Electric Car Subsidies As Handouts For the Rich 589
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."
This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point. VCRs and internet access used to only be for those with too much money (my first ISP cost me 80 per month for 80 hours, way back when), but that is what drives the costs down, as you state. Considering the end goal is lower dependence on our "friends" in the middle east, plus a somewhat cleaner environment, seems like a balanced approach to me as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point you miss is that the rebates are not for the end customer, they are for the producer. Yes, the end user gets the money, but the purpose is to artificially drive up demand, so more people buy them, helping add volume to the technology, which makes it more affordable and drives down prices faster than if you didn't subsidize them. The whole market place benefits. Even with double rebates, poor people would not have been able to buy a $40k car. Poor people can't afford a $20k car. If you want to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The whole market place benefits
Correction: The people involved in producing and buying electric cars benefit, the rest of the market place is taxed and receives no monetary benefit. Many people will be having their tax money support the production and purchasing of green technology cars they themselves can not afford. I agree with the reasoning for doing so and I think you already addressed those reasons well but we have to be honest about the trade-off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know what this "embedded 22% tax" is
It's very important that you learn about it - the FairTax people have good write-ups, and the Harvard Economics study is a fine read.
BTW, Dollar Tree has king size loaves of bread for $1 and all my local supermarkets have store-brand for $0.89-1.50. Minimum-Wage-Mom needs to go to a different store.
Sure, bleached white flour and HFCS. I was assuming she cares about her kids. Wal*Mart has 100% whole wheat in 2-packs for $4 on occasion. Good time to stock the fre
Re:This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [economywatch.com]
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.
Look to France (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Though, if repealed, the oil companies would just pass the additional costs onto the consumers.
Thus increasing the cost effectiveness of hybrids and electrics. It just doesn't make sense to subsidize both.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"It just doesn't make sense to subsidize both."
The subsidy cost is a trifle, and both hybrids and electrics share useful technology that is in its infancy. Tossing a few extra bucks into the pool is harmless at worst.
Re:This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you can pay it based on usage, or you can pay it through taxes?
Paying it based on usage makes alternatives more cost-competitive, and encourages conservation. Paying it through taxes encourages people to bitch about taxes being too high while running giant deficits.
Citation request? (Score:4, Interesting)
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/ [forbes.com]
"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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't know if I would trust the "Tax Foundation" on numbers bashing the White House [blogspot.com]. I would go with official stats rather than an op-ed. I mean, the Washington Times article has the paragraph:
No citing of data, just
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Yes, but why? Because GM and gang cannot make an EV suitable for them. PERIOD. If I buy an EV that gets 50 miles on a charge, and still worked at CompUSA, I would be walking 15 miles a day, hoping I ran out of charge someplace near a plug - otherwise I'd be walking 15 miles to work, and 65 miles home. Even if the EV got 100, it wont get me there and back, and there's nowhere I can charge my car at work.
So... what if the cars that were being promoted to these people who were polled were the Tesla Model S o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What it'll do is help drive research. It'd be silly to think we have developed the best system for hybrid cars as it is. They are just simple setups with a gas engine and batteries. There are probably much better ways of doing it. Well, one way to help get that researched is to help the things sell. If it is a profitable market, a new market, companies will work on it. Subsidies can help push that.
I mean you have to consider that in the development stage, hybrids are like Model Ns or maybe Model Ts. They ar
And? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 electri
Re: (Score:2)
Well, say electric cars cost $70,000 if you make a limited run of a few hundred cars. Nobody will buy it for $70k.
But if you can sell a few thousand, the per-unit cost can get down to $35,000? Now people can afford it and the market takes off.
The initial investment to get it off the ground may be too high for failing American auto makers to assume, requiring the government to step in.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody will buy it for $70k.
But if you can sell a few thousand, the per-unit cost can get down to $35,000? Now people can afford it and the market takes off.
The Volt is supposed to be below $35k with subidies.
But if you're that concerned about gas prices, why would you buy a Volt for $35k rather than a Civic or Fiesta for $20k?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to get infrastructure in place is to spend the money and develop it. The only way to develop the technology is to get industries behind it researching better and more advanced forms of tech. And if we can develop it domestically, we might have an actual sustainable car market here in the United States.
I don't know. If the technology was mature, the market mass, and the price sufficiently low, why would anyone need to step in and help develop it? Just let things take off on their own. It's
Not our fault (Score:2)
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.
This is why I'm never a fan of 'rebates'. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:This is why I'm never a fan of 'rebates'. (Score:5, Insightful)
New York city is actually doing just that. Working with cab companies to replace their fleets of 12 mpg crown vics with high efficiency and hybrid vehicles.
I'm slightly skeptical on this research as well on three fronts:
1) A fully loaded Prius with range extender batteries (allowing for full electric 30-50 miles depending on kit) comes in at right about $31k. The new Volt comes in at $41k. But the Volt has a $7500 federal rebate and some states are putting up another $1-4k rebate. Which puts it's price right in line with the Prius. You don't have to been in the $200k/year income bracket to be interested in that.
2) I am very interested in the full electric, the only reason why I haven't persued it is because I commute 40+ miles on interstate/highways twice a day. Full electric is unbeatable for surface street driving, but up on the interstate, Diesel is king. There's no way a Prius/Volt will recoup the savings when compared to a VW TDI pushing 50+ MPG on the highway. And I am noooooo where close to $200k/year. Heck, many of my friends have also stated their interest. To the point where a few folks have been pestering me to convert the old Fiero to full electric. There is significant interest in the electric market from the $100k/year bracket. There would be even more if they could get the market price down to $25k.
3) A full electric can easily out perform and present a ROI in the life of the car over econoboxes when driving to their strengths. Again, up on the highway, electric isn't going to be all that great, but if you do nothing but stop and go commutes for short ranges every day, the full electric is going to pay off big time over even a decent mpg econobox.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you are driving a Golf TDI and getting 41 mpg highway, take it to a skilled mechanic becuase something is wrong. Rocketting off the line at lights and holding cruise at 75-80 on interstate I still average 44mpg with a bone stock car.
A few weeks back I bumped into another TDI, the guy had swapped 5th gear out, got new injectors, and a new PROM burn, and was averaging over 56mpg combined driving.
Most of the Prius drivers I know hold anything from 38-45mpg on the interstate, depending on the car and their d
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There, corrected that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't be a bad idea, except that when Foobar Electric Cars Inc realised that the government was coming to buy a few million from them they'd rub their hands in glee and double the price.
These rebates are just price supports anyway. Same thing happened with $8K rebate for buying a house - pricing dropped precipitously in the 2-3 weeks after it finally expired.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What if you make a law that says:
"The government will buy X number of clean cars for a total of Y dollars from the first maker that can deliver such cars at rate Z.
The government will also buy cars from any subsequent makers that meet certain harsher requirements."
Now, Foobar Ink has to make cars that they can sell for Y/X dollars per vehicle. If someone beats them to that they have to improve their design and lower their prices until they have a good enough deal.
Not out of the ordinary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Electric cars work if they're small (Score:4, Interesting)
You can retrofit an old Volkswagen bug to be all electric for less than $7000 [e-volks.com]. 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to pay insurance and registration on two vehicles when one will do the job. I'm not going to buy a 60 mile limited electric when a gas vehicle will go 60mi or 600mi.
Re:Electric cars work if they're small (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I need my SUV to pull the boat I don't own, up the mountain I don't live by.
Anyone remember when wealthy business owners were buying the Hummer H2 'for their business' then turning around and giving it to their wife. It weighed more than a certain weight so it was considered a 'heavy truck' and could be written off on your business' taxes. I wonder how many businesses will get new "green" cars, then turn around and give them to family members.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you make trips greater than 60 miles.
Indeed. The only people I've seen driving a Prius around here are taxi drivers, and, uh, they need to travel more than 60 miles a day between refuelling.
If electric cars were capable of being used as taxis they probably would have taken off by now; but their tiny range and slow recharging ensures they can't work in that market.
Build it... and they will come. (Score:2)
Not to sure about that.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I did not write 100k "exactly" though. What I wrote was "less than" 100k, but Slashdot stripped out the symbol. My income at that time was much closer to the median household income for 2003, trust me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about you, but most people I know would not consider 100k as "not super high income". You individually were making roughly double the median household income for the US in 2003.
Be that as it may, the summary specificlally talks about those making over 200k.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What are you talking about?
Firstly, the less than symbol was stripped from my post. I was not making anywhere near 100k in 2003, but closer to median income, from the other side.
Secondly, the article wants to decry limousine liberalism and I am just pointing out that it is well known that the subsidies given to the Hummer (not the military model, but the civilian model) approached $1 billion dollars in cost to the government. It may have ended up being more.
In fact, you can do a little searching if you wa
Demographic comparison (Score:2)
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.
Study done with crystal ball and star charts. (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Young and High Income??? (Score:2)
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...
Gotta Start Somewhere (Score:2)
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 in
disagree... (Score:2)
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 up
Where were the whiners? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? [usatoday.com]
Re:Where were the whiners? (Score:5, Informative)
That nugget is probably never mentioned because it should EMBARRASS anyone that tries to use it as an excuse.
You included.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Warning: Extreme levels of sarcasm ahead!
From the link provided...
Because health care consultants absolutely require the most massive SUV on the market in order to provide their consulting service.
Re:Where were the whiners? (Score:5, Insightful)
With some research what you will find is that he original Section 179 tax code came about some time in the 1940s, I believe it was updated in the 1970s to include trucks for farmers, in 1996 the maximum amount that could be expensed was increased and finally when SUVs became all the rage and somebody discovered a sneaky way to squeeze personal luxury SUVs through Section 179 if you were a business owner or partner the house and senate came up with the idea of increasing the maximum from $25,000 to $100,000 and Bush signed it into law.
The truth is that most of the luxury SUVs written off as a business expense should have been investigated and prosecuted by the IRS. The linked article clearly does not interview a farmer but instead a health care consultant who obviously does not need an Ford Excursion for his business so it is obviously a personal purchase illegally written off as a business expense.
So no, Bush did not sign the original bill but he was not helping by signing off on the quadrupling of the amount that could be written off. He should have vetoed the entire bill and at the very least keep the write off maximum at previous levels if there was no way to stop the scheming altogether.
Price of hybrids includes rebates (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Re:Price of hybrids includes rebates (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
...and then someone else who also sells it raises their price by only $4k and steals all the customers [wikipedia.org].
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.
The one I went to looks like it's only risen to $30k (UIUC, out-of-state for the college of engineering). But this involves more than just student aid, there's also the changing cultural expectations where a bachelor degree is required for pretty much everything. And there are more non-traditional / online universities springing up (increasing competition that'll bring the price back down), and some seem to be becoming actually decent.
Why luxury safer electric cars should be free (Score:3, Informative)
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en [google.com]
"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 [evnut.com]
"""
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!
"""
Beleie it or not $200K is middle income. (Score:3, Insightful)
I Don Not Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if that doesn't work? Well, if you aren't willing to take risks, you wouldn't be able to accomplish anything. A few $B among the US's GDP is almost nothing.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)
The thing really needed is more research, which hopefully will *really* drive down prices.
You mean like the DOE program for battery R&D? Granted it is only a third of a billion per year, but it's not like they're not funding R&D. Besides, if the DOE does it, the car companies won't have to do as much redundant R&D.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know what data Deloitte Consulting was looking at, but I follow market research on EVs as part of my job, and it's not "Young people wealthy people" who are generally determined to be the most likely buyers for electric vehicles. Like with hybrids, it's educated, middle aged, upper-middle class people (EV buyers average slightly younger, but not much). I could conjecture that they primarily looked at the market for Tesla Roadsters to reach their conclusion. But the Tesla Roadster is nothing like, say the Nissan Leaf.
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people are interested in saving money. Even if the car is electric, they still will not save money in terms of the total cost of ownership, over buying a regular old car that's fuel efficient.
Look at things like the Chevy Volt versus a Toyota Corolla. Even assuming no gas, ever, the Corolla is still more affordable.
Once these move beyond luxury and conversation pieces into a real solution that helps the consumer... then they'll be of interest to more than just conspicuous consumers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how the TCO looks on the leaf if I take a 7500 federal credit, and a 5000 CA credit, and resell the car for more than I bought it for.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are tax limitations on resale.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
Same could be said about the Prius but look how well they're selling.
2010 Prius MSRP = $22800 to $28070 [yahoo.com]
2010 Corolla MSRP = $15,450 to $20,150 [yahoo.com]
Price difference = $7350 to $7920 = $7635 average
Prius mpg = 51/48 = 49.5 mpg average
Corolla mpg = 26/34 = 30 mpg average
195,000 miles / 49.5mpg x $3 average per gallon = $11,818 dollars
195,000 miles / 30mpg x $3 average per gallon = $19,500 dollars
$19,500 - $11,818 = $7682.
So basically, you'd have to drive 195,000 miles in a Prius to break even compared to the price of a Corolla. Until you surpass 195,000 miles the Corolla would have saved money.
This also doesn't figure the interest you could make on $7,682 while you're driving your Prius to reach 195,000 miles. If it takes 10 years to reach 195,000 miles that $7,682 at 5% interest would be $12,513.17. [moneychimp.com]
In summary, the new Corolla will always be better than the new Prius. Of course this is assuming you're deciding between the two cars comparing gas prices only, not size of vehicle, status, smugness, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just saying, if you want to do a detailed analysis you should include
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Invalid assumption:
Gas will be $3 for the next 195,000 miles.
When I bought my Prius, gas was $1.49 a gallon. I had calculated the break-even point between the Prius and the other car we were looking at was at 130,000 miles.
Because of the doubling of gas prices, with flirtations at the $4.00 mark occasionally, we hit break-even at 80,000 miles.
5% interest over the last 10 years would have been a miracle. My conservatively-funded retirement plan is barely positive over the period of time I have owned my Pri
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
That economies of scale is a red herring argument. Right now electric cars are expensive because the basic technology is expensive.
The technology is only expensive because it is not yet done on a mass scale. None of the materials involved are prohibitively scarce. None of the manufacturing processes are grueling or unusual.
Bringing more buyer allows more efficient methods, factories, and basic econometrics of scale to be applied.
That being said, giving tax-break subsidies to buyers is absolute the wrong way to go. Just as all college tuition rises to absorb the available scholarships, EV prices will remain high as long as there are funds or tax breaks available.
However, waiting for more research has never proven to be a cost effective method either. How long would we have waited for a Droid-X or an iPhone if someone wasn't willing to buy a those old Analog Motorola half clam shell phones? [lekowicz.com].
You have to field something that is less than perfect in order to obtain revenue, attract customers, develop support infrastructure, and build manufacturing capacity.
Nothing in the real world is developed beyond prototypes in the lab before it is marketed. Government funded research is best used as seed money. We are well past that stage now.
Progress is slow because everyone is sitting on their patents.
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
"you won't drive down the prices a lot by having a lot of (rich) buyers."
The prices will eventually drop due to competition. There won't BE competition if it isn't profitable to sell cars to early adopters.
One would think the "early adopter pays for the R&D" concept would be easy for Slashdotters to understand. In the PC world, they make developing quickerfasterbetter hardware a reasonable proposition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That economies of scale is a red herring argument. Right now electric cars are expensive because the basic technology is expensive
This argument seems circular to me. We cannot drive down the cost of the technology using economies of scale because that technology is too expensive.
I think you are making your point too broadly. There is no reason to suspect that economics works differently in this case than any other. If competitors A and B are both profitably selling electric car technology (due to subsidies), they still have the same economic incentive to save production costs that they would if they were selling profitable with no s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the early adopters bring me an affordable, not-ugly-ass electric car.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1. The Prius is more expensive
2. Only liberals drive Prius
Can you provide a source to either claim? I'm sure I could point out the flaws that lead to those conclusions, but you have to provide a link.
Otherwise, you're just trolling. Lame.
Not the op, but some figures (Score:3, Interesting)
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, $56
Re:Not the op, but some figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting the Ford Fiesta on the table immediately destroys the comparison. American automakers view
economy vehicles as just a means to get to a cheap frontend pricetag. They are crap cars that tend
to implode as soon as their warranty expires and are not likely to make it to 10 years on the road
like a Mazda or Toyota.
They also tend to be much more likely to be driven by the "working poor" that probably don't bother
to do basic maintenance on the cars (due to cheapness) also decreasing the likely lifespan of the
cars.
HELL, just the bargain benefit of driving ANY Toyota for longer than a Ford is bound to be considerable.
Our last Ford was by no means an "econobox". However, it too had an unacceptably early demise.
Re:Not the op, but some figures (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it a little disingenuous to compare a Prius to a bottom-of-the-barrel car like the Ford Fiesta? Why not compare apples to apples, like a Prius to a Honda Civic/Ford Focus, or a Ford Fusion to a Honda Accord?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*Shrugs*
I used the cars the GP mentioned.
The math all depends on your figures.
How many miles do you drive? Is it more skewed to highway or city?
Lower maintenance vs higher insurance costs for a more expensive vehicle.
What sort of interest rate can you get? How do you value the cost of the capital? Where do you figure gasoline is going to go?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not really familiar with British models, but I think the North American Ford Fiesta is based largely on the European model. Comparing those two is not really relevant, as the Prius is a mid-sized sedan and the Fiesta is a sub-compact coupe. You may as well call a netbook better because it's less expensive than a 15" notebook.
Re:Handouts for rich JEWS (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 alread
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ri
Re:Handouts for rich JEWS (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly which liberals told anyone except the very rich to make any sacrifices?
Re:Handouts for rich JEWS (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 fa
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Google is your friend!
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/25/nation/la-na-oil-spill-subsidies-20100525 [latimes.com]
Why did you think that we pay less than $3/gallon for gas and Europeans pay $7-$8.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 kil
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:5, Interesting)
The Federal Tech Driver (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Research and early adopters are needed. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 enoug
Re:Taxing Nerves (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Meanwhile a Civic will cost you around $20k and can drive more than 100 miles without waiting hours to refuel.
Even if you don't need to travel long distances, $12k will buy you a lot of gas.
Re:Taxing Nerves (Score:4, Informative)
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
Meanwhile a Civic will cost you around $20k and can drive more than 100 miles without waiting hours to refuel.
Even if you don't need to travel long distances, $12k will buy you a lot of gas.
Lets run some number. At $4 a gallon, $12,000 will by you 3000 gallons. At 30 miles per gallon that will get you 90,000 miles. So you will need to drive a Nissan Leaf for 90,000 miles to break even and that's not including the cost of electricity to recharge it, the cost to replace the batteries after they lose their capacity or the cost of rental cars when you need to make trips beyond the 100 mile range of the leaf.
Re:Taxing Nerves (Score:4, Informative)
"In California, where something like 90% of electricity is generated from burning natural gas, electric vehicles in California would essentially be running on natural gas."
Umm, no.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_sources.html [ca.gov]
Natural Gas 46.5%
Nuclear 14.9%
Large Hydro 9.6%
Coal* 15.5%
Renewable 13.5%
Where California's NG comes from
In State 12.9%
Canada 22.1%
Rockies 24.2%
Southwest 40.8%
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If we go to all electric cars or mostly electric cars get ready for toll roads everywhere. Right now it's the tax on fuel that pays for roads (well at least is *supposed* to pay for roads, whether it does or just goes into the general funds is a debate for another day). As soon as people stop buying gas and diesel, they government(s) (state and federal) will be crying fowl and we'll see some sort of black box required on electric cars to see how many miles you drive and sending you a "road use" tax bill a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [go.com]. The average commute is 16 miles each wa