Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

[Marc v E]

The rest of the US is not Nor Cal. Gas in Houston is $3. Public chargers are rare. If people are clambering for EV's why is so much taxpayer money going to subsidies? Seems like a disconnect.

Oh that's easy. It's because imo the subsidies are not intended for the people, but for the current big car manufacturers, who need huge investments and motivation to change.


Iirc the minimum kw requirement is 7 kw, which is nothing and gives more subsidies to manufacturers than cost plus labour.

Tesla wasn't invited by the Biden administration, and certain parts of the legislation are specifically tailored to the ICE manufacturers' needs.

There are many more examples that point in this direction.

 

[Timcognito]

f people are clambering for EV's why is so much taxpayer money going to subsidies? Seems like a disconnect.

A couple of reasons, the US auto industry is behind but catching up on EV's tech so it defers costs of retooling to where those cars are more profitable, and competitive in the global market that surely going that way, keeps jobs in the US and is in alignment with the renewable energy movement that supports climate change mitigation. The car buying subsidies go to US made EVs only.

 

[Ron Texas]

I find this genuinely interesting.
Would you be fine then by letting economics run its course, as in: slowly letting EVs become cheaper until the were cheaper than ICE cars? That would imo imply that the now dominant OEMs would literally go bankrupt.
Or are you convinced this would never happen?
I'm truly curious what your view is regarding this?

I would be fine if there were no subsidies. I doubt Tesla would go bankrupt. Not only do EV buyers get a purchase subsidy, but they don't pay road taxes on the electricity they consume. The Obama administration calculated the cost of carbon to be $45 per ton. With inflation it might be up to $55. However, I don't see any analysis of the cost per ton of subsidizing EV's. Remember, EV's are only zero emissions at the tailpipe. 65% of US electricity comes from fossil fuel and processing lithium is uses large amounts of coal generated electricity.

 

[Ron Texas]

Oh that's easy. It's because imo the subsidies are not intended for the people, but for the current big car manufacturers, who need huge investments and motivation to change.


Iirc the minimum kw requirement is 7 kw, which is nothing and gives more subsidies to manufacturers than cost plus labour.

Tesla wasn't invited by the Biden administration, and certain parts of the legislation are specifically tailored to the ICE manufacturers' needs.

There are many more examples that point in this direction.

That 7kw number makes sense since that seems to be the smallest battery I have seen. The Jeep Wrangler 4Xe has such a battery and a 21 mile all electric range. It also weights 800 lbs more than a Wrangler with a non electrified 2L turbo engine and uses more fuel when the battery is exhausted. It happens to cost about $7,000 more than the non electrified Wrangler so without the subsidy it would not sell. The engineering is weird as it uses a small motor/generator mounted on the engine which was designed for mild hybrid use, a 30 hp motor instead of a torque converter designed for non plug-in hybrids, and a third larger motor next to the transfer case. That's a lot of hardware.

 

[Timcognito]

The availability of subsidies is driving solutions which are not necessarily the best ones.

I agree with a number of your points but mitigating your cigarette habit by putting a filter on the end does not stop its bad effect. We need to dramatically stop burning fossil fuels and cars are big part of it. The Auto Industry employs way more people per dollar than the oil industry. Subsidies support farms, healthcare, oil and gas, education, highways and are part of US capitalism. There are bound to be some that you and I both happy with or maybe not. To make the US a leader and diversify the number of existing companies in cars and batteries that remain competitive in a global market is not a bad thing for my tax dollars to to go to.

 

[pseudoid]

How much do you go out in the sun? Both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation there, 1 kw/sq meter. LOTS of radiation.

Would me telling you that I would be about the only person that you will see wearing long sleeved shirt, eye protection and a big-brim hat, in the hottest beach-days we get here in SoCal?
How about me telling you that I have never been sunburnt, without ever having used sun-protection chemicals?
How about me telling you that I am a swimmer and that I've had a few scuba certificates?

I am way over my dosing quotient[?], having spent my entire childhood living on an island.

But I thought we were discussing RF radiation..., more specifically, out to (maybe) mm-waves rather than UV+++
You are confusing me...

Around 2019, this photo was in the news, with the sensationalized reports about Australian 'researchers' and 'skull horns' in teens using 'handheld devices'.
Comical at best!

 

[Blumlein 88]

The battery may have been ruled out as the cause of the fire, but like all EV fires, there was nothing left of the car, and I expect the battery eventually caught fire. It's claimed that solid state batteries do not have the problem with fires.

I don't know about the claim of lithium batteries not having trouble with fire. And it specifically says the car was burned out with the body intact. Typically battery fires don't leave that much. The Nissan I saw last week was burned out just that way though an ICE. It put up a huge black plume, and all that was left was the steel body parts. I'm guessing it was too far gone by the time the fire department arrived. Again what useful info does that have about zero emission vehicles? That if they catch on fire they emit.

The data available 3 years ago from different sources indicate EVs catch fire about 1/10th or 1/11th as often as ICE vehicles. The fire can be worse if it is from the battery. Another aspect not often brought up is hybrids catch fire more than ICE vehicles. More than twice as much per 100,000 cars. The most recent data from insurance companies end of last year put the rate of EV fires even lower with ICE vehicles catching fire at a rate 30 times higher.

Safety of the batteries is a concern and design to improve that is ongoing. It would be reasonable to expect EV battery fires will decrease in number in the coming decade. They already are less likely to catch on fire than gasoline cars.

 

[beefkabob]

Look, I'm not enthusiastic about EV's being forced on large portions of the US and all of Europe, or the cost of the subsidies. The charging infrastructure is woefully inadequate and is not keeping up with the goals for adoption. I believe battery technology and infrastructure will improve, but right now I don't want one.

That's fine. I'm not a fan of the horrors of global warming, which we're already starting to face. I'm also not a fan of the horrible months of smoke from forest fires, the general weirding of the weather, or the fact that once again my fire insurance has dropped me because fire dangers have increased so immensely as the average temperature has risen over the past ten or so years. I'm not a fan of the cost of the subsidies that go to fossil fuels, like how every drop is subsidized by allowing free carbon pollution, not to mention paying for countless bloody wars across the world and all the direct and indirect cash subsidies the fossil fuel industry has received for the past 100+ years. Oh, the far higher fire insurance rate I'm now paying? That's me subsidizing your carbon decisions. You a fan? You're welcome. As for EVs being forced, I'm sure you're also not enthusiastic about being forced to pay taxes, but you enjoy driving on public roads.

The charging infrastructure is like all other infrastructure in the US: it's great in some places and terrible in others. In California, the charging infrastructure is getting good enough that I could pretty easily have an EV without even having a home charger. Even though I live out in the country, I'm 15 minutes from three different downtowns that have DC charging. I could swing by after dropping the son off at school and charge in one of two sets of fast DC chargers in the 150kw+ range. There's the set right by Costco. The set at this Target and that Target. The set where the fancy restaurants are. So if the EV infrastructure sucks where you are, that's a failing of your state and local politics.

What you believe is disconnected from reality. Open your eyes. As for what you want, boohoo. I don't want to suck on smoke for months on end, and more fires are coming. In fact, way, way, way more fires are coming. I don't want to pay increased insurance rates. I don't want to watch climate immigration or help pay for it, but I am through subsidies to people who lost everything in California fires and Florida hurricanes. Fortunately for us, the worst of the mega storms so far happened in Africa, but I don't expect North America's luck to hold out for long.

 

[Ron Texas]

I agree with a number of your points but mitigating your cigarette habit by putting a filter on the end does not stop its bad effect. We need to dramatically stop burning fossil fuels and cars are big part of it. The Auto Industry employs way more people per dollar than the oil industry. Subsidies support farms, healthcare, oil and gas, education, highways and are part of US capitalism. There are bound to be some that you and I both happy with or maybe not. To make the US a leader and diversify the number of existing companies in cars and batteries that remain competitive in a global market is not a bad thing for my tax dollars to to go to.

You fail to distinguish subsidies which directly benefit the public, like highways from subsidies which directly benefit a particular segment of the business community. Oil and Gas is not subsidized. It has a modified tax regime which reflects the economics of the business and how income is realized. Furthermore, gasoline is subject to special taxes. Agricultural subsidies are theft. Most healthcare subsidies are welfare. Your logic is 2 wrongs make a right. The hotel and restaurant industries employ more people per dollar than the automobile industry. How about subsidizing them? Subsidies have made Elon Musk one of the richest men in the world. It's from my pocket to his.

 

[Marc v E]

I would be fine if there were no subsidies. I doubt Tesla would go bankrupt. Not only do EV buyers get a purchase subsidy, but they don't pay road taxes on the electricity they consume. The Obama administration calculated the cost of carbon to be $45 per ton. With inflation it might be up to $55. However, I don't see any analysis of the cost per ton of subsidizing EV's. Remember, EV's are only zero emissions at the tailpipe. 65% of US electricity comes from fossil fuel and processing lithium is uses large amounts of coal generated electricity.

I agree that Tesla wouldn't go bankrupt.
But how about GM, Ford etc who literally are a hundred billion into debt and only kept afloat by selling ICE vehicles?

 

[Timcognito]

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a high cost. Subsidies have sizable fiscal costs (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inefficient allocation of an economy’s resources (hindering growth), encourage pollution...

www.imf.org

 

[Ron Texas]

@beefkabob forest fires are attributable to poor forestry practices and building in the forests. In California environmentalists prohibited power trimming and other best practices which prevent forest fires. Don't blame it on me. People don't realize petroleum consumption is predicted to rise through 2045 even with BEV adoption in the US and EU. Remember, the rest of the world will do whatever costs the least. There are 600 million people in Africa with little or no electricity and it is expected that will be met with coal. There are over 50 gigawatts of coal plants under construction or recently completed.

 

[Ron Texas]

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a high cost. Subsidies have sizable fiscal costs (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inefficient allocation of an economy’s resources (hindering growth), encourage pollution...

www.imf.org

That's their opinion. When gas taxes are taken into account fossil fuels are not subsidized in the US and EU. When it comes to the EV discussion that is what is relevant. What's happening in Venezuela or Iran is not relevant.

 

[Timcognito]

The hotel and restaurant industries employ more people per dollar than the automobile industry.

Don't go there you'll end up in an immigration discussion OT.

 

[Ron Texas]

I agree that Tesla wouldn't go bankrupt.
But how about GM, Ford etc who literally are a hundred billion into debt and only kept afloat by selling ICE vehicles?

GM is committed to going all EV but is stumbling with their rollout. Some are predicting yet another bankruptcy. If these auto companies can't stay afloat, let then sink.

 

[Ron Texas]

Don't go there you'll end up in an immigration discussion OT.

You are the one who invoked employment per dollar.

 

[Timcognito]

That's their opinion. When gas taxes are taken into account fossil fuels are not subsidized in the US and EU. When it comes to the EV discussion that is what is relevant. What's happening in Venezuela or Iran is not relevant.

What about drilling on federal land. Just announced in Alaska.
By the Biden Administration, surprise Sorry no politics

 

[Ron Texas]

What about drilling on federal land. Just announced in Alaska.
By the Biden Administration, surprise Sorry no politics

That's not subsidized. The oil companies pay royalties just like they were on private land.

 

[Marc v E]

GM is committed to going all EV but is stumbling with their rollout. Some are predicting yet another bankruptcy. If these auto companies can't stay afloat, let then sink.

Very clear. Thank you for explaining.

Myself, I think that the subsidies are unnecessary for changes to come. I don't feel the need to save big companies either, but I do feel a certain uneasiness when thinking about 100,000s of people losing their jobs. I'm not sure how I would deal with that prospect if I would have the power to prevent it.

 

[Ron Texas]

Very clear. Thank you for explaining.

Myself, I think that the subsidies are unnecessary for changes to come. I don't feel the need to save big companies either, but I do feel a certain uneasiness when thinking about 100,000s of people losing their jobs. I'm not sure how I would deal with that prospect if I would have the power to prevent it.

Ford, by the way, has been suffering from quality control and worse than industry average supply chain problems for several years now. The introductions of both the Bronco and the current version of the Explorer were both botched. Their latest announcement is to discontinue the Escape and Edge ICE versions as profit margins in that segment are not worth pursuing. There is a lot of political pressure to prevent job losses, especially when unions are involved. Bankruptcy does not make these companies go away. It wipes out equity owners and gives debt owners a haircut. GM survived it's bankruptcy but as a smaller company. The world is full of good intentions, but there isn't enough money to do everything.