Stupid government responses to problems

[MigL]

Didn't know wether to call this 'Stupid government responses to a problem' or 'Insane social engineering'...

 

The desire to switch from fossil fuels to electric as a means of powering cars is a commendable one ( although it makes no sense in some parts of the US where most of their electricity is generated by burning coal ). Governments, in a rush to "be seen to do something', are therefore offering rebates on electric vehicles to force the take-up of the new technology.

 

The most popular electric vehicle that I know of is the Tesla, a very nice electric vehicle, but it costs roughly $100,000 in the states and $150,000 in Canada. Obviously a little above the affordability level of the middle class, yet our Canadian government, offers over $9000 in rebates on the purchase price and the charging system.

I would think that someone who can affod a $150,000 car doesn't need the rebate.

 

Apparently the US government offers roughly $10,000 in rebates also, and Steve Wozniak ( the brains behind the origin of Apple, not Steve Jobs ), with a worth of roughly $100 million, owns two Teslas, and got rebates for both.

I would think someone who's worth $100 million, doesn't need a rebate.

 

Surely this makes no sense, and there's gotta be a better way.

[imatfaal]

The cost of means-testing can sometimes be a decent amount more than the potential saving. In this case however I cannot see why the rebate on electric cars could not phase out at a level - just a many others do. The political reasoning behind the rebate and others that it wouldn't surprise me are connected (say to manufacturers) might have more bearing on the question

[John Cuthber]

If you compare the rebate to a really expensive car, it's not a lot of money.

OK, so don't.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

US$39,995

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf

$35000

 

Even the Tesla isn't a $100000 car unless you buy the top of the range

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S#Features

[studiot]

To him that hath, even more shall be given

And from him that hath not, yet more shall be taken.

 

But don't worry, Mig.

The waste race is one the UK will be proud to beat the US in.

 

Half a trillion dollars on a toy train set and a toy boat set of use to no one.

[imatfaal]

Half a trillion dollars on a toy train set and a toy boat set of use to no one.

 

At least we can hope that people use the train set rather than living in fear of them having to use the boat set. Frankly I would prefer us not to spend the money on either

[studiot]

I can't afford to get on a UK train, let alone travel on one.

Not that it would be possible anyway.

 

More government nonsense, both West Coast Main lines were closed over Easter.

 

I am currently doing some stuff in Dundee and, when the time comes to return the 500 miles home, it will actually be cheaper to hire a car for the day, include the return charge and petrol, than to buy a train ticket back.

[Danijel Gorupec]

This Tesla car always confused me... It is considered both, a sports car and a green car. For me this is a funny contradiction. If a car is a sports car then it means it is not as economical as a car could be... To call something green, I suppose, it must be edged toward efficiency. (I might call Tesla a "green sports car" if you wish, but I would not use the more general "green car" term.)

 

Should government pay people to buy electric sport cars? I suppose it depends on what is the intent... If the intent is fuel economy then the answer is "no". If the intent is to develop an alternate car technology then the answer is "yes".

 

Hmm... Did you hear about this thing about light food... I read about it occasionally on various food-related internet portals: allegedly people tend to eat larger quantities of 'light'-designated food than ordinary food thinking that the light food is safe (but they overeat, taking in more calories than they would with ordinary food).... I am afraid such thing could happen with electric vehicles. Now we all buy sports cars - it is fine to have 600hp because it is green, isn't it?

 

[unconnected to the above.... In my country government tend to pay a very large sum to a buyer of an electric/hybrid vehicle. But the overall fund is limited and so only a few lucky ones manage to get their car... I hate this... It would be much better if more people benefited for a smaller amount of money, but then the political-marketing effect would be much decreased, wouldn't it?]

[Willie71]

Tesla is developing a car that should come in around $40,000. It's a few years unit from what I understand, but it's a big goal for the company now. They also released their patents, to encourage development of electric cars by other companies, with the not so selfless strategy of establishing their technology as the standard.

[iNow]

It's also strange that someone would quibble over a $10,000 insignificant rebate on electric cars instead of the billions upon billions of dollars of subsidies that are still provided to the oil and coal industry. Missing the forest for trees, perhaps?

.

Another case of being penny-wise yet pound-foolish, maybe?

[moth]

Here's one: You are afraid your enemies are developing nuclear weapons.
Response:Post helpful data for building an atomic bomb on the web.

“Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal”

[Sensei]

although it makes no sense in some parts of the US where most of their electricity is generated by burning coal

I don't agree.

Burning coal and producing CO2 in power station is/can be controlled process.

It could be absolutely clean, if we want to.

We can utilize products f.e. CO2 could be liquidized instead of releasing to atmosphere.

Or passed through filters that will react with CO2 to form some other compound, that could be sold also giving additional income.

Doing the same with car burned fuel multiplied by hundred millions cars is not realistic.

Better and easier to do it in couple power stations than in every single car.

 

It's a matter of good will, and ignoring oil industry demands, and their lobby..

 

Surely this makes no sense, and there's gotta be a better way.

Definitely.

Switching to electric buses whole country would be a good start.

Or at least city by city.

 

And get rid of tickets. Free ride for everybody. One bus full of people is worth 200+ cars with just driver = 1 km of highway 2 passes full of cars less..

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensei

[MigL]

All good ideas sensei.

Mass transit, especially in heavily populated areas ( not so much in rural areas ) should be free.

Unfortunately governments have come to see mass transit ( buses, trains, subways, etc. ) as just another way to generate revenue ( i.e. tax ) because they cannot control their spending.

Edited April 13, 2015 by MigL

[Phi for All]

Unfortunately governments have come to see mass transit ( buses, trains, subways, etc. ) as just another way to generate revenue ( i.e. tax ) because they cannot control their spending.

 

I've never appreciated the "they cannot control their spending" argument. "Spending" covers smart appropriations as well as stupid ones. It's usually a partisan argument used to chastise one party for spending anything, while actually being an argument against spending money on things the other party doesn't like.

 

Better to assess each bill by its merits, which is tough because there are usually a lot of riders attached to each bill. I think that's where most of our stupidest responses happen, when we give in to stupidity in order to get some sanity passed.

[MigL]

Don't have a problem with the smart appropriations.

You want to tax me for building a free, working, useful mass transit system ? I'm in.

 

Taking that tax money and giving a rebate on a luxury Evehicle to a millionaire, would be one example of a stupid appropriation ( and of not being able to control spending ).

[studiot]

I have to say I'm with MigL.

 

Mig did say control their spending, which does not mean there is no good spending.

 

Consider this version of the 'Ancient Mariner'

 

'And he puncheth one in three'

 

Just because he smiled sweetly at 2/3 of the passers by does it mean he can control his punching?

[Phi for All]

I have to say I'm with MigL.

 

Mig did say control their spending, which does not mean there is no good spending.

 

But using just "spending" as the yardstick, total amounts spent don't reflect good spending or bad spending, just "spending". I'm saying I don't think it's accurate as an argument against stupid government responses to problems. I think "they need to control their spending" is not the same as "they need to be wiser about how they spend taxpayer dollars".

 

Perhaps I've just seen the total amount spent figures used too many times to imply that all the money spent by a party is bad. Pundits love tossing those figures around.

[michel123456]

Didn't know wether to call this 'Stupid government responses to a problem' or 'Insane social engineering'...

 

The desire to switch from fossil fuels to electric as a means of powering cars is a commendable one ( although it makes no sense in some parts of the US where most of their electricity is generated by burning coal ). Governments, in a rush to "be seen to do something', are therefore offering rebates on electric vehicles to force the take-up of the new technology.

 

The most popular electric vehicle that I know of is the Tesla, a very nice electric vehicle, but it costs roughly $100,000 in the states and $150,000 in Canada. Obviously a little above the affordability level of the middle class, yet our Canadian government, offers over $9000 in rebates on the purchase price and the charging system.

I would think that someone who can affod a $150,000 car doesn't need the rebate.

 

Apparently the US government offers roughly $10,000 in rebates also, and Steve Wozniak ( the brains behind the origin of Apple, not Steve Jobs ), with a worth of roughly $100 million, owns two Teslas, and got rebates for both.

I would think someone who's worth $100 million, doesn't need a rebate.

 

Surely this makes no sense, and there's gotta be a better way.

When an electric car is plugged in, it consums electric energy that was produced by fossil fuel at 84% on the average in the US.

Also, I remember at a presentation about making economies in energy, some official in the panel saying that the loss of electric energy between production and consumption (transmission and distribution losses), around 70%! I am still unable to check that huge factor, info over the internet varies from 6% to wathever you want. from the below links

 

http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission-lines-1

http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission-lines-2

 

Distribution Sector considered as the weakest link in the entire power sector. Transmission Losses is approximate 17% while Distribution Losses is approximate 50%.

 

There are two types of Transmission and Distribution Losses:

 

1.Technical Losses

2.Non Technical Losses(Commercial Losses)

 

(...)

 

Technical losses are normally 22.5%, and directly depend on the network characteristics and the mode of operation.[/i]

(...)

Non-technical losses are at 16.6%, and related to meter reading, defective meter and error in meter reading, billing of customer energy consumption, lack of administration, financial constraints, and estimating unmetered supply of energy as well as energy thefts.

 

Which are all numbers that do not match each other, anyway there is a non negligeable loss.

which means that an electrical car is "green" only by the mean that it does not pollute directly in the city. But co2 is elsewhere.

It has not disappeared. The same goes for trains, tramways, trolleybus.

It works only when the production of elecricity itself will become green.

Edited April 13, 2015 by michel123456

[CharonY]

Don't have a problem with the smart appropriations.

You want to tax me for building a free, working, useful mass transit system ? I'm in.

 

Taking that tax money and giving a rebate on a luxury Evehicle to a millionaire, would be one example of a stupid appropriation ( and of not being able to control spending ).

 

The subsidies are for electric vehicles in general, not only the Tesla so I am not seeing it as an issue. There just happened to be a luxury car in that class. However, even cheaper E-cars are more expensive than their gasoline counterpart and the that subsidy can offset that to a degree.

The way it is stated in OP it appears that it is about financing luxury cars. Rather, the discussion should be whether promoting electric cars is a good idea (whereas the Tesla as an example is more of a diversion).

 

One aspect to consider is that EVs, or rather electric motors, are more efficient in energy conversion than the traditional combustion engine. Whether the net pollution is better or worse (when factoring in manufacturing) I do not know.

Edited April 13, 2015 by CharonY

[Phi for All]

 

The subsidies are for electric vehicles in general, not only the Tesla so I am not seeing it as an issue. There just happened to be a luxury car in that class. However, even cheaper E-cars are more expensive than their gasoline counterpart and the that subsidy can offset that to a degree.

The way it is stated in OP it appears that it is about financing luxury cars. Rather, the discussion should be whether promoting electric cars is a good idea (whereas the Tesla as an example is more of a diversion).

 

One aspect to consider is that EVs, or rather electric motors, are more efficient in energy conversion than the traditional combustion engine. Whether the net pollution is better or worse (when factoring in manufacturing) I do not know.

 

There is the celebrity effect to consider also. The media will cover the story longer if there's a multi-millionaire involved, getting the subsidies. Hopefully, the media will also point out that the celebrity is probably more interested in owning the electric car than he is getting the subsidy.

 

Back in the 90s, when GM tested the EV-1 in southern California, Ed Begley Jr was the celebrity driving the interest in the technology. Perhaps his involvement caused more people to be aware of the alternative.

[iNow]

Indeed, a focus on the Tesla alone really and truly misses the point of the subsidy, IMO.

 

If you're angry, you should be angry at the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, and Toyota Prius, which would be a bit stupid AFAICT.

[MigL]

Ah, but the rebate ( at least in Canada ) is dependent on battery power.

A more powerful battery, as installed in a larger, sportier or more luxurious vehicle, will get you a larger rebate.

 

If the point of the rebate was to encourage adoption of more economical, less wasteful Evehicles, should it not be the other way around ?

 

And you're right, Phi, I should have been more clear in my wording and not used 'spending' to mean 'wasteful spending'.

[CharonY]

I quickly looked it up and it seems that a) these rebates are province-dependent and b) in those cases I looked at it is more a distinction between hybrids (low kwH) and full electric cars. At least the Leaf seems to be eligible for the maximum rebate in most (if not all) cases.

The lower limit seems to be ~7kwH, i.e. the range of many hybrids. The Nissan Leaf has 24 kWH, the Smart around 18kWh so it is clearly not limited to sports cars. The Tesla has a much larger capacity but does not get more rebates (that I can find).

Edited April 13, 2015 by CharonY

[Phi for All]

And you're right, Phi, I should have been more clear in my wording and not used 'spending' to mean 'wasteful spending'.

 

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive about it, but I think using a word without anything to qualify it invites too many emotional responses. Words like spending, welfare, immigration, taxes, these are buzzwords the media can use by themselves to instantly polarize the population into varying opinions. There are good and bad aspects to all of these. We need to acknowledge that.

 

I have to say, I'm involved with projects involving some new energy saving technology the government is subsidizing, and I couldn't do this without their assistance. I've had some wealthy clients see the merits, and it doesn't bother me that they could have afforded to fund the project without the utility rebates. I'm only interested in reducing the carbon footprint of each building I deal with, and the subsidy does what a subsidy should do, it helps offset the cost difference between the newer, more efficient technology and the old, well-established technology. So if some billionaire wants a fleet of Leafs or Volts or even Tesla Roadsters, all he/she is going to do is supercharge the program, and hopefully convince some others to participate.