by GNL ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 88 - 127 of 131 Next » Last » Search these comments
Eman says
I still believe EV “saves” consumers money in CA. I don’t see myself going back to ICE in this life.
Laugh all you want. Electric will be more expensive. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. I'll own it. I don't think I will be. Willing to take the gamble.
Agree or disagree is irrelevant. The government will do what it wants to do. The goals, achievable or not, are up for debate. I highly doubt they’ll be achieved, but that’s just my opinion.
20% of all vehicles sold to be zero emissions by 2026
60% of all vehicles sold to be zero emissions by 2030.
100% of all vehicles sold to be zero emissions by 2035.
socal2,
The moment Tesla rolls out the $25k EV be it 2025 or 2026, it’s game over for Corolla and Civic. The $7.5k tax credit is good till 2032 IIRC in addition to the state, local and utility company tax rebates.
So if $25K Tesla materializes and is eligible for $7500 most of its potential buyers will either not have access to home charging or won't qualify for $7.5K in gubming cheese, or both.
It's cost per mile. It will 100% be the same as ICE vehicles.
Eman says
socal2,
The moment Tesla rolls out the $25k EV be it 2025 or 2026, it’s game over for Corolla and Civic. The $7.5k tax credit is good till 2032 IIRC in addition to the state, local and utility company tax rebates.
There is a small fly in that ointment: Civic and Corolla (Forte, Impresa, etc) will still have an upper leg in ease of refuelling, which is important to dorm- and apt-dwelling young people who mostly buy that type of car. So if $25K Tesla materializes and is eligible for $7500 most of its potential buyers will either not have access to home charging or won't qualify for $7.5K in gubming cheese, or both.
And, as long as electric utility ratepayers are going to get nailed for paying the infrastructure tab so EV owners can charge their cars, it's game over when those rate increases hit.
Whereas the gasoline/diesel distribution infrastructure is pretty self contained so that the entire bill is paid by just the end users (vehicle owners).
Here's a question: why are Teslas so ugly? The cheap model looks no better than a VW Bug. For $100,000 car/truck comparison, look at the Porsche, Corvette, Escalade or even a decked out F-150. How about the Ford Raptor? Styling is not Tesla's forte.
Here's a question: why are Teslas so ugly? The cheap model looks no better than a VW Bug. For $100,000 car/truck comparison, look at the Porsche, Corvette, Escalade or even a decked out F-150. How about the Ford Raptor? Styling is not Tesla's forte.
Here's a question: why are Teslas so ugly? The cheap model looks no better than a VW Bug. For $100,000 car/truck comparison, look at the Porsche, Corvette, Escalade or even a decked out F-150. How about the Ford Raptor? Styling is not Tesla's forte.
EVs do depreciate the fastest: https://www.iseecars.com/cars-that-hold-their-value-study
The worst offenders are the top-spec EVs like Plaid Teslas, Taycan Turbo-S, Lucid Air, Audi e-Tron and such. You can buy one of these for literally 1/2 price at 1 y.o.
I paid $1,300 for a 48v golf cart battery.
This is a joke, right? Not only that but, how long has this truck been in the works? Must be something I'm missing but, what is so different that it can't be to market yet?
WookieMan says
I paid $1,300 for a 48v golf cart battery.
Just spit my coffee thru my nose while reading that. Damn you Wookie!
:)~
This is what I don't think the EV people understand. I'm not paying for the grid update. I literally won't. Who are they gonna charge to update or add capacity? Not me. EV drivers.
Saw this post on X and thought of this thread. I’m not smart enough to understand the true cost of operating an EV or an ICE vehicle, and which is more subsidized, or more expensive.
https://x.com/nicklasnilsso14/status/1744615674423484786?s=46&t=5lEEPaezr6Ic-W4Z6huZ5Q
AND THAT doesn't even take into consideration what's needed to power the damn things...AT SCALE. This is what Wookie is getting into
[EVs are] literally the least efficient, most polluting means of travel.
If we had infinite fusion power we could use hydrogen as energy storage because we could create it from electrolysis of water. Although electrolysis is an even less efficient starting point, if you you have unlimited fusion energy, go for it! But even then, the system would be much more expensive than just synthesizing methane and re-introducing the Honda Civic GX — a viable ICE car that you filled up at home from natural gas.
Toyota Murai
SunnyvaleCA says
Toyota Murai
I've been stuck behind those (or maybe the same guy) in stop and go traffic on my daily commute in SD. It shoots what looks like a urine stream out the back of the car and when we got lucky enough to reach maybe 40mph it would bounce off of the pavement and hit my windshield. I hate getting behind those things.
SunnyvaleCA says
Toyota Murai
I've been stuck behind those (or maybe the same guy) in stop and go traffic on my daily commute in SD. It shoots what looks like a urine stream out the back of the car and when we got lucky enough to reach maybe 40mph it would bounce off of the pavement and hit my windshield. I hate getting behind those things.
It will take 25 years to beef up our energy grid, power plants (hopefully new nuke plants) and additional mining/processing to meet total demand. But if we can build the Empire State Building in under 2 years 100 years ago, I am confident we can still build great things in this country if we aren't retarded.
The mining is wasteful for sure. We have an entire system in place for ICE vehicles. The future is hybrid.
We're talking about costs here. They're going up.
« First « Previous Comments 88 - 127 of 131 Next » Last » Search these comments
By Olivia Murray
In October, I wrote an essay on a “bombshell report” from a Texas think tank “which revealed that the actual cost of rechargeable cars and the E.V. industry is, in reality, much higher than they’re leading us to believe.”
The report is around 20-pages long, so I was only able to cover one of the explosive revelations—the average battery-powered car (E.V.) would cost “approximately $48,698 more to own over a 10-year period” were it not for the “staggering” handouts from the taxpayer via an extortionary and feckless government—but there were more.
Now, not only were the energy experts able to quantify the additional cost over time, but they were also able to put a dollar amount on the real cost of charging the vehicle, translated into price per gallon of gasoline. As you might guess, the price is astronomical, but that’s not the the end of it.
While EV advocates claim charging costs are equivalent to $1.21-per-gallon gasoline, the real amount is an order of magnitude more.
Including the charging equipment, subsidies from governments and utilities and other frequently excluded expenses, the true cost of charging an EV is equivalent to $17.33-per-gallon gasoline — but the EV owner pays less than 7% of that.
So if the E.V. owner pays less than 7% of that massively inflated cost to “fuel” a car, that means more than 93% of the financial burden falls on the taxpayer—as the NY Post authors also write:
This is socialism for the rich: a transfer of costs from higher net-worth individuals to middle- and lower-income taxpayers.
It’s the equivalent of levying taxes and fees on public-transportation users and those who walk or bicycle to work and using the money to reduce the price of gasoline.
At this stage, E.V.s, if forced to stand on their own, are an utter failure, and as I noted in my previous blog, bad ideas and inferior products only find security in a “free” market… rigorously controlled by big government fascists. If our market were truly free, an extremely expensive car that can spontaneously combust, only works in a limited temperature range, occasionally malfunctions and locks occupants inside before rolling backwards into bodies of water, and costs $17.33 per “gallon” to “fuel” up, would be dead on arrival—as it should be.