U.S. Battery, Plug-in Car Push Costs Exceed Rewards, Study Says

That was actually in response to PNGV - 80 MPG SuperCar project which US spent $1.5 billion with GM, Ford and Chrysler.

 

From that point of view, I guess it is working better than PNGV because we have Volt, Leaf and Fisker (soon to be) on dealer lots.

 

Nonsense.

The cost is economic efficiency. You *do* still remember why the USSR collapsed, yes ?

 

A bit ?

Ask the peons in a feudal system if life is fine because the king is inside the system.

 

It cracks me up. You seldome heard of subsidies back when it was only the oily industry rakeing them in ... artificially droping our fuel prices so everybody could afford to drive ... even to the point where lazy folk would take someone out shopping, and choose to sit in their car with the AC on ... rather than walk into the air conditioned store right in front of them. But now days ... now that we're trying to get off the oil addiction ... now that production is peaking and supplies will for ever spiral downward ... god forbid we subsidise any alternatives. That's just great.
No - it's pretty evident the OP's article was written by Art Spinella's ghost writer.

.

 

Opportunity cost. For example: $7,500 per Volt times 200k = $1.5 billion can instead go into building a high-speed railroad.

Incentive structure based on the result (not battery size) also encourage battery development as well as other technologies. The current structure only pick the BEV or PHEV with big battery pack as the winners.

 

It is a good thing we did not stop cellphones because of its initial cost. The price should come down significantly with mass production.

When was the cell phone invented

 

200k Volts ? at current production rates, that'll be about 20 years after the sun goes super nova.
Here's a better idea. Reduce military spending by only 10%. Our military does a substantial bit of its duty in oil rich countries, propping up the favorable governments that (coincidentally) support U.S. oil interests. 2 for the price of one. Those countries will stop hating us for propping up our dictators over there, and we can then actually afford to subsidize things like hydro power - high speed rail - electric transportation etc.

.

 

That's when the tax credit will start to fade.

 

I cannot really argue too much with the article since I have been saying the same thing for a couple of years now

Corwyn makes a fair point, although consumer subsidy is a really goofy way to support basic research.

Hill, I cannot agree more -- oil subsidies should be removed. In fact all subsidies other than infrastructure and basic research should be banished.

 

This research is saying the same thing.

Strategies to promote adoption of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) with small battery packs offer more social benefits (i.e., air emissions and oil displacement benefits) in the near term per dollar spent than PHEVs and battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) with large battery packs providing longer electric range...​

Green Car Congress: CMU study finds that HEVs and PHEVs with small battery packs offer more emissions and oil displacement benefits per dollar spent than large pack PHEVs and BEVs; policy implications

 

+1

 

You know the cost is still is a few hundred to a thousand today. But it is subsidized over the length of your "contract".

When I switch phones (without going through my service provider) I pay $700 to $800 for the phone. I then can sell my old one for $200-$400 and everyone wins. I could get a similar phone from the store for $200 new if I agree to an extra 2 years and an extra $10/mo for this and an extra $5/mo for that and give them my firstborn. But the phones I buy aren't even for sale in the USDM so that's why it is "similar".

 

It is not due to lower cost of the battery alone. Consider this trend:



It is clear we cannot expect mass production price drop of BEVs and EREV like we saw from Computers, TVs, DVD players or cell phones.

 

Hey! I want a red marker, too!

Funny how wireless speeds *dropped* for a while. THanks, ATT

 

+1

This is exactly the good point of these incentives to get to a point that oil shocks won't wreck the economy. Now if it were up to me, we would kill most of the incentives, kill ethanol, oil, coal, and assign economic costs to them. Short of that this appears to be a good one, with car availability here. I won't argue with any of you that the government makes bad choices but lets put this choice in perspective.

Ethanol subsidy is as much each year as this one will be for all years, but likely does not reduce co2 and likely does not reduce as much oil use long term as this one incentive. Ethanol subsidy, tarrif, and mandate also threatens the environment and food supply. Oil subsidies encourage drilling in the gulf that created the bp spill. There is also the subsidy by keeping bases in oil rich nations, which would save much more money than these incentives. The reason for them. Infact why in the world do we need bases in Korea and germany either? Lets shut them down and reduce the deficit. That might be much more productive than cutting the electrification incentives.

I'm sure the study was written before the price was really out. They assumed the phv would be significantly less expensive than the leaf and volt. After the incentive the prices are not all that different. We will know after they get into the hands of owners, and can write the answer around 2015, but right now drivers of leafs and volts are using less gasoline than a plug in prius would, and to many owners it is the less gas not the less co2 that is most important.

 

It's likely the author published this doo doo as a way to create drama, rather than enlightenment. SO:

Decisions decisions - who should I believe. Bloomberg?
or, Huffington Post.

Sarah A. W. Fitts: Freedom Is an Electric Car

hmmm - tough call

.

 

^^ this argument is a false choice, because it ignores conservation in the form of smaller cars, hybrids, car pooling, combining errands .... .... ....

Just cut out the bloody oil subsidies, and the market will take care of itself.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges which is besides the point.

Sure - we can't expect a logarithmic reduction in battery cost and increase in energy density. But we don't need one!

Gasoline isn't getting any cheaper and isn't getting any easier to find.

A 2-3x reduction in battery cost and a 2-3x increase in energy density will provide enough incentive to sell massive volumes of PHEVs and BEVs. HEVs will be standard issue on all cars.

Today HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs are either affordable or close to affordable (and make pure economical sense ignoring externalities) for many, many people.

Honda has been selling a couple of sub-$20k HEVs now. Toyota could probably do the same if they wanted.

The Prius PHEV will probably be the highest selling PHEV/BEV if they can produce them fast enough.

Nissan's BEV has been out-selling all hybrids except for the Prius for most of the year. Chevy's Volt has been hampered by limited production - rumors are that volume should be going up very soon now.

The only thing that gas powered cars will be able to compete with is energy density. It's really tough to beat 33.6 kWh of energy in the space of a gallon - even when you typically throw 75% of it away as heat. But with 3x the energy density and some well located quick charge stations - it won't matter 98% of the time.

 

No, THIS argument INCLUDES smaller cars, car pooling etc ... only in EV's ... you see, if you do THAT, well then it gives even MORE bang for your green buck.

.