Not your father's "End of Suburbia"...



All fossil-fuel vehicles will vanish in 8 years in twin ‘death spiral’ for big oil and big autos, says study that’s shocking the industries
This speedy revolution, a Stanford economist says, will be driven by technology, not climate policies — and while his timing may be off a few years, there is little doubt about the direction

No more petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will be sold anywhere in the world within eight years. The entire market for land transport will switch to electrification, leading to a collapse of oil prices and the demise of the petroleum industry as we have known it for a century.

This is the futuristic forecast by Stanford University economist Tony Seba. His report, with the deceptively bland title Rethinking Transportation 2020-2030, has gone viral in green circles and is causing spasms of anxiety in the established industries.

It is a twin “death spiral” for big oil and big autos, with ugly implications for some big companies on the London Stock Exchange unless they adapt in time.

The long-term price of crude will fall to US$25 a barrel. Most forms of shale and deep-water drilling will no longer be viable. Assets will be stranded. Scotland will forfeit any North Sea bonanza. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela will be in trouble.

It is an existential threat to Ford, General Motors, and the German car industry. They will face a choice between manufacturing EVs in a brutal low-profit market, or reinventing themselves a self-drive service companies, variants of Uber and Lyft.

They are in the wrong business. The next generation of cars will be “computers on wheels”. Google, Apple, and Foxconn have the disruptive edge, and are going in for the kill. Silicon Valley is where the auto action is, not Detroit, Wolfsburg, or Toyota City.

The shift, according to Seba, is driven by technology, not climate policies. Market forces are bringing it about with a speed and ferocity that governments could never hope to achieve.

“We are on the cusp of one of the fastest, deepest, most consequential disruptions of transportation in history,” Prof Seba said. “Internal combustion engine vehicles will enter a vicious cycle of increasing costs.”

The “tipping point” will arrive over the next two to three years as EV battery ranges surpass 200 miles and electric car prices in the US drop to $30,000. By 2022 the low-end models will be down to $20,000. After that, the avalanche will sweep all before it.

“What the cost curve says is that by 2025 all new vehicles will be electric, all new buses, all new cars, all new tractors, all new vans, anything that moves on wheels will be electric, globally,” Prof Seba said.

We are on the cusp of one of the fastest, deepest, most consequential disruptions of transportation in history

Seba’s premise is that people will stop driving altogether. They will switch en masse to self-drive electric vehicles (EVs) that are ten times cheaper to run than fossil-based cars, with a near-zero marginal cost of fuel and an expected lifespan of 1 million miles.

Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership. The rest will adapt to vehicles on demand. It will become harder to find a petrol station, spares, or anybody to fix the 2,000 moving parts that bedevil the internal combustion engine. Dealers will disappear by 2024.

Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond. There will be a “mass stranding of existing vehicles”. The value of second-hard cars will plunge. You will have to pay to dispose of your old vehicle.

http://business.financialpost.com/tr...g-the-industry

His time line is probably off by a decade or more but otherwise probably not so much.

i definitely think the market is headed in that direction but 8 years for 'every vehicle' to transition from internal combustion sounds more like some economist's wish than reality.

LOL at the article. Hell i'll hold out if nothing else.

I usually keep vehicles 12-15 years, my Tesla Roadster being an exception at 5. I'm about to swap a couple into new ICE or hybrids and do not expect to have problems finding gas for the lifetime I own them. His timeline was 2020-2030. As I said, he's probably off by a decade or two but we'll see. I'd guess maybe 95% of the cars on the road flip every 15 - 20 years, two generations would be 2040's-2050's. I can sure see it happening where most of the cars two flips out would be electric, unless there is a major disruptive accelerator that speeds that up.

Aren't electric vehicles fossil fuel vehicles? I mean, where do they think that electricity comes from? Unicorns? A majority of it comes from coal.

JLR announced today that their entire lineup will be EV or hybrid starting in 2020.

Volvo already has announced that, for 2019.

Honda will offer their entire lineup as EV or hybrid by 2020, but will still sell traditional cars.

The UK and France are banning the sale of IC cars by 2040. Now the devolved Scottish government is aiming for the same thing by 2032.

JLR and Volvo are relatively small potatoes in the market, but the writing is on the wall. I think the language in the article is a little over the top, and the timeline is ambitious, but it will happen. It's just a matter of time.

Aren't electric vehicles fossil fuel vehicles? I mean, where do they think that electricity comes from? Unicorns? A majority of it comes from coal.

Coal is 30% of electricity generation in the U.S., a close second behind natural gas. Coal is about 25% in the EU, in third place behind renewables (as a group) and nuclear.

Coal is 30% of electricity generation in the U.S., a close second behind natural gas. Coal is about 25% in the EU, in third place behind renewables (as a group) and nuclear.

According to this site: https://oaspub.epa.gov/powpro/ept_pack.charts coal is nearly 39% and gas is 27.5% followed by nuclear at 19.5% nationally.

According to this site: https://oaspub.epa.gov/powpro/ept_pack.charts coal is nearly 39% and gas is 27.5% followed by nuclear at 19.5% nationally.

Not that I don't trust your link but I can't get it to show national stats, only local ones. Is there a more specific link?

Here was my source:

"Natural gas was the source of about 34% of U.S. electricity generation in 2016. In addition to burning natural gas to heat water for steam, it is also burned to produce hot combustion gases that pass through a gas turbine, spinning the turbine's blades to generate electricity.

Coal was the second-largest energy source for U.S. electricity generation in 2016—about 30%. Nearly all coal-fired power plants use steam turbines. A few coal-fired power plants convert coal to a gas for use in a gas turbine to generate electricity."

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states

Not that I don't trust your link but I can't get it to show national stats, only local ones. Is there a more specific link?

Here was my source:

"Natural gas was the source of about 34% of U.S. electricity generation in 2016. In addition to burning natural gas to heat water for steam, it is also burned to produce hot combustion gases that pass through a gas turbine, spinning the turbine's blades to generate electricity.

Coal was the second-largest energy source for U.S. electricity generation in 2016—about 30%. Nearly all coal-fired power plants use steam turbines. A few coal-fired power plants convert coal to a gas for use in a gas turbine to generate electricity."

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states
Put in your zip, hit enter, then hit view report. It'll give you info on your region as well as national.

I agree with both points. 8 years seems a bit fast, but that said, it's all but a done deal. I think the US will be one of the last holdouts. As mentioned, some European countries are already banning the traditional engine, but I don't see the US doing that (regardless of which power is in office) any time soon. As long as both are made, both will continue to sell.

Once they start, the dominoes will fall fast, I just don't think the timeframe on that is within the next 8 years.

Coal is Number 1 in China, and second is not close...

Coal Total %
2004 1,713 2,200 78%
2007 2,656 3,279 81%
2008 2,733 3,457 79%
2009 2,913 3,696 79%
2010 3,273 4,208 78%
2011 3,724 4,715 79%
2012 3,850 4,937 78%
2013 4,200 5,398 78%
2014 4,354 5,583 78%
2015 4,115 5,666 73%
2016 3,906 5,920 66%[1]
excluding Hong Kong

I'm not sure about a transition in 8 years, especially if the price of oil is hovering around $25-30. Oil at that price is a fairly major incentive to hold on to an ICE vehicle.

The other elephant in the room is the cost of lithium, copper, and other rare metals in EVs. If demand for EVs does increase in line with the economist's view, those raw materials are going to become rather expensive. Not to mention, I think we'll see the price of natural gas climb as wind mills and solar farms alone will not create the type of capacity the grid needs to support all the new EVs.

Put in your zip, hit enter, then hit view report. It'll give you info on your region as well as national.

Thanks, now I see. EPA data is from 2014, EIA data is from 2016. Shows how quickly coal is shrinking - from 39% in the 2014 EPA source you cited to 34% in the 2016 EIA source I had. In fact, from 2014 to 2015 (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_01.html), coal generation dropped 14.5% (in mWh terms) and nat gas increased 18.4%. It appears coal now is not even a plurality of power generation in the U.S., much less a majority.

Lol

Thanks, now I see. EPA data is from 2014, EIA data is from 2016. Shows how quickly coal is shrinking - from 39% in the 2014 EPA source you cited to 34% in the 2016 EIA source I had. In fact, from 2014 to 2015 (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_01.html), coal generation dropped 14.5% (in mWh terms) and nat gas increased 18.4%. It appears coal now is not even a plurality of power generation in the U.S., much less a majority.
You may be right. I'm not even sure anymore. The EPA source page gives this info:
eGRID2014

Original Release: 1/13/2017
Revised Release (v2): 2/27/2017

Either way, it's still produced by a fossil fuel. People act like electricity is this magical power that produces no emissions.

Either way, it's still produced by a fossil fuel. People act like electricity is this magical power that produces no emissions.

Some of it is produced by fossil fuel. I think most people who can afford to buy a hybrid or EV know electricity in Oklahoma comes from natural gas, coal, wind etc, even if they don't really know what respective amounts. Same for people using other fuels elsewhere. This calculator breaks down the make up and CO2 emissions locally and nationally.

One might also consider comparing an ICE car running 100% gas is gonna be a 100% fossil fuel car until it's converted, running part ethanol, or scrapped, where an EV hitting the street today has two possible advantages on not being a 100% fossil fuel car for life plus are overall more efficient in using fuel and not polluting.

First, Oklahoma electricity is 25% wind. Second, it's possible that will continue to change over the life of the EV to a more favorable, more efficient, and cleaner source. It could go the other way too. Trump would like more coal in our life.

EVs, well to wheel, are twice as efficient as ICE cars. That means if there were a power plant running gasoline powered turbines you could run the gas through those turbines, make electricity, send it out to an EV and get twice the mileage as by putting the same gas in the tank of the car. We don't have gasoline powered turbines but people who study this do have comparisons for respective sources. Those comparisons take into account everything that happens from collecting, processing, converting, delivering the energy to the vehicle, and then moving the car down the road, thus, well to wheel. If we could move all transportation to EV and keep the sources the same, we could cut that part of our global energy consumption in half. That's reason enough to move that direction by itself IMO, even if the entire electricity supply were powered by fossil fuels.

Well to wheel is mentioned in the link too and reflected in the numbers, I believe. If we are running twice as efficient on the same fuel, or a similar fuel, not only are we using less fuel, we should be converting less of it into pollution of all types too.

https://s26.postimg.org/4uo9b7xll/fuel_comparison.png

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

It's about par for the course that all these sites that have been linked are government sites and should be official numbers but all of their numbers are vastly different.

Everyone is compiling from different reports with different dates I suppose. Here's a 2017 snapshot from the same site linked a few times upthread. It shows hydro and renewables used for electrical generation for Oklahoma are almost equal to Nat Gas.

https://s26.postimg.org/y1c6lhp2h/Oklahoma_Electricity_Profile.png

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OK#tabs-4

even if using fossil fuels for power generation, i'd think that power plants would have greater capablity to scrub emissions than thousands of individual vehicles.

^ this
Power plants, especially new generation power plants, are VASTLY cleaner and more efficient at turning fossil fuels into stored energy (via a battery or it floating through the grid) vs a multi stage process of distilling gasoline and diesel from crude, which creates a plethora of pollutants, bi-products, and waste, then putting into a car which can vary from super efficient like my '94 Honda that got 40mpg or super in inefficient like my '76 coup that got 9mpg and required lead additives to burn and release lest it damage the valve seats and start smoking even more. Modern cars are not exactly the smog disaster from decades past but we now have millions upon millions of more cars thanks to things like globalization, population, advancing 3rd world nations, and sprawl.

Probably most importantly, electricity is a cheaper source. And that doesn't take into consideration the supplemental supply of wind and solar, which gets more productive/efficient as time and demand goes on.

Let's also take into consideration all the fuel we use to MOVE fuel itself, it has to be tankered from the sea, trucked, etc to the distallation plant, then trucked or railed again to distribution centers, then trucked to filling stations.

I'm sorry for the long post, but the argument is a fallacy of the false dilemma. Yes most electricity comes from fossil in the same way some plastic comes from corn. Some plastic comes from corn and most plastic also comes from petroleum feedstocks. But corn also makes ethanol fuel and round and round it goes. The POINT is to do what is the most efficient, cleanest, and in the end the cheapest alternative. Shifting the auto industry to electric is more of an inevitability than one might think because the reality is they can be great cars when the only difference in ride/comfort/speed/built/reliability is the juice that make them go.

As soon as major manufacturers bring a $25,000 car similar to a Camry/accord/Altima/sonata in build to market that can charge from 0-100% on a 40amp 220 in 5 hours(or 90 minutes with special equipment) and go 300 miles on a charge. Essentially a $12 tank. People will flock to electric. It just makes sense. Not to mention! You can time it to charge overnight on smart hours and take advantage of that cheap wind energy making it $10 a tank. Were already almost there with the tesla model 3 at $35k. A company which is valued, not to be confused with WORTH, more than ford moco. I give it 10 years. Personally, my next major vehicle purchase will be the electric, I drove the tesla x, it also drove me autonomously, the hype is real.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not getting rid of any of my motorcycles my "Sunday driver" or any of my classic cars. They have a place, it ain't my daily commute. And the article is obviously dripping with sarcasm with lines like "you'll have to pay to dispose of your old vehicle." But it does make me wonder what it would cost to get insurance for a car (or rather the driver) that doesn't drive itself in a world driverless, accident free, automatons.

i definitely think the market is headed in that direction but 8 years for 'every vehicle' to transition from internal combustion sounds more like some economist's wish than reality.

It has been brought up in other discussions that the average time a care is used is around 20 years in the US (though may be through multiple owners), so 8 years is highly optimistic for the transition to be complete, especially since they are only around 2% sold today. Even if in a decade it did reach the vast majority of new cars sold being battery electric, we are still likely looking more around 30 years before most of the petroleum cars really would be phased out.

The only way I would drive an electric car is for at least 250 miles per charge, a charge time of less than an hour, and dozens of of nuclear plants being built to supply the electricity needed to charge millions of cars so we don't have rolling blackouts or a surge in electricity rates. In other words, it probably won't happen. Gasoline engines aren't going anywhere anytime soon. They have just too many advantages to them over electric cars.

I'm going to say two out of three ain't bad. I agree with the mileage, though I might bump it up to 300 miles range. That's just 5 hours of highway driving, but that's fine. On road trips I'm stopping within that timeframe anyway, if not for fuel for the car, then for a drink/snack/break for myself. Charge time is indeed and issue, and I'm going to say it needs to be way less than an hour. There are two options here, either a 20 minute quick charge or a 20 minute battery change. That's at the longest, I think the goal should be 10 minutes. I know people right now would say even 10 minutes is too long to refuel, but if we're being honest with ourselves it takes that long now if we're on a road trip and go in to get a drink/use the facilities. With the electric car, we would just leave it plugged in/have the battery changed while we do our thing.

As far as the nuclear though, I'm going to say I don't care. I have no special love for it and no special hate against it, I just think if we stopped playing around (especially in this state where we worship the oil and gas industry, much to our detriment) and focused on wind/solar a bit more we could build 'refueling stations' (which will still be called gas stations generations later with the third generation not knowing why) powered by one or both, which will be constantly charging the batteries THEY use to charge/replace ours.

I sometimes dream of it like a propane tank. It's universal, doesn't matter what grill you have it's the same tank, connected the same way. If electric cars had a battery like that you could just drive right up, disconnect your main battery, take it in to OnCue/WalMart/Walgreens/McDonalds and exchange it. You're back on the road by the time your fries are done.

How long does the battery last, how does the owner replace it, and how does he responsibly recycle it?

Well, if there were a refueling station on every corner, #1 would be entirely irrelevant. It could last one charge, who cares? Of course, if there's a refueling station on every corner, #2 is already answered as well. So the real question boils down to how does an owner recycle it.

And the answer is...he/she does not. In question #1 and #2 we've established there's a refueling station on every corner where one may charge/exchange batteries. So what happens to spent batteries should pretty much answer itself.

I wasn't clear in my question - I wasn't asking about the life of one charge, I was addressing the finite life of the battery/batteries. Assuming that they're like other rechargeable batteries - laptops, cellphones, appliances - they'll have a useful life span and then need to be replaced. Are they returned to the car manufacturers, or recycled like other batteries?

I understood you meant the life of the battery, my point was if it is as easily changed as simply fueling up with gas, it doesn't matter. One charge, 100 charges, 1000 charges, or if we put a time on it, one month, one year, one decade...none of it matters, just swapping it out.

Recycling will be on the manufacturer, who of course has a very vested interest in doing so. Again, assuming the scenario of a refueling station on every corner, the car owner just takes the battery there, as he/she does whenever it is time for a charge. When the refueling station determines the battery is no longer viable, it goes back. Much like the propane tank example, the grill owner does not care if the propane tank is no longer viable, it is not his/her concern.

My sister had their 8 year old Prius battery swapped out for the tune of $ 4,000.00.

I imagine the cost of the battery itself would be amortized over the lifetime, and then of course the cost of the electricity itself. So with that number, we're looking at $10/week would be the cost of the battery. So equating it to what we're familiar with now, we're looking at 4 or 5 gallons of gas. Throw in a couple more bucks for the equivalent of a gas tax (which I would think would be more on the electricity end) and that's 5 or 6 gallons. I'm really not looking at ownership if a 'specific' battery, but more of a swap and go type thing. I doubt that part of my dream will really play out though, I imagine the technology will go down the path of a quick charge for 250-300 miles thing, in which case the battery replacement probably would indeed be a large but rare one-time purchase. I think at one time Tesla was looking at a swap-out type thing, but last I knew they abandoned it in favor of the superchargers.

It'll be interesting to see how it does play out. One can only hope one lives long enough. One is not getting any younger.

I usually keep vehicles 12-15 years, my Tesla Roadster being an exception at 5. I'm about to swap a couple into new ICE or hybrids and do not expect to have problems finding gas for the lifetime I own them. His timeline was 2020-2030. As I said, he's probably off by a decade or two but we'll see. I'd guess maybe 95% of the cars on the road flip every 15 - 20 years, two generations would be 2040's-2050's. I can sure see it happening where most of the cars two flips out would be electric, unless there is a major disruptive accelerator that speeds that up.

you don't happen to drive the blue roadster I saw driving down main street in Norman a couple weeks ago? I was floored when i saw it. Before that time I thought I was lucky to see a Model S in Oklahoma.

you don't happen to drive the blue roadster I saw driving down main street in Norman a couple weeks ago? I was floored when i saw it. Before that time I thought I was lucky to see a Model S in Oklahoma.

Nope. The one I had was red. It left the state when I sold it. I've only seen a couple of other roadsters locally but have seen several Model S. They blend in.

Not really a point about the tech, but as electric vehicles go forward we need to figure out a way to address the funding mechanism to replace fuel taxes.

GPS/mileage based taxes would be the best option for the future I think, but how many people want big government to know their driving habits?

Not really a point about the tech, but as electric vehicles go forward we need to figure out a way to address the funding mechanism to replace fuel taxes.

GPS/mileage based taxes would be the best option for the future I think, but how many people want big government to know their driving habits?

It looks like some states have started charging fees to offset the gas tax revenues lost because of increased EV usage. these strike me as a bit inefficient since they are, in most cases, quite low (Georgia's is the only fee that seems like a realistic substitute for a gas tax). i'd prefer for EV users to pay an alternative gas tax based on the amount of electricity consumed by the subject vehicle. this would be easy to determine at a so-called electricity "filling" station. but the problem, of course, is determining how much of the user's home electricity is being directed to the vehicle. it's easy to see why states aren't really interested in playing that game--at least at this point.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/05/05/amid-gas-tax-revenue-decline-new-fees-on-fuel-efficient-cars

you don't happen to drive the blue roadster I saw driving down main street in Norman a couple weeks ago? I was floored when i saw it. Before that time I thought I was lucky to see a Model S in Oklahoma.

At my polling station in Norman I saw three model s's and two model xs. They are a lot more common if you keep an eye out. I think I have only ever seen one roadster in OKC/Norman Area.

https://consumerist.com/2017/09/22/tesla-thinks-about-building-convenience-stores-around-superchargers/

interesting points about taxes but I have a few more that none of you are considering.

wife owns an EV and there's nothing short about the taxes we pay. Example, to acquire the vehicle we spend a pretty penny compared to a comparable gasoline vehicle, by that I mean more than $15,000.00. We WERE taxed on this and the marginal tax we paid would likely cover a comparable vehicle's fuel tax for many years. Next example, we do pay taxes on our electricity usage - this might not be gas tax and pound-for-pound definitely is not the same as gas tax given the efficiency of EV; but we do pay tax for the use of electricity; it isn't (always) free.

Even not considering the above that likely fails to be acknowledged, why should we be penalized for owning a hyper efficient, high technology vehicle that itself doesn't pollute and even if you consider our electricity usage; there's no comparison to what gas vehicles emit. I also suspect most gas vehicles weigh more and there surely are far more gas and diesel vehicles than EV; so why is there whining about our not paying fuel taxes?

Final point, EVs typically would not be driven the same way as petro vehicles. Sure, EVs get great torque and can out accelerate petro vehicles but doing so depletes the energy reserve. Therefore, we tend to drive EVs much more conservatively which would mean less taxes IF we were to be compared to a petro vehicle's tax bill.

Considering all of the above, there's no way to fairly tax an EV considering the much higher initial cost and tax paid, the hyper efficiency of the 'fuel' used, the 'culture' of EVs and EV drivers that they'd never use as much fuel as petro vehicles to even justify a comparable tax, and that EVs likely are lighter than comparable petro vehicles and certainly are much less amount of them to even be a conversation.

One final thought, do you want to put a tax on miles? Well again, petro vehicles would still pay more given the range they have compared to EVs. ... So please don't penalize technology.

There's a reason it's not being discussed, and that's because the numbers simply don't pay out. First, let's demolish the very very false assumption that sales tax pays for the roads, and demolish the claim that even if it did, it would cover the fuel tax of a 'regular' vehicle.

So you said you paid more than $15,000 over the price of a regular car, and suggest that the additional sales tax on that would cover fuel tax for 'many years'. Well, let's say 100% of that was tax. $15,000 is the number we're looking at. How many is 'many years'? The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon (not even considering states here, just the federal). So we're looking at just slightly over 800 gallons of fuel. Let's continue to give you the advantage and make it 1000.

1000 gallons of fuel. So how long does THAT last? The average MPG is a touch over 25, so let's say 30. So there we are, 30,000 miles.

You're saying your sales tax on $15,000 should cover the fuel tax on a regular car for many years, but it doesn't even outlast the tires. And that's with assuming the tax WAS the $15,000 and only counting the federal tax. Oklahoma, while the average citizen might disagree, is stupidly low on their fuel tax, only 4 states have lower. If we added the 17 cents per gallon for Oklahoma (technically, it's 16+1) that would make 35.4 the number we should be using. This cascades through the other calculations of course, it would cover about 425 gallons of fuel, again giving you the advantage say 500. Divided by the 30 MPG and we're now at 15,000 miles. Again, we're assuming you paid tax OF $15,000, not ON $15,000, and that this sales tax is a fuel tax, which it is not.

So when you say it likely fails to be acknowledged, that's because we don't acknowledge Nibiru destroying the Earth yesterday, and for the same reason. You then say " the 'culture' of EVs and EV drivers that they'd never use as much fuel as petro vehicles to even justify a comparable tax". Are you seriously suggesting EV owners will not drive their vehicles more than 15,000 miles?

Roads will still need to be paid for, regardless of the type of vehicle on them. The suggestion that you paid more sales tax so you should be immune to fuel tax is just mind-boggling. And then you say if we went to a per-mile tax, regular vehicles will pay more than electric, but this is penalizing technology. How, precisely, is paying less a penalty?

There's a reason it's not being discussed, and that's because the numbers simply don't pay out. First, let's demolish the very very false assumption that sales tax pays for the roads, and demolish the claim that even if it did, it would cover the fuel tax of a 'regular' vehicle.

So you said you paid more than $15,000 over the price of a regular car, and suggest that the additional sales tax on that would cover fuel tax for 'many years'. Well, let's say 100% of that was tax. $15,000 is the number we're looking at. How many is 'many years'? The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon (not even considering states here, just the federal). So we're looking at just slightly over 800 gallons of fuel. Let's continue to give you the advantage and make it 1000.

1000 gallons of fuel. So how long does THAT last? The average MPG is a touch over 25, so let's say 30. So there we are, 30,000 miles.

You're saying your sales tax on $15,000 should cover the fuel tax on a regular car for many years, but it doesn't even outlast the tires. And that's with assuming the tax WAS the $15,000 and only counting the federal tax. Oklahoma, while the average citizen might disagree, is stupidly low on their fuel tax, only 4 states have lower. If we added the 17 cents per gallon for Oklahoma (technically, it's 16+1) that would make 35.4 the number we should be using. This cascades through the other calculations of course, it would cover about 425 gallons of fuel, again giving you the advantage say 500. Divided by the 30 MPG and we're now at 15,000 miles. Again, we're assuming you paid tax OF $15,000, not ON $15,000, and that this sales tax is a fuel tax, which it is not.

So when you say it likely fails to be acknowledged, that's because we don't acknowledge Nibiru destroying the Earth yesterday, and for the same reason. You then say " the 'culture' of EVs and EV drivers that they'd never use as much fuel as petro vehicles to even justify a comparable tax". Are you seriously suggesting EV owners will not drive their vehicles more than 15,000 miles?

Roads will still need to be paid for, regardless of the type of vehicle on them. The suggestion that you paid more sales tax so you should be immune to fuel tax is just mind-boggling. And then you say if we went to a per-mile tax, regular vehicles will pay more than electric, but this is penalizing technology. How, precisely, is paying less a penalty?

not to mention, the guy who buys the $100K BMW 740i is still subject to paying fuel taxes. Just because someone chooses to buy a car that is much more expensive than average, doesn’t mean that purchase should be treated as some kind of pre-payment of fuel taxes. That’s just an absurd argument, especially if the initial purchase price of EVs begins to reach cost parity with ICE vehicles.

Speaking of electric vehicles, I got to test ride an e-bike (electric assist) yesterday and now I understand why people are calling them a game-changer. The bike measures your power output and then adds that much to the power going to the drivetrain, essentially doubling your work. The bike I rode was a mountain bike and by design, was limited to 20mph. A quick search shows that bikes meant for transportation seem to be set at 28mph. These bikes will go as fast you can pedal them but the power assist maxes it's ouput the bike hits 20 or 28 mph.

This video shows the same model I rode and my reaction was pretty much the same as these guys'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fAtNi2Nozc

I've heard endorsements for rad power bikes. Just throwing that out there for an e-bike option.

There's a reason it's not being discussed, and that's because the numbers simply don't pay out. First, let's demolish the very very false assumption that sales tax pays for the roads, and demolish the claim that even if it did, it would cover the fuel tax of a 'regular' vehicle.

So you said you paid more than $15,000 over the price of a regular car, and suggest that the additional sales tax on that would cover fuel tax for 'many years'. Well, let's say 100% of that was tax. $15,000 is the number we're looking at. How many is 'many years'? The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon (not even considering states here, just the federal). So we're looking at just slightly over 800 gallons of fuel. Let's continue to give you the advantage and make it 1000.

1000 gallons of fuel. So how long does THAT last? The average MPG is a touch over 25, so let's say 30. So there we are, 30,000 miles.

You're saying your sales tax on $15,000 should cover the fuel tax on a regular car for many years, but it doesn't even outlast the tires. And that's with assuming the tax WAS the $15,000 and only counting the federal tax. Oklahoma, while the average citizen might disagree, is stupidly low on their fuel tax, only 4 states have lower. If we added the 17 cents per gallon for Oklahoma (technically, it's 16+1) that would make 35.4 the number we should be using. This cascades through the other calculations of course, it would cover about 425 gallons of fuel, again giving you the advantage say 500. Divided by the 30 MPG and we're now at 15,000 miles. Again, we're assuming you paid tax OF $15,000, not ON $15,000, and that this sales tax is a fuel tax, which it is not.

So when you say it likely fails to be acknowledged, that's because we don't acknowledge Nibiru destroying the Earth yesterday, and for the same reason. You then say " the 'culture' of EVs and EV drivers that they'd never use as much fuel as petro vehicles to even justify a comparable tax". Are you seriously suggesting EV owners will not drive their vehicles more than 15,000 miles?

Roads will still need to be paid for, regardless of the type of vehicle on them. The suggestion that you paid more sales tax so you should be immune to fuel tax is just mind-boggling. And then you say if we went to a per-mile tax, regular vehicles will pay more than electric, but this is penalizing technology. How, precisely, is paying less a penalty?

i agree with what you're saying about not paying taxes, but your math is wrong. it will take 81,521 gallons of fuel to pay $15,000 in taxes at the federal 18.4 cents ($0.184)
it will take 42,372 gallons to pay $15,000 in taxes at the fed+state 35.4 cents ($0.354)
take the excise tax of 3.25% plus the new 1.25% sales tax on vehicles on that $15,000 to get $675. $675 equals 1906 gallons taxed at fed+state. 1906 gallons multiplied by 25 mpg is 47650 miles to pay the equivalent amount of fuel tax.

Oh bugger, I divided by 18, not .18, thanks for the correction! That's what I get for posting before coffee.

cost of the vehicle is more than $15K so the sales and excise tax is incorrectly computed. Also, I disagree with using 25 mpg; ev's are way more efficient than that, by at least a factor of 4. You also forgot about the taxation on the marginal increase in electricity used to fill-up an EV.

And even using the 47650 mile benchmark would mean E vehicles have prepaid tax for nearly 4 years for a comparable ICE vehicle. I wont argue about taxation in Oklahoma being stupidly low but that is not the case here in Washington - which is stupidly high. Sales tax is also quite a bit higher in Washington than Oklahoma I see and we have other hidden taxes beyond excise that OK likely doesn't.

Im not saying ev's shouldn't pay tax, I'm saying it's apple to oranges comparison because you can't tax based on mileage (since evs are far more efficient and non-polluting while being driven) and you can't at the e-pump (since there's already taxation added as a factor of electricity used) not to mention EV's wouldn't fill-up at the same volume of gasoline by comparison.

I also still argue that it takes an ICE vehicle paying fuel consumption tax much longer to catch-up to the marginal tax an E vehicle already paid that's built into its purchase. Does ICE eventually catch-up and pay more, sure. But ICE vehicles are also higher consumers of energy and pollute much more, so again you shouldn't penalize efficient use of energy at the same rate just because the outside still looks and drives like an ICE vehicle.

Finally, and this is something that likely only E vehicle owners could identify with - but you'd NEVER drive an E vehicle in the same way as an ICE vehicle nor does an E vehicle even begin to have the same range per fill-up. But this is the beauty of E-vehicles in that yes you fill up more and can't go as far on a tank but the E vehicle is so efficient that it only costs pennies by comparison for said fill-up.

Interesting tidbit: my wife drives to downtown Seattle every day from about 30 miles away and with her E Vehicle charging daily our electric bill increased only by around $6.00 per month to roughly $67. By comparison, I am 20 miles away from my office but I need $200.00 per month to essentially get to and from.

Can anybody in an ICE vehicle pay $6.00 and go for more than 1300 miles? Should my wife be penalized for being so efficient with her car? Now consider that I still pay our ridiculous fuel taxes anyway; should I pay double the 'fuel' taxes (when she didn't use not even a fraction as much)?. ....

cost of the vehicle is more than $15K so the sales and excise tax is incorrectly computed. Also, I disagree with using 25 mpg; ev's are way more efficient than that, by at least a factor of 4. You also forgot about the taxation on the marginal increase in electricity used to fill-up an EV.

And even using the 47650 mile benchmark would mean E vehicles have prepaid tax for nearly 4 years for a comparable ICE vehicle. I wont argue about taxation in Oklahoma being stupidly low but that is not the case here in Washington - which is stupidly high. Sales tax is also quite a bit higher in Washington than Oklahoma I see and we have other hidden taxes beyond excise that OK likely doesn't.

Im not saying ev's shouldn't pay tax, I'm saying it's apple to oranges comparison because you can't tax based on mileage (since evs are far more efficient and non-polluting while being driven) and you can't at the e-pump (since there's already taxation added as a factor of electricity used) not to mention EV's wouldn't fill-up at the same volume of gasoline by comparison.

I also still argue that it takes an ICE vehicle paying fuel consumption tax much longer to catch-up to the marginal tax an E vehicle already paid that's built into its purchase. Does ICE eventually catch-up and pay more, sure. But ICE vehicles are also higher consumers of energy and pollute much more, so again you shouldn't penalize efficient use of energy at the same rate just because the outside still looks and drives like an ICE vehicle.

Finally, and this is something that likely only E vehicle owners could identify with - but you'd NEVER drive an E vehicle in the same way as an ICE vehicle nor does an E vehicle even begin to have the same range per fill-up. But this is the beauty of E-vehicles in that yes you fill up more and can't go as far on a tank but the E vehicle is so efficient that it only costs pennies by comparison for said fill-up.

Interesting tidbit: my wife drives to downtown Seattle every day from about 30 miles away and with her E Vehicle charging daily our electric bill increased only by around $6.00 per month to roughly $67. By comparison, I am 20 miles away from my office but I need $200.00 per month to essentially get to and from.

Can anybody in an ICE vehicle pay $6.00 and go for more than 1300 miles? Should my wife be penalized for being so efficient with her car? Now consider that I still pay our ridiculous fuel taxes anyway; should I pay double the 'fuel' taxes (when she didn't use not even a fraction as much)?. ....

you threw out the over $15,000 number so we used $15k. In Oklahoma you would have paid $675 more in taxes at purchase ($45,000 car = $2,025 in taxes... $30,000 car = $1,350 in taxes). According to the EPA (https://www.epa.gov/fuel-economy-trends/trends-report) the average US MPG is 24.8. So, the average ICE car will catch up to your prepaid tax in 47,269 miles which is about 3 to 4 years. The average length of ownership for a new car is over 6.5 years (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/29/Here-s-Why-Americans-Are-Keeping-Their-Cars-Longer-Ever). 6.5 years x 12,000 miles / 24.8 x $0.354 = $1113 in taxes. at 15,000 miles/yr = $1,391 in taxes. Count in the costs for oil and other fluid changes, which are taxed and will offset the taxes you pay for the electricity, ICE cars pay more in taxes than EV's

because ICE cars are less efficient and require more lubes to operate.

still is not an apples to oranges comparison and therefore you couldn't (and shouldn't) tax the same way.

There is a reason why not ever ICE vehicle has a gas guzzler tax but some do; I don't see people complaining about that but those guzzling vehicles consume more energy and resources to operate and therefore pay significantly more tax in the process. Should gas guzzler owners be complaining too?

One of the more interesting things about this discussion that sticks out to me to me is how a relatively recent upstart like Tesla can disrupt the traditional auto market. Its almost like there are 2 themes of disruption, one is the switch taking place from internal combustion to electric, the second is the big tech Silicon Vally co.'s (Uber/Lyft, Apple, Alphabet (a.k.a Google)) getting ready to take over the actual driving of the cars themselves process, whether with human drivers like Uber/Lyft(for now) or with autonomous driving systems like AAPL & GOOG

In the over 100k luxury auto segment, already Tesla captured the top spot when it comes to market share, kicking stalwarts like BMW and Mercedes in the nuts while they sat by complacent in their perceived dominance. Of course, now those two companies and the rest of the industry are in catch up mode, arguably with greater resources and more industry experience...

In the over 100k luxury auto segment, already Tesla captured the top spot when it comes to market share, kicking stalwarts like BMW and Mercedes in the nuts while they sat by complacent in their perceived dominance. Of course, now those two companies and the rest of the industry are in catch up mode, arguably with greater resources and more industry experience...

May I have a link supporting this? It's not that I don't believe you. A cursory search indicated to me that the only BMWs over 100k is their Alpina line, and for Mercedes its either a higher end S-Class or the Maybach.

I don't know about the 100K price point but here's this article:

Tesla Model S Crushes Large Luxury Car Competition (H1 2017 US Sales)

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/05/tesla-model-s-crushes-large-luxury-car-competition-h1-2017-us-sales/

One of the more interesting things about this discussion that sticks out to me to me is how a relatively recent upstart like Tesla can disrupt the traditional auto market. Its almost like there are 2 themes of disruption, one is the switch taking place from internal combustion to electric, the second is the big tech Silicon Vally co.'s (Uber/Lyft, Apple, Alphabet (a.k.a Google)) getting ready to take over the actual driving of the cars themselves process, whether with human drivers like Uber/Lyft(for now) or with autonomous driving systems like AAPL & GOOG

In the over 100k luxury auto segment, already Tesla captured the top spot when it comes to market share, kicking stalwarts like BMW and Mercedes in the nuts while they sat by complacent in their perceived dominance. Of course, now those two companies and the rest of the industry are in catch up mode, arguably with greater resources and more industry experience...

I think I said this before in a different thread months ago, but it makes me wonder what would have happened if GM actually embraced the EV1. I wonder what the electric car market and surrounding technology (especially battery and solar) would be like today. It feels like car technology has been at a snail's pace for years. Example, my 2014 center console and radio is very similar to my old 2008 car and the late 90s car I had before. Granted I don't have luxury vehicles either but still for the everyday driver the technology should improve through the years.

May I have a link supporting this? It's not that I don't believe you. A cursory search indicated to me that the only BMWs over 100k is their Alpina line, and for Mercedes its either a higher end S-Class or the Maybach.

http://www.barrons.com/articles/tesla-the-right-electric-vehicle-at-the-right-price-1504281072

In the over 100k luxury auto segment, already Tesla captured the top spot when it comes to market share, kicking stalwarts like BMW and Mercedes in the nuts while they sat by complacent in their perceived dominance. Of course, now those two companies and the rest of the industry are in catch up mode, arguably with greater resources and more industry experience...

Other than being north of 100k, Tesla S is not a full sized luxury car. The model S in size and appointments is closer to a mid sized luxury car. It is closer in size to a BMW 5 series than it is to a 7 series. Same with MB. The Tesla is closer to an E series than an S series. As far as the pricing goes, if you include the federal tax credit as well as any available state credits, the pricing is closer to a mid size luxury than full size.

Rivian (electric truck maker) went public yesterday and its market cap is already bigger than Ford or GM.

They have started producing trucks that are getting rave reviews.

Besides Telsa, Rivian and Lucid are coming hot out of the gate with excellent, somewhat ground-breaking products.


Will be very interesting to see if the traditional carmakers can keep up as the world switches to electricity in the next 10-20 years. The new Ford Mustang is promising, so that's a good sign.

Great news! Eventually, there will be enough supply to lower the prices. Just my thinking out loud, since I want to get an electric car soon!

Rivian (electric truck maker) went public yesterday and its market cap is already bigger than Ford or GM.

They have started producing trucks that are getting rave reviews.

Besides Telsa, Rivian and Lucid are coming hot out of the gate with excellent, somewhat ground-breaking products.


Will be very interesting to see if the traditional carmakers can keep up as the world switches to electricity in the next 10-20 years. The new Ford Mustang is promising, so that's a good sign.

The F-150 Lightning will sell like hot cakes. Ford was smart going with the truck as the other electric vehicle.

The F-150 Lightning will sell like hot cakes. Ford was smart going with the truck as the other electric vehicle.

I think that's right. As someone who powers my home with solar, I have a 300 lb. 10kWh battery in my garage. The F-150 sports bi-directional charging in that its battery would serve as part of my battery array when hooked up. It's an impressive 90kWh.

I think that's right. As someone who powers my home with solar, I have a 300 lb. 10kWh battery in my garage. The F-150 sports bi-directional charging in that its battery would serve as part of my battery array when hooked up. It's an impressive 90kWh.

oh wow... i hadn't thought of that... that's a great idea!

The F-150 Lightning will sell like hot cakes. Ford was smart going with the truck as the other electric vehicle.

Ford is on the right path. They sold out of electric crate motors.

Ford Eluminator e-crate motor sells out in days - Roadshow
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/ford-eluminator-e-crate-motor-sells-out-in-days/

What’s interesting is all of the electric vehicles that will soon be built in this region. Tesla will have a factory outside Austin, Rivian will have one outside Ft Worth and Ford will have one outside Memphis. Canoo has one planned for Pryor hopefully they can make that happen especially with all of the growth in this industry. I do think Oklahoma is well-positioned to benefit with its location and manufacturing workforce.

I think that's right. As someone who powers my home with solar, I have a 300 lb. 10kWh battery in my garage. The F-150 sports bi-directional charging in that its battery would serve as part of my battery array when hooked up. It's an impressive 90kWh.

Curious, have you had the occasion when the electricity goes out and the battery kicks in, how long does it last?