Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the line-in-the-sand dept.

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.'"

59 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    Put the money into public transport and renewable energy instead.

    1. Re:Good by crow · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's completely false. Even in areas where the electricity is generated by coal, they still result in lower emissions than gas cars. And as the electric grid gets cleaner, the cars get cleaner. Also, a significantly higher percentage of EV owners install solar, so much of the power is completely emissions free.

    2. Re:Good by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Good by crow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Good by crow · · Score: 2

      And I was able to get a used Leaf for $6300. It's range isn't great, but it meets my needs. If the original purchaser didn't get a tax credit, that used car likely wouldn't have been available for me.

    5. Re:Good by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Good by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      I personally don't want to die in a car that is not much bigger then a beer can.

      Maybe, but then you should blame American beer can sizes.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Good by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Good by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Spotted a moron!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Good by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Safety ratings are a joke because they don't control for the mass of the car in the way most people would expect.

      The * rating often neglects what you're up against. 5* don't mean shit when you're colliding with something that's 3 times your mass, or even just the same mass, but taller (by default, or lifted up by some jackass) so their engine just slides up your hood and into your face.

    10. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I personally don't want to die in a car that is not much bigger then a beer can

      Is this why so many Americans are alcoholics? It's a perfectly reasonably sized four-door sedan. I realize you people generally don't leave the house unless everyone in your family can belch soot from their very own oversize vehicle, but those of us in the civilized world realize we don't need an aircraft carrier on wheels to pick up the kids from sports practice.

    11. Re: Good by virtig01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      A free market for energy does not exist. OPEC is a cartel of countries that set production levels to manipulate oil prices and control the supply.

      OPEC is a cartel. But the market is less distorted than you think, at least in the US.

      The US consumes about 20 million barrels/day of oil (source). Net imports are 5 million. 1/3 of imports come from OPEC countries. So OPEC is not able to exert monopolistic power.

      Today's price for OPEC crude is $58.33. West Texas crude is at $53.37. Suffice it to say, any oil user in the US that has access to WTI crude is getting it. Imported crude users are likely refineries that do not have pipeline access to the domestic supply.

      Once US oil exports ramp up, things might change, but for now, OPEC's price-setting ability is pretty subdued in the US.

    12. Re:Good by shaksys · · Score: 2

      "Nissan Leaf starts at $30K -- in a country where the average price for a new car is $33K" So what do they need subsidies for?

    13. Re:Good by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    14. Re:Good by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Fair enough. He's not going to do that either.

    15. Re:Good by crow · · Score: 3

      Again, false.

      There have been crazy studies that show things like that that oil interests have funded. No surprise there. They generally make assumptions like the batteries being discarded after five years (ignoring that well-designed batteries last longer, they can be repurposed, and they can be recycled). And shipping is generally negligible for anything these days. Shipping the completed cars uses far more energy than shipping the parts, and you have to do that with any vehicle.

      Car companies are avoiding EVs for two major reasons. EVs don't wear out as quickly, so they don't get as many repeat customers, and EVs don't take advantage of their sunk costs in gas powertrains.

    16. Re:Good by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Federal $7500 EV subsidy was structured as a tax credit. To take full advantage of the credit, you had to owe at least $7500 on your Federal taxes the year you bought/leased the EV. If you look at the 2016 IRS tax stats, you had to make about $80k/yr (column O*1000 / column N) to receive the full credit, which would put you in the top third of the U.S. by income. Someone making the U.S. median income of $59k would only receive about $4500. Or put another way, the subsidy makes that Leaf cost $3k less for the guy making $80k+ than it does for someone making $59k.

      If you don't like EVs, you should be for repealing the subsidy because you don't think EVs should be subsidized.

      If you like EVs, you should be for repealing the subsidy because it unfairly benefits wealthy people.

    17. Re:Good by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    18. Re:Good by mhail · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm too lazy to search but there is a great video of a old Volvo 4 door colliding with a new smart car. My money was totally on the Volvo creaming the smart car. Turns out it went the other way and the fkn smart car totaled the Volvo! Something something "impact zones"

    19. Re:Good by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    20. Re:Good by unimacs · · Score: 2

      I knew a real estate agent that used to keep spare sets of appliances around, - why? Because he'd seen so many house purchases fall through because the owner wanted to keep the washer and dryer instead of passing them onto the buyer.

      So here you have people willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a house (or making hundreds of thousands) and the deal falls through over what amounts to less than $1000 worth of appliances. You might think that these are brand new high end models or something like that but typically not. So this agent had the smarts to collect serviceable washer and dryers that he could put in the homes to save these deals.

      I'm sure there a people wealthy enough that $8,500 simply doesn't matter. Maybe people buying roadsters fall into that category. However there have been about 800,000 EVs sold in the US since the tax break was put in place. Lots of them cost about half of a roadster. I would bet that tax break made those purchases a whole lot easier, to the point where it allowed people to pull the trigger on what many people today still consider a risky proposition, - an EV

    21. Re:Good by unimacs · · Score: 2

      For who?

      My first car was a huge 6 six seater built in 1967. My next two cars were barely 4 seaters and you know what? They suited me just fine. When I got married and had kids, we purchased more family oriented vehicles but one was always an economy car. The last car I bought for myself cost $12,000. I've never owned a brand new car.

      So last Spring after about 16 years, our most recent economy car was becoming less reliable and we decided to replace it. I wanted to spend less than $10,000 but opted to spend a little more ($12,000) on a used Chevy Volt. The newer models are 5 seaters but the 1st generation seats only 4, - but pretty comfortably. At this point our kids are mostly grown and we only have two anyway. It works quite well for us.

      And you know what? Even though I didn't directly benefit from the tax break, the fact that one exists put that car in my price range, - because it also keeps the prices of used EVs down.

      And the beauty of it is that because the tax break made it possible for more people to buy these cars, it increase the volume of sales, and lets manufacturers put more money back into EV technology so that they can eventually build bigger ones with longer range, - for people like you.

    22. Re:Good by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    23. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    24. Re:Good by sfcat · · Score: 2

      The Leaf is made by Nissan. GM makes the Chevy Volt and Bolt. These are a lot cheaper than anything Tesla makes, and they are selling as many electric cars as Tesla is (i.e. Both Tesla and GM are near the end of their tax subsidy eligibility which expires when a company sells 200,000 electric cars)

      False. Tesla has sold 95k in the US (180k total) model 3s in 2018 alone. The Volt and Bolt sell about 27k total in 2018. And Telsa hit their limit in July of this year. GM isn't anywhere near theirs yet.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    25. Re: Good by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    26. Re:Good by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    27. Re:Good by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    28. Re: Good by fortfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You do know that gov't subsidies got internal combustion going back in the 1910's right? When ev trollies, with low operating costs and long lifespans, were supplanted with busses?

    29. Re:Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The Federal $7500 EV subsidy was structured as a tax credit. To take full advantage of the credit, you had to owe at least $7500 on your Federal taxes the year you bought/leased the EV.

      That's not a tax credit, that's a tax rebate. A tax credit is given to you when you file your taxes whether you owe or not.

      If you like EVs, you should be for repealing the subsidy because it unfairly benefits wealthy people.

      In a simpler world, that might be true. In the real world, issues like this are complex. The more EVs sold to wealthy people, the more EVs can be produced for less-wealthy people because of economies of scale.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:Good by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Did you miss the part that said "...including renewable energy sources. "

    31. Re: Good by cordovaCon83 · · Score: 2

      The auto industry is one of the few markets where we actually see the "trickle-down effect" take place. Lower income Americans cannot afford brand-new cars but they sure can afford used cars. Anything that encourages higher income Americans to buy a brand-new car also encourages them to re-sell their current vehicle at a depreciated value.

    32. Re:Good by skaralic · · Score: 2

      My money was totally on the Volvo creaming the smart car. Turns out it went the other way and the fkn smart car totaled the Volvo! Something something "impact zones"

      That is because you completely misinterpreted the results. Normal cars have crumple zones that absorb the energy of the impact and reduce the deceleration. The Smart Car has virtually no crumple zones. Had that Smart Car hit a wall (or other solid object), its passengers would be dead. The Volvo's crumple zones, on the other hand, would give its occupants a much better chance of surviving.

    33. Re:Good by swillden · · Score: 2

      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.

      True, but total cost of ownership of the Leaf will often be lower. You trade a higher payment for lower fuel and maintenance costs. So it's not a car for the wealthy, it's a car for the prudent whose driving patterns fit certain (extremely common) profiles.

      I did this exact analysis quite thoroughly several years ago before I bought my Leaf. In practice I find that I actually underestimated the operational cost difference... and the purchase price difference turned out to go the other direction, thanks to some stupidity by Nissan. The latter part was luck and not repeatable, but my Leaf has worked out to be an incredibly inexpensive car to own and operate. 100K miles into it, my total cost per mile (excluding insurance) has been about 19 cents[*], and that includes the full purchase price. The next 100K miles (and I see no reason it won't make them; the battery has only lost about 10% of its initial capacity, and capacity loss is front-loaded, and there's really very little else to go wrong) should cost under three cents per mile[**].

      If I'd paid full price, of course, the numbers for my first 100K miles would be different, about $15K more, so about 34 cents per mile. A Honda Fit, at $20K purchase price, plus $8.5K for gas (35 mpg, $3 per gallon), a little more in maintenance due to oil changes and a new set of brake pads... call it $2K, would be a titch cheaper, at $30,500, or 30.5 cents per mile. But if you look at the next 100K miles, the fuel/energy savings really kicks in.

      Plus, electric cars are more fun to drive. Going the other way, there is the range limitation, of course. If you regularly need to drive long distances, a Leaf is not for you. If you need to do it only occasionally, you may still be money ahead buying the Leaf and renting an ICEV for those trips. Depends on the details.

      [*] Total purchase price (sum of all lease payments plus buyout): $15K. Charging station for home: $500. Total maintenance costs so far are a couple of sets of new tires, one alignment and a windshield replacement: $1K. I get about 4mi/kWh, at a cost of ~$0.10/kWh, so 100,000/4*.1 = $2500 in electricity. Totalling those up, I've spent $19K. 19 cents per mile.

      [**] For the next 100K miles I'd expect to get three new sets of tires and replace some brake pads. The maintenance schedule says that at 150K miles I should get the oil changed (the oil is actually a coolant, not a lubricant, but eventually does need to be changed). The dealership says they'll want $100 for that. Figure maybe another alignment, too. Add all of that up, and call it $1200 in expected maintenance. Round up to $2000 to be conservative. I'm now on a "time of use" electricity plan which charges me $0.034/kWh off-peak, which is the only time I charge. 100000/4*.034 = $850. So the next 100K miles will cost me about $2850, which is 2.85 cents per mile.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    34. Re:Good by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Volvo impact zones are great.

      Volvo impact zones were great for the size and type of vehicle manufactured in a given year. That is all. There is no more to it than that.

      Here's an older Volvo colliding with a small Renault POS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Unlikely the Volvo driver survives. Age and design play fare more of a role than "volvo great!"

      And some marketing for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Smart colliding with a vehicle with over twice it's mass.

  2. So? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:So? by larkost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:So? by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:So? by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:So? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:So? by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re:So? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative
      Google can help you with that.

      Provisions of the federal income tax that subsidize domestic production of fossil fuels include the expensing of exploration, development, and intangible drilling costs; the use of percentage depletion instead of cost depletion to recover drilling and development costs of oil and gas wells and coal mining properties; and numerous smaller incentives for production and distribution of oil, coal, and natural gas.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:So? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2

      Certainly. Also the least achievable.

    9. Re:So? by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    10. Re:So? by Your.Master · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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%?

    11. Re:So? by noodler · · Score: 2

      " The original point is that if something is viable, it doesn't need help."
      Except that this is not how the economy works at scale.
      Big established ways of operating will always win out against small new enterprises in the same market. The old guys are entrenched and their operations are developed and optimized. They have been pouring money for years (in this cace you could argue hundreds of years) into their operation.
      Even if the new stuff would be more efficient when operated on the same scale there is no chance for it to get a grip on the market.
      Subsidies basically acknowlege this monopoly-esque market pressures and makes life easier for new tech to survive in the market.

  3. Only reasonable if we tax fossil fuels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. End all subsidies by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:End all subsidies by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Funny

      The people who abhor Trump would say he's cost the country more than $80 million. If keeping him on the golf course stops him from fucking up anything else, wouldn't you say that's a pretty good deal?

  5. Put the money into new Nuclear Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. A correct URL for the story by NothingWasAvailable · · Score: 4, Informative

    The URL in the top post leads to a story about trade talks. Different source, but the material about subsidies.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

  7. And cut the $20B/year from fossil fuels by Art+Challenor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $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.

  8. Re:About time! by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  9. While they're at it ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    Perhaps they'll also kill the (up to) $12 Billion in subsidies to farmers getting hammered by the Administration's own tariffs. Oh, wait ...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  10. We do by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 even if you attribute the entire subsidy to gasoline (they make other products with oil too, like kerosene, asphalt, plastics). I think heating oil is the only petroleum product which is generally exempted from taxes (because poor people freezing to death in winter makes bad press for politicians).

    You can argue we're not taxing fossil fuels enough. But it's silly to pretend they're not taxed. As the Tesla EVs are rated at about 30 kWh per 100 miles, at the U.S. average electricity price of 11.5 cents/kWh, that works out to $3.45 of electricity per 100 miles. A 25 MPG vehicle pays $2 in fuel taxes per 100 miles, so its taxes amount to 58% of the electricity price needed to power the EV. In some states with higher fuel taxes, the fuel tax alone is about the same as the cost of electricity to power an EV over the same route.

    1. Re:We do by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Re:Every other article posted here by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  12. It's actually the inverse by Cerlyn · · Score: 2

    While there may be tax credits at the Federal level, at least 17 states charge additional registration fees for electric vehicles once the battery gets above a small (hybrid) battery size.

    They do this to make up for loss gas taxes, but charge for such at a flat rate that does not factor in mileage or if you have a plug-in hybrid.

    So if you purchase your electricity from charging stations which try to be gas-price equivalents, you end up paying more to fuel an electric car than had you just fueled a gas one.

    When Georgia implemented their fee (one of the highest at $200/year, $300/year for commercial use), Tesla sales fell 83% and did not recover. This was true even though the state also had an electric-car income-tax purchase discount.