Smart consumers vs Dumb gov't

Also, good luck on the repair bills.

The learning curve for new-technology vehicles such as these is a long one, and well into the next decade most people will be stuck having to take their cars back to their (expensive, through-the-nose) dealers for any and all repairs, rather than their local independent garage.

Now here's a better idea, just need to solve the filling station problem.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/gm-to-sell-pickups-with-option-to-burn-compressed-natural-gas.html

General Motors Co. (GM), the world’s largest automaker, plans to begin taking orders in April on pickups that run on both gasoline and compressed natural gas, potentially reducing costs for users.

The Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 2500 HD extended-cab pickups will be offered with a 6.0-liter, V-8 engine that can “seamlessly” transition between natural gas and gasoline, the Detroit-based automaker said today in a statement.

A vehicle such as the ones GM will offer can save a driver $6,000 to $10,000 in fuel costs over a three-year period because CNG is cheaper than gasoline, Joyce Mattman, director of GM commercial product and specialty vehicles, said before the announcement.

Seems the NY Times agrees

---------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/business/energy-environment/for-hybrid-and-electric-cars-to-pay-off-owners-must-wait.html

Except for two hybrids, the Prius and Lincoln MKZ, and the diesel-powered Volkswagen Jetta TDI, the added cost of the fuel-efficient technologies is so high that it would take the average driver many years — in some cases more than a decade — to save money over comparable new models with conventional internal-combustion engines.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/autos-electriccars-idUSL1E8KKM1L20120920?type=marketsNews

While drivers of these electric vehicles use less gasoline and emit less greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide, the cost to the government can be high, the CBO found. The U.S. government will spend anywhere from $3 to $7 for each gallon of gasoline saved by consumers driving electric vehicles.

The costs of electric vehicles -- fully electric and plug-in hybrid electric -- are much higher than similar-sized gasoline vehicles, and the federal tax credit of $7,500 per vehicle is not enough to bridge the gap, the CBO said.

The CBO said an average plug-in hybrid vehicle with a battery capacity of 16 kilowatt-hours is eligible for the maximum tax credit of $7,500.

"However, that vehicle would require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have roughly the same lifetime costs as a comparable conventional or traditional hybrid vehicle," the CBO said.

And, the bigger the battery the greater the cost disadvantage for buyers of plug-in vehicles and conventional vehicles, the CBO said.

"While drivers of these electric vehicles use less gasoline and emit less greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide"

Right off the bat, the premise of these electric vehicles being "greener" than gas-powered vehicles is wrong.

Where does the electricity to power these cars come from? Most likely, from coal-fired generators at the power company. Power companies that are going to have to burn more coal (and other fossil fuels) to keep up with the demand from these new "green" vehicles.

Smart on-topic thread-creators vs. dumb aut'st

Where does the electricity to power these cars come from? Most likely, from coal-fired generators at the power company. Power companies that are going to have to burn more coal (and other fossil fuels) to keep up with the demand from these new "green" vehicles.

That is correct, the majority(44%?) of electric power in the United States is derirved from Coal

So how can these cars be called "green"?

Here's an illustrative calculator:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

Bottom line: The premise is NOT wrong on the whole. There are indeed some scenarios in which an efficient gas-powered vehicle generates less greenhouse-gas emissions -- it depends on your local electrical grid and some other things. And nobody should over-hype electric vehicles as being truly zero-emission. But on average, the various electric car designs are still better even after factoring in the emissions from electricity generation.

The other thing about switching to electric cars is that it's easier to manage the relatively small number of electrical generators, and you're not locked into a single fuel for the life of the vehicle. Over time, the electrical grid's fuel mix can shift toward very-low-emission renewables and achieve a truly near-zero-emissions vehicle system. So it's partly about immediate gains, and partly about laying the groundwork for even further improvement later.

So how can these cars be called "green"?

The first car was painted green.

"The premise is NOT wrong on the whole. There are indeed some scenarios in which an efficient gas-powered vehicle generates less greenhouse-gas emissions -- it depends on your local electrical grid and some other things."

Speaking of the local electrical grid ... many communities are working overtime to try to figure out how they're going to handle the new demand.

One electric car per household is like each household adding a second central air conditioning system, in terms of electricity load and usage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/business/battery-maker-a123-systems-files-for-bankruptcy.html?_r=0

DETROIT — The troubled battery maker A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy on Tuesday, dealing a blow to the Obama administration’s program to jump-start a domestic battery industry and spur development of electric vehicles.

A123, based in Waltham, Mass., was once considered one of the most promising grant recipients under the administration’s $2 billion stimulus program for electric car development. The Department of Energy awarded the company a $249 million grant to establish battery manufacturing operations in Michigan, although A123 had received only about $132 million of the grant before its bankruptcy.

Another battery manufacturer that received federal help, Ener1, went bankrupt in January. It had approval for $118.5 million in grants from the Energy Department but had received only about half of that when it entered bankruptcy.

A123 was a centerpiece of the government’s electric-vehicle program, opening two factories in Michigan and securing contracts to supply batteries to automakers including General Motors and the start-up firm Fisker Automotive.

I assume that the goal is to "invest" in the technology such that even if there are losses at first, the technology improves with more sales and more attention paid to the space.

Not saying that works, only that it might be part of the story.

That is the theory....

There are two examples where the gov't funding does't have to make money. First there's DARPA where the technologies are not economic and the benefit is purely a strategic one(in the military sense), the second is the AMTRAK example where one could argue the enterprise doesn't necessarily have to turn a profit, but merely result in increased productivity in the general economy. I don't see either exception as applicable.

I'd rather have the government raise the costs of the behavior they don't like and let the marketplace react to the manipulated demand. Forcing suppliers to make things that consumers don't want or can't afford will not achieve the government's/society's objective and will waste resources (i.e., net loss to society, textbook example of inefficient).

>I'd rather have the government raise the costs of the behavior they don't like and let the marketplace react to the manipulated demand.

Who in government do you trust to make this determination of which behavior is disliked and is deserving of punishment? Right now many in our government want to further raise the cost of working and investing. Do you like how the marketplace is reacting in anticipation?

very impressive.

HB - Yes, this is the problem with areas where there is market failure. I don't know if there is mechanism for national referendum, but that is the way I'd go: Put the single issue re demand-side cost directly to the people. E.g., You say you want cleaner air? Okay, how do you feel about society's forcing every individual who chooses to drive higher-emission vehicle to bear the cost of those higher emissions in form of a gas tax, revenue from which is segregated and used to improve air quality by planting more trees, etc. (I think it bears mentioning that this is separate from, though potentially related to, climate change debate. Who knows whether lower emissions will have any effect on climate change, but lower emissions would likely improve air quality in immediate vicinity).

"how do you feel about society's forcing every individual who chooses to drive higher-emission vehicle to bear the cost of those higher emissions in form of a gas tax, revenue from which is segregated and used to improve air quality by planting more trees, etc."

The sooner this is done, the better. Automobile emissions are a classic example of "privatize profits, socialize costs": only the car owners get the benefits, and everyone else is stuck paying the costs in the form of dirtier air.

"I'd rather have the government raise the costs of the behavior they don't like and let the marketplace react to the manipulated demand."

Or lower the cost of the behavior they like... in the end, it all evens out in a way... as making something cost more or something else cost less will be made up in the taxes we pay. Figure the government is going to probably net out somewhere with revenue collection anyway, and whatever comes in or goes out is netted out. It is the difference that matters.

But, yeah, I like incentives. So whether it is charging for tolls on all crossings, or making the subways free, I'm for either or both.

Forcing suppliers to make things that consumers don't want or can't afford will not achieve the government's/society's objective and will waste resources (i.e., net loss to society, textbook example of inefficient)."

I'd rather have gov't raise the costs of the behavior voters don't like like rather than subsidize behavior voters do like because not every voter is going to agree with collective decision and allowing voter to avoid behavior with increased cost still gives voter some control after vote has been taken. If we subsidize behavior, then we have voters stuck paying for things they might not agree with (like "home ownership for everyone!"). With taxes levied on specific behavior, those who truly value that behavior can still engage in it; they just have to bear the costs. My goal is to internalize the costs of behavior to individual actors.

Your point of view is that government is here to punish. I think government is here to serve.

My view is that gov't = society. Even my most conservative friends accept gov't's punishment role (can you say police?).

Libertarians do accept a role for civil courts. local police and a military. The military would be far smaller however than it is now.

"With taxes levied on specific behavior, those who truly value that behavior can still engage in it; they just have to bear the costs. My goal is to internalize the costs of behavior to individual actors."

NO -- that sort of policy just gets annoying poorer people out of the way so that richer people can more freely engage in the bad behavior. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of disposable income and the different value of a dollar to the different players.

A good example is congestion zone driving rules in central London -- unaffordable to the average Joe, but a true delight to the Boston Bloomberg types, who can now zoom around unnecessarily and drive even more. Or if congestion hasn't been relieved enough for that to happen now, it would more and more as rates are raised to benefit the criminal classes.

Another example is the program that the City of New York is testing in the Village. "Smart Parking" or some such thing, but really it's readily available 24/7 reserved street parking for those who can afford much higher rates. [My personal feeling is that street parking should be illegal, or at least overnight, as it was in Manhattan until the late 1940s. You'll notice that NY street-scene photos from the 1920-40s have barely any cars.]

Give me government-mandated social policy for all -- e.g. plentiful Bus Rapid Transit ("Select Service" lanes that private cars and taxis are banned from, and anyone from the richest to nearly the poorest can benefit from -- any day over the fraudulent cult of the "free market". Even Scientologists couldn't come up with anything quite so ridiculous as that invisible hand theory.

Well it seems we have both ends of the spectrum on here - I am amazed that HB and AH get along so well given their differing political views. Despite the fact that HB appears to be significantly to the right of me (John Galt?), and AH appears to be significantly to the left of me (Karl Marx?), both remain among my favorite SE contributors. Then there is of course w67th; I'm still trying to figure him out - Nietzsche?

I'm really more Gummo Marx than Karl. Or more Carlo Gambino than Marx.

But I have a question for you, NYCNovice: Do you truly believe that HB and I are distinct people? I mean really?

AH - I've seen you and HB post simultaneously, so I do not believe you are the same person if that is what you mean. I do love it when both of you get going on a the same thread, as long as the substance of my post is the target that is.

As long as the substance of my post is NOT the target I mean.

Actually, it's okay if substance of my post is the target. I like it when people talk to me. Even CC.

ridiculous

That's what she said.

I just bought an Obama Volt. Hey, do you guys smell something?

http://www.obamavolt2012.com/Site/Obama_Volt_2012.html

"I'd rather have gov't raise the costs of the behavior voters don't like like rather than subsidize behavior voters do like because not every voter is going to agree with collective decision and allowing voter to avoid behavior with increased cost still gives voter some control after vote has been taken. If we subsidize behavior, then we have voters stuck paying for things they might not agree with (like "home ownership for everyone!"). With taxes levied on specific behavior, those who truly value that behavior can still engage in it; they just have to bear the costs. My goal is to internalize the costs of behavior to individual actors."

Not when all the taxes even out in the end. I could pay more or less here or there, but if it nets out with a bigger/smaller overall tax bill, it doesn't matter. Refusing to take advantage of a subsidy is the same as paying for it anyway with overall higher taxes.

In the end, everyone ends up paying to some degree.

But it doesn't even out. When one party gets the subsidy, they have every incentive to become the Schnorrer.

We're talking about taxes overall, not who pays them.

You missed the discussion, we're not talking about if there is a transfer, only that positive or negative tax probably makes no difference, as overall tax rates will even out the difference.

Who pays the tax makes all the difference in achieving objective.
Riversider - I am not sure why you beat your head against the wall by posting public policy-focused comments on this board. I see reason in many of your points, but have to wonder why you would make them to this audience?

>I see reason in many of your points, but have to wonder why you would make them to this audience?

Oh sorry, only you and Riversider are enlightened.

Enlightened?

Is it possible to have an “ultimate driving machine” that is reasonably fuel-efficient and inoffensive to environmental concerns?

The 2013 BMW Active Hybrid 3 driven for this week’s column replies: “Yes, but . . . ”

Yes, it is possible. But you’ll have to drive it a very long time — 62 years by one industry estimate — to recoup the Active Hybrid 3’s price premium compared with the cost of a less expensive 3-Series model such as a gasoline-fueled BMW328i, which starts at $36,850.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/cars/the-2013-bmw-active-hybrid3-the-real-electricity-is-in-the-name/2013/06/14/b5938932-d45b-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html