List your miles and MPGe

[MrDRMorgan]

I have PG&E rate data going back to 2001.

Here is the rate data for 2009. Note: PG&E also plays around with the baseline quantities and this affects you power costs too.

There was only one rate change in 2009 and that was on 1/1/2009.

Tier 1: $0.11536
Tier 2: $0.13115
Tier 3: $0.24711
Tier 4: $0.35432
Tier 5: $0.41049

Here is a bit more cost information for the month of June 2015: As of yesterday, my PV solar system had produced 342 kWh. My home use, including feeding "Sparkie", is 452 kWh through yesterday too. So, under my current standard E-1 rate schedule, I owe PG&E for 110 kWh at the tier 1 rate of $0.16352 per kWh. This amounts to $17.99. (Note: I actually went into June with a surplus of 804 kWh so I will pay PG&E nothing until that surplus in used up. Next year it will be different since I have to feed "Sparkie" for all of those days that this year I didn't.)

PG&E also has a special TOU EV rate schedule. I set up a spreadsheet to model how the EV TOU schedule would work for me using the same PG&E June data. PG&E provides this data for every hour of every day. When I punched PG&E's data into the spreadsheet, the total cost of those 110 kWh jumped to $34.98. Gotta love those solar panels!

I did incur DCFC kWh charging costs too but those were for test runs to distant charging locations that I would use to extend my range to Oakland or Sacramento as needed and do not represent my usual usage pattern.

 

[nozferatu]

I think I found the problem with 145 MPGe fantasy. Long ago when MPGe was first computed, electricity was lot cheaper, and it was based on $0.10/kWh and gas at $3/gal. If you look at the table, you find 109.1 MPGe at $0.11/kWh. It's 10% higher, so you'd get 109.1 * 1.1 = 120 MPGe.

Table is for 4 mi/kWh, so for 5 mi/kWh, you'd get 120*5/4 = 150 MPGe. Well, maybe they assumed slightly lower gas prices or higher electric prices.

Indeed, my electric rate just a year ago was $0.14/kWh. I don't have records from 6 years ago, but I suspect it was lot lower. Still, it doesn't make sense to post MPGe data based on assumptions no longer valid.

Which brings another infuriating point. Electric rate jumped by over 25% in one fell swoop? And they are proposing to increase it even more by reducing number of tiers? They're treading in gas company territory in terms of screwing us over.

Why is it a fantasy? I just don't get why you would say that. I'm going purely off of cost of energy alone as it is today...calculated based on energy used to go a certain distance.

Your table is nice but I don't think it really reflects the whole picture.

Plus, I'm not posting MPGe based on old assumptions. A gallon of fuel has a certain amount of energy which is 33.7 kW(h). It's very easy to calculate and I think the direct comparisons are accurate and still stand between IC and EVs.

So at this point I'm not quite sure what you're attempting to demonstrate.

 

[nozferatu]

I don't see how I'm getting less than three times your Elantra's mileage when I've actually calculated real road mileage as 4.94 mi/kWh with losses. That's 145 MPGe real world. That's over 4.5 times what your Elantra gets real world.

If you want to get philosophical and factor in the real cost of using IC vehicles and the horrendous social, economic, and environmental costs of oil associated with it, it makes paying for the eVgo membership fee rather minute.

You can live in delusion of 145 MPGe or you can use 95 MPGe which reflects actual dollars you paid.

EV is not some magic that makes you fart roses. You still have social, etc problems with EV. While EV can get energy from multiple sources, including oil, nat gas, hydro, solar, it is by no means panacea. I stay away from such nebulous topics, but argue with real tangible dollars and sense benefits that comes out of one's wallet.

Beauty of SparkEV is there's not much more excuse for gas bags. It's quicker, cheaper, more fun, and range of 80 miles (about 1.5 hours driving) with DCFC is longer than the bladder can hold after tall Starbucks coffee. There's no need to make up fantasies like 145 MPGe.

By the way, Leaf sucks.

It's not a delusion. Show me where it's a delusion. Point it out mathematically. I'd really like to know. I've given the figures so go for it.

If you want to account for the negatives of EV's socially, etc...do the same for IC vehicles and the wars and conflicts we have spent trillions on to do so...not to mention the lives lost. And not mention the waste, spills, environmental damage, etc etc etc etc.

I'm getting what I'm getting as MPGe is concerned...no delusion. Calculated, accurate, and real. I've given you what it cost me per month, how many miles I drive, and how much energy I've really used.

So I'd really like to see how you think that is all delusional.

 

[SparkevBlogspot]

Why is it a fantasy? I just don't get why you would say that. I'm going purely off of cost of energy alone as it is today...calculated based on energy used to go a certain distance.

If you go purely by cost, you'd be getting 95 MPGe, not 145 MPGe. Do the math yourself if you don't believe me. Or check my math below.

$0.17/kWh / 5 mi/kWh = $0.034/mi
$3.20/gal / $0.034/mi = 94 mi/gal (equivalent)

This assumes you don't use OTG DCFC or any other electric cost. This also assumes you can sell your excess solar to the grid if you have one. This further assumes that you're a low energy user or on solar that always stay in base rate (tier 1). Deviate from any of these, and your MPGe can drop very quickly as you can see from my table.

Your table is nice but I don't think it really reflects the whole picture.

Table is not meant to reflect the whole picture, but quickly give conservative estimate of what to expect from SparkEV. It also makes easy conversion to any other mi/kWh in simple multiply/divide without having to plug in $/kWh and $/gal each time.

Plus, I'm not posting MPGe based on old assumptions. A gallon of fuel has a certain amount of energy which is 33.7 kW(h). It's very easy to calculate and I think the direct comparisons are accurate and still stand between IC and EVs.

When you get into academic definition of energy, you get in to whole mess of arguments. For example : electricity for most part comes from nat gas (or coal in east coast), and their efficiency is about 40% (some better than others), EV charging 80-90%, assume EV motor 90%, total of 29-32% efficiency. Meanwhile, Atkinson cycle or diesel would exceed this. From purely physics point of view, driving EV in many (most?) cases is not as efficient and use more "gas". If one gets all their electricity from solar, this changes yet again in favor of EV, but not if one charges at night or when the sun isn't shining. Arguing MPGe in such complicated mess has no hope. Simply, one should look at what's coming out of one's wallet to make valid comparison to miles per gallon of gas equivalent.

So at this point I'm not quite sure what you're attempting to demonstrate.

If some gas bag in Prius comes and you brag to them you get 145 MPGe and you spent $$ in electricity for mm miles, all it takes for him to figure out that it's less than 100 MPGe (Prius at 50 MPG) is simply multiply his $$ by 2 and think you're full of ****. Or you could say you get 145 MPGe in fantasy but 95 MPGe in reality at today's energy prices.

But better comparison to gas cars need DCFC, which drops MPGe even more to 70 MPGe best case with lease miles at 5mi/kWh. Public L2 charging will drop it even further, down to low 25 MPGe (or worse!) Check the math in my blog if you don't believe me and let me know if there's mistake(s). I give cases for 4 mi/kWh and 5 mi/kWh, which I think will fit most people.

 

[MrDRMorgan]

I don't want to toss more logs onto the fire but I researched MPGe a bit and here are my findings:

1. MPGe is based on a fixed constant: 33.7 kWh per gallon of gasoline [ based on energy equivalence this equates to .02967 mi / kWh]. This is fixed by the EPA and is strictly an energy content value comparison and has nothing to do with power or gasoline costs.
2. Using EPA's .02967 mi / kWh value, 4 kwh per mile calculates to a MPGe of 135 [ 4.0 / .02967]. This is fixed and has no correlation to the price of power (kWh) or gasoline (gal). It is the value you would find on window sticker at a car dealer.
3. The chart on this thread calculates "MPGe" using a fixed miles / kWh value of 4.0, variable power costs and variable gasoline costs. There is no direct correlation between the EPA calculation and the values found in the table in this thread. The two values should not be confused nor should the table be titled MPGe. It is based on variable $ and not on fixed energy values like the EPA uses.

4. My Spark EV has been averaging 3.61 miles per Kwh and this calculates to an EPA MPGe of 122. (a. kWh is measured by a power meter at the wall; b. EPA rated combined fuel economy for the Spark EV is 119 MPGe). If I use my current power cost of $0.17 / kWh, gasoline at $3.20 per gallon and the 4.0 mi/ kWh assumed power consumption for the table, the table gives me a value of 75.3. If I recalculate the table value using the same gas and power costs and my 3.61 mi / kWh usage value, the table value would drop to 67.9.

The table has value in showing examples of the impact of power and gasoline costs for a fixed 4.0 miles / kWh power usage rate. But, when speaking of MPGe one must stay with the standard and that standard is the EPA method of calculation.

 

[SparkevBlogspot]

The table has value in showing examples of the impact of power and gasoline costs for a fixed 4.0 miles / kWh power usage rate. But, when speaking of MPGe one must stay with the standard and that standard is the EPA method of calculation.

I can just picture uninformed people buying EV assuming EPA (aka fantasy) MPGe number only to find that their true cost when factoring in public charging is less than 1/2 the advertised number. They bitch and sue about Elantra advertised as 40 MPG only to get 35 MPG, imagine how they'll react when it's 50% less. Continuing to propagate this fallacy will only inur distrust of EV. If what you say about EPA is true, they assume electricity comes from rainbows and unicorns, not nat gas and coal. I for one don't want to spread nonsense.

More honest answer is mi/kWh, not MPGe. But when speaking with non EV folks, they better understand MPG, which they assume relate to how much they actually pay. So the honest answer to MPGe question when speaking with general public should be from my table, not EPA fantasy numbers. Among us EV folks, we should speak of mi/kWh, not fantasy EPA MPGe. If we speak of MPGe, why even bother with fantasy when we know that has no bearing on our wallet nor fossil fuel use?

Why we want to continue with fantasy is unbelievable. Are we so desperate to cheat people that we have to stretch the truth so far out of reality, even among ourselves? If EPA number will continue, I'm going to tell people to take 1/2 to 1/3 of that number to get true MPGe. While not accurate, it's closer than EPA fantasy, and people won't feel cheated by buying EV.

 

[ExtensionCord]

More honest answer is mi/kWh, not MPGe. But when speaking with non EV folks, they better understand MPG, which they assume relate to how much they actually pay. So the honest answer to MPGe question when speaking with general public should be from my table, not EPA fantasy numbers. Among us EV folks, we should speak of mi/kWh, not fantasy EPA MPGe. If we speak of MPGe, why even bother with fantasy when we know that has no bearing on our wallet nor fossil fuel use?

agreed. I know what I pay per kW from PG&E, so I can calculate out my own $/mile and compare it to my other cars $/mi. Some MPGe number really means nothing to me because it's not clear how it is derived.

In my case I'm paying around $.25/kWh (ouch, right? the car pushes me clearly into tier 3). I've been averaging 4.7mi/kWh since purchase, subtract 15% for charging inefficiencies (close enough) and it's 4mi/kWh from the wall. presto matho, I know I'm paying 6.3 cents/mile.

compare that to my two other cars:
2003 Saab, 22 mpg in the same daily usage, super gas at $3.60/gallon (as of today) works out to 16.4 cents/mile.

1998 Ford Van 9 mpg in the same daily usage, regular gas at $3.40/gallon (as of today) works out to 37.7 cents/mile.

These numbers make sense to me, are based off actual power usage and actual $ paid, and can be easily adjusted as electricity or gas prices change. I don't know where MPGe comes from, so it is sort of a fantasy number.

 

[MrDRMorgan]

To quote the information I have:

"CAFE estimates are based on well-to-wheel basis and in the case of liquid fuels and electric drive vehicles also account for the energy consumed upstream to produce the fuel or electricity and deliver it to the vehicle".

Quoting further, "The EPA MPGe rating shown on the Monroney label (AKA window sticker) is based on the battery, or any other energy source, and only represents the tank-to-wheel energy consumption... The formula employed by the EPA for calculating their rated MPGe does not account for any fuel or energy consumed upstream such as the generation and transmission of electrical power, or well-to-wheel life cycle..."

Realistically, I do not give a hoot about CAFE or MPGe values. I care about saving money and, if possible, contributing to improving the environment. So far, I have been able to idle my gas guzzling truck and replace my miles with the much more efficient Spark EV. For me, it comes down to controlling what comes out of my pocket. For my Spark EV, I look at miles per kWh and $ per kWh and yes I do take into consideration DCFC membership fees and what I spend at a DCFC charging site. For my gas buggy I look at miles per gallon and the cost of gasoline.

I did an extensive cost study on the Spark EV before I leased it. In my study I included leasing costs minus state and county rebates, insurance costs, license costs, DCFC membership fees, increased PG&E power usage costs, etc. and offset that against the reduction in gasoline costs by significantly reducing the usage of my truck. I estimate I will save $2100 over the three years of the lease just by idling my truck.

At the beginning of the month I filled my truck's tank. As of today, June 20, I have put only 40 miles on the truck and that was because my wife had the Spark EV.

My home is PV solar powered and, on an annual basis produces about 500 kWh more than I consume. The solar system cannot produce enough extra power to offset all of what the Spark EV requires so, I pay PG&E for what remains at a tier 1 cost of approximately $0.17 per kWh. This will amount to approximately $268 per year to power the Spark EV. Gasoline costs for the same mileage on the truck would be approximately $2200. Even if I had to pay for all of the Kwh the Spark EV consumed, it still would only cost me $377 per year.

I do agree with you on one very important point. For an EV comparison, only miles per kWh is important given you know something about what driving conditions were used to get the value. I wonder how many people actually know what the average MPG of their gas buggy is. I will bet not very many.

Added 1 comment: I just saw a post from ExtensionCord and I believe he hit the nail on the head. Just calculate your actual cost per mile regardless if you are using gas or electricity. Cost per mile is a number anyone can understand.

Added 2 comment: SparkevBlogSpot: I think I now understand your table. The table shows, for incremental gasoline prices, the MPG a gas powered vehicle would have to achieve in order to match a BEV with a fixed consumption rate of 4.0 mi / kWh and the incremental power prices as shown. What one should not do is try to compare your table values with the CAFE or EPA MPGe values. Correct? the only thing I do not see is your criteria for setting the cross points from clear to yellow to red.

 

[nozferatu]

If you go purely by cost, you'd be getting 95 MPGe, not 145 MPGe. Do the math yourself if you don't believe me. Or check my math below.

$0.17/kWh / 5 mi/kWh = $0.034/mi
$3.20/gal / $0.034/mi = 94 mi/gal (equivalent)

This assumes you don't use OTG DCFC or any other electric cost. This also assumes you can sell your excess solar to the grid if you have one. This further assumes that you're a low energy user or on solar that always stay in base rate (tier 1). Deviate from any of these, and your MPGe can drop very quickly as you can see from my table.

Frankly I think the problem is your math and the way you choose to calculate things. Your approach is self-serving and not taking into consideration so many other factors involved. I'm going by energy used. Not what the car gives me...but what I'm actually using and what how much energy is in a gallon of fuel and what my electricity rates are. So to me, my 145MPGe is correct. You may not agree with it but that's what I think.

Table is not meant to reflect the whole picture, but quickly give conservative estimate of what to expect from SparkEV. It also makes easy conversion to any other mi/kWh in simple multiply/divide without having to plug in $/kWh and $/gal each time.

I'm afraid I agree with you there as your table misses a huge picture so to say your calculations are correct while the calculations of others is wrong is null really. It's just how you choose to pick your points to demonstrate your numbers.

When you get into academic definition of energy, you get in to whole mess of arguments. For example : electricity for most part comes from nat gas (or coal in east coast), and their efficiency is about 40% (some better than others), EV charging 80-90%, assume EV motor 90%, total of 29-32% efficiency. Meanwhile, Atkinson cycle or diesel would exceed this. From purely physics point of view, driving EV in many (most?) cases is not as efficient and use more "gas". If one gets all their electricity from solar, this changes yet again in favor of EV, but not if one charges at night or when the sun isn't shining. Arguing MPGe in such complicated mess has no hope. Simply, one should look at what's coming out of one's wallet to make valid comparison to miles per gallon of gas equivalent.

Academic energy? That's a little like saying when I get into the laws of physics to explain a free falling object I muddle the issue?

I'm speaking of real costs, real miles, and real energy used. The only academic factor here is the fact of how much energy a gallon of fuel contains in terms of equivalent Watts. There is nothing messy or confusing about it.

I've not assumed anything if you think about it. I've given you all the data from my historical electricity consumption, my mileage driven compared it to the "calculated" version of this data that my car spits out to get an efficiency rating, etc etc.

If some gas bag in Prius comes and you brag to them you get 145 MPGe and you spent $$ in electricity for mm miles, all it takes for him to figure out that it's less than 100 MPGe (Prius at 50 MPG) is simply multiply his $$ by 2 and think you're full of ****. Or you could say you get 145 MPGe in fantasy but 95 MPGe in reality at today's energy prices.

I don't really care what a Prius owner gets or thinks. But I do know what I'm getting and that 145 MPGe is pretty damned accurate to me. I also do know that my EV uses far less energy to go from point to point B than any IC vehicle. I don't think you realize that the 145MPGe number is derived from the cost I drive per mile. Which is a real number not one you state is fabricated.

But better comparison to gas cars need DCFC, which drops MPGe even more to 70 MPGe best case with lease miles at 5mi/kWh. Public L2 charging will drop it even further, down to low 25 MPGe (or worse!) Check the math in my blog if you don't believe me and let me know if there's mistake(s). I give cases for 4 mi/kWh and 5 mi/kWh, which I think will fit most people.

I actually did check it out and I think it's severely flawed. Where you're getting a 25 MPGe value or worse for an EV I have no clue. The maths I showed right here has no flaws as a far as I know. It's so basic and straight-foward. Show me where my assumptions are wrong when using real world data I gave here on this thread. I'd be interested to know what part of the equation is "unrealistic" to you in terms of how much energy is actually used (from my city's energy consumption measurements), how many miles I've driven, and where you can show that the "academic" value of 33.7 kWh is a wrong or loaded assumption.

Basically what you're saying is my values are wrong, my data is wrong, and my assumptions are wrong. You keep implying that your data is the only correct data which is troublesome for most I would say. I've given you real numbers and you imply those are not valid...which makes no sense IMHO. I just find that really odd.

It costs me 2.9c per mile to drive my Spark EV using today's energy costs on regular non-discounted electricity rates. My other vehicle costs 13.5c per mile to drive. That's 4.7 times more than my EV. That's not including additional costs of oil / filter changes, lubrication, etc etc. I'm interested to know if that is a fabricated number to you?

 

[nozferatu]

I don't want to toss more logs onto the fire but I researched MPGe a bit and here are my findings:

1. MPGe is based on a fixed constant: 33.7 kWh per gallon of gasoline [ based on energy equivalence this equates to .02967 mi / kWh]. This is fixed by the EPA and is strictly an energy content value comparison and has nothing to do with power or gasoline costs.
2. Using EPA's .02967 mi / kWh value, 4 kwh per mile calculates to a MPGe of 135 [ 4.0 / .02967]. This is fixed and has no correlation to the price of power (kWh) or gasoline (gal). It is the value you would find on window sticker at a car dealer.
3. The chart on this thread calculates "MPGe" using a fixed miles / kWh value of 4.0, variable power costs and variable gasoline costs. There is no direct correlation between the EPA calculation and the values found in the table in this thread. The two values should not be confused nor should the table be titled MPGe. It is based on variable $ and not on fixed energy values like the EPA uses.

4. My Spark EV has been averaging 3.61 miles per Kwh and this calculates to an EPA MPGe of 122. (a. kWh is measured by a power meter at the wall; b. EPA rated combined fuel economy for the Spark EV is 119 MPGe). If I use my current power cost of $0.17 / kWh, gasoline at $3.20 per gallon and the 4.0 mi/ kWh assumed power consumption for the table, the table gives me a value of 75.3. If I recalculate the table value using the same gas and power costs and my 3.61 mi / kWh usage value, the table value would drop to 67.9.

The table has value in showing examples of the impact of power and gasoline costs for a fixed 4.0 miles / kWh power usage rate. But, when speaking of MPGe one must stay with the standard and that standard is the EPA method of calculation.

I'm curious. Are you able to actually obtain your monthly electricity costs or consumption from your EV alone or could you figure it out somehow?

If so, I'd like for you to calculate your mi/kWh from that. See what you get. Then divide calculate your $/mi costs. I'd be very interested to know what you get!

Cheers.

 

[nozferatu]

More honest answer is mi/kWh, not MPGe. But when speaking with non EV folks, they better understand MPG, which they assume relate to how much they actually pay. So the honest answer to MPGe question when speaking with general public should be from my table, not EPA fantasy numbers. Among us EV folks, we should speak of mi/kWh, not fantasy EPA MPGe. If we speak of MPGe, why even bother with fantasy when we know that has no bearing on our wallet nor fossil fuel use?

agreed. I know what I pay per kW from PG&E, so I can calculate out my own $/mile and compare it to my other cars $/mi. Some MPGe number really means nothing to me because it's not clear how it is derived.

In my case I'm paying around $.25/kWh (ouch, right? the car pushes me clearly into tier 3). I've been averaging 4.7mi/kWh since purchase, subtract 15% for charging inefficiencies (close enough) and it's 4mi/kWh from the wall. presto matho, I know I'm paying 6.3 cents/mile.

compare that to my two other cars:
2003 Saab, 22 mpg in the same daily usage, super gas at $3.60/gallon (as of today) works out to 16.4 cents/mile.

1998 Ford Van 9 mpg in the same daily usage, regular gas at $3.40/gallon (as of today) works out to 37.7 cents/mile.

These numbers make sense to me, are based off actual power usage and actual $ paid, and can be easily adjusted as electricity or gas prices change. I don't know where MPGe comes from, so it is sort of a fantasy number.

MPGe comes from comparing equivalent energy use from one vehicle to another. It's simply stating how much equivalent liquid fuel energy you would use if you consume electricity instead.

 

[SparkevBlogspot]

Frankly I think the problem is your math and the way you choose to calculate things. Your approach is self-serving and not taking into consideration so many other factors involved.

That "so many other factors" is the problem. You can take it any way, such as most electricity comes from fossil fuel and worse efficiency than Atkinson/Diesel, so EV on average would have worse MPGe. That's why I call that the fantasy, and only true measure I use is what you actually pay. For today, saying you get 145 MPGe is also fantasy.

So to me, my 145MPGe is correct. You may not agree with it but that's what I think. I'm afraid I agree with you there as your table misses a huge picture so to say your calculations are correct while the calculations of others is wrong is null really. It's just how you choose to pick your points to demonstrate your numbers.

If you choose to live in fantasy, that's your choice, just like how gasbags claim EV waste more energy based on energy production side of the equation without considering how much money they'd save with EV with carefully selected charging methods.

Academic energy? That's a little like saying when I get into the laws of physics to explain a free falling object I muddle the issue?

Talking about energy in kWh without regard to money actually paid is like saying hammer and feather fall at the same time. While technically true, without considering air (or economics in this argument), is meaningless.

I actually did check it out and I think it's severely flawed. Where you're getting a 25 MPGe value or worse for an EV I have no clue.

If you checked it out, I tell you exactly how you get 25 MPGe. Where is the flaw? When Blink charges $0.59/kWh for their DCFC ($0.69 without membership) and today's gas prices at $3.40/gal, what MPGe do you get? Did you even read my blog that explicitly warn SparkEV drivers to stay away? By propagating fantasy, you'll only hurt the wallets of SparkEV drivers when they assume they're getting 145 MPGe while plugged into Blink or eVgo DCFC beyond 90%.

Saying 25 MPGe is too low without saying why it's too low is meaningless. You can continue to dupe SparkEV drivers into thinking they get 145 MPGe and have them waste their money, but I intend to inform them to take most cost effective way to drive the car.

It costs me 2.9c per mile to drive my Spark EV using today's energy costs on regular non-discounted electricity rates. My other vehicle costs 13.5c per mile to drive. That's 4.7 times more than my EV. That's not including additional costs of oil / filter changes, lubrication, etc etc. I'm interested to know if that is a fabricated number to you?

I'm curious how you got 2.9c/mile when you were getting 4.9mi/kWh. At $0.17/kWh, that works out to 3.5c/mile, so your electric rate has to be 14c/kWh and your local gas prices would have to be $4.20/gal? If so, then you can look at my table and find exactly that after converting from 4 mi/kWh to 4.9 mi/kWh, and we are in agreement. However, that assumes you don't use DCFC, which would bring it lower. You say there's flaw in my math, what is it?

But I don't know anywhere that has electricity at 14c/kWh and $4.20/gal and no membership fee for public DCFC as cheap as eVgo OTG as of today. If so, you are lucky to be living in low cost electricity area and high gas prices. I call that the fantasyland.

If you want to discuss maintenance, you have to consider battery life of 8 to 10 years, which gas engine is amortized over time. However, time value of money spent with dealer add to that in favor of EV, and in some cases significantly so (I hate going to dealer). All these points are discussed in my blog to show SparkEV is better than gas and far better than hybrid which need both gas maintenance and battery. It's not free, but you are correct that maintenance is cheaper with SparkEV. But it may not be for some other high capacity battery EV, which makes SparkEV that much better. But that's completely separate discussion from MPGe.

As an aside, 5 minutes at gas station is idle time whereas EV charging, even DCFC, is typically done while you're doing something else, so the overall "fueling time" in general is in favor of EV (almost 0). I discuss this in my blog. However, this still should not enter into MPGe discussion.

http://sparkev.blogspot.com/2015/05/vs-hybrids.html
http://sparkev.blogspot.com/2015/05/vs-gas-car.html

 

[SparkevBlogspot]

agreed. I know what I pay per kW from PG&E, so I can calculate out my own $/mile and compare it to my other cars $/mi. Some MPGe number really means nothing to me because it's not clear how it is derived.

According to EPA (according to Noz), it's energy equivalent of gasoline. While technically correct, it's a meaningless number for practical applications. It's like hammer and feather fall at the same time without considering effects of air resistance. MrDRMorgan clarified that MPG is from well to wheel for MPG vs tank to wheel for MPGe.

In my case I'm paying around $.25/kWh (ouch, right? the car pushes me clearly into tier 3). I've been averaging 4.7mi/kWh since purchase, subtract 15% for charging inefficiencies (close enough) and it's 4mi/kWh from the wall. presto matho, I know I'm paying 6.3 cents/mile.

OUCH! You can look at my table (made for 4mi/kWh) for today's gas prices to see what MPGe you get. At $3.60 around here, you'd be getting 57.6 MPGe at $0.25/kWh. It's good for gas car, but it could be better, especially if you already have eVgo OTG plan. Their DCFC per kWh is cheaper than base rate ($0.17/kWh), especially more so when you consider DCFC is more efficient.

http://sparkev.blogspot.com/2015/05/spark-ev-miles-per-gallon-this-table.html

 

[SparkevBlogspot]

"CAFE estimates are based on well-to-wheel basis and in the case of liquid fuels and electric drive vehicles also account for the energy consumed upstream to produce the fuel or electricity and deliver it to the vehicle".

Quoting further, "The EPA MPGe rating shown on the Monroney label (AKA window sticker) is based on the battery, or any other energy source, and only represents the tank-to-wheel energy consumption... The formula employed by the EPA for calculating their rated MPGe does not account for any fuel or energy consumed upstream such as the generation and transmission of electrical power, or well-to-wheel life cycle..."

Very nice. Thanks. This clarifies that MPG and EPA MPGe are completely different, and should not be used as comparison. I can understand that EPA had to come up with something, but calling it MPGe is misleading at best, and a lie at worst. To quote a movie, "it's a lie, I tell you, A LIE!!!" (or was that Nixon?) Maybe if they called it energy equivalent, that would've been more appropriate.

Added 2 comment: SparkevBlogSpot: I think I now understand your table. The table shows, for incremental gasoline prices, the MPG a gas powered vehicle would have to achieve in order to match a BEV with a fixed consumption rate of 4.0 mi / kWh and the incremental power prices as shown. What one should not do is try to compare your table values with the CAFE or EPA MPGe values. Correct? the only thing I do not see is your criteria for setting the cross points from clear to yellow to red.

That is correct, and discussed in my blog. Red is 50 MPG or worse, which Prius is capable of. 75 MPG is yellow, what 2001 Honda Insight in Freeway is capable of (capable, not typical). I use those two as benchmark to show that one can get into trouble (ie, dip into gas-hybrid) if he's not careful.

http://sparkev.blogspot.com/2015/05/spark-ev-miles-per-gallon-this-table.html

But this does not include eVgo OTC membership. While I don't have table, I give explanation how much MPGe one can expect in separate blog post. It's complex due to lease miles, and table would not suffice. But boundaries are computed.

http://sparkev.blogspot.com/2015/05/public-chargers-in-socal.html

 

[nozferatu]

That "so many other factors" is the problem. You can take it any way, such as most electricity comes from fossil fuel and worse efficiency than Atkinson/Diesel, so EV on average would have worse MPGe. That's why I call that the fantasy, and only true measure I use is what you actually pay. For today, saying you get 145 MPGe is also fantasy.

Let's agree to disagree...it's not fantasy to me. It's mathematics. The 28 MPG I get is from my IC vehicle is exactly that...28 MPG. Translate that to electrical energy and it becomes .83 miles/kWh. Assuming you agree that 33.7 kW/g is never changing which it isn't. The reverse calculation can be made for my EV which gives the energy used to go down the road every mile for an equivalent gallon of fuel regardless of cost at the pump or at the plug.

If you choose to live in fantasy, that's your choice, just like how gasbags claim EV waste more energy based on energy production side of the equation without considering how much money they'd save with EV with carefully selected charging methods.

You've yet to prove the maths is wrong so until you do, it's reality not fantasy. Gasbags can think what they want...I'm still over 3-4 times more efficient than they are...losses and all.

Talking about energy in kWh without regard to money actually paid is like saying hammer and feather fall at the same time. While technically true, without considering air (or economics in this argument), is meaningless.

Not at all. It's the basis for the argument of efficiency and is technically 100% correct. When I add the real costs I've given you now in a few posts back, it becomes even more real and apparent how much more efficient an EV is.

If you checked it out, I tell you exactly how you get 25 MPGe. Where is the flaw? When Blink charges $0.59/kWh for their DCFC ($0.69 without membership) and today's gas prices at $3.40/gal, what MPGe do you get? Did you even read my blog that explicitly warn SparkEV drivers to stay away? By propagating fantasy, you'll only hurt the wallets of SparkEV drivers when they assume they're getting 145 MPGe while plugged into Blink or eVgo DCFC beyond 90%.

Saying 25 MPGe is too low without saying why it's too low is meaningless. You can continue to dupe SparkEV drivers into thinking they get 145 MPGe and have them waste their money, but I intend to inform them to take most cost effective way to drive the car.

To me that 25 MPGe is pure nonsense. Do you go onto Amazon and choose the most expensive vendor to buy your merchandise from? Do you buy tires for your car from the most expensive tire shop? Etc etc etc... No...you don't. So why would you go to a vendor that fleeces you to charge your car? It's a moot argument at best and again you are using extremes to prove a point that really isn't relevant to most people who drive EVs.

I'm curious how you got 2.9c/mile when you were getting 4.9mi/kWh. At $0.17/kWh, that works out to 3.5c/mile, so your electric rate has to be 14c/kWh and your local gas prices would have to be $4.20/gal? If so, then you can look at my table and find exactly that after converting from 4 mi/kWh to 4.9 mi/kWh, and we are in agreement. However, that assumes you don't use DCFC, which would bring it lower. You say there's flaw in my math, what is it?

But I don't know anywhere that has electricity at 14c/kWh and $4.20/gal and no membership fee for public DCFC as cheap as eVgo OTG as of today. If so, you are lucky to be living in low cost electricity area and high gas prices. I call that the fantasyland.

Very simple...I have been paying $39 (rounded up) a month to charge my EV which has been driven 1286 miles a month thus far. My electricity rate is 15 cents per kWh. If I used TOU rates I could charge for as low as 8.4 cents/kWh. I used 260 kWh per month of measured electricity to charge my vehicle. That's 3.0c/mile rounded up. That's 4.94 miles / kWh. The current pump dollar amount for fuel around here is $3.70 for premium ...give or take few cents.

You assumptions are what is the problem. You are assuming single data points that have no meaning whatsoever to real life situations but then you state it's real world situations that matter. It simply doesn't make sense. It's a bit like comparing two cars on maximum horsepower and torque alone when you don't identify what gearing they have, how they drive, what tires, they have, etc etc etc.

If you want to discuss maintenance, you have to consider battery life of 8 to 10 years, which gas engine is amortized over time. However, time value of money spent with dealer add to that in favor of EV, and in some cases significantly so (I hate going to dealer). All these points are discussed in my blog to show SparkEV is better than gas and far better than hybrid which need both gas maintenance and battery. It's not free, but you are correct that maintenance is cheaper with SparkEV. But it may not be for some other high capacity battery EV, which makes SparkEV that much better. But that's completely separate discussion from MPGe.

In 8 to 10 years the cost of the battery pack of the Spark EV will most likely be very much lower when/if needed to replace than it is now. I'm speaking of on-going costs that are incurred to get fuel, store fuel, transport fuel, go to war for fuel, the military costs, the transportation costs, the environmental costs, and also all the costs associated with using additional oil to keep a car running over its lifetime. Oil changes alone add hundreds of dollars to a car's cost.

As an aside, 5 minutes at gas station is idle time whereas EV charging, even DCFC, is typically done while you're doing something else, so the overall "fueling time" in general is in favor of EV (almost 0). I discuss this in my blog. However, this still should not enter into MPGe discussion.

http://sparkev.blogspot.com/2015/05/vs-hybrids.html
http://sparkev.blogspot.com/2015/05/vs-gas-car.html

When you speak of efficiency, price is not a factor. When you quote the MPG of a regular IC car, the cost of fuel is not a factor. When speaking of running costs, it becomes a factor. But when comparing efficiencies of two vehicles, the amount of energy used to go down the road one mile is what needs to be compared and EVs easily obtain the MPGe values you claim are fantasy land. They really are that much more efficient...even with all the charging and transmission losses.

However, the since you insist on cost being a factor, I'll re-iterate the fact that I would spend almost 4 1/2 times more to drive my IC vehicle getting 28 MPG as I would my EV driving that same distance with the rates I get. I honestly do not know how to more clearly demonstrate the economic superiority of an EV than my own personal example. If you want to call that a fantasy then let's agree to disagree because no one is going to convince me that I'm not getting the MPG I'm getting with my EV.

 

[SparkevBlogspot]

To me that 25 MPGe is pure nonsense. Do you go onto Amazon and choose the most expensive vendor to buy your merchandise from?

If you use EPA MPGe number, you are assuming that is without regard to what vendor you're buying from. So yeah, 145 MPGe is fantasy as no one should do so. But less informed EV drivers going by 145 MPGe could choose Blink or worse and get 25 MPGe or worse.

Very simple...I have been paying $39 (rounded up) a month to charge my EV which has been driven 1286 miles a month thus far. My electricity rate is 15 cents per kWh. If I used TOU rates I could charge for as low as 8.4 cents/kWh.

I'm curiout where you live where you pay 15c/kWh and TOU of 8.4c/kWh. That sounds like fantasyland to me. Generation cost alone is that much, never mind the other costs.

That's 3.0c/mile rounded up. That's 4.94 miles / kWh. The current pump dollar amount for fuel around here is $3.70 for premium ...give or take few cents.

Show me the math where 3c/mile + $3.70/gal gas result in 145 MPGe out of pocket.

You assumptions are what is the problem. You are assuming single data points that have no meaning whatsoever to real life situations but then you state it's real world situations that matter. It simply doesn't make sense. It's a bit like comparing two cars on maximum horsepower and torque alone when you don't identify what gearing they have, how they drive, what tires, they have, etc etc etc.

Basically, your point is that there's some magic in there somewhere while I talk about actual out of pocket cost.

In 8 to 10 years the cost of the battery pack of the Spark EV will most likely be very much lower when/if needed to replace than it is now.

You obviously didn't read my blog. I cover this already based on Prius battery going from $12K to $2.5K today.

I'm speaking of on-going costs that are incurred to get fuel, store fuel, transport fuel, go to war for fuel, the military costs, the transportation costs, the environmental costs, and also all the costs associated with using additional oil to keep a car running over its lifetime. Oil changes alone add hundreds of dollars to a car's cost.

Again, more magical thinking, and I debunked this in previous post. Since most electricity comes from fossil fuel, we still incur those costs even with EV. And EV being less efficient than Atkinson/Diesel when generator efficieny is considered, the problems you state could be worse with EV, although fracking is saving us somewhat. It's like you didn't even read my previous post.

When you speak of efficiency, price is not a factor. When you quote the MPG of a regular IC car, the cost of fuel is not a factor. When speaking of running costs, it becomes a factor. But when comparing efficiencies of two vehicles, the amount of energy used to go down the road one mile is what needs to be compared and EVs easily obtain the MPGe values you claim are fantasy land. They really are that much more efficient...even with all the charging and transmission losses.

Keep telling yourself that, but it won't magically change what comes out of your wallet for energy nor the fossil fuel used and emissions that result to go that one mile when electricity comes from fossil fuel for most parts.

However, the since you insist on cost being a factor, I'll re-iterate the fact that I would spend almost 4 1/2 times more to drive my IC vehicle getting 28 MPG as I would my EV driving that same distance with the rates I get.

If your cost for ICE is 4 1/2 times more at 95 MPGe, you're likely getting 21 MPG, not 28 MPG. But if you claim your SparkEV is getting 145 MPGe, your ICE would be getting 32.2 MPG. But that doesn't matter. Show me the math where 3c/mile + $3.70/gal becomes 145 MPGe energy that you claim without throwing in bunch of magic hocus pocus.

I honestly do not know how to more clearly demonstrate the economic superiority of an EV than my own personal example. If you want to call that a fantasy then let's agree to disagree because no one is going to convince me that I'm not getting the MPG I'm getting with my EV.

I have never said EV in general is not superior, but it can get inferior if not careful. That's why I give a table to show where people can get into trouble with yellow and red boxes. You're the one propagating magical 145 MPGe figure to the detriment of less informed EV drivers.

You first wrote that 145 MPGe is EPA number, then changed to that it's based on your out of pocket cost, then you throw in all kinds of non-energy costs to justify (eg, maintenance) and that is the problem with me. I do not agree to disagree to such blatant LIE. 145 MPGe for 4.9 mi/kWh is WRONG, and should not be used.

That is of today in CA/OR only; if gas prices go $9/gal like in Korea and electricity about the same, we'd be getting way over 200 MPGe as shown in my table, and EPA MPGe figure of 145 MPGe would still be fantasy.

 

[Echofive]

564 mi @ 134 MPGe per OnStar

Does anybody know why the Lifetime MPGe shown drops after a full charge? Is it accounting for the charger efficiency?

 

[MrDRMorgan]

nozferatu:

My mi / kWh for home charging is averaging about 3.61 mi/kWh. My calculated cost per mile is $0.0424 (500 kWh @ $0.095/kWh for solar kWh and 1716 kwH at $0.17 for PG&E tier 1 kWh. This is for 8000 miles).

I do notice my mi/kWh goes up the more miles I drive between charges. I put the Spark EV on the charger almost every night so the "charge losses" may be contributing more significantly to lower mi/kWh numbers when the distance traveled between charges is low; 10-30 miles. I have seen mi/kWh numbers as high as 4.12 for 53 miles traveled and as low as 2.76 for 12 miles traveled. DCFC charge numbers have been about 5.5 mi / kWh. I plan to test this concern more this week.

 

[SparkevBlogspot]

(500 kWh @ $0.095/kWh for solar kWh and 1716 kwH at $0.17 for PG&E tier 1 kWh. This is for 8000 miles).

Why is solar lower than tier1? I thought they credit you at your tier rate? If that's what PG&E pay/credit you for excess solar you sell them, more crooked ways for electric companies to scew you over!

I do notice my mi/kWh goes up the more miles I drive between charges.

That's surprising result, and I didn't expect that. I always charge at 20 miles remain or below. I went all the way down to less than 2 miles remaining; it didn't even show a number. Range anxiety? what's that? ;-)

http://sparkev.blogspot.com/2015/05/4-miles-remaining-and-loving-it.html

But 3.61 mi/kWh or 2.76 mi/kWh? Ughh!!!

 

[MrDRMorgan]

SparkevBlogspot:

I thought that would catch your attention.

I leased my PV solar system but, unlike most people, I paid for all of the power up front so I have no monthly payment. The solar system is actually producing 18% more power than estimated by the installer and I do not have to pay for the extra power generated. My actual current cost per kWh after two years of collecting solar data is, including the extra power generated, $0.0894 / kWh.

During my true-year period set by PG&E, each surplus solar kWh generated is credited at the same rate as each PG&E kWh consumed. However, at the end of the true-up period, PG&E credits each remaining surplus kWh at the wholesale rate they pay for power which amounts to about $0.045 per kWh and not the tier 1 rate of $0.17. In short PG&E makes money and I get short changed. What they do pay me is credited against my natural gas bill. However, now that "Sparkie" is consuming power too, I will no longer have a surplus. But the 500 kWh surplus I used to have will be consumed by "Sparkie" at $0.0894 /kWh instead of $0.17 /kWh.

Right now I am trying to get a handle on the miles / kWh number. Whenever someone quotes a mi/kWh number, I have an immediate question. Is the kWh value used to calculate the mi/kWh number a battery to wheel or a wall to wheel number? All of my numbers are based on wall to wheel and include all charging losses which I have measured to be about 22% for the L1 charger at an 8 amp charge rate. If I factor the charging losses out of my calculation, my 3.61 mi/kWh becomes 4.63 mi/kWh. The temperature in my garage is also a factor and right now it gets quite hot even into the late evening.

Tomorrow my wife and I will be making a 75 mile run to Rancho Cordova and this will require 2 stops at the SMUD HQ DCFC charging station plus one L1 12-amp charging session when I get home. This will all be freeway travel and should give me a better feel for the car. I plan to hold my speed to 60 mph and keep the cabin at 25 deg. C (77 deg. F). I will post my results on Wednesday.