So many posts about, will you still buy if the EV credit

[mthulhu]

I’m about 5 years out from needing a new vehicle, but yes I will still want it. There is nothing at that price range with this much style, innovation, and character. The virtues of “American made”, right to repair support, and affordable operating costs are also selling points.

In short, Slate’s appeal goes way beyond just being the cheapest car on the market for me. As long as it stays pretty affordable I’m on board. I don't believe the lack of a government subsidy will price me out.

 

[Neil Nelson]

We can generate the infrastructure without using fossil fuels. See https://www.solarpaces.org/solar-furnace-to-melt-steel-at-2000c-for-swiss-recycler-panatere/ Also see 'electrical smelters' on google.

 

[E90400K]

We generate solar and are really happy with it. It’s true that for now, battery storage for nighttime house appliances is expensive. But man, when storms have knocked the utility grid down, having battery juice is worth every penny. No stinking, noisy generator to fill with fuel. Very unhappy that Republicans are killing any renewable energy things they can and I will no longer vote for any of them.

Smelly, nah. With using the right safety fuel can, no fuel spillage. I mean really, you are trying to spin a gas-fueled ICE generator as some unsightly, smelly beast. LOL, if you are even a bit handy and understand how to care for a small engine appliance, it's quite an effective temporary power source.

 

[Benjamin Nead]

57% of US electrical energy is fueled by natural gas, coal and crude oil (with a 1.2% increase in the global electricity market). China just this year approved 95GW of coal power plant construction, the highest level since 2015. So, that's on the fuel side.

But I was actually speaking to the use of fossil fuels to create the infrastructure that is built to generate electricity. Hence the short sidedness on the entirety of the whole energy production picture. If you think the fossil fuel industry is going anywhere in the next 100 years, it's not.

And something like 94% of all new electrical generation installed in the US in 2024 was from renewable sources. But, as you'll almost certainly point out, the whole thing is a ruse because fossil fuels were involved in the manufacturing and deployment of said infrastructure, life cycle assessments be damned. Or the workmen were wearing safety hats molded from petroleum-derived plastics? Or that the solar panels and/or wind turbine blades required fossil fuels in their manufacture, at least here in the early to mid 21st century? I'm reminded that Bronze Age technology was required to transition us into the Iron Age. So, no, I don't share your opinion that we're completely stuck with fossil fuels until the the end of time, or the next 100 year, whichever comes first.

Look . . . you might smugly agree with the current administration that this whole thing is a green new scam. I don't and I'm not alone with my outrage that what is happening in Washington right now is not only an affront on me, but ultimately very bad for the economic future of this country. I would have preferred my next set of solar panels come from a US manufacturing concern. But If those firms are now kneecapped and all I have to chose from is Asian or European made stuff, so be it.

If my neighbors are still heating their homes with methane in 10 years time and living on
the precipice of perpetual fear that an international conflict half way around the world is going to make it too expensive for them to drive to work tomorrow morning, they've lost the battle, not me. I would have preferred to bring them into a more enlightened place. But if they don't want to come, I can't force them. I can only attempt to convince them.

So, you think the whole EV tax credit thing should go away and we should just buckle down and drive on gasoline until we can't any longer. But, hey, we'll be pure and virtuous going back to horse drawn carriages because, yeah, all those EVs were just really fossil fuel vehicles hidden behind the specter of batteries and magnetic motors. My argument is not just with fossil fuel proponents, but with green purists who are basically technophobes. You seem to be in one place or another. Hard from me to tell from just a brief online conversation. But I've moved on and you, apparently, haven't. Let's just leave it at that. Or, meet me on some dedicated forum where American made electric small trucks are just a conversational side meal, not the main course.

 

[OldGoat]

Beginning to wonder if E90400K is a troll for the oil companies. He makes no sense. The whole process of mining, transporting, refining, storing, re-transporting oil is crazy. Renewable energy, batteries and EV’s are admittedly in the pupae stage. But so was my cumbersome bag phone in the early 80’s and now they are powerful tools. I don’t want anyone new to EV’s to believe that you can’t count on wind or solar to be a major source of juice . Government should not kill initiatives to advance any/all EV and renewable energy companies based here.

 

[cvollers]

Modern cars are complicated because of FEDERAL emissions standards and safety regulations/standards. We all voted for the people who created the pathway for such regs to exist.

Stop crying about it. Lol.

If people actually learned how to drive before getting a license (to kill), maybe we would have fewer safety regulations and cars would be simpler.

 

[Luxrage]

Where else can you get a featureless 2-door truck EV for $30k new?

One of the big counter arguments I see on youtube and other places is "This is nowhere near as cheap as the Chinese EVs they are selling for ten thousand!"

Ok... where are they?

I get that they're out there but OUR market doesn't get to have them! Even at $25k a Slate looks appealing against a $39k Kia Nero and a bit more appealing than a $32K Hyundai Kona, especially if you're looking for a pickup bed.

 

[E90400K]

And something like 94% of all new electrical generation installed in the US in 2024 was ...

Or, meet me on some dedicated forum where American made electric small trucks are just a conversational side meal, not the main course.

You're the one who got on your "political soapbox" on a forum that directly discusses a small American made EV truck as its conversational main course. All I said is, it is short sided to think the fossil fuel industry is going away. You broadened your soapbox.

 

[E90400K]

If people actually learned how to drive before getting a license (to kill), maybe we would have fewer safety remand cars would be simpler.

100% agree.

 

[E90400K]

Beginning to wonder if E90400K is a troll for the oil companies. He makes no sense. The whole process of mining, transporting, refining, storing, re-transporting oil is crazy. Renewable energy, batteries and EV’s are admittedly in the pupae stage. But so was my cumbersome bag phone in the early 80’s and now they are powerful tools. I don’t want anyone new to EV’s to believe that you can’t count on wind or solar to be a major source of juice . Government should not kill initiatives to advance any/all EV and renewable energy companies based here.

The only difference is your 1980's cell phone tech advancement was driven by market forces (i.e. product competition) that created smaller and more efficient transistors and supporting electronic components for a wide array electronic devices, none of which was forced by government legislation.

 

[Benjamin Nead]

Beginning to wonder if E90400K is a troll for the oil companies. He makes no sense. The whole process of mining, transporting, refining, storing, re-transporting oil is crazy. Renewable energy, batteries and EV’s are admittedly in the pupae stage. But so was my cumbersome bag phone in the early 80’s and now they are powerful tools. I don’t want anyone new to EV’s to believe that you can’t count on wind or solar to be a major source of juice . Government should not kill initiatives to advance any/all EV and renewable energy companies based here.

Probably not a fossil fuel industry troll, but certainly unaware that it's possible to get beyond fossil fuels to the degree that he currently envisions. The argument presented was not so much the viability of oil vs. electricity to get from point A to point B, but the building of the electric-powered machines themselves (metal/plastic EVs, batteries, solar panels) without using fossil fuels in the process. In that respect, E90400K is correct: you still need it. My point is that it's presumptuous to assume that this will still be the case 100 years from now, much less 10 to 20 years from now.

Remember that the manufacturing of steel (auto frames and sheet metal parts) requires extreme heat, which has traditionally required the burning of coal. But there are processes far along in the development stage that will allow us to produce that intense heat without any coal at all. The challenges are how much more the end product will cost to make it clean and can it be produced at scale (ie: not just in small laboratory batches) . . .



Note that one of the processes described in the above video involves hydrogen. But then you have to do a deep dive into how that hydrogen was made. Do you extract it from methane via steam reformation (dirty) or via electrolysis from water (clean.)

The long argument with hydrogen is that many believed it was about to become a viable transportation fuel in its own right. After a couple of decades, though, most will correctly argue that it doesn't pencil out for that use case. But there are still industrial processes - like the manufacturing of steel - where it makes sense.

Conclusion #1: We've already invented viable electric cars. It's possible to get places without burning a drop of gasoline. The problem is that building those car still requires fossil fuels. The good news is that they don't require an endless supply of fossil fuels to keep running and, after as little as 2 years, those EVs will have paid back all the emissions it took to build them. The longer that EV is on the road, the cleaner it becomes.

Conclusion #2: What the current administration is doing with the elimination of clean energy subsidies and consumer tax break is bone-headed and vindictive. And, yes, it was bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. It will also give every other country who is developing their own clean tech a lead over us in world markets. The Chinese were already ahead and now we've given them a further lead, all while making millions of ordinary Americans just that much poorer. I hope voters will remember all of this over the course of the next couple of election cycles.

 

[Benjamin Nead]

The only difference is your 1980's cell phone tech advancement was driven by market forces (i.e. product competition) that created smaller and more efficient transistors and supporting electronic components for a wide array electronic devices, none of which was forced by government legislation.

Great! Glad you agree. The United States should not be "picking winners and losers" when it comes to things like this. So I'm sure you're as outraged as I am that the fossil fuel industry is extracting as much as 760 billion dollars annually from the American tax payer in direct and indirect subsidies . . .

https://www.fractracker.org/2025/03/fossil-fuel-subsidies-free-market-myth/

Now, of course, fixing this vast economic inequity would mean that the dino juice you use to run your not-so-smelly gadgets is going to cost you much more, even if if all came from domestic wells (it won't and never will, despite what Dear Leader tells you.) Of course that also means gasoline will go up to about $10 or $12 per gallon in the US and stay there until we finally run out of the stuff.

But I'm fine with that. I've already begun the process of removing fossil fuels from my life as much as I can. It's the ones who are currently doubling down who are going to be in a world of hurt when (not if) the current fossil fuel subsidy situation changes . . .

 

[Benjamin Nead]

Could you be more specific? I opened your USEIA PDF once to glance it quickly. There is a section in there on fossil fuel subsidies (yes, they're real,) but I didn't really read through it carefully. When I went back to take another look, the Slate Forums administrators wouldn't let me open it again. I guess they have security measures in place when it comes to accessing attachments like this within messages.

So, yes, what was the specific point you wanted to make about fossil fuel subsidies?

 

[E90400K]

Could you be more specific? I opened your USEIA PDF once to glance it quickly. There is a section in there on fossil fuel subsidies (yes, they're real,) but I didn't really read through it carefully. When I went back to take another look, the Slate Forums administrators wouldn't let me open it again. I guess they have security measures in place when it comes to accessing attachments like this within messages.

So, yes, what was the specific point you wanted to make about fossil fuel subsidies?

I've wasted too much time on forums discussing such topics to nothing but a useless end, so I've decided to not participate in this discussion further. But to answer your question, my specific point was real tangible data published by the US Federal Government.

You can easily find the information on the EIA's government website to get the true picture of what government energy subsidies go where. I posted the August 2023 report, which is what you saw, I then decided to take my post down to avoid further pointless discussion. The EIA subsidy data reported is as of GFY 2022. In summary the data show that "renewable" energy direct Government subsides far exceed those of the fossil fuel industry. The report has separate pages for each energy sector. But in summary, for GFY 2021, the Government direct expenditures on the fossil fuel industry (coal, natural gas, and liquid petroleum fuels) was $4.7B vs. renewables at $15.3B. Pages 6 through 9 of the IEA Report Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Fiscal Years 2016 - 2022.

What you link to is internet influencer propaganda, which I have no interest in. Such information such as stating $760B of subsidies on fossil fuels throws in intangibles like the US Defense budget, estimated healthcare costs, environmental impact cost, etc.

I like to work with tangible information. The rest just falls under Dumas Googleheim's Razor - "Shall it not be validated by the Internet, then therefore it cannot be true."

 

[Letas]

I think for me, killing the bill pushes me to consider other vehicles a bit more strongly.

1) obviously this gives ICE cars an edge on pricing. The credit helped level the field

but say Im only looking at EVs-

2) this brings the Slate closer in price to other “more speced” EVs. I anticipate my Slate will be ~$32500 msrp, given that I want bigger battery, SUV kit, etc. Maybe more, I’m optimistic.
Most other EVs I’d consider (equinox, MY, R2) are listed at 45k MSRP, give or take.

With the tax credit, the Slate is ~33% cheaper. Without the credit (equally applied to both), the Slate is closer to 25% cheaper. Starts to make me question if the creature comforts or lack thereof are worth the difference.

Just a different way to see the same question!