Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Will Be First Automaker To Lose the Federal Tax Credit For Electric Cars (theverge.com)
Tesla has confirmed to Jalopnik that its 200,000th vehicle has been delivered this month, meaning the full $7,500 federal tax credit for electric cars will slowly be phased out. Tesla is the first automaker to reach this mark. "GM is close, too, while Nissan, Ford, and others still have a ways to go," notes The Verge. From the report: Tesla customers who take delivery of their cars -- regardless of whether it's a Model S, X, or 3 -- between now and December 31st, 2018, will still be eligible for the full $7,500 credit from the IRS. Customers who take delivery of their cars between January 1st and June 30th, 2019, will only be eligible for a $3,750 credit. And customers who take delivery of their cars between July 1st and December 31st, 2019, will be offered just $1,875. After that, the incentive is dead.
Put in place early on in the Obama administration, the tax credit was seen as a tool that could be used to encourage customers to buy plug-in electric or hybrid vehicles. This would simultaneously help advance the president's climate and clean energy goals while offering consumers a bit of a break while the cost of battery technology slowly came down. It was also meant to encourage manufacturers to push for greater advancements in that technology. The dollar amount was technically flexible; it was essentially a $2,500 credit with room to increase up to $7,500 depending on the battery capacity of the car being sold. The better the battery in a company's car, the better the rebate their buyers would get.
Put in place early on in the Obama administration, the tax credit was seen as a tool that could be used to encourage customers to buy plug-in electric or hybrid vehicles. This would simultaneously help advance the president's climate and clean energy goals while offering consumers a bit of a break while the cost of battery technology slowly came down. It was also meant to encourage manufacturers to push for greater advancements in that technology. The dollar amount was technically flexible; it was essentially a $2,500 credit with room to increase up to $7,500 depending on the battery capacity of the car being sold. The better the battery in a company's car, the better the rebate their buyers would get.
Not only did he move the Overton window so far that a Trump was inevitable... but also created incentives to buy electric cars, which have clearly been so popular with Teslas, have allowed it's CEO to make massive donations to the GOP: http://fortune.com/2018/07/15/...
Why hasnt President Orange done away with this BIGLY pork barrelling? Draining the swamp.. any day now! Be best!
Oh, president man-baby drained the swamp on day one, straight into his cabinet, staff, judicial and other appointments.
What are you talking about? Every building those Kushner fuckers build comes with like a 99 year tax abatement.
The way the thing is set up at the moment, as soon as a automaker hits 200,000 cars the subsidy decay clock begins for that automaker. Other manufacturers can amble up to the line and then take their swill from the trough at their leisure knowing their slice is reserved.
A better way would have been to have a larger shared trough of subsidy $ that is gobbled up and gone when it's gone. That would have accelerated EV manufacture as it would encourage more rapid adoption and penalise the slackards.
There's just no such thing as a cheaper way to power cars... just a different way of doing things.
Actually, it's much cheaper to power an electric car.
if there was a better way to move fuel, everybody would be going for it.
And everybody would move to electric cars if the cars themselves cost the same amount of money.
Eventually, EVs will be similarly priced to ICE cars and ICE will quickly evaporate. The problem we currently face is mass manufacturing batteries in a way that will lower their cost.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Eventually, EVs will be similarly priced to ICE cars and ICE will quickly evaporate. The problem we currently face is mass manufacturing batteries in a way that will lower their cost.
My used 2015 Nissan leaf was significantly cheaper to buy than an equivalent ICE car and is significantly cheaper to run.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Then you factor in the fact that the fuel storage weighs just as much when full than when it's empty. Also these so-called Zero Emission Vehicles are only zero at the consumption end. This falls apart when you factor in the emissions generated to create the energy. Tanstaafl!
the electric vehicle tax credits began prior to obama's administration. it was tacked onto the bank bailout bill that was passed a month before the 2008 election.
Weight is less of a problem when you have regenerative braking. Also, electric motors weigh a lot less than the ICE.
Model 3 weights are about the same as their performance equivalents in the same size class from BMW (3 Series). It takes about ten minutes each time time to dig up all the references, so I'm not going to be bothered to do it again for the tenth time, but if you want to do it yourself: Model 3 SR roughly matches up with a BMW 330i, Model 3 LR roughly matches up with a 340i. Don't forget to add in roughly half a tank of gas to the BMWs. Beyond these, Dual Motor adds a lot of performance for just a small extra weight penalty (Model 3 SR dual motor might even end up faster than the 340i), and Performance adds even more.
But I know you guys prefer to mismatch size classes when you do your comparisons, so by all means ;)
Model 3 LR also goes further in city driving on a full charge than the 340i goes on a full tank, by the way ;) And the former starts out every day charged; the latter averages half a tank available on any given day. The 340i only beats the LR on range in combined and highway driving.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Programme was established under Bush. Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Moving energy by powerline is no way cheaper than moving petro to your gas station
Are you kidding? You think that a network of pumps, rigs, refining factories, trucks, boats, pipelines, etc is "in no way cheaper" than some static power lines? Have you recently been hit in the head with a heavy object?
I don't respond to AC's.
Moving energy by power line would have to be cheaper, or at least no more expensive. If it weren't, you'd expect to see far more people getting their power by dumping petrol into a generator attached to their house as opposed to connecting to the power grid. As you suggest, if this were a cheaper way of doing things, more people would be doing it.
However, that's not the point. The reason that electric cars result in savings has little to do with the costs of moving the fuel around. Instead it has to do with the efficiency limitations of internal combustion engines. Electric motors can operate much closer to 100% efficiency so even though gasoline is a good way to store energy, an internal combustion engine wastes a lot of it. If battery technology were better or less expensive for today's performance levels, you'd see even more people moving to electric cars. Essentially you pay more up front for savings over time, which can depend quite a lot on the price of oil or electricity.
I can buy a BMW series for under $35000 today. Meanwhile Tesla just canceled their $35000 model 3.
but the wealthy buy both parties off. The only solution is candidates who pledge to take no corporate PAC money. Right now these are the Democrat equivalent. If anyone knows any Republican equivalents let me know. I haven't found any but that doesn't mean they're not out there.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In order to undo Obama era incentives, as promised, the administration would need to institute a hefty tax levy on battery-powered vehicles. Then offer a tax incentive or price subsidy for coal-powered vehicles. These fracking natural-gas snake-oil salesmen are a flash in the pan. Coal is here to stay.
EV sales aren't being driven by the market though. They're being driven by California's ZEV mandate, which requires a certain percentage of each automaker's sales be EVs (or they buy credits from an automaker who exceeds their quota). If they fail, they're banned from selling cars in California. And since about a dozen states automatically adopt California's guidelines, they'd end up banned from selling cars from about a third of the U.S. by population. Nobody wants to be cut off from a third of the U.S. market, so they're all working to push out EVs, and offer incentives and sales to make sure they sell enough of them to meet their quota.
Once you understand that, you realize that giving each automaker a reserved slice of the subsidy is the only way to make it fair.
... 35k magical car with a 7500 rebate.
Too good to be true I guess.
Much cheaper perhaps, until they figure out how to move the gas taxes per gallon to electric car taxes per kilowatt (or just plain tax you by the mile when you renew auto registration). Having it per gallon made people at least try to get more efficient gas cars, per mile not so much.
Amazing how quickly people forget history. This tax credit was established under Bush.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
instead of insults try math and physics
most the electricity in usa comes from fossil or nuclear plants, so better include all the costs for moving those fuels and wastes around too
electric comes out somewhat better for vehicles but not as much as your emotions might imply
Programme was established under Bush. Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.
So what?! The FACT is that little people like ME subsidies the rich.
I don't give a shit about WHO did it- just the FACT that I am getting screwed.
Unbelievable.
Subsidies exist to convince people to buy something they need convincing to own.
That was every electric car before the Tesla. If you couldn't get a $7k rebate, there was no reason to put up with the nonsense like super limited range or performance.
Tesla, to my mind, built the first electric car that is simply desirable to own outright - as such the rebate was merely a nice bonus, but no rebate will hardly slow sales. That's because the styling is good (well the Model 3 is anyway, I don't like the styling of the other cars), the performance is amazing, and they have a range option that is large enough to make the Tesla a serious road trip car and eliminate range anxiety.
If I didn't have zero reason at the moment to be buying a new car, I would be jumping at getting a Model 3. If I had any reason to be buying a car it would be one of the few I would consider looking at.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I like my truck to go camping in. I also take extra gas with me. Can't do that with an EV. Dream on tree huggers dream on.
Curious how you paid "your fair share" for infrastructure like roads and bridges - all those more expensive to run ICE vehicles paid for them with gasoline taxes.
EVs will remain cheaper than ICE vehicles as long as they get to use the roads, bridges and tunnels for free.
Ken
Much cheaper perhaps, until they figure out how to move the gas taxes per gallon to electric car taxes per kilowatt (or just plain tax you by the mile when you renew auto registration).
By the time that's required, ICE will be an expensive sinking ship.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Tesla did no such thing, and your article says no such thing.
Indeed, discussion of the $35k Model 3 remains all over the Tesla site. What it doesn't appear on is the config page. Just like how other things like air suspension, cream interior for non-performance cars, non-PUP, trailer hitch, and a trunk full of live bees don't appear on the page - because you can't order a car in that configuration at the moment.
But by all means, keep up the concern trolling.
Lastly: you cannot buy a BMW for $35k that matches the performance of a Model 3 you can buy today. All issues of tax credits and energy savings aside.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
I recently bought a uses 2015 Leaf as well. For the price and the gas savings (with charging at work), it makes a lot of financial sense.
Here in Ontario , the newly elected Progressive Conservative government cancelled any tax incentives for electric cars, starting September. But that is only when you buy the car through a dealer. If you buy the car directly (like all Teslas are), the incentives are cancelled immediately, leaving those who ordered Teslas on the hook for C$14,000 more.
The PC government also cancelled a large wind project, with hefty penalties expected, and cancelled the carbon trading system, which provided C$100 million for schools. No tax credits for retrofitting homes for more power efficiency (insulation, windows, furnaces, ...etc.)
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
EVs will remain cheaper than ICE vehicles as long as they get to use the roads, bridges and tunnels for free.
Even if there was a 100% tax on the electricity used to power EVs, it would still be cheaper!
If you are serious about infrastructure taxes then you should tax based on damage done by weight. Big rigs with heavy loads do 10000x the damage as a your run of the mill two ton car. Trucking companies are effectively being subsidized by everyone else.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I agree with you to a point. At the moment, Tesla is selling Model 3s at around $50,000. If, if, they start selling the $35,000 version, I'll fully agree with you.
Workaround: Instantiate a new auto manufacturer. New auto manufacturer gets itself certified for the subsidy. New auto manufacturer acquires or licenses/rents old manufacturer's tech and infrastructure and customer contact lists, "poaches" most of old manufacturer's employees, re-brands the product, and continues all operations with little or no procedural alterations. Then once the subsidy expires again, the two auto manufacturers merge and the process repeats.
Eh, increasing the supply of power plants is comparable to the distribution network required to fuel cars? Are you a troll or a complete idiot?
85% of the power delivered to my house is zero-carbon-emission, with 58% of it being categorized as "renewable" (wind, solar, and small hydro). 27% is from large hydro. 15% is "unspecified", likely purchased on the open market to cover spikes in demand.
The local power company will be offering 100% carbon-free power later this year for an extra cent-per-kilowatt hour. I intend to switch to that, as well as adding a grid-tied solar system to the roof of my house (at the very least, it'd lower my bill and make using air conditioning much less expensive).
So, while there's likely still some carbon emission due to constructing the various generating stations, and in the 15% of "unspecified" sources of power, the electricity I use to power my Chevy Bolt is dramatically cleaner than burning gasoline, and any emissions take place relatively far from where I live, drive, and work. More effective emissions controls can be installed on a stationary power plant far more easily than on size-and-weight-constrained mobile vehicles. Charging at night, during off-peak times, can be considerably cheaper and help balance power consumption, thus increasing the efficiency of the whole system.
Electric vehicles have a dramatic advantage over gas-powered vehicles, in that the sources of electric power can be incrementally changed and improved over time without needing to change anything on the consumer's end. For example, coal power plants could be gradually shut down and replaced with natural gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Thus, the energy used to power people's home, work, and vehicles would become incrementally cleaner. That's not really feasible with gas or diesel vehicles, since any replacement fuel would need to be compatible with existing engines, widely available, etc. So far, that's not really happened.
Not really? I mean, yes, there was a similar tax credit as part of TARP, with sharper limitations that was basically not ever claimed, and it was replaced by the Obama administration, fulfilling a campaign promise...
Actually I can by buy a $35000 BMW today that exceeds the performance of a any piece of shit Tesla.
The BMW 340i has an EPA rated city range of 336 miles (16 gallons, 21 MPG), the Tesla Model 3 LR has a range of 310 (according to Tesla.
The BMW 340i can be refueled in under 10 minutes, the Tesla Model 3 takes a bit longer.
Ken
It doesn't fall apart when you exercise long-term planning and responsibility and don't allow thrall-to-the-fossil-industry troglodytes like Mitch McConnell and his ilk to attain power. Where I live, we did consider these things. And we did tell the fossil industry what to go do with itself. And we get 86% of our power from emissions-free sources: a combination of mostly hydro plus wind and nuclear. This leaves only Vermont as a greener state than us:
http://planwashington.org/blog...
Add in my home's solar panels and the power wall I ought to have in place before the end of the year; and I'll guarantee-damn-tee that my Model S's net emissions beat whatever dinosaur-burner you want to submit.
That was every electric car before the Tesla. If you couldn't get a $7k rebate, there was no reason to put up with the nonsense like super limited range or performance.
Nope. The problem was they were almost entirely not for sale at any price. GM destroyed their EV1s. Other companies behaved similarly. Toyota barely managed to make a few hundred RAV EVs for sale and all of them were sold.
Sorry, but that's the reality.
By the time that's required, ICE will be an expensive sinking ship.
I've been hearing things like that for 35+ years now. I've learned to become very very patient on waiting for anything to replace petroleum fuels. My best guess for the future now is someone will develop a means to synthesize hydrocarbons using nuclear power. We'll still be burning gasoline, only it won't be from oil drilled out of the ground.
Tell me something, when do you predict that this will happen? I predict that we'll be burning petroleum in cars, trucks, trains, planes, and ships, for at least another 30 years. After that we could see synthetic fuels have enough infrastructure, and petroleum become hard enough to find, to be the primary fuel. Alternatively there's the possibility of some new technology to come along, or we have some widespread war or plague and we're back to horses and sails to move about. The chances of electric powered transportation to dominate look very slim.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The current US credit was codified into law in the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008. It was never "replaced"; it was insignificantly modified by ARRA and ACES, but generally kept in its original form.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Consumer adoption of EV's is dependent on the charging infrastructure needed to power their vehicles. Drive 10 miles in any direction and you will pass 6 - 10 gas stations. And it not just the availability of charging stations it is the amount of time required to charge your battery. How long does it take to fill up your average car's gas tank? Consumers will want the same type of convenience charging their electric vehicles that they have with their gas powered vehicles. And if number of EV's increase that only means you will need to support both the old or current power delivery infrastructure with the infrastructure needed to support EV's. They could roll out an EV tomorrow that only needs a recharge every 1000 miles but people are not going to all much out and get rid of their gas powered vehicles and by a new EV.
A Tesla Model 3 is not comparable to a BMW 3-Series. Moreover, even if it were, you stil could not actually go out and buy one, so the point is moot.
In New Zealand we have "Road User Charges" for diesel powered vehicles. It acknowledges that a lot of diesel fuel is used for non-roadgoing purposes (agricultural tractors, stationary generators etc.) so taxing the fuel for transport infrastructure at purchase is unfair. So those who have diesel powered vehicles purchase "Road User Charges" vouchers in blocks of 1000kms. The rate is set by vehicle weight class. Vouchers must be displayed and they show mileage tallies. This can be checked against the vehicle's odometer by traffic police and there are fines for driving without sufficient RUC purchase. For a standard private car they get charged NZ$62 per 1000 kms. A 45 tonne truck pays NZ$359 per 1000kms. I imagine this scheme will eventually carry over to EVs when the fleet is large enough to be statistically considered in transport infrastructure costings. These "RUCs" add to the overall cost of running a diesel vehicle, but for passenger vehicles it is still somewhat cheaper overall (but not by much)
Eventually, EVs will be similarly priced to ICE cars and ICE will quickly evaporate. The problem we currently face is mass manufacturing batteries in a way that will lower their cost.
I agree with you on the general trendline. But would not expect ICE to die without a fight.
Battery prices are dropping. Tesla has 30% advantage over other battery makers due to scale. They are at 130 $/kWh. When the price breaks 100 $/kWh a Battery EV will cost the same as what ICEV costs today. But as the day approaches, ICEV prices will drop, squeeze the margins of ICEV makers. Even small reduction in demand will create a glut in oil market and reduce gasoline prices, changing the break even calculations. So it is a moving target, and eventually ICEV will die, but it will lash out like a cornered wild animal before giving up its ghost.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
if they had added to the incentives a plan to aim them at the middle class, the car companies would have been incented to make electric cars the middle class could afford.
The subsidies were not really aimed at consumers - they were clearly put in place to encourage the wealthy car executives who supported Obama and the virtue signalling rich liberals in places like greater San Francisco. When all is said and done, it will become clear that this was yet another wealth transfer program from the middle class to the wealthy - and that will be no surprise given its parentage within both the Bush43 and Obama admins.
Really a dumb argument. Sorry. If you want to go down that path, you should tax by weight and frequency of driving on particular roads. Ride sharing cars are heavier, and fatter people do more damage. After you are done with those calculations, you would pay more for the red tape than you would ever make in taxes. Everyone pays for the road, whether you use them or not, whether you drive a big truck or a bicycle. Trying to change that around is just dumb. Sorry, but it is. Please think of another argument against EVs.
As a right-wing geek, I am all for regular cars, electric cars, solar panels, windmills, nat gas plants, coal-fired plants, nuclear plants, tide power, hydroelectric dams, oil-burning ships, wind-driven ships, nuclear powered ships, etc. The TECHNICALLY best solutions should win in a free market, producing the most-efficient economy and society.
I want every technical solution to a problem to be tried, and on a level playing ground un-distorted by ideological partisan political government manipulation that is planned and implemented by lobbyists and armies of bribed lawyers. I want scientists, engineers, hobbyists and yes even billionaires to be as free as possible to experiment and to innovate and I care little for whether they are puttering with a pet project that will never do more than make a handful of users happy or whether they are pouring billions into a project they hope will remake the world - I want maximum freedom and liberty, which will provide maximum innovation and ultimately maximum choice for end users.
I own an X3 and a model 3. So talking with experience. You are talking theoretically without actual ownership experience. Charging overnight every day saves you more time than what you lose in supercharging on long distance driving.
Wife fills the X3 up every week, spending 15 minutes for the gas station trip among other chores. That is 13 hours per year. Supercharging takes 15 minutes more than gas station breaks (200 miles in 30 minutes in supercharger). I need to use the supercharger 52 times to lose time in electric vehicles.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
My used 2015 Nissan leaf was significantly cheaper to buy than an equivalent ICE car and is significantly cheaper to run.
Do you think it possible that this could be because of the car being subsidized on its first sale, low demand for used electric cars, or some combination of the two? I'm pleased that you are happy with your purchase but if more people wanted electric cars then you would not have been able to buy that Leaf as cheaply as you did.
A quick Google search tells me that the average time a buyer of a new car keeps their vehicle is 6 years. You bought a car used that's only 3 years old. Why would someone keep a car for only 3 years and then sell it? Perhaps they were not satisfied with it? That might also explain the low price you paid, the seller was willing to take a bath on the sale to be rid of it. The original owner might not have sold at an effective loss but the dealer where you bought it from may have. If it's such a great car then it's likely to have stayed with its original owner for another couple years.
I don't know how much you paid, where you bought it, or how you defined "equivalent". This is all very subjective and when it comes down to it all this subjectivity is reflected by something objective, price. People buy all the time on how they compute cost to benefit, dealers adjust prices to what people are willing to pay. My guess is that you defined "equivalent" differently enough from the rest that you viewed this Leaf as a deal compared to the "equivalent" models offered. Had more people shared your view of value then the price of that Leaf would have been higher.
Given that the government is still subsidizing electric car sales for them to still sell as poorly as they do tells me that electric cars are still a terrible deal for large portions of the population. Maybe this is based on people having a view of electric cars that is outdated, and that people will have to learn to dispose of an old bias. What helps to enforce this bias is seeing a question on their tax forms on if they bought an electric car in the last year, and getting money if they answer yes. If electric cars are the best deal out there today then it's time to get rid of the subsidy and let the bias against electric cars go with it.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
30D was completely replaced in ARRA.
> (a) In General.--Section 30D is amended to read as follows: [entire text of current language]
[entire text replaced, with some similarities with prior language... but e.g. changing limit to 250k per mfr instead of 250k total, threshold, interactions with depreciation, etc]
The people that want them can afford them and would buy them without the government subsidy.
My best guess for the future now is someone will develop a means to synthesize hydrocarbons using nuclear power. We'll still be burning gasoline, only it won't be from oil drilled out of the ground.
You might as well guess that we'll find a way to give people superpowers by nuclear radiation so that everybody can fly to work on the moon.
Besides, if you're going to produce fuels using nuclear energy, even the hydrogen lobby will laugh at you for making gasoline.
Where do you go camping that has no trees?
Care to give an example?
Weighbridges have been around for hundreds of years. Number plate readers are widely used. That's the technology covered.
Doubtful for a few reasons. First, EVs still don't charge in 5 minutes, and so long as batteries are the tech, they aren't likely to. While you can plug in at night if you own your home, that's not likely to be the case for people in apartments and other renters. Second, EVs aren't clean. According to a recent study, the manufacturing of the battery from a Tesla Model S produces as much CO2 as a typical ICE car produces in 8 years. The solution the study proposes? A smaller battery to give your car less range. Then add the fact that the batteries are not economically recyclable and can be difficult to extinguish if they catch fire.
Two better alternatives: The first is a supercapacitor-based car. They tend to use recyclable metals, that the capacitors themselves may have a long enough shelf life to just move from car to car. They do have half the storage capacity of Li-Ion, but give that they can also charge at whatever rate you can throw electricity at them, it's actually feasible to have a 5-minute fill up. Given that superchargers today only fill the battery half way in 30 minutes, on a long journey, you only need to stop one additional stop, but every stop after that you're an additional 25 minutes ahead.
The other alternative remains biofuels. Boeing, working with the University of Abu Dhabi, found a plant that could turn barren land like the Sahara Desert or the Numibian Desert into vast fields for ethanol production, producing a carbon negative fuel. The plant can be watered with salt water as well. Yep, the ICE could actually be the solution to sequestering CO2.
Tesla Link:
https://principia-scientific.org/study-tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-driving-on-gas/
Boeing link:
http://energypost.eu/exclusive-report-boeing-reveals-biggest-breakthrough-biofuels-ever/
The problem with electric is not being able to go from 5% charge to 100% charge in 5 minutes like you can with any hydrocarbon. Even if we eventually get the battery or super cap tech that would support charging at that speed, there is no way today's electric grid would support cars gobbling up 70kwh worth in electric in a matter of 5 minutes. Future charging stations would probably require their own battery/super cap bank onsite to minimize the surges on the power grid.
In the US they have on road and off road diesel for this situation. The off road diesel is not taxed the same and is dyed, If your'e caught driving on road with dyed diesel there are significant fines. The dye will also dye the filter elements in fuel filters so you can't occasionally use the off road and not expect to get caught, unless you're going to constantly change your fuel filter as well.
Also, electric motors weigh a lot less than the ICE.
That's true but the batteries in an electric car more than make up for the weight of fuel and engine in a gasoline car. Most batteries today have 1/100th the energy by weight of gasoline, and even the best batteries that might be found in a top end electric car is still less than 1/10th the energy by weight.
Weight is less of a problem when you have regenerative braking.
Regen braking is shit for stopping a vehicle. It can slow a car down gently but it can't be used for emergency braking or to come to a complete stop. It's also shit for extending the range on a car. The range it adds is in the noise of computing your total range.
I know that regen braking saves on brake repairs. What also saves on brakes on ICE powered vehicles is engine braking. In large vehicles engine braking has been standard for a long time. If brake wear becomes something that people look for in buying a car then I expect future ICE powered vehicles to add the software needed to the existing anti-lock and cruise control electronics to reduce brake wear, that is if this isn't already a thing. I hear people talk of electric vehicles not needing oil changes either. If oil changes and brake repairs stay as cheap as they are now, and we keep seeing cars getting more and more miles on each oil change, then this will become a very minor point very soon. What happens then is both electric and ICE cars getting the same miles between visits to an auto shop, and the price difference in the stop being very small.
Added weight adds to tire wear. Braking adds wear regardless if it is regen, friction, or engine braking. Maybe that electric car can avoid wear on brakes and not need oil changes but it will need tires more often, or more expensive tires, for the same miles because of the added weight of the batteries to get the same range.
Another thing, this isn't either or any more. Hybrid electric cars are a thing. Add in potential competition from alternatives like natural gas as fuel and the decisions for getting a pure electric car fades, or at least gets really muddy.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Ah, yes, this old argument. Easily refuted.
I'm sure the stage coaches / wagon drivers / horse riders said the same thing about those newfangled smelly noisy cars. They spooked the horses too.
Indeed it will, but instead of a sane system as you describe they will require you to put in a dongle which will cost $300, and will track your gps and speed in real time, plus a camera which will use AI to count the passangers. And you should not store any items that resemble people with 20% confidence interval on any of the seats.
U still at it troll?
Count the number of shit Teslas with a lap record vs the number of BMWs.
Here's a video explaining synthesized fuel in less than 5 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_0ftKqQ9XE
Here's a more detailed video that explains the synthesis process in less than 15 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8zOHZINyG8
Besides, if you're going to produce fuels using nuclear energy, even the hydrogen lobby will laugh at you for making gasoline.
The "hydrogen lobby" recognizes, and will admit if they are honest, that the best way to store and transport hydrogen is by attaching a carbon chain to those hydrogen atoms.
Who is the "hydrogen lobby" anyway? Hydrogen can't be mined or pumped out of the ground, it has to be produced from some raw material and energy. Hydrogen does not exist in any useful quantity or purity naturally on Earth.
I believe the hydrogen lobby exists in a number of forms. One is the traditional natural gas people. Most hydrogen we use today is from cracking carbon from methane in natural gas. If people want hydrogen then they either buy natural gas and crack off the hydrogen themselves or they buy the hydrogen from someone that did that for them. Their is another aspect in this symbiotic relationship between the "hydrogen lobby" and the natural gas industry, there are groups of people trying to sell a mix of hydrogen and natural gas as an alternative to pure natural gas. Hydrogen is notorious for leaking out of tanks and chemically reacting with pipes and seals. When hydrogen is "dissolved" in natural gas then these effects are reduced considerably and can be handled much like compressed natural gas.
Another big part of the "hydrogen lobby" are the solar and nuclear people. To get hydrogen from water takes heat and electricity, which we can get easily from solar collectors and nuclear reactors. What the solar and nuclear people gain from this is expanding out of the electricity business and into the heating, cooking, industrial gas, and transport markets. The hydrogen can be mixed with natural gas (again in concert with the natural gas industry), bottled and shipped to users (because it's difficult to run hydrogen through long pipes), or is used to synthesize hydrocarbons or some other liquid or gas fuel like ammonia.
Anyone trying to sell "hydrogen" is really just trying to sell natural gas, nuclear, or solar. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's a storage and transport mechanism for energy. It's a way for these energy sources to compete with oil, and to a lesser extent with coal. If the "hydrogen lobby" can turn their hydrogen into jet fuel and fuel oil then the petroleum industry might have a problem. Electric cars are nice but planes, trains, and ships, still need hydrocarbons. The "hydrogen lobby" can try to sell new engines for planes and ships, OR they can get their hydrogen turned into fuel that these engines can burn without modification.
One of the largest consumers (if not THE largest) of hydrogen right now is the petroleum industry. If the "hydrogen lobby" wants to sell a lot of hydrogen then they'd do well in talking to the petroleum industry in how their hydrogen is "better" than the hydrogen they make themselves or have to buy from the industrial chemical producers. This way the petroleum industry doesn't become a competitor, they become a customer.
> You bought a car used that's only 3 years old. Why would someone keep a car for only 3 years and then sell it?
Because leasing is a thing. Especially with EVs, since it currently makes more sense to lease than to buy: Not everyone's finances lets them take full advantage of the tax credit, so they lease and the dealer (who technically owns the car and thus claims the credit) applies the credit to the base value of the car, which in turn lowers the cost of the lease.
You lease a car for 2-3 years - generally paying less per month than if you financed it for outright purchase - and at the end of the lease you give it back to the dealer. The dealer then sells the car at a steep discount as "pre-owned."
=Smidge=
The PC government also cancelled a large wind project, with hefty penalties expected, and cancelled the carbon trading system, which provided C$100 million for schools
Wow, 100 million for absolutely nothing,, not ripped from the pocketbooks of anyone, no sir, it was totally free!
No tax credits for retrofitting homes for more power efficiency (insulation, windows, furnaces, ...etc.)
I'm doing that with no credits because it saves me money. More power efficient windows and furnaces have an inherent value because they are cheaper - again why are you stealing from others to give money to people well off enough to afford homes?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Some similarities? Oh come on. The original description of the credit:
The replacement:
It's the exact same credit value. Yes, they changed it from a total vehicles (250k) to a per-manufacturer (200k) limit, but the credit itself was established in 2008.
Please tell me what you find here to be some sort of "sharp", onerous limitations that were subsequently dropped.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
99% of my country....
Really looking forward to camping in my Model 3. Don't need to "take extra gas" because your efficiency doesn't plummet off the scale on slow backcountry roads. No risk of burning out a clutch either. Climate control without needing to idle an engine all night. Can't wait :) Come on, Eurospec!
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Because gasoline cars have to stop there in their everyday lives. EVs simply don't need that many charging stations, because most charging is done at home.
About the same amount of time as meal and stretch / bathroom breaks. But road trips are the exception, not the rule, of course. In your normal everyday driving, an EV's driver is consistent: "nearly full". ICE drivers wake up to a random amount of range. It might be 600km. It might be 100km. Roll the dice.
Norway has demonstrated otherwise.
When you build a fast charging network, and EVs become affordable, people switch. En masse.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
At $95+ thousand per car, only the well to do can afford it practically. The average middle to low income family who drives an auto that is fuel INEFFICIENT will never be able to make a dent in the fossil fuel issues at that price regardless how many Prius they drive. This credit was only to assist getting the production off to a good start and that it has done. Now stop subsidizing the rich. I thought we hated the rich 1%'ers on /.??
This post is merely a click bait for flame war.
BZZT, try again.
1) "Lap records" does not equal "Performance": There's lots of fast cars that don't show up frequently on that list.
2) Previous Tesla models were not designed for sustained track duty (Model 3 is).
In terms of performance, Tesla outclasses BMW. Straight out, dollar for dollar, unsubsidized and not counting energy savings. And roughly matches it on weight (sometimes even besting it).
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Even if there was a 100% tax on the electricity used to power EVs, it would still be cheaper!
Which means the tax would be more than that. The tax must be equal to the current tax or the roads won't be funded. This "bubble" will burst as the percentage of EVs on the road cross some threshold and those vehicles must pay an equivalent amount of tax as a ICE vehicle.
Trucking companies are effectively being subsidized by everyone else.
And so the cost of goods will go up (because obviously the trucking companies will pass transportation costs directly on to those who need things shipped), which will result in trucking companies being subsidized by everyone else.
Using different terminology to try and frame these things in a different light doesn't change the facts. Vehicles using roads will have to pay taxes to have those roads built and maintained. Doesn't matter if EV, ICE or powered by mice running on exercise wheels.
Better known as 318230.
310 miles is a "downrated EPA combined range". The Model 3 LR RWD tested in at 318mi hwy, 334mi combined and 347mi city. As you may note, 347 is greater than 336. Even ignoring that the BMW on any average day will only have some random percentage of its tank filled.
(The reason for the downrating is, beyond the fact that EPA ratings are too optimistic, is so that Tesla can mark all of its Model 3 variants as having the same range, including less efficient ones like Performance)
The Model 3 can be refilled in 15 seconds of your time. Plug in when you get home, disconnect when you leave. Who cares how long it takes while you're asleep? That's not your time. The time it charges in your garage does not in any way waste minutes of your life. Unlike stopping at a gas station at regular intervals throughout your regular life.
On long trips - aka, the exception, not the rule - you charge in the time a typical person spends on meal and bathroom/stretch breaks. But that's tangential to how most people spend most of their time in their vehicles.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Yes, you can "go out and buy one", assuming that you live in the US or Canada and don't want air suspension, SR battery, non-PUP, cream interior on a non-Performance vehicle, or a trailer hitch (all of these are upcoming). US and Canadian waiting times on these Model 3 variants are not exceptional:
* Performance: 1-3 months
* Dual Motor LR: 2-4 months
* RWD LR: 1-3 months
And yes, it most definitely is.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Your own quoted text shows the language is completely replaced. Yes, the size of the credit was multiplied by the number of manufacturers, else it would have run out a fair bit ago. What other credits you can take it with and its interaction with depreciation was changed. The eligibility threshold was pushed up one 1KW-hr of capacity. The credit was limited to existing tax obligation (not refundable). It was allowed for lease and its interaction with business taxes was substantially changed. Etc, etc, etc.
The OP(your twink Rei?...are you a Musk cocksucker as well?) clearly said TM3 goes farther than 340i in city driving
There's no way any Tesla will even go near 336 miles range of a BMW 340.
A Tesla Model S P100 can only muster 170 miles real world range.
A TMS P100 shockingly packing a 50% larger battery than your homoerotic Elon wet dream >336 miles Model 3 LR.
200 miles in 30 minutes in supercharger
BULLSHIT
2013 Model S P85 driven from California to New York by edmunds.com required 15 hours of charging (exclusively at Superchargers) at a total driving time of 53 hours.
53/15=3.5 hours of driving for every one hour of charging.
Your 30min at a Supercharger will get you about 100min of highway driving (about 90 miles...NOT 200 miles).
Moving energy by powerline is no way cheaper than moving petro to your gas station....
Tesla's charging stations are all getting solar, with the goal of removing them from the grid entirely. You could do the same thing.
Grid losses are dependent upon the state where you live; they run from 2.2% to around 13%, with the nationwide average being around 10% losses. However, once the energy is in your electric car, you lose a further 40% of it before it drives the wheels; for gasoline engines the further losses are 80% (source: Trump Administration).
So even if you live in the worst case state for electricity transmission losses, and the gasoline you use magically appears at the pump with no energy inputs for refining and transport, you're still losing more net energy with your gasoline car than with your electric vehicle.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I think you're confused about something. Here's a helpful picture for you
http://www.pipeline101.org/whe...
I see, so my theory was correct.
The reason used electric vehicles are so cheap now is because they were subsidized by the government years earlier. So, what happens when the subsidies run out?
I expect prices to rise and then used electric cars won't be such a sweet deal any more.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Trucking companies are effectively being subsidized by everyone else.
And so the cost of goods will go up (because obviously the trucking companies will pass transportation costs directly on to those who need things shipped), which will result in trucking companies being subsidized by everyone else.
No, it will result in other modes of transportation, such as trains or ships, being used more, which will make roads last longer. Which is good for everyone.
And then there's the fact that it takes like half a thought to come up with the idea to put a charger section next to the air station and a "Charge your EV here" sign next to it.
Over time you remodel the gas station, eliminate the pumps, expand it into a fast food/coffee/cake shop...
Only issue might be all that potential contamination of the area with various petrochemicals.
People start getting weird after a while when they realize how toxic that thing they were putting in their tank really is.
Then again asbestos used to be just the thing for your kitchen and nearly everything used to be better for you if radioactive.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Curious how you paid "your fair share" for infrastructure like roads and bridges - all those more expensive to run ICE vehicles paid for them with gasoline taxes.
EVs will remain cheaper than ICE vehicles as long as they get to use the roads, bridges and tunnels for free.
I pay my car taxes to the state. I pay my income taxes to the state. My car is light, so it does very little damage to roads compared to heavy vehicles. So I do pay my fair share.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Even if there was a 100% tax on the electricity used to power EVs, it would still be cheaper!
Which means the tax would be more than that.
If there was no tax on either electricity or gas for cars, electricity would be cheaper. This means that, with any fair tax scheme where both EV and gas cars pay for their share of road maintenance, electricity will still be cheaper.
And so the cost of goods will go up (because obviously the trucking companies will pass transportation costs directly on to those who need things shipped), which will result in trucking companies being subsidized by everyone else.
This is not what the word "subsidize" means; it's something that only goverments can do, not customers.
>Do you think it possible that this could be because of the car being subsidized on its first sale,
The price of used Nissan leafs went through the floor when the very different 2018 model came out. Also it's a fairly ugly car, but very nice to drive and loaded up with nice tech, so it's function over form. I think used Leafs are a bit of a bargain. It was subsidized for me because it's used. The government subsidizes the sale of new electric vehicles.
The car was an ex lease vehicle. That's why it was available while only being a 2015 model.
The car has been a good deal for me because I don't drive many miles a day and its range is sufficient to get me across town and back again. Being a pure EV, the maintenance costs are low and the fuel costs are low compared to ICE vehicles. Also the 0-45 performance is superb. It's not great at higher speeds. So it's a good in-town car.
Having got used to driving an EV, I won't be going back to an ICE car. The options for EVs should improve in the future. My other car (a Mazda 5 minivan) feels very laggy and unresponsive compared to the Leaf.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
> The Model 3 can be refilled in 15 seconds of your time. Plug in when you get home, disconnect when you leave. Who cares how long it takes while you're asleep? That's not your time. The time it charges in your garage does not in any way waste minutes of your life. Unlike stopping at a gas station at regular intervals throughout your regular life.
PHEVs do this too.
> On long trips - aka, the exception, not the rule - you charge in the time a typical person spends on meal and bathroom/stretch breaks. But that's tangential to how most people spend most of their time in their vehicles.
PHEVs do this better.
It's a common misconception and it varies by state but gas taxes only pay for a portion of the costs of roads and bridges. The EV owners don't get to use them for free because they are largely paid for through other taxes.
Also consider that the cost of damages done by air pollution in the US was 131 billion in 2011 and that transportation is the major source of air pollution in the US. Fortunately, as the degree of air pollution has decreased, so have the associated costs. It was 175 billion in 2002.
We're all paying for that and fortunately, EVs are helping to reduce that cost.
You're welcome.
Bzzzt Wrong!
Any cay that isn’t a piece of shit golf cart, can make multiple laps of a track without problem. There’s lap record for a van.
Teslas handle like shit, are built like shit, have shit interiors, look like shit, and just generally universally regarded as shit cars.
I’ll take a gas powered BMW over any shit electric golf cart.
I just wish Tesla would hire someone that had some sense of style, would love to own one if they didn't all look like steaming turds, even the top end ones look bloody boring and styled like the designers were on a budget and had to make everything as generic as possible.
I noticed your citation went out of its way to hide just how much fuel taxes contribute to paying for the roads. Reading between the lines my guess is that fuel taxes still pay for a plurality of road maintenance. I'm not going to run through the numbers in the article on paper to get a better idea on where the money comes from but just bouncing them around in my head I'm guessing that fuel taxes still pay for between 40% to 60% of road funds. If you think my guess is way off then show me some numbers.
This tells me that EV drivers are still getting a free ride on paying for the roads they drive on. Even if the fuel taxes pay for only 20% of the budget for roads then that's still a pretty significant subsidy on their miles.
I've seen the breakdown on where the money I pay for my fuel goes. No one makes more on the sale of that fuel than the government. If anyone thinks the oil companies are making out like bandits on this need to see just how much of that dollar spent goes to the government. At least the oil companies give me fuel to get me places, the government just uses that money to pay rich people to buy Tesla sedans. Let them pay for their own damned status symbol, I could have used my tax bill to buy new windows on my house.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If moving fuel was chraper than moving electricity, we'd all have small local power stations with fuel deliveries, rather than huge centralized power stations with electricity delivery.
Fun fact: this is what Thomas Edison envisioned.
Fortunately, most people don't think like you, and those who still do are on their way to old age and eventual extinction.
That was a shitty reply
> there is no way today's electric grid would support cars gobbling up 70kwh worth in electric in a matter of 5 minutes
The grid can be improved.
> Regen braking is shit for stopping a vehicle. It can slow a car down gently but it can't be used for emergency braking or to come to a complete stop.
Emergency braking is only done in emergencies. If you find yourself emergency braking on a regular basis, you need to reconsider how you drive.
Suppose you're going 45 mph, and you want to come to a complete stop in a normal manner. Suppose to do regen braking from 45 to 15 and then switch to 100% normal braking. You'll still recover almost 90% of the energy.
I expect future ICE powered vehicles to add the software needed ... to reduce brake wear, that is if this isn't already a thing.
It's already a thing. If I ride the brakes down a hill my car will downshift automatically.
> I see, so my theory was correct.
Is it? I'm pretty sure your "theory" was that people were selling their electric cars after 3 years because they weren't satisfied with them. (I'm basing this on the obviously rhetorical question you asked suggesting people are not satisfied with them)
> I expect prices to rise and then used electric cars won't be such a sweet deal any more.
They'd be at most $7500 more expensive, but probably not. The car's used price is essentially the residual, so if the base price was increased by $7500 the residual price would increase by only a portion of that depending on the lease terms.
Residual value is another strange puzzle for EVs, as the market has been rapidly expanding and the capabilities improving, the resale value of used electric cars is typically lower than ICE counterparts. The exception being Teslas which depreciate slower than equivalent gasoline vehicles. I suspect the real "enemy" of used EVs is not the expiration of the $7500 tax credit but the reduced depreciation rates as the market realizes they hardly wear out at all, mechanically speaking.
=Smidge=
Wife fills the X3 up every week, spending 15 minutes for the gas station trip among other chores. That is 13 hours per year. Supercharging takes 15 minutes more than gas station breaks (200 miles in 30 minutes in supercharger). I need to use the supercharger 52 times to lose time in electric vehicles.
I think the problem here is your wife, who apparently makes an entire trip just to get gas and has a very long commute (35 miles each way if your numbers are accurate).
Meanwhile, someone like me only stop by the gas station for 5 minutes once every 3 weeks, almost always on the way to another destination, such as work or the grocery store. I also have an extra gas can that I can fill up together with my car, giving me an additional 40% range. If I cared for more range between fill ups, I can easily get another gas can or two.
I suspect the real "enemy" of used EVs is not the expiration of the $7500 tax credit but the reduced depreciation rates as the market realizes they hardly wear out at all, mechanically speaking.
What's the wear like on the batteries?
I've seen early hybrid sell for pennies on the dollar because the batteries turned to mud and battery-only electric cars becoming worth little more than scrap metal prices. A hybrid with a dead battery can still be driven as a gas only vehicle. Some BEV cars cannot even be towed with a dead battery because it needs electric power to release the parking brake. That makes them less than worthless since that means a flatbed truck and a crane is needed to haul it away, and a replacement of a very expensive battery to make it mobile again.
they're already subsidized for good in most of the world. the co2 taxes on cars are usually structured so that electric cars get an almost free pass.
that's also why you're seeing so much hybrids, to get low emissions during the standard test run. the hybrid system pays for itself.
the joke with tesla is the "taking delivery of their car" part.. buy a car without knowing if the price is 7500 higher or not haha
Suppose you're going 45 mph, and you want to come to a complete stop in a normal manner. Suppose to do regen braking from 45 to 15 and then switch to 100% normal braking. You'll still recover almost 90% of the energy.
I'd like to see where you get a 90% return on regen braking. Best I could find was something as low as 20% on real world tests to 70% as theoretical maximums. First problem is that the motor in the car is going to be at best 90% efficient as a generator, as a motor it's more efficient as that's what it's optimized for. Second there are losses in the circuits to charge the battery, again they are optimized for delivering power to the motors and not taking power from them. I had trouble finding a real world number on this but I recall reading somewhere that 80% is a maximum here. A third problem is efficiency of the battery. Now, a modern electric car battery can be 99% efficient in converting energy in to energy out but even this small loss multiplied with the other losses in the chain makes 90% total efficiency doubtful.
You may ask how multiplying 90% x 80% x 99% gets as low as 20%. The answer is that each of the above is a best case maximum. The real world efficiency, especially with the conversion on the motor as generator, can be far lower at slow speeds. Even Tesla gives a best efficiency of 64%.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/magic-tesla-roadster-regenerative-braking
The grid can be improved.
But can the batteries be improved to support a charge like that, or the charger?
A standard EV charger plug can provide about 20kW, that's 250 volt at 80 amps. That will recharge an 80kWh battery in 4 hours. To shorten that to 5 minutes means multiplying the amperes by 60*4/5=48. 48*80 amps is 3840 amps. Alternately the voltage could be raised, 250*48=12000 volts. Either way that's a 960kW connector you need on that car. Making it a 20 minute recharge puts that at a 240kW connector.
I'm probably getting my math wrong but I'm estimating that filling a 16 gallon gasoline tank in 5 minutes is somewhere around 12000kW through that fuel hose at a filling station. Is that right? That's pretty amazing if it is. Someone check my math, please.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Model S and X can also do laps, just at reduced power after several minutes. Model 3 never throttles down. Primary power comes from a permanent magnet switched reluctance motor, not an induction motor; there's no rotor heat limitations.
Model 3's handling has been almost universally praised by reviewers, but don't bother your head about that.
Your "shit cars" have the highest consumer satisfaction rating in the industry.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
10:43: 18 miles remaining 11:13: 217 miles remaining. 199 miles in half an hour. You were saying? That's hardly even the fastest Model 3 charging experience. Model 3 tops out at a nearly 500mph charge rate.
2013 P85 is an old car, of a different, less efficient model, driven back at a time four years when Superchargers were spaced further apart, and a larger percentage of them were lower power. You're comparing apples with oranges.
There's no way any Tesla will even go near 336 miles range of a BMW 340
Take it up with the EPA drivecycle test designers.
If you're driving >200 kph on the Autobahn all the time, sure. Don't expect a gasoline car to go as far on the Autobahn, either.
You're right that Model 3 didn't go 310 miles when Consumer Reports tested it. It went 350 miles.
Lastly: 100 kWh is not 50% larger than 75 kWh. And Model S is a much less efficient vehicle; it needs a much larger battery to go the same distance.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
PHEVs also do "having to compromise both the ICE and the EV components because you need to fit both of them in the car" aspect very well. They're good at the still-needing-oil-changes and having components like a transmission and belts to break, but they're also good at the having miniscule range and generally well worse performance than a good EV" aspect too. They excel at the no frunk / crash absorption space up front aspect, as well as the "needing a larger, air-breathing front end which interferes with aerodynamics" aspect. And they have that "need to kick the rumbling engine on after several dozen kilometers, reminding you of why you actually wanted an EV in the first place" aspect. Assuming they're not like the Prius Prime which may decide to kick it on well before you run out of HV power.
Don't get me wrong, they're fine as training wheels for EVs.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
EV "fuelling" strategy is different than ICE fuelling strategy. 5-100% charging session are hardly, if ever needed. I have had an EV for over a year now and have never needed one.
In an ICE car you drive around until your fuel gets low and then go and fill it up. If you have an EV and a charging point at home, you plug in when you get home at night and have a "full tank" every morning so you rarely, if ever, go and "fuel" your car.
That said, if you don't have a charge point at home it all becomes a lot more inconvenient so perhaps the important thing is not so much getting battery technology to a faster charging rate and upgrading the grid to cope but instead, make it easier to get EV's charged slowly over night.
Seriously? You look at other EVs, like a Bolt, a Leaf, etc, then look at a Model 3 and think "that looks like a steaming turd"?
I'm... baffled. To say the least.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Your "shit cars" have the highest consumer satisfaction rating in the industry.
Because they are bought by retards.
how the hell is tesla at an advantage when tesla isn't even breaking even?
and if you haven't noticed, all ice manufacturers could move into ev manufacturing in a few months if it was profitable. bmw, vw, gm etc have the capabilities to churn out them. but they need to be as good as the ICE equivalents in the 20-30k price range and today they simply aren't. VAG can drop billions and billions on it after it makes some sense to do.
anyhow, in most of the world teslas are way cheaper than bmw's etc. except that teslas only live in the really expensive car territory anyways in most of the world - usa is among the only places in the world where teslas don't have a major price advantage due to co2 taxes. yet teslas aren't really appealing, due to their high price.
that's why the thing about having a profitable 35k car for tesla has been seen as the make or break for the entire company.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
There are numerous ways of looking at the whole roads / vehicles / fuel / taxation shebang, but clearly the way you're looking at it could not explain the building of said infrastructure in the first place.
One view on taxation, at least on things that are demonstrably harmful, is that it is a deterrent. Smoking bad, tax tobacco. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere bad, tax gas.
On the other hand, if you want to pay for maintenance of your vehicle related infrastructure then tax vehicles and / or those who drive them, introduce tolls on said infrastructure, or use general taxation on the principle that everyone benefits from that infrastructure (food gets to the shops, post gets delivered, etc.).
As for:
EVs will remain cheaper than ICE vehicles as long as...
Good! That means that more and more people will consider switching to EV's when they buy a new vehicle. Seems like an incentive that's doing exactly what it's supposed to, encourage people to do the 'right thing'.
Of course, like all incentives, we should not forget the "Three T's": ... Check! ... Check!
Targeted - From your 'complaint' it seems they work only for EV's and not ICE's, so
Timely - Well, they're happening now, and most people agree we need to be reducing CO2 emissions now (if not yesterday), so
Temporary - Once the incentive has served its purpose* it should be removed. Given the subject of this entire thread... Check!
I hold my hand up to a vast oversimplification of the subject, but would suggest that, similarly, your post was a rather simplistic consideration of the issue.
*This last is perhaps questionable, but with the introduction of cheaper EV's one could certainly argue that the incentives served their purpose in getting us to this point, and the cheaper EV's are now affordable in their own right.
I paid $15,000 (after incentives) for my leaf... cheaper than the versa parked next to it on the dealer's lot...
But I paid sales tax for a $30,000 car because the incentives don't reduce the sales tax... (vehicle sales tax in my state goes to the same roads fund as gas taxes do)
Mean while the versa when/if it sold paid sales tax on a $17,000 car.
So I'm already paying more for the roads than they are, to the tune of about about $1,200, before they either car even drives on a road.
Then when I pay for my registration (based on the value of the car for the first 10 years) I pay more because of the higher MSRP...
Those two things along cover the cost difference for the first 8-9 years of ownership (not including inflation or loss of capital for the electric car owner)
But then Minnesota (where I live) also has an extra $85 registration tax for electric cars to cover the lost fuel revenue...
Which ends up being slightly more than most drivers pay in gas taxes in a year...
So when you ask that question, I can safely respond, when the heck are ICE owners going to start paying their fair share for road use? Why am I being billed regardless of usage when they are only being charged for the usage of the road? Why the heck am I subsidizing ICE cars access to public roads?
Oh and even despite all of that the leaf is still cheaper than the versa on a per mile basis.
Tesla is teetering on the edge, and their cars are about to become more expensive than similar competitors. I wonder if the established manufacturers were simply playing the long game while Tesla continued to extend themselves.
I'm sure i'm part of the short conspiracy according to the fanbois.
"Put in place early on in the Obama administration, the tax credit was seen as a tool that could be used to subsidize failing automakers by giving them a handout in the form of a tax credit to consumers, which could simply be folded into the price of an electric vehicle."
Which is exactly what happened. The day the tax credit took effect, the MSRP of a Prius increased, almost magically, by exactly $7500.
They largely have high satisfaction ratings because they're largely bought by true believers atm
There are li-ions that charge that fast. They're not usually used because of price and because their energy densities are lower,but they exist. It's irrelevant, though, since you need breaks during road trips anyway.
You've BTW normalized the inconvenience of having to keep randomly detouring to buy gas in your everyday life.
Ignoring roadside, storefront, and workplace charging, the higher the rate of EV penetration, the more pressure is to change building codes to mandate chargers.
Contradicted by almost every peer-reviewed cradle to grave study thusfar. Go to scholar.google.com and type in electric vehicle lifecycle analysis.
According to nonsense. You refer to the widely ridiculed, non-peer-reviewed Swedish "study" that contradicts virtually all other research on the topic, and makes a number of glaring mistakes and pulls numbers out its arse.
Sure, the solution is to go to something that has 1-2 orders of magnitude less energy density and 2 orders of magnitude more price. Right.
Not really. They're mainly carbon compounds. At end of life you can incinerate them, but not recycle them. If you want something that you can recycle, you want batteries. All major EV manufacturers have recycling programmes for their battery packs.
If by "half" you mean "1-2 orders of magnitude less", sure. But I prefer not to redefine words to mean radically different things than they actually mean.
Model 3 is 2/3rds in 30 minutes. Halfway in 20 minutes.
Tesla charge rates are limited by supercharger power, not their battery rates, up to around 50% SoC.
If by "every stop" you mean "every 10 kilometers", sure.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Also, we pay an upfront electric fee that covers the expected lost tax revenue.
> What's the wear like on the batteries?
Most EVs have battery warranties of 8 yr/100K miles to 70% rated capacity. Numbers vary of course, but that equates to about $2000 worth of battery. Most people would save that much in gas alone well within that span of time.
Meanwhile the cost of EV batteries has dropped 75% in the past ~8 years and many estimates suggest there's still cost reductions ahead. By 2020 a refurbished battery for an EV should cost about $180/kwh, meaning you get essentially a new car for under $6000 before any trade-in value for the old pack. That's a pretty great value considering the cost of operation is so low.
There are also RAV4EVs still running on their original NiMH battery packs, so even with severe degradation it doesn't make the vehicle worthless to the right user.
> Some BEV cars cannot even be towed with a dead battery because it needs electric power to release the parking brake.
I cannot think of a single vehicle where this is true. What make and model does this apply to?
=Smidge=
Curious how you paid "your fair share" for infrastructure like roads and bridges - all those more expensive to run ICE vehicles paid for them with gasoline taxes.
That's not a problem for the consumer or the company producing the cars. It's a problem for the government to figure out an efficient way get those revenues to pay for them, whether that's through an energy tax, gas tax, or whatever. If nothing else, EV drivers could be charged the equivalent gasoline tax based on their mileage, it's still going to be a fraction of the operating cost of driving an ICE.
You mean like toll roads that charge you more for having more axles on your vehicle? There are TONS of those around here. Not a new idea really. They've been doing that with toll roads since at least the 70s.
Although the tech for doing it now is pretty transparent. They don't even need toll system transponders. They can just read your license plates.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Cheaper than say a $6000 civic/corolla?
> The grid can be improved.
That's a very large problem. Much larger than improving the tech of an individual device plugged into the grid. You are completely glossing over the scale of this problem because it suits your personal agenda to do so.
It has nothing to do with any practical consider.
You're running on nothing but wishful thinking. Unfortunately the real world doesn't work that way.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So where will those missing taxes come from?
> Fortunately, most people don't think like you, and those who still do are on their way to old age and eventual extinction.
More of this self serving wishful thinking.
NOBODY in the target demographic for the Telsa/BMW measures up to your little fantasy. The Hippie appeal of an electric car simply doesn't exist among that class of consumer. You actually have to compete on merits and branding.
People who blow that kind of money on cars simply are nothing like what you are pretending.
You are confusing the Prius crowd with the BMW crowd. Age is really quite irrelevant here. You understand nothing.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Meanwhile, someone like me only stop by the gas station for 5 minutes once every 3 weeks
So you are a shut in then.
You describe my own habits more or less and I am on medical isolation leave.
The "wife" is not the problem. She's fairly normal. The problem is YOU. You are pretty much a "grandma" in the grand scheme of thing and you have some strange delusions of being the least bit relevant.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I tried the article and the sources but I couldn't find the details on the tax credit. The article implies the tax credit will be removed only from those who buy Teslas but will remain for other electric cars.
I assumed from the headline that it was a tax credit on making the cars which it would make sense to make. But a tax credit on BUYING the cars... that just incentivizes someone to not be first but be prepared to be second. Because of exactly moments like this when Tesla prices skyrocket and you can sweep in with your cheaper price and an already established eco system and social narrative constructed.
Why not just remove the tax incentives from all the companies at the same time (whatever time that is). This encourages someone to be first because they'll enjoy the credit the longest. Rather than now with Tesla having done a majority of the work establishing the viability of the electric car to the public and now the other auto makers who weren't able to do that will be able to reap the Tax Credit now that the market has been taught to want their new product. Whatever congress passed this incentive was idiotic.
Just another second banana
I'd like to see where you get a 90% return on regen braking.
I meant that 90% of the original kinetic energy is available on the input of the regen braking system. The usual losses apply after that.
Battery powered vehicles are coal and natural gas powered.
It's like people don't know where electricity comes from in this country any more....
"Tesla on track to be first automaker to sell 200,000 electric cars"
Ken
Curious how you paid "your fair share" for infrastructure like roads and bridges - all those more expensive to run ICE vehicles paid for them with gasoline taxes.
Roads benefit everyone, so their construction should come out of the general fund. Their maintenance should be paid for proportionally, with people who drive automobiles charged essentially nothing, and with basically all of the fees paid for by heavy vehicles, because that's which vehicles are actually doing road damage. Those fees will then wind up baked into the cost of products (and bus trips) which means that the people actually responsible for the road damage being incurred will be the ones paying for it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You mean like toll roads that charge you more for having more axles on your vehicle?
No. All else equal, more axles means less road damage. The only fair way to charge for road damage is to a) charge fees, including tolls, by unladen weight and b) to charge additional fees for carrying loads. Two vehicles with the same number of axles but different weights will cause different amounts of damage to the roads.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
First, the grid requires little to no improvement to handle many additional EVs, because they will be distributed across many residential drops and not concentrated in centralized locations while charging; most of them will do most of their charging at night.
Second, the grid should be upgraded anyway, for lots of other reasons, like national defense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Most EVs have battery warranties of 8 yr/100K miles to 70% rated capacity. Numbers vary of course, but that equates to about $2000 worth of battery. Most people would save that much in gas alone well within that span of time.
If you have to pour your 'savings' into replacement batteries then it it isn't a savings, it's a deferred expense.
Ken
When a $5k subsidy in Georgia ended, electric car sales dropped from as many as 1400/month to less than 100/month. That's a pretty clear demonstration they aren't nearly as wanted without the government stepping in to pay people to buy them.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Well, in effect there is a tax on the weight - your average big rig gets 5-8 MPG...
At end of life you can incinerate them, but not recycle them. If you want something that you can recycle, you want batteries. All major EV manufacturers have recycling programmes for their battery packs.
Pop quiz: What are all major EV manufacturers doing with the electrolyte recovered from batteries, after possibly removing heavy metals? I'll just go ahead and provide the answer, since it is incineration.
Maybe someday we'll have recyclable EV batteries, but right now we just have recyclable battery cases and electrodes. The electrolyte is not recoverable or recyclable yet. Compare this to traditional flooded-cell automotive batteries, where literally every part of the battery is recycled, down to the chemistry; automobiles are the most aggressively recycled consumer product on the planet, and their legacy batteries are the most recycled part of the vehicle.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Moving energy by powerline is no way cheaper than moving petro to your gas station...
We lose less than 5% of electrical energy in transmission losses here in the USA, around 3% by some estimates. It's cheaper in every way.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
10000x?
Big rigs with heavy loads do 10000x the damage as a your run of the mill two ton car.
My car weighs 2 tons, do you honestly imagine the computer average big rig weighs 20,000 tons?
A fullly-loaded semi trailer weighs about 80,000 pounds, or just about 40 tons.The
20,000 tons is about 40,000,000 pounds.
Ken
Hey Rei (pet name "pedo" from your molester Elon), you mind posting the straight youtube.com links. I can't load the ones you got right now.
larger percentage of them were lower power
Wow, talking about screwing your customers by not clearly indicating you are limping into a shit-tier "Shitercharger".
Tell "pedo" Musk (you call each other by that cute petname I was told...) to update them "Shitercharger" map locations.
Consumer Reports tested it. It went 350 miles
That's funny, MotorTrend only got 230 miles (103.7 MPGe).
Now MotorTrend indicated they used the services of Emissions Analytics, how did Consumer Report do its testing?
Nice reading comprehension there.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Your complaint about having a sub-100% recovery rate vs. a 0% recovery rate on supercapacitors is what, exactly?
Wow, they only recycle parts that comprise the majority of the mass and represent the rarest, most valuable, most energy-intensive components of the cells. How horrific!
Wrong. While some plants recycle all or part of the plastic, in most, the plastic components are landfilled. The smelting dust / slag is also landfilled. As the slag contains a lot of lead contamination, this sends a lot of lead contamination into landfills. The slag comes from recycling the battery paste, which requires sodium carbonate and iron, and creates sodium sulfate, iron oxide and CO2 as waste products. There's generally also significant SO2 emissions (scrubbers usually remove part of them, but in China rates of scrubbing are highly variable). As for the acid, in some plants it's sent off for purification and recovery, but it's more commonly simply neutralized, which consumes caustic and creates lead-contaminated sulfate salts. These are then theoretically sent to strip the lead out, but in the 3rd world this step is often either poorly done or not done at all. Some plants sell these salts onward (such as for detergent manufacture), but because of stringent lead requirements from buyers, the salts are most commonly dumped into sewage.
In China, at least, 30-40% of lead-acid batteries are recycled illegally in an environmentally destructive manner.
I want you to stop and think again about the oft-cited 99% lead recovery rate from lead-acid battery recycling. Ignoring places that perform illegal, dangerous recycling... think of what having 1% of the lead in all of the world's lead-acid batteries going into landfills, air, sewage, and other products means. Given how quickly every of the world's ICE vehicles goes through a lead-acid battery.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
;) I've got a Honda Clarity, 1000 miles, burnt 0.2 gallons of gas so far (about half of that because I was fucking around with the HV modes). And eventually I'll go on a road trip and it will be a lot less of a pain.
Yes, I'll need time based oil changes, but that'll be quite some time as it's synthetic and used so sparingly. Bigger deal will be needing to burn the gasoline before it goes bad. I wish it could take a little more gas (range with 7 gallons is very good, but with 9 would be super impressive-- but then I guess the "needing to get rid of gas problem would be bigger).
Not really too much of a transmission either. Same cargo volume as a Tesla 3, but not divided into 2 compartments, and a much better back seat.
Tesla's charging stations are all getting solar, with the goal of removing them from the grid entirely. You could do the same thing.
Solar panels are heavy and made out of expensive things... still no savings there.
Except with the EV, you’re stranded while your over priced golf cart recharges.
The problem here is that you are assuming that the amount of damage done is directly proportional to the weight of the vehicle because that is false.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Haha, no I actually drive to work every day. I just live 15 miles from my work. Back when I lived close enough to walk to work, my car could go 3 months without a refuel. If you need to get gas every 3 weeks despite not using it, there's probably a leak in your tank.
If everyone depends on something is it actually subsidized? How much of what you use or eat was not transported by a big rig at some point?
Deferred expense over continuing expense of higher cost fuel and higher maintenance; it's still a net savings, handily.
=Smidge=
If everyone depends on something is it actually subsidized?
Yes. Also, if properly taxed then the transport industry would likely shift toward using trains and other transportation methods. The result would be reduced damage to the roads which would require a smaller budget to maintain.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Cheaper than say a $6000 civic/corolla?
It's a 2015, top of the line model with great performance. So needs to be compared with a 2015 top of the line used corolla. Cheaper? Yes. :https://www.kbb.com/cars-for-sale/486893614/?totalresults=109&index=2&vehicleid=403139&year=2015&distance=150&atcmake=toyota&atcmodel=corolla&searchtype=used&intent=buy-used&persistdata=true&includelistings=true&maxlistings=5&pricetype=retail&_=1531781530626
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
This tells me that EV drivers are still getting a free ride on paying for the roads they drive on.
I don't know that I'd go that far--again, my property taxes and the like pay for the roads as well. But that said, I am certainly contributing less for road maintenance than a person using gasoline. How much, neither of us know.
And, arguably, it gets worse. California recently raised gasoline taxes, which might cause more people to go to electric vehicles. Which means you'll get the same situation--less money going into the coffers for road maintenance. It's a bit like cigarette taxes--cigarette taxes go for things like pre-school education. People quit smoking and suddenly there's less money for that, so they up the taxes.
I know Oregon has had a couple of ideas of new ways to tax transportation.
So using trains and repairing railroad tracks would be cheaper than using trucks and repairing roads? Sure you can add taxes to make one method cost more than another but ultimately the consumer pays either way.
No matter what would have been best if done 50 years ago we now have roads everywhere. The roads can't erased, at least most of them. New rail-lines would have to be crammed into an already crowded landscape.
Yes and the automobile needs to be about the same price, not a $150k tesla. I drive 10,000 miles a year. I waste $2,500 a year in gasoline. If electricity were free I could pay $5,000 more on a 2 year lease and break even. a lease on a $150k tesla is not economical.
Tesla cars should get nailed with a gas guzzler tax, any car that does a 10 second 1/4 mile is a drag racing and gas guzzling pig.
It has been said tesla is the experimental company that makes fancy electric golf carts... for the rich.
Your Average Joe
So using trains and repairing railroad tracks would be cheaper than using trucks and repairing roads? Sure you can add taxes to make one method cost more than another but ultimately the consumer pays either way.
The difference is that the cost is part of the products shipped (which you may or may not buy) instead of being paid by the government which will take money from all tax payers.
This is the difference between the cost of business and subsidies.
Congrats on being retarded. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Having hydro as a major component means that you are lucky geographically. Ignoring this and comparing to other states is silly.
At the charging rates involved, unless there's a field of solar panels nearby, or it's rarely used and it has a powerwall or equivalent, this is just PR.
I guess every national leader for the last 70 years has been retarded. Our system of roads benefits the most people, Most people are poor so the few rich pay the taxes that fix the roads. Ah, socialism.