Winning the "Coal burning electric plants" vs "Burning gas at the tailpipe" Argument

@CogWheeler,
If you're assuming a 2.8 M/kWh EV emits about the same amount of carbon as a gasoline ICE then, to me, the EV is still the winner.
The grid can be cleaned up and doesn't require all of the other junk that comes from oil dependency including wars, oil spills, etc. Carbon isn't the only evil of oil.
We shouldn't wait for a perfect grid to move our transportation to electricity. We need to end our oil dependency as soon as possible.
Also your 70% fossil fuel is misleading since much of that fossil fuel is natural gas which emits far less CO2 than coal.

Anonymous: You are certainly right in that both fossil fuels are interdependent. How about the fact that it takes about kWh of electricity to refine every gallon of gas. That 6kWh can propel an EV 20 to 25 miles alone.
You must also consider that there are many ways to produce electricity and many are clean and renewable, you can never say that about gasoline. In fact, every year the grid gets cleaner and will continue to do so, while every year the opposite can be said about the supply chain of gasoline, as it is actually getting dirtier as we need to dig deeper and explore more and more in deep offshore waters just to find the stuff to keep the future supply stable.

I produce my own electricity for my EV with my home solar array. I can control my energy supply and know my future costs will be stable. Try doing that with gasoline.

@ex-EV1 driver, If you look at some of the info on Darell's site, it suggests that the amount of electricity and natural gas — which could be used to generate electricity — used to refine gasoline would power more miles in an EV than the gasoline would in an ICE car. If true (the actual numbers are difficult to pin down) why not just skip the oil step entirely?

To my mind, that makes an EV way, way better than any ICE car, including a Prius, even if it uses all coal for the electricity.

Darell's links:
http://www.evnut.com/documents.htm
(Click on the "Gasoline/Oil" tab at the top; the electricity for gasoline refining numbers are toward the bottom of the page.)
Actually pinning down some of these numbers might make a nice research project for a student interested in this subject. To me, the idea that it takes a lot of electricity to produce and refine oil to gasoline came as a total revelation.

There is another factor to this argument. EV's will primarily take advantage of off-peak energy from the grid. The grid for the most part doesn't store energy. All of the fossil fuel used to power an EV car would have been burned just for availability sake.

So unless EVERYONE agreed to cut the main circuit in their house when going to bed. The coal still burns. EV's actually tap into the concept of energy storage on a large scale and that is the real game changer here.

@ex-EV1 driver. Once again you are correct, under current conditions. The things that will change are the fact that the charging infrastructure will be developed people may or not charge at home as often. Also as batteries are improved most people with EV's will only top off their batteries during the week if they don't do so already. Also the smart grid will load balance quickly most likely reducing the need to power up those plants during off peak times.

Anyway, I think long term as the car battery application is developed the whole house battery will comes next within the price point of more home owners. That will be a huge benefit for solar, wind, and the grid.

Coal Sucks. EVs don't need to be powered by coal.

The rest is just details, yeah?

@abasile - I like your reply (I'm often the one saying - just ride bikes). In part because I have heard so many EV proponents gush about how much they will save driving an EV, when I just don't see it - and don't think we'll see it for many years (5-10 years), barring some monumental shift in oil prices. But, as you said, we do the best we can do for our personal circumstances and not pass judgement upon others. However, I think we need to always consider our personal bias and that it's always easier to stay independent and make a personal improvement than attempt to make collective changes that would have a much greater "bang for the buck". (The collective changes I'm thinking of is working politically to get more public transport, supporting a carbon tax, supporting bike lanes ... etc.)

Back on Topic: I've done the research on the coal powered EV argument, and it typically comes out better to drive an EV even if your electricity comes from coal. More importantly, as the electric grid cleans up, or if you get solar panels, or a wind turbine, or can purchase that type of renewable energy, an EV gets better. That's a forward thinking position that is hard to argue with.

@ darelldd- Are you including depreciation, insurance, and battery replacement costs?

I have a spreadsheet with numbers that includes these plus fuel, taxes, and maintenance, comparing my ICE and various EV options, including my current EV. The most expensive portion is depreciation. For example, I bought a new gas car for $15K in 2003 and sold eight years later (after I got my EV) for $7K, so about $1000/year lost. I don't think a new electric can beat that. Excepting solar or other incentives, a new Rav4 EV in 2001 was about $40K new; a year ago you might have gotten $20K for it ... now you're getting a bit less than that, about $2000/year depreciation.

I don't know what incentives must have been in place in CA in 2001 for you to get a RAV4 + solar for $40K. That's awesome. If you're not exaggerating, then you might have been able to save some driving an EV vs. an ICE especially if you drive a fair amount (10K/year) and gas prices were high there. But still, to invest or "prepay" $40K also "costs" something in lost savings interest (or avoided debt interest on something else). Insurance will also be more, since replacement costs are higher.

I've also purchased solar ($25K) and if I get a Mitsubishi i, I'm looking at probably $50K out of pocket for a similar "deal" that you got, with a car that starts at $10K less than yours did, so my resale will be less on the i. In my situation that extra $20K in cost (as compared to your situation) won't be recouped, even in 20 years ... unless gasoline goes up to $6/gal or more that will for other reasons (like the cost of everything going up) be horrific.

Do you know how much you've saved on the Rav4 EV? Would you still save vs. an ICE if it + solar cost you $60K?

Also, if you choose to hold onto your Rav4 (or I an "i") in the long term you'll need a new pack for $10K, or more at the 10 year mark, roughly. When I've done estimates on my very primitive Lectric Leopard and included about $500/year for a battery costs ($1500/3 years for lead acid) or $700/year for Lithium ($7K/10 years), it doesn't help the equation. It essentially makes my "fuel" costs go from 3 cents to 5 or 7 cents/mile (average 10,000 miles/year). With battery replacement costs included, the main savings costs vs. an ICE is diminished. Yes an ICE might have motor work or exhaust issues or something else; but given my experience with other cars, it's not the motor or drive train or ICE specific parts we've had trouble with at the 10 year mark or longer, it's the brakes, or suspension, the AC, or other accessories - all of which could still be problematic on an EV.

So, what's my point then, you might ask? My point is that I like truth in advertising. I feel like too many EV owners brag about cost savings but are not considering the total cost of ownership (or perhaps that outside of California the cost situation is not as favorable). I think as EV proponents we're better off under promising and over delivering, rather than the opposite. I think we can gush about how great it is to drive "war" free [relatively speaking] or with more efficiency or less carbon or with no tailpipe emissions or more quietly or just how much fun an EV is to drive (even my old clunky Leopard). If you're trying to sell an EV on the cost savings, most people won't even do the long term analysis that I did, they'll just look at the $10-15k premium and say forget it, I can't afford it.

But, that said, I think Tesla has the right idea (I watched the Model X unveiling video last night). If they can convince people that the electric vehicle is BETTER than the ICE, than a certain segment of car buyers who can afford a premium will buy it - and eventually force EV costs down for the cheap people, like me, to really get into the market.

PS - I'd love to share my spreadsheet with you if you want - or if you have something similar you've done on total cost of ownership, I would find it interesting. Just send a message to me directly - Dan (danpatgal at yahoo dot com)

Darell - I guess we'll have to disagree on the numbers - California must have big EV and solar incentives that I will never see (unless I move there).

But to the question: why compare EVs with ICEs? Why compare a commodity with an hand built product? Because as consumers we always compare ... at what additional price am I willing to pay for something special? For something that gives me better piece of mind? For something that will be better not just for me, but for soceity and the marketplace in general? How does that choice (an EV) compare to other choices (a hybrid or efficient ICE) in achieving those goals? If EV drivers are committed to helping the environment and/or oil independence (most are), why not figure out the most cost effective way, that gives you the same quality of life, to do that? That's why.

I hope, like you, that we see commodity pricing for EVs soon, but for the moment it's still a market, in most of the country, for those willing to pay extra for something special and will command higher prices for that. Most consumers won't consider it. I dearly wish external costs (wars, pollution, carbon ...) would be incorporated in the cost of gasoline - then we'd have a "true" cost of gasoline that would naturally spur EV development (instead of these funny, inefficient, incentives and mandates that our government attempts to apply).

I think the solar complicates things a little ... and makes things favorable for electric use in general (after I put in solar, I added geothermal heat to replace my propane heat here in PA - and my bottom line this past year is MUCH better).

Regarding the $60K, I was pointing out that you had mentioned at their height, perhaps 2006, a RAV4 EV might have commanded that price. Those people who paid $60K who are looking to get into a new generation EV (LEAF, i, ...), or just retire without driving, are now holding, at most, a vehicle worth $20K. That's $40K in depreciation that can't reasonably be saved by a difference in fuel costs in 5 years. Though YOU definitely made out if you sold your EV at a premium, that person is now selling it at a huge loss and only saved a little bit in running costs compared to an ICE RAV4.

A nice RAV4 EV with about 80K miles sold recently on eBay for around $16K. It had the original pack, but had some kind of reconditioning done (not sure what that cost). Looking just at the vehicle over 10 years, with the CA incentives at the time (according to your details about the RAV4) and no battery costs or additional insurance, less maintenance and free electricity ... the cost is still 35 cents/mile. If gas is $4/gal or more there's clear savings, at lower prices (gas probably averaged less than $3 in the past ten years in CA), the RAV4 EV is still better. But, if you can get a similar utility with a cheaper more efficient car, 30 mpg or better, the ICE does better - and that's using FREE electricity on your EV ('cause you were smart and installed free solar ;) ).

Not everyone can install solar, unfortunately. So, a lot of people can't have the added synergies that you and I have.

I'm really not trying to beat you down - I think we should agree that we now pay more for EVs because we expect gasoline to go up, we want to support a way of life that is more efficient in general, to pollute less, and be more energy independent. But, saving money is far from the norm; even if you may have had the ability to do so.

@Dan,
". . . we expect gasoline to go up"
Isn't this kind of like expecting that that the sun will come up tomorrow? A good assumption.
The only question is: How fast will it go up?
I'll try not to gloat (at least not in public) when gas prices spike over the next few months when the same people who are lecturing me today about how my EV and solar are more expensive than their gas guzzler, start whining about fuel prices. Regular gas is over $4/gal now around here. I just put a half tank of gas into a rental Suburban at a cost of $65 worth of gasoline this morning after a business trip into the desert. A full tank would cost $130!
I can't imagine having to do that on a daily basis with my own money.
(For you micro-car afficianados: Yes, it was the right tool for the job, it barely held all our gear and people)

And ex-EV1 forgot 1980, when everyone thought prices of $2-3/gal were imminent (but not seen until 20+ years), and 100 mpg cars would be everywhere by the year 2000.

So, we don't know what prices will do or what the future will hold ... but it's that expectation, in part, that frees us to promote EVs.

I too wouldn't want to spend $135 to fill up a tank - but as you say, if you can put 6 or 8 people in it, the per person cost and impact is better than 6 or 8 Priuses (sp?) humming down the road.

@Anonymous,
The use of night-time energy definitely is a plus for EVs, however, the carbon issue is not as strong as you state. While coal plants can't actually be shut down at night, they can be throttled down so they don't actually waste too much power. There is a little waste and certainly a few EVs charging can reduce this waste to zero.
If a lot of EVs start charging at night, however, they'll have to keep those plants throttled up at night to provide the electricity for the cars.
The biggest benefit to night time energy use is economic which has a significant secondary benefit that can be used to reduce CO2 production. Having all of those expensive power generation resources throttled down at night, is wasting money. EVs charging at night will allow the power companies to keep those power plants running at capacity during the night, making more use of the money invested to build the power plant.
This doesn't help the CO2 production directly but, by making the coal or nuclear produced electricity cheaper, it frees up more money for the power companies to build out new, sustainable energy systems such as wind and solar and the energy storage capability to handle their intermittent nature.

@ Anonymous -

I'm thrilled that you're thinking "upstream" for pollution sources. But I'm a bit concerned that you seem to ONLY be thinking of them as they pertain to EVs. You aren't implying that gasoline has no upstream emissions, are you? Or that gasoline has no other emissions besides CO2? You've found all kinds of really bad things for EV use... Now let's compare them to gas car usage. No transportation runs on rainbows and the laughter of children. Everything pollutes at some level. Our challenge is to find the least harmful - not just to point out what we already know : That everything pollutes.