EV for people who hate EV's...

keep in mind, as I said I don't think petroleum subsidizes are a bad thing! I mean, the reality is that I love my carbon-fiber bike, fast tires, and TV set. I mean, I've been a competitive cyclist for decades, and the last thing in the world I want to do is to go back to wool shorts! (thank you, inventors of Lycra..). But let's not pretend those subsidies don't exist. They do. Electric vehicles can provide a public benefit with cleaner air in dense locations (and here in the land of 20 year old diesels running tractor fuel, but that's a different story..). So, a comparatively small subsidy just doesn't give me that same amount of heartburn, even if I don't love how it's implemented. I just think it's disingenuous to ONLY talk about subsidies for EV's and ignore the reality of the historical subsidies that have gone into fuel production, traditional automotive production, etc.

As I said though, I know it's a touchy subject.
100% honest question. Please point me to a US oil subsidy for producing vehicle fuel.

I have asked this question here multiple times legitimately. I have been pointed to special subsidies to preserve natural gas rather than flare it, but natural gas is used for electricity not gasoline. I have been pointed to how well drillers can write off the expense of drilling a well, including a dry well. Somehow this isn't a legitimate expense but R&D or building a plant for EV's is. They also point me to this or that sub committee pandering about something with no real facts, just that there going to do something about it. I have been pointed to subsidies in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. I have been pointed to the US fifth fleet, which hasn't been in the gulf for years until the latest flare up which is about politics not oil - the saudi's are already purposely holding back 1M barrels per day.

Please point me to one US law that shows a subsidy to produce fossil fuel to power a vehicle. I will be forever indebted.
 
100% honest question. Please point me to a US oil subsidy for producing vehicle fuel.

I have asked this question here multiple times legitimately. I have been pointed to special subsidies to preserve natural gas rather than flare it, but natural gas is used for electricity not gasoline. I have been pointed to how well drillers can write off the expense of drilling a well, including a dry well. Somehow this isn't a legitimate expense but R&D or building a plant for EV's is. They also point me to this or that sub committee pandering about something with no real facts, just that there going to do something about it. I have been pointed to subsidies in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. I have been pointed to the US fifth fleet, which hasn't been in the gulf for years until the latest flare up which is about politics not oil - the saudi's are already purposely holding back 1M barrels per day.

Please point me to one US law that shows a subsidy to produce fossil fuel to power a vehicle. I will be forever indebted.
This is not a serious question, which is why you probably don't get an answer that you consider suitable. I'm smart enough to not go down that rabbit hole and try. World-wide fossil fuel subsidies are estimated at around 7 trillion dollars, and I'm sure that you will take issue with any example that's provides.

No thanks.
 
This is not a serious question, which is why you probably don't get an answer that you consider suitable. I'm smart enough to not go down that rabbit hole and try. World-wide fossil fuel subsidies are estimated at around 7 trillion dollars, and I'm sure that you will take issue with any example that's provides.

No thanks.
Are we counting tax credits as subsidies? As, IIRC, most of the lists I've seen of FF subsidies count them.
 
No love - no hate on EV’s - but honestly - don’t know why a guy can’t just post a new vehicle purchase without lighting rods attached …
There were really no lightning rods attached? That's simply some folks reading their own biases into my initial post. There are tons of folks who complain about the complexity of new cars, and particularly EV's. For those people, if we weren't on the internet and they actually test drove my car, my guess is that they'd really like it. It feels like a car. It has an actual dash, with gauges and stuff. It even has a key you put in and turn! (which frankly, is a bit dumb, but whatever...). Seriously, it's a car that a lot of people who are simply not into the "tech" part of cars would really like. It just happens to have an electric motor.

Unfortunately, any post on EV's becomes a bit of a rorschach test on how you feel about EV's... No intended lighting rods on my part...
 
EV's do fill a purpose, like any car.
The car you bought is not sold in the USA. Gas is cheap here, EV's are REALLY expensive and would not exist without American taxpayers paying up to $11,000 per car. Americans love convenience and will pay for gas but will always be those who find an EV convenient. Im not sure why a debate myself. I think here in the USA because money from my family is given to other families to buy an Electric car, if they didnt do that. I could care less what someone buys. So this has nothing to do for me in Gas Vs Electric other than what I posted. Without taxpayers footing the bill here, there would be no EV market.
I think you know better than to think EVs wouldn't exist without the credit. Sure we have some "cheap" gas if we can call it that, but my electricity makes our EV 1/4 the cost per mile to operate.

I'm a bit surprised to see such a post from you to be honest.
 
I think you know better than to think EVs wouldn't exist without the credit. Sure we have some "cheap" gas if we can call it that, but my electricity makes our EV 1/4 the cost per mile to operate.

I'm a bit surprised to see such a post from you to be honest.
I’m surprised you’re surprised
It’s acknowledged that already some dealers have issues with these things sitting on the lots.

Every single manufacturer has scaled back plans.
That would beg me to ask you don’t you think the market would be even worse shape if the government did not give people $7500 at the time of of purchase to use as a down payment.

Ahhhhh …, I just reread my own post. I definitely used the wrong words. You are correct. I said they would not exist.
That is incorrect electric vehicles will always exist, but they would not have the market penetration without this current incentive because they’re too expensive without it compared to a gasoline vehicle.

We have many wealthy people in this forum, but you have to take into account the average American family who doesn’t even have a couple thousand dollars in emergency savings. Tell them that if they buy a new electric vehicle, the government is going to give them a $7500 down payment and it will certainly make them think about it … without that incentive it wouldn’t even be a thought.

OK, I gotta go work outside in the yard🙃 and I used text to speech on my iPhone for this post. I corrected a million things already. Hope I didn’t miss any.
 
Last edited:
This is not a serious question, which is why you probably don't get an answer that you consider suitable. I'm smart enough to not go down that rabbit hole and try. World-wide fossil fuel subsidies are estimated at around 7 trillion dollars, and I'm sure that you will take issue with any example that's provides.

No thanks.
I asked for one legitimate US subsidy.

I already listed global subsidies where oil rich developing nations subsidize gasoline.


So you can’t find one either? No surprise.
 
Are we counting tax credits as subsidies? As, IIRC, most of the lists I've seen of FF subsidies count them.
I would say it depends. In most cases business tax credits are simply something you could write off anyway over time, but with a tax credit you don't have to wait. For example there is a tax credit for oil companies to build facilities to capture natural gas. They would be able to depreciate and write off these facilities anyway, but the tax credit lets them take the whole deduction once complete.

I don't know of any fossil fuel tax credits where you couldn't deduct the same amount, just possibly not up front. The government usually does this in cases where it wants something done - in the case of natural gas, the government wanted to replace coal power plants with natural gas, so they needed oil companies to produce the gas.

If they could take the credit for something normally not deductible (and any legitimate expense is deductible) then I would call it a subsidy.
 
I am simple, if when low on charge I could find a place without more than 5 minutes of waiting in line to get to the plug and no more than a ten minute fill up time I would be fine, even if the range was as low as only 200 miles or so.

Yes, you can charge at night if you have a garage and a setup, but out on the road I demand relative convenience as I will not always be near my garage. An ICE powered vehicle comes with all that convenience, but at a fuel cost that I am willing to pay for that convenience. Repairs and maintenance are more expensive in a far more complex ICE powered vehicle, but I will pay for the convenience of a close by and quick refueling.

Someday, that sort of convenience might arrive, but it is not here yet. When it does I will start driving EVs.
 
I am simple, if when low on charge I could find a place without more than 5 minutes of waiting in line to get to the plug and no more than a ten minute fill up time I would be fine, even if the range was as low as only 200 miles or so.

Yes, you can charge at night if you have a garage and a setup, but out on the road I demand relative convenience as I will not always be near my garage. An ICE powered vehicle comes with all that convenience, but at a fuel cost that I am willing to pay for that convenience. Repairs and maintenance are more expensive in a far more complex ICE powered vehicle, but I will pay for the convenience of a close by and quick refueling.

Someday, that sort of convenience might arrive, but it is not here yet. When it does I will start driving EVs.
It's only a matter of time as charging keeps getting faster and faster due to technology. Charging locations will expand with demand. Some areas are better than others, so I can understand the apprehension. We're getting there, but it's definitely not perfect.
 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...el-subsidies/4404A986879DA9CC7B0802D38023DEE8


From above link...

4.1 Definitions of Fossil Fuel Subsidies​

There is no agreement on how to define energy subsidies (Reference GerasimchukGerasimchuk, 2014; Reference Koplow, Skovgaard and van AsseltKoplow, 2018; OECD Secretariat, 2010b). This disagreement has far-reaching consequences for the measurement of the global and national levels of fossil fuel energy subsidies and the countries that are considered as having fossil fuel subsidies. Few observers dispute that policies that lower the price paid by consumers below the market price, for example, fixing the price of petrol at USD 0.30 per litre as it has been the case in Iran (Reference KojimaKojima, 2016), constitute an energy subsidy. Yet, several other types of policies may be defined as fossil fuel subsidies depending on the definition. Few if any policies are defined as fossil fuel subsidies by the policymakers that adopt them, but they may subsequently be defined as fossil fuel subsidies by other actors.

An important distinction is the one between attempts to identify (and often also measure) fossil fuel subsidies that rely on an inventory approach and those that rely on a price-gap approach. These two approaches depend implicitly or explicitly on different definitions of fossil fuel subsidies, for example, the price-gap approach relies on definitions of fossil fuel subsidies that define such subsidies in terms of prices being below a given benchmark.

The inventory approach focuses on government policies and defines as fossil fuel subsidies those policies that confer benefits to particular fossil fuel producing or consuming activities. On the consumption side, the inventory approach identifies as subsidies policies including direct spending on the lowering of fossil fuel prices, reduced tax or VAT rates on fossil fuels, and so forth. On the production side, it identifies a broader range of policies as subsidies (although this varies somewhat between different kinds of inventory approaches), including the public provision of infrastructure for fossil fuels (e.g. pipelines, railroads); tax reductions; insurances, loans and guarantees provided with more favourable conditions than what the market offers; research and development; as well as government ownership of fossil fuel extraction enterprises (e.g. loss-making coalmines). The focus on policies means that the inventory approach often leads to debates regarding whether a given policy actually confers such benefits. The inventory approach requires extensive data gathering to identify the subsidies within a given country, and inventories sometimes do not include all subsidies within a country due to data limitations (Reference Kojima and KoplowKojima and Koplow, 2015; Reference Koplow, Skovgaard and van AsseltKoplow, 2018). Importantly, inventory approaches rely on different definitions of fossil fuel subsidies, all of them characterised by defining fossil fuel subsidies in terms of policies conferring benefits on the consumption and/or production of fossil fuels. One prominent example of such a definition is the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s definition of subsidies (of all kinds not just those concerning fossil fuels) as a financial contribution by a government that confers a benefit to the recipient (World Trade Organization, 1994, Article 1). Yet, it is also possible to include non-financial contributions, for example, policies reducing risk, under the definition of subsidies (Reference Koplow, Skovgaard and van AsseltKoplow, 2018).

The price-gap approach focuses on the consumer price of fossil fuels rather than the policies influencing such prices. Specifically, it identifies whether the consumer prices are below a given benchmark price and estimates the combined value of the difference between the two prices. The benchmark price is generally based on the international market price of a given fossil fuel, often with the transport and distribution costs and/or VAT added, and in some cases also taxes corresponding to the externalities (e.g. air pollution, climate change, traffic accidents) of using the fuel (Reference Clements, Coady, Fabrizio, Gupta, Alleyne and SdralevichClements et al., 2013; Reference Coady, Parry, Sears and ShangCoady et al., 2015; Reference GerasimchukGerasimchuk, 2014; Reference KoplowKoplow, 2009; Reference SteenblikSteenblik and OECD, 2003). The level of the benchmark price is crucial for estimates of the size of total fossil fuel subsidies, as a high benchmark price will lead to high estimates of total fossil fuel subsidies at the global and national level. The price-gap approach only identifies the effects of fossil fuel subsidies that influence consumer prices, and hence producer subsidies are included in such studies only to the degree that they have an effect on consumer prices, which they rarely do, as most fossil fuels (e.g. gas or oil) are sold in global markets.

Definitional aspects are also important as regards determining which policies should be reformed or phased out. Both the G20 and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) made the commitment ‘to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption’ (APEC, 2009; G20 Heads of State and Government, 2009b). This wording raises questions regarding the exact interpretation of the terms ‘rationalize’, ‘medium term’ and most importantly for the issue of defining fossil fuel subsidies, ‘inefficient’Footnote1 and ‘encourage wasteful consumption’. As is discussed in Chapters 58, much of the discussion has focused on whether a country’s fossil fuel subsidies are indeed inefficient and encourage wasteful consumption.
 
You don't claim real estate taxes and mortgage interest as a deduction?

That's a tax break that only homeowners get.
You get reduced rent prices on rental because of it too as the owner gets them and has to compete with privately owned houses. So you’re getting subsidized too and that’s before rent control.
 
This was posted earlier. No direct subsidies for things resembling vehicle fuels. There are subsidies on Natural gas, Coal, and Carbon capture. I 100% agree, get rid of the subsidies on those things. Higher priced electricity won't affect me much.

They then try to twist it and call tax deductions on business expenses a subsidy for vehicle fuels. There not. See my post #110 above. A deduction on money you legitimately spent to produce the fuel against profits earned is not a subsidy. Its a deduction. All businesses take them, large and small.

You could read the actual law, not a political hit piece. I have.

I am sure some day someone will find a direct subsidy. You know there must be at least one stupid one somewhere around pork to some party. The "oil production in cape cod" subsidy or something.
 
On a site with fossil fuels in the name, I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that EV's received the amount of shade they do here. While there of course the ultra-ridiculous "if it doesn't go 800 miles and charge in 2 minutes, I'm not interested" crowd, I think there's more it than just random EV hate. A lot of EV's simply seem to look and feel more like a high-tech appliance than what most people consider to be a "car". I'm in my mid-fifties and have been driving since I was 15, so I certainly fall into that category. Many EV's seem more like Iphones to me than cars. Personally, I'm OK embracing the new experience, even as a long-time car guy.

But... roads let me a different direction, and upon spending a few months in my new car, I couldn't help think "this is an EV a Bitog'r would love!". Enter, my new ride, the VW E-Up!

View attachment 239548

First, I had three different cars from the VW MK7 Golf family (Alltrack, GTi and Golf R), so this my color my thoughts a bit, but this is the simplest car to operate I've ever been in. All of the controls are dead simple. If you've never sat in a VW, you would still know where everything is in about 2 minutes.

Secondly, there is almost nothing to differentiate this car from a gasoline car. Of course, part of that is because they make this same car with a gas engine. Still, when you get in it, it just feels like a car. Not an X-Box. Not an Iphone. Just a very simple car.

Lastly, this is one of the rare "put batteries in a gasoline car" platforms where the end result is actually better than the gas version. I've driven both, and while you feel the weight a bit in the corners, it feels a bit more planted to me, it's a lot quieter, and seems to get blown around a lot less on the highway. It also feels a lot faster than the numbers suggest, due to the high torque and low weight. The operating costs on this car are incredibly low.

Downsides? Well, first, if you need a lot of space it isn't the car for you. The car is much more spacious than a lot of cars in this segment (Fiat 500, for instance). It has usable rear seats and reasonable cargo space. Funny thing is, while today this is considered a micro car by many, it's roughly the size of my MK1 GTi (and has more overall cargo space). In many ways, it actually reminds me of my first GTi. For me, the small size is actually why I bought this car. Originally, I was had a deposit on a VW ID3, but after 2 weeks in a rental car that was the same size, I realized it was just far too big. My wife and I moved to a small village in Spain, and the roads here are tiny, as is the entrance to our garage. I just didn't want to worry about not being able to get to our house some days because of how someone else parked.

And the big one that causes so much heartburn: range. I can get an honest 160 miles out of this car, shocking considering that's the published range and it had 30K on it when I bought it. That said, there's very little highway driving, and--the bigger reason it's not an issue--I live on a small island. The longest drive I've done in a day is about 70 miles, and had a bit more than half of the battery left. Range anxiety will never be a thing for me with this car. If I'm doing a long road trip, I'll rent something. That said, 2 things come to mind: 1: I would have loved to have this car in Seattle. It would have sufficed for 95% of my trips just fine, been easier to park, and perfectly suitable for the driving there. 2: medium distance trips aren't actually that bad with it. I bought the car from a dealer in Madrid (cars are crazy expensive on the island), and had to drive it to the ferry, about 300 miles. I did charge twice on the trip, both times at a Repsol on the highway. 37kW is the fastest charging speed on "fast charge", but with a battery this size, that means 40 minutes and you're from 20% to 80-85% in about 40 minutes. And while I generally hate stopping for gas, Repsol totally changes that dynamic for me. Stop in and get a sandwich, pastry and a coffee, and by the time I'm done the car is charged. Simple. Honestly, for a road trip where you aren't in a hurry, it was actually fine. And, part of moving here is to never have to be in a hurry again! So, no pasa nada... The thing is, the small range is also what makes this car great--it's still quite light and maneuverable.

Overall, I have to say I'm a big fan of this car. I got it thinking "I'll get a real car later", but it the longer I have it the more I see it as being my main ride. It definitely feels like the "anti-EV EV".
That car seems ideal for your use, being a VW the build quality should be good and as you say it is a real car not some sort of play thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom