Tesla Truck Purchasers to receive $75,000 from Government

[Mark Gregory]

Up here in Ontario, Canada Tesla purchasers are to receive quite a rebate from the government . Warren Buffet has money in BYD .

Does the USA offer an equal incentive ? ?

 

It seems that "Ice Road Truckers" will look cooler but sound a lot less dramatic in the future, thanks to electric semis.

Canada's most populated province announced that it will offer purchasers of electric semi trucks a rebate on 60 percent of their purchase price up to CA$75,000 as part of the new Green Commercial Vehicle Program.

Since Tesla's debut of its fully electric semi truck in November, the company has received hundreds of orders from large companies here in the US. This Canadian incentive plan could see many more electric semis, including ones from Chinese company BYD, convoying across the frozen North.

Enlarge Ima

Edited December 15, 2017 by Mark Gregory (see edit history)

[Joe in Canada]

So is this going to match our hydro bill that pays for the privately owned solar green incentives. Let big business pay for there own trucks and not my taxes. Sorry but this is a soar spot of mine where government pays 6x the nuclear hydro rate to solar and windmill farms and now trucks.

            Sorry for getting political. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Joe in Canada (see edit history)

[C Carl]

Unless I am thermodynamically challenged at the moment , I can't see the efficiency of anything other than an internal combustion engine in super cold conditions. The necessities of survival and comfort in the cab , make good use of the "waste" heat from the big diesels. Wouldn't that be a huge draw on the batteries ? Or would they carry oil fired heat ? Hmmmmmmm ........ ! I guess THAT might be more efficient yet ! What fascinating times we live in !    - Carl 

[CatBird]

In Georgia, electric cars are being charged a yearly tax since they are not paying the gasoline tax to maintain the highways. 

[Janousek]

What a sham.   Tax dollars keeping these clean energie companies afloat.  Except solar, most of those couldn't make it even with free money.  

[8E45E]

8 hours ago, Joe in Canada said:

So is this going to match our hydro bill that pays for the privately owned solar green incentives. Let big business pay for there own trucks and not my taxes. Sorry but this is a soar spot of mine where government pays 6x the nuclear hydro rate to solar and windmill farms and now trucks.

            Sorry for getting political. 

I remember in the early 1980's the Feds gave a $400 rebate to owners of vehicles who converted to propane, or bought a Ford or a Dodge that was already on propane fuel.

 

35 years later, we aren't being overrun with propane-powered vehicles.

 

Craig

[R Walling]

7 hours ago, C Carl said:

Unless I am thermodynamically challenged at the moment , I can't see the efficiency of anything other than an internal combustion engine in super cold conditions. The necessities of survival and comfort in the cab , make good use of the "waste" heat from the big diesels. Wouldn't that be a huge draw on the batteries ? Or would they carry oil fired heat ? Hmmmmmmm ........ ! I guess THAT might be more efficient yet ! What fascinating times we live in !    - Carl 

 

You can buy baseboard oil fired heat for motorhomes why not trucks.

 Ps, they already have small internal combustion units in trucks that keep the batteries up and the cab temperature nice and cosy when you are not driving.

[Matt Harwood]

It has long been government policy to encourage new technology through financial incentives. Some pan out and some don't, but without the government to invest in technology before there's a market, many technologies would never go anywhere. Some are dead-ends, but that doesn't mean we should stop investing in ideas. Perfection or nothing is a great way to fall behind the rest of the world. This wonderful internet we're using right now? That's how it came about, not because of market demand and profit-driven research. That cell phone you use every day? Same deal. Most technology exists long before a market for it does and waiting for widespread commercial/profit-driven adoption of it means we fall farther behind countries like China, who are aggressively pursuing an all-electric infrastructure. The future is coming, like it or not, and if we want to be great again, we have to stay competitive, not pretend that if we wish hard enough, it'll be 1954 again.

 

It is a mistake to regard tax incentives and grants as a hand-out but rather as a way to encourage an entrenched industry to consider and adopt new technology, which, in the long run, will benefit the country's economy and security. I know everyone thinks we'll have cheap gas forever (am I the only one who remembers everyone complaining about $5/gallon gas back in, oh, 2006?), but moving towards something like this now rather than when we have to will be better for everyone. Besides, we as old car hobbyists should be pleased that the general automotive public seems to be willing to move away from internal combustion and towards other sources of power for vehicles. That means more (and cheaper) gasoline for us.

 

This is a good thing, not another stupid governmental waste of your taxpayer dollars. Look at the big picture instead of picking it as the outrage of the day.

 

Investing in technology? That's good for us all, I promise.

[Janousek]

Let the companies invest their own money in this fantastic new "coal fired technology".  It will work out for them if it's better.  That is how it works when the government keeps it noses out of every aspect of our lives.  They will have to sink or swim without pissing everybody else's money away without any accountability.  

[trimacar]

Well, the most overlooked thing about electric vehicles is that the electricity has to come from somewhere.  A power plant, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, must be run, or a wind farm or solar array must be used (neither of which are cost efficient from both a capital expense and operational expense viewpoint, at this point in time).  So, using electric vehicles doesn't 100% solve anything, it just moves the usage and pollution and environmental impact to a less visible arena.

 

Where the government should be spending money is on mass transit.  85% of the cars on the road today have just ONE person in them, the driver.  That is an inefficient use of resources.

 

I have a hard time getting upset about golf cart rental, particularly when the numbers seem skewed.  Most golf cart rentals are $15 to $20 an hour, let's say that at the expensive clubs it's $50 an hour.  AT the $1.6 million quoted, that's 32,000 hours of rented golf carts.  That's a nonsensical number.  The Secret Service has a budget of $2.2 billion for 2017, and there has to be some fluff in that to cover unexpected expenses.

 

Keeping it sort of automotive, when were golf carts invented?  Why don't we see "antique" ones?

[Pomeroy41144]

2 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

It has long been government policy to encourage new technology through financial incentives. Some pan out and some don't, but without the government to invest in technology before there's a market, many technologies would never go anywhere. Some are dead-ends, but that doesn't mean we should stop investing in ideas. Perfection or nothing is a great way to fall behind the rest of the world. This wonderful internet we're using right now? That's how it came about, not because of market demand and profit-driven research. That cell phone you use every day? Same deal. Most technology exists long before a market for it does and waiting for widespread commercial/profit-driven adoption of it means we fall farther behind countries like China, who are aggressively pursuing an all-electric infrastructure. The future is coming, like it or not, and if we want to be great again, we have to stay competitive, not pretend that if we wish hard enough, it'll be 1954 again.

 

It is a mistake to regard tax incentives and grants as a hand-out but rather as a way to encourage an entrenched industry to consider and adopt new technology, which, in the long run, will benefit the country's economy and security. I know everyone thinks we'll have cheap gas forever (am I the only one who remembers everyone complaining about $5/gallon gas back in, oh, 2006?), but moving towards something like this now rather than when we have to will be better for everyone. Besides, we as old car hobbyists should be pleased that the general automotive public seems to be willing to move away from internal combustion and towards other sources of power for vehicles. That means more (and cheaper) gasoline for us.

 

This is a good thing, not another stupid governmental waste of your taxpayer dollars. Look at the big picture instead of picking it as the outrage of the day.

 

Investing in technology? That's good for us all, I promise.

 

 

 

 

Well said Matt. 

[Matt Harwood]

 

I have a friend who owns a golf course here in Cleveland and he has a sizeable collection of vintage golf carts that's kind of neat. Nothing exotic (if there is such a thing in the golf cart world) but plenty from the '40s through today. Interesting to see how they evolved from having small gasoline engines, some are propane, some are pure electric, three wheels, four wheels, etc. He keeps them all functional, although they don't use them at the course but they're in a barn on the property. Cool to see that they haven't really changed much, although I can see the three-wheeled ones getting people in trouble today (anybody seen "Jackass" the movie?).

 

I'd bet money that there's an antique golf cart club or society somewhere...

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

[TerryB]

In Henry Ford's autobiography he lamented the problems with finding investment funds to keep his experiment of an automobile for the masses going.  Private investors wanted a fixed return of an amount that was unrealistic for a new company.  Some small investments with Government funds help overcome this obstacle to help get new ideas that have merit for the overall benefit of the population as a whole.  As Matt said, the benefits in many cases far outweigh the investment cost.  I would prefer my government investing in this technology rather than China.  Sure it's tax dollars, but investment in my country's future seems worthwhile.

Terry

[JV Puleo]

Perhaps...

But when the decisions are being made by politicians whose agenda is usually looking as THEY are "doing something"... who invariably have no knowledge or little interest in the subject beyond how many votes they think it can garner or which constituency they want to pander to, I have very serious reservations. I fail to be convinced that I should be contributing to a multi-millionare buying a Tesla automobile. I am not sure the benefits outweigh the cost, although the idea isn't new. It began in 1792 when the government subsidized the arms industry as a matter of national security....Effectively, America had no capacity to manufacture arms then. But, they did it by offering to buy a finished product and making advances to entrepreneurs who were prepared to try to make them. There was nothing new about the technology...the arms themselves were largely copies of obsolete French models. If the manufactures failed, and most of them did, they went bankrupt... the taxpayers didn't continue to dump money into dry hole.

 

Years ago, Rhode Island held a referendum on a proposed technology initiative called "The Greenhouse Compact". It was all made to sound oh-so-forward thinking. It would bring jobs to the state...all the conventional claptrap. Then the membership of the special committee that would decide where all this money was to be spent was announced. They were all (or nearly all) lawyers and most, or all,  were the state reps that controlled the legislature. Every time we've tried this, the decisions on where to "invest" have been catastrophically bad. The state just lost millions on a computer game company promoted by a baseball player. If professional venture capitalists - people who make their living promoting new products and technology with their own money, refuse to support a new idea then perhaps it's questionable to allow politicians to do it with the taxpayers money.

[Joe in Canada]

Yes invest in technology. But you are investing in Chinese or Mexico production that will be getting the incentive benefits on the new vehicles. Where are all the batteries being made as they will need replacements also? I would think off shore because of environment regulations. Where are all the batteries going to be disposed of seeing we will be talking a lot of batteries and how many cars on the road. It is going to be like cordless power tools where they keep upgrading to a new voltage so you need a new car.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Joe in Canada (see edit history)

[C Carl]

5 hours ago, Roger Walling said:

 

You can buy baseboard oil fired heat for motorhomes why not trucks.

 Ps, they already have small internal combustion units in trucks that keep the batteries up and the cab temperature nice and cosy when you are not driving.

 

COOL !

Edited December 15, 2017 by C Carl
Miscue (see edit history)

[maok]

3 hours ago, trimacar said:

Well, the most overlooked thing about electric vehicles is that the electricity has to come from somewhere.  A power plant, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, must be run, or a wind farm or solar array must be used (neither of which are cost efficient from both a capital expense and operational expense viewpoint, at this point in time).  So, using electric vehicles doesn't 100% solve anything, it just moves the usage and pollution and environmental impact to a less visible arena.

 

 

Even if all electric vehicles were powered from a coal power station, they would still be more efficient than an ICE powered vehicle.

[Eldovert]

The bigger issue might be the loss of jobs.Truck driving seems to be the most common job in 29 ? states. Combine that with artificial intelligence that will be replacing lawyers,accountants, architects..could be a very different landscape in the next ten years.
Cheers,Pat

[trimacar]

1 hour ago, maok said:

 

Even if all electric vehicles were powered from a coal power station, they would still be more efficient than an ICE powered vehicle.

Yes, over the life of the car that's true.  The manufacture of the batteries puts the electric car in the "non green" column to start with, with the pollution associated with that industry.  The electric car gains back this disadvantage and then some over the life of the car.

 

The real problem, though, is the number of new vehicles on the road every day, and the fact that existing vehicles are normally only carrying one person.  Mass transit, car pool, people sharing rides, and other societal changes need to also take place, if we're seriously going to reduce emissions and other environmental impact.  And if you study the REAL problem, it's not pollution that's going to kill the earth, it's over population.

 

Matt, there is a Golf Collectors Society, I'm not sure about a gold cart club, but as you mention there probably is or will be one.  I recently talked to a collector about old pins, he collects the service awards from companies in the United States...all those 10 and 25 year pins they used to give out, some gold and with precious gems in the setting...and he has thousands...so there's someone out there collecting ANYTHING!

 

 

[60FlatTop]

A tax credit, interesting term to think about. Think for a few seconds and "Buy 3 tires and get one free" comes to mind.

 

"Conniver" is a term that has fallen out of use......... too bad, so many applications today.

 

You know how to leave a restaurant with a dollar and a $75,000 tax credit. Walk in with three bucks and a $75,000 tax credit, order a cup of coffee.

Bernie

[maok]

1 hour ago, trimacar said:

Yes, over the life of the car that's true.  The manufacture of the batteries puts the electric car in the "non green" column to start with, with the pollution associated with that industry.  The electric car gains back this disadvantage and then some over the life of the car.

I am not sure about battery manufacturing puts the EV in the 'non green' column. Batteries will be (are being) recycled of their raw materials. Battery tech. will obviously evolve and improve as demand increases in the next 20 years and beyond.

1 hour ago, trimacar said:

 

The real problem, though, is the number of new vehicles on the road every day, and the fact that existing vehicles are normally only carrying one person.  Mass transit, car pool, people sharing rides, and other societal changes need to also take place, if we're seriously going to reduce emissions and other environmental impact.  And if you study the REAL problem, it's not pollution that's going to kill the earth, it's over population.

 

Totally agree, but our societies have evolved in such away that we rely and expect freedom of moment at will. It would be easier to make people believe in flying elephants to change existing expectations and wants. But yes, population growth is the real and big problem.

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

18 hours ago, Joe in Canada said:

So is this going to match our hydro bill that pays for the privately owned solar green incentives. Let big business pay for there own trucks and not my taxes. Sorry but this is a soar spot of mine where government pays 6x the nuclear hydro rate to solar and windmill farms and now trucks.

            Sorry for getting political. 

 

 I am with you!!

 

  Ben

[trimacar]

1 hour ago, maok said:

I am not sure about battery manufacturing puts the EV in the 'non green' column. Batteries will be (are being) recycled of their raw materials. Battery tech. will obviously evolve and improve as demand increases in the next 20 years and beyond.

Totally agree, but our societies have evolved in such away that we rely and expect freedom of moment at will. It would be easier to make people believe in flying elephants to change existing expectations and wants. But yes, population growth is the real and big problem.

The manufacture of an electrical vehicle causes more pollution than the manufacture of an ICE vehicle.  This non-green aspect is offset over the life of the car.  This paper explains it well:  http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/winter16-electric-vehicles-just-how-green-are-they

[1937hd45]

Soon to be 67 so I can't see ever owning an electric car in my lifetime, far too many other thing in life to afford and  enjoy. Bob 

Edited December 16, 2017 by 1937hd45 (see edit history)

[Joe in Canada]

 

[Larry Schramm]

I would say that generic government spending in the right place can spread the benefits over a large amount of areas.

 

IMO,  the space program of the 60's and 70's provided a lot of benefits that we still enjoy today.

[trimacar]

2 hours ago, Larry Schramm said:

I would say that generic government spending in the right place can spread the benefits over a large amount of areas.

 

IMO,  the space program of the 60's and 70's provided a lot of benefits that we still enjoy today.

 

I agree 100%.  Most people don't recognize all the good that came out of the space program.

 

The key, of course, is "spending in the right place".  

 

I just watched a local FEMA office decide to shut down, and contract the services, and throw tens of thousands of dollars of cubicle walls, desks, and cabinets in dumpsters.  A month later, The contractor then moved into the SAME offices, and under the contract FEMA had to supply the office equipment.  FEMA then proceeded to buy all new cubicles, wasting our tax money. This is not hearsay, I watched it, it's in the same complex where I rent my storage warehouse for some cars.  There, I made it car related!

Edited December 16, 2017 by trimacar (see edit history)

[1937hd45]

1 hour ago, trimacar said:

 

I agree 100%.  Most people don't recognize all the good that came out of the space program.

 

The key, of course, is "spending in the right place".  

 

I just watched a local FEMA office decide to shut down, and contract the services, and throw tens of thousands of dollars of cubicle walls, desks, and cabinets in dumpsters.  A month later, The contractor then moved into the SAME offices, and under the contract FEMA had to supply the office equipment.  FEMA then proceeded to buy all new cubicles, wasting our tax money. This is not hearsay, I watched it, its in the same complex where I rent my storage warehouse for some cars.  There, I made it car related!

That is why there are cubicle wall and office furniture lobbyists in Washington, driving expensive (non electric) automobiles. Bob 

Edited December 16, 2017 by 1937hd45 (see edit history)

[mcdarrunt]

The space programs which were a "waste of money" provided all of us with way better sealants, coatings, communication and guidance systems, and the path to all the hand held devices a large percentage of the populace have glued to their hands/ head. The "deserving" programs gave us welfare, illegitimancy, and crime.

[60FlatTop]

On 12/15/2017 at 6:32 AM, CatBird said:

In Georgia, electric cars are being charged a yearly tax since they are not paying the gasoline tax to maintain the highways. 

 

In Arizona they are taxing sunshine. https://thinkprogress.org/solar-companies-sue-over-new-rooftop-solar-tax-in-arizona-13a16311331d/

 

I have been in energy business of some sort since the oil crisis of 1973 and we knew they were going to do it. Every reduction in energy has a reduction in tax.

 

There are a lot of passive and personal activities that can't be traced. Just use your head, you can do better than they could ever envision. Don't sign a contract, take a tax incentive, or accept a grant. You could be accused of sitting in front of a sunny window.

 

I have an incandescent bulb! Horror of horrors!  It is 100 watt and next to my chair. It radiates 341 BTU and warms me. I keep my thermostat for the room quite low. If I didn't have that bulb warming me with 341 BTU's I would raise the thermostat to raise the room a few degrees. That turns on the 80,000 BTUH furnace. No thanks, Mr. Congressman, I think your focus is elsewhere.

 

Bernie

[mercer09]

Except solar, most of those couldn't make it even with free money.  

 

 

 

solar needs to be supplemented as well. as in the big solara scam of obammy!

 

All supplemental energies have done, is drive up the cost of oil for the average consumer.

 

The government is so efficient, isnt it?!

[Joe in Canada]

I remember being on the Sentimental tour in Lancaster Pa. The hotel had charging stations for electric cars at the side of the building. What I learned there was there is no standardised charging system yet. Are they going to have a Bata verses VHS type system battle in the future. You pull in to charge your car and they only charge one type of system seeing they were supplied free chargers by one company under contract. 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Joe in Canada (see edit history)

[CarNucopia]

I think we’ve seen this play before and know how it ends. The government thought ethanol was a good idea and squandered billions in tax dollars pursuing it as the solution. How’d that work out? In Europe, diesel was the solution that was subsidized. How’d that work out? EV technology is hardly at a point where we know it is the best way you propel our vehicles.  This program is simply the perfect marriage of ignorant politicians, crony-capitalists and charlatans. 

 

The solution for reducing the use of carbon based fuels is simple; tax them more. Hell, we need the funds for our roads anyway. 

 

IMO, the government should help fund primary research, like that done at a university level. They have no business selecting favorites, be they technologies or companies, in the free market. 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Buick64C (see edit history)

[1937hd45]

Remember the good days on the Forum when the talk was about ANTIQUE CARS, ya know the 25 year old and older ones? 

[maok]

49 minutes ago, 1937hd45 said:

Remember the good days on the Forum when the talk was about ANTIQUE CARS, ya know the 25 year old and older ones? 

The first Toyota Prius rolled out of the factory 20 years ago last week, so another 5 years we will talk about the antique Prius...:)

[1937hd45]

1 hour ago, maok said:

The first Toyota Prius rolled out of the factory 20 years ago last week, so another 5 years we will talk about the antique Prius...:)

Think their driving skills will improve in the next 5 years? 

[ply33]

15 hours ago, maok said:

The first Toyota Prius rolled out of the factory 20 years ago last week, so another 5 years we will talk about the antique Prius...:)

 

That thought passed my mind last month when we got rid of my wife's pristine first generation 2001 Prius, purchased in November of 2000. Just don't need as many cars in the household nowadays.

 

13 hours ago, 1937hd45 said:

Think their driving skills will improve in the next 5 years? 

 

Out of curiosity, would your improved driving skills include being more aggressive and accident prone?

 

I can't say about now, but when our 2004 Prius, acquired in 2003, was a couple years old I got a reduction in my insurance. Apparently at that time the demographic drawn to the Prius was safer than average and the insurance payout rates were such that (at least my) company lowered the premiums. My personal driving style hadn't changed from when I had other vehicles, so it had nothing to do with me personally.

 

Both the 2001 Prius and 2004 Prius have now been replaced with a 2017 Prius Prime. This new one has a d*mn*d display that tries to guide you to being a more economical driver, complete with a eco score displayed when you turn off the car. I guess if I paid that much attention, I'd join those drivers you think should "improve". But I continue to drive the way I've driven since I learned back in the '63 family car.

 

By the way, all of our around town driving is pure electric now so gasoline might sit in the tank for a long period of time. I see nothing in the car's manual nor have I found anything online officially from Toyota about fuel becoming stale in the tank. I read that the Chevy Volt has some logic that runs the engine periodically to use up old gas, but nothing about other plug-in hybrids doing that. So is our hobby's concern about gas going bad in our collector cars a real concern? Or is it only a concern in older (vented) fuel systems but not in (at least some) newer car fuel systems?

[Larry Schramm]

19 hours ago, Buick64C said:

IMO, the government should help fund primary research, like that done at a university level.

 

Not if you knew how much of the funds are spent.  Contributes to the out of world pricing of college tuition.

[CarNucopia]

1 hour ago, Larry Schramm said:

 

Not if you knew how much of the funds are spent.  Contributes to the out of world pricing of college tuition.

I do know, it's about $38 billion according to the National Science Foundation. That's a number I'm comfortable with.

 

I think you are conflating issues that are not related. Increases in tuition are the result of easy access to student loans. It's the same dynamic (easy mortgage approval) that inflated the housing bubble. When you increase the availability of funds for a particular item, demand goes up along with prices.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Buick64C (see edit history)

[Stude Light]

Going to the original post title "Tesla Truck Purchasers....." Tesla wouldn't be the only player here but since Tesla was singled out, I must comment.  Sure Tesla announced an all-electric semi, but also announced a high volume Model 3 which has yet to see any real sales.  Why should the news be centered around a Tesla semi?  I guess I just don't understand all the hype and crazy amount of investment in a 14 year old company that has yet to make a profit, especially considering that the new car market has been really strong the past several years.  Sure the Model S and Model X are some really nice cars but for $70k and more, I'm sure a lot of other automakers could turn out a fancy all electric car, they just chose not to until the market develops and they could turn a profit. It's like Uber..... be seen as a leader in the industry for some new technology, the investors flock to you and your stock price goes through the roof but how do your repay that investment if you never make a profit?  I think we are starting to see the outcome of that with the Uber play and we may with Tesla also.  My complaint isn't that we should not invest in technology or with some visionary companies, it's just that they get waaay overvalued on Wall Street.

Scott