ABG:EV charging is not cost competitive at retail stations, says Phillips 66

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GetOffYourGas said:
GRA said:
And you put a low value on your free time on roadtrips.

Not speaking for anyone but myself, this comment misses the mark. I have found that charging the car gives me plenty of free time, albeit in a somewhat fixed location. But I am still free to read, browse the internet, go for a walk with my family, explore a new area - tons of things not just to pass time, but to fill it with meaning.


If it works for you, great. For me, some locations are okay but most are dismal. Personally, places such as Walmart parking lots and their immediate environs are not where I want to spend any free time, when I'm heading out for some outdoor recreation.
 
GRA said:
GetOffYourGas said:
GRA said:
And you put a low value on your free time on roadtrips.

Not speaking for anyone but myself, this comment misses the mark. I have found that charging the car gives me plenty of free time, albeit in a somewhat fixed location. But I am still free to read, browse the internet, go for a walk with my family, explore a new area - tons of things not just to pass time, but to fill it with meaning.


If it works for you, great. For me, some locations are okay but most are dismal. Personally, places such as Walmart parking lots and their immediate environs are not where I want to spend any free time, when I'm heading out for some outdoor recreation.

Sure, it may not be as comfortable as your home, but lets be honest - you spend a lot of time browsing the internet, reading up on various technologies (BEV, Fuel Cells, and I'm sure much more) and participating in forums like this one. If you did the same while charging, it wouldn't matter that you are sitting in a Walmart parking lot.
 
GRA said:
Because, as mentioned in previous posts, the incentive structure is wrong.
Yes. We need a $2/gallon "carbon capture" tax on gasoline to get people to understand the cost of burning fossil fuels. Do that and drop the stupid EV rebates and you'll get the market moving towards BEVs. And it would put the nail in the tire of PHEVs and ICEVs.
 
My free time's a bit limited for the next day or so, so my replies to WetEV's posts may be delayed.


GetOffYourGas said:
GRA said:
GetOffYourGas said:
Not speaking for anyone but myself, this comment misses the mark. I have found that charging the car gives me plenty of free time, albeit in a somewhat fixed location. But I am still free to read, browse the internet, go for a walk with my family, explore a new area - tons of things not just to pass time, but to fill it with meaning.


If it works for you, great. For me, some locations are okay but most are dismal. Personally, places such as Walmart parking lots and their immediate environs are not where I want to spend any free time, when I'm heading out for some outdoor recreation.

Sure, it may not be as comfortable as your home, but lets be honest - you spend a lot of time browsing the internet, reading up on various technologies (BEV, Fuel Cells, and I'm sure much more) and participating in forums like this one. If you did the same while charging, it wouldn't matter that you are sitting in a Walmart parking lot.


Nah, the last thing I want to be doing during trips is spend time on the net. That's my disconnected time.
 
jlv said:
Yes. We need a $2/gallon "carbon capture" tax on gasoline to get people to understand the cost of burning fossil fuels. Do that and drop the stupid EV rebates and you'll get the market moving towards BEVs. And it would but the nail in the tire of PHEVs and ICEVs.
Amen to that.

I'm not sure if would kill PHEV, but it would correctly incentivize people to use them as EV fueled by clean energy most of the time.
 
GRA said:
My free time's a bit limited for the next day or so, so my replies to WetEV's posts may be delayed.

A day or so turned out to be more like a week, but I hope to start catching up now. WetEV might want to wait until I've posted replies to all three of his past messages replying to mine here before writing his reply(s), as I've got several other topics to write replies for as well.



WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
I see no comment on that we are seeing exponential growth there.

We are seeing exponential growth here.

Except that we're not here for the past two years. Ignoring 2020 we're still not. We'll see what happens this and next year.

Subsidies in the USA stop at 18kWh. Please explain the "emphasize buying the largest possible battery pack" comment.


Uh huh, except that PHEVs can offer significant GHG reductions with much smaller packs, e g. Niro/Kona/Prius Prime. FTM, plenty of people could have significantly reduced their GHGs from the PiP's 11 mile AER, if it was easier to keep the ICE from kicking in; my 1-way commute is 4.2 miles, so if I were to drive it like most people instead of riding my bike, the PiP's AER would be alI I'd need.

Meanwhile, BEVs need much larger packs to be considered useful by customers, which raises their price to where people with incomes able to claim the full tax exemption are, i.e. above mass-market prices.

If we're going to have subsidies here, I'm glad that we cap the fed. subsidy at 18kWh although it would be far better to end it altogether, or at least change it to range-based as California has done with ours. But without a price cap as well, it doesn't send the right signal to customers or companies, instead subsidizing those who need it least, and causing companies to emphasize developing more rather than less expensive options (see Mach-E vs. Escape below).



WetEV said:
I just recall for how long you insisted that EVs were less than 1% of sales after the time EVs were more than 1% of sales. Doesn't fit your schema, eh?


Provide a cite showing I "insisted" any such thing, as I was monitoring and quoting the IEVS monthly sales totals until they stopped doing that.



WetEV said:
Yes, the last two years are below the exponential trend. The last two years have been interesting, to say the least. China cut subsidies for EVs in 2019 and the pandemic in 2020.


IIRR, China's subsidy 'reduction' involved raising the minimum AER for a vehicle to qualify for it.



WetEV said:
Through it all, EVs kept growing while ICE sales fell off a cliff.


Sure, thanks to strong mandates and early emergence from lockdown last year; China's economy grew last year.
After all, for most people any car is better than no car, and given the difficulty of getting a license for a non-BEV in many major cities there, it's hardly a surprise that NEV sales have risen. But did you notice that the best-selling BEV there is now an el cheapo Chinese minicar model (overtaking the Model 3)?



WetEV said:
Ah but what about this year?

Ford Mach-E

https://insideevs.com/news/492025/ford-mustang-mache-us-sales-february-2021/

So Ford is now about 2.3% electric.

GM has announced it will be all electric. Of course announcements are cheap, but the Hummer EV isn't. And is sold out in minutes.

https://www.carscoops.com/2020/10/gmc-hummer-ev-breaks-the-internet-edition-1-sells-out-in-approximately-ten-minutes/


Yeah, a Hummer really represents the best use of scarce battery resources :roll:

The Mach-E looks decent (albeit limited in cargo capacity), but it's competing in the same market as the Model Y so not mass-market priced. It remains to be seen whether its sales are additional to the Model Y's or just cannibalizes them - I suspect the latter, but we'll see.

More importantly, we're finally starting to see reasonably affordable PEVs produced in the most popular type i.e. CUVs with available AWD. Which is why I've been so pissed with GM for not introducing a PHEV-one based on or instead of the gen. 2 Volt back in 2016. They could have owned that market for years, with only lackluster competition from the inefficient Outlander and the cargo-compromised and half-assed conversion Crosstrek until the RAV4 Prime arrived.

What did Ford do? Only offer the PHEV Escape in 2WD, while the Mach-E can be had either way.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
The world is seeing exponential growth in EV sales.

Sure, driven by subsidies and mandates, especially in China.

Do note that subsidies and mandates for non-ICE cars reduce air pollution. To counter the subsidy that an ICE gets for dumping toxic chemicals into people's lungs, EVs should be subsidized.


As others have noted, higher fuel/carbon taxes can do the same job as subsidies, directly penalizing the vehicles doing the most damage. That's one of the main reasons (along with generally higher subsidies, stronger mandates, and/or shorter driving distances) that PEVs have higher take rates in Europe.

I see the new Biden infrastructure plan aims to stop subsidizing fossil-fuel production companies in this country, not that I expect that to pass Congress.



WetEV said:
The subsidies and mandates almost
surely started the EV explosion faster, and do move the sales around, but the explosion was likely to happen in any case.

An EV as a daily driver is just better.

Did you catch that Worldwide EV sales have been growing exponentially?


See above, which merely confirms my claim that PEV and esp. BEV sales remain dependent on subsidies and mandates rather than natural demand. Remove the subsidies and add taxes, and people will buy the HEV/PHEV/BEV that best matches their requirements.



WetEV said:
Explain how Porsche Taycan sales have anything to do with the subsidy that will not even pay for some trim options.


Of course Taycan or S Plaid buyers are almost unaffected by subsidies, which is why there's no justifiable reason to give them to them.

OTOH, I just did my first PEV traffic count in over a year last Friday, and while above mass-market-priced Teslas made up most of the 48 cars I saw in a half hour (#1, 16 M3), there was a three-way tie for #2, with the Model S, Prius Prime and the Bolt with 5 each. The Model X and Y tied for 3rd with 4 each. Bringing up the rear were 2 Volt 1s and 2 PiPs, a Volt 2, Leaf 1, e-Golf, Clarity PHEV and a C-Max Energi.

I attribute the Bolt surge to the great deals starting last August? Only it, the Prime and maybe the Clarity are current designs for sale and mass-market priced, topping out below $40k. With subsidies the Prime is less expensive than the HEV Prius, which is simply wrong. It should cost less, its fuel more.
 
SageBrush said:
jlv said:
Yes. We need a $2/gallon "carbon capture" tax on gasoline to get people to understand the cost of burning fossil fuels. Do that and drop the stupid EV rebates and you'll get the market moving towards BEVs. And it would but the nail in the tire of PHEVs and ICEVs.
Amen to that.

I'm not sure if would kill PHEV, but it would correctly incentivize people to use them as EV fueled by clean energy most of the time.


Indeed. It wouldn't kill PHEVs. By removing subsidies it would encourage customers to buy PHEVs with packs no larger than they routinely need and thus less expensive to buy, as well as stretching battery production capacity which will be limited for some time. Similarly, manufacturers would be encouraged to offer PHEVs across a wide AER/price range. As fuel prices increase and BEV/FCEV prices drop, the financial justification for ZEVs becomes better and better.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
PHEVs, in spite of getting nearly the same subsidy as an EV, just have not been selling seven times better. Demand side, not supply side.
Don't forget the distorting effect of subsidies, as well as the fact we're just starting to emerge (in some markets) from the early adopter phase. Add to that mandates which give manufacturers the same emission credits for expensive cars as well as less expensive ones, and the fact that luxury cars have a higher profit margin than mass-market cars, and it's hardly a surprise that manufacturers put their effort into the high rather than low end of the market.

PHEVs are percentage wise more subsidized than EVs.

If EVs were not better to drive, then the high end of the market wouldn't be where EVs sold. Subsidies for EVs reduce the distortion of the market caused by free ICE dumping of toxic gases into your lungs.

See fuel/carbon taxes.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Why? Well, for one thing, as an EV they are underwhelming. Most get driven like they were an HEV, or never plugged in.
Which is why you need to alter subsidies (if you insist on keeping them) to incentivize electric miles.

Which doesn't change the fact that PHEVs, as EV only, are not very good to drive, at least in my experience. Small battery means small electric output, which means under powered under electric only. I don't see how you fix that.


PHEV batteries tend to be more on the power than energy side if the spectrum. I've previously mentioned the RAV4's 5.9 sec. 0-60. The i8 was 3.6 sec. And I have no doubt you could design a PHEV with whatever ridiculous Accel capability your wealthiest customers were willing to pay for, but what does that have to do with providing mass market transportation?


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
In terms of GHG, vehicles are not the big problem.


Say what?!!? In California, transport comprises 41% of GHG emissions, the largest single category (industry is next, at 24%). Admittedly, California has a pretty clean grid which is getting cleaner all the time, and we no longer have a lot of heavy industry so our percentage of GHGs due to transport is higher than the U.S. average, 28% in 2018, still the largest component, and with LDVs making up 59% of that. So, to say that "vehicles are not the big problem" is without basis in fact.

Consider that most, not quite all, vehicle miles are likely to be electric long before most steel or concrete is carbon free, or home heating in the northern places, or the last 10% of electric power production. And a whole long list of other issues. Vehicles are a problem that there is a negative cost solution for 90+% of... over the next 30 or 40 years.

Look forward, not backward.


Exactly what I'm doing. We differ in the time limitation, and the fastest and most cost-effective way to do so.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Amusing. PHEVs have almost the same subsidy as a BEV, and sales are underwhelming. Why?
Because, as mentioned in previous posts, the incentive structure is wrong

As I said, amusing. PHEVs with a subsidy are not selling very well. The "mass market" doesn't agree with your opinion.


As I've pointed out, they're outselling BEVs now in many European countries, for a variety of reasons, much higher fuel prices being one.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Long-haul is one of those corner cases. Hydrogen is an expensive solution, and there are possible alternatives that might be lower cost, such as synfuels, or even better BEVs.

I don't consider long-haul a corner case, considering how much of the country's freight moves that way.

Nice subject change from personal transport to freight.

Not a subject change for me. Long-haul has a very specific meaning in my vocabulary, and it doesn't refer to long private road trips in personal vehicles. But I'm a former Teamster who worked in the freight industry for years, and the son of a Teamster truck driver, so you may mean something completely different by the term.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
Liquid synfuels will only work if we can figure out how to produce them in the necessary volumes at affordable prices. At the moment we can't do either, so will have to restrict their use to commercial aviation.

Notice that hydrogen is in the same place or worse, we can't make green hydrogen at affordable prices, and hydrogen has other technical issues.

As the articles I've been posting in the H2 topic over the past year or so show, the price of green H2 is rapidly dropping, which is why several countries with excellent, low cost renewable resources (Oz, Chile, Brazil, Portugal, Norway etc.) are moving to become major producers and exporters of it.


WetEV said:
Rail, synfuels, improved batteries as well as hydrogen are all possible solutions.


Possible, sure, but H2 is where most of the money and effort are going now, with the others seen as "maybe in the long term".


WetEV said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Current battery capability is very far away from what's needed for long-haul, and that will be even more true once long-haul trucks go autonomous and only need to stop to replenish energy. Even if recharging times come way down, there will still be a weight penalty until such time as we see battery packs with specific energies of 1200Wh/kg and up, and that matters for dense, weight-critical loads like liquids, powders, ores and ingots/castings/forgings.

Does a computer care how often it needs to stop for a recharge?

Who cares what the computer thinks? The user sure as hell cares.



WetEV said:
Perhaps the solution is smaller battery packs and more frequent charge stops, especially for dense loads.

In which case you pay even more of a time penalty. Some long-haul sleeper tractors can go 1,300 miles or more. They may need all that range, or use that capacity to buy cheaper fuel, or sometimes carry reduced fuel when hauling heavy commodities so they can scale. Current battery packs of say 500 miles nominal range (when new) will impose extra empty weight of at least 5,000 lb. (probably low from the numbers I've seen) currently compared to a diesel, FCEVs far less.

Plus there's the extra time for recharging. John Locke described an 18 hour workday for an autonomous BEV, but if an autonomous FCEV can do 22-23 hours while carrying several thousand lb. more, the economics are far better, not to mention the added flexibility. As the saying goes, when you're not on the road, you're not earning. And then the BEV will need one or more pack replacements over its lifetime, while the FCEV won't need its stack replaced - I posted a couple of years back about a fleet of FCEV buses that had all (IIRR) reached the 20,000 operating hour milestone and counting, with the high-time bus at 25,000 hours and counting. I don't know of any current battery pack that can reach even half that while still providing adequate range; maybe solid-state packs will solve that problem, but it'd probably take lithium-air tech to eliminate the weight penalty, and even then charging times will be longer.
 
GRA said:
Uh huh, except that PHEVs can offer significant GHG reductions with much smaller packs, e g. Niro/Kona/Prius Prime. FTM, plenty of people could have significantly reduced their GHGs from the PiP's 11 mile AER, if it was easier to keep the ICE from kicking in; my 1-way commute is 4.2 miles, so if I were to drive it like most people instead of riding my bike, the PiP's AER would be alI I'd need.

Only problem is that in reality, most people with PHEVs drive them like they were HEVs. Almost never plugged in. So far less real GHG reduction. Don't get me wrong, a HEV is generally less polluting than an ICE. And yes, some are actually driven as PHEVs. But with battery prices below $100/kWh, a PHEV is a more expensive solution than a BEV. As is an ICE, unless gasoline prices are really low, or the driving/charging pattern isn't reasonable.

Maybe a different tax or subsidy scheme might change this, but such behavior seems fairly consistent even with high gasoline prices in Europe. I'd guess, and GRA is going to ignore this point, the underwhelming driving experience of most PHEVs on pure EV might be a large part of the issue.


GRA said:
Meanwhile, BEVs need much larger packs to be considered useful by customers, which raises their price to where people with incomes able to claim the full tax exemption are, i.e. above mass-market prices.

If we're going to have subsidies here, I'm glad that we cap the fed. subsidy at 18kWh although it would be far better to end it altogether, or at least change it to range-based as California has done with ours. But without a price cap as well, it doesn't send the right signal to customers or companies, instead subsidizing those who need it least, and causing companies to emphasize developing more rather than less expensive options (see Mach-E vs. Escape below).

The point to subsidies, mandates and/or pollution taxes is to drive adoption of the new and clean technology, and to match the cost of the dirty technology that isn't accounted for directly. Not social justice. Not optimal economic efficiency today. Long term economic efficiency.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
I just recall for how long you insisted that EVs were less than 1% of sales after the time EVs were more than 1% of sales. Doesn't fit your schema, eh?
Provide a cite showing I "insisted" any such thing, as I was monitoring and quoting the IEVS monthly sales totals until they stopped doing that.

OK, you repeated the statement multiple times after correction. Wrong word, "insist".


GRA said:
WetEV said:
Yes, the last two years are below the exponential trend. The last two years have been interesting, to say the least. China cut subsidies for EVs in 2019 and the pandemic in 2020.
IIRR, China's subsidy 'reduction' involved raising the minimum AER for a vehicle to qualify for it.

So? A reduction of subsidy should cause a temporary reduction, especially as the reduction might also be temporary. Might even change the exponent of the exponential trend. Rather than about 2.5 years, might be 3 years. But doesn't change the exponential nature of adoption, which is common with new technologies.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
Do note that subsidies and mandates for non-ICE cars reduce air pollution. To counter the subsidy that an ICE gets for dumping toxic chemicals into people's lungs, EVs should be subsidized.
As others have noted, higher fuel/carbon taxes can do the same job as subsidies, directly penalizing the vehicles doing the most damage. That's one of the main reasons (along with generally higher subsidies, stronger mandates, and/or shorter driving distances) that PEVs have higher take rates in Europe.

PHEVs?

Subsidies are far more efficient when the clean technology is a small fraction of the market. Revisit this in a decade or less, after EVs are close to a majority of the market.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
The subsidies and mandates almost
surely started the EV explosion faster, and do move the sales around, but the explosion was likely to happen in any case.

An EV as a daily driver is just better.

Did you catch that Worldwide EV sales have been growing exponentially?

See above, which merely confirms my claim that PEV and esp. BEV sales remain dependent on subsidies and mandates rather than natural demand. Remove the subsidies and add taxes, and people will buy the HEV/PHEV/BEV that best matches their requirements.

Again, taxes are less efficient than subsidies, and BEV sales are not dependent on subsidies and mandates OR taxes at the high end. Technology adaptions are often exponential for a list of reasons. Notice that worldwide EV sales have been growing exponentially.

Exponential growth often is not understood. EV adoption is so slow, GRA can't wait. Doubling every ~2.5 years will look slow, until it looks explosive.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
PHEVs are percentage wise more subsidized than EVs.

If EVs were not better to drive, then the high end of the market wouldn't be where EVs sold. Subsidies for EVs reduce the distortion of the market caused by free ICE dumping of toxic gases into your lungs.

See fuel/carbon taxes.

Subsidies are more efficient when alternatives are a tiny fraction of the market. This will change.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Which is why you need to alter subsidies (if you insist on keeping them) to incentivize electric miles.
Which doesn't change the fact that PHEVs, as EV only, are not very good to drive, at least in my experience. Small battery means small electric output, which means under powered under electric only. I don't see how you fix that.
PHEV batteries tend to be more on the power than energy side if the spectrum. I've previously mentioned the RAV4's 5.9 sec. 0-60. The i8 was 3.6 sec. And I have no doubt you could design a PHEV with whatever ridiculous Accel capability your wealthiest customers were willing to pay for, but what does that have to do with providing mass market transportation?

Not just 0-60 times, BEVs are smoother and more responsive. Real PHEVs, unlike those "you could design" tend to have small electric motors as well as small batteries. The exceptions are the Volt and the I3 with REx. GM killed the Volt, and BMW has said REx has no future.

The focus on "mass market". The real market is a distribution, not just a "mass market".

New technologies rarely start at the center of the market. Instead, they start at an edge. Then grow.

Why do you keep insisting that EVs start with "the mass market"?
 
jlv said:
GRA said:
Because, as mentioned in previous posts, the incentive structure is wrong.
Yes. We need a $2/gallon "carbon capture" tax on gasoline to get people to understand the cost of burning fossil fuels. Do that and drop the stupid EV rebates and you'll get the market moving towards BEVs. And it would put the nail in the tire of PHEVs and ICEVs.

I'd approve as long as it's phased in gradually enough for people to plan, react and avoid the shock. But I doubt it will ever pass in America where gasoline has become synonymous with Freedom. We may have lost a lot of "#1" attributes but damnit we still got cheap gas!
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Because, as mentioned in previous posts, the incentive structure is wrong
As I said, amusing. PHEVs with a subsidy are not selling very well. The "mass market" doesn't agree with your opinion.
As I've pointed out, they're outselling BEVs now in many European countries, for a variety of reasons, much higher fuel prices being one.

For 2020 in Europe, 740,805 BEVs in 2020, and 573,526 PHEVs.

https://carsalesbase.com/european-sales-2020-ev-phev/

Did I miss the week that PHEVs outsold BEVs?


GRA said:
WetEV said:
Does a computer care how often it needs to stop for a recharge?
Who cares what the computer thinks? The user sure as hell cares.

Ah yes, if the truck is automated, the user isn't there. So who cares how often the truck stops to recharge: the total trip time is what matters. For most commodities, how much does trip time matter? Is 22 hours always worth less than 18 hours?


GRA said:
WetEV said:
Perhaps the solution is smaller battery packs and more frequent charge stops, especially for dense loads.

In which case you pay even more of a time penalty. Some long-haul sleeper tractors can go 1,300 miles or more.

Without two drivers, need a sleep stop. That's 21 hours of just driving, no pee breaks, no dinner, not sleep, nothing. Or a whole lot of whites.
 

Wet, I became eligible for vaccination yesterday, but I'm not sure when I'll have time to reply, as I'm trying to get an appointment ASAP. My 'free' time has mostly been sucked up by that for the past two days, so I'll get to replies to you when I can.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
Surely there is a better thread to have this discussion than one ostensibly about profitability of EV charging.


It has certainly ranged well beyond the basic topic, discussing PHEVs, FCEVs, incentives and taxes, the effect of AVs etc. OTOH, many of these are inter-related. Perhaps the "Are PHEVs a transitional technology" topic would suffice for those sections, assuming someone can prise those out of the rest (and good luck to them!). [Edit]: Actually, given the wide range of topics which my and WetEV's arguments have covered, maybe moving the posts to WetEV's "Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer" topic would be more appropriate. I'll post my replies to his posts in that topic, hopefully tomorrow.

One area where incentives are on- topic is that seriously raising fuel or carbon taxes so that fossil fuels are more expensive than charging anywhere in the country would transform charging infrastructure, especially DC QCing, to a profitable business model. That would provide the incentive for companies to build and operate them without being dependent on government subsidies, or for car manufacturers to build them as a marketing expense, massively increasing the rate at which the infrastructure expands.

As any such major increase would be massively unpopular here and politically impossible for years if not decades, we should at least try to gradually increase the fed. fuel tax to catch up to inflation and then index it to that. It apparently needs to be raised about 15¢/gal. to make up for 28 years of inflation since it was last raised in 1993, so doing it over a 3 (5¢/year) or 5 year (3¢/year) period should be a priority. AFAICT there's no mention of that in the current infrastructure plan, but drivers should be bearing the cost of the wear and year they themselves cause directly. On a related note, my corner gas station just hit $4.00/gal. for the first time in two or three years, presumably still fallout from Texas.

Additionally, as fossil fuel taxes will inevitably decline as the transition to AFVs continues, it will be necessary to start now to implement alternative taxes for AFVs if not all vehicles, preferably (axle) weight-based mileage fees that don't raise privacy issues. As AFVs are heavier than comparable ICEs they'll pay a bit more in that area, but as they'll be paying less or nothing in fossil-fuel taxes that will incentivize buyers to switch without any need for government subsidies.
 
GRA said:
GetOffYourGas said:
Surely there is a better thread to have this discussion than one ostensibly about profitability of EV charging.


It has certainly ranged well beyond the basic topic, discussing PHEVs, FCEVs, incentives and taxes, the effect of AVs etc. OTOH, many of these are inter-related. Perhaps the "Are PHEVs a transitional technology" topic would suffice for those sections, assuming someone can prise those out of the rest (and good luck to them!).

One area where incentives are on topic is that seriously raising fuel or carbon taxes so that fossil fuels are more expensive than charging anywhere in the country would transform charging infrastructure, especially DC QCing, from something dependent on government subsidy to a profitable business model. That would provide the incentive for companies to build and operate them without waiting for a handout, massively increasing the rate at which the infrastructure expands.

As any such major increase would be massively unpopular here and politically impossible for years if not decades, we should at least try to gradually increase the fed. fuel tax to catch up to inflation and then index it to that. It apparently needs to be raised about 15¢/gal. to make up for 28 years of inflation since it was last raised in 1993, so doing it over a 3 (5¢/year) or 5 year (3¢/year) period should be a priority. AFAICT there's no mention of that in the current infrastructure plan, but drivers should be bearing the cost of the wear and year they themselves cause directly. On a related note, my corner gas station just hit $4.00/gal. for the first time in two or three years, presumably still fallout from Texas.

Additionally, as fossil fuel taxes will inevitably decline as the transition to AFVs continues, it will be necessary to start now to implement alternative taxes for AFVs if not all vehicles, preferably (axle) weight-based mileage fees that don't raise privacy issues. As AFVs are heavier than comparable ICEs they'll pay a bit more in that area, but as they'll be paying less or nothing in fossil-fuel taxes that will incentivize buyers to switch without any need for government subsidies.
The amount of damage done to roadways by cars is minuscule compared to the damage done by 18 wheel tractor-trailers. The gas tax has always been syphoned off by the state legislature for other projects rather than being used for road repair as originally intended. if you really wanted to be fair, raise the tax on diesel fuel by $2/Gal to pay for repairs. Weight/mileage based taxes don't work unless weight is valued differently for different classes.
 
johnlocke said:
The amount of damage done to roadways by cars is minuscule compared to the damage done by 18 wheel tractor-trailers. The gas tax has always been syphoned off by the state legislature for other projects rather than being used for road repair as originally intended. if you really wanted to be fair, raise the tax on diesel fuel by $2/Gal to pay for repairs. Weight/mileage based taxes don't work unless weight is valued differently for different classes.


Yes, I know the damage is disproportionate, but there's nothing that says a weight-based scale has to be linear across classes. As for siphoning off of fuel taxes, it's up to the politicians and the people who elect them to see that isn't done. As it is now, the federal Highway Fund has had to be supplemented by general funds for years because it's fallen so far behind inflation. People know the roads have deteriorated, which is why at the state and local levels support for increasing those taxes has generally been strong in the past few years.
 
GRA said:
One area where incentives are on- topic is that seriously raising fuel or carbon taxes so that fossil fuels are more expensive than charging anywhere in the country would transform charging infrastructure, especially DC QCing, to a profitable business model. That would provide the incentive for companies to build and operate them without being dependent on government subsidies, or for car manufacturers to build them as a marketing expense, massively increasing the rate at which the infrastructure expands.

As any such major increase would be massively unpopular here and politically impossible for years if not decades, we should at least try to gradually increase the fed. fuel tax to catch up to inflation and then index it to that. It apparently needs to be raised about 15¢/gal. to make up for 28 years of inflation since it was last raised in 1993, so doing it over a 3 (5¢/year) or 5 year (3¢/year) period should be a priority. AFAICT there's no mention of that in the current infrastructure plan, but drivers should be bearing the cost of the wear and year they themselves cause directly. On a related note, my corner gas station just hit $4.00/gal. for the first time in two or three years, presumably still fallout from Texas.

Electric cars are not exactly the same as gas cars.

Public charging is not exactly the same thing as gasoline retailing.

Forcing square pegs into round holes isn't often useful.

GRA is focused on trying to recreate the gasoline economy with electric (or hydrogen) cars. The hole is round. The peg is square.

Electric cars with distributed fueling are just nicer. Of course, that only works for 98% (or something like that) of driving. With the exception of the few times when you want to make a long trip, then some sort of centralized fueling is needed. The total package needs to be cost competitive, not the exception. Twice or even four times the price for 2% of the time and half the price for 98% of the time is a good deal. Focusing on the exception is ignoring most of the issue. I pay about $1 per gallon equivalent. What is your corner gas station?

Electric cars make the most sense when they can be L1/L2 charged at home or work. They don't fit nicely into centralized fueling. Round hole. Square peg.

Gasoline taxes to pay for roads and bridges wouldn't pass in much of the country. Washington State has passed such taxes, but we are mostly all wet up here, so don't expect that to work everywhere.


GRA said:
Additionally, as fossil fuel taxes will inevitably decline as the transition to AFVs continues, it will be necessary to start now to implement alternative taxes for AFVs if not all vehicles, preferably (axle) weight-based mileage fees that don't raise privacy issues. As AFVs are heavier than comparable ICEs they'll pay a bit more in that area, but as they'll be paying less or nothing in fossil-fuel taxes that will incentivize buyers to switch without any need for government subsidies.

Gas cars and diesel trucks don't pay their way in road taxes. Why should EVs?
 
johnlocke said:
The gas tax has always been syphoned off by the state legislature for other projects rather than being used for road repair as originally intended. if you really wanted to be fair, raise the tax on diesel fuel by $2/Gal to pay for repairs. Weight/mileage based taxes don't work unless weight is valued differently for different classes.
General funds are used for road repair, as not enough is collected in gas taxes. Maybe it was different 50 years ago, when gas taxes collected enough to pay for road repair. But the gas tax hasn't changed, and costs of road repairs have increased. Things change.
 
Back
Top