Now the Republicans are going after the $7500 tax credit for electric cars
On Dec 30, Rep Mike Kelly entered a bill that would terminate the $7,500 electric car tax credit. But he's clearly someone with a personal axe to grind here, being a former car dealer himself whose dealership was almost closed during the GM Bankruptcy proceedings.
I used to envy the Americans for being so forward thinking about the adoption of EV's compared to our brain-dead Australian government. But now it seems they are going backwards. I bet they'll sink a few more billion into researching how to drill for more oil though. Just imagine how much EV infrastructure could be built for a BILLION dollars! A few fast charge points, battery swap stations, more research for higher density batteries and the list could go on and on.
Here in Australia my electric scooter is legally registered as a 1cc scooter because their system won't allow a 0cc or electric and plus because it only has 2 wheels it doesn't 'qualify' as an electric vehicle so it gets the same 'Green' rating (1 star) as a 4.0 turbo diesel 4WD and I have to pay $385 carbon tax.
But wait it gets worse, the Nissan Leaf costs Americans $32780 before tax credits (at least you have them). Now the Aussie dollar is worth more than the US you would think we would get the car for the same price....No. It looks like it will go on sale for around $75,000. Umm, why? Is it our government jacking up the price or is it $33,000 postage? Lol
California seems to be the state leading the world, either that or Israel.
I saw examples of this to kill the EV1. Then Who Killed The Electric Car showed even more.
I live in Australia and I'm dying to see "Revenge Of The Electric Car". I should be able to buy it on DVD soon. They won't let me buy a downloadable copy.
Shame that you have to pay that carbon tax, but such carbon incentives/disincentives is as far from the politically possible in the US as a snowstorm in Darwin when the world is 4C warmer in 2100.
Aside from Dave's little enclave of mildly enlightened people in the SF Bay area, the US is resolutely marching, deliberately and defiantly, in the wrong direction as far as AGW is concerned. Latest polls show a majority of USAns polled consider AGW to be a "socialist-hoax". The brainwashing is deep.
I've always been bit of a heretic on this site in that I've always thought that vastly expanded public transportation and a return to traditional urban spaces should be given higher priority than electric cars. Sure, I've been dabbling in, and now largely relying on, electric scooters since 2005, but that is mostly becasue of my job moving the the outer burbs and we are facing draconian public transit service cuts.
This republican congressman may not be nearly so mercenary. The main reason may simply be that that the Republicans (and the Democrats who may not author such legislation but go along with it) are extremist ideologues opposed to any kind of meddling in the "free market" even when it is dealing with potentially catastrophic social or environmental externalities that even Adam Smith understood could not ever be addressed by market forces.
PJD, are you sure that most people on this site think EVs should be given a higher priority than improved mass transit and urban design? I think it's more a case of talking about what we deal with every day with our own vehicles than of thinking everybody should have a short-lived, unreliable, Chinese-built personal EV. ;-)
There's nothing wrong with a rich person taking political office. However this Congressman is a living breathing example of an insider to the oil / auto company duopoly, taking direct action to kill electric vehicles.
David, could you explain to me again why "oil interests" would want to kill EV's?
If understand you correctly, the theory goes something like this, Oil companies are desperate to sell gasoline, so EV's are a threat to Oil companies, is that right?
Problem with that theory is, no oil company is really all that keen to sell gasoline. (the least profitable of all petroleum products).
But more importantly, Oil companies are well aware, (and have been since the mid 70's) of the logistics of Oil depletion. The problem facing Oil companies is not selling more Oil, it's finding Oil to sell! Shell, BP, Chevron, and finally Exxon Mobile have all issued statements referring to the need for over 30 million EV's or alternate fuelled vehicles, to be on the road in 2030 or the Oil industry will not be able to meet demand.
BP, is the world largest investor in Solar energy, and has been since 1976!
Chevron has invested hundred of Billions to rescue the Geo-thermal industry after it had virtually collapsed. Chevron's shareholders are happy to invest in an industry which produces the power for EV's!
I fail to see why, with over 4 billion fossil fuel driven engines in the world, and Oil becoming depleted, any Oil company would be bothered by the development of a handful of EV's!
But, hey I'll listen to any logical explanation to the contrary.
IBut wait it gets worse, the Nissan Leaf costs Americans $32780 before tax credits (at least you have them). Now the Aussie dollar is worth more than the US you would think we would get the car for the same price....No. It looks like it will go on sale for around $75,000. Umm, why? Is it our government jacking up the price or is it $33,000 postage? California seems to be the state leading the world, either that or Israel.
The Leaf will be priced at approximately $56,000 dollars in Australia. The Nissan leaf comes to Australia from Japan. The US price is for the Leaf approximately $32,790 (depending on state credits) and not including state reg,and other 'on road' costs. This price is after the $7500 tax rebate is deducted. (you must be eligible for the deduction).
However, why do you feel so bad? For the last 5 years you have been able to by an Australian made, production EV, (four door sedan/hatchback) for the same price as a US Leaf. This vehicle comes with nation-wide warranty and guaranteed resale value! Not only that, you may choose to lease the battery separately.
Check out Blade EV, at bev.com.au/ and invest in your country, and the planets future! (you could be riding home on electrons tonight!)
Okay, let me read this carefully, you just admitted to the existence of peak oil - a concept which in the past you've denied as having any truth. That is, oil depletion is peak oil..
David, thank you for your reply,but I fear you have me confused with someone else! I have never denied the finite nature of Oil. Nor do I have any problems with the concept of peak Oil. In all my writings I described the late 19th and 20th centuries as being the 'Age of Oil'. The difference between my definition and that of extreme, apocalyptic fanatics, is I believe a vast difference exists between the time when oil ceases to exist, and the long slow process of economic decline in production and usage.
The planet still has vast reserves of oil. However, the difficulties in extracting oil are becoming increasingly difficult, risky and uneconomic to justify. Oil production for transport fuel(the least profitable of all oil company products) is the first to suffer the problems of oil depletion. That doesn't mean Oil will run out tomorrow, as the alarmists believe, or the wilder 'Prophet's' predict. But the 'Age of Oil' is drawing slowly to an inevitable close.
So far, we have been fortunate that extraction and refining technology, has progressed faster than depletion and demand. But that only buys more time, it doesn't create new oil reserves, just prolongs the life of exiting reserves.
This was the subject of a Far East Economic Review article, I wrote back in 1987.
ExxonMobil published a report a few weeks ago saying there's nothing to worry about, look at this pretty graph that says there'll be enough oil.
Odd, how two people can read the same report, and yet carry away very different analysis. I believe Exxon's position to be only a little more conservative than Shell, BP, and Chevron. All these Corporations are more or less in agreement with the IEA. All express deep concern at the prospect of Oil depletion and express doubts on supply after 2040, without reduced demand. But this refers to economic supply of one type of oil, transport fuels.
Oil company planning by the 6 'Sisters' incorporates a significant percentage of alternate fuelled vehicles and engines in 2030.
The real problem in the economic dynamic of Oil, is that Oil profits are not just a small part of the world economic paradigm, it's fundamental element to 20th century economics! The 'Age of Oil' was created by Oil!
Disengagement of Oil from the economy, will be extremely difficult. Most aspects of modern civilisation are affected by this hugely profitable and versatile commodity. Simply finding other energy sources is only the tip of the iceberg. Replacing the economic ramifications are going to need far more careful planning and the co-operation of the Oil industry itself, to achieve a soft landing.
A very complex problem indeed!
Neither I, nor the Major Oil Companies can speak for extremist politicians in the US. The Oil Industry is also not responsible for the utterances of it's more eccentric and troglodyte members.
Since the 1970's, Oil companies have been diversifying into other forms of energy. Becoming,'Energy companies' rather than just Oil companies. Battery technology has not been a field that generates fast, positive, profitable results. Disappointing, for Corporations used to generating high margins to offset against the occasional colossal loss.
Oil company investments in alternate energy is still very impressive.The development by Shell of the Virent process, has brought renewed interest in bio-fuel investment from the Oil Corps. This is understandable, since it's a compatible product, with similar economic dynamics as Oil, and the risk can be shared with the equally rich, giant agri-corporations.
David, I'm glad you agree that there is no benefit for a major Oil company to suppress EV technology. In fact for companies like Chevron, it would be against their own best interests!
As for those extreme right-wing US conservative politician's, their views are not shared, or supported by the major Oil companies.