Featured Real-World Electric Vehicle Fueling Costs May Surprise New EV Drivers

I agree with many of the points in post #140. But if you want to slow global warming you can't leave it to the good intentions of the American driver. Along with other problems, they are being sold SUVs and Pickups by Ford, GM and the like because the profit margins are better. You have to get the car companies to uniformly push the cars that are less resource intensive if you want people to embrace them.

As for the small cars, most of the cars of the late 70s were compact models or downsized large cars. Ford Pinto. Gremlin. Vega. B210. I drove a nice little Dodge Dart hatchback (by Mitsubishi) with a 1200 cc engine through most of the 1980s. It got close to 40 MPG if I kept the speed down to the 55 MPH speed limit on the freeway. I could cut the mileage in half by driving at 80 when I was late for work.

Of course, it helped that the generation who were buying those compacts were also taught in school that zero population required families with 1 or 2 kids, not the 4 or 5 children of the previous generation. A family of 4 with kids under 10 years old actually fit well in a 1970's compact.

 

Ah yes, the good intentions of the government will be so much better. Politicians would never use their power to advance the interests of their allies and cripple their opponents. You're talking about California government here, the government that's getting ready to intentionally make rooftop solar more unaffordable at the request of the three largest utilities in the state.

PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E succeeded in convincing the CPUC that making solar a losing investment that can never pay off is an equity issue. It's not fair that people with the means are "allowed" to make an upfront capital investment in generating their own power on-premises and then recoup their investment over time while less fortunate people cannot afford the same. So, consistent with the impeccable logic we've all come to expect from our unelected masters, the CPUC is preparing a plan to make solar even more unaffordable to address the equity issue. They are voting to enact a monthly Grid Participation Charge of $8 per kW of installed solar and a $16 fixed monthly charge. An 8kW residential system would suddenly have an additional $19,200 in fees added to the cost over the life of the system. The logic is like a parent whose child accidentally drops their ice cream figuring that the only equitable solution is to smack the ice cream out of the other kid's hand.

I can't understand how people watch this kind of behavior day in and day out and figure the solution to our problems is to give those criminals more power. It's astounding to watch this repeat for decades on end while people wonder why little progress is made.

 

I am "lucky" to be grandfathered for 15 years for existing solar customer.

But I will be going off grid to fix the mess they introduced, with battery packs via V2G/V2H in the future.

And guess what this solar TAX screw with.... the poor of course. Most of us "rich" people will not be paying any transmission fees and forced the "poor" to pay even more to cover the difference.

I can see how fun this will be! Just like all these good intentions have always worked out.

 

You may not remember the Toyota EQ but its still being floated but in china.
Did You Think The Toyota EQ Was Dead? Meet The Singulato iC3 Electric City Car

City cars do not sell in the US and BEV city cars are less efficient than bigger bevs. The eq didn't even have a price advantage over the leaf because of low volume expectations and needing similar drivetrain. Add to this the lower range and pushing city cars does virtually nothing positive to US emissions or fuel consumption. This is limited to the US. In china, India, and japan they allow cheaper vehicles without safety standards to city and kei cars. The best selling in terms of volume in China is the Wuling Hong Guang Mini made by a GM joint venture. It costs under $5000 and has a 27 hp motor in the base version with 74 mile NEDC range. Key is low price and it appears safer than other NEV in its class. They are designing a more expensive version with more safety that will qualify for Chinese ev incentives but it will cost more, and a US legal version would likely cost triple. City of Austin and Mercedes experimented with smart fourtwo car2go with both gasoline and electric versions. I used them for trips down town when parking was scarce as they had special spots. The electric version was fine for that, but not good on the highway where I sometimes took them to the airport. Good idea for parking congestion where people could grab whichever one. Didn't help at all in reducing emissions. They added some mercedes to the fleet because people complained about the city cars. The city and mercedes stopped subsidizing them and it ended a couple of years ago and ended the program.

In the US shouldn't consumers decide given their is no ghg or fuel consumption benefit for a city car?

 

Impressive!
Well I am big fan of hybrids and plug-in hybrids and Toyota.

I could have gone for RAV4 Prime except my 2006 Prius died a month before they were available, and northern Virginia has high annual car taxes which would make RAV4H cheaper deal.

 

I would agree with you in principle, but I feel the purpose of the US proposal to force high MPG is to mandate full EV plug-ins. That is the hidden agenda (or not hidden). FORD GM want full EV's only, my guess is that is better for them vs. competing on hybrids.

 

I am all for sticking it to greedy utility companies, but can you legally go off grid? Codes in developed areas, as oppose to out in rural ones, could require hook up to the grid for a home to be qualify as habitable. If that's the case, can you have two electrical circuits in a house? One that is off grid for most of the house, and a standard grid one for a few few token outdoor outlets, maybe a single appliance.

The 186 miles range is likely on CLTC test, but it should be at least double what the iQ EV got EPA here. I'd consider it. The advantage I see with a city BEV personally is the need of only half a garage space.

Wonder what that company could do with the UX300e.

CAFE targets are measured from the unadjusted EPA test results. The previously higher ones could be reached by hybrids, and even ICE. It only looked hard when comparing CAFE values to window sticker.

The big problem with CAFE is that it does nothing to encourage consumers to choose more efficient options, and most car buyers in the US choose the bigger car, or not to spend extra for efficiency with our low gas prices. Ford has competitive hybrid systems, and GM could too, but most buyers don't want to pay for them.

The car companies fight higher CAFE targets because it means losing money discounting the their efficient options to sell them. Ford was discounting Fusion hybrids by almost $10k just a couple years ago to counter the F150 and SUV sales.

The high targets encourage plug ins because the CAFE MPGe's probably exceed them before the favorable plug in adjustment. A BEV gets a better adjustment than a PHEV, while likely doing better on the test. They are also easier to design than a PHEV. More importantly, people are willing to buy the plug in with a discount from the company.

 

I can understand being attached to water and sewer but power?

My grandfather didn’t have “power” most of his life.

What happened to I’m Amish electric hookups go against my religion F off?

A house with water and heat is all you need, everything else is optional and heck even water is optional if you have other ways of getting it and every house should have a composting toilet to stop environmental damage, dried sterilized humanure is much less dangerous than wet sewage.

 

It's not about what the homeowner needs or wants, it's about who writes the biggest checks to the people making the rules. Although I laud Trollbait's thought process, they've already thought of that approach and are moving towards fixed monthly fees (separate from this proposal) that are so exorbitant that it makes no financial sense to generate your own power at all. The unintended consequence is that it is no longer financially advantageous to conserve power, either. I'm sure they'll invent more job security for themselves and have more rounds of having hearings and making rules.

My water utility has already gone this route of huge fixed charges and tiny consumption charges. The difference between me using not a single drop of water and using ten times the average residential user is only a few tens of dollars. The other $100+ is fixed charges. Then they wonder why it's so difficult to get people to comply with water conservation measures during a drought. If I'm paying you $100+ for water I'd sooner run my hose into the sewer for a few days straight than save it so you can give water credits to some new real estate development. Ugh. /rant

 

One of the reasons for me to stay in my current home, despite the longer commute, is that the power, water, sewer, and trash is all provided by the township. In few years, we might even get broad band from them.

 

I live in an area with relatively abundant water, but water went from a fixed $75 every three months to $65 a month.

so let me guess don’t pay the water bill and they take the house?

Don’t pay the electric or they take the house, seems like those type of strong arm tactics could be externally dissolved by having a properly connected individual activate said laws then proceed to stay in a court continuously for the next two decades to erode the arguments.
More effective when done in larger numbers.

 

ironically, 40 minutes south of our Nashville area house there is an Amish community that use gasoline for their well pumps. It's as though they ignore where the gasoline comes from. But yea - no electricity

90% of women, roughly, would have nothing to do with that mindset. But is it possible to live that Way? Sure ..... & enjoy your single life.

My grandparents, even my mom lived without many "necessities" like electricity being raised in Texas in the 1930s. Things change. But if that lifestyle is appealing, one can always become a member of the cave dwellers in Afghanistan.
.

 

Cut the tie to the grid, and the house could lose its note of occupancy. They wouldn't take it, so you'll still be liable for taxes, but nobody could legally sleep there. I'm guessing research will show that such codes were in place long before the threat of going off grid to utilities arose. They were likely in place as a means to combat squatting at homes which had more than the electric cut off.

Unfortunately, sitting in the courts takes funding.

 

Funny how that works, isn't it? Your off-grid house is "uninhabitable" because you won't be writing checks to someone's political benefactor, but when it comes time to pay your taxes your off-grid house is totally fine to be taxed as a home. Heads they win, tails you lose.

 

Where does the spark for the gas engine come from?

Mike

 

No sympathy, my water bill is usually double that and that assumes I'm not watering the lawn in a drought that month. The developer put in a private sewer system and water system shared by only 3,500 lots. Septic not allowed. Irony is my lot backs up to an 18 foot deep pond.

I moved from a $30 per quarter area with no sewers and everyone on a septic system and never thought to ask.

 

I only use 100-200 gallons a month of water, I have to basically pay a fixed charge plus the cubic yard minimum of water even though I barely register most months

Our area seems to want you to waste as much water as possible

 

That’s great (your use, not the billing).

In our case we use 100 gallons/month although that amount always registers.
The Great Lakes is a blessing for fresh water access. We also don’t have the evaporation issues more southern climes do.

I agree with you though, water should be carefully used, so those that do abuse it can be charged accordingly.

 

Why?

Water conservation is marketed to the public as reducing the amount of water we draw from rivers and lakes, generally making less impact on nature. That's the marketing. The reality is that the water you conserve is bundled up as water credits and used by municipalities to get approval for gigantic $100 million+ real estate developments. In the arid west you can't build a development without being able to show there's enough water to supply it, hence the marketing. You think you're saving the delta smelt when what you're really doing is underwriting the real estate development next door. As a bonus for your efforts the water rates will increase drastically because as people use less they need to charge more to maintain revenue streams.

I used to be hardcore water miser - even ripping up 1/2 acre of grass for landscaping that requires zero irrigation. But when I learned that my efforts weren't putting a single drop back anywhere I became more an advocate of guerilla-style campaigns to open fire hydrants at night to deprive the city of development water credits.