Slashdot Mirror
Japan To Offer $20,000 Subsidy For Fuel-Cell Cars
An anonymous reader writes "Toyota is on track to launch the first consumer fuel-cell car in Japan next year, and the country's Prime Minister says the government wants to assist the new alternative to gas-driven vehicles. Shinzo Abe announced that Japan will offer subsidies of almost $20,000 for fuel cell cars, which will decrease the Toyota model's cost by about 28%. He said, "This is the car of a new era because it doesn't emit any carbon dioxide and it's environmentally friendly. The government needs to support this. Honda is also planning to release a fuel-cell car next year, but experts expect widespread adoption to take decades, since hydrogen fuel station infrastructure is still in its infancy."
no, this is not how you do it, wasting my tax dollars on 28 percent overpriced uneconomical $70k luxury vehicle that has payback period in over a decade...
Why not? Because if you hand out $20,000 to buy a car, you just increase the price of every car by $20,000. It is basic economics. We can see the same effect in housing prices, health care, and college tuition.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Ah good point on (B). Also, since the Japanese public has gotten very skeptical of nuclear power post-Fukushima, that's likely to just put more upward pressure on electricity prices.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The US is already doing this. There are plenty of tax credits and other subsidies for hybrid vehicles, ethanol, etc.
This is how you do it!
No, this is NOT how you do it. It makes sense for the government to promote and subsidize scientific research and technological development. But it does NOT make sense for governments to subsidize manufacturing. If something cannot be sold at a fair market price, then the answer is not taxpayer funded subsidies, but more R&D to develop something that actually makes sense. These subsidies usually get twisted in corporate welfare entitlements, and then can often be used to stifle progress rather then promoting it. Examples: Ethanol subsidies, and solar subsidies that have morphed into protective tariffs that raise the cost of alternative energy in order to protect inefficient producers with political connections.
I worked on fuel cell vehicles for seven years, but quit because I realized there will never be a future in it.
There are lots of reasons, but the main argument is this: It takes about four times as much electricity to power a fuel cell car as a battery-electric car. (Fuel cells convert hydrogen into electricity at about 50 % efficiency, and making hydrogen from electrolysis has about 50 % efficency, not counting losses in compressing the hydrogen and when tranferring the compressed gas to the car. Batteries can have 95 % efficiency both in charging and discharging.)
You could make hydrogen from natural gas, of course, but the "no fossil fuels" argument goes away, and efficiency is still no advantage over a combustion engine that runs on natural gas directly.
The only advantage a fuel cell vehicle has over a battery-powered one is range, but range is less of an issue whith batteries, because chargers could be everywhere, unlike hydrogen tank stations that have lots of safety issues.
no.
how it SHOULD work is simple
car company builds car
car buyer buys car
end of discussion, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, I was against the hybrid tax subsidies just as well its not fair to the rest of us who are stuck driving older cars to assist in your payment of your new toy
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same