Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

WSJ Pull the Plug on Electric Car Subsidies

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

vfx

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2006
14,790
52
CA CA
Scathing review and the comments are out of control.


Margo Thorning: Pull the Plug on Electric Car Subsidies - WSJ.com

...
Slick TV ads boast PEVs supposed environmental benefits, but what they
don't tell you is that a substantial increase in the numbers of them
on the road will require upgrading the nation's electricity
infrastructure. Since half of all U.S. electricity is generated by
coal, which produces greenhouse emissions, PEVs may not be any better
than hybrid electric vehicles that do not need to be plugged in.
Meanwhile, new technology for gasoline-powered vehicles has
substantially increased miles per gallon, to as much as 35-50 mpg for
several smaller vehicles.

If you're looking for a car that makes good economic sense in these
tough times, PEVs simply don't make the grade. Unless crude oil prices
rise close to $300 per barrel and battery costs fall by 75%, a PEV is
more expensive than a gasoline-powered vehicle.

Despite these significant flaws, the government is determined to jump-
start sales for plug-ins by putting taxpayers on the hook. The $7,500
federal tax credit per PEV is nothing more than a federal subsidy that
will add to the deficit. There are also federal tax credits for
installing charging stations in homes and businesses and for building
battery factories and upgrading the electric grid. The
administration's goal - one million PEVs on the road by 2015 - could
cost taxpayers $7.5 billion. Outlays for recharging infrastructure
will add billions more...
 
Everyone seems to neglect the amount of the defense budget that goes to protecting the oil shipping lanes in the middle east as well as the cost of bombing oil tyrants (Gaddafi) over there. If we weren't so hooked on cheap oil, such military deployments would be unnecessary. Or, if we didn't do it, oil would be much more expensive.
 
The Iraq war cost us at least $1.2 Trillion. During that time we imported 70,000,000 barrels of oil, each producing 19.5 gallons of gasoline. That's a hidden tax of $879/gallon of gas derived from imported oil. We have all the friendly coal, uranium, natural gas, wind, sun, and geothermal we need right here in North America to produce war-tax-free electricity.
 
If anyone is so inclined, make a comment on WSJ. They have a wide demographic.

Based on comments, a wide demographic of poorly-educated, misguided morons that know nothing about engineering or physics.

my advice would be: don't post anything. Posting just fuels the fire. These are the kinds of people for whom rational logic goes in one ear and out the other.

It's not worth your time.

Just my two cents.
 
Based on comments, a wide demographic of poorly-educated, misguided morons that know nothing about engineering or physics.

my advice would be: don't post anything. Posting just fuels the fire. These are the kinds of people for whom rational logic goes in one ear and out the other.

It's not worth your time.

Just my two cents.

I completely agree. That kind of nonsense used to piss me off, but not anymore. Let stupid stubborn people get gouged for gasoline, while the smart ones drive EV's.
 
I completely agree. That kind of nonsense used to piss me off, but not anymore. Let stupid stubborn people get gouged for gasoline, while the smart ones drive EV's.

Me too. It used to make me furious. But there is a sense of comfort knowing that morons shall be morons, and in the end, that's what they'll be shown to be. It may take awhile, but superior technology tends to find it's way into the mainstream--eventually.
 
an interesting thing is that nobody ever seem to discuss all the electrical power needed to refine those 19 odd gallons of gas per barrel. there seems to be some general consensus that PEVs use dirty elec and ICEs use singularly dirty gas but they also first use dirty elec to produce said dirty gas.......so in the end they are always about twice as dirty......... food for thought.
 
I saw this in the paper the other day, but was able to ignore it. I don't know the organization of the author, but I'm sure it's Funded by big oil. Keep in mind, the article expressly focuses on plug-in hybrids with ICEs (i.e., Volt and Fisker), not all-electric vehicles like the Leaf or Roadster. It's a very strange concept to just focus on plug-in hybrids, so we can assume there's a specific agenda behind it.

The WSJ op-Ed pages since Murdoch bought them has become a great place for conservatives hacks to push their unique agendas without scrutiny. It's annoying, and particularly so because I used to love reading really well-written and interesting opinion pieces from across the political spectrum, and now it's essentially the print version of Fox News (i.e., a propaganda shop). All of which is to say, I agree with those who say to ignore this completely.
 
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research has received $1,674,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

It's weird how she starts out each sentence by saying the electric car has been around 180 years. As if that has any relevance like "it's never going to work". Seems like that logic would only work on reeeal old people.The phone has bee around hundred years so cell phones are a bad idea?
 
Last edited:
...Because of one lingering provision from the Tariff Act of 1913, many small and midsize oil companies based in the United States can claim deductions for the lost value of tapped oil fields far beyond the amount the companies actually paid for the oil rights...

Oil Companies Reap Billions From Subsidies - NYTimes.com
...Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers. ..
 
6KWH are lost to refine one gallon of gas. That's 22 miles in a Roadster figuring 200 mile range and 53KWH in the battery.

That's not pure electricity. Some of it is the oil itself being used in the refining process.





This is what I mean. is there not a single journalist with record that is not an environmentalist in these forums. this would help to write an article of value on the subject...... the problem is that most people will feel that there is more of a hidden agenda if someone whom is seen as a green peace advocate writes an article that is pro EV rather than the other way around (because that's the norm). So the EV movement needs to pick an ally from the mainstream establishment and have them write an article in a paper of note so people actually read it. There was a similar article, to the WSJ one, written in a Swedish paper the other day against EVs, again neglecting the fact that gas production is one of the heaviest users of electricity in a western society........ but ordinary people believe this and that's the problem. as long as the main stream writes down the possessive effects of going EV then people will hesitate and even reverse their decisions based on the info they read.......bad for us all in the end.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't describe it as weird V, I'd classify it as intentional disingenuous buncombe...the electric car may have been around for 180 years, but it has only been around in earnest since the EV1 (imo)...it's almost like "quasi-logic" FUD...if one can't see the problem / intent to mislead using a false argument here, I'm not sure one could "fog up a mirror" :biggrin:

To me, the fact that her sermon leads off with this dubious assertion shows the depths at which the oil industry will stoop in this matter.:rolleyes:

It's weird how she starts out each sentence by saying the electric car has been around 180 years. As if that has any relevance like "it's never going to work". Seems like that logic would only work on reeeal old people.The phone has bee around hundred years so cell phones are a bad idea?
 
Last edited:
There was a piece on BBC Newsnight last night where they interviewed a Saudi prince who is the second biggest shareholder in News Corp. May explain something.

However in saying that the Murdoch press in the UK has normally been fairly ok with EVs. Much more so than the Telegraph or the increasingly AGW denying Daily Mail.
 
Scathing review and the comments are out of control.


Margo Thorning: Pull the Plug on Electric Car Subsidies - WSJ.com

FYI: Anyone who doesn't know how to circumvent the paywall on WSJ, you put the article title into google and it's usually the first link. This is essentially a trick of going through a "hole" they make so that google can search the articles. The above link is to the comments only and bounces you to the cut-down article (outside the paywall) if you try to switch tabs.

Full article is here: Margo Thorning: Pull the Plug on Electric Car Subsidies - WSJ.com
 
Last edited: