Senate, House Bills Aim to Kill $7,500 Electric Vehicle Tax Credit, Add New EV Tax

Some issue here;

The first one, a single battery for an EV creates as much pollution as 5 years of ICE use on the road. Now I'm all for clean energy, but if the cure is worse than the problem I'll pass.

I get that the subsidies were intended to use tax payer funding to drive EV development and adoption. But if the plan worked, and there are certainly a lot of EVs out there today, then maybe the plan worked and it's time to cut that incentive, mission accomplished, good job.

And there is nothing wrong with asking EV owners to help foot the bill for roadway upkeep is there?

BTW: I am looking up that first comment myself to see if I am off the reservation or not, a friend gave that to me, I need to allow that he might be mistaken.

2 angles on this;

1st https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...lectric-cars-carbon-sustainable-power-energy/

2nd https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/


If you ask me, this technology is simply not there yet. We are rushing to adopt a technology on a global scale that is simple not currently better, and in fact, will likely cause more harm than good.


Where are you getting that a single battery creates as much polution as 5 years of ICE on the road? Do you mean the full battery array for the car? That I could believe, but tesla uses 5-7,000 small 18650 lipo batteries. I cannot believe it takes the equivalent of 5 years of ICE pollution to create 1 flashlight size lipo battery.
 
Where are you getting that a single battery creates as much polution as 5 years of ICE on the road? Do you mean the full battery array for the car? That I could believe, but tesla uses 5-7,000 small 18650 lipo batteries. I cannot believe it takes the equivalent of 5 years of ICE pollution to create 1 flashlight size lipo battery.


You are correct, I miss-quoted him. I just asked him and he says it's the entire car battery, not a single battery in the pack.

He was doing some research, starting from an article about the "Tesla not being as green as some might think", he back tracked through some linked articles to a Swedish report from some site, he said it's called somethhing like NY Technic.

I have a problem with this information, and that's not usually my style. Although I can't find a report that backs up my first comment, and I already acknowledge that I misquoted m6y source and the comment is in error. The other two are not so flawed and the articles worth a read.

I also see some claims that an EV will, over it's life, do far better than an ICE vehicle, but I wonder if this factors in battery replacement because that means building a whole lot more batteries.

I also have to wonder, what are the numbers on cars not "reaching their life" do to catastrophic damage in accidents, fires, etc. My thinking is that if even 10% of vehicles never reach their life expectancy, does that mean the same thing for EVs, and how well will they make up the difference in the benefits column when they "die" before they can make an impact.

The entire argument is that although they are a net loss to make, that over time, they'll make up the differences and more. But the cars do have to last long enough to make good on that.

Furthermore, many people buy used cars. What about used EVs with used batteries? I'm thinking people will be more hesitant about buying used unless the battery has been replaced .... (presumably early).
 
Last edited:
The roadsters boost in range is mostly because it's supposed to have a battery pack that is 200kwh, most of that is likely due to eating the cost of cramming more batteries into a smaller area. With the higher sticker costs, certain options become more feasible economically. As for battery improvements, it's been listed to be around 5-8% a year now. That adds up over time.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...trend-if-any-regarding-energy-to-weight-ratio

Battery tech WILL completely replace ICE, and it will be faster than people realize. And eventually we'll start to see electric planes for shorter regional hops, and then eventually longer range flights.


I absolutely doubt it.

Riddle me this Batman;

All these people map out their projections based on a perfect world that does not exist.

I'll tell you what will happen.

Either we are all going to fall out of love with electric vehicles before we fuck up and ban ICE engines, and then we'll come up with something else better .... maybe.

Or ...

We will go all-in on the EV, outlaw the ICE, and reality will kill us. Demand will outstrip supply, the economics of it all will drive battery and vehicle costs through the roof. Only the rich will have EVs, the poor will have EV buses and trains. It'll be complete suckage.
 
You are correct, I miss-quoted him. I just asked him and he says it's the entire car battery, not a single battery in the pack.

He was doing some research, starting from an article about the "Tesla not being as green as some might think", he back tracked through some linked articles to a Swedish report from some site, he said it's called somethhing like NY Technic.

I have a problem with this information, and that's not usually my style. Although I can't find a report that backs up my first comment, and I already acknowledge that I misquoted m6y source and the comment is in error. The other two are not so flawed and the articles worth a read.

I also see some claims that an EV will, over it's life, do far better than an ICE vehicle, but I wonder if this factors in battery replacement because that means building a whole lot more batteries.

I also have to wonder, what are the numbers on cars not "reaching their life" do to catastrophic damage in accidents, fires, etc. My thinking is that if even 10% of vehicles never reach their life expectancy, does that mean the same thing for EVs, and how well will they make up the difference in the benefits column when they "die" before they can make an impact.

The entire argument is that although they are a net loss to make, that over time, they'll make up the differences and more. But the cars do have to last long enough to make good on that.

Furthermore, many people buy used cars. What about used EVs with used batteries? I'm thinking people will be more hesitant about buying used unless the battery has been replaced .... (presumably early).



I was worried about the life expectancy of the batteries as well, but tesla has done a good job making sure the batteries are running in optimum conditions to extend life (proper cooling, under/overcharge protection etc). I saw a post recently of one of the higher mileage model S, which had over 300k miles and still had like 90% battery capacity. If they continue to degrade at that rate or close, I think that tilts the scales towards EV creating less pollution over the long term.
 
I was worried about the life expectancy of the batteries as well, but tesla has done a good job making sure the batteries are running in optimum conditions to extend life (proper cooling, under/overcharge protection etc).
Or Tesla burns the evidence... *rimshot*
:D

I'll be here all night folks! :D
 
I absolutely doubt it.

Riddle me this Batman;

All these people map out their projections based on a perfect world that does not exist.

I'll tell you what will happen.

Either we are all going to fall out of love with electric vehicles before we fuck up and ban ICE engines, and then we'll come up with something else better .... maybe.

Or ...

We will go all-in on the EV, outlaw the ICE, and reality will kill us. Demand will outstrip supply, the economics of it all will drive battery and vehicle costs through the roof. Only the rich will have EVs, the poor will have EV buses and trains. It'll be complete suckage.


Remember this post after you have bought your first ev within the next 2 decades.
 
I was worried about the life expectancy of the batteries as well, but tesla has done a good job making sure the batteries are running in optimum conditions to extend life (proper cooling, under/overcharge protection etc). I saw a post recently of one of the higher mileage model S, which had over 300k miles and still had like 90% battery capacity. If they continue to degrade at that rate or close, I think that tilts the scales towards EV creating less pollution over the long term.


That's actually good news. As pessimistic as I may sound, push come to shove, I'd rather they be a success than a failure, because a failure is going to be a real royal fuck-up if it goes that way.
 
Remember this post after you have bought your first ev within the next 2 decades.


I'm 60 next month, it's a race then. Will I buy and EV before I die.......

......or will I just remain an obstinate bastard and refuse, just to spite you :sneaky:
 
EV cars so far are the domain of the wealthy. Not sure how this helps the rich? Other than migrating the taxes to income taxes which the wealthy dodge and the burden drops to the Working Class.

Dude... I'll say it again, how are EV's ONLY for the wealthy.. you have the Bolt, The Leaf, etc. A TOP TRIM leaf is 35K BEFORE federal and texas state (and others) tax incentives. That's far from unaffordable.. and the lower trims put it in the mid to low 20's.

Tell me how that's only for the wealthy?
 
Dude... I'll say it again, how are EV's ONLY for the wealthy.. you have the Bolt, The Leaf, etc. A TOP TRIM leaf is 35K BEFORE federal and texas state (and others) tax incentives. That's far from unaffordable.. and the lower trims put it in the mid to low 20's.

Tell me how that's only for the wealthy?

For both of those cars, the range and recharge times (and lack of nationwide rapid charging stations) as well as lack of utility make having second cars a necessity for weekend travel, which many Americans do. Which makes ownership of those cars something for the middle class at minimum.
 
They really need to do away with vehicle ownership translating to funding roadways. If you have 10 cars (you're a collector) why should you pay for 10 registrations that fund the roads? You're only going to drive one at a time. If you have 0 cars, why aren't you paying for funding the roads? If you take a bus, or consume ANYTHING that was 99.999999% probably brought to your city via a huge HEAVY semi truck & trailer that causes more damage to roads than thousands of cars, maybe 10s of thousands of cars, so yeah you're destroying the roads almost as much as someone driving a car, or mail/packages, or the big trucks that do electricity, phone, cable, water, etc all of them screw up the streets. Roads are vital infrastructure, they aren't luxuries, each area needs to set aside their own monies for dealing with their roads as they see fit rather than throwing it all into a big fund that gets redistributed in some weird formulaic way. Increase local taxes, well your'e getting a break on gas taxes, but I get it, the average person is too stupid to realize that and would simply see it as another tax, even if at most in a state like Taxifornia that would only translate to $300 or so per person.

To be fair to state agencies here: Classic car collectors in many states pay a one time registration for a "Collector" plate (yes it is more expensive) but never have to pay to register them again. The vehicles do have to be a certain number of years old (usually 20+ years old) to qualify.
 
I was worried about the life expectancy of the batteries as well, but tesla has done a good job making sure the batteries are running in optimum conditions to extend life (proper cooling, under/overcharge protection etc). I saw a post recently of one of the higher mileage model S, which had over 300k miles and still had like 90% battery capacity. If they continue to degrade at that rate or close, I think that tilts the scales towards EV creating less pollution over the long term.

Once the batteries are no longer really suitable for use in a car don't they become perfect for home/commercial/emergency use?
 
That may be fine if you drive 15,000 to 20,000 miles a year.
What about all the people who don't?

The law of averages isn't favorable to everyone. Even I would be dinged here, as I usually only drive about 7500-9000 (at most) miles per year, but that allows for a good middle ground.

I have a short commute so I only put 6,000 miles on my car last year. I made the decision years ago that I didn't want to waist hours of my life sitting in traffic, even though my living expenses are much higher. now you want to raise my registration to subsidize people who drive more than me?

Most states have been jacking registration fees to cover road funding shortfalls for a while now. You just want them to keep doing it again and again for everyone instead of scaling it to the type of vehicle?

Even worse, what about people who have an extra car they rarely drive? Now their registration will be much higher too?
My wife (who has no commute since she can no longer work) only put 2,000 miles on her car. Why should her registration cost more?

See above: most states are already raising it this simply allows for a better overall fee structure based on vehicle type.

No, stick to the gas tax. If someone want to drive a large SUV, then they pay more with the additional gas they use.
If someone want to drive a small car or a hybrid, then they pay less since they use less gas.

Which isn't necessarily fair because not all hybrids or electrics (two of the three variants here, the last being standard ICE) are lighter than small ICE vehicles. So the small ICE owner is still benefiting from having the lowest registration and paying the least fuel taxes of that group. However while the hybrid owner may pay more for registration, if they're not completely reckless, they'll probably pay about the same overall as the average small ICE vehicle owner. The same for electrics.

If someone wants to drive an electric or a plugin hybrid, then they need to help pay for the roads too, since the are not paying gas taxes.

Hybrids typically pay gas taxes, as most hybrids use the engine regularly. They have to pay a higher registration fee. This is partially offset by them using less fuel. The electrics pay the highest registration fee, but they pay no fuel taxes. This is actually pretty balanced if you think it through, as the registration costs slide with anticipated gas taxes based on 15k miles a year.

FYI: I drive a hybrid, but if the state put a yearly tax on hybrids, my next car would likely not be a hybrid. The extra tax would likely consume any money I would save due to the higher mileage due to the low number of miles I drive.

Actually it probably still would be a hybrid, or even an electric, since the effect is not to penalize one of the groups but simply level out the funding between groups.

I guess you could say this would screw with ICE SUV's that have big engines.
 
Actually it probably still would be a hybrid, or even an electric, since the effect is not to penalize one of the groups but simply level out the funding between groups.


California puts an extra $100 registration fee on zero emission (electric cars). The rest of the registration is based on the initial value of the car, so an $80,000 SUV would cost the same as a $80,000 Electric + the extra $100.

Hybrids don't currently have an extra surcharge, although the extra $1,000-$3,000 cost for a Hybrid would slightly increase the base registration fee.

I'll go with whichever car has the options I want and is cheaper for me to drive.
So, if I need to replace a car in the next few years, it will likely be a Hybrid as long as I'm still commuting to work.
If I was no longer working, it might just be an ICE, as the freeway mileage is almost as good for long trips.

As for an electric, I don't see me buying one any time soon unless I'm living in a retirement community and want something a little bigger than a golf cart. :D
 
Remember this post after you have bought your first ev within the next 2 decades.

2 decades? If I'm still around by that time, I'll probably be looking for a self driving pod to take me to the grocery store, as it will be safer than driving myself. :p
 
2 decades? If I'm still around by that time, I'll probably be looking for a self driving pod to take me to the grocery store, as it will be safer than driving myself. :p


I read somewhere it takes around 20 years to mostly clear out a generation of cars from the road through primary ownership life plus used sales. I think it could easily be the case that most new cars sold would be electric in about 10 years too.
 
I read somewhere it takes around 20 years to mostly clear out a generation of cars from the road through primary ownership life plus used sales. I think it could easily be the case that most new cars sold would be electric in about 10 years too.

The average age of a car on the road continues to grow, 11.6 years as of 2016.
I'd assume it will take much longer than 20 years to clear out a majority of cars.

Part of the issue is the higher prices for cars. When combined with the higher reliability, it makes sense to drive cars longer.

Electric car sales (all electric or plug hybrids) are currently about 2% of sales. Now that many of the subsidies are dropping or going away, sales will likely slow.
It will take much longer that 10 years for that 2% number to hit over 50%

Bigger problem is that many people have no place to plug in an electric car. They either live in an apartment, a condo, or park on the street making it impossible or at least inconvenient to charge a car at home. Many older homes would require expensive upgrades to the electric panel to install a fast charger.

That's why I think the sales will start to slow down before they hit 10% of sales, unless the government starts handing out a lot more money in subsidies.
 
Back
Top