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."
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?
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.
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.
Somebody (I'm too lazy to find the link today) calculated that Big Oil is getting hundreds of billions of dollars per year in subsidies; here's a related link http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/spill-highlights-oil-industry-double-game-re-taxes-and-subsidies-06-07.html
I have no qualms with a little of that subsidy being shifted to electric vehicles. If we don't jumpstart the industry, the Chinese certainly will, and it's a damn sight better having production on our shores rather than overseas.
The original article's claim only makes sense if you ignore how economies of scale ramp up and how costs ramp down.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Though, if repealed, the oil companies would just pass the additional costs onto the consumers.
Yeah? So? Let them do it and price themselves right out of the market. The subsidies are designed to keep the public dependent on fossil fuels. If they actually had to compete with alternatives, those alternatives would get a foothold.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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.
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.
That nugget is probably never mentioned because it should EMBARRASS anyone that tries to use it as an excuse.
You included.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Gasoline at least cuts out the middle man, by allowing fairly direct use of the energy of burned fuel.
However small internal combustion engines are horribly inefficiant. Plus they only deliver usable power and efficiancy and can't deliver torque at stall at all so a complex drivetrain is needed to go between the car and the wheels.
IF the electricity is coming from CCGT plants then i'd expect the increased efficiancy of the power plants over an internal combustion engine to make up for the transmission, distribution and storage losses. Coal power plants are less efficiant but coal-oil conversion isn't exactly efficiant either.
The best pursuit out there is that of a hydrogen powered vehicle, that runs with water as it's fuel.
Umm making water into hydrogen would use up more energy than you would get from burning it so it's only worth it if you are storing the hydrogen (essentially using it as a form of battery).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register