Slashdot Mirror
Electric Car Subsidies As Handouts For the Rich
Atypical Geek writes "Charles Lane, writing for Slate, argues that subsidies for electric cars are an example of 'limousine liberalism' — a lavish gift for well-off Americans to buy expensive cars for the sake of appearing green. From the article: 'How rarefied is the electric-car demographic? When Deloitte Consulting interviewed industry experts and 2,000 potential buyers, it found that from now until 2020, only "young, very high income individuals" — from households making more than $200,000 a year — would even be interested in plug-in hybrids or all-electric cars.'
Lane also takes issue with the billions of dollars in subsidies offered to automakers for the manufacture of batteries, arguing that research (warning, PDF) concludes that the money will not help in jump-starting the economies of scale that will drive down prices. At least, not as much or as quickly as the President has argued."
If more people buy electric cars it might bring the price down. We wouldn't want that!
These cars make no economic sense because the cost adder for the hybrid/plugin drivetrain never pays for itself in saved fuel compared to a reasonably-priced econono-box like the Mazda3 or Ford Fiesta. Therefore, only wealthy liberals wishing to appear green to their snobby rich liberal social elitist friends will buy these.. It's easy when you don't work for your money and have no sense of value.
The billion dollars are there to drive research for better technology, which hopefully will drive down prices. And when compared to subsidies that other industries get (e.g. the big oils), that few billion dollars is just a drop in the bucket. Look, a few $B may be a lot of money for an individual, but when talking about a whole industry, it's not a lot at all. If anything, it's underfunded.
This seems very obvious. Electric cars will begin to dominate the market when they make economic sense for the majority of the market. Obviously, that time isn't here yet, and attempts by the government to manipulate the market by dumping money into rebates won't be sufficient to make the difference.
Honestly, I think the government has very little role to play here; but if it does, it's in ensuring that the cost of gasoline isn't kept artificially low, making sure the infrastructure can support electric cars, and help setting standards. They can't just force the market, not without hurting the market.
Maybe if they would put out an attractive offering then consumers would be interested. Why would somebody outside of the >200k bracket buy a electric car when buying a normal car and gasoline is vastly less expensive?
Normally I would be sympathetic to the idea of forcing market expansion to get a new process off the ground, but we're way off from a viable electric car, and until then it's just going to be a waste of money.
Rebates are stupid. It's the most regressive tax spending possible. If I can afford a large portion of something, I get the rest for free? If I can't afford that much, I get nothing? Um, something is wrong here.
If the government wants to encourage electric cars, why doesn't it buy them? Switch the entire damn postal service over to start with. Give grants for local comunity to switch their police cars and mass transit over.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Old people set in their ways and people currently happily burning gas not interested in changing their ways, or experimenting. Chocking news.
Captcha; Amateurs - made this survey
Should I be surprised that I can tell who posted an article based solely on the tone of the title and included text?
Most new technologies end up in the hands of the rich first, mainly because of the costs of production. Over time, if the technology ends up proving itself and becomes cheaper to produce, it starts to permeate itself into the rest of the market, it's just simple economics. Just look at the PC, most families couldn't afford one until well into the late 90's.
You can retrofit an old Volkswagen bug to be all electric for less than $7000. I don't see what the big push is for the added complexity of a hybrid gasoline/electric engine if you only need one to go more than 60 miles on a trip. Electric vehicles shouldn't be SUV-sized. For the few times you need an SUV or need to go on a long trip, the world's petroleum supply should be enough. It would be nice to see all-electric vehicles for less than $10,000 someday, because the technology is there to do it.
When they can make a pure electric vehicle that can go maybe 400 or 500 miles on a full charge, and is possible to recharge to 80% capacity or better in under 5 minutes, and can do respectable highway speeds for a few hours at a time, as long as there was also some sort of infrastructure similar to existing stations where a person could pay a fee to recharge their vehicle, I think that the mass production that would be necessary to meet the demand for such cars would inevitably drive prices down... Gas powered cars would become the exception and not the rule.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Those are strong words, especially with the drastic difference between interest in a product and the ability to purchase it.
If I could afford to purchase or finance a new car, an electric would probably be preferable at any equivalent price...
I don't know where they are getting their demographics from, but I have many examples where they are wrong.
My first Prius was purchased around 2003 and was the older model. I was not super high income at the time (100k per year). Cost came in around 26k I think and I was paying $400 per month for it. I would think any car with a price point below 30k is not being marketed to the young and rich.
I sold my first Prius to a gentleman from Southern California who was an appraiser. He most certainly did not seem young or rich either, but needed it for the lower operating costs due to the high mileage he was going to put on it.
Now, I did purchase a Hybrid Highlander with a price tag of around 50k about 3 years afterwards. A luxury purchase to be sure, but once again, I did not represent anywhere near 200k per year in income when I made that decision. I just wanted my SUV back while also reducing my consumption of oil.
In addition to my own personal experiences, I know at least a dozen other hybrid owners personally. With one or two exceptions, none of them are exceeding 200k per year (even with combined incomes).
Just ordinary working professionals. So I would say out of the 15 or so hybrid owners that I know of, maybe 10-15% meet the articles assumptions about hybrid car purchasers, or plug in hybrids.
I realize the article is not talking about hybrids, but pure electric, but the Toyota model is only 35k from what I have heard. Far from a Tesla, or some other luxury hybrid or electric (such as the Hybrid Highlander I owned).
Sounds to me like this article is creating an issue that does not exist to attack "limousine liberalism". I will tell you this... it's about fucking time there was some subsidies for electric/hybrid cars in price ranges below 50k. Unless we just want to forget the nearly $1 billion dollar subsidies for the Hummer?
The problem is that too few people can benefit from these incentives as they are currently defined. Clearly we need to help out those earning only 100K as well. Up the rebates!
The wealthy and educated will always find ways to game altruistic systems. After all, who is in a better position to do it?
This speculative bullcrap will be put to bed a week after sales start. There is so much pent-up demand for ditching gas, this will all seem like nothing more than desperate Chevron/Exxon/Conoco/BP propaganda.
But the Chinese BYD F3DM will eat the Volt's lunch, costing half as much with a longer all-electric range and batteries which can charge half full in 10 minutes if your house mains can handle the current.
The real tragedy is overpriced sports card like the Tesla which unlike the Volt, are actually priced beyond most consumers' means.
Each country tailored the rules so that people would buy as many indigenous cars as possible. And yes, the customers are upper middle income and above.
It is a "please buy indigenous cars-and-congratulations to you -- you're above upper middle income-subsidy", not a green car-subsidy.
Just to clarify - appearing green to most people is much, much more important than actually being green.
There are people living utterly sustainable lifestyle with very little societal support.
News Flash: that sort of lifestyle is more than a full-time job for an entire family.
They're claiming to be able to predict vehicle buying patterns 10 years in advance, not just the technology, but the income level of customers who will buy cars that won't even be on the drawing board for 5 more years.
Then it recommends diverting the flow of money spent trying to improve EV's into improving gasoline powered vehicles. Wow, that solves all our problems!
This sentence no verb.
The Nissan Leaf is scheduled to debut with the price tag of around $32,000. I wouldn't call it cheap but I wouldn't call it a prohibitive luxury good. With federal and state tax subsidies, it makes it cheaper and a working incentive to go electric. It's a long way to go as far as infrastructure. Tesla Roaders shouldn't really get an incentive tax credit. It'd be like the government giving tax breaks for MacBook Pros. I think that electric cars today are more of a statement than a solution.
These cars make no economic sense because the cost adder for the hybrid/plugin drivetrain never pays for itself in saved fuel compared to a reasonably-priced econono-box like the Mazda3 or Ford Fiesta. Therefore, only wealthy JEWS wishing to appear green to their snobby rich JEW social elitist friends will buy these.. It's easy when you don't work for your money and have no sense of value.
It's funny how you can just go on and on with any kind of delusions as long as you remember to use the magic "liberal" word. I changed your quote to show that it's the same as classic anti-semitist stuff: just say that they have lots of money, don't have to work, and form strange networks and you don't need to base anything on facts.
Also notice how these "liberals" should buy really small fuel-efficient cars instead, but so-called conservatives can drive whatever they want. Also notice how it is implied that no one "conservative" is ever a slacker born into wealth. After all, that has never happened.
I'm not from the US. Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy. This means we on average have a better grip on reality. Of course, the article with its "limousine liberal" thing is a huge trollbait in itself, so nothing good will result.
Electric cars make no economic sense at this time, which is why we don't drive them.
Electric cars would make economic sense in a truly free market. Unfortunately, the market is quite distorted.
There are huge externalities with fossil-fuel vehicles—air pollution, climate change,oil spills, etc. These are effectively subsidized by everyone, lowering their price far below what it should be.
"Electric cars make no economic sense at this time, which is why we don't drive them."
They would make a lot more financial sense if the government would stop subsidizing the oil industry so heavily. But hey, since when have Fox News neocons been interested in facts?
I don't respond to AC's.
This article is really, truly stupid. The US government keeps oil prices artificially low by pumping subsidizes and tax breaks to oil companies already. The only reason that electric cars aren't economically viable is because the government already gives massive, massive handouts to already massively profitable oil companies. If the US gov't quit subsidizing those crooks, then they wouldn't need to subsidize electric vehicles.
I don't respond to AC's.
Apparently they didn't actually *look* at real EV drivers. I suggest they go to some EV group meetings, and not look at just Tesla drivers. If only I were young again, or *ever* made even half of $200K... Not that I'm a big fan of subsidies, even when they benefit me, but they probably are helping to kickstart a market that is finally starting to become viable...
R&D costs money. Looking at computers, the first ones were so expensive only governments or rich companies could use them.
Why not sell to the rich? They're buying, and cars depreciate like crazy so in a few years a poor schmuck could buy used. With all the problems that early models have, the whole system of maintaining these cars costs so much that the industry will not set up en masse to sell to the masses. They will get their feet wet with a few toys for the rich and find out what it takes to move into the economies of scale.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
"And exactly where does the government 'heavily subsidise' the EVIL OIL COMPANIES?"
Google is your friend!
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/25/nation/la-na-oil-spill-subsidies-20100525
Why did you think that we pay less than $3/gallon for gas and Europeans pay $7-$8.
I don't respond to AC's.
You ended up supporting the premise of his point by acting as the kind of liberal guy he was mocking. Instead of responding with facts, you used emotional by somehow relating his criticism of the environmentalist movement to that of anti-semitism. There's zero logical leap for that comparison--you're just replacing words and acting as if that's a rebuttal.
You also claim "conservatives can drive whatever they want," which wasn't said. The point is that rich liberals drive these cars, so that was the subject of the post. Conservatives weren't even mentioned. You took it as a personal attack on your ideology, so to respond, you had to bring up conservatives for some reason and draw a bunch of conclusions out of thin air about what you thought was implied by the post.
In fact, you're the one making implication that only conservatives could agree with the post, turning it into a battle of us versus them. You're encouraging the very dichotomy you claim to live away from.
This is one issue on which I have to disagree, be unpopular, and say that these kinds of subsidies are necessary. If we leave everything to the cheapest and most affordable existing technology (so that the poor could afford it), we will never get out of being slaves to oil. Having energy/vehicles too cheaply is what is keeping us in all this mess.
In this sense, poor people are the problem (in the sense that most of us non-rich people use gasoline vehicles). Sometimes improving things comes with an upfront cost. And of course rich people buy new technology first. duh.
You are the one inventing a liberal/conservative dichotomy here. I said nothing of conservatives, so any meaning you interpret from my post along those lines is pure fantasy in your own delusional mind. The only dichotomy I brought up was Liberals vs. Non-Liberals.
[citation needed]
No, the "liberals" being discussed here are the same ones that tell the rest of us that we must make sacrifices, that we must cut back. They expect us to ride the bus, but they won't provide the fundage. They'll just raise taxes. They are as phony as three dollar bills, and no different from the so called "conservatives". They're both top down types who want control. And both use their money to keep it.
I'm not from the US. Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy.
No? I suppose there's no rich/poor dichotomy either? No social stratification of any kind?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Why did you think that we pay less than $3/gallon for gas and Europeans pay $7-$8.
Because Europeans impose massive taxes on fuel. Presumably because they hate poor people.
So I am curious, did Charles Lane have a whining rant to publish in 2002 when Bush signed off on a $30,000 tax credit for monster trucks?
And by that, I mean that when the government offers a $5K rebate on something, whomever is selling that something raises the price by $5K. The consumer doesn't actually get that money. Whenever the government artificially increases the demand for something, the supply artificially shrinks and drives up the price by a corresponding amount.
This is why college costs $35-50K/year now - there's so much cheap government money to pay for it that natural market forces have made it all but impossible to afford except for either the very wealthy or the very poor who qualify for the government money.
Those of us stuck in the middle end up graduating with a "second mortgage."
My first CD writer cost $45,000(!) and came in a rack with its own PC - and the blank disks were $60 each when bought in quantities of at least 100. Clearly this isn't going to catch on.
My first home network connection was a 110 baud acoustic coupler that cost $250. 6 months later I upgraded to a 300 baud modem that cost the same amount. It takes an hour to download a 10KB file from my local BBS. And they call this an improvement?
My first Windows mouse cost $220 including the board that you needed to run it in a PC. Damn, this will NEVER, EVER catch on.
And that double speed NEC CD reader that I bought for $450 was a real bargain.
Oh, and I remember when RAM switched from core to semiconductor memory, and the price came down to a million bucks per megabyte. We thought we were in heaven when our company bought 3 systems with 2 megabytes each.
I can come up with many, many more examples of costs that have dropped incredibly over time. I don't know if electric cars are in that category, but I think there's an excellent chance that they are.
Money spent on R & D is not money wasted. Yes, you have to be certain that there's a real chance of success, but if you wait until that chance is 100% then someone else will have already done it.
I am champing at the bit for either a plug-in hibred or an all electric car. I am 45 and I don't make 200,000 a year by a long shot.
Statistic fail by partisan bullshit "research group".
Plus, in every industry, the first fruits are expensive and generally sold to the more well off. Remember when microwave ovens cost thousands of dollars?
It's called the economy of scale.
And even as this "research" is coming out, one major U.S. manufacturer has increased their 2012 production quotas by half because of existing demand.
just another case of us being lied to using unfounded statistics.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
While I am too lazy to go lookup stats ATM (just out of bed, and no coffee yet), there has been an obvious increase of Primuses and other hybrid cars since the "eco" tax rebates and subsidies have started there (the subsidies are, I think, about to expire in a month or two).
If the memory serves, the Prius has been a top selling car for two years, and the second and third place are also for hybrids - the shift to "eco" cars is quite massive (it is a different question how "eco" those are, but anyway).
Being massive, it isn't limited to "the rich" - several friends and neighbors that definitely aren't in the category have changed their cars to an "eco" vehicle because of the program.
Besides, what's the problem anyway? Considering that EVs are still a very new category (a first-gen product so to speak), there are very few offerings (compared to gas/diesel), it is normal that mostly people with more disposable income will try it out.
At this stage, a subsidy may actually have a larger effect than sometime later at a point where you'd have a sizable market (of "poor" customers) with a lot of competition.
So, again, where's the problem?
Isn't that the purpose of government? To tax everyone and then to give back to the people who pay your campaign finances?
Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy
How's the weather on Mars today?
Everywhere with people and money will have a struggle between socialism/capitalism/liberalism/conservatism/fascism and probably a whole bunch of other *isms.
This means we on average have a better grip on reality.
Is it the same reality the rest of the planet lives in?
Darn it all, I created a spreadsheet once where I could just punch the figures in and it even did cost of capital calcs, maintenance savings, etc...
Prius is more expensive - $23 - 28k; 51/48 mpg. Call it 50mpg.
Mazda3 4 door - $15k, 29mpg average city/highway
Fiesta - $13k, 34 mpg average
Going by a rather high 15k miles a year, and $4/gallon gasoline(I'm being nice to the hybrid)
Prius - 300 gallons/year, $1200 fuel cost a year.
Mazda3 - 517 gallons, $2069 fuel, $869 more than the Prius
Fiesta - 441, $1765, $565 more than the Prius
Assuming the Cars last 10 years, that's a combined fuel cost of 2.4k/year for the Prius, $1.7k for the Mazda3, $1.5k for the Fiesta.
As for the 'only liberals driving them', I won't go that far, merely stating that you get mostly those who are obsessed with 'green' or those lured by some combination of subsidies, unusual driving patterns excessively canted towards hybrid styles(inner city cab driver?), etc...
Or I could say 'those bad at math'.
I don't read AC A human right
Exactly which liberals told anyone except the very rich to make any sacrifices?
The Hummer tax loophole? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11172853 I prefer the electric car tax break as opposed to the polluting gas-guzzler loophole.
This is what I get for rushing!:
Combined Fuel/simple capital cost:
Prius - $3.5k
Mazda3 - $3.5k
Fiesta - $3.4k
I'll note that if you reduce the anticipated life or assume a 5% loan the maths will change.
I don't read AC A human right
Erm... his last name is "Straman", or "Strahman" or something like that.
Printed books made no "economic sense" in your terms at the time Gutenberg was producing them, because only the rich could afford them (or those with Church subsidies). But once the genie was out of the bottle, others started doing them and the price fell. No new invention ever makes economic sense at too early a stage, but some people clearly think that giving it a kick-start will help.
Unfortunately, for reasons I've already explained elsewhere, it won't work until there is an acceptable range of standard battery sizes/shapes, and a way of exchanging them, equivalent to the price/range of a tank of gas.
--
And no, ceoyoyo, where I live no-one keeps their propane tank and refills it: you swap it for a full one and pay the price of the fill.
And yes, Bobartig, I do mean exactly what you describe: you're not thinking anywhere near far enough ahead. Battery needs to be equivalent to a tank of gas, and that includes weight and size as well as price and range.
You CD writer didn't require a government subsidy to get it's price down.
Europeans pay those prices because their governments tax the shit out of gas.
Just curious, how much of that was government subsidized? This isn't against your post, but a number of posts above seem to think government subsidies for early-adopters are going to work regarding electric vehicles. Instead I think it's clearly a demand issue. As your post does point out, companies desperately needed storage space and the ability to transfer data from point to point quickly. They were willing to shell out $$$ for the tech to do it. This seems clearly different, as now we're trying to replace an old and established industry with a new one, whereas in your examples, these were emerging technologies from an emerging industry.
Well, in the Netherlands at least, we pay our $7-$8 per gallon of gas because of the massive excises. On the other hand, I am sure at least some government effort and money is being expended on gaining access to and control over oil, so I have no doubt that the oil industry is being helped by governments around the world - regardless of whether or not money is directly being given to the industry.
Interestingly, the high fuel prices over here make electric cars rather attractive. The price difference per kilometer (or mile, if you wish) may not be large enough to make up for the cost of a battery pack as will be featured in the Tesla Model S, but, for example, the Chevy Volt doesn't actually cost that much more than the car I currently drive, and would get me to and from work without using any gasoline at all. At that, it's actually cheaper to drive than a lot of regular gasoline cars.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Electric cars would make economic sense in a truly free market. Unfortunately, the market is quite distorted.
You don't want a truly free market.
In a truly free market cars that ran on biodiesel produced from hipster and treehugger and vegan carcasses would make economic sense if someone was willing for pay for the cars and the HipTreeVeg brand biodiesel.
In a truly free market getting an organ transplant would be no problem if you had the money. Pay to access medical records, pay someone to capture the organ "donor", pay a doctor to perform the transplant.
Tesla Roadster production began in 2008 MSRP- $109,000
Chevy Volt production began in 2010 MSRP- $41k
Nissan Leaf production began in 2010 MSRP- $32.8k
With only three models of electric vehicle on or close to the US market, it'd be difficult to make a call as to the impact of the subsidies. Considering that the $7,500 credit brings the cost of the Volt and the Leaf from the cost of a new luxury vehicle down to the average cost of a new mid-end vehicle, it definitely looks like they could make the difference for many individuals considering buying one.
These certainly aren't 0-emission vehicles (grid power isn't 0-emission), but it shifts the economies of efficiencies so that relatively small gains at central facilities can have tremendous trickle down impact. The pressure this will create to shore up infrastructure will drive the creation of local jobs and local expertise in the long run while reducing our reliance on foreign sources of power. Win-win, I'd say.
Oil won't last forever. Essentially they are using it to open up early adopters to a winder range. I really doubt most buyers will be 200+K income types. I'd be willing to bet most in that class stick with higher performance gasoline cars. There are electrics and hybrids in the 30K range give or take and that's in line with SUV prices and I don't see a shortage of those. If we start now electrics and hybrids may wind up in the 20K to 25K range by 2020 which puts them in range of most new car buyers. That's the real reason. Without the investment in new technology it could be 20 years instead of 10. The whole point with peak oil is we aren't running out just demand is exceeding supply. Reduce demand and we buy decades until we run out and prices get beyond practicality. Even saving 10% can buy us a decade or more. Most people could get by on a pure electric they just have to deal with the fact that once a month or a couple of times a year in some cases they may need to travel 5 or 10 miles beyond it's range so they have to cope with the situation. If ranges get up to 250 to 300 miles then trips are the only likely times people would need more range and you can always rent a car a couple of times a year with all the money you save. If they can get prices in line with gasoline cars maintenance cost of electricity are radically cheaper than gasoline cars. I always loved the quote by a mechanic that worked on the early electric cars. He said with the electrics maintenance generally amounted to filling the windshield wiper fluid and rotating the tires. With many cars after the first year or two maintenance can exceed gas prices.
Your personal experience with hybrid vehicle owners contributes nothing to the argument of whether the demographic data for potential buyers of all electric vehicles are accurate.
Also, the article never states that only those making 200k or more will purchase electric vehicles. Only that demographic studies indicate that those are the buyers interested now. A slightly wider market is expected to emerge later, but would still be limited to those making about 100k per year.
The article suggests the largest group of car buyers (middle class suburbanites) is least likely to adopt all electric vehicles, because of issues with range, performance and price. Hybrids are far more competitive with traditional vehicles in those areas.
And so that you are aware in the future, your stated income puts you well outside of middle class.
It's too bad that batteries don't obey Moore's Law, which eviscerates your argument. The only problem with electric cars is battery technology, which needs a phenomenal breakthrough to become practical.
Why did you think that we pay less than $3/gallon for gas and Europeans pay $7-$8.
As many others have answered, it's because the Europeans distort the market (via taxes) even more than we do. That's not particularly interesting; it's commonly known.
The more interesting question is, now that you know that, whether you'll refrain from using that example again? I suspect you won't, and that you will continue to make that point when you feel it will score you a point in an argument. Many political opinions don't change in response to new information.
If the memory serves, the Prius has been a top selling car for two years, and the second and third place are also for hybrids
Can you cite something here? I was looking at best selling lists for 2009 in a few places and Prius is never mentioned on the top 10. None of the top cars are broken out into hybrid/non-hybrid numbers. The most consistent top selling vehicle is the Ford F-150 which has never been offered publicly as a hybrid or an EV.
So, were not burning any fossil fuels to charge these things?
And most Americans have really long commutes, more than 50 miles per day.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
I don't know how to tell you this, but you're a retard. Crude oil sells for $80 a barrel. It's a commodity. That's the price in the US, that's the price in Europe. One barrel is 42 gallons. It's refined into ~20 gallons of gasoline, ~20 gallons of other stuff. Before the taxman (and retailers and distributors) are involved, gasoline costs $2 a gallon. Taxing something 50% instead of 400% isn't a subsidy.
And they won't make economic sense until the research is done and the processes needed to manufacturer the components optimized for mass production. Everything must crawl before it can run. It's stupid to compare new technologies to current technologies. This is why we need basic research and early adopters.
It would be nice if the government would make new technology vehicles equivalent in price to old school vehicles for a time so normal people could choose to be early adopters. Not forever, but long enough to see if the technology can be made cheaper with mass production.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Taxes. Using Sweden as an example, the price during 2009 was on average 12.06 SEK per liter, of which 7.66 was just taxes; that translates to roughly $2.3/gallon without taxes and $6.3/gallon with.
Not taxing does not equal a subsidy.
They expect us to ride the bus, but they won't provide the fundage. They'll just raise taxes
What you're saying doesn't make sense. How exactly do you think public services are paid for? In this case, where exactly do you think the funds for mass transit actually come from? If you really think that it's only that $2 ticket, you've got another thing coming.
mods, is there bag-o-shit mod available?
i think parent should get a "+5 bag-o-shit"
parent you're a fucking doosh.
The summary I included mentions that those who earn around 200k are those who are interested in purchasing an electric vehicle now and that the market is expected to expand a bit to include those making around 100k.
The summary also states (at the end) that the vast majority of car buyers are not likely to adopt electric vehicles.
Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy. This means we on average have a better grip on reality. Of course, the article with its "limousine liberal" thing is a huge trollbait in itself, so nothing good will result.
Where I'm from, there is, and I have a pretty good grip on reality. You mock the guy's stereotyped generalizations and then throw your own out there?
-Dirty liberal
Electric cars would make economic sense in a truly free market. Unfortunately, the market is quite distorted.
The market is what it is.
You can't sit there and suggest we totally change our entire economy so that some new technology which isn't cost effective would suddenly become so.
Subsidies in the market, to the extent they exist, are invisible to the consumer. In the absence of some monumental tax reduction, how would you propose to level the playing field and make the new EV's make economic sense?
You can not stop doing A in order to do B without killing the economy. You can not wish into existence over night fast recharge stations, new battery technology, etc. by removing any supposed subsidy to oil companies, and transferring that subsidy to EV companies.
If you did, other than the 10 year total disruption of the economy, what would you have gained besides substituting one subsidized industry for another?
Before you rail against subsidies of the oil industry, bear in mind:
Subsidies are society's way of funding development of what is important to the people as a whole in a way that society desires.
Governments takes money from citizens to give to industry in big enough chunks to assure that governments have leverage beyond what Joe Sixpack could ever achieve on his own.
Subsidies are not a zero sum game. Retuning the subsidy to the pocket of the tax payer does not provide any leverage, and does not make an uneconomic venture into EVs suddenly economic.
The vast majority of oil company "subsidies" is spent on roads. The benefit of which accrues to the people, not the oil companies.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I want an electric car or even better, an MDI Air car. I think it's called the Air Cat. I would love to have a solar panel on my roof to charge my car or run the compressor for the air car.
But the Air Car is not allowed here, you can be sure Big Oil is behind that and the electrics are all too expensive!
Like the Tesla. I don't want a hot rod car that will snap my neck when I press the pedal.
I want a cute car that goes a loooooong way on a charge. Like 250-300 miles. It it can do up to 75mph so I can pass trucks, that's all I need.
I don't want speed, I want economy and distance. I don't want a hybrid either. And most of all I want affordability!
I'm sick of the over priced rocket ship electric cars. Let's get back down to earth and think about mass producing something that real people can afford and will get them around safely!
Man oh man, they wanted to KILL all of the old people (also Sarah Palin's mentally challenged kid).
Can you believe it?
Exactly so.
And Oil company profits in the EU are every bit as lucrative as they are in the US.
A high tax burden is not a sign of an absence of subsidy.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
>>>Electric cars would make economic sense in a truly free market
Except for that annoying 200 mile range. I often travel long distance, not just for my job but also to visit friends, families, or nearby cities. An EV simply wouldn't work for me. ----- This reminds me of Betamax where everyone blamed all kinds of reasons why it failed - but few ever mention that it had a 1 hour limit on tapes. THAT was the real reason it failed. Not practical for most consumers. Neither are EVs.
Now I know a lot of EV fans say have two cars - electric and gasoline. But who can afford that? For that matter who can afford the required 100,000 mile replacement of the batteries, which is as expensive as buying a whole new engine. Make economic sense? Hardly. Nor practical sense.
To me a better solution would be to stick with the cars we have now, which has proven to be effective and flexible, but with better fuel economy like the 90 mpg 5-seat Volkswagen Lupo, or the 250 mpg 2-seat commuter car due to be released this fall. And then gradually transition over from fossil fuels to Solar fuels like ethanol and biodiesel.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
And because they are limited in size, capabilities, form-factors and range.
Other than that, sure it's all the fault of the US government.
http://www.mibz.com/14904-toyota-prius-best-selling-car-in-japan-again.html
the first one on google for "prius best selling japan"
From the FS:
In case you are missing the point, the middle class represents the vast majority of those who buy cars, and all electric vehicles do not - and will not- meet their needs. So unless you are going to force them to buy, there is no large scale market to drive down costs.
They don't hate the poor, they just want to keep them in their place- where they belong, without the ability to travel that well into other areas where they do not belong.
Also, if you keep a poor person poor while promising to better them, you can control them to some degree for political benefit. This happens in the US where when someone who gets a job and gets away form welfare, actually makes less then if they didn't have the job and was still dependent on the government.
Seems the summary I wrote for the story has been truncated.
>>>Why did you think that we pay less than $3/gallon for gas and Europeans pay $7-$8.
Actually the US and EU have the same average cost - about $2.00 per gallon of PREtax cost. Anything above that is government taxation. So no, US government subsidies have not driven down the down the cost for Americans. We pay the same Base cost as our cousins in Europe pay.
As for subsidies, if it were upto me they would cease to exist. Nothing for Big Oil, or Big Pharma, or Big Sugar, and so on. Subsidies distort the market and should not exist.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Wait...
Did you EVEN READ the article you posted?
The only HINT of a subsidy it mentions was a royalty tax break to the oil companies for developing new fields.
If these royalty payments to governments were actually required, WE would be paying more for oil, and Government would be squandering more funds. You didn't expect to see any of those royalties show up in YOUR pocket did you? You didn't expect a tax break offset by royalties did you?
Clue: All costs, and profits, and taxes and royalties paid by corporations are passed to the consumer. ALL of them.
So just how can holding price down by NOT taxing be considered a subsidy?
Econ 101 my friend. Shouldn't have skipped it in college.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en
"This essay explain why luxury safer electric (or plug-in hybrid) cars should be free-to-the-user at the point of sale in the USA, and why this will reduce US taxes overall. Essentially, unsafe gasoline-powered automobiles in the USA pose a high cost on society (accidents, injuries, pollution, defense), and the costs of making better cars would pay for themselves and then some. This essay is an example of using post-scarcity ideology to understand the scarcity-oriented ideological assumptions in our society and how those outdated scarcity assumptions are costing our society in terms of creating and maintaining artificial scarcity."
And that was without even including the benefits to load balancing the electric grid with electric vehicles when they are plugged in, or all the new jobs created in making them.
Or this person's amazing point:
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
"""
To extract one gallon of gasoline (or equivalent distillate): 9.66 kWh
To refine that gallon: 2.73 kWh additional energy.
Total: 12.39 kWh per gallon.
Roughly one-third of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline produced from California wells is input from natural gas. Less than 2/3's is net energy (probably a lot less!).
So I can get 24 miles in my ICE on a gallon of gasoline, or I can get 41 miles (at 300wh/mile) in my RAV4EV just using the energy to refine that gallon. Alternatively - energy use (electricity and natural gas) state wide goes DOWN if a mile in a RAV4EV is substituted for a mile in an ICE!
"""
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
>>>My first CD writer... 110 bps acoustic coupler... Windows mouse cost $220... I don't know if electric cars are in that category, but I think there's an excellent chance that they are.
>>>
My first Amiga cost about $900 and it went bankrupt. My first console was Atari - they went bankrupt too. I bought a Digital Compact Cassette because I thought its backwards compatible with existing tapes was a sure winner, but it failed to catch on. My first home movie player was actually a videorecord called RCA CED, which also went belly up. Sony made the very first home recorders with Umatic and Betamax... we don't hear much about them today. They also made the first home camcorder called Betamovie, but it flopped too.
Point: A lot more things fail then succeed, because other better things (or better marketers) come along: Macs, PCs, Nintendos, CD-recordables, videotapes, VHS, VHS-C.
I think the EV will also be a flop, and the future lies with high MPG diesels (like the 250mpg VW Commuter) and Hybrids (like my 80mpg Insight). The government should not be so anxious to throw-away tax money on a technology that is almost certain to lose to other, better tech. That would be like if the government threw tax money at HD-DVD.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That's totally wrong.
For example, Nissan LEAF is priced quite close to be a practical purchase even without tax credits. GM Volt is a little bit too expensive, but its price will certainly fall down in the future.
We actually have enough of existing technology to make electric cars work. Now it's a question of moving this technology into production. And various incentives are a great way to improve the uptake of new technologies.
How much was earlier US high tech driven by Federal subsidies? Most of it. Who were the early adopters? Bank home offices, process controls at big refineries, and defense/aerospace... lots and lots of defense/aerospace. Even if it was used for commercial aerospace, only by the fat of defense work were Boeing, Bunker Ramo, CDC, Convair, Douglas, HP, Hughes, IBM, Lockheed, Raytheon, TRW, et al, able to fund the purchase and/or development of ever more advanced automated controls, data processing, and networks.
Given how the US economy has been structured since the mid-Depression, I doubt we'd be having this electronic discussion, or even know why we weren't having it, without the Federal intervention that helped get the ball rolling.
It only seems different, this time, because this sort of automotive subsidy isn't driven by a defense or NASA contract.
Luke, help me take this mask off
How come they never sell these things in the Northeast? I'd buy a Nissan Leaf EV and drive it around Baltimore/DC, but I'm not moving all the way to Desert California just to do it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If only we had some kind of technology where you could recharge your car to full in only 5-10 minutes time. Like some kind of fluid you could pour into the EV, and then go whirring down the highway. Hy... Hydro... oh it's right on the tip of my tongue.
Oh well.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
when the first automobiles came out, they were the toys of the very rich. it wasn't until the model t ford that the middle class started getting serious about cars. the first personal computers were the tools of the upper middle class. the first televisions, the first refrigerators, the frist radios, etc...
fact: the first electric cars will be bought by the upper middle class. why does anyone with a functioning brain think it will be otherwise?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
When I submitted the article, the summary included the following:
Put simply, the is no large market for production of all-electric cars to scale up to, because all-electric vehicles do not - and likely will not - meet the needs of the vast majority car buyers. Because the subsidy will not stimulate widespread demand, and because early adopters are likely to be affluent, it is misguided.
They don't hate the poor, they just want to keep them in their place- where they belong, without the ability to travel that well into other areas where they do not belong.
I wouldn't have called her 'Poor', but in Europe I met a woman in her 40's who had never been more than 15 miles from where she was born. I've traveled far enough to circumnavigate the Earth. She had never felt the need.
I don't read AC A human right
Fossil fuels get ridiculous subsidies, and the cars cover our cities and the insides of our lungs with soot, and give kids asthma. And then there are the oil wars. And the oil spills. So no wonder the people (the government) want to subsidize the beginnings of a way out of this fucking mess. I know it's a kind of blasphemy to suggest that the people would get their way, or the status quo might change, or we might do something good and positive.
I don't even fucking drive, and I pay taxes for the oil wars, the oil spills, and I breathe the fucking stink of cars all day long. Weird that I would want people to start driving cars that don't spit out cancer causing lung pollution, huh? Must be a plot to help the rich.
So, were not burning any fossil fuels to charge these things?
Irrelevant. The point is not to burn zero fossil fuels (an impossible goal at this point, unless you can go by bike). The point is to burn less fossil fuels, and also add flexibility to the nation's fleet. Just because an electric car uses fossil-based electricity today doesn't mean it can't use renewable electricity tomorrow.
And most Americans have really long commutes, more than 50 miles per day.
Wrong. The average commute is 16 miles each way. A modern electric car (like the Nissan Leaf) can go 100 miles on a charge. Not a problem for commuting.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I know people in my home town in the states that are the same. One girl I know has never been outside of the county we live in that she could remember before I took her to Vegas with me. She was amazed and disgusted all at the same time.
Anyways, staying somewhere by choice wouldn't make someone poor. Removing the ability of the poor to travel cheaply could keep them in a specific area though. That's what I consider the attack on the current transportation infrastructure to be doing. If the government prices the costs of travel out of the reach of the poor, they are in effect keeping them put. IT may be by deisgn, or an unintended consequence but I had to bring it up.
Right, because Deloitte has always been on the side of rich liberals. These are high finance, accounting and M&A people. The kind of operation that built the Enrons of our world. Consider the source.
Rich people can afford the cars without the subsidies. Middle class people can't. And everybody wants to pay less at the pump. To bring down the costs of these technologies economies of scale need to come into play. And more people buying these cars means tens of thousands of jobs. This is why the incentives exist.
This isn't a handout to rich people. This is taking one for the team to make energy security profitable. Adjusting the profit motive to extricate our interests from oil rich regions is how we will ultimately win this war. I would gladly trade subsidy slop for victory. It's cheaper than the war itself.
It's in the best interests of people like Deloitte, Carlyle et al to keep the war going for as long as possible. Their portfolios depend on energy dependence and war spending. That's what this criticism is about.
Just curious, how much of that was government subsidized?
All of them, to some degree. During the cold war, the first customer for anything involving computers was the US military.
As your post does point out, companies desperately needed storage space and the ability to transfer data from point to point quickly. They were willing to shell out $$$ for the tech to do it.
Only when it became cost effective. And before businesses could afford it, the US Department of Defense was the customer. A random example: Take a look at the list of customers for the IBM 7030 Stretch at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_7030_Stretch . Notice how they all need it to do government funded research in nuclear physics. The air force bought a few to run a system that processed radar data for detecting Russian aircraft. This is the machine that gave us the 8 bit byte. This tradition continues to this day: Do you think IBM would still be developing POWER if the Department of Energy were not running the ASCII program? http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=security/bigbrother/tech/ibm-ascii-purple-290m.txt
Sure businesses buy POWER servers. But if the government were not buying the research systems, that research would not be done, and businesses would have to foot the bill or go without.
This seems clearly different, as now we're trying to replace an old and established industry with a new one, whereas in your examples, these were emerging technologies from an emerging industry.
Okay. Why does that matter?
Right, it's slightly myopic to complain about how these cars and incentives are created for wealthy individuals, considering that electric cars are only really useful in the US if you own another [gas-powered] vehicle. If incentives encourage people to buy one of these as a secondary car, rather than an otherwise equivalent gas car, then it's done its job.
BREAKING HEADLINE: 20% of people are different to the other 80%. News at 11.
Are you adequate?
Tech always starts out as an expensive luxury for the rich and then ends up in everyone's hands. This includes cars themselves, and nearly every other technical advancement in history. Hell, people were unsure if a large-scale rollout of electricity was a good idea back in the day.
Wish I had a mod point left... sigh.
Exactly which liberals told anyone except the very rich to make any sacrifices?
Barack Obama is just the latest.
Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax
When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
Damn, not only is Obama taxing us like crazy, he downright LIED about it.
Imagine that.
Obama's a liar.
It's Europe we're talking about, they don't have the fucked up public transportation and city planning schemes you have in the US.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
I believe it was France which came up with a better solution:
By the class of car:
Tax cars by how much gas they use then take that money to lower the price of cars that use less gas.
It creates a market condition the car makers will adapt to over time, pays for itself. How you create this equation is a little tricky; but I'd not worry much about the transition since its the long term process that is the goal and the price "shocks" will quickly fade out.
One could also try a carbon tax; but that is impossible in some countries and the money from that tax will likely go elsewhere-- like back to the fossil fuel companies who get most the government energy subsidies already.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
100 billion every year? have a citation to quote?
here's a counter citation
http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/05/big-oils-tax-bill/
"Yet before you thank Big Oil for financing Uncle Sam's profligacy, get this: Exxon paid none of its 2009 income taxes in the U.S., while Chevron sent the U.S. Treasury just $200 million."
can you supply ANYTHING to back up your claim of 100 billion a year?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Slate.com has been publishing a number of articles without fully researching the facts or thinking their arguments through. IMHO, Slate.com is losing credibility. It also seems like they are pulling that tired old BS of "publish or perish" writers in printing provocative trash to get attention.
On Slashdot, we have seen the cycle of new technology many times. We all know that cutting edge technology is expensive until enough of it is sold to pay for the R&D. My tax money goes to so much garbage, like tobacco and *OIL* subsidies/unfair tax breaks. I don't mind if a little bit of it goes to help get electric cars going.....something that will someday benefit many people with cleaner air and energy independence.
Tobacco and Oil benefit no one but some already filthy rich people.
I saw similar articles spelling doom for hybrid cars from the get-go, yet years later the Prius has been a popular car and SUVs have been on their way out.
I think electric cars might be around longer than slate.com
BTW, the Volt will be leasing for about $350 a month
The gulf of mexico? That catastrophe happened.
The original poster made no statements beyond "only liberals drive Prius", "liberals are stupid", and "liberals don't work or appreciate the value of money".
It was a troll, through and through.
Er, are you trying to pretend there is no catastrophe there or what?
(+1, Disagree)
Which is worse / more distortion? Giving the money to oil companies as subsidies so they can continue to depend on their main source of revenue like Microsoft depends on Office and Windows? Or giving money to the government to build the critical infrastructure that will enable an electric future at the periphery? Since when did companies in general use their own funds to provide for roads, bridges, etc that all oil guzzling car owners use and would be useless to them without? We the people need some way of building an electric future and so far government hasn't been very good in stepping away from the oil industry, but if you decide to put someone in there that does, well you have that choice, right? Besides, economy is all about deciding where to invest out money given the problem of scarcity. Having some shareholder sit on it means it is being invested somewhere else, perhaps not even in energy, maybe a derivative, so it is up to government: strengthen the rules that govern corporations/ charge tax for once, or if it is found or is generally known that the unfree market that we have doesn't work to produce / expose needed results, then shift the reward to some outfit that is capable of doing it. Even if the wealthy are being subsidized, it still means that more of your money, in addition, is going to Telsa, Chevy, Nissan who have invested the money you gave them by buying previous products. Think of it as a corporate cookie for doing a good job and as an example to others for bringing in a future that has been decided with good leadership. The "liberals" didn't get paid to drive that car, we subsidized the company in question so that we can have a future in which it is possible for others to buy a similar car.
Society use your Sciences
What the rich buy new now, is what the middle class buy used 3-10 years down the lifetime of the vehicle. The lower income brackets almost exclusively buy used cars than some richer person once owned.
Depending on the country the majority of car sales are used car sales, and the average age of the vehicle fleet is 5-10 years.
The cheap $4000 car I own some upper-middle class idiot paid full price for in 1998. So naturally I get a car tailored to a different customer with a whole lot of fancy features I don't need (thirsty V6, climate control, fancy dials, electric this and that) I'd rather just save the money, weight and fuss. Ironically I could almost afford to buy a upper-mid price sedan now, but I would get the same fuel economy as my old one, but more power, an iPod dock and uh... um...
I spot a problem if gas prices rise too much over the next decade.
This basically means the article is a fallacy. The rich need to be voractious early adopters right now to provide the masses cheap electric and hybrid cars over the next decade.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
I know a number of owners of Priuses. Not one of them makes >$200k, and the only one that perhaps makes more than $125k is my 80 yo landlord.
There may be some skew in the direction the article claims, but its actual claims are wildly hyperbolic to the point of being best simply to ignore.
Buy Text Processing in Python
The ones that want to deny people the opulence and abundance that they (the phonies) possess. The ones who believe in zero sum, that resources are limited. The ones that tell us to consume less, as opposed to producing more with less (waste). They tell us to ration our water without seeing that the planet is damn near drowning in it. The ones that tell us the planet cannot support more people when the only real problem is corruption and mismanagement of the food (and water) supply. The ones that are playing Wall Street right along side with those they claim to oppose. And with that same "opposition", they'll tell you to sacrifice your child for some trumped up, totally unjustified war. Those "liberals". I put them in quotes because these people aren't the idealists who actually believe in things like personal liberty and real equal protection and respect under the law.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Everywhere with people and money will have a struggle between socialism/capitalism/liberalism/conservatism/fascism and probably a whole bunch of other *isms.
Capitalism doesn't belong on that list or any list of political ideologies, capitalism is not an alternative to socialism/liberalism/conservatism/fascism it is a feature or them. Capitalism is merely a method of regulating economies, the political structure of the society using that economy is a completely seperate question.
I would also like to reply to iskender that not all rich people are Jewish and that talking as though they are is counterproductive to efforts toward socio-economic equality, not to mention bigoted and ignorant.
And finally, on the actual topic, while we are discussing how to get everyone to drive electric cars lets not forget that they are all running on coal and gas and that unless we can get worldwide clean energy electric cars are part of the problem not part of the solution
Oh there was certainly a good deal of hysteria about the oil spill.
But it was still a big, expensive, embarrassing, inexcusable deal. With 11 dead people, miles of closed beaches, and important parts of the Gulf closed to fishers, It's a catastrophe in my book.
Nope, they don't. They have the public transportation that costs money and goes only where the designers decided it would go. Moreover, they are in the process of raising the rates on the poor areas too. At least in the UK they are.
Let me make my point one more time and maybe it will be clear now. Poor people who can afford automobiles and the ability to travel have the ability to not be poor much longer if they choose to do something drastic like move into a wealthier neighborhood and get a job there. When you price the ability to drive somewhere out of the range of the poor, they are stuck relying on the government for their transportation needs which can and will as the article pointed out, end up failing them when it's convenient for them. This in turn ends up creating a need for the government which can be manipulated politically. And no, it doesn't matter what country it is in, the potential is there and it most likely has been acted on to some degree even if not blatantly obvious.
Hydro BOOM! ?
#!/bin/csh cat $0
w8, is that some sort of reverse Godwin?
One that hath name thou can not otter
maybe a big 3 car what he said is true. but thers alero that cost the same as a fuel burning car thanks to its simple design and drive train it is greener to own that car without a 100,000 price tag more like 25,000. and they said could be even cheaper when they start selling world wide. Tesla is also working on a 30k car. the problem is the big 3 work for oil and that means any car that uses little to no fuel will always cost more from them to make up for the lost money at the pump. heck if you have some building skills get a couple 75 watt solar panels some steel framing pipes and abought 8 dc battery's and a electric motor more wattage the better. you can build a electric trike for a couple grand. the drive train etc you could salvage off junk cars.
Wow....I don't think I've ever seen a rant about liberals so eloquently smacked down. Kudos!
To be fair though...all societies have a "they" that gets blamed for all of societies ills....an US vs THEM attitude. It's the glue that holds society together, and makes people feel a kinship with each other. It's particularly severe in the United States because we really don't have any large enemies left.
" from households making more than $200,000 " - Two earners making a combined $200k in many urban areas where the car will be used are middle class. This might be hard for a writer for Slate to understand given what they pay professional writers at the moment.
The all-time great example is Obama telling us that we need to turn our thermostats down, in order to preserve world peace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXIvmJ8xenc
Then we find out that Obama is from Hawaii and he got used to warm weather, so he never wears his suit jacket in the Oval Office (unlike every President before him) and he keeps the thermostat "hot enough to grow orchids" according to his campaign advisor, David Axlerod:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/03/obama-getting-heat-turning-oval-office-thermostat/
I'm sure you can find conservative hypocrisy of equal weight, but not about "saving the Earth". That is a liberal bailiwick in the USA.
I don't want to play the conspiracy nut, but there's a lot of disinformation out there regarding electric vehicles, which have the oil companies AND their own makers against them (the traditional automakers are afraid of losing all the $$$ they make in parts & repairs.) The report is full of nonsense--we have loads of Prius owners here in a very blue-collar community. My old Mazda has a few years left, and I hope that I can replace it with an electric car.
Actually, the subsidies have already done that for us. They cause a market distortion which prevents the market from finding the most efficient form of transportation, and as a result we all pay more in the end. It's an example of the Broken Window Fallacy.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Yeah because from where you are from there is NO social classes right? Heck you are having dinner right now with a homeless person you invited in to your home right? Oh wait there is no homeless because that would infer a class system. So there is no sympathizing persons anywhere with in 100 miles of you that show support for a lower class because there is no class system right? Where you at? Antarctica?
They expect us to ride the bus, but they won't provide the fundage. They'll just raise taxes.
And...?
You do understand how funding for public transit works?
You can't tax cut your way to a robust public bus system.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
So does this electricity come from the magic electric fairy?
Last time I checked we do not get all our electricity from solar and even at that petroleum is need still in the manufacture of many part of cars and even in producing components for solar production. Truly free? Does that just mean not supporting or buying products from what ever corporation you find evil?
As many others have answered, it's because the Europeans distort the market (via taxes) even more than we do.
The European counties properly tax gasoline to pay for the subsidies that it requires. Subsidies that the US "hides" in the general budget. Things like the billions expended in military expenses to secure access to oil and the billions spent cleaning up the environmental damage (spills, polution, etc) of oil-based fuels, the billions in health care costs associated with breathing the crap that comes out of exhaust pipes. I could go on...
You bought these with your own money, which you are free and welcome to do. What you must not expect is for the rest of us to finance your hobby.
Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
a 1967 camaro cost a little over $3000 fully loaded. The base price on a new camaro is $22,680. I understand inflation, but cars are far from electronic gadgets and PC parts that constantly go down in price for new items becuase of lack of demand for the less technological parts. Cars using in a utilitarian environment always hold a value that is greater then a technology that might be obsolete in some markets as soon as a year.
To put it simple you can't compare cars to computer parts unless cars doubled in fuel mileage every 12 months. Not going to happen even with all electric cars because battery technology just doesn't move that fast. That's just a fact.
Man oh man, they wanted to KILL all of the old people (also Sarah Palin's mentally challenged kid).
Now see that's change I can believe in. None of this stupid health-care and economic crap. It would solve the deficit problem in one fell swoop by eliminating the SS and Medicare half of the pie, and it would mean those stupid 55+ communities for the elitist old people would go away opening up new apartments to young people.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
The first electric Vehicle came out in the 1830s!
How many centuries have to pass before you admit that it's not going to catch on?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Exactly which liberals told anyone except the very rich to make any sacrifices?
Al Gore. Living in a mansion while jetting around telling us that society needs to make sarcrifices amounts to that.
Not that I support the other side of this fight either. Big vehicles look to me like a collosal waste of resources, the way most people use them.
I'm not from the US. Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy.
You are from some place with a host of dichotomies. The most common one is urban/rural (which incidentally is probably the biggest driver of the US's liberal/conservative dichotomy). You might live in one of the few places like Hong Kong or Singapore that doesn't have that particular dichotomy (due to a complete lack of a rural population), but I can find a few dichotomies for those exceptions.
Well some stated, make the government buy electric verticals, It is not economical, think, most cops can drive 100-200 easy in a day, no matter where they are & public transportation is even more. Also, I don't know about the "rich people" but my poor self, (maybe $45 a year, I am a solider, and that counts my housing allowance for me and my family, still low enough to get subsidies, like WIC), I can not own a vehicle that would require me to one another one to go more than 60 mi. I drive on average 60-100+ mi a day, just work related, how in the world, can I justify an electric car, it will never work with my life style , unless it can go 300 mi in a day charge, then it might be useful. Then it would have to be big, do you see how much stuff a solider has, that is a lot. I know some smart a** is gonna say live closer, but that is not practical, nor possible. I have one of the shorter commutes in my unit. In the end, it is not the cost, but how far can I drive, and can I afford another car for when this won't cut it. That is why these cars will go to the rich, and rich to me is $75 +. Do not complain about your being middle class with 100K, go look up the median salary, I bet then you $75+ will feel rich.
There are huge externalities with fossil-fuel vehicles—air pollution, climate change,oil spills, etc. These are effectively subsidized by everyone, lowering their price far below what it should be.
You can add "national defense" to that, since most of our troubles are connected somehow to our oil supply.
They don't hate the poor, they just want to keep them in their place- where they belong, without the ability to travel that well into other areas where they do not belong.
You don't need a car to travel in most of Europe. For the rare times that you do, renting is vastly cheaper than buying.
Even tax breaks for vehicles that supposedly are good for the environment - that liberals are supposedly supportive of - get handed the 'Envy' card.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Those are all good points, which is why Deloitte Consulting was used to determine if these tax incentives would help drive the costs down. The study has shown that it would not.
The whole point of the article is that the "economy of scale" argument is a fallacy in this particular scenerio. These tax subsidies are not going to help make these cars cheaper.
Increased spending by the government directly on R&D would still be helpful though.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
the ones who told us our healthcare won't be damaged by the government program. Give you a hint. I've got government health care. I'm in pain every single day because of it. The same ones who keep upping the most regressive tax in the US ... cigarette taxes.
Yes, technology can improve things. But battery technology is fairly mature - we have been making batteries for a couple of hundred years.
I haven't seen any suggestion of revolutionary improvements in battery technology recently. And the amount of energy stored per kilo is a miserable 1% of petrol/gasoline. While electric propulsion is considerably more efficient than internal combustion - maybe 6 times?, and the motors are small and light, we still really need about a 10-20x improvement in battery technology.
That's ever such a lot. Basically, we have a problem.
Energy densities (Watt hours per kilogram)
Uranium 235 fission - 2.5x10**10 Wh/kn
Liquid H2 39,000 Wh/kg
Diesel 16,361 Wh/kg
Petrol/gasoline 12,200 Wh/kg
Ethanol 7,850 Wh/kg
Lithium Ion battery 110 Wh/kg
Lead acid battery 25 Wh/kg
Obvious nuclear is the way to go.
"Cats like plain crisps"
The Volt has already solved this problem for a lot of people. Battery operated for daily driving up to 40 miles, and a gas powered generator that can go a couple hundred more. There are probably tens of millions of people in the US alone who could use this car as their only vehicle, price aside.
Why don't we stop having the government subsidize both big oil and electric cars and then let the free market determine which is the most cost effective technology? This concept, if implemented, could be applicable to other areas of the economy.
Of course this means that the politicians won't be able to control us as much as they have in the past by screwing with the market to pervert our choices to what they think (read as what the lobbyists pay them to think) is best. Politicians do what is in there own interest. This usually means doing whatever it takes that will get them re-elected. Money from businesses, PACs, special interest groups, unions, etc. is usually the answer to getting re-elected; not doing what is in their constituent's best interest.
Why is it that the same people who scream bloody murder about the PATRIOT Act or the DMCA have no problems with having the government using its coercive power of taxation to alter what should be an individual's free choice?
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Do you have any stats to back up this assertion? The vast majority of scholarships are federally funded or come from endowments (in my experience). If you have actual studies showing something different than I would be happy to see them. However, I find it very unlikely that students paying tuition compare with federal funding of education.
Having said that, THE key problem with electric car economics is the number of possible charge discharge cycles.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Where are you getting this viewpoint from? The average US commute is something like 33-34 miles round trip. A 50-100 mile range electric vehicle would suit those needs just swell, with the added bonus of not concentrating massive amounts of pollution in urban heat trap zones.
Heck, I live out in the sticks, my round trip to town is 26 to 30 miles depending on what stores I need to hit. A 50 mile range light weight small pickup would suit 99% of my needs *right now*, and we have mid range flatbeds and dumptrucks and even some road tractors if I need a bigger truck for the occasional heavy load. Most of the time I get by with a four cylinder diesel datsun pickup 1/2 ton that gets 30-40 MPG.
And with my solar panels, once there are pure electric vehicles beyond sedans, and only needing to travel into town once a week...free fuel for me. I'll wait a few years after I start seeing them, then get a used one. Around the farm, no probs, it's 1.5 miles wide at the widest, meaning I can scoot around here for cheap/free as well (we have a lot of our own gravel roads). Electric works just fine in industry now, plenty of useful and practical all electric vehicles, from forklifts to mining equipment. Smallish electric cars have been used since forever in the form of golf carts. It's the same tech, just scaled up to make a road vehicle.
The prius sold out fast when it was first introduced and still sells well, despite all the naysayers pre release-and I distinctly remember a lot of internet predictions saying 'they wouldn't sell". The tesla at the other end, sells all they make.
I'll make a prediction to counter your opinion..both the nissan leaf (pure electric, mid $20ks) and the chevy volt (extended range plug in hybrid, 41 grand) and the tesla model S sedan (fifty something grand) will sell every single one they first release, and will then have to increase production to meet demand. And then a few years from now the chinese electrics (BYD company at first) will finally hit, and they will come in under 20 grand and sell like freekin mad, and *that* will be when the electric vehicle dam bursts, and you will see them at all price ranges from cheap intro level "your basic ride" to luxury exotic and everything in between, just like today with pure ICE vehicles.
We'll have to wait to see who is correct of course.
Sadly, even Slashdot has succumbed to the hate politics so prevalent in the US at the moment. Watching the commentary on this story is as intellectually enlightening as watching the mainstream media with talking heads and rants. What happened - you guys get bought by Fox?
My $0.05 (AUD - we don't have pennies any more)
I'm not from the US. Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy.
No? I suppose there's no rich/poor dichotomy either? No social stratification of any kind?
You misunderstand me, and it's possible I didn't express myself clearly enough. I wasn't talking about how things are, but about what concepts are used to discuss things. The verbose version of what I said would be something like "In debates in my country we don't use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in their US meanings. As such, we avoid the problems stemming from these words being quite ill-defined in their US senses. No one can therefore gain or lose support just by using these particular words, which are often nothing better than straw men."
In other words, I was commenting on the use of language in debate in our respective countries, and at least not attempting to say anything more than that about my own country. I did not try to say anything about my country's economy, since that's naturally very off topic.
Handouts for the rich aren't "limousine liberalism," because they aren't liberalism at all. They are inherently anti-liberal.
I would agree with you that money spent on R & D is not money wasted, but I think the EV/Computers analogy breaks down in several ways.
First, Moore's law will not necessarily apply to the development of battery technology. Moore's law has been amazing and awesome. In my humble opinion one of the major forces behind this rapid growth in the speed of the processor was the processor itself. It would be very difficult to design a chip by hand, but once you have a processor to run some optimizations automatically and build a better chip. Of course once you've built a more powerful processor you can use it to help design even better chips etc... I don't see how this cycle would apply to batteries....
I personally think that R & D is never wasted (unless we know for certain that we can't achieve the goal). Maybe the new technology will drive down the cost of EV's while making them more convenient, maybe it won't. Even if it doesn't we still may end up developing new technologies in other areas. I say its worth it.
You misrepresent that story. To start with, it was not a tax credit. It was a rule that allowed businesses to buy a truck and expense it in one year instead of depreciating it over many years. Not individuals, businesses.
Here are the basics of the difference:
Businesses only pay tax on profits. Profits are revenues minus costs. Buying a truck is a cost. Usually, such a item lasts a number of years. The cost must be divided up and applied over those years. The only difference in the rule was that it allowed the cost to be used all in one year. With this rule, the government loses revenue in year one, but gains it all back in later years. No taxpayer pays anything extra.
A $7500 tax credit is just an extra $7500 in a tax refund check because you bought an Obama-mobile. This money never gets re-payed to the government.
Please try to get it right (and/or be honest) in the future.
And exactly where does the government 'heavily subsidise' the EVIL OIL COMPANIES?
Gee, I dunno, spending all those billions of taxpayer dollars on roads and freeways? Building a transport system that is designed for motor vehicles instead of, say, bicycles and trains?
Shouldn't oil companies (or at least their customers) have to pay for their own transport infrastructure, ie, roads?
Because Europeans impose massive taxes on fuel. Presumably because they hate poor people.
Seeing as car-ownership amongst poor people in Europe is much lower than amongst rich people, I think you have it backwards.
The fact is, we are essentially trapped into an oil based economy for the foreseeable future, regardless of what we may wish to be true. We can become more efficient about it, but that does not change the fundamental relationship. Without oil, society would collapse and most of us would starve. Oh, and a large % of us are mortal too.
Yeah, without that government health care, I'm sure your pain would end.
You ended up supporting the premise of his point by acting as the kind of liberal guy he was mocking. Instead of responding with facts, you used emotional by somehow relating his criticism of the environmentalist movement to that of anti-semitism. There's zero logical leap for that comparison--you're just replacing words and acting as if that's a rebuttal.
If his criticism of the environmentalist movement is based on prejudice, then isn't it similar to anti-semitism? I mean, he says that these cars are bought by and only by rich liberals who don't have to work. Do you think he can back this up? The article just cites a future buyer prediction, the thing about rich slackers is something the above poster pulled out of his ass. I admit I probably did this discussion a disservice by replying to him so early since he's a troll and has been moderated as such already.
You also claim "conservatives can drive whatever they want," which wasn't said. The point is that rich liberals drive these cars, so that was the subject of the post. Conservatives weren't even mentioned. You took it as a personal attack on your ideology, so to respond, you had to bring up conservatives for some reason and draw a bunch of conclusions out of thin air about what you thought was implied by the post.
Well, I admit conservatives were only mentioned in that they were excluded from being buyers of electrics ("only liberals"). However, as I mentioned at the end of my post I was railing against the whole conservative/liberal thing. Rich people are rich fucks regardless of political label, so it doesn't matter much if they're "limousine liberals" or something else.
Basically, the original poster said something reasonably insightful about fuel efficient small conventional cars. Then he just made up some stuff about buyers of electrics. There are no doubt plenty of eco nuts who believe in Jesus and atheist commies who drive SUVs - the terms conservative and liberal are just name-calling, and made the post I originally replied much worse than it could have been.
As for my ideology, it is nothing like the stereotypical US liberal NOR conservative ideology. You know nothing about it. What made me reply was the fact that the original poster was doing a childish "us vs. them" routine.
Everything 'Green' is a luxury. Most of us are just trying to feed our hungry selves!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
We could reduce accidents over time, and make people drive better... follow this logic:
Place the Hydrogen tanks covered in flint in the front of the car and put a steel plate in the back. Now if someone rear ends you, they go boom and you feel a slight push. Makes you slow down a bit, eh?
Sure, the mortality rate might be high the first year, but I'll bet accidents go down along with the mortality rate the following year. ;)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Or you could heat up the hydrogen with CO2 from the air to make carbon hydrides. These hydrides could then be pumped in to an engine. We could call these hydrides gas... gaso... oh it's right on the tip of my tongue.
Oh well.
Responsibility is an addiction
Virtue is a temptation
Community is a cartel
Ah, you see - when government gives tax deductions and people don't like it, they cry "subsidy". This happens on both sides of the political fence, and the people who do it are often the same people who believe that a tax cut costs the government money; and who think that tax rebate checks are the most efficient and logical way to effect a tax reduction.
Grid power IS 0-emission IF you don't use the retarded coal plants that the US is so fond of...
...the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in their US meanings.
Yes, that would be an American trait. They frequency associate "conservative" with rich. And "liberal" with poor. I agree they are poorly defined. But it serves its diversionary purpose. Normally I consider "liberal/conservative" to be a distraction myself. That's why the applied quotation marks around each.
I did not try to say anything about my country's economy, since that's naturally very off topic.
But classism is very real, and very much on topic. It's really what the article is about, and why the term "limousine liberal" is quite appropriate. "Rich boys and their toys" And what we have here is tax money being handed over to people who are completely undeserving (very much like the bank and insurance company bailouts), when it would bit as rational to give it to people who consider their personal transport to be more than just a prop to pick up chicks. This is what the "cash for junkers" should have done. It would have been helpful to our mitigate our oil dependence, and it might have helped out the auto industry if they were remotely inclined towards the public interest Instead we got this charade on all counts. We buy and spill more oil than ever, and the industry remains a sad joke.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Evidently you choose to misinterpret what I'm saying. Instead of raising taxes, they could just as easily cut back on their favorite pork barreled and wasteful military projects and Wall Street bailouts. Keep up the good work. You serve the other side well. I read your post there, and now I want to vote for Ms Palin... twice! I'll get the same results with better eye candy.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
You do understand how funding for public transit works?
Yeah! You cut out the pork and place the money where it's needed. Ain't gonna happen though, is it?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Actually, if we change the term to "limousine environmentalist" we probably agree in this case. No need to to use a term which people connect to religion and other baggage when there's a more specific term. We appear to not really disagree that much here.
Now, if only the ~2000 other posters agreed there might be some kind of consensus. :)
Slate is bogus
1. consider next owners of these cars
2. take cheaper option as an example
3. consider costs over 3 yrs or entire life of a car
4. new tech is pricey, but some has to buy it for manufacturers to adopt it wider
5. about clearing way for SUV's - smart subsidies are two-fold - some for buyer, some for seller
6. about jobs - clearly car assembly should move to 3rd world, but to say that publicly is political suicide
7. I'm, too, unhappy about slow electric developments, angry that tesla joker gets something at all and doubt gm is good for anything at all, but of all populist moves, this is a good one
and finally:
Slate is in bed with Bing!
As for your question, "why?":
Computers were a new emerging technology. Consider the concept and its market as its own self-expanding universe. There is no "competition" - for lack of a better term. The automobile industry was in the same situation in the early 20th century and continues as one of the largest industries in the world. Hybrid/smart/electric cars are not a new emerging technology. Instead they're just incremental refinements to existing technology - and much much less game-changing/innovative/holyshit.
Regarding electric vehicles, unfortunately there's still minimal gains in terms of pollution (batteries) and efficiency (energy-source costs + battery manufacture). It's more of a hocus-pocus ideal than anything - much like corn and ethanol. Don't get me wrong, I'd really like for the tech to work. But if the tech is that damn good and promising, then the government would be better served in getting bids for E-vehicles to replace the entire fleet rather than in open-ended subsidies (that we all know will just turn into a large entitlement program for another special group).
This brings me to a very important point. Customer =/= Subsidy. I feel there is a distinct difference to the government driving innovation through its own real demand, compared with an attempt to entice the population into adopting a new standard by dangling some carrots. FFS, we can't even get the population to accept metric. One can only assume subsidies as the cornerstone of a (obviously) long-term program to replace an entrenched industry will only breed waste and dependence whereas bidding, (or goal-setting, as in DARPA, X-prizes, and other programs) when done right, breeds innovation out of necessity.
It is the usual and normal pattern in America that the wealthy acquire new devices before the poor. The wealthy guy can take the hit if he makes a bad choice and makes a lousy decision whereas the poor can sink under the waves from a tiny error. As the technology gets more common, is thought of as being reliable and cheap to operate, then expect people with less money to acquire such a product. In essence the wealthy are the guinea pig and after all companies usually seek the big spenders as buyers.
I expect a tipping point in which there will eventually be a stampede of buyers seeking electric cars. Companies that have put them selves in the right position will earn a whole lot of money.
There are some states that mostly rely on nuclear and/or hydrolectric for their power. Electric vehicles in those states could get pretty close to zero emissions. Only about 15% of the electricity in Washington state and Idaho is from fossil fuels. A 85% reduction in emissions is pretty significant. And in hydroelectric states it is truly win/win because the electricity is cheap too. There is a big difference in paying 5 cents per KWh in Idaho vs 15 cents or more in Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut. That web site shows that the most practical states for EVs are the states that are mainly powered by either coal or hydroelectric. Interestingly nuclear states are pretty expensive too. Although still less expensive than natural gas and oil states. Nuclear may be zero emission, but it aint cheap.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Obvious nuclear is the way to go.
A Ford Nucleon then?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
As many others have answered, it's because the Europeans distort the market (via taxes) even more than we do.
You say 'distorted' as if there were an obvious 'undistorted' price for gas.
Our gasoline economy has massive externalities, i.e. costs that neither producer or consumer have to pay for. Usually the tax payer is stuck with them. Examples are the cost of building highways, or the cost of cleaning up oil spills.
Taxes are supposed to make up for that. If gas is taxed too low to cover its externalities, that is indeed form of subsidy. But it is difficult to determine what is 'too low' since we are unsure about many externalities (e.g. global warming), and we're taxing in different places (gas, sales tax on cars, road tolls, etc.). Also, since externalities can be different in different places, there may be good reason that the taxation is not the same everywhere.
So please tell me, what exactly is your universal 'undistorted' price of gas? (And are you able to change your opinion in response to new information?)
Yes you can.
Step 1: Stop spending money on foreign wars so stabilize our oil supply (and cut taxes).
Step 2: Stop using public funds to build and maintain roads and highways (and cut taxes).
Step 3: Wait for private industry to provide alternatives to our current transpiration system (which really is publicly funded, if you stop think about it for 10 seconds).
Why do people think economies of scale will drive down the cost of batteries? You can't use economies of scale to drive down the cost of raw materials. What economies of scale are you talking about driving down? Do you believe that battery factories are not fully utilized? Do you believe a larger factory would be significantly less capital intensive per unit produced? Do you believe these modern factories are not fully automated? Just what costs are you expecting to bring down? People have been spoiled by the computer industry and it's ability to reduce the cost of components orders of magnitude every decade by using more sophisticated manufacturing techniques.
The only thing that can bring down the the cost of batteries are fundamental new developments in the way the batteries work themselves. Simply buying more lithium ion batteries is not going to bring the marginal cost down.
The reason the cost of university is so high is two fold:
1) People are demanding more out of it. Universities are expected to provide a lot, and that costs a lot of money. The more technology you want the university of have, the more professors, the better facilities, all of that will cost money.
2) Because governments are giving LESS money. Where I work we have had our state allocation slashed by a couple hundred million dollars in recent years. So what to do? Well we've cut budgets, laid people off... And also raised tuition. The state gives us less funds, so we charge the people who choose to come more. If the state subsidized the cost 100%, then we wouldn't charge. It is a simple matter of money in vs money out. We have to cover expenditures, the tax dollars we get are less, tuition will be more.
Also, the $30-50k thing you are talking about it top private schools. They've always been expensive. Try a public school, in particular try one in your state. You'll find out that when the state kicks in money, you pay less. We charge residents about $8,300 per year to go to school full time. Non-residents pay $24,000. The difference in that is state funding. When you are a resident and thus either you or your family pay state taxes, part of those taxes can go to help fund your education. If you are a non-resident, the university gets no aid and thus must assess the whole cost. It is still less than your lowest quoted figure though and we are a Tier 1 research university.
You mean people who buy who $105k cars typically have a high income? I never would have guessed at such a shocking conclusion. Let's face it, there aren't many choices. Yes, the Chevy Volt is coming as is the Nissan Leaf, but neither is here yet. Perhaps once there's an option on the market that costs significantly less than $105k, we'll see a shift in the interested demographic.
Bear in mind also that any charging station infrastructure to be built requires a number of electric cars on the road to be viable - it makes more sense to subsidize the cars than to subsidize the chargers.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
the "rebate" does not come off the price of the car at purchase, if your buying the car you need to have the credit or funds available to buy it at its list price and pay taxes for that list price.
Hence GM is offering a low lease rate on the Volt in hopes of making it more affordable.
I will keep my Golf TDI for the time being, which btw up until last June qualified for $1300 or $1700 in "rebate"; the difference was between manual and automatic transmission. My average mileage, recorded on fueleconomy.gov has been 42.3 which is great for my commute of 26 miles one way over mostly two lane country roads and brief periods on four lane roads; no interstates.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
So does this electricity come from the magic electric fairy?
Apparently you haven't heard about Hydroelectricity
The United States currently has over 2,000 hydroelectric power plants which supply 49% of its renewable electricity.[5]
Seriously, this is one of the more idiotic articles that I've read in a while. I was posted on 7/30, but the lease price was released early last week. Chevy is going to lease the Volt for $350/month, so obviously electric cars are only for the rich. Only the young rich can afford $350/month. Wow, if I had an extra $350 each month, I'd buy myself a mansion, or maybe a jet. This article is just sensationalist garbage that is deceptive by omission.
Make love, not reality television.
He isn't even an economist.
I wonder what this guy said about the personal computer back in the Altair days... assuming he'd actually heard of it. Probably something on the order of "this will never be a mass market technology" . Digging up what he said about the Internet back in the 1990s might be entertaining.
I checked his referenced studies. Neither is all that impressive and IMO, neither means quite what he thinks they do. With enough money and competitive pressure, I expect to see electrical storage devices far better than current lithium ion off the shelf long before 2020. Would you spend twice as much on a cell phone battery with 5-10x the capacity of your current one>? The market for high-density cost-effective storage is a lot bigger than electric cars... I not only expect to see it available, there will probably be a couple or three different solutions slugging it out in the marketplace.
As for the Deloitte study, of course the only people thinking of buying electric are very high income early adopters. Who bought the first IBM PCs for home use?
When the price comes down, people will buy them when they get word of mouth from other people, when one leaves out the internal combustion engine, one leaves out most of the repair / maintenance / downtime.
And the price will come down if the market is jump-started. The battery isn't the only component of the learning curve worth considering, manufacturing and design experience counts. But as I said, I think the study is unnecessarily pessimistic about how long it'll take advanced electrical storage to get out of the lab... so I expect dollars/kwh stored to drop as well, though perhaps not as fast. I assume that electronic hardware learning curves are among the subjects left out of the reporter's education.
There are a fair number of companies who'd like to derail or delay the transition to electric, most of whom have financial interests in oil and natural gas.
The article is a propaganda piece by a member of the Council for Foreign Relations. It's a sad comment on WaPo that they accepted it for publication, but there are lots of reasons why mainstream newspapers are dying. Lack of credibility is among the most important.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Taxi cabs don't do a lot of highway work.
In fact, the vast majority of electric vehicles are owned by corporations : buggies, delivery vehicles, and especially forklifts. If you add quick battery swapping, electric vehicles work well for police, postal services, etc.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Roadster.
And, before the garage stations serving fuel were made commonplace, the petrol driven car was never going to make it according to you.
I did read the article. It claims that the price of the power pack will not go down to 250$/Kwh because only 70% of the costs are sensitive to scale improvements (with current technology types). Where exactly this 70% number comes from is not clear to me.
The same article states that lithium costs are only about 2% of the price, so the raw material (12%) is not the issue. An other point is that a lot of the pack (32%) is purchased materials. That part will go down also because the producers of those part can get advantages of scale i would think, exactly why the last part of the article is about teaming up.
The article is only talking about current lit-ion technologies, so new technologies can tip the scale. However you can not make a lengthy report based on technology that does not exist (that is called science fiction) ;)
When very rich people make "sacrifices" then the very poor (who provide labor/services to the very rich) lose their jobs.
That's a pretty sad attempt to challenge his point.
You might as well have said "Government health care: Every bit as good as none at all!"
Research notwithstanding I do find government subsidies for a $40,000 car annoying. Heck, I get the feeling the people my wife and I associate with already think our Prius is an affectation looking at price vs. cargo capacity and amenities. Starting with this as the template and meme, will anything like these American plug-ins actually _half_ in price like a laptop?
Who paid for this survey, the royal family of Saudi Arabia?
bah.
The writer of this comment is an ignorant bigot who should be downrated to super troll along with the assholes that rated him insightful.
I do agree on one thing, any tax rebate given out should be based on the income level of the recipient, with people in higher tax brackets getting less rebate on buying a green car. Also, any rebates are indirectly a bailout of Chevy for developing the Volt in the first place. At the moment products such as the Chevy Volt are like a fart in in hurricane as far as their total impact on the reduction of carbon emissions. Somehow, their cost must come down and their acceptance levels increase. It's a chicken and egg problem though, the support infirstructure must be in place before more people will buy.
This is at least partly why I bought a smart car. It has great fuel economy (40 mpg avg.), and is fairly cheap (12,500 for what I got). I only use it for getting to / from work and don't have kids so the 2 seat issue isn't one for me. The electric / hybrids won't ever be interesting until they have much better fuel economy (100 mpg +) or can travel as far as current cars on a charge (300+ miles). Even in either of these cases I won't really consider either if it is priced > $25,000. I just don't think a car is worth that much, though I guess that is partly because I just view it as my mode of transport. Maybe I'm in the minority in this way of thinking....
I don't expect anybody to read this as Slashdot articles grow exponentially in comments each hour but...
The price of petrol in London is about 116 pence per liter http://www.whatprice.co.uk/petrol-prices/
1 US gallon = 3.78 liter
4.39 GBP (pounds) per gallon
1 pound = 1.5 dollars (exchange rates are always crazy)
6.59 dollars per gallon
195k / 49.5 = 3939.40 * $6.59 = 25,960
195k / 30 = 6500 * $6.59 = 42,835
195k / 15 = 13000 * $6.59 = $85,670
So, while many will argue that "Europeans" are "controlling their oil consumption" through taxes, I would argue that the world has been susidizing the oil industry. Additionally, many American vehicles get 20 or even 15 mpg.
PLEASE REMEMBER, money is fiction (pieces of paper), work is economic fiction, government is fiction, and the price of Gas/Fossil Fuels is fiction. We all agree to a system but the system can and should be changed towards improvement.
IEA: To promote efficiency, cut fossil fuel subsidies
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20007059-54.html
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
So perhaps instead of silly rebates we should reduce Fossil Fuel susbidies and increase the tax on gas (yes, there are both Federal and State taxes on gas already so I'm not proposing some radical communist ideology).
The gas price currently here is $ 6.56 per gallon (netherlands), so the break even would be much sooner. (i gues arround 90.000 miles, exact calucation makes no point )
Besides that, I recently drove a corolla and a priusm and i definity would prefer a prius if i had the choice, The CVT alone is a big plus.
Yank the subsidies for oil. Tax the hell out of it. And watch how fast people change their buying habits.
And this is the typical "liberal" tactic of throwing a red-herring into the argument by saying "racist" instead of having a REAL discussion using facts and figures.
I live in the Bay area - one of the hightest concentrations of liberal folks in the country - I suspect the original author's points are correct.
1) We're subsidizing this technology with everyone's funds so a few people can buy them and feel good about themselves.
2) They are STILL not economically viable compared to conventional technology.
The facts are that the electric car has been around as long as the combustion engine. They haven't been competitive from an engineering perspective for that entire length of time. Their inherent weekness - charge time, and cost (both to purchase and own - wait till you get to replace that $6K battery stack.) make them uncompetitive in the market.
Leave the race baiting out it.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Substitute "Solar Power" in this argument, and you heard a rough approximation of this pieces just a few years ago.
The argument here is "It'll never work. The status quo is better. It's too expensive to change."
You can go point by point on his article and and see short term thinking. The "injustice! the middle class is getting screwed!" is just a short term-thinking/emotional attempt to stop the progress of technology. In two years, things will be as he describes. In 15 years, only people in the burbs will use gas, and those in hybrids.
And if we don't subsidize this, in 15 years all our cars will be Chinese, Japanese, etc. This is a familiar situation: The auto industry in the 1970s was resistant to any change, and it destroyed American dominance in automobiles.
Pretending that nearly everyone who supports the externalities of fossil fuel transport does not also benefit from doing that is disingenuous.
All that movement of people and stuff makes the (group) economy go round.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Look, it's like this people.
Let's say I'm rich. I want to get richer (or at least lose money as slowly as possible) so i get on the phone to my rep. (any party) and ask him to help me out. A small contribution to his PAC later and a bill is created. Maybe the bill is for investing in $technology or $changing our taxes or saving the $things_that_look_good_on_a_poster. It does not matter. The bill contains some provision that either gives me a tax break or gives me money outright because something I do (or don't do) is affected. The rich get richer, the poor (and the middle class) get poorer and the representatives skim the fat off the top.
This is what is meant by The Free Market.
Simply, the bottom 40+% of income earners, who don't pay taxes at all, are not capable of jump starting the economy. Flaming, liberal socialists like to demonize and punitively over-tax the higher income earners but they hold the lion's share of disposable income and should be addressed as such.
If you are not a supporter of a flat tax, or at least flatter than what we have now, shut your pie hole before we start pro-rating your vote according to income and land ownership.
Like the idea of an electric car, but wondering where all that electricity will come from to fuel them. Obama campaigned on the promise to bankrupt the coal industry.... you know... one of the places where electricity comes from. Drove by Three Mile Island last week... and was reminded of how far behind were are in nuclear power because of fear mongering.
The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-4-1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil... And 33 years later we're quibbling about electric batteries and think they'll be charged by magic.
Do you understand the the light rail add on in Milwaukie ORegon is $200 million PER MILE?
Crap, we only have 4 million folks in the entire freaking state, with 1% of those able to access that little add on. IT AINT WORTH IT DUDE!
The US Government was not spending a lot of money to subsidize VCR development. Or iPod development, etc. etc. The real question is not that the rich acquire technology first, what is the proper role of the government spending money to develop something (technology or a product), and what are the true economic costs of that development? US sponsored development of improved battery technology may make a lot of sense. US owned GM selling a 41000 Volt car may not.
Well, the causal relationship isn't 100% clear, but it seems likely to me that if so much money wasn't available to go to college that colleges would make do with less (or face bankruptcy).
Suppose the most you could borrow for college was $4k/yr, in total (including parent loans/etc). This would mean that most people would either have to attend a college that costs not much more than this, or not attend college at all. This increases the demand for inexpensive schools, and decreases the demand for expensive schools. The market supply will adjust accordingly.
Sure, you might not get as much for a $20k education, but I've yet to be convinced that you get a whole lot more for a $150k education. Students graduating college today as undergrads don't seem to really know anything I didn't know graduating 15 years ago, but in inflation-adjusted dollars they're paying a LOT more for their education. They aren't really any more well-rounded either, or whatever term is used to justify the lack of tangible outcomes in education.
Reading these posts, I swear Slashdot has got to be the largest collection of Pinko lefties anywhere on the planet.
Apart from a few brave souls, everyone here thinks in *exactly* the same way. You are all little clones of each other.
Gone are the days when you could enjoy a good debate on Slashdot.
Exactly which liberals told anyone except the very rich to make any sacrifices?
Me.
I make less than 100K a year and make sacrifices every day. Carpool into work, meticulously recycle, make more expensive purchasing decisions that take into account packaging and shipping, buy organic at a much greater expense. I ask my wife to do the same. I teach my children to respect the fact that every single person can make a difference with all the myriad choices you have to make every day. Anyone who is curious can ask me about the sacrifices I make daily to spare the earth's resources and to remove myself from the list of Americans who are responsible for the wars we fight for oil. Being a veteran, I care very much about the sacrifices we are asking our soldiers to make for our insatiable appetite for the world's resources.
I expect that you think that liberals all sit around living high off the hog, while asking people with more money to make sacrifices. You are wrong. We are all individuals with our own personal foibles and contradictions. Many of the liberals I know sacrifice plenty. None of them are rich either. Sure we could all do more, and many of us are trying.
Don't let your persecution complex blind you to the fact that EVERYONE should be making sacrifices, because the world does not have infinite resources.
Simply by having electric cars on the road a new market will be created -- the electric charge station. Don't know what it will look like, don't know how it will work. I don't have to know these things. All I need to know is that a) there is already a working model (the gasoline refill station) and b) people like it when scary new technology comes wrapped in the fuzzy robe of old tech. The robe may go away at some point but for now I will be on the look-out for road-side charging stations as an investment opportunity.
There was debate about changing road tax to be based upon WEIGHT instead of value of the car - instead we ended up with almost a flat tax :-(
Weight wears out roads which is what the tax is for. I've seen the actual numbers for roads - and its really horribly expensive as you add more weight and speed to the road design! We could solve our budget issues just by making all roads 35mph... Also allowing commercial trucking adds significantly to costs - they don't pay their fair share. My state also stopped weigh stations quite a while back so they are not getting any of that money now.
The only smart thing we are doing here is installing turnabouts and LED lights - it costs $600/year per intersection just in electricity for the stop lights! We do have car pool and bus lanes all over the city and those seem to do little since they are always empty - guess people here don't mind waiting in traffic (except some guy a while back caught with a dummy car pool.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
...electric vehicles in California would essentially be running on COAL.
Nuclear is already running at max production capacity, and most likely renewables and natural gas, too, to meet current electricity demand. If you add electric vehicles to generate more demand, that demand will be met by the coal plants that are currently on standby to handle demand spikes that occur.
New plants could be built over time, but even so, the current percentage mix only applies to the CURRENT DEMAND, not to the incremental demand.
Do not forget, CO2 + H2 = Gasoline.
Actually if you do it right, CO2 + H2 = ethanol = party!
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
I'm not one to suggest that eliminating ALL subsidies is going to be practical. Sometimes it just makes more sense to have treasury write a check than to figure out who to send the bill.
However, some externalities aren't hard at all to deal with.
Oil cleanup is simple - just tariff oil to pay for it. Ditto for wars in the Middle East.
Yes, because we ALL KNOW that middle east wars are ALWAYS about oil.
Not.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
A high tax burden is not a sign of an absence of subsidy.
It's most likely a sign of a really big one... all that tax money goes somewhere... usually to those with the best connections.
They think that developing new technology, even if it is subsidized, is going to bring prices down?! I don't think so. It'll drive up the MPGs, but the price will still be expensive. What kind of company is going to discount brand new tech?
So, were not burning any fossil fuels to charge these things?
Hydroelectric and nuclear produce a LOT of energy in this country, and wind and solar are picking up.
And most Americans have really long commutes, more than 50 miles per day.
Without any cited stats I'm calling bullshit. I've only known two people in my life who commuted that far. If you drive over a hundred miles per day you REALLY need to move closer to work; you're adding an hour and a half to your work day, which is just stupid.
Free Martian Whores!
All these arguments and more than half the point is being lost.
The goal in the larger scope is to do something about the poison gas, and maybe even the CO2 emissions.
While it is generally true that better mileage is more efficient (kinda by definition) it isn't necessarily "cleaner" when you get better overall mileage. In particular the from-a-stop acceleration and cold-engine profile of a pure gas engine can really spike the curve on emissions, effectively taking-back a good chunk of the win for better gas mileage.
My prius, for instance, has some odd engine speed vs ground speed profiles, particularly when climbing hills. But a careful ear says that the loss paid for turning that fast-torque excess into battery-stored potential lets the engine run at a less-emissions efficiency.
For instance my Prius _NEVER_ knocks or pings. That is it never gets into the 'ugly' combustion profiles. This wastes some non-trivial energy (q.v. mileage) as teh conversion costs to and then eventually from battery is a non-trivial loss.
So yea, there are a few cars that get "Better" mileage, but none that I know of get "Cleaner" mileage.
And since mileage is basically a log curve (the savings going from 13 mpg to 23 mpg is more than going from 25 mpg to 40), the "extra" mileage I could get from a 60mpg 3-cyl super-micro over my 50mpg hybrid isn't worth the carbon monoxide and the half-burned hydrocarbons.
The next step is pure electric, as that both improves the CO and the unburnt hydrocarbons, and _also_ cuts down on the CO2 per mile over _any_ internal combustion vehicle.
The "plug-in hybrid" is, for a smart purchaser, a "pure electric" with on-the-road extensions for those _rare_ times you don't get to get a charge. For all the dumbasses who will end up "forgetting" to plug in most nights, it is at least as good as a current gen hybrid.
In all cases, the whole mileage thing is kinda not the _real_ point of the technology. It's just the first cut for the people who want to oversimplify. The tax credits are for the emissions profiles not the gas mileage. It's that whole "clean air" thing again.
Don't you just hate it when the stupid liberals try to reduce the amount of toxic crap your kids are breathing? How self-centered of them... oh wait...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
While the debate over subsidies for these "hybrid" cars is riveting, I wonder if anyone has considered the total environmental impact of the manufacturing processes used to make these hybrid cars. I was watching a Top Gear re-run on NetFlix (Series 11: Episode 1) where they asserted that more environmental damage is done in the manufacturing of a Prius than you would actually save by driving it. And to boot, they even had a BMW M3 with a 4.0L V8 follow a Prius around the Top Gear test track. The BMW M3 with it's 4.0L V8 averaged better fuel economy than the Prius. Wikipedia lists a brief overview on the topic here.
While I can't say I can fully validate Top Gear's findings, I tend to lean toward the possibility that they're correct in asserting that the Prius is little more than a statement maker about "going green". I have an '09 Mustang GT with a 4.6L V8 and a manual transmission. I fill up with premium fuel only. If I don't drive it like a douche and instead just drive normally, I get decent MPG for what the car is. My dashboard computer currently reads 18.7mpg average after burning off half a tank.
I say no subsidies at all, across the board, for any hybrid vehicle. If there is a significant environmental impact caused by manufacturing the car or the parts to assemble it, then the government is only subsidizing the illusion of being environmentally responsible.
I bought a tesla and got 50k back from the government. You can see my tesla around boulder colorado. There is a sign on the back window. It says: "Environmentalists took money from the poor to pay me to buy this car" So far my car has been keyed, superglued, and I regularly get the finger from the smug liberals in Boulder
They don't call out the poor. They just quietly make everything less available or more expensive. As in the president's stated goal to reduce the number of NMRI machines, and federal education loan guarantees.
They use rhetoric of evening things out, being harder on the rich, but their actual actions do more to cement the classes and trap the poor with higher costs, lifetime debt obligations, and fewer opportunities.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Sonny boy, I live in California, and EVERYBODY I know lives at least 50 miles from work, in the office where my daughter works there are people who live in Sacramento and work in San Francisco, and in one case they live in Antelope!
Where do you live, Boston?, Philadelphia?, London? You certainly don't live anywhere near here!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd