$174 Billion for electric vehicle investment

Discussion in 'Kia Niro' started by Texas Niro EV, Apr 2, 2021.

To remove this ad click here.

Do you support Biden's electric vehicle investment plan?

  1. Yes - I'm all in

    8 vote(s)
    100.0%
  2. No - EV investment is better handled by the market driven private sector

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. No - I don't believe in investing in electric vehicles

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Texas Niro EV

    Texas Niro EV Member

    That's right, Billion with a "B". Biden's transportation infrastructure plan includes $174 Billion for electric vehicle investment. We have all been impressed by what Volkswagen did/is doing with the $2 Billion they were required to spend because of the DieselGate settlement, the Biden plan intends to spend almost a HUNDRED times that much!!!

    I know the Biden money is going to be spread out in a lot of different segments, like tax credits and work station charging, but I'm very excited see what this plan produces. Remember that most of government money will be in the form of incentives so the actual electric vehicle investment as a result of the Biden plan, including government and private sector spending, may be well over a trillion dollars. If anything is ever going to end USA dependence on fossil fuels for transportation, this may well be it.

    I understand that much of Biden's plan will be geared towards getting people into EVs and helping them install home L2 chargers; I already have my Niro EV and a home L2 charger so that part is not of much interest to me right now. What I'm looking for is a dramatic expansion of CCS charging stations.

    I would like to see EVERY city in the USA have at least one CCS charger. The Electrify America chargers really open up long distance EV travel for me but I still have to zig-zag hundreds of miles out of my way to get to where I'm going. Having CCS chargers in every city would allow me to travel the straight routes on long trips that I have been traveling for over half a century.

    So, I'm opening this thread up for discussion. Where would you like to see the $174 Billion in electric vehicle investment spent?
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. I think workplace/condo parking lot EV charging should be a combination of (say 12 to 20) Level 1 free chargers (120 volt) for every Level 2 charger which would not be free. That would reduce peak loads and installation cost. Parking lots in cold areas --- ( say Sweden ) all ready have plugs to keep ICE car and trucks warm, so that they will start.

    I think fast chargers need to be installed in pairs at least. Riven private fast charge network in a stupid idea. If you want Bolt or Niro customer to pay more, OK. Riven/tesla owners are going to get dirty looks if they tie up a public fast charge network like EA or Charge Point, especially once these are developed with tax-payer funds.
     
  4. CR EV

    CR EV Member

    disclosure...keeping the Kia and have a Rivian R1T on order. Can't say that private networks are stupid from a marketing point of view. I do think that tax incentives or other means should be used to get Tesla, Rivian, and perhaps others to come to open up their networks. Charging stations should be like gas stations, you shouldn't have to worry about whether the nozzle will fit or whether they'll sell you what you need. If we want overall acceptance, we don't want a proliferation of standards.
     
  5. Recoil45

    Recoil45 Active Member

    People have no morals when it comes to passing debt onto future generations.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. CR EV

    CR EV Member

    John Oliver had a good discussion on national debt last Sunday...worth a look, if you can get it.
     
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. There should be and will be tax increases to pay for this, as well as usage fees. There has been plenty of support for the oil industry, actually it is still going on. Can't raise the gas tax, we would rather have poor roads and weak bridges. Look at the road and rail systems in Europe or China
     
  9. Texas Niro EV

    Texas Niro EV Member

    The generations that came before us gave use a transportation infrastructure based on fossil fuels. The price WE have had to pay for that fossil fuel transportation systems is war, air pollution and energy insecurity.

    If we can give to our grandchildren a world with cleaner air and an energy infrastructure based on reliable, inexhaustible, renewable energy, that's a debt I would gladly pass on to future generations.
     
  10. Recoil45

    Recoil45 Active Member

    We are actually capable of being energy independent right now.

    Going back to when the calendar said BC, there was no oil usage, cars or even electricity, yet we still had wars. EVs will not solve this. War is something that will continue to happen as long as humans live.

    I'd prefer to see a gradual shift that the economy can properly digest rather than one that risks our Economy and passes massive debt.

    A little less emotion would do you well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  11. Texas Niro EV

    Texas Niro EV Member

    Yeah, and how long is that going to last? Until some oil tycoon wants to double the price of oil again and cuts the supply, or until the next hurricane hits the gulf coast and oil production stops, or until the next big oil tanker runs aground and spills all of its' oil or how about until the air and water get so polluted from fossil fuels that we all just die off?

    What's a little war among friends, right? What are the millions of people that have died in oil wars in the last century alone in the grand scheme of things?

    This is exactly the kind of thinking that requires government to get involved in the first place. The path of least resistance is often the most dangerous path for society. How dirty does the planet have to get and how many people have to die from wars, air pollution and water pollution for you to feel comfortable?

    This one gets me the most. You make a statement that people that want to promote clean air and water and energy security have no morals and then you say that those people should not get emotional about your statement. When I think about all of the pain and suffering that all the wars, air pollution and water pollution that you are promoting would cause, I have to think that I am not nearly emotional enough.
     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. Domenick

    Domenick Administrator Staff Member

    That's a pretty sweeping statement, and I think some would say that not "greening" our energy production and transportation, etc, is also passing a debt onto future generations -- an environmental one that may be a lot more endangering that financial debt.

    I think it can be argued, and I believe proponents of this legislation are making the case that it can be paid for through a tax raise that's pretty modest, and that it's an investment in the future.

    This is something we're all going to see through different lenses. For some, it may be hugely emotional, and for others, not. We have to learn to accept that we are all coming from different places.

    I would just ask, as moderator, that we all stay civil and respectful of each other, even if we vehemently disagree with other's positions.
     
  14. Recoil45

    Recoil45 Active Member

    It's actually the democrats that want oil prices to rise not US oil companies.

    Again, War happens with or without oil. Millions die, that's life as humans. That is fact, that is history.

    My planet is clean. If you live in NYC or San Diego, I understand that you think we all live in filth.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  15. Recoil45

    Recoil45 Active Member

    It should not be emotional for anyone. Terrible decisions are made once thinking is switched from logic to emotions.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  16. Recoil45

    Recoil45 Active Member

    Link to where I want air and water pollution?

    I want clean air and water.

    I don't want debt shifted to my grand kids.

    I don't want manufacturing shifted to China to green the US just to put Americans out of work and have China pollute more than we would have if manufacturing stayed here. That is EXACTLY what the Paris Accord promotes. That is exactly what emotional decision making gets you.

    Again, a little less emotion would do you well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  17. Texas Niro EV

    Texas Niro EV Member

    Recoil45, I reject your alternative reality, none of the things you say are true. Your leanings are very evident so even to suggest that you care about future generations rings completely un-true.


    Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs
     
  18. Instead of attacking the poster, why not present your counter argument, and address his points? Many of us, incl myself have debated Recoil45 about some of his opinions on EVs and how they should be rolled out. But we didn't try to get him cancelled because of his views. On the contrary, it allowed us (and him) to clarify our reasoning, and perhaps raise the understanding of EVs and EV infrastructure for everyone.

    Recoil45's opinions about EVs are probably the view and current understanding of most people that don't own EVs today. Of course, most on this forum are believers, but we shouldn't shut out people that aren't.
     
  19. Texas Niro EV

    Texas Niro EV Member

    Recoil45 has made it pretty clear he is not interested in my opinions or knowledge and, from the sound of it, he has rejected the viewpoints of everyone's except his own. But feel free to banter with Recoil45. I will just sit back and watch the fireworks.
     
  20. I already have. But will leave you to support your own arguments. I would be interested in seeing that, too.
     
  21. Texas Niro EV

    Texas Niro EV Member

    Most democrats nowadays are living in under-privileged communities and the last thing they would want is higher gas prices. What American's want is clean air and water and a more stable energy infrastructure and are willing to pay a price for a better world.

    World War II and Gulf War I & II to mention a few were largely related to the control of oil. If we can end our dependence on oil isn't it worth if we can avoid the next Gulf War or World War?

    Your planet is by no means clean. Almost every major city in the USA is in non-attainment for air pollution. Even hundreds of miles away from population centers people are struggling from asthma as a result of elevated emissions, not to mention the problems caused by the loss of the ozone layer and elevated green house gas emissions.
     
  22. Texas Niro EV

    Texas Niro EV Member

    If you are worried about manufacturing going over to China, you are way too late. Manufacturing went to China decades ago and the move had nothing to do with air pollution or the Paris Accord. China is quickly outpacing the USA just due to the population size alone and is poised to leapfrog the vehicle emissions problems the USA has because they are heavily investing in electric vehicle infrastructure.
     
  23. Recoil45

    Recoil45 Active Member

    Even with energy independence you will have another world war. The two are not connected. We had major wars through history before oil was discovered. Even without solar, wind and battery the US could be energy independent NOW since we technically are, we just export a large amount of our oil for profit purposes.

    Do you think IRAN calling for the extermination of all Israelis is because of oil?

    Or the rhetoric from North Korea is due to oil?

    The next world war is likely due to a preemptive attack by Israel against Iran. Everyone driving a Tesla does not prevent this.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page