Electric Vehicles

[stile99]

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.

[CloudDeckMedia]

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?

[stile99]

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.

[Bellaboo]

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

[stile99]

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.

[ChargerAg]

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.

[mkjeeves]

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.

[d-usa]

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?

[chuck5815]

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...efficient-cars

[FighttheGoodFight]

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.

[stile99]

https://consumerist.com/2017/09/22/t...superchargers/

[HOT ROD]

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.

[stile99]

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?

[chuck5815]

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.

[corwin1968]

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

[Thomas Vu]

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

[WitWhy]

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.

[stile99]

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

[HOT ROD]

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)?. ....

[WitWhy]

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/2015/0...rs-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

[HOT ROD]

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?

[Bits_Of_Real_Panther]

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...

[Thomas Vu]

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.

[mkjeeves]

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...2017-us-sales/

[tfvc.org]

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.