(1) People who insist that there are no differences
That's pretty rare. I mean I'm sure you can find them but you can find flat-earther's too so there's not much to be found cherrypicking nutters.
It's really not rare at all among people on the left, if you're talking about differences above the neck. Many insist that all cognitive and emotional differences among men and women are due to socialization, and that if boys and girls were treated identically we would see no differences whatsoever in non-physical abilities and inclinations.
Even people who will readily concede that we see large differences in other species deny that there can be any in our own, and insist that any that we see are due to social pressures/structures.
This is mostly ideological, and it has an obvious historical origin. Given that past generations have used claims of gender and race-based biological differences to justify all sorts of horrendous oppression, there's a tendency to be wary of any arguments for such differences, on the theory that it's a small step from accepting differences to using them to discriminate in ways that negatively impact individuals and groups.
This leads to stupid things like insisting that exactly half of the students in computer science classes should be female
Like when? What we do know is there was a dramatic drp down from about 37% in the early 1980s. Biology doesn't change significantly over the course of 1 generation.
Clearly not. That change must be due to changes either in what people do in those courses or in how they're treated/perceived by society. Note that the names changed during that period, from "informatics" and "data processing" to "computer science", "software engineering" and "computer engineering".
There are ads on your internet? You need a better internet!
If everyone blocks ads, all of the high-quality Internet services we use will go away, or become subscription services. Those who long for the pre-ad Internet do not remember the pre-ad Internet. Or have very narrow and unusual interests.
But with respect to music, most music listening is done on mobile devices, where adblockers are far less common.
FWIW, my YouTube has no ads, on any platform. I achieve this not by blocking the ads, but by paying for ad-free service. I do actually use an adblocker (ABP), but configure it to allow unintrusive ads.
Widevine exists only to satisfy contract demands by content providers to protect the streams. Lot$ spent (and passed on to the consumer) to do nothing.
This. I'm not a fan of DRM.
Though at least the cost isn't large, because AFAIK there is no license fee for Widevine. It does add some complexity to the device manufacturing process because keys have to be injected, but on a per-unit basis that's negligible.
The most popular one is probably Netflix. If you use Netflix on an Android device you have used WideVine.
Or Google Play video, or Amazon Video, or Hulu, or basically any Android app that plays commercial content. Maybe even YouTube; not sure.
I believe that Android and ChromeOS devices these days are required to provide L1, while desktop Chrome and Firefox provide only L3. L2 pretty much doesn't exist. You can tell easily what your device has: If your Netflix (etc.) streams are limited to 480p, then the device supports L3. If you can watch HD (720p, 1080i/p, 4K), then the device supports L1.
You're paying more than double, the average user during peak demand, and since the average household uses about 20 kWh per day (and in your case, you're using an additional 20 kWh per day driving your ~70 miles a day), you would have saved money by not getting conned by "Con Rocky" with fancy numbers that fucked up your bird brain for numbers.
Sigh. I really don't know why I'm bothering with this... you aren't bothering to do the math, but you're assuming -- completely unreasonably -- that I haven't/don't, and that I don't pay any attention to my overall power bills. But, I'll respond one last time, then I'm out.
I charge only off-peak, so I only pay the $0.034 rate for car charging. I built a pair of OpenEVSE chargers and modified the software to support my time-of-use plan, as well as to load-balance since both are connected to a single 50A circuit.
As for the rest of the house, if you bother to do the math you'll see that constant loads are actually slightly cheaper with TOU vs flat rate (actually, tiered) during the summer (constant-load daily average is $0.0975), and only slightly more during the winter (constant-load daily average is $0.1232). Further, with a well-crafted summer schedule for my smart thermostat, I get massive savings on AC by cooling the house to 68 just before 3 PM, then changing the set point to 78 until 8 PM. My summertime electric bills dropped significantly from that. About a third. I'm building a system to passively cool the house at night in the summer, and I expect an even larger savings from that when I get it fully operational.
Cooking, etc., doesn't really use much power except when we have lots of extended family over, but that's typically on weekends or holidays anyway, when it's off-peak all day. The washing machine and dryer don't draw much (dryer is natgas). I was quite concerned about the cost of running my wife's enormous Christmas lights display at $0.34/kWh, since she wants to turn them on at 5 PM, so I replaced most of the lights with LEDs, and the result is that the whole thing only draws about 400 W. That's $0.45 per day, so about $20 for the season, which is $10 more than it would cost to run the LEDs on the standard rate plan. Per year. And I was going to do the LED changeover anyway. That usage will go up some more when I add the floods for the half life-size nativity (I acquired the last of the figures in the after-Christmas sales and I'm now building a stable, 10'x6'x4', with a lifting hook so I can move it around with the tractor).
The humidifier is a power hog, drawing almost 3 kW. So I have my smart thermostat set to run it only during off-peak times, and obviously only in the winter. The steam generator in the steam shower is a massive power draw at 9 kW, but it typically only gets used early in the morning and late at night anyway. Same for the tub heater and jets. I do actively discourage my family from using those during peak hours, though I don't tell them not to.
Lights, computers, TVs... they don't have much of an impact, and the computers (other than my workstation) and TVs don't usually get powered up until about 7 PM and are in use until 11 or so (when the Wifi turns off for the kids), and 1 * 0.34 + 3 * 0.034 =.44 = 4 *.11, so that's a wash. The fact that it really is a wash is quite apparent in the total power bills.
Anyway, the bottom line is that I monitor the hell out of all of this (I have ammeters installed on every circuit in the house), and I can tell you for certain that the net effect of the TOU plan has been beneficial, even without considering EV charging savings. Obviously it's beneficial in large part because I've taken steps to reduce power usage during peak times, but that's the whole point of TOU, isn't it?
But the fact is that I came out considerably ahead on "fuel" and maintenance costs by switching to EVs
Sure, but the reason for parking it in the Bermudas is to avoid distributing it back to the parent company, while also keeping it in a jurisdiction that isn't going to try to tax it there.
Holidays include only New Year's Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,
Pioneer Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. When a holiday falls on a Saturday
or Sunday, the Friday before the holiday (if the holiday falls on a Saturday) or the Monday following
the holiday (if the holiday falls on a Sunday) will be considered a holiday and consequently Off-Peak.
That's still bullshit swillden.
You said you live in Utah earlier, Rocky Mountain Power charges you ~$0.10/kWh off-peak.
And off-peak discount is only available during the summer months (May-September).
You have zero discounts during winter.
Nope.
Rate Option 2:
34.3753 per kWh for all On-Peak kWh
3.4003 per kWh for all Off-Peak kWh
TIME PERIODS:
On-Peak: October through April inclusive
8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., and 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday, except
holidays.
May through September inclusive
3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday, except holidays.
Off-Peak: All other times.
RTFS/RTFA - this is on overseas revenue, not US revenue. They pay 100% of their required taxes; the fact they can shift their overseas (not US-taxable) revenue around to lower tax rates has no bearing on the US revenue.
Not exactly. This is about avoiding (legally) US corporate income taxes on foreign income, so it is about US revenue. And EU revenue, since it also avoids EU taxation. It's certainly not revenue that would pay for fire departments or roads in California, though.
It's worth pointing out here that the US practice of taxing foreign incomes of US companies -- on top of whatever the country in which the money is earned might tax it -- is a weird one, which no other major countries practice. It's the reason that tech companies have kept trillions parked offshore, because bringing it back would require paying taxes on it.
It's also worth pointing out, as TFA does, that the key governmental player in this particular tax avoidance scheme, Ireland, has been pressured into ending it, so Google will no longer be able to do this after next year.
A major fire to break out at an Amazon warehouse or Google office. When they call the (taxpayer funded) fire services they get told "oh we only operate the phones here - you'll have to source the water from Ireland, the crews from Luxembourg, the appliances from Bermuda... after all that's where you operate isn't it? You don't want to get involved with civil society - well provide your own protection through self funding then!"
What do local fire departments and roads have to do with federal income taxes on foreign earnings? You do know the latter doesn't pay for the former, right?
Sounds like you're advocating for diesel transport trucks.
No, I'm advocating for fair allocation of road construction and maintenance costs.
After all, the vast majority of costs you mentioned are for road maintenance.
Not "the vast majority". All. Except at the and where I shifted gears to talk about pollution taxes. Which would, of course, deter the use of diesel transport trucks.
Heh. I prefer the even more invisible hand. Don't subsidize at all, just internalize the externalities of fossil fuels. Tax tailpipe emissions. Adding a few dollars per gallon of pollution taxes, or a couple thousand per year of pollution taxes at vehicle registration time (has challenges, but would enable innovation in pollution capture/reduction technologies), would make EVs much cheaper to operate and have all sorts of other beneficial market-based effects toward reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
You really think that Ford and GM need help to compete with a tiny upstart like Tesla?
Absolutely yes. Ford's sales continue to fall, GM has already had to be bailed out, and wall street has nothing but disdain for both corporations.
Okay, do you think they deserve help?:-)
More seriously, do you think that tax dollars pumped into encouraging sales of Ford/GM EVs will do more to get EVs on the road than pumping the same dollars into Tesla? I don't. And the healthy, well-run automakers don't need help to compete with Tesla.
Actually, I bought my cars with cash; the only thing I finance is my home.
Actually, this isn't quite accurate, because I did lease for several years. I leased a 2011 Leaf in 2012, and then turned it in and leased a 2013 Leaf in 2014. I leased rather than buying because I knew that technology was changing and prices dropping rapidly. In 2017 when the (extended) lease ended, I paid $6000 cash to buy the car off lease (Nissan had estimated the end-of-lease value at $21K. Oops for them.), so my total cost was about $15K including all lease payments and the buyout.
I suppose I also financed most of the Tesla I bought in 2018, borrowing my 401K, though I'm paying interest to myself, so that's really more of opportunity cost (the borrowed money doesn't generate returns, though since my 2018 returns were net negative, I guess I "won" there). I also put $2500 of the Tesla on a credit card, but I pay the card off every month so I incur no interest charges... and get a 1% kickback, which I why I used the card for as much as the dealership would let me. I'd have loved it if they let me put the entire cost on the card:-)
On top of that, you’re paying interest on the loan need to buy the over priced golf cart in the first place.
Actually, I bought my cars with cash; the only thing I finance is my home. But I have run the numbers with a reasonable discount rate which would cover inflation loss and/or loan servicing in another post, and I also included those considerations in my calculations before buying.
In addition the charger uses up electricity even when it’s not charging.
Which is included in the metering I mentioned. Also, the consumption is trivial; pennies per month at most.
Electric cars get about 30 kWh/100miles.
2024 miles takes about 600 kWh.
$24.09 for 600 kWh = $0.04 kWh, when the average price for electricity in America is ~$0.10/kWh
You're paying at least $50/month charging your electric car.
I pay $0.034/kWh to charge my cars. I'm on a time-of-use plan which charges $0.034/kWh off-peak and $0.34/kWh on-peak. My chargers (I have two, for two cars) are configured to charge only during off-peak times.
As an aside, switching to the time-of-use plan has saved me a lot on AC, too. I configure my smart thermostat to cool the house to 68F an hour before peak starts (3 PM) and then change the set point to 78F. The AC rarely runs again before 8PM when peak ends. This has reduced my cooling bills by about 30%.
This approach should be applied uniformly: every vehicle, large and small, should be assessed an annual tax based on miles driven and a * (w/a)^4, where a is the number of axles and w is the vehicle weight.
Get ready for amazon prime to only be $50 for shipping per item instead of the plebian $100 with that tax policy.
Actually, I ran the numbers, and the cost of truck transport would increase by about 43%. Of course, the total cost of shipping includes a lot more than just the truck transport, and Amazon Prime fees cover more than just shipping, but if we ignore all that then my proposal means that the cost of Prime will go from $119 (the current cost, not $100) to $170.
That crazy world got 4 moderation points from people with greater capacity for ideals than critical thinking.
You should be more careful when you accuse people of not thinking critically.
If diesel fuel were charged at a fair tax (about $4,500 per gallon of diesel fuel)
That's three orders of magnitude too high (should be $4.03; see below), and, also, there are lots of diesel-using vehicles that aren't semi trucks so taxing the fuel isn't the right approach. We should tax vehicle miles by weight and axles.
Your comment motivated me to look up some numbers and do some calculations (that link is a Google Sheet, which links to my sources). From the DoT's 2016 report (the latest available), 247,644,981 light duty vehicles logged 2,849,718,000,000 miles, while 11,498,561 trucks logged 287,895,000,000 miles. Applying the 9600x damage factor to the trucks, that makes their mileage 2,763,792,000,000,000. The total cost of roads and highways in 2016 was $219B. Based on damage-adjusted miles, the light duty vehicle share of that is $225,576,097.53 while the truck share of that is $218,774,423,902.47.
On a per-vehicle basis, the light-duty share is $0.91 (!), while the truck share is $19,026.24. That last number sounds terrible for truckers, but it's really not so bad when you compare it to the existing costs of trucking.
The current cost per mile (2017 ATRI numbers; yeah I should find their 2016 report instead) is $1.59. That includes equipment, labor, fuel, taxes, fees, everything. The share per damage-adjusted mile of the 2016 highway maintenance costs is $0.76, and the current per-mile cost of fuel taxes is $0.07. So after dropping the fuel taxes and adding the $0.76, we get a new per-mile cost of $2.28. This means the cost of truck transport would increase by 43%. That's a considerable amount, large enough that it would need to be phased in over time, but it's far from unmanageable.
Oh, and as for the "fair" fuel tax: The trucking industry used 54B gallons of fuel in 2016. If the damage-based cost were allocated to the industry with fuel taxes, we'd need to replace the current ~$0.07 taxes with $4.03.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) People who insist that there are no differences
That's pretty rare. I mean I'm sure you can find them but you can find flat-earther's too so there's not much to be found cherrypicking nutters.
It's really not rare at all among people on the left, if you're talking about differences above the neck. Many insist that all cognitive and emotional differences among men and women are due to socialization, and that if boys and girls were treated identically we would see no differences whatsoever in non-physical abilities and inclinations.
Even people who will readily concede that we see large differences in other species deny that there can be any in our own, and insist that any that we see are due to social pressures/structures.
This is mostly ideological, and it has an obvious historical origin. Given that past generations have used claims of gender and race-based biological differences to justify all sorts of horrendous oppression, there's a tendency to be wary of any arguments for such differences, on the theory that it's a small step from accepting differences to using them to discriminate in ways that negatively impact individuals and groups.
This leads to stupid things like insisting that exactly half of the students in computer science classes should be female
Like when? What we do know is there was a dramatic drp down from about 37% in the early 1980s. Biology doesn't change significantly over the course of 1 generation.
Clearly not. That change must be due to changes either in what people do in those courses or in how they're treated/perceived by society. Note that the names changed during that period, from "informatics" and "data processing" to "computer science", "software engineering" and "computer engineering".
There are ads on your internet? You need a better internet!
If everyone blocks ads, all of the high-quality Internet services we use will go away, or become subscription services. Those who long for the pre-ad Internet do not remember the pre-ad Internet. Or have very narrow and unusual interests.
But with respect to music, most music listening is done on mobile devices, where adblockers are far less common.
FWIW, my YouTube has no ads, on any platform. I achieve this not by blocking the ads, but by paying for ad-free service. I do actually use an adblocker (ABP), but configure it to allow unintrusive ads.
I've never seen an ad on Youtube. Adblockers.
Not on mobile, which is how people mostly listen to music.
Because free and no advertisements.
Free, yes, but YouTube has ads.
My numbers and approach are fully detailed in the spreadsheet I linked. Take a look; if there's a problem you should be able to point to it.
The biggest problem I see is adding the cost of equipment in
Huh? I didn't add cost of equipment in anywhere.
Widevine exists only to satisfy contract demands by content providers to protect the streams. Lot$ spent (and passed on to the consumer) to do nothing.
This. I'm not a fan of DRM.
Though at least the cost isn't large, because AFAIK there is no license fee for Widevine. It does add some complexity to the device manufacturing process because keys have to be injected, but on a per-unit basis that's negligible.
The most popular one is probably Netflix. If you use Netflix on an Android device you have used WideVine.
Or Google Play video, or Amazon Video, or Hulu, or basically any Android app that plays commercial content. Maybe even YouTube; not sure.
I believe that Android and ChromeOS devices these days are required to provide L1, while desktop Chrome and Firefox provide only L3. L2 pretty much doesn't exist. You can tell easily what your device has: If your Netflix (etc.) streams are limited to 480p, then the device supports L3. If you can watch HD (720p, 1080i/p, 4K), then the device supports L1.
More detail: https://www.androidauthority.c...
Yes, I'm on a three-year pilot program. So what?
You're paying more than double, the average user during peak demand, and since the average household uses about 20 kWh per day (and in your case, you're using an additional 20 kWh per day driving your ~70 miles a day), you would have saved money by not getting conned by "Con Rocky" with fancy numbers that fucked up your bird brain for numbers.
Sigh. I really don't know why I'm bothering with this... you aren't bothering to do the math, but you're assuming -- completely unreasonably -- that I haven't/don't, and that I don't pay any attention to my overall power bills. But, I'll respond one last time, then I'm out.
I charge only off-peak, so I only pay the $0.034 rate for car charging. I built a pair of OpenEVSE chargers and modified the software to support my time-of-use plan, as well as to load-balance since both are connected to a single 50A circuit.
As for the rest of the house, if you bother to do the math you'll see that constant loads are actually slightly cheaper with TOU vs flat rate (actually, tiered) during the summer (constant-load daily average is $0.0975), and only slightly more during the winter (constant-load daily average is $0.1232). Further, with a well-crafted summer schedule for my smart thermostat, I get massive savings on AC by cooling the house to 68 just before 3 PM, then changing the set point to 78 until 8 PM. My summertime electric bills dropped significantly from that. About a third. I'm building a system to passively cool the house at night in the summer, and I expect an even larger savings from that when I get it fully operational.
Cooking, etc., doesn't really use much power except when we have lots of extended family over, but that's typically on weekends or holidays anyway, when it's off-peak all day. The washing machine and dryer don't draw much (dryer is natgas). I was quite concerned about the cost of running my wife's enormous Christmas lights display at $0.34/kWh, since she wants to turn them on at 5 PM, so I replaced most of the lights with LEDs, and the result is that the whole thing only draws about 400 W. That's $0.45 per day, so about $20 for the season, which is $10 more than it would cost to run the LEDs on the standard rate plan. Per year. And I was going to do the LED changeover anyway. That usage will go up some more when I add the floods for the half life-size nativity (I acquired the last of the figures in the after-Christmas sales and I'm now building a stable, 10'x6'x4', with a lifting hook so I can move it around with the tractor).
The humidifier is a power hog, drawing almost 3 kW. So I have my smart thermostat set to run it only during off-peak times, and obviously only in the winter. The steam generator in the steam shower is a massive power draw at 9 kW, but it typically only gets used early in the morning and late at night anyway. Same for the tub heater and jets. I do actively discourage my family from using those during peak hours, though I don't tell them not to.
Lights, computers, TVs... they don't have much of an impact, and the computers (other than my workstation) and TVs don't usually get powered up until about 7 PM and are in use until 11 or so (when the Wifi turns off for the kids), and 1 * 0.34 + 3 * 0.034 = .44 = 4 * .11, so that's a wash. The fact that it really is a wash is quite apparent in the total power bills.
Anyway, the bottom line is that I monitor the hell out of all of this (I have ammeters installed on every circuit in the house), and I can tell you for certain that the net effect of the TOU plan has been beneficial, even without considering EV charging savings. Obviously it's beneficial in large part because I've taken steps to reduce power usage during peak times, but that's the whole point of TOU, isn't it?
But the fact is that I came out considerably ahead on "fuel" and maintenance costs by switching to EVs
Sure, but the reason for parking it in the Bermudas is to avoid distributing it back to the parent company, while also keeping it in a jurisdiction that isn't going to try to tax it there.
Also, you should read the rest of that article.
For completeness, here's the holiday listing:
I pay $0.034/kWh to charge my cars.
That's still bullshit swillden. You said you live in Utah earlier, Rocky Mountain Power charges you ~$0.10/kWh off-peak. And off-peak discount is only available during the summer months (May-September). You have zero discounts during winter.
Nope.
I pay $0.034/kWh off-peak.
RTFS/RTFA - this is on overseas revenue, not US revenue. They pay 100% of their required taxes; the fact they can shift their overseas (not US-taxable) revenue around to lower tax rates has no bearing on the US revenue.
Not exactly. This is about avoiding (legally) US corporate income taxes on foreign income, so it is about US revenue. And EU revenue, since it also avoids EU taxation. It's certainly not revenue that would pay for fire departments or roads in California, though.
It's worth pointing out here that the US practice of taxing foreign incomes of US companies -- on top of whatever the country in which the money is earned might tax it -- is a weird one, which no other major countries practice. It's the reason that tech companies have kept trillions parked offshore, because bringing it back would require paying taxes on it.
It's also worth pointing out, as TFA does, that the key governmental player in this particular tax avoidance scheme, Ireland, has been pressured into ending it, so Google will no longer be able to do this after next year.
hey have a 3.5mm (god I hate calling it that... it is 1/8"...)
It isn't. The diameter of the plug is 3.5 mm. 1/8" would be 3.175 mm, 10% smaller than 3.5 mm.
A major fire to break out at an Amazon warehouse or Google office. When they call the (taxpayer funded) fire services they get told "oh we only operate the phones here - you'll have to source the water from Ireland, the crews from Luxembourg, the appliances from Bermuda... after all that's where you operate isn't it? You don't want to get involved with civil society - well provide your own protection through self funding then!"
What do local fire departments and roads have to do with federal income taxes on foreign earnings? You do know the latter doesn't pay for the former, right?
Sounds like you're advocating for diesel transport trucks.
No, I'm advocating for fair allocation of road construction and maintenance costs.
After all, the vast majority of costs you mentioned are for road maintenance.
Not "the vast majority". All. Except at the and where I shifted gears to talk about pollution taxes. Which would, of course, deter the use of diesel transport trucks.
You should re-read the post you replied to.
Heh. I prefer the even more invisible hand. Don't subsidize at all, just internalize the externalities of fossil fuels. Tax tailpipe emissions. Adding a few dollars per gallon of pollution taxes, or a couple thousand per year of pollution taxes at vehicle registration time (has challenges, but would enable innovation in pollution capture/reduction technologies), would make EVs much cheaper to operate and have all sorts of other beneficial market-based effects toward reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
You really think that Ford and GM need help to compete with a tiny upstart like Tesla?
Absolutely yes. Ford's sales continue to fall, GM has already had to be bailed out, and wall street has nothing but disdain for both corporations.
Okay, do you think they deserve help? :-)
More seriously, do you think that tax dollars pumped into encouraging sales of Ford/GM EVs will do more to get EVs on the road than pumping the same dollars into Tesla? I don't. And the healthy, well-run automakers don't need help to compete with Tesla.
Actually, I bought my cars with cash; the only thing I finance is my home.
Actually, this isn't quite accurate, because I did lease for several years. I leased a 2011 Leaf in 2012, and then turned it in and leased a 2013 Leaf in 2014. I leased rather than buying because I knew that technology was changing and prices dropping rapidly. In 2017 when the (extended) lease ended, I paid $6000 cash to buy the car off lease (Nissan had estimated the end-of-lease value at $21K. Oops for them.), so my total cost was about $15K including all lease payments and the buyout.
I suppose I also financed most of the Tesla I bought in 2018, borrowing my 401K, though I'm paying interest to myself, so that's really more of opportunity cost (the borrowed money doesn't generate returns, though since my 2018 returns were net negative, I guess I "won" there). I also put $2500 of the Tesla on a credit card, but I pay the card off every month so I incur no interest charges... and get a 1% kickback, which I why I used the card for as much as the dealership would let me. I'd have loved it if they let me put the entire cost on the card :-)
On top of that, you’re paying interest on the loan need to buy the over priced golf cart in the first place.
Actually, I bought my cars with cash; the only thing I finance is my home. But I have run the numbers with a reasonable discount rate which would cover inflation loss and/or loan servicing in another post, and I also included those considerations in my calculations before buying.
In addition the charger uses up electricity even when it’s not charging.
Which is included in the metering I mentioned. Also, the consumption is trivial; pennies per month at most.
Your numbers are bullshit swillden.
Electric cars get about 30 kWh/100miles. 2024 miles takes about 600 kWh. $24.09 for 600 kWh = $0.04 kWh, when the average price for electricity in America is ~$0.10/kWh You're paying at least $50/month charging your electric car.
I pay $0.034/kWh to charge my cars. I'm on a time-of-use plan which charges $0.034/kWh off-peak and $0.34/kWh on-peak. My chargers (I have two, for two cars) are configured to charge only during off-peak times.
As an aside, switching to the time-of-use plan has saved me a lot on AC, too. I configure my smart thermostat to cool the house to 68F an hour before peak starts (3 PM) and then change the set point to 78F. The AC rarely runs again before 8PM when peak ends. This has reduced my cooling bills by about 30%.
Here are the high points of the math: My EV costs me $0.01 per mile in electricity.
Here are the higher points of the math: Your EV costs you $0.03 per mile in "fuel" one month ago. Amazing how were you able to chop your electricity costs by 67% in one month swillden...what's your secret?
Hmm. Looks like I made a mistake in that previous post. Adjust my numbers in that post downward accordingly.
Creating electric cars is more carbon heavy stuff than creting old fashioned car. All thos rare earth minerals that need to be digged etc.
Cite?
This approach should be applied uniformly: every vehicle, large and small, should be assessed an annual tax based on miles driven and a * (w/a)^4, where a is the number of axles and w is the vehicle weight.
Get ready for amazon prime to only be $50 for shipping per item instead of the plebian $100 with that tax policy.
Actually, I ran the numbers, and the cost of truck transport would increase by about 43%. Of course, the total cost of shipping includes a lot more than just the truck transport, and Amazon Prime fees cover more than just shipping, but if we ignore all that then my proposal means that the cost of Prime will go from $119 (the current cost, not $100) to $170.
That crazy world got 4 moderation points from people with greater capacity for ideals than critical thinking.
You should be more careful when you accuse people of not thinking critically.
If diesel fuel were charged at a fair tax (about $4,500 per gallon of diesel fuel)
That's three orders of magnitude too high (should be $4.03; see below), and, also, there are lots of diesel-using vehicles that aren't semi trucks so taxing the fuel isn't the right approach. We should tax vehicle miles by weight and axles.
Your comment motivated me to look up some numbers and do some calculations (that link is a Google Sheet, which links to my sources). From the DoT's 2016 report (the latest available), 247,644,981 light duty vehicles logged 2,849,718,000,000 miles, while 11,498,561 trucks logged 287,895,000,000 miles. Applying the 9600x damage factor to the trucks, that makes their mileage 2,763,792,000,000,000. The total cost of roads and highways in 2016 was $219B. Based on damage-adjusted miles, the light duty vehicle share of that is $225,576,097.53 while the truck share of that is $218,774,423,902.47.
On a per-vehicle basis, the light-duty share is $0.91 (!), while the truck share is $19,026.24. That last number sounds terrible for truckers, but it's really not so bad when you compare it to the existing costs of trucking.
The current cost per mile (2017 ATRI numbers; yeah I should find their 2016 report instead) is $1.59. That includes equipment, labor, fuel, taxes, fees, everything. The share per damage-adjusted mile of the 2016 highway maintenance costs is $0.76, and the current per-mile cost of fuel taxes is $0.07. So after dropping the fuel taxes and adding the $0.76, we get a new per-mile cost of $2.28. This means the cost of truck transport would increase by 43%. That's a considerable amount, large enough that it would need to be phased in over time, but it's far from unmanageable.
Oh, and as for the "fair" fuel tax: The trucking industry used 54B gallons of fuel in 2016. If the damage-based cost were allocated to the industry with fuel taxes, we'd need to replace the current ~$0.07 taxes with $4.03.