Best Way to Honor the Intent of the Tax Credit?

[Dan Detweiler]

It's not a matter of winning "hearts and minds". It is very specific, very necessary metrics.

1. Cut air and water pollution and cut greenhouse gases to 80% of 2000 level to mitigate disastrously accelerated global warming.
2. Eliminate US oil imports which cost the US economy $300B-$600B year in trade deficit costs.
3. Eliminate US oil imports which create national security threat of oil terrorism (ISIS, al-Queda).
4. Eliminate US oil imports which cost $600B per year in military, oil wars to secure oil and respond to oil terrorism.

If it were not for those issues, gasoline powered vehicles would fine, better than EV's.

Regarding government, if not for government regulations looking at everyone's long term best interest we would not have EV's at all. The gov't regs to cut US oil use and pollution are the only reason we have hybrids and EV's. The subsidy for EV's is part of that.

If anything the current Federal subsidy is too small as we are not making fast enough progress to those very necessary goals.

I completely understand where you're coming from and admire your desires for immediate change.

Unfortunately, it has been my experience that when things are mandated and shoved down people's throats, all it does is make those that are inherently opposed to those mandates feel unfairly targeted and hate what is being mandated that much more.

People, for the most part, aren't stupid. If given a product that is undeniably superior in every way they will make the change. EVs, while gaining ground very quickly, are not superior to ICE vehicles in every way yet. Especially to those opposed to their development from the start.

Patience here will yield much better long term acceptance and adoption. At least that is my view. I certainly respect those that have different ones.

Dan

 

[EaglesPDX]

Unfortunately, it has been my experience that when things are mandated and shoved down people's throats, all it does is make those that are inherently opposed to those mandates feel unfairly targeted and hate what is being mandated that much more.

That is more an ideology vs. an experience. Subsidies force nothing on anyone. One can take the subsidy or not. Consider US railroad system was built with massive government subsidies.

Think of it as the Manhattan Project in response to national security threats to environment, economy and public safety. Everyone will benefit from the survival aspects of the results.

There is pressing time factor in all aspects of the threat of oil use. Laissez Faire in not an option.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

That is more an ideology vs. an experience. Subsidies force nothing on anyone. One can take the subsidy or not. Consider US railroad system was built with massive government subsidies.

Think of it as the Manhattan Project in response to national security threats to environment, economy and public safety. Everyone will benefit from the survival aspects of the results.

There is pressing time factor in all aspects of the threat of oil use. Laissez Faire in not an option.

I was referring to the German government mandate.

Dan

 

[Topher]

Unfortunately, it has been my experience that when things are mandated and shoved down people's throats, all it does is make those that are inherently opposed to those mandates feel unfairly targeted and hate what is being mandated that much more.

So you instead advise removing all the oil subsidies, and instituting a carbon tax equal to the harm that the carbon does? Sounds good to me.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

I prefer there be no corporate tax. Create an environment where companies can thrive and bring jobs back to this country that have fled our shores for more amicable environments in which to do business.

OK, now this is starting to sound like a political rant so I need to sign off on this one. I will leave with the statement that if the tax credit is available when I take delivery of my Model 3 I will take it. If it is not I won't get too upset about it as I was not budgeting for it to be available anyway.

Dan

 

[Topher]

I prefer there be no corporate tax.

So corporations should be put on welfare and given all of the services that governments provide while paying nothing for them, while being able to bribe public officials for increasing those benefits, with no limits on those 'contributions'. I can't imagine anything going wrong with that plan.

Thank you kindly.

 

[deonb]

If it were not for those issues, gasoline powered vehicles would fine, better than EV's.

Regarding government, if not for government regulations looking at everyone's long term best interest we would not have EV's at all. The gov't regs to cut US oil use and pollution are the only reason we have hybrids and EV's.

Wow. You must not have an EV if you think that the only benefit of an EV is for environmental reasons.

I love LED lightbulbs. I've been buying them before Incandescents went out. I could care less about their environmental benefit - I just don't like to get up on a ladder every month to change all of my lightbulbs.

Same with my Tesla & Leaf. I could care less about the environmental benefit - I just don't want to go to a gas station every week to fill up a car anymore, or go and sit in a Jiffy Lube every few months for an hour waiting to get an oil change.

EV's and LED bulbs improves my life. Not anybody else. Not the planet for the children I don't have. But mine. That's why I have them.

 

[deonb]

So corporations should be put on welfare and given all of the services that governments provide while paying nothing for them, while being able to bribe public officials for increasing those benefits, with no limits on those 'contributions'. I can't imagine anything going wrong with that plan.

You tax dividends. Or sales tax.

But taxing corporations directly in a multi-national connected world is suicidal. We effectively now have a policy that reads: "You don't have to pay any taxes, as long as you promise not to reinvest your revenue back into the U.S".

 

[Red Sage]

By ever measure gasoline is much more dangerous than hydrogen. Hydrogen is less dangerous because it vaporizes instantly, rises and dissipates while gasoline stays largely liquid but has both volatile vapors and liquid form.

Oh? Depends upon who you ask, it seems. Take a look...

Sorry, I couldn't find a separate NFPA rating for Compressed, Liquefied Hydrogen Gas, which would be more accurate for Hydrogen Fuel. I did find this photo, taken at an actual Hydrogen Fueling station, though...

Hydrogen would generated commercially in large solar installs in the ocean.

Sure. Right about the same time I get to become the pilot of THUNDERBIRD 1 or driver of the MACH V. Complete and total fantasy. There are today, within the next five years, within the next twenty years, exactly ZERO of these 'large solar installs' designed to produce Hydrogen Fuel in large quantities. The money required to do so would be utterly tremendous. Energy companies (AKA Petroleum firms) use the path of least resistance, and lowest cost, to produce fuels. Hence, why Hydrogen Fuel is 'Always... The FUTURE!' Just the way Detroit likes it.

I simply pointed out that home H2 generators exist now.

Hydrogen Fuel dispensers have been theorized, conceptualized, thought about... But each of the traditional automobile manufacturers that said that could be done have backed away from the notion. Including Toyota, one of the biggest proponents of the incredibly stupid idea.

So for transportation in which EV is not practical such as aviation, hydrogen would be an excellent fuel.

Once again, no matter the type of vehicle, it would be both less expensive and more efficient to operate it using Compressed Natural Gas (CNG, Methane) than Hydrogen Fuel. I was able to find CNG/LNG Airplanes...

Take a look at some natural gas-powered airplanes

But only the one example of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell 'demonstrator' airplane... Oooh! a SINGLE seater!

 

[Red Sage]

Apparently some folks have near religious opposition to hydrogen in any application and mayhem ensued.

I have a logical opposition to proposed 'solutions' that in fact, solve NOTHING. The idea behind Hydrogen Fuels and Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology is AWESOME. The reality is entirely different. Let me know when 'The FUTURE!' arrives, and stuff. I guarantee it will do so for electric vehicles long before it does for HFCEVs.

 

[Red Sage]

By that logic one would pick a gasoline car over Tesla which has LESS range than the Mirai. The idea is to not use gasoline and to promote the sustainable technology and products and to encourage people to buy them.

If the Tesla is viable at 285 miles than the Mirai is viable at 315 miles.

By that considerable lack of logic, it would be a great idea for Tesla Motors' competitors to create gasoline powered hybrids that achieve 80, 90, or 100 MPG. The Model S 85 had a 250+ mile range and had the relative energy capacity of 2.5 gallons of gasoline. Thus, if an ICE vehicle had a 25 gallon capacity, it would be able to travel over 2,500 miles on a single fill-up.

You want to talk about 'The FUTURE!'...? When the capacity of a standard issue battery pack in a Tesla Motors product provides only the energy equivalent of 10 gallons of gasoline, it will leave any version of the Toyota Prius in the dust. And that battery pack will still have a lower overall volume than the tank in the back of a Mirai.

 

[EaglesPDX]

Wow. You must not have an EV if you think that the only benefit of an EV is for environmental reasons.

I think I clearly listed reasons for EV and why it should be subsidized.

1. Cut air and water pollution and cut greenhouse gases to 80% of 2000 level to mitigate disastrously accelerated global warming.
2. Eliminate US oil imports which cost the US economy $300B-$600B year in trade deficit costs.
3. Eliminate US oil imports which create national security threat of oil terrorism (ISIS, al-Queda).
4. Eliminate US oil imports which cost $600B per year in military, oil wars to secure oil and respond to oil terrorism.

 

[EaglesPDX]

By that considerable lack of logic, it would be a great idea for Tesla Motors' competitors to create gasoline powered hybrids that achieve 80, 90, or 100 MPG.

Getting MPG up and eliminating 50% of US oil use cuts emissions, eliminates the $300B year oil trade deficit and eliminates need to import oil and the $600B year military costs to secure the imported oil. So hybrids help to reach the necessary goals. We are talking about the need for the tax subsidy to push EV's. I would give similar progressive subsidies for hybrids based on their EV capability.

Idea is to eliminate gasoline use so hybrids are excellent and we already have some (Volvo V60 AWD Diesel/EV/Hybrid) that get 120 mpg. For those not ready for pure EV, better to have them in 100+ mpg hybrids.

again, no matter the type of vehicle, it would be both less expensive and more efficient to operate it using Compressed Natural Gas (CNG, Methane) than Hydrogen Fuel. I was able to find CNG/LNG Airplanes.

The idea is to eliminate fossil fuel use. Natural gas is bridge fuel but as this graphic from Union of Concerned Scientists note, we really have to aim for more sustainable power from solar and wind electric. The EV subsidy helps us get to that goal.

But we are talking about the need for the tax subsidy to push EV's. I would give similar subsidies for hybrids based on their EV capability.

 

[Red Sage]

If you think you can build a BEV / solar power airliner that can carry 200 people, then build one. Until then, it doesn't exist.

Yeah. That's how I feel about the proposal for Hydrogen Fuel infrastructure that is generated entirely by renewable power sources. The great idea that has been 15-to-20 years away for the past 40 years... And is still 15-20 years away.

Based on what current scientific prediction or past precedent do you foresee a 1000% battery capacity increase in the next 50 years?

I always go by what I've heard said by JB Straubel. He has noted that there is roughly a doubling of energy capacity in battery technology every ten years or so. I would expect that improvements to battery technology will probably improve by 1,000% within the next 50 years (it might not be Lithium-ion, of course). Though I admit I hadn't thought quite that far out just yet.

Let's see... If a certain volume/weight of battery cells holds 100 kWh today... And that doubles every ten years...

100 ... Today
200 ... 10 years
400 ... 20 years
800 ... 30 years
1,600 ... 40 years
3,200 ... 50 years​

So, you'd be able to hold 3,200 kWh in the same space after 50 years. That is well over the 1,000% improvement mark. Yes?

My opinion is that for ground vehicles it won't take that much at all for BEV to take over from ICE. Even before 85 kWh to 100 kWh can be held in a volume/weight that is only 1/4 the size of the Generation II battery packs, it will be a done deal. I figure we'll get there by 2030 or so.

I don't know the relative energy efficiency ratings for aircraft. I expect it is quite a bit worse than the best ICE ground vehicles, and probably a little better than the theoretical Warp Drive from Star Trek. I was rather surprised when it was revealed on Star Trek: The Next Generation their Warp Drives used something like 98% of the energy generated by their Dilithium Matrix for containment alone. So, everything else in the ship was run on only 2% of the energy they had available. That was pretty friggin' inefficient, a rather brute force manner of using technology. The tricky part with aircraft is that their range is typically computed with an assumption of the overall vehicle weight going down during transit, as fuel is burned. With batteries, the whole weight of the vehicle is basically the same for the whole trip, complicating the matter somewhat.

Over the last 4 years, Tesla was only able to show a 5% progress. Extrapolate that rate, and even compounded it shows a 80% improvement over 50 years. Now, let's say Tesla was just lazy up to this point, and they can actually make 5% progress every 2 years instead of 4. That would still only achieve 250% in 50 years.

Once again, I stick to what JB Straubel says. I believe that Tesla Motors keeps their major improvements in battery technology locked behind closed doors, in testing, with the intent to release them with each new generation of vehicles. JB noted a 40% improvement in energy density between the announcement of the Tesla Roadster in 2007, and the release of the Model S in 2012. He expects a similar improvement for Model ☰ in 2017. Go to the 8 minute mark in this video:

I have theorized elsewhere that Tesla Motors is being rather cagey with their commercial releases of battery capacity upgrades for Model S and Model X. I believe that the Tesla Generation II cars will each max out at either 120 kWh or 165 kWh prior to the release of Model S 2.0 around 2020 or so. Most Tesla Enthusiasts insist that I am an over-the-top optimistic fanboy and stuff, and don't expect to see more than a 100 kWh capacity in Model S or Model X. Thus, they scoff at my expectation of a 120 kWh to 135 kWh capacity or so for a Performance variant of Model ☰. We'll see what happens before too long.

You're talking about a 1000% improvement. There's nothing that predict that to be on the table. Thinking it will happen because people sometimes achieve cool stuff... well, you can think that, but I see that as hope, rather than reason.

I believe that Elon Musk would not mind getting into some type of aircraft distribution at some point. It might not be branded as either Tesla or SpaceX, but possibly another new company that uses their expertise. With that in mind, I would guess they would probably want to start at perhaps 500% improvement or so in battery technology instead. Might not be able to manage a 200 passenger vehicle, but could probably put together a really nice 8-to-24 passenger plane with superb range.

 

[deonb]

I think I clearly listed reasons for EV and why it should be subsidized.

1. Cut air and water pollution and cut greenhouse gases to 80% of 2000 level to mitigate disastrously accelerated global warming.
2. Eliminate US oil imports which cost the US economy $300B-$600B year in trade deficit costs.
3. Eliminate US oil imports which create national security threat of oil terrorism (ISIS, al-Queda).
4. Eliminate US oil imports which cost $600B per year in military, oil wars to secure oil and respond to oil terrorism.

Well #1 isn't going to get you anywhere with half the electorate not believing in it. And the ones who DO believe in it, don't vote.

#2 to #4 is not a dependency. It never was. The U.S. can be self-sufficient on oil if it wants to be. Imports are just cheaper. Even in Reagan's time when he had the bright idea to go and protect the Gulf, it had more to do with stabilizing the global price of oil while still allowing for a free market traded oil price. He could have just instituted trade protections instead. And you can still do that - or if you still want a free market, if the oil companies want access to gulf oil, have them pay for the protection.


I'm of the opinion that the way to get people to buy EV's, is to build one that they want to buy. Elon actually agrees with this - he doesn't want subsidies either - he just wants them to be removed from his competitors as well.

In fact, his secret master plan:
The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)

predates the EV credit by 2 years, and that's exactly what Tesla is still executing on even today. It's not like they pivoted anything to get hold of more credits. If the 2008 housing crises didn't happen, Tesla would be exactly where it is today without any government help.

The market can actually work, if people would stop rigging it.

 

[EaglesPDX]

Well #1 isn't going to get you anywhere with half the electorate not believing in it. And the ones who DO believe in it, don't vote.

It is like asking if people "believe" in evolution or Earth revolving around the sun. Dangerously accelerated global warming is a matter of science not belief. Musk started Tesla based on issue of global warming.

As for the "market". Global warming is not something the "market" will address it is an example of why intelligent government is required to make the long term interest of everyone the priority vs. the short term interests of a few. Same for oil trade deficit, oil wars, oil debt, oil terrorism. These are matters of national security and it is the government's job to take the long view and deal with them.

Subsidizing EV's is one way to do that. Mandating EV infrastructure, zero emissions vehicles, loans to new tech developers and mfgs are other methods.

 

[Red Sage]

I would give similar progressive subsidies for hybrids based on their EV capability.

All of the hybrids that have plugin capability already benefit from the very same Federal EV Tax Credit. None of these are 'subsidies'. It is an incentive to purchase.

For those not ready for pure EV, better to have them in 100+ mpg hybrids.

And there aren't any. Also, there aren't likely to be any. Hybrid technology has gone as far as it can, without also exempting them from air quality controls. That was the point of my post.

The idea is to eliminate fossil fuel use.

This is the statement that I will file under 'DUH'. Switching to Hydrogen Fuel, anytime within the next 20 years (and possibly the next 100 years) WILL NOT ELIMINATE FOSSIL FUEL USE.

But we are talking about the need for the tax subsidy to push EV's. I would give similar subsidies for hybrids based on their EV capability.

Once again, there is no [MULTIPLE EXPLETIVES DELETED] 'subsidy' at the Federal level for electric vehicles at all. The Federal government happily cuts checks to farmers, under multiple different programs, to NOT plant crops. The Federal government will NEVER cut a check to you or anyone else for buying an electric car. In some States, there may be a Rebate for an EV purchase that generally amounts to less than the Sales Tax and Registration Fees for the vehicle.

 

[Red Sage]

Even in Reagan's time when he had the bright idea to go and protect the Gulf, it had more to do with stabilizing the global price of oil while still allowing for a free market traded oil price.

Just one point... I'm pretty sure that was President George Herbert Walker Bush, who had been Vice-President during the Reagan Administration, not President Ronald Reagan, who made that decision regarding the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait. Otherwise, well stated.

 

[deonb]

Just one point... I'm pretty sure that was President George Herbert Walker Bush, who had been Vice-President during the Reagan Administration, not President Ronald Reagan, who made that decision regarding the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait. Otherwise, well stated.

The ball was already rolling at that point. The initial military buildup and protection of the Gulf in the first place was set in place by Reagan in 1984 after he saw the following presentation on the potential for Oil Disruption in the Gulf:

http://www.wpainc.com/Archive/Reaga...esentation on Gulf Oil Disruption 5-22-84.pdf

It's worth a read, if you've never read it before. (May have to tilt your head or rotate the presentation ).

 

[deonb]

It is like asking if people "believe" in evolution or Earth revolving around the sun. Dangerously accelerated global warming is a matter of science not belief. Musk started Tesla based on issue of global warming.

Scientists don't run the country. Believers do. Unless you think Al Gore is going to stage a military coup, scientific fact makes absolutely zero difference to public policy. If there was ever any doubt in your mind to that, you can look as far as the presumptive GOP nominee.

If you're waiting for government to make a proactive stance on this, well, then you won't even have to worry about global warming since you'll die of CO2 asphyxiation first.

Leave saving the world part to the captains of industry. Elon is doing this exactly right - people just need to stay out of his way. And with that - government can help.