Most EVs Cost More to Drive Than Their Gas-Powered Rivals:

[IBDaMann]

Rightys have no problem with typing lies.

That's why we don't do it. We leave the lies, the disinformation, the baseless accusations and the general dishonesty to the leftists. In fact, you would be at the top of the list if you were even an inkling more intelligent than a doorknob. You nonetheless get bonus points for your OBEDIENCE to your slave-masters.

 

[Nordberg]

You have no problem citing empty platitudes and rhetoric, but hey...

I provide real evidence from respected sources. You rightys are just suckers for lies and anything that affirms your lies must be the truth. You guys are distressingly dishonest in discussions.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I provide real evidence from respected sources. You rightys are just suckers for lies and anything that affirms your lies must be the truth. You guys are distressingly dishonest in discussions.

No, you toss the same sort of half-assed, nonsense that the Left does about EV's from the same sort of half-assed sources. Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Consumer Reports, and the like are all highly valid sources. You just don't like what they have to say.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Whenever you are projecting future rates of return, you select a rate that you believe is reasonable. Oh look, the S&P 500 Index average yearly return over the last ten years (as of the end of June 2023) is 12.39%. Any rational adult considering investment options for, say, $22,000 would be wise to at least consider a projected value of 12.39% annual growth for an S&P 500 Index investment, and include that information amongst other considered options as a comparison figure. ]

That is some funny shit there. A "reasonable" (stupid) person might think that 12.39% growth over the last 10 years would mean the growth would be 12.93% over the next 20 years. Any rational adult who knows anything about investing would know that past returns over the previous 10 year period are not guaranteed over the next 20 years.

Let's look at why you are wrong to think 12.93% return is reasonable.

The average annualized return since its inception in 1928 through Dec. 31, 2022, is 9.82%.2 The average annualized return since adopting 500 stocks into the index in 1957 through Dec. 31, 2022, is 10.15%.3

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-annual-return-sp-500.asp
Clearly the market doesn't normally return 12.93% over long periods. Over the last 2 years, the S&P has returned an annualized rate of less than 3%.
(Let's see if you can actually calculate annualized rate of return. S&P - Up 28.75% in 2021 and then down 18.17% in 2022. $1000 invested on Jan 2 of 2021 would be worth $1053.56 on Jan 1 of 2023)

When it comes to inflation, 2.5% might seem reasonable but what was inflation the last 2 years? Was it that 2.5%?
What you think is reasonable isn't reality.

 

[gfm7175]

Are you sticking to your argument that my solar panels were not 100% fool proof as an investment?
Are you irrational for such an argument?

Your solar panels are not an investment at all. You are effectively pre-paying for many years of a utility expense.

Apples to cumquats. If you don't use the money to pay for my electricity then you are not making a valid comparison. You are simply claiming that by investing money I would then make more at my job. That is irrational.

You are not grasping what is happening, and idk how else to explain it to you, and IBD did a good job as well at trying to explain opportunity cost to you.

Poor Richard Saunders: Has $50K in a savings account. Withdraws $22K of it in order to purchase rooftop solar panels, leaving $28K remaining in the savings account.

gfm7175: Has $50K in a savings account. Withdraws $22K of it in order to make an investment of some sort (e.g. stock market), leaving $28K remaining in the savings account.

Poor Richard Saunders: The deferred expense for electric usage is realized as the months go by. (E.g, $22K -$100 = $21.9K -$100 = $21.8K -$100 = $21.7K, etc.)

gfm7175: The current expense for electric usage is realized as the months go by. (E.g., $100 +$100 = $200 +$100 = $300, etc.)

Poor Richard Saunders: My deferred electric expense amount is finally down to $0, and now I only have essentially worthless solar panels to show for it.

gfm7175: My electric expense amount has finally reached $22K, and now I have a large sum of investment income to show for it.

The premise was that the cost of solar panels would not pay for itself in savings.

It doesn't, as you ignore maintenance (and its costs), shortening the lifespan and reducing the performance of your panels.

I showed that it would.

You did no such thing.

Your attempt to start to require me to work to pay for electricity is what is the false premise.

What are you even talking about?

Why is my request irrational?

RQAA.

My savings on electrical bills will be more than the cost of the panels. My savings on electrical bills is 100% guaranteed. Your investments are not 100% guaranteed as I have shown from historical data.

When all is said and done, you are losing money. You've already been told why.

I can invest the $100 I would have paid per month for the next 20 years and will end up with more money then if I invested the money now and paid for electricity every month.

No you can't.

Since you are convinced I would make more money investing the $22,000 and then paying for electric bills, prove it. Give us your math.
Simple excel formula is =fv(rate,nper,pmt,[pv])

You've already been given it (by IBD).

Give us your numbers for investing 22,000 now and paying $100 a month for 20 years.

You've already been given it (by IBD), and the $100/month payment comes out of one's paycheck so it's not associated with the investment nor does it have to be withdrawn from the investment in order to pay for it. The investment came out to about $180K gross.

Give us your numbers if I pay 22,000 for solar and then invest the $100 I am saving every month for 20 years.

Investing the $100 extra that is remaining in your paycheck each month (due to not remitting a monthly electric payment, as it was all remitted up front from your savings account withdrawal) every month for the same 18 year period as IBD used for the prior calculation, at the same 12.39% rate that IBD used for the prior calculation, comes out to about $69.6K gross, which is much less than about $180K gross.

Why is this?? Because, in your case, each $100 amount is only earning a projected 12.39% for a varied portion of the full 18 year period, while in my case "each $100 amount" (aka the $22K lump sum all invested up front) is earning a projected 12.39% for the entire 18 year period.

Again, I'm very thankful that you are not an accountant, nor a financial planner/advisor, nor a business owner, nor a CFO, etc...

Tell us what rate of return after inflation would be required for solar to be a better option.

Then you will have to tell us what investment guarantees that constant rate for every month. (Hint - with inflation at 3%, the return would need to be 9%, 6% after inflation.)

Continued fixation on irrelevancies...

The problem you have gfm7175 is you can't actually do the math. I can.

Projection... RQAA.

I can also do the numbers based on historical market returns. Based on historical market returns there would be about a 20-25% chance that doing it your way would result in my not having enough money to pay my electrical bills in that 20 years.
Of course we are ignoring many factors, like my solar panels didn't cost $22,000. They cost less than $20,000 but I added on getting my electrical panel upgraded in anticipation of future needs. Then we aren't including the either money I get for having solar panels through tax rebates and utility payments, I got a $5,000 tax credit and then I also get $500 per year for 10 years from the utility company for being a renewable source allowing them to meet their requirements.

"we" are ignoring many factors?!?!?!?! hahahahahahahahaha

 

[gfm7175]

Rightys have no problem with typing lies. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/articles/saving-money-electric-vehicles

Lefties have no problem with typing parroted sales jargon.

 

[gfm7175]

I provide real evidence from respected sources.

No, you poorly regurgitate what your mind-masters program into you.

You rightys are just suckers for lies and anything that affirms your lies must be the truth. You guys are distressingly dishonest in discussions.

Projection.

 

[Nordberg]

No, you toss the same sort of half-assed, nonsense that the Left does about EV's from the same sort of half-assed sources. Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Consumer Reports, and the like are all highly valid sources. You just don't like what they have to say.

Consumer reports did studies on exactly what we talked about. I and my family have EVs and have real-life experience. You are just looking for someone, somewhere who is grinding the same fake axe you are. You cite Road and Track? You cite ICE publications. You have nothing.

 

[gfm7175]

Consumer reports did studies on exactly what we talked about.

Meh.

I and my family have EVs and have real-life experience.

Good for you and your family. If it works for you and them, then enjoy. Just don't force me to drive them.

You are just looking for someone, somewhere who is grinding the same fake axe you are. You cite Road and Track? You cite ICE publications. You have nothing.

 

[QP!]

Consumer reports did studies on exactly what we talked about. I and my family have EVs and have real-life experience. You are just looking for someone, somewhere who is grinding the same fake axe you are. You cite Road and Track? You cite ICE publications. You have nothing.

Yup.

I have yet to talk to someone unhappy with their Ev purchase. Most have now bought more than one.

Does that mean they are for everybody in every situation, no. BUt the Derps here seem to think if you can find examples when they are not great, that means they are never great nor good for anyone.


I maintain, at the current technology level, they are very suited to the vast, vast majority of the work commute populace as a primary or second car. And that is what automakers care about the most. They need the base of these 'average' vehicles to cover Op costs, and they make most of their profits off of SUV's trucks and other high end stuff (including some high end EV's).

And the tech will now start an exponential growth and improvement phase with so many Giant ICE manufacturers moving into full mass production of EV's. the technology now is hardly out of its Alpha stage launch if we want to call Elons first Tesla EV's that. We have made some small strides, but the big ones are just coming now with innovations in battery tech and other being pursued by massive VC money.

Every big and small advancement in EV's will be pursued, as if a sprint race, by VC money knowing those patents will be massively valuable with mass production licenses.

 

[IBDaMann]

A "reasonable" (stupid) person might think blah, blah, blah ....

So don't select that value then. I don't know what part of "you select a rate that you believe is reasonable" confused you, but it would seem that everything confuses you. You do not select a value that I claim is reasonable, you select a value that you think is reasonable. Then you select your projection for inflation. Am I speaking over your head?

... that 12.39% growth over the last 10 years would mean the growth would be 12.93% over the next 20 years.

Did you just now realize this? You are allowed to use whatever means you have available to project whatever you believe is a reasonable rate to expect. You can project individual yearly values if you wish, or individual quarters, or individual months. You get to decide but you have to decide. You can even run multiple values concurrently, e.g. "expected," "better than expected," "worse than expected," "bull market," "bear market," "best of times," "we get hammered," etc ...

Let's look at why you are wrong to think 12.93% return is reasonable.

There is no need. When you assign a projected rate of growth, your judgement is all that matters, not mine. When I do my calculations, I don't give a shit what you or anyone else thinks. You have to do your own math.

By the way, are you in denial about the S&P 500 Index's 10-year 12.39% average growth? Can you explain why you believe only a stupid person would consider 12.39% is a reasonable annual growth estimate for the S&P 500 Index when that was exactly what the S&P 500 Index in fact gained?

When it comes to inflation, 2.5% might seem reasonable but what was inflation the last 2 years? Was it that 2.5%?

Then you would select a different discount value for inflation. Do you see how that works?

 

[IBDaMann]

I provide real evidence from respected sources.

... but you need to be providing valid data, not "subjective evidence", from people who are correct, not from people who are egregiously mistaken, albeit respected by other mistaken leftists.

You rightys are just suckers for lies and anything that affirms your lies ...

... says the stupidest moron and most gullible idiot on the internet who only knows how to regurgitate the disinformation reamed into him while bent over furniture.

 

[gfm7175]

Yup.

I have yet to talk to someone unhappy with their Ev purchase. Most have now bought more than one.

You must not get out much then...

Does that mean they are for everybody in every situation, no. BUt the Derps here seem to think if you can find examples when they are not great, that means they are never great nor good for anyone.

Who on this forum is making this assertion? I call bullshit.

 

[IBDaMann]

The premise was that the cost of solar panels would not pay for itself in savings. I showed that it would.

You did no such thing.

@gfm7175, we need to be sensitive here. Poor Richard Saunders fell for a high-pressure sales pitch and was scammed into buying solar panels by convincing him that it was not only an investment, but that it would essentially eliminate his electrical expenses.

Do you think Poor Richard Saunders is going to willingly let go of his warm, cuddly, feel-good delusion of being a savvy "investor" for the cold splash of reality that he's losing money just so some salesman can have a healthy commission? Yes, he should have instead invested that $22,000 into an actual investment, or maybe partnered with others to buy some investment rental real estate or to open a small business ... but this is what he did and he can't go back in time to undo it. Let's wish him the best with his solar panels and advise him to maybe next time, consult with someone other than undereducated leftists who are, by their nature, forced to be totally incompetent in economics.

As such .... @Poor Richard Saunders, I wish you the best of luck with your solar panels, and I'm available if you ever need some correct answers on other investment opportunities.

 

[Nordberg]

You ICE freaks should hit Woodward for the Dream Cruise. Detroit has 2 of them every year. Everyone with old hotrods and exotic cars drives up and down Woodward Avenue. The cars are there all day . Crowds line the streets and bars and restaurants set up beer and food on the streets. it is fading away. GM always has new cars on the streets too. This year, they are featuring all EVs.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So don't select that value then. I don't know what part of "you select a rate that you believe is reasonable" confused you, but it would seem that everything confuses you. You do not select a value that I claim is reasonable, you select a value that you think is reasonable. Then you select your projection for inflation. Am I speaking over your head?

Hmm.. So if I selected 5% return with no inflation like I did in this post to use in my projection that would be OK? https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...heir-Gas-Powered-Rivals&p=5745851#post5745851
Now I suggest you run the numbers with a 5% return, and zero inflation and tell us what the results are.

The problem I have is that your number of 12.93 is unreasonable. You now say I can use any number I think is reasonable but I already did that and the math shows I have more money by buying solar panels when I use the numbers I think are reasonable.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

@gfm7175, we need to be sensitive here. Poor Richard Saunders fell for a high-pressure sales pitch and was scammed into buying solar panels by convincing him that it was not only an investment, but that it would essentially eliminate his electrical expenses.

Do you think Poor Richard Saunders is going to willingly let go of his warm, cuddly, feel-good delusion of being a savvy "investor" for the cold splash of reality that he's losing money just so some salesman can have a healthy commission? Yes, he should have instead invested that $22,000 into an actual investment, or maybe partnered with others to buy some investment rental real estate or to open a small business ... but this is what he did and he can't go back in time to undo it. Let's wish him the best with his solar panels and advise him to maybe next time, consult with someone other than undereducated leftists who are, by their nature, forced to be totally incompetent in economics.

As such .... @Poor Richard Saunders, I wish you the best of luck with your solar panels, and I'm available if you ever need some correct answers on other investment opportunities.
]

Let me know when you have put the following 2 formulas in an excel spreadsheet and seen the results.

=FV(.05/12,240,100,-22000)
=FV(.05/12,240,-100)-22000

I challenge everyone to put those formulas in excel.
The first one is $22,000 invested and 100 taken out for electric payment for 240 months.
The second one is 100 month invested for 240 months less the 22,000 paid for solar panels.

The results are if you invest the money and pay out $100 per month after 20 year you will have $18,574.72 but if you buy solar panels and invest $100 a month you will have $19,103.37.

The real question is, are you going to stand by your statement that I can select any interest rate that I think is reasonable?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

By the way, are you in denial about the S&P 500 Index's 10-year 12.39% average growth? Can you explain why you believe only a stupid person would consider 12.39% is a reasonable annual growth estimate for the S&P 500 Index when that was exactly what the S&P 500 Index in fact gained?

When did I deny it was 12.39% average growth? I said past returns are not proof of future returns. Only an idiot would assume the returns for the last 10 years would be the return for the next 20 years. That has never once happened in over 100 years of the market. In the 69 time periods of the S&P where we can compare the average return of next 20 years to the previous 10, there are only 3 instances where a 10 year time period had an average return of 12.39% or higher followed by a 20 year period that equaled or bettered that return, 1936, 1942 and 1983.The majority of the time when the S&P exceeds 12% in a 10 year time period, the next 20 years typically sees a 4-9% drop in the average return compared to the previous 10.

Some examples
1958 - previous 10 years - 21.522%; next 20 years - 9.6%
1963 - previous 10 years - 17.67%; next 20 years - 9.6%
1988 - previous 10 years - 16.86%; next 20 years - 13.05%
1993 - previous 10 year - 15.53%; next 20 years - 10.01%
1998 - previous 10 years - 20.056%; next 20 years - 8.8%

https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/returns

If you want to use a return that historically has happened less than 10% of the time, go ahead. But don't claim you are using reasonable numbers for your projections.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Let me know when you have put the following 2 formulas in an excel spreadsheet and seen the results.

=FV(.05/12,240,100,-22000)
=FV(.05/12,240,-100)-22000

I challenge everyone to put those formulas in excel.
The first one is $22,000 invested and 100 taken out for electric payment for 240 months.
The second one is 100 month invested for 240 months less the 22,000 paid for solar panels.

The results are if you invest the money and pay out $100 per month after 20 year you will have $18,574.72 but if you buy solar panels and invest $100 a month you will have $19,103.37.

The real question is, are you going to stand by your statement that I can select any interest rate that I think is reasonable?

So, investing in the solar panels by YOUR calculations means there is an insignificant difference in the outcome after 20 years. That is an argument for not bothering with the solar panels to begin with.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

@gfm7175, we need to be sensitive here. Poor Richard Saunders fell for a high-pressure sales pitch and was scammed into buying solar panels by convincing him that it was not only an investment, but that it would essentially eliminate his electrical expenses.

Do you think Poor Richard Saunders is going to willingly let go of his warm, cuddly, feel-good delusion of being a savvy "investor" for the cold splash of reality that he's losing money just so some salesman can have a healthy commission? Yes, he should have instead invested that $22,000 into an actual investment, or maybe partnered with others to buy some investment rental real estate or to open a small business ... but this is what he did and he can't go back in time to undo it. Let's wish him the best with his solar panels and advise him to maybe next time, consult with someone other than undereducated leftists who are, by their nature, forced to be totally incompetent in economics.

As such .... @Poor Richard Saunders, I wish you the best of luck with your solar panels, and I'm available if you ever need some correct answers on other investment opportunities.

Let's play the IBDaMann is really stupid game.
This all started with the claim that solar panels wouldn't pay for themselves over 20 years without subsidies.
That claim is proven false because I can invest my money at 5% and still have more money than someone that didn't get solar panels. That would mean the panels pay for themselves compared to a middling return on an investment.


BUT... Let's look at the rest of the story!!


If you want to talk about how I was scammed then we get into "IBDaMann is an idiot" territory.
I paid $22,000 for solar panels and an upgrade on my service panel.
I got a 26% tax credit of which means I got $5,720 back at the end of the year.
I then get a $500 renewable producer payment from my utility company every year for 10 years.

With the credits and the producer payments, my actual cost for the solar panels was $11,280.

You know what? I clearly have something you don't have. More money after 20 years.

Let's use the S&P return for the last 20 years and use actual inflation. The average return for those 20 years is 11.09%

Year 1 (2002)- S&P drops 22.1% inflation is 1.6%
You invest $22,000 (We will assume you pay for your electricity out of pocket.) $1200 for electricity.
At the end of the year you have $17,138.00 in your investment
I invest my $5,720 tax credit and the $1700 I would have paid $0 for electricity. ($1200 in savings from electric bills, $500 from utility company)
At the end of the year, I have $5,780.18

Year 2 - S&P up 28.68%, inflation is 2.2%
You have $22053.18 in your investment account. Pay$1226.40 in electricity
I invest $1726.40 and have $9,659.47 in account

Year 3 - S&P up 10.88%, inflation at 2.7%
You have $24,452.56 in your account. You pay $1259.52 for electricity out of pocket
I invest $1,759.51 and have $12,661.36 in my account while paying zero for electricity

Year 5 - S&P up 15.79%, inflation at 3.2%
You have $29703.82 in your account. You pay $1344.01 for electricity out of pocket
I invest $1,844.01 and have $19,705.00 in my account while paying zero for electricity

Year 10 - S&P up 2.1%, inflation at 3.2%
You have $29,329.86 in your account. You pay $1497.70 for electricity out of pocket
I invest $1997.70 and have $30,322.77 in my account while paying zero for electricity (Last year I get the extra $500.)
OMG, I suddenly have more money in my investment account than you because I didn't lose as much in year 7 and kept contributing to get more gains in the next years.

Year 15 - S&P up 11.96%, inflation at 1.3%
You have $58,124.69 in your account. You pay $1599.02 for electricity out of pocket
I invest $1,599.02 and have $71,391.30 in my account while paying zero for electricity

Year 20 - S&P up 18.4%, inflation at 1.2%
You have $135,681.40 in your account. You pay $1803.25 for electricity out of pocket
I invest $1803.25 and have $182,020.00 in my account while paying zero for electricity


At year 20, you have paid $29,892.95 for electricity and have $135,681.40 in savings.
I have $182,020 in savings and paid $11,280 for my solar panels.
Who got scammed? It seems to be you because it looks like I have well over $60,000 more than you do based on the numbers.


Even if we use your a constant 12.9% interest per year, I still end up almost $50,000 ahead of you after getting panels and using the credits.