Claim: Climate Conscious Tesla Owners being harassed by ICE Drivers

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Quartz claims that internal combustion engine vehicle drivers are bullying Tesla owners by parking their ICE vehicles in Tesla charging station bays.

Tesla owners are being “ICE-ed” out of charging stations by trucks

By Michael J. Coren
December 25, 2018

First, there was rolling coal. Now there’s ICE-ing. As electric motors encroach on internal combustion engines, some truck owners are getting angry. And Teslas are a favorite target.

One of the most recent incidents was at a North Carolina convenience store called Sheetz. Reddit user Leicina posted her account of several pickup-trucks pulling in to block all the Tesla supercharging station’s spots.

“I’ve never had a supercharging experience like this one,” she wrote. “These trucks blocked all the chargers, chanted ‘F’ Tesla, and were kicked out by a Sheetz employee.”

Read more: https://qz.com/1506901/trucks-are-ice-ing-tesla-owners-from-charging-stations/

Is ICE-ing Teslas actually a thing? Are ICE drivers randomly bullying Tesla drivers because they can, or is there a genuine problem with Tesla charging stations crowding out available parking?

Perhaps the solution is to provide Tesla charging stations for all the parking bays, to end the segregation of Tesla and ICE vehicles. If Tesla really is the future, green minded owners of shopping centres and other parking venues should be happy to completely Tesla up their premises.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
349 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bruce ryan
December 26, 2018 6:08 pm

where I live I have not seen it.
I have a 3, it really is a great car.

Phil R
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 26, 2018 6:18 pm

bruce,

I don’t “have a 3”, as don’t many others, because we can’t afford it. Happy for you that you can, that’s how capitalism is supposed to work. By the way, how much in subsidies did you get that I helped pay for, but I can’t get if I need a new car?

Also, how much of my tax dollars are being spent to install the stupid charging stations so that you can charge your car? I hope the trend continues….

Trebla
Reply to  Phil R
December 26, 2018 6:45 pm

Phil R: you forgot one more expense you’re picking up for those Tesla drivers: the considerable road tax included in the cost of gasoline and diesel. They’re tooling around on highways paid for and maintained by you.

Phil R
Reply to  Trebla
December 26, 2018 7:04 pm

Thanks for that. One more subsidy to consider. 🙂

David A
Reply to  Phil R
December 27, 2018 5:37 am

I carry a note to put o. Tesla cars in my Are a…
” I hope you are enjoying your wealthy man’s car, partially paid for by the middle class, while driving on roads you are NOT paying for, yet the middle class is, while refilling your car with funds also provided by the middle class, and getting a discount on your homes electric bill, so once again you screw the middle class. Enjoy your virtue.”

It is kind of fun to watch them read the note when they get back to their car.

David A
Reply to  Phil R
December 27, 2018 5:53 am

Oh, and SJW Chris down below thinks it ok to give OPM to the wealthy, and he think corporate tax deductions are subsidies, and he thinks inane studies of natural death can assign liability to the ICE.

Reply to  Phil R
December 27, 2018 8:20 am

I like it David.

This is the sort of thing that may prompt an irate journalist to post a ‘omg, rudest message EVER posted on upset mums car!” type article quoting the thing – which may prompt readers to engage their brains and contemplate the reality of the information on the note.

Might I suggest adding more like maybe .. ; ‘In time the increase in virtue signalling electric cars will cause governments to add ‘road tax’ to electricity to cover the loss in petrol tax, driving electricity costs higher for many who again cannot afford it. Additionally, to provide enough electricity for electric cars the grid will need to be upgraded (yet another cost to tax payers) and yet more land will be put under solar / wind or additional coal/gas power stations will be needed. Once 40% of the cars are electric, Australia will need 10x the power supplies we currently have to power these cars.

The specific energy of lithium cells is less than 1 Mj per kilogram.
The specific energy of petroleum is 57Mj per kilogram,
CO2 is plant food, it is 0.04% of our air.
If it gets below 0.028%, all C3 plants die .. then everything dies. ‘

may as well use the dimbos for getting actual information across rather than the piffle they spew now.

I like your thinking though, might just print off a few to pop under wipers

Greg
Reply to  Phil R
December 27, 2018 12:18 pm

Karlos, megajoule is MJ not Mj.

Good point though.

Jake J
Reply to  Trebla
December 27, 2018 10:43 am

Where I live — Washington State — there’s a flat $150 annual electric car tax. I drive my EV ~4,000 miles a year, and its fuel economy is 115 mpg equivalent. If I paid the same tax levied at the gas pump, it would come to $23 a year.

Not only that, but WA State takes all of the $150, while 18.4 cents of the gasoline tax goes to the federal government. Therefore, if the state was going to tax EVs at an equivalent rate, my annual fee would be $17. Of course, the innumerate “progressives” here are happy to do the eco dance while penalizing EVs.

Incidentally, lest anyone think I’m some selfish, smug enviro, I bought the EV 6 years ago in a bankruptcy sale, completely out of curiosity. I think the AGW hypothesis is invalid, and persists as a political and tax vehicle for the “progressive” class here. Past that, I also have an 8,000-pound diesel pickup truck, and don’t complain about the road tax embedded in the price of fuel.

My complaint here is with the hypocrisy of the “progressives” and with the occasional conservative who thinks EVs get a free ride. Not in this state, they don’t. Other way around.

Reply to  Jake J
December 28, 2018 12:48 am

Do you mean 8,000 lb towing capacity pickup truck? There are no four-ton “Pickup Trucks.” Four tons is more like a dump truck. Please tell the truth here

moray watson
Reply to  Jake J
December 28, 2018 6:48 am

Silly boy. You are still using roads that have to be maintained using tax dollars. There is no reason for you to expect to pay a tax that is equivalent to the amount of gas you would have consumed with an ICE vehicle based on your ‘conversion’ to mpg. You will have to pay the SAME amount of tax that ICE users do to maintain the roads, if there are to be roads. Expect your annual ‘fee’ to start escalating considerably.

John L.
Reply to  Jake J
December 28, 2018 12:19 pm
Jake J
Reply to  Jake J
December 30, 2018 12:59 pm

@ Michael Moon, my truck weighs 8,000 lbs., i.e. 4 tons. You might be confusing that with the “ton” nomenclature for pickups, i.e. half-ton, 3/4-ton, 1-ton. That refers to their hauling capcity, and is mostly outdated. The typical half-ton pickup will haul more than a ton, and my 1-ton truck will haul almost 2-1/2 tons. It will tow about 8-1/2 tons.

@John L, I have no objection to paying road use taxes, but I think I should get the same break for fuel economy that ICEVs get.

MikeSYR
Reply to  Jake J
January 8, 2019 11:57 am

Curious: What pickup truck actually weighs 8000lbs?

bruce ryan
Reply to  Phil R
December 26, 2018 9:20 pm

I don’t think I will get any deductions from my taxes, I’m retired and paid them over the last 50 years, but thanks for the kind thought.

bruce ryan
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 26, 2018 9:39 pm

Jeez, guys, I hope you find out what you sound like someday. There is a lot of hatred being thrown around. Why you want to flick shxt at me is a bit strange, blaming me for the guys in Washington playing games is just wrong. If you want to count wrongs we might not live long enough to count them all.
The fact that an electric car works for some people should be OK. I didn’t buy it to make a statement or make myself holier than thou. I bought it because it really had functions I liked.
For the guys worried I’m not paying road tax, it’s just a matter of time, long before I come within a light year of breaking even on gas savings there will be a tax made just so I can feel better about it.

Chris
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 12:53 am

Bruce,

Welcome to WattsUpWithThat and the tone here. It’s populated by mostly retired guys (a few women) who seem bent out of shape about a lot of things. Not just their disbelief in AGW, but government in general (often called gubmint as if that’s clever). They rail about subsidies for EVs, but have nothing to say about fossil fuel subsidies, or the health care costs of ICE pollution, or the dirt cheap leases they secure on federal lands.

Non Nomen
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 1:42 am

Don’t worry. some folks here are awfully particular, but WUWT is a place for free, uncensored discussion and debate. You are going to like it here, I hope. Tesla is some sort of red rag, not just here, because there are so many issues with that manipulator musky elon and his products, economically and technically, that just don’t fit into a sane economic system.

HotScot
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 2:26 am

Chris

I’m not retired thanks.

However, the older we are the more hindsight we are blessed with so our disbelief in AGW is a matter of experience not just science.

And when you can find a death certificate with “Died of ICE toxins” then I might take you seriously. I mean the UK gubment (:)) tried to blame 40,000 premature deaths on vehicle emissions until it was noted that the deaths quoted for the ‘research’ was based on subjective opinions by doctors ranging from a matter of hours to a matter of days on predominantly elderly patients with serious underlying conditions.

The limited fossil fuel subsidies provided for fossil fuels ensure a reliable, consistent, high quality energy supply irrespective of weather conditions. More than can be said for rent seeking renewable schemes that provide the owners an income even when turbines aren’t turning and solar panels can’t function.

I suspect EV Rage is more directed at privileged parking areas in busy places where everyone else has to fight for parking spaces rather than them simply being EV’s.

David A
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 5:45 am

Bruce, the complaints are legitimate where OPM is concerned. When the car can make it on its own nobody rational will complain. It is a general complaint, only personal because you bought one.

I know several people refused to based on the principle of not taking OPM. I decided not to get solar on my house for that very reason.

But not to worry, SJW Chris will come to your rescues making broad complaints about old white men and further inane comments about fossil fuel tax deductions that he thinks are subsidies.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 5:51 am

Hotscot

Re the 40,000 premature deaths from blah blah blah. There were and will be no doctors or death certificates coming to the argument. Those “deaths” are assigned by public health statisticians and academic pols heaping blame on whatever is the cause of the hour.

The distinction between public health and medicine is not a fine one. Public health policy deals with populations, medicine deals with individuals, treating and curing them.

The attribution of premature deaths from ICE emissions is based on a stack of six estimates and attributions. It literally is models all the way down. There are no death certificates because the concept of an “underlying condition” applies to individuals and premature death attribution does not consider individuals.

MarkW
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 7:05 am

As usual, Chris has to defend the subsidies that he enjoys by lying.
There are no subsidies for fossil fuel. That has been proven to you time and again.
But then, as an AGW acolyte, reality has never been your thing.

Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 8:25 am

‘fossil fuel subsidies’ – here in Oz that’s Biased Journo Speak by that side desperately trying to misrepresent the diesel rebate paid to farmers and other such discounts provided to consumers as a rebate to fuel Co’s. I am pretty sure there’s zero $ paid by taxpayers to petroleum companies.

Brad Tittle
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 8:57 am

If you look closely, no one is bitching at you for buying the car. They are perfectly happy to have you buy whatever car you want. What they don’t want is the virtue signaling that comes with it. I might point at the ICE vehicles in my driveway, but I am normally doing it to try and illuminate the concept of value.

You did nothing wrong in saying you bought such a vehicle. You may have done something wrong in being offended by other people who aren’t exactly happy with the scam that appears to be Elon Musk. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ezF7NmwQZs&t=882s) and (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GotA_1dIRhs)

He seems to make good cars. He seems to have a handle on SpaceX. But his car company has a revenue vs expense problem. His solar company thinks that a $50k roof is an awesome idea. It might be in certain circumstances. But once again Revenue and Expense problems showing up before he is even started.

Yes there are a bunch of old engineers here. They tend to be hard nosed people who have spent a lifetime trying to keep the world moving forward. They helped keep the communication systems running, the power flowing, ships sailing and a thousand other things. They can be a little cynical. That cynic nature is not natural. It is the result of dealing with lots of people over a long time period who DO NOT WANT TO KNOW what a Deg C is.

God help you if you attempt to explain Enthalpy. To be fair, there are plenty of physicists out there who don’t want to have Enthalpy explained.

If you are not including Enthalpy in a discussion of the planets climate, you are not talking about science. You are just a charlatan waving your hands. If you do start talking about Enthalpy though, you will be shouted out of the room.

The people here won’t shout you out.

mobihci
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 2:12 pm

Karlos, the diesel “rebate” to farmers and miners is not a rebate of any kind. the excise tax on fuel 44c/l taken by the federal government was a tax introduced a long time ago for the sole purpose of road maintenance etc, not general revenue for the government. it is mainly general revenue now though, but seeing as miners and farmers use their own roads, they were not, and should not be taxed the excise. they are ‘rebated’ the tax they shouldn’t pay.

AU greens demand that everyone pay the tax of course.

4 Eyes
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 5:55 pm

Chris, there you again -“their disbelief in AGW”. The 65 yr old not yet engineer in me knows the modern world does not go round on belief. Facts, logic, cause and effect, and hard nosed economics are the only significant things that matter. Beliefs are the complete antithesis to facts and are the things we hang on to in the absence of facts. Provide proof of significant fossil fuel subsidies and health care costs. I won’t say please because I am sick and tired of these assertions being made but never being supported. I’m all eyes and ears but no-one, but no-one, from Govt or the IPCC ever answers these questions. As far as I know govts and the IPCC don’t make these assertion, only activists groups do.

Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 6:20 pm

mobihci

I got that, but that rebate to farmers and miners is one of the things I’ve seen labelled a “subsidy” the fuel industry supposedly receives by those who insist that fuel companies have an unfair advantage over intermittents. I know it’s a fabrication.

dmacleo
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 5:32 am

so not filing a 1099-r form at all?
odd….

observa
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 5:36 am

It’s every citizen’s fundamental right to put their hand up for any pork going around. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better to have all the pork in the first place without the extra admin overhead taken out.

Chris
Reply to  Phil R
December 27, 2018 12:46 am

Phil,

Fair point about road taxes. Let’s not forget to include the impact of automobile pollution on health care costs. A study showed the costs were $37B across 10 states, which would make nationwide costs over $100B/year. The total cost of the federal EV program will be <$20B.

Fernando L.
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 2:00 am

The question in my mind is whether it’s cheaper to put tougher emissions controls and have yearly vehicle emissions testing, as well as what fraction of pollution is caused by private vehicles versus all other sources. And of course I take the $37 billion with a dose of salt.

Nigel Sherratt
Reply to  Fernando L.
December 27, 2018 2:19 am

A dose of Lithium salt from Salar de Uyuni perhaps. $37 billion ‘a study showed’. This study showed that to be rubbish. https://junkscience.com/2016/09/fact-sheet-particulate-matter-in-outdoor-air-does-not-cause-death/ I think the visceral reaction to Tesla does have something to do with the musky smell. Plenty of studies out there to show the whole hydrocarbons subsidies talking point to be just that (with the exception of countries like Venezuela of course).

Rich Davis
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 2:43 am

“A study”

You might as well make up a claim of $37 quintillion across all 57 0bama states Chris. Do you ever use your head for more than a hat rack?

If 10 states conservatively represents 74 million people then you’re swallowing whole the bizarre claim that internal combustion engine pollution costs every man, woman, and child in those states $500/yr in health care costs. Are you a very recent product of the innumerate publick skool sistum, or a work in progress? The chances are you have no memory of what real air pollution was back in the 60s and 70s. Sure there are a few places like Los Angeles where air pollution will always be an issue caused by geography and where a case can be made for restricting ICEs, but it should be obvious that those conditions don’t apply across the whole country.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 3:50 am

Rich we all know that reality is lost on Chris. He lives in the Land Of Make Believe.

In LOMB, when a 68 year old man with a heart condition keels over dead shoveling his front walk, then Snowmaggedon killed him and everyone knows that Man Made Climate Change was the root cause because the NYTimes told the networks and they did week long emergency broadcast reports to spread the word.

Chris is either a Tool or a Fool. Tools are paid trolls who know they are spouting half truths and Non-Science but their Socialist ends justify their dishonest means. Fools are the brainwashed Post 1990 Public School graduates who are afraid to pick up a snow shovel because they have been linked to heart disease.

Chris
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 28, 2018 1:31 am

Hey Rich,

If you have a research paper that refutes the study, please publish it. Otherwise your post is just empty words. Was air pollution worse in the past? Yes. So what? That doesn’t mean that existing levels of pollution, especially PM2.5 particles, have an impact on health and mortality.

David A
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 5:58 am

Modern ICE is no more responsible for those deaths then it is for all the deadly tornadoes… https://realclimatescience.com/2018/12/bring-back-our-tornadoes/
Those fossil fuel subsidies are tax deductions, NOT subsidies, and your bias against old white people is deplorable!

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 7:09 am

Yet another imaginary study using improbably assumptions and faulty statistics to come up with the bought and paid for conclusion.

Chis will fall for any lie, so long as it supports his chosen religion.

DonM
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 9:21 am

is he falling for them, or is he trying to get others to fall for them?

(as above, is he a tool or a fool?)

Chris
Reply to  MarkW
December 28, 2018 1:33 am

What are we up to now, Markw – 60,000 posts without any supporting links? You’re an empty suit, always have been and always will be.

DAV
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 7:26 am

The problem is those numbers are based on false amalyses. Just look at how badly th PM2.5 studies were done.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/4353/

Cliff Hilton
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 8:24 am

Phil

“A study showed the costs were $37B across 10 states, which would make nationwide costs over $100B/year. The total cost of the federal EV program will be <$20B."

It takes seven (7) years to get back the health benefit of building an EV. So we pollute like crazy to see better air seven years from now,…hopefully. EV's are the problem, right now. Remember, it take fossil fuels to build the EV. And the EV is soooo environmentally friendly.

If you want a cleaner environment, go ahead. Build 2.1 billion EV's. You may not be able to breath. Then you are promoting literally, trillions of dollars of additional health care costs.

Think about what you're saying.

John Hardy
Reply to  Phil R
December 27, 2018 4:31 am

Bruce I’m right with you. I’ve driven an EV for six years. It’s in the garage at present and I’ve been loaned a piston-engined puddle-jumper.

The loaner piston engined car is a truly weird device. No torque at zero r.p.m: indeed the engine won’t even RUN at zero r.p.m, so the car is equipped with an electric motor just to spin the engine up to a speed where it is self sustaining. The electric motor is a dead weight thereafter. Even once it is running, it has an absurdly narrow engine speed range so you have to co-ordinate movements of the gear lever (a device like a satsuma impaled on a knitting needle) and a third pedal called a clutch to the left of the brake pedal. Engine braking is truly weedy so you have to use the brake pedal often at junctions and to control your speed going down a hill. In cold weather you have to clear frost off the windows manually before you drive off, rather than just standing by the kitchen window and using the remote. There is no form of regenerative braking so using the brakes doesn’t put petrol back into the tank. And you have to put fuel into it almost every week

It’ll never catch on.

Rich Davis
Reply to  John Hardy
December 27, 2018 5:45 am

I couldn’t agree more. EVs are probably the most convenient way for coal to be used as a fuel for automobiles. No complicated gasification process and much better than a coal-fired steam engine in densely packed cities where you just need to get to the Starbucks two streets over and pick up your double-half-caf latte with a twist, and back again before plugging in for another few hours. We definitely need more coal to be burned, it’s the most efficient source of carbon dioxide augmentation. It’s helping us get bumper crops. Go Coal-burners!

Sara
Reply to  John Hardy
December 27, 2018 5:48 am

Gee whiz, John, you make me miss my 2001 Escape. I loved that car. We went everywhere together. It was a real car.

They just don’t make them like that any more.

Cliff Hilton
Reply to  John Hardy
December 27, 2018 8:29 am

John Hardy

Don’t forget the hours parked to reload your new toy. Let us know how that is. My piston engine doesn’t need any power at zero rpms.

Also, we now how remote start in ICE. Really cool….

John Hardy
Reply to  Cliff Hilton
December 27, 2018 10:04 am

Cliff – my EV (not new and at that price not a toy) is usually parked overnight. Think mobile phone charging scaled up

dmacleo
Reply to  John Hardy
December 27, 2018 2:02 pm

heh heh heh
trolling for bites there?
sweet 🙂

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Phil R
December 27, 2018 9:12 am

Phil R – December 26, 2018 at 6:18 pm

Also, how much of my tax dollars are being spent to install the stupid charging stations so that you can charge your car?

And just as importantly, … you should have also asked, ….. who is paying for the electricity at those “public” charging stations?

Surely NOT the convenience store operators, ……. but maybe a separate electric meter that gets billed to a government Agency.

Grumpy
Reply to  Phil R
December 27, 2018 9:37 am

Tesla does not use tax money to build Superchargers. Tesla is the only company seriously building a charging infrastructure. All other automakers are doing as you suggest, ignoring the issue expecting government to take up the slack.

Businesses lease parking places to Tesla for Superchargers in order to attract affluent customers. Usually in the back of the parking lot in unused spaces. Perhaps some give the spaces for free for this benefit. Any which way Tesla pays for the electricity and estimated $75,000 per space for hardware and installation. Currently 597 sites in the USA most with at least 8 charging bays.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Phil R
December 27, 2018 9:42 pm

All charging stations should be funded by the site businesses and charging should be appropriately priced. There should be no subsidies of any kind.

Gas and oil is NOT subsidized. They have tax breaks for risk capital investments when prospecting and developing resources. It’s propaganda that fossil fuels are subsidized.

EV cars are simply NOT the car of the future as nothing offered the energy density of gasoline or diesel. The US is just too big for EV cars to be widely useful. Sure, inner cities can benefit from EV cars, but that’s only because they are not going any distance. A 300 mile trip, carried out with any eye on not running the battery near empty, means stopping to charge at least once or twice for about an hour each time. Winter robs mileage greatly as does the heat of summer. These are really fair weather cars and there are no areas in the US that does not have very hot or very cold or both part(s) of the year.

Chris
Reply to  Charles Higley
December 28, 2018 1:37 am

“They have tax breaks for risk capital investments when prospecting and developing resources.”

Hahaha, only on WUWT is that not counted as a subsidy. When drilling a well, oil companies can write off intangible costs during the first year. That’s a massive tax benefit compared to other industries, where the costs must be written off over the life of the equipment.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Chris
December 28, 2018 4:21 am

Chris,

Have your Mother explain to you the difference between capital investments and capital equipment.

Cheers

Chris
Reply to  Chris
December 28, 2018 8:35 pm

Earth to Samuel,

Equipment is used for drilling wells. It can be written off in the first year, unlike other industries.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Chris
December 29, 2018 7:20 am

Equipment is used for drilling wells. It can be written off in the first year,

😊 😊 😊 😊 😊 😊

Earth to Chris

A land based drilling rig cost $1 to $2 million dollars each.
Labor, supplies, etc., costs $100K to $300K to punch a hole in the ground.

A deep water drilling rig cost $100+ million dollars each.
Labor, supplies, etc., costs $10’s of millions to punch a hole in the sea floor.

And there is no guarantee that either of the above will result in a profitable oil well.

Javert Chip
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 26, 2018 7:27 pm

Phil & Trebla

Bruce isn’t holding up the local bank with a gun; your argument is (should be) with the politicians.

The DNA-deep stupid politicians we (as a voting group) electe are the ones who implemented the subsidy (and it is a subsidy); also the same gene-pool that thought ethanol was a great idea.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 26, 2018 7:29 pm

And they don’t listen to us deplorables, but rather to the special interests, especially when doing so allows them to do virtue signaling.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Richard Patton
December 26, 2018 7:49 pm

If I remember correctly, “they” (the ever-popular they) listened to the deplorable (of which I am one) pretty good on Nov 6, 2016.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 27, 2018 6:56 am

But not since.

Joey
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 26, 2018 9:01 pm

Everybody says that about their “new car”m regardless of what it is…….a year or so down the road, many don’t. Saying it is a “great car” is just rationalization for the subsidized purchase you just made.

bruce ryan
Reply to  Joey
December 27, 2018 6:54 am

As I said before, I won’t be able to use the tax break, so the car came out of my pocket. Even so, if you want to rant about tax breaks start with the child deduction on your tax form, the farm lobby, wasn’t long ago you deducted state taxes from your federal, why(?), the number of unfair taxes and loopholes is biblical, yet the effort to make electric cars viable is somehow against man and god.
Forget the global warming talk of the alt crowd, can’t electric cars share the road without hearing your disgust.

kent beuchert
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 26, 2018 9:05 pm

The Jaguar I Pace has it beat, hands down. And the upcoming Porsche Taycan and Volvo Polestar 2 are also very superior and have an intrinsic $7500 price advantage via tax credits when they arrive. The Model 3 cannot compete in the U.S.against the upcoming competition. It has no technological advanatges with respect to driving range, speed and is much slower than CCS cars in battery recharge. The I Pace is outselling Tesla Model S and Model X cars two to one in some European countries. And it has a waiting list while the Tesla’s have none and are piling up in lots looking for buyers. Tesla latest great technological advance: Tesla cars can now fart on command.

David Sims
Reply to  kent beuchert
December 26, 2018 11:37 pm

Comedic

1. The Ipace is appallingly inefficient – real world range less than 200 miles

2. There is I think 1 100Kw DC charge in the whole of the UK

3. The Tesla 3 is not actually shipping in Europe

John Hardy
Reply to  kent beuchert
December 27, 2018 4:40 am

Kent – I really hope the Jaguar I-Pace is a world beater. At least Jaguar have produced a car that can be bought rather than concepts and press releases.

Th real problem is scaling: at present in the West, Tesla are the only manufacturer with the infrastructure (primarily cell manufacturing capacity) to scale to large numbers. Most of the world lithium-ion cell manufacturing capacity is in Korea and China.

Tom
Reply to  John Hardy
December 27, 2018 5:18 am

The problems today with”scaling” up battery production are with the rapid changes in battery technology. What’s smart today, will likely be obsolete by the time a factory has reached full production. Spending billions on a plant to mass produce obsolete batteries is not a wise choice.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom
December 27, 2018 7:12 am

What rapid changes in battery technology?

Reply to  Tom
December 27, 2018 9:11 am

Tom,

You are dreaming. “Seek, and ye shall find,” unless you are looking for a new and improved battery. This quest has gone on for decades, and the lithium-ion fire trap is all they have come up with.

I work with a mold shop in Sarasota FL who has built a drone for military applications. He was getting ready for a test flight, took the battery off the charger, noticed it was swelling up rapidly, and threw it off the mezanine seconds before it exploded. He would have been severely burned, possible killed.

The battery in Tesla Model S weighs over 1,700 lbs. If it catches fire the fire department cannot extinguish the fire.

“Rapid changes” indeed…

John Hardy
Reply to  John Hardy
December 27, 2018 10:02 am

Might I reply to Tom and Mark W together…

Structure of the battery changes fairly slowly – for lithium ion they are mostly a sandwich consisting of metal foil – electrode material – garbage bag – the other electrode material – more metal foil.

The improvements tend to be in the materials, coating thickness etc. The batteries are improving: the original Tesla roadster was reportedly about 117 watt hours per kg: the Model S more like 250: and a big drop in price per kW-hr

Reply to  John Hardy
December 28, 2018 12:41 am

Lithium-ion batteries can be a safety hazard since they contain a flammable electrolyte and may be kept pressurized. A battery cell charged too quickly could cause a short circuit, leading to explosions and fires…

This is from Wikipedia.

“Flammable electrolyte…” Oh, this problem will go away very soon.

Why yes they can…

Bitter&twisted
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 12:01 am

More money than sense, I see.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bitter&twisted
December 27, 2018 3:27 pm

Kind of like when I pull in to fuel up my diesel and find all the pumps with both gasoline and diesel fuel occupied by gas cars while six gas-only pumps are open. Then they look at you like you’re the idiot.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 2:33 am

I have a 13 yo Peugeot diesel HDi which gives me under 6 litres per 100 km ( work it out in mpg but its really bloody efficient). She cost me $5000 or so second hand and wit a 60 litre tank I can travel 1000 km ( ~ 620 miles) on a tank.

Why TF would I want to waste God only knows how much money on some battery based piece of fashion statement?

Chris
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
December 28, 2018 8:37 pm

Then don’t buy one.

Sara
Reply to  bruce ryan
December 27, 2018 5:38 am

What’s the problem? Charging stations instead of gas pumps?

Simple solution is this: if there is room for an air pump for tires, then there is also room for a couple of charging bays at gas stations.

The gas pumps are NOT going away, whether EV owners like it or not. You solve the problem by accommodating all customers, not just certain ones. Gee whillikers, even McD’s could install charging stations in their parking lots for EV owners, couldn’t they? The McD’s where I usually get a soda is rightnextdoor to a gas station/convenience store/ice cream shop. HUUUGE parking lots at both places. Park your silly Tesla, plug it in and patronize the burger flippers.

Every cotton-pickin’ roadside diner and hamburger joint has enough room in their parking lots for charging stations for EVs as well as OTR truckers. All gas stations are now convenience stores, too. It’s where they make a good load of cash.

Now, what was the problem, again? Oh, that’s right: some people just don’t like the EVs.

I get it. I think they are bad news, myself, because they go up in flames. Don’t want one. Company is not reliable and the owner has the attention span of a gnat. So when Tesla goes out of the car business, is anyone going to jump in to take its place? I doubt it.

I’m awash in warnings about the Li batteries for my “special” flashlights, because you can’t just put them into the trash and they overheat like mad. Spontaneous combustion in my kitchen drawer is not my idea of a good thing at all. Not in my household.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Sara
December 27, 2018 7:04 am

Sara, the problem is chicken & egg , why spend money on a 1 in 1000 customer.
Why buy an EV when there aren’t enough charging stations.

MarkG
Reply to  Sara
December 27, 2018 7:12 am

“Simple solution is this: if there is room for an air pump for tires, then there is also room for a couple of charging bays at gas stations. ”

Pumping up tires might take five minutes. Recharging a Tesla from a standard power line might take five hours.

Yes, they have their super-duper fast chargers, but which gas station is going to install new and improved power lines to get more juice from the grid just to charge a few bucks to an occasional milk float driver?

Sara
Reply to  MarkG
December 27, 2018 9:01 am

Back in Them There Olden Times, when people at service stations actually performed services, gas was pumped into a gas tank by a hand crank. There weren’t a whole lot of gas stations out in the countryside, so farmers had their own fuel pumps on the farm, to fill the tractor’s tank. Some of them still do that, in fact.

And lest we forget: windmills on farms used wind power to pump water out of the water table into livestock tanks. Otherwise, you pumped water yourself at the hand-cranked pump near the house and/or barn.

I’m sure that the same disparaging remarks you guys have made about installing EV-charging stations were muttered back in the early days of the automobile, in the 19th. They ran on gasoline much lower in octane than what was available in the 1990s, and it was not until racetracks for automobiles were built, that higher octane gasoline was developed to provide more power. Lead was added to gasoline to prevent engine knocking. That became a bugbear for the ecohippies, so lead was removed and engines had to be redesigned to use the new lead-free gas.

Still didn’t make the ecohippies happy, so now we have ethanol included in gasoline.

Ecohippies have to be the most unhappy, miserable people on the planet.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Sara
December 27, 2018 10:04 am

I’m sure that the same disparaging remarks you guys have made about installing EV-charging stations were muttered back in the early days of the automobile, in the 19th.

Don’t be talking silly, …. Sara, … way back then, bout anyone with access to a few hundred dollars could start a retail gasoline business. Just purchase a 500/1,000 gal tank and a pump ….. and you were in business.

But not today, cause one needs access to $2 to $7 million, to wit: https://www.profitableventure.com/cost-start-a-gas-station/

“HA”, just a tank replacement is mighty costly, to wit:

(gasoline) Tank replacement costs range from $150,000 to $300,000 per tank in addition to lost profits during construction, which averages six to 10 weeks, according to Beyer.
https://www.newsday.com/classifieds/cars/new-rules-driving-gas-stations-out-of-business-1.2201640

And EV charging stations are not cheap, either, to wit:

A Level 3 or DC fast charging station are typically installed through one of the EV charging station networks and can cost more than $50,000 to install.

https://www.ohmhomenow.com/electric-vehicles/ev-charging-station-cost/

A C Osborn
Reply to  Sara
December 27, 2018 1:02 pm

Sara, the point is the whole FF system is already in place and bought & paid for.
Basically what you are asking for is duplication, because the space in current Forcourts is finite.
It takes 7 to 10 times longer to charge an EV, therefore to serve the same number of customers you need 7 to 10 times as many bays, or the revenue is just not there.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Sara
December 27, 2018 4:19 pm

Sara,

please don’t use the phrase ‘lest we forget’ in any context other than Remembrance.

It is offensive.

dmacleo
Reply to  Sara
December 27, 2018 2:09 pm

if there is room for an air pump for tires, then there is also room for a couple of charging bays at gas stations.
*******************************************
the single 3×3 (ft) box placed anywheres there is opening and a 110V (in us) outlet requires no specific space requirements for fire access, etc.
gas pumps (in us) cannot be placed willy nilly, have to be placed in accordance with specific regs for fire extinguisher regs.
same with charging stations usually; so the air pump comparison is not a good one.
pretty much agree with the point of your post though, just wanted to point out the air pump opening fallacy.

Phil R
December 26, 2018 6:12 pm

Dang, normal people are starting to figure out how to fight back with the silent protest and disruptive boycott that that the progressive socialists use all the time. 🙂

Ok, I realize that the socialist protests aren’t silent, or victemless, but hopefully the tide is turning…

J Mac
Reply to  Phil R
December 26, 2018 8:53 pm

Tesla drivers are not physically handicapped. They are not entitled to privileged parking spaces. If I need a place to park and the e-charging station in front of the store is open, my ICE 4X4 is parking right there.

Similarly, e-car drivers should not escape ‘road use’ taxes. All electric cars should have an additional ‘road use’ fee added to their annual license fees, equivalent to the fuel taxes that a 25 mpg ICE car would pay over a year for equivalent total miles driven. Financial privilege for faux virtue signalling must end.

If you want to share the road, pay your fair share.

markl
Reply to  J Mac
December 26, 2018 9:07 pm

+1

Bryan A
Reply to  J Mac
December 26, 2018 9:14 pm

Bare in mind one very important thing J Mac, when parking in supercharger spaces, the thanks could also be returned with Teslas being parked at Gas Pumps making them unusable to you. Always good to play fair like we learned in Kindergarten.
And I too agree that Teslas should be paying a road use tax based either on annual mileage or gathered at the supercharger stations on the electricity needed to refill the battery

David Chappell
Reply to  Bryan A
December 26, 2018 9:23 pm

Who on earth “parks” at a gas pump?

Bryan A
Reply to  David Chappell
December 27, 2018 5:33 am

Someone buying at the minimart or someone protesting ICE drivers parking at charging stations

Bryan A
Reply to  David Chappell
December 27, 2018 5:36 am

If you can’t conceive of someone parking at a gas fuel pump then I would suggest not parking at an electricity fuel pump either

John Endicott
Reply to  David Chappell
December 27, 2018 9:00 am

we can “conceive” of many things, that doesn’t make any stupid idea one thinks of something that happens all that often in reality. As pointed out below, people that shop at the mini-mart usually park in the mini-marts parking lot. the rare rude and ignorant person might do as you say, but such people usually find themselves in angry confrontations if they do it often enough.

Bryan A
Reply to  David Chappell
December 27, 2018 9:55 am

Exactly John,
As could also happen with any ICE driver that Parks in a supercharger parking station spot.
But as long as everyone remembers what they learned in Kindergarten…Fair Play…everyone should get along. If there are ICE drivers that park in Supercharging spots, then be prepared for the opposite to happen as well…All I am saying is turnabout could be considered fair-play to a Tesla driver.

MarkG
Reply to  Bryan A
December 26, 2018 9:32 pm

“Teslas being parked at Gas Pumps making them unusable to you. ”

Unlike a Tesla, gas cars don’t take hours to ‘refuel’ and get in the way of other vehicles trying to use the same space. And, in any case, the gas station owner would have the Tesla towed away.

Besides, I’ve only ever seen one Tesla in Canada.

Hivemind
Reply to  Bryan A
December 27, 2018 12:15 am

You misunderstand. In Canberra, the charging stations are free. So not only do these virtue signalers get heavy subsidies on buying their cars, they get free electricity. It’s a double subsidy.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bryan A
December 27, 2018 3:04 am

What does that mean Bryan? “Bare in mind”? You’re naked in your imagination?

John Endicott
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 5:15 am

Perhaps it means he thinks the person he is talking to is empty(bare) headed(in mind)?

Bryan A
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 5:39 am

It means Open your mind to the possibility
Bare means naked and it also means Open

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 5:57 am

You’ve gotta be trolling me now, Bry. Even CAGW acolytes can’t be that dimwitted.

If you “bear in mind”, a large furry animal red in tooth and claw may be in your head?

John Endicott
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 7:47 am

Bryan, the correct phrase is “bear in mind”
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bear+in+mind
“bare in mind” is not an actual phrase, just a corruption of the proper phrase.

DonM
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 9:34 am

Come on Bryan,

For all intensive purposes, you surly meant to write bear in mind.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 10:07 am

Sorry Don if what I wrote and how I had written it offends you but it was written as intended

John Endicott
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 10:44 am

So you intended to write a common expression wrong? whatever.

DonM
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 11:02 am

No need to apologize … none at all; no insult taken nor transgression perceived.

A persons ignorance is not something that should cause an apology to others. Regret, if any, should simply be internal, and utilized to better ones self in the future.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 12:24 pm

No regret on My part Don…Used just exactly the word I wanted to just exactly the way I meant to.

DonM
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 12:54 pm

I guess it’s a moo point anyway.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bryan A
December 27, 2018 5:20 am

Bear in mind (the actual expression you meant to use), Bryan that people don’t “park” at gas pumps (ie leave their cars unattended). Any Tesla driver that tried to do so would get told off by the station attendant and would get their car towed if they didn’t move it of their own accord since “parking” at the gas pump (thus blocking actual customers) would be costing the gas station money.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Endicott
December 27, 2018 5:42 am

When you fill up your tank and pay cash, you certainly leave your car unattended parked at the pump while you’re inside pre-paying. If you go in the station’s minimart to buy something you also leave your car unattended at the pump while you are doing this as well.

A C Osborn
Reply to  John Endicott
December 27, 2018 7:10 am

Yes a few minutes, which is factored in by every user.
What would not be is if the owner then just wandered off for a meal leaving their var at the pump.

MarkG
Reply to  John Endicott
December 27, 2018 7:20 am

“If you go in the station’s minimart to buy something you also leave your car unattended at the pump while you are doing this as well.”

In what part of the world, exactly, do people park at a gas pump to go shopping? It’s a ludicrous claim.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
December 27, 2018 7:44 am

When you fill up your tank and pay cash, you certainly leave your car unattended parked at the pump while you’re inside pre-paying.

Not where I get gas, I never have to leave my car. That said, the very short amount of time it takes to pay for the gas is expected at such stations.

If you go in the station’s minimart to buy something you also leave your car unattended at the pump while you are doing this as well.

Most people park in the parking lot when they are going to be shopping in the minimart. Only the most rude and ignorant of people leave their car at the pump when they go into shop and those people eventually find themselves in an angry altercation with other customers who are rightly miffed at such rudeness.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Endicott
December 27, 2018 10:01 am

They don’t necessarily move their cars from the pumps to a parking spot in front of the mart after pumping gas while making other purchases. Most remain at the pump while conducting other business there.
That being said, and ultimately my point…If you park in a supercharger spot without charging (Tesla or ICE), you would be just as rude as an EV parking in front of a Gas Pump wouldn’t you???

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
December 27, 2018 3:15 pm

Most gas stations make more money off the stuff you buy inside the store than they do from the gas you just put in your car. They don’t mind if you spend a couple of minutes shopping before you leave.

David A
Reply to  Bryan A
December 27, 2018 6:08 am

Yet they are not! In California they get subsidies on their home electric bill, often to the one of two yo three thousand dollars a year. ( Teir one all the way)

When they have to pay for their electric charge with full tax, and I get my gas free, then they can park in front of the gas station. Before then and I think many folk will make them regret such a foolish decision.

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
December 27, 2018 7:14 am

I would expect anyone doing that to be towed by the owner of the gas station.

jferguson
Reply to  Bryan A
December 27, 2018 7:25 am

Tax tires and drop the gas tax?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Bryan A
December 27, 2018 9:23 am

Bryan,
People don’t park their cars for hours at a gas pump. 5 or 10 minutes at the most, but even that is considered rude. I wouldn’t have a problem with dedicated charging stations for EVs, but putting them put near the entrance to the store (sometimes even closer than the handicapped stalls) is not necessary and just makes EV owners look privileged more than they already are.

Bryan A
Reply to  Paul Penrose
December 27, 2018 10:03 am

Do ICE drivers park their cars in Tesla Supercharger spots for hours?

Bryan A
Reply to  Paul Penrose
December 27, 2018 12:29 pm

On their location relative to shopping I wholly and completely agree

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Paul Penrose
December 27, 2018 12:33 pm

Why would they? I don’t see any point in your question or the relevance to the conversation. I was addressing your comment that people leave their car unattended at the gas pump while they go into the store to pay (or buy a drink/snack).

Bryan A
Reply to  Paul Penrose
December 27, 2018 5:11 pm

And yet some ICE drivers park their cars for hours in recharging stations, some even overnight.

Bitter&twisted
Reply to  J Mac
December 27, 2018 12:34 am

No they are mentally handicapped.

Chris
Reply to  J Mac
December 27, 2018 12:57 am

J Mac,

No problem on the road taxes for EVs, as long as ICE owners pay a pollution tax equal to the pro rated impact on health care costs due to their car.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 1:39 am

You do realize making the tesla batteries isn’t exactly pollution free.
Besides, I’m not aware of any vehicles paying a pollution tax. Thought some cities implement something of the sort.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 1:48 am

You keep banging on about Health costs when all they have is EPA biased computer modelling.
Show us the deaths, because the polution today in the US and Europe is nothing compared to London Smogs and Chinese City polution.
So how can anyone who lived through London smogs have possibly have survived, like me?
Asthma and other allergy reactions were all most unheard of in those days.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 4:24 am

Chris

When you can prove conclusively that ICE emissions causes death then harp on about it. Until then, quit trotting out you unproven nonsense.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 6:22 am

What we need Chris, as you well know, is for the government to eliminate money and provide everybody with the stuff they want and need. To each according to her needs.
From each according to his means. These half measures of taxation are so 20th century. The Green New Deal will usher in perfect communism, finally.

Oh for the days of yore and the anarcho-syndicalist commune where we take it in turns to act as sort of executive officer for the week

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 7:14 am

Chris, since that number is zero, the tax will be as well.

J Mac
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 11:07 am

Ahhhh Chris,
Still trying to justify privilege, eh? E-vehicles exhaust ‘pollution’ from the power plants that feed them electricity, the manufacturing plants that build e-cars, and the mines that provide raw materials for them, don’t they Chris? Because you can’t see that exhaust from your e-car, you pretend it doesn’t exist. You’re like the neighbor that throws his yard trash and pet waste over the fence onto his neighbors property rather than paying to have is properly disposed of: “I didn’t do it! Nobody saw nothing! You can’t prove anything!”
Pay Your Fair Share, Chris!

My ICE vehicle exhausts CO2 and H2O. That’s essential plant food and water, Chris and I feel the need to virtue signal that I am feeding the global flora every time I drive my ICE vehicle! Why do you and your e-car want to starve the plants, Chris? You should be paying me to continue this magnificently generous behavior!

CO2 and H2O is also what you exhale with every breath, Chris. If you believe that is ‘pollution’, you have been profoundly mislead.

Chris
Reply to  J Mac
December 28, 2018 8:43 pm

JMac,

Good old plant food. You do realize that all the oil companies say AGW is real, and in fact are in favor of a carbon tax.

J Mac
Reply to  J Mac
December 29, 2018 1:27 pm

Still trying to justify privilege, eh Chris?
Pay Your Fair Share, Chris!

Martin A
Reply to  J Mac
December 27, 2018 4:38 am

++

John Endicott
Reply to  J Mac
December 27, 2018 5:24 am

Tesla drivers are not physically handicapped. They are not entitled to privileged parking spaces.

Indeed, the charging spots should be placed in the middle or the back of the lot. leave the prime spaces (other than those designed for the handicapped) for *all* customers to use. If you the charging stations are put in the prime spots, then too bad if you get ICEd out.

Tom Halla
December 26, 2018 6:15 pm

While the thought of annoying virtue signaling rich people is momentarily attractive, I probably wouldn’t actually do so.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 26, 2018 7:45 pm

Before we all go out and beat up rich people…

o $35,000 average 2018 cost of US “light vehicle” purchase (presumably no tax credit)

o $45,000 average drive-off cost of 2018 Tesla 3 (best number I could get on the net). HOWEVER, until 2019, the Tesla qualifies for a $7,500 tax credit (different from deduction…), so net cost of average Tesla 3 is around $37,500.

Bottom line: most (but not quite all) people buying the average American “light vehicle” could afford a Tesla if they so chose. Not very much “rich people virtue signaling” going on here.

By the way, if you legitimately earned the money, you have the right to spend it however you want. You don’t like how much money you make, get a better paying job. It’s called liberty & individual free choice…it’s been around since 1776.

Joey
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 26, 2018 9:04 pm

Except those who chose to buy a Tesla 3 are picking the pockets of others….while those who don’t choose to buy one subsidize those who do. And they probably don’t choose to buy a Tesla because they are a huge risk.

And finally, you say “you have the right to spend it however you want”…..but you don’t have the right to not pay for the subsidy, do you?

Kurt
Reply to  Joey
December 26, 2018 9:59 pm

“Except those who chose to buy a Tesla 3 are picking the pockets of others”

They are primarily picking the pockets of those far wealthier than they are. The last statistics I saw, the bottom half of income earners in the U.S. pay no net federal income tax. The vast majority of federal income taxes are paid by the top quintile of earners. It therefore follows that the vast majority of the costs of any particular tax subsidy is borne primarily by the wealthy.

The tax subsidy that dwarfs all others is the progressive tax system, so anyone who gets all emotional about the tax credits for electric vehicles needs to start advocating for a flat tax system, no deductions.

richard Patton
Reply to  Kurt
December 26, 2018 10:23 pm

+100

David A
Reply to  Kurt
December 27, 2018 6:12 am

Middle class pays tax, and asking them to pay for a wealthy man’s car road and fuel is inane and rude.

Kurt
Reply to  Kurt
December 27, 2018 1:02 pm

The middle class pays very little of the taxes that fund the federal EV tax credit. Social Security and state taxes are irrelevant to federal income tax credits, and those two comprise the bulk of the taxes that the middle class pays. When you add to that the fact that the U.S. federal tax code is rigged to heavily subsidize the middle class, with its home mortgage interest deductions, child tax credits, refundable tax credits, personal exemptions (now gone), capped state and property tax deductions, and on, and on, and on, there is no avoiding the truth that federal tax subsidies are mostly paid by those who pay the highest portion of the actual federal income tax revenues. That happens to be those in the top fifth income bracket.

Don’t get me wrong, I hat subsidies as much as anyone, but the main reason I do is the distortion they cause to rational buying choices. I don’t think anyone should be griping about paying for someone else’s EV tax credit. if your income isn’t high enough that you can’t afford to buy an electric car at a roughly 35K entrance cost for a Leaf or another entry level electric car and get the credit yourself, then the subsidy costs you either nothing at all, or something trivial. If you can afford one, but choose not to buy one for whatever reason, that’s just your choice – just like someone who chooses to have only one child shouldn’t be complaining about subsidizing the child tax credit for those who have three.

Chris
Reply to  Joey
December 27, 2018 1:01 am

Joey,

And ICE drivers are picking the pockets of those who don’t drive ICE vehicles, due to the health care costs of ICE pollution. Those costs are far, far greater than the EV subsidy.

Milocrabtree
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 5:07 am

Chris,

You should return to SkepticalScience where folks are stupid enough to believe your fatuous ICE healthcare cost claims.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 7:18 am

When Chris gets a new lie, he beats it to death.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
December 28, 2018 8:45 pm

Milo and MarkW,

Zero refutation provided. Typical for WUWT.

MeanOnSunday
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 26, 2018 9:32 pm

Tesla is not delivering any of the cheap model 3s this year. Average price of what they have sold is in the mid 50s; then add tax. Also I think 35k is very high as a reference point; 2/3 of all car sales are used not new. The average family car costs under 10k.

Going back to the issue of charging stations, Tesla owners assume they are only for use by their vehicles but that is not always the case. In some locations it is also a regular parking space for use by any customer. Tesla negotiated this in their contracts and explains it on their web site. Also outside of big cities the charging stations are empty almost all of the time so people are tempted to park there even if they shouldn’t. It seems quite implausible to me that gangs of truck owners are sitting around at a convenience store all night on the off chance that a Tesla will come by. Sheetz is kind of a fast food place as well as a store so they become a gathering place for high school or underage college students. Much more likely it was just some 17 year old rednecks thinking they were being funny.

Kurt
Reply to  MeanOnSunday
December 26, 2018 11:38 pm

“Tesla owners assume they are only for use by their vehicles but that is not always the case. In some locations it is also a regular parking space for use by any customer.”

That’s half true. You’re right that in some supercharger locations, some of the stalls are marked as available for non-Tesla’s for a limited number of minutes. For example, in Jackson WY, there was a supermarket with eight Tesla stalls, and 2-4 of them were marked as being OK for non-Teslas with I think a 15-minute limit. But these are clearly signed, so Tesla owners do not just assume that such stalls are reserved for Teslas. I’ve never pulled into a supercharger where every stall was available to anyone. There are always at least four exclusively reserved for Teslas.

Dylan
Reply to  Kurt
December 27, 2018 6:08 am

Actually, none are reserved for Teslas, unless there is a statute that allows the state to use force against non-Tesla operators using the spots.

MarkW
Reply to  Kurt
December 27, 2018 7:20 am

Store owners are allowed to tow for any reason. No laws involved.

DCE
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 27, 2018 6:34 am

When they start making 3/4 ton electric pickups that don’t cost any more than ICE pickups, I’ll consider buying one. Until then EV’s won’t meet my needs. I can’t haul firewood, hay, lumber, or my boat or go off-road with a Tesla.

DonM
Reply to  DCE
December 27, 2018 9:41 am

well then, you don’t get (and aren’t entitled to) an upfront (cash) and ongoing (free fuel) subsidy from your neighbors (taxpayers), coupled with premium parking spaces from the private business (brown nosers that probably got some sort of a deal from the permitting regulators).

(… the more I think about it, the more I like the what the truck owners in the story did (are doing))

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 27, 2018 8:28 am

Wrong. You are averaging economy cars and minivans with SUVs and sports cars. It also excludes the massive used market, which is where a large portion of the middle and lower classes get their wheels.

The proper comparison is the median, not the average, and compared to sedans, not pickups and SUVs. That would be something along the lines of a Honda Accord (even the Hybrid’s MSRP is a mere $25,100), and Honda is nowhere near the cheapest line of cars. Even the Tesla 3 is far more expensive than a typical car of its type.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 27, 2018 9:29 am

Javert,
BS. I have a very nice Mazda CX-5 and only paid $28K for it brand new, which is a reasonable comparison to the Tesla 3. That said, for driving around here where it gets cold and snowy in the winter, I’d take the AWD Mazda any day over the Tesla 3, even for the same price.

John F. Hultquist
December 26, 2018 6:25 pm

A really stupid idea.
Much like “hold my beer & watch this”.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 26, 2018 6:31 pm

LOL!

Jeff Alberts
December 26, 2018 6:30 pm

I live in northwest Washington State. I can’t even recall seeing a Tesla charging station, but I see a lot of Teslas on the road.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 26, 2018 7:11 pm

I have yet to see in the PDX area, after nearly eight years since they started installing charging stations, any car plugged into the stations. The taxpayer pays for the stations, the taxpayer pays subsidies on the purchase of the cars (benefiting the mostly well-off), and paying for the roads on which they drive but don’t pay a penny for.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Richard Patton
December 26, 2018 8:05 pm

Richard Patton

You really have a hard on for Tesla buyers (see my post above showing a Tesla 3 cost almost the same as average ICE “light vehicle”). Turning this into a class-warfare discussion is both incorrect and something better suited to delicate snowflakes.

Taxpayers do subsidize Tesla cars (ends in 2019); I doubt taxpayers pay for charging stations, and gasoline taxes vary wildly among the states, but local+state+Fed gas taxes pay for about 50% of road expenses (general taxpayer picks up the rest). God only knows where the taxes on electricity (which EV owners pay) go.

Most electrics (actually hybrids) are probably charged at home (expelling why you don’t see them at charging stations).

rah
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 26, 2018 8:59 pm

Well the PU truck class has the Tesla class outnumbered by a several thousand, if not 10s of thousands to one. Personally my bias is against the GM and Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge due to the” too big to fail” bail outs. Used to be a GM man but won’t ever buy another. And don’t give me that American made BS. This trucker hauls the parts and knows where they come from. Hauled parts for GM, Chrysler, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, VW, BMW, and yes, Tesla.

Schitzree
Reply to  rah
December 27, 2018 12:09 am

I used to be a huge Jeep fan. Still am a fan of OLDER Jeeps. But they’ve been going downhill this last decade.

I’ve got a 2007 Gran Cherokee. Good vehicle, but even it has had a surprising number of minor electrical problems.
From what I’ve heard, anything built since 2015 is just junk.

Damn shame so many companies are run by scumbags more interested in giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses for raping their own company then making a product that’ll last more then 3 years.

~¿~

rah
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 26, 2018 9:05 pm

Forgot Nissan. Hauled a lot of their parts also.

JCalvertN(UK)
Reply to  rah
December 27, 2018 12:17 pm

Datsun cogs reign!

Joey
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 26, 2018 9:06 pm

Well then who DOES pay for charging stations? And who DOES pay for the electricity they use?

Bryan A
Reply to  Joey
December 26, 2018 9:18 pm

Used to be … Tesla … Musk … pays as supercharging is offered free to new buyers…for now (if they still do???) another reason Tesla has yet to turn a profit

richard Patton
Reply to  Joey
December 26, 2018 9:25 pm

The installation is usually paid for by the taxpayer, the power itself (at least on the newer chargers) goes on the car owners credit card. I don’t know if it is also subsidized.

bruce ryan
Reply to  Joey
December 26, 2018 9:51 pm

the tesla 3 owner pays for the juice at the superchargers. Tesla builds the charger stations in a partnership with the landholder. I believe Tesla has paid back most of its government funding, so as far as I know, tesla builds the stations on its own dime.

Retired_Enggineer_Jim
Reply to  Joey
December 27, 2018 12:37 am

Here in California our PUC allows the electric utility to recapture the cost of capital of installing the recharging stations from the ratepayer. So those of us who pay for our electricty for our homes are also paying for the installation, even though we don’t have an electric car. It is considered a public good.

Chris
Reply to  Joey
December 27, 2018 1:07 am

Richard,

What is your evidence that taxpayers pay for EV stations?

Javert Chip
Reply to  Joey
December 27, 2018 1:46 am

Richard Patton

Mea culpa. There are indeed some instances of taxpayers paying for EV charging stations.

My initial web search a couple hours ago just discussed Tesla & ChargePoint as providers (they lease them to merchants).

Link: https://www.journal-news.com/news/taxpayers-pay-bill-for-new-rarely-used-electric-car-chargers/oaeCKBTl2UAjJtkJFnFIoM/

HotScot
Reply to  Joey
December 27, 2018 4:31 am

Chris

Where’s your evidence of all the deaths from ICE emissions? Not modelled, but actual numbers recorded on death certificates.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Joey
December 27, 2018 11:55 am

Washington State taxpayers pay
Through a competitive application process, WSDOT awarded $1 million in grants for the 2017-2019 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Pilot Program. WSDOT leveraged the funds with matching commitments of about $1.5 million, for a total investment of about $2.5 million.

There is more evidence. Look it up.

Steven F.
Reply to  Joey
December 27, 2018 11:26 pm

Tesla pays for the power, installation and hardware. Tesla gets the money from car sails, investors and bank loans.The government pays zero.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 26, 2018 7:27 pm

Last spring, in Leavenworth WA, between the McDonald’s
and a grocery store, at
47.598825, -120.655766
… they installed about 10 stations in what was a gravel parking area.
Because Leavenworth is a destination spot with many motel/hotel rooms, I expect these chargers will get used.

George
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 26, 2018 8:20 pm

In Southern California they have Tesla charging stations at every major shopping mall and they are always packed.

Bryan A
Reply to  George
December 26, 2018 9:20 pm

They should put them at Gas Stations instead.
Filling Station is Filling Station

Chris
Reply to  Bryan A
December 27, 2018 1:09 am

Bryan A,

No, they shouldn’t. They should put them anywhere that vehicles park for 15 minutes or longer. meaning malls, standalone restaurants, shops, etc. It’s just common sense.

Bryan A
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 5:47 am

Nope …having the charging stations at filling stations avoids the entire parking problem everyone is currently discussing and with the current proliferation of Gas Stations would create the needed network for recharging as well

A C Osborn
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 7:20 am

Except for one minor problem.
ICE cars refuel in 3 to 4 minutes.
EVs recharge in 30 minutes plus (up to 6 hours).
So for every EV bay serving one customer 1 ICE station serves 7 – 10 customers.
The turnover of ICE customers keeps the garage viable, divide that by 7 to 10 and it is highly unlikely to make 1 cent profit.
So let’s have 7 to 10 times as many EV bays, now where the hell are you going to put them?

Bryan A
Reply to  Chris
December 27, 2018 10:05 am

And that is where Fossil Fueled cars have the advantage over electric cars and why I drive a Dodge Durango

J Mac
Reply to  Chris
December 29, 2018 7:02 pm

Still trying to justify privilege, eh Chris?
Pay Your Fair Share, Chris!

Schitzree
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 26, 2018 11:10 pm

The only place I’ve actually noticed Tesla charging stations here in For Wayne is at Meijers. They are clear out on the far side of the parking lot. There are between half a dozen and a dozen spots, never bothered to count them. Once in a while I’ll see a car parked out there. I doubt anyone but a Tesla owner would want a spot so far from the doors.

~¿~

Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 6:30 pm

Why would you protest against an electric car?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 6:32 pm

Maybe it’s as Eric postulates, that Tesla charging stations are taking up a lot of normal parking spots. I didn’t read the linked article, so I don’t know.

Garland Lowe
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 26, 2018 6:37 pm

Most of the charge stations I’ve seen are out of the way or in a corner. Doesn’t make sense. We need energy for all sources including but not limited to fossil fuels.

Phil R
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 7:09 pm

Maybe it’s late and I’m tired, but that doesn’t even make sense! Charging stations are NOT energy sources.

Simon
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 8:26 pm

I think you will find Eric is annoyed by anything Tesla. He will be doubly annoyed their shares seem to have bounced back lately.

Nigel Sherratt
Reply to  Simon
December 27, 2018 2:35 am

Ended the year pretty much where it began but still well ‘short’ of ‘420’.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
December 27, 2018 10:16 am

Nigel Sherratt
Tesla doing a whole lot better than other stocks at the moment.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
December 27, 2018 3:19 pm

A stock already at rock bottom didn’t fall as far as other stocks.
Color me surprised.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
December 28, 2018 9:33 am

markw
“A stock already at rock bottom didn’t fall as far as other stocks.
Color me surprised.”
They are hardly at rock bottom. Clearly you know just as much about stocks as you do about climate change.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 27, 2018 9:31 am

Where I shop, the EV charging stalls are right up near the front of the store, right next to the handicapped spots. That’s what pisses people off.

PeteW
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 6:40 pm

Maybe I don’t like Cobalt mining and the child labor used.
Maybe I don’t like Neodymium mining, and the radioactive waste it produces.

But that’s just me. I’m not an “environmentalist”. *shrug*

Garland Lowe
Reply to  PeteW
December 26, 2018 6:50 pm

If we stop doing everything because someone doesn’t like it, we will all be walking, living in a tent and burning campfires to stay warm.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 7:13 pm

If fossil fuel and nuclear powered electricity plants are shut down because some people don’t like them – ” we will all be walking, living in a tent and burning campfires to stay warm.”

And the climate will still do whatever it was going to do anyway.

SR

Garland Lowe
Reply to  Steve Reddish
December 26, 2018 8:39 pm

Amen

Bryan A
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 9:22 pm

Nope…can’t burn wood…releases smoke, CO2, particulates, and depletes the Carbon Sink

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Bryan A
December 27, 2018 1:45 am

Weather you burn it or not, it’ll die, rot down and release all of the Carbon it captured during it’s life time. Net result :- zero either way.

MarkW
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 7:25 pm

Electric cars, no.
Subsidies enjoyed by electric car owners, yes.

Phil.
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2018 8:57 pm

Annual subsidy for fossil fuel production in US, over $20 billion.

Joey
Reply to  Phil.
December 26, 2018 9:08 pm

False…..absolutely false. Define “subsidy”, please.

markl
Reply to  Phil.
December 26, 2018 9:15 pm

Wrong. Look at the taxes paid by oil companies and gas stations and think again. This is a common misinformation that is pure bunk.

Rich Davis
Reply to  markl
December 27, 2018 6:09 am

You’re forgetting that all the money belongs to the government and any that is allowed to be kept is a subsidy.

Sometimes the government in its benevolence will INVEST some of their money on things that we don’t need. Then we sometimes have to cut back on our subsidies (raise our tax rates)

Jon Jewett
Reply to  markl
December 27, 2018 6:13 pm

Rich Davis. My compliments, sir. You are one of the few that really understand. EVERYTHING belongs to the government and they will decide what you can keep. If you have a job, look at your pay check stub. That is what they will allow you to keep, at least until your annual reckoning comes. Of particular interest is the Social Security part. You don’t deserve to keep the money you have earned, so they take it away and gives it to someone who deserves it more. (After they take a majority for themselves.) MAYBE you will get a little when you retire. By the way, the SCOTUS has determined that Social Security is a TAX and nothing more. There is no legal binding “contract” between you and the government. Congress will give you what they want to give you but they owe you NOTHING. And then there is the “employer’s portion” of the Social Security tax. You worked and that money was earned by you. But the government took it directly from your employer. It is called “slavery”.

Schitzree
Reply to  Phil.
December 27, 2018 12:16 am

Considering how often the ‘Fossil Fuels Subsidy’ lie has been debunked around here I’m surprised you’d even bother trying it.

But please, if you think you have special knowledge, go ahead and tell us what Subsidy Fossil Fuels enjoy.

~¿~

John Endicott
Reply to  Phil.
December 27, 2018 5:29 am

Annual subsidy for fossil fuel production in US, over $20 billion.

citation or retract please, because as other point out, that is a bald-faced lie.

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
December 27, 2018 7:26 am

Not only will he not support his claim, he will continue to repeat it as often as he can, and the amount will grow with each retelling.

MarkW
Reply to  Phil.
December 27, 2018 7:25 am

Phil. no lie to discredited for you.
There are no subsidies for fossil fuel production. Never have been.
What you count as a subsidy is in fact a tax deduction. Identical to tax deductions taken by any mining company. It’s also similar in form to tax deductions taken by all businesses around the world.
So unless you are one of those morons who consider any tax less than 100% to be a subsidy, stop with the lies.

Tom Halla
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 7:45 am

So not taxing at less than 100% is a subsidy? Orwell had nothing on you.

Clearly, you don’t want to understand actual cost and tax accounting.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 7:52 am

Not taking someone’s money (a tax break) is not the same thing as giving them money (subsidy). Words have meaning, learn them.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 9:07 am

Again, Steve, learn what words mean. Your refusal to do so after it’s already been told to you once is willful ignorance on your part. to repeat for the willfully ignorant: Tax breaks (IE NOT taking someone’s money) is *NOT* the same thing as a subsidy (IE Giving someone money). Put another way: Subsidies are government handing over money (IE you receive someone else’s money). Tax breaks are government not taking that money in the first place (IE you keep your own money). two different things. Learn the difference.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 9:11 am

Steve do you know how ignorant you look?

Do you guys realize that the mult-billions of dollars we spend on the military is a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry?

No, it’s not. A subsidy is government giving money to an entity. Government spending money on A is not the same thing as giving money to B. Words have meaning and subsidy…. well as Inigo Montoya said “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”

DonM
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 9:46 am

Steve,

You need to sincerely thank Mr. Watts for subsidizing your exaggerations.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 10:33 am

“I know full well the “meanings” of the words involved”

Clearly you don’t as you keep using them WRONG.

you are nit-picking on something that is irrelevant

It’s not “nit picking” it’s what the words MEAN. And word meaning is *VERY RELEVANT* to clear communication.

The mortgage interest tax break is a subsidy for the home building industry. The home building industry doesn’t receive a penny in cash, nor does it get a penny in a tax break.

Then, by definition it is not a subsidy. Words have meaning despite your choosing to be willfully ignorant of what they mean.

Likewise all the billions of dollars spent on the military to protect the flow of oil from the Middle East is a subsidy. In this case the fossil fuel industry doesn’t receive any cash, nor get a tax break.

And again, by definition it is not a subsidy. Your willful ignorance does not change the meaning of words to suit your purposes. You are not Humpty Dumpty, you don’t get to decide that words mean what you choose them to mean.

Maybe if you stopped playing word games, and examined reality you’d understand.

I’m not the one trying to pretend a word means something that it does not. That would be you.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 10:36 am

Subsidies can be non-cash

Wrong. (to borrow from a certain drive-by poster who shall remain nameless)

sub·si·dy.
[ˈsəbsədē]
NOUN
1.a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 10:40 am

Hey everybody, DonM “gets it.”

I’ll add “sarcasm” to the list of things you don’t understand.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 10:52 am

Steve shows his ignorance once again:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies-billions/

General Electric — the biggest wind-turbine maker in North America — has a seat on AWEA’s board. It has received $1.6 billion in local, state, and federal subsidies and $159 billion in federal loans and loan guarantees

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:05 am

Amazing how insisting on a precise definition of one word ends billions of dollars of subsidies in our government.! To bad this definition can’t wipe out the deficit.

I never met someone so gleeful at their own ignorance before. You can’t “end” something that never was in the first place. Yet more words that you are willfully ignorant of the meaning of. Just because a tax credit (letting people keep their money) is not a subsidy (giving them other peoples money) does not mean that tax credits can not be used as incentives to engage in certain behaviors (IE behaviors that would result in getting the tax credit).

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:10 am

I can add reading comprehension to the list of things Steve is willfully ignorant of

1) A seat on the board of the AWEA is not a cash transfer, therefore it is not a subsidy

The “it” in the quoted sentence was referring to General Electric, not AWEA.

2) A loan is not a subsidy because it has to be paid back.
3) a loan guarantee is not a cash transfer, therefore it is not a subsidy.

The sentence did not say a load was a subsidy, hence why it separated the loan figure from the subsidy figure, duh.

4) Unless you can prove otherwise, local and state governments did not transfer cash, as they usually give tax breaks to GE, there fore it is not a subsidy.

The article specifically said subsidy, which it specifically separated from loans. It’s up to you to prove the article was mistaken since you think you know so much (though judging by all the ignorance you’ve shown in this thread, you don’t know jack sh!t).

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:13 am

I did not say they benefited from the PTC tax break. You were so butt hurt over having your ignorance shown to the world that you claimed that “the wind electric power industry does not get a subsidy!” so I provided you with an article that said otherwise. An Article that you’ve been unable to refute (and which you how shown yourself unable to even comprehend reading).

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:22 am

An example of an actual government subsidy to renewable energy is the Section 1603 grants. (grants are “1.a sum of money given by a government or other organization for a particular purpose” for the benefit of the willfully ignorant) The types of energy systems that qualified for the grant program were biomass, combined heat and power, fuel cells, geothermal, incremental hydropower, landfill gas, marine hydrokinetic, microturbine, municipal solid waste, solar and wind. So, sorry to break it to the ignorant one (Actually, I’m not sorry) but wind and solar were subsidized.

DonM
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:25 am

… it’s a waste of time…

Steve, per your definition, can you give yourself a subsidy?

Per Steve everything is a subsidy (that way nothing is …)
(rip-off from the Incredibles cartoon, as insult to the mediocrity crowd).

(I might get a subsidy from my wife tonight)

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:27 am

Don’t need to refute an article that claims a loan, and a loan guarantee is a “subsidy.”

your ignorance is showing again, The article does not claim that are as it specifically separates loans and load guarantees from subsidies.

I’ll gladly be “gleefully ignorant” knowing that using the Endicott definition of “subsidy” we have never subsidized the wind and solar industries

And the section 1603 grants (that go to wind and solar) show that you are as ignorant as ever.

I must admit, even I tire of pointing out just how ignorant you are, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. just too darn easy.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:35 am

You see Endicott,

from the number of times you’ve invoked my last name over the course of the last few posts, I can tell the butthurt must be massive.

there was not cash transfer to GE’s wind turbine division

so you claim, the article says otherwise “General Electric — the biggest wind-turbine maker in North America — … has received $1.6 billion in local, state, and federal subsidies”. You’ve yet to refute the article even though have shown yourself not very good at comprehending what it says.

there was no subsidy (according to your definition.)

It’s not “my” definition, it’s the dictionaries. You should maybe learn to use one, might help cure you of the willful ignorance you have been putting on amble display.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:37 am

from the same article “NextEra Energy, the largest wind-energy producer in the U.S., has received about 50 grants”

grants, as you’ll recall from the dictionary definition I posted earlier are “a sum of money given by a government”. NextEra, a wind producer – subsidized per the definition of the word.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:42 am

DonM, your post is likely to be missed by many thanks to the never ending supply of ignorance coming from steve’s posts. So I’d figure I’d give you a shout out.

(I might get a subsidy from my wife tonight)

My wife gives me the best subsidy’s 😉

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:48 am

LOL @butthurtSteve back to showing your willful ignorance I see.

A tax credit is a subsidy.

Nope tax credits (government letting you keep your money) are not subsidies (government giving you money). Grants, on the other hand, are subsidies (government giving you money).
What you can say is that a tax credit is an incentive to engage in certain behavior, but it is *not* the government giving you money (a subsidy) unless you think 100% of your income belongs to the government in the first place. Given your ignorance to date, I’m willing to believe you might just think something so stupid.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 11:53 am

Yes, “amble” was a typo (I do miss the edit button, as I say every time I make a bad typo. though, to be fair, some of my typos are made worse by the spellchecker – but as my fingers tend to have a mind of their own, I’m never sure how many are true typos and how many are stupid spellcheckers autocorrecting to the wrong word), I meant “ample”. unlike you I’m willing to admit when I made a mistake. You just keep doubling and tripling down on yours. But really, after all the butthurt you’ve gotten and picking on one typo is the worse you can throw at me. LMFAO.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 12:03 pm

Sorry to break it to you Mr. Endicott, but your ludicrous restrictive definition and use of the term “subsidy” is ridiculous.

Sorry Humpty Steve, but words have meaning. I don’t care what you think about the meaning, you don’t get to redefine it as you see fit.

It is your insistence on only using it when cash is transferred that makes you miss the forest for the trees.

Again, that’s what the word means. it doesn’t mean whatever you choose it to mean.

The oil industry (and many nation states in the Gulf) benefits enormously from the naval presence protecting the flow of oil.

Yes, it’s fair to say that they do. Defense is one of the US government’s constitutional powers, the military benefits everyone that it defends, not just oil companies.

That is a “subsidy.”

And no it is not. Looks like you are going into the “you didn’t build that” nonsense of President Obama, here.

In fact this subsidy it an order of magnitude greater than tax incentives we dole out to the wind and solar industries.

It’s not a subsidy by any meaning of the word, so what you just wrote is total nonsense.

So when you get up on your soap box and complain about the definition of the word, I’ll remind you that there were a lot of young men that gave their lives in the Mideast protecting the fossil fuel flows.

yeah, so? that has *ZERO* to do with what a subsidy is. whether those young men (and some women) gave their lives or not, the meaning of the word subsidy remains what it is and it is not what you seem to think it is.

Explain to the mothers and fathers of the young men that came home in a box that we did not “subsidize” the oil from that part of the world.

I doubt the mother and fathers of those young men (and some women) are as willfully ignorant as you are, so they don’t need any explanations about what the word subsidy really means.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 12:28 pm

STRAWMAN ALERT: “unless you think 100% of your income belongs to the government in the first place.”

It’s not a strawman, as I wasn’t setting it up as your position in order to knock it instead of your position down. I’d already knocked down your position and was pointing out the only logical possibility that your position would make any kind of sense. so we can add the word “strawman” to the list of words you are willfully ignorant about (though at this point the list is so long, I think we can drop the willfully part, as we are clearly into actually flat out ignorant territory by now).
PS, you’ll notice that I”ve addressed you as Endicott

which you only started doing, dozens of posts in once it was clear to all and sundry that you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG about what a subsidy is (prior to that you addressed my posts without mentioning my name when directly replying to one of my posts, the exception being when you were addressing both me and another poster). As I said, your butthurt is showing.

A tax break is a subsidy

The only logical way, based on what the words mean, to get “tax breaks/credits” to be “subsidies” (Subsidies, as has been pointed out to you time and again is government giving you money) is if all your income belongs to the government and what you get to keep is given to you by the government. You’ve just make clear (with your “STARWMAN ALERT” comment) that you don’t believe that government does own all your income (At least I assume you don’t, but considering how you misuse words, I can’t guarantee that’s what you actually meant by your STRAWMAN ALERT” comment), So we are back to that’s not what the word “subsidy” means.

And as we are back to that’s not what the word “subsidy” means, that means we are now just going around in circles. So I leave you to your ignorance for now. May or may not be back later, depends on if you have anything worth replying to. Judging by your posts so far, I don’t hold out high hopes that you will.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 12:32 pm

A tax credit is a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
….
LOL!!

buthurtSteve, you do realize that substituting the word “tax credit” for “subsidy” in the definition of “Subsidy” does not actually make it the definition of “tax credit”, it just make you look like the fool that you’ve proven yourself to be. Good day to you.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 12:52 pm

*Rollseyes*.

What bizarre twisted logic.
1) it’s *YOUR* money, not the governments
2) as such the government can not grant you your own money, they can only not take it from you – unless, that is, the government owns ALL your money to begin with, which you claimed that government owning your money was a strawman yet here you are insisting on your own twisted logic that would require that to be the case. so straight up who does 100% of your income belong to, you or the government?
3) Keeping your own money isn’t an “assistance” it’s keeping your own money that you earned.
4 & 5) It does not affect the price of commodities, service or for that matter cost of housing. Those things remain at their prices. It does incentivize some to partake of those things (as they’ll get to keep more of their income at tax time if they do) but it does not knock one dime off the actual price.

So you see, even your twisted logic is a big fail.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 6:59 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

“A subsidy or government incentive is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).[2][3]

Furthermore, they can be broad or narrow, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. The most common forms of subsidies are those to the producer or the consumer. Producer/production subsidies ensure producers are better off by either supplying market price support, direct support, or payments to factors of production.[4] Consumer/consumption subsidies commonly reduce the price of goods and services to the consumer. For example, in the US at one time it was cheaper to buy gasoline than bottled water.[5]

Whether subsidies are positive or negative is typically a normative judgment. As a form of economic intervention, subsidies are inherently contrary to the market’s demands.[citation needed] However, they can also be used as tools of political and corporate cronyism.”

Direct or indirect, it’s a zero sum game. Whether you tax a specific business less or return tax dollars to them the effect is the same.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  MarkW
December 27, 2018 7:16 pm

Imagine we have two car companies with the same costs and income. One gets given $200 million a year by the government and the other doesn’t. So one is subsidized and the other isn’t.

Now instead of giving $200 million a year, take $200 million a year less in tax.

Do you now argue that the company who pays $200 million less in tax isn’t subsidized and at a competitive advantage over the other?

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 28, 2018 5:17 am

So if I take your wallet, pull out a wad of cash and hand it to you I’ve just subsidized you? LOL

Do you now argue that the company who pays $200 million less in tax isn’t subsidized and at a competitive advantage over the other?

It’s not subsidized (words have meaning and that is not what that word means) that does not mean the company paying less tax might not have an advantage just that it isn’t subsidized (taking less of your money is not the same thing as giving you money no matter how you try to redefine the words). Whether or not it’s an advantage to the company depends on what that company has to do in order to get that tax break, as clearly they are doing something different otherwise the other company would be claiming the same tax break. And that something different might counter act any advantage the tax break give them competition wise.

The only way the government taking less of your money is a subsidy is if it’s not your money. Do you honestly believe your income belongs 100% to the government and what little you get to keep is the government subsidizing you because they “gave” you a portion of it to keep in your own wallet rather than take all of it?

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 28, 2018 5:32 am

LOL economically illiterate Steve who thinks not taking your money is giving you money tries to talk “basic economics”.

LOL ===> “it does not knock one dime off the actual price.” Sure it does,

No, it does not. Changes in economic activity may do, but a tax break in and of itself does not.

for example, if you eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, less people will be able to afford buying, reducing demand in the market. When you reduce the demand, the price will drop. Didn’t you learn basic economics?

People need places to live. The demand is there regardless if someone can deduct it from their taxes or not. Just as those who won’t buy (or rather delay their buying, see “people need places to live”) because of the tax break will drive down prices the temporary lower prices will entice others to buy, driving prices back up. Eventually the price returns to equilibrium. I’d ask if you learned basic economics but that answer to that is clearly you did not.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  MarkW
December 29, 2018 9:49 pm

John, what is your understanding of what an indirect subsidy is?

Joey
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 9:07 pm

You mean a coal powered car?

goldminor
December 26, 2018 6:37 pm

Here is a Tesla owner trying to “fill up”. …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j52odgkRxDs

John Robertson
December 26, 2018 6:38 pm

Or this is fake news.
The MO of our virtue signalling gasbags,is to “Be the Victim”.
Naturally I wonder what the rest of the story is.
Maybe the other drivers can fill us in?

Javert Chip
Reply to  John Robertson
December 26, 2018 8:20 pm

Or it’s a wife/daughter/concubine driving her husband/father/stud’s EV car for the first time. Probably 27 other reasons (including the lady is stupid) if I chose to waste time on this.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  John Robertson
December 27, 2018 1:48 am

Perfectly plausible. Nobody here has seen it happen, and nobody here is complaining about it happening.

So, like the gamers say; “screenshot or it didn’t happen”.

icisil
December 26, 2018 6:40 pm

Just damn rude. Bunch of rednecks. Never cared for that part of North Carolina. The chick actually sounds kind of interesting. Professional stock car racer and vegan. Now that’s a combo I didn’t expect.

Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 6:44 pm

After reading some of the posts, Sounds like a bunch of kids thinking it would be funny to block the charge stations.

icisil
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 6:54 pm

Country boys looking for something to do on Friday nite, probably.

Phil R
December 26, 2018 6:57 pm

Garland Lowe,

Strawman. I’m not protesting against an “electric car.” I’m protesting against people who can already afford the car, but still want to take my money to help them pay for it. I know one or two people who have Teslas. There are three main reasons:

1) they can afford it (I can’t).
2) Prestige. They want to show all of their rich friends and the rest of society what they can afford.
3) They can take advantage of tax breaks (subsidies) that I pay for, but can’t take advantage of.

Just curious, do you have a Tesla? I don’t.

Garland Lowe
Reply to  Phil R
December 26, 2018 7:12 pm

I do not have a Tesla, I have a Ford Expedition, Chevy Bolt (EV), Ford Explorer Sportrac, Ford F150 Super Cab and a Mitsubishi Montero sport.
1. I can’t afford a Lear Jet but I happy for the folks who can.
2. Nothing wrong with being rich. I’m not but I’m working to accumulate what I can.
3. I agree tax subsidies should be ended. You have to do that through the ballot box.
I like all kinds of energy and vehicles. What vehicle(s) do you own?

MarkW
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 7:28 pm

Nice of you to ignore the reasons Phil R actually listed, and substitute your own for.

1) Nobody is subsidizing the purchase of Lear Jets.
2) If you are rich, then you shouldn’t need subsidies that have to be paid for by people who don’t make as much as you do.

Phil R
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2018 7:29 pm

+42.

Garland Lowe
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2018 8:01 pm

I agree there shouldn’t be any subsidies as I stated in #3. The issue is not the “rich people” taking advantage of the subsidies, it’s the idiots we have elected who are creating the subsidies.
The anger is misplaced.

David
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 27, 2018 6:17 am

People make a choice. When you buy a Tesla you are taking my money. The government law would cost exactly zero if nobody bought.

Javert Chip
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2018 8:35 pm

MarkW

In case you didn’t get the memo, you have been driving using ethanol subsidies. These existed much longer than EV subsidies (phasing out in 2019), and life-to-date ethanol expenses are much higher than EV subsidies.

IF YOU DODN’T LIKE WHAT’S HAPPENING, VOTE THE SOBs OUT OF OFFICE. Just because the world isn’t perfect according to your requirements (Tesla subsidy = bad; ethanol = apparently ok), go sob quietly in a corner, not on a climate website.

richard Patton
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 26, 2018 8:38 pm

The ethanol subsidy is legalized corruption. They require ethanol supposedly to reduce CO2 emissions, which has been to be proven false, and then subsidize it because it is economically unviable. At least with the Tesla the buyer isn’t required to buy it.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 26, 2018 9:17 pm

Actually, Ethanol production (and subsidies) started almost 50-years ago (in the 1970s) in reaction to leaded gasoline octane issues and the OPEC fuel shortages.

https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/energy/biofuels/energy-briefs/history-of-ethanol-production-and-policy

MeanOnSunday
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 26, 2018 9:39 pm

Consumers aren’t benefitting from any ethanol subsidy; we are paying the subsidies to the people growing the corn. Plus we get to pay for extra gas to compensate for reduced mileage and increased engine wear.

RLu
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 27, 2018 12:02 am

The ethanol subsidies keep going because the Primaries for President are in Corn country.

Back when, before fracking, it was a good idea to reduce petroleum imports from sh!tholes. But the (energy) return on investment turned out to be disappointing. And on top of that failure, the increased food prices made those sh!tholes even worse.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 27, 2018 1:52 am

At least in Australia, we have a 10% ethanol blend, and a non-ethanol blend. We have a choice to use it not. I asked the guy at the servo if anybody uses ethanol, he said some people do.

MarkW
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 27, 2018 7:31 am

The government forces me to buy something. The government then subsidizes what it forces me to buy.
Then I’m supposed to feel bad about the subsidy?

Absolute nonsense. If I had a choice in whether or not to buy gas with alcohol in it, you would have a point.

John Endicott
Reply to  Javert Chip
December 27, 2018 8:02 am

In case you didn’t get the memo, you have been driving using ethanol subsidies.

No, I’ve been driving with corn growers getting an ethanol subsidy. I have no choice in the matter as government mandates that the gasoline producers put that junk in the gasoline I purchase. Given a choice I certainly would not be driving using any ethanol in my tank because it only increases the amount of money I spend on gas (the amount it reduces mileage means I need to buy more of it to get the same mileage as I would in gas that does not have it) and more on car maintenance (that crap shortens the life of the engine). Not to mention how it puts upward pressure on food prices when you use food for fuel. There’s ZREO benefit to the consumer from the subsidy that goes to the corn growers. I would love to see the ethanol subsidies and mandates done away with, and always have been of that position on the subject, thanks for asking.

Phil R
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 7:28 pm

Since you asked, a Toyota 4Runner that we bought used, a Toyota Matrix that we bought used when our other car “blew a gasket,” and a used Hyundi (sp?) Santa Fe, that we bought used. We’re trying to put two kids through college and our budget is quite stretched, and one of the cars is with our son at college. Would love to have a subsidy for that.

The two things I agree with you on is that I don’t have a problem with people who can afford a Lear jet, and there’s nothing wrong with being rich. I just don’t think I should have to subsidize people who can already afford it. You have more vehicles than I do and good on ya, as long as I’m not helping pay for them.

Garland Lowe
Reply to  Phil R
December 26, 2018 8:11 pm

Several of the vehicles have 200,000 miles. I bought most of them between 2001 and 2008. I buy them new and run them until they quit. My kids are in their forties. I’ve had a little longer to accumulate stuff. I agree totally about the subsidies. They shouldn’t exist, but it’s the elected officials fault not the person who takes advantage of it (in my opinion). For some reason the govt has a deep need to give away other peoples money. I know a few folks that have 4Runners, they love them. Get the kids through college, you’ll have a little more change in your pocket once they’ve graduated.

Phil R
Reply to  Garland Lowe
December 26, 2018 9:23 pm

K, maybe we’ve (or I have) been talking a little at cross purposes. I don’t blame the people taking advantage of the subsidies, although I don’t like them (my sister did for cash for clunkers, and we still get along). Just wish they’d stop giving away my money.

My 2003 4Runner has almost 300,000 miles on it. 🙂 Wonder when the first Tesla will get that far without burning up.

Vboring
December 26, 2018 6:57 pm

Most Tesla superchargers are at the back of the lot in the last places anyone else would want to park – and always on private property.

Anyone who values private property rights should defend the lot owner’s right to do what they please with their property.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Vboring
December 26, 2018 7:16 pm

Actually not in the Portland OR metro area. They are at the front of the parking lot next to the handicapped slots. (It’s less costly to run the electrical cables only a few feet instead of a hundred feet or so)

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Patton
December 26, 2018 7:28 pm

That goes double for the type of current that a super charger draws.

Phil R
Reply to  Vboring
December 26, 2018 7:33 pm

Another strawman. If the property owner is getting public subsidies (read, my tax dollars) to install chargers to charge electric cars that are getting public subsidies (read, my tax dollars), then NO, I have a say in the matter too.

bruce ryan
Reply to  Phil R
December 27, 2018 7:19 am

Phil R,
I think some people are confusing tesla superchargers with the little charging outlets at storefronts.
Tesla and the landholder have a deal,( unless the State has decided to help) the deal is between tesla and the landholder. The actual electricity again is paid for by tesla or the tesla car owners.
I’ve only ever seen superchargers located out back or in a far spot on the lot. They are located in a shopping center or near a casino…/point of interest.
I think the little charging parking spots some people are talking about might be subsidized. But then again almost anything the feds want is subsidized or taxed. Children, churches, schools the list is endless.

Tired Old Nurse
December 26, 2018 7:11 pm

I almost trolled a Tesla owner by blocking him/her in. But it wasn’t really about the Tesla so much as it was a CHROME Tesla. I admit to being triggered.

Richard Patton
December 26, 2018 7:12 pm

At first, I thought the blog was about drivers for ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)! LOL

birdynumnum
December 26, 2018 7:21 pm

Saw this recently in NZ.
Half filled parking lot and someone drives in in a large ICE pickup and parks slap dab over the middle line between the only two electric charging stations, effectively blocking both.
Didnt bother asking why as the demeanour suggested that may not be a good idea.
Not to mention it was hairy and obviously in need of some showertime.
Looked like either sheer bloody mindedness, a large case of arrogance or perhaps ignorance of where he had parked due to inebriation.

WXcycles
Reply to  birdynumnum
December 26, 2018 7:37 pm

Very silly behavior, maliciousness begets maliciousness, and someone might just ‘incentivize’ him to get a new paint job for double-parked ICE box as payback.

J Mac
Reply to  WXcycles
December 26, 2018 9:08 pm

Criminal vandalizing of a fellers ride can get you drop kicked through the goal posts of life….
or, if your lucky, jail and restitution payments to repaint his truck!

WXcycles
Reply to  J Mac
December 26, 2018 9:42 pm

There are many ways to skin a cat.

But if you’re such a one, you’d better think about your initial action first.

J Mac
Reply to  WXcycles
December 26, 2018 11:37 pm

It’s your mistake to make. If you open the door to criminal attack on another person or their property, don’t complain if it gets too expensive or too rough for ya…..

WXcycles
Reply to  WXcycles
December 27, 2018 5:47 am

Off yer soapbox hero.

J Mac
Reply to  WXcycles
December 27, 2018 2:12 pm

No heroics involved, WXcycles!
Just stating facts…..

WXcycles
Reply to  WXcycles
December 27, 2018 5:57 pm

It it waddles like a troll …

J Mac
Reply to  WXcycles
December 27, 2018 9:52 pm

Ah yes. As expected. When your comprehension and reason fails, you resort to name calling and insults. I’m neither hero nor troll. Just stating facts.

Dennis
December 26, 2018 7:30 pm

Here’s another subsidy for the toys for rich boys, at least in Cali. Utilities are required to install personal residential charge stations and charge the subsidized price of $0.12/kwh while my residential 2017 price averaged $0.25/kwh. Isn’t liberal land wonderful?

Lee L
Reply to  Dennis
December 26, 2018 10:41 pm

Sounds like business opportunity someone will fill.
You know, the Tesla simulator/adapter that connects the residential charge station into your house electrical system to get that special $0.12/kwh rate but to run your house. Something like grid-tie solar but more automotive. Come to think of it, if you already had grid-tie solar…hmmm..

rah
December 26, 2018 7:45 pm

Ha! Last time I visited the battlefield at Gettysburg and went to the Visitors Center and Museum the parking was prioritized with Handicapped spaces closest to the doors, Electric and Hybrids next, and everybody else last!

When trucking up in Canada and heading home I almost always stop at the Esso Truck stop off the 401 at Comber, ON. I stop there to pickup a fax of my clearance documents and refill my thermos before I pass back into the US over the Ambassador Bridge. Beside the truck stop is a gas station and then beside that is a Tim Hortons where I get my coffee, and beside that an A&W. Between the gas station and the Tim Hortons there are about 6 Tesla charging stations. Only once have I seen a car parked in one of those spots.

December 26, 2018 8:19 pm

“First, there was rolling coal.”

Yeah, takes a brilliant and talented individual to be able to do that.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Mark Bahner
December 27, 2018 2:00 am

We used to call them trains, but you’re right. They were a fantastic invention.

Rob Leviston
December 26, 2018 9:04 pm

As an aside, I recently read an article that was ‘pro EV’, and sated that the reason there was a slow uptake in EV’s, was the lack of a charging standard!
Apparently there are currently three competing standards! And I’m taking an educated guess, that as more and more powerful chargers are developed to quicken charging times, that those standards will evolve somewhat further!
So, that is the main reason for a slow EV takeup! Who would have thought?
I guess the situation will almost be like the Beta/VHS video tape wars?
Maybe one day, a single standard will apply.
In the meantime, why would you bother?
The following article isn’t the one I read, I can’t find that one, but here is one detailing the different standards.
https://chargehub.com/en/electric-car-charging-guide.html

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rob Leviston
December 27, 2018 8:59 am

Wow, and I thought it was because the cheapest EV costs twice as much as my current car. Or because it can’t necessarily get me from home to work and back if the temperature is New England instead of Cali. Or because I don’t like burning up when the battery decides to give up the ghost. But I guess it’s because of a lack of an adapter plug. Who knew?

James Bull
December 26, 2018 9:09 pm

Here in the UK EV’s are often given parking/charge points previously allocated to disabled drivers, I’ve noticed this particularly at motorway service areas where those spaces nearer the buildings set aside for those with mobility problems loose two sometimes three spaces for EV charge points. Quite often more spaces are made available but at a greater distance from the buildings, some of this is virtue signalling I’m sure and maybe also the easy option as it’s closest to the power supply so there is less disruption in the install. I find it offensive that those like my wife are considered less than those who can afford subsidised vehicles!

James Bull

rishrac
December 26, 2018 9:19 pm

There is a long way to go before an electric comes close to ICE. I’ve had 3 battery powered lawnmowers, all of them died before the summer was half over. If I buy a Telsa, it’ll be because I have too much money. Charging stations or not, I wouldn’t take it very far out of town.

Chris
Reply to  rishrac
December 27, 2018 1:16 am

EV batteries have been proven to last 10 years. This is real life data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/t024bMoRiDPIDialGnuKPsg/edit#gid=154312675

kent beuchert
December 26, 2018 9:30 pm

I have been following the EV movement from way back. All of the automakers are going allelectric and it has little or nothing to do with Tesla. It’s all about improving economics, which means battery prices. Heny Ford always believed that electric cars are inherently superior : cheaper, way fewer parts and therefore easier to manufacture, more reliable, etc. His wife always drove an electric. He enlisted his good friend Thomas Edison to invent a practical battery for the electric car he wanted to build. Never happened.
I read lots of blogs concerning EV news and can say that the distinguishing characteristic of Tesla
fans is there relativei gnorance about the EV scene and what’s happening outside of Tesla. They are often rather stupid about the technology – they see to think Tesla has the answers when it comes to driving ranges, battery recharge speed, charging network, acceleraion to 60 MPH, etc. You can even read stck analysts making absurdly stupid claims about Tesla being “five years ahead of the competition.”Well, that five years is up, since we now see Tesla competitors with equal driving ranges but available at half the price, cars that are faster than most Teslas, like the Jaguar I Pace, a car which has garnered far more awards than any Tesla ever did and is outselling Tesla’s best profitmakers, the Model S and Model X two to one in some European countries.. And the I Pace has a healthy waiting list of buyers, while neither Tesla has anyone waiting to buy one – the cars have even been discounted by Tesla,which once swore it would never cut its prices (also has cut prices for their Model 3) . Every automaker except Tesla and Nissan uses the CCS charging protocol for their publc fast DC chargers. Porsche not long ago demonstrated the ability of its Taycan to recharge twice as fast as Tesla and more recently BMW, et al demonstrated the ability to recharge three times faster than Tesla. As for acceleration, the I Pace (and others) can run to sixty faster than every Model S or Model except their performance versions, which are outrgeously expensive ( the Performace Model X starts at $140,000, twice the price of the I Pace). But the upcomong I Pace performance version will run to 60 in 1.8 seconds, faster than any Tesla, including their upcoming sports car,which big mouthed Elon Musk stupidly claimed would be the fastest production car. Tesla fans don’t realize just how simple it is to obtain fast acceleration in anelectric – buy a bigger electric motor (or more of them) and have big enough battery.
I can see why many object to the Tesla owners, who often are claiming to save the planet and talk about gas powered cars as if they should be destroyed,along with their owners. In other words, Tesla owners are typically abrasive, insulting and obnoxious. Considering how exorbitantly expensive Tesla cars are to do body repair and paint repair, Tesla owners should keep their mouths shut

MarkG
Reply to  kent beuchert
December 26, 2018 9:40 pm

“It’s all about improving economics”

No, it’s about governments virtue-signalling by claiming they’re going to ban ICE cars to ‘save the environment’. No established major manufacturer would be saying they’re going to stop producing ICE cars otherwise.

To make electric cars viable for the majority of drivers means a huge improvement in battery technology, an end to the EVs’ love of burning people alive in crashes, and a major increase in electricity generation…. at the same time that said virtue-signalling governments are destroying their power girds by virtue-signalling for ‘renewable’ power.

A C Osborn
Reply to  MarkG
December 27, 2018 2:11 am

+1000

richard Patton
Reply to  kent beuchert
December 26, 2018 9:47 pm

I agree that electric cars are inherently more reliable than internal combustion engine cars, but their energy still is 80% derived from fossil fuels and because of transmission losses he gets less usable energy per unit of fossil fuel. Then comes the range, it isn’t anywhere near the 250mi/tank which is minimum for most ICE powered vehicles. And at 3 times faster than the Tesla what is the “fillup” time from “empty?” I use that criteria because Tesla owners say they put it on charge every time they aren’t using the car (charger being available) which on a long day trip could be four or five times. Then what does an EV owner do if his car runs ‘out of gas’ out in the middle of nowhere? He certainly can’t have someone bring him a jerry can of charge.

rah
Reply to  richard Patton
December 26, 2018 10:38 pm

“Then what does an EV owner do if his car runs ‘out of gas’ out in the middle of nowhere? He certainly can’t have someone bring him a jerry can of charge.”

Pull the gasoline powered generator out of the trunk?

Richard Patton
Reply to  rah
December 26, 2018 10:39 pm

🤣🤣

Lee L
Reply to  richard Patton
December 26, 2018 11:00 pm

Great idea though, Richard Patton.
A jerry can of charge COULD be brought to an EV, actually, just as a jerry can of compressed air can be brought to your flat tire. It could be used to charge the EV’s battery or, as I predict, EV technology will eventually be a modularized battery swap out like a propane bbq tank is now making filling stations into recharger stations for exchange battery packs.
You will exchange the empty battery for a full battery. Yes there are big details to work out, but the propane sellers did it by right sizing the package to allow you easy manhandling from car to gas and short fill times at the filling station. Prices of exchange full tanks include the cost of replacing worn empty exchange tanks.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Lee L
December 27, 2018 2:13 am

Yes, that is a great idea.
You drive your nice new EV in to the garage swap bay and get in exchange for your nice shiny new battery a 10 year old worn out one.
You may be niave enough to think it is a good idea, me, not so much.

Lee L
Reply to  A C Osborn
December 27, 2018 4:09 am

Call me naive if you wish. Oh yea you already did A C.

When I exchange an empty propane tank I get,( because of liability), a used, not to be older than a certain date, inspected, propane tank that is isn’t decorator grade, but good enough to work. I can walk into a supermarket or gas station, pay a fee the first time because I have no exchan