Fiat 500 Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Within a 4 year span Obama is trying to push for 1 million EV's(electric vehicles) on the roads of USA and it seems he has a way to reach this goal with a tax credit to EV owners of $7500 from what this website says: Obama’s budget plans to give cash to EV buyers

I'm staying away from EV's for now cause of the lack of resources. Where would you charge it??

Would a tax credit of $7500 make you more likley to buy a EV?

Who here thinks this is a bad idea? we are still in recession, stopping wasteful spending is needed to bring the economy back on it's feet. But do we worry about our economy? or our environment? its a hard decision.... lets here what you guys have to say about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
I think it is a bad idea because the physics just don't work. Oil is just too cheap. That is why we burn it as a fuel. In fifty years that will change but not today.

You are trading burning cheap oil and replacing it with burning coal to generate electricity. That is not going to do the environment much good. Oil would have to get to $250 a barrel for this to make any economic sense.

But if someone wants to kick out $40k pet car to help the technology advance I am all for that. I am not that keen on them having the taxpayer foot any portion of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
I think you mean that the economics don't work.

I agree that if you are just switching from burning equal amounts of oil to burning equal amounts of coal, then we're not going anywhere. Though I think that there are some economies of scale that are in effect when electricity from a central resource is used instead of each car burning its own oil, much as I hate to say it, I think the future is in nuclear electricity generation for electrical cars and/or cars powered by natural gas, with hydrogen a long way off (cars blowing up too easily I don't think will be accepted by consumers). That, or people step up to the plate and all start driving economical cars on their own (don't hold your breath).

As has been proven time and time again, if the government doesn't do something on a large scale, the population has been proven to act in their self-interest, a short-term view that would not serve the environment very well.

Fiatfan - if there are that many cars out there, don't you think that the charging stations would have to come? That would be one of my smallest concerns if electronic cars become more widespread. My issues would be more - what happens in an accident? There are some issues with the batteries and EMT people that have been documented. Also, how are the batteries recycled? That would be a lot of landfill. And the batteries themselves at this point really are the linchpin in all of this; if that is not improved, it's a technology that only can go so far currently.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
128 Posts
Well...

If the techonology won't support the products viability on it's own then the product should die. No matter what product it is. While I think the Chevy Volt is a step in the right direction having my tax dollars being given to car buyers of any kind, Cash for Clunkers comes to mind, while we are going deeper into a national debt it is just plain wrong.

Local, State and Federal government employees make up over 50% of the workforce. Do they create a product or make a profit? Nope. All they do is serve a function for the rest of us in the business world. They are now paid more than people in the private sector. We pay their wages from our taxes to serve a purpose.

My taxes don't need to help anyone buy a new car of any type for any reason.

People need to know you have to work, save and stay out of debit to survive in this economy.

Cash is King, Debit is death!

The USA is so deep in debit just to pay the interest on the National Debit takes 30% of our taxes each year and does not begin to repay the loans to China.

I'll get off the soapbox now.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Local, State and Federal government employees make up over 50% of the workforce. Do they create a product or make a profit? Nope. All they do is serve a function for the rest of us in the business world.
Oh, let's see - they teach the future employees/business owners of tomorrow, they make sure your business doesn't burn down or get robbed every day, they pave the roads that your customers drive on, and they also are a large component of your sales.

Painting them as the useless enemy of everything that is holy is a bit simplistic, isn't it?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
128 Posts
Soap box.....reality

Oh, let's see - they teach the future employees/business owners of tomorrow, they make sure your business doesn't burn down or get robbed every day, they pave the roads that your customers drive on, and they also are a large component of your sales.

Painting them as the useless enemy of everything that is holy is a bit simplistic, isn't it?

Nope!

The local, state and federal government is needed and welcomed. The problem is when they become more than what they are supposed to be and morph into a big money pit that is a problem. I would like them to get back to doing what the founding fathers wanted them to be and nothing else. As a society we have gone down hill since the government started giving out hand outs to "people in need" because it killed self reliance.

It used to be you bacame a government worker you expected to get less of a wage than the private sector but better benifits because if it. Now they game the system to become a "double dipper" in retirement. My 401K is tost because of the real estate mess. Mark to Market accounting rules created a paper tiger that is still killing many people. When the government tells me I cannot move my money in a fund and it is locked and I watch it be worth half of what irt was who do I sue? Nobody. If it was just the paper gain I would not feel so bad but it was principal I worked hard for that was lost. Somebody has my money and I get potholes in my roads. But here in California we are building sound walls to protect people from noise if you live next to a freeway. If you don't want noise then don't live there. If they spent the money on maintaining the roads it would help everyone.

The government is now in control of almost everything. I feel bad for my grandaughter and grandson........:mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
OK, please don't use public roads, air traffic controllers, public parks, telephones, or the internet, then, because the Founding Fathers didn't want or approve of investment in them, either.

Does that mean that you'll refuse SS funds, Medicare/Medicade, prescription drugs, etc., when the time comes, if it hasn't already? I appreciate your donation to reduce the deficit, then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
I think you mean that the economics don't work.

Well economics change. ie Obama could pay the entire amount for the car and then the economics would certainly work for me. He did this so my brother-in-law could put $50k worth of solar cells on his house and not have much of an electrical bill. You and I have to pay for his electrical bill but he does not. The economics work-for my brother in law.

The laws of physics apply to all of us equally-no negotiation can help. The physical laws don't change much. Our understanding and ability to manipulate them change but the laws of nature are pretty much set.

Sooo... to get an equivalent amount of energy out of a battery as is in a gallon of gas costs roughly 1000 times more. This will change over time but it is unlikely it will ever be viable.

Sooo. Let's just store the power in a battery and call it an electric car. A Fiat 500 101 hp engine will take 75KWH of electricity and that would cost me $10.13 at my current rate of $.135 per kwh.

My present car has 270HP and that would take 205KWH or $27.70 worth of electricity to fill up with electricity.

But lets face it I am not using all 270 Hp nor will I need the entire 101 hp of the Fiat. At least not all of the time.
So I am going to guess that I will use 25 hp so my $10.13 of electric charge is going to last me four hours. Then I will need a recharge. If I charge it up in one hour it will strain my existing home electric supply so I will do it over four hours. Then I can drive for another four hours and go roughly 40 miles per hour costing me about $.06 per mile. My 270HP car gets 20 miles per $3.25 gallon of gas or $.16 per mile. So obviously the physics work. Well except that the electric car cost 2 times what my gas car costs but that could change (economics). Or if I use the all of the Fiat's horsepower in which case it my $10.13 of electricity will be gone in 1 hour and my cost to really have fun for 60 miles in that hour is..... drum roll please+ $.168 per mile. I love numbers.

But wait! My engine in my gas car is good for 200,000 miles and then it can be rebuilt for a couple of thousand and go another 200,000. My electric car is good for 700 recharges. Then it needs new or rebuilt batteries at $---?

If you recharge it every day, that is a new battery pack every 2 years. That is going to get expensive. Maybe we could bury all of the used batteries with the nuclear waste. I know we can recycle a lot of that stuff but we can recycle nuclear material but choose not to. You can make a call here as to what will happen. You can also guess where electrical rates are going to go once we start putting it in cars. Just think what happened to food prices once we started burning our food supply in our automobiles.

And yes Prius batteries last a lot longer but they are constantly being recharged by a gas powered engine. And yes Pruius get 55 mpg or whatever number you want to believe but they are not putting out 101 BHP. If they put out more hp they would need more energy (physics)

So we have cheap oil available to us for the next 40 years. Solar and wind power are three times more expensive than oil power but progress is being made. But they have high maintenance costs and are obsolete every 10 years. We have coal available for 250 years but it is dirty. We have nuclear power available for 100 years but we are fearful of it. Cold fusion of hydrogen is 20 years away as it has been for 50 years.

So is Obama giving away $7500 per electric car a bad idea. Yes. Quite simply if he did not give that money away the $40,000 Volt would then cost $32,500. That is the same reason the government paid $50k for my brother-in-law's $25k worth of solar cells. If I believed he was a truly evil person I would say Obama is just paying off election debts to UAW.

Note: I don't know 1/10 of one percent about anything. But I did spend a night in a Holiday Inn once.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
So what do want to do in 40 years? A remake of "The Road Warrior", though I loved the hairstyles, doesn't really look like a viable alternative to me.

Honestly, I'm not wild about a huge tax credit either, but a moderate amount of R&D support from the gov't is warranted, imho. It's not like we can sit back on our collective *** and wait for the oil to dry up. And even if it doesn't, there are still environmental costs that should be factored in; if the technology gets developed where we get a cleaner alternative for somewhere in the ballpark of the dino juice amount (eventually), it would be prudent to do so.

The upcoming CAFE standards increase will make this whole issue a bit more "interesting". Maybe diesels will make a big comeback, especially with the piss injection they have now (MB, for example).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Well we are never going to be out of oil. In forty years we will be out of cheap oil. Then we can use nuclear, wind, solar or coal.

But that is not how I would fix the problem. I would simply put automobiles in the same pasture as horses. They would be great for recreation but of no practical purpose in daily life.

Unless you are driving to a job where you physically have to do something there is no real reason to drive to work. Most people leave their homes to sit in an office next to a computer and phone very similar to the one they had at home.

To paraphrase a person who was much smarted than me, "You can not use the same thought process to solve a problem as you use to create the problem."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
To paraphrase Maxwell house coffee...I just hope the first charge is as good as the 700th. I don't want day 700 to be dark and need the A/C on when the battery heats up.

Also, In California they can suck the power out of your car in a brown out and charge you a second time to charge it again. If you put a bunch of Solar panels on the roof they will still charge you for electricty if you put more power into the grid than when you take it out. You also still have to pay the taxes and fees for the power grid for what is generated by the panels and the Government will keep it that way. Your rate may go down but the taxes and fees will fill the cost back in and then some more to help others in Rural areas.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
128 Posts
So is Obama giving away $7500 per electric car a bad idea. Yes. Quite simply if he did not give that money away the $40,000 Volt would then cost $32,500. That is the same reason the government paid $50k for my brother-in-law's $25k worth of solar cells. If I believed he was a truly evil person I would say Obama is just paying off election debts to UAW.

Note: I don't know 1/10 of one percent about anything. But I did spend a night in a Holiday Inn once.

Well said except the Volt is $40,000 after the $7,500 gift from the government.

As for the Social Security, Medicare and lots of other things the USA did not have them unitl the 1930's and we did not have Medicare until the 1960's.

We have become are a nation of takers that
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,385 Posts
The government has no plan

The U.S. government does not know what to do about traffic. If you live long enough, we will have automatically regulated vehicles eventually. Your grandchildren will think it's a tall tale, that you had to risk your life every single time you drove your car somewhere!
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top