Bolt EV new vs used: am I missing something?

MrJoshua said:

californiamilleghia said:

MrJoshua said:

There is a 30% federal tax credit on used EVs and plug in hybrids of up to $4,000 which would widen that gap between the new and used Bolts.

There are a lot of "got yahs" with the used rebate , one is I think you need to buy it from a dealer , better check first

Yep, has to be from a dealer. There are also income limits (I believe $75k per single person household, $150k for family). The credit is only good towards taxes owed, and does not carry over to next year. Those are the biggies I remember. 

 

Hmm, does the "not carrying over" apply to new-car purchases as well?

In reply to kb58 :

Neither new nor used EV credits are refundable, and you can't carry over to the next tax year either. If you don't owe enough in taxes for the tax year you don't get the full credit. 

In reply to Erich :

You should be aware that if you have a credit due, you can legally stop paying withholding.    I'm not a tax guy but you can ask the IRS about it.   Or ask your local preparer.  
     If you and your wife make $50-60,000 together  chances are  your tax bill will be in that area.  
        

Keith Tanner said:

Bolt EUV is rated at 29 kWh/100 miles. Let's be conservative and say it uses 33.333 kWh/100 miles, just because that makes the math easy :) 3 miles/kWh... 15,000 miles/year will use right about 5000 kWh of electricity. 

It's very much about location. Using the same 3 miles/kWh figure, and our electric rate of nearly $0.50 per kWh, that same 15,000 miles would cost me ~$2,500.

Now say instead I buy a gas car that gets 30mpg. 15,000 miles/30 mpg = 50 gallons... which at ~$5 a gallon would run me - wait for it - $2,500, yes, the same amount. Granted, there are still oil changes, brake service, and gas station stops, but the EV typically costs more upfront - especially if you can't get the full tax credit. So yeah, which is "better" really depends on the rates where you live and your particular situation.

In reply to kb58 :

.50@ KWH?   Wow!!  Is that ever expensive !    We pay .11 KWH.  AND THE MOST I've seen out East is .30 a KWH.  

   REMEMBER THERE are  STATES WHERE you  CAN HAVE solar  PANELS AND ATTENDNG HOOK UP  installed at no cost to you.   Paid for by the surplus electricity  you generate.   Some places will even include a battery system.  

  Then  there are states  that will require the utility company to credit you for excess electricity at last years rate.  
 

          TEXAS

 It sounds sounds good.  Market pricing.   What they don't tell you is Texas doesn't have enough generating power to meet peak needs.  
 That means they have to buy it out of state for as much as 50 times normal pricing.  Maybe more!!   
        Why do you think Elon Musk  is putting massive battery packs  in his Texas Giga factory?   
  Because he can buy electricity  for a few cents a kilowatt hour off peak.  
  Then sell it back to the grid for a lot more.   Do that  every day 365 times a year?   It's billions of dollars of profit!!!! 

kb58 said:

Keith Tanner said:

Bolt EUV is rated at 29 kWh/100 miles. Let's be conservative and say it uses 33.333 kWh/100 miles, just because that makes the math easy :) 3 miles/kWh... 15,000 miles/year will use right about 5000 kWh of electricity. 

It's very much about location. Using the same 3 miles/kWh figure, and our electric rate of nearly $0.50 per kWh, that same 15,000 miles would cost me ~$2,500.

Now say instead I buy a gas car that gets 30mpg. 15,000 miles/30 mpg = 50 gallons... which at ~$5 a gallon would run me - wait for it - $2,500, yes, the same amount. Granted, there are still oil changes, brake service, and gas station stops, but the EV typically costs more upfront - especially if you can't get the full tax credit. So yeah, which is "better" really depends on the rates where you live and your particular situation.

I used singleslammer's electricity rate of $0.12 for that math since it was applicable for the discussion at hand and wasn't intended to be an overall generalization. The national average is 16 cents plus various surcharges. If you're paying 50c/kWh, look into solar :)

The Bolt in question doesn't really cost any more up front, it's about the same as the least expensive Kia which is rated at 33 mpg. So with your numbers, it's a level field for fuel and purchase cost. So now you get to decide which you'd rather drive on other aspects.

In reply to kb58 :

Damn dude, are you in Hawaii? That cost for power is nuts.

San Diego. Three options for EV owners: plug it in and charge it at work, charge it at home from your larger-than-household-use solar array, or pay as much to charge an electric car as to fuel a gas car. 

In reply to Keith Tanner :

The Bolt vs The Kia?   Similar fuel cost in these unique circumstances .  what other differences?  
 Well brakes for one.  More expensive with the Kia.  No oil changes with the Chevy.    Tires?   Rumor has it EV's wear tires faster than ICE's  but how much ?    Maintenance?  Kia vs zChevy? 

chaparral said:

San Diego. Three options for EV owners: plug it in and charge it at work, charge it at home from your larger-than-household-use solar array, or pay as much to charge an electric car as to fuel a gas car. 

Yup!

Electric rates here:
<403 kWh: $0.39
>403 kWh: $0.49

Chaparral didn't mention it but our local power company has been - and is - changing the rules around so much that it's almost impossible to know what we'll be paying in the future - probably won't be less. A proposal on the table is twofold - to charge a flat fee regardless of power usage, and also charge per kWh based upon household income. So ironically, that may work in our favor now that I'm retired, but they'll likely keeps screwing with things. Oh, and they're also trying to charge solar customers flat monthly fees as well, greatly cutting into any advantage those have. The situation may not change until the torches and pitchforks come out.

That said, I could theoretically set up an off-grid array solely to charge the EV. Then there's upfront costs and depreciation of that, so more figuring to do.

In reply to chaparral :

Darn Gas in San Diego always was a dollar or more a gallon  than other states.  
  Spent 7 years there,  return often. Love the area. 

kb58 said:

chaparral said:

San Diego. Three options for EV owners: plug it in and charge it at work, charge it at home from your larger-than-household-use solar array, or pay as much to charge an electric car as to fuel a gas car. 

Yup!

Electric rates here:
<403 kWh: $0.39
>403 kWh: $0.49

Chaparral didn't mention it but our local power company has been - and is - changing the rules around so much that it's almost impossible to know what we'll be paying in the future - probably won't be less. A proposal on the table is twofold - to charge a flat fee regardless of power usage, and also charge per kWh based upon household income. So ironically, that may work in our favor now that I'm retired, but they'll likely keeps screwing with things. Oh, and they're also trying to charge solar customers flat monthly fees as well, greatly cutting into any advantage those have. The situation may not change until the torches and pitchforks come out.

That said, I could theoretically set up an off-grid array solely to charge the EV. Then there's upfront costs and depreciation of that, so more figuring to do.

I don't understand why California which is a very progressive state should be so contrarian about the sun which San Diego excels at.  
    There is a electrical shortage . Why not capitalize on it?  

frenchyd said:

kb58 said:

chaparral said:

San Diego. Three options for EV owners: plug it in and charge it at work, charge it at home from your larger-than-household-use solar array, or pay as much to charge an electric car as to fuel a gas car. 

Yup!

Electric rates here:
<403 kWh: $0.39
>403 kWh: $0.49

Chaparral didn't mention it but our local power company has been - and is - changing the rules around so much that it's almost impossible to know what we'll be paying in the future - probably won't be less. A proposal on the table is twofold - to charge a flat fee regardless of power usage, and also charge per kWh based upon household income. So ironically, that may work in our favor now that I'm retired, but they'll likely keeps screwing with things. Oh, and they're also trying to charge solar customers flat monthly fees as well, greatly cutting into any advantage those have. The situation may not change until the torches and pitchforks come out.

That said, I could theoretically set up an off-grid array solely to charge the EV. Then there's upfront costs and depreciation of that, so more figuring to do.

I don't understand why California which is a very progressive state should be so contrarian about the sun which San Diego excels at.  
    There is a electrical shortage . Why not capitalize on it?  

I work for a company that produces products for the electrical utility industry. For more than a decade it has been possible to use renewables to get to where your energy consumption is less than the production of your renewables; net zero. Adding batteries on a highly energy efficient building could mean you don't need to be on the utility grid.

Utilities call this "grid defection" and it becomes an existential threat as energy storage improves. As customers disconnect, rates rise for existing customers causing more customers leave resulting in a death spiral. This most impacts big commercial users of electricity as well as less economically advantaged individuals.

Utilities across the country have been looking for ways to incentivize grid tied renewable so they can profitably support the power grid while spending less on producing electricity and investing in capital intensive power plants.

Some incentive schemes are thoughtfully devised but those written into state laws are often heavy handed and clumsy.

In reply to BAMF :

That's good info 

In reply to BAMF :

I thought renewables were the magic bullet. Adding to the grid  to prevent shortages during peak usage times at a nominal cost ( in comparison to a power plant's cost)  and increasingly flexible due to growth.   Every new business/ house adds to the grid instead of taking from the grid.  
     The New Rolls Royce nuclear  plant at the core could deal with a million customers.  

frenchyd said:

In reply to BAMF :

I thought renewables were the magic bullet. Adding to the grid  to prevent shortages during peak usage times at a nominal cost ( in comparison to a power plant's cost)  and increasingly flexible due to growth.   Every new business/ house adds to the grid instead of taking from the grid.  

Only when entrenched business interests don't succeed at lobbying against them. It's not always the electric utilities themselves as much as the big industries that supply fuel to them.

BAMF said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to BAMF :

I thought renewables were the magic bullet. Adding to the grid  to prevent shortages during peak usage times at a nominal cost ( in comparison to a power plant's cost)  and increasingly flexible due to growth.   Every new business/ house adds to the grid instead of taking from the grid.  

Only when entrenched business interests don't succeed at lobbying against them. It's not always the electric utilities themselves as much as the big industries that supply fuel to them.

Brilliant!  I hadn't thought of that. The oil/coal companies stand to loose big  reliable money.  
  While it's not in any bodies best interest not to ( except the oil and coal industries ) money talks to politicians. 

Irony?   
Texas claims( no verification found yet) to have the most renewables of any state.  

Erich said:

In reply to kb58 :

Neither new nor used EV credits are refundable, and you can't carry over to the next tax year either. If you don't owe enough in taxes for the tax year you don't get the full credit. 

You need to understand. The tax credit can be used in place of paying income taxes ( yes the withholding taxes. ) so if you keep having your withholding taken from your paycheck and you have a $7500 tax credit you'll get a refund from the IRS  for $7500. 
   Or if you don't want to give Uncle   Sam a $7500 loan for a year  just stop withholding.   
 

frenchyd said:

BAMF said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to BAMF :

I thought renewables were the magic bullet. Adding to the grid  to prevent shortages during peak usage times at a nominal cost ( in comparison to a power plant's cost)  and increasingly flexible due to growth.   Every new business/ house adds to the grid instead of taking from the grid.  

Only when entrenched business interests don't succeed at lobbying against them. It's not always the electric utilities themselves as much as the big industries that supply fuel to them.

Brilliant!  I hadn't thought of that. The oil/coal companies stand to loose big  reliable money.  
  While it's not in any bodies best interest not to ( except the oil and coal industries ) money talks to politicians. 

In 2014 the oil industry started to  reduce investments in oil fields.  They went from 800 billion dollars a year  to less than half of that this year.  
  The reason is. The slow rate of return.    On land it takes 3 -6 years to get an oil field up and pumping.  Then an average of 5-8 years to reach break even before profit starts. Off shore it's much longer. 
   The problem is unless they invest, they have to pay taxes.  
    Renewables can be installed in a year or less  and payback in 2-3 

    Not only are Tesla's batteries used for cars but also energy storage.  They can be charged at off peak rates and sold at high demand  times.   Making as much as 50 times the price originally paid.