Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Thursday December 07 2023, @05:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the supply-and-demand dept.

        I decided a few years ago that I was sick of standing in the snow at a gas station waiting for the person inside the building to finish selling that lottery ticket and turn the pump on so I can stand there some more babysitting it while it fills up and I freeze. The answer, of course, was to buy a car that didn't need gasoline, one I could plug into the house and go inside where it's warm.

        I'm not a rich man, I'm a pensioner who is still paying a mortgage, so I looked for an affordable EV. Used ones are almost nonexistent, and I found out why when I finally bought one: it has a ten year warranty. They haven't been making them much longer than that.

        I swore off new cars decades ago when my month old VW stranded me ninety miles from home with a bad alternator, but if you want an EV, new is your only choice. I kept seeing the Chevy Bolt advertised, but could never find one for sale at all. Then I found that they had stopped making them two years earlier.

        Why? Well, battery problems, they claimed. Why just the not so expensive one, $30,000? GM is still selling electric Cadillacs and Corvettes, why no cheap cars?

        I discovered after buying an EV that the only two advantages of a piston car to an electric one are the lack of infrastructure for long trips, and the high purchase price of the vehicle. Why high? Because only their flagship autos have electric motors, the ones that formerly had V8s.

        My car cost $40,000. It's absolutely the nicest, roomiest (except for the minivans) car I ever owned. My Dad had a Checker when I was about ten, they no longer make them. They were designed for taxicabs and I've never seen more back seat leg room than in one. My new Hyundai has more leg room except Dad's Checker than any other car I've ever seen, and although the '74 LeMans was a much bigger car, my new EV is much roomier. It's a lot roomier than the '02 Concorde that was the same size as my new car on the outside. Why aren't the auto companies advertising how roomy EVs are? I never realized how much space engines, transmissions, and gas tanks take up.

        I started trying to buy one when I realized that you don't have to babysit them when you're charging. I didn't want to stand there in the snow filling a gas tank, but judging from most Facebook comments I've seen, I must be the only one who realized that. People seem to think you have to stand there when they charge. Why aren't they advertising this benefit?

        Why aren't they telling you that your car can now heat your garage, unlike a piston car? Why aren't they advertising the fact that rather than the heat coming on when you get to where you're going, you have heat before you're out of the driveway?

        Why aren't they telling you how well EVs handle, thanks to its crazy low center of gravity? Or how much faster they can stop, thanks to having two sets of brakes?

        Why aren't they advertising the fact that electricity is five times cheaper than gasoline and diesel? The only way I found out was by buying one.

        Why aren't they advertising all the advantages of EVs?

        Why are only the top of the line autos like the Mustang or Cadillac EVs? That's an easy question to answer. The automakers are under laws from our and other governments that their fuel mileage average of all the vehicles they sell has to be under a certain number. The easiest way to do that is to make the expensive cars, the ones with big V-8s, electric. When your fastest car doesn't use traditional fuel...

        But this, of course, begs a second question: why only the expensive ones? Because they don't want to make electric cars at all. The obvious reason is that they hate EVs. But why do they hate them and love the incredibly inefficient (my car will go 20 miles on the electricity it takes to refine a gallon of gasoline), obsolete Rube Goldberg device with thousands of moving parts to wear and break?

        EVs threaten their business model. The businesses are set up so that GM makes almost as much profit from aftermarket parts, like spark plugs, belts, hoses, pumps, and so forth as they do on the cars themselves.

        Gasoline and diesel vehicles all need periodic maintenance. They're needy things, expensive to maintain, and the car company gets a cut of every repair of every car they sell. The drive train is a Rube Goldberg mess with thousands of moving, interlocking parts, any one of which fails can cripple the vehicle. A bad fuel pump stranded me in the bad part of town last year, and the repair was nearly $900 not counting the towing charge. The repair shop got half, Pontiac and other companies got the rest.

        My new car doesn't have a fuel pump. Or spark plugs, or belts, or fuel injectors, or any of the other moving parts all the other cars I've owned since 1968 had and needed replacing. The motor's shaft IS its drive train! When was the last time your ceiling fan needed servicing?

        More than likely that new 1976 Vega that cost $3,000 garnered more than that for GM in aftermarket parts. There may still be some on the road still earning money for GM. An EV has few aftermarket parts; tires, brake pads, windshield wiper blades are all I can think of. Hyundai won't make any more money from my new EV like they would if it had a big six cylinder piston engine.

        Which is a shame, because electric motors are all far, far superior to piston engines and transmissions in every way. But the nearly zero cost of maintenance is why the thieving billionaire car companies don't want to sell affordable EVs. In fact, they want to sell as few EVs as possible. If it wasn't for fuel mileage restrictions, Tesla and the Chinese would likely be the only electric cars you could buy.

        But isn't this just a conspiracy theory? No, there was never a conspiracy, nothing needed to be said. Those people aren't moral, but they're not stupid, either. Ford and Chevy aren't making cars for a hobby, nor are they charitable organizations. All they care about is profit, and EVs threaten their gravy train.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday December 07 2023, @10:31PM (6 children)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Thursday December 07 2023, @10:31PM (#1335609) Journal

    This is a bit to the left of the OP's post, but seems as good a place as any to drop it in.

    I'm a little unclear on why Taxpayers should be paying for a portion of my electric car. I wasn't a fan when taxpayers paid for the cash for clunkers auto subsidy program, and EV subsidies give me the same vibe. They made sense when the technology was just being developed, but at some point, that argument is no longer valid.

    How long should taxpayers keep making my car payments?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2023, @03:50AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2023, @03:50AM (#1335646)

    In the case of a BEV Hyundai, I think enough of it was made outside USA that the subsidy (tax credits in USA) are either low or zero? I think this is the right page to use a calculator to find out what Federal credits are available-- https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax2023.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]
    Once I put in a date range for 2023, Hyundai was not on the pick list...

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday December 08 2023, @12:37PM (2 children)

    by VLM (445) on Friday December 08 2023, @12:37PM (#1335691)

    I'm not saying I agree with the analysis and I wouldn't even guess a dollar figure but it seems to be an overall harm minimization scheme where every dollar spent on EVs would theoretically in the long run save $X of military adventurism in the middle east.

    • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Friday December 08 2023, @02:42PM

      by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Friday December 08 2023, @02:42PM (#1335724) Journal

      It's a reasonable argument. That said, I have bedrock faith our military industries will find some conflict to keep the money flowing; Oil has been a convenient go-to, but there's plenty of other reasons too. :(

    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday December 09 2023, @12:29AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Saturday December 09 2023, @12:29AM (#1335823) Homepage

      Except my tax dollars shouldn't be paying for military adventurism in the Middle East, either....

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday December 09 2023, @01:44AM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday December 09 2023, @01:44AM (#1335841) Homepage Journal

    I'm a little unclear on why Taxpayers should be paying for a portion of my electric car.

    What I'd like to know is if they're so worried about global warming, why are they giving the oil industry subsidies? Why are none of these fascists whining about welfare for the poor (which ended in the US in 1996) not caring a bit about subsidies to billion dollar monstrosities?

    --
    Are the Republicans really in favor of genocide, or are they just cowards terrified of terrorist twit Trump?
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 09 2023, @02:35AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday December 09 2023, @02:35AM (#1335856)

    >I'm a little unclear on why Taxpayers should be paying for a portion of my electric car.

    Try this:

    While gas powered vehicles have been hovering in the 20-30mpg range ever since the 73 Arab Oil embargo, with 50mpg barely possible in rare cases, the average EV today gets 114mpge (a figure that equates the energy in a gallon of gasoline to 33.7kWh, which you can buy in most of the country for less than $4).

    So, EVs are roughly 4x as energy efficient to operate compared with ICE vehicles which have over a century of development and refinement in their current designs. In my book, pushing the national fleet to be 4x as energy efficient (or more) is worth a lot of tax incentives: we will all benefit from the change after EVs come down in purchase price and the technology improves due to economies of scale.

    I would rather pay for this through taxes than a regressive approach where we start taxing fossil fuels to pay for their myriad of currently externalized costs.

    >I wasn't a fan when taxpayers paid for the cash for clunkers auto subsidy program

    I'm with you there, CFC struck me as corporate welfare, yet another auto maker bailout wearing a tiny green fig leaf.

    >They made sense when the technology was just being developed, but at some point, that argument is no longer valid.

    I think EV subsidies make sense up until they reach 50% market share vs ICE. The current EV battery tech still needs a lot of development both for cost and environmental concerns. EVs are near TCO cost parity with new ICE vehicles, but older ICE vehicles are still much more attractive than equivalent used EVs.

    Make me king, I will fix everything. Meanwhile, expect a continuing stream of corporate welfare to accompany most policy changes for the foreseeable future.

    --
    🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]