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

That's reason to doubt the objectivity of the article, but I wonder if there's any truth to it.

 

This!!!!!!!
It is very easy for all of us to latch on to the "Science" that confirms what we already thought and anything reporting any different must be fake science. I just wish we all, me included, would be just as skeptical about most of what is called science and reported as news.
Truth and facts about most things probably fall somewhere in the middle of most what we read.

 

Are you equally skeptical of a claim that the “true fuel cost” of an EV is $17.33 a gallon? I dont own an EV, but this headline number seems pretty obviously ludicrous given most figures have EV’s as costing much less to operate vs. an ICE vehicle.

On the consumer side, there is an up to $7,500 tax credit available to purchase an EV. This is the carrot. So how do they arrive at a figure of over $40k per vehicle? Are they counting corporate tax deductions as subsidies? Because if so, another user pointed out the obvious folly of singling out EV’s while ignoring 10 figures of fossil fuel “subsidies”.

 

See this is typical and where we differ. I plainly said that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
And since the tax credit comes from the government, I'm quite sure none of us taxpayers contributed to it! EV's are not cheaper in general to own, and they are not nearly as environmentally friendly as some like to think.

 

The report is a steaming pile of garbage. Just look at the infrastructure costs it alleges. It is trying to claim homeowners charging their EVs are not paying demand charges which is a subsidy. Demand charges only come into consideration when you require a high rate of energy usage but have low usage. This affects the commercial fast chargers like Superchargers, EA, etc. but they pay those demand charges. There are no demand charges for homeowners because charging your car at home, at the energy usage of two or three dryers, does not cause a demand issue.

They also throw out that this doesn’t include the IRA monies like it is some other large subsidy they’re not counting when in fact it effectively lowered the average EV subsidy per vehicle from what was in place in 2021 when the study was calculated.

I’m not taking any more time to go through that trash report that was commissioned with a goal in mind, not to actually study the costs. Just take a look at their posted videos if you want an idea as to their objectivity: Issues - Page 1

 

So you think any ludicrous claim can be dropped out there, and “the truth lies somewhere in the middle”?

No, that’s actually not how reality works. It is, however, how propaganda works.

 

Oh, it gets better than that. $6 of the $17 they’re claiming comes from additional costs to internal combustion engine owners due to federal fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) including buying credits because the vehicles don’t meet the standards. Never mind CAFE has been around for 50 years and ICE vehicles can also get the credits.

And I’m sure we should all take this report at face value with such gems as this: “The dubious notion that the public good of reducing oil demand justified a federally mandated minimum fuel economy for all U.S. passenger vehicles - thereby trumping other consumer preferences for safety, vehicle size, performance, and so on…”

 

There you go with your intellectual dishonesty.
The way they arrived at $17 is not numbers just pulled out of the sky as you may wish to think. Are the figures they used to get there the worst-case scenario for the EV? Yes! Did they attribute some cost that many may feel do not belong? Yes. Is it possible that it could cost that much? I don't nor most think that, but I admitted that, where you live in your own world where only you and your hand selected folks are to be believed on any given subject.
I guess I shouldn't be arguing with the EXPERT on any given subject.

 

They may not have pulled numbers out of the sky, but they sure as hell grabbed numbers and used them in exceptionally dishonest ways - as has been illustrated in this thread.

 

I don't disagree with you. I was pointing out how so much of everything we see these days that is called "science" is dishonest and presented in a way to promote the presenters' preconceived thoughts. It happens on nearly every subject from the left and from the right. Some of us are honest enough to admit that and view most "science" with a lot more skepticism than others. Anytime the conclusions are made from assumptions and probabilities, bias will enter the calculation.

 

What you described is not science at all. Thats the point several have been trying to get across. The article on the OP is what you are describing.

Science starts with a question: what costs more per mile, am EV or an ICE vehicle. Then searches for an answer based on any observable data.

Propaganda, which is what you've described and what the OP consists of, starts with the preconceived idea as you suggested. I believe EVs cost more than ICE vehicles per mile. How can I make the numbers support my case.

You can't equate the two approaches to cast aspersions on science.

 

Correct. I would note that even if the $17 amount were accurate it’s meaningless without a corresponding calculation on “hidden” costs for ICE vehicles so it’s a number designed to outrage or cast doubt without any attempt at objectivity.

 

Do you think possibility every time I wrote science, I had quotes around it might be an indicator of my skepticism?
Just because the conclusions are not aligned with a belief does not make it propaganda.
I guess I must be more blunt, follow the money on any "science" and if you oppose the outcome, you can call it propaganda?
I generally view most any linked "science" outcomes on this board with a heavy dose of skepticism.
Everyone on this board has an agenda to promote what they believe and search for conformation of that belief, post it then it is hailed by those who want to believe it and called propaganda by those who don't believe it.
Very few on here are intellectually honest enough to admit their preconceived outcome could be wrong. I'm willing to admit that. I'm also willing to admit that we are all being manipulated by perceived facts. We no longer have very many truly trustworthy outlets to find the real facts. This is what we have, when anyone with a keyboard can spout "science" and certain faction of the population will believe it.

 

Sounds the war against science is working on you.

 

And tribalism on you!

 

If believing in true science is tribalism to you, then feel free to put me in that bucket.

But discounting science because propanda is junk makes you a freethinker. We get it.

 

I don’t own an EV, but I rent one a few times a month when I travel. I also rent gas cars. I basically drive the same miles on every trip. I can attest the EV vehicles are much more expensive to operate that gas, especially in the winter. At 2x as much to fuel up before returning, not to mention my time. It takes 30 minutes to charge an EV at about 50%. Time is money.

The reason for the expense is the power station are charging 4x to 5x the cost for electricity. The only way to save money with EV is to charge at home, at night, when power costs are lowest. My good friend owns 5 Teslas and solar and pays virtually nothing for “gas”.

 

Nothing in this thread had to do with science one way or the other. It’s a group with a clear special interest agenda against EV’s, and to support that agenda they kitchen sinked a bunch of financial figures in a dishonest way to come up with a make believe “true cost” of ownership. It’s not a scientific study, there is no “null hypothesis”, the only agenda was the attempt to discredit. (i.e if they wanted to portend credibility, where is their “true cost” of owning as Ford F250?).

The funny thing is you accuse totally random people of having an agenda in defense of a fossil fuel industry lobbying group. Elon Musk has financial incentive to push EV’s, I seriously doubt anyone here does.

 

https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf


Obviously there are variables at play, road trips and range is definitely an obvious downside against EV’s. But in terms of the “daily driving” use case where people charge at home, and cost per mile driven, note the only ICE vehicle that intersects *any* EV line is the 45mpg ICE vehicle line in terms of cost per miles driven.

This is the argument Akio Toyota has been making for years in terms of pushing more hybrids over EV’s. I mostly agree with that practicality issue. If you can make every 18mpg truck get 28mpg and 30 mpg sedans get 45mpg via hybrids and other tech, that also makes a huge difference to emissions/pollution and is more practical in the immediate term. Although of course “cost per mile driven” isn’t the only factor, and it sounds like it isn’t that long before the “range” dilemma is pretty much solved for EV’s.

 

What are you even talking about??
I have been a member of this board for probably as long as you have and believe me, I don't know any of you personally, but I have read enough over years and chronic posting by about a dozen of you that I can see your agenda.
Anytime anything that is posted that is not lock step then it is attacked. Is this study false? I wouldn't go as far as saying it is false, but it definitely applies costs to owning an EV that may or may not be attributable to owning an EV. But the title is not a comparison to a F250 it is applying any all costs that may go into owning an EV. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it agenda driven? Probably so. Do I and most on here see that? Yes.
But the thought police have sure come out to tell us how we need to think.
Ever wonder why there is only a handful of people that post here that are not the echo chamber of the liberal chronic dozen? I guess just keep doing what the chronic want and you can have your precious one-sided opinion echo chamber back.