Look. I made a graph and put it on the internet, so it must be true!

slaughtr said:

---

Look. I made a graph and put it on the internet, so it must be true!

---

I laughed.

slaughtr said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

---

My residential charging costs don't costs me anywhere close to those first two bars, so this is already a lie. After that, why would I care about the other bars?

---

The first figure is the actual cost to charge, the second figure is the accumulation of charging infrastructure for Level 2 chargers and the energy losses in charging the battery and lost efficiency due to variations in temperature. They claim conservative calculations when they actually use the maximum.

jt2hunt said:

---

---

You should read the report rather than just look at the graphs and ask whether or not you believe the assumptions they make are reasonable.

Here are my criticisms of their calculations:

The CAFE credit calculation is done based upon the penalty avoidance (i.e. the improvement in fleet efficiency) afforded to EVs when a fleet exceeds the efficiency standards and applies the maximum penalty avoidance to every EV sold. This is because EVs have an efficiency that far exceeds the standard and receives a multiplier for fuel efficiency. Here's the problem, Tesla sells nothing but EVs and does not benefit at all from the penalty avoidance. CAFE credits are non-transferrable so that supposed "cost" doesn't exist for the largest EV manufacturer and the actual cost is not the penalty avoidance, but the potential marginal cost of meeting those standards without the EV production. This proposes that Tesla generated 34 billion in costs to the consumer this year by selling EVs that provided them no benefit. Non-sense.

The GHG emission credits function in the exact same way. No benefit to Tesla, cost reduction to the ICE manufacturers in the existence of the CAFE credits, with the alternative being you remove the standards allow manufacturers to produce vehicles with as low of efficiency as possible and shift the cost from

That is half of the total supposed cost to consumers for EVs. Non-existent for the largest manufacturer of EVs in the country, and they have among the best gross margins for vehicles period, not just EVs. In other words, these are figures that as the proportion of EVs sold approaches 100%, the dollar amount per EV approaches $0.

They assume every EV receives the full $7,500 tax credit, while using the base year of 2021 when Tesla was not receiving the credit and on a go forward basis the standards for receiving the credit is higher than under the previous version of the credit. Many models of EVs do not receive the full credit due to the location of the manufacture of the vehicle and/or battery components (LFP batteries are largely manufactured in China, whereas NCM batteries are largely manufactured here or in countries we have free trade agreements with, this will change). For the state subsidization, they utilized a base year of 2021 and many of those programs have been or are being phased out over the next couple of years. Of those that do receive a credit, many of the buyers of EVs are not eligible for the full credit due to income restrictions. If you make too much you cannot receive the credit at all, if you make too little your credit is capped at the amount of tax burden you have. It is not an oversight on their part, they acknowledge that they cannot attribute $7,500 for every EV sold, but say they are using the "average" EV sold (average meaning not taking the total cost of EVs and spreading it over the entirety of EVs, but rather the "mode" EV sold and calling it average.)

For the ZEV credits they utilized the value of an individual credit and extrapolated it over the entirety of EVs sold when there's a significantly lower demand for the credits than the amount of supply. The price of the ZEV credits is dependent upon the amount of penalty avoided, not the demand for the entirety of the credits. It would be like a lawyer saying they can get your traffic violation canceled and can process 1000 tickets per year, but only 200 tickets are issued per year. The value of the cancellation approaches the cost of the penalty, but that doesn't mean there's capacity to sell 1000 ticket cancellations.

For the marginal increase in energy generation and distribution they assume the consumption is wholly done during peak demand, when that is the opposite of true. The proliferation of EVs normalizes the demand curves, because the majority of charging (90%) is done at home and at night, not at public chargers during the day, but that kind of calculation can result in a reduction in the average spend for electricity (because you have to build out excess capacity to meet peak demand that goes unutilized) so they have to find clever accounting to maximize the cost.

For the avoided infrastructure costs they assume that EVs do not pay any form of road use tax (in replacement of the gas tax), which is not accurate in half the states in the country currently and will not be true for any state in the country over time. Some have lagged in their response, but will shift as the proportion of EVs grow.


So what is this figure actually? It's the maximum marginal incentive amount (not subsidization) to produce the next electric vehicle added to the maximum direct subsidization by the government, added to the maximum cost to the grid. It is not the average, it is the absolute worst case scenario. It is not a shared cost among all individuals, it's how much benefit a manufacturer can receive on paper to produce an electric vehicle. It is definitely not the average subsidization rate/cost shared by the public for an individual electric vehicle, because it necessitates absurd assumptions that do not match reality (that every EV manufacturer benefits from GHG/CAFE credits, that every buyer receives state and federal incentives, that every driver charges their vehicle between 5 and 9pm, that every ZEV credit is sold in the market, and that state and local governments won't respond to replace the gas tax).

hph6203 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

---

My residential charging costs don't costs me anywhere close to those first two bars, so this is already a lie. After that, why would I care about the other bars?

---

The first figure is the actual cost to charge, the second figure is the accumulation of charging infrastructure for Level 2 chargers and the energy losses in charging the battery and lost efficiency due to variations in temperature. They claim conservative calculations when they actually use the maximum.

---

It costs me less than $10 to fully charge my car, so less than 75 cents per gallon equivalent. If you look at my mileage in cold weather, you can add another 20 cents per gallon to that. It cost me $300 to pay an electrician to put in a 240 V plug, so almost nothing over the life of the car. Since the table is so horribly wrong on those two bars, I'm sure they are horribly wrong on the rest. Not to mention, I could care less what the subsidies cost. How much do corn subsidies cost to make ethanol for gas. How much do farm subsidies cost to make your soy milk (guessing here) for your latte.

slaughtr said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

---

My residential charging costs don't costs me anywhere close to those first two bars, so this is already a lie. After that, why would I care about the other bars?

---

The first figure is the actual cost to charge, the second figure is the accumulation of charging infrastructure for Level 2 chargers and the energy losses in charging the battery and lost efficiency due to variations in temperature. They claim conservative calculations when they actually use the maximum.

---

It costs me less than $10 to fully charge my car, so less than 75 cents per gallon equivalent. If you look at my mileage in cold weather, you can add another 20 cents per gallon to that. It cost me $300 to pay an electrician to put in a 240 V plug, so almost nothing over the life of the car. Since the table is so horribly wrong on those two bars, I'm sure they are horribly wrong on the rest. Not to mention, I could care less what the subsidies cost. How much do corn subsidies cost to make ethanol for gas. How much do farm subsidies cost to make your soy milk (guessing here) for your latte.

---

Ethanol is an added cost for gas.
Also, an EV user is way more likely statistically to be a soy milk latte person over an ICE guy. So your joke is just bad and you should feel bad lol.

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

---

My residential charging costs don't costs me anywhere close to those first two bars, so this is already a lie. After that, why would I care about the other bars?

---

The first figure is the actual cost to charge, the second figure is the accumulation of charging infrastructure for Level 2 chargers and the energy losses in charging the battery and lost efficiency due to variations in temperature. They claim conservative calculations when they actually use the maximum.

---

It costs me less than $10 to fully charge my car, so less than 75 cents per gallon equivalent. If you look at my mileage in cold weather, you can add another 20 cents per gallon to that. It cost me $300 to pay an electrician to put in a 240 V plug, so almost nothing over the life of the car. Since the table is so horribly wrong on those two bars, I'm sure they are horribly wrong on the rest. Not to mention, I could care less what the subsidies cost. How much do corn subsidies cost to make ethanol for gas. How much do farm subsidies cost to make your soy milk (guessing here) for your latte.

---

Ethanol is an added cost for gas.
Also, an EV user is way more likely statistically to be a soy milk latte person over an ICE guy. So your joke is just bad and you should feel bad lol.

---

Not the EV owners I know.

Fact is, it costs me way, way less to drive my EV than it does to drive my ICE vehicle. It's not even close. No amount of useless bar graphs is going to counter truth. There are legitimate arguments to be made for EV versus ICE, but costs to drive and maintain clearly favor EV.

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

---

My residential charging costs don't costs me anywhere close to those first two bars, so this is already a lie. After that, why would I care about the other bars?

---

The first figure is the actual cost to charge, the second figure is the accumulation of charging infrastructure for Level 2 chargers and the energy losses in charging the battery and lost efficiency due to variations in temperature. They claim conservative calculations when they actually use the maximum.

---

It costs me less than $10 to fully charge my car, so less than 75 cents per gallon equivalent. If you look at my mileage in cold weather, you can add another 20 cents per gallon to that. It cost me $300 to pay an electrician to put in a 240 V plug, so almost nothing over the life of the car. Since the table is so horribly wrong on those two bars, I'm sure they are horribly wrong on the rest. Not to mention, I could care less what the subsidies cost. How much do corn subsidies cost to make ethanol for gas. How much do farm subsidies cost to make your soy milk (guessing here) for your latte.

---

Ethanol is an added cost for gas.
Also, an EV user is way more likely statistically to be a soy milk latte person over an ICE guy. So your joke is just bad and you should feel bad lol.

---

Not the EV owners I know.

Fact is, it costs me way, way less to drive my EV than it does to drive my ICE vehicle. It's not even close. No amount of useless bar graphs is going to counter truth. There are legitimate arguments to be made for EV versus ICE, but costs to drive and maintain clearly favor EV.

---

Fact is a car bought for $4k that runs on gas will cost way less than any EV. It is great that you are well off enough that your choice of car is $50k ICE or a $50 EV. There isn't a used EV car for less than $5k. Because the batteries destroy the resale value. So there is an implied significant capital upfront cost for modest savings over the life of the vehicle (especially when you factor in battery replacement schedules).

Also just wait for demand for batteries to sky rocket (which would increase EV ownership cost and new vehicle cost). Wait for energy demand increases causing an increase of EV charging and all other Energy costs increasing (so all energy utilities going up by 10% will be an absorbed cost by everyone not just individual EV owners).

slaughtr said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

---

My residential charging costs don't costs me anywhere close to those first two bars, so this is already a lie. After that, why would I care about the other bars?

---

The first figure is the actual cost to charge, the second figure is the accumulation of charging infrastructure for Level 2 chargers and the energy losses in charging the battery and lost efficiency due to variations in temperature. They claim conservative calculations when they actually use the maximum.

---

It costs me less than $10 to fully charge my car, so less than 75 cents per gallon equivalent. If you look at my mileage in cold weather, you can add another 20 cents per gallon to that. It cost me $300 to pay an electrician to put in a 240 V plug, so almost nothing over the life of the car. Since the table is so horribly wrong on those two bars, I'm sure they are horribly wrong on the rest. Not to mention, I could care less what the subsidies cost. How much do corn subsidies cost to make ethanol for gas. How much do farm subsidies cost to make your soy milk (guessing here) for your latte.

---

I'm not making the argument. I'm explaining theirs. It's probably the least ridiculous portion of their report. It's a combination of public Level 2 charging infrastructure normalized over all of the vehicles that will theoretically be sold (i.e. more expensive installations than your residential charger) and the loss of efficiency relative to EPA standards in extreme weather (below freezing due to issues with batteries at those temperatures/needing to heat them, above 95 degrees due to A/C use). In other words you're driving fewer miles during those periods and having to more frequently charge for $10 than you would based upon the EPA range calculations.

They're also not utilizing Texas electric rates, but national average for the first figure. So you're getting $.18 per kWh in their calculation rather than the 12-13 we get in Texas.

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

---

My residential charging costs don't costs me anywhere close to those first two bars, so this is already a lie. After that, why would I care about the other bars?

---

The first figure is the actual cost to charge, the second figure is the accumulation of charging infrastructure for Level 2 chargers and the energy losses in charging the battery and lost efficiency due to variations in temperature. They claim conservative calculations when they actually use the maximum.

---

It costs me less than $10 to fully charge my car, so less than 75 cents per gallon equivalent. If you look at my mileage in cold weather, you can add another 20 cents per gallon to that. It cost me $300 to pay an electrician to put in a 240 V plug, so almost nothing over the life of the car. Since the table is so horribly wrong on those two bars, I'm sure they are horribly wrong on the rest. Not to mention, I could care less what the subsidies cost. How much do corn subsidies cost to make ethanol for gas. How much do farm subsidies cost to make your soy milk (guessing here) for your latte.

---

Ethanol is an added cost for gas.
Also, an EV user is way more likely statistically to be a soy milk latte person over an ICE guy. So your joke is just bad and you should feel bad lol.

---

Not the EV owners I know.

Fact is, it costs me way, way less to drive my EV than it does to drive my ICE vehicle. It's not even close. No amount of useless bar graphs is going to counter truth. There are legitimate arguments to be made for EV versus ICE, but costs to drive and maintain clearly favor EV.

---

Fact is a car bought for $4k that runs on gas will cost way less than any EV. It is great that you are well off enough that your choice of car is $50k ICE or a $50 EV. There isn't a used EV car for less than $5k. Because the batteries destroy the resale value. So there is an implied significant capital upfront cost for modest savings over the life of the vehicle (especially when you factor in battery replacement schedules).

Also just wait for demand for batteries to sky rocket (which would increase EV ownership cost and new vehicle cost). Wait for energy demand increases causing an increase of EV charging and all other Energy costs increasing (so all energy utilities going up by 10% will be an absorbed cost by everyone not just individual EV owners).

---

You buy $4,000 cars?

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

---

My residential charging costs don't costs me anywhere close to those first two bars, so this is already a lie. After that, why would I care about the other bars?

---

The first figure is the actual cost to charge, the second figure is the accumulation of charging infrastructure for Level 2 chargers and the energy losses in charging the battery and lost efficiency due to variations in temperature. They claim conservative calculations when they actually use the maximum.

---

It costs me less than $10 to fully charge my car, so less than 75 cents per gallon equivalent. If you look at my mileage in cold weather, you can add another 20 cents per gallon to that. It cost me $300 to pay an electrician to put in a 240 V plug, so almost nothing over the life of the car. Since the table is so horribly wrong on those two bars, I'm sure they are horribly wrong on the rest. Not to mention, I could care less what the subsidies cost. How much do corn subsidies cost to make ethanol for gas. How much do farm subsidies cost to make your soy milk (guessing here) for your latte.

---

Ethanol is an added cost for gas.
Also, an EV user is way more likely statistically to be a soy milk latte person over an ICE guy. So your joke is just bad and you should feel bad lol.

---

Not the EV owners I know.

Fact is, it costs me way, way less to drive my EV than it does to drive my ICE vehicle. It's not even close. No amount of useless bar graphs is going to counter truth. There are legitimate arguments to be made for EV versus ICE, but costs to drive and maintain clearly favor EV.

---

Fact is a car bought for $4k that runs on gas will cost way less than any EV. It is great that you are well off enough that your choice of car is $50k ICE or a $50 EV. There isn't a used EV car for less than $5k. Because the batteries destroy the resale value. So there is an implied significant capital upfront cost for modest savings over the life of the vehicle (especially when you factor in battery replacement schedules).

Also just wait for demand for batteries to sky rocket (which would increase EV ownership cost and new vehicle cost). Wait for energy demand increases causing an increase of EV charging and all other Energy costs increasing (so all energy utilities going up by 10% will be an absorbed cost by everyone not just individual EV owners).

---

This is not how economics work FYI. Just because demand increases does not mean prices increase. It's actually usually the opposite. You have a flawed understanding of the supply/demand curves in that you are utilizing a fixed amount of supply and increasing demand, when the reality is that supply generally increases in proportion to demand and there are fixed costs associated with producing that supply and when you spread those costs over a larger amount of supply and demand the prices actually fall. There are also inefficiencies in the extraction of materials and production of products that get understood as they are produced that reduce costs associated with the production of products. The first Model T produced sold for nearly $1000, the last one sold for $250 19 years later. That's not use a base comparison dollar value year, it's the at current time pricing, meaning the cost of the vehicle in reality dropped by more than 75%.

It's why battery demand has skyrocketed over the last decade and prices have fallen by 90%. That's the unit economics of why electric vehicles will supplant ICE vehicles, because the per kWh price of batteries has fallen dramatically, and is expected to fall by an additional ~50% over the next decade (internal to specific battery chemistries) in conjunction with improvements in density that allow cheaper raw material based batteries (LFP, non lithium sodium based) to be utilized in a wider array of applications as the energy density improves. So where you used to have to have a nickel based lithium battery to get 300 miles of range out of a vehicle, the vehicles released in the next 2 years will utilize LFP batteries and reduce the battery costs by 30%.

hph6203 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

---

My residential charging costs don't costs me anywhere close to those first two bars, so this is already a lie. After that, why would I care about the other bars?

---

The first figure is the actual cost to charge, the second figure is the accumulation of charging infrastructure for Level 2 chargers and the energy losses in charging the battery and lost efficiency due to variations in temperature. They claim conservative calculations when they actually use the maximum.

---

It costs me less than $10 to fully charge my car, so less than 75 cents per gallon equivalent. If you look at my mileage in cold weather, you can add another 20 cents per gallon to that. It cost me $300 to pay an electrician to put in a 240 V plug, so almost nothing over the life of the car. Since the table is so horribly wrong on those two bars, I'm sure they are horribly wrong on the rest. Not to mention, I could care less what the subsidies cost. How much do corn subsidies cost to make ethanol for gas. How much do farm subsidies cost to make your soy milk (guessing here) for your latte.

---

I'm not making the argument. I'm explaining theirs. It's probably the least ridiculous portion of their report. It's a combination of public Level 2 charging infrastructure normalized over all of the vehicles that will theoretically be sold (i.e. more expensive installations than your residential charger) and the loss of efficiency relative to EPA standards in extreme weather (below freezing due to issues with batteries at those temperatures/needing to heat them, above 95 degrees due to A/C use). In other words you're driving fewer miles during those periods and having to more frequently charge for $10 than you would based upon the EPA range calculations.

They're also not utilizing Texas electric rates, but national average for the first figure. So you're getting $.18 per kWh in their calculation rather than the 12-13 we get in Texas.

---

I get it, I just don't think it affects me. I don't use public charging stations, so their cost is of no concern to me. Where I live, my electricity is $.08-10 per KWh and almost entirely produced by hydroelectric power (with some geothermal). I don't get less mileage when it's hot, because A/C uses very little of my battery power. Cold definitely decreases the range, so I charge more often, but it still doesn't come anywhere close to that amount. And most of what their chart is trying to show is the hidden costs to all of society because of credits. I could care less. I've paid over $5,000,000 in Federal taxes over my lifetime. It's about time I get something back for it.

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

hph6203 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

---

My residential charging costs don't costs me anywhere close to those first two bars, so this is already a lie. After that, why would I care about the other bars?

---

The first figure is the actual cost to charge, the second figure is the accumulation of charging infrastructure for Level 2 chargers and the energy losses in charging the battery and lost efficiency due to variations in temperature. They claim conservative calculations when they actually use the maximum.

---

It costs me less than $10 to fully charge my car, so less than 75 cents per gallon equivalent. If you look at my mileage in cold weather, you can add another 20 cents per gallon to that. It cost me $300 to pay an electrician to put in a 240 V plug, so almost nothing over the life of the car. Since the table is so horribly wrong on those two bars, I'm sure they are horribly wrong on the rest. Not to mention, I could care less what the subsidies cost. How much do corn subsidies cost to make ethanol for gas. How much do farm subsidies cost to make your soy milk (guessing here) for your latte.

---

Ethanol is an added cost for gas.
Also, an EV user is way more likely statistically to be a soy milk latte person over an ICE guy. So your joke is just bad and you should feel bad lol.

---

Not the EV owners I know.

Fact is, it costs me way, way less to drive my EV than it does to drive my ICE vehicle. It's not even close. No amount of useless bar graphs is going to counter truth. There are legitimate arguments to be made for EV versus ICE, but costs to drive and maintain clearly favor EV.

---

Fact is a car bought for $4k that runs on gas will cost way less than any EV. It is great that you are well off enough that your choice of car is $50k ICE or a $50 EV. There isn't a used EV car for less than $5k. Because the batteries destroy the resale value. So there is an implied significant capital upfront cost for modest savings over the life of the vehicle (especially when you factor in battery replacement schedules).

Also just wait for demand for batteries to sky rocket (which would increase EV ownership cost and new vehicle cost). Wait for energy demand increases causing an increase of EV charging and all other Energy costs increasing (so all energy utilities going up by 10% will be an absorbed cost by everyone not just individual EV owners).

---

This is not how economics work FYI. Just because demand increases does not mean prices increase. It's actually usually the opposite. You have a flawed understanding of the supply/demand curves in that you are utilizing a fixed amount of supply and increasing demand, when the reality is that supply generally increases in proportion to demand and there are fixed costs associated with producing that supply and when you spread those costs over a larger amount of supply and demand the prices actually fall. There are also inefficiencies in the extraction of materials and production of products that get understood as they are produced that reduce costs associated with the production of products. The first Model T produced sold for nearly $1000, the last one sold for $250 19 years later. That's not use a base comparison dollar value year, it's the at current time pricing, meaning the cost of the vehicle in reality dropped by more than 75%.

It's why battery demand has skyrocketed over the last decade and prices have fallen by 90%. That's the unit economics of why electric vehicles will supplant ICE vehicles, because the per kWh price of batteries has fallen dramatically, and is expected to fall by an additional ~50% over the next decade (internal to specific battery chemistries) in conjunction with improvements in density that allow cheaper raw material based batteries (LFP, non lithium sodium based) to be utilized in a wider array of applications as the energy density improves. So where you used to have to have a nickel based lithium battery to get 300 miles of range out of a vehicle, the vehicles released in the next 2 years will utilize LFP batteries and reduce the battery costs by 30%.

---

Ah the classic if you increase demand it will reduce costs. Because their is an infinite supply of battery needed elements and they aren't all owned by China.

Currently less than 1% of cars are EVs. You are saying if you increase the battery demand by 100x the cost of batteries will go down.

Look Utility scale battery projects said for years that over time the battery costs would decrease making the project more economically. Using the same improved technology and building up of supply chain options. Guess what, 7 years later and the cost of utility scale battery projects hasn't really decreased.

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

---

EV's are a "luxury" savings only if you don't account for the higher upfront capital costs. So it is just a rich people $ savings because you would otherwise be buying some supped up turbo charged sports car. Not really applicable to most Americans.

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

---

EV's are a "luxury" savings only if you don't account for the higher upfront capital costs. So it is just a rich people $ savings because you would otherwise be buying some supped up turbo charged sports car. Not really applicable to most Americans.

---

My EV cost me 30% less than the turbocharged sports car it replaced. Why is what's applicable to most Americans of any concern to me?

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

---

EV's are a "luxury" savings only if you don't account for the higher upfront capital costs. So it is just a rich people $ savings because you would otherwise be buying some supped up turbo charged sports car. Not really applicable to most Americans.

---

A new Tesla Sedan is $39k. Thats $10k less than the average new vehicle price.

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

---

EV's are a "luxury" savings only if you don't account for the higher upfront capital costs. So it is just a rich people $ savings because you would otherwise be buying some supped up turbo charged sports car. Not really applicable to most Americans.

---

My EV cost me 30% less than the turbocharged sports car it replaced. Why is what's applicable to most Americans of any concern to me?

---

Because some people look at how "real" the savings are for people other then themselves before touting how great something is.

The proportion of electric vehicles over the last 10 years has more than ~13x'd in this country (higher increase across the globe as Europe and China are far ahead in the adoption rate) and the cost of batteries has fallen. The price of a Model S over the last 10 years has fallen by 16.7% not adjusted for inflation (i.e. real cost has fallen much faster) while improving it's range by ~33%. It's not "ahh the old" there have to be constraints in the supply chain for the costs not to fall, those constraints have not been realized and aren't expected to be realized in a significant degree over the next decade that would exceed the rate of reduction in costs achieved by improving the technology. There will obviously be lumpiness in the price reductions as there have been in the past (2021-2022 saw increases in prices due to global shutdowns, they have now normalized back to pre-pandemic pricing and are continuing to fall with improvements in energy density). It is not "infinite supply" that needs to occur, the acquirable supply just has to meet the rising demand. You are assuming shortages and that those shortages will be durable in perpetuity. There are articles that are written with respect to the lithium reserves and whether they are sufficient to meet demand, but what those articles won't tell you is that over the last ~8 years the known reserves have increased by ~85%. It's a funny thing about materials, when they demonstrate value and the demand is expected to exceed the supply people go looking for ways to increase supply to satiate that demand.

Here's an analysis of the lithium supply chain projections out to 2030. There is a projected shortfall in production relative to consumption based upon a shortfall of mining in the latter half of the decade. That is not a limitation on the lithium in the ground, but a limitation on the capacity to extract it. The demand rates are contingent upon battery prices falling, and they are also projected shortfalls without any supplementary battery production ramping up (Sodium-Ion, which is covered in the video, or physical forms of energy storage like liquid air or gravity batteries). For electric vehicle production, there is a projection of improving energy density and cycle life for LFP batteries, which cost less than NCM batteries and will reduce the price per kWh of batteries for the lower power requirement vehicles (Crossover SUVs, sedans, smaller SUVs) with NCMs being reserved for trucks/larger suvs/transport vehicles.



This is an analysis of the various battery chemistries that are already in, or going into production this year (NCM, LFP, LMFP, Sodium Ion)



Here's a look back at costs for grid storage 2015-2018, analysis done in 2020:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45596

Quote:

---

The average energy capacity cost of utility-scale battery storage in the United States has rapidly decreased from $2,152 per kilowatthour (kWh) in 2015 to $625/kWh in 2018.

---

Here's a follow up from 2022:
https://www.energy-storage.news/nrel-us-utility-scale-energy-storage-costs-grew-11-13-in-q1-2022/

Quote:

---

For standalone energy storage, NREL said that the costs benchmark grew 2% year-on-year for residential systems to US$1,503/kWh and 13% for utility-scale to US$446/kWh.

---

So from 2015 to 2022 the price fell from $2152/kWh to $446/kWh. Now consider the improvement in sodium-ion batteries, the underlying raw material cost reductions associated with that, and the associated cost reductions in grid storage. That is unlocked, in part, by better manufacturing processes learned through the production of batteries for EVs. Regardless, I don't expect grid energy storage to grow rapidly until sodium ion batteries start reaching mass production, which is going to take several years (provided they actually produce in the fashion they're currently projected to produce).

The scale of production of utility-scale storage has not achieved the same level relative to future demand that the EV business has (though both will grow significantly). So the rate of reduction hasn't been equivalent to the rate of reduction in EV battery packs.

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

---

EV's are a "luxury" savings only if you don't account for the higher upfront capital costs. So it is just a rich people $ savings because you would otherwise be buying some supped up turbo charged sports car. Not really applicable to most Americans.

---

A new Tesla Sedan is $39k. Thats $10k less than the average new vehicle price.

---

Because of subsidies and the fact that car manufactures pay substantial fines for ICE vehicles because of California.

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

---

EV's are a "luxury" savings only if you don't account for the higher upfront capital costs. So it is just a rich people $ savings because you would otherwise be buying some supped up turbo charged sports car. Not really applicable to most Americans.

---

A new Tesla Sedan is $39k. Thats $10k less than the average new vehicle price.

---

Because of subsidies and the fact that car manufactures pay substantial fines for ICE vehicles because of California.

---

That's without the tax credit. And the point you were making is that EV's are for the rich, not artificial pricing. It's now available for the average buyer and offers significant upfront and life cost savings compared to other ICE sedans.

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

---

EV's are a "luxury" savings only if you don't account for the higher upfront capital costs. So it is just a rich people $ savings because you would otherwise be buying some supped up turbo charged sports car. Not really applicable to most Americans.

---

My EV cost me 30% less than the turbocharged sports car it replaced. Why is what's applicable to most Americans of any concern to me?

---

Because some people look at how "real" the savings are for people other then themselves before touting how great something is.

---

I love how when it comes to EV's the notoriously conservative TexAgs forum suddenly only cares about the working man that needs $4,000 car.

I don't know if you could get one of those salvage wrecks heading to Laredo for $4k these days

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

---

EV's are a "luxury" savings only if you don't account for the higher upfront capital costs. So it is just a rich people $ savings because you would otherwise be buying some supped up turbo charged sports car. Not really applicable to most Americans.

---

A new Tesla Sedan is $39k. Thats $10k less than the average new vehicle price.

---

The average vehicle is not a sedan. That is not an appropriate comparison.

The average vehicle also doesn't have that level of acceleration, performance and tech.

That doesn't provide utility to a person who's just trying to get from point A to point B reliably. You're arguing a point against someone who is making the point about societal practicality and responding with how well the vehicle functions as a toy, which feeds into the argument they are making against you. That EVs are a cost savings to the rich, but a cost maximizer to the poor. You are making incongruent arguments.

I'll also point out that the vehicle you're using as the base price of an EV doesn't have a substantially faster 0-60 time than a V6 Toyota Camry, it has better instantaneous torque, but 0-60 is not that much better.

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

---

EV's are a "luxury" savings only if you don't account for the higher upfront capital costs. So it is just a rich people $ savings because you would otherwise be buying some supped up turbo charged sports car. Not really applicable to most Americans.

---

My EV cost me 30% less than the turbocharged sports car it replaced. Why is what's applicable to most Americans of any concern to me?

---

Because some people look at how "real" the savings are for people other then themselves before touting how great something is.

---

I love how when it comes to EV's the notoriously conservative TexAgs forum suddenly only cares about the working man that needs $4,000 car.

---

Sorry that I'm actually a conservative while you are an elitist liberal who doesn't care a bout the poor.

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Me, no. But people do drive cheap cars. You do realize not everyone makes $80k plus a year don't you?

---

And?

---

EV's are a "luxury" savings only if you don't account for the higher upfront capital costs. So it is just a rich people $ savings because you would otherwise be buying some supped up turbo charged sports car. Not really applicable to most Americans.

---

My EV cost me 30% less than the turbocharged sports car it replaced. Why is what's applicable to most Americans of any concern to me?

---

Because some people look at how "real" the savings are for people other then themselves before touting how great something is.

---

I love how when it comes to EV's the notoriously conservative TexAgs forum suddenly only cares about the working man that needs $4,000 car.

---

Sorry that I'm actually a conservative while you are an elitist liberal who doesn't care a bout the poor.

---

I guarantee you I'm as conservative (or more) than you. Just because I drive an EV doesn't make me a liberal.

Then your post doesn't make sense. Why the backhanded insult that conservatives don't actually care about the working class?

texagbeliever said:

---

Then your post doesn't make sense. Why the backhanded insult that conservatives don't actually care about the working class?

---

Because I'm an extreme conservative. And I don't give a hoot about poor people that can only afford a $4,000 car. They made their own mess, they can live with it. Nowhere else on TexAgs do you see all this lamenting about poor people. Don't be absurd.

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Then your post doesn't make sense. Why the backhanded insult that conservatives don't actually care about the working class?

---

Because I'm an extreme conservative. And I don't give a hoot about poor people that can only afford a $4,000 car. They made their own mess, they can live with it. Nowhere else on TexAgs do you see all this lamenting about poor people. Don't be absurd.

---

When it's forced by the government you see it all the time.

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Then your post doesn't make sense. Why the backhanded insult that conservatives don't actually care about the working class?

---

Because I'm an extreme conservative. And I don't give a hoot about poor people that can only afford a $4,000 car. They made their own mess, they can live with it. Nowhere else on TexAgs do you see all this lamenting about poor people. Don't be absurd.

---

No you are selfish. Don't confuse that with conservative.

slaughtr said:

---

I guarantee you I'm as conservative (or more) than you. Just because I drive an EV doesn't make me a liberal.

---

Seriously, I hate this attitude that so many of our fellow conservatives have.

Sometimes, the guy driving a Tesla just thinks it looks good and meets his personal driving needs.

Sometimes, the guy riding a bicycle just wants to get some exercise.

It doesn't automatically make them oil-industry-hating envirofascist left-wingers.

Quit assuming that people are bad just because they like something that's not a MAGA cultural stereotype.

texagbeliever said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Then your post doesn't make sense. Why the backhanded insult that conservatives don't actually care about the working class?

---

Because I'm an extreme conservative. And I don't give a hoot about poor people that can only afford a $4,000 car. They made their own mess, they can live with it. Nowhere else on TexAgs do you see all this lamenting about poor people. Don't be absurd.

---

No you are selfish. Don't confuse that with conservative.

---

You sound like a Commie pinko.