If that legislation hadn't passed, you'd still shelves full of incandescent bulbs and people would still be buying them.
That is the symptom of a broken market. If LED bulbs really are more efficient and save more money, then the market would have provided them as an option regardless of, and even in spite of, any legislation.
Look at crystal meth. Lots of legislation around that. Right? And yet the market continues to provide regardless of laws supposedly preventing that from happening.
The same is true of LED bulbs. You could actually legislate AGAINST them, and if they were desirable, they would still sell.
So what is going on here? Why do LED bulbs need laws to force manufacturers to produce them and citizens to buy them?
I don't know but capitalism is not being allowed to work. That much is clear.
Perhaps the free market is a good but imperfect system that requires some intervention in order to work for the benefit of society as a whole.
A more market based solution to this problem is certainly an option. The real problem is not light bulbs, not directly. It's that too much CO2 is getting dumped into the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a public resource so an alternative would be to charge the producers of electricity for the use of that resource. Just like a hotel only has so many rooms available, there is only so much extra CO2 the atmosphere can handle before it starts to cause problems.
What would happen as a result of charging utilities for the production of CO2 is that electricity produced via fossil fuels would become much more expensive. It might lead to blackouts during periods of high demand.
Because given the choice a lot of people will still choose the cheaper incandescent bulb, - even if it costs them roughly the same or even less in the long run.
The point of the legislation is to save energy and reduce CO2 emissions by getting rid of incandescent bulbs, - which the original legislation did very effectively for standard sized bulbs. If that legislation hadn't passed, you'd still shelves full of incandescent bulbs and people would still be buying them.
About 8 years ago lunar orbiters captured pictures of the former lunar landing sites. You know what you can see in those pictures? Footprints. Even footprints have survived 40 years on the moon.
During the moon landings themselves the astronauts were able to locate a lunar surveyor that had been there for two years. It was fully intact except for one leg.
Of course that doesn't mean something could survive a billion years or more but it does mean that every square inch of the moon is not getting constantly pelted by meteors on a regular basis. You see all the craters because just like the footprints there is no erosion that would remove them over time like we have on earth. You're looking at billions of years worth of craters.
The thing we're talking about is pretty small, - the size of a DVD. The odds of it taking a direct hit from a meteor large enough to damage it, even over a long period of time isn't very high. There's probably a pretty good chance that it will end up being covered from powder or pebbles from a nearby strike, but if it's enclosed in something at all tough, it would probably survive.
Of course it's possible it could get taken out within a week, just not likely.
correction: If it is successfully delivered to the moon, remains there for a time, and then is removed before the moon is destroyed, it could survive longer than the moon.
Governor: Democrat
5 of 8 Congress Members: Democrats
Both Senators: Democrats
Minnesota House: Solidly Democrat
Minnesota Senate: Republicans hold a one seat majority.
Has not gone Republican in a Presidential election since Nixon in 1972.
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.
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.
Just something to add, I don't know how much of a position the government would be to help San Pedro add more electrical capacity. However, the resorts might be willing to pony up some money. Why? The island is not big. Bicycles and golf carts are major forms of transportation. Some vacationers in resorts that back up to the airport complain about the noise of those turbo props taking off at 8:00 am.
The electric planes aren't going to be silent but I'm guessing they'd be a whole lot quieter. I bet the resorts would love it if all the takeoffs before noon were electric planes.
So, let's say you use 30% on the first flight to Caye Caulker and another 30% to San Pedro. At that point the plane is probably sitting on the ground for awhile. It doesn't need an 80% charge. It needs maybe 30% to get back to Belize City with some margin for safety. And like I said it could be a battery swap rather than a charge.
Plus charging batteries seems like a perfect application for a solar farm.
They have reliable electricity, - even on the Islands they fly to.;-)
And the flights aren't far, 30 to 40 miles maybe. They are literally island hopping. So a full charge is good for 10 flights easily and they can probably top off between flights or just do battery swaps.
I flew on one of those when we went to Belize. The Alice could replace any of Maya Island Air's planes except perhaps the largest. But even then I'd argue that since they are so much cheaper to fly, you could just add a few flights per day to make up the 1 or 2 seat difference between the Alice and the larger plane.
Something else to consider is that along with the cheaper fuel costs, the maintenance costs of the electric engines would be much much lower.
There's a definite commercial market for these, though maybe not as replacement for the type of regional aircraft that you're thinking of. If you've ever flown to Ambergris Caye in Belize, you'll know what I mean. Maya Island Air is one option for getting from mainland Belize to the most popular tourist island. These are the planes they fly: https://www.mayaislandair.com/...
The Alice could replace pretty much any of them except perhaps the largest, but I'd argue that since they're so much cheaper to fly you'd could easily add a few extra flights per day to make up the difference and still be ahead. And that's just on fuel costs. My guess is that maintenance costs on simple electric engines would also be a ton cheaper.
You're right, a Tesla is designed from the ground up to be an EV and provisions are made for a large battery pack. But they are also designed to be mass produced and at least semi-affordable.
An Aston-Martin conversion is a little more free of these last constraints. There might be multiple battery packs that require a fair amount of labor to install. And when all is said and done the range may not be all that impressive, but how many miles does a typical 1970 DB6 get driven in one shot anyway?
Work/life balance factors more into big decisions that Americans make than it did a generation or two ago. Pulling up roots for a different job is something they're are less likely to do.
I don't see this as a bad thing. It's probably better that people become more invested in their current communities.
The 10% figure includes people that simply moved into a different home within the same area. The number of people who moved to a different state is less than 2%.
The current crop of EVs is not for everybody which is why I think it makes sense to continue to incentivize their development. Every automaker that sells cars in the US knows that there is a huge market for CUVs, SUVs, and pickups.
As far as range anxiety goes, there are lots of people that share your concerns and that keeps them from buying EVs. Range will get better over time but I think what often gets overlooked are PHEVs or EREVs, - plug in hybrids or extended range EVs. You get 40 or 50 miles of battery range, then a gas engine kicks in after that. That gas engine may be more or less a generator or it may help drive the wheels. These also qualify for the tax incentives.
Chevy is dropping the Volt, which I think is a shame because it was a good example of one of these. For plenty of people a 40 or 50 mile range is enough to handle driving to work and back plus running an errand or two. You have the gas engine for weekends of running around or long trips. Your mileage with the gas engine still exceeds what you'd get with all but the most stingy gas engined vehicles.
EV's are not luxury vehicles for the wealthy, and haven't been for some time.
For example, the Nissan Leaf starts at $30K -- in a country where the average price for a new car is $33K.
That's the average - and it's pulled up by luxury sedans and big pickups. The Leaf is a compact, and comparing like-to-like the average cost of a new compact in the US is in the $20k range. Also, the last time I looked, the average income recommended to be able to afford a car in the $30-35k range (Leaf to low end Model S) puts you in the 70th percentile or above.
Or, to put it another way - the grandparent is much more correct than you are. The Leaf and low end Tesla's may not be a vehicle for the wealthy, but they're certainly not vehicles for the average American either.
And that would seem to be the point of the tax break, - to bring the cost of EVs closer to the cost of an equivalent gas engined vehicle. A 2018 Honda Civic lists from 20,000 to 25,000 depending on options. If you apply the $8,500 tax break to a Leaf or a Chevy Volt, that puts you right in that ball park.
I think there are problems with the tax break as currently structured. Basically it penalizes manufacturers that were pioneers in developing mass market EVs like Chevy and Nissan. After they've sold 200,000 vehicles their EVs will cost up to $8,500 more than the equivalent competitor's models. So if the tax breaks are to remain, I think they should have an end date rather than be limited to a certain number of cars sold.
Or another option would be to drop the tax break for EVs and instead subsidize the building out of a fast charging network.
My first car was a huge 6 six seater built in 1967. My next two cars were barely 4 seaters and you know what? They suited me just fine. When I got married and had kids, we purchased more family oriented vehicles but one was always an economy car. The last car I bought for myself cost $12,000. I've never owned a brand new car.
So last Spring after about 16 years, our most recent economy car was becoming less reliable and we decided to replace it. I wanted to spend less than $10,000 but opted to spend a little more ($12,000) on a used Chevy Volt. The newer models are 5 seaters but the 1st generation seats only 4, - but pretty comfortably. At this point our kids are mostly grown and we only have two anyway. It works quite well for us.
And you know what? Even though I didn't directly benefit from the tax break, the fact that one exists put that car in my price range, - because it also keeps the prices of used EVs down.
And the beauty of it is that because the tax break made it possible for more people to buy these cars, it increase the volume of sales, and lets manufacturers put more money back into EV technology so that they can eventually build bigger ones with longer range, - for people like you.
I knew a real estate agent that used to keep spare sets of appliances around, - why? Because he'd seen so many house purchases fall through because the owner wanted to keep the washer and dryer instead of passing them onto the buyer.
So here you have people willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a house (or making hundreds of thousands) and the deal falls through over what amounts to less than $1000 worth of appliances. You might think that these are brand new high end models or something like that but typically not. So this agent had the smarts to collect serviceable washer and dryers that he could put in the homes to save these deals.
I'm sure there a people wealthy enough that $8,500 simply doesn't matter. Maybe people buying roadsters fall into that category. However there have been about 800,000 EVs sold in the US since the tax break was put in place. Lots of them cost about half of a roadster. I would bet that tax break made those purchases a whole lot easier, to the point where it allowed people to pull the trigger on what many people today still consider a risky proposition, - an EV
There are two major reasons for "the average user" to chose Android devices over iOS devices.
1) Price. In many parts of the world even the basic iPhone is way too expensive to most people, but the budget Android devices are much more possible.
2) Choice of devices. With so many manufacturers doing so many different types of Android phones there is obviously a lot more choice in what to pick.
In US, the first option affects less people, though obviously still many people, but the second option is definitely a valid effect in US too.
Yes, but I think we want more than just a choice of devices that all run the same OS. We'd also like at least two competitive OS options and 2 ecosystem options.
Would you also suggest that we all drive Toyotas because they have the largest world wide share of the auto market?
If everyone always chose the more dominant player in terms of market share, we'd never get anything better than the status quo.
Nissan Leafs have air cooled battery packs rather than liquid cooled and that's why their lifespan has been relatively short. Teslas and even Chevy Volts have much more sophisticated cooling systems and degradation so far is almost non-existant.
That's exactly the point: cheaper electric cars have batteries that don't last. I'm not saying the first or even second owners of an EV are going to have major issues with it. I'm saying the era of cheap buy-here-pay-here lot cars that still provide transportation so long as you keep 'em full of oil, might be coming to a close.
Maybe.
It could be though that going forward the Nissan Leaf's passive cooling will be seen as a critical design flaw that even the cheapest EVs will not implement in the future.
It's really hard to know how this will all play out. Our assumptions are based on how cars are built and used today which may not apply in future. For example, a Chinese company is working on a Tesla clone whose battery pack can be swapped in a few minutes at a properly equipped station. So rather than having a semi-permanent battery that you charge, when traveling long distances you merely swap it with a freshly charged one. At that point the life of a single battery pack isn't so much of an issue for the owner of the car.
And remember, we're talking 2030. Figuring a decent ICE vehicle can last 15 years, if not more, that takes us to 2045 before the poor start running out of ICE cars to buy. By that time autonomous vehicles will likely be the norm. Which means services like Uber or public bus service can be really cheap since they won't have to pay drivers. Plus we're not just talking about electric cars, but electric motorcycles, bicycles, scooters, etc. An electric motorcycle or scooter seems like a pretty good choice for a poor person vs an old clunker ICE vehicle. Smaller, cheaper batteries that are quick to charge and a drivetrain that's relatively maintenance free.
Finally, Israel has the 3rd highest gas prices in the world. Operating an ICE vehicle of any stripe there isn't cheap. I'm guessing the really poor simply may find car ownership too expensive as is and the change to electric vehicles will only improve things for them.
You should look at the Leaf if you want to know how not to cool a battery pack.
Nissan Leafs have air cooled battery packs rather than liquid cooled and that's why their lifespan has been relatively short. Teslas and even Chevy Volts have much more sophisticated cooling systems and degradation so far is almost non-existant.
In fact a 2011 Chevy Volt had racked up over 450,000 miles as of this last Summer with no noticeable degradation of battery life.
This only affects new car sales so there will be used ICE vehicles available for some time. As the number of reliable ICE vehicles decreases there will be solutions for dealing with the battery pack issue. First is that well designed packs with active heating/cooling should have limited degradation for a substantial portion of the vehicle's life.
And once EVs become a significant portion of vehicles on the road, there will be a market for pack replacements. Junk yards will salvage packs from relatively new cars that were totaled in accidents. In order to reduce costs, EV manufacturers will have a big incentive to minimize the number of different pack designs, - which makes it more practical for 3rd parties to manufacture replacements.
There will be pack remanufacturers that will refurbish old packs, just as you can get any number of refurbished parts for cars today.
The bright spot is that the drivetrain in an EV is pretty simple when it comes down to it and should last longer than a combustion engine/transmission. Further, there are fewer wear items like timing belts, plugs, filters, plug wires, EGR valves, exhaust systems, etc. And with regenerative braking, pads and rotors last longer. Oil changes will be a thing of the past.
So even if pack replacement remains relatively expensive, over the lifetime of a vehicle, it could be offset by the lower cost of maintenance in other areas.
Slashdot Mirror
If that legislation hadn't passed, you'd still shelves full of incandescent bulbs and people would still be buying them.
That is the symptom of a broken market. If LED bulbs really are more efficient and save more money, then the market would have provided them as an option regardless of, and even in spite of, any legislation.
Look at crystal meth. Lots of legislation around that. Right? And yet the market continues to provide regardless of laws supposedly preventing that from happening.
The same is true of LED bulbs. You could actually legislate AGAINST them, and if they were desirable, they would still sell.
So what is going on here? Why do LED bulbs need laws to force manufacturers to produce them and citizens to buy them?
I don't know but capitalism is not being allowed to work. That much is clear.
Perhaps the free market is a good but imperfect system that requires some intervention in order to work for the benefit of society as a whole.
A more market based solution to this problem is certainly an option. The real problem is not light bulbs, not directly. It's that too much CO2 is getting dumped into the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a public resource so an alternative would be to charge the producers of electricity for the use of that resource. Just like a hotel only has so many rooms available, there is only so much extra CO2 the atmosphere can handle before it starts to cause problems.
What would happen as a result of charging utilities for the production of CO2 is that electricity produced via fossil fuels would become much more expensive. It might lead to blackouts during periods of high demand.
Is that better? Maybe. Maybe not.
Because given the choice a lot of people will still choose the cheaper incandescent bulb, - even if it costs them roughly the same or even less in the long run.
The point of the legislation is to save energy and reduce CO2 emissions by getting rid of incandescent bulbs, - which the original legislation did very effectively for standard sized bulbs. If that legislation hadn't passed, you'd still shelves full of incandescent bulbs and people would still be buying them.
About 8 years ago lunar orbiters captured pictures of the former lunar landing sites. You know what you can see in those pictures? Footprints. Even footprints have survived 40 years on the moon.
During the moon landings themselves the astronauts were able to locate a lunar surveyor that had been there for two years. It was fully intact except for one leg.
Of course that doesn't mean something could survive a billion years or more but it does mean that every square inch of the moon is not getting constantly pelted by meteors on a regular basis. You see all the craters because just like the footprints there is no erosion that would remove them over time like we have on earth. You're looking at billions of years worth of craters.
The thing we're talking about is pretty small, - the size of a DVD. The odds of it taking a direct hit from a meteor large enough to damage it, even over a long period of time isn't very high. There's probably a pretty good chance that it will end up being covered from powder or pebbles from a nearby strike, but if it's enclosed in something at all tough, it would probably survive.
Of course it's possible it could get taken out within a week, just not likely.
correction: If it is successfully delivered to the moon, remains there for a time, and then is removed before the moon is destroyed, it could survive longer than the moon.
It resides on the moon now. If it is removed from the moon before the moon is destroyed, it may survive longer than the moon.
Minnesota
Governor: Democrat
5 of 8 Congress Members: Democrats
Both Senators: Democrats
Minnesota House: Solidly Democrat
Minnesota Senate: Republicans hold a one seat majority.
Has not gone Republican in a Presidential election since Nixon in 1972.
How is this a red state?
Do you think that advertisers are the only ones who want your data and are willing to pay for it? I can imagine far worse than that.
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.
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.
Just something to add, I don't know how much of a position the government would be to help San Pedro add more electrical capacity. However, the resorts might be willing to pony up some money. Why? The island is not big. Bicycles and golf carts are major forms of transportation. Some vacationers in resorts that back up to the airport complain about the noise of those turbo props taking off at 8:00 am.
The electric planes aren't going to be silent but I'm guessing they'd be a whole lot quieter. I bet the resorts would love it if all the takeoffs before noon were electric planes.
So, let's say you use 30% on the first flight to Caye Caulker and another 30% to San Pedro. At that point the plane is probably sitting on the ground for awhile. It doesn't need an 80% charge. It needs maybe 30% to get back to Belize City with some margin for safety. And like I said it could be a battery swap rather than a charge.
Plus charging batteries seems like a perfect application for a solar farm.
They have reliable electricity, - even on the Islands they fly to. ;-)
And the flights aren't far, 30 to 40 miles maybe. They are literally island hopping. So a full charge is good for 10 flights easily and they can probably top off between flights or just do battery swaps.
There are puddle jumpers and there are puddle jumpers: https://www.mayaislandair.com/...
I flew on one of those when we went to Belize. The Alice could replace any of Maya Island Air's planes except perhaps the largest. But even then I'd argue that since they are so much cheaper to fly, you could just add a few flights per day to make up the 1 or 2 seat difference between the Alice and the larger plane.
Something else to consider is that along with the cheaper fuel costs, the maintenance costs of the electric engines would be much much lower.
There's a definite commercial market for these, though maybe not as replacement for the type of regional aircraft that you're thinking of. If you've ever flown to Ambergris Caye in Belize, you'll know what I mean. Maya Island Air is one option for getting from mainland Belize to the most popular tourist island. These are the planes they fly: https://www.mayaislandair.com/...
The Alice could replace pretty much any of them except perhaps the largest, but I'd argue that since they're so much cheaper to fly you'd could easily add a few extra flights per day to make up the difference and still be ahead. And that's just on fuel costs. My guess is that maintenance costs on simple electric engines would also be a ton cheaper.
You're right, a Tesla is designed from the ground up to be an EV and provisions are made for a large battery pack. But they are also designed to be mass produced and at least semi-affordable.
An Aston-Martin conversion is a little more free of these last constraints. There might be multiple battery packs that require a fair amount of labor to install. And when all is said and done the range may not be all that impressive, but how many miles does a typical 1970 DB6 get driven in one shot anyway?
Work/life balance factors more into big decisions that Americans make than it did a generation or two ago. Pulling up roots for a different job is something they're are less likely to do.
I don't see this as a bad thing. It's probably better that people become more invested in their current communities.
The 10% figure includes people that simply moved into a different home within the same area. The number of people who moved to a different state is less than 2%.
The current crop of EVs is not for everybody which is why I think it makes sense to continue to incentivize their development. Every automaker that sells cars in the US knows that there is a huge market for CUVs, SUVs, and pickups.
As far as range anxiety goes, there are lots of people that share your concerns and that keeps them from buying EVs. Range will get better over time but I think what often gets overlooked are PHEVs or EREVs, - plug in hybrids or extended range EVs. You get 40 or 50 miles of battery range, then a gas engine kicks in after that. That gas engine may be more or less a generator or it may help drive the wheels. These also qualify for the tax incentives.
Chevy is dropping the Volt, which I think is a shame because it was a good example of one of these. For plenty of people a 40 or 50 mile range is enough to handle driving to work and back plus running an errand or two. You have the gas engine for weekends of running around or long trips. Your mileage with the gas engine still exceeds what you'd get with all but the most stingy gas engined vehicles.
That's the average - and it's pulled up by luxury sedans and big pickups. The Leaf is a compact, and comparing like-to-like the average cost of a new compact in the US is in the $20k range. Also, the last time I looked, the average income recommended to be able to afford a car in the $30-35k range (Leaf to low end Model S) puts you in the 70th percentile or above.
Or, to put it another way - the grandparent is much more correct than you are. The Leaf and low end Tesla's may not be a vehicle for the wealthy, but they're certainly not vehicles for the average American either.
And that would seem to be the point of the tax break, - to bring the cost of EVs closer to the cost of an equivalent gas engined vehicle. A 2018 Honda Civic lists from 20,000 to 25,000 depending on options. If you apply the $8,500 tax break to a Leaf or a Chevy Volt, that puts you right in that ball park.
I think there are problems with the tax break as currently structured. Basically it penalizes manufacturers that were pioneers in developing mass market EVs like Chevy and Nissan. After they've sold 200,000 vehicles their EVs will cost up to $8,500 more than the equivalent competitor's models. So if the tax breaks are to remain, I think they should have an end date rather than be limited to a certain number of cars sold.
Or another option would be to drop the tax break for EVs and instead subsidize the building out of a fast charging network.
For who?
My first car was a huge 6 six seater built in 1967. My next two cars were barely 4 seaters and you know what? They suited me just fine. When I got married and had kids, we purchased more family oriented vehicles but one was always an economy car. The last car I bought for myself cost $12,000. I've never owned a brand new car.
So last Spring after about 16 years, our most recent economy car was becoming less reliable and we decided to replace it. I wanted to spend less than $10,000 but opted to spend a little more ($12,000) on a used Chevy Volt. The newer models are 5 seaters but the 1st generation seats only 4, - but pretty comfortably. At this point our kids are mostly grown and we only have two anyway. It works quite well for us.
And you know what? Even though I didn't directly benefit from the tax break, the fact that one exists put that car in my price range, - because it also keeps the prices of used EVs down.
And the beauty of it is that because the tax break made it possible for more people to buy these cars, it increase the volume of sales, and lets manufacturers put more money back into EV technology so that they can eventually build bigger ones with longer range, - for people like you.
I knew a real estate agent that used to keep spare sets of appliances around, - why? Because he'd seen so many house purchases fall through because the owner wanted to keep the washer and dryer instead of passing them onto the buyer.
So here you have people willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a house (or making hundreds of thousands) and the deal falls through over what amounts to less than $1000 worth of appliances. You might think that these are brand new high end models or something like that but typically not. So this agent had the smarts to collect serviceable washer and dryers that he could put in the homes to save these deals.
I'm sure there a people wealthy enough that $8,500 simply doesn't matter. Maybe people buying roadsters fall into that category. However there have been about 800,000 EVs sold in the US since the tax break was put in place. Lots of them cost about half of a roadster. I would bet that tax break made those purchases a whole lot easier, to the point where it allowed people to pull the trigger on what many people today still consider a risky proposition, - an EV
There are two major reasons for "the average user" to chose Android devices over iOS devices.
1) Price. In many parts of the world even the basic iPhone is way too expensive to most people, but the budget Android devices are much more possible.
2) Choice of devices. With so many manufacturers doing so many different types of Android phones there is obviously a lot more choice in what to pick.
In US, the first option affects less people, though obviously still many people, but the second option is definitely a valid effect in US too.
Yes, but I think we want more than just a choice of devices that all run the same OS. We'd also like at least two competitive OS options and 2 ecosystem options.
Would you also suggest that we all drive Toyotas because they have the largest world wide share of the auto market?
If everyone always chose the more dominant player in terms of market share, we'd never get anything better than the status quo.
Nissan Leafs have air cooled battery packs rather than liquid cooled and that's why their lifespan has been relatively short. Teslas and even Chevy Volts have much more sophisticated cooling systems and degradation so far is almost non-existant.
That's exactly the point: cheaper electric cars have batteries that don't last. I'm not saying the first or even second owners of an EV are going to have major issues with it. I'm saying the era of cheap buy-here-pay-here lot cars that still provide transportation so long as you keep 'em full of oil, might be coming to a close.
Maybe.
It could be though that going forward the Nissan Leaf's passive cooling will be seen as a critical design flaw that even the cheapest EVs will not implement in the future.
It's really hard to know how this will all play out. Our assumptions are based on how cars are built and used today which may not apply in future. For example, a Chinese company is working on a Tesla clone whose battery pack can be swapped in a few minutes at a properly equipped station. So rather than having a semi-permanent battery that you charge, when traveling long distances you merely swap it with a freshly charged one. At that point the life of a single battery pack isn't so much of an issue for the owner of the car.
And remember, we're talking 2030. Figuring a decent ICE vehicle can last 15 years, if not more, that takes us to 2045 before the poor start running out of ICE cars to buy. By that time autonomous vehicles will likely be the norm. Which means services like Uber or public bus service can be really cheap since they won't have to pay drivers. Plus we're not just talking about electric cars, but electric motorcycles, bicycles, scooters, etc. An electric motorcycle or scooter seems like a pretty good choice for a poor person vs an old clunker ICE vehicle. Smaller, cheaper batteries that are quick to charge and a drivetrain that's relatively maintenance free.
Finally, Israel has the 3rd highest gas prices in the world. Operating an ICE vehicle of any stripe there isn't cheap. I'm guessing the really poor simply may find car ownership too expensive as is and the change to electric vehicles will only improve things for them.
You should look at the Leaf if you want to know how not to cool a battery pack.
Nissan Leafs have air cooled battery packs rather than liquid cooled and that's why their lifespan has been relatively short. Teslas and even Chevy Volts have much more sophisticated cooling systems and degradation so far is almost non-existant.
In fact a 2011 Chevy Volt had racked up over 450,000 miles as of this last Summer with no noticeable degradation of battery life.
This only affects new car sales so there will be used ICE vehicles available for some time. As the number of reliable ICE vehicles decreases there will be solutions for dealing with the battery pack issue. First is that well designed packs with active heating/cooling should have limited degradation for a substantial portion of the vehicle's life.
And once EVs become a significant portion of vehicles on the road, there will be a market for pack replacements. Junk yards will salvage packs from relatively new cars that were totaled in accidents. In order to reduce costs, EV manufacturers will have a big incentive to minimize the number of different pack designs, - which makes it more practical for 3rd parties to manufacture replacements.
There will be pack remanufacturers that will refurbish old packs, just as you can get any number of refurbished parts for cars today.
The bright spot is that the drivetrain in an EV is pretty simple when it comes down to it and should last longer than a combustion engine/transmission. Further, there are fewer wear items like timing belts, plugs, filters, plug wires, EGR valves, exhaust systems, etc. And with regenerative braking, pads and rotors last longer. Oil changes will be a thing of the past.
So even if pack replacement remains relatively expensive, over the lifetime of a vehicle, it could be offset by the lower cost of maintenance in other areas.