going to do that, either.

Could it be that they believe the market for their product will run out sooner rather than later? Gotta sell the product while it is still in demand, after all.

These prices are nowhere near their profit-maximizing point just looking at the present. But they could be if we suppose negative forecasts of future demand.

It does get superb mileage but it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a modern car. No air bags, the windows crank down (I like that, actually) and sadly, the radio died about five or seven years back, so I sing to myself....!

There is a company in Somerville that converts plain old cars to hybrids...I often thought about doing that with my old car!

So you would start to see a return relative to a much cheaper gasoline-powered car in only a few years.

The bad news is, they're still $70,000.

Good news is you can finance.

Bad news is, the requirements for financing are probably more stringent than for other cars (but I could be wrong, so feel free to check that out).

Good news is, they're proving incredibly robust with awesome resale value, which also means you could buy a used one without sacrificing much future benefit.

Bad news is, you'd still have to pay taxes on a car worth $70,000.

But the good news is there's still a ton of EV tax credits.

But beware the unintended consequences. Less expensive synthetic fertilizers would be one. Our water is already contaminated by these in many places, making groundwater undrinkable and promoting huge toxic algae blooms in surface waters with oxygen depleted "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico.

... then the price of synthetic fertilizers drop and farmers have less reason to apply them sparingly.

Furthermore farmers will favor nitrogen and phosphate hungry crops.

Once demand starts collapsing, the infrastructure would be progressively decommissioned and scrapped, leading to declining supply that actually causes prices to increase for those still buying. Eventually petroleum products would be more expensive than at any point in modern history because they'd no longer be subsidized by the global energy market.

I think metals would make a bit of a comeback (as a general material - nothing to do with fertilizers), both due to higher plastics prices and the drastic expansion of metal mining to support the solar and battery industries. Also, with much lower energy costs due to the solar industry, refining metals (an energy-intensive process) would be cheaper than ever before.

other aspect of synthetic fertilizers. The environment is having problems. Most farmers understand that to stay in business they have to preserve their soil.

electricity.

It really is that simple, even the banks see the inevitability of it.

The Alberta Tar Sands, sealed off from production forever with a trillion barrels of carbon still in the ground, will be a World Heritage Site by 2050, a monument to the folly of man and oil.

-A lot more economical for average people to live in very cold or very hot places. Particularly with decentralization, it really opens up a lot of the "empty" states. And with robocars doing the driving, people wouldn't have a problem living very far from their work.

-The geopolitical power of the Middle East is eliminated overnight. They would still have a lot of money accumulated over time, but that's not the same thing as controlling the spigots of world energy.

-The economic power of Texas within the United States is weakened.

efficiency tied to a fridge size micro battery pack and high capacity energy storage pack, in a corner of the garage or basement or in a shed, all powering every electrical need of the household and its EV's for free forever.

Although it would, as a rare downside, make us more vulnerable to X-class solar flares - because everything would be electrical and there wouldn't be chemical fuels available.

Every time the subject comes up, I ask "Well, couldn't you just throw an electrically insulating tarp over the system?"

The answer is that you can, but there are a lot of practicalities that make it difficult:

1. You need an early warning satellite in solar orbit closer to the Sun than Earth. We have a few today that can sort of do that, but only well enough so astronauts can take shelter and vulnerable telecom satellites can prepare. Nothing that would warn individual people all over the world to safe their houses, cars, and other electronics.

2. The warning has to be immediately disseminated to billions of people all over the world.

3. You need to actually be at home or nearby when you get the warning to do anything about it. Automated protection systems would be uneconomical to develop for such a low-probability event.

4. If you get the warning in time and are already there, then you have to unplug everything and throw the tarps over your panels and your car. If your roof is covered in panels, that might be a nontrivial operation to manage in however many minutes you have to get it done.

Most likely there would be some global catastrophe before particle protection is taken that seriously. Even so, it's such a rigorous and robust technology that I don't think it would take long to recover compared to a similar event with today's utility-driven systems.

Ditto batteries. You'd still want to protect computers though - in your car, your phone, etc.

The destruction of so many panels and batteries would cause supply chain disruption though. There would be a lot of problems. Every car on the road at the time would be bricked.

state (MN). Imagine your driveway providing you with your energy.

for at least half the year.

It would still ultimately be cheaper than relying on extracted fuels.

Nearly their entire economy depends on oil, so its collapse would be devastating.

But at the same time, trivially cheap energy would significantly cut the cost of living there. Solar per se wouldn't be that great, but even importing batteries charged in sunnier areas would ultimately be a lot cheaper than depending on heating fuel.

On balance it will probably suffer quite a lot from the solar revolution. Trucking would collapse. Businesses based around serving oil industry employees would fail. It will have to find another basis for its economy.

They will be having their minions banning solar and wind by then. Florida is 'leading' the way.

The amount of wealth the solar industry will eventually wield is unimaginable. Larger than oil ever was. Larger than Silicon Valley. Richer than any industry ever has been, most likely. People who stand in its way are playing a very short-term game, and will lose spectacularly.

The solar industry will flow around all obstacles globally - all corrupt regulations, all attempts to monopolize raw material feedstocks, all trade games and subsidies for the dying dinosaurs, all of them just boulders in a surging river.

Energy is "The Spice," and The Spice Must Flow.

Minus rich oil barons, oil lobbyists, and bought off politicians we'd be as all in as possible on solar already - it's there, it won't run out for eons.

It's scared the utilities and amazingly, some traction has been had by forces wanting to somehow extract regular payments from folks who install solar panels on their home - charging for the sun? Only in America.

pay for the maintenance of the grid. It's a lame and transparent excuse for trying to throw roadblocks in the way of solar, but they can't do shit if someone keeps their grid power and their solar panels unconnected.

Plus, if it continues, all they'd be doing is making the cost of living in those areas higher than elsewhere with uncorrupted net metering, so basically just shooting themselves in the foot and depriving themselves of future customers.