method, depending upon particulars, location, etc. but, in general, nuclear costs more than natural gas, hydro, wind and solar when all costs are accounted for. I'm not anti-nuclear, it just has a poor track record of making electricity cost-effectively.

You are correct - I actually was making that point.

As for the price for kW per source, metrics really varies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

My concern that we have very outdated nuclear plants, and not investing in new modernized one. Renewables are fine as far as we have a good blend of all sources.

I am looking forward to see this project to come live:
A new Texas plant in Seadrift is under development and the proposed reactor is a small modular reactor (SMR) – one of the first operational SMRs in the U.S. for electricity production beyond academic and research uses.

 

[Epicloop]

California being the exception - gas is currently hovering at 7$ a gallon near me.

Canada is similar or more than California.

For a pickup with more capability then the old F-250 diesel it replaced.

Curious how it is more capable than a F250 diesel (what year)?

A Lexus LX - comparable to R1s would go 500k miles with ease. Facts aren't FUD, just because you want it to be so. Oh yeah, it's a V6 with MT.

Unfortunately the LX would use $118k in fuel alone at today's prices in your city to go that distance assuming 20mpg.
That buys a lot of solar panels.
I am not a huge fan of the bulbous front end of the R1 but what the @&#* is going on with the front end on the new LX., sorry hard pass.

 

[CrazyOne]

Canada is similar or more than California.

Curious how it is more capable than a F250 diesel (what year)?

Unfortunately the LX would use $118k in fuel alone at today's prices in your city to go that distance assuming 20mpg.
That buys a lot of solar panels.
I am not a huge fan of the bulbous front end of the R1 but what the @&#* is going on with the front end on the new LX., sorry hard pass.

Few people drive 500k in their lifetime. I drove 100k in 15 years. Time does not kill ICE vehicles, it does kill battery packs.

National average is about 14k miles per year.Average vehicle age is 12.6 years and growing

 

[adam12]

This topic appears ripe for one of the many youTube influencers, hopefully one or more of them will undertake a yearlong evaluation with documentation and we will see a spirited discussion from this. I agree if you utilize public pay chargers during peak periods you will spend $$$.

Sponsored