Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 161 posts

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#111

Post by mschuster91 »

Cshelton wrote: post #10

If we just eliminated subsidies in the oil & gas world, I can promise you the economy will move towards renewable extremely fast. Make it a phase out of two - four years..., it would boost sales of EV's and our entire transportation network much more quick than EV tax credits would, AND, it would be a fair market for once! It would spur innovation, create many jobs, we would lead the world once again in regards towar…

> Make it a phase out of two - four years..., it would boost sales of EV's and our entire transportation network

Doesn't work. Stuff simply does not scale that fast. Maybe the big automobile companies can scale up EV production, but there's still the battery bottleneck (which prompted Tesla to build the Gigafactory, but I am not aware of any other project even remotely near that scale - and Tesla sure as hell won't sell its batteries to competitors, they got enough demand with their cars + the energy storage stuff).

Public transportation will only be buses that are able to scale. Even light/street rail takes years to get politically approved and then financed, and actual proper intercountry transportation takes decades to build - if it gets built at all given how expensive it is.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#112

Post by antisthenes »

chk_ur_autism wrote: post #43
maxerickson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor are people spending $30,000 on a vehicle showing particularly price sensitive behavior. Lots of fine vehicles available for $15,000, $15,000 is an awful lot of gas (and you save on insurance and financing with a cheaper vehicle, so the lower maintenance on the electric isn't the only consideration).

Maybe it's not just about cost, but about driving a vehicle that doesn't directly contribute to diffused emissions? And use motor oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant, belts, etc?

If you're going to compare long term maintenance costs, you absolutely have to include the battery pack replacement cost. Otherwise you're being disingenuous or even deceptive.

Many '11-'12 Leaf owners are already complaining about significantly reduced ranges on their vehicles. What happens after 60,000 miles if your battery starts rapidly going under 9 bars?

Keep driving with terrible range anxiety? Plan your routes with chargers in mind? Have a stopless commute now require you to stop and charge, making trips even longer?

Replace the battery pack?

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1111264_new-life-for-old...

Whoops, that's going to be $6,200.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#113

Post by tessierashpool »

evo_9 wrote: post #82
rukittenme wrote: post #37

I have a lot to say on this... > Critics say electric vehicle buyers tend to be wealthier than average Americans and do nod need subsidies. I love how this gets buried at the bottom after an avalanche of criticism. A free $7500 for the rich and an additional $7500 in revenue for manufacturers. Say what you want about the American political system, it is a master class in manipulation. "But the environment!" Assuming…

Ironically this might have been true in the past when your only EV option was a Tesla; however the Chevy Bolt is selling like mad, the Chevy Volt continues to sell well and you have quite a few choices either out or coming to market in early 2018, including the VW E-Golf, Hyundai Ioniq, Kia Soul EV to name just a few that are under 30k. Removing the EV Credit now makes no sense; perhaps a better approach is to limit…

Right. Obviously, if you put a tax credit in place to incentivize manufacturers, you have to wait for their ramp-up time.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#114

Post by [deleted] »

rukittenme wrote: post #110
rconti wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically, your argument only works if you assume that the people buying EVs would have either kept on driving their old cars OR sold their old cars and replaced them with a used car? So now EVs are some kind of evil temptress? I think I can do without reading that source now.

> I think I can do without reading that source now. This is crazy, man. I'm just saying it costs less carbon to keep a used car. I'm not accusing EVs of "being an evil temptress".

[deleted]

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#115

Post by cptskippy »

rukittenme wrote: post #62
JosephLark wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course things get framed to manipulate opinion. Now, I actually don't mean this with any snark, but how is what you're doing any different? This tax credit applies to plenty of vehicles sold for much less than $100,000.

The majority of the EV market is high-end, luxury vehicles. There is a 200k cap on the credit. Meaning mass market EVs do not receive the credit. It exclusively benefits low volume, high margin EVs. Which are exclusively marketed to the rich.

It is?

As of the end of 2016 Tesla's cumulative sales were ~160k units. Nissan alone has produced over 300k of the Leaf.

The Bolt exceeded the Model S in sales last month selling just under 3000 units.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#116

Post by olympus »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #92
rukittenme wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes its true. I do not have a source handy so I'll have to rely on some other HN commenter to help me out. Basically the math works like this: An internal combustion cars cost X tons of carbon to produce. An an EV costs Y tons of carbon to produce. If you need a new car, it will probably require the same amount of carbon to produce an EV as a combustion car. But if you can drive a used car and extend its life 5, 10,…

To be fair if you keep the EV long enough then it will work out to be better for the environment. Though I can't find a reliable number for how many years that actually is and I'm not sure if the average person who owns an EV would even keep it that long...

Maybe not better in the long run. You need to overhaul the batteries (replacing dead cells can be done individually) every decade with current technology. You also need to overhaul a combustion engine (cylinder bore/hone, worn parts replaced, warped parts milled flat) every decade-ish, so their sustaining carbon costs are about the same. It's at least a lot closer than most people realize.

A PZEV (very low emission ICE vehicle) is the sweet spot right now in terms of overall environmental impact. It will be a few years before EVs are the clear winner.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#117

Post by mythrwy »

Kyragem wrote: post #75

"Electric car buyers tend to be wealthier and don't need subsidies" If that is so why are republicans proposing to cut the estate taxes? hypocrites.

To be fair ceasing to take people's money and ceasing to give people free money isn't ideologically the same thing (even though both result in people having more money).

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#118

Post by AtomicOrbital »

joshamania wrote: post #49
ellyagg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the biggest specific subsidy of oil or gas right now that you know about?

Oh...the trillions we've spent on warfare in the Middle East comes to mind...

Correct ... its pure deception to continue allowing governments to shoulder this military expense ... petrol conglomerates must pay the full cost to society of fighting these endless wars to permit continued resource extraction ... once this cost is factored into petrol at the pump then ALL green energy sources suddenly become the obvious low cost choice

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#119

Post by ellyagg »

Cshelton wrote: post #76
ellyagg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the biggest specific subsidy of oil or gas right now that you know about?

When taking in account of direct and indirect subsidies, see this IMF report: http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew07... There are many other reports by many other groups... Also consider the costs of using tax payer money to pay for/subsidies infastructure/reasearch in the fossil fuel industry.

Saying, "read this giant report that contains a bunch of other irrelevant data" isn't the most helpful. The other comments so far in this thread are argumentative, non-specfic, or I still couldn't verify their existence by googling.

I take it as a given that we want to continue to have cheap energy as we transition to renewable resources. Our economy and much of our quality of life are dependent on the incredible abundance that cheap energy has provided, so I'm not in favor of throwing the baby out with the bath water! If we need to defend our cheap energy supplies sometimes, that's probably OK.

The kinds of subsidies I'm interested in hearing about are where oil or gas is getting special treatment compared to other businesses. I'm not in favor of special treatment for most businesses, but I'm especially disinclined to unlevel playing fields.

I'm in favor of the adoption of renewables and somewhat in favor of subsidies and breaks for renewables to encourage it. I'm not in favor of special privileges for oil and gas, over and above what's afforded other industries. However, instead of penalizing oil and gas with respect to other industries, I'd prefer subsidies and breaks for renewables. Cheap energy is critical to pretty much everything.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#120

Post by cptskippy »

RayVR wrote: post #88
rukittenme wrote: post #37

I have a lot to say on this... > Critics say electric vehicle buyers tend to be wealthier than average Americans and do nod need subsidies. I love how this gets buried at the bottom after an avalanche of criticism. A free $7500 for the rich and an additional $7500 in revenue for manufacturers. Say what you want about the American political system, it is a master class in manipulation. "But the environment!" Assuming…

Based on EPA estimates of global greenhouse gas emissions, converting every US passenger vehicle to electric, assuming those vehicles are then driven for at least seven years, the net reduction to global emissions is roughly 1%.

How'd you come up with that number? The US accounts for 15% of emissions and personal transportation accounts for 1/5th of US emissions.

That accounts for 3% annually.

Post reply on HN