EV federal credit expansion?

[NocEdit]

Anyone want to place betting odds on a Biden EV federal credit expansion so that Tesla would somehow qualify for $10K federal EV credit again?

I feel like it would be a moot point because ELON would probably raise the price by close to $10K on the model 3. Otherwise I would click buy on the MODEL 3 the second that policy were approved. That would be under $25K for a model 3 after all the tax credits... they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand.

 

[marshall]

The maximum is $7,500 for the federal tax credit. I e-mailed my representatives to have them reinstate Tesla and GM using the currently unused credits. Both companies are putting Americans to work making EVs and deserve the assistance more than the foreigners.

Got my fingers crossed.

 

[marshall]

I don't think Tesla would raise the price of their vehicles. I don't think GM would either since they have to sell enough ZEVs/PHEVs to meet the ZEV states requirements.

 

[NocEdit]

I don't think Tesla would raise the price of their vehicles. I don't think GM would either since they have to sell enough ZEVs/PHEVs to meet the ZEV states requirements.

The price is too low for the MODEL 3... at sub $27K... there's not a single car on the market that's full EV that comes in at that price point with the features the MODEL 3 has. Even HYUNDAI.. know for cheap cars... sells the KONA EV for over $43K with pleather... bringing it to $33K.. still what would be $6-7K more expensive than a Tesla Model 3 partial premium. Tesla would probably raise the MODEL 3 price atleast $5-6K to keep it on par with the KONA after tax incentives... would make the shareholders happy with the increased profit. Tesla Model 3 sales would be backlogged for a year. And the way they would increase the price of the MOdel 3 would be by losing the partial premium option and adding more features for the entry model.. inflating the price that way. Phasing out the partial premium option altogether.

 

[marshall]

I guess we will see. If there is any price increase, it will come with a longer range vehicle. However, I think they will keep a lower range vehicle at the current price structure or even cut the cost even more using the new batteries.

But first of all they have get the tax credit back.

 

[Recoil45]

I have no doubt the Biden admin will bring a new tax incentive for EV buyers even though I disagree with the concept. Since it will happen despite my dislikes, I would like to see it only apply to someone’s first EV purchase, limit the credit to cars costing less than 40k including options, and required they prove it is their only vehicle. Providing a tax break for a Tesla model S to someone who also owns a Mercedes S class and a Escalade is just madness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marshall]

I have no doubt the Biden admin will bring a new tax incentive for EV buyers even though I disagree with the concept. Since it will happen despite my dislikes, I would like to see it only apply to someone’s first EV purchase, limit the credit to cars costing less than 40k including options, and required they prove it is their only vehicle.

We are getting close to the point where EVs won't need any tax credits, maybe in three to five years, but I don't think we are there yet.

I don't have any problem with putting a maximum on the MSRP. I would go up to $50,000 and make any tax credit balance carry over to subsequent years. I wouldn't place a limit on the number of credits, as this helps to place a number of used EVs on the market.

As far as disliking the tax credit, unless you are science denier, we have to do something now. Like the old Fram commercial said " You can pay me now or you can pay me later." The dollar numbers I've seen from property damage due to ocean rise are pretty staggering.

 

[Recoil45]

Why is it necessary to label me as a science denier?

I have no issue with EVs. I have an issue with creating a recession in a rush to get to even 50% of the cars on the road being EV. I also have a MAJOR issue pushing EVs with no corresponding plan to increase clean energy production, or even a plan to increase dirty energy production so we don’t end up with peak energy prices of .50 kWh.

Since I now feel an need to label you. I have major issues with emotional people who lack proper planning and vision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marshall]

I have no issue with EVs. I have an issue with creating a recession in a rush to get to even 50% of the cars on the road being EV. I also have a MAJOR issue pushing EVs with no corresponding plan to increase clean energy production, or even a plan to increase dirty energy production so we don’t end up with peak energy prices of .50 kWh.

I don't think that's going to much of an issue.

I'll see if I can find the paper, but if I remember correctly, our local power utilities said that wasn't a problem.

My apology for the labeling.

 

[SouthernDude]

I also have a MAJOR issue pushing EVs with no corresponding plan to increase clean energy production

There really doesn't need to be much of a plan to get more decarbonized energy. Wind and solar are just about to become the cheapest energy source available in the entire US market. The smartest thing to do is to not prematurely shut down nuclear power plants and to allow nuclear to compete as an energy source again.

 

[marshall]

The smartest thing to do is to not prematurely shut down nuclear power plants and to allow nuclear to compete as an energy source again.

The nuclear plants are old here in Washington state and need to be decommissioned.

Unfortunately, nuclear energy is expensive compared to wind, hydro and probably solar. The building of a couple of new ones had severe cost overruns; so severe, that they stopped building one of them. The history of building nuclear plants in Washington state hasn't been good either, think WPPSS Muni bond defaults.

Additionally, you still have the issue of nuclear waste that most folks don't want in their backyards, including Nevadans.

Some of the public utility districts here want to build small scale nuclear energy plants to replace the old ones, but again the cost of electricity is more expensive then the hydro and wind used now. I far as I can tell none of the new designs, including the Bill Gates design, has been approved by the regulators.

Nuclear energy is interesting, but it still has some severe economic and political head winds.

 

[bwilson4web]

From what I've read, it looks like small, molten salt reactors using thorium might be a good answer. They have high temperatures but low pressure. Steam is formed external to the reactor which improves safety and efficiency.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

The nuclear plants are old here in Washington state and need to be decommissioned.

Probably not. They probably have several decades left in them.

Unfortunately, nuclear energy is expensive compared to wind, hydro and probably solar. The building of a couple of new ones had severe cost overruns; so severe, that they stopped building one of them. The history of building nuclear plants in Washington state hasn't been good either, think WPPSS Muni bond defaults

Yes, this is generally true, but this is largely due to onerous, unnecessary regulations. New nuclear is banned in 14 states because of the non-issue of fuel rod waste. These states put together make up a huge share of the US electricity market. Since new nuclear is effectively shut out, we've lost the talent and knowledge base of building new plants, so they will always be more expensive until effective competition is allowed.

Additionally, you still have the issue of nuclear waste that most folks don't want in their backyards, including Nevadans.

Nuclear waste can be recycled, so there's no point in throwing it away.

Some of the public utility districts here want to build small scale nuclear energy plants to replace the old ones, but again the cost of electricity is more expensive then the hydro and wind used now. I far as I can tell none of the new designs, including the Bill Gates design, has been approved by the regulators.

You should check out Nuscale. They have been approved by the NRC and are planning on starting construction on a plant in the next few years. Not sure when though.

 

[Recoil45]

Probably not. They probably have several decades left in them.



Yes, this is generally true, but this is largely due to onerous, unnecessary regulations. New nuclear is banned in 14 states because of the non-issue of fuel rod waste. These states put together make up a huge share of the US electricity market. Since new nuclear is effectively shut out, we've lost the talent and knowledge base of building new plants, so they will always be more expensive until effective competition is allowed.



Nuclear waste can be recycled, so there's no point in throwing it away.



You should check out Nuscale. They have been approved by the NRC and are planning on starting construction on a plant in the next few years. Not sure when though.

The question is how long until the next Fukushima or Chernobyl?

How did the damage done by Fukushima/Chernobyl compare to the damage done by coal over the past 10 years?

I honestly don’t know that answer, but nuclear energy has certainly done massive damage to human health and the environment. You have to expect a repeat of history at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Recoil45]

From what I've read, it looks like small, molten salt reactors using thorium might be a good answer. They have high temperatures but low pressure. Steam is formed external to the reactor which improves safety and efficiency.

Bob Wilson

20-25 years away?

How does this help Tesla owners in CA who were asked not charge during the day this summer with next summer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marshall]

Nuclear waste can be recycled, so there's no point in throwing it away.

The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/nucle...-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx

Three cubic meters still needs to be safely stored somewhere. Perhaps the issue is a bit overblown, but the Nevadans didn't seem to want it.

 

[marshall]

Probably not. They probably have several decades left in them.

The nuclear power plant is nearing 40 years here in Washington state. As such, that is pretty close to their expected life.

I guess the main issue with operating past the designed lifespan is how well the plant is being maintained and how well the potential trouble issues are readily observable. Plus, if you have to cut costs to compete with other cheaper sources of electricity, will these plants get the maintenance they need to stay safe? So far so good. I guess we will see.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think

 

[urquattro83]

Anyone want to place betting odds on a Biden EV federal credit expansion so that Tesla would somehow qualify for $10K federal EV credit again?

I feel like it would be a moot point because ELON would probably raise the price by close to $10K on the model 3. Otherwise I would click buy on the MODEL 3 the second that policy were approved. That would be under $25K for a model 3 after all the tax credits... they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand.

Federal tax credit applies to vehicle purchase-price of $45,000 or less, so please don't compare vehicles that will not qualify for any credit, thank you.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Inside EVs mobile app

 

[SouthernDude]

The question is how long until the next Fukushima or Chernobyl?

How did the damage done by Fukushima/Chernobyl compare to the damage done by coal over the past 10 years?

I honestly don’t know that answer, but nuclear energy has certainly done massive damage to human health and the environment. You have to expect a repeat of history at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The use of coal has released way more radioactive material into the environment than Fukushima and Chernobyl and nobody ever talks about it. Weird isn’t it?

The impacts of Chernobyl are highly exaggerated. People can live in the exclusion zone now without any issues really. There are locations around the world that have levels of background radiation that are several times higher than the global average background radiation and there’s no discernible health impacts from it.

Which is worse: another Chernobyl or climate change? Obviously climate change right?

I’m not joking when I say this, but environmentalists being against nuclear energy has by far destroyed the credibility of the environmental movement in they eyes of the movement’s critics.

 

[SouthernDude]

The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/nucle...-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx

Three cubic meters still needs to be safely stored somewhere. Perhaps the issue is a bit overblown, but the Nevadans didn't seem to want it.

The issue is massively overblown. There are all sorts of ways to deal with the waste. You can imbed the waste material in a chemically inert substance and store it just about anywhere.

If you don’t want someone to get it for nefarious purposes, just imbed the waste in this material and drop it in a spent oil/gas well. It’ll go way down in the earth and be inaccessible to any baddies. Plus you can put a concrete cap on the well to seal it off.