No doubt his operating costs are low. The question of the paper is: how long do you have to operate the car before the savings equal the difference in purchase?

Somebody might feel good about spending more for a car that they like or that protects the environment, etc.

> ...before the savings equal the difference in purchase twice.

Why twice? Isn't once sufficient?

One reason to require the expectation to be better than break even might be due to uncertainty. But EVs seem to have developed into better certainty about maintenance costs, since there are fewer suddenly large expenses ("need a new turbo" was my most recent ICE sudden expense experience, for example).

That was a typo that I just fixed.

When people buy things they become defensive about their choices.

Sometimes, other times they become vocal and entrenched detractors. I've purchased and used many dell computers in the past, and I have nothing but disdain for the company.

Or maybe it's just really irritating when people post low-effort articles that are obviously in conflict with personal experience.

> Personal anecdotes with skin in the game (ie, the OP chooses to continue owning a Tesla)

N=1

> are more informative than "journalism" [0] paid to have an opinion [1].

That's quite the statement. Can you point which parts of the article are paid for ? Especially when the conclusion goes against the title:

> With battery prices predicted to continue steadily declining in the coming years, the math is likely to shift more in favor of EVs.

[0] your bias is showing

[1] everyone is entitled to it but for an opinion piece there were still some sources in it