Fiat can do it in 12!

[Topher]

So I guess I'd like to know if in your fantasy of people paying some kind of "pollution" tax, would only Americans pay that tax? What about areas that are less economically developed and poorer, do they get to pay the tax as they over time will make up a larger percent of global pollution.

You misunderstand. Pollution causes costs. You (and everybody else) are ALREADY paying those costs. The tax is to make the people CAUSING those costs, pay for them. The number is something like $21.50 per GALLON of gasoline. So polluters pay and your taxes, health care costs, et al, go down. Why would you offer to pay other people $21.50 for every gallon of gas they use?

Thank you kindly.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It still means that the battery pack on a 60kwh ICE will cost far more to manufacture than an ICE engine that by comparison costs peanuts. What do you think it costs BMW to manufacture the 2.0T B48 engine in the current 3 series? $1,000 maybe? $2,000 tops would be my guess.

A 2.0L Turbo DI engine costs $1936.62 in 2010 dollars according to EPA analysis (page 43). A 6 speed automatic transmission (BMW uses 8 speed, which is probably more expensive) is $867.97.
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420r10010.pdf

Inflation adjusted, that is $2,114.92 and $947.88 respectively, so a little over $3000 total for both.

While I was searching for sources, I came across an interesting table that had all of the things ICE cars could do to improve fuel economy over the next few decades as well as their associated costs and fuel economy gains. Sadly I can't seem to find it again. I remember seeing a few easy pickings at a few hundred dollars, but most of them are at least $1,000 and many are above $5,000. As EVs drop in cost in the coming years, ICEs have nowhere to go but up in order to match fuel efficiency requirements.

I found a similar table too, but the one above talks more about downsizing and changes in transmissions (which is the low hanging fruit that costs a few hundred). I will edit my post with a link when I find that other table.

Edit: I think I found a similar one. Engine downsizing/upgrades is the few hundred range, microhybrids reach the $1000 range, hybrids reach the $2000 range ($5000 would probably be plug-in hybrids, which the linked article doesn't address).
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/FEV_LDV EU Technology Cost Analysis_Phase1.pdf

 

[geoffreak]

Edit: I think I found a similar one. Engine downsizing/upgrades is the few hundred range, microhybrids reach the $1000 range, hybrids reach the $2000 range ($5000 would probably be plug-in hybrids, which the linked article doesn't address).
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/FEV_LDV EU Technology Cost Analysis_Phase1.pdf

Thanks! That's the one!

 

[voip-ninja]

You misunderstand. Pollution causes costs. You (and everybody else) are ALREADY paying those costs. The tax is to make the people CAUSING those costs, pay for them. The number is something like $21.50 per GALLON of gasoline. So polluters pay and your taxes, health care costs, et al, go down. Why would you offer to pay other people $21.50 for every gallon of gas they use?

Thank you kindly.

The day my taxes go down because of "less pollution" I will gladly write you a check for $1000.

 

[Topher]

The day my taxes go down because of "less pollution" I will gladly write you a check for $1000.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/fy15_bib.pdf

Should I PM you my address to send the check to?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Canuck]

People should stop with the nonsense of blindly repeating things that they want to believe.

Is there a reason you don't take your own advice but do exactly what you tell others not to do? You said:

It is a quote from labor organizer Nicholas Klein

In fact, it is not. Once again, Gandhi's name has been associated with this quote since at least 1982, when the Workshop Of Nonviolence Institute summed up Gandhi's philosophy in an issue of WIN Magazine:

"Gandhi once observed that every movement goes through four stages: First they ignore you; then they abuse you; then they crack down on you and then you win."

KIein never said "Then you win." Klein said "they build monuments to you." That's very different. A lot of repressed people, who never "won" had monuments built to them after the fact when winning and losing was no longer relevant but honouring them in hindsight was the issue. Please don't continue to misrepresent Klein's actual quote.

In fact, if you took your own advice and used "Google" before you attribute a quote incorrectly, you would have learned of your error and properly said that its origin derives from a combination of two sources: Klein and WIN Magazine:

Most academics now attribute the quote to a combination of Klein's 1914 speech combined with an attempt to summarize Gandhi's nonviolent doctrine and philosophy:

MISATTRIBUTED: 'First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh at You....' Quote

 

[voip-ninja]

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/fy15_bib.pdf

Should I PM you my address to send the check to?

Thank you kindly.

My taxes have not gone down regardless of your EPA report.

The fact that you think the EPA budget is directly tied to the amount of fossil fuel pollution is naive and comical.

 

[glenhurst]

Internal combustion engine vehicles offer way more benefit than harm in the pollution that they create. Our entire economy is pretty much made possible by them.

I don't know where China is at currently but about 5 or so years ago they were only having to meet emissions standards from the late 1990's and even though VW could have put their latest technology into the cars, in order to sell them competitively they chose not to.

So I guess I'd like to know if in your fantasy of people paying some kind of "pollution" tax, would only Americans pay that tax? What about areas that are less economically developed and poorer, do they get to pay the tax as they over time will make up a larger percent of global pollution.

Do people who live in parts of the US that can only be feasibly be serviced by coal & oil power plants get to pay a surcharge for destroying the environment (P.S. Hawaii is one of those)? What if their relative income is lower than areas that are more easily able to tap into hydro, etc? Will you be in favor of nuclear power as a way of generating lots of power with very little pollution?

What about air travelers? Should people who have the audacity to board a jet for travel pay a pollution tax when they could take a much more pollution efficient train or boat to get to their destination, even if it took an extra few days?

In case you haven't figured it out, I think your proposal that you are so giddy about is preposterous and frankly offensive.

I'm not giddy about it, I just think it is inevitable. *shrug* Keep in mind that I'm not talking about circumstances as they are today, but ten years from now. In ten years, battery range ought to be 50%-60% greater and/or substantially cheaper, Tesla will probably have delivered their fourth generation EV which is supposed to be priced so that "most everyone" can afford it (I put it in quotes because that's the term Musk used), and there will be many more people driving EVs by then. My real point was just that interest in the Model 3 has been so great that I may have underestimated how soon that tipping point will be reached (I originally thought it was about 20 years out). A carbon tax isn't my idea; lots of people have been talking about it for years. Musk himself has pointed out ICEs are cheaper only because they don't cover the cost of their pollution. And he didn't originate the idea, either: Economists have been pointing this out for years. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that it has been a worthwhile if somewhat Faustian bargain for the past 130 years. But that "debt" of ignoring the pollution costs is starting to come due. Musk has also said we can't abandon fossil fuels overnight even if we wanted to because it would ruin the economy, and he's right. But that doesn't mean that things have to stay the way they are today. Tesla is just trying to move the needle, to accelerate the transition, to use their terms.

Why would a prediction be offensive? Preposterous, perhaps. But offensive? It's just a forecast of what I think will happen.

 

[Luke42]

Adding Italian style marks up the price to unrealistic levels.

The Chrysler 200 is a very nice looking car. I like the way it looks.

I haven't had a chance to drive one yet. The reviews aren't great.

But making their vehicle look as nice as the Chrysler 200 or the Giulietta is probably what Marchionne meant

 

[HanSolo]

The Chrysler 200 is a very nice looking car. I like the way it looks.

I haven't had a chance to drive one yet. The reviews aren't great.

But making their vehicle look as nice as the Chrysler 200 or the Giulietta is probably what Marchionne meant

Exactly. Look at how Ford added British styling flair to the Fusion. They also added British styling flair to the new Explorer. Of course the new Explorer is priced like a Porsche in that options can double the base price.

 

[voip-ninja]

I'm not giddy about it, I just think it is inevitable. *shrug* Keep in mind that I'm not talking about circumstances as they are today, but ten years from now. In ten years, battery range ought to be 50%-60% greater and/or substantially cheaper, Tesla will probably have delivered their fourth generation EV which is supposed to be priced so that "most everyone" can afford it (I put it in quotes because that's the term Musk used), and there will be many more people driving EVs by then. My real point was just that interest in the Model 3 has been so great that I may have underestimated how soon that tipping point will be reached (I originally thought it was about 20 years out). A carbon tax isn't my idea; lots of people have been talking about it for years. Musk himself has pointed out ICEs are cheaper only because they don't cover the cost of their pollution. And he didn't originate the idea, either: Economists have been pointing this out for years. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that it has been a worthwhile if somewhat Faustian bargain for the past 130 years. But that "debt" of ignoring the pollution costs is starting to come due. Musk has also said we can't abandon fossil fuels overnight even if we wanted to because it would ruin the economy, and he's right. But that doesn't mean that things have to stay the way they are today. Tesla is just trying to move the needle, to accelerate the transition, to use their terms.

Why would a prediction be offensive? Preposterous, perhaps. But offensive? It's just a forecast of what I think will happen.

I don't see 40-50% range improvements without larger, heavier packs in the 10 year timeframe as none of the techs that could achieve that are anywhere near mass production.

If tesla has a $20k five door hatchback "model 2" with 300 mile range and 15 minute recharge times in the 7-10 year timeframe it will be a huge accomplishment towards mass adoption.

 

[Topher]

My taxes have not gone down regardless of your EPA report.

The fact that you think the EPA budget is directly tied to the amount of fossil fuel pollution is naive and comical.

And, unsurprisingly, the goal posts start to shift. You said 'pollution' not fossil fuel pollution. The EPA budget has gone down, due to a reduction in pollution (i.e. because they did their job). Why make such a statement if you never under any circumstances would follow through?

Thank you kindly.

 

[1000Down]

And, unsurprisingly, the goal posts start to shift. You said 'pollution' not fossil fuel pollution. The EPA budget has gone down, due to a reduction in pollution (i.e. because they did their job). Why make such a statement if you never under any circumstances would follow through?

Thank you kindly.

The EPA report you reference shows the 2015 proposed budget vs. 2014 actual expenses. We really will have no idea what the EPA actually spent in 2015 until the numbers are published.

Regardless, the fact is that Developed Nations have borne and will continue to bare the cost of dealing with global pollution. However, Developing Nations will proceed with business as usual continuing to puke pollution into the world without baring the cost of their actions, placing our industries and workers at a disadvantage. Ultimately, the middle class of Developed Nations will pay the price in the form of higher taxes, stagnant wages and finally lost jobs.

The fact is that the clean air agenda must be subsidized to be competitive while our traditional fuel sources are being destroyed so ultimately everything gets more expensive unless the US continues to subsidize the alternative fuel sources. This means we are becoming increasingly dependent on subsidies to be competitive. This is expensive and unsustainable.

Now that might be fine for many who have not been directly affected by job loss or stagnant wages as a result of this dynamic but for many Americans, it has been devastating which has lead to the rise of Trump and Sanders.

Finally, as long as Developing Nations puke pollution into the world, nothing Developed Nation do will change the future of this planet but many American workers will suffer a long the way.

 

[AUSinator]

I don't see 40-50% range improvements without larger, heavier packs in the 10 year timeframe as none of the techs that could achieve that are anywhere near mass production.

Expect at least 50%-100% improvement to batterie storage capacity compared to today as a minimum in 10 years. 10 years is a really long time you know a lot can happen. At the moment batterie storage is improving aprox 7% year on year. There is even a chance that a new chemistry will be commercial available by then. In that case expect greater than 50%-100%.

 

[Red Sage]

I don't see 40-50% range improvements without larger, heavier packs in the 10 year timeframe as none of the techs that could achieve that are anywhere near mass production.

I typically ignore posts that include the phrase 'I don't see', so as to avoid using a sarcastic line about someone's apparently obvious blindness... But this is another opportunity to educate rather than ridicule, so I'll try that once again (despite your reluctance to the tactic)... Please take the time to watch some videos online that feature the Chief Technology Officer at Tesla Motors, JB Straubel.

He explains that the energy density of battery cells typically doubles every ten years or so. Thus, the amount of battery cells needed for a given capacity drops over time. Which means the weight goes down for that capacity, increasing range. Likewise, for a given weight, there will be more energy stored, also increasing range. He also believes it will be possible to increase charging speeds by a wide margin, and likely within the next five years.

Here are two of them for your edification:

If tesla has a $20k five door hatchback "model 2" with 300 mile range and 15 minute recharge times in the 7-10 year timeframe it will be a huge accomplishment towards mass adoption.

By the time that Tesla Motors has the capacity and funding to build a $20,000 vehicle, no one else on the market will be selling them at that price. The majority of major automobile manufacturers, who have millions upon millions in capacity, and plenty of cash, have already abandoned the sub-$15,000 market. The average sales price of a new car in the US is already well over $31,000 each. And most new cars cost no less than $22,000 already when sold new, regardless of their base price. And the cars that are under $15,000 are outsold by cars (and SUVs) that are over $30,000.

Should Tesla Motors choose to build a vehicle to compete against Golf, Corolla, Civic, Elantra/Rio, and Focus at any point within the next ten years, it will NOT cost less than $25,000 for the base version -- and neither will those cars by that time. I sincerely doubt that Tesla Motors will ever release a vehicle to compete in the market space that includes Fiesta and Yaris. Even the Dodge Dart, which starts at $16,995 is about to be axed due to disinterest. In the US at least, hardly anyone buys 'cheap' new cars. When they buy cheap, they buy used.

 

[Red Sage]

Finally, as long as Developing Nations puke pollution into the world, nothing Developed Nation do will change the future of this planet but many American workers will suffer a long the way.

It seems your stance is that we should do NOTHING to stem the tide of pollution here at home, because of what is happening elsewhere in the world. The problem here is that you completely ignore that the 'traditional fuel sources' are already subsidized, at a higher rate, and higher cost than 'alternative fuels' even if you DON'T count the funds that are proposed for cleaning up their act. But there are plenty of reasons to change the means by which we transport goods and people that you don't acknowledge.

• It is already expensive to NOT clean up our fuel sources.
• It is expensive because it ties our entire economy to petroleum.
• It is expensive as a result of the health issues that are brought on by continued use of carcinogens as fuel for transportation.
• It is expensive in the loss of lives due to pollution.
• It is expensive because of the funds spend to send our military to other countries to protect oil fields for corporations.

It is best to be an example of what can be accomplished WITHOUT abusing fossil fuels, before attempting to rub other nations' faces in it.

And, by the way...? We do NOT live in a Feudal society in the United States of America. There is no 'Upper Class' or 'Lower Class'. There is no such [GOLDURNED] thing as 'Middle Class' -- there never was. That is just another undefined marketing term developed by political campaign organizers and speech writers. Like 'Family Values' it means nothing whatsoever, but leads an individual to create their own mental image of what it might mean instead. It is an answer to an unasked question that is steeped in rhetoric and full of emotion that belies its fundamental lack of logic and reason.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

My taxes have not gone down regardless of your EPA report.

The fact that you think the EPA budget is directly tied to the amount of fossil fuel pollution is naive and comical.

I doesn't have to be directly tied (eg 1:1), just positively related. The only way the budget of a government agency tasked with regulating pollution wouldn't be tied to FF pollution would be if there was no FF pollution or if FF pollution was somehow negatively related to the EPA budget (More FF pollution = less EPA funding).

I don't see a mechanism for either of those, but if you have evidence that supports your assertion, I'm interested in seeing it.

 

[1000Down]

It seems your stance is that we should do NOTHING to stem the tide of pollution here at home, because of what is happening elsewhere in the world. The problem here is that you completely ignore that the 'traditional fuel sources' are already subsidized, at a higher rate, and higher cost than 'alternative fuels' even if you DON'T count the funds that are proposed for cleaning up their act. But there are plenty of reasons to change the means by which we transport goods and people that you don't acknowledge.

• It is already expensive to NOT clean up our fuel sources.
• It is expensive because it ties our entire economy to petroleum.
• It is expensive as a result of the health issues that are brought on by continued use of carcinogens as fuel for transportation.
• It is expensive in the loss of lives due to pollution.
• It is expensive because of the funds spend to send our military to other countries to protect oil fields for corporations.

It is best to be an example of what can be accomplished WITHOUT abusing fossil fuels, before attempting to rub other nations' faces in it.

And, by the way...? We do NOT live in a Feudal society in the United States of America. There is no 'Upper Class' or 'Lower Class'. There is no such [GOLDURNED] thing as 'Middle Class' -- there never was. That is just another undefined marketing term developed by political campaign organizers and speech writers. Like 'Family Values' it means nothing whatsoever, but leads an individual to create their own mental image of what it might mean instead. It is an answer to an unasked question that is steeped in rhetoric and full of emotion that belies its fundamental lack of logic and reason.

Certainly doing NOTHING was never mentioned but the US cannot clean the planet without everyone contributing or the cost we bare attempting to do so will further handicap our industry. The burden ultimately falls disproportionately to the "middle class" as critical jobs are moved overseas. Feel free to call them "working class" or use whatever label makes you feel better but try not to get stuck on a label and ignore the point.

All that you say in regards to fossil fuels in correct, fossil fuels are dirty poisons that have been subsidized for decades. However, if you look at subsidies per capita, the amount spent subsidizing fossil fuels is nothing compared to what is being spent on alternative fuels subsidies. The problem with doing this is that we build an industry to replace fossil fuels that must be subsidized at a very high level per capita to compete. The subsidies can never stop or the industry will collapse. Does that mean we shouldn't try? As long as it doesn't put the US at a competitive disadvantage for jobs, we should do all that we can.

The health affects of pollution are very real and almost impossible to quantify, especially in a world full of bad habits. The largest known killer in the world is diet. What we eat and how much we eat (too much or not enough) is by far the largest known cause of disease and death. Maybe we should subsidize healthy eating and put all those terrible burger joints out of business?

The most disturbing cost of using fossil fuel has been the loss of life as we jump from conflict to conflict defending our Oil interests. I think we would all agree on that point. However, how did we get into that situation? By dependence on Oil or dependence of foreign Oil? Why were we dependent on foreign Oil for decades? A smart, logical guy like you knows the answer to that. Therefore, I do not lay the blame for War at the feet of Oil. Our dependence on foreign Oil can be traced back to the very groups that sight War as a gross consequence of dependence on fossil fuels. Our new found freedom in the world has nothing to do with the development of alternative fuel sources and everything to do with the fact that we are no longer dependent on Foreign Oil because reduced regulations and improved technology have allowed us to tap our own resources.

Now it would appear from your abundance of long bloviating post in which you speak down to all with an opinion that you have plenty of free time on your hands. Unfortunately, as a middle class, working class or however you choose to define me class, I do not so you will have to excuse me for not responding to your next pretentious post.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Certainly doing NOTHING was never mentioned but the US cannot clean the planet without everyone contributing or the cost we bare attempting to do so will further handicap our industry. The burden ultimately falls disproportionately to the "middle class" as critical jobs are moved overseas. Feel free to call them "working class" or use whatever label makes you feel better but try not to get stuck on a label and ignore the point.

If we had already implemented a complete set of cost neutral GHG abatement measures, and any further abatement measures would be cost positive, sure. But we're a long way from that as a country.

Most off-shoring right now is done to maximize profit margins, *not because the cost of minimizing and reducing emissions present a substantial burden on US industry. A couple years ago I started working for a company that offshored thousands of jobs in India, the Philippines, and the Dominican Republic in the late 90s/early 00s. They didn't do that because of the cost of complying with regulations, they did it because it increased their profit margins and allowed them to buy up their competition. Ironically enough, I imagine we'll continue to see fewer jobs per unit earnings both onshore and offshore because of automation.

*Obviously the exception to that are FF companies, since their business model depends on GHG/etc emissions.

 

[wdolson]

By the time that Tesla Motors has the capacity and funding to build a $20,000 vehicle, no one else on the market will be selling them at that price. The majority of major automobile manufacturers, who have millions upon millions in capacity, and plenty of cash, have already abandoned the sub-$15,000 market. The average sales price of a new car in the US is already well over $31,000 each. And most new cars cost no less than $22,000 already when sold new, regardless of their base price. And the cars that are under $15,000 are outsold by cars (and SUVs) that are over $30,000.

Should Tesla Motors choose to build a vehicle to compete against Golf, Corolla, Civic, Elantra/Rio, and Focus at any point within the next ten years, it will NOT cost less than $25,000 for the base version -- and neither will those cars by that time. I sincerely doubt that Tesla Motors will ever release a vehicle to compete in the market space that includes Fiesta and Yaris. Even the Dodge Dart, which starts at $16,995 is about to be axed due to disinterest. In the US at least, hardly anyone buys 'cheap' new cars. When they buy cheap, they buy used.

The average age of an American new car buyer today is 50. There are no brands with an average buyer age under 40. Millennials are having a lot tougher time getting started than Gen Xers and Boomers did. They also aren't into ICE cars anywhere near as much. Many aren't learning to drive until they are in their 20s, I know a number of people who's kids didn't learn to drive until then. When I was in my 20s, my co-workers were all over me for getting a house before I bought a new car. I continued driving my college beater for a few years and bought a house my first year out of school. As I pointed out, my car worked, my housing situation didn't. House prices were also just beginning to take off in Seattle and I wanted to buy before things got too expensive.

Most millennials are happy to drive a beater for an extended period while they wait for what they really want to become available and/or save up enough money. They also love electric cars and love Tesla specifically though I think many are put off by the weirdmobiles with poor range. When Tesla does make a car priced as an entry priced car with over 200 miles of range, the millennials will be all over it.