5 ms·

Practically speaking, poor people can't just get an electric car.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
You can get a used Nissan Leaf or Chevy Spark for around $4000. "Poor people can't afford electric cars" was from when the only electric cars were newer cars. That was a decade ago, it's not true anymore.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > You can get a used Nissan Leaf or Chevy Spark for around $4000. With how much life left on its battery before it needs a $10k+ replacement?
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/21/surprise-nissan-leaf-batteries-last-much-longer-than-expected/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/21/surprise-nissan-leaf-ba... : > In fact, many EV batteries may outlast the vehicles they are installed in, then enjoy a second life in a stationary storage application before finally being recycled, according to EVANNEX. “At the end of the vehicle’s life — 15 or 20 years down the road — you take the battery out of the car and it’s still healthy with perhaps 60 or 70% of usable charge,” Thomas said. Meanwhile the battery replacement cost isn't $10k+. Nissan dealers charge $5500 for a new battery. Refurbished batteries are available for as little as $1000, with the obvious trade off that you'll have to replace it again sooner, but $1000 for another 3-5 years (with the option to do it again) could be a better choice for an older car than $5500 for another 10-15 years, depending on how much value you place on the inconvenience of disassembling your car to put it in again.
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
  I looked in to this every year for the past five years, and the sub AU$10,000 - AU$15,000 Leafs are generally not worth the effort.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    It's not the world's greatest car but if there was a carbon tax then it's cheap and fully electric. There is also an obvious market response if something like that was actually introduced. If burning carbon cost more, people would buy more fuel efficient cars. Then those cars enter the used market a few years later. This is one of the reasons the only sensible carbon tax proposal is the one where all of the tax revenue is distributed back to the population. In the first year, there will be more demand for efficient cars than existing supply, so they'll cost more. People who drive a lot will buy them anyway, but can use the refund to offset the cost. People who don't drive as much would eat the cost of the carbon tax on a less efficient vehicle, which isn't so bad because they don't drive as much, and then gets offset by the refund until more efficient cars filter into the used market. When that happens the tax revenue goes down because people have more efficient cars, so the refund gets smaller, but by then people don't need it as much because they have the more efficient cars.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
      I don’t believe any of this at all. Is anyone aware of any place where this has worked? If we’ve got data, let’s go with the data. If all we have is opinions, let’s go mine. Fortunately, we have data. Take Australia for example. 1. We had a carbon tax, sort of, briefly, but no one wanted it, and still doesn’t. 2. Fuel for vehicles here, petrol and diesel, has become wildly expensive, but cars have become huge to gigantic. Approximately no one drives a small car, approximately everyone owns at least two 4x4 and or SUVs, and those that don’t tend to drive a turbo charged Skyline or Subaru or similar. Everyone drives relatively new cars compared to, say, 30 years ago when half the population drove a rusty floor pan around, you were luck to have anything resembling an actual car hanging off it. No one here gives a shit about climate change, except maybe our Australia Broadcasting Corporation, but approximately no one consumes any of their media, and even if ya do 97% of the time their performing their mandate of proportional representation by publishing media aimed at the LGTBQI+ fictious community 100% of the time. To the point where electric vehicle sales here in Australia have fallen off a cliff, and one hundred down ten to one the current buffoons get voted out and replaced by a potato promoting nuclear. Good.

You can get a used Nissan Leaf or Chevy Spark for around $4000. "Poor people can't afford electric cars" was from when the only electric cars were newer cars. That was a decade ago, it's not true anymore.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> You can get a used Nissan Leaf or Chevy Spark for around $4000. With how much life left on its battery before it needs a $10k+ replacement?
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/21/surprise-nissan-leaf-batteries-last-much-longer-than-expected/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/21/surprise-nissan-leaf-ba... : > In fact, many EV batteries may outlast the vehicles they are installed in, then enjoy a second life in a stationary storage application before finally being recycled, according to EVANNEX. “At the end of the vehicle’s life — 15 or 20 years down the road — you take the battery out of the car and it’s still healthy with perhaps 60 or 70% of usable charge,” Thomas said. Meanwhile the battery replacement cost isn't $10k+. Nissan dealers charge $5500 for a new battery. Refurbished batteries are available for as little as $1000, with the obvious trade off that you'll have to replace it again sooner, but $1000 for another 3-5 years (with the option to do it again) could be a better choice for an older car than $5500 for another 10-15 years, depending on how much value you place on the inconvenience of disassembling your car to put it in again.
TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
I looked in to this every year for the past five years, and the sub AU$10,000 - AU$15,000 Leafs are generally not worth the effort.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  It's not the world's greatest car but if there was a carbon tax then it's cheap and fully electric. There is also an obvious market response if something like that was actually introduced. If burning carbon cost more, people would buy more fuel efficient cars. Then those cars enter the used market a few years later. This is one of the reasons the only sensible carbon tax proposal is the one where all of the tax revenue is distributed back to the population. In the first year, there will be more demand for efficient cars than existing supply, so they'll cost more. People who drive a lot will buy them anyway, but can use the refund to offset the cost. People who don't drive as much would eat the cost of the carbon tax on a less efficient vehicle, which isn't so bad because they don't drive as much, and then gets offset by the refund until more efficient cars filter into the used market. When that happens the tax revenue goes down because people have more efficient cars, so the refund gets smaller, but by then people don't need it as much because they have the more efficient cars.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
    I don’t believe any of this at all. Is anyone aware of any place where this has worked? If we’ve got data, let’s go with the data. If all we have is opinions, let’s go mine. Fortunately, we have data. Take Australia for example. 1. We had a carbon tax, sort of, briefly, but no one wanted it, and still doesn’t. 2. Fuel for vehicles here, petrol and diesel, has become wildly expensive, but cars have become huge to gigantic. Approximately no one drives a small car, approximately everyone owns at least two 4x4 and or SUVs, and those that don’t tend to drive a turbo charged Skyline or Subaru or similar. Everyone drives relatively new cars compared to, say, 30 years ago when half the population drove a rusty floor pan around, you were luck to have anything resembling an actual car hanging off it. No one here gives a shit about climate change, except maybe our Australia Broadcasting Corporation, but approximately no one consumes any of their media, and even if ya do 97% of the time their performing their mandate of proportional representation by publishing media aimed at the LGTBQI+ fictious community 100% of the time. To the point where electric vehicle sales here in Australia have fallen off a cliff, and one hundred down ten to one the current buffoons get voted out and replaced by a potato promoting nuclear. Good.