Innovation will be the changing force to converting to Clean Energy, not the Government. The biggest cluster 17 known to mankind is the current US government.
For those rushing out to buy an Electric Vehicle:
- Thread starter The Peeper
- Start date
- Status
lifelong conservative RepublicanI get that there must be some distinction between subsidies specifically targeted to Big Oil, and general subsidies that other industries get too....but the latter is still a subsidy that they are getting. Gotta be honest. Congress could always write them out of eligibility for those general subsidies. When they don't....it's a subsidy that they're getting.
More links:
https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/m...nalysis-of-us-energy-incentives-1950-2016.pdf
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil..., oil, and natural gas,8 percent of the total.
Not everyone
Need to read that bill and look at the details. Income limits, only if battery manufactured in US I think and the credits phase out by volumes if I’m not mistaken.
Need to read that bill and look at the details. Income limits, only if battery manufactured in US I think and the credits phase out by volumes if I’m not mistaken.
It is a two to three year wait in some places. Good luck finding one at a dealership. Let alone one that is close to MSRP. https://jalopnik.com/looking-for-a-toyota-rav4-prime-itll-cost-you-nearly-1848105508
The fact that the supply chain does not exist yet is kind of the point of the tax credit. Manchin insisted on that condition as a way to incentivize the automakers into fast tracking a NAFTA-centric battery raw material supply chain in order to reduce reliance on China. There are plenty of opinions on whether or not that will work as intended….without automakers having to raise the prices of vehicles by an amount equal to or exceeding the tax credit. But that’s why its in there.
I don’t see anyone right or wrong in your link. Either way, here’s the Department of Energy’s current listing of eligible vehicles for tax credits. You’ll see Ford’s models dating all the way back to 2012 & 2013. These credits have been around since Cam Newton being recruited by Dan Mullen.
Notice how it says “no longer eligible” next to GM and Tesla. The original law was capped at 200,000 models, then the credit was cut in half before finally ending at $0. Tesla blew through their cap in 2019. GM exceeded theirs in 2020.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml
Notice how it says “no longer eligible” next to GM and Tesla. The original law was capped at 200,000 models, then the credit was cut in half before finally ending at $0. Tesla blew through their cap in 2019. GM exceeded theirs in 2020.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml
It isnt being forced upon you any more than any other tax ia forced upon you.
Taxation is how communities and our country overall has grown to be the most advanced and wealthiest nation in history. Part of enjoying all that comes from such success is having to pay for programs and services we may not need or use.
yeah and the ICE was a much better solution than EVs then also. MAd Max and Thunderdome is our future.
But our taxes are lower
Than most other countries.
No country can tax itself to wealth. That would be the equivalent of scooping water out of a bucket and pouring it back into the same bucket to get more water into the bucket.
Than most other countries.
No country can tax itself to wealth. That would be the equivalent of scooping water out of a bucket and pouring it back into the same bucket to get more water into the bucket.
This country lives on a giant credit card. And you think all the money comes from taxes? LOL
I read a couple articles about this the other day because I honestly couldn’t believe that some of the claims were true, and sure enough, it listed every electric car on the market that would actually qualify for this credit. After it was all said and done, roughly 15% qualifies(mostly BMW, Audi, and other high end models), and the real kicker was that a Tesla apparently isn’t even one of them because they’ve exceeded their allowed volume quota.
I’m actually highly interested in renewable energy, and I went as far as to go through the whole solar panel business case about 6 months ago, so I’m not against the efforts here. The bill that was passed last week honestly just didn’t move the needle much for me, though. The things I can control are still way too damn expensive with too long of a ROI.
I’m actually highly interested in renewable energy, and I went as far as to go through the whole solar panel business case about 6 months ago, so I’m not against the efforts here. The bill that was passed last week honestly just didn’t move the needle much for me, though. The things I can control are still way too damn expensive with too long of a ROI.
About installing a home charger - it depends on several factors: how far away do you need it from the charger box? How much does your electrician charge? How long will it take him/her? I bought my charger (juicebox) for just over $600 ( I had gift cards so I only paid around $300 at the time, but had pre-paid some because I bought those gift cards). And my electrician did it for just under $700, which included materials. So it was a total of around $1300 total.
Where did you get $4k? Is your electrician really THAT expensive? Or is your box that far away from your garage? Usually they are in the garage, so it isn't that big of an expense.
For the new bill, this isn't true. I got the BMW i4 under the old law, so I'm getting the credit, but under the new bill, it is not eligible. And also, the new bill does away with the quota, so Tesla will be getting more, but it is limited. The base model 3 would get the credit, because the MSRP is below $55k, but the Model 3 long range would not, because it is over the MSRP limit.
I'm the same. I love my Beamer, and will never drive an ICE car again if I don't have to. But the amount of misinformation I've seen since I have gotten mine is astounding. Everything from the rate at which EVs catch on fire vs ICE or Hybrids to charging time to charging cost to maintenance cost.
Hell, even the dealership tried to sell me an extended service warranty because "You're going to need oil changes." No. No, I'm really not. And I'll never have to replace a transmission either.
Family member in TX said it was about $4K for the good charging station to be installed. Didn't ask what good meant. Solar is a lot more. The government starts throwing in a solar charger, I might consider it all.
And I'm fine with an EV minus the crazy costs and inconveniences. I don't hate them. I just think they're pointless at this point in time.
That 15% is what qualifies now. From January 2023, estimates from industry experts are that literally zero EV’s that are currently sold in the US will qualify for the full credit under the new regulations, due to the battery supply chain requirements.
[FONT="]Speaking of limits, before the Inflation Reduction Act, manufacturers that produced more than 200,000 electric vehicles couldn’t qualify for the EV tax credit because it phased out once the manufacturer reached the 200,000-car cap. The Inflation Reduction Act removes that cap, which means that some cars made by manufacturers who exceeded the 200,000 limit (e.g., General Motors, Toyota, and Tesla) will now be eligible to claim the credit.
[/FONT]https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/605081/ev-tax-credit-inflation-reduction-act-2022-changes
[/FONT]https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/605081/ev-tax-credit-inflation-reduction-act-2022-changes
That was actually a relatively even handed source compared to most things out there. Still going to mislead most people, but if you have any understanding of accounting and tax principles, it lets you know that basically everything listed is just general tax treatment. The exceptions are percentage depletion accounting (which is just an issue specific to natural resources; I'm not aware of anything you could compare it to; although timber gets less favorable depletion treatment than oil and gas) and sort of intangible drilling costs (cost of intangible assets are not treated uniformly; R&D is expensed, drilling and exploration costs are expensed; other intangible assets are amortized; even expensing is just changing the timing of taxes, which is not nothing, but we allow 100% expensing for a lot of capital assets not related to fossil fuels) and incentives aimed at producing cleaner uses of fossil fuels, not fossil fuel production.
Also, even taking it at face value, $20B a year is not much more than we subsidize farmers annually (and I think about what we spent before moving to the right to farm and crop insurance program).
Unless I am misreading that article basically says they don't know which of the otherwise eligible cars they are listing will be ineligible because of requirements related to battery manufacturing and battery source material.
The subsidy for exploration is allowing the costs of intangible drilling assets to be expensed rather than amortized. The alternative would be to amortize them (and expense them) pursuant to some schedule. Generally intangibles without specific exceptions (like drilling costs or R&D costs) are amortized over 15 years. That would only be appropriate for drilling costs if wells generally lasted 15 years. That used to be the case; I think now on average it's closer to 12, but that's highly dependent on where you are. So expensing rather than amortizing over 15 yeras is a huge deal for cash flow, but every dollar you expense this year is an extra dollar you will be taxed on in a later year. SO for a $1,000,000 in investment, assuming a 25% tax rate, you will save $233,333 in taxes. But then you're going to pay more taxes (relative to if you amortized it) over the next 14 years, so you're talking about the time value of money having that $233k now rather than in $16,666 increments over the next 15 years. So just for ball park figures, for every $1M you expense rather than amortize over 15 years, assuming a 25% tax rate and a 10% weighted average cost of capital, that's worth around $122k NPV.
And I'm simply pointing out that it is different than the billions of dollars "given" to oil companies, because the vast majority of those billions aren't given to oil companies, they are just generally accepted accounting principles. A lot of disingenuous people like to compare how much oil companies would pay under different accounting rules and claim that is a subsidy in the same way that paying for 30% of the costs of a solar installation (I think now it's less than that) and $7,500 towards the cost of an electric car. The only thing really oil and gas specific is the expensing of the cost of intangible drilling assets and percentage depletion accounting, both of which have to do with the timing of taxes and depletion accounting is something that is natural resources specific and I'm not sure there is anything analogous in other industries.
Too much uncertainty in the transition to EV for me to pull the trigger
There may be enough charging stations now for the small number of EVs on the road, and there might be enough charging stations 10 years down the road when we have a large number of EVs. But there's going to be a rough transition period where the demand for charging stations outweighs the supply.
There may be enough charging stations now for the small number of EVs on the road, and there might be enough charging stations 10 years down the road when we have a large number of EVs. But there's going to be a rough transition period where the demand for charging stations outweighs the supply.
This is a surprise to no one that has ever tried to charge their phones in an airport. This green dream will not be a success any time soon. If politicians were intelligent and not criminals then we would transition through hybrids for the next 3 decades before finally reaching full EV when the tech is available.
I never said billions of dollars were given to the oil industry, I always said subsidies.
But explain to me the difference in oil companies taking advantage of depletion (since you’ve mentioned that one) and an individual taking advantage of the tax credit being talked about in this thread? From my understanding, the tax credits are non refundable, so it’s not like someone with a small tax bill is going to get money in their pocket, just pay less taxes.
I am not suggesting a country can tax itself to wealth. I am saying that taxation has proven to generate exponential growth thru innovation and connectivity. Taxation allowed us to improve the transport of goods and expand the economy, taxation allowed us to push technological innovation and improve quality of life, and taxation has allowed us to educate more than anyone even 70 years ago could have even dreamed.
You may not like history, but its reality even if you dislike it. We really have been able to do all that thru taxation. $1 in taxes actually can result in $4 of economic benefit. Alchemy is real.
I do not think all money comes from taxes. I did not say that or even suggest that. You placed that opinion on me due to a large conclusion jump.
View attachment 24915
There is a difference between a "subsidy" that deals with the selection of an accounting treatment and a "subsidy" that is a cash grant.
For depletion accounting, you have a lot of costs and there is not an objectively "correct" way to treat them. There is an argument that anything that's not a piece of equipment should be expensed because there is no asset associated with those costs, there is an argument that the asset are the reserves you are accessing and costs should be depreciated over the entire period of time the reserves are extracted. I don't think either of those are correct (although I'd be open to arguments about the first one), and I don't think there is any "correct" line to draw between the approaches. Whereever you draw the line, you are going to eventually expense/depreciate the same number of dollars and there's not really any argument about whether they should be eventually expensed/depreciated. It's just an argument over timing.
That is very different from saying, there is something we want to encourage, so we will pay for 30% of the costs of it, or we will pay for $7,500 of the cost of it. It's not that the cost of solar panels or personal vehicles can be expensed, and it's just a question of which tax year you will expense/depreciate it in. Other tax payers are paying for 30% (or whatever the percentage is now) of the solar panels or paying for $7,500 of the cost of the electric car.
They’re too expensive (infrastructure) to build based on the power output. Plus good luck getting one permitted now.
Fair enough. Maybe they were just far away from the circuit breaker. Maybe the cost of labor is so much higher in other areas of the country.
For me, I'm the ideal candidate for an EV. I drive 72 miles one way, so I put lots of miles on my car. Since I do that, my operating cost of my ICE car was significantly more than most people. That operating cost pays for most of my payment. And my operating cost of my EV is so much less than an ICE car it makes it worth it for me.
For most though, an EV is not economical. I'm the ideal candidate for an EV because of my situation.
When you had Coal and Natural gas plants running that might have been true. They are going to phase those reliable electric generators out. Therefore, the only thing that that will work at night and when the wind doesn't blow is going to be Nuclear. The cost doesn't really matter if you want lights.
You do know that had to happen on even a larger scale when people started to use air conditioning? Growing pains? Of course, but the get off my lawn no change crowd gets old. I don't get the hate for someone trying to do better for themselves and the environment. If it doesn't work, then so be it but not even trying would be a sin.
My company has been working on a dredging project for a small bayou for like 5-years that won’t get permitted because of submerged vegetation. You’re kidding yourself if you think a new nuclear plant will ever get permitted. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it, but it won’t happen. Plus as I also mentioned: when you add up the engineering, construction. Permitting, costs to mine the fuel, and crazy costs to dispose of it - it’s like 3 times cheaper to build a coal plant with air scrubbers.
For the purposes of this discussion, I’m referring to a subsidy for tax purposes. As I stated before, I’m indifferent to oil industry getting a tax break for exploration and the depletion. But these are done to encourage exploration and new oil to be found or brought online. And I don’t see a difference in that vs the tax credit for ev. Both lower a tax bill that would otherwise be higher.
THIS.
We switched from hay stations every 20 miles to gasoline just fine. I can't believe "we don't have the infrastructure" is still an argument. It was 16 years between the first flight and the first international commercial passenger flight. 66 years between first flight and walking on the dang moon. If you're so short-sighted that you can't believe we will get the technology & infrastructure worked out, I don't know what to say. Do you really think ICE cars are the pinnacle of human achievement and we will be using them forever? Big shifts like this are a little bumpy at first, but it WILL happen. Drag your feet if you want to.
Nobody is really worried about changing to electric. Although, climate change is a ridiculous excuse. It's all about the time frame and costs involved. It's a matter of convenience and cost. The question is what happens between now and that good place for each person. The whole "cold Turkey" on oil ain't happening. I think the greatest concern is cost. Cars seem to be going the housing route. Costs are increasing much faster than incomes and it's going to be tough for families. The fact we have to go backwards to move forward it's a terrible plan.
Last edited:
This is where I'm at. I've done my own personal analyses on total home solar with battery back-up and EVs. Neither add up as a net gain for me yet. If I assume a 20 year life for my solar system, then I may break even, if I'm lucky, when it comes time to replace everything. And 20 years is no given, especially not at peak performance.
Same with an EV. With how much more an EV costs than my ICE, I can fill up with gas at $5/gallon until my current vehicle stops working and still come out ahead. EV sticker price, cost to install a charging outlet at home, battery replacement costs, costs to charge the EV...it doesn't add up to any savings. And I'm certainly not going to pay extra to give myself the extra headache of having to deal with public charging stations in their current state. Now, with today's prices for gas vehicles, the next time I'm in the market, it could very well make sense for me to buy an EV. That's hopefully 5+ years away, so I'll do another analysis then.
Bottom line is what someone already said. Today's solution is a mix of green and fossil fuel energy. As we get smarter, we should transition into the future. We can't cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Additionally, today's "Green" energy isn't even as green as it's made out to be. Solar, wind, and battery systems are devastating to water supplies, natural habitats, and wildlife. They all pollute (and all use fossil fuels during mining and manufacturing processes). They all take up a lot of land. They will all lead to huuuuuge amounts of waste in the future. Disposal is going to become an issue soon. All of their manufacturing processes lead to some really nasty byproducts that pollute the land, air, and water. Is it better than fossil fuels? Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see soon enough. We should keep innovating and get better, and we will. But it's not like there's a penultimate solution out there that people are just too hard-headed to get behind. For instance, if every vehicle on earth today was magically an EV tomorrow morning, It would take about 80% of all generated power in the world just to charge all of those vehicles.
I'm not opposed to change. I'm not against cleaner technologies. I am against jumping in headfirst too soon, and I have seen enough data to know that we're not to the point that we can actually claim that a lot of this technology is actually a net positive for the planet's health. But, hey, I am for letting others go through the rough stuff while it all gets worked out. Then, I'll come to the party when it's proven out, makes financial sense, beneficial to the environment, and not an entirely inconvenient experiment.
- Status
Latest posts
-
Seen in the Starkville Wal-Mart today- Latest: preacher_dawg
-
Get unlimited access today.