Green Energy Industry Is In For A Rude Awakening

royboy

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2001
46,273
30,909
1
Lewisville, NC
  • Wind and solar companies have reported massive profit declines over the last year as clean energy prices have risen and new installations have been delayed thanks to supply chain shortfalls, market uncertainty and the Ukraine crisis.
  • “One of the problems with this industry as a whole is that, since at its very foundation it is based on government subsidies and government mandates, its market value is never truly known,” said Daniel Turner, the executive director of Power the Future.
  • “90% to 95% of the supply chain does not exist,” RJ Scaringe, CEO of electric vehicle maker Rivian, told reporters in April, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“It’s a big lie when the environmentalists say, ‘it’s cheap’ — we don’t know what it actually costs,” Turner continued. “It may be, I’m not denying it could be, but the fact is we don’t actually know what wind and solar cost.”..

“The whole thing has been sort of a government created industry, from the get go,” Dan Kish, a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told the DCNF in an interview.


 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
26,360
21,015
1
  • Wind and solar companies have reported massive profit declines over the last year as clean energy prices have risen and new installations have been delayed thanks to supply chain shortfalls, market uncertainty and the Ukraine crisis.
  • “One of the problems with this industry as a whole is that, since at its very foundation it is based on government subsidies and government mandates, its market value is never truly known,” said Daniel Turner, the executive director of Power the Future.
  • “90% to 95% of the supply chain does not exist,” RJ Scaringe, CEO of electric vehicle maker Rivian, told reporters in April, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“It’s a big lie when the environmentalists say, ‘it’s cheap’ — we don’t know what it actually costs,” Turner continued. “It may be, I’m not denying it could be, but the fact is we don’t actually know what wind and solar cost.”..

“The whole thing has been sort of a government created industry, from the get go,” Dan Kish, a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told the DCNF in an interview.



I’m not against passive energy such as wind and solar, but it’s not the answer to our future energy needs and is totally misdirected. The environmental clowns are destroying this country, jeopardizing our national security, and people need to dismiss their nonsense.
 
Last edited:

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
2,694
2,260
1
Have you ever noticed, no one tells you how much it cost to charge your electric car. I would think if it truly "saved" money that would be the way to lead people to it. The "green" movement would benefit by having the ability to put more "green" in peoples pockets.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,482
34,711
1
Have you ever noticed, no one tells you how much it cost to charge your electric car. I would think if it truly "saved" money that would be the way to lead people to it. The "green" movement would benefit by having the ability to put more "green" in peoples pockets.
They don't tell you that once enough people adopt EVs the government will have no choice but impose an annual mileage fee since owners will no longer be paying gas taxes.

They do tell you about lower gas and maintenance costs but they don't tell you about lower resale values. A 7 year old EV isn't so attractive with an aging battery.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
26,360
21,015
1
They don't tell you that once enough people adopt EVs the government will have no choice but impose an annual mileage fee since owners will no longer be paying gas taxes.

They do tell you about lower gas and maintenance costs but they don't tell you about lower resale values. A 7 year old EV isn't so attractive with an aging battery.

You’re absolutely right, and there are so many negative considerations and intangibles with buying an EV. I’m not sold at all that EV’s are ready for prime time and not so sure that they’re viable over the long term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
  • Wind and solar companies have reported massive profit declines over the last year as clean energy prices have risen and new installations have been delayed thanks to supply chain shortfalls, market uncertainty and the Ukraine crisis.
  • “One of the problems with this industry as a whole is that, since at its very foundation it is based on government subsidies and government mandates, its market value is never truly known,” said Daniel Turner, the executive director of Power the Future.
  • “90% to 95% of the supply chain does not exist,” RJ Scaringe, CEO of electric vehicle maker Rivian, told reporters in April, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“It’s a big lie when the environmentalists say, ‘it’s cheap’ — we don’t know what it actually costs,” Turner continued. “It may be, I’m not denying it could be, but the fact is we don’t actually know what wind and solar cost.”..

“The whole thing has been sort of a government created industry, from the get go,” Dan Kish, a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told the DCNF in an interview.


That article is nothing but propaganda.
First off Dan Kish and Turner are both political operatives who belong to political non profits.
And as far as I can see neither one has a degree in science.
Turner's degree is in philosophy and in Kish's bio, it only says he is a graduate of Wabash College, which is an all male liberal arts school.
And the quote from the CEO of Rivian was referring to battery capacity not wind and solar capacity.
And the lack in battery capacity isn't surprising because there isn't going to be a huge excess capacity in place.
Capacity increases when demand increases.
And I don't have any issue with solar and wind receiving subsidies because they are far cleaner than the alternatives.
A pollution tax would be better but subsidies are better than nothing because the free market on its own doesn't account for the cost of pollution.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,482
34,711
1
You’re absolutely right, and there are so many negative considerations and intangibles with buying an EV. I’m not sold at all that EV’s are ready for prime time and not so sure that they’re viable over the long term.
EVs are here to stay. Have you ever smelled the car fumes and seen the smog in major cities? EV adoption would certainly help that. EVs can also be economical commuter cars. You can get a Leaf or a Bolt for under $30k.

But in general EVs are more expensive to build/buy and their trade in value isn't as good as ICEs. That eats up the gas and maintenance savings. Adoption is being fueled by politics and government subsidies.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
You could counter their claims with facts but you decided to take the easy way out and accuse them of propaganda.
I did counter the claims with facts. Again, usually the free market doesn't allow for a bunch of unused capacity to be lying around doing nothing.
As demand increases, so will capacity.
And I made my argument on subsidies for renewables like solar and wind.
Because they are cleaner than fossil fuel sources they should either be compensated for this or the more polluting sources should be taxed to more accurately reflect the cost of fossil fuels.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
106,351
54,303
1
my neighbor just bought a Volvo EV and used the rebate to buy a gas generator. His thinking is that, if we start having blackouts, he can charge his EV with natural gas. LOL
 

SR108

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
15,924
5,262
1
Have you ever noticed, no one tells you how much it cost to charge your electric car. I would think if it truly "saved" money that would be the way to lead people to it. The "green" movement would benefit by having the ability to put more "green" in peoples pockets.
Watch out for some kind of electric tax, for roads. If everyone is electric, no gas tax revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSPMax and bison13

SR108

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
15,924
5,262
1
I did counter the claims with facts. Again, usually the free market doesn't allow for a bunch of unused capacity to be lying around doing nothing.
As demand increases, so will capacity.
And I made my argument on subsidies for renewables like solar and wind.
Because they are cleaner than fossil fuel sources they should either be compensated for this or the more polluting sources should be taxed to more accurately reflect the cost of fossil fuels.
How much more fossil fuel tax do you want? Have you seen PA’s gas tax?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
How much more fossil fuel tax do you want? Have you seen PA’s gas tax?
The gas tax pays for the roads and bridges, that doesn't pay for the pollution.
The gas tax is a type of user fee and has taxes should be high enough to pay for all the roadwork, which it doesn't, the feds use sone regular tax revenue to pay for roadwork and that is essentially a subsidy.
But with the rise of electric vehicles another method would have to be implemented to capture those costs.
However, most of the damage done to roads and bridges is done by heavy trucks so until heavy trucks are electrified the cost of road damage done by cars is minimal, there is time before this method needs to implemented.
“The damage due to cars, for practical purposes, when we are designing pavements, is basically zero. It’s not actually zero, but it’s so much smaller -- orders of magnitude smaller -- that we don’t even bother with them,” said Karim Chatti, a civil engineer from Michigan State University in East Lansing."
Since trucks cause most of the damage, taxes on trucking companies should be covering the lion's share of the cost of roadwork whether it us through fuel taxes, tolls or other methods.
The way we do it now, taxpayers are essentially subsidizing the trucking industry.
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,386
12,029
1
The gas tax pays for the roads and bridges, that doesn't pay for the pollution.
The gas tax is a type of user fee and has taxes should be high enough to pay for all the roadwork, which it doesn't, the feds use sone regular tax revenue to pay for roadwork and that is essentially a subsidy.
But with the rise of electric vehicles another method would have to be implemented to capture those costs.
However, most of the damage done to roads and bridges is done by heavy trucks so until heavy trucks are electrified the cost of road damage done by cars is minimal, there is time before this method needs to implemented.
“The damage due to cars, for practical purposes, when we are designing pavements, is basically zero. It’s not actually zero, but it’s so much smaller -- orders of magnitude smaller -- that we don’t even bother with them,” said Karim Chatti, a civil engineer from Michigan State University in East Lansing."
Since trucks cause most of the damage, taxes on trucking companies should be covering the lion's share of the cost of roadwork whether it us through fuel taxes, tolls or other methods.
The way we do it now, taxpayers are essentially subsidizing the trucking industry.

Not only does the PA gas tax pay for local and state roads, but it also pays for mass transit.
 

SR108

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
15,924
5,262
1
The gas tax pays for the roads and bridges, that doesn't pay for the pollution.
The gas tax is a type of user fee and has taxes should be high enough to pay for all the roadwork, which it doesn't, the feds use sone regular tax revenue to pay for roadwork and that is essentially a subsidy.
But with the rise of electric vehicles another method would have to be implemented to capture those costs.
However, most of the damage done to roads and bridges is done by heavy trucks so until heavy trucks are electrified the cost of road damage done by cars is minimal, there is time before this method needs to implemented.
“The damage due to cars, for practical purposes, when we are designing pavements, is basically zero. It’s not actually zero, but it’s so much smaller -- orders of magnitude smaller -- that we don’t even bother with them,” said Karim Chatti, a civil engineer from Michigan State University in East Lansing."
Since trucks cause most of the damage, taxes on trucking companies should be covering the lion's share of the cost of roadwork whether it us through fuel taxes, tolls or other methods.
The way we do it now, taxpayers are essentially subsidizing the trucking industry.
And trucking companies are not going to pass those costs on to customers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
106,351
54,303
1
The gas tax pays for the roads and bridges, that doesn't pay for the pollution.
The gas tax is a type of user fee and has taxes should be high enough to pay for all the roadwork, which it doesn't, the feds use sone regular tax revenue to pay for roadwork and that is essentially a subsidy.
But with the rise of electric vehicles another method would have to be implemented to capture those costs.
However, most of the damage done to roads and bridges is done by heavy trucks so until heavy trucks are electrified the cost of road damage done by cars is minimal, there is time before this method needs to implemented.
“The damage due to cars, for practical purposes, when we are designing pavements, is basically zero. It’s not actually zero, but it’s so much smaller -- orders of magnitude smaller -- that we don’t even bother with them,” said Karim Chatti, a civil engineer from Michigan State University in East Lansing."
Since trucks cause most of the damage, taxes on trucking companies should be covering the lion's share of the cost of roadwork whether it us through fuel taxes, tolls or other methods.
The way we do it now, taxpayers are essentially subsidizing the trucking industry.
This is where you lose me, to be honest. EV's have to make sense and be of value over gas. The markets will have its way. I don't care about the taxation and subsidies; they are all short term tools. EV's, if they are going to make it, have to be based on the notion that they are the best solution, period. There is nothing the govt can do.

it reminds me of the state of Ohio using billions to rebuild the city of Youngstown again, and again, and again. Its been rebuilt three times in my lifetime. Guess what, few want to live there! They'd have been money ahead to invest in U-Hauls and move the people out to places where businesses and people want to stay.

Your argument is circular. If there isn't enough clean energy to supply clean cars, the experiment will surely fail. Solar and wind will never be enough due to the lack of power in solar in many locations and the maintenance of moving parts for wind (not to mention the vast areas devastated by solar and windmill farms that are just as bad as oil fields). Markets will have their way. It is way too complex and fluid for a govt to legislate this stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and royboy

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Not only does the PA gas tax pay for local and state roads, but it also pays for mass transit.
I believe most of the mass transit funds come from the feds and the turnpike but I don't know if or how much gas tax money goes into mass transit.
" Transit receives funds from six state sources: The Public Transportation Assistance Fund (PTAF), Act 3 of 1997, General Fund operating subsidies, Lottery Revenue for Free Senior Citizen fares, TANF jobs access funds and capital subsidy through the bond funded program."
And
The gas tax also pays for things like the state police, drivers's services and the turnpike.
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,386
12,029
1
I believe most of the mass transit funds come from the feds and the turnpike but I don't know if or how much gas tax money goes into mass transit.
" Transit receives funds from six state sources: The Public Transportation Assistance Fund (PTAF), Act 3 of 1997, General Fund operating subsidies, Lottery Revenue for Free Senior Citizen fares, TANF jobs access funds and capital subsidy through the bond funded program."
And
The gas tax also pays for things like the state police, drivers's services and the turnpike.

The PA Dot money comes from the turnpike funds, and goes to mass transit. Over a period 15 years, the turnpike dumped $7.9 billion to primarily freeloading democrats.

 

Vic Vaselino

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2009
2,295
1,727
1
  • Wind and solar companies have reported massive profit declines over the last year as clean energy prices have risen and new installations have been delayed thanks to supply chain shortfalls, market uncertainty and the Ukraine crisis.
  • “One of the problems with this industry as a whole is that, since at its very foundation it is based on government subsidies and government mandates, its market value is never truly known,” said Daniel Turner, the executive director of Power the Future.
  • “90% to 95% of the supply chain does not exist,” RJ Scaringe, CEO of electric vehicle maker Rivian, told reporters in April, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“It’s a big lie when the environmentalists say, ‘it’s cheap’ — we don’t know what it actually costs,” Turner continued. “It may be, I’m not denying it could be, but the fact is we don’t actually know what wind and solar cost.”..

“The whole thing has been sort of a government created industry, from the get go,” Dan Kish, a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told the DCNF in an interview.


Coal is the only answer. BURN MORE COAL!
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
This is where you lose me, to be honest. EV's have to make sense and be of value over gas. The markets will have its way. I don't care about the taxation and subsidies; they are all short term tools. EV's, if they are going to make it, have to be based on the notion that they are the best solution, period. There is nothing the govt can do.

it reminds me of the state of Ohio using billions to rebuild the city of Youngstown again, and again, and again. Its been rebuilt three times in my lifetime. Guess what, few want to live there! They'd have been money ahead to invest in U-Hauls and move the people out to places where businesses and people want to stay.

Your argument is circular. If there isn't enough clean energy to supply clean cars, the experiment will surely fail. Solar and wind will never be enough due to the lack of power in solar in many locations and the maintenance of moving parts for wind (not to mention the vast areas devastated by solar and windmill farms that are just as bad as oil fields). Markets will have their way. It is way too complex and fluid for a govt to legislate this stuff.
In evaluating whether or not EV's make sense, the cost of pollution has to be included in the equation.
And to argue wind and solar is as bad for the environment as oil is ridiculous.
The thing about oil, it has to be drilled and pumped from the ground, transported to a refinery and then transported to consumers where it is burned to release its energy.
Electricity has the advantage of being far less expensive to transport.
Power lines aren't inexpensive but they are a lot less expensive and easier to maintain than roads.
ICE engines will largely be replaced by EV's the only question is how fast.
And it doesn't have to be all renewables or bust.
Our electricity for the foreseeable future will likely be generated by a combination of natural gas, renewables and nuclear.
And we could do this and meet the increased capacity needs from EVs.
Studies have shown that EVs using coal generated electricity is still cleaner than ICE vehicles but we should phase out coal power anyway because it is very dirty and it is expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
The PA Dot money comes from the turnpike funds, and goes to mass transit. Over a period 15 years, the turnpike dumped $7.9 billion to primarily freeloading democrats.

I wouldn't go that far, because rural areas benefit far more from transportation spending than cities.
So the cities benefit from mass transit funding but rural roads are largely funded by the state.
There is no way most rural areas could pay for all the roads in their areas.
Most rural towns can't adequately maintain their own roads, let alone the state roads.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
No you didn't.

The original post claimed that the cost of renewable energy is unknown because they have been propped up by subsidues. You responded by claiming the authors were unknowing propagandists.
That's not all I said.
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,386
12,029
1
I wouldn't go that far, because rural areas benefit far more from transportation spending than cities.
So the cities benefit from mass transit funding but rural roads are largely funded by the state.
There is no way most rural areas could pay for all the roads in their areas.
Most rural towns can't adequately maintain their own roads, let alone the state roads.

Local roads are primarily paid for with:

1. Liquid fuels (a portion of the gas tax)
2. Property taxes
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
2,694
2,260
1
Watch out for some kind of electric tax, for roads. If everyone is electric, no gas tax revenue.
Right and imagine how much more money that would generate since it would be on electricity.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
26,360
21,015
1
EVs are here to stay. Have you ever smelled the car fumes and seen the smog in major cities? EV adoption would certainly help that. EVs can also be economical commuter cars. You can get a Leaf or a Bolt for under $30k.

But in general EVs are more expensive to build/buy and their trade in value isn't as good as ICEs. That eats up the gas and maintenance savings. Adoption is being fueled by politics and government subsidies.

I’m not saying that EV’s are not here to stay, particularly for people in urban areas or certain segments of the economy, but I am saying that right now there are many unknowns and possible unintended consequences of pushing EV’s as a single “silver bullet” solution to pollution and to replace ICE vehicles.

The environmental extremists have a big mouth, are unrealistic and are forcing their extreme agenda on everyone at unnecessary great cost and hardship. I understand why they’re forcing things on this county as they think it’s the only way to phase out ICE vehicles and go EV, but it is totally counterproductive, extremely wasteful, and will create more long term problems and unintended consequences than anyone realizes.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
106,351
54,303
1
In evaluating whether or not EV's make sense, the cost of pollution has to be included in the equation.
And to argue wind and solar is as bad for the environment as oil is ridiculous.
The thing about oil, it has to be drilled and pumped from the ground, transported to a refinery and then transported to consumers where it is burned to release its energy.
Electricity has the advantage of being far less expensive to transport.
Power lines aren't inexpensive but they are a lot less expensive and easier to maintain than roads.
ICE engines will largely be replaced by EV's the only question is how fast.
And it doesn't have to be all renewables or bust.
Our electricity for the foreseeable future will likely be generated by a combination of natural gas, renewables and nuclear.
And we could do this and meet the increased capacity needs from EVs.
Studies have shown that EVs using coal generated electricity is still cleaner than ICE vehicles but we should phase out coal power anyway because it is very dirty and it is expensive.
Neither you nor I know the "cost of pollution" and nobody else does either. In fact, the cost of pollution is different for every area of the USA from Los Angeles, to Las Alamos to Las Vegas to Las Ohio. Air Pollution where I live is minimal.

You have to generate electricity. the reason why oil, fossil fuels, is pumped refined and transported is because renewables cannot and will not meet demand. Probably ever in all parts of the USA. For example, CLE is one of the cloudiest places in the USA (as is the great lakes area) yet has high demand for energy due to the manufacturing base. How do you account for that?

Natural gas is a great bridge to newer sources of energy. But your party has really moved to quash it as an alternative. There were several NatGas car initiatives that have all be killed due to Dem legislation in NY and CA.

I don't believe you on EVs. I know people that struggle to keep EVs powered during the summer in CA. That is going to get worse as states like CA kill the ability to manufacture electricity. CA is a looming nightmare for EVs, you watch and see. And with higher taxation will come greater pressure for people that cannot afford the cars and/or energy prices.

All of that leads to a lot of fluidity in markets, timing, emerging technology, geographics, affordability, pollution and environmental impacts. There is just no way the govt can move quickly enough to legislate this. That will lead to shortages, marginalized people being hurt, and major damage to the economy. Free markets have always won, and will do so with energy as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SR108 and psuted

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,482
34,711
1
The gas tax is a type of user fee and has taxes should be high enough to pay for all the roadwork, which it doesn't, the feds use sone regular tax revenue to pay for roadwork and that is essentially a subsidy.
The feds use some regular tax revenue to pay for roadwork and that's essentially a subsidy to fossil fuels?

Come on man! Tesla's profits come almost exclusively from carbon credits. But the new electric Mustang and get a $7,500 credit. EVs pay zero gas tax. Yet the problem is ICE subsidies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
The feds use some regular tax revenue to pay for roadwork and that's essentially a subsidy to fossil fuels?

Come on man! Tesla's profits come almost exclusively from carbon credits. But the new electric Mustang and get a $7,500 credit. EVs pay zero gas tax. Yet the problem is ICE subsidies?
Using regular tax dollars to pay for roadwork is essentially a subsidy for the trucking industry since trucks cause most of the damage on the roads.
In fact, regular consumers of gasoline are essentially subsidizing the trucking industry because we all pay those gas taxes when we fill up our tanks, which is then used to pay for damage to the roads caused predominantly by trucks.
If we truly wanted it market based make the trucking companies pay for let's say 90 percent of the road maintenance costs.
I'm sure the trucking companies wouldn't like it but regular consumers of gasoline, as well as the railroad companies. would like it.
And I don't have a problem with subsidizing EV's because they don't pollute as much as ICE.
A pollution tax would be better but politically it isn't as feasible as a subsidy.
Think of the subsidy as reimbursing EV owners for the pollution they don't cause during the life of the vehicle.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
102,932
55,827
1
That article is nothing but propaganda.
First off Dan Kish and Turner are both political operatives who belong to political non profits.
And as far as I can see neither one has a degree in science.
Turner's degree is in philosophy and in Kish's bio, it only says he is a graduate of Wabash College, which is an all male liberal arts school.
And the quote from the CEO of Rivian was referring to battery capacity not wind and solar capacity.
And the lack in battery capacity isn't surprising because there isn't going to be a huge excess capacity in place.
Capacity increases when demand increases.
And I don't have any issue with solar and wind receiving subsidies because they are far cleaner than the alternatives.
A pollution tax would be better but subsidies are better than nothing because the free market on its own doesn't account for the cost of pollution.

Like Greta, the new expert???
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,386
12,029
1
Using regular tax dollars to pay for roadwork is essentially a subsidy for the trucking industry since trucks cause most of the damage on the roads.
In fact, regular consumers of gasoline are essentially subsidizing the trucking industry because we all pay those gas taxes when we fill up our tanks, which is then used to pay for damage to the roads caused predominantly by trucks.
If we truly wanted it market based make the trucking companies pay for let's say 90 percent of the road maintenance costs.
I'm sure the trucking companies wouldn't like it but regular consumers of gasoline, as well as the railroad companies. would like it.
And I don't have a problem with subsidizing EV's because they don't pollute as much as ICE.
A pollution tax would be better but politically it isn't as feasible as a subsidy.
Think of the subsidy as reimbursing EV owners for the pollution they don't cause during the life of the vehicle.

Are you referring to the trucking industry that delivers your food and clothing to the stores????

And the trucking industry pays a gas tax to use the roads. What type of unique tax does the EV industry pay to use the roads?
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,482
34,711
1
Using regular tax dollars to pay for roadwork is essentially a subsidy for the trucking industry since trucks cause most of the damage on the roads.
In fact, regular consumers of gasoline are essentially subsidizing the trucking industry because we all pay those gas taxes when we fill up our tanks, which is then used to pay for damage to the roads caused predominantly by trucks.
If we truly wanted it market based make the trucking companies pay for let's say 90 percent of the road maintenance costs.
I'm sure the trucking companies wouldn't like it but regular consumers of gasoline, as well as the railroad companies. would like it.
And I don't have a problem with subsidizing EV's because they don't pollute as much as ICE.
A pollution tax would be better but politically it isn't as feasible as a subsidy.
Think of the subsidy as reimbursing EV owners for the pollution they don't cause during the life of the vehicle.
Federal taxes on diesel fuel ($0.244) are 33% higher than they are on gasoline ($0.1844). Regardless, don't you think trucking companies would pass higher taxes onto customers?

And what about a pollution tax on the battery makers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,235
5,042
1
The feds use some regular tax revenue to pay for roadwork and that's essentially a subsidy to fossil fuels?

Come on man! Tesla's profits come almost exclusively from carbon credits. But the new electric Mustang and get a $7,500 credit. EVs pay zero gas tax. Yet the problem is ICE subsidies?
There's a part of me that thinks that in 50 years we're going to look back at this whole climate change thing as one of the greatest government scams in the history of mankind. Climate has been changing for centuries, there seems to be equal and opposite scientists who disagree with the science that is currently in vogue. We're spending tons of money and still don't seem to know if what we're spending it on is right. We don't yet have a handle on where the raw materials are going to come from and what impacts on the environment and the economy obtaining them will be. See
Buttigieg's testimony last week. All he seems to know is that the goal is that 50% of new car sales be electric by 2030.
Anybody remember the certainty that was obamacare? How about the certainty of our entry into vietnam?
I guess time will tell!
 

Lesgo_Brandon

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2021
281
508
1
St Louis
My wife paid $75 electric vehicle tax for her Tesla last year. The DMV told her that it's going to increase every year. Still cheaper than what you pay at the pump I reckon......for now
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,868
40,272
1
I wouldn't go that far, because rural areas benefit far more from transportation spending than cities.
So the cities benefit from mass transit funding but rural roads are largely funded by the state.
There is no way most rural areas could pay for all the roads in their areas.
Most rural towns can't adequately maintain their own roads, let alone the state roads.
Your comment is laughable. So, how do you propose getting from Philly to Pitt?
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,482
34,711
1
There's a part of me that thinks that in 50 years we're going to look back at this whole climate change thing as one of the greatest government scams in the history of mankind.

Are you seriously expecting people to run the numbers and be held accountable?

 
  • Love
Reactions: Monlion

Latest posts