Sinema stands with her fellow Democrats on social spending and climate bill. It’s a done deal.

There is a cap of like 70k for eligible cars. Rich folks buy cars more expensive than 70k!

So you now admit it favors the middle class...but you call those rich because they have more money than the poor? Wtf kind of logic is that.

The ev "offset" favors the middle class. Why can't you and Tiny just admit it? Originally Posted by WTF

EV’s are second cars or third cars and so now you’ll see rich people lining up to buy 70k EV’s, if what you say you is true.

Any thoughts on Ducbutter’s post? Why are we spending many billions in taxpayer funds for vehicles that will only offer a marginal improvement in overall carbon emissions from the USA vehicle fleet? And virtually “0” decrease in worldwide CO2 emissions?

I’ll repeat it here for your convenience.

While the expense of an EV is an issue for many buyers the real focus ought to be on the true efficiency of them to begin with. Volvo put out information concerning the manufacture of one model of vehicle produced on parallel production lines, one EV the other ICE powered. Their figures show that the EV model comes off the production line 70% dirtier than the comparable ICE powered. So the EV must be driven over 68,000 miles to reach "payback", assuming average global energy supply. I can only speculate on what that would be if you used electricity generated by coal, so I won't.
And that says nothing about the ecological costs of mining the materials needed to produce the batteries. Nor what we will do to dispose of or recycle the old batteries. Not to worry though. As with the recycling of electronics for their precious metals, the burden will be placed on the backs of poor brown and black children half a world away.
Yeah, let's all plug in! Fuckers. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

So the break even is 68k miles

So the break even is 68k miles Originally Posted by WTF

IF you don’t have to replace the batteries

EV’s are second cars or third cars and so now you’ll see rich people lining up to buy 70k EV’s, if what you say you is true.

Any thoughts on Ducbutter’s post? Why are we spending many billions in taxpayer funds for vehicles that will only offer a marginal improvement in overall carbon emissions from the USA vehicle fleet? And virtually “0” decrease in worldwide CO2 emissions?

I’ll repeat it here for your convenience. Originally Posted by Tiny

If your car or cars have more than 68K miles on them they you’d be already reducing the carbon footprint. The answer seems pretty simple.

Has anyone here considered the added power generation capabilities needed to charge these EVs? From what I've seen it takes around 400 kWh to operate an average EV per month. California is having rolling brown-outs now. What will happen as more and more folks are plugging in?
At current energy price levels that's somewhere around $100 per month, which isn't bad really. But it bears asking the question, are energy prices going up or down?

If your car or cars have more than 68K miles on them they you’d be already reducing the carbon footprint. The answer seems pretty simple. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Wrong

At current energy price levels that's somewhere around $100 per month, which isn't bad really. But it bears asking the question, are energy prices going up or down? Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Lot of money to be made if you get that answer right!

I have been looking at solar panels and battery's. From a purely economic standpoint, they are getting close to making sense.

35-40k investment to eliminate both your heating/ac costs and your fuel.

I'm really waiting for the ev trucks to come out.

Lot of money to be made if you get that answer right!

I have been looking at solar panels and battery's. From a purely economic standpoint, they are getting close to making sense.

35-40k investment to eliminate both your heating/ac costs and your fuel.

I'm really waiting for the ev trucks to come out. Originally Posted by WTF

There is money to be made there, if you're in the investment class. I'm not but good luck to you.

"Getting close to making sense", meaning you actually get your investment back before it's time to replace the panels. As energy prices rise that factor will begin to look better, but make no mistake. Those panels will have to be replaced. Take a look at the environmental costs of manufacture and recyling as well.

Breaking off another 35k is not in the wheelhouse of most Americans. If you finance that'll change your payback.

Electric trucks are here cuz. WTF are you waiting for?
Ha!

If your car or cars have more than 68K miles on them they you’d be already reducing the carbon footprint. The answer seems pretty simple. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I wonder how many people are going to put 68K on the cars during, say, the 10 or 15 years it takes the batteries to wear out. When that happens there's going to be a stair step up in the EV's carbon footprint. I suspect a lot of people buy these to run around town and don't put serious miles on them. But maybe I'm wrong.

Has anyone here considered the added power generation capabilities needed to charge these EVs? From what I've seen it takes around 400 kWh to operate an average EV per month. California is having rolling brown-outs now. What will happen as more and more folks are plugging in?
At current energy price levels that's somewhere around $100 per month, which isn't bad really. But it bears asking the question, are energy prices going up or down? Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Yeah, about the 68,000 miles, I doubt they're factoring in the carbon footprint to build the power plants for the incremental capacity.

From a purely economic standpoint, they are getting close to making sense. Originally Posted by WTF

Maybe so, but at what cost to the taxpayer?

I wonder how many people are going to put 68K on the cars during, say, the 10 or 15 years it takes the batteries to wear out. When that happens there's going to be a stair step up in the EV's carbon footprint. I suspect a lot of people buy these to run around town and don't put serious miles on them. But maybe I'm wrong. Originally Posted by Tiny

Once again, do your cars have less than 70K miles and are they more than 10 years old. Use your own use case.

Once again, do your cars have less than 70K miles and are they more than 10 years old. Use your own use case. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

86,000 miles and 9 years. But if I had added an EV to the Tiny fleet nine years ago it would definitely have fewer than 70K miles.

There is money to be made there, if you're in the investment class. I'm not but good luck to you.

"Getting close to making sense", meaning you actually get your investment back before it's time to replace the panels. As energy prices rise that factor will begin to look better, but make no mistake. Those panels will have to be replaced. Take a look at the environmental costs of manufacture and recyling as well.

Breaking off another 35k is not in the wheelhouse of most Americans. If you finance that'll change your payback.

Electric trucks are here cuz. WTF are you waiting for?
Ha! Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Electric trucks are not here.

Unless you consider a long wait here.

Ford and Rivian, nothing else and one is too pricey.

Please tell me where I can go test drive an electric truck. Where are they available?

I like Rivian but I'm not buying from a company that may be out of business in a couple of years.

35k....and there is a savings of 1k a month would mean around a 4 year payback assuming a generous 10% on the 35k.

That isn't a bad return....especially considering all the maintenance cost savings going ev.

I'm looking at it from a purely economic view. Which is what most do or will do. The environmentalists have probably already bought.

From a very very small sliver of the investment class...that means that I think ngl's are a good play. Those that can get the gas to power plants should be set for a steady return on investment. Mid streams fit that niche. What with limits on new pipelines and our expansion of ngl shipments to Europe, yummy, yum give me sum.

ok i just had a thought

the new corporate 15% tax on book income

its based on financial statements and not on tax return net income

the irs can audit that financial statement all day long and find money pretty easily i would imagine

because isnt a financial statement about a "fair presentation" and not an exact to the penny thing?

in multi billion dollar corporations i doubt they worry about rounding errors for financial statements

but 20 million to the irs is 1.5 million in additional tax at 15% and tax law is exact, not estimable

is this all a potential boondoggle? most likely everything the government does is a boondoggle

we need a simpler system not an ever more complex one