Washington State is NOW NUMBER ONE...in gas prices (Seattle: sales, homes)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's obviously one aspect. And for car enthusiasts it may be enough. However, it's just the tip of the iceberg when you about it a bit more.
I would say the most important point is opportunity for innovation and invention in a growing alternative fuel market. Think about all these problems we're discussing. Then remember that necessity is the mother of invention. So, instead of seeing only a problem, engineers are seeing it as a tremendous opportunity.
Designers, engineers, innovators and scientists of today and tomorrow have an entirely new market to iterate on making everything from small, large to game changing breakthroughs in this space.
I think we're on the verge of an automotive revolution where the Elon Musks of tomorrow will be born. There will be dramatic improvements in the next 5-10 years no one has even thought of today.
Innovative, affordable, subsidized retrofits are one niche within this larger, exploding market segment. In some countries this has already begun in part as auto manufacturers team with gov't officials to provide more affordable retrofit options for their every day citizens. Renault is teaming with the French gov't to do that right now. With 1.5 billion vehicles worldwide and a HUGE push toward EVs, why not recycle some of that material vs. simply scrapping this resource?
Future scenario considering the art of the possible: Go out and buy a new EV or alternatively retrofit a very affordable older ICE vehicle that may need a new engine. What if the later can be done for under $10k? How about $5k with gov't subsidies to do so? If that sounds too far fetched, I would say think again.
There are literally billions of dollars set aside for this work from every industrialized nation in the world. In the US alone, the Inflation Reduction Act includes $780 billion toward this clean energy effort. Then combine the $billions auto manufactures are pouring into it along with battery manufacturers and so on. It's no small effort.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 06-24-2023 at 03:58 PM..
High fuel prices impact cost of goods and services locally, of course, but as far as my direct purchase of gasoline, this barely impacts me. I own a car but drive only occasionally. Living in the center city, I mostly walk or take a bus.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,712 posts, read 58,054,000 times
Reputation: 46182
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnSurfer
...
I would say the most important point is opportunity for innovation and invention in a growing alternative fuel market.
Innovative, affordable, subsidized retrofits are one niche within this larger, exploding market segment. ...
Future scenario considering the art of the possible: Go out and buy a new EV or alternatively retrofit a very affordable older ICE vehicle that may need a new engine. What if the later can be done for under $10k? How about $5k with gov't subsidies to do so? If that sounds too far fetched, I would say think again.
There are literally billions of dollars set aside for this work from every industrialized nation in the world. In the US alone, the Inflation Reduction Act includes $780 billion toward this clean energy effort. ..
Use the $$ for science and innovation to create economically sustainable products and forget subsidizes. The 'sharks' have driven solar and wind to 2-3x the cost due to subsidies propping up the industry. The same problem faced (and tanked) the Carter administration energy plan. The sharks devoured the $$ and consumers were left with an overpriced industry. Ironically, the same sharks appeared when the subsides came back (Energy tax credits). (I spend a lot of time at state, federal, and university alternative energy conferences, so I meet with the sharks).
There is plenty of federal research and private $$ and incentive to bring us to a functional alternative energy solution for transportation and for fuels. Spending billions to subsidze an EV that gets used 20 min / day only dilutes the possibilities of arriving at a quick and concise and effective comprehensive solution. The Government is buying votes, not instrumenting an Energy Policy. (That would be a good start... back in 1973). It was very clear what was going to happen, but no one bothered to count the dead bodies or environmental damage that would result in doing nothing except token 'gifts' to appear to be promoting clean energy and buying elections under that premise.
The government could be effectively involved in R&D and implementation, but passing out monetary subsides to the public bring a lot of vultures and sharks, and dilutes and raises the future costs of implementing a sustainable solution. Private subsides greatly slow the progress to an affordable solution, because it props up an unaffordable cost model. Many of the companies release products that are only feasible with a subsidy, rather than free market pricing for comprehensive and viable solutions that could change the world.
BTDT... it didn't work as the required change for our country, except for the few who profited from temporary elected office, finance (bulging pockets with gov subsidy money gone to the wind) and future careers lobbying for more pork barrels. (personal and corporate sustainable income stream at the cost of sustainable environmental results for the world environment).
History is definitely repeating itself, complete with all the failures were recognized exactly 50 yrs ago.
Use the $$ for science and innovation to create economically sustainable products and forget subsidizes. The 'sharks' have driven solar and wind to 2-3x the cost due to subsidies propping up the industry. The same problem faced (and tanked) the Carter administration energy plan. The sharks devoured the $$ and consumers were left with an overpriced industry. Ironically, the same sharks appeared when the subsides came back (Energy tax credits). (I spend a lot of time at state, federal, and university alternative energy conferences, so I meet with the sharks).
There is plenty of federal research and private $$ and incentive to bring us to a functional alternative energy solution for transportation and for fuels. Spending billions to subsidze an EV that gets used 20 min / day only dilutes the possibilities of arriving at a quick and concise and effective comprehensive solution. The Government is buying votes, not instrumenting an Energy Policy. (That would be a good start... back in 1973). It was very clear what was going to happen, but no one bothered to count the dead bodies or environmental damage that would result in doing nothing except token 'gifts' to appear to be promoting clean energy and buying elections under that premise.
The government could be effectively involved in R&D and implementation, but passing out monetary subsides to the public bring a lot of vultures and sharks, and dilutes and raises the future costs of implementing a sustainable solution. Private subsides greatly slow the progress to an affordable solution, because it props up an unaffordable cost model. Many of the companies release products that are only feasible with a subsidy, rather than free market pricing for comprehensive and viable solutions that could change the world. ...
While I agree the money should be used for R&D, at least in part, I don't agree with the blanket philosophy that subsidies are inherently bad based upon past abuses by the sharks, etc... Rather, I think the notion of a subsidy gets a political spin as a mental hot button trigger vs. where it might actually be effectively used within the larger economy.
If you look at the reality of subsidies, they are used extensively by both parties and the federal gov't as a whole. All nations provide some form of financial backing and support for industries they want to expand within which can lead to jobs, innovation, better conditions for its citizens, more affordable healthcare, housing, cleaner air, etc...
Doesn't America subsidize many markets including farming, the oil industry, manufacturing, education, research, etc...? To follow that same logic, we would have to pull all subsidies and watch farms go bankrupt or other fledgling industries fail, etc... I don't think anyone would agree to that as the solution to avoiding the challenging of uses the money wisely or 'avoiding the sharks.' The later is the cost of doing business where sharks lives regardless.
Regarding current federal tax incentives for purchasing EVs, it's not simply helping these sharks but rather Americans themselves to afford vehicles 'built in America.' This could also help them afford a retrofit of an existing vehicle given American parts were used. Other countries are doing this same and its definitely not failure in these cases. People are already benefiting from it at both the state and federal level in practical ways. That's not to say it isn't without challenges. But you can't always throw the baby out with bath water to avoid the sharks either.
Back to WA, since we are already being taxed as a penalty for using ICE vehicles. The state already has our $millions of dollars for this very thing and will continue to stockpile it. What I'm suggesting is that they give it back to Washingtonians in the form of financial incentives vs. hording it for their own uses. That is the best outcome to use our money for the people vs. themselves however they see fit. Then at least it's put to good use where citizens can benefit from it.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 06-25-2023 at 11:55 AM..
Another issue with incentives is manufacturer or retailer greed. I.E, a state offers a $7,500 credit or rebate for purchasing an EV, said EV dealership marks that vehicle up $7000+ and makes sure they only have 1 on the lot at a time.
Already seen the same thing with PSE's rebate program for hybrid water heaters....$1000 rebate=$1,900 - $3,000 for an eligible WH vs. $600 for a standard one. Do the math, and you're lucky to get your extra money back even with the rebate unless the thing lasts a full ten years.
Another issue with incentives is manufacturer or retailer greed. I.E, a state offers a $7,500 credit or rebate for purchasing an EV, said EV dealership marks that vehicle up $7000+ and makes sure they only have 1 on the lot at a time.
Already seen the same thing with PSE's rebate program for hybrid water heaters....$1000 rebate=$1,900 - $3,000 for an eligible WH vs. $600 for a standard one. Do the math, and you're lucky to get your extra money back even with the rebate unless the thing lasts a full ten years.
I've actually dealt with this recently buying two new cars during a major chip shortage where local dealers are selling popular vehicles way above MSRP. Many are charging $5-10k+ over. However, I refused to pay it. So, through searching extensively and negotiating with more well regarded dealers, I was able to do what other dealerships laughed at. I bought them at and below MSRP in the PNW. I know others who actually bought out of state due to west coast price gouging. Then they had it shipped to their home or flew out and drove it back. Keep in mind, you pay tax based upon where you live (WA) not where you buy it from (any state in the nation). Also, states don't set MSRP, manufacturers do. Though they definitely try to work the system and overcharge if you let them.
The thing is, you still have to be a savvy shopper and perform your own due diligence with all these things. But if you do AND get both federal and state rebates, you really can save a lot of money. Not all dealerships are created equal or managed in the same way. Though you certainly cannot just expect the first one to give you a break. It takes work, but standard pricing can be found and even below using negotiation skills. The last one was a hybrid which everyone told me could not be done under MSRP until I proved them wrong. I love it when someone tells I can't do something. It just motivates me all the more. haha
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 06-25-2023 at 11:49 PM..
The solution to high new car prices...which devalues just driving off the new car dealership lot is to buy a used 2-3 year old car. I know used cars prices are high but not like a new car.
The solution to high new car prices...which devalues just driving off the new car dealership lot is to buy a used 2-3 year old car. I know used cars prices are high but not like a new car.
We seriously looked at this and really tried recently. But used car prices are currently more inflated than new. With used, there is no set amount when it comes to value. It is only driven by the market which is completely nuts for some reason. Could be the chip shortage or lack of inventory. Decent used cars 2-3 years old are selling for new car prices especially with reasonable mileage for their age. It just wasn't worth it even though that old principle is a general good rule of thumb in normal times.
In fact, our newish SUV that is highly in demand sells for MSRP even after 2 years of use. Some are driving them for two year and selling for the same price they paid and getting another new one because of the inflated used car market. They're taking full advantage of it while it lasts.
Now, if you are willing to buy a much older car with over 150k miles, the market begins to soften a bit. But you would be surprised how much used popular vehicles go for - the ones that are more reliable as they age such as Honda Accord or Toyota Camry, Corolla, etc... I was trying to find a decent used car for our teenagers to drive to/from school under $10k and I have never had such a hard time finding a reliable, decent used car and I have bought many through the years. Most have salvage titles and are still overpriced. To get anything half decent, you have to watch the used car market like a hawk and jump with cash in hand as soon as one posts. Then there will be 5+ others trying to do the same thing. We finally got one after looking at and test driving many, many duds. It really is crazy now. lol
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 06-26-2023 at 07:55 PM..
I just locked in a Corolla Cross hybrid at MSRP. 15% of local dealers had stupid markups (6k for paintless dent protection, really?).
5% had minor markups ($1k for a dash cam and pulse brake light, which I respect as free market capitalism without being predatory, and the rest have no markups but a 2-5 month wait. Those who need a car NOW either pay more than is reasonable for an older model… or above MSRP for a slightly used model… Because it is on the lot today.
Oh, and if you want certain models you can get them for significantly less than MSRP… gas only, but smaller and thus fuel sippers.
I got my car because I called all the dealerships daily and jumped on an unreserved allotment on the day it came in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
