sueddeutsche.de
Total Cost of Ownership: Electric vs. Combustion Engine Vehicles
A cost comparison of electric and combustion engine vehicles reveals that while EVs have higher initial purchase prices, lower running costs, particularly energy and maintenance, can lead to significant long-term savings, although higher repair and depreciation costs for EVs need consideration.
- How do the energy costs and maintenance expenses of electric vehicles compare to those of combustion engine vehicles over a typical ownership period?
- The comparison should account for purchase price, energy costs, maintenance, and resale value. For instance, a comparison of Porsche Macans (EV vs. gasoline) over 1000km showed the EV used 142 EUR of electricity versus 254 EUR of gasoline. Over 60,000km, the EV's energy cost was 4939.40 EUR compared to 12636 EUR for the gasoline model.
- What is the most significant factor determining the long-term cost-effectiveness of owning an electric vehicle compared to a combustion engine vehicle?
- The total cost of car ownership, from purchase to resale, is crucial when comparing electric vehicles (EVs) and combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). While EVs have higher initial costs, their running costs, including energy and maintenance, are significantly lower, leading to surprising long-term cost differences.
- What are the primary factors contributing to the higher depreciation rates of electric vehicles compared to combustion engine vehicles, and what potential solutions exist to mitigate this?
- Although EVs currently have higher depreciation than ICEVs, this gap may narrow as technology advances and battery technology improves. Long-term ownership and strategic charging can mitigate the high initial cost and depreciation of EVs. Repair costs for EVs can be substantially higher than for ICEVs due to specialized tools and parts.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing subtly favors electric vehicles by highlighting cost advantages in certain scenarios (e.g., lower running costs over long distances, cheaper maintenance). While presenting both sides, the emphasis on financial benefits for electric cars might sway readers towards that choice.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, although terms like "the race" (in the context of cost comparison) might carry implicit connotations. The description of electric vehicles using phrases like 'the hour of the electric car' could be seen as overly positive. More neutral alternatives could improve objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on cost comparisons between electric and combustion engine vehicles, potentially omitting other relevant factors influencing consumer choice, such as environmental concerns, technological advancements, and government policies. While acknowledging the limitations of space, a broader perspective would enrich the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the choice between electric and combustion engine vehicles solely as a financial calculation. It downplays other important factors such as environmental impact and personal preferences, thus oversimplifying a complex decision.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article compares the cost and environmental impact of electric vehicles (EVs) versus combustion engine vehicles. It highlights that while the initial purchase price of EVs may be higher, the long-term running costs, especially energy consumption, can be significantly lower, contributing to reduced carbon emissions and thus supporting climate action. The comparison of a Porsche Macan EV and its combustion engine counterpart on a 1000km journey demonstrates this, with the EV showing substantially lower energy costs.