First, I'll concede that since the subsidies are for both Leaf and Volt this isn't a case of simply investing in an American competitor iin the segment. Though the subsidies apply only if some manufacturing is done in the US. And there is a long term commitment to manufacture all or part of the Leaf in the US.

However, it also seems to go contradictt ricky's entire regulatory philosophy that large corporation do not look at the long term issues.

Some do. Japanese corporations particularly plan long range...Germans too.
But lets be specific.
But the issue for Steve and Ray was that unless there was already a solution in place to deal with battery pollution or excessive demand on electricity there was no future for the electric car.
I'll already pointed out that the issue of battery polluition by lead acid battteries, which has never been solved, has not doomed the internal combustion engine... So why would battery pollution doom the electric. The only difference is that the new batteries have longer lives, already, than the old car batteries.
Their next issue is whether or not moving to electric creates excessive demand for electricity and therefore drives up the cost of that commodity .
First: Note that most recharging of electric cars will take place over night. Electricity is not in demand at night, and the unused capacity from 8PM to 6Am can certainly sustain the increased demand. Fact is, its a very wise way of time shifting energy use.
Second: If one concern is eliminating carbon emissions, moving to electricy has more potential for eliminating carbon than sticking with oil. Electricity can be produced without carbon, whereas oil/gasoline can't. It may be true that coal fired generators are still producing much of the US electricity, this doesn't need to remain the case. If I were king I'd have moved to nuclear more quickly. Which I think is also Steve's position. (Surprisingly he's more concerned about what we do with car batteries than nuclear waste.)

More importantly, electricity is a domestically produced energy. (except for the imports from Canada). Oil is still an imported item. Fiscally, and strategicaly, when energy consumption becomes more of a domestic industry than an imported on - thats good.
Anything that moves this along faster is probably good.

Pooh poohing the investment in subsidies for the Volt becasue its in a dead end industry don't make sense.

Ricky: But the issue for Steve and Ray was that unless there was already a solution in place to deal with battery pollution or excessive demand on electricity there was no future for the electric car.

Nope. That's never been my issue. My issue is that the federal government should only subsidize research and not particular industries or technologies. You don't read carefully; you don't write carefully. You don't think carefully.

Anything that moves this along faster is probably good.

I think this is the crux of the problem. Since you believe we are moving in the right direction with the subsidy, you refuse to look at cost or unintended consequences. In other words, cognitive dissonance takes over because you believe that green is good. So you will construct any argument you can to support this. However, every government action has other implications, whether it is increasing debt, or demoralizing businesspeople who are trying to make it without their hand in the government trough. You have to factor in the costs.

From a previous post:

The Volt has a T-shaped, 400-pound (181-kilogram) battery pack that can power the car for about 35 miles (56 kilometers). After that, a small gasoline generator kicks in to run the electric motor.

Some notes from Ricky:

But the issue for Steve and Ray was that unless there was already a solution in place to deal with battery pollution or excessive demand on electricity there was no future for the electric car.

Not quite. There may be a future, but if so it is not necessary for the government to subsidize a niche market for the rich right now.

I'll already pointed out that the issue of battery polluition by lead acid battteries, which has never been solved, has not doomed the internal combustion engine... So why would battery pollution doom the electric. The only difference is that the new batteries have longer lives, already, than the old car batteries.

Again . . . 400 lbs. That's what a Volt battery, good for a whopping 35 miles, weighs. That's not a small thing, imnsho.

First: Note that most recharging of electric cars will take place over night. Electricity is not in demand at night, and the unused capacity from 8PM to 6Am can certainly sustain the increased demand. Fact is, its a very wise way of time shifting energy use.

You're just making this up. You really have no idea, do you?

Do you know it demands 220 wiring?

With a range of 35 miles, many will want to charge their vehicles at work. How will that work into your scheme?

How would this "shift" energy use? What electricity normally used during the day would be switched to night?

Again, I think you're making this all up. Probably not the best way to win an argument.

Archduke Russell John wrote:After all, as stats show, the people currently purchasing the cars do not need the subsidy to purchase the car. I mean seriously as a group that bemoans the increasing wealth divide, I would think you guys would hate this subsidy since it has been shown to only put money back in the pockets of those wealthy people. (yeah I know a litte hyperbolic)

A little. And it belies the fact that subsidies don't just affect the buyer. They also affect the seller/maker.

Does it 'only put money back in the pockets' of buyers? No. for a start, it may merely mean that they pay the same amount as they would have done (or even perhaps more, if the incentive is enough to make an expensive electric car look better than a slightly cheaper gas or hybrid), and then the subsidy benefits the supply chain by giving them a greater profit on that sale than they would otherwise have.

While the LEAF is currently made in Japan, it will next year start production in Smyrna, Tenn. Nissan are also building a line for it in the UK for the European market. So, basically, while Nissan will benefit from profits, American employees (and the related supply chains that US-based production will involve) will also benefit from having jobs. Of course, the plant in Smyrna was also subsidised.

The other point to note is that loads of other countries are also subsidising EVs. The US is not acting in a vacuum here, and multinational corporations will be looking to get what they can out of it. Principled decisions to not subsidise may not work so well in the cold reality of a global market.

I'm not going to die in a ditch to defend subsidies, but I can see why they are being used. Ford would never have gotten as big as it did without huge government contracts to build for the military during wars. These were a form of subsidy. As was government spending billions on building public roads for cars to drive along (as the road a horse and carriage can run on has a lot lower minimum standard). Economic history is filled with examples of government helping fledgling industries with direct and indirect subsidy. Sure, new and developmental products tend to be expensive and niche, and so more available to the rich. But established products which have gone through the early-adopter stage tend to drop in price.

And in the meantime there's jobs. The US needs jobs, right?

danivon wrote:Does it 'only put money back in the pockets' of buyers? No. for a start, it may merely mean that they pay the same amount as they would have done (or even perhaps more, if the incentive is enough to make an expensive electric car look better than a slightly cheaper gas or hybrid), and then the subsidy benefits the supply chain by giving them a greater profit on that sale than they would otherwise have.

While the LEAF is currently made in Japan, it will next year start production in Smyrna, Tenn. Nissan are also building a line for it in the UK for the European market. So, basically, while Nissan will benefit from profits, American employees (and the related supply chains that US-based production will involve) will also benefit from having jobs. Of course, the plant in Smyrna was also subsidised.

Of course you are making an assumption not based on fact, i.e. those rich people would't have bought the car without the subsidy. However, since the stats also show most of them are turning in a Priuis, I think we can confidently say they would have both the car with or without the subsidy. Therefore it is not needed.

danivon wrote:. Ford would never have gotten as big as it did without huge government contracts to build for the military during wars. These were a form of subsidy.

Bullshit. I am sorry but that is not a subsidy. That is the government acting as a consumer in the market place. Ford got the contract because they offered the best deal. If the Federal Government wants to purchase EV's as fleet cars, go right ahead. I have no problems with the government acting as a consumer in the market place. A subsidy is something completely different.

Besides, Ford was already large before the wars.

ray

Nope. That's never been my issue. My issue is that the federal government should only subsidize research and not particular industries or technologies

I apologize. I'll stipulate: Steve was oppossed to the Volt becasue the electric car was a loser. Your opposition is a purely ideological opposition to government invovlement in the development of industry through subsidy.

Since other governments are involved in subsidizing electric car development, that would mean the development might be more attractive in those other jurisdictions. Perhaps the subsidies are a requirement to keep the US market competitive as a place of development?
Product development invovles research and re-engineering products as they are test marketed to small groups of consumers.In fact, thats often the most important part of the research. Tons of products get up to the point of the battery you linked to some posts ago, but fail as they face the crucible of daily use by consumers. There are a lot of hurdles for this product to get through before it is going to be wholly mainstream. If the US is not involved in the product development what would that mean for the future of development in this sector?
In a perfect "conservative" world there would be no government seeking to influence the market with subsidies, or tax breaks, etc. ...attracting segments of industry to their jurisdictions. I could live in that world. But thats not the world we live in. There are competing governments who are attracting industry, including research and product development, with these kinds of fiscal levers.
To unilaterally decide not to participate would make the US much less attractive and end up with other countries reaping the benefits of the developmental portions of those industries. Including the auto industry.
The US should not be boy scouts in a cut throat competitive market place. And that market place is the market in attracting developing industries.

Since you believe we are moving in the right direction with the subsidy, you refuse to look at cost or unintended consequences

Not at all. I simply don't believe that you and Steve have identified any consequences that haven't already been considered. Nor have you factored in the consequence of inaction. for example: a continuing reliance of fossil fuels that is guaranteed with the internal combustion engine, and a continuing contribution to CO2 emissions that is also guaranteed. You may be right that electricity doesn't improve this markedly today, but there is potential for that energy to be much cleaner. Plus, you've not acknowledged the benefits of a domestic energy source versus a foreign source... .
I'll also suggest that the product is very far along on the development curve now, compared to the bench model of the battery you linked to for instance. Part of the reason for the long build up is to see what the consequences actually are...intended or otherwise. Until you venture down the path you don't really know whats going to happen. Those countries where the engineering community is participating in product roll out will learn these consequences and develop the solutions. And from that probably have other techologies develop. (Hence the term technology hub.
On certain consequence of not participating in the sector, you don't develop a community of expertise in your country. Without that, innovation is found elsewhere.


Aechdukee

Bullshit. I am sorry but that is not a subsidy. That is the government acting as a consumer in the market place

On its face. But in practice the US military has never been particularly good at driving a bargain for its needs has it?
In reality all kinds of manufacturers use the healthy profits from their military sales to assist them in delivering consumer products to market at prices their competition find difficult.
Boeing was an example I pointed to before.

And Steve, ae you assuming that the current engineering specifications are the final engineering specifications upon which large volume models of the Volt will be built?. That would really be a first.
Engineers will improve the batteries, and the Leaf is already charged from a normal .electricl outlet (based on the headline news piece last week.)

I really wanted to NOT respond, but I'm named so many times.

rickyp wrote:ray

Nope. That's never been my issue. My issue is that the federal government should only subsidize research and not particular industries or technologies

I apologize. I'll stipulate: Steve was oppossed to the Volt becasue the electric car was a loser. Your opposition is a purely ideological opposition to government invovlement in the development of industry through subsidy.

The Volt is a loser. It costs too much in spite of all the subsidizing. It is not revolutionary. In order to be a "game changer" it would have to have more range. Now that the recall has occurred, I think it is going to take a sales hit. How many people want to buy a car that might burst into flames if hit?

The electric car may not be a loser. However, it will have to be something that makes sense to more than just a tiny sliver of the market. Right now, the battery technology is just not there. Could it be? Maybe. Or, maybe there's something better in the not too distant future?

To unilaterally decide not to participate would make the US much less attractive and end up with other countries reaping the benefits of the developmental portions of those industries. Including the auto industry.

The US should not be boy scouts in a cut throat competitive market place. And that market place is the market in attracting developing industries.

I edited the rest of this restatement of your theories. I'll tell you what: if South Korea, Japan, or even China wants to pay the freight to steal the Volt market, they're more than welcome to do so.

I simply don't believe that you and Steve have identified any consequences that haven't already been considered.

Well then, if you're right, prove it. Your "belief" is just fine, but in this case I'm a materialist. I want to see your proof.

Nor have you factored in the consequence of inaction. for example: a continuing reliance of fossil fuels that is guaranteed with the internal combustion engine, and a continuing contribution to CO2 emissions that is also guaranteed.

Now, here you are getting closer to the truth: the subsidies are part of the "do something" reaction of Government.

"Global warming! Ye gods! We must do something!"

"How about a subsidy for electric cars?"

"Is there a market for them?"

"With a range of 35 miles? Not a chance. Hmm, maybe if we heavily subsidize them . . . "

What if we're wasting money on something that is beyond our technological grasp when other, more realistic, steps could be taken?

You may be right that electricity doesn't improve this markedly today, but there is potential for that energy to be much cleaner. Plus, you've not acknowledged the benefits of a domestic energy source versus a foreign source... .

Um, we're all in favor of domestic energy. It's the President and his Democratic friends who oppose it.

Furthermore, you've not demonstrated where the "extra" electricity will come from. Obama has been putting power plants out of business. There are brownouts in CA during the spring and summer. Texas is forecasting shortages because of EPA regulations. Your solution? "Plug in at night and it will be all right."

Really? That's it?

On certain consequence of not participating in the sector, you don't develop a community of expertise in your country. Without that, innovation is found elsewhere.

I understood that argument the second time you made it (as I recall it was more cogent than your first attempt or the fifteen subsequent postings on it).

And Steve, ae you assuming that the current engineering specifications are the final engineering specifications upon which large volume models of the Volt will be built?. That would really be a first.
Engineers will improve the batteries, and the Leaf is already charged from a normal .electricl outlet (based on the headline news piece last week.)

I'm not suggesting anything.

I'm saying the Volt, as currently configured, is not going to succeed. It is too expensive and too limited. Now, if the technology massively improves, say to a range of 250 miles, and the price goes down, then maybe . . .

Waiting for evidence to support your theories.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Of course you are making an assumption not based on fact, i.e. those rich people would't have bought the car without the subsidy. However, since the stats also show most of them are turning in a Priuis, I think we can confidently say they would have both the car with or without the subsidy. Therefore it is not needed.

Well, to be pedantic, I was making a suppostion based on my observations of how people work. But even so, even if person X was going to buy a more green vehicle than the Prius they were cashing in, the subsidy may do more than just let them get it cheaper. It could let them buy a slightly better model or one with more options, for the same price as they'd already spend.

And I'm not sure you can be so definitive about why all of them were bought and what decisions people were making simply based on 'most' of them trading in a Prius. What were the people who didn't trade in a Prius up to?

danivon wrote:. Ford would never have gotten as big as it did without huge government contracts to build for the military during wars. These were a form of subsidy.

Bullshit. I am sorry but that is not a subsidy. That is the government acting as a consumer in the market place. Ford got the contract because they offered the best deal. If the Federal Government wants to purchase EV's as fleet cars, go right ahead. I have no problems with the government acting as a consumer in the market place. A subsidy is something completely different.

Besides, Ford was already large before the wars.

Yes, but not 'as large'. As Ricky points out, military procurement is rarely cost efficient. If the government is buying stuff at way over normal price, it's not that far from being an indirect subsidy. Still, roads eh?

The one thing I'm confused about, reading this, is whether Steve has looked at what's happened to batteries in the past 20 years. Car batteries for a simple combustion engine are basically boxes filled with acid with electrodes which get charged up by an alternator. Simple, but not with high charge.

Battery technology has moved on a pace, spurred by the high tech advances in phones and computing - they are getting smaller, lighter, longer lasting and so on.

But the Volt is not fully electric - it's more of a hybrid, but one which is more heavily towards the electric side than the combustion. It's range is about 350 miles. It's only 35 if you don't put any gas in the tank.

danivon wrote:Well, to be pedantic, I was making a suppostion based on my observations of how people work. But even so, even if person X was going to buy a more green vehicle than the Prius they were cashing in, the subsidy may do more than just let them get it cheaper. It could let them buy a slightly better model or one with more options, for the same price as they'd already spend.

And I'm not sure you can be so definitive about why all of them were bought and what decisions people were making simply based on 'most' of them trading in a Prius. What were the people who didn't trade in a Prius up to?

Again, you are still arguing based on unproven assumptions. I am saying the fact that the average salary of a Volt purchaser is $170,000 says the subsidy is not needed. That it is just an example of the rich getting to keep more of their money. Which you lefties seem to be against.

danivon wrote:Yes, but not 'as large'. As Ricky points out, military procurement is rarely cost efficient. If the government is buying stuff at way over normal price, it's not that far from being an indirect subsidy. Still, roads eh?

It is still nto a subsidy. It is still just the government acting in the market place. Just because it is stupid enough to over pay doesn't making it a subsidy any more then a general consumer overpaying something makes it a subsidy.

Not willing to call military overspending an effective subsidy? (And the obese guy next door says he's "big boned".) The internal combustion engine runs on oil, which is heavily subsidized in all kinds of direct and more subtle ways....

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-thank, did a study on the subject. What they found is simply mind-boggling. They calculated that the US spent between $30 to $60 billion (with a 'b') a year safeguarding oil supplies in the Middle East during the 1990s, even though its imports from that region totaled only about $10 billion a year during that period. A more comprehensive study that includes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and other oil protection services (the coast guard is clearing shipping lanes and doing navigational support to oil tankers, etc) shows that actual subsidies to Big Oil are between $78 to $158 billion (again, with a 'b') per year.

So the real cost of gas for someone living in the US is the pump price plus the taxes it pays that are used to subsidize the oil industry. Suddenly, oil is not as cheap, and just like with corn-ethanol, these taxpayers dollars are making fossil fuels artificially more competitive and keeping cleaner alternatives down

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-scien ... -them.html

Providing infrastructure through tax payer money, providing security for that infrastructure, and providing direct subsidies via cheap lease rates and exploration grants are all part of the subsidy to the oil business. Without them, would it cost a great deal more to fill up the fuel tank of the combustion engine?
These are the kinds of costs the US is incurring in part due to a reliance on oil and an industry that has successfully lobbied its government. The paltry subsidies to the development of electric cars, pals. And more importantly the nature of the subsidy is short term versus the sustained subsidy that oil has gotten over the last 50 years.

rickyp wrote:Not willing to call military overspending an effective subsidy? (And the obese guy next door says he's "big boned".) The internal combustion engine runs on oil, which is heavily subsidized in all kinds of direct and more subtle ways....

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-thank, did a study on the subject. What they found is simply mind-boggling. They calculated that the US spent between $30 to $60 billion (with a 'b') a year safeguarding oil supplies in the Middle East during the 1990s, even though its imports from that region totaled only about $10 billion a year during that period. A more comprehensive study that includes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and other oil protection services (the coast guard is clearing shipping lanes and doing navigational support to oil tankers, etc) shows that actual subsidies to Big Oil are between $78 to $158 billion (again, with a 'b') per year.

So the real cost of gas for someone living in the US is the pump price plus the taxes it pays that are used to subsidize the oil industry. Suddenly, oil is not as cheap, and just like with corn-ethanol, these taxpayers dollars are making fossil fuels artificially more competitive and keeping cleaner alternatives down

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-scien ... -them.html

Providing infrastructure through tax payer money, providing security for that infrastructure, and providing direct subsidies via cheap lease rates and exploration grants are all part of the subsidy to the oil business. Without them, would it cost a great deal more to fill up the fuel tank of the combustion engine?
These are the kinds of costs the US is incurring in part due to a reliance on oil and an industry that has successfully lobbied its government. The paltry subsidies to the development of electric cars, pals. And more importantly the nature of the subsidy is short term versus the sustained subsidy that oil has gotten over the last 50 years.

Wow, that is a great refutation of an argument nobody made!

Meanwhile, I'm sorta waiting on your proof that the electrical grid can handle more and more cars that need charging. Also, please explain why taxpayers need to subsidize the Volt when the average income of a purchaser is $170K. How does this make sense? Isn't this exactly what "progressive" government is supposed to stop?

steve

Meanwhile, I'm sorta waiting on your proof that the electrical grid can handle more and more cars that need charging

Which is it Steve. The electric car is a loser that will never sell enough cars, or the market will be so huge that it will increase electrical demand exorbitantly and crash the electrical grid?

rickyp wrote:steve

Meanwhile, I'm sorta waiting on your proof that the electrical grid can handle more and more cars that need charging

Which is it Steve. The electric car is a loser that will never sell enough cars, or the market will be so huge that it will increase electrical demand exorbitantly and crash the electrical grid?

False dichotomy.

The car is a loser. Again, how do you think the recall will effect sales? Boost them?

However, you present the car as a solution. I am saying you've failed to account for the downside--more electricity needed from an already overburdened grid.

Where is the refutation of Ricky's main point that if developing a technology is expensive to develop but is not economically viable until version 5 of the technology then the government has a necessary role in subsidizing versions 1-4, assuming developing the technology is beneficial?

The refutation is that many technologies have made it to version 5 without government help. If they will be economically viable, they will be funded by people who make their living evaluating economic risk and reward.