How practical are electric cars? The sequel.

A few days after I wrote part one of these blogs, Chevy came out with an estimated cost of the Volt, and my frugal Midwestern farm girl inner voice cried “Holy capped carburetors! Seriously?”

The Volt will come in at around $40,000, making it about $33,000 after the government credit. (The Nissan Leaf starts at $33,000 before the tax credit.)

A lot of people I talked to about this---for I was a bit surprised that a car the size of my right tennis shoe would cost $40,000---made valid points about it being expensive to research and develop and such. And, again, I realize that my growing-up-Heidi upbringing might have me leaning a bit cheap on most purchases. (I recently refused to buy a belt because I thought a utilitarian strap to hold up my low-riders should not be more expensive than $30 unless it is inlaid in some sort of semi-precious stone.) But, still, who’s going to buy an electric car that costs like a sports car without the sex factor?

And, really, $40,000 is the base model, before bells and whistles, and it’s the MSRP. When’s the last time you bought a car at the MSRP?

I’ve got to say, I’m still on the fence about this electric car thing, overall. I want to be persuaded. I know I can be persuaded. Heck, General Mills cereal persuades me constantly with its shiny cereal advertising, but I’m still a bit stuck on this whole cost/benefit analysis thing. The cereal has it easy: it’s cheap and tasty and convenient. Triple bonus. The Volt has it hard. I admit that. I’m a tough sell.

It reminds me of the time I looked into solar panels for my house. $20,000 for something that would need about ten years to recoup the costs but would probably have to be replaced in five---and that was if it survived a good Oklahoma hail storm.

Man, it is expensive to save the world. Unlike Al Gore---whom I like, by the way---I just cannot afford it.

But, back to the Volt. I currently drive a Kia. It cost $20,000. That’s half the price of the Volt and about the same price I could have paid for those solar panels, although the panels couldn’t drive my bad self to work. The Kia gets pretty decent gas mileage, doesn’t cost a lot in repairs and is reliable. Plus, no limit on those miles beforehand.

So, would I pay twice the cost of my current vehicle to save the world? Not right now. In the future? Maybe---really---but there’s a catch: You have to prove to me it’s going to make a difference, this large and expensive Earth purchase.

I always have the same thought with electric cars, and it centers around hype. I can get used to the inconveniences (remembering to schedule charging on down time, looking for a charging station if out and about, thinking more about a car than I’m used to), and I can even get used to the price. I had similar sticker shock when CDs began to rule over cassettes when I was a music fiend in high school.

But, I’m having trouble with the logic, with the end result.

See, I live in the Midwest where use of fossil fuels is pretty prevalent in electricity production. So, while I’d be personally polluting less with an electric car, have I not simply shifted that pollution footprint to a power company? Am I making a real dramatic difference, or is it just a slight of hand? And, is it possible that shifting the pollution footprint to a power company could make that footprint an even larger one, in the long run?

Renewables are a growing force in the power arena, but they are still hovering at 3-4% of overall power production. That means 96-97% is non-renewable. OK, so 20% is nuclear. It doesn’t pollute---at least, not in a “puffy clouds in the sky” way. So, that kicks it down to 76-77%. We’ll be generous and say 75%.

So, if 75% of power production is still the carbon-emitting kind, am I making a difference buying an electric car? And, will I feel like a schmuck for spending twice as much to get no real results on the global warming front?

It’s something to ponder. What are your thoughts?