I am not "anti-EV" in the sense that I fully believe and accept that people should be able to spend their money they earn as they see fit. And I mean that, from the bottom of my heart. If I say someone is insane to buy an EV as their primary choice of transportation, I still believe that, but I fully support their right to do so if they think it fits their "case study" need. That is FULLY APART from the "money problem" described below, because it is now MY money they are spending, not their own.
I have had conversations with Freeper Tell It Right who frequents these threads (and I see on this thread as well) because he is apparently not the kind of virtue signaling or ignorant Leftist drone that we often see. He looked at the existing situation, formulated his own "case study" after careful consideration, and decided it worked for him. I cannot condemn him for any of the tax credits any more than I condemn myself for riding on a bike path for entertainment purposes which was built with government funds, IOW, my own taxpayer monies I paid in. Tell It Right is right not to take offense at the tenor of these threads, because of the way he has chosen his path. He appears to understand fully the drawbacks and limitations of EVs and lends value to the discussions.
But that is clearly not the case with all purchasers of EVs.
Of the many problems with EVs, the problem that most rankles me is the money problem.
If someone wants to buy a Ford F-150 Lightning which starts at $49,500 with a $7500 credit, are they still going to buy it at $57,000 if that $7,500 tax credit is not there? Of course not. And never mind the losses that the auto industry incur. Car and Driver Magazine says that Ford LOST $130,000 ON EVERY Model e it created!!!! Not a typo, I triple checked that.
The EV industry cannot survive without your taxes and my taxes being paid to people who are wealthy enough to afford a car over $50,000 while I have to stick to cars UNDER $30,000.
What is wrong with that?
I AM PAYING MONEY FOR SOMEBODY WEALTHIER THAN I AM TO BUY AN ELECTRIC TOY THAT COSTS NEARLY TWICE WHAT I CAN AFFORD BECAUSE I CHOOSE TO LIVE WITHIN MY MEANS!
And that does not even touch on the problems inherent in Electric Vehicles themselves, OR the issue of energy availability distribution.
There is guy on YouTube from Australia (MGUY Australia) who is an Engineer (turned lawyer) and car enthusiast, and his excellent YouTube channel has dozens of videos on why Electric Vehicles are a non-viable technology as currently constituted.
He covers everything from the physics and battery construction to insurability. Here are some excellent ones:
These videos are very well done, by someone who understands the fundamental problems and the science behind them.
This business of mandating EVs in some places by 2030, suppressing petroleum production and refinery, all without either increasing energy availability in the form of electricity or upgrading the infrastructure on the ludicrous hope that "battery technology will have a breakthrough" is like lemmings running towards a cliff while assuming that when they arrive at the precipice the cliff will no longer be there !
2. I alway thought and discussed that hybrids were the way to transition. It is not very difficult to install an electric motor and some super capacitors on a Chevy Suburban, thus addressing the biggest energy use of a vehicle, moving from a stopped stage. This system could also be retrofitted to many older vehicles. Hybrid vehicles are 40% more efficient than non hybrids. Good start!
3. Even if you only get a 20% increase that’s a good start and you’re not throwing away and already built a vehicle. My vehicles tend to be old but very well maintained, my newest is a 2011, my oldest is a 1994. Do you know how many cars I have prevented from being built? The average new car is traded in every 5 years….. The Greens, save the planet types are buying new vehicles and with their EVs throwing them away because they cannot economically replace a battery! Or economically repair after an accident.
But if you want to get into particulars, I disagree with this part:
If someone wants to buy a Ford F-150 Lightning which starts at $49,500 with a $7500 credit, are they still going to buy it at $57,000 if that $7,500 tax credit is not there? Of course not.
I submit to you that without the EV tax credit, but all else being equal, the up front price of the EV would be $7,500 less (would be $49,500 in this case). Why? IMHO the EV tax credit artificially inflates the up front costs just like subsidies inflate everything else (i.e. college tuition, medical costs).
For example, I saw it happen with my own eyes in 2022 when the Inflation Raising Act increased the solar tax credit from 26% to 30%. That was the year I not only bought the EV, I also added onto the solar system. Most of the solar equipment was bought before the IRA, so I got lucky. But some was bought after the IRA, and those prices jumped by 4% to absorb the extra tax credit.
The IRA also changed the EV tax credit to include EV's made from car manufacturers that had already exceeded their tax credit limit. (The old EV tax credit was good for only the first 200K or so EV's made by a manufacturer. So it'd been a while since you could get the EV tax credit for buying a new Tesla or GM EV.) Thus, the passage of the IRA included Tesla's and GM's and Ford's. Thus the prices of those EV's immediately jumped up by $7K and the EV forums were full of people who were livid. One EV forum I frequent to swap tips for optimizing the throughput on my EV is full of lefties like most EV forums. I posted there what I'm posting here that the tax credit doesn't help consumers because it just artificially inflates the up front price. Some of them are now believers that maybe the free market is best -- well only a few of them LOL.