Electric motorcycles equivalent to 320-373 mpg

Discussion in 'Electric Motorcycles' started by voltsxamps, Mar 14, 2018.

  1. chasbmw

    chasbmw Long timer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Oddometer:
    3,581
    Location:
    Bath Uk
    Here is a source: https://greentransportation.info/energy-transportation/gasoline-costs-6kwh.html

    In the UK I pay around £5.00 for a gallon of gas, my ICE car gets around 35MPG, so to go 35 miles in my electric costs me around 50p, that’s a huge saving in fuel costs, in the UK you can check the fuel usage by type on the national grid and it’s great to see that the amount of renewable energy going into the grid gets more and more every year, we have a lot of offshore wind energy in the UK and it together with nuclear and solar is usually producing between 30 and 50% of electricity, yes the rest is gas and some coal, but all the coal plants are due to be closed by 2025

    http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

    Quite apart from low running costs, I haven’t had as much fun on four wheels since I first had a car aged 17, my electric is a blast to drive.

    If your country has the resources, surely renewables are the way to go as you are not dependent on other countries for energy.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    #21
    MJSfoto1956 and voltsxamps like this.
  2. ctromley

    ctromley Long timer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,005
    Location:
    PA
    Just saw this article:

    https://qz.com/1230297/us-utilities...d-asked-congress-to-put-more-evs-on-the-road/

    From the article:

    This year, the Tennessee Valley Authority scrapped its 20-year projections through 2035, since it was clear they had drastically underestimated the extent to which cheap renewable energy and efficiency measures would depress demand for electricity from the grid.

    But there is a bright spot for utilities: electric vehicles (EV), which make up 1% of the US car market. For years, that market barely registered on utilities’ radar. As EVs find growing success, utilities are building charging infrastructure and arranging generous rebates. Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and New Jersey’s PSE&G have partnered with carmakers to offer
    thousands of dollars in rebates for BMW, Nissan, and other brands.

    Now utilities are asking Congress for help as they attempt to keep tapping into EV demand. A collection of 36 of the nation’s largest utilities
    wrote a letter (PDF) to congressional leadership on March 13, asking for a lift on the cap on EV tax credits.

    That seemed maybe too good to be true, so I looked around and found this:

    https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2017).pdf

    Which summarizes (emphasis mine):

    EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook provides modeled projections of domestic energy markets through 2050, and includes cases with different assumptions of macroeconomic growth, world oil prices, technological progress, and energy policies. With strong domestic production and relatively flat demand, the United States becomes a net energy exporter over the projection period in most cases.

    Other sources back up that conclusion. So basically even when you account for increasing use of EVs, other market factors give a net flat demand. The simplistic predictions of EVs somehow breaking the grid are of no concern whatsoever to the people who know the most about the grid, what it can handle and what it will likely be required to handle.
    #22
    MJSfoto1956 likes this.
  3. XDragRacer

    XDragRacer Long timer Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Oddometer:
    5,033
    Please debunk the argument for readers of this discussion, voltsxamps!

    With "fossil-fuel" power plants generating electricity (as is done where I live), located miles from charging stations (significant for losses in transmission), and inevitable power loss in transforming and rectifying electric power at charging stations, the claimed efficiency and greenness/cleanliness/economy of electric vehicles in comparison with those powered by internal combustion engines wants some, "debunking."

    Never mind the bats and the birds and the tortoises, or the fish-kill and pollution of the Yangtze River; I'd appreciate some debunking of the relative pollution of internal combustion engine-powered vehicles and electric vehicles, in the context of the contemporary power grid in the USA.
    #23
  4. voltsxamps

    voltsxamps Advolturer

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Oddometer:
    1,669
    Location:
    +positively grounded-
    Cynicism aside, did you read the sourced links or skim over the article? The point of the article is that the grid’s sources are increasingly cleaner and EV’s have become more efficient, and my point is that EM’s are that more efficient over a four-wheeled EV, equating an US average equivalent of a 320 mpg gas motorcycle.

    The author’s source: https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-data-show-electric-vehicles-continue-to-get-cleaner

    And the Union of Concerned Scientists source is non other than the US EPA, current as of Feb 15, 2018.

    The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) is a comprehensive source of data on the environmental characteristics of almost all electric power generated in the United States.

    [​IMG]

    Sources that supply energy to the grid are cleaner than prior years and are expected to continue grow till 2040 as there’s a long way to go before renewables are the major source of the worlds energy.

    [​IMG]

    While there’s caveats with any power source, I hope we can at least agree that wind, geo thermal, solar, hydro, have advantages in being clean, natural, and renewable. Additionally they play a major role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and dependency on fossil fuels is reduced.

    https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=renewable_home
    #24
    MJSfoto1956 and Traxx like this.
  5. ex250mike

    ex250mike Long timer

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,067
    Now that Trump made coal great again and cut the nuts off the EPA the skies will be black with soot.
    #25
  6. XDragRacer

    XDragRacer Long timer Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Oddometer:
    5,033
    Thanks for sharing the information and its sources!

    You say, "I hope we can at least agree that wind, geo thermal, solar, hydro, have advantages in being clean, natural, and renewable." Conspicuous by its absence in your "favorable" list is: NUCLEAR POWER. Just wondering why, (unless you consider it not, "natural,"as a disqualification) even though the entire, "clean, renewable" array produces no more than 10 % of the energy consumed today.

    ETHANOL might be considered, "clean, renewable," except . . . a "con" accompanying this fuel source is a greater "carbon footprint" than "fossil fuels," not to mention attendant foreclosed human/animal food harvest. (CAVEAT: No handy citation available for ethanol vs. fossil fuel carbon footprint, including consideration of contribution of cultivation/refining/distribution factors.)

    Worth noting: The Government's heavy hand remains a significant influence in "clean, renewable" energy resources: From MANDATED ethanol content in gasoline, through direct subsidies to "clean, renewable" energy producers, to distribution network development, to loss of tax revenue on "alternate fuel" vehicles, and beyond. Some "clean, renewable" energy schemes remain economically unsustainable on their own without government support.

    All this said, you may indeed be a harbinger of the future of energy production and use. As Mort Sahl told us, "The future lies ahead!" :lol2

    Seriously, thanks for your reasoned arguments and responsibly-sourced energy information and analysis. Stubbornly, I can't acknowledge a complete "debunking" success, although you articulate a maximally persuasive case. You addressed my question in a most civil and credible manner; much obliged!

    And, I'd be honored with a ride in your Tesla, and/or on your electric motorcycle! :D
    #26
    Traxx and voltsxamps like this.
  7. voltsxamps

    voltsxamps Advolturer

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Oddometer:
    1,669
    Location:
    +positively grounded-
    Victory, formerly Brammo, calculated a few years ago that if you consider the cost of gas (at an average cost of *$2.63 per gallon) and compare that to the cost of electricity ($.007 per mile), you are essentially getting 376 miles per gallon by using an electric bike. That’s not far off from your numbers.


    *$2.87/gallon is the current avg median cost per gallon as of 3/18/18. Californians are paying an avg of $3.41/gal, a bit less than Hawaii’s $3.48/gal, the highest in the nation, while Mississippi and Alabama residents can fill up at just $2.26-2.27/gal. by comparison.

    http://www.gasbuddy.com/USA

    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a

    [​IMG]

    Of course eMPG is will vary based on kW/h rates, riding habits/load/terrain, etc. Above is an example of expected range of a Zero SR 14.4 w/powertank. Using its combined range estimate of 150 miles above, the cost to travel based on the current national average of 0.10 kW/h and the bike’s battery capacity is $1.44.. less than a penny per mile.

    A gas motorcycle traveling the same distance that averages 50 mpg would require 3 gallons at the national avg of $2.87 for a cost of $8.61.. 6 times the cost. Factor in that electrics require little to no maintenance and that the avg motorcycle gets less than 50 mpg and the electric’s cost per mile has that much more of an advantage.
    #27
  8. ex250mike

    ex250mike Long timer

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,067
    To me the big advantage of e-bikes isn't economy, or green factor. Its what they can do that ICE bikes can't. For street bikes they are still generally inferior due to range and cost. However, in the dirt/offroad segment they have many advantages.

    With bikes like the Alta coming down in price I doubt I would buy a new ICE dirtbike.

    There is also the huge range of bikes from pedal assist e-bikes to almost dirtbikes that didn't exist until recently.

    Street bikes still have a ways go (cars also) but for offroad bikes the future is now.
    #28
    voltsxamps likes this.
  9. kojack06

    kojack06 Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,256
    Location:
    Temple, TX
    You had my interest until you mentioned the Paris Accord.
    #29
  10. ctromley

    ctromley Long timer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,005
    Location:
    PA
    Interesting.

    Not wanting to hijack the thread, but why would a simple statement of fact suddenly cause you to lose interest? I would certainly not assert that either the US or China are ever going to be accused of being greenie-weenie nations, but at least China recognizes the critical need to reverse the current course of global environmental harm. As does virtually every other nation on the planet. For awhile there our opposition was shared by only one other nation, Syria. Then they wised up and signed on. At one point we were in. Then we backed out. We stand alone. These are facts.

    We may disagree on what the facts mean, but they are still facts. I understand this is not the forum to get into geo-political discussions, so I won't. Threads that veer too deep into political territory are likely to get kicked to the basement.

    The people here discussing electric motorcycles are by definition fairly open-minded, because you have to be in order to consider a substantial change to the status quo. If you can't accept facts because you don't like them for whatever reason, I'm guessing your exploration of EMs will be unpleasant at times. If you are pro-EM but a green skeptic, realize there will be plenty of discussions about greenie-weenie stuff - because for many of us that's a substantial part of the attraction.

    If we can accept facts for what they are I think we can all get along. A lot of what holds EMs back from broader acceptance is the general public holding on to prejudices and hearsay that is just flat wrong. Facts are our friends.
    #30
  11. kojack06

    kojack06 Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,256
    Location:
    Temple, TX
    #31
  12. ex250mike

    ex250mike Long timer

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,067
    I agree that I don't want this thread kicked into the basement. This subforum is the most fresh and interesting one here on ADV. Thumpers is the same boring 50 threads that have been around for years. Everything here is new and interesting. That said, "facts" need to be actual facts not feels or political propaganda.

    The important facts are the actual cost of ownership, real usable range, reliability, long term durability of batteries etc...

    Pushing the "greenie weenie" agenda is going to set off a lot of BS alarms. Personally I treat politicians, government agencies, big businesses, "scientists" and used car salesmen the same. I automatically assume they are lying and trying to rob me. Global energy production is THE biggest industry, trillions of dollars a year big. With that much $$$ at stake everyone involved is crooked.

    Ya I'm a "skeptic." In a world of lies "trust but verify" has become "don't trust and follow the money."
    #32
    Traxx likes this.
  13. XDragRacer

    XDragRacer Long timer Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Oddometer:
    5,033
    If an electric bike travels for less than a penny a mile, what are the per-mile operating costs of a Tesla? Just curious; answer has no relevance or impact to discussion.

    The video clip in Post # 11 above suggests the Paris "Accords" allowed each signatory nation to write its own accord (most with little or no substance); no mechanism for monitoring/enforcing compliance with even these was mentioned. If the clip reports truthfully on the nature of the Paris Accords, the US assumed much more "Green" burden than any other nation, for better or worse.
    #33
  14. ctromley

    ctromley Long timer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,005
    Location:
    PA
    I think I get what you're saying. But the tone concerns me, because it seems that anyone who can't trust anyone about anything is living a horribly bleak life that will inevitably spill over into the lives of others. Or if you're not universally distrustful, you must be choosing who you trust and who you don't, and we don't know your basis for making the distinction - which is kind of critical to the discussion. Or it's an unrealistic justification for the agenda of a contrarian to be a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian. Note that none of this is an accusation, because I don't know you. But it's the impression I get from what you wrote.

    I'm particularly interested in what you mean by putting "scientists" in quotes, and why you think you can't trust scientists. If you step back from your life for just a minute and think about what you do, what you use and what you accomplish, you'll realize that there is precious little in your life that wasn't made possible by scientists. In any room you inhabit there are probably millions of scientist man-hours that contributed the development, production, processing and distribution of just the objects in that room. That's an easily verifiable fact. (Think about just the computer you're looking at.)

    I don't know where you stand on this, but there are plenty of anti-green, or broadly 'skeptical' people out there who have no problem sucking down everything science gives them, from the mundane to the fabulous, without a single thought about it or even the faintest realization of what it took. Then when the scientists use the same kind of hard-earned, experimentation-based knowledge and analytical creativity that brought us all that good stuff to tell us we're causing serious problems with our planet's climate (which we can fix by changing our behavior in very manageable ways), well, all of a sudden the scientists are all in on some evil global conspiracy! I've even seen inmates here claim the scientists' express purpose is to kill off billions of people. No lie. And incidentally, no one has ever come up with a remotely plausible incentive that could drive so many scientists to be so evil. Logic and plain common sense have no place in this narrative.

    How about instead of being a skeptic, try being open minded. As in being open to all ideas, while actively aiming your finely-honed BS detector at every new thing you consider. No bias, no picking and choosing. And also aim it at what you think you already know. (Skewering your own sacred cows is one of the most liberating things you will ever do.) You might be very surprised at what crumbles under scrutiny and what remains standing. If one can be truly and neutrally open-minded it will become obvious that being a skeptic means - by definition - having an agenda. Being open-minded means being a skeptic and a booster. The choice of which to apply where is based only on the merits of the concept in question. If you can dig out facts, why would anyone bother with opinion or agenda? To make them feel good about themselves? If self-validation and/or tribal identity is that important, there are some very serious issues to be dealt with.

    And BTW, scientists learn pretty early that you can't be an effective scientist if you're not open-minded. Reality is what it is. It does not care about our needs, our wants, our fears, our beliefs, our values, our politics, our aspirations, our opinions, our agendas - it doesn't care about us poor stupid humans at all. It just IS. As a species, we survive and improve our lives only to the extent that we understand reality's rules and act within them. No exceptions. Agendas are worse than useless in science because they get in the way of understanding reality. They serve only to divert the benefits of resources and human achievements to some of us at the expense of others. And in this case, worsen the damage we continue to do every day to our planet's ability to support us. All of us.
    #34
  15. voltsxamps

    voltsxamps Advolturer

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Oddometer:
    1,669
    Location:
    +positively grounded-
    This particular Model S owner calculated an avg of 5.3 cents a mile over 1 year/15k miles; about a quarter the cost to fuel a comparable car, like a Mercedes S Class, and nearly a third the cost of the avg cost per mile of all US vehicles combined.

    https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1090685_life-with-tesla-model-s-one-year-and-15000-miles-later

    As Teslas are the supercars of electrics with faster than Ferrari acceleration, it’s not surprising that when averaged with LEAFS, eGolfs, i3’s and so on, the avg cost per mile for EV’s is 1/3 lower still. AAA calculates (as of Aug 2017) that all electric cars, Tesla’s included, average 3.6 cents a mile.

    Thank you for asking this question, as while we know a gas motorcycle is roughly 2.5 times more fuel efficient than the average gas vehicle on the road today, I was surprised to learn that the typical electric motorcycle is 4 times more efficient than the average EV.

    So today’s average EM is actually closer to 320 MPG (80x4) based on the difference in electrics (and as high as an EPA certified 455 MPGe back in ‘09) and not the 200 MPG equivalent I had estimated based on efficiency differences in gas powered vehicles. Reinforced by Brammo/Victory’s calculations and the post made earlier by Zero owner BrianTRice, it looks like I’ll be editing the thread title now to reflect the more accurate eMPG.

    [​IMG]
    MPG average for ALL vehicles currently registered in the US as of 2016 is 17.9 mpg while motorcycles as per FTP are estimated to be around 45 mpg.

    #35
    XDragRacer likes this.
  16. Rugby4life

    Rugby4life Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Oddometer:
    795
    Location:
    Upstate SC (GSP area)
    I very seldom find myself being the voice of moderation, but here's my take on this discussion. I love my 2017 Zero SR and it's $0.011 per mile average cost per mile. I also love every one of the 116 lb/ft of instant torque. The riding position is fairly upright for a sporty/standard bike. As a matter of fact, it closely reminds me of one of my favorite bikes I've owned (35 total), the Ducati Hypermotard. I will buy another one of those one day. I like any bike that gives me a unique riding experience. Whether it's the silent speed of the Zero, the relaxed riding position and muscular bass exhaust thump of the Yamaha Roadliner, the Humvee on two wheels attitude of the DR650, the nearly 400k miles swallowed by a dozen different BMWs, or the attacking chainsaw scream from my RD350 2 stroke, I loved them all.
    It doesn't have to be an either/or stance on EM vs ICE. Let's celebrate the attribute(s) of each bike that make us smile. On this thread we're exploring the stunning efficiency of the electric motorcycle. There are threads scattered all over ADVRider that extol the virtues of each of the other bikes I've mentioned. There's no need to bash the electric bike for upstream emissions from lithium processing and coal fired power plants just as there's no need for pie-in-the-sky claims that riding an electric moto will heal the planet and cure cancer. Every bike has its strengths as well as shortcomings. I don't know what my next bike will be or when. It may be another EM or it may be an ICE bike from one of the brands I haven't owned yet, but I know I'll buy it because it makes me smile.
    #36
  17. voltsxamps

    voltsxamps Advolturer

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Oddometer:
    1,669
    Location:
    +positively grounded-
    Well, perhaps I should’ve simply conducted a web search for “empg zero” before I started this thread as it appears I may have underestimated the equivalent mpg of electric motorcycles.. again.

    Zero Motorcycles achieves 455 MPG equivalent
    By UMC Staff
    - October 8, 2009

    Zero Motorcycles today announced that it is the first and only electric motorcycle company to achieve three major milestones. They have passed both the US and Canadian safety standards and attained a ‘Certificate of Conformity’ from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, buyers of the Zero S and Zero DS can now benefit from major government incentives. They can also feel confident in the motorcycles’ superior engineering and environmental benefits. Under the proposed EPA regulations issued on Sept 15, 2009, the Zero S and DS achieve an equivalent of 455 MPG and generate zero grams of CO2 per mile.

    https://ultimatemotorcycling.com/2009/10/08/2010_zero_motorcycles_epa_certification/

    2nd source: https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/13/zero-motorcycles-nabs-epa-certificate-of-conformity-gets-rated/

    I won’t be updating the thread’s title though (unless a more recent EPA MPGe can be referenced) as Zero’s 9 years ago were slower in both acceleration and top speed and newer/quicker Zero S and DS are likely closer to a real world estimates and reports of current riders of 320 or so.. which is still incredibly high compared to any other road vehicle today.

    Imagine my surprise to have discovered that nearly a decade ago, Zeros were EPA certified at an equivalent 455 mpg.
    :eek2
    I had to read the heading twice to make sure I saw it correctly!

    In any case, I’m sure the question about energy consumption upstream, transmission losses, etc will be brought up inevitably by someone again, so here’s the full breakdown on how the EPA certifies MPGe and already takes this into consideration when calculating MPGe for all fuels:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent

    Or, the tldr as it pertains to BEV’s;

    “The MPGe metric was introduced in November 2010 by EPA. The ratings are based on EPA's formula, in which 33.7 kilowatt-hours (121 megajoules) of electricity is equivalent to one gallon of gasoline, and the energy consumption of each vehicle during EPA's five standard drive cycle tests simulating varying driving conditions.

    Special cases for specific alternative fuels are discussed, but a general formula for MPGe is:

    4D431C4D-8B10-42AA-A9EB-B36A2E912BF3.jpeg

    MPGe=total miles driven[total energy of all fuels consumedenergy of one gallon of gasoline]=(total miles driven)×(energy of one gallon of gasoline)total energy of all fuels consumed[​IMG]
    For EPA, this considers the tank-to-wheel for liquids and wall-to-wheel energy consumption for electricity, i.e. it measures the energy for which the owner usually pays. For EVs the energy cost includes the conversions from AC to charge the battery.[37] The EPA MPGe ratings displayed in window stickers do not account for the energy consumption upstream, which includes the energy or fuel required to generate the electricity or to extract and produce the liquid fuel; the energy losses due to power transmission; or the energy consumed for the transportation of the fuel from the well to the station.

    MPGe is determined by converting the vehicle consumption per unit distance, as determined through computer modeling or completion of an actual driving cycle, from its native units into a gasoline energy equivalent; W·h for electric vehicles.”

    EBB5175C-2351-442A-B3D6-DC4528C162CF.jpeg

    In the 4th paragraph, I bold texted that the same considerations that are applied to electricity is applied to gas. Does one consider all of the actual upstream costs to explore, research, embargos/tarrifs, trade deficits/wars, drill, transport crude, spills/environmental impact, refine, transport refined fuel, taxes, etc. for the MPG of a gallon of gasoline.. or the engine that is fueled by it? No, so neither does the EPA when calculating the MPGe for other types of fuels or the energy costs to make the “engine” that uses the fuel.

    Perhaps they should though.

    If anything, sun shines far more equally across the earth than crude oil flows out the ground and the ability for just about anyone to capture and store that energy to be used in their home, vehicle, etc bypasses nearly all of the much higher costs associated with creating a gallon of gasoline at the local pump. And sunshine is just one of the many ways to produce electricity sustainably. If there’s two things from this thread (and thank you to all those who commented and questioned) it has been worth the effort to R & D EV/EM’s and though the world has quite a long way to go before renewable sources of generating electricity takes over fossil fuels, the scales continue to tip further and faster towards in that direction as the EPA has recently reported. (OP)

    For those who just tuned in or skipped to this last paragraph, the conclusion is electric motorcycles get fantastic equivalent gas mileage, and as Rugby4life said, enthusiasts will ride what puts smiles on our faces.. whatever it’s powered by. As an owner of of both joule juice and dino juice powered bikes, I agree.
    #37
    Sigster, BrianTRice and chasbmw like this.
  18. Pago Cruiser

    Pago Cruiser Been here awhile Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Oddometer:
    401
    That is one of the most rational, reasoned, and succinct posts I have seen in a long while; not something I expected on this site. Kudos.:beer
    And not just applicable to good discussions of EV cars - but about people. actually. thinking. Or not. Sorry to digress from EV's, but... relevant to your erudite thoughts on skeptism...

    Last week I overheard 2 of my ...younger, post Apollo engineer co-workers discussing how the Moon landing was faked. :eek2Seriously. I almost fell out of my chair. That was followed by "And if you did not blindly believe everything the government says, you could see it too. You have to be skeptical of everything".

    I wanted to jump in with "Skeptical, ok... but don't be a moron about it". I was thinking that if this is an example of his and his brethren's rational thinking process... to quote Charlie Brown from a long time ago... "We're doomed". Instead I just turned back to the screen in my cubicle... and sighed. :scratch
    #38
    MJSfoto1956, BrianTRice and ctromley like this.
  19. chasbmw

    chasbmw Long timer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Oddometer:
    3,581
    Location:
    Bath Uk
    I have a bet with a friend that in 2025 , 50% of new cars sold in the UK will be either full electric or Hybrid because once we have mainstream electric cars that have a 250-300 mile range AND cost under £20k without subsidy, the market will move to embrace them, partially driven by Much lower fuel and maintenance costs.

    I pay in the UK £5.00 a gallon for petrol, my EV costs me 50p per gallon. That’s a very real saving.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    #39
  20. MX500

    MX500 n00b

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Oddometer:
    5
    This is some funny misinformation.

    How are you making these calculations? Are you aware that elextricity is between 18 and 46 cents per KW/H in my area? The only way to make an electric car even close to as affordable is with energy rebate program bs that gives electric car owners a discount and TOU rates. If you compare REAL electricity cost vs fuel, there is a huge savings by staying with an internal combustion engine. Now if you live in the cornbelt and get electricity for nearly free, they are a good deal. I could generate my own power for cheaper than PGE with a cheap generator from harbor freight, and would save thousands if I switched to diesel. Electric vehicles are less efficienct no matter how you cut it. The only way to save money and be green is if you charge with solar, wind, or water power.

    Just a quick un-edited rant from an engineer.
    #40
    Critic likes this.