Comments on: McCain energy gimmick, Part 2 — The ill-defined, impractical “Clean Car Challenge”

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:20:17 +0000

Joe, the question isn’t whether a pure EV is a practical primary vehicle for most people. A lot of EV families own a pure EV as their commuter car, with a second gasoline vehicle (along with a lot tussle over who gets to drive the EV on any given day). Most of the 2002 Toyota RAV4-EVs now have 70-100K miles on them. They have been workhorses, as those numbers indicate. One recently went on sale on eBay with 127,000 miles on the odometer. So I don’t agree that they don’t work in this country, even with as much as we drive. Some households have two RAV4-EVs, and for those rare occasions where the range is inadequate, they rent a gasoline vehicle. Also remember that there is a wide distribution of miles driven, and pure EVs will work as the only vehicle for many. Also remember that in May 2007, an EV company demonstrated a 10-minute recharge of a 150-mile EV to CARB. Fast recharge times make EVs capable of long highway trips.

Sure, PHEVs are likely to be embraced in America in a way that pure EVs are not at first, but that does not mean there is no place for pure EVs.

By: Jay Alt

Jay Alt — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:54:48 +0000

Too bored to follow the candidates positions? We aren’t.
Obama –
Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids,
Clinton –
as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies;
Edwards –
$1B/year for hybrids . .

By: Bart Verheggen

Bart Verheggen — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:37:12 +0000

Hmm, not much performance loss for this beauty: http://www.teslamotors.com/

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:10:19 +0000

Somebody around here commutes to work in his Zapcar.

Great turning radius and it sure is cute.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:07:26 +0000

Bart — A pure EV isn’t really a practical primary vehicle for most people. I have doubts it could meet cost and performance goals in the near term, at least for this country. EVs make a lot of sense for many other countries that don’t drive as much, and I expect in the longer term they will be an attractive option here. But plug ins come first.

By: Bart Verheggen

Bart Verheggen — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:56:51 +0000

I am a little surprised to read that you don’t regard a pure electric vehicle to be the kind of near-term or even medium-term solution that we need, or that we should encourage. Especially in light of the relative success that the first electric vehicle (EV1) had in California back in the nineties. Now that car was perhaps far from perfect, but I’ve understood that current possibilities already offer a much larger driving range, for example. So even without a major technological breakthrough pure electric vehicles seem to be a good near-term possibility. The major obstacle that I see is that it requires a change in refueling grid, which would need massive government support and investment. Another obstacle is probably vested interests that have a stake in maintaining the current gasoline dependency. Not incidentally, these obstacles probably played a part in “killing the electric car” in the nineties. But should they withhold us from promoting this option, when it’s in fact the best solution to curbing transport emissions?

By: bored

bored — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:12:45 +0000

Good point. Your plan, as well as the other presidential candidates plans are much more comprehensive and helpful. Oh – neither exist. Your post is so partisan that it offers no value as an objective contribution to the conversation surrounding the issue. This is not a post about how to solve the issue as much as a political rant. I wish I could find more people willing to leave old school, single-minded, partisan rallying to support and bring about real change.

By: Greg N

Greg N — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:46:12 +0000

Why mess around with tax credits? High taxes on gas accomplish the same thing – a SUV pays high taxes per thousand miles, Prius pay low taxes per thousand miles.

In the UK, with petrol at $8 a gallon, it costs £1,000 ($2,000) in extra tax every year to drive a fairly inefficient car compared to a reasonably efficient car, assuming 10,000 miles p.a. This tax differential is even higher for a SUV compared to a Prius, or for higher annual mileage.

And in the UK, there’s a showroom tax from 2009 – new cars pay a first year road tax depending on CO2. For a Prius it’s zero. For a SUV (emissions > 255 g/km) it’s £950. Simple to administer, very visible to a guy in a showroom choosing a new car, no messing around with accountants.

$5,000 might seem like a high headline figure, but it’s actually rather small compared to the benefits/penalties in the UK! If we choose a new Prius we pay $4,000 less in tax in the first year, then $2,000 less each and every subsequent year.

By: Ronald

Ronald — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:46:50 +0000

Good article and it makes the point.

I have a close relative who drives a small car and since 1996 has only driven 19 000 miles (literally to church and stores.) That person is now looking at buying a new small car, but what good is the 5 000 dollar tax break going to mean to that person. The demand for higher mileage vehicles is already being signaled by the market. All this incentive will do is add to an already mismatched fuel efficient/non-fuel efficent vehicle market. And most of the incentives will be going to vehicle manufactorers who already have fuel efficient vehicles and they are mostly foreign manufactorers. Maybe the help should at least go to domestic companies.