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.
The kicker here is that we are getting ready to pay for a totally unnecessary overlay infrastructure. We have developed ICE's. We have developed EV's. Here we are getting ready to subsidize a technology that is less well adapted to the U.S. than what we have already. It works very poorly in very cold regions such as interior New England, the upper Midwest, the Rockies and Alaska. It is inherently unreliable for the reasons I highlighted in my post just above.
ICE's were developed as horses and bicycles did not meet the mobility needs of a growing nation in the late 1890's and early 1900's. The Interstate Highway System was developed to replace a patchwork of local roads, state and U.S. routes that were clogged with traffic. That system was designed to self-subsidize with "gas" taxes. As a New Yorker, I wonder why the rest of the country got for "free" what New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania built largely at their own expense. Parenthetically these states have always been great at screwing themselves.
Basically the EV movement is an ideological, not practical move at best. At worst, in will cause or enable lockdowns, again s I explained above.
I do not agree with your assertion that EV's will become a tool for government 'shutdowns'. The fact that people have the ability to generate their own electricity directly refutes that.
And it's not just ideology that drives the desire to purchase EV's. We will buy an EV (even in cold, cold Montana). Over 80% of our driving is done within most EV's range. Mathematically it is much cheaper to run an EV for that driving. Since we keep our vehicles around 10 years or more, the breakeven isn't that long.
I had a Dodge Ram 2500 diesel starting about 20-25 years ago. Daily driver for me. When diesel prices spiked around 2006-2007 it was painful. We bought a Prius and that became our daily driver. The car paid for itself in diesel fuel over the 10 years we had it. Oh and the battery was still in great shape when we sold it with over 150,000 miles on it. In fact we had no repair bills- just maintenance. In fact the brakes were still good when we sold it.
Since we have solar a plug in EV will cost much, much less than a gasser. We're just waiting to see how the Chevrolet Blazer or Equinox does after a full year post roll-out.
What you envision as a ball and chain I see as freedom from OPEC and market convulsions.
ThreeRun, we're on the same page, never to soon to put OPEC out of business.
When I sold our 2004 Camry in 2016 it had 80,000 miles and the original brakes. When I see a traffic signal turn yellow or red, even if it's a mile ahead of me, I back off the gas and coast up to the light, often cruising through on the green after the dead-stopped traffic has cleared out. Others fly by me and then stop on a dime, wondering why their car needs a brake job at 30,000 miles, or less. It's part of my deliberated planned way of driving to maximize gas mileage on my RAV4 hybrid, extend brake life, and avoid all the lane changing when NASCAR-minded drivers jump lanes to get a space or two of advantage.
But here's some news from Bloomberg's daily Hyperdrive newsletter: Cash for clunkers is back, with a twist.
Quote:
Colorado drivers bought 9,446 electric vehicles in the most recent quarter, but Carrie Atiyeh is particularly psyched about 45 of them.
Atiyeh is one of the architects of the state’s Vehicle Exchange Program, which hands out a rebate of up to $6,000 to anyone who buys a new EV while surrendering a combustion-engine car. The program, which launched in late August, saw 45 people cash in a clunker by the end of September.
Scrappage policies like Colorado’s are gaining traction in the US as a two-for-one carbon bargain, a tidy way to catalyze clean-car purchases while canceling out some of the least-efficient vehicles. Vermont authorized a scrappage program in 2021; California did in 2014. In all three states, policymakers have mobilized around a simple calculation: If governments are going to dole out money to boost EV adoption, why not tie it to getting rid of gas guzzlers?
The long tail of US auto ownership also is extending. Over the past 10 years, the average age of a car on the road rose 9% to 12.2 years. For every silent new Tesla getting tucked into a garage, there’s a wheezing Ford Explorer rolling off the used-car lot, or a geriatric Hummer finding a second home via Facebook Marketplace.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
I do not agree with your assertion that EV's will become a tool for government 'shutdowns'. The fact that people have the ability to generate their own electricity directly refutes that.
And it's not just ideology that drives the desire to purchase EV's. We will buy an EV (even in cold, cold Montana). Over 80% of our driving is done within most EV's range. Mathematically it is much cheaper to run an EV for that driving. Since we keep our vehicles around 10 years or more, the breakeven isn't that long.
I had a Dodge Ram 2500 diesel starting about 20-25 years ago. Daily driver for me. When diesel prices spiked around 2006-2007 it was painful. We bought a Prius and that became our daily driver. The car paid for itself in diesel fuel over the 10 years we had it. Oh and the battery was still in great shape when we sold it with over 150,000 miles on it. In fact we had no repair bills- just maintenance. In fact the brakes were still good when we sold it.
Since we have solar a plug in EV will cost much, much less than a gasser. We're just waiting to see how the Chevrolet Blazer or Equinox does after a full year post roll-out.
What you envision as a ball and chain I see as freedom from OPEC and market convulsions.
I read your views respectfully. I still disagree. For me, at my current job, an EV would work just fine; I live about 3-4 miles from where I work and in general NYC area winters are relatively mild. However, in my area electricity is generally not from renewable sources. In my HOA I can't install solar panels so switching from ICE would mean moving the GHG production from my tailpipe to the utility generating facility. Basically we would be pretending to be green. In addition, a point you mention in your last post is that the government is going to need to replace the gasoline tax revenue somewhere. My guess is it will be taxes on utility bills.
As for government "shutdowns" the word I used was "lockdowns." I chose my words precisely. What may well happen is that the school of thought that we are living too much of an affluent lifestyle will take hold and with power distribution centralized, government will have tools akin to what they did so effectively with Covid, at least in my area. With regard to "OPEC" the fact is that OPEC has rarely accomplished much. The abortion of a wage-price control system squarely bears responsibility for the damage created by the oil embargo. In March 1973, Nixon reinstated Phase II wage and price controls on the oil industry. It took about 45 days for spot shortages of gasoline to pop up. Those lasted for May, June and a small part of July, where every supplier was allocating sales to a percentage of 1972 figures. While those abated from about July 1973 to October 1973, when Exxon and perhaps a few others resumed normal sales to retailers, the market was very tight, balanced on the teeter-totter between barely sufficient supply and shortage. All that it took was announcement of supply cuts and an embargo to the U.S. and the Netherlands to create panic, chaos and surging world prices.
The same occurred in 1978-9. The Iranian Revolution kicked up spot oil prices. Retail gasoline prices ran smack into controls, and the result was the shortages and lines of May 1979 through July 1979. There really have been no shortages since Reagan decontrolled petroleum in January 1981 and prices, in inflation-adjusted terms are still below the $40 that prevailed in 1981, or $127 in today's money. Gasoline was about $1.45 back then, or $4.63 in today's money. Only for a brief period in the spring and summer of 2008, and an even briefer period in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, were 1981 prices (in real terms) realized at the gas pump.
I don't need the government to force me to buy an EV. I prefer to make those decisions by my lonesome.
People were and are buying EV's that don't meet the requirements for a tax credit. Ergo- full cost. I'm sure as EV adoption accelerates there will be a commensurate tax or even a toll for public infrastructure use.
I'm not talking about the consumer.
The subsidy and tax credit go to the manufacturer. The Department of Energy Loan Programs Office granted $17 billion in loan authority to support a domestic battery supply chain.
Additionally, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes more than $7 billion in funding to support the battery supply chain from battery materials refining, processing and manufacturing to battery manufacturing, including components, to battery recycling and reuse. LINK
Hudson Institute reports one trillion dollars has been spent so far. And that's just to make them available so that you could buy them.
Federal tax credit applies to the first 200,000 electric vehicles per manufacturer, and then a phase-out of the credit begins. Two automakers, Tesla and GM, reached that threshold and are in the phase-out stage. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is leading the charge to extend a $7,000 tax subsidy for an additional 400,000 vehicles per manufacturer. Other policymakers want to lift the cap altogether and extend the tax credit permanently Electric cars; Owned by few, subsidized by all. I am paying for your electric car. Sort of reminds me of the solar farm funding.
I don't need the government to force me to buy an EV. I prefer to make those decisions by my lonesome.
Who's forcing you to buy an EV? You have plenty of options.
And BTW- our gas prices spiked because OPEC cut production to keep the prices high. In September 2023. I'm not talking about world events of 50 years ago.
LONDON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - Oil output cuts which Saudi Arabia and Russia have extended to the end of 2023 will mean a substantial market deficit through the fourth quarter, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday, as it largely stuck by its estimates for demand growth this year and next.
OPEC and its allies, known as OPEC+, began limiting supplies in 2022 to bolster the market. This month, benchmark Brent crude breached $90 a barrel for the first time this year after OPEC+ leaders Saudi Arabia and Russia extended their combined 1.3 million barrel per day (bpd) cuts until the end of 2023.
Who's forcing you to buy an EV? You have plenty of options.
And BTW- our gas prices spiked because OPEC cut production to keep the prices high. In September 2023. I'm not talking about world events of 50 years ago.
OPEC can announce a lot of things and the announcements still have effect. If the capacity is, say, 10% above demand it's almost impossible for the announced cutbacks to stick, since one or more producing countries will inevitably violate their cut ceilings. KSA and maybe Kuwait are the only countries that can tolerate any loss of income, and they are not particularly benevolent to other OPEC countries.
In March 1974 KSA did not suddenly warm up to the U.S.; it could no longer hold bulging storage inventories. You may not remember but prices in the NYC area dropped from about $0.65 per gallon regular to $0.54 per gallon in September-November 1974. That doesn't sound like a lot but that's 17%; when considered against 12% inflation at the time that works out to about a 20% real drop. And prices did not edge back over $0.65 until fall 1978, against pervasive 6-10% inflation annually. Crude was officially stuck between $10 and $12 per barrel during that period, even though in the "real world" it may have dipped a bit.
In other words, don't always believe what is announced. Since September 13, 2023 prices have actually dropped quite a bit.
OPEC can announce a lot of things and the announcements still have effect. If the capacity is, say, 10% above demand it's almost impossible for the announced cutbacks to stick, since one or more producing countries will inevitably violate their cut ceilings. KSA and maybe Kuwait are the only countries that can tolerate any loss of income, and they are not particularly benevolent to other OPEC countries.
In March 1974 KSA did not suddenly warm up to the U.S.; it could no longer hold bulging storage inventories. You may not remember but prices in the NYC area dropped from about $0.65 per gallon regular to $0.54 per gallon in September-November 1974. That doesn't sound like a lot but that's 17%; when considered against 12% inflation at the time that works out to about a 20% real drop. And prices did not edge back over $0.65 until fall 1978, against pervasive 6-10% inflation annually. Crude was officially stuck between $10 and $12 per barrel during that period, even though in the "real world" it may have dipped a bit.
In other words, don't always believe what is announced. Since September 13, 2023 prices have actually dropped quite a bit.
Sure it dropped. End of the summer season it usually drops. However the cuts OPEC announced (which is primarily Russia and Saudi Arabia) still have an impact. Some economists wager .20c p/gal at the pump. We could be cheaper today if they didn't do that. Look at it this way- Saudi and Russia could squeeze world economies for geo-political purposes. I'm....over...that....
Benchmark Brent crude traded Tuesday above $90 a barrel after the announcement. Brent had largely hovered between $75 and $85 a barrel since last October. A barrel of West Texas Intermediate, a benchmark for America, traded around $87 a barrel.
I'll believe the actual impact of the cost of crude, and OPEC has an outsized influence in commodity price controls. So if I can get energy for transportation from my own generation or PSC controlled prices instead of OPEC? Yeah- I'll take that.
ThreeRun, we're on the same page, never to soon to put OPEC out of business.
I would like the same. I'd prefer that to be accomplished through any combination of wind, solar, fracking and nuclear. I do not believe in taking away alternatives for ideological reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun
Sure it dropped. End of the summer season it usually drops.
The approach of the heating season has the opposite effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun
However the cuts OPEC announced (which is primarily Russia and Saudi Arabia) still have an impact. Some economists wager .20c p/gal at the pump. We could be cheaper today if they didn't do that. Look at it this way- Saudi and Russia could squeeze world economies for geo-political purposes. I'm....over...that....
I'll believe the actual impact of the cost of crude, and OPEC has an outsized influence in commodity price controls. So if I can get energy for transportation from my own generation or PSC controlled prices instead of OPEC? Yeah- I'll take that.
I believe that OPEC's influence was limited before 1981 and is now just about non-existent, except for a week or two after each mendacious "announcement."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun
You believe what you want. Frankly I don't care.
I am not going to approach you with the nasty, snarky tone as in the last sentence of your post. No reason we can't debate in a civil manner.
Germane to this discussion of EV takeover/non-takeover is the news that Ford is scaling back a planned $3.5 billion investment in an EV battery plant in Michigan.
Slower than expected sales is causing Ford to retime and resize some of its investments.
They are still going to build the battery plant, but it won't be as large as first announced.
Who's forcing you to buy an EV? You have plenty of options.
And BTW- our gas prices spiked because OPEC cut production to keep the prices high. In September 2023. I'm not talking about world events of 50 years ago.
Until 2035, when at least 7 US states will ban the sale of gasoline-using cars, which I assume includes hybrids but I am not positive about hybrids.
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.
