Overcharged': Major Study Reveals Alarming True Cost of Owning an EV, 'Fueling' Equal to $17.33 Per

Study paid for by Exxon Mobil no doubt. Nothing coming out of Texas' government can be trusted now.

 

A Western Journal article referencing a Texas government study on Big Oil competitors. You couldn’t get a shadier combination than that Holy Trinity of Lies.

 

There's a recent clip of a Trump supporter asking a reporter why everyone he knows that graduated college voted for Biden.

The obvious answer is relevant to this thread.

 

Texas Public Policy Foundation is not govt. It's a conservative group pushing several agendas, including fighting clean energy programs and climate change initiatives. It is funded, at least in part, by big oil companies and it promotes the use of fossil fuels.

 

I see they factored in $22 Billion in EV subsidies on that side, did they also factor in $7 Trillion in global fossil fuel subsidies on the other side?

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion (imf.org)

 

Amazing that the OP can’t/won’t make that connection. Oh, well

 

There was a similar "study" a while back that concluded an H3 was more Enviromental friendly than a Prius...

 

I actually would like to know the total cost and impact of EV vs other. (Imo hybrids are probably the best).

but this study is by Texas Policy, who support efforts like below. is this really the best group to provide unbiased analysis?

“AUSTIN –The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) today announced the release ofFueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy by Kathleen Hartnett White, distinguished senior fellow-in-residence and director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at TPPF, and Steve Moore, distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The book debunks myths about fossil fuels and explains how oil, natural gas, and coal are irreplaceable and have the power to unleash an economic revival for America.”


TPPF announces release of Kathleen Hartnett White’s book, “Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy”

 

“Just like gas-powered cars, electric vehicles harm the environment. However, researchers have repeatedly shown that EVs have a much lower environmental impact when considering the vehicle's entire lifecycle

all electricity comes from renewable energy. For example, in West Virginia, the majority of the state's electricity is generated by burning coal. It is crucial to consider the emissions of the electricity source when trying to understand the environmental impact of an EV. In the United States, that can vary dramatically by state.

Nevertheless, researchers have determined that the carbon footprint of an EV is typically smaller than a gasoline car, even when accounting for the source of the electricity used for charging. In fact, the EPA says the number one myth about EVs is the falsehood that electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of the power plant emissions.


The auto industry has existed for over a century and has well-established and understood supply chains. Building an EV requires different materials than an ICE vehicle, such as minerals like lithium and cobalt. Electric vehicles also use much more copper than traditional cars. Mining companies are already building mines to collect these minerals for the EV industry. Some of these projects are approaching mining in a new manner.“

https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/environmental-impact-of-evs-vs-gas-cars

 

Missed the target hit the tree. Thanks.

 

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion (imf.org)

Implicit subsidies? What a joke!

 

Trash science from trash organizations.

 

The country is run by left and right corporations. Sad that some link and argue over someone else's checkbook. Beyond sad.

 

People buy what they want for a variety of reasons. If the subsidies didn't exist, people would still buy electric cars because it makes them feel good about themselves to help the environment. Same way with gas burning cars. People will still buy them due to the convenience, capability and mileage aspect. Depends on what the individuals priorities are and telling people their priorities are wrong because they don't align with yours is just a part of why the country is where it is today.

 

For the most part true, except on the extremes it’s asymmetrical, not a “both sides are just as bad” thing.

EV’s aren’t for everybody so it’s probably too early/extreme policy to mandate them as some govts have done. But in principle more fuel efficiency and more adoption of EV’s benefits everyone. The early adopter EV buyer (if we can even call them early adopters anymore) is doing some good, or at worst is harmlessly consuming less fossil fuels. On the other hand the folks driving lifted pickups or rolling coal, if they don’t have a purpose, are pretty much just deranged a-holes and the coal rolling is basically making a show of being an asshole. I’m sure every town has at least a few of those types with the squatted trucks.

 

so what you are saying is that when organizations do articles/ research studies they might have an agenda based on where they get their funding. Who knew

 

Also because they are way more fun to drive. We got one to save money on gas, the fun to drive wasn't a consideration for our first electric car, but it guarantees that one of our vehicles will always be electric from now on.

 

Hilarious the gullibility of some of you.