Hybrid Car Break Even Point

[Chuckanut]

I'm sure it was only a temp tax and will be removed now that the price is back up, right?

IIRC, the tax will sunset next February 30th.

 

[CaptTom]

Interesting discussion of road taxes.

My own take is that everyone benefits from an efficient transportation system. Trying to single out individual car or truck owners to pay "their fair share" is just plain silly on a macro-economic basis.

Just pay for roads out of general funds, using whatever tax structure is used for all other public services. We can argue about the best way to do that, but to me, it's clear that taxing by mile, or by vehicle, or by gallon, is not the best answer.

 

[Midpack]

Not the government's job to market hybrids. Auto makers getting hybrids' pricing in line with straight gasoline vehicles is the answer.

Maybe, though it only makes sense after they started imposing CAFE standards beginning in 1975...

Frankly I’d rather they taxed the bejeebers out of gasoline like all but one OECD country, but Americans always have to be different.

Currently, the federal government levies a $0.184 per gallon tax on gasoline. In addition, state and local governments levy an average gas tax per gallon of about $0.35. This is an average combined rate of about $0.53 a gallon.

The U.S. combined gas tax rate is actually a lot lower than rates in other industrialized countries. According to data from the OECD, the average gas tax rate among the 34 advanced economies is $2.62 per gallon. In fact, the U.S.’s gas tax is the second lowest (Mexico is the only country without a gas tax) and has a rate less than half of that of the next highest country, Canada, which has a rate of $1.25 per gallon.

https://taxfoundation.org/how-high-are-other-nations-gas-taxes

 

[48Fire]

Saw my first Clarity in the parking lot today. I think I like the styling. Sharper than a Prius or Camry Hybrid for sure, not quite the Accord Hybrid which looks just like the regular Accords. Clarity is pretty close. Almost like the Prius and Accord had a love child that came out looking more like Accord.

Haha, cool. I still have not seen one, except the two blue ones at the dealer. We went with white/pearl, which I think looks a little better

 

[travelover]

I think the best reason to buy a hybrid or electric car is because you love all the cool technology. Like buying an F350 dually diesel, or a BMW convertible, it is a personal choice that makes you happy. Trying to justify it, particularly to other people, is a waste of time, IMHO.

 

[ERD50]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
While I think hybrids can make a lot of sense for people who put enough miles on their car, I absolutely hate this "equivalent MPG" rating.

It makes no sense, and that makes it misleading. You simply cannot use one number to represent a combination of two different things like that. So they should not do it.

What they should say is - you get X miles/kWh for the first Y miles, then you get X MPG after that.

That is two different numbers, combining them makes no sense.

-ERD50

As long as you are using the tool for its intended purpose, MPGe makes perfect sense. I have yet to hear of a better option for the public in general. ...

It doesn't make "perfect sense" at all, it's far from perfect, it's very flawed for the reasons I mentioned. It's based on a profile that the user might not follow, and it's just a phony-baloney number, since their 'efficiency' doesn't include the generation of the electricity, which is too large to ignore (much larger than the production of gasoline). That gives the consumer a distorted view (pay no attention to that power plant behind the curtain! ). And I gave you a better option (mentioned above - but turn it into $/mile for the consumer):

For the general public, to avoid tech talk, just give the following info, using national averages for a kWh and a gallon of gas:

A) This car can run in EV mode the first X miles if fully charged, the electricity cost per mile is $0.yy for those first X miles.

B) After the battery is depleted, the car runs in hybrid mode, and the gasoline cost per miles is then $0.zz.

That's all they need for real comparison. Because it sure makes a difference if you have a 10 mile commute or a 100 mile commute. But that single number treats them the same. And they could provide additional info (for those who want to dig deeper): To calculate your actual costs based on your local prices, "A" was calculated based on requiring xyz kWh charge per mile from the outlet . "B" was calculated based on xyz MPG.

... For comparing relative efficiency between a gas and electric car, it is a simple calculation that puts both gas and electric cars on the same measuring stick.

No it isn't. It tells me something about how efficient an EV uses power from the wall, but it doesn't tell me overall efficiency (that has to include turning fossil fuel into electricity). And if I choose not to care about environment issues (which get complex) and/or technical measures of efficiency, a cost per mile in each mode would be the best information for a consumer.

I agree a combined vehicle like a gas hybrid isn’t the best use for it. Luckily the epa sticker gives gas range, electric range, US average cost for both. ...

Looking at an actual sticker:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/learn-more-PHEV-label.shtm

I see they give MPG when in gas mode, that's good.

And they give the EV mode range (30 miles), but they obfuscate that with what looks like a pointer to a number that represents "kW-hrs per 100 miles". What's a typical consumer to make of that? It doesn't go 100 miles on a charge- it's a confusing number.

So a consumer is supposed to ignore that LARGE 98 MPGe, focus on the smaller "34 kW-hrs per 100 miles" (or am I supposed to read that as MPGe: 34?), and then see that the EV range is 30 miles, so that means 34 *(30/100) = 10.2 kW-hrs (times my cost per kW-hr). Yeah, simple.

-ERD50

 

[gerntz]

Maybe, though it only makes sense after they started imposing CAFE standards beginning in 1975...

Frankly I’d rather they taxed the bejeebers out of gasoline like all but one OECD country, but Americans always have to be different.



https://taxfoundation.org/how-high-are-other-nations-gas-taxes

Due to the higher miles driven in USA & Canada than most any other country (Australia?) because of how spread out we are due to physical size & respect for private property rights, high gas taxes would disproportionately hit the poorer segment unless there was a rebate program also. So I think it's fine to be different for good cause vs. just to be different. But nothing wrong with being different. If I didn't care for it, I could go elsewhere.

Frankly, I'd rather there'd be a very high Fed sales tax with an equal legal resident rebate vs. high income taxes in order to capture the off the books cash transitions.

 

[gerntz]

Interesting discussion of road taxes.

My own take is that everyone benefits from an efficient transportation system. Trying to single out individual car or truck owners to pay "their fair share" is just plain silly on a macro-economic basis.

Just pay for roads out of general funds, using whatever tax structure is used for all other public services. We can argue about the best way to do that, but to me, it's clear that taxing by mile, or by vehicle, or by gallon, is not the best answer.

I'm for users paying for their choices, driving or otherwise. That doesn't stop transportation from being efficient. And transportation efficiency varies by population density significantly. I doubt a subway system across ND could be very efficient.

 

[Midpack]

Due to the higher miles driven in USA & Canada than most any other country (Australia?) because of how spread out we are due to physical size & respect for private property rights, high gas taxes would disproportionately hit the poorer segment unless there was a rebate program also. So I think it's fine to be different for good cause vs. just to be different. But nothing wrong with being different. If I didn't care for it, I could go elsewhere.

Some truth to that.

• However, I doubt the "poorer segment" drives as many miles as other groups.
• One of the main reasons Americans are all spread out is because gas prices have been relatively low, cheap gas was a big factor enabling suburbs to sprout up everywhere! Americans used to cluster in/near cities much more despite the physical size of the country, not any more.
• And the irony is, it's well documented that lower fuel prices correlate to how many miles/year Americans drive - our relatively low gas prices also lead Americans of all socioeconomic groups to drive more than others, and care less about MPG than drivers in most other countries.

So it appears high gasoline taxes would undoubtedly curb driving (and reduce emissions) in the US just like it has in more highly gas taxed countries. But don't worry, special interests won't let it happen in our lifetimes if ever...

 

[JohnnyBGoode]

A timely article from Politico: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

It does temper my enthusiasm for electric cars (though I'm still on the waiting list for the Tesla Model 3)

 

[ERD50]

A timely article from Politico: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

It does temper my enthusiasm for electric cars (though I'm still on the waiting list for the Tesla Model 3)

Well, I wasn't going to go there, but since you brought it up...

Like so many of these studies, that one is interesting but has a serious flaw. EVs are really far worse than what his analysis shows.

The vast majority of these studies use the "average mix" of energy sources on the electric grid. But that isn't the number that matters. What matters is how was the added marginal electricity required to charge these EVs generated?

For example, take a relatively 'clean' grid with say, 50% 'renewable' power sources. That's nice, but when we add EVs to the grid, they require additional power. Where does that come from? There is rarely an excess of renewable power, so most of the time, a fossil fuel plant needs to kick in to supply the added demand. So rather than look at the average mix of power sources, they need to look at what is used to produce the marginal power. Few do that. Some reports have acknowledged the importance of it, and then go on to do the analysis with average, because it's easier!

I'm actually very interested in some of the plug-in hybrid technology, but ironically, it seems like it would be best to never plug them in (burning gasoline efficiently is more enviro-friendly than using electricity from the power company)! I mentioned earlier what a plug-in hybrid can do (they may or may not be designed this way, but it is a possibility) - since the car can get to highway speeds under EV mode, that allows the designers to be very flexible with the ICE, running it in its 'sweet spot' most of the time, and using the EV mode to supplement acceleration and take over for short hops, instead of starting/stopping.

There are some new ICE designs that get to/beyond the fuel efficiency of a diesel yet are cleaner than a gas engine. These designs typically have some limitations to their speed/power range, or warm-up requirements - but this fits well with a 'plug-in' hybrid that can take over for the ICE when the load/demand doesn't match its 'sweet spot'.

-ERD50

 

[meierlde]

Some truth to that.

• However, I doubt the "poorer segment" drives as many miles as other groups.
• One of the main reasons Americans are all spread out is because gas prices have been relatively low, cheap gas was a big factor enabling suburbs to sprout up everywhere! Americans used to cluster in/near cities much more despite the physical size of the country, not any more.
• And the irony is, it's well documented that lower fuel prices correlate to how many miles/year Americans drive - our relatively low gas prices also lead Americans of all socioeconomic groups to drive more than others, and care less about MPG than drivers in most other countries.

So it appears high gasoline taxes would undoubtedly curb driving in the US just like it has in more highly gas taxed countries. But don't worry, special interests won't let it happen in our lifetimes if ever...

Rather if you go back in time more folks lived on farms. There were lots of wide spot in the road towns back before the model T and highways, because travel was so difficult.
Actually if you read about it, cities started growing outwards before the auto it was first the electric street car, which was invented partly to provide demand for the electric companies during the day before lights were turned on. If you read about Chicago for example, the first big city without serious geographic restrictions like Manhattan has, First development started along the steam railroad lines, then the streetcars and interurban electric railroads (In addition in the county if you lived near an interurban you probably got electricity before the REA came about).
The US was 40% urban in 1900 before the model T but after the electric street car. reached 50% in 1920, 64% in 1950 69% in 1960 and is now about 80% urban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States

Without the car and the truck there is really no way the urban population of the us could survive.
Now looking at Fort Wayne In which boomed about 1900 you can see how far development reached in terms of when lots got bigger, and alleys began to go away. If you knew where the old pre 1945 street car ran then houses tended to gather up to a mile (typically 1/2 mile from the end of the line).

 

[JohnnyBGoode]

Well, I wasn't going to go there, but since you brought it up...

Like so many of these studies, that one is interesting but has a serious flaw. EVs are really far worse than what his analysis shows.

The vast majority of these studies use the "average mix" of energy sources on the electric grid. But that isn't the number that matters. What matters is how was the added marginal electricity required to charge these EVs generated?

For example, take a relatively 'clean' grid with say, 50% 'renewable' power sources. That's nice, but when we add EVs to the grid, they require additional power. Where does that come from? There is rarely an excess of renewable power, so most of the time, a fossil fuel plant needs to kick in to supply the added demand. So rather than look at the average mix of power sources, they need to look at what is used to produce the marginal power. Few do that. Some reports have acknowledged the importance of it, and then go on to do the analysis with average, because it's easier!

I'm actually very interested in some of the plug-in hybrid technology, but ironically, it seems like it would be best to never plug them in (burning gasoline efficiently is more enviro-friendly than using electricity from the power company)! I mentioned earlier what a plug-in hybrid can do (they may or may not be designed this way, but it is a possibility) - since the car can get to highway speeds under EV mode, that allows the designers to be very flexible with the ICE, running it in its 'sweet spot' most of the time, and using the EV mode to supplement acceleration and take over for short hops, instead of starting/stopping.

There are some new ICE designs that get to/beyond the fuel efficiency of a diesel yet are cleaner than a gas engine. These designs typically have some limitations to their speed/power range, or warm-up requirements - but this fits well with a 'plug-in' hybrid that can take over for the ICE when the load/demand doesn't match its 'sweet spot'.

-ERD50

Interesting take on it and makes sense to me - if true where you live then definitely a "minus" on the EV choice.

One other aspect that I've heard is the simplicity of an electric-only vehicle vs an ICE or a hybrid car. Basically with a hybrid you've got two motors in the vehicle with all the inherent complexity. By going electric only it would seem like the vehicle itself would be significantly simpler and cheaper to maintain over time? (putting aside battery maintenance issues)

 

[ncbill]

A timely article from Politico: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

It does temper my enthusiasm for electric cars (though I'm still on the waiting list for the Tesla Model 3)

Most of the study seems devoted to criticizing EV tax credits as unnecessary subsidies for the rich, a point with which I agree.

But a big assumption in the author's full report is that current emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants will not change, which I view with skepticism.

Given the higher emissions (CO2, particulates, NOx, SOx) and other hassles (ash disposal) utilities don't seem to be having any trouble convincing regulators to let them either shut down or convert their coal-fired plants to much cleaner natural gas.

Still, in the near term I won't be buying a pure EV, but will almost certainly be buying a hybrid.

 

[meierlde]

Actually if you have the land, and live south of 40 n, you could make a fairly clean plug in hybrid: Install sufficient solar panels and house batteries to fully charge the plug in every evening. A chevy volt has a 18.6 kwh battery which might imply a 2 to 3 kw solar system alone. (here in tx 2 kw systems tend to produce up to 15 kwh per sunny day)

Various cites claims you can charge at 4 miles of range per hour with the 110 v charger, so a fairly full charge would be possible overnight. (faster if you get a 240v inverter)

 

[ERD50]

Interesting take on it and makes sense to me - if true where you live then definitely a "minus" on the EV choice.

One other aspect that I've heard is the simplicity of an electric-only vehicle vs an ICE or a hybrid car. Basically with a hybrid you've got two motors in the vehicle with all the inherent complexity. By going electric only it would seem like the vehicle itself would be significantly simpler and cheaper to maintain over time? (putting aside battery maintenance issues)

The simplicity of a pure EV sure is appealing, and when I was younger I was certain we'd all be driving EVs by now, mostly for that reason.

But the reality is, that even with the incredible complexity of the ICE (and they keep getting more complex to deal with emissions), they have become incredibly, super reliable. It would be interesting to see numbers on how many people experience an actual engine/trans failure over the first, say 10 years of a car. Seems that most repairs are all the ancillary stuff, which is common to an EV. I think I had a water pump go out on a 10 year old car about 25 years ago. I don't recall any other actual engine type failure since then (OK, thermostat had to be replaced in my Volvo, it ran fine, but the emissions check light code said it wasn't reaching full temp fast enough - even though the gauge read what appeared to be normal).

But pure EV also means lots of batteries, and those are still expensive if you want ICE range. It will be interesting to see when (if?) anyone actually gets a Tesla Model 3 delivered at the much talked about $35,000 point. With limited supply, they are pushing the fully loaded models.
And of course, we can't "put aside battery maintenance issues" - those are real!

.... But a big assumption in the author's full report is that current emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants will not change, which I view with skepticism.

Given the higher emissions (CO2, particulates, NOx, SOx) and other hassles (ash disposal) utilities don't seem to be having any trouble convincing regulators to let them either shut down or convert their coal-fired plants to much cleaner natural gas.

Still, in the near term I won't be buying a pure EV, but will almost certainly be buying a hybrid.

Yes, we will likely see continued movement from coal to NG (much lower particulates, Sox, Nox, and ~ 1/3(?) lower CO2). But again, I would think that extra demand from EVs will only slow down the shift from coal. I'd imagine the grid operators would try to get a bit more life out of those old plants if demand increased?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Actually if you have the land, and live south of 40 n, you could make a fairly clean plug in hybrid: Install sufficient solar panels and house batteries to fully charge the plug in every evening. ...

This is another myth. It just doesn't work that way in real life.

Those solar panels don't exist in a vacuum, you need to look at the entire system and alternatives. If you weren't charging your EV with those panels, they would be providing energy to the grid, and a peaker plant would run a little less, and burn a little less fossil fuel.

But use the panels to charge your EV, and now the peaker plant runs to replace that energy. So in effect, the EV has 'stolen' that energy from the grid, which has to make it up burning fossil fuel, so the end result is your EV is running on fossil fuel, not solar power. And that EV is polluting as much as that peaker plant pollutes (and the power plant doesn't have catalytic converters and other components that a modern ICE car/hybrid has).

-ERD50

 

[Totoro]

Don't agree with that indirect reasoning.


Might as well claim that you only buy the EV if you have panels, which reduces fossil fuel use.


or this guy: Selfishly Solar - EVTV Motor Verks -- are you saying he drives up fossil fuel use too?



If motivation becomes a factor in logic reasoning outcome, something is off.

 

[meierlde]

This is another myth. It just doesn't work that way in real life.

Those solar panels don't exist in a vacuum, you need to look at the entire system and alternatives. If you weren't charging your EV with those panels, they would be providing energy to the grid, and a peaker plant would run a little less, and burn a little less fossil fuel.

But use the panels to charge your EV, and now the peaker plant runs to replace that energy. So in effect, the EV has 'stolen' that energy from the grid, which has to make it up burning fossil fuel, so the end result is your EV is running on fossil fuel, not solar power. And that EV is polluting as much as that peaker plant pollutes (and the power plant doesn't have catalytic converters and other components that a modern ICE car/hybrid has).

-ERD50

There is talk in the future in California at least of having to curtail solar power exports to the grid during the late afternoon to maintain grid stability. (Just like before the new transmission was built in Tx if the wind was strong the wind output was curtailed for grid stability purposes). In that case any curtailed solar energy would not be generated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
One of the solutions mentioned was home battery banks, Given that LiFePO4 batterys which allow 90%+ discharge are now less that 1k per kwh, ($949 at amazon)(lead acid batterys only like to be discharged to 50% or their life is shortened). It seems that the next step is home battery banks. (wikipedia mentions electric cars but they are not home that much in the afternoon). I suspect smart meters and inverters will be set up so that the grid operator can block exports from the home. Thus at least in some cases the solar will have no use without a battery bank.

 

[gerntz]

For example, take a relatively 'clean' grid with say, 50% 'renewable' power sources. That's nice, but when we add EVs to the grid, they require additional power. Where does that come from? There is rarely an excess of renewable power, so most of the time, a fossil fuel plant needs to kick in to supply the added demand. So rather than look at the average mix of power sources, they need to look at what is used to produce the marginal power. Few do that. Some reports have acknowledged the importance of it, and then go on to do the analysis with average, because it's easier!

-ERD50

There are also potential differences in reliability between fossil fuel sources/types. In the case of coal, plants typical have several weeks supply on hand such that they can operate quite a long time even with supply disruption.

As far as I know, gas plants rely on continuous pipeline delivery such that if the line(s) is disrupted, the plant is out of business in short order.

I'm still a nukes person.

 

[meierlde]

There are also potential differences in reliability between fossil fuel sources/types. In the case of coal, plants typical have several weeks supply on hand such that they can operate quite a long time even with supply disruption.

As far as I know, gas plants rely on continuous pipeline delivery such that if the line(s) is disrupted, the plant is out of business in short order.

I'm still a nukes person.

Actually the gas plants issue could be solved, locate the plants near underground gas storage reservoirs. Buy the storage outfit and dedicate it to the plant providing interruptable service to the gas piplines. (not as economic but more reliable).

 

[gerntz]

Some truth to that.

• However, I doubt the "poorer segment" drives as many miles as other groups.
• One of the main reasons Americans are all spread out is because gas prices have been relatively low, cheap gas was a big factor enabling suburbs to sprout up everywhere! Americans used to cluster in/near cities much more despite the physical size of the country, not any more.
• And the irony is, it's well documented that lower fuel prices correlate to how many miles/year Americans drive - our relatively low gas prices also lead Americans of all socioeconomic groups to drive more than others, and care less about MPG than drivers in most other countries.

So it appears high gasoline taxes would undoubtedly curb driving (and reduce emissions) in the US just like it has in more highly gas taxed countries. But don't worry, special interests won't let it happen in our lifetimes if ever...

- but I don't doubt the poorer segment use a bigger portion of their income on fuel, particularly since they have trouble affording core city rents/etc.
- Pretty sure population of metro areas & core cities as percent of total are rising, keep gas usage down vs. if this wasn't happening.
- Agree higher gas prices reduce driving and reduce vehicle sizes. Also crowd people together. I'm a very special interest.
-

 

[ERD50]

Don't agree with that indirect reasoning.

Might as well claim that you only buy the EV if you have panels, which reduces fossil fuel use.

or this guy: Selfishly Solar - EVTV Motor Verks -- are you saying he drives up fossil fuel use too?

If motivation becomes a factor in logic reasoning outcome, something is off.

I'm not sure which comment you are referring to, or why you say it is indirect reasoning?

Can you summarize that article, there's a lot of info there, not sure what point you are trying to make.

There is talk in the future in California at least of having to curtail solar power exports to the grid during the late afternoon to maintain grid stability. (Just like before the new transmission was built in Tx if the wind was strong the wind output was curtailed for grid stability purposes). ...

Yes, when there is an excess of solar/wind, that could be used to charge EVs and reduce fossil fuel consumption.

But there seem to be few grids where that is happening (or will be anytime soon), and unless it is regular enough and large enough for EVs to rely on it, they will still be using mostly fossil fuel.

My back-of-the envelope numbers say that if you have enough excess for it to be there most days, there often will be days where you have an "excess of excess" - if you can't sell it, your average cost of production goes up, and it makes solar/wind less viable. So it could be a factor, I'm just not optimistic it will be a big factor.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

There is talk in the future in California at least of having to curtail solar power exports to the grid during the late afternoon to maintain grid stability. (Just like before the new transmission was built in Tx if the wind was strong the wind output was curtailed for grid stability purposes). In that case any curtailed solar energy would not be generated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
One of the solutions mentioned was home battery banks, Given that LiFePO4 batterys which allow 90%+ discharge are now less that 1k per kwh, ($949 at amazon)(lead acid batterys only like to be discharged to 50% or their life is shortened). It seems that the next step is home battery banks. (wikipedia mentions electric cars but they are not home that much in the afternoon). I suspect smart meters and inverters will be set up so that the grid operator can block exports from the home. Thus at least in some cases the solar will have no use without a battery bank.

I took another look at the Duck Curve in wiki (for CA state-wide), and they mention a sharp 5 GW increase in generation from 5PM to 6PM is needed as solar power fades in the evening, and demand goes up.

So I did a (literally) back-of-the-envelope calculation on what it would take for EVs to supplement that. I assumed we might want to 'temper' that curve, and support it with 2.5 GW over 3 hours. A Tesla Model 3 has ~ 50 kWh battery, and ~ 220 mile range. So lets say people were willing to give up half the energy in their car (it will be recharged at night after the demand goes down). And we will just ignore for the moment that those batteries probably could not take a daily 50% charge/discharge (plus driving!).

So ignoring that, we could draw ~ 25 kWh daily from a car. Over 3 hours that's ~ 8 KW supplied (back to KW not kWh). And 2.5 GW / 8 KW means over 300,000 Teslas would need to be on-line every day from 5PM to 8 PM to make that dent in the Duck Curve A large % of cars are commuting at that time, so it would take a really large pool of EVs to make this sort of dent. And that curve gets steeper the more we rely on solar during the day. And, the reality is a car battery can't handle that sort of abuse. That would be equivalent to putting over 100,000 miles on the battery pack in just 2.5 years (plus your driving!). I'm sure that would take a toll on battery life.

-ERD50

 

[brett]

We anticipate that our 2006 Accord or our 2007 Solara will last until 2027.

By that time I suspect the technology will have improved significantly and the break even point will be much lower. Might even be the only offering in the market place by then.

Hopefully we will also last until then.