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

[Into the Night]

Thanks, Into the Night.

Misdirected. You are responding to gfm7175, not me.

 

[Into the Night]

Since the solar company has to guarantee the amount of electricity that will be produced by the panels they do give a shit about location.

They don't have to guarantee the electricity produced by the panels, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

Raising hay for cattle is farming, you moron. How do you think alfalfa gets planted? How do you think the hay gets baled? But then you didn't seem to realize that you can't have alfalfa in the same field for 20 years and expect a decent yield. You have to rotate crops.

But then, what farmer is going to rent enough land to feed 4-8 cows per year? It's a waste of their time when no herd is that small. The time needed to drive equipment to such a small field isn't worth it. Why rent a 4 acre field when you can rent a 30 or 40 acre one. (Or rent 500 acres at a time.) A "small" farmer might have 20-30 cows. Most dairy farms in WI are much larger than that. 100 cows or more is not uncommon.

As to my never living in the country, I probably baled more hay by the time I was 14 than you have seen in your lifetime. No farmer I know of and I have known many over the years is going to rent a 4 acre field. It would be stupid for them to do that and farmers aren't nearly as stupid as you are.

Boasting about your 'farming experience' has already been revealed to be a lie.
Stop making shit up about yourself, Sock.

 

[Nordberg]

EVs are cheaper to run according to Consumer Reports, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/electr...mer Reports study,drivers of gas-powered cars. I think you guys actually know better.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

...annnnnd back to your denial of logic and chanting.

Good for you. Fixation.

Usually.

Sap moves sideways. It doesn't necessarily drop straight down.

Close enough. You probably have some sap on them already.

You probably already have sap on them as well as other debris from the nearby tree.

I don't have solar panels nor do I want them. You seem to fail to understand that.

Your denial of physics is quite funny.
The only sap I need to be concerned with when it comes to my solar panels seems to be you.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Misdirected. You are responding to gfm7175, not me.

Thanks, gfm7175.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Base rate fallacy. TANSTAAFL.
Special pleading fallacy. The costs of driving an EV are more than just recharging it, Poorboy.

Fallacy fallacy.
The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims other posters are committing fallacies while not explaining why the alleged fallacy occurs. Into The Night does this to try to appear smarter than he actually is.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Boasting about your 'farming experience' has already been revealed to be a lie.
Stop making shit up about yourself, Sock.

How silly of me to consider raising hay for cattle to be farming. I should have realized it's how you fill your head with nonsense.

 

[Into the Night]

Care to tell us why the water to clean my panels costs more than $5?

You already told us you don't clean or maintain your panels.

I keep asking you to tell us what maintenance has this cost you keep claiming exists and you have not been able to tell us anything that has a cost.

Both of us have already answered that question. RQAA.

With auto maintenance, there is a cost to change the oil, a cost to replace brake pads, a cost to flush the radiator.

It's not a car.

Solar panels have nothing that needs to be regularly replaced or changed.

True, but they do have to be maintained, nevertheless.

All you can say is that the panels and wiring need to be checked. That costs nothing.

But you obviously don't do it, until there's a problem, of course. Too bad that wiring is under the panels.

More of your stupidity. I am reducing the life of my panels by not washing them but I am also reducing the life of my panels by washing them.

He never said any such thing.

Do you reduce the life of your windows by washing them?

It's not a window.

Do you really want people to see how absolutely stupid you are. You are making sure they will be able to see it. Solar panels have a tempered glass panel on top of them.

Many don't. Many are covered with a polymer.

Do you know what tempered glass is? Do you really think that washing tempered glass reduces it's life?

It's not a window.

I think it's funny that you can't back up your idiocy with any actual facts.

Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'fact' means. Both of us have listed various things that can happen to solar panels that shorten their life.

You make statements that only Into the Night would make.

No. He can argue for himself quite well. I did teach him some physics and logic, both of which you deny.

Of course you didn't provide a maintenance plan because to do so would reveal you don't know what you are talking about.

Some things you can't 'maintain away', but the damage it causes DOES shorten the life of the panel. You are fixating and making special pleading fallacies. Attempted proof by contrivance.

Checking to see if squirrels have eaten into the wires doesn't cost me anything.

Squirrels usually don't eat wire. Other critters do though. I already know you don't maintain your panels or roof.

You claimed I wasn't including COSTS of maintenance in my numbers. I asked you for a list of cost I didn't include and you can't provide what it could possible be. All you can do is whine and run away from answering. Your silly RQAA shows you are stupid and can't support your position.

Not the meaning of RQAA. RQAA means Repetitive Question Already Answered. I created this acronym exactly because of twits like you that keep asking the same question over and over mindlessly even though it's already been answered. He just uses the same acronym. There's fair number of stupid people like you that it applies to, usually because you choose to fixate on something to try to pivot away from the conversation (itself a fallacy).

No. I didn't. My panels have always had a lifespan that says they will produce 90% of their initial rating at 25 years.

...and you believed them!
Panels are damaged by many things.

The 20 year number was from T.A. Gardner who said panels can't pay for themselves in 20 years.

They don't.

I showed they can pay for themselves in 20 years.

They don't. You showed no such thing. You are just mindlessly repeating the sales literature.

The years from 20 to 25 are free to me since the panels were paid for after 16 years.

They aren't.

Says the Into the Night clone that can't provide any math or numbers.

He is not a clone of any kind. Both of us have provided math and numbers for you. So has T.A. Gardner. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

I will bet you have never had to buy equipment and figure out if it will pay for itself.

I do it all the time. I run a business.

You clearly didn't grow up on a farm

I currently live on a farm.

and you clearly have never had to run a business.

I already run a successful business selling products worldwide. I manufacture instrumentation for industrial, medical, aerospace, entertainment, and other markets. T.A. Gardner also runs a business. He is a successful electrician.

Do you live off your daddy's money or in your mommy's basement?

Mantra 1a.

Bad logic - You haven't include all the costs but I can't tell you what costs you didn't include. (It seems you are the one with bad logic.)

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

Provide your evidence that land and gold are safe investments.

RQAA.

A safe investment can never go down in value.

Any investment can go down in value. Even safe ones.

A volatile investment can go down.

Any investment, Sock.

Land also comes with the cost of yearly property tax which you failed to include in your calculation of future value. (Hmmm - It seems you are the one that is failing to include costs.)

So do your solar panels. Wups.

Yeah, you keep proving you are an idiot, over and over and over.

Attempted proof by Stone.

 

[Into the Night]

You did say it wasn't.
Now you are just going to lie and try to pretend you aren't lying?

Hallucination, Sock.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You already told us you don't clean or maintain your panels.

No. I didn't say any such thing. I said I don't have any costs to maintain my panels There is a difference between what I said and the straw man you are building. Are you intelligent enough to see it.

Both of us have already answered that question. RQAA.

Interesting that you are not gfm but feel you can answer for gfm. If we use your logic then you must be gfm or you are committing a logical fallacy.

It's not a car.

True, but they do have to be maintained, nevertheless.

But you obviously don't do it, until there's a problem, of course. Too bad that wiring is under the panels.

The interesting thing about solar panels is even though they aren't a car they still don't sit directly on my roof. Too bad you didn't know that.

He never said any such thing.

Thanks gfm7175

It's not a window.

Many don't. Many are covered with a polymer.

Really? Have you been on my roof or is your head still stuck in your ass when you claim my panels have a polymer instead of tempered glass?

It's not a window.

Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'fact' means. Both of us have listed various things that can happen to solar panels that shorten their life.

Yeah..Washing your panels shortens their life and not washing the panels shortens their life. I don't know what you think are facts but claiming both of those are true is not a fact. It is a paradox. Do you know what a paradox is? You use the word quite often.

No. He can argue for himself quite well. I did teach him some physics and logic, both of which you deny.

Speaking of hallucinations. That is quite a phantasmagoria wrapped in an illusion wrapped in a delusion.

Some things you can't 'maintain away', but the damage it causes DOES shorten the life of the panel. You are fixating and making special pleading fallacies. Attempted proof by contrivance.

You are making generalizations and fixating on your own special pleadings.
By the way, a dirty panel doesn't reduce the life span of a solar panel since it doesn't affect the electronics in any way. If anything it would lengthen the lifespan.

Not the meaning of RQAA. RQAA means Repetitive Question Already Answered. I created this acronym exactly because of twits like you that keep asking the same question over and over mindlessly even though it's already been answered. He just uses the same acronym. There's fair number of stupid people like you that it applies to, usually because you choose to fixate on something to try to pivot away from the conversation (itself a fallacy).

You created the acronym as a way to avoid answering questions. You use it when you have not provided any answer and know you can't provide one. But you already knew that didn't you gfm7175.
.

Attempted proof by Stone.

Thanks, gfm7175 for responding to my post addressed to gfm7175.

 

[gfm7175]

EVs are cheaper to run according to Consumer Reports, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/electr...mer Reports study,drivers of gas-powered cars. I think you guys actually know better.

Still mindlessly allowing false authorities to do your thinking for you, eh?

First off, the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is not Consumer Reports, although their article does make reference to a Consumer Reports study done in 2020. I quickly skimmed through the study (don't have time to closely study it) and besides not including all EV maintenance costs from what I could quickly tell, it also makes up numbers, readily admitting that they don't have the required data and are just making up numbers. Obviously you didn't even quickly skim over the study, let alone read through it.

The NRDC article itself is full of nonsense and leaves out numerous costs associated with EVs, most notably the increased cost of requiring a specialized dealer to perform most maintenance on the vehicle.

 

[gfm7175]

Thanks, gfm7175.

Misdirected. You are responding to Into the Night, not me.

 

[gfm7175]

How silly of me to consider raising hay for cattle to be farming. I should have realized it's how you fill your head with nonsense.

YABPA. Do you also go by the moniker 'tmiddles' by any chance?

 

[gfm7175]

No. I didn't say any such thing.

You have openly admitted that you don't perform any maintenance on your solar panels (nor your roof), and you did it again below.

I said I don't have any costs to maintain my panels

You just did it again. If you don't have any costs to maintain your panels, then you are quite clearly not maintaining them.

There is a difference between what I said and the straw man you are building. Are you intelligent enough to see it.

No. You are openly admitting that you do not maintain your panels (nor your roof).

Interesting that you are not gfm but feel you can answer for gfm.

He didn't speak for me. It's documented record on this forum (in this thread) that I have answered your repeated questions about maintenance and costs associated with it, that you keep assigning bogus positions to me, that I have informed you of particular actions and non-actions that are shortening the lifespan of your solar panels, and etc.

If we use your logic then you must be gfm or you are committing a logical fallacy.

Who is "we"? You know nothing about logical fallacies, as you keep committing them on a VERY regular basis with absolutely no realization that you are doing so...

The interesting thing about solar panels is even though they aren't a car they still don't sit directly on my roof. Too bad you didn't know that.

YABPA.

Thanks gfm7175

I'm gfm7175, not him.

Really? Have you been on my roof or is your head still stuck in your ass when you claim my panels have a polymer instead of tempered glass?

YABPA.

Yeah..Washing your panels shortens their life and not washing the panels shortens their life. I don't know what you think are facts but claiming both of those are true is not a fact. It is a paradox. Do you know what a paradox is? You use the word quite often.

YABPA.

Speaking of hallucinations. That is quite a phantasmagoria wrapped in an illusion wrapped in a delusion.

Incoherent rambling.

You are making generalizations and fixating on your own special pleadings.

Projection.

By the way, a dirty panel doesn't reduce the life span of a solar panel since it doesn't affect the electronics in any way. If anything it would lengthen the lifespan.

Wrong. It reduces the lifespan as well as the performance.

You created the acronym as a way to avoid answering questions.

Nope. He already told you why he created it. I adopted usage of it because it happens all too often and now I even create some acronyms of my own if the need arises (such as my most recent 'YABPA' one with regard to your bogus position assignments that you've since resorted to because you have nothing else).

You use it when you have not provided any answer and know you can't provide one.

Nope. You've already been told when and why it is used.

But you already knew that didn't you gfm7175.
.

Thanks, gfm7175 for responding to my post addressed to gfm7175.

YALSA. That's another acronym that ITN created that I've developed usage of because of how commonplace accusations of sock accounts are.


You have very clearly tipped your king at this point, as evidenced by your repeated RQAAs, YABPAs, and YALSAs...

 

[IBDaMann]

OK. Let's see your math showing that $22,000 today has a value of $50,000 over the next 18 years. I already used the time value of money in my calculations that you have not been able to refute. What do you think inflation is?

@Poor Richard Saunders
@Into the Night
@gfm7175

I'd just like to interject the problem that is not being adequately conveyed to Poor Richard Saunders, who is making an economics error in the mistaken belief that he is making all the correct calculations. gfm7175 was touching on the issue but not really expressing Poor Richard Saunders' error very clearly.

Poor Richard Saunders mistakenly believes that the time value of money in this case involves applying the rate of inflation to the purchase price of the system, i.e figure inflation of 2.5% APR for a total of $34,312.49 after 18 years. Poor Richard Saunders is not an MBA or an accountant so we should take the opportunity to teach him what Opportunity Costs means and how Net Present Value is calculated so that a valid comparison can be made. Then he will understand his error.

Poor Richard Saunders, when considering spending $22,000 on a system, you also have to consider the value of that same amount of money had you invested it elsewhere. For example, let's say that you could invest in the S&P 500 Index and expect annual growth of 12.39%. You would calculate outward that your $22,000 would grow into 180,102.92 in 18 years. You would then calculate backwards over those 18 years to present day, discounting that value by the rate of inflation (2.5%) in order to get the Net Present Value, which is $115,476 i.e. what that $22,000 S&P 500 Index investment is worth in today's dollars, and compare it to the $22,000 cost of the system purchase. The result is that you would be $93,476 wealthier by investing that $22,000 in the S&P 500 Index and just paying your electric bills outright.

Summary: The Time Value of Money is the principle used to project a future investment value into out years as well as to convert a future value into today's dollars. Both of those are combined to compute the Net Present Value for each potential investment option in order to perform an apples-to-apples comparison.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Misdirected. You are responding to Into the Night, not me.

Thanks, Into the Night for responding to the post I addressed to you.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You have openly admitted that you don't perform any maintenance on your solar panels (nor your roof), and you did it again below.


You just did it again. If you don't have any costs to maintain your panels, then you are quite clearly not maintaining them.


No. You are openly admitting that you do not maintain your panels (nor your roof).


He didn't speak for me. It's documented record on this forum (in this thread) that I have answered your repeated questions about maintenance and costs associated with it, that you keep assigning bogus positions to me, that I have informed you of particular actions and non-actions that are shortening the lifespan of your solar panels, and etc.


Who is "we"? You know nothing about logical fallacies, as you keep committing them on a VERY regular basis with absolutely no realization that you are doing so...


YABPA.


I'm gfm7175, not him.


YABPA.


YABPA.


Incoherent rambling.


Projection.


Wrong. It reduces the lifespan as well as the performance.


Nope. He already told you why he created it. I adopted usage of it because it happens all too often and now I even create some acronyms of my own if the need arises (such as my most recent 'YABPA' one with regard to your bogus position assignments that you've since resorted to because you have nothing else).


Nope. You've already been told when and why it is used.


YALSA. That's another acronym that ITN created that I've developed usage of because of how commonplace accusations of sock accounts are.


You have very clearly tipped your king at this point, as evidenced by your repeated RQAAs, YABPAs, and YALSAs...

Thanks Into the Night for responding to the post I addressed to you.

Perhaps gfm7175 can inform us how washing solar panels shortens their life while not washing them also shortens their life. Claiming both shorten the life of solar panels is a paradox.

Then perhaps gfm7175 can explain how visually inspecting the panels costs money. It seems he hasn't been able to provide the cost for that yet. I have never said I didn't inspect my panels or the wiring. I said there is no cost. Assigning a cost to everything that costs nothing is also a paradox.

Claiming that dirt on tempered glass shortens the life span of a solar panel is the height if idiocy. It shows gfm7175/Into the Night know nothing about glass and nothing about solar panels. Neither of them have been able to provide any source that supports their opinion that dirt on the panels shorten their life.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

@Poor Richard Saunders
@Into the Night
@gfm7175

I'd just like to interject the problem that is not being adequately conveyed to Poor Richard Saunders, who is making an economics error in the mistaken belief that he is making all the correct calculations. gfm7175 was touching on the issue but not really expressing Poor Richard Saunders' error very clearly.

Poor Richard Saunders mistakenly believes that the time value of money in this case involves applying the rate of inflation to the purchase price of the system, i.e figure inflation of 2.5% APR for a total of $34,312.49 after 18 years. Poor Richard Saunders is not an MBA or an accountant so we should take the opportunity to teach him what Opportunity Costs means and how Net Present Value is calculated so that a valid comparison can be made. Then he will understand his error.

Poor Richard Saunders, when considering spending $22,000 on a system, you also have to consider the value of that same amount of money had you invested it elsewhere. For example, let's say that you could invest in the S&P 500 Index and expect annual growth of 12.39%. You would calculate outward that your $22,000 would grow into 180,102.92 in 18 years. You would then calculate backwards over those 18 years to present day, discounting that value by the rate of inflation (2.5%) in order to get the Net Present Value, which is $115,476 i.e. what that $22,000 S&P 500 Index investment is worth in today's dollars, and compare it to the $22,000 cost of the system purchase. The result is that you would be $93,476 wealthier by investing that $22,000 in the S&P 500 Index and just paying your electric bills outright.

Summary: The Time Value of Money is the principle used to project a future investment value into out years as well as to convert a future value into today's dollars. Both of those are combined to compute the Net Present Value for each potential investment option in order to perform an apples-to-apples comparison.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Perhaps you should have stayed out of it since you are only making yourself look like a fool.
Expecting 12.93% growth in the S&P 500 is idiotic. As everyone who invests knows, there is no guarantee of future earnings.
S&P 500 historical
If we go back and look at the last 20 years of the S&P we will see that no single year in that time frame had 12.93% growth. The yearly earnings had wild swings from a 38.07% gain to a 36.81% loss.
Just to give an example of the results of $22,000 invested in different years and their results 10 years later.
$22,000 invested in 1996 would have been worth $55,815 10 years later
$22,000 invested in 2000 would have been worth $17,847 10 years later.

To do an apples to apples comparison, since the $22,000 is paying for electricity, then the payments over time for electricity should come from the invested $22,000.
If we assume $100 a month electric costs and just use $1,200 per year in the S&P numbers. That means we are withdrawing $1200 each year to pay for that years electricity.
With $22,000 invested in 1996 after 10 years of paying electricity bills we would have $40,796.
With $22,000 invested in 2000 after 10 years of paying electricity bills we would have $4876. Because of a couple of good years the money would last 15 years but by 2015 we would only have $71 left.
Clearly investing the money is not guaranteed since investing that money in 2000 would leave us without any money to pay electricity bills over 20 years.

To get a real sense of the possible earnings, the normal procedure would be to do a monte carlo simulation to look at the possible outcomes. That would give you the likelihood of what the value would be and whether the money would last to pay our electric bills.

I asked for a guaranteed investment and clearly the S&P isn't guaranteed since the chances of investing in a first year that gains 38% isn't that great.

 

[Into the Night]

Fallacy fallacy.
The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims other posters are committing fallacies while not explaining why the alleged fallacy occurs. Into The Night does this to try to appear smarter than he actually is.

Redefinition fallacy. Discard of logic. No argument presented.