Trump Administration Wants To End Subsidies For Electric Cars, Renewables (reuters.com)

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Monday that the United States wants to end subsidies for electric cars and other items including renewable energy sources. "Asked about actions planned after General Motors announced U.S. plant closings and layoffs last week, Kudlow said he expected subsidies for buying electric cars will end in 2020 or 2021," reports Reuters. "Kudlow said the Trump administration will end other subsidies, including on 'renewables.'"

Comments

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

We shouldn't be subsidizing luxury vehicles for the wealthy.

Put the money into public transport and renewable energy instead.

Re:Good

[hawguy]

We shouldn't be subsidizing luxury vehicles for the wealthy.

Put the money into public transport and renewable energy instead.

EV's are not luxury vehicles for the wealthy, and haven't been for some time.

For example, the Nissan Leaf starts at $30K -- in a country where the average price for a new car is $33K.And no one that's driven a Leaf could confuse it with a Luxury car. Some expensive EV's do receive subsidies... which is good since it means that affluent early adopters pay a premium for new technology and then as the technology is refined, it trickles down into more affordable vehicles.

EV's are part of a renewable energy plan - not only are they more energy efficient and cleaner than gasoline powered cars, they automatically take advantage of the shift to renewable power in the energy grid.

Re:Good

[crow]

The EV tax credit and similar state programs encourages more people to buy EVs, which in turn encourages car manufacturers to make and sell them. Tesla has used this to get them to a high-volume $35K car (which they'll hit while the tax credit is phasing out). Nissan has used it to make a more affordable shorter-range EV, and they've increased the range to be more practical as they approach the phase-out of the federal tax credit. I think both companies have used the credit to expand the EV market and drive the manufacturing costs down. (And GM, too.)

The issue I have is that the companies that used the credit constructively are now facing the phase-out while those that waited to jump in after they did all the work will get to take advantage of it over the next few years. The credit should phase out for everyone together, not on a per-company basis.

Re:Good

[rmdingler]

We shouldn't be subsidizing luxury vehicles for the wealthy.

Put the money into public transport and renewable energy instead.

Electric vehicles and the associated technology necessary for their cost-effective development for distribution to the masses depends upon subsidizing its early research and advancement.

Sure, the rich are the only customers early on, but as the R & D is paid for, before you even know it, microwaves and VCRs are available to the common folk.

Re:Good

[hawguy]

How many people are buying that leaf? I personally don't want to die in a car that is not much bigger then a beer can. I think They should be elminated for cars that are higher end, like most Tesla model's that cost near 6 figures. Those tax breaks were made specificcly for rich people early on since they were only ones that could afford EV's. So I think Should be an income threshold on who can get those Subsidies.

Around 100K people have bought the Leaf over the past 5 years.

The Leaf has a 5 star safety rating and you're safer driving it than you are driving a full-size pickup. Granted, if you're in a collision with that pickup, you're more likely to die in a small car, but you're still statistically safer in a small car with a good safety rating, because most collisions are not head on collissions between cars.

The point of giving subsidies even for $80K Teslas is that it makes people more likely to buy them (it turns out that even wealthy people like saving money), and the expensive cars are the proving ground for expensive new techology (expensive to produce and maintain), as that technology is refined, then it makes its way into cheaper cars. The $40K Tesla Model 3 would never have existed if the $100K model S wasn't developed first.

Re:Good

[110010001000]

Wealthy people care a lot about $7k. That is why they are wealthy.

Re:Good

[fermion]

It is about jobs.

In the 1980's, Reagan used this argument to completely end renewable energy research and development. In the process he handed all the jobs, profits, and other benefits to Asia and Germany.

Yes, right now the electric cars are a luxury item. Back them renewable energy was a luxury few of us could afford. You had to have disposable income to buy your electricity from Green Mountain energy. Unfortunately all those wind turbines are controlled by the Germans and Danes.

Now, I personally find no value in manufacturing in the US. I don't think that our work force, unwilling to be educated beyond the 8th grade, can really manufacture high tech quality products. But if we are going to continue to pursue a manufacturing economy, the Tesla model, god help us, is as good as any path forward. But it is not refined, efficient, or self sustaining.

So we have a choice. Give all the jobs to the Germans, or subsidize the process.

Re:Good

[Sarten-X]

In the scenario you describe, the massive vehicle's engine would be much more likely to slow down by crushing your engine, then run up the body and end up sitting nicely on top of your cabin, which has absorbed a huge amount of energy to break intentionally-weak welds, twist flexing beams, and otherwise slightly deform while keeping the passengers safely inside with minimal change in their protected space.

As it turns out, using "the way most people would expect" is a really poor substitute for using models and simulations to design prototypes, then actually testing them. While people are most afraid of getting crushed by something 3 times their mass, far more injuries and fatalities actually come from the sudden acceleration (or deceleration, if you prefer) during an impact. Making bigger and sturdier cars actually increases the hazard. Instead, vehicles with crumple zones and more flexibility will absorb the impact more slowly, drastically reducing the chance of damaging the occupants.

Sure, it's more likely that your car will look badly damaged in a collision, but you'll live to complain about it.

Re:Good

[mark-t]

The Nissan Leaf may be $30K while the average price for a new car is $33K, but that's only because the average new car is not a compact, which is the classification that the Leaf falls in. A brand new compact vehicle can be purchased for $20K or sometimes even less.

Re:Good

[hai_Priesty]

>It's cheaper, it's cleaner, it's faster, it's going to be further range eventually per charge/fill than gasoline in a very short time period

(Emphasis mine) In that case then market forces will work its way. If it wins - I'd wish and be very glad if it does - kudos, and that also highlight how subsidies isn't needed to prop up its development, which is already running into its third decade.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Volvo impact zones are great. the car sacrifices itself and the passengers can generally walk away.

it's a mechanical object. it can be replaced. functioning as designed.

Re: Good

[michelcolman]

Want to talk economics? China has lots of companies producing electric cars. The first versions were shit, but they are improving rapidly. Companies like BYD are building new factories all over the place. There's Chinese electric scooters (lots of them), Chinese electric sedans, Chinese electric sports cars, Chinese electric buses, Chinese electric garbage trucks, etcetera. Their technology is improving rapidly and volume is increasing exponentially. They are still nowhere near Tesla quality, but they'll get there eventually.

Meanwhile, what's the US doing? Hitting the brakes to preserve profits for old fashioned ICE engine manufacturers. Until one day, in a decade or so, they wake up to drastically better batteries so nobody wants a loud smelly ICE anymore. And you'll all be driving Chinese cars because the US is way behind the curve.

Way to go for short term economic benefit.

Same goes for green electricity. It's already becoming cheaper than coal, and one day it won't make sense anymore to keep burning stuff to generate electricity. Guess who will have the required know-how for these new technologies? Countries encouraging them, or countries trying to protect their vested interests in old technology? Good luck to the US.

Re:Good

[michelcolman]

They're not cheaper yet, because of

1. Hidden subsidies for anything oil-related
2. Hidden price of pollution
3. Lack of economics of scale.

By using subsidies, you can increase volume so you solve number 3 and get 1 and 2 as a bonus.

Seriously, if you look at the complexity of a modern ICE engine, how can it possibly be cheaper? Only because the technology for producing enormous quantities of them has already been paid for.

Re:Good

[Maxo-Texas]

Oil, coal, and natural gas all have subsidies in the form of special tax treatment as well as security paid for by the rest of society ($2 trillion for the gulf war... and 4,000 dead).

Solar subsidies are tiny in comparison. And it's *clear* that solar is going to be superior, less costly, *and* blow a hole in the saudi and russian budgets.

So?

[CrimsonAvenger]

If, as is often stated here, renewables are the most cost-effective energy sources, then they shouldn't need subsidies.

And if they Do, in fact, need the subsidies, then they're NOT the most cost-effective energy sources....

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

They need subsides to help get started, especially in markets where local government has given fossil fuel groups massive discounts to operate.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their rapid adoption requires subsidies to buy the infrastructure. Their ongoing use does not require subsidies, but that money is surely better spent than subsidizing oil, which we do in the Billions. You're a moron.

By your own argument, oil shouldn't need subsidies. It still gets them. You don't throw up FUD about that entirely related topic, because you're a dishonest little cunt backing a traitor first and foremost.

Re:So?

[larkost]

There are two problems with your argument:
1. Non-renwables often come with "external" costs, such as pollution that are not accounted for in their financial costs. Someone is paying those prices.
2. New technologies often take a lot of work to make practical, again someone needs to pay those prices to make them viable.

Since we (the U.S. here) have decided not to put taxes (e.g. cap-and-trade) in place to handle those externalities, and we have a history of subsidizing research and development, this is the way we have done it.

Re:So?

[alvinrod]

Wouldn't the obvious solution simply be to stop giving fossil fuels a subsidy? The original point is that if something is viable, it doesn't need help. If fossil fuels need help, they're not viable. You don't go around fixing something that's wrong by committing further wrongs. Rectify the underlying problem and the downstream issues will start to resolve as well.

Re:So?

[MobyDisk]

I think the standard Slashdot reply is to point out that they are cost-effective if negative externalities (CO2 emissions, pollution) are included. But often they are not.

Re:So?

[hawguy]

If, as is often stated here, renewables are the most cost-effective energy sources, then they shouldn't need subsidies.

The subsidies for fossil fuels are already built-in to our economy so they are invisible, renewables are the newcomer so their subsidies are more explicit.

Re:So?

[rmdingler]

Local governments don't give discounts to ANYONE. Their goal is taxes Taxes TAXES and more taxes. If you think President Trump is an asshole, it shows you haven't sized up your local government lately.

My local government is not too capriciously irresponsible, as expected, so the only surprise is you state: "If you think President Trump is an asshole, it shows you haven't sized up your local government lately" as if it's the only plausible justification for admitting the Commander in Chief is an asshole.

Re:So?

[Jeremi]

Fossil fuels effectively get one really big subsidy -- they are de-facto allowed to trash the atmosphere and the environment, and generally not required to pay for the necessary cleanup afterwards. That means either the rest of us will have to pay for the cleanup, or (more likely) pay for the ongoing costs of having to live with the mess in perpetuity. Either way, it's a transfer of wealth to the fossil fuel industries from the rest of humanity.

End that subsidy, and unsubsidized renewables become extremely competitive.

Re:So?

[Your.Master]

This is absurd. That's like saying coupons don't save money because you still have to pay the remaining balance with cash.

The mitigation for inconsistent supply doesn't necessarily have to be fossil either. Could be nuclear, pumped-storage, or just sufficient oversupply of renewables.

100% is kind of a weird line to make. Why wouldn't it help at 99%?

Only reasonable if we tax fossil fuels

[Anonymous Coward]

This is only reasonable if we tax fossil fuels. Renewables are generally cleaner than fossil fuels, though not entirely clean. Energy should be taxed based on the costs to repair the environmental damage that has to be cleaned up and the costs of mitigating their impacts. In this respect, fossil fuels are far more expensive and should be taxed at a higher rate that reflects their true costs of use.

End all subsidies

[alvinrod]

Fine, but take the rest of the subsidies with them. Whether that's the farmers, the oil companies, the various housing subsidies, or anyone else getting a deal. The U.S. has slowly morphed into a petty kleptocracy where everyone is picking everyone else's pocket. Just end the madness and let the people who are incapable fail. There's no need (other than votes) for the government to try to prop them up.

Put the money into new Nuclear Energy

[Anonymous Coward]

We should give generous subsidies to nuclear energy. Minor subsidies should be given to current reactors to keep them above water. Major subsides (100's of billions to start) should be spent on next generation nuclear. NuScale has passed phase 1 of the NRC review, and their first 12 SMR's are going to be built in Idaho. We should heavily subsidize this project and all future ones. We should also subsidize other 4th generation nuclear when their reactors pass nrc review. If and only if we do that, we will have a chance at mitigating climate change.

And cut the $20B/year from fossil fuels

[Art Challenor]

$20 billion per year in DIRECT subsidies for fossil fuels, not including cleanup, military spending, health care costs and similar. https://www.vox.com/energy-and... As long as you remove the $20B fossil fuel subsidy, you can level the playing field and remove the ~$7B from renewables. There's no question where the investments will be going forward.

Re:And cut the $20B/year from fossil fuels

[guruevi]

Vox is a hyperpartisan outlet, quoting them is like a Republican quoting Rush Limbaugh.

We are still much more reliant on fossil fuels than renewables, so renewables are subsidized significantly more in proportion to its production. And we need a military presence in the south China waterways to make sure you can keep getting cheap solar panels and externalize the pollution there.

Re:About time!

[Nethemas the Great]

I'm having a really hard time trying to decide if you are criticizing ICE vehicles or EVs. I guess I'll assume you're referring to ICE vehicles and agree with you whole heartedly. They absolutely should stop subsidizing the petrol industry and the internal combustion engine. It's quite shortsighted to be disadvantaging EVs.

Re:Every other article posted here

[The Evil Atheist]

Then you should also be in favour of ending fossil fuel subsidies, including implicit subsidies for pollutants.

Re:We do

[drinkypoo]

To the tune of about 50 cents per gallon. This far, far exceeds the subsidy oil companies receive, which works out to less than 10 cents per gallon

It looks like you didn't figure in externalities, like being permitted to pollute like mad bastards. Figure in the cleanup cost (including fixing all the carbon released during the refining process) and get back to us.