Will our EV tax credit be affected by new administration?

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
TimCO
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Threads
46
Messages
6,954
Reaction score
7,710
Location
Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E FE Red, 2013 Escape Titanium
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Maybe not in all cases yet, but solar is now the cheapest energy in many areas around the globe:
The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea
Depends on the parameters used. But yes, if starting from scratch and not worrying about sporadic supply and storage and sunk costs and all of that, solar can end up as the cheapest pure source. Especially large solar farms that can take advantage of economy of scale.

Just depends on a lot of practical factors for each potential installation.

 

Badger_Prof

Well-Known Member
First Name
Randy
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Threads
4
Messages
759
Reaction score
1,523
Location
Wisconsin
Vehicles
Prior--Leaf,Bolt EV. Mustang Mach-E Premium AWD ER
Country flag
Biden's proposed changes could affect many on here...he plans on narrowing the tax credit to those making less than $250,000 a year.
I can only speak for myself but I am fortunate enough to be over that limit and I am okay if the tax credit only applies to those with incomes of $1/4 Million per year or less. I suspect others may feel differently. But, by the time anything gets through congress (if ever), I really doubt this would impact anyone who already has a Mach-E on order.
 

malba2366

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Threads
7
Messages
445
Reaction score
421
Location
NY
Vehicles
911 C2S
Country flag
omes of $1/4 Million per year or less. I suspect others may feel differently. But, by the time anything gets throu
I can only speak for myself but I am fortunate enough to be over that limit and I am okay if the tax credit only applies to those with incomes of $1/4 Million per year or less. I suspect others may feel differently. But, by the time anything gets through congress (if ever), I really doubt this would impact anyone who already has a Mach-E on order.
Unless they try to make the changes retroactive to Jan 1 2021. Then they could affect a lot of buyers who get cars in the beginning of the year.
 
OP
OP

darren

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Threads
4
Messages
112
Reaction score
136
Location
California
Vehicles
Subaru Outback, Mach-E
Country flag
Where you live and when you installed solar panels are important factors. I installed mine when California is still accepting NEM 1.0 (net metering). Where I sell excess electricity back to the utility company at retail value.

Also, if you have a nice flat roof facing the south you get the best efficiency.

Based on my calculation, my payback is about 8 years.

If I factored the gas-saving for 3 years that I owned the Focus electric, payback will be significantly shorter.
 

bluestarct

Well-Known Member
First Name
Randall
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Threads
12
Messages
274
Reaction score
495
Location
College Station TX
Vehicles
2017 F-150, 2018 X5, 2020 Mazda 6 GT, Mach E FE
Country flag
Like I said, it is not a five year payback. Some homeowners with a house facing the right way where it is sunny can get there but not the average American family. And the tax credits are decreasing over the next couple years.

I would caution against using a sales person as the sales website as being absolutely right. Their back of the napkin calculations are often lacking the detail to do a proper analysis.
 


Maric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Threads
20
Messages
887
Reaction score
2,207
Location
NorCal
Vehicles
Grabber Blue FE
Occupation
Engineer
Country flag
The cost on that is exorbitant and only 67% of people own their home. Landlords don't have any financial reason to add solar because it is an upfront cost to them without any income plus there are ongoing costs of repairs and maintenance.
Not exhorbitant. Solar for my home with battery was $17k. Non subsidized. Adding. $17k to most new home builds is barely anything added to monthly payment. And my electricity bill is next to zero. Would be zero if local laws allowed me off the grid. I also sell excess energy back to local grid.
 
Last edited:

FredT

Well-Known Member
First Name
Fred
Joined
Feb 1, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
391
Reaction score
320
Location
California
Vehicles
2003 Passat Wagon
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
That's a highly optimistic number. The solar companies inflate the payback period by building Ibn huge electric cost inflation. I've had my system for four years and expect break-even to be between 10 and 12 years for me. But I didn't buy solar to save money.
 

bluestarct

Well-Known Member
First Name
Randall
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Threads
12
Messages
274
Reaction score
495
Location
College Station TX
Vehicles
2017 F-150, 2018 X5, 2020 Mazda 6 GT, Mach E FE
Country flag
Ok. So now the discussions are now based on cherry picked quotes from sales websites. Did you know that 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest toothpaste? Do you also realize that the sales website you quoted was only referencing CA? There are 49 other states plus DC.

If you look at the sales website’s page on cost benefit, they show 7.5 years.

https://www.energysage.com/solar/cost-benefit/how-long-do-solar-panels-take-to-pay-for-themselves/

1605125694383.png


This is closer to the actual data we have analyzed and modeled out which shows a break even point of 8-15 years based on MSA and local electric rates. This is without considering any costs for repairs, maintenance, insurance or damage (wind, hail, falling trees).

Also, I would suggest pointing to the actual source data and research articles. Here is a link to the paper that the article cites. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa554

This is a good research paper that is worth reading and I thank you for leading me to it. However, there are items where the authors are making very large assumptions. I would point you to section 2.2.2 on using state level estimates. Based on their assumptions, it could be better or it could be considerably worse.

We then sample from the suitable building count distributions described in section 2.2.1 to estimate the total size and number of suitable roof planes nationwide. Because of the resolution of the input data (see section 2.2.1), small building estimates are at the ZIP code level, whereas medium and large building estimates at the census-division scale are distributed to states by population weight; this method of distribution assumes that the total rooftop area of medium and large buildings correlates linearly with population at a sufficiently large geographic scale5.​

5 These state-level estimates have an unquantified magnitude of uncertainty, because we do not have the data required to evaluate the error introduced with this weighting.

The one item that the paper does not really account for is paying for all of the costs. It also assumes the instillation would be on every house and commercial building that could hold it.

If you want to look at something much more relevant, I suggest NREL’s latest paper on nuclear energy.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/77088.pdf

Or any of their other publications. https://www.nrel.gov/research/publications.html
 
Last edited:

 
Top