# Cost Of Driving With Electricity



## BrotherBart (Jun 12, 2013)

http://www.doe.gov/articles/egallon-how-much-cheaper-it-drive-electricity


----------



## gregbesia (Jun 12, 2013)

BrotherBart said:


> http://www.doe.gov/articles/egallon-how-much-cheaper-it-drive-electricity


Hmm, interesting. I wonder how do they calculate that. Here in CT the electric company tells me that I'm paying 8 c per kWh ,but with all taxes and fees its really 19 c/kWh.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 12, 2013)

I hear ya. Ours is supposed to be nine cents but fully loaded it is 12.6. Of course the more you use the lower the cost per KWH.


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 12, 2013)

Their calculator is messed up... it says regular gas is 3.06 a gallon here and its 0.06 cents an e-gallon. Cannot be rite.

The national average gas prices is $3.65 per gallon, and the average cost of an eGallon is $1.14

Also gas is highly taxed here, whereas electricity is not, so they are coming up with some new taxes for electric vehicles here.


----------



## GaryGary (Jun 12, 2013)

Hi, 
Just by way of checking the numbers a bit -- a family member just got a Chevy Volt, and doing some reading about it, it looks like it takes 11 KWH to charge it and it goes 38 miles (on average) on that charge.  If the charger is 90% efficient(?), then it takes 11/0.9 = 12.2 KWH to charge it.  So, at 12 cents a KWH, that's $1.46 for 38 miles, or 3.8 cents per mile.

Same car get about 37 mpg combined on premium gas, so if gas is $4.30 per gallon (in CA), the price per mile is 11.6 cents per mile.

So, 11.6/3.8 = 3.0 times more expensive for the gas car in CA -- the calculator gives a factor of 2.6.  Either way, pretty nice.  Of course, its going to vary with gas and electricity prices in different locations.

She loves the Volt -- partly because it electric, but mostly because it just a really nice car to drive.

Gary


----------



## begreen (Jun 12, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> Their calculator is messed up... it says regular gas is 3.06 a gallon here and its 0.06 cents an e-gallon. Cannot be rite.
> 
> The national average gas prices is $3.65 per gallon, and the average cost of an eGallon is $1.14
> 
> Also gas is highly taxed here, whereas electricity is not, so they are coming up with some new taxes for electric vehicles here.


 
Sounds like it couldn't get the right location. That's not what I got when checking the link from my phone. In Seattle it listed cost of gas at $3.85 and egallon at $0.86. With high gas prices and reasonable electricity the numbers look good.


----------



## Circus (Jun 13, 2013)

False Economy

Chevy Volt comparison found that the breakeven period is 26.6 years (420,000 miles) versus a Chevrolet Cruze Eco, assuming it was regularly driven farther than its battery-only range allows, and with gasoline priced at US$3.85 per gallon. Assuming 15,000 miles per year

If the battery in my laptop is any indication, the batteries will need replacing every several years.Guessing $5000 to $10,000.

The clean air benefit is mostly local because, depending on the source of the electricity used to recharge the batteries, air pollutant emissions are shifted to the location of the plants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt


----------



## begreen (Jun 13, 2013)

False assumptions too. Most Volt owners drive within the range of the car. Many report partially filling the tank once every 3-6 months. And ROI is not all one gets a car for. It's transportation and for many ride quality, handling, image, etc.. You don't buy a BMW or Jag for ROI. The battery replacement cycle and cost estimates are similar to those for the Prius when we bought it. They turned out completely false. Edmunds was slamming the car in 2006. Now it is the darling of Edmunds, Consumer Reports and taxicab companies in most cities. Our 7 yr old battery is doing well.

The Volt has some distinct advantages that make it a unique car on the market. One can drive it on battery only for a 20 mi round trip, yet head off to the hills without worry of a lack of charging stations. It is particularly good for where an electric car is desired, yet there are frequent, several day long power outages. My only gripe with the car is that they could have done a better job on the interior design.


----------



## Circus (Jun 13, 2013)

There are a lot easier ways to save fuel. It would be easy without special interests. I have four vehicles ranging from a 40 mpg Spitfire (icon) to a 10 mpg PU. I never understood why the insurance and licensing costs four times more. I'd save $800 every year if I drove only the PU. Even with the higher fuel costs.​Oh well, using less fuel makes me happy despite being a chump by doing so.


----------



## Grisu (Jun 13, 2013)

Circus said:


> False Economy


 
Not untrue because just looking at the fuel neglects all the other costs associated with a car. 



> Chevy Volt comparison found that the breakeven period is 26.6 years (420,000 miles) versus a Chevrolet Cruze Eco, assuming it was regularly driven farther than its battery-only range allows, and with gasoline priced at US$3.85 per gallon. Assuming 15,000 miles per year


 
The flaws with those assumptions have already been exposed and other studies come to different values: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Operating_cost_and_payback_period
In the end a lot will depend upon personal driving habits. For me the economy would probably be a wash. We use ~350 to 400 gallons of gas a year in a not very fuel efficient car (~23 mpg). My current savings would therefore be $700 to 800 a year with a $2 difference between a gallon of gas and an e-gallon. However, if I would buy a more fuel efficient gasoline car at e. g. 30 mpg instead I would only save about $600 per year putting my payback way beyond the 10 year range. Plus, I don't like sedans as the Volt for a family car. I am looking at the VW Sportwagen TDI, the Prius V or the Ford C-Max as potential next cars; all getting 40 to 45 mpg. If it would be available here   I would also take a hard look at the new Mazda 6 wagon (30/40 mpg). http://www.autoblog.com/2013/02/21/2014-mazda6-skyactiv-d-wagon/ 



> If the battery in my laptop is any indication, the batteries will need replacing every several years.Guessing $5000 to $10,000.


 
Laptop batteries are discharged to low levels quite frequently while car-hybrid batteries are kept in a much narrower charge band. Thus, they last much longer. In addition, the goal must be to get to truly electric cars at some point. Those have less maintenance (no change of oil, air filter, spark plugs etc.) and wear and tear to the engine which may partially compensate for the need to replace the batteries if that ever has to be done during the lifetime of the car. 



> The clean air benefit is mostly local because, depending on the source of the electricity used to recharge the batteries, air pollutant emissions are shifted to the location of the plants
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt


 
Not if the person owning a Volt also puts a PV system on their roof. That is the idea behind converting cars to electric AND sourcing the electricity from renewables like wind, solar, hydro. Both have to happen gradually over time. Let's face it: We are happily burning away one of the most precious natural resources to humankind which has a finite supply and we have no good substitute yet especially considering its scale, versatility and energy density. If we do not want that our children and grandchildren will piss on our graves we should start acting like responsible adults that consider there will be a tomorrow even if it means some inconvenience to us.


----------



## Jags (Jun 13, 2013)

begreen said:


> .. You don't buy a BMW or Jag for ROI.


 
It is true...I am for sale for the right price.


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 13, 2013)

Double double false, and no take backs! Most data show that the batteries last about 100k miles, at best. Batteries do fail over time and they are really expensive to replace (in the many thousands of dollars). And if you think that the WHOPPING 0.04% solar PV is being used to electrify these cars, you are living in some kind of fantasy dreamland. Again, they only make reasonable economic sense if you account for the tax rebates and utility refunds (on both the hybrid/electric cars and solar PV systems), but the total cost to society is higher and therefor has to be considered if you really want to save the planet from human self destruction.

Hybrids and electric cars are shown in most all economic models to have an extremely long breakeven point, typically outside the range of intended life of the vehicles. Even with the tax rebates. If you want to make a fashion statement, or want to drive in the commuter lane alone, then great. Most people do not have the money that it takes to buy these vehicles, or it is not an economically viable solution for those that do. In many cases the planet is better off with you driving an older car because you are using an existing hunk of metal and plastic that does not need a ton of energy and resources to produce. I have a Tundra PU that gets 16 MPG, but it also has 200k miles on it, and I can haul stuff out here in the boonies in it, and drive in deep snow in 4WD which I need to do in winter months in the Cascades.

From a user perspective, I have been comparing the real costs of hybrid/electric cars to higher efficiency _equivalent_ model gas engine cars for that past 10 years or so. I use $5 a gallon for gas as a comparison, as that is the highest price in the past several years (in CA), and where average gas prices are heading. Even at that price, the hybrids tend to break even well above 300,000 miles. Like PV, the breakeven point with hybrid/electric cars is many many years out, almost always over 15 years. To say that breakeven in 15 years is cost effective today is rather misleading.

As for thinking that humans are going to all of a sudden act responsibly? Good luck with that dream. If you really want to save the planet (or save the existing one that supports our form of life), stop the insane rate of human reproduction. If that does not happen, nothing will stop the 10 billion or so humans from using up every resource that there is in the next few hundred years, and then... that's it. Lights out for this species. No amount of conservation, PV arrays, electric cars, or anything else will save us from ourselves. GW is already having a massive impact on us, and most of us are still in denial about that.


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 13, 2013)

Oh, and electric cars have been around for a long long time, BTW. About as long as internal combustion engine cars. They used to have electric charging stations around NYC over 100 years ago for a small fleet of battery powered cars. So if you think that this technology is new, or is going to be some giant leap into the future, it is not.


----------



## begreen (Jun 13, 2013)

The tech is not new, but it certainly has advanced a lot. Just look at the speed, range, features and safety of a modern electric car in comparison to an old Baker electric. Progress is good.


----------



## fossil (Jun 13, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> So if you think that this technology is new, or is going to be some giant leap into the future, it is not.


 
Oh well, then, if it's all just the same as it was 100 years ago and it didn't work then...why bother?  The hell with it.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 13, 2013)




----------



## Grisu (Jun 13, 2013)

In the future:


----------



## wazzu (Jun 13, 2013)

GaryGary said:


> Hi,
> Just by way of checking the numbers a bit -- a family member just got a Chevy Volt, and doing some reading about it, it looks like it takes 11 KWH to charge it and it goes 38 miles (on average) on that charge. If the charger is 90% efficient(?), then it takes 11/0.9 = 12.2 KWH to charge it. So, at 12 cents a KWH, that's $1.46 for 38 miles, or 3.8 cents per mile.
> 
> Same car get about 37 mpg combined on premium gas, so if gas is $4.30 per gallon (in CA), the price per mile is 11.6 cents per mile.
> ...


 
Yea, it would be nice but damn one charge wound't even get me to work and back home again.


----------



## begreen (Jun 13, 2013)

Doesn't matter, you would still benefit from the gas saved and complete your trip home on the built-in genny.


----------



## GaryGary (Jun 13, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> Double double false, and no take backs! Most data show that the batteries last about 100k miles, at best. Batteries do fail over time and they are really expensive to replace (in the many thousands of dollars). And if you think that the WHOPPING 0.04% solar PV is being used to electrify these cars, you are living in some kind of fantasy dreamland. Again, they only make reasonable economic sense if you account for the tax rebates and utility refunds (on both the hybrid/electric cars and solar PV systems), but the total cost to society is higher and therefor has to be considered if you really want to save the planet from human self destruction.
> 
> Hybrids and electric cars are shown in most all economic models to have an extremely long breakeven point, typically outside the range of intended life of the vehicles. Even with the tax rebates. If you want to make a fashion statement, or want to drive in the commuter lane alone, then great. Most people do not have the money that it takes to buy these vehicles, or it is not an economically viable solution for those that do. In many cases the planet is better off with you driving an older car because you are using an existing hunk of metal and plastic that does not need a ton of energy and resources to produce. I have a Tundra PU that gets 16 MPG, but it also has 200k miles on it, and I can haul stuff out here in the boonies in it, and drive in deep snow in 4WD which I need to do in winter months in the Cascades.
> 
> ...


 
Hi,


I'd like to see the studies that show that show the battery packs typically last for only 100K miles -- they are typically guaranteed for at least that.  
I've seen reports on Prius taxi cabs with 300K on the original batteries.
A new set of batteries on a Prius is about $2K -- not small, but not out of line with other major repairs -- we recently had a friend with a Honda Pilot just like ours pay $4K for a new transmission at less than 100K miles.

This list from Consumer reports shows many electrics and hybrids that save money in 5 years or less. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/01/hybrids-diesels-do-they-save-money/index.htm

Beyond the lower cost of ownership, hybrids clearly save many tons of CO2 emissions over their life compared to non-hybrids.  Electric cars also save on CO2 emissions in most parts of the country depending on how dirty the generation is.  The move to NG is making the electricity generation system cleaner and improving the emissions savings for electric vehicles.

Gary


----------



## begreen (Jun 14, 2013)

Here's a recent report on the value of pevs.
http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002001728

"With current incentives and prices, financial factors should not be a deterrent to a PEV purchase for most buyers.
The LEAF is less expensive than competing options on average, but has a wide variation in value for different drivers, suggesting that battery electric vehicles will require more careful consideration when making a purchase decision.
The sensitivities suggest that increases and decreases in gasoline prices will have a significant impact on the relative costs of PEVs, but that state incentives or rebates and equivalent vehicle price changes will have an even larger impact on cost tradeoffs."


----------



## mywaynow (Jun 14, 2013)

The only fair comparison will add in artificial finanicial factors like "incentives and support".


----------



## Grisu (Jun 14, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> As for thinking that humans are going to all of a sudden act responsibly? Good luck with that dream. If you really want to save the planet (or save the existing one that supports our form of life), stop the insane rate of human reproduction. If that does not happen, nothing will stop the 10 billion or so humans from using up every resource that there is in the next few hundred years, and then... that's it. Lights out for this species. No amount of conservation, PV arrays, electric cars, or anything else will save us from ourselves. GW is already having a massive impact on us, and most of us are still in denial about that.


 
Better try and fail than not having tried at all. At least, I will be able to look my kids in the eyes when they ask me what our generation was thinking.


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 14, 2013)

Seemingly from your replies, you all believe in a massive shift to battery cars to replace the existing fleet of gas engine cars? Then we can just keep going in this endless growth pattern forever? Technology will save us, and our addiction to the automobile? Amusing.

Seemingly from this reply, someone is in a funk. I did not read this thread as a solution to all the earth's problems at all, nor did it seem to be implied. Mr. Fusion and anti-gravity are going to do that.


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 14, 2013)

GaryGary said:


> Beyond the lower cost of ownership, hybrids clearly save many tons of CO2 emissions over their life compared to non-hybrids. Electric cars also save on CO2 emissions in most parts of the country depending on how dirty the generation is. The move to NG is making the electricity generation system cleaner and improving the emissions savings for electric vehicles.
> 
> Gary


 
There are many gas engine cars that get nearly the same MPG as hybrids. Also the range limits off all-electric cars are... very limiting.

As for NG, it is all the rage today. Except fracking will likely damage the North American fresh water supply. And NG is not unlimited, but we are getting hooked on it fast. And it produces CO2, though at a lower rate. Also, what do you think we will do with all DIRTY fuel that we have? The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal and we have new large oil fields in the Dakotas and Montana. We will just export it and re-import the CO2, methane and NOX in the wind from overseas. We do not control our destiny here in the US, and we are not isolated from the rest of the world, much as we would like to think otherwise.


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 14, 2013)

GaryGary said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> I'd like to see the studies that show that show the battery packs typically last for only 100K miles -- they are typically guaranteed for at least that.
> ...


 
Depends on the battery type and location, and how they are used and charged. Exposure to extreme temps will destroy many batteries (typical limits are 120 F. high to -13 F. low). 100k-150k 'seems' to be the typical battery life, but details on specifics are hard to find. Cost is also highly variable, from a few thousand to $14,000 for Toyota Rav4 EV NiMH batteries.

Battery warranty varies, the 2013 Leaf, 5 years/60k miles, the Prius and Volt are 8 years/100k miles. So beyond 60-100k, you foot the battery bill.


----------



## semipro (Jun 14, 2013)

I don't think the warranties should be used to compare battery lives. Those are based on economic and buyer acceptance statistics not battery function.
The drive train warranty in a ICE vehicle may only be 60k miles but we certainly expect our engines nowadays to last far longer than that.

Granted, when you compare the relatively recent hybrid technologies with efficient ICE technology the cost benefit just isn't there yet without incentives. (Not that petroleum production and supply markets don't already benefit from incentives)

I think we need to consider other benefits that H/EVs offer such as backup power generation, smart grid storage (V2G), the ability to store power locally rather than on the grid, etc. The idea of using heretofore wasted braking energy for propulsion is a great idea and one now being used in locomotives and elsewhere to increase our overall energy efficiency.

I think about hybrids sort of like energy efficient light bulbs. The payoff may or may not be there but we've got to give the technology time (and support) to mature. Then we'll reap the benefits (maybe).

Edit: being able to distribute energy via wire rather than pipeline and tanker is a huge benefit in many ways also. Think road wear, spills, etc.


----------



## begreen (Jun 14, 2013)

There are many Prius cars out there with over 200K on their battery. No one really knows how long they'll last, but conservatively I think one can say for the life of the car. The current replacement cost is $2500 for the 2004-current year models and on eBay for half that price. Or you can just replace the bad cell(s) for about $45/cell.


----------



## GaryGary (Jun 14, 2013)

semipro said:


> I don't think the warranties should be used to compare battery lives. Those are based on economic and buyer acceptance statistics not battery function.
> The drive train warranty in a ICE vehicle may only be 60k miles but we certainly expect our engines nowadays to last far longer than that.
> 
> Granted, when you compare the relatively recent hybrid technologies with efficient ICE technology the cost benefit just isn't there yet without incentives. (Not that petroleum production and supply markets don't already benefit from incentives)
> ...


 
Hi Semi,
Agree that warranties are not a good indicator of average life, and that current batteries are likely to go far beyond the warranty period.  Toyota formally states that their battery design policy is to make the batteries last the life of the car.

I do think that some of the hybrid models out now do pay off in a relatively short time time  without incentives.  The Consumer Reports article linked to above has some models that I don't believe come with any incentives (Civic hybrid, prius, ...) and still show a payoff compared to equivalent gas models in 5 years or less.  
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/01/hybrids-diesels-do-they-save-money/index.htm

A couple excerpts:
*Hybrid & diesel payback*

In this analysis, we compared the five-year owner costs of 13 hybrids and seven diesels with those of similar conventional vehicles, using Consumer Reports_'_ new-car owner-cost estimates. The conventional vehicles with which we compared the hybrids and diesels are the closest available alternatives when considering all factors, including performance, safety, and features. Most were compared with a similarly equipped all-gas version from the same model line. For hybrids and diesels that don’t have a direct gasoline counterpart, we chose the most similar model in price and features, from the same automaker where possible or otherwise a direct competitor.
Cost factors we considered include depreciation, fuel costs, insurance, interest on financing, maintenance and repairs, and sales tax. Of those, depreciation makes up the largest portion, a whopping 48 percent of owner costs in the first five years. We factor in depreciation, assuming that owners trade in their vehicles after five years, a typical ownership period.
*Hybrids vs. similar all-gas models*

After comparing the five-year owner costs of hybrids with those of similarly equipped conventional vehicles, we found many will save you money, *even without tax incentives.*

Gary


----------



## Circus (Jun 15, 2013)

GaryGary said:


> *Hybrids vs. similar all-gas models*​


 
I've checked the mpg of the baseline models Consumer Reports used. They were the gas models with lowest mpg available.
You have to be careful when comparing mpg. A friend gets 75 mpg with his 250cc motorcycle while my 750 only gets 45 mpg. When we ride together his 250 works hard and mine barely gets warm reversing the mpg. So if you drive like you have a small engine you'll get mileage like a small engine.


----------



## semipro (Jun 15, 2013)

Gary.  I hope I'm wrong and the CR report would seem to support that but I've not always agreed with CR's methods. 
I own a hybrid I bought second-hand and am a big proponent of HEV/EVs in general.
One thing I noticed when shopping for it was that used hybrid models didn't seem to demand much of a premium over ICE models, at least not nearly as much as a percent as when new.  There seems to be a widespread "selling off" of hybrids when they near the end of their warranty period which often ends well beyond CRs 5 year study period.  I found this to be the case when I searching for my used Toyota Highlander hybrid.  All this leads me to suspect that CR is underestimating depreciation on hybrids.
I also suspect (but have no proof) that manufacturers are making less profit on hybrids when compared to ICE models and that prices are set artificially low for various reasons.  When I look at the extra materials and technology that are included in my Highlander hybrid (3 motor/generators, controller, battery, etc.) its very hard to believe they even made a profit given the premium price paid.

Again, I hope I'm wrong on every count but I believe that hybrid vehicle technology is not yet quite there as far as competing in an open market with ICE vehicles. 

Of course all this changes the second we start paying a true cost for fossil fuels and really get into the details of life-cycle costs.


----------



## semipro (Jun 15, 2013)

Circus said:


> A friend gets 75 mpg with his 250cc motorcycle while my 750 only gets 45 mpg. When we ride together his 250 works hard and mine barely gets warm reversing the mpg. So if you drive like you have a small engine you'll get mileage like a small engine.


Not meaning to derail my own post but something I found about motorcycles a few years back when I had one:
According to EPA stats from about 5 years ago, every motorcycle made created more pollution per mile than every car made.  This was true even of motorcycles with EFI and catalytic convertors.  I would never have suspected this.


----------



## Circus (Jun 15, 2013)

semipro said:


> motorcycle made created more pollution per mile than every car made​


 
Passenger mile. How often do you see a car with five passengers in it?


----------



## GaryGary (Jun 15, 2013)

semipro said:


> Gary. I hope I'm wrong and the CR report would seem to support that but I've not always agreed with CR's methods.
> I own a hybrid I bought second-hand and am a big proponent of HEV/EVs in general.
> One thing I noticed when shopping for it was that used hybrid models didn't seem to demand much of a premium over ICE models, at least not nearly as much as a percent as when new. There seems to be a widespread "selling off" of hybrids when they near the end of their warranty period which often ends well beyond CRs 5 year study period. I found this to be the case when I searching for my used Toyota Highlander hybrid. All this leads me to suspect that CR is underestimating depreciation on hybrids.
> I also suspect (but have no proof) that manufacturers are making less profit on hybrids when compared to ICE models and that prices are set artificially low for various reasons. When I look at the extra materials and technology that are included in my Highlander hybrid (3 motor/generators, controller, battery, etc.) its very hard to believe they even made a profit given the premium price paid.
> ...


 

Hi Semi,
I find that I sometimes don't agree with CR's approach on some of their studies, but it seems to me that from a testing and engineering point of view they take great pains to be accurate.  It seems to me that they often show a bit of anti hybrid sentiment in their car reviews, so, I was a bit surprised to see the article I linked to.

There was another article not long ago that compared 11 hybrids with their non-hybrid cousins and came up with 6 of the hybrids doing better economically than the gas models.  Tried to find it, but no luck.

This is a bit out of the LA Times:

*Prius drives Toyota past 5-million mark in global hybrid sales
April 17, 2013|By Jerry Hirsch*
Since introducing the first Prius in Japan back in 1997, Toyota Motor Corp. has sold 5 million hybrids worldwide, including 2 million in the U.S., the automaker said Wednesday.
Toyota said the owners of its hybrids have saved more than 3 billion gallons of gasoline compared with vehicles powered by gasoline only. According to Department of Energy estimates, the hybrid vehicles on the road today save nearly 500 million gallons of petroleum annually in the U.S.
--------------
We are on our 2nd Prius, and I just have a hard time picturing us driving anything that does not get 50 mpg or better as our main car.  I've been a bit disappointed that the Prius came out more than 10 years ago and their early models were near 50 mpg, and after all this time neither they nor the competition has improved much on this -- most of the competition is not even close, but there does seem to be some sustained effort toward better mpg.

Gary


----------



## begreen (Jun 15, 2013)

Circus said:


> Passenger mile. How often do you see a car with five passengers in it?


 
Not sure if that is correct. I like motorcycles a lot, but low pollution is not one of their strengths.

_"Motorcycles were indeed more fuel-efficient than cars and emitted less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, but they emitted far more smog-forming hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, as well as the toxic air pollutant carbon monoxide. For the most recent model year vehicles tested -- from the '00s -- the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than the comparable decade car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide. _
_The MythBusters' conclusion: "At best, it's a wash. Motorcycles are just as bad for the environment as cars," Savage said on the show. "At worst, they're far worse.""_

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbusters-motorcycle-emissions.html

Although a lot less fun to drive, compare a 750cc cycle to the Prius and the Prius will come out seriously better for every emission, and get slightly better gas mileage, with no bugs in the teeth. 

From the Fed:

_"In fact, motorcycles produce more harmful emissions per mile than a car,_
_or even a large SUV. The current federal motorcycle standard for hydrocarbon_
_emissions is about 90 times the hydrocarbon standard for today’s_
_passenger cars. Although many of today’s motorcycles will actually meet_
_the current California standards, the California hydrocarbon standard is_
_still 18 to 24 times the current federal passenger car limit, depending on_
_the displacement of the motorcycle engine._"

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/roadbike/420f03045.pdf





However, there are some fun alternatives bikes that have no tailpipe. 0-60 in 3 secs! 

http://www.ecofriend.com/ten-green-motorcycles-full-on-fun-low-on-emissions.html


----------



## Circus (Jun 15, 2013)

The motorcycle story only highlighted a short coming of mpg comparison. Cycles aren't good or bad. Considering their size, the fuel economy sucks.
Stop answering an argument I never made.


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 15, 2013)

I had not considered the used hybrid market. I think a lot of the cheapness from current fleet of used hybrids comes from the tax breaks that they originally had (gone in 2010) as well as potential high cost of long term maintenance. Plug-in hybrids and electric cars still get up to $7500 in tax breaks. That is, if you make enough money to capture the credits and deductions, but not too much that your are disqualified from taking them.

Overall hybrids remain under 3% of the total car market. Gas and diesel remain the main market share. Similar to solar PV, it remains a tiny fraction of the total market, with or without incentives and tax breaks. Gas remains king.

As for battery life, I was not using the hybrid/e-car warranty as a battery life estimate, I was just posting it to counter the stat from an earlier post about replacement cost under warranty. Battery life in hybrids and all electric cars is not well reported and seems highly variable, as is the replacement cost. There are many variables.

As for motorcycles, how did we get off on that tangent? High performance engines, lots of NOX but a lot of fun to ride. I rode about 60k miles on them when I was younger.


----------



## semipro (Jun 15, 2013)

Circus said:


> semipro said: ↑
> motorcycle made created more pollution per mile than every car made​
> Circus said: Passenger mile. How often do you see a car with five passengers in it?


 


Circus said:


> The motorcycle story only highlighted a short coming of mpg comparison. Cycles aren't good or bad. Considering their size, the fuel economy sucks.
> Stop answering an argument I never made.


 
I understood you were saying that pollutant emissions were based on passenger-mile when my understanding was it is based on vehicle miles. I thinking BG understood the same way.


----------



## begreen (Jun 15, 2013)

I did, though even that is only correct for urban driving. On the highway and suburban drive the car is better than the motorcycle.

But it was fun reading up again about the Mission one.


----------



## Slow1 (Jun 26, 2013)

The thing that this motorcycle debate make me think is that perhaps for a "green" solution, getting the motorcycles to go electric would perhaps have a better ROI.   I have no idea what sort of range electric cycles have though.



Other things to consider - quiet electric cycles may be nice in the neighborhood, but I wonder if that would significantly compromise rider safety.  Folks don't seem to watch out for them enough as it is, imagine if you couldn't hear them on the highway either...


----------

