Washington State will ban ICE cars by 2030

[dbsb3233]

Tony Seba understands how a cheaper way of doing things better drives adoption. Money is a powerful incentive and EV's already save people with long commutes a substantial amount each year. That improves their quality of life. Not needing to deal with or pay for periodic oil and filter services adds to their quality of life. Having a car that doesn't require annual smog checks adds to their quality of life. Having a safe care is important to many people. Not needing a weekly trip to the gas station saves time.

Tony Seba knows people are not willing to pay more for less. That's what drives adoptions - it's primarily economic in nature. People naturally want a higher standard of living. That you don't understand this shows you either didn't see or didn't pay attention to his presentation on disruption. Because he emphasises the economics of the free market driving this revolution and all his numbers are based on the economics of the clean energy disruption. Battery and EV price curves vs. ICE, electricity prices vs. gasoline, volume of production driving costs lower. It's all very straightforward. Batteries and EV's are gaining additional price-reducing synergies through increasing volumes of production while ICE cannot because volumes are no longer increasing. As ICE volumes fall, so will volume efficiencies, a little at first and accelerating right when EV sales are hitting their stride. These are not so much predictions as they are natural market laws. And consumers are very price sensitive to this and the additional benefits of EV's add additional tailwinds for a perfect storm.

If you are empowered with knowledge about how disruption works it's not even speculative - it's a given.

Now you're just being a jerk. Trust me, I "understand" the economics involved better than you ever will, despite your smarmy insult. The fact that you're resorting to such sniping just shows that you're grasping at straws. You also got a lot of your premises wrong in there, but I won't bother to correct them for you anymore. It's clear you want to drag this conversation into the mud, and I'm not gonna follow you down there.

Have fun wallowing.

Sponsored

 

[LagerHead]

Now you're just being a jerk. Trust me, I "understand" the economics involved better than you ever will, despite your smarmy insult. The fact that you're resorting to such sniping just shows that your grasping at straws. You also got a lot of your premises wrong in there, but I won't bother to correct them for you anymore. It's clear you want to drag this conversation into the mud, and I'm not gonna follow you down there.

Have fun wallowing.

Apologies, that was not my intent. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

 

[buffasnow]

Did I mention that I am an unrealized billionaire? ?

 

[LagerHead]

You're right, we don't. What would be ideal is for the government to stop subsidizing oil and gas to the tune of billions of dollars per year. But the industry has long history of government handouts that are so well-entrenched, I'm not sure it's realistic to think the political will exists to quit subsidizing them right when their industry is being hit hard by cheaper renewables and shrinking demand.

As long as we keep electing representatives that are funded by oil, gas and legacy auto, they are probably not going to take away these valuable subsidies. In light of that political reality, I support continuing the relatively small subsidies to clean energy to help level the field.

Sponsored