Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajoo
....when such vehicles are able to be supported by market conditions. That's not really where we are today.
The EV are selling faster than they can build them, so who is not where today? The wingnuts.
Electric vehicles are subsidized through manufacturer incentives and tax credits for the purchaser. I'm not in favor of these incentives: it simply shifts costs from the manufacturer to the taxpayer, then the taxpayer is hit again to pay for the subsidized purchase. When the subsidies ended - saw this first hand during the Obama years - companies who started up based on the promise of incentives went belly-up when those incentives were not paid out.
Obama years? He who saved Detroit? Singing the same song "Solyndra"?
Give me a list of companies that went belly up. If not for Obama's bailout, GM would have gone under and perhaps Chrysler too. So OK to subsidize ICE manufacturers but not EV builders?
And how about the oil subsidies we have been paying out from tax payer pockets for how many decades?
I would be in favor of subsidies for public or private universities to conduct research on battery technology or materials technology that could then be adapted for use electric vehicle use.
Yet another wingnut talking point. Battery technology is advancing leaps and bounds, way past the university stage and this is just stall technique. Major manufacturers have built mega factories just to build batteries.
But we better be damned careful what we do with any tech advancements or developments paid for with taxpayer dollars, so we can stay away from idiotic bureaucratic blunders like
Scare mongering and that link was posted by PIO on AK a couple of weeks ago and those batteries are for power storage, not EV.
Trump cuts taxes for the wealthy (as Obama said, "to people who don't need them") is OK, but not to new technicnology developments?
In a nutshell, no different from all those trumpers posting on AK. Same issues, same talking points and as I said, same playbook.
Whell you forgot the main scare tactic, our grid will fail if all cars became electric overnight.
|
I'm not making lists for you. You can do your own homework. You can start with this WaPo OpEd:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8f9_story.html
No matter how you slice it, the American taxpayer has gotten precious little for the administration’s investment in battery-powered vehicles, in terms of permanent jobs or lower carbon dioxide emissions. There is no market, or not much of one, for vehicles that are less convenient and cost thousands of dollars more than similar-sized gas-powered alternatives — but do not save enough fuel to compensate. The basic theory of the Obama push for electric vehicles — if you build them, customers will come — was a myth. And an expensive one, at that.
That piece was from 2012, concurrent with the DOE tightening grant requirements. You mentioned Solyndra, not me. But in fact the embarrassment of Solyndra is what prompted the DoE to start pull back on grant dollars.
I'm not really into scare tactics and talking points. I prefer facts, and your claim that University research is a stall tactic is just absurd. Here's just one example. I picked this one because it involves my Alma Mater:
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2022/c...vator-under-35
The magazine selected Fang for its list of “outstanding innovators who are younger than 35” because of her research’s potential to make batteries for electric vehicles run safer and last longer. In theory, her technology could double the range that electric vehicles can currently cover on a single charge.