• filter:

Electric vehicle tax question

  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
I was thinking about purchasing an electric car and have a question about the tax credit.  It states on several of the websites that you can only take the credit if you owe taxes at the end of the year.  I will probably owe $16,000 in federal taxes this year but because of automatic quarterly payments to the IRS; I will have overpaid and get a refund to apply to next years taxes.  Do I have to stop or amend my automatic quarterly tax payments and underpay my taxes to get the credit?

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Since CO2 emmissions over a vehicle's lifetime is measured in tons, I guess 1 more ton is actually a TON of CO2 lol. So,... (more)

meade18 (Aug. 09, 2017 @ 3:00p) |

"Luxury" is subjective. I think most people who has never driven Model S or X, would think Model 3 Premium is luxurious.... (more)

docjoo (Aug. 09, 2017 @ 6:24p) |

I don't think most EV buyers are calculating if EV produces less or more carbons.  Most buyers probably don't realize co... (more)

docjoo (Aug. 09, 2017 @ 6:50p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
No. What they mean by that is that the credit is non-refundable, which just means you have to have a tax liability for the year of that amount in order to get the full value of the credit, as the credit will not push your total tax liability for the year below zero. As long as you have a tax liability of at least the credit amount (Line 47 on Form 1040, right before credits are deducted) you are good, regardless of whether you actually paid it through withholding, quarterly tax payments, or at the end of the year.

rated:
Awesome, thanks. My line 47 was over the $7500 credit so I should be okay then even if I overpay and get a refund.

rated:
if it's a model 3 be careful about when u get delivery. They will exceed 200K vehicles next yr. Not sure when???

rated:
needhelpplease said:   if it's a model 3 be careful about when u get delivery. They will exceed 200K vehicles next yr. Not sure when???
 If your reservation says #200k, you should be very concerned that you won't get a rebate.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   
needhelpplease said:   if it's a model 3 be careful about when u get delivery. They will exceed 200K vehicles next yr. Not sure when???
 If your reservation says #200k, you should be very concerned that you won't get a rebate.

  That's not true.  The credit phase-out is a little complicated, here's how InsideEVs.com explains it:

"At the time of the 200,000th sales, and so as not to disrupt/confuse those buying the EVs, that full $7,500 credit continues through the end of the current quarter and to the completion of the next quarter. After this period ends the “phase-out” begins, meaning the credit is reduced to $3,750 for the next 6 months, then to $1,875 for the next 6 months before expiring completely.

During any part of the phase-out process (between sale #200,000 and the calendar expiry date), the OEM is free to BUILD AND SELL AS MANY EVS as they can/want, receiving the applicable incentive amount."

Also: Congress could very well decide to amend the law, so as to extend the credit (full or lesser amount). Likelihood of this increases if foreign makers, e.g., Volvo, Mercedes, who are late to the market start ramping up sales. Politically unpalatable to give foreign cars credits while denying same to domestic makers.

rated:
Yep^ hopefully Tesla will stockpile/game that 200K

Also reservation # aren't simply numerical (wish they had made them sequential!)

rated:
tuphat said:   
forbin4040 said:   
needhelpplease said:   if it's a model 3 be careful about when u get delivery. They will exceed 200K vehicles next yr. Not sure when???
 If your reservation says #200k, you should be very concerned that you won't get a rebate.

  That's not true.  The credit phase-out is a little complicated, here's how InsideEVs.com explains it:

"At the time of the 200,000th sales, and so as not to disrupt/confuse those buying the EVs, that full $7,500 credit continues through the end of the current quarter and to the completion of the next quarter. After this period ends the “phase-out” begins, meaning the credit is reduced to $3,750 for the next 6 months, then to $1,875 for the next 6 months before expiring completely.

During any part of the phase-out process (between sale #200,000 and the calendar expiry date), the OEM is free to BUILD AND SELL AS MANY EVS as they can/want, receiving the applicable incentive amount."

Also: Congress could very well decide to amend the law, so as to extend the credit (full or lesser amount). Likelihood of this increases if foreign makers, e.g., Volvo, Mercedes, who are late to the market start ramping up sales. Politically unpalatable to give foreign cars credits while denying same to domestic makers.

  That's great info.  One thing I'll add is that it's 200,000 total qualified cars per manufacturer regardless of model. Therefore the person that gets the 200,000 Model 3 is actually at risk of not getting the full credit.  Someone will have total all roadster and model s deliveries, add their future expected deliveries, and match that with their model 3 ramp up.

rated:
is there an accurate way to track # of Tesla deliveries online?

rated:
tuphat said:   
forbin4040 said:   
needhelpplease said:   if it's a model 3 be careful about when u get delivery. They will exceed 200K vehicles next yr. Not sure when???
 If your reservation says #200k, you should be very concerned that you won't get a rebate.

  That's not true.  The credit phase-out is a little complicated, here's how InsideEVs.com explains it:

"At the time of the 200,000th sales, and so as not to disrupt/confuse those buying the EVs, that full $7,500 credit continues through the end of the current quarter and to the completion of the next quarter. After this period ends the “phase-out” begins, meaning the credit is reduced to $3,750 for the next 6 months, then to $1,875 for the next 6 months before expiring completely.

During any part of the phase-out process (between sale #200,000 and the calendar expiry date), the OEM is free to BUILD AND SELL AS MANY EVS as they can/want, receiving the applicable incentive amount."

Also: Congress could very well decide to amend the law, so as to extend the credit (full or lesser amount). Likelihood of this increases if foreign makers, e.g., Volvo, Mercedes, who are late to the market start ramping up sales. Politically unpalatable to give foreign cars credits while denying same to domestic makers.

  Lol, 
I said if you are 200k, you should be concerned.  Because the 200k includes all sales of the tesla.  I didn't mean 200k of the model 3 but 200k period.   And yes many things can change in the near future.  Just you should be concerned.  I'm not concerned because I don't have the kind of money to get a Tesla, hence I'm not even in line for one.
 

rated:
$27.5K w/ tax credit is a steal for luxury EV for those that get the full credit on base model

rated:
needhelpplease said:   is there an accurate way to track # of Tesla deliveries online?
  
In real time?  No way. You could add up all the numbers from their quarterly filings I'm sure.

The hard part is always going to be modeling their model 3 ramp up.  Any hiccups to model 3 deliveries mean fewer of those car buyers get the rebate.

rated:
wilesmt said:   
needhelpplease said:   is there an accurate way to track # of Tesla deliveries online?
  
In real time?  No way. You could add up all the numbers from their quarterly filings I'm sure.

The hard part is always going to be modeling their model 3 ramp up.  Any hiccups to model 3 deliveries mean fewer of those car buyers get the rebate.

  
how does the IRS figure it out ?

rated:
Per https://3.tesla.com/model3/delivery-estimate

My Standard Battery delivery:
220 mile range with Rear Wheel Drive
$35,000
Apr - Jun 2018

How do you rate my chances for full $7.5K?

 

rated:
63.59%

rated:
EradicateSpam said:   63.59%
lol   +/_  What's your confidence interval?

rated:
needhelpplease said:   Per https://3.tesla.com/model3/delivery-estimate

My Standard Battery delivery:
220 mile range with Rear Wheel Drive
$35,000
Apr - Jun 2018

How do you rate my chances for full $7.5K?

 

  63.59% is actually a pretty good guess.

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/updated-projection-us-tax-...

Personally I think they will stockpile cars at the end of 2017 so that all 2Q18 cars get the full rebate.  

If your car is delayed to after June 2018 your chances go wayyyyyy down because they are still sending out Ss and Xs that entire time.

rated:
wilesmt said:   
If your car is delayed to after June 2018 your chances go wayyyyyy down because they are still sending out Ss and Xs that entire time.

I agree.  

Incidentally, per the Wall Street Journal, Tesla  reported production shortfalls due to battery supplies hurt sales during the second quarter.

rated:
Lol

1) I'm talking about the 100k Tesla, not the 30k Tesla
2) I'm not waiting in a 200k line for a 30k Tesla, I don't need it and as any FWer knows, why spend $30k when you don't need it.
3) And since you created an Alt-Id for this, I guess you just did it to troll me.

rated:
bighitter said:   
wilesmt said:   
If your car is delayed to after June 2018 your chances go wayyyyyy down because they are still sending out Ss and Xs that entire time.

I agree.  

Incidentally, per the Wall Street Journal, Tesla  reported production shortfalls due to battery supplies hurt sales during the second quarter.

  think the NV gigafactory will take care of that. 

rated:
astrosgp said:   No. What they mean by that is that the credit is non-refundable, which just means you have to have a tax liability for the year of that amount in order to get the full value of the credit, as the credit will not push your total tax liability for the year below zero. As long as you have a tax liability of at least the credit amount (Line 47 on Form 1040, right before credits are deducted) you are good, regardless of whether you actually paid it through withholding, quarterly tax payments, or at the end of the year.
  Is there a limit of how many EV tax credits a taxpayer can claim?  I think I read EV tax credit as per vehicle...not as per taxpayer. So it should be possible to get $15k credit if a buyer buys 2 of Model 3 cars in 2017?

rated:
forbin4040 said:   
 
  Lol, 
I said if you are 200k, you should be concerned.  Because the 200k includes all sales of the tesla.  I didn't mean 200k of the model 3 but 200k period.   And yes many things can change in the near future.  Just you should be concerned.  I'm not concerned because I don't have the kind of money to get a Tesla, hence I'm not even in line for one.

 #  200K Tesla car on July 1, 2018 means that all Tesla cars sold and titled before January 1, 2019 are eligible for a full $7,500 credit.

rated:
docjoo said:   
forbin4040 said:   
 
  Lol, 
I said if you are 200k, you should be concerned.  Because the 200k includes all sales of the tesla.  I didn't mean 200k of the model 3 but 200k period.   And yes many things can change in the near future.  Just you should be concerned.  I'm not concerned because I don't have the kind of money to get a Tesla, hence I'm not even in line for one.

 #  200K Tesla car on July 1, 2018 means that all Tesla cars sold and titled before January 1, 2019 are eligible for a full $7,500 credit.

  
They're likely to hit #200K around or shortly after January 1, 2018.  Which means that every Tesla sold through June 30, 2018 will get the full $7,500 rebate.  
Then 7/1/18 - 12/31/18 gets $3,750
Then 1/1/19-6/30/19 gets $1,875

Source: https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/updated-projection-us-tax-...
 

rated:
jameswes said:   
docjoo said:   
forbin4040 said:   forbin4040;19937870 said:
 #  200K Tesla car on July 1, 2018 means that all Tesla cars sold and titled before January 1, 2019 are eligible for a full $7,500 credit.

  
They're likely to hit #200K around or shortly after January 1, 2018.  Which means that every Tesla sold through June 30, 2018 will get the full $7,500 rebate.  
Then 7/1/18 - 12/31/18 gets $3,750
Then 1/1/19-6/30/19 gets $1,875

Source: https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/updated-projection-us-tax-credit-phase-out-updated-070317-after-ems-tweets-m3

  I was just using July 1st as an example to show that it's extended to 1Qtr after 200K is reached.  But thanks for the source. Sounds like good possibility of full $7,500 credit up to June 30, 2018.

rated:
needhelpplease said:   $27.5K w/ tax credit is a steal for luxury EV for those that get the full credit on base model
  
It is not a "luxury" EV.  That would be the S, not the 3 -- which are 3 times as expensive.  

It is the Volkswagen, not the Bentley/Porsche/Audi of the line.  But if it makes you feel better to think of it as "luxury" -- go right ahead.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   I'm not concerned because I don't have the kind of money to get a Tesla, hence I'm not even in line for one.
You should actually be more upset, at least that's the way I feel. Why should people who can't afford a Tesla be subsidizing those that can (esp when we're talking about $.1m+ cars. The new Teslas will be about 50k loaded.)

Plus these drivers aren't paying their fair share of gasoline tax (about 50c per gallon), which helps maintain the roads we all drive on.  

rated:
RedWolfe01 said:   
needhelpplease said:   $27.5K w/ tax credit is a steal for luxury EV for those that get the full credit on base model
  
It is not a "luxury" EV.  That would be the S, not the 3 -- which are 3 times as expensive.  

It is the Volkswagen, not the Bentley/Porsche/Audi of the line.  But if it makes you feel better to think of it as "luxury" -- go right ahead.

  Model 3 is targeting BMW 3 series and Audi A4 buyers.  So if you consider BMW 3 and Audi A4 as luxury cars, then Model 3 Premium version should be also.  But without any doubt, Model S is luxury EV.

rated:
libralibra said:   
forbin4040 said:   I'm not concerned because I don't have the kind of money to get a Tesla, hence I'm not even in line for one.
You should actually be more upset, at least that's the way I feel. Why should people who can't afford a Tesla be subsidizing those that can (esp when we're talking about $.1m+ cars. The new Teslas will be about 50k loaded.)

Plus these drivers aren't paying their fair share of gasoline tax (about 50c per gallon), which helps maintain the roads we all drive on.  

  That's ok, in CA, the government doesn't even SPEND the money given toward Roads to Roads. They spend it on High Speed Rail.

rated:
libralibra said:   
forbin4040 said:   I'm not concerned because I don't have the kind of money to get a Tesla, hence I'm not even in line for one.
You should actually be more upset, at least that's the way I feel. Why should people who can't afford a Tesla be subsidizing those that can (esp when we're talking about $.1m+ cars. The new Teslas will be about 50k loaded.)

Plus these drivers aren't paying their fair share of gasoline tax (about 50c per gallon), which helps maintain the roads we all drive on.  

  Aren't people who can afford Tesla pay more tax than people who can't afford to pay $35K car? So technically, car is being subsidized more by higher paying taxpayers rather than low income taxpayers that pay less tax and get more federal assistance and benefits.

Tesla owners will have to pay higher vehicle property tax on their purchase (since EV cars generally cost more than ICE cars), which is much more than gasoline tax. Also, there will be less accidents with Tesla's Autopilot and will save govt lots of money spent on cleaning up or fixing damages.  

Using same analogy, you should get upset for non-smoker not paying any cigarette taxes since we all breath in same polluted air Just kidding

rated:
libralibra said:   Plus these drivers aren't paying their fair share of gasoline tax (about 50c per gallon), which helps maintain the roads we all drive on.  
 

  This is a common misconception. Many states charge a higher registration for electric vehicles to generate extra revenue. Most states charge higher value vehicles more for either registration or use tax, so higher cost vehicles like electric ones are paying more. Gas tax is overwhelmingly not used to maintain roads. The vast majority of money used to maintain roads comes from the general budget by way of property tax, sales tax, and income tax.

rated:
docjoo said:   
RedWolfe01 said:   
needhelpplease said:   $27.5K w/ tax credit is a steal for luxury EV for those that get the full credit on base model
  
It is not a "luxury" EV.  That would be the S, not the 3 -- which are 3 times as expensive.  

It is the Volkswagen, not the Bentley/Porsche/Audi of the line.  But if it makes you feel better to think of it as "luxury" -- go right ahead.

  Model 3 is targeting BMW 3 series and Audi A4 buyers.  So if you consider BMW 3 and Audi A4 as luxury cars, then Model 3 Premium version should be also.  But without any doubt, Model S is luxury EV.

  
That isn't a bad comparison, as long as you are talking about a "base" 3 series.    And no, I don't consider those as luxury cars -- although they are very high end sedans.

Try driving a 7 series sometime (costs the same range as the S) and THAT is a fair comparison too.  I have a fully loaded Explorer that cost more than a Tesla 3 series, and it isn't "Luxury" either - for all it is "Limited."

rated:
gnopgnip said:   
libralibra said:   Plus these drivers aren't paying their fair share of gasoline tax (about 50c per gallon), which helps maintain the roads we all drive on.  
  This is a common misconception. Many states charge a higher registration for electric vehicles to generate extra revenue. Most states charge higher value vehicles more for either registration or use tax, so higher cost vehicles like electric ones are paying more. Gas tax is overwhelmingly not used to maintain roads. The vast majority of money used to maintain roads comes from the general budget by way of property tax, sales tax, and income tax.


I thought I worded it carefully enough, but maybe I should say "equal share" to make it clear. From what I've read, gas taxes account for about 1/3 of the spending on transportation infrastructure. So Tesla owners are getting a 33% discount compared to gas car owners.

The statement "Gas tax is overwhelmingly not used to maintain roads" is absolutely false. You can research it more yourself, but basically there is a federal and state component to the gas tax as well as a sales tax. Some states do allow the sales tax to go into the general fund, but that is all.

Finally, arguing that "most" states charge an EV registration fee does not make up the gap. E.g. CA finally passed this fee this year: $100...starting in 2020!  Since CA has the highest gas tax in the nation, exceeding 75c/gallon, $100 does not come close to compensating for the tax on the 600 gallons/year that the average car uses.

rated:
libralibra said:   Finally, arguing that "most" states charge an EV registration fee does not make up the gap. E.g. CA finally passed this fee this year: $100...starting in 2020!  Since CA has the highest gas tax in the nation, exceeding 75c/gallon, $100 does not come close to compensating for the tax on the 600 gallons/year that the average car uses.
  I'm a bit confused.
You are stating that the taxes paid paid on Gas should be Equal for Electrics.

Electrics don't pollute the air, and electrics don't drop oil on the roadways (which the state has to clean up), nor do you have gas spills at the local station.  So you want Electrics to pay the same tax even though that tax isn't dedicated 100% for the roads?

rated:
"Electrics don't pollute the air" I always chuckle when I see the tag that says "Zero Emission Vehicle" on cars. About 1/3 of US electricity still comes from burning coal, so it's misleading to say that driving an EV has no environmental impact. Of course, some places like CA use much cleaner sources than others like the MidWest, so it is of variable benefit across the US, but definitely not zero. You can do your own research - here is just the first article when I google the question, but maybe there's a more definitive source for an answer https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not...

Bottom line, I am simply stating that it seems unfair to subsidize expensive cars for high earners. They get the tax credit, save on gas taxes, and get to cruise along in the HOV lanes (the name HOV doesn't even make sense anymore), while everyone else sweats it out in traffic and pays for it. And if you are looking at it from purely an environmental angle, then it makes much more sense to subsidize poor people to get their 20 year old gas guzzling high polluters off the roads.

rated:
libralibra said:   
gnopgnip said:   
libralibra said:   Plus these drivers aren't paying their fair share of gasoline tax (about 50c per gallon), which helps maintain the roads we all drive on.  
  This is a common misconception. Many states charge a higher registration for electric vehicles to generate extra revenue. Most states charge higher value vehicles more for either registration or use tax, so higher cost vehicles like electric ones are paying more. Gas tax is overwhelmingly not used to maintain roads. The vast majority of money used to maintain roads comes from the general budget by way of property tax, sales tax, and income tax.


I thought I worded it carefully enough, but maybe I should say "equal share" to make it clear. From what I've read, gas taxes account for about 1/3 of the spending on transportation infrastructure. So Tesla owners are getting a 33% discount compared to gas car owners.

The statement "Gas tax is overwhelmingly not used to maintain roads" is absolutely false. You can research it more yourself, but basically there is a federal and state component to the gas tax as well as a sales tax. Some states do allow the sales tax to go into the general fund, but that is all.

Finally, arguing that "most" states charge an EV registration fee does not make up the gap. E.g. CA finally passed this fee this year: $100...starting in 2020!  Since CA has the highest gas tax in the nation, exceeding 75c/gallon, $100 does not come close to compensating for the tax on the 600 gallons/year that the average car uses.

  
GA charges EVs $200 per year.  With our lower gas tax it matches what an EV driver would contribute at the pump very closely.  Using the average of 600 gallons per year isn't entirely accurate because EVs, on average, drive fewer miles.

The emissions part is accurate and inaccurate at the same time.  Yes producing electricity creates pollution.  But many of the worst kinds of pollution are local.  Things like smog forming NOx.  Keep that stuff out of the cities is great for the public's health.

Plus producing electricity is way more efficient than burning gasoline in ICE.

rated:
libralibra said:   "Electrics don't pollute the air" I always chuckle when I see the tag that says "Zero Emission Vehicle" on cars. About 1/3 of US electricity still comes from burning coal, so it's misleading to say that driving an EV has no environmental impact. Of course, some places like CA use much cleaner sources than others like the MidWest, so it is of variable benefit across the US, but definitely not zero. You can do your own research - here is just the first article when I google the question, but maybe there's a more definitive source for an answer https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/
  This is a poor argument for several reasons.  One of the main ones that by itself destroys the argument is:
power consumption from current/new electric cars are causing incremental increase to power usage.  It's silly to attribute the generation for this increased demand to the oldest power plants rather than to the new ones that are required to be constructed to satisfy this power demand increase.  The dirty plants will remain producing at full capacity until they're retired, regardless of whether or not there's more electric cars on the road.  There may be other arguments on "cost" of electric vehicles like production waste and mining raw materials, but the "there's still a few coal power plants! AHA! I got you! Electric cars are dirtier than gas!" doesn't seem to be a very strong one.

NEW generation capacity is majority renewable.  For example, NEW generating capacity from coal added in the US in 2016 was only 0.17% of new power, 61.5 percent was renewables and 33% was natural gas.  https://www.ecowatch.com/ferc-renewable-energy-capacity-2233026420.html 

Edit: Overall, coal is also under 25% of capacity and under 30% actual power produced.  Basically the plants are slowest to bring up or down they're going to be run as close as possible to 100% until they're retired - not true with some of the other plant types.

rated:
Bend3r said:    It's silly to attribute the generation for this increased demand to the oldest power plants rather than to the new ones that are required to be constructed to satisfy this power demand increase.

NEW generation capacity is majority renewable.  For example, NEW generating capacity from coal added in the US in 2016 was only 0.17% of new power, 61.5 percent was renewables and 33% was natural gas.  https://www.ecowatch.com/ferc-renewable-energy-capacity-2233026420.html 

Overall, coal is also under 25% now.  Your "about 1/3" statement is simply false because it's out-dated, and is misleading.


How much power (in Mwhr) do the new plants produce and how much power are electric cars consuming? And whether your electric car is using renewable energy for its charge is highly dependent on where you live. Maybe so in OR, ID, WA, and VT, but much less likely elsewhere. Maybe you're right, maybe not, but you're oversimplifying something that is quite complicated. Also, coal is 30%. So liberalibra overrepresented by 3.3%, but you underrepresented by 5%. If you're going to go around and say someone is being misleading, maybe don't use the most skewed numbers in your favor when doing it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/?utm_term=.d3a0dbd24312

rated:
meade18 said:   
And whether your electric car is using renewable energy for its charge is highly dependent on where you live. Maybe so in OR, ID, WA, and VT, but much less likely elsewhere. Maybe you're right, maybe not, but you're oversimplifying something that is quite complicated. Also, coal is 30%. So liberalibra overrepresented by 3.3%, but you underrepresented by 5%. If you're going to go around and say someone is being misleading, maybe don't use the most skewed numbers in your favor when doing it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/?utm_term=.d3a0dbd24312

  Didnt see the sources on the wapo article. Ferc was source for the numbers I put initially. But it looks like mainly terminology discrepancy, I should have been more careful. Just under 25% is based on Capacity. 30% is based on total power generated through the year. Coal plants will run ~100% because they're costly/slow to start up whereas natural gas (for example) can be varied more quickly.  All of these numbers also exclude distributed generation (rooftop solar, etc), no idea what % is smaller plants, might be negligible.

It's a big deal that basically ~0 of new capacity is coal. That's why it continues to shrink as a percentage of total power produced. Whether there's 0 electric cars or millions, this won't affect the schedule of shutting down the old coal plants - they're going to run until they're retired. This will only be when maintenance and fuel exceeds the cost of building new plants (which are not coal) and the cost to shutdown/cleanup the old plants -electric cars have no effect on this.

rated:
Bend3r said:   
meade18 said:   
And whether your electric car is using renewable energy for its charge is highly dependent on where you live. Maybe so in OR, ID, WA, and VT, but much less likely elsewhere. Maybe you're right, maybe not, but you're oversimplifying something that is quite complicated. Also, coal is 30%. So liberalibra overrepresented by 3.3%, but you underrepresented by 5%. If you're going to go around and say someone is being misleading, maybe don't use the most skewed numbers in your favor when doing it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/?utm_term=.d3a0dbd24312

  Didnt see the sources on the wapo article. Ferc was source for the numbers I put initially. But it looks like mainly terminology discrepancy, I should have been more careful. Just under 25% is based on Capacity. 30% is based on total power generated through the year. Coal plants will run ~100% because they're costly/slow to start up whereas natural gas (for example) can be varied more quickly.  All of these numbers also exclude distributed generation (rooftop solar, etc), no idea what % is smaller plants, might be negligible.

It's a big deal that basically ~0 of new capacity is coal. That's why it continues to shrink as a percentage of total power produced. Whether there's 0 electric cars or millions, this won't affect the schedule of shutting down the old coal plants - they're going to run until they're retired. This will only be when maintenance and fuel exceeds the cost of building new plants (which are not coal) and the cost to shutdown/cleanup the old plants -electric cars have no effect on this.

  
But you're missing the other elephant in the power plant room - natural gas. It's number 1 and we're still building them. While it's misleading to say that an electric car is essentially a coal burning car, it's not misleading to say that the majority of power for lots of electric cars comes from natural gas. We're still no where near the point where EVs are true zero emissions vehicles. Which is fine - it's just important to point that out when people try to say that they are ZEVs. EVs are awesome for lots of people, but they aren't going to have the environmental impact that "greenies" wish they were going to have. Those of us that want free markets and want the government out of our car buying decisions feel these facts need to be more commonly understood, that's all. I'm all for companies making EVs and consumers buying them, but when my tax money is going to subsidize them, I take issue with that. I also take issue with all the other things my tax money subsidizes, but we're talking about EVs at the moment.

Skipping 7 Messages...
rated:
meade18 said:   
jerosen said:   
meade18 said:   
wilesmt said:   That's fine. But if you are going to include power plant emissions when talking about EV pollution, you have to be fair and do the same with ICEs.

EVs are cleaner than ICEs even when powered 100% by coal, except for a small number of pollutants. That's because just to get a gallon of gas takes so much energy that you could drive the EV on that energy and leave the dino sludge in the ground. Cracking oil is incredibly energy intensive. And variable speed small displacemnts engines are terribly inefficient.

  
Jerosen and I had this discussion in an earlier thread, but not about pollutants, only about carbon emissions. The consensus was that EVs emit less carbon from cradle to grave compared to ICEs, but not by much, and (when only looking at dollar amounts) not nearly enough to justify the subsidies when you consider the price of carbon offsets. I don't know how much offsets are for actual pollutants (carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant), but I would venture to guess that the numbers for cradle to grave pollutant emissions are similar to carbon emissions. So the question still remains, is it worth it? That a fair argument to have.

  


I don't remember the "not by much" bit.      EVs are significantly better.   


But yeah, alone the CO2 reduction might not be enough to warrant a $7500 subsidy.

 

Since CO2 emmissions over a vehicle's lifetime is measured in tons, I guess 1 more ton is actually a TON of CO2 lol. So, yeah "not by much" is probably too subjective a measure. I guess a better point would have been that even though EVs may not emit anything, when you consider cradle to grave emissions, the power generation issue (and the fuel used during production) puts EVs a lot closer to ICEs when it comes to emissions than most people realize.

  I don't think most EV buyers are calculating if EV produces less or more carbons.  Most buyers probably don't realize coals are still used in power plants to produce electricity, The perception is that driving EV feels like you are polluting less. People like me won't miss toxic smell/handling of gasoline, and no more oil changes. I personally like the fact that I don't have to stand in a long line at Costco to pump gas. Just plug in when I get home and car will be fully charged in the morning.  I bet Costco will start installing superchargers in 2018 so that customers can charge EV while shopping at Costco.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017