Buying the Best Electric Vehicle - for your needs

Transport
121

This isn’t correct at this point in time. As posted elsewhere, the Australian motoring associations have looked into whole of vehicle running costs. Currently the cheapest EVs are still around $195 per month ($46/week) more expenive to run over comparable ICE vehicles.

There has been some reports that EVs may have similar runnings costs by 2023-25 (if there are vehicle subsidies or additional taxes on fossil fuels) up to around 2035. If distance charges are imposed on EVs, which are planned by many states, these will push out price equity timeframes. It could be some time before your statement comes into fruition.

1 Like
122

This should stop Australia being used as a dumping ground for sub-standard ICE vehicles as they will no longer be manufactured solely for the Australian market.

Of course the Federal Government might re-establish an Australian vehicle manufacturing industry.

Perhaps a coal fired Stanley Steamer replica.

123

Only if we can agree on the definition of “running costs”. The linked article includes purchase loan repayments which depend on other things not related to the drive mechanism. According to that model the BEV running costs will drop below ICE when the up front purchase price of the former drops.

I think it would be clearer to be more careful about the words because that definition leads to a false appreciation of what is going on in the market and includes factors that have nothing to do with the differences in technology such as whether you can afford to buy outright and prevailing interest rates. I would rather call the all up cost “total cost of ownership” and have “operating costs” to refer to actual costs of operating the machine.

I see that the RACQ does not take into account the cost of pollution in their comparison which seems rather pointless in this situation.

2 Likes
124

RAC (WA) did a similar calculation, and found that the cost is closer than you might expect

1 Like
125

They are effectively the same financially. If one tries to exclude other costs such as depreciation, purchase costs etc, one would then be arguing that a $2.5M electric Rimac Nevera is cheaper to run that a $20K ICE Suzuki Baleno.

To assess the running costs of a car, all costs associated with the vehicle from purchase to discharge (sale) needs to be considered. No doing so, is not representing the real cost to run the vehicle.

2 Likes
126

Numbers?

127

If you are talking about fuel/energy, insurance and maintenance costs, then these will be different as they don’t consider other costs incurred by a consumer when owning/operating/running a car (like the two cars indicated in the previous post). Only looking at part of the actual costs does not represent the costs to the consumer over the ownership time of a vehicle and when comparing BEVs, HFCEVs, HICEs, ICES etc.

It is recognised by many organisations that the running costs of a vehicle are far more than just fuel/energy, insurance and maintenance costs. To use some costs but not others, is misleading.

1 Like
128

Which ever source one goes to every assessment is qualified by numerous conditions. Reality is everyone has different circumstances. Wisdom would be to decide on the best option based on individual needs and choices. The Motoring organisations choose
an average owner for their comparisons. Few owners are average. The RACV suggests 15,000km annually.

I’m prepared to own my prior comment that has started this line of discussion. It recognised that for a BEV the upfront purchase price is a premium and that the return on the greater purchase price depends on the usage.

Apologies if there was no break even point offered. For some contemplating the change it may never pay back on pure financial outcomes. For others with greater daily use it may be the better option.

For those prepared and able to pay extra for the Nation and Planet, it may be an even better and more ethical return on the extra funds employed, compared to many other investment options. IE Spend $25,000 more from savings on a BEV to save $2,000 pa in fuel and maintenance for an average 15,000km annual use. That’s not counting the CO2 you save by charging from the home solar PV, or the future security of not being exposed to imported petroleum.

It’s possible that a BEV is a lower cost option than owning and running an ICE, and that’s without considering the benefits (low marginal cost) of greater usage over time. It would be misleading to suggest the purchase of a BEV will always be more expensive over time.

For those looking for some independent assessments - noting all assume average owners with average needs and ambitions:

1 Like
129

You are ignoring the question of the purpose of creating summary statistics and giving them names that match that purpose. I don’t want to rule out any category of cost I want to make its inclusion or exclusion to match the purpose of the assessment.

If I want to consider my personal cost of having a certain vehicle I need to know if it makes assumptions about financing and what they are. If I borrow to finance that is one cost, if I tie up capital buying for cash that is another. Neither of these relates only to ICE or to BEV.

If I want to assess the cost to society of a transition from one tech to another I need to know it pollution costs are included.

Having constructed some useful statistics giving them names that is descriptive and doesn’t lead to arguing at cross purposes would be good.

4 Likes
130

Broad comparisons like those done by the motoring associations and others are for comparison only and make assumptions, such as mileage taken, age of driver etc. These are usually based on averages or represent what factors may be for most consumers. Individuals can’t rely on what these comparisons say as being representative of their own circumstances, as it will differ. If an individual wishes to do their own assessment, and include all externalities, all I can say is good luck. Even the best in the world struggle with assessing all externalities, assigning weightings and cost etc.

It is good to see you are one of a minority which factors externalities in decision making. I also hope that you factor in all possible and feasible externalities for each option as using only one, such as GHG emissions, will most likely result in a poor decision outcome.

An example is if one wants to reduce electricity GHG to zero with proven technology and using GHG as the only criterion, nuclear energy may become the solution which is followed. Including all externalities in a decision making process will most likely drive a different outcome, and placing different weighting on each externality, will also drive particular decisions.

As I discussed recently with a good friend who is an academic in carbon in agriculture, it was agreed that current technologies are being driven by GHG emissions, without full appreciation or assessment of all externalities associated with such technologies. All technologies/solutions have externalities and impacts. Some of these impacts are temporal, others irreversible (which fits into the category of loss of future opportunity).

The average consumer doesn’t factor or think about externalities in their purchases. Even Choice doesn’t consider such when reviewing products or services. To do such, in an approach which is reliable, is very difficult as there are often scores, if not hundreds of different externalities for each product. The same applies to transport solutions moving forward. Every new and technology has externalities and these are unavoidable. While GHG emission reduction is a principal driver, one should not ignore all other externalities at the expense of one.

Consumers are also driven by hip pocket costs. This is principally why, and recognised within the EV industry, why EV take up in many countries has been slow without significant government subsidies and support, to equalise the cost of EVs with traditional transport solutions.

1 Like
131

On that we can certainly agree.

Two challenge questions, for any interested to consider.

  1. If you were going to purchase a new BEV in Australia today, and had $60,000 to spend which one would you favour?
  2. If someone following this topic desires to purchase a BEV today, and reduce their carbon footprint, should there be a recommendation or a more neutral stance?
2 Likes
132

  1. E-Kona, or the Ioniq are are top two, followed by the MG ZS EV. We will buy one if my Wife’s eye squint can be fixed, if not we will both have become passengers.

  2. Again as we need to cut emissions, a neutral stance is not what we should be doing or accepting.

2 Likes
133

  1. We are waiting for V2G to be permitted in SE Qld, before looking at the options further. The Nissan Leaf is currently the only offering in the Aussie market under the $60k which has that capability.

  2. It’s important to understand the relative benefits of each new BEV as they become available to the Australian market.

As an added comment, demand at present is ahead of supply. In particular for models costing more than $60k.

V2G

3 Likes
134

As one of the top selling car markers in Australia with sales of some 7,890 vehicles in June, 2021 alone, Kia’s allocation of a mere 500 of their new EV6 electric SUV for Australia for all of 2022 does not auger well for the rollout of electric vehicles.

135

Only 400 of the ioniq 5 were released here as we are not seen as a good market to sell EVs in ie we have very poor uptake and show a lot of hesitancy to move away from fossil fuelled engines. The 400 were sold within a few very short hours of release as those who had shown keenness grabbed them.

3 Likes
136

A tiny country with a tiny population puts Australia to shame.

And not just vehicles.

1 Like
137

There are two common strategies for recharging a BEV.

For everyday users a top up when parked strategy might work best. It does require the ability to be able to plug into a charger when ever and where ever the car is parked. The advantage is even a low charge rate from a humble 10amp household outlet using the cars built in charger can add 100km of range in under 8 hours.

The disadvantage is this is not how charger infrastructure is being rolled out. Current strategies reflect how users treat petrol and diesel. Drive until the tank is approaching empty, and only fill up once a week or every 4+ hours on a long trip. This requires time, even for a fast charge from a high capacity DC charger. The cost of the energy often comes at a premium price compared to late rate charging at home. There are also significant costs in providing the high powered infrastructure at the dedicated charging stations. Especially compared to simple AC outlets that could be paced more economically in our everyday shopping centre car parks etc. Free for the first 3 hours?

For those looking to replace their luxury drive with something you can charge at home or on the road. Mercedes has extended their mileage on a full charge to 679km. Note US Pricing, coverts to approx AU$140,000.

There is a link in the article to the USA Edwards independent range tests for BEVs that may be useful when considering other more affordable options. One observation of the different models Edwards road tested, is many bettered their EPA range estimates. Tesla was one brand that delivered fewer miles/kilometres.

2 Likes
138

I’ll admit that is my instinctive thought for how I’d charge an EV.

It’s a deeply ingrained habit, and I’d assumed frequent battery top-ups would cause faster degradation - no idea if that’s true.

1 Like
139

It depends! :wink:

There are numerous sources that provide slightly different versions or answers. The following provides some background.

‘BU-808: How to Prolong Lithium-based Batteries - Battery University

The best lifetime total energy recovered scenario appears to be more frequent charging. Avoiding regular cycling from maximum charge to minimum or low is how basic testing is carried out. Lithium batteries can benefit from not being charged to 100% with a lesser charge to 80% or 90% being beneficial. It’s an option in the power and charging options for laptops to set 80% as the maximum charge, which assumes that is adequate most of the time.

Temperature is also a factor. Higher charging temperatures reduce battery life. The hotter the environment and the faster the charging rate the hotter the battery becomes. A regular top up reduces the need for fast charging and delivers lower temperature.

Top up vs less frequent fast charging may or may not suit how each owner would use a BEV.
There are owners who drive their current vehicles most days relatively small distances 10, 20, up to 50km. A max of 4 hrs on a low rate 10 amp household outlet is all that would be needed. For the less frequent longer day trip the effects of charging to 100% the day before and if need be fast charging during the journey can be partly offset by the more conservative every day charging plan.

What the BEV manufacturers advise or how they program the vehicle BMS and charging is a more complex discussion. Some may be more conservative or cavalier than the next in what they say or permit. For those who only drive an average 10,000-15,000km (national averages) and keeps a vehicle for about the typical warranty of 5 years or less, it’s unlikely to be a problem which ever strategy. The indicated residual maximum battery capacity may be the only indication of which strategy has been followed.

Another generalised comment.

2 Likes
140

Ah there’s my problem. I’d never be an average use case/offloading it in only a few years

1 Like