Can You Believe This-The Government Wants Us To Go EV but In So Doing They Will impose a gas surcharge

I am using myself BMW i3 for our secondary residence in France. We received the incentive from French goverment of around 6 th euro, the registration ( la carte grise) was for free instaed of 800 euro , the insurance is 50 % of the standard fee.
We love the car, equipped with range extender( a smal petrol engin which works as a generator to charge the batteries) so we can reach the driving range of ca 350 kms in the warm climat.
As most of French cars it is small but quiet and with very good accelaration which makes the drive enjoyable. Moreover at commercial center the best parking places at entrance ( Geant Casino) are reserved for EVs
In our area it is a perfect city and small distance car, from Menton to St Tropez, we are close to Cannes.
As a main car in Poland I drive the third generation RX hybrid and I think this is for time being the best solution for the range, fuel consumption and comfort.
After 7k kms done with i3 our average energy consumption is 13,3 kWh plus some 20 l of gas which result in around 2,5 euro for 100 kms, I charge the car in the nights at home with the cheaper tarrifs ( les heures creuses).
But for the main car I would not recommend electric, it’ s too soon, unless you need only a city car.

Steve Williams said:

Keith in 1950 the TV was 1% of sales and where is it now? So also owning a computer was 1% and look where it is now. Same with smart phones and everything else Keith. Progress is not something that stands still. I agree about batteries but there are big changes coming. Home batteries by the end of the year will be smaller , cost less and will hold more charge.

BTW Keith I am not a Tesla zealot but at the momentTesla seems to be the voice of the EV and you can be sure that Elon Musk is years ahead in R&D of the battery so he wants to engage in hyperbole but don't you perhaps seem to get wound up whenever Tesla is mentioned. Reminds me of someone we talked about yesterday in another thread

Click to expand...

Here's the EV hard sales data Steve:

https://insideevs.com/news/368729/ev-sales-scorecard-august-2019/

This isn't good at all- cars are selling in hundreds and basically just CARB cars. We are 6 years down the line and hardly comparable to the curves for TV adoption. GM sales are in the toilet. Prius Prime is half of what was envisioned, BMW has never succeeded with the i3, and Ford saw limited success that has fallen in the past two years. Even hybrid car adoption 15 years ago only reached 4% adoption rates in 2007 with $140 oil.

Originally I wasn't anti-Tesla, actually wanted to buy a Model S (I can't fit through the slit of a front door), and was quite supportive/impressed when the M3 was announced. But now Musk has evolved into PT Barnum. The fact he thought he was better than the SEC was hilarious. And building cars in tents with shoddy production quality will come home to roost. All because of his arrogance. Tesla has fallen behind in technology which most don't understand. Sales are down y-o-y and he has no Model S update coming - 7 years later. They've cut prices numerous times this year and offer 2 years of free supercharging to boost demand for an alleged booming company that is spending less on capex than last year (??). Also a zillion executives have left in the past year and one was a CFO within a month which makes me questions the financials. So yeah, call me a Tesla skeptic...as are quite a few financial analysts on the street.

As far as EVs as an auto asset class, they simply aren't as convenient as ICE cars. Until that happens, broad adoption isn't possible. I won't deny that "first adopters" seem to really enjoy them.

Keith, I also wanted Tesla model 3 first but because of Mr Musk mistakes - fully agree with your comments BTW - I decided to get i3.
So far so good but it seems that apart from Norway the EVs have no market succes until now.

As a long term legislator whose career has been in Ways and Means and Appropriations, let me tell you a little secret. When the legislature earmarks a new tax for a specific purpose it is first because we KNOW all new taxes are absolutely hated by all, including us! The earmarking is meant to make it an easier sell. Really. The fact is these "little" but actually large collections even if 100% applied with automatic appropriations can not fully address the needs for what they are mandated for. Think health care and yes, roads! It is a case of "every little bit helps".

Your states deepest in the red have the highest taxes because they simply need the extra money more. Remember that income taxes and real property taxes are what really fill up the general fund. This does not make them any different than any other country on the planet. What you are seeing is just the beginning. Should EVs adaption drop petrol consumption, income to replace what's lost is a guarantee. Citizens demand ever improving services and infrastructure and rightly so. Our governments need to keep up.

It's our engineers who are the true leaders ...

Steve Williams said:

This is where I see the future Keith. Just remember every time you pull your big ICE into the gas station and what is costs you that there is a way of the future that your costs will be greatly diminished if not totally zero.

Click to expand...

I understand you opinion - but its somewhat SoCal-centric where your solar breakeven is relatively short. You can't do this in Portland or Michigan.

btw, what do you calculate your breakeven to be now that you've had your system a year?

I looked into solar for my house... too many tall trees around, not only my property but my neighbor's property as well. Sadly, no solar for me... but I do think Steve's idea of charging your car off of collected solar energy is 'brilliant!'

Bummer for those living in the cold northern climates that are heavily overcast most of the winter.

Those living in the north may have solar challenges but they will not have the water challenges that the southwest corner is going to face in a very major way. Nor will they have the population challenges.

Sorry, too far off topic.

Solar power breakeven for me was 19~25 years depending upon usage and rates and requires a substantial (~$50k) investment (quoted about two weeks ago). My rural coop also limits what they will buy back from consumer solar overproduction and local codes limit the amount of power you can generate from solar panels. My electric bill would essentially go away but the upfront cost and long time to recoup the investment just did not make sense. Gov't subsidies help defray the initial cost at least somewhat but then limits on what they will allow me to produce and buy back make it harder to justify long-term (monetarily, environmentally more murky). There is lip-service to the investment but then rules and regs on how much you can generate and sell back to the utilities are killer. Left and right hands should talk...

As for EVs, much infrastructure work needs to be done IMO... A friend just got a Model 3 for his wife and they love it. They had to spend about $2k to upgrade their electric service in town. For me in the sticks, the cost would be ~$20k as they had to add a transformer. And since we do a fair number of road trips to visit family in MO range is a problem as well as availability of charging stations along the way. For city life and daily commuting they may make sense, but when traveling or off-roading, hunting, etc. a harder sell. Battery performance is also still pretty variable; cold weather (like in CO), hot weather (CA, AZ, etc.), and so forth can affect battery power delivery and recharge time. You also have to take into account things like using the HVAC system, radio, and such that may or may not be reflected in the estimated travel distance.

That in addition to the on-going debate about how "clean" they really are and how the costs can be contained for providing the electricity, making and disposing of the batteries, etc. They are certainly the darling of various groups but there are a lot of technical details hidden or glossed over. I suspect they will make significant inroads in some areas, perhaps driven by gov't mandates, less so in others. Over time hopefully technology will evolve (batteries are a major focal point of a lot of research with some promising results albeit some time before mass manufacturing) and as more EVs hit the roads costs will come down.

I am also concerned about the push to increase gas mileage in ICVs. Not sure how much further they can push the tech -- they already have a lot of electronics to optimize engine performance, and smaller engines seem to be bottoming out (below a certain size people want more power etc.) Reading various consumer and engineering journals (N.B. not my primary field!) indicates a lot of the improvement is from reducing weight which has led to in some ways vehicles that are less safe, less repairable (at reasonable cost), and have reduced lifetime.

All of which puts me on the sidelines but watching and reading with interest.

Steve Williams said:

You've obviously done your due diligence with a 19-25 year breakeven. I wonder if the concomitant use of a home battery would further help to offset your house electrical use and reduce that break even point

Click to expand...

I was really hoping it would be much better... That is worse than the last time I dug into this about ten years ago. The technology has greatly improved, both in solar cell efficiency and in their robustness and longevity, but with a commensurate increase in cost (roughly doubled in ten years). I asked about a battery system but was discouraged from it for a variety of reasons including cost, relatively limited lifetime, and safety and environmental concerns. One interesting addition was a solar heating unit that would help heat the house and provide hot water. Unfortunately both are natural gas now and relatively cheap compared to electricity, so again breakeven would take a while (15~20 years), and the cost was much higher than I anticipated (>$20k).

Steve, I do appreciate your advocacy and advice here and in PMs. That is what sent me down the path of digging into it again, and I really expected to implement it this time. Alas... If we were younger it would make more sense.

JackD201 said:

As a long term legislator whose career has been in Ways and Means and Appropriations, let me tell you a little secret. When the legislature earmarks a new tax for a specific purpose it is first because we KNOW all new taxes are absolutely hated by all, including us! The earmarking is meant to make it an easier sell. Really. The fact is these "little" but actually large collections even if 100% applied with automatic appropriations can not fully address the needs for what they are mandated for. Think health care and yes, roads! It is a case of "every little bit helps".

Your states deepest in the red have the highest taxes because they simply need the extra money more. Remember that income taxes and real property taxes are what really fill up the general fund. This does not make them any different than any other country on the planet. What you are seeing is just the beginning. Should EVs adaption drop petrol consumption, income to replace what's lost is a guarantee. Citizens demand ever improving services and infrastructure and rightly so. Our governments need to keep up.

Click to expand...

Citizens, citizens. Citizens think the government should solve all of their problems. Citizens are causing half as much CO2 emissions as all of the power plants, so THEY are a significant part of the problem in the US and so THEY should be part of the solution. Unfortunately, US citizens are more concerned with keeping their job and getting as wealthy as possible rather than saving the planet for their children, so legislation is necessary.

Estimates based on fuel consumption (CNN):

0.89 Billion metric tons of CO2 emitted by citizen cars and trucks every year in the US.

1.8 Billion metric tons of CO2 emitted by power plants every year in the US.

For cars and trucks:

I personally would like to see a $4/gallon gas tax that that would wean people off of ICE vehicles. This revenue could be used for rebates for electric cars and solar panels.

Legislation that requires all new cars to at least be hybrids.

Legislation that would requires all ICE vehicles to turn off when in park after 30 seconds. Manufacturers must put this feature in every car. This could happen in next years models. It's not rocket science.

Legislation that gives cash, not tax rebates to anyone buying an electric car.

Legislation that makes illegal idling a vehicle for no reason.

Legislation that makes idling an unattended vehicle illegal.

Legislation that makes DEQ compliance mandatory everywhere, not just in some cities. 200K people die from pollution every year in the US.

I'm okay with paying a small tax to get decent roads. It would be a tiny part of my entire taxes. Commercial trucks should pay the highest rate since they do the most damage.

For homes, the following:

Legislation that motivates homeowners to transition from oil and natgas heating to high-efficiency inverter-type heatpumps.

Legislation that would outlaw open fireplaces and outdoor burning.

Legislation that mandates efficient lighting technologies be use in ALL business, not just large ones. Replacing incandescents should be MANDATORY or fines will be imposed.

Empirical Audio, I hear you. What do you think of our beloved Class A amplifiers? What about our preamps and phono stages that are designed to be left ON all the time? At least I usually turn off the lights while listening. The historical district officials in my town will not allow me to tear down my fireplaces and chimneys or install insulated window panes. I have neighbors who only use firewood to heat their homes.

Landlords provide heat for some tenants in Massachusetts. I want to turn the heat off from April through October like I do at my own house, but the health department mandates that heat be available for all tenants from September 1st through June 15th. I comply lest I be cited for violating the local health codes. Of course, the heat is left on and the tenants open their windows. I"m not allowed to discuss cultural differences or energy conservation with the local health department. I agree that something needs to change.

A derogatory "Citizens think the government should solve all of their problems." followed by a lengthy list of legislation proposed as a solution? Hmmm...

Just looking @ the latest news ...

The electric cars today for the USA ... in 2020.
• https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/every-electric-car-ev-range-audi-chevy-tesla/

The most bank for the bugk ..
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgor...lectric-cars-give-the-most-bang-for-the-buck/

The latest overall EV news ...
• https://electrek.co/

The facts: 90%+ climate scientists say the world has got about 10-15 years to begin developing effective plans to dramatically bring down the burning of fossil fuels from current levels.

It's likely going to take some serious federal and state funding, and unselfishness to accomplish this before it's too late. Since the severe effects are forecast to begin around 2050, many born after 1960 are likely to deal with the most costly effects. Young people born after 1990 will be the most severely affected. No wonder their so pissed.

EPA Source:
-Transportation (28.9% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90% of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel.
-Electricity production (27.5% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 62.9% of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.
-Industry (22.2% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials.
-Commercial and Residential (11.6% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste.
-Agriculture (9.0% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.
-Land Use and Forestry (offset of 11.1% of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.