Slashdot Mirror
Californians Have Now Purchased Half a Million EVs (arstechnica.com)
According Veloz -- an electric car industry group -- electric vehicle sales in California hit a cumulative 512,717 since 2010. "Months of strong U.S. sales in 2018, preceded by a strong 2017, are starting to show a trend: electric vehicles are selling well, especially in places where there are strong monetary and non-monetary incentives to buy them," reports Ars Technica. From the report: "Overall, this year has seen exponential growth in electric car sales," Veloz wrote. "Electric cars accounted for 7.1 percent of California car sales in the first three quarters of the year, with fully electric, zero-emission car sales outpacing plug-in hybrid sales 4.1 percent to 3 percent respectively." Veloz's data tallies not just fully battery-electric vehicles but also plug-in hybrids as well as the much rarer fuel cell vehicles. The group gets its data (PDF) from the blogs InsideEVs and HybridCars.com as well as a market-research firm called Baum & Associates and estimates from the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
According to data from InsideEVs, the Tesla Model 3 was the top-selling electric vehicle model in the U.S. in November. In November alone, 18,650 of those vehicles were sold in the U.S. To its credit, Veloz's press release isn't too self-congratulatory. The group writes, "Veloz recognizes that, while electric car sales are increasing at a rapid clip, it is not happening fast enough to achieve the deep cuts in emissions that the state needs to achieve to protect people's health and curb negative impacts on the environment."
According to data from InsideEVs, the Tesla Model 3 was the top-selling electric vehicle model in the U.S. in November. In November alone, 18,650 of those vehicles were sold in the U.S. To its credit, Veloz's press release isn't too self-congratulatory. The group writes, "Veloz recognizes that, while electric car sales are increasing at a rapid clip, it is not happening fast enough to achieve the deep cuts in emissions that the state needs to achieve to protect people's health and curb negative impacts on the environment."
If the electricity to charge electric vehicles comes from dirty sources, how are they cutting emissions?
Just eyeballing the sales graph, it looks like adoption rate is about doubling every two years or so. Should these trends hold then next decade electric cars will pretty much take over.
The answer is that they're not, they're just pretending while actually increasing emissions... elsewhere. This is a common theme in much-ballyhood "green" initiatives. The fact your comment is getting negrated again says that pretense is more important than actually caring about the environment, at least to some people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_Norway says Norway has 275,000 EVs in a population of just 5.25M.
Don't take this wrong, I think it's great that EVs are taking off. Keep up the good work.
(And BTW, I'm waiting for demand for gasoline to drop sufficiently that prices start dropping. I have a couple of "classic" 60s muscle cars that aren't cheap to fill up.)
It's mandated by law. CARB (California Air Resources Board) runs a ZEV mandate. Each year, automakers have to sell a certain percentage of zero emissions vehicles. The formula is a bit complex (it also includes partial ZEVs like hybrids and plug-in hybrids). But the quota for 2018 is 2.5% ZEVs. For 2025, it will be 8%.
Every automaker has to sell this percentage of ZEVs. If they fail, they have to buy credits from an automaker who exceeded their quota. If they fail that, they are banned from selling cars in California. And since about a half dozen states representing nearly a third of the U.S. population automatically adopt CARB's guidelines, the automaker would be banned from selling cars to a third of the U.S.
No automaker wants to be cut off from a third of the U.S. market. So they will do whatever it takes to meet the mandated ZEV percentage for the year. If that means running crazy sales and incentives (VW offered a 3 year/30,000 mile lease on an eGolf for $49/mo $1500 down, or $79/mo zero down a few years back), then so be it. In other words, the sales numbers do not represent true market demand. The ZEV mandate means if not enough EVs are being sold to meet the quota, automakers will discount EV prices until it does. (This is also why the best EV deals are in California - only EVs sold or leased in California count towards the ZEV mandate.)
That said, real demand seems to be meeting or exceeding the mandated percentage the last couple years, since I haven't seen a repeat of the crazy year-end sales and incentives. But this isn't a metric you can reliably use to gauge real demand. As the mandated ZEV percentage gets higher, it becomes harder for automakers to subsidize their prices to meet the mandate if there's insufficient demand (the discount for each EV has to be amortized over fewer ICE vehicles). So if the mandated percentage outstrips demand by too much, it'll create a situation where it'll be cheaper for Californians to buy an ICE vehicle out-of-state and bring it in, rather than buy it in California. Thus skewing the official sales figures further from real demand.
I know, right. How much did US taxpayers pay to put a man on the moon? Or build the ISS? Or the national highway system? Or even just your local high school? Your nearby airport? Sewer system? Public drinking water supply?
I bet some rich fuck CEO of a construction company or an aerospace conglomerate bought a new car with his ill gotten gains from those too.
Yes, I saw your comment about sarcasm, but did you have an actual point?
When do all the tax credits expire?
good point ... except that the oil industry receives between $10 billion and $40 billion in subsidies every year (depending on what you count as a "subsidy"), you stupid hypocritical dipshit.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Let's imagine that was true. It isn't, but let's pretend. We know that fossil fuels get $22 trillion in subsidies EACH YEAR.
Now, want to tell me which of those numbers is the more significant?
If you think cars shouldn't be subsidized, fine. Abolish the subsidies on fossil fuels as well. All of it. Go on. Or is it only causes you agree with that get handouts?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
California is one of the few states where it is clear that they're exhausting their state's ability to support population growth. Yet the state at all levels continues to pull for as many immigrants as they can get. Doesn't matter whether they're legal or illegal, California wants them! All of the water-related stresses are a sign that this situation is not maintainable going forward under their current attitudes.
If they were serious politically, they'd be building metro systems left and right that connect whole cities and their suburbs. They'd push through SLAPP-like laws that allow the state to punish NIMBYism and environmental activists who sue without a damn good reason. There is a lot the state could do within its budget to build practical solutions to protect its environment, but there are only a few politically-acceptable solutions that don't risk goring a sacred cow.
New product adoption rates tend to track sigmoid curves ("S-curves").
While there's noise (such as changing tax / regulatory environments), EVs around the world have generally tracked S-curves quite well, with Norway having exceeded 50% on new sales.
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
I'd be much more interested in them abolishing fossil fuel subsidies - $22 trillion a year is a LOT of your money and mine.
I'd also be interested in seeing light rail and quality bus services mandated in all cities, with city centres pedestrianized or made locals only, as has happened in parts of England.
Getting people out of cars is more important than getting them around with less pollution.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
So the USA taxpayer has paid about $4 billion in subsidies so that rich people can have another new car.
That's just how "progressive" politics work: well-off people making feelgood laws so they can pat themselves on the back and have everyone else pay for it.
Top five tradeins for a Tesla Model 3:
* BMW 3-Series
* Toyota Prius
* Nissan Leaf
* Honda Accord
* Honda Civic
Yep, that totally sounds like a profile of the rich! Why, just the other day I saw Bill Gates driving around in an old Civic....
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
Sorry mate, wrong door. Pointless diatribes is second on the left. (that's obMP, snowflake).
I confess i do not know how to run a trillion dollar economy. i don't know how to keep 100 million people working effectively and usefully and enjoyably.
BUT I AM PRETTY FUCKING CERTAIN THAT SUBSIDISING RICH PEOPLE'S SECOND THIRD OR FOURTH CARS IS NOT A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT MATTERS.
Interesting, what's the source on that?
*cough*
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
I'd like to think that most Model 3 drivers are rich enough that they don't need to trade in their old car. They'll just keep their 5 year old Range Rovers or Lexus GX's as a "winter beater" car.
My workplace won't allow that link. I'll check when I get home. Thanks.
My workplace won't allow that link. I'll check when I get home. Thanks.
Also not the standard google?
*cough*
Mebbe he meant the source for Gates' ride...
That's actually a pretty interesting response. I don't think you've proved anything, since people who buy new cars are by definition not exactly on on struggle street.
So perhaps the demographic is 'people who have second, third or fourth cars that are worth trading in' buy a new subsidized replacement at an overall cost to the USA taxpayer of $4 billion .
If you don't regard them as rich, fine.
That is why we deserve 60% of all the tax cut dollars coming to us. Stop envying us, get off your butt and work your ass off. You might make a tenth of what my grandpa left in the trust fund.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is proof that California is populated by a bunch of leftist hypocrites.
Only 500k EVs? Every last goddamn one of those bitch-ass hypocrites ought to have run out and bought one by now.
Heh, I didn't realise what it was. If all I wanted was a search result I would have done it myself. I don't know much about the EV industry and I don't know what is or isn't a good source on these matters. I guess that came of as lazy to the GP post, I've got it now.
I too like to think nonsense.
Let's imagine that was true. It isn't, but let's pretend. We know that fossil fuels get $22 trillion in subsidies EACH YEAR.
Your number is absurd on it's face, so your subsequent reasoning is suspect as well. The United States Gross domestic product is $19 trillion per annum. Removing any subsidies, real or imagined, wouldn't generate $22 trillion dollars each year for the US treasury.
Beyond that, everyone who goes on about 'fossil fuel subsidies' conveniently neglects to mention those subsidies are the same expenses and deductions that every other business in the US gets. You're not complaining about special treatment, you're complaining that companies you don't like aren't subject to special expenses that grind them into the dust.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The Red Sticker for the car pool lane went backwards.
Yellow sticker = hybrid (now not valid)
Green sticker = plugin hybrid and pure electric (not valid 2019)
White sticker = pure electric (not valid 2019)
Red sticker = new plugin hybrid and pure electric
So the red sticker pulls a hundred thousand EV's off the road, and replaces them with a mix of hybrids and new electric vehicles.
What exactly is the red sticker trying to encourage. Just new sales?
Is there any correlation between the cali wild fires and the number of EVs that are sold?
You are aware that the US has fought wars to keep oil flowing, right? I'm not sure that, say, the manufacturers of American running shoes, have been the recipients of largesse on quite that scale.
Subsidizing rich people's cars is just a side effect. Increasing demand so that science and technology will move forward quicker, thereby getting rid of pollution and oil addiction sooner, is the actual goal. And that will help those who live near the highways and go to the wars to a greater degree.
... vehicular infrastructure is paid for. As a larger percentage of vechicles eschew fossil fuels, there needs to be a better way to fund road and highway improvements than fossil fuel taxes.
Is that 60% of income taxes? There are other things than income tax.
The half million EV's since 2010 are kinda offset by the fact that California's population has increased by 1.5 million since 2010.
You are aware that the US has fought wars to keep oil flowing, right? I'm not sure that, say, the manufacturers of American running shoes, have been the recipients of largesse on quite that scale.
American running shoes are made out of... oil. They're wholly made of plastics.
Anyway, the cost of the wars probably pales compared to the cost of cleaning up the pollution that the oil industry is permitted to produce. All the spills they don't have to clean up properly, all the "fracking fluids" (aka refinery wastes) they are pumping into the ground, all the emissions from all their refineries. We literally cannot clean that stuff up any more than we can clean up the radioactive waste spread across the countryside by coal plants. Therefore they are receiving infinite subsidies, and the whole world is paying for them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You must be a socialist. Why punish success?
Socialists want to protect people from the harm of being born to the wrong parents, not to punish people for being born to the right ones.
We one percenters are the ones paying 60% of the taxes collected by the government.
And deriving 90% of the benefit. Any asshole can see that this is unfairly biased towards the 1% if they are not willfully determined to miss it.
Stop envying us, get off your butt and work your ass off. You might make a tenth of what my grandpa left in the trust fund.
The most reliable predictor of wealth is the social status of one's parents. You didn't build that, and you don't deserve it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Meters will be mandatory on all home chargers. You will be taxed per charged.
CA already is itching to tax per mile driven.
Watch for huge battery disposal fees.
Public charging stations will charge more than electricity and will be taxed per kilowatt.
Of course, none of those are sports cars for rich guys.
Fancy way of crying, "Nuh Uh!"
Your assertiond to the contrary require your own set of citations.
It really bugs me people who vigorously defended the tax cuts that went entirely to the one percent turn around and rail about rich people getting EV credits. They would also rail about budget busting deficits while at the same time voting for tax cuts.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Coal is such a red herring regardless, as it's been dying, keeps dying, and there's not realistically anything that's going to save it.
Sadly I wouldn't be so fast to erect a tombstone on coal just yet. Several reasons:
1) Coal is incredibly abundant in the US (we are the Saudi Arabia of coal) and abundant supply tends to equal cheap
2) Never underestimate a strong political lobby regardless of the absurdity of their positions (see NRA)
3) Lots of idiot voters in the US who think money (regardless of source) is more important than breathable air and habitable climate
4) Solar and wind are coming on strong but aren't a slam dunk obvious economic choice just yet
5) We don't have anything that can fully replace coal in the next 50 years aside from nuclear and nuclear is a political dead end.
6) Partisan politics in Washington on the right that is suspicious of anything favored by "those hippies on the left" regardless of actual merit
Thanks Rei for the update.
JD knows the $22 trillion figure is a lie but he repeats it every chance he gets anyway. It's just stupid.
Just eyeballing the sales graph, it looks like adoption rate is about doubling every two years or so. Should these trends hold then next decade electric cars will pretty much take over.
Beware naive extrapolation. Electric cars are definitely not going to "take over" in just 10 years. It's going to take longer than that for the supply chain to develop to supply the batteries and power trains and to reconfigure the assembly lines even if the demand was there already which it definitely is not. Average age of a car on US roads is longer than a decade so it would take longer than that even if starting tomorrow we only sold electric cars. Not to mention there are issues with range and fast charging and charging infrastructure and grid updates that have yet to be fully resolved.
I could see electric cars conquering major market share within 2-3 decades and I think there will be a strong uptake in demand in the next 10 years but it's going to be a while before they really conquer the market.
Mutter mutter free market. The fundamental problem most people have with clean energy and cars getting subsidies is that they're getting free money from me, the taxpayer, and not surviving on their own in the market place. Stupid people also conflate this with picking winners and losers not realizing what that meant in its original context (picking winning companies and losing companies, not technologies or entire industries) On a per dollar basis, fossil fuel companies get much much more in subsidies aka free money from the tax payers.
Phase them out. 2025 no more high mpg cars and vans. 2030 no more high mpg trucks and buses. Then make it illegal to drive them 5 yrs later without a special yearly license.
So the USA taxpayer has paid about $4 billion in subsidies so that rich people can have another new car. Woo Fucking Hoo. MAGA. (/. warning to snowflakes, there may be sarcasm).
You mean instead of the $20 billion we spend each year on direct fossil fuel subsidies? (never mind the indirect ones like lack of pollution controls which are MUCH larger costs) Globally fossil fuels are directly subsidized to the tune of about $5 TRILLION per year.
By your idiot logic NASA exists so rich people can joy ride in space. Maybe consider that there is a bigger picture goal to benefit us all that you have failed to comprehend. Sometimes subsidies actually do make sense because we all benefit in the long run. Not everything is a zero sum game.
Personally I would like my daughter to be able to breathe the air 80 years from now and to not have to ride around in loud, messy vehicles built with 19th century technology. Digging up all the carbon in our soil and releasing it into the air is quite literally suicidal.
You appear to have found L. Ron's secret acid stash and are using it. Do you want Scientology part deux? Because this is how you get Scientology part deux.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
Yet, beyond power rates 45% above the U.S. average, California has another problem that makes it less of a model than some proclaim. California now imports 33% of its electricity supply from fast growing neighbors, with about 65% of that coming from the Southwest and 35% coming from the Northwest. These numbers increase most in summer months when air conditioning loads peak. Imports have been rising rapidly: in 2010, California "only" imported 25% of its power.
It's good that they are going EV, but they are the ones that complain about the rest of the nation. But who are they getting a third of their electricity from? The deplorable s.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
After having driven an EV, my feeling is that the death knell for the ICE in ordinary can already be heard. The technology is already there, and can do nothing but improve.
The problem in America is, people still don't see EVs as cost-effective, practical alternatives to internal combustion engine vehicles in most cases!
That's something you can't fix by waving a one time tax credit at people, and really shouldn't attempt to do by mandating purchasing behaviors.
It's just the fact that EV technology still has to mature, like ALL technologies do. Your early adopters pay the premium prices that help fund mass-market viability.
(I can remember back in the early 1990's, paying over $1,200 for an internal CD burner drive. It was an HP 4020i, and only burned media at a 2x maximum speed. Now, you can buy these things off the shelf for about $25 and they record single or dual layer DVD as well as CD media at speeds of up to 52x! But back then, I had a real need for it and could justify that price. Most people couldn't.)
Electric cars still present some big challenges, like practically none of them existing yet that in a pickup truck or van format. If you need to make longer road trips, you barely have any viable options EXCEPT for Tesla, because they're the only one with a fast supercharging network that's built out well enough. (The GPS in the car automatically takes you to the nearest one when you won't make it to a destination otherwise, etc.) And we still barely even have any of America's gas stations on-board with adding EV charging at their locations! If American adopted EVs in any serious way, all of a sudden? There would be huge lines and people stuck waiting hours to recharge their vehicles, and cars with dead batteries stranded all over our roads.
Let's imagine that was true. It isn't, but let's pretend.
It is true. Current EV rebates in California are about $10,000. With half a million purchased, that's around $5 billion; if anything, the original estimate may be a bit low.
We know that fossil fuels get $22 trillion in subsidies EACH YEAR.
That's not true... Citation needed. That is greater than the GDP of the US, the EU, or China. That's pretty much a straight-out lie. So - yeah. Citation needed.
Now, want to tell me which of those numbers is the more significant?
A real $5 billion, or a fake $22 trillion? The real $5 billion. Additionally, the $5 billion is directed to those who can afford, on average, $60,000+ cars. So it's a gift to the top 10%. Any subsidies to oil benefit everyone, from the rich with their supercars and private jets to the poor using a plastic bag at the grocery store or buying new tennis shoes.
If you think cars shouldn't be subsidized, fine. Abolish the subsidies on fossil fuels as well. All of it. Go on. Or is it only causes you agree with that get handouts?
Great! Let's do it! And let's also include subsidies for renewable energy - energy source for energy source, right? Because actual US subsidies don't fall as you think they do. Taxes paid by just ExxonMobil and Chevron are easily 3 times the most generous "subsidies" list you can reasonably come up with. ExxonMobil and Chevron paid $45 billion in just Federal taxes in 2012, compared to a supposed $15 billion in "subsidies" for the entire US industry.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The Federal Government subsidizes each electric car to the tune of seven thousand dollars. That means California residents have taken over 3.5 billion dollars in federal subsidies for their cars at YOUR expense! Congratulations suckers!
Total US Department of Defense spending from 1996 to 2017 is about $11 trillion. What you're saying is that if we assigned 100% of that spending to subsidies for big oil, we'd need to double it again to get to the claim of $22 trillion. Yeah - that makes zero sense.
As far as keeping oil flowing - check where that Middle East oil flows. Predominantly to Asia and the EU - not the US (which gets most of its imported oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela - today and historically). If we've fought wars to keep ME oil flowing, it's been so our allies can continue to have a reliable source of oil - not us.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
IF I lived in California, I wouldn't imagine I needed to drive anywhere else either. Back here though, I do want to drive to other places in the country and EVs aren't sufficient enough for that yet, and too expensive to be a second car.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
And deriving 90% of the benefit.
I see this a lot. I'd like to know - outside of targeted subsidies like this one - what program the Federal Government has that specifically helps only the rich, or excludes the poor, such that the rich make more out of it than they put into the system (a net benefit, instead of a reduction of loss).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Why punish success?
Who is advocating people who work hard and make money for their corporations make less money than people who don't work?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
So, for every sale since 2010, they've sold as many EV's in California as are sold in a few days by any of the big-name vehicle manufacturers.
Even if you multiply that up by 50 states and then 200+ countries, they're still a drop in the ocean.
"Months of strong U.S. sales in 2018, preceded by a strong 2017, are starting to show a trend: electric vehicles are selling well,"
If that's "strong" and "selling well", then someone needs to go look at the numbers.
Half a million in eight years, 62500 cars a year... In a state that has 28 million registered vehicles. Less than one quarter of one percent.
It all puts me in mind of very primitive peoples... One, Two... Many!
Numbers count (I know, bad pun). Just because the number SEEMS large to the average mind, doesn't mean it really is in the larger scheme of things.
Everyone stand on ocean beach and spit. That will raise sea level!... In a million years.
US taxpayers are paying subsidies so that our children don't end up all dying of lung cancer and other pollution-related diseases. Yeah, it's pretty awful. Go suck on a tailpipe.
I don't respond to AC's.
The problem in America is, people still don't see EVs as cost-effective, practical alternatives to internal combustion engine vehicles in most cases!
Go see what other things Americans have been established to be wrong about, NASA budgets, foreign aid, foreign relations, even their own religion, and you stop giving a crap about that problem.
You always have the option of renting a gasoline car for long trips, and in most two car families you can have one gas vehicle.
More out of it than they get in?
Excuse me, but are you not aware of something? The entire point of government is for it to be a net benefit.
Did you never take a civics class?
I swear, it's like you don't know how things work.
A better question is how the poor are being disserved. And that's got lots of answers.
Not every EV is a Tesla that costs $80,000. You can by a Hyundai Ionic EV for under $30,000 before incentives and well under $25,000 after incentives. For a new car that's pretty affordable, but I guess it depends on what you mean when you describe someone as rich.
I bought a used EV for $12,000 that would likely have cost a lot more if the incentives weren't in place for the new models. The incentives also lower the cost of used EVs because why would would someone pay $24,000 for a used Nissan Leaf when you can get a new one for that after incentives?
I do think the way the incentives are currently structured should be changed, but I also think that they are helping to accomplish what they were intended to, - bring EVs into the main stream.
Did you count the scooters and skateboards?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
That's not much of an option. I take my current ICE places instead of flying specifically because I don't like renting a vehicle and dealing with those agencies. Besides, if I bought a price-inflated EV with the thought that the electric fills will save me money why would I throw that all away on renting a vehicle?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"Overall, this year has seen exponential growth in electric car sales," Veloz wrote. "Electric cars accounted for 7.1 percent of California car sales in the first three quarters of the year, with fully electric, zero-emission car sales outpacing plug-in hybrid sales 4.1 percent to 3 percent respectively."
Californian's might not be as progressive as they think they are. In Norway it is predicted that 45% of all cars sold in 2018 where electric. And in the capital Oslo, 47.9 percent of all cars on the road are electric.
Please try to keep up... I understand most ACs are ACs because they're not quite intelligent enough to figure out how to create an account, but please do try to keep up!
So how are the one percenters "deriving 90% of the benefit"? What programs and Government largesse is targeted/reserved for the top 1%, that is not available to anyone else?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We know that fossil fuels get $22 trillion in subsidies EACH YEAR.
Nice straw man setup!
I almost didn't notice.
Yes... the average Model 3 owners household income is $170k. Hardly the model for Joe Toyota.
Which goes to the point of why FITC is targeted at expensive toys for rich people. As a subsidy, if you want clean energy (considering that way less than 1/3 of all energy consumed in the US is passenger vehicles) it is a very inefficient subsidy.
Here's a source...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/subsidizing-electric-cars-is-inefficient-and-costly-report/article35418341/
and another...
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/short-circuit-high-cost-electric-vehicle-subsidies-11241.html
and another...
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-electric-vehicles-inefficient-co2-emissions.html
and another...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170607141336.htm
You see, confirmation bias is just as strong with the EV crowd.
JD knows the $22 trillion figure is a lie but he repeats it every chance he gets anyway. It's just stupid.
He's an oil-shill setting up a straw man, and hoping others repeat it - thus propagating the straw man.
His error is that he (or it) made the number too large, thus exposing the game...
Stop lying, you churlish shill. You're claiming that standard GAAP expenses are "subsidies" even though they're blatantly obvious business expenses.
You and your type of misguided idiots are the pawns of bankers looking to get rich off cap and trade.
California will be the test market for seeing how well a " driving " tax works vs the fuel tax that is in place today.
California has the highest taxes on fuel in the country coming in around ~70 cents / gallon when all taxes are accounted for.
California accounts for ~10% of total fuel usage in the Nation ( it's a big State with a lot of folks in it )
California uses about ~15B gallons of gas per year
Without having to do the math, as the number of vehicles on California roads using gasoline drops, so too does the tax collected
on gasoline sales. The short term fix will be to raise the fuel taxes even higher ( which will mostly impact those who can't afford EV's,
GJ ! Let's stick it to the poor people lol ) but, in the end, they'll have to switch to another option if they want to keep funding the highways
and all the infrastructure that goes with it.
As a result, a " distance driven " tax will likely be introduced in the not too distant future. It will either be an odometer check yearly when you
have to renew your registration, or it will be via some other means ( like GPS ).
So, good job for lowering your consumption but be prepared for what is likely coming because of it.
I am really beginning to think people should be required to be licensed in STEM subjects before being allowed to post on the Internet.
That' funny. You wouldn't believe some of the horseshit I've heard from licensed engineers when they want to "prove" a point. And I've seen engineers fooled by numbers: there's this religion among engineers that numbers are always right and they've had to have come from somewhere! Of course, it never occurs to them that it came out of someone's ass.
I once saw an analysis by an engineer (lot's of impressive multivariable calculations!) that there isn't enough solar energy falling on the Earth to meet humanity's needs. It took two seconds for an astronomer to point out that the value that he used for solar output was off by a factor of a few million. The engineer got the number from a global warming propaganda website.
A STEM degree or license in one is no guarantee of rational or honest discourse or thought.
Just the fact that many engineers believe in God is a prime example of that.
Honest question, I don't mean actual infrastructure as in power station, power lines, transformers etc, though those are obviously critical but what are EV manufacturers doing on top of just creating EV's?
Tesla has their supercharger network but I don't see any equivalent from Chevrolet, Ford, Mercedes, Jaguar, BMW etc. If I buy an EV from anyone other than Tesla, the *only* places I can charge is:
- At home. Assuming I have the ability to hook up a Level 2 or 3 charger. Let's be honest, a Level 1 charger won't do anything for you when you have an EV (not a Hybrid)
- At some public place (e.g. Mall, shopping center, Starbucks etc.)
- At work. Assuming your workplace has charging stations
At least with a Tesla, you have those options AND superchargers. I feel EV manufacturers should be forced to contribute to charging capabilities if they're gonna be churning out vehicles.
Will anybody want to buy a used EV if they have to replace the battery? Just wondering what that will be like. And what about the software? If the new owner robs a bank while using your old car do you get a call from the over zealous SWAT team in the dead of night?
When I was in the US, I saw all these pick ups and thought "These people must all be under way to pick something up and do that on sucha regular basis that requires such a vehicle." And why under way to pick something up? Because most where empty.
When I owned a car and needed to pick something up that was larger than my vehicle could cary, I justed rented a car. Happend twice in 7 years.
Because, be real, the majority of the pickups is for show, now for actually picking up things.
And even then I suppose a van would be much better, as the loading is done much lower, so not as much lifting and all the goods are dry all the time.
Ask the UK people if these cars are able to drive fast when they are white.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
As someone who literally works in sustainable transportation, that list is pretty damning. It shows that the emissions reductions from Tesla Model 3 sales aren't what people tend to assume.
- There is zero emissions reduction going from a Nissan Leaf to a Tesla Model 3.
- Going from a Prius to a to a Tesla Model 3 provides minimal reduction particularly if the Tesla is being charged in, say, Carlsbad where a portion of the electricity comes from burning oil.
- Upgrades from the Accord or Civic provide bigger gains, but both of those vehicles are already pretty darn efficient.
And the purely gasoline-powered vehicles used as trade-ins aren't being destroyed or removed from the road. They're being resold. Tesla isn't a Cash-for-Clunkers deal where people with gross-polluting vehicles trade them in for a major subsidy on a significantly less polluting vehicle.
Beware naive extrapolation. Electric cars are definitely not going to "take over" in just 10 years. It's going to take longer than that for the supply chain to develop to supply the batteries and power trains and to reconfigure the assembly lines
You are forgetting there is a whole other path - hydrogen cars. Between battery electric and hydrogen electric (which is ramping up now as well) the trend can for sure hold.
I'm not even sure the trend would be impossible to hold if you just considered Tesla alone...
I could see electric cars conquering major market share within 2-3 decades
Ten years for sure, because electric cars are just too compelling for most people once direct purchase costs start to dip below ICE vehicles. So popular that a substantial market for ICE to electric conversions will probably arise.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Arguably few consumers need to be able to travel more than 300 miles in a given day, and with an EV you have the option of starting every day off with a full charge from your home charger. EV range, depending on configuration, can reach over this 300 mile mark now and will likely only continue to improve.
The larger difficulty is that quick charge stations are not available in all areas, so if you're making a longer trip you need to plan ahead on where you're going to stop to recharge along the way and for the time delay necessary to recharge (~30 minutes at a quick charge station).
The price of quick charging at a Tesla Super Charger still works out to be about half what you'd pay for a full tank of gas (though that may vary by region).
We one percenters are the ones paying 60% of the taxes collected by the government.
But 140Mandak262Jamuna, why are you giving us one percenters a bad name by faking ownership of a Tesla Model 3?
A lot of the "subsidies" fossil fuel companies receive are tax based, ie they get significant discounts on their tax liability. While this may be comparable to other businesses, fossil fuel companies hold a somewhat unique position among corporations that do damage to the environment and pollute the air and water. This pollution harms the health of anyone and everyone living near it. So they should be taxed more harshly than other corporations that do not pollute the environment to either pay for the environmental cleanup or subsidize the treatment of the health issues that their pollution causes.
I would argue the same treatment be applied to any and every corporation that pollutes in a similar manner/scale.
Over 2% of American vehicles being sold are EVs (not hybrids, but EVs). Tesla can not make it them fast enough to meet the demand here, let alone in other nations. Just the other day, I let a friend drive our Tesla MS. Now, they own a Tesla M3 (in no small part because their toyota was breaking down with only 120K miles on it and they did not want to fork out some 10K for upkeep over the next 5 years).
I have argued that by 2022/23, that the majority of new cars sold will be EVs. The reason is that more and more ppl are driving Tesla (cheaper in EVERY WAY than any competitor, except possibly with insurance) and at the same time, Tesla is forcing other car makers to start building DECENT EVs, or lose all their sales to Tesla (and down the road, possibly china, when they finally start building decent cars, as opposed to more POS).
As to trucks and vans, they are here or shortly here. Rivian will have their truck out next year. Multiple companies are selling EV vans, though to be honest, they are WAYYYY to expensive. In fact, if you are simply shuffling tools from 1 site to another, you are much better off in ICE, than in an EV. OTOH, if you are moving cargo all day long, like FedEX or a distribution warehouse, then EV is superior.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's not how it works. It doesn't actually matter even slightly what the specific mechanisms are; the one-percenters owns over 90% of everything, pockets over 90% of the profit, but only pays 60% of the taxes that keep 100% of the system running. You don't need a napkin or even a matchbook to see that they are getting the best part of the deal. All most of us want is for them to pay their fair share, although I would also appreciate a reduction in hypocritical rhetoric.
However, a few things do come immediately to mind. Taxing capital gains differently from other income is one. The lack of a cap on social security contributions is another. But really, an exhaustive list would take too long to compile, and is besides the point. Those with the most to lose should pay the most for the maintenance of the system that protects what they have. If they want to argue that they should get to have that stuff, then surely they should argue that they should pay proportionally for its protection. And not in a mob kind of way, but in the way of the universe being full of entropy and there being a real maintenance cost for shiny things.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
- There is zero emissions reduction going from a Nissan Leaf to a Tesla Model 3.
Not directly. But it puts that Nissan Leaf into the used-car market, where it likely replaces somebody's older ICE car.
Would you have stopped the analog to digital cable tv switchover by refusing to let the government subsidize the population with free set-top boxes to decode the new digital signals?
When it comes to the roll-out of a nationwide change to a new standard, ie electric vehicles, it is impossible to accomplish that change with the capitalist market alone. There is a giant chicken and egg scenario with electric vehicles. You can't encourage the develop nor the purchase of said vehicles if nowhere exists to charge them, and you can't convince anyone to install chargers when there are no electric vehicles for them to service.
Also, $4 billion dollars? You're quibbling about $4 billion dollars on a national scale? In the last couple years they increased the military budget from $580 billion in 2016 to $686 billion for 2019 - meanwhile the Pentagon failed it's audit without being able to account for $21 trillion dollars of it's assets.
That's why your 'use case' may require an ICE vehicle that can go 700+ miles like a Honda Accord (or hybrid). But 99% of people are driving less than 150 miles total per day so electric would not be an issue. However apartment dwellers may not have the option of a charging station at home so gas isn't going away for a while
Lots of good stuff in this. Next up are royalty relief subsidies, where oil companies carve out exemptions for themselves—usually with the help of lawmakers—to pay significantly lower royalties rates on the oil and gas they extract. For example, the Lost Royalties on Offshore Drilling for Leases Issued from 1996 through 2000 subsidy came as a result of the 1995 “Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act,” something that to this day deprives taxpayers of $1.1 billion each year. The final type are known as regulatory subsidies. These apply when oil companies are given leniency in fulfilling their regulatory commitments. The most prominent, recent example is the $334 million BP Deduction for Oil Spill Legal Settlement subsidy, where BP was permitted to deduct from its tax bill nearly all the damages they paid to the federal government as a result of the infamous Deepwater Horizon spill.
I love it. O's admin charges BP 334M for deepwater, who then turns around and simply deducts that from their taxes due to breaks that the GOP gave them. So, what did BP pay in penalty? Nothing to America.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
well, if you are certain of that, then you really need to go back to school to study at least economics.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
yes. We import so much oil from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Californians are going to be in for a rude wakeup call when the miners get to the end of the electricty veins.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
You always have the option of renting a gasoline car for long trips
Renting a car can prove cost prohibitive for liability reasons before you turn 25 or if you're crossing state or provincial lines.
The more Diesel fuel for me!
First off, your can only buy an Ioniq in S. Korea and California. Coming to Europe though (or perhaps it hit there already).
Secondly, it only get 124 MPC. It is basically an old leaf approach, only not as safe.
Third, it, like ICE, has no POWER. And has no real room in back seat. It really is for small kids back there.
And no, it is 29,815 without dealers garbage and taxes. Though in CA it will be below 25K.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
,,,that are powered by the coal burning down the street at the pwoer plant. How woke, CA residents!
And if I had 100 people over for breakfast tomorrow there wouldn't be enough milk.
Arguably few consumers need to be able to travel more than 300 miles in a given day
I've encountered a couple of these use cases in my life:
Trips to a theme park A 180-mile (290 km) drive to an amusement park without a charger (or with a usurious parking surcharge to use the charger) and a 180-mile drive back already exceed 300 miles (480 km). Trips to and from college A college student lives on campus during his third and fourth years of a bachelor's degree, after having completed the first two at a community college. Parents are picking the student up at the start of vacation week and dropping him or her off before classes begin again, with some fraction of the student's possessions (wardrobe, computer, game console, TV, etc.) being moved for the duration. This move doesn't last nearly long enough for a charge.Or is there a practical solar charger for such trips?
The Rivian looks like shit.
I go out to California once or twice a year. Every time I'm there the news is issuing alerts about electricity usage, turning your thermostat up to ease the load on the grid. So should you unplug your EV, too?
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
You forgot another problem with mass EV adoption: The large percentage of the population that lives in apartments, and thus has no practical way to charge an EV.
Because of NIMBYism California does not have nuclear power plants anymore. Expect a lot of natural gas power plants in your future.
In the US, we do not tax wealth; we tax income. If you look at the actual data you will see the top 1% make about 20% of all the income, but pay 40% of all income taxes. Wealth isn't taxed; income is. If you want to argue for a wealth tax, then do that - otherwise you're just trying to stir up some class-envy to bolster your incorrect argument.
Capital gains taxes for short-term (less than 1 year) gains are the same as ordinary income. Long term capital gains (more than 1 year held) can be lower, but still is not tax-free. It's there to encourage long-term investments and savings - which I would think would be beneficial to society? Or should we encourage all investors to only see short-term gains, in-and-out, churn the funds and eschew long-term stability?
Social Security is capped in terms of benefits, which is why contributions are also capped. You are really mistaken here, stating there is no cap on social security contributions.
For protection, we already tax property on its assessed value. The person with the $500,000 home pays, on average, twice the property tax as the person with a $250,000 home. The more expensive car has higher tabs/registration rates. And those tax payments are what covers things like police, fire, roads, schools, and so on. Federal taxes you on how much you make, so if you make more you pay more (and it's progressive - your payment rate goes from essentially zero income tax to quite high). If anything, it appears the original GP was correct - the more you make, the more you pay, and disproportionately so. Even taxes on Social Security benefits are also progressive and tax the higher income earner at an even higher rate.
So let's cut to the chase - what should the tax rate be? Should it be on income? Should it be on wealth? Who gets away with paying zero, who gets to pay more?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Says who? You? All hale high priest drinky. Who do you think you are? The guy who made it thought his genes deserved it and so on and so forth. Send my best to Lenin and Stalin when you meet them in hell, komrade.
First off, your can only buy an Ioniq in S. Korea and California. Coming to Europe though (or perhaps it hit there already). Secondly, it only get 124 MPC. It is basically an old leaf approach, only not as safe. Third, it, like ICE, has no POWER. And has no real room in back seat. It really is for small kids back there. And no, it is 29,815 without dealers garbage and taxes. Though in CA it will be below 25K.
The topic was about California, right? Anyway in the US, there are another of other relatively inexpensive options that are more widely available including the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, Honda Clarity and for a little more the Chevy Bolt. With the federal incentive it puts the costs in the same neighborhood as a Nissan Sentra or Honda Civic. Sentra and Civics are not the cheapest cars but I don't think anybody considers them luxury vehicles for the rich. Along with the federal tax incentive, a bunch of states add their own incentives. So buying an EV has become a realistic option for lots of people in the market for a new car even if they're not particularly wealthy.
Besides, I think the complaints about the incentives being targeted at the rich is largely because of the splash Tesla has made with their high end EVs. Back when the incentives were put in place no one knew how successful Tesla would become. At the time they only made the roadster and they sold less than 2,500 of those.
Personally, I consider $30,000 to be way too expensive for me and I've never bought a brand new car. But as I said in my previous post, I still benefited from the incentive as it depresses the resale value of EVs as well as lowering the cost when new.
Those with the most to lose should pay the most for the maintenance of the system that protects what they have.
Bring on the private armies baby ! That would probably be cheaper than taxes. No ? You wouldn't like that ? Pay more, get more rights, no ?
It's not a big deal. A lot of her neighbors in Cali also use plug-in EVs, and they all have no problem using them.
The fossil fuel firms depend on you incorrectly thinking gasoline vehicles are cheaper, whereas in the real world they typically cost 1/2 to 1/20th the cost to fuel and half the maintenance fees for a full EV.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Just the other day, I let a friend drive our Tesla MS. Now, they own a Tesla M3
Tesla can not make it them fast enough to meet the demand here, let alone in other nations.
But your "friend" received a Tesla M3 within a few days huh?
I can't get a Kia that fast, let alone a 90's era Kia like the Tesla Model 3.
Hey WindBourne, why do you only have a grand total of THREE post over at teslamotorsclub.com, when you're already at ten posts in this thread alone?
I think you are faking ownership of "our Tesla MS" my friend.
Lol, not me. I am not a fan of California, nor do I live there. I find them to be hypocrites. They are funding a bullet train to nowhere, but they have one of the largest homeless populations in the nation. I think the priority for money would be the homeless. This topic right here is where I find them to be hypocrites. They can claim they are 100 renewable as long as they do not count the energy they import from other states.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
such that the rich make more out of it than they put into the system (a net benefit, instead of a reduction of loss).
Your own actual words and purported concern.
Try to remember what you write, and if you can, what you read. It is obvious that you find concepts such as how government exists for a purpose, difficult to fathom because of your own inability to maintain memories over a few moments, but that is why records exist.
The larger difficulty is that quick charge stations are not available in all areas...
Yet.
In 1930 there wasn't a gas station on every corner yet either. As EVs become more and more popular, the gas station model of "they need fuel, so lets sell them shit while they're here" will be applied even more aggressively to EV drivers. Why? Because most likely EV drivers are going to spend more time refueling than petrol drivers. That means more chance to shake them down for some cash.
So put EV chargers in a restaurant, and make them free for diners. Build a mini golf course and ice cream stand at the exit, and include some charge stations. There's an entire industry waiting to be built around charge stations, just like the doughnut/coffee shop and convenience store industry built up around gas stations.
The one thing I'll never underestimate is how quickly an industry can pivot when a new income stream pops up, and an old one starts fading. If there are two bed and breakfast places in a small town, and one has an EV charger, about 100% of the EV business is going to stay at that one. Once EVs get to be even 10% of the vehicle makeup, we're going to see a giant uptick in support for EVs. Everyone who doesn't see this looming large is going to get hurt badly if they're not catering to EVs while their competitors are.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
source?
Just a couple of reality checks for you..
1. The existing grid cannot support a full conversion to electric cars, in fact estimates are that it will start to fail at less than 25%.
2. Home solar for charging? Pull the other one. Unless you drive your electric vehicle very short distances occasionally there is no easy you will have that kind of capacity (and that's ignoring the fact that most EVs are charging at night, when solar is... Less that efficient shall we say?)
Yes there are plenty of people who hate on EVs for silly reasons, but I suggest sticking to reality yourself..
No practical way to recharge them today, in every neighborhood. However new apartments and condos which provide parking are already installing EV charge points to pull in new tenants. Look in any major city, and you'll find a lot of landlords competing for tenants by offering perks, and EV charging is one of the newer ones.
It won't be overnight, but EV charging is rapidly becoming more readily available. If you have to street park 100% of the time at home and at work, maybe an EV won't work for you. But a lot of parking garages are adding chargers, as are a lot of businesses. Even if you street park in front of your apartment, if your work or work parking deck has an EV charger, you still might be able to swing an EV.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
I see this a lot. I'd like to know - outside of targeted subsidies like this one - what program the Federal Government has that specifically helps only the rich, or excludes the poor, such that the rich make more out of it than they put into the system (a net benefit, instead of a reduction of loss).
Try not to slice-and-dice statement, m'kay? I want to know what makes a person think the rich get out more than they put in. Can you shed light on that?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Well I don't want to stop at any of those places for more than 20 minutes. That might be practical once everyone has chargers that can do a fill in less than 15 mins.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
there are certain things that no matter what happens, an EV is not the appropriate replacement. The militant Climate Change folks will not accept that though.
Think about it .. availability of Fast chargers which will be a necessity .. the logistics of this present problems. A single fast charging system.. can only charge at the max 36 cars or so a day. that is it. That is assuming a vehicle is in that spot 24 hours a day - and NO one leaves their vehicle in that spot over their allotted time. No one is going to do that 100% of the time.
Anything to do with life safety.. (emergency vehicles)... utility trucks.. not really viable for this.
Construction equipment - if you are preparing a site - there isn't going to be charging facilities - what are they going to do have 20x time the needed equipment - just to rotate out the ones needing charging? ....that is going to kill construction costs.
Storm response - if a severe storm knocks out power to an area for some extended period of time - that basically shuts down an entire geographical area until electricity is brought back on line and everyone can charge their vehicles adequately.
Commercial product/services -- perishable foods.. range/time to load/off load within battery limits?
Current technology does not account for these and i'm sure many others.
Am i against it - no - if it works for you - that's great. There are situations where it isn't and that needs to be recognized.
If I spend that much money on a vehicle, I don't want to be one of those 99% that suddenly realize that they DO need to go more than 150 miles total. Possibly in an urgent way.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
...nor do I live there
I can tell.
They are funding a bullet train to nowhere
Actually, it's going to connect the Bay Area and Southern California metro areas with each other and the Central Valley, but go on with the regurgitated talking points.
They can claim they are 100 renewable as long as they do not count the energy they import from other states.
The mandate does take into account energy coming from other states.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
That's a bleak way to look at it. Very bleak. Leaf has very short range, so of course a lot of people would switch to longer range. Prius still has a gas engine, and still pollutes as well as needing a bunch of engine oil to go with it. That's still a benefit. All ice engines, even the best, are terribly inefficient users of energy. Saying a car with around 21-25% efficiency is "pretty darn efficient" is a big stretch when you consider Tesla's electric motors are 80-90% efficient.
That's actually a pretty interesting response. I don't think you've proved anything, since people who buy new cars are by definition not exactly on on struggle street.
So perhaps the demographic is 'people who have second, third or fourth cars that are worth trading in' buy a new subsidized replacement at an overall cost to the USA taxpayer of $4 billion .
If you don't regard them as rich, fine.
I don't regard them as rich. I do regard them as taxpayers, so who is more appropriate to give incentives to?
Ponder that one a moment in the context of what you're asking people to sign on to in this situation.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
You forgot all the subsidies that were required for cars to get to where they were in the first place, and those that are inherently still in the system supporting a mature industry.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Actually, it's going to connect the Bay Area and Southern California metro areas with each other and the Central Valley, but go on with the regurgitated talking points.
Glad to see your priorities do not include your huge homeless problem. And my information about the various topics from california comes from LA times, so don't think I look for anti California sites. Your state sucks. I can also add reference from USA Today where the quality of living is ranked very low. But hey, you love your state.
Personally, I wish your state would grow a set of balls and leave the union. You hate the rest of us, and we also hate you. Get out, and don't let the door hit you in the ass.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
I agree wtih you about buying new. My wife has ALWAYS bought new until our Model S. I had to convince her of that. Best car she and I have owned.
One interesting thing about our MS, was it was originally some 80K. Within 2 years, it was 55K. 3 years later, it still remains above 40K (a 5 year car with more than 50% value; not bad). So basically, that initial drop, even in Tesla is like any other ICE car; A LOT. BUT, it holds it resale value great after that. Only now that we are getting close to paying this off she wants to either trade it, or our highlander in, for another used tesla, only this time a model X. argh. I say lets pay off this car and our home (another 8 year left). THEN she can have what she wants.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
alifornia ranks last in quality of life in new reportM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/03/01/california-ranks-last-quality-life-new-report/384853002/
I figured because you wouldn't believe me nor the source I spoke of that the quality of living was ranked so low. Here is your reference, or what. Do you think that USA Today is a far right web site?
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
And the purely gasoline-powered vehicles used as trade-ins aren't being destroyed or removed from the road. They're being resold. Tesla isn't a Cash-for-Clunkers deal where people with gross-polluting vehicles trade them in for a major subsidy on a significantly less polluting vehicle.
This part is true, but you need to look at what Model 3s are replacing - they're replacing new Accords, Lexus, BMWs, Audis, etc. In essence, they're cutting new ICE vehicle demand. It's a filter down effect that in 10-15 years will result in a majority EV vehicles on the roads, especially given that VW group, Mercedes, BMW, and others are all bringing multiple EV lines to market in the next few years only increasing the EV / ICE ratio on new cars.
At some point, that 10 year useful life for the majority of cars will result in an inversion of vehicle types, and it will only increase more rapidly once the threshold hits where gas stations either convert or close and ICE vehicles become more and more problematic to fuel and maintain as supplies become harder to obtain.
I say all this as an ICE owner, but I see the writing on the wall. I've already looked into EVs and just wasn't comfortable committing yet for a primary vehicle due to my not infrequent longer trips. For a secondary vehicle I'd have no qualms at this point. As soon as rapid charging battery tech becomes common enough where I need to go, then it's no longer a question. I also foresee something big happening in battery tech in the near future that will vastly improve EVs with dry non-flammable electrolytes coming into commercial use. At that point it will no longer be a question of if your next car will be an EV.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Well, you are seemingly a cantankerous old fucker who doesn't want anything. The rest of us want to do shit, so it doesn't really matter that you hate the world and progress. Keep shouting at clouds on the internet.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Sorry it is too subtle even to you. We are on the same side.
Sorry, it's so hard to tell any more because of all the terrible things that people actually believe.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Since we're talking about California cars, I'd look into operating an oil company in California and tell me the potential liability for any kind of oil spill. Or the requirements for abandoning a well.
The problem in America is, people still don't see EVs as cost-effective, practical alternatives to internal combustion engine vehicles in most cases!
Most people can't read a bus schedule, either. The operating cost per-mile of an EV is a fraction of the cost of just the gasoline for a traditional car, even when you add in the cost of replacing batteries.
Hey economics genius, did you forget oil is a global commodity?
Supply and demand my friend, go back and learn some economics.
Thats a bit rich coming from someone as economically clueless as you WindBourne.
How is your currency manipulation going?
Some of it has to do with charging infrastructure and in the rare times you need long distance, the charge times. I'm sure things will get significantly better the more EVs we get on the road. Where I live I don't really have an easy power source for the car, but it might be worth it to have one installed. All considerations.
I would love to own a tesla, but it's quite a bit more then my Civic. My next car I definitely want to at least be a hybrid but I'm going to have my civic at least couple more years. Maybe in a couple of years I'll want to weight an all electric for myself and keep the wife on gasoline or vise versa. She's a great candidate for no maintenance cars.
Heck, I may just push her toward EV and keep my civic for long drives where we don't plan to spend the night (we are driving to Colorado from San Diego with no stops next spring, for example) during the trip there and back.
Renting any vehicle in America is expensive. To get a van or truck to haul something one afternoon, would be $100. Don't be fooled by the Uhaul ads. You WILL NOT get a van for $19.99 for the whole weekend as advertised. You will get one for $19.99 + $69.99 processing fee + $0.15/mile + the remaining amount of fuel in the tank at a 30% markup + optional insurance + taxes.
Meanwhile, in Australia, in my mid-sized city of 300,000 people, I cannot buy any fully-electric car for less than AU$70k - the only new or used electric cars available here are BMW or Jaguar. A Hyundai Ionique is AU$50,000, but there are no dealers who stock them within 2000km from here. And $50k is well into "rich-person" territory.
I would love an electric car, but it's really not an option for me.
Sorry, but the minor subsidy oil gets is dwarfed by the massive extra taxes on gasoline.
Gasoline has massive additional taxes which dwarf the minor subsidies the industry may get. The government get more money from the purchase of a gallon of gas than the gas station, the refiner, or the oil company involved.
Are you this wrong about everything?
No one would trust an Indian 2nd hand car...
http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-world-plug-in-vehicle-volumes/
Still very far behind cleaner countries.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018...
Why call an EV "price inflated"? its just more expensive because its new tech that not yet mass produced in the numbers ICE are.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
what would you do if your ICE was up on blocks with the gearbox out and it would take a few hours to get it back and working and you had an urgent need to use the car? There are all sorts of hypothetical situations as virtually no solution is 100% perfect.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I don't see him saying his friend bought a brand new M3 - it may well have been a used car
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"If you have to street park 100% of the time at home and at work, maybe an EV won't work for you." thats the case for now but if they have a ICE car they must park it somewhere overnight. Those "somewheres" will start to get chargers just like they get parking meters, in fact they could double up the functions. Street lights can also be converted to double up as a charger too. Some apartment blocks also have parking.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
And at least 10% of them are still on the road today.
{O,o}
"Think about it .. availability of Fast chargers which will be a necessity ......." - there is more than one charger at lots of sites and the vast majority of EV drivers will not need a fast charger more than a few times a year. ... ."- look up "electric construction equipment" in google, being prepared. they all charged up before they go - common sense - who uses the equipment during the night (apart from a few special cases)? ..." - check for "refrigerated electric vans" in google
"Anything to do with life safety.. (emergency vehicles)... utility trucks.. not really viable for this." - why not? they don't have to travel far.
"Construction equipment
"Storm response - if a severe storm knocks out power to an area for some extended period of time -" mobile solar plus batteries
"Commercial product/services
Search Engines can be very helpful
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Since I've had a family, I've bought new vehicles instead of old, precisely because that becomes a huge problem with older vehicles.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I call it price inflated because they are simpler than an ICE and come with more inconveniences so they never should have been priced higher. They have been rushed to market.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I want to know what makes a person think the rich get out more than they put in. Can you shed light on that?
I already told you that your inability to realize that is the way government is supposed to work is why your own personal obtuseness is the real problem for you here.
It's a personal failing of yours, you can't even hold a string of thought together over a single short conversation.
Using the charger on route will more than likely be determined by your bladder
This article claims that a 22 kW charger in a public place may provide 80 miles of range per hour of charging. A 5 minute restroom break would thus provide only 6.7 miles.
Why not read what you reply to?
Not surprising