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

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Continued repetition of already refuted positions.

RSSDMIT

Link to your math if you have provided it.

 

[gfm7175]

RSSDMIT

Link to your math if you have provided it.

Illiteracy.

RQAA.

 

[Nordberg]

So you aren't going to be gracious like I was with your error. OK.

You're welcome.


The topic is paying for electricity over time vs paying a lump sum for solar panels.
If you don't pay for your electricity then you aren't comparing apples to apples.


Cheating seems to be all you can do when it comes to this.
In once scenario $22,000 was used to pay for 20-25 years of electricity and in the other scenario, you don't use any of that money to pay for electricity.
The topic is paying for electricity over time vs paying a lump sum for solar panels. In order to be a valid comparison, both scenarios have to pay for the electricity.

It does cost you money. With $22,000 you aren't buying all 500 of the stocks in the S&P so you clearly won't be matching the growth of the S&P. If you buy an ETF it has a management fee of about .09% - .18%. If you buy mutual funds that are actively managed they will cost 1-2% or more.

You have to understand the market return is based on holding the stocks at the end of day since it doesn't factor in the cost or price variation that happens during the day.
If you buy a stock on Dec 31 for $100 and it closes at $101, you will beat the market's declared rate of return for that stock the next year. If you buy the stock for $101 on Dec 31 and it closes at $100 then you will not beat the market's declared rate of return for the next year.
Then you have to understand that paying zero for commissions is not really the best way to maximize your return and it does cost you when making trades because you are likely not getting the best price.

It is interesting that you think you can buy, sell and own real estate with no cost to you. Can you explain that to us? We could all use a good laugh.


Thanks for the laugh.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realrateofreturn.asp
https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/real-rate-of-return-formula/


As long as you use the same inflation rate then you are calculating the same real return.
Let me know if you have any other stupid comments to make.

Clean energy calculations omit the health costs to the nation. Fossil fuels cause many illnesses. They pollute the air we breathe. Lung diseases and cancers would drop if we got rid of ICEs and fossil fuels.

 

[gfm7175]

Clean energy calculations omit the health costs to the nation.

What "health costs"?

Fossil fuels cause many illnesses.

Fossils aren't used for fuel.

They pollute the air we breathe.

Fossils aren't used for fuel and don't pollute the air.

Lung diseases and cancers would drop if we got rid of ICEs and fossil fuels.

ICEs don't cause lung disease or cancer. Fossils aren't used for fuel.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Redefinition fallacy. Discard of logic.

 

[Into the Night]

Clearly you have no clue as to how electricity or electronics work.

Projection. You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

The panels are rated to have a 10% loss over 25 years.

ASSUMING nothing untoward happens to them.

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.

Attempt to obtain personal information.

 

[Into the Night]

I see... so what one month bond was paying 5% annual interest in 2018?
I don't think you understand how bonds work. If you buy a one year bond paying 5% and then sell it one month later, you don't get the principal and a 5% annualized return.


RSSDMIT

If you sell it, you get the principal and whatever interest accumulated over the month.
False equivalence fallacy. Bonds are not electricity.

Math error. Attempt to use cost/benefit calculation for non-investment.
RAAA.

 

[Into the Night]

I have never once changed the cost of my system.

Blatant lie. Don't try to deny your own posts, idiot.

The only changes are a hypothetical if I had received no subsidies.

The cost is the same, whether you support communism or not.

Let's go back and look at the start of this and see how it is you that is confused.

Argument by repetition (chanting).

I argued that if I didn't include the subsidies then the panels would "break even" in 18 years.

Argument from randU fallacy. Math error. Attempted use of void as scalar.

Into the Night pointed out I didn't include the subsidies and I agreed with him.

The cost is the same whether you support communism or not.

So we have gone from solar panels can't break even
to
solar panels can't compete with an investment
to
I fell for a scam because you forgot that I received a tax credit and other payments.

'You' does not mean 'we'. Redefinition fallacy.

It seems to be you that is not being honest in this discussion as you keep moving the goal posts.

Projection. You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Unable to make arguments against what I posted so you resort to attacking me. How absolutely juvenile of you. Are you in your second childhood?

RAAA. Mantra 1a.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If you sell it, you get the principal and whatever interest accumulated over the month.
False equivalence fallacy. Bonds are not electricity.

Math error. Attempt to use cost/benefit calculation for non-investment.
RAAA.

Thanks for the laugh.
Bonds do not pay off the principle and interest if sold before they mature. They sell based on the current interest rate which could result in a loss of principle.

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/bonds-selling-maturity
https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-invest/bonds/selling-bonds/

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

RAAA. Mantra 1a.

RSSDMIT

 

[Into the Night]

Error on my part on the $500 per month, it is $500 per year for 10 years.

So you decide to change your random number AGAIN.

The tax credit is a one time credit.

Communism doesn't change any cost.

You should have been able to understand the meaning of "and" in the sentence considering how.

You are actually going to try to redefine the word 'and'???????!?

You might want to check you math on that one. Even compounding hourly, you can't get close to that number with a $22,000 investment and an interest rate of 12.39%.

Math errors. Attempt to compare investment to non-investment. Attempt to use a void as a scalar.
Logic error. False equivalence fallacy.

I want to know how you are going to pay your electric bill if you invest in real estate.

Real estate does not require electrical bills. IF the property uses electricity, and I am the landlord, I have my tenants pay their own electrical bills. I don't have to.

Are you going to mortgage the real estate and pay interest on a loan? Are you going to sell 100 sq feet every month?

Neither. I lease it.

In order to be an apples to apples comparison, you have to pay your electric bill out of that $22,000 you invested.

Not a single cent. My tenants do that. Of course, I've invested much more than $22,000 in the property.

Careful management of your portfolio is going to cost you 1-2% of your portfolio reducing your return.

Nope. No 'portfolio'. Property is not a 'portfolio'.

It's called real return. When comparing 2 scenarios to see which has a better outcome, where one is paying out on monthly basis and the other is investing on a monthly basis, real return can be used.

True Scotsman fallacy. False dichotomy fallacy.

If I can buy something for $100 today or invest the money. It is better to buy today if interest rates are 1% and inflation is 2%. Next year I would have $101 and the item would cost $102. Real return is negative one percent.

Math error. Attempted use of cost as benefit.
Logic error. Attempted proof by contrivance.

The rules of the game are you have to pay your monthly electric bill every month or you don't have electricity.

I don't pay any electrical bill for property I invest in. My tenants do that.

In order to be an apples to apples comparison, the payment for the electricity is supposed to come out of the $22,000 you invested.

Nope. Not a single cent. My tenants pay their own electrical bills.

It's such a pretty card compared to your red card.

Random phrase. No apparent coherency. Attempted cliche?

 

[Into the Night]

1. Thanks for nothing.
2. Thanks for trying to tell me that I shouldn't include all the numbers when calculating an opportunity cost. (You think I shouldn't include tax credits and producer payments.)
3. Thanks for telling me I should use unrealistic expectations when considering investments. (Can I expect my solar panels to produce at night since we are using unrealistic expectations?)
4. Thanks for telling me that something that has happened historically less than 10% of the time is 100% guaranteed to happen in the future. I never denied the return on the previous 10 years. I said expecting it to continue for the next 20 is stupid.
5. My system's ROI hasn't grown a bit since this all started with the hypothetical which didn't include the tax credit and
6. ROFLMAO. Run your numbers again. You can't invest $22,000 at 12.93% and have it grow into $494,516.00 over 20 years

Investing $22,000 for 20 years at 12.93% interest compounded daily will result in a total return of $291,950.57.
'Investing' $22,000 into solar panels and not paying any electricity bills or maintenance on your panels will result in no electricity at night, useless solar panels, and a LOSS of $22,000...probably BEFORE 20 years is up.

 

[Into the Night]

So you aren't going to be gracious like I was with your error. OK.

You're welcome.

You weren't. It was YOUR error.

The topic is paying for electricity over time vs paying a lump sum for solar panels.

RAAA

If you don't pay for your electricity then you aren't comparing apples to apples.

If I buy electricity (easily affordable), I have electricity 24/7 (minus power failures). You do not have electricity at night. I do.

Cheating seems to be all you can do when it comes to this.

Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

In once scenario $22,000 was used to pay for 20-25 years of electricity and in the other scenario, you don't use any of that money to pay for electricity.

You have no electricity at night. I do. BTW, current building code requires HVAC to be operating 24/7 before drywall installation can begin.

It does cost you money. With $22,000 you aren't buying all 500 of the stocks in the S&P so you clearly won't be matching the growth of the S&P. If you buy an ETF it has a management fee of about .09% - .18%. If you buy mutual funds that are actively managed they will cost 1-2% or more.

Argument from randU fallacies. Made up numbers are not data. Attempted proof by contrivance. False equivalence fallacy. Attempt to compare investment with non-investment.

You have to understand the market return is based on holding the stocks at the end of day since it doesn't factor in the cost or price variation that happens during the day.

RAAA.

If you buy a stock on Dec 31 for $100 and it closes at $101, you will beat the market's declared rate of return for that stock the next year. If you buy the stock for $101 on Dec 31 and it closes at $100 then you will not beat the market's declared rate of return for the next year.

Argument from randU fallacies. Attempted proof by contrivance. Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'declared rate of return' in the stock market.

Then you have to understand that paying zero for commissions is not really the best way to maximize your return and it does cost you when making trades because you are likely not getting the best price.

Attempted proof by contrivance. Contextomy fallacy.

It is interesting that you think you can buy, sell and own real estate with no cost to you. Can you explain that to us? We could all use a good laugh.

Hallucination. No such statement was ever made.

Thanks for the laugh.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realrateofreturn.asp
https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/real-rate-of-return-formula/

Math errors. Attempt to use cost/benefit calculation for non-investment. Buzzword fallacies. Attempt proof by buzzword. False authority fallacies.

As long as you use the same inflation rate then you are calculating the same real return.

No such thing. True Scotsman fallacy. Attempt to incorporate inflation rate in benefit/cost analysis. Math error.

Let me know if you have any other stupid comments to make.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

And has been explained to you, if the money from that paycheck is invested instead of paying for electricity, the amount of money you would have after 20 years is more if you buy solar panels.

Your denials are cute because they don't provide any math. It's like you are a 3 year old.

Math errors. Attempt to use cost/benefit calculation for non-investment. Attempt to use void as scalar. Attempt to use random formula as cost/benefit calculation.
Logic errors. Argument from randU fallacies. Argument by repetition fallacy (chanting). Attempt to use Excel as 'data'. Attempted proof by name dropping. False equivalence fallacies. Pivot fallacy.
Illiteracy: Proper nouns are capitalized.

No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

RSSDMIT

Link to your math if you have provided it.

RQAA. No link required. Mathematics does not require a Holy Link. Attempted proof by Stone.

 

[Into the Night]

Clean energy calculations omit the health costs to the nation. Fossil fuels cause many illnesses. They pollute the air we breathe. Lung diseases and cancers would drop if we got rid of ICEs and fossil fuels.

Math errors: Attempted use of void as scalar.
Logic errors: Buzzword fallacies (clean energy calculations, health costs, fossil fuels, illnesses, pollution, lung disease, cancer). Repetition fallacy (chanting).

There is no such thing as 'clean energy calculations'. Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. Define this 'pollution'. Define the lung disease. Define the cancer. Define the 'illnesses'.
You are just chanting Church of Green scripture, Norbutt. You can't even define most of what you are chanting.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for the laugh.
Bonds do not pay off the principle and interest if sold before they mature.

You get the principal and some interest if you sell the bond.

They sell based on the current interest rate which could result in a loss of principle.

Redefinition fallacy. Interest is not principal.

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/bonds-selling-maturity
https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-invest/bonds/selling-bonds/

False authority fallacies. Holy Links are not a proof.

 

[Into the Night]

RSSDMIT

Random letters. Gibberish. No argument presented.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Clean energy calculations omit the health costs to the nation. Fossil fuels cause many illnesses. They pollute the air we breathe. Lung diseases and cancers would drop if we got rid of ICEs and fossil fuels.

No, they use such calculations (health costs) as justification for them. In fact, they make up numbers on health costs to show that the cost of some egregious regulation will supposedly save money and lives such that the regulation will pay for itself.

EID: The Questionable Health Data Behind EPA's Costly New Ozone Rule
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...ind-epas-costly-new-ozone-rule-300027292.html

EPA’s ozone do-over faces backlash
https://www.eenews.net/articles/epas-ozone-do-over-faces-backlash/

In a nutshell, the EPA produced "data" that showed their new rule, estimated to cost $100 billion or more, to reduce ozone by 10 parts per billion would save 35,000 lives a year and reduce medical costs by...

Wait for it...


Over $100 billion a year!

When Congress asked about their studies on this the EPA refused to hand over any of their data and research citing "privacy concerns." They were full of shit then, and they are full of shit now.