Lies about Electric Cars

[EVNow]

Talking about the lies ... NYT has a special on EVs. You have 6 people making predictions ...

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/10/07/will-electric-cars-finally-succeed

Will Electric Cars Finally Succeed?

Are electric cars finally feasible, or will they always depend on government subsidies? Will other technologies like the plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt (soon available) be more likely to gain traction in the marketplace? What are the economics involved, given that S.U.V. sales are going up because of stable gas prices?

Not one mentions multi-car families (who make up 60% of US households) and using ICE for longer trips. Are these "experts" really that isolated from rest of the population ?

 

[Cobos]

The "best" part there is the guy from Cato Institute who says it costs 11kWh of production to get 3kWh into your car...
Hmmm, then why isn't anyone running their clothes drier on an ICE directly or through using a generator already? That would be the sensible option then wouldn't it. Of course as usual they include all upstream efficiency losses for EVs and include none of the ones for ICE. But that is pretty much to be expected as usual. I realise I just can't read crap like this I get too worked up

Cobos

 

[Todd Burch]

I used to get worked up about this kind of stuff.

Then I came to terms with the fact that you just can't fix stupid...and that realization makes me feel a lot better.

 

[vfx]

We need an EV / ICE version of this wonderful pie chart.

 

[TEG]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/colliding-reality_508831.html

 

[vfx]

WOW, that is a whole lot of BS and cherrpicking of stats. A very good author with an agenda. Too bad there is no way to refule lines like,

Cost estimates for expanding this imaginary infrastructure run to the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Is he combing the entire US infrastructure budget? I'll say you can set up a thousand chargers for the cost of one gas station.

I like this:

But to get to even this modest number we must stipulate that gas prices sharply increase, battery costs significantly decline, and that—this is the niftiest part of all—EV sales from 2017 to 2020 magically increase by 300 percent.

But in the paragraph before he says,

And Tesla, for all its hoopla, has manufactured about 1,300 cars to date.

Isn't that a 1,300 increase already?

 

[eledille]

Isn't that a 1,300 increase already?

That works out to... *scratch head* - approximately infinity percent increase. Wow, EV sales are skyrocketing!

 

[howabout2]

I don't share the author's pessimism about electric cars, but I do agree with his sentiment that the government (by which I mean our tax dollars) should not be subsidizing them any more than it should be subsidizing any other kind of car manufacture.

I would be a fool to reject the federal tax break I will receive with my Model S (assuming the program still exists), but in principal I hate social engineering via tax policy and find the whole thing somewhat repugnant. That said, give me my $7,500 "discount," thank you very much.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I don't share the author's pessimism about electric cars, but I do agree with his sentiment that the government (by which I mean our tax dollars) should not be subsidizing them any more than it should be subsidizing any other kind of car manufacture.

I would be a fool to reject the federal tax break I will receive with my Model S (assuming the program still exists), but in principal I hate social engineering via tax policy and find the whole thing somewhat repugnant. That said, give me my $7,500 "discount," thank you very much.

One problem with that argument is that petroleum powered cars are inherently being subsidized by huge tax subsidies to oil companies. So nothing is really fighting on equal footing (except maybe ethanol, which also gets massive subsidies). Of course this is frequently ignored by most people (or they are not aware since none of these subsidies are directly seen by consumers, unlike the plug-in subsidies).

And the author's argument is based on the assumption that EVs are best represented by BS EV PR campaigns like the ENVI program (and in some regards even the Volt program since it isn't really an electric car). He completely ignores the Leaf in his concluding argument, because it completely contradicts his argument.

As for subsidies in general, many people may say they reject them in principle, but will gladly take them. I think they make sense as long as they are finite: enough to give the technology a foothold, but not so much/so long that they are the only thing keeping the technology viable. Additional taxes, on the other hand, everyone really rejects (which is why the more "fair"/technology-neutral approach to promoting cleaner cars with higher gas taxes is unlikely to pass as legislature).

 

[vfx]

A smattering of what oil companies get with our tax dollars.

Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid

 

[howabout2]

...that the government (by which I mean our tax dollars) should not be subsidizing them any more than it should be subsidizing any other kind of car manufacture.

Did you guys miss "any more than it should be subsidizing any other kind of car manufacture"?

I've said in other threads that I'd like the government to stop subsidizing--by way of favors, favoritism, corporate welfare, or any other slight of hand--the oil industry among all other industries. I am routinely frustrated by market-distorting crony capitalism tactics.

I would prefer that the government unhinge the oil and gas industry entirely, and allow prices to fluctuate as wildly (high or low) as they may. I want the average consumer to say, "Gasoline prices are entirely too unreliable--I need an alternative now."

To use an admittedly lame metaphor: I think we here want the same thing--a fair playing field for consumers to judge all of their options. My vision of a fair playing field is taking the player who is above the rules of the game (the government) out of the game itself. Having the government in the game exposes its weaknesses to those who aim to compete outside of the game's stated rules.

Keep the rules simple; enforce them vigilantly; and allow the competition to give the spectators the entertainment they paid for.

 

[EVNow]

I've said in other threads that I'd like the government to stop subsidizing--by way of favors, favoritism, corporate welfare, or any other slight of hand--the oil industry among all other industries. I am routinely frustrated by market-distorting crony capitalism tactics.

How about externalities - like environment degradation/destruction. How do you account for that ?

And the middle east "security" ? May be let the oil companies have their own armies & invade middle east instead ... ? Worked for the East India company ;-)

 

[howabout2]

Externalities are admittedly challenging, but as a follower of the Austrian school of econimics, I favor the principle of strict liability rather than models based on social cost, Pareto efficiency, or the Coase/Demsetz model.

And what of Mid-East security? On one hand, I don't really care what private organizations do overseas or what foreign governments do in response to those actions. If a private company hires thugs to conduct overseas murders, I expect them to face the foreign government's response entirely unaided by our government or military. On the other hand, if a private organization operating in the United States were to engage in outright brutality overseas, it would be subject to the domestic laws governing private military companies.

 

[EVNow]

Externalities are admittedly challenging, but as a follower of the Austrian school of econimics, I favor the principle of strict liability rather than models based on social cost, Pareto efficiency, or the Coase/Demsetz model.

LOL. How would liability help if bad thangs happen decades into the future.

BTW, do you also favor not having regulations even for surgeons ?

 

[howabout2]

If bad things don't happen until decades in the future, I think we would both agree that establishing a cause-effect relationship beyond a shadow of doubt would be difficult. In any event, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Decades of no impact seems like a fairly extreme edge case, though. Did you have a specific scenario in mind?

To address your strawman, yes, I would prefer an industry of private licensing boards. Yes, I would like to see alternatives to the AMA. It's not that I am especially disappointed in the AMA, but I can imagine a licensing board that serves my interests as a consumer of medicine better than the AMA.

 

[EVNow]

If bad things don't happen until decades in the future, I think we would both agree that establishing a cause-effect relationship beyond a shadow of doubt would be difficult. In any event, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Decades of no impact seems like a fairly extreme edge case, though. Did you have a specific scenario in mind?

Yes - any number of industrial and mining sites that have completely destroyed the nearby ecology. The mining companies declared bankruptcy and left the tax payer hanging. Why, even today there is a news item about old GM not paying for the cleanup of all their sites.

In anycase, the concept of limited liability companies & large liability as a deterrent don't go together. In the era of short term profits and CEO tenures, nobody cares about long term effects, as long as they get their bonuses.

Ofcourse cutting carbon emission is the most immidiate requirement. But I'm sure you have heard about the tragedy of commons. What is good for a company or individual can be suicicidal for the society. It is interesting that some stick to laissez faire even in the face of stark realities staring at the face of humanity that need collective action.

To address your strawman, yes, I would prefer an industry of private licensing boards.

I asked this specifically to compare your answer with Milton Friedman's.

 

[howabout2]

I find myself having to say this too often at this forum--often enough that I may suppress my opinion more often: apologies to the thread originator for derailing this conversation about electric cars. The subject of this reply is unfortunately quite devoid of on-topic thoughts.

In anycase, the concept of limited liability companies & large liability as a deterrent don't go together. In the era of short term profits and CEO tenures, nobody cares about long term effects, as long as they get their bonuses.

I don't disagree. I worry that too often the tactic of going after the deep pockets rather than the responsible pockets leads to an artificial expansion of the notion of limited liability. I would prefer to hold the person who made the decision accountable. To the extent that those decisions can trace back to executive decisions made by the CEO or board, they should be pinched. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the heat on Kenneth Lay was good.

Of course cutting carbon emission is the most immidiate requirement. But I'm sure you have heard about the tragedy of commons. What is good for a company or individual can be suicicidal for the society. It is interesting that some stick to laissez faire even in the face of stark realities staring at the face of humanity that need collective action.

I'd rather not segue into AGW. I'm not of the same opinion, especially on the last point about stark realities and the need for collective action.

I asked this specifically to compare your answer with Milton Friedman's.

I usually like Milton Friedman's thinking but I'm admittedly not very well versed in the full breadth of it. Given my understanding of his opinions on the medical establishment, they seem reasonable to me, in much the same way as his and his like-minded peers' opinions on the FCC, the FDA, and so on. Generally speaking, I prefer the idea of multiple competitive licensing and consumer awareness groups. I am of the opinion that free competition will not be utopia--notably, consumers would have additional responsibility for themselves--but taken alongside the template of freedoms including freedom of press and communication, it would be less susceptible to corruption and grant more liberties to the consumer than the alternatives.

 

[TEG]

Does this belong here?

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Electric_Vehicles.pdf

 

[TEG]

Or this?:
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/aut...1561/5-reasons-electric-cars-will-disappoint/

 

[vfx]

Does this belong here?

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...c_Vehicles.pdf

Not so much (I just breezed through to the conclusions)