With batteries performance going up and their price going down, there are no reasons why future e-vehicles would not cost less to buy and much less to operate than their ICEVs equivalent.

The perceived price difference will progressively disappear in favor of future BEVs.

With few exceptions, ICEVs are on their way out.

Future cars and small trucks will be electrified. Future large trucks, inter-city buses, locomotives and heavy machinery will use improved FCs.

Much self-righteous indignation accompanies any privately funded effort to promote the use of ICEVs over EVs today.

What apoplexy would result if the government funded a program to demonstrate that the total cost of conventional combustion-engined cars is less than electric vehicles.

@ HarveyD

The perceived price difference MAY progressively disappear in favor of future BEVs.

With few exceptions, over the last 15 years, ICEVs have made greater strides in increasing fuel efficiency than battery powered vehicles.

Electrified cars and small trucks have remained available for 100 years, but acceptance has been minimal (even in the last 15 years).

Future cars, small trucks, large trucks, inter-city buses, locomotives and heavy machinery will most likely make much greater use of alternate technologies to reduce or eliminate oil consumption.

What/who is stopping this years old battery:

" And as for durability, DBM said the KOLIBRI battery’s lifespan should be 10 years, or 5,000 charge cycles. Recharge time for a version like the one that went 284.3 miles might be only four minutes or so.

But what would it cost? An estimated price for a (larger) 98.8-kWh version was a paltry $1,100-$1,400 (€800-€1,000)."

http://gm-volt.com/2011/04/12/cost-effective-ev-battery-reportedly-passes-tests-recharges-in-minutes/

German government lab tested and monitored by http://gm-volt.com

Its a lot more marketing and demographics than you think.
It never ceases to amaze me that environmentalists continue to shoot themselves in the foot by thinking that people will buy because of studies like this. People buy because they are investing in something that makes their life better. They are less likely to buy or are part of a small minority of ideologues if they are being preached to or told it is the right thing to do. There are a lot fewer people than one would believe, irrespective of whatever simplistic polls you can find or inciteful blogs you read, that people will invest in a vehicle because it saves the earth or cuts dependency on foreign oil. Really. All other factors being equal and necessary, an EV won't win because of ethics or values. If it is not better that the current, it will not win -not even heavily subsidized. Not in the US. Which brings us to marketing and demographics. What these EV companies should be doing is targeting middle and upper-middle class people who fundamentally buy SUVs. Battery weight and price sensitivity is less of an issue with them. They are the early adopters, the non-enviro partisans, the consumers that push us beyond mediocrity. Get range extenders and sell them on the 'rarely have to fill up again at an inconvenient gas stations during your daily commute' and 'power up on your own time' messages out there and you'll be selling EV Escalades far faster than volts or the other nonsense. Convenience and comfort over ethics always. always. It is the most delicious irony that the saviors of the world will actually be those who care about it least, the McMansion owners with their heavy vehicle fleets. Imagine the Escalade pulling up beside the hybrids and limited PHEVs, and then being able to say that their vehicle is completely EV powered and that they have not used (personally, not grid) any fossil fuels (and may have on-site renewables). Watch the dirty hippies cringe for it is no longer them that have the higher moral ground. Technology acceptance is in the hands of the monied. The trickle down effect of course is that smaller vehicles - for the huddling masses - will then be available, as SUVs will make up the majority of the auto industry profit margin (hey, just like in the late 90's and early 00's). Just like super successful Apple - sell the lifestyle.

CORRECTIO:

para 2) should read ..progressive instead of progress...

@cujet
“With fuel costs often being the major operational cost ”

That is what is called a mutually exclusive assumption. Since BEV have very limited range, you can not drive a lot.

“it's a fair bet it could rise to that level everywhere. ”

Not really! The cost of making 95% of power is under 5 c/kwh. What you are seeing is hidden taxes.

“use falling solar power prices ”

Solar city does not tell you what it costs to make power. Solar city is a scam and those who think I am wrong may want to have thier attorney review the contract before you sign away your house.

If Walmart wants to greenwash as a marketing tool that does not suggest anything about the cost of solar. I look forward to the day that kelly provides a spreadsheet showing the cost of solar. maybe an MBA could do that.

@kelly: well, i'm not an SUV driving or middle-class (yet) person myself, but the world needs a shake-up when they think that the typical $50k american family will have 'saving the earth' as anywhere on their radar when buying a new vehicle. Every new successful disruptive technology has almost always come from above - high income, early adopter types. They take risks. They want to be first. Let them. Autos are no different than mid-to-high-end entertainment systems or powerful personal computers in their selling demographic targets. I have no personal concern if 80% of all high-range EVs are $60k+ or $700/month lease for the first five years of roll-out as long as they're well-engineered and reliable. Why try to sell to everyone when the majority of engineering problems have to do with it making it on the low-end of the buyer scale - weight, pack placement, cycle expectations, etc. Those are economy-people concerns. Trying to be politically correct or popular with EV roll-out is just killing it. Further, I find it amusing to no end that many of the people on this blog get so concerned with irrelevant concepts like energy density, per kWh costing, etc. When driving styles and lifestyle concerns are so variable as to make such concepts irrelevant even with the same person driving for many different reasons (commute vs. chores vs trip). Even battery range concerns disappear when you get to F150 and full-size SUV weights. The Tesla X will be a greater bell-weather for right-demographic introductions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_X. Later this year, maybe?

Jer, one passenger use SUVs and 15 mpg pickups don't help anyone and the SUV master went bankrupt, costing each taxpayer $100's in bailouts.

"I find it amusing to no end that many of the people on this blog get so concerned with irrelevant concepts like energy density, per kWh costing, etc." SO, ok - Green Car Congress is not your 'cup of tea'.

Tesla Model S has 1,000s more reservations than high end MB S class or BMW 7 series autos, but not sure about an 'S' pickup truck market.

The lowly $28,000 Leaf seems already viewed as 'too expensive' and 'high end'. Folks forget ~80,000 miles of gasoline is included - electricity cost relative to gas - however many tens of $thousands in years of future fuel hikes.

There is also ~10 EV moving parts maintenance vs ICE $thousands.

@TT, I read the article last week and wondered:

How many average "stop n' go"/taxi city miles were driven?
Simple missing info, why.

"..that two drivers share the same vehicle in two 12-hour shifts, an average cab being used to pull double shifts could rack up 93,600 miles in a year or more." http://www.ehow.com/info_8446407_many-cab-driver-drive-yearly.html

Think an ICE taxi DOESN'T need maintenance(oil, transmissions, exhaust, etc, etc..) in the $1,000s?

The battery is about the only maintenance an EV drive train can have.

"..warranty will "protect against capacity loss in LEAF batteries that fall below nine bars, of the available 12 bars displayed on the vehicle’s battery capacity gauge [so around 70%], for the first five years or 60,000 miles in the United States, whichever comes first. For LEAF vehicles whose batteries have fallen below nine bars during this period, Nissan will repair or replace the battery under warranty with a new or remanufactured battery to restore capacity at or above a minimum of nine bars." http://www.treehugger.com/cars/nissan-beefs-leaf-battery-warranty-cover-capacity-loss-will-others-follow.html

There is a reason most auto makers don't warranty taxis.

@TT, you might note http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/02/sonata-20130222.html#comments

The Sonata Li-ion hybrid battery is warrantied "forever".

No matter how many million miles or how many ICE engines burn up - the Li-ion battery will work or be replaced.

Show me your forever ICE engine warranty.

I often wonder how you anti-EV/anti-electricity people get on the electric internet or what you use for non-electric TVs, appliances, cell phones, etc..