Or, How I lost $1,000 plus per year by plugging my car in!

Note: this was a question from a buyer considering the same car I am currently purchasing – A Rav4, 2026, which is available in a Plug-in Version. Will they – or you – save $$ by charging a PHEV (Plug in Hybrid) at Home?

Here are some calcs.
I’m going to do it as if it were me.
I have expensive electric (so do many!), however you will see that the cost of Electric is not the deciding factor.

My own Situation…….below – which I calculated before I built the calculator.
Facts at Hand: The Plug-In version, including a basic charger at home (very basic) and extra Sales Tax, etc. will cost approximately $10,000 more than a lower Trim Level Hybrid.
1. Fact #1: Cost of Money – that same 10K earns 5% ($500 a year) in CD’s or 10% ($1000 per year in the Stock Market).
2. Fact #2: The Insurance Cost of the more expensive Rav4 will add about $200 a year to my insurance bill.
3. Fact #3: In MA, we have personal property taxes paid each year. It will cost me $200 or more per year more – the first year and also cost quite a bit more for a few years.
4. The Plug-In Model actually gets 2-3 MPG less than the Gasoline Version, so my car will cost more when running on gasoline.
————–
In total, the extra costs will be, in addition to the “sunk” money for the more expensive vehicle, in the realm of $1500 extra per year. When I sell the car used in 8-10 years I am very unlikely to get much of that 8K (extra car cost beside charger) back.

Now- Let’s see how much each mile driven on the gas – and electric – cost me.
https://theenergyprimer.com/compare-the-costs-per-mile-of-usa-passenger-vehicles-gas-or-electric/

Plugging it in at home (.33 a kWh) will cost me about .11 a mile driven. Buying gasoline at $4 (average over the years…it will probably be less!) will cost me 9.5 cents a mile. So I will LOSE Money on the plug in – beside all the extra money!

However, let’s say you pay 1/2 as much for Electric as I do and you drive 10K miles a year – 50% of them electric! You would then save $250. per year in fuel.

OK, so you get your electric FREE. You pay zero for the 5,000 miles, thereby saving $500. Congratulations- you lost only $800-$1000.

This does not include the lesser MPG of the Plug-in Model. It does not include any benefit you might feel if your Electric Grid is majority renewable (US Grid is less than 20% PV and Wind).

Also, it does not figure on future vehicles with Plug-in being available at a small or no up charge. If that were the case, it might provide a good “fuel insurance policy”, especially if a homeowner installed PV Solar on their own home.

In summary, however, the amounts of money being saved – in general – are not enough to offset the much higher costs of the Plug-In car being asked about (2026 Rav4 by Toyota).

How a bunch of Hippies combined with (and often the same as) highly educated Ivy League graduates just may have changed the world.

This is a story – in writing and audio – about the so-called “Prickly Mountain Gang” from the 1970’s.

From the article:
“Prickly Mountain became a caldron of entrepreneurial stew. Suddenly, everyone had a business. Norton, along with other Prickly residents Andy Palmer, Chris McCarthy and Michael Goldfinger, started a furniture company called Union Woodworks. They leased space in the old Bibbin Mill, now co-owned by Sellers. Others soon followed: Randy Taplin was already established as a furniture maker; his wife, Nancy, was a working artist; Serena Fox started a graphic design business; Pierre Moffroid started importing tankless water heaters; Mac Rood and Rob Bass started exploring the manufacture and sale of composting toilets. Sellers also looked to be employed. He was hired at Goddard College in Plainfield to teach a class in design and building. One of his students, Don Mayer, was interested in bringing back the windmills that years earlier had been a common source of renewable energy on farms in the Midwest. Lessons of the past; solutions for the future. “Sure,” Sellers told him. “We can make that happen.” Before long Mayer, with Sellers, founded the North Wind Power company. And then two others, Duncan Syme and Richard Travers, started woodstove companies. It wasn’t long before many of these businesses and enterprises began cross-pollinating with the ideas and skills of other residents of Prickly Mountain. A wind turbine soon was constructed at Dimetrodon. (“The worst wind power site ever!” says Norton ruefully.) The commonalities soon led to a unique blend of practical skills and unbridled creativity.”

One might even say I, with a 40+ year career in Alt Energy and Tech, was directly influenced by this “gang”.

(Opinion/Editorial)

Electrification may be the right destination but are we doing it in the wrong order?

Electrification has become one of the principal answers to climate change in the United States. Replace your gas furnace with a heat pump. Replace your gas car with an EV (Electric Vehicle). Replace the kitchen range with an electric or induction model.

The intentions are good. In many cases the efficiency is higher. But are we putting the cart before the horse?

Consider where I live – Massachusetts. Our state is using substantial incentives to encourage homeowners to replace oil and gas heating systems with electric heat pumps – these “rebates” and grants are paid for in ALL electric bills. At the same time, Massachusetts has electric prices among the highest in the country. A 2024 Harvard study estimated that, at the electric and fuel prices then in effect, about half of Massachusetts households and almost ALL heating with natural gas would experience higher annual heating costs after switching to a heat pump.

Heat pumps themselves are not the problem. They are remarkable machines that can deliver two or three units of heat for each unit of electricity they consume. But efficiency and cost are not the same thing. A highly efficient appliance running on very expensive electricity can still cost more to operate than the supposedly less-efficient system it replaced. Our comparison calculator will illustrate this for you.

This raises a fair question: Why were homeowners pushed toward electrification before the underlying economics were put in place?

CLEAN ELECTRICITY FIRST

There is also the matter of where the electricity comes from.

In 2025, New Englands power plants generated about 13% of their electricity from renewables and another 6% from hydroelectric power. Natural gas is, by far, the largest fuel – in some states and regions providing 80% of generation.
The basic picture is clear: our regional grid is less than 20% renewable, similar to the USA National Figure.

Electrification can still reduce emissions, especially when an efficient heat pump replaces oil heat or an EV replaces an inefficient gasoline vehicle. But the benefit is not electric equals clean OR “Electric equals cheaper”.
An electric appliance or vehicle is only as clean and as economical as the system supplying its electricity.

Perhaps we should put much more of our money and effort into renewable generation, transmission, storage, and grid modernization first. Then, as electricity becomes both cleaner and less expensive, accelerate the push toward electrification.

That would be an intelligent sequence rather than an ideological one.

THE EV PRICE LOTTERY

Electric vehicles present another version of the same problem.

An EV owner with inexpensive overnight charging may pay only a few cents per kilowatt-hour. Another owner may pay more than 30 cents at home, while public fast charging commonly costs around 50 cents per kilowatt-hour. In much of the country, this determines whether an EV is exceptionally inexpensive to operate or offers little fuel-cost advantage over an efficient hybrid.

Imagine if gasoline cost $3 per gallon in one state and $12 or $15 in another. We would consider that an enormous national problem. Yet we appear willing to build transportation policy around electricity that can vary almost as dramatically depending on where and when someone charges.

There is another difference. Most consumers have multiple gasoline stations competing for their business. A homeowner normally has one electric utility delivering power. Alternative suppliers may exist in some states, but the wires, delivery charges, and much of the bill remain under monopoly control.

Electric rates can occasionally decline, especially when fuel costs or special charges change. Over the long term, however, homeowners have good reason to expect that utility bills will rise as generation, transmission, distribution, storm resilience, and grid improvements are added to the system.

That uncertainty matters when government is asking families to make major investments in electric heating and transportation.

ELECTRIFICATION STILL MAKES SENSE FOR SOME

None of this is an argument against electrification – entire countries have moved successfully to Electrification with 100% renewables, in the process cleaning up their air and environment greatly. However, the USA is a massive land mass with a large population and legacy infrastructure. We can’t, at will, change to renewable and reasonably priced grid – doing so will take decades.

Some uses make sense now. An induction or electric range uses relatively little energy compared with heating a house or powering a car. It also avoids combustion pollutants inside the home. Even in a high-electricity-cost state, the difference in annual cooking cost is unlikely to determine a household budget.

A heat pump may be an excellent choice for someone replacing electric resistance heat, oil heat or living where electricity is inexpensive. An EV can be a great financial and environmental choice for someone with affordable home charging. The calculation simply does not come out the same for every household or every part of the country. Certain states and regions, California being the largest example, have substantial renewables to fuel your EV or Heat Pump.

That is precisely why one-size-fits-all electrification policies deserve more scrutiny.

PUT THE FOUNDATION UNDER THE HOUSE

The solution is not to retreat to fossil fuels. It is to build the foundation that widespread electrification requires.

The United States needs something approaching a Manhattan Project for clean electricity: vastly more renewable generation, storage, transmission capacity, and a modern grid capable of carrying the additional load from vehicles and buildings.

We also need regulatory policies that make electricity prices more stable and that allow ordinary consumers to benefit as renewable generation becomes less expensive. Otherwise, lower generation costs can be swallowed by rising delivery charges and grid expenses before homeowners ever see them.

Electrification is an important part of our energy future. But paying people to switch to a system that may cost them considerably more before making that system cleaner, more affordable, and more dependable is not sound energy policy.

Build the clean electrical system first. Make its benefits visible in consumers bills. Then the public will not need to be pushed so hard toward electrification.

They will choose it themselves.

SOURCES

Harvard Kennedy School, Heat Pump Adoption Not Cost-Effective for Majority of MA Households, Says New Study:
https://www.belfercenter.org/belfer-news/heat-pump-adoption-not-cost-effective-majority-ma-households-says-new-study

ISO New England, New England Power Grid Regional Profile:
https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/100010/new-england-power-grid-regional-profile.pdf

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Improving Interconnection to the Electric Grid:
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/improving-interconnection-to-the-electric-grid

This is a more complicated question than it first seems. AI doesn’t “think” things out – it goes and grabs a figure from Reddit, Facebook or Quora & quotes it. However, if the user prompts AI to research the topic – like “using sources like DOE and other engineering data, what is the Natural Gas powered grid to road effiiciency of an Electric Vehicle?” , you will get a more accurate answer.

As dad might say “Ask a Stupid Question, get a Stupid Answer” – it’s interesting that Media, the Public and therefore AI seems always biased in terms of the upsides. That is, it will easily make a mistake by saying “An EV is 40 to 50% (or even 60%) efficient well-to-wheels, but never make the same error on the downside, which would have to be “EVs are 12-18% efficient” to match the distance from the proper figures. I thought it might be instructive to give two examples of AI responses when it is properly questioned.

Example #1:
(AI says) “When accounting for real-world U.S. grid averages, transmission, charging losses, and vehicle operation, the true well-to-wheel efficiency of an electric vehicle powered by natural gas is 23% to 29%. Idealized engineering specifications that rely on best-case laboratory assumptions overstate efficiency, whereas factoring in operational averages properly brings the total below 30%”
(my notes: This one is very accurate– note it reflect our figures as Nat Gas Grid Example).

Example #2 – Chat GPT consistently reported number vastly higher – and used pages of calculation to “prove” itself.
(AI) “So roughly 38% well-to-wheels efficiency under that particular assumption.”
is an example of initial output. It even declared that Pessimistic! In another interesting slant, it tried to compare EV’s to Gasoline cars even though this was never mentioned or asked about. That’s a bias – and, of course, it was off on the upside with ICE vehicles also.
(AI)” The answer is approximately 50–60% WTW for a reasonable modern-grid calculation” is yet another of the wrong answers it returned.

So the question is why? The reasons are simple. AI doesn’t care about truth or accuracy at all. It will spit out wild numbers and back them up with math that isn’t needed nor relevant. It even admitted this:
“using actual U.S. average heat rates and losses, rather than the usual marketing-style” – WHAT? Of course, AI is going to reflect everything we do in the USA – and everything is marketed. It also states:
(AI) “The biggest problem is that people routinely quote the most favorable efficiency number from each stage without maintaining a consistent system boundary.“

In other words, people like PR and BS, if I might be blunt.

ChatGPT will eventually, but only if sources (like the Department of Energy and the Manufacturers of the Gas Turbine units, etc. are pointed to, give a number closer to reality:
“So is there an “upward bias”?

(AI)”I think there is a very real methodological bias, although I wouldn’t necessarily call it intentional“. (that is ChatGDP talking).
and, so – finally, ChatGPT can come to reality like this:

“If we’re asking the question you actually intended:

(AI)“Starting with the chemical energy in natural gas/coal, how much ultimately becomes useful mechanical energy at the wheels of a real-world EV operating on the U.S. grid?”
(AI) “I’d use ~28–31% as a reasonable engineering estimate“

(AI)”with something like ~30% as the central figure.”
(my comment = Close enough – but it takes a LOT to get the Chatbot to address the actual question).

A Temporary Report on EV Miles Per KWH averages and ranges which will be linked to from our upcoming calculators.

The short answer is Probably Not.
NOTE: This is USA Based and Facts/Opinions based on our Grid being only 20% Renewable! 

The longer answer would be “Compared to What” and also involve “At what Cost?”.

The issues here are complex. If you have a 1 to 4 people living in a 4,000 square foot poorly insulated house and downsize to a 3,200 sq. ft. with similar construction – it is “greener” of course, but it is not green!

This is the type of problem we run into when trying to calculate advantages or disadvantages of Electric Vehicles (EV). We could point out some instances or anecdote where an EV “helps a little”, however – as one major study concludes, “EV’s as currently made and sold are not compatible with Climate Goals”. We can’t “get there” with “it’s a little better” or, “it’s about the same” or even “it’s 30% better”. Note that Hybrids can have 100% better MPG than many non-hybrids and also quite clean in emmissions…that’s also a good evolution, although not as sexy as an EV.

Let’s start at the top and work down through the issues. Some of them may be of more importance to prospective buyers – others less so.

1. The Big Problem is the combination of “Car Culture” and the amount of resources and infrastructure needed for it.

This should be obvious – but many don’t even think this far. An EV will weigh 500-1500+ lbs more than many ICE or Hybrid vehicles. This means it takes more energy and “stuff”  to manufacture. It also means that the wear and tear on roads, bridges and tires is greater. Gasoline infrastructure is mostly built – while we need to spend trillions on improving the electric grid and millions of charging stations.

Read this article – just on tires! A 4400 Lb Tesla will “out pollute” 3600 lb Hybrid in this particular fashion.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show

Buying a EV does nothing to avoid the building of those additional lanes on the interstate. It does nothing to help with the waste of time in traffic – and it currently does nothing to avoid the death and destruction on the highways.

In short, many would say it’s the wrong direction in the first place – to continue the full-on car culture instead of building Bullet Trains and other forms of transport which are 100% proven to be vastly greener. We are not going to get “there” by having vehicles that are 5% or 10% “better and greener” than the last generation. Consider a good modern Hybrid car – they are 200% to 300% better than the gas cars from 15 or 20 years ago.

By pointing to Car Culture as the Main Problem, this writer is not saying “we must get rid of all cars” – rather, the point is that investment should geared toward solving the real problems – at a cost we can afford.

The greenest car you can have is an ancient used model that sits in the garage most of the time.   Remote Working, uBer, eBikes, etc. allow many modern families to get by with one (or fewer) cars. If the USA were to truly plan a greener future, we’d be building Bullet Trains as quickly as we could. A cynic might note that there is not nearly as much profit in Bullet Trains as there is in selling every household an EV or two! Imagine – 100K+ in revenue per household…a dream for capitalism, but not for the Planet.

2. Initial Cost of Vehicle and ongoing Costs.

Short Version – the 5 year cost of ownership or a Tesla Model Y is $55,000 (2025 approx.)
The same for Toyota Rav4 Hybrid is $34,000
The same for a CRV Honda Hybrid is $34,000 to $37,000
A Tesla Y buyer might be spending $20,000 extra over 5 years…

Do your own research at this Link – Tesla is not even in the top 100 vehicles for low cost of ownership. The EV’s that cost the least – in general would be the smaller models and those which cost less up front – since depreciation is one of the largest costs involved in owning a vehicle.
https://caredge.com/ranks/costs

At present, the cost of a mid-level EV from Tesla is 20 t0 50% more than many hybrids. “Green” applies to many things, including money (value for the dollar). Even if EV’s were greener then they are (they might be someday), they have to be affordable. The consumer could spend that extra 20 or 30K on many things which might provide better results (PV on their house, insulation, new furnace, carbon offsets, eBikes, etc.). None of these are as sexy “look at me” as a Tesla, but likely will provide MUCH more help for Mother Nature per dollar spent.

Some parts of an EV may outlast those on regular cars – but others, such as tires, roads and bridges, are going to cost more due to the excess weight.

Fuel costs can differ – in general an EV costs as much or more than a good hybrid in per mile driven (fuel). This site will soon have an accurate calculator for you to see your exact costs per mile.Gasoline can spike – some lucky few live near Hydro plants or have large Solar PV arrays on their own roof...in these cases, the EV gets both greener and cheaper.

Right now – the Energy Mix in most of the USA is such that approx. 60% of the Electricity is generated by Fossil Fuels (Nat Gas and Coal). Therefore, in most cases, the critics who say “Your Tesla is powered by Fossil Fuels” have a point. On the other hand, in a country like Norway where almost 100% of the electric is renewable Hydro, an EV is much cleaner when it comes to the actual emissions generated. In these types of use cases, an EV may only take a year or two to “pay for” the increased use of manufacturing materials.

Yale and others have done extensive studies on comparing EV’s – studying to see if they could be part of the solution to Global Warming (CO2 reduction), etc. – their summary? Exactly what I am saying in this article. The existing EV’s are less compatible with “Green”.
“the current demand level of personal motorized transport is compatible with ambitious climate targets only under two major conditions: (1) consumers must switch to more energy-and material-efficient vehicles, for example, smaller or shared electrified vehicles, and (2) the energy used to charge these vehicles must be highly decarbonized.” 

Current EV’s are not “smaller and shared” – and surely not more material efficient! In fact, some of the popular and newer models weigh as much as 6,000 lbs – DOUBLE the weight of many Hybrids and ICE cars. Double the weight, in general, means double the resources from the Planet.

Q and A – anticipating what many folks might ask

Q: If this is the case, why are so many people – including Elon Musk – promoting these machines?
A: Two Teslas in your garage = $100,000+ in revenue to Tesla. The cost of Bullet Trains, Trams, Light Rail and other upgrades to transportation and efficiency don’t “make money” in that fashion. “Capitalism” and “The Economy” left unchecked attempt to sell (and often create debt) the largest dollar outlay for “solutions”.

Q: What qualifications do you have? What do the real Experts say?
A: I have been in alt energy since the 1970’s – installed Solar Panels commercially starting in 1979. Imported, distributed, installed tens of millions of dollars worth of renewables. Studied energy of all types extensively.
Yale did a study in 2021 – quite detailed asking these same questions. The only way an EV works out, according to their research, is as I myself promote (small, shareable, public transit – and, more renewables. Here is their summary (read carefully).
“the current demand level of personal motorized transport is compatible with ambitious climate targets only under two major conditions: (1) consumers must switch to more energy-and material-efficient vehicles, for example, smaller or shared electrified vehicles, and (2) the energy used to charge these vehicles must be highly decarbonized.” 

Q: Would Full Self Driving Change the “Green Calculation:?
A: YES! In fact, the entire idea of Tesla being green is dependent on full self-driving – something called Level 4 or Level 5 automation. Tesla is currently at Level 2. WayMo (google) appears to be the current leader in this technology with Level 4 cars on the road.
However, we would need a large percentage of cars to have these features to move the needle.
In reality, this is unlikely for decades! Meanwhile, the folks buying these (and the resources used, etc.) are simply fooling themselves (but driving cool wheels in come cases)/

Q: When will Tesla have Full Self Driving?
A: The question should be modified to ask “Will Tesla EVER have Full Self Driving, and – if so, when is it likely?”.
There is no good answer to this so I will bring forward the current situation, delays and opinions of other experts. Tesla claimed, in 2019, that they might have this “Robo-Taxi” functioning by 2020. It didn’t occur. Now, Tesla is predicting 2024/2025, which is 10X as long as the original claims (made on AI Day in 2019). Some experts in AI (Artificial Intelligence) say it may never happen to the extent claimed – “never” meaning 20+ years, IMHO.
The writer, if he had to guess, would say it will be 20 years before self-driving makes an “energy dent” in the big picture of car culture.

Q: How many Companies are Actively working on Self-Driving cars or software?
A: Quite a few! It’s safe to guess about a dozen which have a very serious commitment to the project and many more working on smaller parts of the problem. This includes ALL the big car makers worldwide in addition to the newer EV-only companies, as well as various IC (chip) and computing companies.

Q: If I buy an EV now, will be be able to be upgraded to Full Self Driving with software?
A: Maybe…but probably not-don’t count on it in terms of making an expensive purchase decision. The Self-Driving hardware of Tesla was upgraded in 2019 and odds are it will be upgraded every few years. Newer hardware is vastly superior – and since the self-driving problem has not been fully solved, no one can say exactly what hardware is needed to get to Level 5. These problems have always been underestimated and there is no reason to think this will change.
Companies like WayMo (google) are likely to license out their software and hardware package to existing manufacturers…when and if that happens, you would know that you have a vehicle that passes the regulatory burden. Same with Tesla – if and when they have full approval from all the regulatory bodies and have their cars running in public at level 4 and 5 you will then know that the hardware/software is ready for the job.

Q: Can you detail some of the big problems of so-called “Car Culture”?
A: Sure, first – look around you! Highways are adding more and more lanes – and yet traffic persists. 40,000 dead each year just in the USA – many more terribly injured. Blacktop and roads and parking lots all create excess runoff and pollution – use large amount of energy to produce (blacktop made from coal, oil, etc.). Landscape is often ruined – take notes for just one day and see what your car does and what is needed to support it! Like this:
1. Parked in my garage (cost for garage, insurance, runoff, etc.).
2. Drove down my driveway (blacktop, runoff, heat sink).
3. Drove to Store (roads, lights, danger to pedestrians, large parking lots needed)
You get the idea. Your car is MUCH more than just “a car” – it requires vast amounts of support which costs money – and create many problems.
High Speed Rail, for example, would take up much less space and be many times as efficient per seat-mile. It doesn’t require rest stops, gas stations, hotels along the way, eateries, etc. – you get from here to there without the entire landscape in-between being highly disturbed.
The same is true, to some degree, with newer airliners. You need an airport at each end, but no ribbons of hotels and roads in-between.
Newer airlines get approx. 80 MPG for a single seat, making them more efficient than most cars for longer trips…even when two people are traveling (40 MPG equiv).

Summary – an EV may be a nice car. But, please, do not fool yourself that this is the path to a sustainable situation for wasteful countries and cultures like the USA. We need a real plan – which includes 10’s of thousands of miles of Bullet Trains, properly planned communities and much more.

It’s actually pretty simple. Look at your total lifestyle….if you are living in the typical “upper middle class or above” Western Fashion (flying here and there, have a nice house or two, two or more nice cars, TV’s, computers, etc.) you (and I) are the problem – not the solution.

Buying a Car or two…and then believing we are “Saving the World” due to slick marketing or talking points, is silly. We need real change…which isn’t going to happen by switching car brands.