Where is the Electricity going to come to charge EVs ?

[alarmguy]

@PandaBear I waited until the solar prices dropped, which was late 2017. Then I got serious and did my due diligence. The numbers proved to be compelling, so I pulled the trigger and got the solar. Everything went perfectly, permits and all.

I fully knew prices would continue to drop. I am sure the cost is perhaps thousands less today.
People focus on the initial cost, with good reason. Oftentimes money goes on one thing or another... The solar is paying for itself and much more; I could have done worse. Now if I had bought TSLA in Dec 2018 instead of that stupid Model 3... Ha!

I have zero regrets. I love my solar.

Your thinking is correct. I think others need to look at it this way, even though equipment was a little bit more expensive back in 2017 you have been saving money for the past five years which I’m sure more than makes up the cost difference in solar panels today. Oh and let’s not forget labor prices are not going down but only up.

Then let’s look a little more deeply into this at what point in time does someone buy solar?

Some in here are saying solar price is now cheaper in 2022 when we know in another five years it may even be even less expensive and five years after that even less expensive and even the roof tiles themselves will be the panels.

When it comes to investing and saving money you have to do it at a point in time that is right for you. Forget about the naysayers they are not taking into account the amount of money you have saved and will continue to save moving into the future by doing it when it was right for you.
You have 5 years of saving energy and money under your belt.

All they know for FACT at this point in time are the facts at todays price of the panels, well what if in 2017 we ended up in another trade war or military War with China then you would look like a hero today to them.

Nobody can speculate on the future or I should say everybody could speculate on the future but it’s wrong to go back in time and see you could’ve done this because at that time they could not have predicted the future price, if they could than they should have leveraged every thing they owned and invested it.

It’s easy after the fact for someone to say would’ve, should’ve, could’ve, but that is just a fairy tale.
You do things, you buy things and you invest in things at a point in time it is right for you. Doing anything else because of "what MIGHT happen" "what COULD happen" is pure speculation on future prices, which because it is speculation 3 things can happen, the price can go up, the price can go down, the price can stay the same, each one of those are equal in weight.

Either your investment is going to save you money at that point in time or not is the only decision that needs to be made. You made that decision in 2017 and it saved you a great sum of money, right according to plan. Good Job!

 

[Electromotive]

I see that many are excited about EVs, I can understand part of it but I myself stand by my thoughts that it will not be possible for EVs to come close to replacing gasoline vehicles for at least 20 years, more or less I can see EVs maybe getting to a saturation point of 20% of new vehicle sales, if that much, I think maybe closer to 10%. I think once people see the cost of charging them AND the fact that we do not have the power plants and infrastructure to carry the electricity to everyones home to charge the cars.
So where is the power going to come from to charge these cars? We barely have enough power in the USA to run our home air conditioners at any time of the day.
Until people wake up to the fact that we need nuclear plants, its just not going to happen.

View attachment 95148

Source = https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/map-of-nuclear-power-in-the-us-see-where-reactors-are-located.html

...

Look for the nearest pink or purple Unicorn and plug charge cord into the backside. Magically, the charge will be complete in a couple of minutes. And it's free as well!

 

[Wolf359]

My 1980s caprices got 32mpg (imperial) so high 20s, back in the day on a long trip but that was before ethanol was in our gas. Now they can get about 25. Not rated EPA mpg, but calculated and double checked at the pump several times. I talked to a handful of others over the years that achieved similar numbers. The difference is a 5.0 v8 made 170hp whereas my current 4.8 v8 makes almost 300. Making more HP lowers fuel efficiency. So in a lot of cases we may get the same fuel efficiency but way more power than we had back then.
I disagree with the rest of his opinion though, because I'm an auto enthusiast at heart and love the sounds of an engine.

I wrote some other post that ended up getting deleted. Basically you try to normalize your numbers and correct to standard temperature and pressure. EPA numbers are useful for that because in theory, they're following the scientific method which is based on repeatable, reproducible results. If you did the same drive cycle with the same car, in theory you should get the same numbers assuming you normalized it to the same temperature, pressure and other conditions which could affect gas mileage. He couldn't cite anything similar except for anecdotal evidence and I go with the scientific method over anecdotal evidence all the time. He thought that what was cited on some car enthusiast forums was proof. Well those people lie all the time and many times as the saying goes, even when they're not, your mileage may vary. People out west seem to get better gas mileage than those us in the east, maybe due to way more traffic here or they just have better roads or they're coasting down 5-10k of elevation. Anyway, maybe your caprice got that number, but he did cite cars from the 90s vs modern cars got better gas mileage. I don't see how any of that made any sense.

 

[ripcord]

Everyone knows we are paying nearly double, but price of gas (in terms of the "where is the electricity going to come from to charge evs") is totally relevant in this. People will still find electric being cheaper in the long run than gas if the vehicle is cheap enough, but at the moment plug in hybrid is still king.

Everything is "nothing" compare to housing cost though. What's another $75 a month when you can save money living FAR away and work from home or commute?

My point is that for most drivers, any savings on energy prices at the pump will likely be swallowed up by increases in the cost of electricity. I highly doubt that there will be any long term savings for the average consumer at the bottom line. If you save $100 a week on gas but pay $125 a week more your electric bill, then where is the economic benefit?

The cost shifting will be massively regressive, too, as the increased electrical costs will be heavily born by lower income tax payers.

Plus once a large enough percentage of cars on the road are EV, state and federal government will massively increase licenses and fees to recoup lost fuel tax revenue.

No free lunches.

 

[Wolf359]

My point is that for most drivers, any savings on energy prices at the pump will likely be swallowed up by increases in the cost of electricity. I highly doubt that there will be any long term savings for the average consumer at the bottom line. If you save $100 a week on gas but pay $125 a week more your electric bill, then where is the economic benefit?

The cost shifting will be massively regressive, too, as the increased electrical costs will be heavily born by lower income tax payers.

Plus once a large enough percentage of cars on the road are EV, state and federal government will massively increase licenses and fees to recoup lost fuel tax revenue.

No free lunches.

I think you're making a few assumptions that may not be valid. Just because you have to build a new plant doesn't mean the cost of electricity has to go up. Usually they don't build them unless there's demand, not that they're too expensive to build and hence if any are built, the cost of electricity has to increase. The below is based on 13 cents a kilowatt which is the national average. Still way cheaper than gasoline although the purchase price of an EV is much higher than a gasoline car.

https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/h...as-the-cost-to-charge-other-electric-vehicles

Fuel taxes amount to 18.3 cents per gallon at the federal level and varies between 20-50 cents at the state level, but it's probably 20% or less of the price of gas.

In our state, if you're a lower income tax payer, you can apply for a cheaper electrical rate.

 

[ripcord]

I think you're making a few assumptions that may not be valid. Just because you have to build a new plant doesn't mean the cost of electricity has to go up. Usually they don't build them unless there's demand, not that they're too expensive to build and hence if any are built, the cost of electricity has to increase. The below is based on 13 cents a kilowatt which is the national average. Still way cheaper than gasoline although the purchase price of an EV is much higher than a gasoline car.

https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/h...as-the-cost-to-charge-other-electric-vehicles

Fuel taxes amount to 18.3 cents per gallon at the federal level and varies between 20-50 cents at the state level, but it's probably 20% or less of the price of gas.

In our state, if you're a lower income tax payer, you can apply for a cheaper electrical rate.

Yes, I'm definitely making assumptions. My first is that the law of unintended consequences will apply. Second, I'm assuming that recent state and federal mandates will cause EV usage to grow rapidly. I'm also assuming that electrical demand will outstrip growth in production and that government will push unreliable renewables to the exclusion of base load capacity which will cause grid instability. Small shortfalls in production on a consistent basis cause outsized increases in cost due to competition.

All of which point to large increases in consumer costs.

 

[PandaBear]

My point is that for most drivers, any savings on energy prices at the pump will likely be swallowed up by increases in the cost of electricity. I highly doubt that there will be any long term savings for the average consumer at the bottom line. If you save $100 a week on gas but pay $125 a week more your electric bill, then where is the economic benefit?

The cost shifting will be massively regressive, too, as the increased electrical costs will be heavily born by lower income tax payers.

Plus once a large enough percentage of cars on the road are EV, state and federal government will massively increase licenses and fees to recoup lost fuel tax revenue.

No free lunches.

No free lunches, but some lunches are more efficient (ham and cheese sandwiches) than others (lobster rolls or avocado toasts).

At least in California, we have a special blend of gas (Reformulated, aka RFG, I forgot which version we are on now), they are more expensive before tax, because without them the urban and central valley pollution would be worse in certain weather condition (forming smog). Then there's the extra road tax which at this point is not yet charged to EV (may change, so I'll leave it alone for now). Finally as we have mentioned many times already, gasoline is only from oil and are priced way higher than natural gas, because it can be shipped all over the world for market price vs natural gas is more expensive to ship and are typically consumed locally. If you are building new plants for electricity it is likely 50% efficient (40% if you consider grid loss) for CCGT vs 25-30% for gas in a car, this has been proven scientifically (don't use a toy generator like the Honda, they are not 50% efficient and are still using gas). Yes there's also going to be some marginal savings on off peak charging most people will use at midnight to morning, or during sunny morning to early afternoon, and people do charge EV during those hours so it "should" help the grid with more efficiency, depending on where and how but it is already going on currently.

Is it going to be cheaper or more expensive? Depends on where you are really. IMO it is worth it in a lot of location (Arizona, SoCal, Hawaii, etc) if you have a lot of cheap solar, expensive gas, or island with short commute. I would totally get an EV in Hawaii, or Arizona if I have solar panel, I may do it in Oregon (data center opens there because of cheap electricity), but not NYC or Maine, it really "depends".

Lower income folks biggest problem is going to be long commute regardless, because housing will always be #1 cost for them, they likely won't be able to afford an EV and would stay with plug in hybrid or regular hybrid, and rely mostly on cheap electricity when it is cheaper than gas, or gas when it is for long distance driving.

EV will be good for them one day, or maybe a full level 5 driverless car so they can sleep while commuting to work.

 

[PandaBear]

Yes, I'm definitely making assumptions. My first is that the law of unintended consequences will apply. Second, I'm assuming that recent state and federal mandates will cause EV usage to grow rapidly. I'm also assuming that electrical demand will outstrip growth in production and that government will push unreliable renewables to the exclusion of base load capacity which will cause grid instability. Small shortfalls in production on a consistent basis cause outsized increases in cost due to competition.

All of which point to large increases in consumer costs.

You sure make a lot of assumption that has been proven wrong in the past:

1) Germany is going back to coal because they need them right now, in desperation.
2) 90s EV mandate got canceled because the only car, EV1, wasn't good enough and a realistic solution.
3) Solar got cheaper, EV got cheaper, battery replacement on hybrid got cheaper, hybrid is now a poor man's commute vehicle without subsidies, thanks to low interest rate and China / India want to get off oil import and develop home grown energy and transportation tech.
4) People are working from home, so they don't really need as much commute as before.

Who knows, I'll wait and see but if I have to buy I'd bet on plug in hybrid right now, just in case.

 

[JeffKeryk]

@alarmguy I considered solar for years, as much of CA is a near perfect fit for solar. High energy prices, lotsa sun, maturing technology and lotsa companies vieing for your business.

I paid off the house first, took no vacations, basically maxed out savings. That was the 1st (and biggiest) step. Then I got into long term, low cost living. Conservative planning. I am probably nearing break even point and then will have nearly free electricity, including fueling an EV.

When you make an investment, you do your due diligence and move forward. No one has perfect knowledge and no one can predict the future.
My strategy is to not put all your eggs into one basket. Having a house paid off that has very low recurring cost is a great feeling. I think you know how much property costs around here.

The other decision I made was to hold my stock options long term, at least for the most part. I just pretended the options did not exist and never counted on them or included them in decision making. There were a lotta gorgeous German cars in the parking lot; I drove Toyota pickups.
Fidelity and Schwab told me I was way too overweight with my company's stock. Let's just say I was right and they were wrong. In fact, I fired Fidelity because of their advice.

So yeah, you make a decision and move forward. I never think in terms of less than 5 years; that's just noise.

 

[Wolf359]

Yes, I'm definitely making assumptions. My first is that the law of unintended consequences will apply. Second, I'm assuming that recent state and federal mandates will cause EV usage to grow rapidly. I'm also assuming that electrical demand will outstrip growth in production and that government will push unreliable renewables to the exclusion of base load capacity which will cause grid instability. Small shortfalls in production on a consistent basis cause outsized increases in cost due to competition.

All of which point to large increases in consumer costs.

Yeah, your main assumption is that they haven't taken those into account. EV usage is growing but it doesn't take that long to build a gas power plant, anywhere from 2-5 years. EV usage is growing much slower than that so there's time to build new capacity. The assumption is that we do nothing and there's not enough capacity. Capacity planning is one of the major things that utilities actually do. Your assumptions basically assumes that nothing will be done and that no one is doing anything about it. Your other assumption is that electric costs more than gas, as you can see from what was posted earlier, electricity per mile is much cheaper than gas so your whole point of no savings due to higher electric costs is also wrong.

 

[OVERKILL]

My 1980s caprices got 32mpg (imperial) so high 20s, back in the day on a long trip but that was before ethanol was in our gas. Now they can get about 25. Not rated EPA mpg, but calculated and double checked at the pump several times. I talked to a handful of others over the years that achieved similar numbers. The difference is a 5.0 v8 made 170hp whereas my current 4.8 v8 makes almost 300. Making more HP lowers fuel efficiency. So in a lot of cases we may get the same fuel efficiency but way more power than we had back then.
I disagree with the rest of his opinion though, because I'm an auto enthusiast at heart and love the sounds of an engine.

Under "ideal" conditions I can get mid 20's out of the 475HP 6.4L brick in my SRT (hand calculated) but I wouldn't use those figures when comparing it to other vehicles because it going down the 401 isn't a realistic benchmark, I'd just use the EPA figures, which @Wolf359 is doing because they are standardized. My SRT also gets 9-10mpg in-town during the cooler months, which is worse than the EPA in-town figures because I'm probably a bit less gentle with the go pedal than they are.

That's my takeaway from his comments here. It doesn't really matter what a sample size of 1 under specific operating conditions yields when compared to the EPA figures, because that's not a base from which broad comparisons can be made. We use the EPA figures because that standardizes things.

 

[OVERKILL]

Your thinking is correct. I think others need to look at it this way, even though equipment was a little bit more expensive back in 2017 you have been saving money for the past five years which I’m sure more than makes up the cost difference in solar panels today. Oh and let’s not forget labor prices are not going down but only up.

Then let’s look a little more deeply into this at what point in time does someone buy solar?

Some in here are saying solar price is now cheaper in 2022 when we know in another five years it may even be even less expensive and five years after that even less expensive and even the roof tiles themselves will be the panels.

When it comes to investing and saving money you have to do it at a point in time that is right for you. Forget about the naysayers they are not taking into account the amount of money you have saved and will continue to save moving into the future by doing it when it was right for you.
You have 5 years of saving energy and money under your belt.

All they know for FACT at this point in time are the facts at todays price of the panels, well what if in 2017 we ended up in another trade war or military War with China then you would look like a hero today to them.

Nobody can speculate on the future or I should say everybody could speculate on the future but it’s wrong to go back in time and see you could’ve done this because at that time they could not have predicted the future price, if they could than they should have leveraged every thing they owned and invested it.

It’s easy after the fact for someone to say would’ve, should’ve, could’ve, but that is just a fairy tale.
You do things, you buy things and you invest in things at a point in time it is right for you. Doing anything else because of "what MIGHT happen" "what COULD happen" is pure speculation on future prices, which because it is speculation 3 things can happen, the price can go up, the price can go down, the price can stay the same, each one of those are equal in weight.

Either your investment is going to save you money at that point in time or not is the only decision that needs to be made. You made that decision in 2017 and it saved you a great sum of money, right according to plan. Good Job!

As @PandaBear very well summarized:

I was using 20 years with 4% interest rate (cash you pay has a mortgage opportunity cost, no?) on the amortization calculator for $12k and end up with the 72.72 above. You may say $40 at 300 months with no interest vs 72.72 with interest for 20 years are just funny math, I'll let you draw your own conclusion. Still, the right math (yours or mine) would be that $40 or $72.72 + $9 (I though you also said it was $15, again, fuzzy math).

It depends on the math. Part of that includes the deal you have with your Utility. FIT or even NEM are better than wholesale for the guy buying solar but not the rest of the people who are picking up the tab. We are also seeing these programs get eliminated as the impact of embedded solar increases, as it excessively compensates embedded owners who are not picking up the tab for transmission costs, despite using that infrastructure to make money/sell power.

Location of course also plays a critical role. The further north you go, the less productive solar is and the "sweeter" the deal will have to be in order for the deal to be net positive. As I noted earlier in the thread, solar and wind investment both collapsed in Ontario as soon as the subsidy program vanished because neither produce sufficient revenue on their own. If your rooftop install here operates at 10% CF, without a generous FIT, that system will likely never pay for itself, and realistically, it's not the responsibility of the other ratepayers to pick-up the tab for your rooftop solar.

 

[PandaBear]

Yeah, your main assumption is that they haven't taken those into account. EV usage is growing but it doesn't take that long to build a gas power plant, anywhere from 2-5 years. EV usage is growing much slower than that so there's time to build new capacity. The assumption is that we do nothing and there's not enough capacity. Capacity planning is one of the major things that utilities actually do. Your assumptions basically assumes that nothing will be done and that no one is doing anything about it. Your other assumption is that electric costs more than gas, as you can see from what was posted earlier, electricity per mile is much cheaper than gas so your whole point of no savings due to higher electric costs is also wrong.

The biggest demand increase is not EV, it is urban sprawling in new residential, commercial, and industrial development. You think the grid they build 40 years ago for a town full of 2 story buildings are going to be sufficient when they are torn down and turn into 5 stories, or 4 stories torn down and turn into 10 stories?

As long as there's money to be made someone will build more distribution. It is a profit maker after all. In my example my electric cost is 50% distribution 50% generation, so clearly someone is making money off that today and if more people uses electricity more money would be made on the grid.

Which is also why there will never be a "too cheap to meter" anything in the future if you have to use the grid, or battery, or install solar panel, or battery backup, or solar water heater, or solar AC. Someone will have to pay to build it and someone is expecting a profit in the end.

 

[Wolf359]

The biggest demand increase is not EV, it is urban sprawling in new residential, commercial, and industrial development. You think the grid they build 40 years ago for a town full of 2 story buildings are going to be sufficient when they are torn down and turn into 5 stories, or 4 stories torn down and turn into 10 stories?

As long as there's money to be made someone will build more distribution. It is a profit maker after all. In my example my electric cost is 50% distribution 50% generation, so clearly someone is making money off that today and if more people uses electricity more money would be made on the grid.

Which is also why there will never be a "too cheap to meter" anything in the future if you have to use the grid, or battery, or install solar panel, or battery backup, or solar water heater, or solar AC. Someone will have to pay to build it and someone is expecting a profit in the end.

Well the whole too cheap to meter thing is one of those famous last words type things. I think the next thing to apply it to might be fusion power but as mentioned earlier, that always seems to be 10-20 years away although there are claims that there are new breakthroughs and it'll just be another couple of years. I think in the past, every time they come up with some new thing, some new instability shows up to push it back again. But hope springs eternal and maybe one day it will really happen. Just look at Ligo, that was in development for decades before it finally worked.

When you do commercial developments, there's a cost associated with hooking up to the grid. I remember working on a plant years ago that was starting to fire up and they wanted a huge amount of money to connect it to the grid as they were looking for 7-10 megawatts of power but they also had their own generation. Even if they didn't use a single watt, they needed to have the capacity on hand in case their own power plant trip and they needed power from the grid so the grid had to charge them a huge fee to be connected.

When I was with an independent power producer back in the 90's, they got about 6 cents a kilowatt in the summer and got 2 cents in the winter. Needless to say, they made their money in the summer, if their gas ever got curtailed in the winter, it was cheaper just to shut it down than to run it on oil but they could have done that in the summer. But gas doesn't get curtailed in the summer, only in winter when everyone else is using it for home heating.

 

[ripcord]

The biggest demand increase is not EV, it is urban sprawling in new residential, commercial, and industrial development.

If the powers that be have their way, electrification will be a lot more rapid than people think. The current administration just released CAFE standards for 2026 of 49mpg. In addition, a 50% EV sales mandate by 2030 was just announced. Those are the EV mandates I was talking about, which are huge. A household that drives an average of 24k a year in EVs will use around %50 more electricity.

 

[Wolf359]

If the powers that be have their way, electrification will be a lot more rapid than people think. The current administration just released CAFE standards for 2026 of 49mpg. In addition, a 50% EV sales mandate by 2030 was just announced. Those are the EV mandates I was talking about, which are huge. A household that drives an average of 24k a year in EVs will use around %50 more electricity.

There are always outliers. However the average mileage driven per year is about 15k. For a family that drives a lot, maybe they do the math and realize it doesn't work for them. I'm going to stick with a V6 or V8 as long as possible. A 50% mandate on new cars works out to less than 25% of the total annual sale of cars including new and used cars. New cars are less than 50% of annual sales. Average age of the car fleet is about 11.8 years. It will be a while before a sizeable percentage of the US fleet is electric. I just walked by a parking lot in the city that had 7 chargers, only 3 were in use. It said that you had to pay by credit card and if you didn't, you'd be towed. Also keep in mind that sometimes mandates get rolled back when for whatever reason, they can't be achieved.

 

[Slow Car Sport Mode]

Everyone knows we are paying nearly double, but price of gas (in terms of the "where is the electricity going to come from to charge evs") is totally relevant in this. People will still find electric being cheaper in the long run than gas if the vehicle is cheap enough, but at the moment plug in hybrid is still king.

Everything is "nothing" compare to housing cost though. What's another $75 a month when you can save money living FAR away and work from home or commute?

I feel it is all relative.

You can live somewhere with a lower COL, as Transportation rate generally increase whether it be with gas or electric power you're going to have to see if your savings are still worth it. Plus the cost of food ..

 

[PandaBear]

There are always outliers. However the average mileage driven per year is about 15k. For a family that drives a lot, maybe they do the math and realize it doesn't work for them. I'm going to stick with a V6 or V8 as long as possible. A 50% mandate on new cars works out to less than 25% of the total annual sale of cars including new and used cars. New cars are less than 50% of annual sales. Average age of the car fleet is about 11.8 years. It will be a while before a sizeable percentage of the US fleet is electric. I just walked by a parking lot in the city that had 7 chargers, only 3 were in use. It said that you had to pay by credit card and if you didn't, you'd be towed. Also keep in mind that sometimes mandates get rolled back when for whatever reason, they can't be achieved.

It really depends on your location. I know my area is very odd as we see more Tesla now than BMW & Mercedes, and BMW usually are more common than pickup, and hybrid now more common than anything else, etc. However most of the superchargers are full 90% of the day time hours near shopping plaza, most of the work place chargers are full most of the hours, and they are still building lots of them.

I remember my old boss back in MA was driving a Caddy, and there are many of them there. Around here if you drive one you would stand out like you are tucking your shirt in still. So, yeah, your location matters.

 

[350Rocket]

Under "ideal" conditions I can get mid 20's out of the 475HP 6.4L brick in my SRT (hand calculated) but I wouldn't use those figures when comparing it to other vehicles because it going down the 401 isn't a realistic benchmark, I'd just use the EPA figures, which @Wolf359 is doing because they are standardized. My SRT also gets 9-10mpg in-town during the cooler months, which is worse than the EPA in-town figures because I'm probably a bit less gentle with the go pedal than they are.

That's my takeaway from his comments here. It doesn't really matter what a sample size of 1 under specific operating conditions yields when compared to the EPA figures, because that's not a base from which broad comparisons can be made. We use the EPA figures because that standardizes things.

I get what you're saying, I suppose the reason I commented is because my experience is with people that had a daily commute on the 401 where they would regularly get 30mpg with these vehicles, but the majority of the public thinks (and comments) that those vehicles would never get better than 15mpg. A lot of people think they get as bad as a modern v8 4 wheel drive, half ton, which isn't typically true.

 

[350Rocket]

I wrote some other post that ended up getting deleted. Basically you try to normalize your numbers and correct to standard temperature and pressure. EPA numbers are useful for that because in theory, they're following the scientific method which is based on repeatable, reproducible results. If you did the same drive cycle with the same car, in theory you should get the same numbers assuming you normalized it to the same temperature, pressure and other conditions which could affect gas mileage. He couldn't cite anything similar except for anecdotal evidence and I go with the scientific method over anecdotal evidence all the time. He thought that what was cited on some car enthusiast forums was proof. Well those people lie all the time and many times as the saying goes, even when they're not, your mileage may vary. People out west seem to get better gas mileage than those us in the east, maybe due to way more traffic here or they just have better roads or they're coasting down 5-10k of elevation. Anyway, maybe your caprice got that number, but he did cite cars from the 90s vs modern cars got better gas mileage. I don't see how any of that made any sense.

Yes I have to agree with that statement. Cars definitely get generally better fuel mileage today while giving much better performance despite usually weighing more (modern safety and convenience features weigh a lot). More gears in the transmission helps and the downside to that is cost of repairs if something goes wrong with the transmission. I guess that's a vote for electric. I personally just hope we all have an option for electric or gas for a long time yet. Electric will get more popular over time, but gas still has a place for a while.