Demand is a thing. You can't wish the country to wanting 100% EV's.
It is embarrassing what he is insisting ... that 90% of the cars by 2030 will be EVs. Just embarrassing. How many Americans can even afford a $60,000 car? I would say 85% can't afford a $60,000 or even higher. But he keeps saying 90% of Americans will be driving EVs in a few years. It is comical.
90% will have a plug. Not necessarily all will be fully electric.
This will happen. It's already starting to look like we could get there even sooner than 2030.
Fat Hurts, to follow up what I touched on before. 1/3 of people driving cars live in apartments. You are saying 90% of cars sold will be EVs. No. 1 - the people living in apartments - 1/3 of car drivers - like NONE are able to pay $70,000 for an EV now. So that takes your 90% down to 67% MAX. We have so many other issues that we begin at 67% and work downwards. And it ain't pretty.
EVs don't cost $70,000. You can up a new one for under 30K. Used ones go for even less. And that's today. In 2030, the price will go even lower as economies of scale kick in.
Apartments will start to offer charging as an amenity. Many already do. Installing chargers is cheap and easy. There is plenty of time between now and 2030 to see the changes happen. And they will.
If gas prices stay this high, sales of gas-powered cars will continue to plummet. What we see now is that people are willing to put in an order and wait for over a year to get an EV. So we could continue to see overall car sales decline steeply while sales of EVs go up as fast as they can make them.
So you are saying that EVs which are pretty expensive now will be much lower than $30,000 in 8 years? YOu are actually saying that you will be able to buy a Tesla for around $24,000 in 2030? Seriously? YOu can buy a Tesla for $24,000 8 years from now? So roughly the equivalent of buying one for $17,000 now.
Fat Hurts, to follow up what I touched on before. 1/3 of people driving cars live in apartments. You are saying 90% of cars sold will be EVs. No. 1 - the people living in apartments - 1/3 of car drivers - like NONE are able to pay $70,000 for an EV now. So that takes your 90% down to 67% MAX. We have so many other issues that we begin at 67% and work downwards. And it ain't pretty.
EVs don't cost $70,000. You can up a new one for under 30K. Used ones go for even less. And that's today. In 2030, the price will go even lower as economies of scale kick in.
Apartments will start to offer charging as an amenity. Many already do. Installing chargers is cheap and easy. There is plenty of time between now and 2030 to see the changes happen. And they will.
If gas prices stay this high, sales of gas-powered cars will continue to plummet. What we see now is that people are willing to put in an order and wait for over a year to get an EV. So we could continue to see overall car sales decline steeply while sales of EVs go up as fast as they can make them.
Installing chargers is cheap and easy? It can cost thousands of dollars depending on how constrained an individual's current service is. Additionally, once a few people on a block upgrade their service, it requires an upgrade to the electrical infrastructure serving the neighborhood and on and on and on. Eventually, the cost of the necessary infrastructure upgrades falls on the general rate payers, much like the $7,500 per car subsidies fall on the general tax paying public. What makes them "cheap" is that much of the cost is borne by others.
EVs don't cost $70,000. You can up a new one for under 30K. Used ones go for even less. And that's today. In 2030, the price will go even lower as economies of scale kick in.
Apartments will start to offer charging as an amenity. Many already do. Installing chargers is cheap and easy. There is plenty of time between now and 2030 to see the changes happen. And they will.
If gas prices stay this high, sales of gas-powered cars will continue to plummet. What we see now is that people are willing to put in an order and wait for over a year to get an EV. So we could continue to see overall car sales decline steeply while sales of EVs go up as fast as they can make them.
Installing chargers is cheap and easy? It can cost thousands of dollars depending on how constrained an individual's current service is. Additionally, once a few people on a block upgrade their service, it requires an upgrade to the electrical infrastructure serving the neighborhood and on and on and on. Eventually, the cost of the necessary infrastructure upgrades falls on the general rate payers, much like the $7,500 per car subsidies fall on the general tax paying public. What makes them "cheap" is that much of the cost is borne by others.
Please don't infuse facts into the conversation. Fat Hurts lives in La La land, aka Fantasy Land, and all will be fine and dandy.
No, you're simply 100% wrong. The consensus of, at a minimum, the Executive Branch of the U.S. government and the U.S. Senate is that Russia interfered with the 2016 election.
And secondarily, why would you not WANT to believe that? Think that Putin's really a good guy? Think that there is a conspiracy of career government employees to make Putin and Trump look bad? A conspiracy of REPUBLICAN Senators to make Putin and Trump look bad?
Oh, BUT you used the word "collusion" instead of "interfered with," or something else, so I guess that gives your argument some shred of credibility. It doesn't.
And that interference amounted to roughly $58 in Facebook ads.
Russia has tried to interfere with every US election since World War 2. Only morons think this was something new in 2016 just because of the scary orange man.
Russians had ZERO impact on the election beyond sending morons into hysterics.
Who was talking about impact? We weren't. But you were getting your a** kicked, like usual, regarding the issue at hand (Were the Russians trying to do it?), so you moved the goalposts.
About history, you make incredibly bad/stupid arguments about CURRENT events, and you think that any of us are going to trust you on your knowledge of Russian election interference going back to WW2? Right. Oh, and it's irrelevant, to boot.
If the transition to EVs happens too fast, the legacy automakers go out of business. Those auto executives are not planning to make the switch that fast, so they are reporting about their own plans.
But the pure EV makers are going to continue taking more market share from the makers of gas guzzlers.
The 60% growth is very impressive. The total US sales for EVs in Q1 2022 was over 208,000. If you just assume total sales for the year at 4x that you get 832,000 for all of 2022. At 60% growth, we would hit 100% of all US sales in 2027 or 2028.
You think like a child.
Demand is a thing. You can't wish the country to wanting 100% EV's.
Demand is indeed a thing. And it is unbelievably strong for EVs. For some models, orders are already backed up for 2 to 3 years.
And the demand for EVs just keeps getting stronger and stronger, especially with high gas prices.
By 2030, it won't be economically viable to manufacture most models of gas cars. The profit margins are razor thin as it is. When demand drops, those profits vanish.
And that interference amounted to roughly $58 in Facebook ads.
Russia has tried to interfere with every US election since World War 2. Only morons think this was something new in 2016 just because of the scary orange man.
Russians had ZERO impact on the election beyond sending morons into hysterics.
Who was talking about impact? We weren't. But you were getting your a** kicked, like usual, regarding the issue at hand (Were the Russians trying to do it?), so you moved the goalposts.
About history, you make incredibly bad/stupid arguments about CURRENT events, and you think that any of us are going to trust you on your knowledge of Russian election interference going back to WW2? Right. Oh, and it's irrelevant, to boot.
Good job.
I love how every time you hear a fact it's literally the first time you've ever heard it in your life...
Why are you so opinionated when you've clearly put so little thought into any of the topics you're pretending to care about??
EVs don't cost $70,000. You can up a new one for under 30K. Used ones go for even less. And that's today. In 2030, the price will go even lower as economies of scale kick in.
Apartments will start to offer charging as an amenity. Many already do. Installing chargers is cheap and easy. There is plenty of time between now and 2030 to see the changes happen. And they will.
If gas prices stay this high, sales of gas-powered cars will continue to plummet. What we see now is that people are willing to put in an order and wait for over a year to get an EV. So we could continue to see overall car sales decline steeply while sales of EVs go up as fast as they can make them.
Installing chargers is cheap and easy? It can cost thousands of dollars depending on how constrained an individual's current service is. Additionally, once a few people on a block upgrade their service, it requires an upgrade to the electrical infrastructure serving the neighborhood and on and on and on. Eventually, the cost of the necessary infrastructure upgrades falls on the general rate payers, much like the $7,500 per car subsidies fall on the general tax paying public. What makes them "cheap" is that much of the cost is borne by others.
Wrong. My electric company was so happy that I got an EV, they gave me a $400 check as incentive for installing a charger.
Why did they do that? Because they know I will be using a lot more electricity for many years to come. The upgrades to infrastructure are paid by the people who use electricity instead of gasoline.
It is embarrassing what he is insisting ... that 90% of the cars by 2030 will be EVs. Just embarrassing. How many Americans can even afford a $60,000 car? I would say 85% can't afford a $60,000 or even higher. But he keeps saying 90% of Americans will be driving EVs in a few years. It is comical.
90% will have a plug. Not necessarily all will be fully electric.
This will happen. It's already starting to look like we could get there even sooner than 2030.
Who was talking about impact? We weren't. But you were getting your a** kicked, like usual, regarding the issue at hand (Were the Russians trying to do it?), so you moved the goalposts.
About history, you make incredibly bad/stupid arguments about CURRENT events, and you think that any of us are going to trust you on your knowledge of Russian election interference going back to WW2? Right. Oh, and it's irrelevant, to boot.
Good job.
I love how every time you hear a fact it's literally the first time you've ever heard it in your life...
Why are you so opinionated when you've clearly put so little thought into any of the topics you're pretending to care about??
I almost certainly didn't hear a fact. I read another stupid post from a nasty, child-like intellect who thinks that he distracts from that obvious fact by constantly using immature diminutives on everyone else (actual adults).
99.99% of America knows nothing about the history, or not, of Russian election interference. And you are almost certainly not in the .01. And AGAIN, irrelevant, anyway.
Putin tried to help Trump in 2016. You love Trump (spare us your denial). So you deny Putin tried to help Trump. Loser.
Installing chargers is cheap and easy? It can cost thousands of dollars depending on how constrained an individual's current service is. Additionally, once a few people on a block upgrade their service, it requires an upgrade to the electrical infrastructure serving the neighborhood and on and on and on. Eventually, the cost of the necessary infrastructure upgrades falls on the general rate payers, much like the $7,500 per car subsidies fall on the general tax paying public. What makes them "cheap" is that much of the cost is borne by others.
Wrong. My electric company was so happy that I got an EV, they gave me a $400 check as incentive for installing a charger.
Why did they do that? Because they know I will be using a lot more electricity for many years to come. The upgrades to infrastructure are paid by the people who use electricity instead of gasoline.
They gave you $400 because you will be using more electricity and they are pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit on the power they sell you. The utility doesn't mind the infrastructure upgrades because they are guaranteed to make a profit on the infrastructure upgrades. Everyone else that buys electricity from your utility will be forced to pay for the infrastructure upgrades whether they have an electric vehicle or not.
I love how every time you hear a fact it's literally the first time you've ever heard it in your life...
Why are you so opinionated when you've clearly put so little thought into any of the topics you're pretending to care about??
I almost certainly didn't hear a fact. I read another stupid post from a nasty, child-like intellect who thinks that he distracts from that obvious fact by constantly using immature diminutives on everyone else (actual adults).
99.99% of America knows nothing about the history, or not, of Russian election interference. And you are almost certainly not in the .01. And AGAIN, irrelevant, anyway.
Putin tried to help Trump in 2016. You love Trump (spare us your denial). So you deny Putin tried to help Trump. Loser.
Now the pedophile lover is calling other people nasty...
YOU being ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is as well hero.
Our democracy will likely cease to be a real democracy in 2024, until the m’agas get bored of trump and move on to something else. the Republicans will simply not accept losing, and with that, we lose our democracy. It won’t be a dictatorship…it will be full of cheating and biased judges and non -competitive elections. All because of. Donald j trump.
Doug Mastriano, projected by @NBCNews to be PA’s GOP nominee for governor, pushed for a resolution to toss out Biden’s 2020 win in PA. He would be tasked with certifying PA’s 2024 election results.
Why did Democrats help him win, if he was a threat to democracy?
2) Democrats helped engineer Mastriano’s win. One of the most fascinating things we read last night was our colleagues’ back and forth on the POLITICO live blog about how Mastriano’s rise can be partly attributed to Democrats. Viewing him as the easiest Republican to defeat in the general, Shapiro and the state Democratic Party sent out mailers boosting him, our Holly Otterbein noted, helping him rise above other GOP candidates, including former Rep. LOU BARLETTA (R-Pa.).
Our democracy will likely cease to be a real democracy in 2024, until the m’agas get bored of trump and move on to something else. the Republicans will simply not accept losing, and with that, we lose our democracy. It won’t be a dictatorship…it will be full of cheating and biased judges and non -competitive elections. All because of. Donald j trump.
Doug Mastriano, projected by @NBCNews to be PA’s GOP nominee for governor, pushed for a resolution to toss out Biden’s 2020 win in PA. He would be tasked with certifying PA’s 2024 election results.
Why did Democrats help him win, if he was a threat to democracy?
2) Democrats helped engineer Mastriano’s win. One of the most fascinating things we read last night was our colleagues’ back and forth on the POLITICO live blog about how Mastriano’s rise can be partly attributed to Democrats. Viewing him as the easiest Republican to defeat in the general, Shapiro and the state Democratic Party sent out mailers boosting him, our Holly Otterbein noted, helping him rise above other GOP candidates, including former Rep. LOU BARLETTA (R-Pa.).
yeah I would have left that part out. it's a big gamble.
similarly, there is talk about Dems pushing trump to be the GOP nominee in 2024 because they see him as beatable by anyone with a pulse.
but I don't think Americans are smart enough to make pro-democracy decisions like that.
I mean they are about to hand the country back to Republicans after Republicans brought us the dot com crash, 9/11, the iraq war, the afghan war, terrible performance during COVID, the great financial crisis, the first non-peaceful transfer of power, help from Putin to get elected, every recession in 30 or 40 years, etc.
we will reelect trump because we get the government we deserve and we deserve to lose our democracy after this.
Wrong. My electric company was so happy that I got an EV, they gave me a $400 check as incentive for installing a charger.
Why did they do that? Because they know I will be using a lot more electricity for many years to come. The upgrades to infrastructure are paid by the people who use electricity instead of gasoline.
They gave you $400 because you will be using more electricity and they are pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit on the power they sell you. The utility doesn't mind the infrastructure upgrades because they are guaranteed to make a profit on the infrastructure upgrades. Everyone else that buys electricity from your utility will be forced to pay for the infrastructure upgrades whether they have an electric vehicle or not.
The extra electricity they sell from EVs will more than pay for the upgrades. We are about to see a massive shift of revenue from oil and gas companies to electric utilities.
If you are worried about new technology that actually could drive up electric utility costs, we can look at solar. As more people install solar at home, the utility sells less electricity. But they still have the same infrastructure cost. Some of this is addressed through extra fees on grid-connected solar systems.
The real nightmare scenario is when a number of homes and businesses are able to use solar and batteries to go off-grid completely. Then the wealthy each have their own little private electric company while the rest have to pay more for the reduced economies of scale.
Why did Democrats help him win, if he was a threat to democracy?
2) Democrats helped engineer Mastriano’s win. One of the most fascinating things we read last night was our colleagues’ back and forth on the POLITICO live blog about how Mastriano’s rise can be partly attributed to Democrats. Viewing him as the easiest Republican to defeat in the general, Shapiro and the state Democratic Party sent out mailers boosting him, our Holly Otterbein noted, helping him rise above other GOP candidates, including former Rep. LOU BARLETTA (R-Pa.).
yeah I would have left that part out. it's a big gamble.
similarly, there is talk about Dems pushing trump to be the GOP nominee in 2024 because they see him as beatable by anyone with a pulse.
but I don't think Americans are smart enough to make pro-democracy decisions like that.
I mean they are about to hand the country back to Republicans after Republicans brought us the dot com crash, 9/11, the iraq war, the afghan war, terrible performance during COVID, the great financial crisis, the first non-peaceful transfer of power, help from Putin to get elected, every recession in 30 or 40 years, etc.
we will reelect trump because we get the government we deserve and we deserve to lose our democracy after this.
I don't think we can blame Republicans for the dot com crash. That was caused by stupid people throwing money at stupid business plans.
fine, drop that one. whatever. the list of disasters presided over by Republican presidents is long enough to drop that and still have a very long list.
replace it with getting out of the iran deal and basically encouraging iran to go nuclear, while keeping iranian oil off the market. double whammy of dumkopfery.
