Guest essay by Eric Worrall
As part of a legal settlement for last year’s Volkswagen emission test scandal, Volkswagen agreed to invest two billion dollars in US electric car infrastructure. The only problem is, nobody told Volkswagen exactly how to spend the money.
Electric car charging station companies issue warning over VW settlement
Electric vehicle charging companies are calling for independent oversight of the $2 billion Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE) is required to invest in clean car infrastructure, saying VW should not have the power to shape the nascent electric car charging space.
The German automaker agreed to invest the money, which includes $1.2 billion nationally and $800 million in California, as part of its penalties for equipping hundreds of thousands of its diesel vehicles sold in the United States with software designed to cheat tailpipe emissions tests.
While charging station companies called the money a potential “game changer,” they worry that if it is misspent, it could hurt competition.
“The agreement shouldn’t pick winners and losers, especially given that this emerging market transition will in no small part define 21st century transportation,” twenty eight companies, including ChargePoint, EV Connect and Electric Vehicle Charging Association, said in a letter to the U.S. Justice Department on Friday.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-settlement-idUSKCN10L038
This kind of hilarity is a situation which can only arise in artificial politician driven markets. Volkswagen has essentially been roped in to help subsidise a market which shouldn’t exist. But nobody told them who they were supposed to subsidise, and how.
I doubt anybody in Volkswagen expects to make a profit, but there is no rule which says they can’t try to rig outcomes, as long as they stay within the law, to attempt to recover as much of their money as possible from this mess – even if their “investment” ends up totally trashing the electric car infrastructure industry.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The most important thing our clueless Fed govt could do would be to oversee and make sure that there arise noproprietary charging systems, as is the case with Tesla, although I believe that Tesla has offered gratis the patent rights to anyone who wants to build a charging station, in the obvioua hope that their own super stations are not consigned to an obsolete charging interface. Several automakers, including GM, etc, have agreed on a different interface. Goody, goody. It is amazing how little involvement there has been by our Feds in this most critical aspect of electric car recharging. Right now I believe that most Tesla cars usually have two (and more) charging cords, depending. If our braindead Feds want infrastructure, they had better help detemine exactly WHAT that infrastructure should look like, with a view that future batteries will allow for faster recharging. Right now it is a holy mess. Amazing how a Fed govt that interferes with everything and everybody, has taken a hands off approach in this instance. Govts rightful duties include
making sure that there are standards for such obvious universal necessities such as electrical outlet plugs, etc. Imagine a country in which each house had to have three (or more) different electrical outlets and appliances were sold with three (or more) different types of power cords, all with different voltages..
Piffle. DC lost AC won. BETA lost VHS won. Hate the assumption gov’t is needed for everything.
Excuse me for asking. What will supply the electricity to provide all the power for the millions of batteries to be charged?
Solar panels, which are only available during the day. So, how do they charge your car at night?
Why nonexistent nuclear capacity of course…..
Electricity customers pay $1.7B for reactors that don’t exist
By Mark Chediak Bloomberg News
Some U.S. electricity consumers face paying a fortune for nuclear plants that aren’t being built.
Utilities — including Duke Energy Corp., Dominion Resources Inc. and NextEra Energy Inc. — are being allowed by regulators to charge $1.7 billion for reactors that exist only on paper, according to company disclosures and regulatory filings. Duke, headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., and Dominion, headquartered in Richmond, Va., could seek approval to have ratepayers pay at least another $839 million, the filings show.
I have not read the specifics, but Bloomberg news is hardly a reliable source for information.
In the business world, companies spend money on various projects some just in the planning stage. Nuclear Projects are especially difficult due to government regulations and “green” influence. Anyone who has worked in the real world knows that management constantly reviews expansion plans, and R&D projects to determine if they should be cancelled or continued. A “living” company will spend money on projects many of which get cancelled with the hope that they will have a few winners.
Failures are the cost of doing business as we well know in the government world at a very high rate.
The cost of dropped projects are either paid for by consumers or the stock holders, that is fundamental economics except where the government subsidizes failed projects in which case we taxpayers cover the loss.
Does anyone need a list of failed energy projects subsidized by tax dollars such as Solyndra, many duplicate ventures.
On the VW scandal…
Early in my career I helped create the mobile source (auto) emissions regulations system. I know how the sausage is really made behind the scenes.
There is one glaring fact in the VW fiasco that stands out at me.
IF the government’s own data are correct….then a number of US states tested millions of these “offending” VW vehicles for emissions…WITHOUT using a dynamometer ..
….notice I said IF the government own data are correct.
The Feds assert the software in the VW ECU was designed to change mode when it detected the VW was on a dynamometer.
The procedures for the States that DON’T use a dyno require the testing facility to plug into the OBD (on board computer) of the vehicle, without testing actual emissions at the tailpipe.
And, if the VW went into “cheat” state every time it was plugged into an OBD reader, this would affect every single car being serviced in a VW dealer, or other shop.
That would seem to work against VW, because it could result in dealers not getting correct diagnoses, for many more variables than NOx….which could mean poorly maintained cars.
It is extremely unlikely that VW would mess up its own crucial service networks by rigging OBD diagnostics
So….
…I keep coming back to this…
How did the US governments miss such an “obvious” violation while testing literally 10s of millions of cars over a number of years?
We paid hundreds of billions of dollars for the government detection system.
Why isn’t the EPA also liable in all this?
On the VW scandal…
Early in my career I helped create the mobile source (auto) emissions regulations system. I know how the sausage is really made behind the scenes.
There is one glaring fact in the VW fiasco that stands out at me.
IF the government’s own data are correct….then a number of US states tested millions of these “offending” VW vehicles for emissions…WITHOUT using a dynamometer.
The Feds assert the software in the VW ECU was designed to change mode when it detected the VW was on a dynamometer.
The procedures for the States that don’t use a dyno require the testing facility to plug into the OBD (on board computer) of the vehicle…without testing actual emissions at the tailpipe.
If the VW went into “cheat” state every time it was plugged into any OBD reader, this would affect every single car being serviced in a VW dealer, or other shop.
That would seem to work against VW, because it could result in dealers not getting correct diagnoses, for many more variables than NOx….which could mean poorly maintained cars.
It is extremely unlikely that VW would mess up its own crucial service networks by rigging OBD diagnostics
So….
…I keep coming back to this…
How did the US governments miss such an “obvious” violation while testing literally 10s of millions of cars over a number of years?
We paid hundreds of billions of dollars for the government detection system.
Why isn’t the EPA also liable in all this?
The major problem I have is that the main reason for owning a car is to drive to work. The majority of people work during the day. With renewables, the peak power will be during the day, thus, to take advantage of that peak solar power the auto batteries will need to be charged during the day. The only way that can happen is if every employer installs charging facilities. Charging at night means charging during the low period of renewable power and could even be during the period of time that power storage systems are being used to provide power to run HVAC, cook food, and other essential activities, thus requiring larger power storage facilities.
In other words, electric cars are a dumb ide for anything other than an occasional use vehicle, like a gulf cart.
When the EPA was tasked to find safety levels for diesel exhaust, it turned out not be possible, precisely. How would you do this? Typically vehicles that give off a lot of the various compounds (like trucks, firetrucks) end up in proximity, whereas passenger cars are all over the place.
The EPA ended up finding ‘safe’ levels at just below the point passenger diesel would be viable in the market. It is hard to believe this was coincidence.
Not a conspiracy though. I bet it was half dumb do-goodism. half mob boss type behavior, helping a buddy’s outfit (Telsa) by hassling a competitor by making a special law that makes their business not viable
I have nothing against an electric car, they used to exist a 100 years ago.
That being said I enjoy my 700 mile range and “recharge” in 90 seconds. It’s a luxury to use gasoline. Very liberating.
Dean,
The town adjacent to ours, Seneca SC, has an all electric bus fleet (6 full size, not mini buses). To top it off, Clemson Area Transit – CAT – is “free” for the passengers. (US college football fans would “get” the CAT acronym.)
The world’s largest electric bus manufacturer (Proterra) is in nearby Greenville. The bus company has built automated charging stations at several destinations including Clemson University and a large hospital complex and has operated for more than 2 years with no major problems. Ridership is high.
As you might expect, they were the beneficiary of a $ 6 million federal grant and the expense for the “free” rides are borne by the local area governments (city and county).
I’m normally against government subsidies (like paying for charging stations for the wealthy’s Teslas) but this is benefiting the income levels that need help (college students and the working poor.) An all around success in my book!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/27/seneca-electric-bus-fleet/24153817/
I’m not aware of any subsidies for Tesla’s charging stations. The bulk of the subsidies to Tesla for their car sales come from the zero-emissions trading scheme in California that lets Tesla sell credits to other automakers, and the $7,500 tax credit that’s open to any purchaser of any electric vehicle (electric car manufacturers benefit by being able to charge a higher price and sell more cars.) They also got a huge tax break from Nevada to build its Gigafactory to make batteries for many different types of applications,
The purpose (and problem) with subsidies isn’t income redistribution. It’s the distortion on the market that’s both the purpose and the flaw with them. I’m all in favor of getting rid of the subsidy for electric cars, but we should get rid of all other subsidies as well. The government may well be right that electric cars are the future (I’m ambivalent on whether that’s going to be the case) but it should be the businesses and the investors that bear the risk and reward of the investment. They shouldn’t be sheltered from the consequences of failure but reap all the rewards of success. But the same is true for every other subsidy. If electric buses made economic sense, then the cities and the bus manufacturers should bear the risk of it, charge fares and prices to recover the full costs, and see whether enough people are willing to pay the price.
Our county applied for and received $25,000.00 government grants to buy (from the Obola administration) TWO electric car charging stations – in the used-to-be handicapped parking spaces at the first entrance of the parking garage closest to the county courthouse. Prime parking spots! Now (rich) electric car subsidies. With “free” electricity the rest of us are paying for.
Those are likely J1772 chargers that any electric car (Ford focus, Nissan leaf,) can plug into – maybe even the plug-in hybrids like the Prius. Tesla has an adapter for those, but I suspect that the chargers will mainly be used by other much cheaper electric cars since the Tesla has the range such that a J1772 charger wouldn’t usually be needed.
Remember when federal fines went to the treasury to pay the bills?
Under progressive rule, fines go to progressive causes without having to go through that pesky Congress as required by the Constitution.
Come to think of it — electric cars with their vary small range are a step backward to medieval times when people, incapable of travel, lived, married and died almost within sight of their place of birth.
This is “limiting technology”. Instead of expanding the vistas of humanity it reels them back in. The great mobility that the gas powered engine has given to the common person will cease to exist. For all practical purposes electric cars create a “cattle pen” in which the common person with have to live.
No wonder socialists love green technology.
Eugene WR Gallun
” this emerging market transition will in no small part define 21st century transportation,”
Pollyanna is alive and well and living in a world of delusion with only electric cars.
I would have settled with VW in the case with the offering of free drivers ed for all VW owners. They need it.
Processing…… Processing……. Processing…….
Ding!!!!!!
The rent-seekers are mad because a settlement occurred which forced more competition. Got it.
Obama twice tried and failed to persuade Congress to subsidizw EV charging station infrastructure. This part of the Volkswagen settlement is another unlawful end run around Congress, as my colleague William Yeatman explains: https://cei.org/blog/volkswagen-deal-zero-emission-vehicles-end-run-around-congress
I have a couple general comments to add to this discussion.
Several people have argued the internal combustion engine has multiple technical advantages that, taken together mean internal combustion powered automobiles will remain competitive if not superior with electric vehicles for a long time. They might well be right in their assertion but being right in this argument means very little.
The political decision to largely replace internal combustion engines with electric vehicles was made decades ago. Automakers world wide are in the situation that a significant and continually increasing portion of the vehicles they sell must be electric in order to meet national environmental regulations. They will develop ev’s that the public will buy or they will go out of business. It is that simple. It matters less what the public wants, than what national governments demand.
The Volkswagen scandal is a reflection of this fact. Vehicle Diesel engines have improved about as much as is economically possible yet emission requirements continue to tighten on a schedule set by decades old environmental regulation. Gasoline engines will run into their intrinsic limits in the not too distant future as well. Expensive high tech, internal combustion engine design paradigm change that might possibly yield a compliance production ready internal combustion engine will not be pursued by automakers because of the very high technical risk but also because the regulators have indicated with a wink and a nod that ultimately only pure electric vehicles will meet regulatory requirements. And keep in mind emission standards currently in place can be even further tightened by a stroke of a pen. In the United States and elsewhere it appears such further tightening can be made at the whim of the regulatory apparatus, a Congressional ( or other) government legislative decisions may well not be required.
Already in the united states it is nearly impossible for municipal bus authorities to buy new gasoline or Diesel buses. Even natural gas or propane fueled vehicles are increasingly difficult to purchase. It turns out municipality bus authorities buy buses almost entirely with government grants. Increasingly the terms of such grants prohibit internal combustion engines. The large scale conversion of municipal buses to electric vehicles has just kicked off in a serious way in the last 6 months.
Wireless charging is an important enabling technology in the transition to electric vehicles.
With respect to battery charging in general any battery chemistry can be aggressively fast charged within the 20-80% state of charge region. The battery can be very aggressively fast charged if internally cooled at the cell level. The most important limitation to vehicle fast charging is the need to have a high power, essentially industrial 3-phase connection to the grid, something that will be difficult or impossible at most homes, hence the need to develop charging infrastructure at places of work which do for the most part have industrial connections to the grid even if only for a small office building. Wireless charging has a roll to play here.
Dynamic ( in motion) charging is technically possible and has been demonstrated at the laboratory level at Oak Ridge National Laboratory several years ago. Recently a major international automaker has established a research facility at a large and prominent southern university to develop dynamic charging and associated technology. There is a 300 million dollar test track under design for dynamic charging development in the EU. There is further development of dynamic charging in place in Asia. Internationally dynamic charging is taken very very seriously. The USA is by no means at the leading edge of this work.
Full disclosure. I am an electronics design engineer working on the development of wireless charging and also dynamic charging.
The take home point is it is a major mistake to analyze the trends in electric vehicles from a merely technical or customer preference basis. The motivating force for this transition is driven instead by the current and expected future regulatory environment.
Why would one need a high power charger at home when they have all night to charge it. Most people in the US drive less than 30 miles a day A 120VAC outlet can recharge a car overnight that is typically driven 30 miles a day. If you drive twice that distance per day a 120VAC outlet can still do the job or you can use a faster 220VAC outlet. Most people will simply not have a need for high speed chargers at home.
“The take home point is it is a major mistake to analyze the trends in electric vehicles from a merely technical or customer preference basis. The motivating force for this transition is driven instead by the current and expected future regulatory environment.”
Interesting comment.
My concerns are that regulatory requirements absent considerations of technical and practical issues will have dire consequences on our lifestyle, especially where the agenda is based on the flawed “belief” that CO 2 will destroy the planet. We already see economies throughout the world being strained based on this “theory”.
Engineers and scientists have the duty to point out the consequences of unrealistic regulatory requirements especially for a flawed concept mandating electric powered cars before there is even a viable battery that does not require all the additional expensive claptrap such as tax payer funded charging stations. We already have a concern regarding the reliability of the electricity supply given all the mandates for renewable energy sources, does not make sense to further burden the system with too many electric cars.
Diverting VW fines to this objective is offensive rather than putting them to good use.
I resent wasting taxpayers hard earned dollars going toward charging schemes that have a low probability of success, along the lines of Solyndra and all the other failed government funded schemes. The DOE apparently lacks the technical skills to screen out funding for such nonsense. Their track record of funding failures is disappointing at best, what are the accomplishments in increasing US energy supply for the last 30 years? Meanwhile the fossil fuel providers are showing a path the energy independence.
“Never Let a crisis go to waste”
Again the Administration is using this tool, diverting penalties to an objective that has nothing to do with the original “wrong” by VW. Why aren’t the purchasers rewarded with the fines instead since when their cars are modified the mpg will go down?
The administration will do anything to prop up a failed concept such as electric cars that are either overly expensive, loaded to bear with expensive subsidized batteries, or have a very limited range especially in environments where the headlights are burning, the wipers are chewing up electricity, and it’s cold as hell outside. IN earlier days I can remember spending 4 hours to get home in a driving snow storm where the normal drive was 30 minutes in traffic.
Why should the taxpayer subsidize purchases of $100,000 cars and then require us to pay for the electric distribution system to allow electric cars to go more than a few miles from home. Do they realize the vast extent of the gasoline and diesel stations across the USA even in remote areas and the cost to replace it. That was not subsidized , but built by common folks with their local gas stations as well as Oil companies.
The other back door is to require cars to get circa 54 mpg in the future without any consideration for the feasibility of achieving that objective, except with expensive electric cars still lacking a suitable battery.
And after the government puts the fossil fuel industry out of business, who is going to make up all those lost tax dollars they contribute to the Treasury in addition to all the road tax collected in most states. After personal income tax, the fossil fuel companies are the largest contributor to the US Treasury.
Initially a gas powered car will be needed to back up your electric car. But with the war on carbon gas powered cars will be phased out — and how will the electric car be backed up? Everyone will have to purchase a horse and buggy to back up their electric car.
Eugene WR Gallun
Two wrongs may not make a right, but sometimes they can stop a third wrong from being made.
Concerning earlier posts about the BP platform and oil spill. If you are interested, you should review the final report of the Chemical Safety Board at https://csb.gov . The finds are different from some of the statements made.
Re: Chemical Safety Board final report
All accidents result from a train of factors and decisions which lead to the final result. The fact remains that the blowout protecter (BOP) was not suitable for this job, was not properly wired, and was not properly tested so that the improper wiring could be detected. All other decisions made which led to the blowout might have been affected if the decision makers had known of these defects.
Reading from the executive summary I immediately see (my summary of each item):
Item #2 – The automatic function of the BOP emergency disconnect system used two redundant modules. Incorrect wiring would have totally disabled the yellow module, but it was so badly done that one section of this module would have failed before the incident due to a run-down battery, allowing the second section to activate by dumb luck. The second module of the BOP emergency disconnect system, the blue module, was miswired and could not operate at all.
Item #14 – The miswired solenoid valve in the yellow pod and the deficient wiring in the blue pod of the
emergency AMF/deadman system could not have passed the manufacturer’s factory acceptance
testing procedures.
Item #3 – The safety-critical systems responsible for shearing drillpipe in emergencies had performance
deficiencies even before the BOP was deployed to the Macondo wellhead.
Item #12 – The main function of the BOP is to shear the drill pipe and close a valve across the resulting gap. The shear device in the BOP did not meet the specs required (was not powerful enough ) for the kind of drillpipe used for this job except for one day of activity. (On all other days the drillpipe was so strong that it could not be known if the shearing function would work.)
The item numbers were from the section titled “Key Investigative Findings and Conclusions”
Here’s the issue I have with the push to replace all cars with EVs: in ten years, or so, you will be replacing the battery. At what cost? Will the car be worth putting that much money into it? What will the resale value of it be? The average price for a ten year old Honda Accord is $8500. Isn’t that close to what replacing the battery in an all electric vehicle wiould be? So wouldn’t it have to command a much higher price (yeah, but look at the future savings, would be the “correct” response)? Unfortunately, who is the market for 10+ year old car? The same people who can’t afford to invest up front for future savings.
The guy making minimum wage, just needing a $5k beater car to get back and forth to work will be faced with either quiting his job or buying a car guaranteed to need an expensive battery very soon (or else it would cost far more than $5k!). Unfortunately, that is a h u g e market, and it’s worldwide. Many, many people cannot afford to pay more now, even if it means saving much more money in the future.
Jtom, its more than the guy/gal making minimum wage.
The typical life-cycle of a car in the upper-middle-class area where I live looks like this. For 5 years and maybe 75-100k miles the “new” car is used by mom to tote kids to all activities, to take make the long annual vacation drives (for which an electric is unsuited), and for “date night” and other social events. This car must be large enough to carry the entire family + luggage. For the next 5 years and maybe 40-50k miles, this auto is demoted to “second car” status and the commuting adult (historically Dad) drives it to work in rush hour traffic 5 days a week and on the weekends it does dirty work like carting pine straw. Finally, if there are high-school or college age kids driving to school each day, the car lives out its remaining years on short trips maybe 5 thousand miles per year until it dies due to natural causes. If there is no third driver in the family, it might be donated to an extended family member or traded in on the the latest new car, and will likely be purchased by that minimum wage driver who needs transportation to work, or a craftsperson who needs to carry tools to a job site.
In the real world, the auto is almost always recycled from one use to another before it is scrapped. Any car which does not have the flexibility to handle a variety of uses and the longevity to endure 10-15 years on the road will have a much higher life-cycle capital cost to its owners.
I am surprised the author doesn’t not consider this Totalitarianism.
Democracy is being turned into a monster.
Kurt is claiming that he gets 357 mile range 85kw/238w)from his Tesla? He also claims he gets no free fuel but spends a lot of time telling us he uses the free fast chargers. He hand waves my accuracy query re his drive for two or three hours, that 120 or 180 miles not 357 and a huge 50% variance in distance. How does he get 3 days average total house consumption into his car? He is lucky he is only paying 9 cents. Most places no charge much more and increase it as you consume more. How about the fixed monthly charges as well? He claims all the kickbacks then says he against such things.
No wonder my senses give me alerts.
You still have no idea what you are talking about.
1. The full amount of the 85kW battery is not available for ordinary driving. One portion is reserved to prevent the battery from becoming “bricked” when it’s completely discharged, so you can never drive using it – the car won’t let you to make sure the battery isn’t damaged. On top of that. another part of the battery capacity is analogous to a “reserve” in a gasoline engine. You can drive on it, but the car will tell you that you’ve got no charge left while you do it to make sure you get to somewhere you can charge, which could be just a regular 120V outlet at a gas station.
So, for example, when Tesla claims 265 miles of range on an 85kWh battery, they assume people are driving 70mph on a freeway, a certain amount of city traffic, etc. using only the non-reserved part of the 85kWh battery. My meter on my car is telling me I’m getting to and from work on anywhere between 231 Wh/m to 240 Wh/m on a daily basis. If I were to drive continuously on a freeway with that mileage, I’d probably net about 315-320 without using the reserve. Using the reserve I might get to 325. That’s theoretical, but Tesla fully advertises that such efficiency is possible in the right conditions with conservative driving. On a road trip I might want to go ahead and drive 70mph, which is going to cut down on efficiency, or I might have to go over mountains that I don’t have to worry about getting to the office.
That’s not the point. For my daily driving needs, which is 90% if my driving, I am getting well over 100mpg equivalent.
2. My initial post regarding the “free” use of superchargers referred to Tesla’s policy of not charging for the use of superchargers to anyone who bought the 85kWh battery. People who bought the 60kWh version could pay a flat fee for lifetime use. You asked me how much I paid per kWh. I indicated that I paid nothing for superchargers and that I paid $0.09 per kWh at home. These numbers are accurate. My monthly meter fee is a sunk cost that I already have to incur, and has no bearing on the variable cost of the power I use.
As I later made clear, I presume that the costs for using the superchargers is priced into the cost of buying the car, so from my perspective it’s a sunk cost, to be recovered by later using the superchargers. Thus, were I to use superchargers extensively, the costs would be fully born by Tesla – not the public since again, to my knowledge, Tesla gets no subsidies for building their superchargers.
3. My post about driving for 2-3 hours between chargers was based on the strategy of only using enough of a charge to get you to the next supercharger so that you pull up to it close to empty. The car gives you the distance to the next supercharger so you can plan it out. Superchargers are spaced at about 150-200 miles apart on average – closer in some parts of the country. That means you drive for 2-3 hours, get to the next charger, spend 15-20 minutes putting another 150-200 miles into the battery, go to the next stop, etc. Again, I did this, so I know what I’m talking about. Exactly what is it in your psychological makeup that causes you to question the veracity of someone with personal experience in driving a car about how it performs?
4. I have no idea what you mean when asking how i get “3 days average total house consumption” into my car. I have a 50 amp outlet in my garage that puts out current at 240V. It charges at a rate of about 25 miles each hour. If I needed to (I rarely do) I could fully charge the car overnight, but I usually only have to put on about 100 miles each day, which only requires the car to be plugged in for about four hours to recover what I drove that day. Is that clear enough as to how I put the energy I need into my car?
5. I may well be lucky to be paying only 9 cents per kwh, as I don’t know what the rates are elsewhere. My equivalent fuel economy also “benefits” from the fact that gasoline prices are higher here than in, say Wyoming or Texas. But no matter where you live, or what the electricity prices are around the country, fuel costs for electricity are still a lot lower than fuel costs for gasoline, and you certainly had no informed basis to write that my “mpg claims are false, somebody is paying for your free” (sic).
6. As I’ve made perfectly clear in my previous posts, any hypocrisy as to using available tax credits and buying subsidized products is yours. You know what – I think the home mortgage interest deduction and the employer-sponsored health care deduction are wrong too. They not only shift costs but they drive up the price of the products they subsidize, which is a huge problem in heath care. That doesn’t mean that I’m dumb enough not to claim my mortgage interest as a deduction or to take advantage of the tax free health insurance I can get from work.
Now unless you’re telling me that you are so pristine that you do own a home with a mortgage but nonetheless pass up claiming the interest deduction, or that you have kids but voluntarily elect not to take the $1,000 child tax credit so as to make sure you don’t pass any of your costs onto others, and that you studiously avoid buying any product that the government subsidizes, you have no business sanctimoniously criticizing me for minimizing my taxes or simply purchasing whatever products I like.
Thank you for your clarification Kurt, I am not talking about anything other than to question and ask questions. Seems you drive in 150 mile hops, hang around and then drive some more. Do you use heaters, lights, ICE or aircon? The average house uses 24 Kw/Hr per day, you know that. So you trickle charge and motor in small hops.
In looking at this, you are the first that gets more than Tesla claims in mileage, that i have heard about. re the subsidy, its only available to those who can afford Teslas, thats the poor subsidising the rich that leaves a bad taste.
Me., I get 100 Km for USD 2.2 and 800 KM range with no worries, planning,and pay all taxes, aircon full blast and 120 kph
I live in Oregon so the weather (which is not climate) is usually such that I can avoid AC or heat except in the dead of winter or maybe about 10 days out of the summer. The biggest explanation of my fuel economy is that I rarely drive over 60 and I’m almost always on the highway. Most Tesla owners like it for the performance and acceleration so only a few drive it to get the best economy. I drive the same way I did when I had the original Honda Insight where I was getting about 80mpg on the highway using only the gasoline engine. When that died on me, I would have just bought another one, but Honda doesn’t make that model anymore, instead changing the Insight to be more like a Prius and get only about 40 on the highway. The Tesla was the only car that could match or beat the original Insight’s fuel economy while still letting me drive my 90 mile a day commute.
The biggest subsidy associated with the Tesla is the $7,500 tax credit, but you get that for buying any purely electric vehicle, some of which seem to start at around 30K, like the Leaf and Focus (which both get better mileage than the Tesla but not nearly the range). And most other car companies that make electric vehicles get the same sweet loans from the feds that Tesla did, so I wouldn’t say at all that these subsidies are only available to those that can afford a Tesla – you just have to be able to afford any electric car. Granted, for most people they still aren’t practical, but there are affordable electrics out there.
And as I mentioned to someone else above, subsidies aren’t about wealth distribution, they are about changing people’s behavior to get you to do something the government wants you to do. That’s why I object to subsidies on principle – I don’t think government is competent to decide what is or is not best for everyone. But assuming the legitimacy of the reason for any particular subsidy, if the government wants to encourage behavior (buying a house, buying an electric car), there is no reason why that behavior should be encouraged for some people but not for others. In this case, the Tesla fit my needs so I bought it.
2 billion might just be an unimaginable number to most people.
To the politicians/regulators it is like a piñata, they’re all gonna take a swing at it.
“Under progressive rule, fines go to progressive causes without having to go through that pesky Congress as required by the Constitution.”…..
like Iran Contra..or The Clinton foundation??
I wouldn’t mind someone trying to prosecute those who negotiate these deals under public corruption statutes. If a fire marshal accepts, as a bribe for ignoring a fire hazard, a donation to his favorite charity, that’s still bribery. There is no excuse for “noble corruption.” When Congress passes a law subjecting some wrongful action to fines or penalties, any receipts are public money. When a government official accuses a company with a criminal or civil offense, then negotiates a “pre-charge” settlement that involves donating part of the fines that should have gone to the public coffers to some pet cause, instead, I think that’s illegal.
Here’s a man sized VW for you:
http://videos.usatoday.net/Brightcove2/29906170001/2016/07/29906170001_5061733501001_5061717547001.mp4