EV subsidies

[jebatty]

posts moved from Tesla thread. -BG

... but I'm not optimistic about the cost structure, in the next five to ten years. Government subsistence may be a necessary evil to get this tech off the ground, but I don't want my income taxes to pay for...

How easy it is to point a subsidy finger at BEVs (renewable energy in general) and ignore the massive ongoing subsidies for the ICE via the oil and gas industries, both pre-tax, direct subsidies that reduce the cost per gallon of gasoline, and post-tax, the environmental, health, and climate costs of fossil fuels which are born by the public.

"The International Monetary Fund recently updated its comprehensive report on global fossil-fuel subsidies. It arrives at a staggering conclusion: In 2017, (broken link removed), equal to roughly 6.5 percent of global GDP."
The Hidden Subsidy of Fossil Fuels
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...does-world-subsidize-oil-coal-and-gas/589000/

I'm not suggesting that there are no subsidies for renewable energy, just that the picture would change dramatically if energy, whatever its source, was fully costed rather than pointing a finger at one source and ignoring the gorilla which supports the other source.

 

[Ashful]

the world subsidized fossil fuels by $5.2 trillion[/URL], equal to roughly 6.5 percent of global GDP."

Holy crap, that is the biggest load of BS you have ever spewed, jebatty! The subsidies for all fossil fuels worldwide is under $0.3T, which as a per usage figure is almost zero, next to EVs. I don’t care about the extra $4.9T in “societal impact” you tack onto the actual $0.3T number, it’s all subjective and debatable. Actual government money to actual oil companies < $300 per ICE per year on the road, worldwide. What’s the current subsidy total for the lifetime of the average EV?

Real numbers, please, none of this “emotional dollars” or “social impact” BS, please. Air quality in Beijing doesn’t affect what Uncle Sam rapes out of my paycheck, each month.

For the record, I am in favor of EVs, and will almost surely own one within the next ten years. I’m just not a fan of government playing the middle man in any financial exchange between me and a manufacturer of any product.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

EVs probably will be more costly until fracking squeezes every last cheap drop of oil out of the wells and the price of crude goes up. Crude is still very cheap historically. Oil prices make all the difference.

 

[jebatty]

Holy crap, that is the biggest load of BS you have ever spewed

I humbly cited my sources, since I have no direct knowledge of the facts. How about you citing your sources?

 

[begreen]

Some more reading on the topic that reiterates the point. For discussion sake it may be best to stick with US only subsidies instead of diluting the comparison with global stats.

"The United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense spending, according to a new (broken link removed) from the International Monetary Fund. (May 2019)

The IMF found that direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015. Pentagon spending that same year was $599 billion.

The study defines “subsidy” very broadly, as many economists do. It accounts for the “differences between actual consumer fuel prices and how much consumers would pay if prices fully reflected supply costs plus the taxes needed to reflect environmental costs” and other damage, including premature deaths from air pollution."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ubsidies-pentagon-spending-imf-report-833035/

 

[begreen]

Without externalities accounted for, conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fa...-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

Of course, those real externalities also come out of our tax paying wallets. Some of the largest are cleaning up spills and environmental damage, litigation and huge health care costs. And none of this accounts for the irreparable costs of filling up the atmosphere with gross excesses of CO2 and CH4. Costs for which the bill is coming soon.

 

[Ashful]

I humbly cited my sources, since I have no direct knowledge of the facts. How about you citing your sources?

Well, for starters, how about we use YOUR source?

“By the commonsense definition of the term, governments actually subsidized fossil fuels by $296 billion in 2017, according to the report... Why does the IMF seem to overstate subsidies 17-fold? It comes back to its definition of subsidies.”

Without externalities accounted for, conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil.

Exactly, $20B/year domestic... as in keeping with the original premise, “out of my wallet”. Again, we come back to the number I had quoted previously, roughly $300 per year per ICE on the road in this country. How many dollars did we contribute to each of jebatty’s EV’s?

... and again, I’m not defending the $300 per year for ICE’s, it should also be zero. I’m also not stating that EV incentives should not exist in the short term, sometimes that is what it takes to get new tech off the ground. I’m just concerned with the permanence of that economy, as there’s no way for a government to insert themselves between my wallet and an auto manufacturer, without a lot of loss between.

 

[SpaceBus]

Let us also consider that ending FF subsidies also will make groceries and other goods far more expensive.

 

[begreen]

Let us also consider that ending FF subsidies also will make groceries and other goods far more expensive.

That's hypothetical, a national transition plan could mitigate some of the expense. Electric semis are starting to come online with lower estimated operational costs.

Let us consider that continuing with this "pedal to the floor" living. It is going to cost a hell of a lot more. And it will leave our kids with unimaginable expenses. This is becoming less hypothetical every day.

 

[SpaceBus]

That's hypothetical, a national transition plan could mitigate some of the expense. Electric semis are starting to come online with lower estimated operational costs.

Let us consider that continuing with this "pedal to the floor" living. It is going to cost a hell of a lot more. And it will leave our kids with unimaginable expenses. This is becoming less hypothetical every day.

You are absolutely right, we can't keep doing this forever. I was merely saying that there will be consequences to the consumer when it does happen.

 

[begreen]

Government subsistence may be a necessary evil to get this tech off the ground, but I don't want my income taxes to pay for every Joe Blow's car from now until I retire. We know they're not great at pulling their hand out of our pocket, once planted.

So far, all EV and renewables subsidies and incentives have specific end dates. Is there a reason to expect this not to continue to be the practice?

 

[Ashful]

So far, all EV and renewables subsidies and incentives have specific end dates. Is there a reason to expect this not to continue to be the practice?

History.

 

[begreen]

Ah well, this could all be a moot point at the rate we are going. Give the kids a hug.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending

 

[Ashful]

Ah well, this could all be a moot point at the rate we are going.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending

Maybe. But again, let's not forget history:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04...rediction-of-the-last-50-years-has-come-true/

...or if you want a slightly more insightful look at it:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...dictions-come-true-its-complicated-180958820/

 

[begreen]

Well, the first article is off to a bad start. There have been several environmental predictions that have sadly come true. The main error has been that scientists have been overly conservative in their calculations. That and the author wanders off in the weeds about general predictions not directly linked to climate change. The whole website speaks of amateur hour including the wordpress test page left up.

The Smithsonian article is much better, but it deals with wrong predictions about scarcity and not those that predicted glacier disappearances, increased CO2 levels, permafrost melting, ocean acidification, coral reef die-off etc.. We've learned a lot in 50 yrs. and have a whole lot more instrumentation and analysis on the planet now. Unfortunately, the data points out that our error was in underestimating the speed of change and the reluctance of governments to wean populations off of the fossil fuel habit.

Yet more insightful would be this Scientific American article.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/

 

[Ashful]

Yes, the first one was just for fun, an almost-equally absurd response to jebatty’s article. Almost.

Cartoonishly-extremist views from either side just give others an easy way to write off their beliefs. I do know a lot of real-life climate change deniers, all well educated white collar management types. Alarmist reactions to imperfect science has given them too much fuel to support their denial. The article jebatty has previously linked was right up there, on that scale.

Excellent SA article, BTW.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

I'm sure, the day after we stop using fossil fuels, the Yellowstone caldera will explode and end it all anyway in a giant release of long stored CO2.

 

[begreen]

I'm sure, the day after we stop using fossil fuels, the Yellowstone caldera will explode and end it all anyway in a giant release of long stored CO2.

Probably right. If it blows like its previous mega eruptions there won't be much life left as we know it. That thing is huge.

 

[begreen]

Another report out pointing out how unprepared we are. The report examines the costs of inaction vs proactive action.
https://gca.org/global-commission-on-adaptation/report
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/10/climate-crisis-world-readiness-effects-gravely-insufficient-report

 

[Highbeam]

Cool thread guys. Well done.

 

[begreen]

1912 NZ news piece. We knew something was awry even back then.

 

[begreen]

For electric vehicles to become ubiquitous there will need to be more convenient locations for charging. One of the things slowing down more EV charging stations is that big oil if fighting their installations by utility companies. They want to keep fossil-fueled vehicles on the road, while Europe, Japan and China are making serious commitments to eliminating them within the next 10-20 yrs. Twenty-four European cities — from London to Paris to Madrid — are planning on phasing out fossil fuel-powered vehicles in various ways from their city centers over the next decade. Those urban areas account for 62 million people who will eventually live in zones that will no longer accommodate yesterday's diesel-burning cars. In spite of (or because of) this, an expensive lobbying campaign is being waged by big oil and Koch industries to block utilities from providing these charging stations.

Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ashful]

For electric vehicles to become ubiquitous there will need to be more convenient locations for charging.

I had imagined someday telling my grandkids that, instead of just plugging our cars in at night to charge or parking over our own floor-embedded field generator for wireless charging, we used to have to drive five miles to a station where we’d wait in line to pump liquid fuel into the car once per week. Please tell me these eye-sores we call gas stations aren’t going to simply transform into equally-egregious charging centers!

Of course, I’m leaving out apartment dwellers, and anyone else who may have to deal with on-street parking, but there’s no reason that curbside charging won’t become as ubiquitous as parking meters are today. Someone will be making money on it, and capitalism always wins.

 

[bholler]

I had imagined someday telling my grandkids that, instead of just plugging our cars in at night to charge or parking over our own floor-embedded field generator for wireless charging, we used to have to drive five miles to a station where we’d wait in line to pump liquid fuel into the car once per week. Please tell me these eye-sores we call gas stations aren’t going to simply transform into equally-egregious charging centers!

Of course, I’m leaving out apartment dwellers, and anyone else who may have to deal with on-street parking, but there’s no reason that curbside charging won’t become as ubiquitous as parking meters are today. Someone will be making money on it, and capitalism always wins.

Ha once per week. Must be nice lol. My wife fills up 2 to 3 times a week. Luckily her car is either a 13 gal tank or a 10 gal depending which one she drives. But we fill up the 35 gal van at least 2x a week sometimes up to 4. The truck doesn't get as many miles so it is usually once a week.

On the plus side my bronco only gets filled up once every 2 or 3 weeks usually. But it's torn down now fixing what I broke lol.

 

[Ashful]

I was actually exaggerating, I really only see a gas station once or twice per month, but you're making my point better for me. The kids of all these people who invent problems when debating the transition to EV's will be wondering why dad couldn't see the beauty in refilling your vehicle at home, while you sleep at night.