Mark Gregory

Tesla Truck Purchasers to receive $75,000 from Government

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by Mark Gregory (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Joe in Canada (see edit history)
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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...

 

c83e5244a305e0df796a67d05872eb9d.jpg

Edited by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Joe in Canada (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by C Carl
Miscue (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...