nissan looking at 150 mile epa range, implies battery costs continuing down

ACEEE has been around for 3 decades.... they have thoroughly established their green "cred".

Also you don't seem to realize the greenscore takes into account manufacturing energy & disposal energy. We all know that 5000 pounds of aluminum/lithium Tesla will require more energy to build/recycle than 3000 pounds of steel (Odyssey). Aluminum is expensive to build & recycle.

 

BTW the Odyssey has a V6 engine that can run on just 3 cylinders. That's why it got a high score.... it has high MPG and PZEV emission rating. It's almost as clean as the Tesla and Rav4 EVs (which also have exhaust albeit displaced to the coal or natural gas plant).

 

Or the local hydro, solar or wind turbine

The benefit of EV's is that in most cases their emissions are lower than a petrol or diesel vehicle BUT that they can also be reduced if using renewable energy. Something a petrol or diesel vehicle can't.

My electric company now offer the following partnership with the UK VW group. Thus helping really reduce the emissions of their EVs.

Ecotricity have signed a partnership deal with Volkswagen Group (UK) Limited, the UK importer of Volkswagen Passenger Cars and Commercial Vehicles, Audi, SEAT and ŠKODA, to be their official green energy supplier, meaning all customers purchasing an electric car from one of the Group brands will be offered the new Ecotricity tariff and a free smart meter installation.

New electricity tariff offers 1,000 free car miles - News - Ecotricity

 

Intuition would suggest that when one car costs three to five times as much as another car, this is because the more expensive car "ate" vastly more resources in its production, which justifies a skeptical eye about how "green" it can be.

On a personal level, I have to pay for my Prius C -- a modest car -- entirely out of my own pocket. And my tax dollars, as well as a portion of my car price, pays for the purpose of subsidizing the production and sale of cars like the Tesla Roadster, which is a toy for rich yuppies.

I try to be a good citizen of the nation and the planet. But I look with suspicion upon much of what passes for "green" in the political world, which is too often merely an excuse for cronyism.

 

Except the price could include things that are priced higher do to a perceived value that may or may not reflect reality, e.x. fancy leathers and exotic wood trims. The price may also reflect the resource of time and skilled labor. Hand stitched leather upholstery costs more than machine made. Both of those could contribute. The Dodge Viper had a $14k+ paint color. In part due to it taking a week to apply.

Then there is simply greed and the value in the brand name. Options for luxury tend to cost more for no real good reason than because the buyer can afford it and they expect it.

In the case of Tesla, it would have been impossible for them to start by providing a mass market product. As a start up, they simply didn't have the resources to do so. Thus the plan of starting with a high end sports car and then a high end sedan. The higher profit margins provide capitol to fund development of the more affordable models.

And my tax dollars subsidize breeders having kids. The plug in tax credit is a drop in the federal budget, and it also applies to cars that don't require someone to be rich to afford. On a percentage basis, the credit is more on such cars. Then there were the credits and deductions for hybrids.

The Model S is more than a toy. Its range and the Supercharger network actually make it possible for someone to go gasoline free. The lower priced E will eventually do so for an even larger percentage of the population. It would have been great if the lower priced car could come first, but Tesla is not Nissan. They didn't have the means to support a car like the Leaf until battery prices drop. They are now. Thanks to the tax credits subsidizing their production.

GM, Ford, and Toyota were the major pushers for the plug in tax credits, and 'green' isn't the only issue in regard to plug ins and fuel efficiency.

 

I'd be more than happy to stop all the EV subsidies if we also stopped all the oil subsidies.
Last year the federal governments rebates for EVs came in just shy of $750 million.
Middle of the road estimates for oil are 10 Billion.
While we are at it, how about the child and home ownership subsidies.

 

What oil subsidies?

ACEEE uses the U.S. mix of coal/natural gas/hydro/nuclear. I don't know why they don't give an estimate for solar charging with rooftop panels, but I suspect it's because so few Americans have them (<0.2%). ALSO I'm not convinced those solar roofs provide enough power to run the house *and* fuel an EV too, so your electric car would still need to pull its energy off the dirty grid.

 

My apologies, my numbers were off. The 10 billion was for fossil fuel subsidies, not just oil.
For full details see Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S. | Oil Change InternationalThe Price of Oil

Please note, we subsidize a ton of stuff in this nation. So as I said earlier, get rid of all of them.

 

I really don't want to fuel a political argument, which is generally pointless. I'm just pointing out the obvious, which is the highly visible and systematic web of subsidies for these hyper-expensive cars that only rich people can afford, covering sweetheart loans for questionable manufacturing (such as the A123 Battery debacle), tax credits on the purchase, and cheap electricity for a charging station in many localities (that's probably a local policy). FWIW, Forbes ran an interesting article, "If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We'd All Save Some Money". Yes, and billion$ poured into GM, billion$ poured into everything. The entire ethanol push is, as far as I can tell, one gigantic boondoggle and payoff to the corn belt, in that the corn-based starch ethanol processes require too much work to yield a net-positive contribution to the overall energy picture. (Even Al Gore has said that starch ethanol was a mistake, made for political reasons. So we dumped more money into cellulosic ethanol (such as the Range Fuels plant that cost hundreds of million$ to build and produced nothing). Maybe somebody will get cellulose working, or come up with an algae process so we can farm the oceans for oil; I know the potential is real. But, gory details and favorite examples aside, I think we're all a bit skeptical or cynical about those that feed at Uncle Sugar's endless trough. Or at least those of us that perceive ourselves to be filling that trough instead of emptying it, and being subject to the opprobrium of parasitical cronies that bitterly complain that taxpayers are not doing enough for them. Meanwhile, as we fight amongst ourselves, I lament that my best choice came from a foreign company in a foreign land.

Please don't take any of this personally. I've got no gripe with anyone that opines on this board. But as a tax-paying citizen with a modest, unsubsidized car that is arguably greener than political green, I think I'm entitled to vent.

 

You are certainly entitle to voice your opinion.
I just want to stress that the benificial tax treatment for EVs (in all price ranges) is not unique, is available to anyone that wishes to buy one and that gas, kids, education, housing, medical care and many other things also receive similar, if not more benefits.

The benificial tax treatment of SUVs is part of the reason we are in this mess.
So I am just fine with he idea of eliminating these benefits, but eliminate all of them, don't do it bit by bit.

 

Regardless of "not enough" power produced with solar panels, it has its advantages that utility companies (and in the case of CA... CUPC too) hate. Solar panels are great at minimizing the requirement to upgrade the electrical grid during high usage time frame. Imagine home and business solar panels powering own home/business and maybe their neighbors without having to upgrade 1000s of miles of power lines.

Guess utility companies and utility workers' unions hate that idea.

 

And a 4 kwh system will certainly more than cover the background requirements of a UK home and the remainder can be used to part top up your EV.

Also, in the UK you can choose your own power company and I've chosen one that provides 100% renewable energy. That will also help owners of EVs.

 

But no one that has bought a plug in plugs into an average grid mix. Daniel, who was once here, has all his electric for home and Tesla made from hydro. My parents in NC draw mostly from Nuclear. Texas has a large mix of wind.

There are places with large amounts of coal in the mix? Are they popular regions for plug in ownership?

On average, few homes have solar, but it is popular with those that get a plug in. In California, it has been quoted that 39% of Plug in owners have solar. They still draw from the grid at times, but some solar plus grid is better than all grid for a home and electric car.

 

Not sure why facts won't "convince" you... If you produce as much as you use whether that is for charging your EV or just running every light and appliance in your house 24/7 for no reason, then you aren't using the grid. When you generate a surplus other people use less of the grid and when you consume more (like at night) you are using the grid power they would have used except it is even better in that those are generally the way off peak times where the plants are running just because they can't shut down, not because they need to produce that much power.

And like grumpy, I can choose where my grid power comes from. I buy wind farm electricity.

 

So if you have a 4kwh system on your house in summer and are generating that amount (for arguments sake). Your house and your neighbours houses will probably be just consuming a nominal 500watts whilst everyone is at work. So you will be providing power for 8 houses. Assume people use 250 watts in the background, your solar array could be powering 16 houses.

Or you could charge your car for free.

 

For me a subsidy is a direct cash payment from Congress to an oil company. Or a tax credit on the tax form (basically the same as cash). Anything else is not a subsidy. After all I don't claim I have been "subsidized" if a cop shoots a burglar breaking into my house. I paid for that protection

I found a flaw with ACEEE's greenercar list: They left out three EVs that should be ranked at the top of the list. Is it because these cars are only available for LEASE and cannot be purchased? I'm guessing that's the answer, since the Honda Clarity fuel cell car is also not listed:

59 Smart ForTwo EV
58 Chevy Spark EV
57 Fiat 500e EV/ Prius C
56 Honda Fit EV
55 Leaf/ Prius/ Civic Hybrid

The italicized cars are all lease-only, if I recall correctly.

 

I am all for eliminating tax CREDITS or cash handouts to oil companies (and corporations in general). And no Tesla is not the one who received a tax credit on its annual return.... it was the customers. Last time I checked I have received no tax credits on my 1040 because I burned oil (i.e. no subsidy). I did however get one for my hybrid due to its electric motor.