>>no pricing
Well, now, that's one of the things about the AWD EVs. If I look at my options, let's say I have two criteria only
- has to be AWD or 4WD**
- want to lower my carbon footprint, which an EV should do in CA given the mix of electricity sources in the grid and how that will evolve over the life of the car. Different calculation in Indiana or, even worse, Poland.
The lowest-end AWD EVs are about $45K, plus I need to put in a charging station at my house, which the neighbor says cost her $5K = $50K
So option 1 is I get a car that
- uses a mix of fossil and renewable fuels, a mix which will bias more and more toward renewables, but not reach 100% over the life of the car.
- With no commute, I don't drive that much anymore, so we're looking at putting maybe 8,000 leisure miles on it (which seems high, but it's a gorgeous new EV so driving is more fun so I do more).
- when it sits there, all that massive carbon footprint of building that car is going to waste 90% of the time.
- I'm out $50,000
Option 2.
- Assuming that I am allergic to buying a used car (not true, but for the sake of argument), I spend $20,000 on a Subaru Impreza (actually, starting price is under $20K, no hidden BS like Tesla hiding the real price and subtracting $7000 based on supposed TCO over the life of the car).
- I spend $25,000 on a solar array for the house and a battery sufficient to keep me running for 24 hours. The carbon footprint on this kit is paying off any time the sun is up or the batteries are charged. If I don't want to "drive" the array because the batteries are full and it's producing more than I'm using, then I get to give/sell those electrons to someone else, the societal benefit of the system is maximized, as if my car was on the road whenever the sun's out whether I'm driving it or someone decides to borrow it. The batteries also let me avoid drawing on the grid at night when the grid is NOT clean and in the summer when all the dirty sources are brought online to keep up with A/C load. It also lets me draw on the battery during peak times when power costs more (PG&E is shifting to Time of Use rates with winter off-peak being as low as $0.20/kwh and summer peak being $0.42/kwh). So in return for the also large embodied energy in this system, I am making a big difference in my carbon footprint and potentially saving money.
- I'm out $45,000, and have a gross savings of $5K in upfront cost, but I also have a system that knocks $1500/year off my electric cost, so over time it nets out to a much bigger fuel savings than Tesla claims I get from an EV vs and ICE.
My sense is that Option 2 is results in a car with more range, a much bigger impact on my carbon footprint, a reduction in up-front cost, a larger reduction in long-term cost, and a solid backup system during our ever-increasing rolling power outages during fire season.
The more I think about it, the more I see one last ICE car in my future and solar panels and battery. And then, some years from now when I don't have any low-hanging fruit like the solar panel option, an EV makes sense.
Now, I know that an Impreza, powertrain aside, is not the joy to drive that a Tesla might be, but as mentioned earlier, I do not get much joy from driving and mostly just want to spend less time in cars when possible.
**AWD is a non-negotiable not because it's flat or hilly, but because we don't use salt on the roads and whenever there is any layer of snow, NPS has chain controls in place. So when Theresa was commuting up 1700 feet in altitude, she was taking chains on and off 1-2 times per day and we were going through four sets of chains in a year at $100 a pop. And on very many modern cars, applying chains voids the warranty and there are substantial fines for not having them, independent of whether you feel the conditions merit it or not.