Electric vehicle subsidies show how U.S. is still ambivalent about new auto technology
Walt Sorg thinks the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric car is cool.
“I’ve always been an early adopter of new technology,” said Sorg, the morning host and part owner of talklansing.net, an Internet-only talk radio station in Lansing.
But that’s not the main reason Sorg plunked down $500 at his local Chevy dealer to reserve a Volt, which he hopes to take delivery of in March.
“Quite honestly, it was the economics,” he told me. “I’m getting a $7,500 subsidy from the Lansing Board of Water and Light, which also is going to install charging stations at my home and office.”
The utility is offering the deal to the first 25 people who sign up and agree to participate in research on their driving experience.
An additional $7,500 rebate from the federal government makes the $41,000 Volt practically a steal.
To skeptics, Sorg’s deal is exactly what’s wrong with the economics of electric vehicles.
They say if the government has to pour billions of dollars into developing a battery-powered, electric-vehicle industry, as it is doing, the industry can’t succeed.
But state and federal governments also are subsidizing the gasoline internal combustion engine by keeping taxes on fuel low.
Michigan lawmakers can’t even muster the political will to raise the gasoline tax a few pennies to maintain our roads.
One of the reasons electric vehicles disappeared in the early 1900s was that better roads allowed Americans to travel farther, giving gasoline-powered vehicles an advantage.
Maybe if our roads return to gravel for lack of money to fix them, electric vehicles will make a comeback.
But I digress, just a little.
Like taxes, the debate over whether Michigan and the United States will create a viable electric vehicle industry comes down to a consensus that growing this business is in our long-term interest.
I’m not at all convinced we can get there.
We’re uneasy about being dependent Middle East oil, but as long as gasoline stays under $4 a gallon it’s not at the top of our list of things to worry about.
Despite strong scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels is a major source of global warming, polls show Americans to be deeply divided on whether human activity is responsible for heating the globe.
And policymakers in Washington and Lansing aren’t exactly noted for long-term thinking, unless your definition of the term is the next election.
Environmentalists complain the new “Pledge to America” by U.S. House Republicans says little regarding energy policy, except to call for more domestic drilling of oil and an opposition to new energy taxes.
I’ll give credit though, to Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the Legislature for trying to stimulate the advanced auto battery industry here by enacting the most lucrative battery tax credits in the nation.
(And yes, the feds are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into battery plants here, although they won’t raise gasoline taxes to stimulate electric vehicle demand.)
But while we’re ambivalent about electric vehicles, other countries—notably China, of course—are looking to be the world leaders in advanced auto batteries and electric cars.
A hundred years ago, one of the most popular electric cars in the United States was the Detroit Electric, produced in Detroit by the Anderson Electric Car Co.
A European manufacturer has resurrected the brand name and is working to build “Detroit Electric” cars in China.
The company, Detroit Electric Holdings Ltd., features a quote on its Web site by pioneering U.S. computer engineer Alan Kay, who said, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”
Are we still capable of doing that?
E-mail Rick Haglund at haglund.rick@gmail.com
Comments
Joel A. Levitt
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:20 p.m.
demistify, Good point - local hydrogen production by local electrolysis - electrolysis requiring (presently dirty) electrical power production. If we get very lucky, someone will develop a method for sequestering the greenhouse gases produced burning every hydrocarbon fuel. If not, the solution is building nuclear power plants. The problem is public ignorance and consequent fear. The reality is that France and Japan have for decades been safely producing the majority of their power using nuclear plants. Except for Chernobyl (a poorly designed and badly maintained facility), there has never been a radioactive discharge from such a plant. Decades ago, the AEC developed a safe container for the transportation of radioactive materials. This material has been transported by the DOE and others more than a thousand times each year without significant problems. Waste and fuel storage containers which are expected to be durable for longer than 10,000 years in a diversity of environments were developed more than 10 years ago. The Detroit salt mines, more than 1,000 feet below ground, are perfect as storage sites. They were created in strata which have been geologically stable for hundreds of millions of years. They are already fully equipped with air, electricity, track and moving machinery, and such use might bring as many as 3,600 desperately needed good jobs to Detroit. Finally, the solution to ignorant fear is educational leadership.
Paul
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 1:04 p.m.
I agree with demistify. There is no magic propulsion system. There are much more efficient methods for the ones we use. The idea we can all commute individually in heavy (enough to be safe) vehicles at sixty miles an hour is ridiculous. Mass Transit will require many forms and government incentives (taxes or subsidies) for the clean and efficient ones. A politically difficult proposition in the US.
demistify
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 12:43 p.m.
A battery does not produce energy. It stores energy supplied to it as electricity. The electricity is also an intermediate, which has to be produced from an original source of energy. The primary method for generating electricity in the US by a big margin is the burning of coal, which is dirtier than petroleum, and this cannot be changed very fast because major advances in technology would be required as well as enormous investments. Wishing won't make it so. Hydrogen cannot be plucked out of the air (however much there is in interstellar space). It must be produced, usually by electrolysis. Which brings us back to electricity.
AlphaAlpha
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:49 a.m.
So many misstatements and implied assertions. Where to begin? "Michigan lawmakers cant even muster the political will to raise the gasoline tax a few pennies to maintain our roads." In fact, MI has the 7th highest fuel taxes in the states. We do not have corresponding value delivered for the taxes paid, thus the reluctance to boost revenue to an underperforming area. "One of the reasons electric vehicles disappeared in the early 1900s was that better roads allowed Americans to travel farther, giving gasoline-powered vehicles an advantage." The road doesn't know what kind of propulsion system the car has. The gas engine was more competitive in almost every way. That's why people chose to buy gas over electrics. "the debate... comes down to a consensus that growing this business is in our long-term interest." Where is that consensus? Among enlightened environmentalists, who know that, as a system, electrics pollute more than gas engines? Among the public? They are not clamoring for electrics. EPA? Maybe, except they know electrics pollute more than gas engines also. Big oil? Not likely. Car makers? They will make things which sell, so not them. Hmmm. Oh...the politicians. Of course. Spending your tax money. "Despite strong scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels is a major source of global warming..." Don't even go there; the 'evidence' is flimsy at best, and new research is showing the sun to be the dominant factor in planetary temperatures. "Ill give credit though, to Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the Legislature for trying to stimulate the advanced auto battery industry here by enacting the most lucrative battery tax credits in the nation." Indeed. Governments have a long history of successfully predicting macroeconomic trends. Not. Many futurists claim a significant breakthrough or paradigm shift is required to render electrics practical and economical. It is likely that most of the money 'invested' in EV technology by various governments will ultimately be considered wasted, and deemed best forgotten by future politicians. "...although they wont raise gasoline taxes to stimulate electric vehicle demand." That's it! Financially punish already strapped consumers into buying something they don't want, and can't afford. Good idea. Remember California's Zero Emission Vehicle program in the 80s-90s? Total disaster, subsequently repealed. Oh, wait, let's not mention that fiasco... "Are we still capable of doing that?" Yes. When appropriate. What have you done? As for Mr. Levitt's comments, regrettably, hydrogen is too bulky and expensive and tricky to handle to be practical. Plus, no infrastructure. It just isn't going to happen, nice as it sounds in theory. Let us, indeed, "hope that an adequate battery can be developed". It will be quite interesting to learn how China's recent rare earths embargo against Japan evolves. Embargoes over minor political squabbles, as is now happening, may dramatically change the approach to battery development, (to make the current batteries, rare earths are needed in quantities only China can currently supply), rendering much of the current 'battery technology investments' obsolete sooner than usual.
Joel A. Levitt
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 8:38 a.m.
Let's hope that an adequate battery can be developed - a battery that doesn't need electrodes made of scarce substances. If not, then we are pouring scarce capital down the drain. There is an alternative - hydrogen. The same electric power system needed to charge batteries locally can separate water into hydrogen and oxygen just as locally. And, since light carbon fiber pressure vessels and embrittlement-resistant antimony-containing alloys have already been developed, hydrogen can fuel nonpolluting already-perfected internal combustion engines and more efficient turbine engines and, if they are ever perfected, fuel cells.