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

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Math errors. Use of random numbers as 'proof'. Use of cost/benefit calculation for non-investment. Dropped data (cherry picking fallacies and special pleading fallacies). Attempted proof by randU.

Fallacy fallacy
The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims another poster is using fallacies but Into the Night can't explain why it is a fallacy. Into the Night does this to try to appear smarter than he really is.

Don't you just love when Into the Night claims that market returns are made up random numbers. Everyone better call their broker and tell them their investment account is wrong because the market return is a random number according to Into the Night.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Does that mean they are for everybody in every situation, no.

Irrational. Paradox. You keep arguing against yourself here.

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.

irrational. Paradox. You keep arguing against yourself here.

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.

Bigotry. Your special case does not apply to everyone.

And that is what automakers care about the most.

Automakers care about making money. They are LOSING money on EVs.

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).

Paradox. Irrational.

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.

Blatant lie. Ford is getting out of EVs. So is Toyota. They are losing too much money on them.

the technology now is hardly out of its Alpha stage launch

EVs are older than gasoline cars.

if we want to call Elons first Tesla EV's that.

EVs are older than gasoline cars.

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.

The lithium-ion battery was invented in the mid 80s'. It is still the Li-ion battery. It has not changed. Lithium still produces the same power per mole of lithium used in this battery.

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.

The patent has expired on the Li-ion battery. In any case, China doesn't give a shit.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

So Government Motors is making EVs'. Meh.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Argument from randU fallacy. Math errors. Attempted proof by contrivance.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

Math errors. Attempt to use Excel as mathematical proof. Argument from randU fallacies. RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Math errors. Solar panels are not an investment. Argument from randU fallacies. Attempted proof by contrivance.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Math errors. Attempt to use cost/benefit calculation for non-investment. Attempt to use random numbers as 'data' (argument from randU fallacy). Attempted proof by contrivance.

 

[Into the Night]

Except for the fact that the panels are still in production year 21-25. Guess what happens in those years compared to simply investing the money.

Math error. Attempt to use a nonfactor in cost/benefit analysis. Attempt to use cost/benefit analysis for non-investment. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for accepting proof that the panels pay for themselves in 20 years without using any subsidies. Now will you stop repeating that nonsense?

See my previous post for what happens when I include the tax credit and producer payment in my cost. Why bother with having $60,000 more if you buy the panels? I'll leave that to you to explain why you don't want the extra money.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Math error. Attempt to use cost/benefit analysis for non-investment. Attempted proof by contrivance. Attempted proof by circular (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

Really? You asked to put in a 25kw system when the average home in Phoenix needs 8kw?

https://www.energysage.com/local-data/solar-panel-cost/az/maricopa-county/phoenix/


I wonder if your estimates were so high because they were including the "dickhead" factor in their price.

Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

ROFLMAO. You are a fool and continue to prove it.

Attempted proof by insult.

At this point you have beat the shit out of your strawman and the only result is you are covered in shit.

Fallacy fallacy. There is no strawman here (except by you from time to time).

Actually I have a very real way to claim the results over the next 20 years will be worse since for the entire history of the S&P, 90% of the time a 10 year period had a return of 12% or more the next 20 years had a return of less than 12%. The average for the entire existence of the S&P is about 10%. That means that about 50% of the time the return over 20 years will likely be less than 10%. Picking a number for your return that has a less than 50% chance of being reached is not reasonable. You might as well go bet red on a roulette wheel.

Cherry picking fallacy. There are a lot more investments than the stock market, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

I guess we are going to keep playing the IBDaMann is a complete idiot game.
1. The cost of my system was $22,000 and then I got a $5,720 tax credit and $500 a month producer payment for 10 years as well as no monthly electric bill. (I also produce about 20% more than I use and get paid for that as well.)
2. No. The investment needs to have a return that is 5% over inflation. If the investment has 8% interest and inflation is 3% the result will be the same.
3. Inflation doesn't matter if it's 0 or 20% as long as the return is 5% over inflation.

Congratulations. You have just had your electricity turned off for non-payment if you are making annual payments at the end of the year.
If you invest $22,000 then you haven't paid your electric bill the first 12 months. Go back to the drawing board and try again.

More evidence, you don't know what the hell you are talking about as you continue to argue that your numbers are my reality, when they aren't.

Argument from randU fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacies. Math error. Attempted use of cost/benefit for non-investment. Attempted use of random numbers as 'data'. Attempted proof by contrivance.

 

[Into the Night]

Fallacy fallacy
The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims another poster is using fallacies but Into the Night can't explain why it is a fallacy. Into the Night does this to try to appear smarter than he really is.

Don't you just love when Into the Night claims that market returns are made up random numbers. Everyone better call their broker and tell them their investment account is wrong because the market return is a random number according to Into the Night.

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Repeated use of the -
Fallacy fallacy
The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims another poster is using fallacies but Into the Night can't explain why it is a fallacy. Into the Night does this to try to appear smarter than he really is.

Calling historic annual returns in the stock market random numbers is pretty idiotic. But then we expect nothing else from Into the Night.

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic. Contextomy fallacy. Cherry picking fallacy. Attempted proof by contrivance.

 

[gfm7175]

Except for the fact that the panels are still in production year 21-25.

Not if you don't maintain them... and even if so, they will still have a significant amount of reduced performance.

 

[gfm7175]

I guess we are going to keep playing the Poor Richard Saunders is a complete idiot game.

Sounds good to me. I enjoy this game very much.

Congratulations. You have just had your electricity turned off for non-payment if you are making annual payments at the end of the year.

If you weren't a complete idiot, you would have instantly realized and been honest about the fact that the statement "an annual bill of $1,200" is simply another way of expressing the end result of making $100/month payments for twelve months.

If you invest $22,000 then you haven't paid your electric bill the first 12 months. Go back to the drawing board and try again.

RAAA. (repetitive assertion already addressed)

 

[gfm7175]

He keeps quoting different costs for his system He's making shit up.

I've noticed this as well... He's more than once changed the cost of his system, the life expectancy of his system, and other erroneous calculations that he's done. He's all over the place. Typical for someone who doesn't wish to be honest.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Math errors. Attempt to use Excel as mathematical proof. Argument from randU fallacies. RQAA

RSSDMIT

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Argument from randU fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacies. Math error. Attempted use of cost/benefit for non-investment. Attempted use of random numbers as 'data'. Attempted proof by contrivance.

RSSDMIT

But I do notice you have relied completely on the fallacy fallacy in this post.

Fallacy fallacy
The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims another poster is using fallacies but Into the Night can't explain why it is a fallacy. Into the Night does this to try to appear smarter than he really is. He also does this to avoid addressing the arguments raised.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not if you don't maintain them... and even if so, they will still have a significant amount of reduced performance.

RSSDMIT

ROFLMAO..

Clearly you have no clue as to how electricity or electronics work.
The panels are rated to have a 10% loss over 25 years. I'll bet they are still producing at least 85% of what they did for the average of the first 3 years. That would be only a 5% loss compared to what was expected.

Care to bet $1,000,000 on your claim?
I didn't think so.