Electric Don’t Vehicles Have to Be Expensive
In a recent survey, more than half of Americans who don’t yet own electric cars said they were interested in buying one. But 64% said cost was a significant barrier. As my former colleagues at NRDC note, EVs cost less than gas cars in the long run.
They note that:
According to data from Cox Automotive (parent company of Kelley Blue Book), the average price paid for a new EV has fallen significantly—in September 2023, it came down by $14,300 over the prior year. This amounted to a cost of just $2,800 more than the average paid for a new gas-powered vehicle.
When I bought my ID.4 cost was one of my biggest concerns, along with range and charging. I found a solution to my woes by leasing a car that offered free charging at Electrify American for 3 years. I’ll save the conversation on the dysfunction of Electrify America chargers for another time. But my choice means that I save money while also not investing in a car that will be overshadowed as range expands over the next few years.
As with any newer technology, electric vehicles can be expensive. But, they don’t have to be. BYD, the car brand the overtook Tesla as the largest EV seller which sells an EV that can go 250 miles on a charge for $12,000 isn’t available in the U.S. Even more surprising is the $4,400 Zhidou Rainbow a ….
In the U.S., a EV buyer can expect to spend a minimum of $25,000 with costs ranging well over $100,000. Firstly, and most importantly, EVs are expensive. An EV’s average price in the U.S. for 2023 was around $60,000. Even as the variety of EV models available rises and prices fall, and the U.S. brings in tax credits, EVs remain much more expensive than their gasoline-powered counterparts. With U.S. interest rates at a two-decade high, the price tag for the average American car shopper is prohibitive.
The good news is that from just September 2022 to September 2023, the average price of a new EV has dropped nearly $15,000. The majority of an electric vehicle’s costs come from the lithium-ion battery, and the costs of those batteries have declined 89 percent between 2008 and 2022. In addition to the advances in technology, incentives and tax credits have also greatly contributed to the downward cost trends of EVs.
A Harvard Law School report looked at over a decade’s worth of EV prices and concluded that the average price of an EV is going up, not down. Even with a federal subsidy of $7,500 towards the purchase price of an EV (made in the U.S.), many consumers still find gasoline and hybrid vehicles more affordable. For example, Toyota and Honda, who both only offer one EV each at present, both recorded substantial increases in sales in the U.S. of their hybrid vehicles, with Toyota up 16% and Honda up 32% on last year.
Will Tax Credits and Incentives Help?
You can mitigate some of that cost by making use of tax incentives, which can shave thousands off an EV’s price tag. The federal EV tax credit offers up to $7,500 for new EVs and, for the first time, $4,000 for used EVs, too, for eligible buyers and EVs. In addition, new rules from U.S. Department of the Treasury will soon allow participating auto dealers to provide the tax credit directly to consumers at the point of sale, making savings more immediate. One asterisk: Automakers must now meet new EV manufacturing requirements in order for their vehicles to qualify for those federal incentives, which will likely temporarily impact the availability of eligible EVs while supply chains catch up.
New tariffs from the Biden administration make it unlikely that Chinese EVs will be sold in the U.S. anytime soon. In parts of the developing world, where low-cost Chinese EVs are on the market, the share of electric vehicles on the road is quickly growing. In Thailand, for example, one out of every 10 new car purchases is electric.
The U.S. could have taken the approach that some other countries are taking, encouraging Chinese companies to sell locally without tariffs if they set up local factories. The same thing happened here in the 1980s, when Japanese car companies started manufacturing in the U.S.—and pushed American automakers to improve and become more efficient to compete.
In China, intense competition has led to more innovation. Some companies offer battery-swapping, so drivers don’t have to wait to charge their car. Batteries keep getting smaller, lighter, and more powerful. With smaller batteries, there’s more space for storage or legroom.
How does charging source impact cost?
If you are lucky enough to get the same Electrify America deal that I did, take it! When I go over my free 30 minute charge period, I notice the high costs of powering my car. Charging at home is no different. Here in California, our utility, PGE keeps hiking rates, making the cost of charging higher.
Luckily EVs are 2.6 to 4.8 times more efficient at traveling a mile compared to a gasoline internal combustion engine, according to real world data collected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). For an EV, efficiency is measured by how many kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity it consumes per 100 miles—similar to a gas-powered car’s miles-per-gallon stat. (A lower kWh/100 miles rate is better.)
A 2020 study broke down the lifetime fuel costs of battery-powered EVs versus internal combustion engine cars state by state. EV owners in Washington State, for example, can save as much as $14,480 over the life of their vehicle—the highest margin in the country. On the other end of the spectrum is Hawaii, where going electric could ultimately cost $2,494 more over 15 years.
To get a rough estimate of your own charging costs, multiply an EV’s kilowatt-hour (kWh/100) mileage rate by your electricity rate (measured in cents per kWh), which you can find on your monthly bill. This will give you the electricity costs per 100 miles driven. After figuring in the number of miles you typically drive in a month, you’ll be able to see how much your electric bill may go up.
So, what’s the overall cost?
You can figure out your savings estimate by adding together the up-front costs of your specific model (minus tax rebates) and then ongoing costs. (The DOE has created a calculator to help with this task.)
A new study from Atlas Public Policy, conducted on behalf of NRDC, showed that for every major type of vehicle, owning an EV will save car owners money over a seven-year span, the average amount of time a driver keeps a new vehicle.
Unveiling the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles, Gasoline Cars, and Hydrogen Vehicles
Transportation is a major contributor to global climate change. As we navigate towards a cleaner future, electric vehicles (EVs), gasoline-powered cars, and hydrogen vehicles (FCEVs) emerge as potential solutions. Let's delve deeper, separating myths from facts, exploring the environmental impact of these vehicle types, and considering alternative transportation options for a sustainable future.
Myth #1: Electric Vehicles are Completely Clean.
While EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, their environmental impact depends on the source of electricity used for charging. Additionally, battery production and disposal raise concerns.
Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution.
The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g., using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do not.
Learn more about electricity production in your area by visiting EPA’s Power Profiler interactive web page.
EPA and Department of Energy's (DOE’s) Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator can help you estimate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with charging and driving an EV or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) where you live.
Myth #2: Gasoline Cars are the Only Polluters.
Beyond tailpipe emissions, gasoline production, transportation, and refining contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
Myth #3: Hydrogen Vehicles are the Ultimate Green Solution.
FCEVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, but hydrogen production methods can vary in their environmental impact. Additionally, the hydrogen refueling infrastructure is currently limited.
Myth #4: There's No Perfect Choice.
Each vehicle type has its own advantages and disadvantages. Choosing the most environmentally friendly option depends on individual needs and driving habits.
Beyond the Myths: Unveiling the Environmental Footprint
Let's analyze the environmental impact of EVs, gasoline cars, and FCEVs throughout their life cycle:
Electric Vehicles (EVs):
Benefits: Zero tailpipe emissions, quieter operation, potential for energy efficiency.
Challenges: Battery production requires resources and can be energy-intensive, disposal of used batteries raises concerns, reliant on the cleanness of the electricity grid used for charging.
Environmental Impact: Lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline cars, especially when charged with renewable energy sources, battery production and disposal require responsible practices.
Gasoline Cars:
Benefits: Established infrastructure, wide variety of models available, familiar fueling process.
Challenges: Significant greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe exhaust and throughout the fuel lifecycle (production, transportation, refining), air pollution from exhaust.
Environmental Impact: High greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution contribute to climate change, dependence on fossil fuels.
Hydrogen Vehicles (FCEVs):
Benefits: Zero tailpipe emissions, fast refueling times similar to gasoline cars, longer range compared to some EVs.
Challenges: Limited refueling infrastructure, hydrogen production methods vary in environmental impact (renewable vs. fossil fuel-based), potential concerns about hydrogen storage safety.
Environmental Impact: Zero tailpipe emissions are a plus, but hydrogen production methods can influence overall environmental impact, limited infrastructure can hinder widespread adoption.
Considering Life Cycle, Disposal, and Energy Source
Life Cycle: Analyze the environmental impact throughout the vehicle's lifespan, from manufacturing and materials used to operation and disposal. Recycling EV batteries can reduce the emissions associated with making an EV by reducing the need for new materials, such as U.S. Department of Energy’s ReCell Center.
Disposal: Responsible battery recycling and end-of-life vehicle management are crucial for all vehicle types.
Energy Source: For EVs, the source of electricity used for charging significantly impacts their environmental footprint. Choose renewable energy sources whenever possible.
Beyond Vehicles: Exploring Alternative Transportation Options
Public Transportation: Buses, trains, and subways offer fuel-efficient and space-saving alternatives when available.
Cycling and Walking: Opting for these modes of transport reduces reliance on vehicles altogether, promotes physical activity, and eliminates emissions.
Carpooling and Ridesharing: Sharing rides reduces the number of vehicles on the road, minimizing emissions.
Ranking Vehicle Options for Sustainability
Accuracy: The claim that one type of vehicle is inherently the "cleanest" is inaccurate. Each has its own environmental considerations.
Ease of Adoption: Shifting to EVs or FCEVs requires access to charging infrastructure or hydrogen stations. Public transportation and active commuting might require adjustments to daily routines.
Cost: EVs and FCEVs can have higher upfront costs compared to gasoline cars, but potential savings on fuel and maintenance can offset this over time. Public transport and active commuting can be significantly cheaper.
Impact on Climate Change: Choose options with low or zero tailpipe emissions, prioritize EVs charged with renewable energy, and consider life cycle impact of all options.
Overall: There's no one-size-fits-all solution. While EVs offer significant potential for reducing emissions, their environmental impact hinges on the electricity grid. FCEVs hold promise with zero tailpipe emissions, but hydrogen production methods and limited infrastructure need improvement. Public transportation, cycling, and walking require infrastructure investment and cultural shifts but offer significant environmental benefits. By considering the life cycle, energy source, and disposal practices of each option, we can choose the most sustainable transportation option for our needs and work towards a cleaner future, one journey at a time.
Planes or Trains?
The allure of jet-setting across continents or zipping to faraway destinations in mere hours paints airplanes as the epitome of speed and convenience. However, in the face of mounting climate concerns, the environmental footprint of air travel raises a critical question: are trains truly the "greener" alternative for long-distance journeys? Let's debunk the myths surrounding planes and trains, unveil the realities of their environmental impact, and explore better alternatives for a more sustainable travel future.
Myth #1: Trains Always Emit Less Carbon than Planes.
While trains generally boast lower carbon emissions per passenger-kilometer compared to planes, the picture isn't black and white. Factors like travel distance, train type (electric, diesel), occupancy rate, and energy source for electricity play crucial roles. Short-haul flights might seem comparable to trains, but long-distance journeys significantly favor trains in terms of carbon footprint.
Myth #2: Planes are Just Bad for the Environment, Period.
While the carbon footprint of air travel is undeniable, advancements in fuel efficiency and alternative fuel research offer some hope. Additionally, investing in carbon offset programs can mitigate some of the emissions generated by air travel.
Myth #3: Train Travel is Always Slow and Inconvenient.
Modern high-speed rail networks offer impressive travel speeds, significantly reducing journey times. Additionally, the comfort and amenities offered by trains can make the journey itself an enjoyable experience. However, accessibility and travel time variability depending on the route remain key considerations.
Myth #4: Sustainable Travel is Just About Choosing the "Greenest" Mode.
Focusing solely on the mode of transport ignores the broader picture. Responsible travel involves factors like trip frequency, destination choice, accommodation selection, and minimizing the overall impact of your journey.
Beyond the Myths: Charting a Sustainable Travel Path
Instead of clinging to myths, let's explore these eco-friendly alternatives:
Embrace slow travel: Opt for longer stays in fewer destinations, allowing for deeper cultural immersion and reduced transportation footprint.
Consider alternative routes: Explore scenic train journeys or opt for ferries for shorter distances, enjoying the journey itself and reducing reliance on planes.
Prioritize carbon offsetting: When air travel is unavoidable, choose airlines committed to carbon offset programs and consider investing in additional offsets to mitigate your impact.
Travel lighter: Pack efficiently to minimize luggage weight, as lighter planes require less fuel.
Choose eco-conscious accommodation: Opt for hotels with sustainable practices, such as energy efficiency and water conservation.
Be a mindful traveler: Respect local cultures, minimize waste generation, and support responsible tourism initiatives at your destinations.
Ranking Train vs. Plane Travel as a Sustainability Solution
Accuracy: The claim that trains are always the "greenest" option is inaccurate. The most sustainable choice depends on the specific journey, considering factors like distance, occupancy, and energy sources.
Ease of implementation: Train travel, especially with high-speed networks, can be readily accessible in some regions. However, accessibility and travel time variability might require more planning compared to air travel.
Cost: Train travel can be significantly cheaper than flying, especially for long distances and when considering additional fees associated with air travel. However, specific routes and travel classes can alter the cost comparison.
Ethics: Choosing sustainable airlines and supporting responsible tourism practices are crucial ethical considerations regardless of the chosen mode of transport.
Impact on climate change: For long-distance journeys, trains generally offer a lower carbon footprint compared to planes. However, choosing carbon offset programs and minimizing overall travel frequency can significantly contribute to reducing climate impact regardless of the mode of transport.
Overall: There's no one-size-fits-all answer to the "plane vs. train" dilemma for sustainable travel. A mindful approach that considers the specific journey, embraces alternative routes, and prioritizes responsible practices throughout your trip is key. Remember, the true measure of sustainable travel lies not just in the mode of transport, but in the choices we make before, during, and after our journeys, leaving a positive footprint on the planet we explore.
Further Resources: