WetEV
Well-known member
GRA said:
The largest subsidy distorting the market is the free dumping of toxins by internal combustion engines. Sickening and killing people.
How should we remove or offset this subsidy?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?
- Thread starter WetEV
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The largest subsidy distorting the market is the free dumping of toxins by internal combustion engines. Sickening and killing people.
How should we remove or offset this subsidy?
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:WetEV said:If this was pure economics of transport, with a side of air pollution reduction and a side of greenhouse gas reduction, then we might expect to see the transition from ICE as first to HEVs, then to PHEVs then to BEVs. Largely constrained by battery production.
As you might guess, the real world is far more complex than that.
So, subsidies continue to distort the market.
The largest subsidy distorting the market is the free dumping of toxins by internal combustion engines. Sickening and killing people.
How should we remove or offset this subsidy?
Already covered numerous times, with carbon/pollution taxes. But the subsidy for emissions is indirect to the consumer, while the subsidy for car purchase is direct. I have no doubt that we could subsidise Hummer sales to achieve a similar market share to BEVs here, if that was our goal.
WetEV
Well-known member
Go ahead, pass a carbon/pollution tax. What are you waiting for?GRA said:Already covered numerous times, with carbon/pollution taxes.WetEV said:The largest subsidy distorting the market is the free dumping of toxins by internal combustion engines. Sickening and killing people.
How should we remove or offset this subsidy?
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:Go ahead, pass a carbon/pollution tax. What are you waiting for?GRA said:Already covered numerous times, with carbon/pollution taxes.WetEV said:The largest subsidy distorting the market is the free dumping of toxins by internal combustion engines. Sickening and killing people.
How should we remove or offset this subsidy?
I'm not waiting for anything. You asked how we should do it and I told you That it's politically impossible here and extremely difficult in Europe I fully recognize, but it is the one sure way to have consumers recognize and pay for the effects of their transportation, heating and electricity source decisions directly.
WetEV
Well-known member
GRA said:it's politically impossibleWetEV said:Go ahead, pass a carbon/pollution tax. What are you waiting for?[
So the ideal, perfect solution (at least in your view) isn't politically possible.
Got a plan that is politically possible?
A suggestion, why not subsidize a technology that can eventually replace most carbon fuels in transportation? Like PHEVs, for example?
rmay635703
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 628
WetEV said:GRA said:it's politically impossibleWetEV said:Go ahead, pass a carbon/pollution tax. What are you waiting for?[
So the ideal, perfect solution (at least in your view) isn't politically possible.
Got a plan that is politically possible?
A suggestion, why not subsidize a technology that can eventually replace most carbon fuels in transportation? Like PHEVs, for example?
They could start by not taxing the things so there is at least a small financial advantage
And accept that they may have to come up with a different way to charge every man woman and child the $10000 each they need to build roads besides making the road tax $10,000 a year
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:it's politically impossibleWetEV said:Go ahead, pass a carbon/pollution tax. What are you waiting for?[
So the ideal, perfect solution (at least in your view) isn't politically possible.
Got a plan that is politically possible?
A suggestion, why not subsidize a technology that can eventually replace most carbon fuels in transportation? Like PHEVs, for example?
I've given my views on subsidies - I'm against them. As for plans that may be politically possible, as they're local or regional in nature I've suggested congestion/ULEV zones & HOV/HOT lanes with transponders for reduced or free tolls for vehicles running ZEV - I prefer reduced rather than free for non-carpools or mass transit. These are all examples where the consumer pays the costs of pollution directly, and is incentivized to make less polluting choices without government subsidy. It also incentivizes people to get back on mass transit, which is badly needed. But lots of people are still uncomfortable with the idea, although that resistance should continue to ease with vaccination.
As an example, Bay Area bridges have had congestion pricing during commute hours since 2010 IIRR, albeit suspended last year when traffic dropped off a cliff. Partly as a result of Covid all tolls are now collected via transponder, or for single use via license plate cameras and mailed bills.
Manhattan's plan to introduce congestion pricing is slowly advancing*, and far more U.S. cities could and should be implementing this. As we now have an administration that supports such actions, I imagine it will move faster now.
San Francisco may well be next, although the bridge tolls already go partway. It's obviously easier/less expensive to do this in cities on Islands/peninsulas with limited access routes, but the potential revenue gains and health benefits are large enough it can probably be done in more accessible cities.
*https://www-nbcnewyork-com.cdn.ampp...next-step-in-congestion-pricing-plan/2972213/
For more on congestion pricing varieties and real-world examples, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing
WetEV
Well-known member
GRA said:WetEV said:GRA said:it's politically impossible
So the ideal, perfect solution (at least in your view) isn't politically possible.
Got a plan that is politically possible?
A suggestion, why not subsidize a technology that can eventually replace most carbon fuels in transportation? Like PHEVs, for example?
I've given my views on subsidies - I'm against them.
In spite of flaws and imperfections, subsidies are working to electrify driving. So what do you have against PHEV, aka the electric car, again?
Notice that such subsidies are partly and imperfectly "Pigovian subsidies", quite similar to the "Pigovian tax" aka "the consumer pays the costs of pollution directly", which are imperfect in other ways.
Congestion pricing isn't relevant.
The biggest problem with using PHEVs to get carbon out of the system is that it keeps a very big, booted foot in the door for ICE powertrains. Maybe hydrogen-burning PHEVs will arise to replace the gasoline-fueled ones, but since hydrogen is just a way to store energy (electricity in the best case), it seems more like ethanol - a way to avoid needed progress, rather than a way to implement it.
alozzy
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:The biggest problem with using PHEVs to get carbon out of the system is that it keeps a very big, booted foot in the door for ICE powertrains. Maybe hydrogen-burning PHEVs will arise to replace the gasoline-fueled ones, but since hydrogen is just a way to store energy (electricity in the best case), it seems more like ethanol - a way to avoid needed progress, rather than a way to implement it.
Couldn't agree more, this is why almost all ICE manufacturers have offered hybrids over recent years.
A revenue neutral carbon tax on gasoline, with revenues going towards solar/wind power projects, would accelerate the reduction of carbon emissions. With respect to EV subsidies, I think those could be reduced/eliminated - particularly for those who can afford an EV. With battery prices continuing to drop and newer, long range EVs with lots of tech, there should be plenty of moderately well off and rich people who will opt for an EV. Tesla has made EVs cool, which definitely helps the overall EV market.
Governments could still offer people an EV credit towards purchasing a new or used EV, but make that EV credit conditional on first scrapping an old ICE (which must be sold off for parts, or crushed). That would give lower income people an incentive to purchase an older LEAF, for instance.
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:WetEV said:So the ideal, perfect solution (at least in your view) isn't politically possible.
Got a plan that is politically possible?
A suggestion, why not subsidize a technology that can eventually replace most carbon fuels in transportation? Like PHEVs, for example?
I've given my views on subsidies - I'm against them.
In spite of flaws and imperfections, subsidies are working to electrify driving. So what do you have against PHEV, aka the electric car, again?
Subsidies have mostly helped the well-off buy cars that most people can't afford, while the rate of adoption remains low because consumers are concerned about too-high prices, lack of charging, and operational inadequacy.
If you insist on subsidising something, then make it charging infrastructure.
I see no reason why someone who can realistically consider spending $50-$150k for a car should get government support for the purchase.
As to your last comment, it's simply ridiculous, as you are well aware.
WetEV said:Notice that such subsidies are partly and imperfectly "Pigovian subsidies", quite similar to the "Pigovian tax" aka "the consumer pays the costs of pollution directly", which are imperfect in other ways.
Congestion pricing isn't relevant.
I don't care if you call them Pigovian or Pigs at the Trough, the consumer who makes the decision should be made directly aware that their decision imposes costs on others, by being made to pay for those costs. Did I dream you wrote the following just a few posts back?:
The largest subsidy distorting the market is the free dumping of toxins by internal combustion engines. Sickening and killing people.
How should we remove or offset this subsidy?
Since you like to talk about economic theory, from the Wiki:
According to the economic theory behind congestion pricing, the objective of this policy is the use of the price mechanism to make users conscious of the costs that they impose upon one another when consuming during the peak demand, and that they should pay for the additional congestion they create, thus encouraging the redistribution of the demand in space or in time, and forcing them to pay for the negative externalities they create, making users more aware of their impact on the environment.[1][2][3][4][5]
How is that not relevant to the question you asked?
GRA
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:The biggest problem with using PHEVs to get carbon out of the system is that it keeps a very big, booted foot in the door for ICE powertrains. Maybe hydrogen-burning PHEVs will arise to replace the gasoline-fueled ones, but since hydrogen is just a way to store energy (electricity in the best case), it seems more like ethanol - a way to avoid needed progress, rather than a way to implement it.
Fossil-fueled powertrains will have a foot in the door for a long while, extending well after they're banned. Whether fossil fuels are replaced by batteries (which are also just a way to store energy), H2 or syn/biofuels is less important than the eventual banning of fossil fuels. The oil & gas majors know that will come, which is why they've begun shifting towards charging, H2 and other alt. fuels.
GRA
Well-known member
alozzy said:LeftieBiker said:The biggest problem with using PHEVs to get carbon out of the system is that it keeps a very big, booted foot in the door for ICE powertrains. Maybe hydrogen-burning PHEVs will arise to replace the gasoline-fueled ones, but since hydrogen is just a way to store energy (electricity in the best case), it seems more like ethanol - a way to avoid needed progress, rather than a way to implement it.
Couldn't agree more, this is why almost all ICE manufacturers have offered hybrids over recent years.
A revenue neutral carbon tax on gasoline, with revenues going towards solar/wind power projects, would accelerate the reduction of carbon emissions. With respect to EV subsidies, I think those could be reduced/eliminated - particularly for those who can afford an EV. With battery prices continuing to drop and newer, long range EVs with lots of tech, there should be plenty of moderately well off and rich people who will opt for an EV. Tesla has made EVs cool, which definitely helps the overall EV market.
Governments could still offer people an EV credit towards purchasing a new or used EV, but make that EV credit conditional on first scrapping an old ICE (which must be sold off for parts, or crushed). That would give lower income people an incentive to purchase an older LEAF, for instance.
If you're going to subsidise, a cash for clunkers program isn't a bad way to go, but lower income people aren't going to buy a used LEAF. They have fewer cars in the household so any car they have needs full capability, they're most likely to be renters so less likely to have access to charging at home, and they're more likely to move or change jobs so can't be locked into a car that requires charging. If you want to subsidise something, make it public and private charging Infrastructure, because without that it doesn't matter how good or cheap BEVs get.
https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21280&p=603380#p603342
Another day, another study that markedly discounts the actual emission reductions of PHEVs. This one from Fraunhofer in Germany:
https://physicsworld.com/a/real-world-tests-of-hybrid-cars-show-higher-than-expected-emissions/
Transfer the subsidies to BEV and be done with this circus.
https://physicsworld.com/a/real-world-tests-of-hybrid-cars-show-higher-than-expected-emissions/
Transfer the subsidies to BEV and be done with this circus.
Another option would be to restrict PHEVs to serial systems like the Volt or i3, where the ICE is mainly a REx that isn't especially pleasant to drive with no charge.
WetEV
Well-known member
GRA said:Subsidies have mostly helped the well-off buy cars that most people can't afford, while the rate of adoption remains low because consumers are concerned about too-high prices, lack of charging, and operational inadequacy.
Ignoring several important facts.
Everybody breathes. Cleaner air benefits everyone.
Everything changes with time. Specifically, as the number of batteries manufactured increases the cost falls. Someone has to buy the first packs at a higher price to drive the price down.
GRA said:I don't care if you call them Pigovian or Pigs at the Trough,
Named after a person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Cecil_Pigou
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:Subsidies have mostly helped the well-off buy cars that most people can't afford, while the rate of adoption remains low because consumers are concerned about too-high prices, lack of charging, and operational inadequacy.
Ignoring several important facts.
Everybody breathes. Cleaner air benefits everyone.
Everybody breathes? Thank you, Captain Obvious. The issue is whether subsidising the well-off is the most cost-effective way to achieve cleaner air. Who do you think has to breathe dirtier air, the people at the top or bottom of the income spread? The people at the lower end, because they live closer to freeways, ports & rail lines, and their cars are older, in worse shape and lack more recent emissions controls.
Who actually gets the subsidies? There was a study a few years back of who was getting the California state rebates. IIRR, something like 70% were going to Tesla buyers (this was before the Model 3), with average incomes well into six figures. We subsequently decreased the max income levels a bit, to only $150k filing singly/$300k married (2020 CA Median household income $75,235), and imposed a price cap for the first time. Prior to that, if you lived here you probably would have been able to get state money as well as federal tax credits for buying your what, $75,795 base e-Tron? At least Washington state decided not to allow that when they did the right thing and established a $35k price cap years ago.
As it happens, the CVRP is currently out of funds, with people on a waitlist. I wonder what the income distribution is now, and how much of that money went to people who didn't need it and never should have been allowed to qualify for it?
But not to worry - in addition to the CVRP, California also has the Clean Fuel Rewards program worth up to an additional $1,500, to which neither income or price caps apply. So go ahead and order that Bentley Bentayga PHEV, if you find yourself scrambling for loose change under the sofa cushions because you just can't bear the thought of sharing an e-Tron or Model X with the hoi polloi, and even the thought of the base model Bentayga for a mere $160,000 (how common!) gives you indigestion, when you can option one out to well over $200k and maybe even $300k with a little effort. That $1,500 will probably buy you a crystal cupholder or some such essential bauble.
Am I alone in finding this obscene?
WetEV said:Everything changes with time. Specifically, as the number of batteries manufactured increases the cost falls. Someone has to buy the first packs at a higher price to drive the price down.
Of course someone has to buy them at a higher price, and that's the wealthy who can afford it. I don't recall anyone suggesting government subsidies for personal computers, cell phones or flat screen TVs when they were new and expensive.
WetEV said:GRA said:I don't care if you call them Pigovian or Pigs at the Trough,
Named after a person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Cecil_Pigou
Yes, I know.
WetEV said:Did you pass sixth grade?
Why, yes, I did. I'm assuming you did also. With that settled, back on topic.
WetEV said:https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Pigouvian_subsidy
The largest subsidy distorting the market is the free dumping of toxins by internal combustion engines. Sickening and killing people.
Subsidizing PHEVs and BEVs at the level to offset that subsidy for ICE is basically the same as a tax on the pollution. Sure, there are differences. The carrot rather than the stick.
It's my contention that the carrot alone has been inadequately effective, and is less effective than the stick alone or, if you insist, both. Are you contending that higher fuel prices, congestion/ULEV zones and stronger government mandates are irrelevant to the higher adoption rates of HEVs/PHEVs/BEVs in Europe, compared to here? After all, HEV sales in the U.S. peaked at 3.19% in 2013. Europe's currently at 18.4%. They also outdo us on PEV adoption rates. Most EU countries do offer fairly high subsidies. Do you think those alone explain the difference?
Although the administration is against it, I'm slightly encouraged that the Problem Solvers caucus in Congress has suggested raising the federal gas tax to help pay for the Infrastructure plan: https://www-wsj-com.cdn.ampproject....x-increase-to-fund-infrastructure-11619188415
WetEV said:GRA said:How is that not relevant to the question you asked?
Off topic. This topic is PHEVs.
I was replying to a specific question of yours, in this very topic.
GRA
Well-known member
SageBrush said:Another day, another study that markedly discounts the actual emission reductions of PHEVs. This one from Fraunhofer in Germany:
https://physicsworld.com/a/real-world-tests-of-hybrid-cars-show-higher-than-expected-emissions/
Transfer the subsidies to BEV and be done with this circus.
Did you read the article, or just the headline? This is the same study that has already been referenced. As I've said repeatedly,, we could instead change the incentives to make driving electrically more valuable, which is exactly what the current study in the article you linked as well as past studies also said:
Hybrid cars consume more fossil fuels and emit more carbon dioxide in the real world than they do in lab tests – partly because drivers are not using the cars’ electric side as much as they could, researchers in Germany have concluded. To address this, the researchers suggest that authorities should implement policies that incentivize and facilitate more frequent charging. . . .
It goes on to say:
The problem is compounded for company cars, the team note, because refuelling them is often free for drivers. Similar support is seldom available for charging costs, which instead come out of the driver’s pocket. The researchers also found significant regional variations in real-world utility factors. In Norway, for example, the high price of fuel and low electricity costs encourage more frequent charging than in other countries analysed. The US also had higher utility factors, which Plötz attributes to having “many drivers in our sample that are likely very environmentally oriented” and therefore motivated to charge more frequently.
In the study, which is published in Environmental Research Letters, the researchers propose various ways to encourage drivers to charge their hybrid cars more frequently. “Private drivers need easy to install and use home charging infrastructure and purchase incentives should depend on the actual electric driving share,” Plötz suggests. “Company car drivers need clear financial incentives to charge at home, for example via low electricity prices and no free fuel cards. . . .
The new results should not, however, be viewed as a reason to reject hybrid vehicles, says Sam Akehurst, an automotive researcher at the University of Bath, UK, who was also not involved in the study. “In an ideal use cycle, a PHEV, correctly charged, can deliver zero tailpipe emissions, whilst still giving flexibility to deliver long distance travel without range anxiety or embedded cost/weight/CO2 of larger battery packs,” he says.
Uh huh. Sometimes I feel like Bill Murray in "Ground Hog Day".
GRA
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:Another option would be to restrict PHEVs to serial systems like the Volt or i3, where the ICE is mainly a REx that isn't especially pleasant to drive with no charge.
You could do that (see i3 Rex) but it's unnecessary. Just provide the proper incentives (see other posts) to encourage electric driving.
WetEV
Well-known member
Good question. If you consider it, you might realize that the answer depends on details that change with time.GRA said:The issue is whether subsidising the well-off is the most cost-effective way to achieve cleaner air.WetEV said:Everybody breathes. Cleaner air benefits everyone.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 376
- Replies
- 80
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 2K