Are you gonna get an electric car anytime soon? (Or do you already have one?)

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

And I just finished reading an article that says some remote EV charging stations will be powered by Propane or CNG. So lets now put the whole EV industry in reverse!

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Never get your Tesla Truck wet, or it will lose it's Cyber!!! This is the second time I've read an article where this has happened.

[Mike Blakesley]

As of the end of Q2 last year Ford had sold fewer than 15k total F150 lightings.

Early adopters are idiots, especially for something as radical as this. Never buy a new model the first year out, wait two or three years for the bugs to get worked out.

some remote EV charging stations will be powered by Propane or CNG.

That's what's so funny to me about the whole EV thing. People say they plug in at home and save money by not getting gas. But that energy is not free... and it has to come from somewhere!

They're not saving money, they're just moving it.

[Geoff Jones]

It's ALL true.

I pay just as much per mile driven in my EV as I would pay per mile driven in a gas car. Actually, I pay way more. I pay so much that the electric company built a new coal plant next door, and my house is constantly bathed in mercury-laden smoke.

Except when it's on fire. My house has burned down six times since I bought an EV.

As it turns out, though, I'm rarely home. I spend most of my time lost in the middle of nowhere after running out of juice. Search and rescue recently had to come find me.

As an early adopter, I'm definitely an idiot.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Early adopters are idiots, especially for something as radical as this. Never buy a new model the first year out, wait two or three years for the bugs to get worked out.



That's what's so funny to me about the whole EV thing. People say they plug in at home and save money by not getting gas. But that energy is not free... and it has to come from somewhere!

They're not saving money, they're just moving it.

There are instances of this actually being true. Pretty sure I saw this on 60 minutes a few years ago, but there are people that have Tesla solar panels charging the batteries in the Tesla Power Walls and powering their entire homes. They also charge their Model 3's, and often have excess electricity so sell. So the power company takes that back on the grid and they get credits back instead of having to pay the power company. It's only inefficient on cloudy days when little electricity is generated by the panels.So their electric generating/storage system actually pays for itself over 15 or so years... The people interviewed said they may get one or two small electric bills a year. But that's it. There are also more recent video's on Youtube about this...

[Leo Enticknap]

I can't speak for any other states, but California recently changed the legal framework around residential solar panel installation, such that the financial incentives that effectively guaranteed that a new rooftop system would pay for itself within 5-7 years were blown away. The old "net metering" rules also enabled a large, competitive industry of installers to offer what were in effect interest free loans, because the state subsidies provided their profit margins. The main rule change is that power companies will now longer buy back your excess power, and you can't "bank" power generated during the day to use at night. So now, a solar system installed without a whole house battery is (a) more expensive up front, and (b) will only reduce your electricity bill by about a third. As a result, the industry has contracted massively, with smaller companies (including the one that installed our system in 2016) going bust, and tens of thousands of job losses.

I'll try to avoid getting into the politics of this, beyond noting that if the powers that be want us to change to eco-friendly energy sources, they have been impressively efficient at making laws that push us to do the exact opposite. So too has the auto industry: the market for $100K Cybertrucks and electric RAMs and Hummers, which are being relentlessly marketed to us, is tiny compared to the potential market for Chevy Bolts, which GM has just stopped making.

To buy a rooftop solar system in California, including whole house batteries, that can provide enough power both to run your house and charge your Tesla, and enable you not to have to buy any electricity down the wire, you won't see much change out of $50K, and the low or no interest loan programs that used to finance them are now almost a thing of the past (and if you have a credit score below around 750, they absolutely are). If you do not install that solar system (and if you live in an apartment, you can't, even if you had that $50K and were willing to spend it), charging your car at typical California electricity prices (around 30c a kW/H) is only about 20-30% cheaper than buying gas at $4 a gallon and putting it into a car that does 30 MPG. That, plus no maintenance costs on a combustion engine, is nowhere near enough to offset the higher initial purchase price of an EV, the higher insurance costs, and the $1K set of tires every 20K miles or so, of the EV.

[Harold Hallikainen]

The house we live in in Tucson AZ had (and still has) 3.3 kW of PV on the roof. We are under a net energy billing contract, so we are paid the retail rate for electricity returned to the rate. Right now, there is lots of sun, but it is not yet hot enough for us to need to run the air conditioner. We just got the electric bill. Last month, we pulled 192.7 kWH from the grid and returned 267.88 kWH for a net of -75.16 kWH. The -75.16 kWH is banked and can be used this summer when the air conditioning is running. There is a basic service and meter charge of $15 per month plus various tariffs and taxes running the bill up to $25.13.

There is a proposal to reduce the credit for power returned to the grid to be the wholesale rate paid for power by the power company. Though this is not to my advantage, it does seem fair.

I've logged power pulled from the grid and returned to the grid over a couple years and found that the PV array is currently providing about 55% of our power.

One thing that appears to make EV "fuel" charges lower than those for an ICE vehicle is the road taxes on gasoline that are not on electricity. I have seen proposal to make road taxes based on vehicle mileage (kilometerage?). However, present fuel taxes reward the use of fuel efficient cars while a mileage taxes would not.

It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Leo, It's California's goofy laws that are causing the mass exodus of people moving to other States. Just like like Illinois, once enough big Corps leave, they will have to change their tune about many of the laws. I see lots of CA license plates here in Tennessee. They move here because they find out Tennessee has no State Income Tax. But little do they know that the equivelent State Income Tax they would be paying is eventually collected over the year in many other ways. Property taxes here actually are low compared to lots of places. But it's still fun to listen to all the neighbors complain about how 'high" they think it is.
As for cars... Hybrids are still the least costly and most reliable route to go. A person gets the best of both worlds in a hybrid.

[Steve Guttag]

Since the taxes based on mileage reflect the actual road use, that is a fairer system. An efficient vehicle still consumes roadway based on the miles it drives. I could see having a variable in the tax rate for weight of vehicle since heavier vehicles consume more road.

The most absurd proposed tax for EVs goes to New Jersey. They proposed (and are you ready for this?), that EV owners play a 4-year tax...up-front in the form of a 4-year registration.

The realities are, the more the government wants us reliant on electricity for things (not just EVs but heat, AC, cooking...you name it)...the more they should make it conducive to make electricity cheaper and more plentiful. This would include home generation of electricity, be it solar and/or wind, including back selling generated power. Personally, I don't think utilities should be privatized and we are better served by the various levels of government controlling such things. I also would not shut down most forms of generating electricity. I do think that nuclear has most of the benefits with two big drawbacks (long decay time, potential for disaster...particularly when talking about present fission reactors...but I'd keep up with working on better, safer forms). We also need more/better electrical infrastructure.

California can't keep up with its current electric needs. It shouldn't be doing anything to make matters worse. It would be far better getting people to make their own electricity than put a perpetual demand on an insufficient grid. And, build up the grid and power generation.

For the moment, EVs are still too big a question mark. They have distinct drawbacks in many applications and many benefits in others. I don't think they are at the point of being universally the best option but I do think that they will eventually be.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Since the taxes based on mileage reflect the actual road use, that is a fairer system. An efficient vehicle still consumes roadway based on the miles it drives. I could see having a variable in the tax rate for weight of vehicle since heavier vehicles consume more road.

Utah did it fairly, but it sure made the EV owners squak.

"Owners of electric and hybrid vehicles have two options: pay the additional alternative fuel flat fee during annual vehicle registration or enroll in the Road Usage Charge program and be charged 1.06 cents per mile up to the additional flat fee amount."

I agree that EV trucks, especially Semi's need to he taxed by weight. Most States have been doing that on commercial vehicles for decades. Semi's also do the most damage to our roads.

[Leo Enticknap]

On road taxation per mile, I dispute that it's inherently fairer than a flat registration fee. People who tend to drive high mileages (excluding for work and reimbursed, which accounts for about three quarters of the 30-40K miles I drive a year) usually fall into one of two categories: people living in rural areas, where origin points and destinations are further apart, and people who live in exurbs because the cost of housing closer to their workplaces, and/or crime and other quality of life issues, have forced them further away. They are already taking the hit of spending more hours behind the wheel: is it fair to tax them more for transportation energy as well? If you believe that it is on the basis that people should pay in proportion to the wear and tear they place on public infrastructure, then IMHO the per mile charge should also vary according to the weight of the vehicle. A Hummer puts a lot more wear on the pavement than a Honda Fit. That would also give high mileage drivers with no easy way of changing their lifestyle to reduce their mileage the option of reducing it by choosing to drive a smaller, lighter car.

The Utah approach - giving the option of per mile or a flat fee but with the per mile charge capped at the flat fee - strikes me as a reasonable compromise with that aim in mind.

The realities are, the more the government wants us reliant on electricity for things (not just EVs but heat, AC, cooking...you name it)...the more they should make it conducive to make electricity cheaper and more plentiful. This would include home generation of electricity, be it solar and/or wind, including back selling generated power.

Agreed, and furthermore, microgeneration drives down the need for electricity transmission (grid) infrastructure, not to mention power loss in transmission (AFAIK, superconducting grid infrastructure is still science fiction). It makes sense on so many levels to consume electricity as close as possible to where it is produced. Whole house battery technology seems to be developing in a positive direction, assuming that the fire risk can be managed down successfully: it potentially does away with single points of failure. If one whole house battery system fails, one house goes dark. If a substation fails, two or three developments go out.

But my problem with all of this is that the government (at least, here in California) seems to be determined to make achieving any of this as difficult and as expensive as possible. I am not hostile to new technologies (quite the opposite - I make my living selling, installing, and maintaining them), except when they cost a lot more, impose more restrictions, and are possibly more dangerous than tried and tested ones.

[Mike Blakesley]

and the $1K set of tires every 20K miles or so, of the EV

Why do you need new tires every 20k miles or so? I've never heard that before.

[Leo Enticknap]

Because the battery packs make the weight of an EV around three times that of its ICE-powered equivalent, so tires wear that much quicker.

[Steve Guttag]

Leo...I did allow for having a weight based multiplier on the per-mile. While you consider it a penalty for those force to live further away from work, I counter with...we need to build and maintain more road for you (needing more money). It is no different than an ICE car needing more gas (more gas tax)...it puts the same burden on that person, regardless of what they drive. You could, I suppose, put separate meters on EV charging devices so they are taxed different (similar to how grey water or farming fuel works). I don't look at the tax as penalizing anyone. It is the reality that roadways, and other infrastructure, cost money to make and maintain. Those that use them the most and, in particular, put the most wear and tear on them should pay the most. That said, I'm totally against tolls, except to expedite getting a road built. I think if a roadway gets that sort of use, the gas/mileage tax should incorporate the upkeep of roads, including bridges and tunnels.

[Lyle Romer]

Leo, It's California's goofy laws that are causing the mass exodus of people moving to other States. Just like like Illinois, once enough big Corps leave, they will have to change their tune about many of the laws. I see lots of CA license plates here in Tennessee. They move here because they find out Tennessee has no State Income Tax. But little do they know that the equivelent State Income Tax they would be paying is eventually collected over the year in many other ways. Property taxes here actually are low compared to lots of places. But it's still fun to listen to all the neighbors complain about how 'high" they think it is.
As for cars... Hybrids are still the least costly and most reliable route to go. A person gets the best of both worlds in a hybrid.

I agree that hybrids are the best compromise right now. They get significantly better fuel economy than the equivalent gas only vehicle but don't have the range issues of an EV and don't need nearly the amount of expensive material for the battery because it is so much smaller.

Probably a plug-in hybrid that has 40-50 miles of battery only range is truly the best of both worlds. A normal commuter who has access to charging at work and home can be fully electric most of the time but not have to think twice about hopping in for a long trip.