I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

In reply to frenchyd :

You missed by 17%, that's not insignificant 

In reply to frenchyd :

We are not saying the same thing. That's just the commute, no other driving. Saying the average person drives 35 miles a day to show an EV has plenty of range, is just making stuff up to try and "prove" your position. If your position is sound, no need to make up stuff to defend it, and you have made up plenty in this thread. 

I know of no EV that runs out of a charge in 35 miles.  Yes some hybrid's do or even sooner. But they aren't EV's. 
      In general an EV will get at least  4-5 hours of driving.  The Chevy Bolt is mentioned because it was the least expensive car with a net price of around $18,000 in Minnesota. 
      The new Tesla model 2 should be even lower starting at $15,000* ( made in Mexico version) 
      That reflects the $7500 federal credit and $2500 Minnesota credit. 
   I don't know the amount other  states offer. You'll need to look into that. 
     
      EV's are now priced around what a similar ICE costs.   The big fancy ones that go 400+ miles on a charge and can get 150-200 miles with a 15 minute charge   ( they also have over 1000 horsepower). Are up in the $100,000 + range. 
   Middle ones are in the $45,000 range about what the average new sedan  costs.  And the Tesla Model Y  is also in that range which is modest for an SUV.   ( they tend to sell for $50,000+. ). 
      
       Tesla  has a real advantage over other brands when it comes to charging. They re-charge faster than others especially on a Tesla super charger. The newest series 4 especially so.  

First gen Nissan Leafs with the small battery are about 45 miles in winter now, 55 in spring/fall. For a 41 mile round trip that doesn't leave ANY leeway for emergencies, detours and all. 

That $7500 is NOT taken off at the dealer when you purchase the vehicle. IT's not an instant $7500 off the purchase price so, like normal, every single one of your numbers is wrong. Again. 

This thread is my guilty pleasure, I love reading it whenever there is an update.  The polarized opinions is why I think that the original statement that evs will never fully replace ice is correct.  I am not anti ev, I think they work excellent at some roles, but not at all.  They are a great 2nd or 3rd vehicle but for 1 vehicle households they have more restrictions than an ice vehicle, phev eliminates most of these but many manufacturers are no longer looking into hybrid.

Cost of ownership is still up in the air, recharging is not cheaper than gas if you use DC fast charging, most evs have higher insurance cost & many buyers of new vehicles will not own long enough to see any change in maintenance.  Most evs are subscription reliant, so buying used could cost you options/range.  Manufactures are trying to control right to repair & used parts more on evs as well, I have heard reports of tesla claiming batteries on wrecked vehicles belong to them & can not be resold.

frenchyd said:

Twist it however you want.  I pay taxes.  If I owe more than $7500 for the year I buy the car I get  to keep $7500!    
      Plus in my state I get an additional $2500. 
  That means by buying a North American EV  with North American batteries I get $10,000 

     I suppose if you don't earn money you won't get the tax break.  But then you wont be able to buy the car then either.  
  It's really not that hard.  I'm sure the IRS will explain it for you. 

I know you keep talking about how great this subsidy is.  It sucks and it sucks royally.  Someone pays it.  I don't think my kids should be on the hook for EV subsidies plus decades of interest.  It's actually a net harm to society.  Kicking the can down the road and to someone else is not a benefit.  I hate that your generation makes up most of our Congress and thinks this way.  Debt crushed millennials and will do worse to future generations.  

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:

Twist it however you want.  I pay taxes.  If I owe more than $7500 for the year I buy the car I get  to keep $7500!    
      Plus in my state I get an additional $2500. 
  That means by buying a North American EV  with North American batteries I get $10,000 

     I suppose if you don't earn money you won't get the tax break.  But then you wont be able to buy the car then either.  
  It's really not that hard.  I'm sure the IRS will explain it for you. 

I know you keep talking about how great this subsidy is.  It sucks and it sucks royally.  Someone pays it.  I don't think my kids should be on the hook for EV subsidies plus decades of interest.  It's actually a net harm to society.  Kicking the can down the road and to someone else is not a benefit.  I hate that your generation makes up most of our Congress and thinks this way.  Debt crushed millennials and will do worse to future generations.  

It does make you wonder why the government is subsidizing the kind of people who can afford to buy a Telsa or an F-150 Lightning.

If the goal was lower co2 than synthetic fuels would be subsidized, that would have an impact right now vs maybe in 50 years.  There was a fuel source commonly used in Europe that had lower co2 as well, but it was suddenly viewed as evil right around the time the big push for evs started.  

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

The government often does things I don't agree with.   Often they do it for reasons I'm completely against. 
   That is the nature of democracy.  
      This I happen to agree with.  Next you'll get something.  And I won't be so happy. 
     

Caperix said:

If the goal was lower co2 than synthetic fuels would be subsidized, that would have an impact right now vs maybe in 50 years.  There was a fuel source commonly used in Europe that had lower co2 as well, but it was suddenly viewed as evil right around the time the big push for evs started.  

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the ethanol act?    

Caperix said:

This thread is my guilty pleasure, I love reading it whenever there is an update.  The polarized opinions is why I think that the original statement that evs will never fully replace ice is correct.  I am not anti ev, I think they work excellent at some roles, but not at all.  They are a great 2nd or 3rd vehicle but for 1 vehicle households they have more restrictions than an ice vehicle, phev eliminates most of these but many manufacturers are no longer looking into hybrid.

Cost of ownership is still up in the air, recharging is not cheaper than gas if you use DC fast charging, most evs have higher insurance cost & many buyers of new vehicles will not own long enough to see any change in maintenance.  Most evs are subscription reliant, so buying used could cost you options/range.  Manufactures are trying to control right to repair & used parts more on evs as well, I have heard reports of tesla claiming batteries on wrecked vehicles belong to them & can not be resold.

You make interesting points.  Virtually the same points that owners of John  Deere.   As I understand it the courts decided n favor of those who   Wanted to work on their own equipment. 
     With regard to the cost of recharging.   There are a lot of crazy numbers being bantered around.   In my state electricity is about 1/3 the cost of the cheapest fuel. 
 Neighbors with EV's tell me they spend about $30-$60 a month for the additional electric bill instead of the $150-$200 for Gas on their credit card. 
   But in my state you can have solar installed with no cost to you.   It's paid for by the excess electricity generated.  
  It's good business both for the utility company and  those who install them on their roof.   
  It takes 7-11 years to repay the cost and the newest solar panels are projected to have 30+ years of service.  Up 10 years in just the last few.  There are already discovers that will increase output from an average of 18% to over 30%. With promises of even more to come.  
    It's not stupidity that has Texas with more renewable electricity than any other state in the union. 
  It's just good  solid business.  
    If you discover a spot to put a oil well on land it takes 3-5 years for it to happen 5-15 years in the ocean. 
    Then it takes an average of 4- 11 years to break even and the profit comes after that.  
    If you put up the big wind generators (1000')  they can turn a profit in as little as 2-3 years. Solar even faster.  
     Even Oil companies are investing in renewables. 
     

Caperix said:

If the goal was lower co2 than synthetic fuels would be subsidized, that would have an impact right now vs maybe in 50 years.  There was a fuel source commonly used in Europe that had lower co2 as well, but it was suddenly viewed as evil right around the time the big push for evs started.  

Historically, US environmental regulators have had a tendency to focus more on air quality than greenhouse gases like CO2. Euro regulators took the opposite approach which resulted in widespread popularity of diesels from auto makers. Unfortunately for them, while diesels are lower in CO2 than gassers, they really struggle with smog forming pollutants that hurt air quality. So, the abundance of diesels on the road caused the air quality in their largest cities to plummet and they had to then regulate vehicle owners in other ways (No ICEs in certain areas, or you can only drive in the city on certain days, etc).

If cutting CO2 were really the motivator, we'd have a carbon tax that would incentivize reducing consumption. Instead, we get tax breaks and incentives to consume more (cleaner) stuff. They're not trying to reduce CO2 as quickly as possible. That would hurt the economy and make people change their lifestyles. What they're trying to do is clean up the consumption that is ultimately at the heart of the economy.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:

Twist it however you want.  I pay taxes.  If I owe more than $7500 for the year I buy the car I get  to keep $7500!    
      Plus in my state I get an additional $2500. 
  That means by buying a North American EV  with North American batteries I get $10,000 

     I suppose if you don't earn money you won't get the tax break.  But then you wont be able to buy the car then either.  
  It's really not that hard.  I'm sure the IRS will explain it for you. 

I know you keep talking about how great this subsidy is.  It sucks and it sucks royally.  Someone pays it.  I don't think my kids should be on the hook for EV subsidies plus decades of interest.  It's actually a net harm to society.  Kicking the can down the road and to someone else is not a benefit.  I hate that your generation makes up most of our Congress and thinks this way.  Debt crushed millennials and will do worse to future generations.  

It does make you wonder why the government is subsidizing the kind of people who can afford to buy a Telsa or an F-150 Lightning.

But only if they aren't the real high dollar ones.  
 There is a limit to how expensive the car ( or truck)  can be.  If you look it's about what the average new car or truck sells for!!!  
  So the Tesla Plaid won't get the tax break nor will the expensive version of trucks/ SUV's 

   But if it sells for the $28,000 a Chevy bolt does Or the base model 3 Tesla  ( and coming model 2) you get the break!!!  
  Not only that but you are income limited. The 1% or even 10%  won't qualify.  But yes the middle class does.  

frenchyd said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

The government often does things I don't agree with.   Often they do it for reasons I'm completely against. 
   That is the nature of democracy.  
      This I happen to agree with.  Next you'll get something.  And I won't be so happy. 
     

Well your principles are more flexible than mine.  I don't ever think the government should take from others and give it to those that are more than capable of taking care of themselves like the average EV purchaser.  Now if the government wants to actually help people in need, I can support that.  Sadly that is rarely the case anymore.  I've never asked the government for more than a fair days pay for a fair days work.  When I was in the Navy I was actually encouraged to apply for food stamps after my son was born.  I did not and would not.  No, your entire generation seems its okay to buy whatever they want on the government dime and expect future generations to pay for it.  That needs to stop before the destruction of the economy is accomplished in totality.  These subsidies only enrich EV manufacturers and little else. 

I thought for sure my legacy on here would be Tom the Datsun 1200 guy not Tom who caused a 1200 reply topic.

Frenchy, about half of Americans pay no federal income tax (it varies from low 40 percents to almost 60% the last couple years).

So you EV Tax credit you keep talking about is pretty much only a subsidy for wealthier individuals. The people that don't have much money to begin with won't actually get the tax credit because they already aren't paying federal income taxes. So it doesn't make EVs cheaper for the everyman it makes them cheaper for the wealthy.

frenchyd said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:

Twist it however you want.  I pay taxes.  If I owe more than $7500 for the year I buy the car I get  to keep $7500!    
      Plus in my state I get an additional $2500. 
  That means by buying a North American EV  with North American batteries I get $10,000 

     I suppose if you don't earn money you won't get the tax break.  But then you wont be able to buy the car then either.  
  It's really not that hard.  I'm sure the IRS will explain it for you. 

I know you keep talking about how great this subsidy is.  It sucks and it sucks royally.  Someone pays it.  I don't think my kids should be on the hook for EV subsidies plus decades of interest.  It's actually a net harm to society.  Kicking the can down the road and to someone else is not a benefit.  I hate that your generation makes up most of our Congress and thinks this way.  Debt crushed millennials and will do worse to future generations.  

It does make you wonder why the government is subsidizing the kind of people who can afford to buy a Telsa or an F-150 Lightning.

But only if they aren't the real high dollar ones.  
 There is a limit to how expensive the car ( or truck)  can be.  If you look it's about what the average new car or truck sells for!!!  
  So the Tesla Plaid won't get the tax break nor will the expensive version of trucks/ SUV's 

   But if it sells for the $28,000 a Chevy bolt does Or the base model 3 Tesla  ( and coming model 2) you get the break!!!  
  Not only that but you are income limited. The 1% or even 10%  won't qualify.  But yes the middle class does.  

"Middle class" often depends who you are and how old you are. 

Yes, you and I could get a loan on a Tesla and we might even be able to HELOC one with the equity in our houses. I bought my house 30  years ago for $52,000. Today the 1.000 square foot brick houses in my neighborhood are selling for $300,000 if you can find one for sale, which you can't because investors have bought most of them up to use as rentals.

When I went to college the University of California charged $450 a quarter for tuition and I had a summer job at the Del Monte Cannery that paid me $10 an hour to work in the warehouse that paid for that and more. Apartments near campus were cheap and I had several $500 cars parked around my apartment. Now tuition at the University of California is about $18,000 a year and there is a housing shortage. You either pay stupid rent with five roommates or live in your car. With all the expenses a year in college is about $40,000 a year now. That is UC's estimate. Not mine. For a state college. 

So the younger guy making about as much as we are doing the same job we are doing is probably paying about $2,000 a month rent instead of a $400 to $700 a month house payment, and he probably has a few student loans too. He isn't going to be buying a $28,000 anything and he may not even want to go into that much debt. I wouldn't. He is probably driving an old Camry and grumbles when he has to pay $50 for an oil change because his landlord won't let him work in the car in the parking lot. But you can HELOC a Tesla and get a $7,500 tax credit. 

Don't you see how that might piss him off. 

In reply to frenchyd 

     With regard to the cost of recharging.   There are a lot of crazy numbers being bantered around.   In my state electricity is about 1/3 the cost of the cheapest fuel. 
 Neighbors with EV's tell me they spend about $30-$60 a month for the additional electric bill instead of the $150-$200 for Gas on their credit card. 
   But in my state you can have solar installed with no cost to you.   It's paid for by the excess electricity generated.  
  It's good business both for the utility company and  those who install them on their roof.   
  It takes 7-11 years to repay the cost and the newest solar panels are projected to have 30+ years of service.  Up 10 years in just the last few.  There are already discovers that will increase output from an average of 18% to over 30%. With promises of even more to come.  
    It's not stupidity that has Texas with more renewable electricity than any other state in the union. 
  It's just good  solid business.  
    If you discover a spot to put a oil well on land it takes 3-5 years for it to happen 5-15 years in the ocean. 
    Then it takes an average of 4- 11 years to break even and the profit comes after that.  
    If you put up the big wind generators (1000')  they can turn a profit in as little as 2-3 years. Solar even faster.  
     Even Oil companies are investing in renewables. 

 

Frenchyd, you mention other states, so you are aware that there are states other than Minnesota. So why do you keep trying to use your state as an example for everyone else? Do I really need to point out that most of us don't live there? Electricity is much more expensive in much of the country, usually in the most populous areas. Solar, wind, EV's save money long term, but the cost is up front. It can take many years for most people to realize their savings. If most people were given the option to buy their next 20 years of gas up front (which I think may or might have been a thing) with promises of net savings at year 11, most people couldn't/wouldn't. The funny thing is, your energy costs are on the low end, so there is less demand for solar/wind, which is why Minnesota has such high incentives. They have to pretty much give it away, at taxpayer cost. Can you see that there is more to this discussion than your very limited data points suggest?

On the original question that started this thread, I think there will be one major indicator of when EV's are ready to replace ICE. There won't be any more credits or incentives. When credits or incentives are no longer needed to influence production or purchasing because both stand on their own merit, then EV's are ready to replace ICE. 

I just came here to say that I can't wait for the day when we can look the Saudis in the eye (I know there are others too but I find the Saudi leadership particularly loathsome) and say "...you have all the oil in the world.  Now go berking drink it..."

In reply to Steve_Jones :

If you look closely I never mention how fair it is, only showing frenchy the tax credit doesn't do what he thinks it does.

What's amazing is people who lack reading comprehension skills or like to manifest other people's positions from thin air are taken seriously

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd 

     With regard to the cost of recharging.   There are a lot of crazy numbers being bantered around.   In my state electricity is about 1/3 the cost of the cheapest fuel. 
 Neighbors with EV's tell me they spend about $30-$60 a month for the additional electric bill instead of the $150-$200 for Gas on their credit card. 
   But in my state you can have solar installed with no cost to you.   It's paid for by the excess electricity generated.  
  It's good business both for the utility company and  those who install them on their roof.   
  It takes 7-11 years to repay the cost and the newest solar panels are projected to have 30+ years of service.  Up 10 years in just the last few.  There are already discovers that will increase output from an average of 18% to over 30%. With promises of even more to come.  
    It's not stupidity that has Texas with more renewable electricity than any other state in the union. 
  It's just good  solid business.  
    If you discover a spot to put a oil well on land it takes 3-5 years for it to happen 5-15 years in the ocean. 
    Then it takes an average of 4- 11 years to break even and the profit comes after that.  
    If you put up the big wind generators (1000')  they can turn a profit in as little as 2-3 years. Solar even faster.  
     Even Oil companies are investing in renewables. 

 

Frenchyd, you mention other states, so you are aware that there are states other than Minnesota. So why do you keep trying to use your state as an example for everyone else? Do I really need to point out that most of us don't live there? Electricity is much more expensive in much of the country, usually in the most populous areas. Solar, wind, EV's save money long term, but the cost is up front. It can take many years for most people to realize their savings. If most people were given the option to buy their next 20 years of gas up front (which I think may or might have been a thing) with promises of net savings at year 11, most people couldn't/wouldn't. The funny thing is, your energy costs are on the low end, so there is less demand for solar/wind, which is why Minnesota has such high incentives. They have to pretty much give it away, at taxpayer cost. Can you see that there is more to this discussion than your very limited data points suggest?

 

On the original question that started this thread, I think there will be one major indicator of when EV's are ready to replace ICE. There won't be any more credits or incentives. When credits or incentives are no longer needed to influence production or purchasing because both stand on their own merit, then EV's are ready to replace ICE. 

 

We'll Boost Crazy. You and I agree  when there is no more  incentives  EV's will be equal  to ICE's. 
  I am personally eager for that to happen.  
meanwhile I'll take full advantage of the incentives.  I hope to convince others to as well. Or at least look very carefully at the option. 
    Regarding other states. I specifically mentioned Texas.   Please go back and reread that.    Last I read something like 20 states are participating to some degree 

  Just last night I read where Colorado is offering $5000 which makes Minnesota's $2500 look paltry. But I'll take it!!  
       Yes I know there are places where  electricity is much more expensive than here. 
    I'd hate to think state politicians are that foolish that they are having  their citizens pay too much for a commodity that should be very affordable. 
     If you live in one of those places, look into it. Somebody's getting rich off you.