The Economist article fails to mention that electrical vehicles are massively subsidized by governments. The production and adoption of electrical vehicles would not exist, but for these http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/10/tesla-is-hemorrhaging-mone... subsidies. As an honest observer, the natural market forces that would influence a rational decision to adopt electrical vehicles, do not exist. The true cost of electri…
And I get modded down, why? Because these comments do not reflect a purely progressive viewpoint? You should reconsider whom are allowed to moderate these forums.
The Economist article fails to mention that electrical vehicles are massively subsidized by governments. The production and adoption of electrical vehicles would not exist, but for these http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/10/tesla-is-hemorrhaging-mone... subsidies. As an honest observer, the natural market forces that would influence a rational decision to adopt electrical vehicles, do not exist. The true cost of electri…
They also fail to mention how much the federal government subsidizes oil. One benefit of driving an EV is not funding the Middle East.
The federal government does not directly subsidize fossil fuel production, distribution or consumption. The government allows for losses, due to failed exploration. Not every well that you drill, brings in oil; or brings in sufficient oil to make that endeavor profitable. Any cost-offsets are in place to help ease the pain of failed wells.
The Economist article fails to mention that electrical vehicles are massively subsidized by governments. The production and adoption of electrical vehicles would not exist, but for these http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/10/tesla-is-hemorrhaging-mone... subsidies. As an honest observer, the natural market forces that would influence a rational decision to adopt electrical vehicles, do not exist. The true cost of electri…
The subsidies you bring up to justify your argument do exist. But they also exist in greater numbers for the gas/car manufacturers, so your argument that market forces would make electric cars untenable is very questionable. https://electrek.co/2016/10/10/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-challenge...
I disagree, due to the not-so-coincidental timing of the introduction of hybrids and all-electrics, to coincide with augmentation of the CAFE standard, implementation of incentives for production and consumer purchase of said vehicles, etc etc. Where it not for the push and pull of incentives and regulatory pressure, they simply would not be on the road, today.
You may love that conversation, but how many Americans are willing to give up their vehicles? In America, the privately owned vehicle isn't just transportation, it's a status symbol. That's not going to change just because someone crunched some numbers.
I have a hard time believing this will be as big an issue as many believe. The biggest reason is generational die off. We're already seeing younger people forgoing even getting a license. Urban population growth is rendering it less valuable. The only cohort that licensing is up is boomers. 55-75 are more likely to have a license than they were a generation ago. Licensed 16 year drivers is way down. Something like ha…
> Younger folks tend to see cars as noisey, smelly, expensive, and passé already. Not sure that status symbol thesis holds up
That might be some of it, but Millenials on average are also less well off than older cohorts; they simply can't afford a new car, or possibly even a car at all (but might require one; not everyone lives in a metro with good public transit).
My amateur expectation is that if 100% of vehicles are autonomous, they can be FAR better drivers and you could get far more cars on the same roads with considerably less stopping and waiting. The problem will be when fewer than 100% of vehicles are autonomous, then it will simply remain as awful as it is today.
I wonder if road signs will evolve too. The other day a few red lights were put in blinking mode because of roadwork. While asking for way more attention, it also avoid many 50sec pauses.. I found it very very nice. With collaborating SDV you could get rid of many stuck intersections that creates bloat and useless consumption (even though EV can just cut power on stop ...)
I Fantacise of a world with far far fewer road signs.
They also fail to mention how much the federal government subsidizes oil. One benefit of driving an EV is not funding the Middle East.
The federal government does not directly subsidize fossil fuel production, distribution or consumption. The government allows for losses, due to failed exploration. Not every well that you drill, brings in oil; or brings in sufficient oil to make that endeavor profitable. Any cost-offsets are in place to help ease the pain of failed wells.
So the $7,500 tax credit for an EV buyer is a subsidy? Yet the tax write-off for a failed well is not a subsidy?
Anyway, I think the whole idea of a tax savings classified as a subsidy is ludicrous. It's as if the federal government owns 100% of may paycheck, and the 70% they allow me to keep is then a subsidy.
As if ICEs are going to be replaced for emergency power generation any time soon. And with new tech coming out where regular gasoline engines can be as efficient as diesels (in fact using the Diesel cycle to a degree) if not more, you're going to find a resurgence of them in hybrid-electric vehicles. I doubt you're going to be rolling around with a solar-powered weed-eater to do your yardwork. I can guarantee you are…
> I doubt you're going to be rolling around with a solar-powered weed-eater to do your yardwork. I wouldn't doubt that. I have a carbon-neutral wireless electric weed-eater. Throw some spinning blades on it, and it will cut down small trees too. I also have a carbon-neutral wireless electric lawnmower. And a carbon-neutral wireless electric snowblower. You can buy all three yourself, today, in the US at almost any Ho…
>carbon-neutral
I almost guarantee those plastics were not manufactured using a carbon-neutral process.
We already subsidize roads over public transportation so the subsidies to the wealthy are already there. We're just attempting to internalize externalities of a resource with physical limits.
The convenience of a public transportation systems is priced into the housing near its stations, meaning it mostly benefits the wealthy. The road network, on the other hand, reaches into neighborhoods which are far enough away from the center to be affordable to working-class families. The people who end up driving despite the tolls, parking elimination, etc. are those who can't afford the rent near the public transi…
> The convenience of a public transportation systems is priced into the housing near its stations, meaning it mostly benefits the wealthy.
That's a very Ameri-centric view. In most European countries people of all classes live near and regularly take public transit.