Prime or Tesla 3

It is good to see people reacting positively to the diesel fraud.

 

I haven't looked into it yet, but there is a distinction between CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. For example, methane is a much more effective gas at trapping heat compared with CO2. Perhaps this is factored in?

The main objective isn't to reduce CO2 output, but to minimize global climate change. Reducing CO2 output may be among the best ways to minimize global climate change, but again, I haven't researched the topic too much. It could be that reducing methane is the low hanging fruit of minimizing climate change.

 

CO2 needs to be the big target. Methane is important but far less of it is emitted directly into the atmosphere so it's total role is relatively smaller. Actually, methane breaks down after a decade or so in the atmosphere into CO2 so the methan that is released has a more powerful direct global warming effect for 10-20 years and then has a lesser effect after it is broken down into CO2.

By the way, do not know how accurate it is but I saw an electric industry presentation slide today that was presented two months ago that claims that transportation is responsible for 40% of California's CO2 emissions.

Perhaps this is because electricity generation is a lot lower carbon in CA than nationally and perhaps there is somewhat less heavy industry CO2 emissions as well. The details of emissions percentages from other sources was not provided.

 

The primary thing driving battery prices way down is huge volume manufacturing. Subsidies are along for the ride.

Pay attention to the EV-1. It had the right "subsidy". The CA car makers were hard regulated to make an EV work, so they balance the cost of the entire battery overhead was distributed across the entire company. The best performing companies benefit by making the best EVs, not collecting the biggest subsidy. GM was clearly in the lead till the CARB zero pollution mandate was removed. Bye-bye battery progress. After that, even the most massive battery subsidies would have been a waste of money. Bottom line is a change in regulation matters far, far more than subsidy distribution. (Even now HOV decals are a horrible proxy for reducing pollution.)

I will totally agree that cost shifting is a necessary part of maturing new technologies. I would then point out that well regulated and enforced pollution requirements are far more successful at optimizing this cost shifting. Corporations excel at maximizing a mandated return on investment. When the government decides to manage the cost shifting, we get the situation where battery vehicles are now punished (for being successful) while FCVs are given vast amounts of taxpayer money (for being too immature).

Obviously, I'm not saying subsidies don't have payoffs. I am saying in the total picture of achieving the desired goal, government economic micromanagement is far, far inferior to proper legislative regulations.

 

That I agree with, however, since the government doesn't seem willing to take that step, subsidies are what we are left with.
Frankly, we could eliminate most subsidies and regulations if we internalized the current external costs in products.

A CO2 tax and dividend plan would be far more effective than what we are currently doing (not just for vehicles).

 

They are taking some steps. CAFE regulations are having an effect. But that is working the symptom, not the problem. Requiring minimum percentages of renewable energy in power production is a better step. But it still can be manipulated to allow pollution with shaky definitions of "renewable". Methane coming from landfills certainly can be fuel, but it's combustion product still ends up a pollution dumped to our lungs.

I'm not for a CO2 tax at all. The trouble with all taxes is they become converted into oppressive revenue streams to be maximized or legislated into corporate gaming systems. A CO2 pollution penalty for exceeding limits is a different animal. No regulatory system works without two well thought out components: a viable economic path for meeting the regulation and an enforcement mechanism. Fortunately both are quite possible on a world wide scale. Moving too fast is just as problematic as moving too slow, so there is nothing wrong with proceeding slowly on the right path.

 

Regulations with penalties for exceeding limits are highly susceptible to being legislated into corporate gaming systems.
The CO2 tax and dividend plan is far more effective, robust and fair.
It allows the free market to reward companies that use more renewable energy, and gets the voters more involved.
That involvement keeps the pressure on the politicians.

It is already working in some places, and the first example is working its way into state law in Oregon.

Soon, Oregon Polluters May Have to Pay Residents for Changing the Climate by Nathan Schneider — YES! Magazine

 

Where is it "working"? If it actually is, I want to know. The Oregon desire is just a plan right now.

It is the reality in the long term that I keep my eye on. At one time CARB actually was concerned with air quality. Now it is an FCV subsidization organization. Could this work? yes. Will it actually get implemented as designed and work as designed? That is the part where history keeps supporting direct legislation of pollution regulation keeps showing up as having the best long term effect.

I would add the note that any legislation can (and often is) corrupted, so this is not a case of one approach works and the other does not, it is a case of what has had the best track record from all my examinations of environmental protection schemes.

 

British Columbia.
What we can learn from British Columbia’s carbon tax | Grist

Legislation doesn't just appear out of thin air.
The fee & dividend plan has gone through a number of committee hearings. I'm not saying it is a slam dunk, but it is working its way through the gears of the state government.

 

Thanks greatly. I'll do some reading and thinking.

 

At this point, I'd agree, and wouldn't be against a phase out to keep those companies sitting on the fence for being awarded on dragging their feet.

The subsidies may have been needed as a kickstart for investing in large volume manufacturing. Tesla would have moved forward regardless, and the others might have still have gotten into the plug in game because of that competition. Or Tesla may have had trouble raising capital without the subsidies, slowing their growth, and blunting the level of threat the other companies felt.

The mandated ended because the car companies hated being forced to make a BEV, and fought it in the courts until they won.

I agree that regulations likely work better than subsidies. The rising CAFE targets will lead to more hybridization than the early subsidies did. But one solution isn't going to work for all cases, or at all times. The current CAFE ZEV program hard mandates levels of BEV and FCEVs sold by the car companies. Without the subsidies and other incentives, the car manufacturers would have to fully cover the cost to sell these required cars. Then they might be back in the courts.

 

OK, read extensively both positive and negative reviews of the carbon tax. Overall, it works...but only marginally. Here are my good and bad aspects of this tax.

Good:
1) As a tax on gas and fuel, it was applied (initially) consistently and in a disciplined manner. In other words, it went after all carbon consumption from a pollution contribution basis. Loopholes were (initially) avoided.
2) The legislation had a mandated legislative review every year to ensure the original goal of shifting taxes on the population was accomplished instead of increasing revenue from a new tax.

Bad:
1) (My chief criticism) This does not address pollution directly, but only indirectly suppresses "discretionary" spending on carbon fuels. So the reductions are somewhere between 5-15%. It cannot accomplish the 100% eventually needed.
2) There is a slow shift taking place directing the tax revenue of the carbon tax from individuals to corporations (the movie industry of all things!) The pollution suppression motivation is becoming secondary to revenue manipulation.
3) With about 90% of power generation in BC coming from hydropower and the lack heavy industry in BC, the power intensive industrial economic consequences of this tax are minimal. If this tax had been across Canada, a far different economic ripple effect would have occurred.

One detailed summary:
https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ni_wp_15-04_full.pdf

 

I agree about subsidies being undercut while leaving the regulator framework unchanged can only result in the EV development hurdles being higher. I also agree that removing legislation suppressing pollution was (and still is) the most tragic political action that any country can commit. That is the core reason for my "slow but sure" approach to pollution elimination. No renewable subsidy effects can overcome the monetary reward provided by "free" carbon dumping into the atmosphere...that is until there is very little carbon left to burn.

I'm not about to claim that pollution is solvable by regulation. In fact it is unsolvable until an economic means of making sustainable energy cheaper than carbon energy is achieved. So what history indicates, is to closely increase regulatory pollution suppression slightly more than technology costs of sustainable energy. Putting corporate money & energy into a permanent incremental advance to energy profitability is a sure fire winner compared to continuous, expensive, and risky legal and political resources for allowing pollution dumping increases. This is all underwritten by the raw numbers of how much energy the sun provides, nearly everywhere, consistently, and pollution free. Or in capitalist terms, the money to be made by "free" fuel has an economic payback helped immensely by making pollution just a little more expensive. Once solar power is 1 cent cheaper than carbon fuel, we are on the way to making great pollution reductions all over the world.

 

I am anxiously awaiting additional news re the Tesla 3.

My Brother-in-law just took delivery of a brand new Tesla P90D. WOW. Absolutely beautiful vehicle.

Using the key fob, he summonsed it and it backed out of the garage, started the A/C, turned on the lights, and extended the door handles. The ride was superb. On auto, no hand driving, change lanes with the turn indicator (it checks the traffic, then changes lanes) and brakes when approaching traffic. It will not brake for a stop light however.

We went to a quiet straight stretch, he said put your head back against the headrest, then floored it. It felt like a rocket sled. 0-60 in 3 seconds. When we returned home, we got out, and it put itself in the garage and turned everything off. Absolutely amazing vehicle.

I know the "3" will not have many of the same features, or the performance, or the range, but I'm impressed with Tesla, the manufacturer.

 

nice! what do they go for, $50-60,000.?

 

It probably will have those capabilities but you will need to option it up just like you do for the Model S.

 

@bisco I'll repeat what you just said

 

I think you are about half right.

 

Brother-in-law did not tell me what his new P90D cost, and I didn't ask. But I think it is somewhere north of $100k.

However, the experience has impacted me to the extent that I am even less interested in the Prime, and since Toyota does not offer an EV, I'm turning my interest towards the Tesla 3, or the Ioniq EV .... both not available for a number of months. Sorry Toyota, I have no interest in hydrogen.