Looking at the article I linked to above, the true fallacy of EV's being cheaper to run comes out:
From this week, the pioneering electric car-maker from California will increase the average price of charging at any of its Australian and New Zealand supercharger stations from $0.35 per kWh to $0.42 per kWh, or 20 per cent.In reality, the price hikes mean it will cost an additional $5.25 to fully replenish a Tesla Model S with a 75kWh battery (claimed 490km range), or $31.50. Now here is where the truth comes out and the fantasy ends by their own admission.
Tesla currently offers some owners 400kWh of annual credits, depending on when their cars were purchased. That equates to roughly 1600km worth of range.So we have gone from 75 Kwh of power equaling 490 KM of range to 100 Kwh giving 400 KM of range. That a big difference and a far more real world number going by what is reported on the tesla Fan boi sites. For those that believe or more over, want to believe the tesla hyped figures over real world numbers posted by users, Go argue with the people driving them that their numbers are wrong because they don't match Teslas.
In this case though, the lower numbers ARE teslas.
Now with super charging 100KW that will take you 400Kw when you are away from home will cost you $42.
Average fuel price here atm is $1.30L and it's been well below that for the last month or so but well use current price to compare current supercharging price.
For $42 you could buy 32L of fuel. For that to take you 400 Km you would have to be getting..... 8 L per 100Km.
So what other economy cars could you get to match the same running costs?
Well with a bit of careful driving, you could run one of these for the same cost:
The Raptor has a claimed 8.2L/100km fuel-consumption figure (combined cycle). It has an 80-litre fuel tank. Of course if that wasn't your style, Then there is a plethora of other vehicles available as well like:
Subaru Forrester, 7.4 L/100
Audi A3, 4.9
Toyota Prado, 8.0
Hyuandi Elantra 7.0
Ford Focus 6.4
Toyota camry 7.8
Holden Commodore 7.6
And so the Looong list of Ic vehicles goes on and as can be seen, the cherry picking I have done is for the not so economical and larger vehicles rather than the plentiful range available that are in the 4 L / 100 range.
But Wait!
I can hear the greenwashed all screaming " But charging at home is only .30C kwh.
So the numbers on that would mean you have to get about 6 L / 100 to match the at home charging cost.
Not a problem. PLENTY of cars can do that so again, the EV's are still NOT cheaper than IC's in a lot of cases.
There is a great irony to me though in worrying about the economy of a $130K+ car. If you can afford the car and the insurance, are you really such a miser you'd give a flying wether the thing cost $2 or 25 to run the thing 100km? I sure wouldn't be then again, I'm not desperate to prove how wonderful ev's are or high on the green koolaide like so many are these days because they are so desperate for a cause to believe in and champion.
Yes, EVs -MAY- be cheaper to run is SOME places but certainly not all and the blanket statement they are is just another crock of greenwasing and exaggeration designed as usual to push the cause of the green cult with as little attention to truth and fact as can be gotten away with... Or not.
Cue fanbois and green evangilists......