Plumb: Electric vehicle a logical next step

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by George Plumb, the executive director of Vermonters for Sustainable Population and the author of the 2011 report, “Vermont Environmental Trends: The Population Connection.”

“Without memory, our existence would be barren and opaque, like a prison cell into which no light penetrates; like a tomb which rejects the living. If anything can, it is memory that will save humanity.”

 — Eli Wiesel, Noble Prize Laureate and Holocaust survivor

Connecting the dots with increasingly devastating storms, forest fires, droughts, and rising sea levels with global heating I have been asking myself what more can I do to personally reduce my carbon emissions. I already heat with wood, generate my own electricity with an AllSun Tracker, drive a high gas mileage car, never fly in a jet plane, grow some of my own food, and use battery powered machinery such as lawnmowers and chainsaws. What more could I do?

The author, George Plumb, with his leased Mitsubishi electric vehicle, the MiEV, in front of his AllSun Tracker solar panel at his home in Washington. Photo courtesy George Plumb

After thinking about it a long time the one big thing left that I could do, and it is the big things that really count, I decided to start driving an all electric vehicle now that there are several models to choose from.

With my income about the median for Vermonters I couldn’t afford to buy a new one even with the federal tax credit of $7,500. So I decided to lease one instead. Mitsubishi has a deal where one can lease the MiEV for $199 per month which I can handle. Of course with the saving on gas and maintenance the final monthly cost is less than it would be if I leased a new regular low gas mileage car.

Driving an EV (electric vehicle) is at first a bit of a challenging experience as the technology is very different. However, the car feels and handles much like a regular car although it certainly is quieter. It is a also a wonderful feeling as I now pass the gas station where I used to fill up once a week and instead just plug the vehicle into my charger when I get home. Yes, it takes 22 hours to charge on a regular 120 volt charger but I usually only need half a charge so overnight I am ready to go again. And I could buy a 240 volt charger which charges it in about one-third of the time.

The MiEV goes about 62 miles on a charge so I can easily make it from Washington to Montpelier and back, and if I do need to go further, the Montpelier City Hall has a free public EV charging station where I can get an extra charge if I need to and enjoy being in a local café for a coffee and read the paper while I wait a half an hour or so. There are also several other communities in Vermont where there are public charging stations.

So now, except for my tractor which I don’t use much, I have no direct need to burn fossil fuels! Yes, I am well aware that indirectly I still am responsible for a lot of carbon emissions ranging from the majority of my calorie intake to the things I buy. I also realize that manufacturing the car itself has a huge carbon impact, to say nothing of the rare earth minerals that are used in the batteries. But out of compassion for my grandchild and people all over the world, I think I am doing my part to help slow global heating while we also work on political solutions to burning fossil fuels.

Is an electric vehicle right for you? That depends on several variables but I urge you to consider one as your important part in reducing your carbon footprint. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at [email protected]

If you read us, please support us.

Comment Policy requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer.

We moderate every comment. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

Privacy policy

Recent Stories

  • George Plumb

    For those who would like to learn more about electric vehicle driving in Vermont there is:
    They also have an interesting map showing how many electric vehicles are registered in each community.

  • I liked this piece and it’s inspired me to look into that Miev (sp?). I’ve been weighing several options to cut my carbon footprint. I’m still electrically on the grid and driving an Audi A4 wagon to get me around through the snow.

    I think driving a cleaner car is a bigger step toward carbon reduction than getting PV. Would you agree? (I live in Cornwall, Vt.) I can’t afford to do both PV and EV right now. Any input appreciated

    • Steve Comeau

      A small ($5,000) PC system might get you 1300 KwH each year. If you think of 1 kWH equaling about 1 mile for driving, the car is perhaps the better choice. But is owning 2 cars a good choice? The hard part is to reduce car travel, which is really the most important thing to do in the long run, no matter what the energy source. It’s the energy footprint that matters the most.

  • Jim Barrett

    Key word here is FREE….FREE power plug ins and the wonderful gift of FREE subsidized purchase of car in the first place by the TAXPAYERS! What a wonderful deal ! While the state of Vermont is pushing all of us to conserver to save the planet from certain death, the state is pushing to cut down trees to burn and windmills to make limited electricity. Trees are supposed to be one of the best sources to reduce greenhouse gases and we destroy them without so much as a comment from the environmental wacho’s like McKibbon, VPIRG, etc! We send tens of thousands of trees to the electric power plant in Burlington while screaming at everyone to reduce we have it backward or what!!!

  • George Plumb

    Gregory I agree that driving an EV would be more helpful in reducing carbon emissions that installing PV.

    Jim, the free public charging station will probably not be free after enough people start using them. It is that way now to provide an incdentive. I share your concern about burning trees. The ultimate factor is that we have too many people consuming too many reasources. To have a truly sustainable future for all living things we are going to have to both reduce our population size and consume renewable recources no faster than they can be regenerated.

  • RE: burning trees, my understanding is that it’s more or less carbon neutral. Trees are a major storehouse of carbon, keeping it from entering the atmosphere and increasing global warming. It’s true that burning trees releases carbon, but if the burning properly scrubbed, the process of growing and burning trees adds little net carbon to the atmosphere.

    Definitely agree with George about he need to reduce population.

    • Gregory,

      In New England, after 80% of it was stripped of its old-growth trees by about 1865, much of the top soil, a thin layer on top of rocks in most places built up over about 9,000 years, eroded. As a result, the new-growth trees that “reforested” less than 50% of New England can be only a pale copy of the old-growth trees. Acid-laden precipitation from Midwest coal plants has damaged the soil, sickened the trees, reduced their longevity and their CO2 absorbing capability. New England’s forest biomass quantity prior to 1865 likely was about 5 times greater than at present and its CO2 absorbing capability likely was about 10 times greater than at present. New England has seen vastly greater additional manmade environmental destruction since 1865; highways and sprawling urban areas come to mind. Proposals to burn biomass (wood) for New England’s thermal and electrical energy requirements is akin to scorced-earth warfare, given the present forest and soil conditions. To remedy the situation would require a significant reduction of acid-laden precipitation AND the forests to be left undisturbed for several hundred years to restore top soil health and thickness. The thinking all this can be remediated by reducing CO2 emissions with RE build-outs is well beyond rational.

  • Electric vehicles have been in Vermont for about 175 years, which suggests that we’d have more on the road if they were the way to go.

    I’m open to the idea that using electric motors in place of gasoline motors in certain applications makes a lot of sense, but I’m not sure if it does with personal transport, ie: cars.

    Eliminating exhaust, noise and expensive fill ups are all compelling reasons to “plug in.” The questionable reliability of the grid, its dependency on burning fossil fuels, and the lowered efficiency of power transmissions does help the case for vehicles that still burn liquid fuels.

    One of the things I’m looking for in my next vehicle is one with low electromagnetic emissions. While high mileage and winter safety is certainly a bonus, there appears to be a very wide range of EMF created by different cars. It may be that the fastest way to reduce the population is for everyone to start driving around with massive batteries under their butts, but as someone who would still like to add to the population, I think I’ll stick with lower-EMF emission vehicles.

    George, if you can track down a gauss/trifield meter, I’d be curious to know what kind of magnetic fields your car puts off in the driver’s seat.

    • Glenn Chase

      I’m curious to know more about these electric vehicles that existed in Vermont in 1837.

    • Martin WINLOW

      Sorry Jim, but you are missing the point – several points actually.

      Do you know how much tax is being spent to support Big Oil in the US alone? The US share of the cost of securing our (the free world) oil supply alone is at least half the annual US total military spend, so $300 billion a year+. What is being spent to help kick-start the EV market and all the tax incentives on installing renewable power generation is tiny in comparison.

      The Planet won’t care if the sea levels are 10m higher than they are now nor if we have to cover ourselves head to toe to protect us from UV when we venture out of our homes and cars. It’s been around for a long time and has seen many species come and go. It won’t care a jot if we go the way of the dinosaurs but the 40% of the world’s population that lives in the first 10m above sea level will care. And so will our grandchildren.

      Trees chopped down can be re-planted, so it is an entirely sustainable fuel resource. The Co2 produced on burning is re-absorped by the growing, living re-planted trees, ergo, no net Co2 increase. I don’t see any new oil being made any more.

    • Martin WINLOW

      @ Matt Fisken – What a completely mis-informed load of clap-trap! “The questionable reliability of the grid, its dependency on burning fossil fuels, and the lowered efficiency of power transmissions does help the case for vehicles that still burn liquid fuels.” You do know that petrol and diesel come from crude oil, don’t you? And if you want to talk about poor efficiency, the 20% efficiency of your average ICE powered car is hardly anything to crow about, is it? Using renewably produced electricity locally is a much more sensible and sustainable concept.

  • Jim Stack

    I have a gaus meter and have checked all the new hybrids and Pure electric vehicles. The only one I even has a reading on was the old EV1 from GM. Those are gone so we are safe.

    You get more EMF from walking under a power like or the back on an olf Computer Monitor than an EV.

    Electrics save money ,it’s about $1 to drive my LEAF 50-60 miles. Most cars need2 or 3 gallons at $7-12 bucks to do that.
    EV’s don’t need a transmission, exhaust, catalytic converter and make energy while slowing down instead of waering out brakes and making brake dust !

    • Jim, you found no readings at all? You might want to replace your gauss meter…

      Here’s a study that was done a few years ago:

      As you can see, no car emits zero EMF.

      The cars I drive regularly produce a magnetic field of between 10 and 25 milligauss on the driver’s seat. Some new car get down around 2 mG. Older cars without a lot of electronics might be even less.

      For the sake of comparison, the side of our house closest to the power line varies between 1-2 mG, while the far side is between .25 and .75. We have an electric range and a fridge that make good sized fields, but only when they’re on and within a few feet. With a car, you don’t have much choice about where you sit, so it’d be preferable to have a lower EMF emitting model. An all-electric vehicle could be built with this goal in mind, but not many car manufacturers do.

      Generally, constant exposures to magnetic fields above 3 mG is not healthy. Your “mileage” may vary…

  • Tom Pelham

    George….Auto emissions are one of Vermont’s largest contributions to atmospheric carbon followed by fuel oil for home heating. Unfortunately, as your article implies, few Vermonters can afford to turn to electric vehicles (EV) as an alternative to fossil fuel powered cars due to the high cost of the vehicle, even with deep taxpayer subsidized tax credits. Compounding this barrier is that the cost of electricity in Vermont to recharge the EV is 40% higher than the national average and going higher. EPA says that on average your MiEV can travel 100 miles on $3.60 of electricity, assuming the national average cost of electricity per KwH of $.12. But in Vermont, the average residential cost per Kwh in July was $.164, thus costing a MiEV owner about $5 in electricity (plus an inconvenient 22 hours of charge time) to travel 100 miles. Further, even as electric rates are going down in the rest of New England, in Vermont rates are on the rise in large part because of state policies that discourage low cost natural gas generated electricity in favor of expensive and heavily subsidized wind and solar generated electricity. You can read more about that here:

    Bottom line, with electric rates on the rise due in part to deep subsidies for wind and solar generated electricity, very few Vermonters can afford the transition to EV’s. In the end, should Vermont continue to pursue strategies that result in higher and higher electric rates, then EV’s in Vermont will inevitably remain as only window dressing in the struggle to inhibit climate change.

    • Kathy Leonard

      With solar costs coming down rapidly (our 2K array would cost half as much today as it did 5 yrs ago) – I’m looking forward to Vermonters adding solar panels that will power their home or office by DAY and charge their electric cars at NIGHT! The cost of that fuel will not increase for 25 or so years.

      I’m also excited by forward-thinking companies like Dell, who have at their TX headquarters a shaded 50 car solar parking structure called the Solar Grove, which can re-charge EVs. The structure was built by Envision Solar, and fully operational should help avoid about 145,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions per year.

      • Tom Pelham

        Kathy…I hope you are right and certainly there are some solar photovoltaic pioneers in Vermont. Unfortunately, to date the facts don’t indicate that solar is a viable economic alternative. Here you can see that solar barely registers as a contributor to Vermont’s renewable electricity profile despite extraordinarily deep subsidizes paid by ratepayers and taxpayers to encourage solar usage — subsidies that allow solar developers to be paid up to $.27 per kwh when electricity purchased off the grid costs $.05 to $.06 per kwh.

        Further, solar photovoltaic has a long history of subsidized development that has yet to bear an economically viable result. My college roommate in the mid-seventies was very active in the solar movement in Colorado and Montana, spending part of his career at Colorado’s Solar Energy Research Institute. Yet, as I watched and supported his efforts as well as the efforts of nations and other states to incubate a viable solar economy, it unfortunately hasn’t happened over the past 35 years of effort. At this point it’s likely time to face this reality. It’s hard to justify asking Vermont’s rate payers, many of whom are of low and moderate income, to pay high electric rates in order to subsidize solar developers and solar consumers.

        • Kathy Leonard

          Tom, you said “the facts don’t indicate that solar is a viable economic alternative.”

          I don’t believe your referenced link says that at all. Have you read the entire report? Have you read that:

          “National solar PV capacity is growing rapidly. Tracking this rapid growth is a challenge, however, because PV solar is more often used at a consumer’s location—e.g., rooftop solar panels—and less often in large, centralized generating stations like other technologies.

          An estimate of total PV capacity must therefore account for many small installations (often referred to as distributed solar capacity). However, while EIA maintains an inventory of all power plants of 1 megawatt capacity and greater, there is NO CENSUS-either from government or industry—of the thousands of small rooftop commercial and residential solar PV installations across the United States.”

          In addition to not measuring any of Vermont’s individual net metered customers, the report doesn’t measure ANY OFF-GRID solar consumers in Vermont; many of those customers benefited from NO subsidy whatsoever and find solar quite viable. No worry about power outages from transmission disruptions either.

          The report also states:

          –Total shipments of PV modules were up nearly 43 percent in 2011 from the 2010 level, hitting a new record high of 3,772,075 peak kilowatt —

          Did you read the part that says New England’s solar generation grew by over 400% from 2011 to 2012? This growth is reflected all over VT. Some of this may be subsidized but what other source can you name that enjoys rates per kwh that will not likely change for 20-25 years? Not fossil or nukes.

          Your friend was into solar in the seventies?
          Has anything else you know of improved in 40 years?
          (Google Germany solar production).

          And why-oh-why are oil, gas and nukes still deserving of subsidy; these mature industries should’ve been weaned years ago. SOLAR is quite viable here, and if rental property owners are wise they will install solar in housing units to reduce their costs and that of their renters, for electric and hot water.

          Germany is farther north than Vermont and has disproven the old saw about Vermont not having enough sun long since.
          Solar is the solution that comes up every morning.

          • A few different questions are:

            Will renewables (including PV) ever replace or match the amount of electricity produced by conventional means at an equal or lesser cost?

            Will the energy from the sun be increasingly important to capture (not waste)?

            Are there things many Vermonters can do to reduce their electricity and fossil fuel consumption by taking advantage of the Sun’s free energy?

            I think solar panels have their place, just like wind hydro turbines. Building large PV “farms” is one way, but I’d rather see every home with a 100 watt panel trickle charging a single deep cycle battery for emergency use than all those panels in one place feeding the grid expensive, possibly low quality electricity (depending on the inverters used).

            I cannot stress enough the futility of the “renewables” debate as long as we are using electricity for heating purposes. Decentralizing the grid, de-incentivizing the use of heating coils (ranges, toasters, roof melters, electric blankets, clothes/hair dryers, and promoting mini-grids are crucial, but obviously these concepts fly in the face of the corporate-industrial model that utilities have always followed.

            In this climate, passive solar is a more realistic solution than active solar. Wash your south facing windows (remove screens or air conditioners), insulate a couple on the north/west side and let that winter sunshine do its job!

          • Kathy,

            The actual capacity factor in Germany is 0.95, out of a theoretical 0.12 for true-south-facing, clean, unshaded, new, fixed-tilt systems. In Vermont it is 0.12, out of 0.143. Both are dismal, compared with the US Southwest and Spain.

            2-axis sun tracking units are about 40% better.

            Even though PV solar PANELS are down in price, the total system cost, with a good inverter, is about $5,000/kW installed, not accounting for federal and state subsidies.

            Each kW installed produces about 1,250 kWh/yr, which reduces a household electric bill by about 1250 kWh x 0.15 c/kWh = $187.50/yr

        • Glenn Chase

          “solar photovoltaic has a long history of subsidized development”

          Just like nuclear, coal and hydro.

    • Bob Stannard

      Fortunately, our utilities opted not to re-sign with Vt. Yankee and get power at a better price elsewhere, don’t you think?

      As I recall, Tom, you and your organization were (and presumably misguidedly still are) big supporters of Entergy.

      • Tom Pelham

        Bob….your recall falters once again. Neither Campaign for Vermont nor I have engaged in the Vt. Yankee debate, unless you want to stretch my support for Bill Sorrel for AG in both the primary and final election as such. There are enough voices, some paid like yours and some more altruistic, on all sides of that issue and to add ours would serve little purpose. Regarding your question on getting power at a better price than Vt. Yankee, are you referencing GMP’s recent 23 year deal for nuclear power from Seabrook?

        • Bob Stannard

          Tom, this piece written by a man named Bruce Lisman in February of this year seems to imply that he supports Vt. Yankee.

          I might suggest that you might be the only person in Vermont who doesn’t believe that Mr. Lisman and his (your) group supports the continued operation of VY.

          If I’m not mistaken, I recall that Mr. Lisman founded CFVT. Perhaps he’s no longer involved.

        • Bob Stannard

          The PDF in my previous post came from the “All Things Nuclear” website promoted by Meredith Angwin. I believe that if we posed the question to her as to whether or not CFVT and Mr. Lisman support the VY plant she might disagree with you.

        • Bob Stannard

          Apologies, Tom, as I apparently didn’t hit post for that previous message.

          As you stated, GMP/CVPS negotied a long-term deal with Seabrook. However, you failed to mention that deal also included power from Hydro-Quebec. I believe going forward GMP plans to reduce the amount of power from Seabrook and increase power from HQ, and other renewable sources.

          How should we interpret your words, “neither you, nor CFVT, have “engaged” in the VY debate”. Does that mean that you don’t support the continued operation of the plant?

          • Tom Pelham

            Hi Bob…I would be glad to answer your above inquiries. But first, I’d like to know whether I’m responding to citizen Bob Stannard or registered lobbyist Bob Stannard, possibly being paid to troll blogs like Vt Digger to carry the message of your clients?

            In the meantime, you reference GMP weaning itself over time from its recently signed 23 year contract with Seabrook in favor of more power from Hydro Quebec. Given your embrace of “renewable” HQ, I thought you’d enjoy this relic denouncing my odd boss for his position on HQ.


  • Doug Hoffer

    Mr. Pelham’s figures are based on a comparison of Vermont electric rates with the national average. While accurate, it paints a somewhat misleading picture. Here are the latest costs for residential electricity (cents per kWh, Sept. 2012).

    12.33 U.S. average
    14.81 Maine
    15.08 Rhode Island
    15.22 Massachusetts
    15.65 New Jersey
    15.82 New Hampshire
    16.55 Vermont
    17.26 Connecticut
    18.97 New York

    All of the Northeast suffers from comparatively high electric costs, so Vermont doesn’t look like the terrible outlier Mr. Pelham would have us believe. And note that Vermont’s industrial rate is the second lowest in New England.

    In any case, paying $5.00 to drive 100 miles looks pretty good compared to the cost of gasoline. For a car getting 30 miles to the gallon, it would cost over $12.00 for the same 100 miles. Thus, for someone driving 15,000 miles per year, the electric car would save them over $1,000 per year.

    • Tom Pelham

      Doug…my presentation is not misleading at all. The EPA’s analysis of the cost to recharge a MiEV was based upon national average electric rates as $.12 per kwh. My clarification relative to Vermont is that our rates, at 40% above the national average, are far removed from those in the EPA’s presentation. A forty percent deviation is quite significant. Further, while I do appreciate your observation that New England’s electric rates have tracked higher than the nation’s, it’s important to note that over recent years this trend has not prevailed. Vermont’s electric rates have been rising while New England’s have been falling. Since 2008, USEIA data indicates that Vermont’s residential, commercial and industrial rates have increased by 17.5 percent, 14.9 percent and 10.8 percent respectively while comparable rates in New England are down by 11.1 percent, 11.9 percent and 8.3 percent. Whether benchmarked against national rates or New England rates, Vermont’s competitive position is deteriorating. I hope your “looks pretty good” analysis of the appeal of EV’s carry’s the day over the long run, but so far, the marketplace has yet to sustain your view even with the generous subsidies available for EV’s.

      • Doug Hoffer

        The suggestion that changes in rates are the result of those dreaded subsidies is simply not accurate.

        For the most part, utilities in the rest of New England rely on short-term contracts for power so they suffer when prices rise and win when prices decline. And it’s no accident that Mr. Pelham used figures from 2008 forward because other New England states experienced “double-digit price increases when fossil fuel prices increased from 2005 to 2008.”

        On the other hand (as Doug Smith pointed out in his recent vtdigger piece on this issue; see link above), Vermont utilities are betting on long-term contracts that offer more stability and predictability.

        As for the rates, let’s look back just a bit farther than 2008. Here are the percent increases in residential rates from 2001 to 2011(annual average; cents per kWh):

        17% Maine
        18% Rhode Island
        18% Massachusetts
        28% Vermont
        30% New York
        32% New Hampshire
        37% U.S. average
        59% New Jersey
        66% Connecticut

        Like many statistics, short-term figures like those used by Mr. Pelham are often less useful than those giving more perspective.

        In addition, you asserted that “Vermont’s competitive position is deteriorating” but offered no evidence in support. If it were true, how has Vermont managed outperformed much of the country coming out of the recession?

        Here is some additional perspective. From 2008 until Sept. of 2012, there were 26 states that had greater percentage increases in residential electric rates than Vermont.

        Finally, your repeated expressions of concern about subsidies for renewables and electric vehicles would be more persuasive if you acknowledged the deep and continuing subsidies for fossil fuels, including the terrible environmental, social, and public health externalities.

  • Janet Santor

    There are some very well thought out responses here and I agree with most of the ones in favor of EV’s. Having said that; there is one aspect of the EV that frightens me to “death” – SILENT!! We teach our children to “Stop, Look and LISTEN” before crossing the street. One or more of the folks commenting, addressed over population. The elderly, hearing impaired and wheel chair/scooter bound, cannot hear these vehicles turning a corner or darting out of an alley or drive-way. Yes, there has already been an elderly pedestrian fatality in Burlington, because of this. My grandson is legally blind, he can’t hear an EV coming down the road, even though he is at a legal crosswalk with audible cross signals. There will be maiming and death, remorseful drivers, and lawsuits from affected individuals maimed and grieving families, and yes; the population will be decreased.

    Another talking point is the eventual, undeniable advent of the pay-to-charge your vehicle. What we have now is a “free-trial offer”. Our studies seem to encompass only states that surround us. Were I to drive to see relatives in California, what would their charging stations charge, per charge up? How few and far between will these stations be? How well marked?? Will they be free in other states? I see no research on this aspect. Studies have to be expanded beyond our surrounding states and citizens need to know what will happen to their on electricity bills, should they plug in at home. All are points to ponder.

  • Doug,
    Here are the latest costs for residential electricity (cents per kWh, Sept. 2012).

    12.33 U.S. average
    14.81 Maine
    15.08 Rhode Island
    15.22 Massachusetts
    15.65 New Jersey
    15.82 New Hampshire
    16.55 Vermont
    17.26 Connecticut
    18.97 New York

    Do you have the source URL?
    Do you have data for the past 5 years?

  • Paul Gracey


    I am a New Englander transplanted to California long, long ago. I would like to adress two of your criticisms from personal experience. One, Electric cars are not silent. They are no more silent than a Rolls Royce, and for the same reason. They make mostly tire and wind noise at speed. Even at slow speed zones where the onus is on the driver to avoid pedestrians there are noises made with or without a noisy engine from the fans, the radio and again the tires. That argument is just scare tactics amongst the nay sayers.
    Two, we in California already have charging stations that require subscription, though as in Vermont the governmental bodies see fit to provide the service ‘free’ as incentive in many places. At present it is not exactly practical to drive from coast to coast, but the Electric Highway going north and south is filling in rapidly. I rode a bicycle from coast to coast twelve years ago and I can attest to the fact that the center of our great country is fairly hostile to anything on their highways not motorized. Local media there does very little to encourage alternatives except as recreation. In time we will all look back at this time and wonder why we were so doubtful. The electric car is the future. Just look at Elon Musk’s Tesla Model S and remember there was a time when only the well to do could afford automobiles at all.

  • tina juarez

    I love the shadow of the photographer balancing the Mi-EV omn their head.. I guess it is all a balancing act!

  • Martin WINLOW

    George, Good for you and I hope it works out well. I test drove an iMiev under a Peugeot Ion badge (exactly the same car, as is the Citroen C-Zero) here in the UK recently as a local Peugeot dealer was offering them for UK£13 (about $20.8k). Ours have the ChaDeMo fast-charge socket (50kW DC) as well as a standard UK 13A plug which made it very appealing. I have a Vectrix electric motorbike at the moment and before that drove a DIY converted van EV. So I have been driving EVs for 3 1/2 years now over about 20k miles.

    Have Mitsubishi intimated whether you can keep the car at the end of the lease somehow, assuming you will want to of course?

    Leasing an EV is an interesting idea as it makes it very easy for the consumer to compare costs of ownership with running an ICEV. The EV’s ‘fuel’ is nigh-on free compared to petrol (certainly is over here where we are paying about $8/gallon for petrol) and it definitely is free for you!

    Do you get any money from the G’ment for the power you produce? We have a ‘Feed In Tariff’ scheme here. You currently get £0.15 for every kWh you generate (used to be £0.43/kWh), guaranteed for 25 years (!), plus ~£0.03/kWh from the utility company and you don’t have to pay for the power you use yourself. So it is quite generous. The FIT scheme has reduced the cost of PV in the UK by a good 50% in the last couple of years to the point where it is almost as cheap as it is in the US.