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

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Those panels are subsidized as well, another point he conveniently forgot to mention. He is also, of course, ignoring damage to them (requiring replacement or major repair costs), due to dust, snow, wind, bugs, birds, hail, etc.
He is also conveniently ignoring the fact that these panels produce NOTHING at night.

ROFLMAO. Lovely little straw man you are building.
You failed to take into account that your straw is moldy and full of cow shit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You can't. Solar panels only produce power during the day. They are damaged by snow, rain, dust, hail, lightning, nearby trees (they drop sap, leaves, and possibly themselves onto the array!), critters (bugs, small and large mammals, snakes and other reptiles, birds, etc), and even possibly destroyed by a vehicle wrecking into it.

They are also subsidized.

As a subsidized panel they pay for themselves in 10 years. Unsubsidized they pay for themselves in 16 years.

I wonder how panels work if there are trees over them to drop sap on them? Hmmm.. It seems your strawman is only full of shit at this point.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

CO2 is a very small amount of the atmosphere

I suppose you also think arsenic is OK if it is a very small amount of your body weight.

 

[Into Тhe Night]

CO2 is a very small amount of the atmosphere

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're increasing atmospheric ppm faster than the Earth can naturally recycle it.

Imagine a bathtub that's half full. Every second, one drop is drained from the bathtub. Also, ever second, one drop is added.

What happens is that the water level stays the same. But imagine if, instead of adding one drop every second, you add slightly more than one drop per second. The increase is so small that it's nearly imperceptible.

What happens now? Slowly, the water will rise.

That's what's happening with CO2 on planet Earth. Prior to the industrial revolution, there was a CO2 equilibrium. But now we're adding excess C02, and even though it's a tiny amount each day, we're slowly tipping the scales. Do you think it's any coincidence that the polar ice caps shrunk 50% since 1980, or that each successive decade is hotter than the last? Or that coral reefs are dying due to ocean acidification?

 

[QP!]

Just in case the Oil and Gas derps in this thread do not read the other here are some chilling FACTS that destroy this derp argument that complains about EV subsidies.

O&G and ICE Manufacturers have enjoyed and priced in decades of subsidies and are currently taking in massive subsidies.

If you only listen to certain Derps on this site you would be lead to believe that clean energy and EV subsidies are distorting the playing from Ice vehicles and Oil and Gas, by not allowing consumers to pay the full and proper price of clean energy due to it being subsidized by the government.

For anyone reading this, it is almost certain that Oil & Gas companies, have enjoyed massive subsidies for the entirety of your life, that are now embedded benefits paying forward, and even as Oil and Gas companies enjoy record quarterly profits now they still are reaping the subsidies.

ICE vehicles have also enjoyed massive subsidies and bail outs for decades, all priced in to help discount the cost of the ICE vehicles you buy today.

So can we all agree that Derps need to stop citing Green Energy subsidies as wrong, when all they do is attempt to somewhat level the playing field with current subsidies to O&G and ICE vehicles, let alone all the embedded ones they have? Can we all agree to not blame Biden if O&G are receiving massive subsidies and the republiclowns won't support reform, as the increased cost and impact on the debt is on republiclowns and not Biden or the left?














Big Oil says to politicians 'Give us Billions of the tax payer cash and we will give you back millions to use in your campaigns'.






So seriously can we put the Derps aside and recognize that if any legacy technologies or products enjoy not just embedded generations of subsidies and current subsidies and the only thing we focus on is the new technology and products that get subsidies as the wrong, that is way to ensure we never advance as a society and ensure old tech and products out compete the new ones, due to their subsidies.

Can we push the derps out of discussions like this and understand the only thing that gets anywhere near a fair playing field when one side has such a current and legacy advantage is to give the new side the same advantage while phasing it to the old side. At some point in the middle things reach balance and fairness.

 

[QP!]

It's not just the US: according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel handouts hit a global high of $1 trillion in 2022 – the same year Big Oil pulled in a record $4 trillion of income. In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry.May 3, 2023

cite

.

Factbox: U.S. states woo automakers with $17 billion in subsidies since 1976

 

[QP!]

...Does the United States Provide a Lot of Fossil Fuel Subsidies?
Yes, the United States also provides a lot of fossil fuel subsidies every year. ... The United States is estimated to provide a total of $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies every year. Approximately 70 percent of these subsidies come from the federal government, and another 30 percent come from the state government....

.

...It's not just the US: according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel handouts hit a global high of $1 trillion in 2022 – the same year Big Oil pulled in a record $4 trillion of income. In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry. May 3, 2023

cite

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I barely break even if I make a 35% return over 20 years if inflation averages 2%?
I don't think you understand what barely break even means.

But you make no return on the panels. They aren't worth more after 20 years than they were when you bought them. They are nothing but an expense that depreciates. What you did was purchase the electricity today that would be delivered by the panels over the next 20 years.

If instead, I were to pay for the electricity from the utility, and put the money saved by not buying the solar array today into an investment, in 20 years I'd have more money than you ended up supposedly saving by buying the solar array.

I can see you have zero concept of the time value of money and what an investment verses an expense is.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

But you make no return on the panels. They aren't worth more after 20 years than they were when you bought them. They are nothing but an expense that depreciates. What you did was purchase the electricity today that would be delivered by the panels over the next 20 years.

If instead, I were to pay for the electricity from the utility, and put the money saved by not buying the solar array today into an investment, in 20 years I'd have more money than you ended up supposedly saving by buying the solar array.

I can see you have zero concept of the time value of money and what an investment verses an expense is.

LOL. But I do make a return on the panels.
I pay $22,000 for them. I then don't have to pay $29,000 for electricity.

Buy electricity for 20 years - $29,000
Buy panels - $22,000
Monetary savings over 20 years - $7,000.
If they have no value at the end of 20 years, I still have spent $7,000 less. But do they have zero value?

Provide your math showing your investment would have done better than buying the panels.
The average CD when I bought my panels was paying less than 1%. The average savings account was paying about 0.1%
T-bills were paying less than 1.5%
In order for the panels to not be a good investment, you would have to guarantee a return of 3% or higher. How are you going to do that?
What is the increase in electrical costs for 20 years? Will it go up faster or slower than inflation?
What is the return over 20 years?
Both of those are unknowns.


The other thing we are not including in the cost is the subsidy which makes it a very good investment to buy the panels.
If I can do better than break even without the subsidy then with the subsidy I am certainly making money.
With the subsidy included you would have to guarantee a 8% return on investment.

 

[Into the Night]

Unlike water vapor when converted to contrails that are like 20 times more effective as a heat trap.

You cannot trap heat. No gas or vapor has the capability to trap heat.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't include the subsidies in my calculations.

Not calculations, Poorboy, and you're lying.

If you don't understand simple math, then there is no hope for you.

Mantra 1a.

The claim was made that solar panels could never break even if they weren't subsidized.

They can't break even if they ARE subsidized.

I showed that that is false.

You showed nothing. Void argument fallacy. Attempted proof by negation.

Whether they produce power at night is irrelevant to the cost calculations.

So you don't want any power at night???

 

[Into the Night]

ROFLMAO. Lovely little straw man you are building.
You failed to take into account that your straw is moldy and full of cow shit.

Fallacy fallacy. There is no straw man.
The costs of subsidies, maintenance, and repair are quite real, and you are simply ignoring them in your special pleading fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

As a subsidized panel they pay for themselves in 10 years. Unsubsidized they pay for themselves in 16 years.

Math error. Not all factors are being considered by you.

I wonder how panels work if there are trees over them to drop sap on them?

Pretty well, until they get covered in sap and leaves.

Hmmm.. It seems your strawman is only full of shit at this point.

Fallacy fallacy. No straw man. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Ongoing math errors.

 

[Into the Night]

I suppose you also think arsenic is OK if it is a very small amount of your body weight.

Yes. It is, up to a certain point.

Not every dose is an overdose.

If you think CO2 is going to kill you, you should already be dead. There is already CO2 in the atmosphere. YOU are producing CO2 in your lungs and it's in YOUR BLOODSTREAM.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are STILL ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[gfm7175]

But you make no return on the panels. They aren't worth more after 20 years than they were when you bought them. They are nothing but an expense that depreciates. What you did was purchase the electricity today that would be delivered by the panels over the next 20 years.

If instead, I were to pay for the electricity from the utility, and put the money saved by not buying the solar array today into an investment, in 20 years I'd have more money than you ended up supposedly saving by buying the solar array.

I can see you have zero concept of the time value of money and what an investment verses an expense is.

Well said.

He's a libtard, so he doesn't understand such concepts. He gets told "FREE ELECTRICITY!" and then he squeals in excitement like a little pig rolling around in mud, meanwhile completely ignoring the fact that he's actually paying for the cost of his electricity up front via the cost of the solar panels, then continuing to pay even more for his electricity via the required maintenance of said solar panels.

He also, like you already said, ignores TVM.

 

[gfm7175]

LOL.

Always a key that some dumbass liberal is going to make a completely dumbass post. Thanks for alerting me, at least.

But I do make a return on the panels.

No you don't.

I pay $22,000 for them. I then don't have to pay $29,000 for electricity.

Buy electricity for 20 years - $29,000
Buy panels - $22,000
Monetary savings over 20 years - $7,000.
If they have no value at the end of 20 years, I still have spent $7,000 less.

You did not save $7,000 dollars ... You are ignoring maintenance costs as well as ignoring the time value of money.

But do they have zero value?

After 20 years? Effectively, yes.

Provide your math showing your investment would have done better than buying the panels.

~$22,000 dollars spent on silver bullion 20 years ago (4,536 troy oz of silver @ $4.85/troy oz).
Silver bullion value as of today (4,536 troy oz of silver @ $23.10/troy oz) = ~ $104,780 dollars of silver bullion.

Return on investment over 20 years - $82,780

OR

~$22,000 dollars spent on agricultural land in Wisconsin 20 years ago (~6.73 acres @ $3,268/acre).
Agricultural land value as of today (~6.73 acres of land @ $5,551/acre) = ~$37,369

Return on investment over 20 years - ~$15,369

OR

~$22,000 dollars in stock market returning an average of 5% per year over 20 years. Return on investment over 20 years - ~$36,373

ALL of these examples are far more than $7,000 (less solar panel maintenance costs over 20 years).

The average CD when I bought my panels was paying less than 1%. The average savings account was paying about 0.1%
T-bills were paying less than 1.5%
In order for the panels to not be a good investment, you would have to guarantee a return of 3% or higher. How are you going to do that?

Stock market... gold... silver... land...

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Well said.

He's a libtard, so he doesn't understand such concepts. He gets told "FREE ELECTRICITY!" and then he squeals in excitement like a little pig rolling around in mud, meanwhile completely ignoring the fact that he's actually paying for the cost of his electricity up front via the cost of the solar panels, then continuing to pay even more for his electricity via the required maintenance of said solar panels.

He also, like you already said, ignores TVM.

ROFLMAO. So do you have actual math to support your idiocy?
Care to tell us what maintenance I have done in the last 5 years? Or are you just making up shit?

 

[Into the Night]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas

Not possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing.
No gas or vapor has the capability to trap heat, light, or thermal energy.

You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

and we're increasing atmospheric ppm faster than the Earth can naturally recycle it.

It is not possible to measure 'how fast Earth can recycle' CO2. Apparently you have never heard of grass and trees. Don't you want more of them?

That's what's happening with CO2 on planet Earth.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2.

Prior to the industrial revolution, there was a CO2 equilibrium.

CO2 is not an equilibrium. It is a naturally occurring gas that is absolutely essential for life on Earth to exist.

But now we're adding excess C02

There is no such thing as 'excess CO2'. Any additional CO2 in the atmosphere simply helps plants to grow better, and more quickly convert the CO2 to carbohydrates and oxygen.

and even though it's a tiny amount each day, we're slowly tipping the scales.

There is no 'tipping point'.

Do you think it's any coincidence that the polar ice caps shrunk 50% since 1980,

They haven't. Indeed, the 2014 winter ice extent for Antarctica in 2014 was the HIGHEST EVER RECORDED.

or that each successive decade is hotter than the last?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Or that coral reefs are dying

They aren't.

due to ocean acidification?

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.

 

[Into the Night]

Just in case the Oil and Gas derps in this thread do not read the other here are some chilling FACTS that destroy this derp argument that complains about EV subsidies.

O&G and ICE Manufacturers have enjoyed and priced in decades of subsidies and are currently taking in massive subsidies.

Oil is not subsidized. Natural gas is not subsidized. EVs are. Wind farms are. Solar farms are.

 

[Into the Night]

.

Fossils are not used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. There are no subsidies for oil. There are no subsidies for natural gas.