The Electric Vehicle (EV) discussion thread (Merged) (1 Viewer)

Not ignoring it. It's just that us meat citizens don't owe paper citizens every single penny they can possibly wring from us.
There's a happy medium between the abject corporate slavery you promote and the nihilistic Communism we know doesn't work.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't be advocating a net zero payment setup for those that have solar or advocating a system where the people who can't afford solar or don't own their home have to subsidize those that do own their homes and do have the disposable income to get solar installed
 
If you really believed that, you wouldn't be advocating a net zero payment setup for those that have solar or advocating a system where the people who can't afford solar or don't own their home have to subsidize those that do own their homes and do have the disposable income to get solar installed

Who said net zero?
 
Who said net zero?
If you are looking to legislate that the utility company purchase at the same rate they sell, then that is net zero

And as of yet, nobody has provided any reasonable, logical, or "fair" justification for it. Or justified having the poor subsidize the upper middle class and wealthy in this. Or justify forcing the utility to purchase electricity at 3.3x the market rate.

How is any of that ethical? Just because the goals are good and beneficial does not justify using unethical means to achieve them
 
If you are looking to legislate that the utility company purchase at the same rate they sell, then that is net zero

And as of yet, nobody has provided any reasonable, logical, or "fair" justification for it. Or justified having the poor subsidize the upper middle class and wealthy in this. Or justify forcing the utility to purchase electricity at 3.3x the market rate.

How is any of that ethical? Just because the goals are good and beneficial does not justify using unethical means to achieve them

That first line is gross zero, not net. Net zero would have them sell it back at a high enough price to recoup any losses incurred during the transaction.
As for subsidies, we (rich and poor alike) already subsidize fossil fuels. Why not just shift the existing burden toward a power source that isn't as destructive?
 
That first line is gross zero, not net. Net zero would have them sell it back at a high enough price to recoup any losses incurred during the transaction.
As for subsidies, we (rich and poor alike) already subsidize fossil fuels. Why not just shift the existing burden toward a power source that isn't as destructive?
Solar is subsidized as already stated in this thread. What do you want....the cost to be 100% subsidized and free electrical storage?

Why is it that when you start discussing paying for something people act like the act of subsidizing doesn't cost anybody anything? Like the money just magically appears?

"You don't have to pay for your solar panels directly because they are subsidized which means you are paying for it through increased taxes with the xtra cost of red tape and bureaucracy added in!"
 
Solar is subsidized as already stated in this thread. What do you want....the cost to be 100% subsidized and free electrical storage?

Why is it that when you start discussing paying for something people act like the act of subsidizing doesn't cost anybody anything? Like the money just magically appears?

"You don't have to pay for your solar panels directly because they are subsidized which means you are paying for it through increased taxes with the xtra cost of red tape and bureaucracy added in!"

Same thing goes for gasoline. We can just change the recipients of those subsidies.

Where did I say 'free' electrical storage? My argument is that retail is too high. There's a lot of room between 'retail' and 'free', yes?
 
The argument was that the electrical companies should pay the same 10 cents that they charge, correct?

Or have I confused you with someone else. There were multiple discussions going on
 
The argument was that the electrical companies should pay the same 10 cents that they charge, correct?

Or have I confused you with someone else. There were multiple discussions going on
The argument was that it used to be .10$ and that making homeowners sell at .03$ then have to buy it back at .10$ is unfair. There's been slight mention of a compromise price, but you've been stuck with that pricing as the only way power companies can stay afloat if we use your same argument technique.
 
The argument was that it used to be .10$ and that making homeowners sell at .03$ then have to buy it back at .10$ is unfair. There's been slight mention of a compromise price, but you've been stuck with that pricing as the only way power companies can stay afloat if we use your same argument technique.
Anybody who looks at this thread knows that you were insisting that it remain ten cents. The only point I made is that there is apparently a justification for 3 cents if that is indeed the market value

I know that for a fact because I have asked numerous times what is ethical, logical, or reasonable about forcing the utility company to pay 3.3x the market value....what they can buy electricity from other sources for...and not once did anybody try to answer that nor did anybody say "well not 3.3x, maybe for 5 cents"

There has been a subtle shift in the discussion with nobody wanting to admit they changed their position

Them goalposts....they be a-movin

I even believe I stated that I would like to see state subsidies return on the purchase if this is going to be the case
 
Hoovies Garage making one of the more compelling reasons to NOT buy an EV. Keep in mind that Hoovie has always been pro EV.

 
How much carbon for those battries (deliberate typo)?
 
Anybody who looks at this thread knows that you were insisting that it remain ten cents. The only point I made is that there is apparently a justification for 3 cents if that is indeed the market value

I know that for a fact because I have asked numerous times what is ethical, logical, or reasonable about forcing the utility company to pay 3.3x the market value....what they can buy electricity from other sources for...and not once did anybody try to answer that nor did anybody say "well not 3.3x, maybe for 5 cents"

There has been a subtle shift in the discussion with nobody wanting to admit they changed their position

Them goalposts....they be a-movin

I even believe I stated that I would like to see state subsidies return on the purchase if this is going to be the case

You're talking about moving goalposts in the same post where you're talking about utility companies "buying power for 3.3c."

Utility companies don't buy power. They make it and provide it. They aren't buying it on some open market and competitively selling it to selective customers.

They're a natural monopoly often propped up by government support and ALWAYS supported by legislation which enables them to avoid actual competition.

Utility companies go so far as to lobby building inspections departments to force every house to be on the grid even where the owner doen'st want or need to be tied. They use their monopoly granted power to create policies which allow them to charge different users different rates. They pollute the air and water in many cases and then fight tooth and nail to prevent competition by way of renewable sources and when that doesn't work they turn to their pet legislators to buy policies that hinder competition.

You're actually arguing that a utility company should not have to pay market price for power and that they shouldn't have to pay retail for power to customers they, themselves, have forced to be connected to the grid in the first place.

Years ago they all supported net metering and then when they found that they could make more by paying nothing for power they changed the rules and set ridiculously low rates for power they get from homeowners and sell at retail.

The problems are not as simple as your argument presumes.
 
Anybody who looks at this thread knows that you were insisting that it remain ten cents. The only point I made is that there is apparently a justification for 3 cents if that is indeed the market value

I know that for a fact because I have asked numerous times what is ethical, logical, or reasonable about forcing the utility company to pay 3.3x the market value....what they can buy electricity from other sources for...and not once did anybody try to answer that nor did anybody say "well not 3.3x, maybe for 5 cents"

There has been a subtle shift in the discussion with nobody wanting to admit they changed their position

Them goalposts....they be a-movin

I even believe I stated that I would like to see state subsidies return on the purchase if this is going to be the case
Show me where I said it had to be 10 cents. The only thing I've said is it should be consistently priced. You are drawing conclusions based on inaccurate comprehension.

Edit to clarify

If they pay other utilities 3 cents and get 3 cents for what they sell to them and you are now changing it to where the homeowner is a supplier, then you have to sell back at the same rate you do to other suppliers to be fair. So either they are or are not a supplier. Not a supplier when it benefits you and then a retail customer because it benefits you as well.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom