We, the taxpayers, are forced to subsidize such things as up to $7,500 for buyers of an EV.
(and eat bugs, too.)
We, the taxpayers, are forced to subsidize such things as up to $7,500 for buyers of an EV.
______________________________
But, they are saving the Earth!😜
They are spending their own money on saving the Earth, they deserve some help from you, you greedy pig!😜
ONLY for those built by union workers. Tesla is NOT union.
In multiple ways, to the tune of over $50,000 per EV over 10 years. The cars are subsidized, the electricity and electrical infrastructure are subsidized, the roads they are driven on are subsidized. For the price of a Camry, you can drive a car that out-accelerates a Ferrari and is cheaper (for the owner) to drive than an Accord. But we are all subsidizing these cars. Not so different than rooftop solar.
“We, the taxpayers, are forced to subsidize such things as up to $7,500 for buyers of an EV”
And next year that $7500 won’t be a tax credit, it will be a welfare credit. No need to pay a dime of Fed tax to get a $7500 discount off the top of the final price. The Dealers will bill the $7500 to Guberment. Now get a job promotion during the year putting you over 150k (and paying plenty in Fed tax) a year, Guberment will come after you to claw back some or all of the $7500. How f’ed up is that?
Sounds like a bargain to me. NOT.
There is no economic advantage to a battery-powered EV except in a very narrow niche application. A hybrid using electric traction power, with the energy supplied by an internal-combustion engine driving an on-board generator, is a much better solution on an interim basis, until hydrogen fuel cells can substitute for the on-board generation system.
But the hydrogen infrastructure would have to be developed FIRST before that program could be itself economically feasible. That includes vastly expanding the electric power generation capacity, using nuclear energy as the primary source. Nuclear power generation has gotten a very bad rap because of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima disasters, using light-water uranium reactors. It is no longer necessary to rely on that technology, developed over sixty years ago, with its attendant problems and clumsy procedures for control (either flatout or all off). Small modular reactors have been designed and are ready for widespread adoption, with none of the problems of the big uranium LWRs, like runaway reactions, radioactivity release, or huge quantities of “spent” radioactive waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
These reactors can power an industrial complex or a small remote location WITHOUT being tied into a wider electrical grid, and thus making the transmission of electrical power from point of generation to point of consumption much shorter, without the losses on the grid which only transmit about 38% of the power generated to the ultimate consumer, because of resistance over long transmission lines, which can stretch hundreds or thousands of miles. The chances of a total blackout, with many much smaller grids rather than one massive grid, are far less, and also protect against the effect of an EMP event, either by sabotage or open warfare.