Article on EV's under development.

[A_Harman]

Here is a link to an article summarizing the state of various EV's being developed for sale around the world.

http://wardsauto.com/ar/failures_electric_vehicle_110330/

It seems clear to me that if the government subsidies dried up, so would the EV business.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman

It seems clear to me that if the government subsidies dried up, so would the EV business.


It's clear to me that if the government weren't involved in securing a steady supply of oil from other (sometimes hostile) countries, we'd be paying a lot more for gasoline. Many people seem to conveniently ignore this fact when it comes time to talk about investment in EV's. I'm not saying EV's are the answer to the energy question/problem, but let's stop pretending that we as a nation don't subsidize petroleum more heavily, by several orders of magnitude, than any other energy source. Then, we can have a reasonable discussion about EV's and other alternative-fueled vehicles.

 

[A_Harman]

We as a nation do not subsidize petroleum. Petroleum is taxed heavily to subsidize other, inferior forms of energy. For instance, the Fed's levy a tax of 19% on every barrel of crude pumped out of the Gulf of Mexico. Every gallon of gasoline has about 50 cents of tax on it. Petroleum pays its own way in our society, and makes our comfortable lives possible.

It makes me want to choke the carp out of somebody every time I hear them say petroleum is subsidized.

 

[Shannow]

Really ?

What are all those boats, planes and boots doing, and who's paying for them ?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
We as a nation do not subsidize petroleum...
It makes me want to choke the carp out of somebody every time I hear them say petroleum is subsidized.


You have you head firmly planted in the sand. Instead of choking people, you look at the problem a little more objectively...

I doubt that's going to happen since you have such an emotional response to the subject, so I'm not going to waste much breath. But for starters, an overwhelming percentage of our defense budget goes into ensuring a steady supply of cheap oil. A steady supply of energy is far and away the most important element of national defense for this country, since we can't produce enough on our own. So we are, in fact, HEAVILY subsidizing oil in this country.

If you can't wrap your head around that, there's little I can do to help.

 

[A_Harman]

Concerning the 3 wars we are now fighting:
How much oil are we getting from Afghanistan? None.
How much oil are we getting from Libya? Not much, if any. The French buy most of Qadaffy's oil.
How much oil are we getting from Iraq? Wasn't the incessant howl from the left during the Iraq war all about how it was for cheap oil? If that was the case, where's our cheap oil from the Iraqi's?
We get about 20% of our imported oil from Saudi Arabia, and the last I checked we are not fighting any wars to protect that supply. (But given the unrest in the Arab world, that could change.) The Saudi's return some of the oil money by buying our military hardware and getting training in the US so they are paying for their own defense. No "subsidy" required.

50% of our imported oil comes from Canada, so I guess there's not much military action necessary to "subsidize" that supply.

So tell me; exactly how much of our military spending is applied to protecting our oil supply?

 

[A_Harman]

2010 US oil imports by nation, from the Energy Information Agency:

1. Canada, 21.5%
2. Mexico, 10.9%
3. Saudi Arabia, 9.3%
4. Nigeria, 8.7%
5. Venezuela, 8.4%
6. Russia, 5.2%
7. Algeria, 4.3%
8. Iraq, 3.5%
9. Angola, 3.3%
10. Columbia, 3.1%

These top 10 countries account for 78% of the oil that we import.
How many of these countries are we currently fighting wars in? Iraq is the only one, and at only 3.5% of imports, its not a major player. America's oil imports from Iraq actually peaked in 2008 and has been declining ever since.

If America was the evil country you're saying it is, we would be down in Venezuela kicking Hugo Chavez out of power and taking their oil.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Concerning the 3 wars we are now fighting:
How much oil are we getting from Afghanistan? None.
How much oil are we getting from Libya? Not much, if any. The French buy most of Qadaffy's oil.
How much oil are we getting from Iraq? Wasn't the incessant howl from the left during the Iraq war all about how it was for cheap oil? If that was the case, where's our cheap oil from the Iraqi's?


It's not about cheap oil, it's about having control of the remaining oil supplies in the future. Iraq is number 4 in terms of oil reserves. Number 3 on the list lies right between Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Concerning the 3 wars we are now fighting:
How much oil are we getting from Afghanistan? None.
How much oil are we getting from Libya? Not much, if any. The French buy most of Qadaffy's oil.
How much oil are we getting from Iraq?


Just because we don't directly buy (much) oil from those countries, it doesn't mean that a steady supply of oil from those places doesn't have a huge impact in the price we pay. International commodities prices are much more linked than you seem to suggest.

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Wasn't the incessant howl from the left during the Iraq war all about how it was for cheap oil? If that was the case, where's our cheap oil from the Iraqi's?


The reason(s) we were/are in Iraq are, I'm sure, many. I think it's safe to say that the energy interests are prime among them, and I think one would have to be really naive to think otherwise, given Iraq's importance in the global oil supply, whether we buy much directly from them or not. I don't see this as a partisan issue, as you seem to want to make it out to be; I see it as a simple necessity. We need a steady supply of reasonably-priced oil to keep our current standard of living in this country. Much of the oil in the world is in the middle east. These are statements of fact, not political declarations...

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
We get about 20% of our imported oil from Saudi Arabia, and the last I checked we are not fighting any wars to protect that supply. (But given the unrest in the Arab world, that could change.) The Saudi's return some of the oil money by buying our military hardware and getting training in the US so they are paying for their own defense. No "subsidy" required.


Please tell me you're kidding, right?? Do you realized that the US directly invested hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to Saudi Arabia in the prior century, right? We didn't do this because we were philanthropic. And the US military presence in the middle east, whether it's in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else, it still inextricably linked to security for our allies in the region. Saudi Arabia has certainly been a valuable trading partner of the US. That said, it's simply disingenuous to say "we aren't fighting a war in Saudi Arabia, so our military presence in the middle east has nothing to do with them."


Originally Posted By: A_Harman
50% of our imported oil comes from Canada, so I guess there's not much military action necessary to "subsidize" that supply.

Not even close. But don't let pesky facts get in the way... And as I said earlier, the price of oil coming from the middle east has a profound impact on the price of oil we buy from Canada.

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
So tell me; exactly how much of our military spending is applied to protecting our oil supply?


There is simply no way to parse out exactly how much we spend ensuring a steady supply of petroleum, since things don't happen in a vacuum or in isolation. What percentage of the war in the Balkans, and the Bondsteel military base were/are dedicated to development of the Trans-Balkan pipeline? These aren't simple questions with simple answers. I'll say this though; it's several orders of magnitude more than we've invested in any other forms of energy. I think any rational person would have a very difficult time disagreeing with that.

That's why, if people are going to have a rational discussion about investment about EV's, this utter nonsense of "they have to stand on there own without any government intervention" has to stop. I don't know if it's the best use of resources or not, but the fact is we're already subsidizing (heavily) petroleum, so EV's have to be looked at in this context. That's my opinion on it. Obviously, you disagree.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: JOD
There is simply no way to parse out exactly how much we spend ensuring a steady supply of petroleum, since things don't happen in a vacuum or in isolation . . . I'll say this though; it's several orders of magnitude more than we've invested in any other forms of energy.


It has also returned several orders of magnitude more than any other forms of energy.

I don't think oil subsidies and EV subsidies are comparable. In most cases, I don't even think that oil is subsidized, except when it's sold for less than market value or when the net returns of an oil project are lower than the net inputs, for anyone who provides financial input. I have trouble viewing something that returns more resources than is invested as being subsidized, though certainly many of the products of oil are subsidized, and I consider the EV to be one of those. Oil is a resource, while the EV is made from resources in order to consume resources, with the hope that it will assist in the development of new resources. But until it reaches the point where it is economically viable without subsidies, I think it's just a way to consume resources in a more discreet manner. On the other hand, it's probably a good idea to invest some of the abundant oil energy available right now into something that will consume less oil energy in the future, when it will likely be much more costly. I just don't think a government should actively promote personal consumption of any resources, and an EV subsidy does that.