Investment Strategies / Falling Knives
No. of Recommendations: 1
...are set to take place in a few years. Clearly, there is a winner here. China.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-you-s...he Biden administration on Wednesday published a rule that’s expected to drive a significant shift from gas-powered to electric vehicle (EV) sales.
For consumers, this is expected to mean more available and affordable EVs. Some analysts say it could also have the opposite effect on gas-powered cars, making them pricier and less available.Right off the bat, we're getting into speculation. The average price an EV today is $53k according to Kelly Blue Book (
https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/how-much-electric-c....)
which is $5k more than a gas powered car. I realize some of you love your Teslas, but until and unless battery technology moves into the solid state realm they will be a no-sale for me.
The Biden administration said the rule issued Wednesday could result in just 29 percent of the new car market remaining gas-powered in 2032. In the administration’s lowest-cost scenario, it estimated by that year, 56 percent of vehicles would be battery electric, 13 percent would be plug-in hybrids and 3 percent would be other hybrids.Yuck.
No. of Recommendations: 6
which is $5k more than a gas powered car. I realize some of you love your Teslas, but until and
Of course 10 years ago they were $20k higher, 5 years ago $10k higher, and now $5k higher. We can expect the prices to equalize in another couple years, based on how quickly battery costs are coming down.
unless battery technology moves into the solid state realm they will be a no-sale for me.
Nobody is stopping you from buying a gas car. All major manufacturers will continue to produce them for years, probably decades, unless the market decides otherwise. You are in favor of the market, right?
No. of Recommendations: 3
Nobody is stopping you from buying a gas car. All major manufacturers will continue to produce them for years, probably decades, unless the market decides otherwise. You are in favor of the market, right?
But it's pretty clear that this regulation will change where the market is. There will be fewer gas cars, and they will be more expensive, than if the government handed acted.
I mean, that's the point, right? If the choices of manufacturers and consumers were going to land in a place where we had 60% EV's by 2032 (or whatever the percent is), then you wouldn't need a regulation. You only need the regulation in order to change the amounts and prices of the ICE vehicles that manufacturers offer, relative to the amount and prices of EV's.
I've seen a few statements by the Administration taking this line about the measure - and I don't entirely understand the messaging. They're trying to tell Greens that they're taking big consequential action that will materially help the climate....while simultaneously claiming that the regulation isn't going to affect anyone's options or choices. Those things can't both be true. You can't materially change what's going to be available on the market without materially changing what's going to be available on the market.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Of course 10 years ago they were $20k higher, 5 years ago $10k higher, and now $5k higher. We can expect the prices to equalize in another couple years, based on how quickly battery costs are coming down.Does that include the subsidies?
Nobody is stopping you from buying a gas car. All major manufacturers will continue to produce them for years, probably decades, unless the market decides otherwise. You are in favor of the market, right?This isn't "the market". The market is speaking quite loudly on EVs:
Ford halts F150 Lightning production:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/business/ford-f-150...Fiskar pauses production
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportat......and there have been others. EV sales aren't doing all that well at the moment.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I mean, that's the point, right? If the choices of manufacturers and consumers were going to land in a place where we had 60% EV's by 2032 (or whatever the percent is), then you wouldn't need a regulation. You only need the regulation in order to change the amounts and prices of the ICE vehicles that manufacturers offer, relative to the amount and prices of EV's.
This x1000. You don't get to claim "The market has spoken"! when you're the one literally dictating to the market what it can produce and offer to consumers in the first place.
EV demand is slowing to the point where automakers are walking back their previous statements around full electrification. You're seeing some production lines paused or shut down and more of a shift towards hybrids again.
No. of Recommendations: 1
EV sales have been up every year for about a decade. Though it is NOT a monotonic line. Goes up, goes down. But the longer term trend is up, as battery prices go down (which they are). And range is going up.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240228-are-...While drivers in the US have been slow to adopt EVs in significant numbers, sales overall continue to increase. During the final quarter of 2023, EV sales in the US grew 40% year-over-year, according to data from Cox Automotive, with total sales of nearly 1.2 million vehicles.
...
He says that Ford and GM may have miscalculated when they leaned into expensive electric trucks and luxury models, which may be why the two companies overestimated EV demand. "There's only so many people ready to buy electric trucks, and most of them are not traditional truck-buyers," he says.That said, ICE is going to be with us for a long time. And some applications probably are not -yet- suitable for EVs. Like the F150 Lightning (it looks really slick, but I have no interest in one, and those who actually need a truck might have issues recharging all the time).
No. of Recommendations: 3
Of course China wins.
Blue States get favors!
No. of Recommendations: 2
One of the more ironic things I have seen is the large number of conservative friends that have switched to both solar and an EV in order to get "freedom" from the man. Here in CA such a switch does make economic sense.
Alan
No. of Recommendations: 2
One of the more ironic things I have seen is the large number of conservative friends that have switched to both solar and an EV in order to get "freedom" from the man. Here in CA such a switch does make economic sense.
We have property out in the sticks and we're looking at solar for it. Why? Because we lose power all the friggin' time out there.
When things make sense, you should do them.
Too often, things don't make sense...and the government is usually involved.
Here's an item that doesn't make sense: Paying China - the world's worst industrial polluter - for the heavy metals and components to make batteries in the name of "climate change" is insane.
No. of Recommendations: 0
From what little I've seen, hybrid cars seem to be doing better in the market, but few places know how to fix em.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Solar won't solve your power loss problems unless you have a very specific setup. If you have a grid-tie, you can't do it. They won't want the lines energized while their people work on them. If you go batteries, then all you would have to do is manually throw a switch to disconnect the grid, and connect the batteries.
I remember I had visions of having power while the neighborhood was dark (we get blackouts every few years, usually during particularly violent storms). But the power company said "no can do with a grid tie". The subsidies demand a grid-tie, but if you don't care about that then you could do a bypass switch and batteries.
FYI.
No. of Recommendations: 6
This isn't "the market". The market is speaking quite loudly on EVs:
Ford halts F150 Lightning production:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/business/ford-f-150...
Fiskar pauses production
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportat... As usual you cherry pick an example or two and ignore the larger trend. EV sales are up pretty dramatically year over year, and continue to increase, even as a couple of manufacturers find they have over-estimated demand and are throttling back.
EV sales aren't doing all that well at the moment. Since Q3 2021, EV sales have increased every quarter, and the share of total
light-duty vehicle sales that EVs represent isn’t shrinking, either.
https://theicct.org/us-ev-sales-soar-into-24-jan24....
This x1000. You don't get to claim "The market has spoken"! when you're the one literally dictating to the market what it can produce and offer to consumers in the first place. I’m not saying “the market has spoken”. I’m saying EVs are growing, and yes, they’re being helped along by subsidies. Just like nuclear power grew with government subsidies, just like highways and electrification grew with subsidies, just like microchips and the internet grew with subsidies. The market is a great and wonderful thing, but it is not perfect. In this case it doesn’t take into account externalities: tailpipe emissions, pollution, smog, and potential climate change.
The very purpose of regulations is to modify behavior. It’s to stop bad meat from reaching your table, whack medicines from being on the market, and (in this case) nudging the market - over time - to transition to more efficient use of energy stocks for the good of the country.
No. of Recommendations: 0
As usual you cherry pick an example or two and ignore the larger trend.</iL
If you think that the manufacturer of the electric version of the #1 vehicle in America pausing production is cherry picking…then I don’t know what to tell you.
EV sales trends: they’re complex.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/2023/12/14/...
The proof is a combination of hard numbers and harder decisions by some of the major automakers. Those decisions include General Motors Co. slowing plans for new EV introductions and delaying the rollout of a new generation Chevrolet Bolt EV and EUV until 2025 and Ford Motor Co. cutting production of its F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck by 50% at the start of 2024.
*shrugs*
I’m not saying “the market has spoken”.
This was you upthread:
Nobody is stopping you from buying a gas car. All major manufacturers will continue to produce them for years, probably decades, unless the market decides otherwise. You are in favor of the market, right?
As was pointed out, the market is being distorted in 2 ways: the government attempting to literally mandate gas vehicles out of existence by imposing rules and by also effectively bribing consumers to buy them. That’s not exactly the market in action.
I don’t hate electric vehicles. My college senior project was in working on my university’s hybrid electric vehicle team way back in the mid ‘90s. I’ve since managed battery teams in the PC industry and toured pack manufacturers in China and South Korea.
It’s not a clean business. The Koreans go to a lot of lengths to do things the right way but the Chinese are massive exploiters of a lot of people. Enriching these people is a huge mistake. I remember a talk over at Samsung with the head of their environmental programs. Guy said that the Chinese would mouth all the words about responsible mining…but that at every mining village in Africa where they have little kids dig cobalt out of the ground with their bare hands at night…there’s a Chinese trader at the end of the table. Responsible? Nope.
In this case it doesn’t take into account externalities: tailpipe emissions, pollution, smog, and potential climate change.
I’d consider national security via energy security to be fairly high on the list of things to do. Sending gobs of money to the Chinese for rare earth minerals and batteries is a bad idea. The other bad idea with respect to EV’s is the state of the grid itself: could the US energy grid absorb literally millions of cars?
The answer is a clear “it depends”. It depends on a number of things: can we make transformers here in the United States? Can we generate enough clean electricity to handle it? Can the physical power grid stand up to the load? Etc.
The issue is far more nuanced than is ever debated. Rushing to do full electric is a bad idea. If you want to mandate something, mandate hybrids.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Solar won't solve your power loss problems unless you have a very specific setup. If you have a grid-tie, you can't do it. They won't want the lines energized while their people work on them. If you go batteries, then all you would have to do is manually throw a switch to disconnect the grid, and connect the batteries.
That’s how you’d do it, yes. You place a voltage comparator on your incoming line that’s powered by your battery bank. When the incoming line voltage drops to zero the output triggers a switch to shunt power from the mains to the battery bank. Then when the power comes back on your comparator senses a night line voltage and switches you back over to residential power.
No. of Recommendations: 0
In principle, yes. SRP (my utility) wouldn't even allow that. When the power goes out, our solar is cut off too. I asked about such a setup, and they said "no". A former coworker got around that (sort of) by having a separate battery circuit that powered some things, independent of the main wiring. I don't recall now what he had on that circuit, but I think that literally he had two outlets in some locations so he could swap plugs to keep (for example) his freezer running.
I suspect different utilities have different rules, so yours in WA may allow what you describe. Though I believe backup generators work the same way, and they allow those. It was just solar, apparently. Or maybe it's because we're residential (i.e. they might not allow an automatic backup generator either).
No. of Recommendations: 4
I suspect different utilities have different rules, so yours in WA may allow what you describe. Though I believe backup generators work the same way, and they allow those. It was just solar, apparently. Or maybe it's because we're residential (i.e. they might not allow an automatic backup generator either). - 1pg
-------------
I didn't comment when the grid connection for solar was discussed. However, I do have a 32KW whole house generator that runs on propane. The setup includes a transfer switch that connects to the grid, the generator and the home.
The transfer switch passes grid power to the home in normal operation. If the transfer switch detects loss of grid power for 15 seconds, it will signal the generator to fire up. It lets the generator spin up for 30 seconds and then disconnects the home from the grid and transfers the load to the generator.
The transfer switch will monitor the grid while the generator feeds the home. When it detects grid power for 15 continuous seconds, it will switch the load back to the grid, and signal the generator to shut down. All automatic, easy peasy. I don't see why solar would be any different solar as far as the transfer switch goes.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The transfer switch will monitor the grid while the generator feeds the home. When it detects grid power for 15 continuous seconds, it will switch the load back to the grid, and signal the generator to shut down. All automatic, easy peasy. I don't see why solar would be any different solar as far as the transfer switch goes.
It shouldn't be. I've never heard of a utility prohibiting its customers from connecting local power sources to the grid or somehow preventing them from utilizing a generator of some kind.
No. of Recommendations: 0
So no Solar systems with a battery backup? This makes no sense to me.
Alan
No. of Recommendations: 0
You can have a battery backup, they just don't want that connected to the grid. My former coworker has a shed of marine batteries, charged by solar, and he runs some stuff off of it. He was talking about connecting a few outlets in his home right next to the normal house outlets, but I don't know if he actually did it. Sticks in my mind he mentioned his freezer specifically.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You can have a battery backup, they just don't want that connected to the grid.
Correct. You have to connect any in-home generator or in-home backup battery / inverter arrangment through a breaker arrangement that uses a physical interlock that prevents BOTH the commercial incoming AC feed and the generator source from being connected to the house wiring at the same time. The interlock sits between the commercial breaker and the breaker added for the in-home source so that the commercial breaker must be off before the interlock allows the in-home source breaker to be turned on, and vice versa.
An automatic switch can also be used so you don't have to throw the breakers manually so heat stays on, etc. if you are away from home but that gear costs around $600 versus $60-120 for a manual switch configuration. It also cannot guarantee zero outage time because it still has to turn one OFF before turning the other on. An auto-switch typically implements delay logic so it doesn't rapidly bounce back and forth if a storm is causing multiple interruptions. Once it swings to in-home, it may stay on that mode for 5-10 minutes, even if commercial power comes back in seconds.
WTH
